^{Better Than the Book}

Don't do it. Oh, please, just leave it alone. Don't try to make a movie out of The Watchmen. Okay, if you have to, go ahead, but don't let the guy who wrote The X-Men write and direct it. Alright fine, do that, but don't expect me to watch it.

I don't go to the movies much. I love the big screen and the great sound systems, but I still find that, in general, movie theaters contain other people. It turns out, other people tend to be morons. Has any one figured out why morons talk so much? Don't even get me started on cell phones. Ninety-nine-point-ninety-nine percent of talk heard in the movie theater is not the brilliant stuff you get on Mystery Science Theater 3000. Whether it's heckling or intra-moron communication, there's basically three variations:

* "Don't go in there!"

* "Dude, that guy's a fag."

* "Take off your shirt."

That's pretty much it and it's never funny. Present company excluded, of course. When I'm with friends, and we're drunk, and we heckle some crappy movie ("Take off your pants!"), it's hysterical. But strangers, they can sit a minimum of three seats away from me and keep their damn traps shut. They never do, so I don't go to the movies much.

I may break my exile for The Fellowship of the Ring. The previews look good and Jackson's Heavenly Creatures was terrific. On the other hand, movies based on books are rarely as good as the source. Usually, I'm the sort of crank who hates the very idea. Whatever is good in a book will probably be lost in translation or soar right over the heads of all the mooks who are too lazy and/or stupid to read anyway. I know I've said in the past that Hollywood should lay off hijacking kids books. There are some movies I won't see because the book was too good to be corrupted on screen. Other times I just go in with low expectations.

So as a challenge to myself, I came up with this list of movies that are better than their source books:

Jurassic Park/Jaws: Pretty obvious, I guess. Both novels are decent for what they are: fluffy beach reading. Both give you some cool dino/shark facts missing from the films. Still, Benchley's Jaws is a little dated ("What are these hippies doing on my island?") and Jurassic Park leapt from the overheated word processor of hack king Michael Chrichton. (No, I'm not going to bother finding the correct spelling of his name.) These Speilberg movies are better than the books for the simple reason that you get to see the monsters.

The Firm: We're dealing with two subpar items here, but in the movie you get to see Wilford Brimley get the shit kicked out of him.

Alright, forget about fluffy crap. It's easy for a movie to be better than an airport book, so only good books from here on.

Blade Runner: This is a tough one for me since I'm a big fan of Phil Dick. However, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? is not my favorite Dick. (From now on, I'm going to try to work the phrase "my favorite Dick" into everything I write.) And the film is a dystopian masterpiece, everything sci-fi movies usually are not. Visionary, somber, adult. As a kid, going from Star Wars to this was like washing down candy with grain alcohol. Although the book is not the first PKD I'd recommend, Androids is still well worth reading and very different from the movie.

A Simple Plan: Give novelist Scott Smith credit for his willingness to change his book around for the movie's screenplay. The movie - and how's this for a rarity? - is more restrained than the book. Billy Bob Thorton puts this over the top for me. If he spends the rest of his life doing nothing, I'll always consider him brilliant for this. The book is a decent read, the movie is a masterpiece.

The Ice Storm: Ang Lee directed a great movie from Rick Moody's great novel about the 70s. Kevin Kline, Joan Allen and Sigourney Weaver are perfect. Christina Ricci plays her last character you're not supposed to lust after. This remains the only good thing the vaguely reptilian Tobey Maguire has ever done. The book has an air of reminiscence and so filming it as a period piece works. On the other hand, the movie doesn't add anything to the book. Call it even.

The Grifters: Jim Thompson wrote my all time favorite sentence from pulp fiction. "All that hard work and heavy-breathing had put breasts on her like Daddy-come-to-church." Kills me every time. The movie keeps enough intact, even the way mother and son call each other "Lilly" and "Roy." This is the sort of book Hollywood would usually sanitize (or more likely avoid like the plague), but Anjelica Huston remains ice-cold and ruthless as Lilly and the movie has the guts to keep Roy's fatal flaw. This movie is packed with great moments. Huston flattening a guy who tries to hit on her, Annette Bening's naked walk down the hotel hallway, Cusack's statement when the bartender pins his hand and reaches for the bat. Why is it better than the book? Well, a lot of Thompson's prose and background can be edited. Roy's brief tryst with his nurse is dropped with no loss. Leaner is better here. Just look at the way Huston carries herself and you know how Lilly Dillon grew up. This is the best thing Huston and Benning have ever done. That's not even up for discussion. Cusack's role as the collected, cool and maybe desperately needy grifter is arguably the best thing he's done.

Discarding Blade Runner, which is much closer to an "inspired by" anyway, and you have three movies about the American Dream. All three are about desperation, money and family. Plus some crime and a little adultery thrown in. I'm not sure what that means. Maybe there's something essentially cinematic about the American Dream. Does this bode well for The Fellowship of the Ring? Maybe they turned it into a monster movie.