The Movie's Better (and how we can fix that)

As you've no doubt gathered by the title, this post is going to be all about film adaptations of fiction.  As difficult as it is to admit, there are times when the movie is, in fact, better than the book.  I'm going to list a few of the most important examples, and hopefully, we can all learn from them.
Disclaimer:  The examples below may be considered somewhat radical, in that they are all adaptations of very famous works by very accomplished authours.  While I have respect for all the writers concerned, I find my points are valid enough to post here.  No disrespect is intended.

1.  Silence Of The Lambs
First off, I'm fairly certain that the film is far better known than the book it is based on.  This is evidence in itself, really.  Not having seen the film, I decided to read the book a year or two ago.  I was somewhat disappointed by it.  While Thomas Harris works brilliantly with elements of fear and tension, he also has a bad habit of using archaic words when ordinary ones will do.  There is nothing that kills tension faster than forcing the reader to go for a dictionary only to find that the strange new word was merely something very ordinary, which had almost no bearing on the plot at all.  While it was a fairly good read, the minor frustrations were enough to take away from my overall satisfaction.  As far as I know, this was one of Harris's earlier works, so perhaps he improved his style with time.
Some time after finishing the book, I watched the film version.  This was far better executed, in large part because of the performance of Anthony Hopkins.  As well, the visual element (lighting, set design, etc.) serves to improve the tension in ways that reading simply doesn't allow.  Also, and probably most importantly, those annoying word issues are non-existent in the film version.  Clear and concise language is key to keeping your readers engaged.  This is not to say that big words are to be discouraged; it's just best to avoid using obscure ones.

2.  The Lord Of The Rings Trilogy
While LOTR is arguably the most important contribution to fantasy fiction, Tolkien had a tendency to be wordy, and generous with descriptions.  This is why, for example, the relatively simple story of The Hobbit comes in at almost 300 pages.  As well, there are numerous characters in the epic LOTR trilogy.  So many, in fact, that is is easy to get them confused.  I remember reading these books as a teen, and constantly going back, trying to figure out who exactly I was reading about and why they were important to the story.
The film version took into account all of the detail of the books, and made it into astounding visuals.  As well, the visual element put and end to confusion when it came to characters.  While some things were left out, it is a remarkably faithful adaptation, and stands quite well on its own merits.

3.  The Shining
Stephen King had some issues with Stanley Kubrick's version of The Shining.  While he had some valid points, which I will not delve into here, I find that Kubrick's version more than makes up its losses in atmosphere.  The film techniques used in The Shining bring out a primal fear response in the viewer which is somewhat more immediate than the slow burn of the novel's plot arc.  In addition, Jack Nicholson has one of his most memorable and frighteningly unhinged performances, which is reason enough to watch the movie.

4.  Watchmen
Before the film version was made, the graphic novel* always had the reputation of being 'unfilmable'.  The fact that there is now a film version is reason enough that the makers should be given credit for making what may be one of the most faithful screen adaptations ever created.
While there are differences between Alan Moore's masterpiece and the film, most notably the ending, all of these changes served to improve, and even enhance the film version.  From a personal standpoint, I like the film ending better.  While Moore's version was interesting, it always struck me as being out of place in the world that had been established.  The film ending takes a much more logical approach to things, while still producing the same results.
I can't honestly pick which version I like better.  What the graphic novel lacks, the film makes up for, and vice-versa.  The only thing I will say is that if you haven't read/seen either, read the graphic novel first.  This way, you will notice what was changed, and how the film version makes it work just as well, if not better.

*To the best of my knowledge, this is the only graphic novel ever to win both a Hugo and a Nebula award.