This seems to be a age-old debate, that the book is always better than the movie. I tend to agree. It’s fairly logically that it will be, as a book can cover a larger time span and more detail than a 2-hour movie can.
The one part of the debate that bugs me a bit though is how true the movie stays to the book. It upsets people tremendously when a character is even changed slightly, like Harry Potter not having green eyes. Trying to find an actor that is identical to the character in the book is pretty near impossible. You are always going to get those movies where the actor was spot on, and others when they were not.
Something that is forgotten about the book-movie conversion is that film is an artistic and creative line on its own. The amount of times I have had an argument with people about how the director has creatvie licence to change the movie a bit, and the other party gets upset because they would like the movie to be exactly like the book. Isn’t this a type of forgery of the written work then? Should there not be some type of copyright infringement for making a movie that is exactly like the book. If you have read the book and know it backwards, is the director not allowed to surprise you with some or other little addition that will draw you back to the movie time and time again like you are drawn to the book?
Whatever side of the argument that you are on, here is a list of movies that are being released this year that are based on books. Decide if you want to read the books first.