Well, Watchmen was nothing like the book 
Actually - Master & Commander. I was really glad when I found out there were a series of novels a la 'Sharpe' and bought the first one after watching the OK-ish film. The books are turgid and seemed stacked full of Naval terms etc but with no real reader-explanations.
So, OK film aweful book.
I actually enjoyed the Bourne books but then I read them years before the films came out. I was also around in the Seventies so enjoyed the tie in with the Jackal story. That was the big thing missing from the film for me -the ploy to draw the Jackal out by using a fake assassin. Plus Marie was a lot more of a go getter in the books
I thought the Godfather book was salacious tripe.
The film on the other hand is in a class of its own and doesn't really deserve to be associated with the book that inspired it. (IMO)
The Prestige.
The film is completely superior to the book, I reckon. A stunning example of how to adapt for the screen and improve the story in every way.
God there's loads, where do you start?
Books that were better:
The Fog: Superb book and diabolically bad film which has nothing to do with the book.
The Running Man: An amazing book and Story by King which spawned a film with Arnie which bears no resemblance what so ever.
The Stand: Epic story by king let down by a dreadful 2 part TV movie.
Films that were better than the books (imo):
World War Z: Decent enough book if a little ploddy. The film on the other hand exceeded all my expectations and was probably the best film I've seen this year and imho, was miles better than the book.
The Bourne Trilogy: Ludlums books were a snorefest and the films were just fantastic.
Salems Lot: I actually found this story so-so. It was decent enough but a bit slow. The TV movie on the other hand (the original with David Soul and James Mason) was fabulous and extremely creepy.
If TV Shows can be included:
Game of Thrones
Based on the fact that I have read the two books before the first two series, I found them to be not that dissimilar, and found them both to be equally exceptional.
Dexter
A few continuity differences (who does what when or if at all) but again, the TV show is not that far away from the books dark roots.
Rizzili and Isles
The books are far darker and befit the crime genre they come from, while the TV show is a (female) buddy cop show - and stands up on its own merits quite well, while still taking crimes from the books stories.
IT by Stephen King is one of my all time favourite books. Seriously scary and great observation and understanding of the way kids think and act
The film was absolute plop in comparison
I mean who the  casts tom cruise as jack  reacher
 sometimes you would think that trying to portray the main character from the book would be the main aim and goal.
Viewers then would feel a bit more affinity with the films.
^^^ What he said: Jack Reacher has gotta be one of the worse offenders.
I always portray a Matt "Jason Bourne" Damon when I read the books ok he isn't 6ft 5 with sandy hair.
Or myself as I'm 6"5 with sandy hair 
If I'm reading a reacher book which is pretty much on the train,and I see some fool being a knob. I in my mind go a bit jack reacher  solar plexus jab then an uppercut and a kick to the head.
Or rise out my chair headbutt uppercut and a fist to his nose whilst then going back to enjoying my coffee. 