I used to think that the book (of whatever story) would always outshine the movie until I saw the first scene of the Fellowship of the Ring and after reading the LOTR several times, I cried with joy at being able to see the Shire on the big screen. Perhaps you are better at visualizing things. I know that my sons and my husband are but I’m pretty much a left brained personal so a good visualization of something can only enhance the experience. I recently saw the Screwtape Letters performed by Max McLean. Wonderful. Put meat on the bones of the book.
I would also submit Silence of the Lambs as a movie which quite exceeded the book in quality. Anthony Hopkin’s performance as Lecter was so amazing that it changed the way the author wrote him in future books.
I was astonished at how well Jackson used the landscape of New Zealand to recreate Middle Earth. It was exactly as I had seen it in my mind’s eye after reading the books four or five times. The costumes and set design too.
My one and only regret about the LOTR movie was that there was no room for the Scouring of the Shire. Well, that and the loss of Tom Bombadil.
I guess my blanket statement suffered the deficiencies of most blanket statements. Any movie derived from classic literature always disappoints me with Les Miserables, The Count of Monte Cristo, A tale of Two Cities and War and Peace being shining examples.