Books are always better but they lack the aesthetic experience of a movie.
I love books, I adore reading. I perfer quiet so I will generally enjoy reading a book a lot more then watching a movie plus usually the book gets the point across far more competently then modern movies do. I guess it doesn't help that I think that most new movies are overdone with special effects and way too oversexed. The plot in most films is just lost under car chases, explosions and barely clothed twigs with breasts. Perhaps I'd be kinder to movies if they all didn't seem like softcore porn nowadays... But books are still better.
Books < films on which the book is based.
Films < books on which the film is based.
No, it's not always true, but it is in most cases. And if certain books and films aren't related you can't compare them, simple as that. To be able to compare stuff, it needs at least one measurable quality both parties have. Something films and books lack.
Books are always better.
They take more time to get through, though.
Which is why I've partly turned to the middle course of listening to audio books.
I prefer books, but watch more movies, just because they take less time and a better for when I'm exhausted and don't want to think too much.
It is not often a movie outdoes a book of the same name though.
Sure they're both forms of media and/or entertainment, but it's like comparing apples with cars. Can you compare a movie classic to a poorly written book, and visa versa?