I usually find the books to be better, but to be honest I'm often lazy to read them. If there is a movie version that I can spend 2 hours on then I'll use the 15 hours I would have spent on the book for something else. If I've already read and enjoyed the book I will usually watch the movie. Even if it is disappointing, it's still worth the audiovisual experience. The biggest problem I often have is when the chosen actors don't fit the profiles I had in my head of those characters. It just feels wrong then.
There are times when the movie actually surpasses the book in my opinion. Lord of the Rings was an example. I probably only feel this way because I saw the movie first, but I found that, although the books were wonderful and totally worth the read, for me the movies were even better because they cut out the boring bits and kept all the important parts. But that's a pretty rare thing.
Other times the movie is so different than the book that they can be equally enjoyed. Or I just wonder what the heck the screenwriter and director were smoking. The Lost World (sequel to Jurassic Park) was a bit of both for me. Dinosaurs in the city? What were they thinking? But the rest of the movie was great, albeit a pretty large departure from the book.
I have had a tendency in the past to gravitate towards the film versions due to my unwillingness to invest the time needed to read the book. I am trying to restore the balance in that equation at the moment though. As I study deeper into the topic of writing I am disciplining myself to read more, and even go back and read the book versions of films I enjoyed, to see how it works in novel format.
I think LotR capitised on the strengths of medium very well. With recent technological breakthroughs, a movie was able to be made that did seem to capture the true essence of that epic tale. So yes I agree with you on that one.
Thanks for sharing your views and experiences on this topic. I'm always curious how other people view this. It can be a polarising question.