Harlan Coben's novel Tell No One was very much improved by the French film version. I didn't read the original of L.A. Confidential, but enjoyed the movie and have read opinions that the movie improved on the book. Ditto the film versions of Stieg Larsson's Millennium Trilogy, though people go both ways on that one. I also enjoyed the movie of The Bridges of Madison County, and have never seen anyone claim that book is better (or even good).
And while it may be sacrilegious to many, I thought the Lord of the Rings movies worked better as movies than the novels did as novels. I certainly genuflect to Tolkien's astonishing depth of world-building, but page-turners they are not.
While I like Daniel Craig's Bond very much, I really have no problem with any of them. All except Lazenby were excellent actors, and I think he was perfectly fine but gets much worse than he deserves just because he followed Connery. I do wish Dalton's run hadn't been cut short, though, because I liked his gritty Bond very much, and would have liked to have seen him develop it over a few more films. License to Kill is still my favorite Bond movie.
Continuing the anti-snobbery line (one of my favorites): Have you ever seen a remake that you preferred over, or even liked just as much as, the original? (Three of mine: Sorcerer/The Wages of Fear, The Ring/Ringu, and The Grudge/Ju-On.)