Movies Adaptations that were better than their Books (about the randomly capitalised words... I'm lazy)

I started writing this yesterday - because I was thinking about The Hunger Games and the more I think about the books the better I like the movie - but got bored because, as it turns out, I don't watch a lot of movies based on books? And 98% of the time the book is better than the movie anyway, so this list was challenging to make for many reasons. Also, it seems that a lot of movies I watch are just not very good movies. Or children's movies. Or period films.


Chocolat by Joanne Harris

Why was the movie better? Weeeell...
One thing I appreciate about movies is their aesthetic: since film is a visual media a director has far more power over the look of the world they create and I hugely appreciate director Lasse Hallström's decision (if it was his decision) to move the film's chronology from the 80s/90s to the 50s. The clothes, colours, decor and culture just add so much to the film's whimsical magic.
I also greatly appreciate the changes that were made character-wise: instead of the village priest being the film's antagonist, he is a young, weak but rather adorable Father who is just a little too easily ordered about by the real villain and splendidly portrayed mayor of the town, whose vulnerabilities and tragic history are presented with far more sympathy than anything Harris originally dreamed up. The main character, Vianne, is also a lot more stable and a wiser, kinder woman in the film: I may be prejudiced but I am eternally thankful that the filmmakers chose to ditch the theme of 'good' witchcraft vs 'evil' Christianity. In comparison I would deem the book somewhat mean-spirited and meandering when held up next to the movie's redemptive message. (Also, I want all of Juliette Binoche's wardrobe from this film!)

The Princess Diaries by Meg Cabot

There isn't really very much that Cabot's book series has in common with the 2001 film of the same name. Which is all to the good of the film. (Don't ask me about the second movie though. It was a sad cash cow suffering a bad case of sequelitis) Suffice it to say that the movie is better than any of the books. Julie Andrews can make almost anything better.

About a Boy by Nick Hornby

This is actually a pretty close one - both the book and the movie are pretty good and entertaining in their own way, but the movie nudges ahead in my estimation simply because of its ending and its treatment of the central theme of growing up. Growing up is sort of the most important idea behind the story, which deals with Will, the manchild, and Marcus, the uncool little boy, who both need to grow up in different ways. What I didn't like was the implication at the end of the book that growing up necessarily means assimilating - that awkward kids must just learn to be like everybody else. The movie didn't do that. The movie let Marcus stay his own little awkward adorable self - only plus friends.

 

The Help by Kathryn Stockett

Again, only marginally. I love both the book and the movie but there were things in the book that annoyed me, as described here.

Haha, these lists just get less and less detailed as they go on, don't they? That's either because I write about the things I want to write about first and leave the ones about which I have less to say for last - or I get bored and peter out. I think I've petered out.

"...you should see it even though it's hateful and empty and preaches the worst kind of reactionary violence without even really meaning it."

Watched Transformers 3: The Dark Side of the Moon last night. 'Twas pretty OK, though it made me realise what a big soppy girly girl I truly am. Because my favourite moment in the entire movie was (and, stay with me, it's a little involved) when Shia LaBeouf (or however it's spelled)'s character shoots a decepticon in the eye with a grappling hook. The really cute soldier guy (whose role I really don't get, but who cares?) grabs ahold of the rope (by which LaBeouf's character is now perilously swinging from the rampaging robot's eye) and they both dangle dangerously, screaming, until Bumblebee shows up and saves them. I was all 'Naww! How pointless and yet endearing this show of buddy-dom is!' And that was the highlight of the film, for me at least. The rest of it was just a big testosterone fest with no likeable female characters (the military one doesn't die! At all! WHY DOES SHE NOT DIE?And the personality-free girlfriend who manages, somehow, to remain impossibly lovely and pretty and stiletto heeled). There were some cool effects. There was some cool acting from LaBeouf - although he only became relatable about twenty minutes into the film. The script was ghastly. The special effects were awesome. The bearded autobot guy was ridiculous. The annoying autobots were annoying. Bumblebee and Optimus Prime were lovely. This is all I have to say. Not a total waste of time, this movie.

“A person is, among all else, a material thing, easily torn, not easily mended.”

Caution: contains gigantic heaps of spoilers.

On Sunday night my sister and I went down to the video shop because there was a special on: all movies $1! I couldn't be expected to pass up on a deal like that, even if the busyness of my life should presuppose the impossibility of DVD watching... We picked up a few brainless chick flicks before Tay spotted the face of one of her favourite actors on a cover. "James McAvoy," she shrieked, "let's get Atonement." In a moment of rashness, I said yes.

It only took me about a minute and a half to regret it. "I won't watch it with you," I told her. "It's MA and will probably be awkward. We'll watch Bring It On and I'll see Atonement by myself tomorrow."

I'm so glad I didn't watch this movie with my sister!

So, I sat down by myself with the DVD last night and watched the thing.
I take back what I said earlier about Love Actually. That film was, indeed, depressing and distressing to watch, but I managed to derive some enjoyment from it. I did not enjoy Atonement at all. I appreciated it. I thought it was beautifully made. The cinematography was to die for and the casting (apart from Keira Knightley. Yeuch.) was perfect.
Buuuuuut it was a horrible, excruciating experience. Why anyone would dream up such a story in the first place, let alone want to share it with the world, beats me. I love watching James McAvoy and Benedict Cumberbatch, bless them; but I don't want to watch James McAvoy write obscene letters and die horribly. I really don't want to watch Benedict Cumberbatch play a creepy rapist, even if he's such a good actor that I forgot that it was him. Ick. I don't want to see the depravity of war and child abuse and Keira Knightley's face.
Funny thing about this film: if you believe the promotional material and fan talk, it's a romantic love story. It isn't. I didn't think the love story was romantic, anyway. They're together, what, half a day before he gets carted off? This is actually pointed out at some point, but quickly handwaved. None of their so-called love story made sense, particularly that stupid and implausible scene in the library. *hits the fast forward button*
The protagonist of the story is actually the little girl, Briony. (This becomes apparent at the end of the film, though I would actually recommend that you don't watch the end of the film. So bloomin' depressing!) It's sort of weird of me, but I actually sympathised more with her than any of the other characters. Because, come on, she's a little girl! Little girls do stupid things! Stuff Cecilia, Briony suffers more.
And, really, that's what Atonement is all about. Suffering. And darn it, it's not just the characters who get to suffer. I aged about three years in the duration of this film.

So, yeah. It was pretty, had a lovely soundtrack, kudos to the director for good directing... but I hated it. A pretty stupid story all round.

A lovely day

Hello lovely ones.

Spent a wonderful day with my sister yesterday - we decided to go into the city without a plan. So we rode the monorail, browsed the bookshops, bought an umbrella and laughed like hyenas at nothing in particular... and saw a movie.


I enjoyed Arthur quite a bit. It was heartfelt, funny, visually spectacular, and bedazzlingly scripted. Russell Brand was fascinating to watch - I don't know if I particularly cared about his character's fate in the end, which is sort of awful - but I was certainly entertained. Helen Mirren was brilliant - of course, but I felt that most of the other female characters (and what other male characters there were) weren't very well developed. Greta Gerwig was very forgettable as Arthur's love interest: I haven't seen her in any other films or heard of her before and won't recognise her if I see her again. I loved the soundtrack of this movie - unfortunately I can't seem to find more than one or two tracks on youtube to listen to. If this turns out to be my favourite film of 2011 I will have the right to be very disappointed, but I did enjoy it.

You should know that this is the strangest thing I've ever done!

Good afternoon.

Went to see Disney's Tangled last night; here's some (hopefully!) brief thoughts.

I generally prefer old-style Disney movies with the traditional hand drawn animation; they just seem to be more story-focussed and prettier in general than the recent splurge of computer animated films, but Tangled has gone some little way in changing my opinion. To begin with, it was pretty much an old style Disney film: complete with sheltered pretty princess singing about her desire for a 'dream' to come true... in fact, it was just old style enough for me to get the old time butterflies in the tummy that I used to get going to the movies as a little kid. And the design of the whole thing was just SO GORGEOUS! In a little girl's bedroom kind of way, but still! I did have some issues with it though... (feel free to skip my gratituous whinge fest)Firstly, the music. Alan Menken has done some brilliant lovely work: Aladdin and Beauty and the Beast, to begin with. Buuut, with Tangled, I feel, he has fallen far far below the standard set in these films. The music is mediocre and just doesn't quite feel right in many instances. Plus, the lyrics are awful - they really shouldn't have hired someone with such awful and limited experience.
And I got annoyed very quickly at how the characters' lips didn't always move whilst they were singing. It felt a bit like all those rock music montages in Shrek films awkwardly married to a proper Little Mermaid style song. I know Disney has done this before and it has worked - but not this time.
Moving on. The animation and design were amazing and I won't fuss about them - except to say that Rapunzel's head was too big... and I found this oddly distracting. Particularly since it made Flynn's pupils (in his eyes) look too small in comparison - making him look permanently shocked whenever they were in frame together. At least, that's how I felt. Haha - and now you'll have to notice it too. Sorry.

Now we get to the difficult stuff. The romance felt just a leetle bit off - watching the ads I wasn't even sure there would be any, and watching the film I kept veering towards 'yep, this is pretty intimate and... nope, not romantic' over and over; possibly a deliberately sought effect by the filmmakers, but definitely annoying. I think the fact that Rapunzel looks so darn young has a lot to do with the 'off-ness' (and when I say 'off' I don't mean 'off' like a rotten fish, I just mean 'off' as in 'off kilter') of the romance - coupled with the fact that it was mostly from her perspective - it felt a bit like a girl with a crush on an older man. Awkward.
Particularly when one thinks that the film is partially narrated by Flynn, I would have liked to see a bit more of his side of the romance. Plus, I generally prefer to see members of the opposite sex feeling insecure and lovestruck in films. Don't you?


And the movie should have been called Rapunzel! Tangled, as a title, just doesn't fit with the feel and the direction of the film, which, for all the derring-do and humour, is mostly heart.

I did love this film. I connected really well with this film. Forget my whinging, please :-)

"This is a very great adventure, and no danger seems to me so great as that of knowing... I left a mystery behind me through fear."

Hello all

Here with a quick sort-of review of The Voyage of the Dawn Treader, for your delectation.
It was pretty good. I mean, in comparison with its predecessors it was quite a well executed film. The special effects were enjoyable, the art direction pretty satisfactory, the acting... well, OK. William Poulter (who had already won my heart in 2008's Son of Rambow) I found delightful as Eustace Scrubb, though possibly he could have been given a better script to work with. Ben Barnes was Ben Barnes; Georgie Henley was much less annoying in this installment, though her acting skill and screentime were still pretty disproportionate. I was much less disappointed with the portrayal of Reepicheep though how much that had to do with the new voice actor I'm not sure.

But with Edmund's character I had a lot of problems. In the previous two films I found the Pevensie children were horribly miscast, with a possible exception of Skandar Keynes as Edmund. He came the closest out of all the children to a likeable and realistic portrayal whilst remaining close to Lewis's original imagining of the character in the books.
The Voyage of the Dawn Treader derailed my previous positive impressions very thoroughly.
The ads had me on my guard; showing a scene in which Edmund basically takes up the awful, angsty 'but-I-am-a-king-in-Narnia' stance that Peter's character used to help make Prince Caspian an ambomination as far as adaptations go. (I know that this attitude must have made logical sense to the filmmakers - but it sort of undermines the point of visits to Narnia - the idea that you're a better person for having been there. So far as Peter and Edmund go in these films, being in Narnia seems to have just made them into insufferable sulky prigs with delusions of grandeur.) Keynes was awkward with his badly created character - he seemed to spend most of the film skulking about behind Barnes, squinting gruffly and muttering badly written lines - the film probably would have been very little different and possibly better if his character had been left out altogether. Which is a shame because I loved the development and maturity of Edmund in the books - his sweet little scene with Eustace (after the latter's 'un-dragoning') was left out altogether. Plus his relationship with Caspian felt... I hate to say it... a bit... gay. Sorry.
I'm very glad that there can be no possible excuse for including any more stupid cameos of Tilda Swinton's ghastly rendition of the White Witch in the next film. But the brief Susan and Peter moments were handled well, even if they were only there as an excuse to have familiar actors' faces on the posters. In fact, the whole Lucy-wishing-she-were-Susan subplot was possibly even better than it was in the book.


The sketchy plot-line was, I reluctantly admit, a bit necessary for the film: the more unconnected seafaring romp that was the book couldn't have been translated to the medium of film without a bit more coherence. But the plot was pretty shoddy. And the seven swords/plot coupon thing really ought to have been left for the video game of the book and not forced upon bored cinema goers. But, besides the neverending and incredibly kitsch sea serpent battle, the film did not compete with Prince Caspian in the boredom stakes. Which was refreshing.

Now I shall say some nice things. The end scene with Aslan nearly made me cry - ahhhhh! A rare achievement for a movie indeed. And the whole thing was rather pretty. My desire to visit Narnia was only heightened by the experience. And it was a lot more meaningful and spiritual than the previous films, surprisingly. I know I have been a bit cruel in this review, but believe me, I did enjoy Dawn Treader and would recommend it for a light bit of entertainment. Don't expect too much. Just revel in the fact that you're in Narnia again.