I have been waiting for the screen version of The Lovely Bones for YEARS. I read the book about three years ago, I think, and the film had already been announced and I think most of the cast members had been chosen. The original release date for it was a year ago, I believe -- then they kept pushing it back. Finally, finally it came out in theatres en masse as of January 15th. Friday night I was able to convince (didn't take much) Steph2 to accompany me to finally see it myself.
Sometimes when I see a film adaptation of a favourite book, I'm disappointed. Sometimes greatly disappointed, to the point of needing to offer suggetions to filmmakers. With The Lovely Bones, I'm so happy to report, this was not the case for me.
Were there changes from the plot? Yes. There were. Some things happened out-of-order, some things were left out completely. A few main characters became minor, a few characters were non-existent. However, I don't think it detracted from the story. I think the story was told on screen in a way that did still stay true to the story in the book.
***Minor Spoiler Warning: Plot Spoilers Follow***
The main thrust of The Lovely Bones is of Susie's family coping with their loss of Susie, especially her father and sister, Lindsey. It is also mostly about Susie in the 'in-between' as she tries to stay connected to her family back on Earth and help her killer be caught. This is what the movie held true to; Susie and the 'in-between', Susie's father's struggle.
The special effects in the 'in-between' were stunning. I don't think they were too much -- it was supposed to be a fantastical place, Susie's own perfect world -- and at 14, her idea of perfect might be over-the-top. The acting was also great -- I think they cast each character very well, especially Saoirse Ronan as Susie Salmon. Some of the best moments were when Susie is speaking lines directly from Alice Sebold's novel; it was exactly as I imagined Susie speaking it when reading the pages myself. Also, some of the 'missing moments' from the book (especially more about Lindsey as a character, for example) are filled in via Mr. Harvey looking at news clippings.
What I found most pleased me was the overall feeling I got as I watched the film. Sometimes when I was a film adaptation of a novel I've enjoyed, I have a sort of "empty" feeling inside -- I can really feel those missing parts, and I don't connect to the characters/story as well as I think I should. With this film, I didn't have that feeling. I was engaged throughout the entire movie, and felt it told its story in a very full way, even if slightly differently from the original story (it's really not that different, as per usual some of the details are left out, but not enough to ruin it as a film).
I've read that some people were not fans of this film, but I found it to be an excellent adaptation, and no less than I would have expected from Peter Jackson -- the man certainly knows how to adapt books into movies; and I'm not even much of a Lord of the Rings fan.
So I recommend The Lovely Bones, but with a word of caution: although I did enjoy it a lot, I have heard from others who did not like it. I think it is a film you should judge for yourself. I definitely recommend this novel to those who have not read it (although it is deeply sad at times, and I think parents would definitely find it a hard read -- it is beautifully written nontheless).
Showing posts with label don't judge a book by its movie. Show all posts
Showing posts with label don't judge a book by its movie. Show all posts
Sunday, January 24, 2010
Sunday, December 6, 2009
Twilight Saga: New Moon Movie Review (non-spoilery)
On Friday night, my two best friends came to visit. We went out for dinner, and then caught at showing of The Twilight Saga: New Moon. I read the Twilight series in the fall of 2008, and re-read them a few times since. It's light and fluffy and I can't help but enjoy those stories. I wasn't so impressed with the first Twilight film, though (it prompted this post, in which I lament about book-to-movie adaptations). I decided I'd give New Moon a try anyway, because I did feel that the cast was right, and so maybe with a new director things would improve.
In general, I was much happier with this second film. The acting at times leaves something to be desired (especially Robert Pattinson (Edward) and Kristen Stewart (Bella), a.k.a The Leads! -- they can be so blah when they're together, and when they kiss it is AWK), but Taylor Lautner (Jacob) actually did a pretty good job, and I find Kristen to be more enjoyable/animated when she's acting alongside Taylor, so that made up for some of the other scenes. The Volturi were AMAZING. I want Breaking Dawn made into a movie JUST to see more of the Volturi -- they were entertaining, and they acted exactly how I pictured them when I was reading the novels.
As for the story, I was much more impressed with this screenplay based on how it followed the book. Were there some cuts and changes? Yes. However, they worked and the major scenes still played out how they should. I know the story is going to be changed, because Stephenie Meyer's novels are long, but this one did a much better job at putting the book onto the screen than Twilight did -- especially in the area of character development. Twilight very much relied on subtext, and I think it lost a lot in the way of character development. New Moon had actual dialogue between the characters and it was much better -- less "independent film"-like. Also, the wolves were great -- not nearly as corny/awful as they potentially could have been.
There were of course changes I would have made, and there were many "cheesy" parts that are a little painful to sit through, but overall I was much happier with New Moon than I was with the first film, and now I'm looking forward to Eclipse in June 2010. Especially to get a little more of the Cullen family, as I really like those actors and how they portray their characters.
In sum, New Moon: not the greatest film in the history of cinema (like, duh!), but an improvement on the first Twilight film, and more enjoyable to a fan of the books than what I was expecting. I took it for what it was, and I wasn't so disappointed this time around.
In general, I was much happier with this second film. The acting at times leaves something to be desired (especially Robert Pattinson (Edward) and Kristen Stewart (Bella), a.k.a The Leads! -- they can be so blah when they're together, and when they kiss it is AWK), but Taylor Lautner (Jacob) actually did a pretty good job, and I find Kristen to be more enjoyable/animated when she's acting alongside Taylor, so that made up for some of the other scenes. The Volturi were AMAZING. I want Breaking Dawn made into a movie JUST to see more of the Volturi -- they were entertaining, and they acted exactly how I pictured them when I was reading the novels.
As for the story, I was much more impressed with this screenplay based on how it followed the book. Were there some cuts and changes? Yes. However, they worked and the major scenes still played out how they should. I know the story is going to be changed, because Stephenie Meyer's novels are long, but this one did a much better job at putting the book onto the screen than Twilight did -- especially in the area of character development. Twilight very much relied on subtext, and I think it lost a lot in the way of character development. New Moon had actual dialogue between the characters and it was much better -- less "independent film"-like. Also, the wolves were great -- not nearly as corny/awful as they potentially could have been.
There were of course changes I would have made, and there were many "cheesy" parts that are a little painful to sit through, but overall I was much happier with New Moon than I was with the first film, and now I'm looking forward to Eclipse in June 2010. Especially to get a little more of the Cullen family, as I really like those actors and how they portray their characters.
In sum, New Moon: not the greatest film in the history of cinema (like, duh!), but an improvement on the first Twilight film, and more enjoyable to a fan of the books than what I was expecting. I took it for what it was, and I wasn't so disappointed this time around.
Sunday, February 22, 2009
PS, I Love You
At GoodReads.com (awesome, awesome website), a group I've joined of Chick-Lit fans had chosen to read PS, I Love You by Cecelia Ahern as our February Valentine's Book.
When the movie version of PS, I Love You came out, I didn't see it in theatres, but later lovingly forced martin to rent it with me (isn't he a sweetheart for giving in?). Needless to say, he really hated the film. And frankly, I didn't enjoy it either. I felt disconnected from the story, the movie was really missing something.
So, when this book was chosen for one of our Book of the Month, I was willing to give it a go (because of a favourite mantra - don't judge a book by its movie!), but I was feeling unsure as to whether or not I'd enjoy it.
Well, it was true again in this case. Do not judge a book by its movie version. I really enjoyed this story. The reason the movie felt like it was lacking something? Was because it was lacking the actual story it was based off of. The movie was missing characters, had new characters not from the book, was not completely set in Ireland as the book is, and generally lacked the overall feeling of the book because of these changes. (I've complained about book to movie adaptations before, this is yet another shining example).
For Chick-Lit lovers, I definitely recommend you give this one a go. Whether you enjoyed the film version, or not.
Find PS, I Love You online here...
Amazon.ca
Amazon.com
When the movie version of PS, I Love You came out, I didn't see it in theatres, but later lovingly forced martin to rent it with me (isn't he a sweetheart for giving in?). Needless to say, he really hated the film. And frankly, I didn't enjoy it either. I felt disconnected from the story, the movie was really missing something.
So, when this book was chosen for one of our Book of the Month, I was willing to give it a go (because of a favourite mantra - don't judge a book by its movie!), but I was feeling unsure as to whether or not I'd enjoy it.
Well, it was true again in this case. Do not judge a book by its movie version. I really enjoyed this story. The reason the movie felt like it was lacking something? Was because it was lacking the actual story it was based off of. The movie was missing characters, had new characters not from the book, was not completely set in Ireland as the book is, and generally lacked the overall feeling of the book because of these changes. (I've complained about book to movie adaptations before, this is yet another shining example).
For Chick-Lit lovers, I definitely recommend you give this one a go. Whether you enjoyed the film version, or not.
Find PS, I Love You online here...
Amazon.ca
Amazon.com
Monday, December 1, 2008
Book to Movie Adaptations: Let Me Get This Out There
A group of books I read in my hiatus from this blog were the AWESOME Twilight Saga by Stephenie Meyer. I've actually read them all twice through since first purchasing them in September. I think you'd have to be living in an igloo with your ears plugged and your back turned to not be aware of this book series right now.
On opening night, my amazingly sweet boyfriend took me to see the Twilight film. You can read my non-spoiler review on my other blog here.
This post is NOT Twilight-specific, but in discussing the film with a few friends recently, my general gripe with film adaptations of my favourite books has been a prominent discussion topic and I feel I need to get my thoughts down in one place. Twilight will be my example movie, since it was the one I most recently saw. So I now present:
"The Wonder Worrier's Issues With Movies Based On Books That She Really Loved"
Issue #1: Um, Why Isn't The Book The Script?
What I never understand about film adaptations is WHY the book doesn't become the script. The book has extra details that can be used for setting and character-appearances, and books have lots of dialogue right at the screenwriter's fingertips that can be used for what the actors need to say. If they've acquired rights to a book in order to create the film, why doesn't the screenwriter go page by page and turn the written words into script form? I'm sure the author will only appreciate their words being preserved this way. And then, when cuts need to be made as they invariably will due to time constraints, at least what you're left with is still the novel on screen. Readers make a movie with their minds as they read a novel, so when they go to the theatre to see a film based on their favourite books, it's obvious that what they'd like to see are their much-loved pages in live-action form.
This especially bothers me when key scenes from a book are missing in the film version, but in other films similar scenes have been shot... which tells me that it's entirely possible for filmmakers to create these scenes. When I'm making my movie in my mind as I read, I highly doubt a big budget is even needed to create what I'm picturing. So I propose to screenwriter's that they sit with the book in front of them, and begin their script by just turning the novel into a screenplay format. It just makes good sense.
Issue #2: "Almost" Getting It Right
My second issue is this. Why, and this happened a few times in Twilight, why would the scene look perfect and the actors all be in place for a scene directly off the pages of the book... and then the scene plays out differently and ends up shorter, and all the good dialogue that worked so very well in the novel is moved to a random other place in the film?
Why ALMOST do a scene straight from the book? It seems ridiculous. You're not going to waste any extra budget; you have the setting and the characters in place, just have them discuss the right things as they're there. Fans would be so much happier. Any time something happens in a movie that is right from the pages of the novel, fans go crazy for it (in a good way!). Give the fans what they want: if you're ALMOST doing a scene from the novel, then just go for it - do the scene as it was written originally. Authors have spent a lot of time having their novels edited to ensure flow and character development; perhaps having the scenes in the movie play out their way will allow for better flow and character development in the film (hint hint to Twilight makers, this was a huge flaw! Not enough character development due to choppy and short scenes!)
Issue #3: Do You Think We're Stupid?
Before a film adapation of a popular book gets released, in a lot of the interviews the filmmakers make comments like, "Well, just remember that the film is always a little different than the novel, but we've still tried to stay true to the story". Multiple times I heard, "Remember, it's Twilight the Movie, NOT Twilight The Book The Movie". Except... it IS Twilight The Book The Movie because without the book, there'd be no movie, so I propose everyone stops saying douchey things like this.
I mean seriously, how condescending and rude. Guess what, filmmakers? If you're going to adapt a book to film, start consciously making the decision to keep it the same as the book (see issue #1). I never understand why they "prep" fans for the changes they've made. Why don't they just... oh, I don't know, stop making pointless changes! The books work for a reason, we don't need random extra scenes (*cough*diner scenes in Twilight *cough*) or (issue #2) well-loved scenes changed around. It doesn't add action or make the film more interesting, it just ticks fans off. I'd like filmmakers to stop preparing us for changes, and to start keeping films more similar to the book. We're the ones paying to see the movie, we're the ones buying into the franchise, make the films for us. This brings us to issue #4...
Issue #4: Why Aren't You Listening To The Fans?
Google... powerful tool. Do you know how easy it is to find out the SuperFans opinions about their favourite books that are soon to be released as films? From the nanosecond that a film is announced, there are a billion blog posts and websites started up devoted to the film. As I said before, it's the fans who buy into the franchise. It's the fans money that determines if there will be sequels made or not (in the case of the Twilight saga, this was absolutely true). The fan's opinions are quick and easy to get, and if you make your film the way the fans want it ... which means, making your film closely match what happens in their beloved book... just think of the billions of dollars extra you will make. Because the moment an amazing book-to-film adapation is made, fans will see it multiple times in the theatre and rush to buy the DVDs and merchandise. Fans will hook other people into the franchise over their excitement that "FINALLY! A movie was made that put my novel onto the screen!". Fans are waiting for this "FINALLY!" moment to happen... and I'll never understand why filmmakers aren't giving in.
Books draw people in emotionally. They are most often read alone, they are more intimate than a film. When people read, they form a deep connection with the story and fall in love with the characters. When a beloved novel is being turned into a film, a reader cannot help but feel excited to see their passion on the big screen. If the movie adapation is done right, this fan will re-watch the film many times, because the bond felt as they turned the well-worn pages of their beloved novel will be felt with the live-action version. I feel that filmmakers are forgetting the intimacy of the novel-and-reader relationship, and I am too often disappointed when I see "my novel" played out completely wrong.
I understand that filmmakers feel that by making some changes in the adapation, they will appeal to a broader fanbase than just the novel readers... but for the most part they don't or won't. The changes are unnecessary because the majority of those who flock to see the film will already be readers of the novel regardless of how they market the movie, and if the adaptation is done right, anyone who does see the movie having not read the book should want to read the novel seeing it. The audience of the film will be those who've enjoyed the novel or will enjoy the novel, regardless of what filmmakers want to believe. They were not going to turn my boyfriend into a Twilight fan, regardless of any extra little so-called "action" sequences they threw in there.
Listen to the fans. These stories are theirs, and they need to be done right. And we really don't mind if you pop into our blogs and websites to find out "what we really think". Seriously... do it.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Book-To-Movie That I Loved: The Notebook, Bridget Jones' Diary
The Notebook was incredibly well done. Yes, there are some minor changes, but they made the film better, not worse. I am absolutely fine with a few changes, if they actually do enhance the story. In this case, more detail was added to Allie and Noah's early romance, which just lends to better character development. The characters and the setting was spot-on to what I pictured as I read this novel. Absolutely wonderful, a cinematic gift to Nicholas Sparks fans everywhere.
For Bridget Jones it was well done for all the reasons that Confessions of a Shopaholic will not be well done (see below for more about Shopaholic). The characters were spot-on, the setting was perfect, and the story kept the same rhythm as the book (including the voice-overs and her recording her weight, etc). Very entertaining and close to the novel in all of the important ways.
Book-To-Movie That I Am "Okay" With: A Walk To Remember
While this film was ... well, nothing like the book because the time period of the book would have made this and The Notebook be very similar... I enjoyed this movie because it flowed nicely and I was able to enjoy it for what it was. I don't consider it the same as Nicholas Sparks' A Walk To Remember because other than the character's being similar in personality and a general similar storyline, it's just way too different from the book. But I don't dislike it, because I liked the film (mind you I was a teen when this came out, so I might not have been as critical as I am now).
Book-To-Movie That Ticked Me Off: Twilight, Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, Confessions of a Shopaholic
My gripe with Twilight has been discussed in enough detail on my other blog. It was the cinematography that bothered me, and the random extra scenes that I felt were pointless. I feel that if fans are heard, the rest of the series of these films could be extremely well-done. The cast was fantastic and the setting was great; they just need to follow the books a little more closely and allow for some scenes to flow better in order to create character development, and then they've got a good film.
Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban bothered me for a similar reason as Twilight. I was quite a fan of the third book in the Harry Potter series, and there was just enough missing detail in this movie to really bother me. Key scenes and characters were cut down too much. The rest of the Harry Potter films I've enjoyed much more; but something about this third one really irked me.
Confessions of a Shopaholic has yet to be released (it comes out in February of 2009), but I was pissed off about this one the moment I read the details on IMDB.com . They've butchered it. This comes from a series of fantastic novels from one of my most favourite authors (Sophie Kinsella). They've changed the characters and the settings too much, and combined storylines from multiple books, thus ruining any chances for this to become a series of films like it very well could have been. I mean, Becky is going to be AMERICAN, for crying out loud. I actually love Isla Fisher for the role, but honestly... British films are made all the time, why is this film not British? Isla Fisher could very easily play Becky British. I'm appalled by everything I read about it. I'm a die-hard Shopaholic fan, but I'm not interested in this film adaptation at all. Total let-down before I even have to see it. Perhaps I will be able to enjoy it like I did A Walk To Remember... but that means enjoying it as completely seperate from my favourite novels. Disappointing. I don't understand why Sophie Kinsella agreed to this, and why she didn't hold out for a screenwriter who would do justice to her fantastic books.
Book-To-Movie That I'm Hoping Will Be Done Right: The Lovely Bones and The Time Traveler's Wife
These are two books that I really enjoyed, and from what I've read about the movies so far, I do hope they'll fare better than some adaptations have. Peter Jackson has made The Lovely Bones, and I have faith in his abilities since The Lord of The Rings really was well-done as far as adaptation goes (I just wasn't a LoTR fan in general, but I can appreciate Peter Jackson's talent). The casting is so well done for this film, I'm very eager to see it and hopefully walk away satisfied.
I haven't heard as much information about The Time Traveler's Wife, but I'm simply holding out hope because the casting is quite well done and the screen captures I've seen so far look perfect. Perhaps I'll be in for disappointment again, but I sincerely hope not.
On opening night, my amazingly sweet boyfriend took me to see the Twilight film. You can read my non-spoiler review on my other blog here.
This post is NOT Twilight-specific, but in discussing the film with a few friends recently, my general gripe with film adaptations of my favourite books has been a prominent discussion topic and I feel I need to get my thoughts down in one place. Twilight will be my example movie, since it was the one I most recently saw. So I now present:
"The Wonder Worrier's Issues With Movies Based On Books That She Really Loved"
Issue #1: Um, Why Isn't The Book The Script?
What I never understand about film adaptations is WHY the book doesn't become the script. The book has extra details that can be used for setting and character-appearances, and books have lots of dialogue right at the screenwriter's fingertips that can be used for what the actors need to say. If they've acquired rights to a book in order to create the film, why doesn't the screenwriter go page by page and turn the written words into script form? I'm sure the author will only appreciate their words being preserved this way. And then, when cuts need to be made as they invariably will due to time constraints, at least what you're left with is still the novel on screen. Readers make a movie with their minds as they read a novel, so when they go to the theatre to see a film based on their favourite books, it's obvious that what they'd like to see are their much-loved pages in live-action form.
This especially bothers me when key scenes from a book are missing in the film version, but in other films similar scenes have been shot... which tells me that it's entirely possible for filmmakers to create these scenes. When I'm making my movie in my mind as I read, I highly doubt a big budget is even needed to create what I'm picturing. So I propose to screenwriter's that they sit with the book in front of them, and begin their script by just turning the novel into a screenplay format. It just makes good sense.
Issue #2: "Almost" Getting It Right
My second issue is this. Why, and this happened a few times in Twilight, why would the scene look perfect and the actors all be in place for a scene directly off the pages of the book... and then the scene plays out differently and ends up shorter, and all the good dialogue that worked so very well in the novel is moved to a random other place in the film?
Why ALMOST do a scene straight from the book? It seems ridiculous. You're not going to waste any extra budget; you have the setting and the characters in place, just have them discuss the right things as they're there. Fans would be so much happier. Any time something happens in a movie that is right from the pages of the novel, fans go crazy for it (in a good way!). Give the fans what they want: if you're ALMOST doing a scene from the novel, then just go for it - do the scene as it was written originally. Authors have spent a lot of time having their novels edited to ensure flow and character development; perhaps having the scenes in the movie play out their way will allow for better flow and character development in the film (hint hint to Twilight makers, this was a huge flaw! Not enough character development due to choppy and short scenes!)
Issue #3: Do You Think We're Stupid?
Before a film adapation of a popular book gets released, in a lot of the interviews the filmmakers make comments like, "Well, just remember that the film is always a little different than the novel, but we've still tried to stay true to the story". Multiple times I heard, "Remember, it's Twilight the Movie, NOT Twilight The Book The Movie". Except... it IS Twilight The Book The Movie because without the book, there'd be no movie, so I propose everyone stops saying douchey things like this.
I mean seriously, how condescending and rude. Guess what, filmmakers? If you're going to adapt a book to film, start consciously making the decision to keep it the same as the book (see issue #1). I never understand why they "prep" fans for the changes they've made. Why don't they just... oh, I don't know, stop making pointless changes! The books work for a reason, we don't need random extra scenes (*cough*diner scenes in Twilight *cough*) or (issue #2) well-loved scenes changed around. It doesn't add action or make the film more interesting, it just ticks fans off. I'd like filmmakers to stop preparing us for changes, and to start keeping films more similar to the book. We're the ones paying to see the movie, we're the ones buying into the franchise, make the films for us. This brings us to issue #4...
Issue #4: Why Aren't You Listening To The Fans?
Google... powerful tool. Do you know how easy it is to find out the SuperFans opinions about their favourite books that are soon to be released as films? From the nanosecond that a film is announced, there are a billion blog posts and websites started up devoted to the film. As I said before, it's the fans who buy into the franchise. It's the fans money that determines if there will be sequels made or not (in the case of the Twilight saga, this was absolutely true). The fan's opinions are quick and easy to get, and if you make your film the way the fans want it ... which means, making your film closely match what happens in their beloved book... just think of the billions of dollars extra you will make. Because the moment an amazing book-to-film adapation is made, fans will see it multiple times in the theatre and rush to buy the DVDs and merchandise. Fans will hook other people into the franchise over their excitement that "FINALLY! A movie was made that put my novel onto the screen!". Fans are waiting for this "FINALLY!" moment to happen... and I'll never understand why filmmakers aren't giving in.
Books draw people in emotionally. They are most often read alone, they are more intimate than a film. When people read, they form a deep connection with the story and fall in love with the characters. When a beloved novel is being turned into a film, a reader cannot help but feel excited to see their passion on the big screen. If the movie adapation is done right, this fan will re-watch the film many times, because the bond felt as they turned the well-worn pages of their beloved novel will be felt with the live-action version. I feel that filmmakers are forgetting the intimacy of the novel-and-reader relationship, and I am too often disappointed when I see "my novel" played out completely wrong.
I understand that filmmakers feel that by making some changes in the adapation, they will appeal to a broader fanbase than just the novel readers... but for the most part they don't or won't. The changes are unnecessary because the majority of those who flock to see the film will already be readers of the novel regardless of how they market the movie, and if the adaptation is done right, anyone who does see the movie having not read the book should want to read the novel seeing it. The audience of the film will be those who've enjoyed the novel or will enjoy the novel, regardless of what filmmakers want to believe. They were not going to turn my boyfriend into a Twilight fan, regardless of any extra little so-called "action" sequences they threw in there.
Listen to the fans. These stories are theirs, and they need to be done right. And we really don't mind if you pop into our blogs and websites to find out "what we really think". Seriously... do it.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Book-To-Movie That I Loved: The Notebook, Bridget Jones' Diary
The Notebook was incredibly well done. Yes, there are some minor changes, but they made the film better, not worse. I am absolutely fine with a few changes, if they actually do enhance the story. In this case, more detail was added to Allie and Noah's early romance, which just lends to better character development. The characters and the setting was spot-on to what I pictured as I read this novel. Absolutely wonderful, a cinematic gift to Nicholas Sparks fans everywhere.
For Bridget Jones it was well done for all the reasons that Confessions of a Shopaholic will not be well done (see below for more about Shopaholic). The characters were spot-on, the setting was perfect, and the story kept the same rhythm as the book (including the voice-overs and her recording her weight, etc). Very entertaining and close to the novel in all of the important ways.
Book-To-Movie That I Am "Okay" With: A Walk To Remember
While this film was ... well, nothing like the book because the time period of the book would have made this and The Notebook be very similar... I enjoyed this movie because it flowed nicely and I was able to enjoy it for what it was. I don't consider it the same as Nicholas Sparks' A Walk To Remember because other than the character's being similar in personality and a general similar storyline, it's just way too different from the book. But I don't dislike it, because I liked the film (mind you I was a teen when this came out, so I might not have been as critical as I am now).
Book-To-Movie That Ticked Me Off: Twilight, Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, Confessions of a Shopaholic
My gripe with Twilight has been discussed in enough detail on my other blog. It was the cinematography that bothered me, and the random extra scenes that I felt were pointless. I feel that if fans are heard, the rest of the series of these films could be extremely well-done. The cast was fantastic and the setting was great; they just need to follow the books a little more closely and allow for some scenes to flow better in order to create character development, and then they've got a good film.
Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban bothered me for a similar reason as Twilight. I was quite a fan of the third book in the Harry Potter series, and there was just enough missing detail in this movie to really bother me. Key scenes and characters were cut down too much. The rest of the Harry Potter films I've enjoyed much more; but something about this third one really irked me.
Confessions of a Shopaholic has yet to be released (it comes out in February of 2009), but I was pissed off about this one the moment I read the details on IMDB.com . They've butchered it. This comes from a series of fantastic novels from one of my most favourite authors (Sophie Kinsella). They've changed the characters and the settings too much, and combined storylines from multiple books, thus ruining any chances for this to become a series of films like it very well could have been. I mean, Becky is going to be AMERICAN, for crying out loud. I actually love Isla Fisher for the role, but honestly... British films are made all the time, why is this film not British? Isla Fisher could very easily play Becky British. I'm appalled by everything I read about it. I'm a die-hard Shopaholic fan, but I'm not interested in this film adaptation at all. Total let-down before I even have to see it. Perhaps I will be able to enjoy it like I did A Walk To Remember... but that means enjoying it as completely seperate from my favourite novels. Disappointing. I don't understand why Sophie Kinsella agreed to this, and why she didn't hold out for a screenwriter who would do justice to her fantastic books.
Book-To-Movie That I'm Hoping Will Be Done Right: The Lovely Bones and The Time Traveler's Wife
These are two books that I really enjoyed, and from what I've read about the movies so far, I do hope they'll fare better than some adaptations have. Peter Jackson has made The Lovely Bones, and I have faith in his abilities since The Lord of The Rings really was well-done as far as adaptation goes (I just wasn't a LoTR fan in general, but I can appreciate Peter Jackson's talent). The casting is so well done for this film, I'm very eager to see it and hopefully walk away satisfied.
I haven't heard as much information about The Time Traveler's Wife, but I'm simply holding out hope because the casting is quite well done and the screen captures I've seen so far look perfect. Perhaps I'll be in for disappointment again, but I sincerely hope not.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
