The Movie Was Craptastic: The Mortal Instruments - City of Bones

Note: I wrote this post on Tuesday night straight after watching the movie, but everyone was under embargo until today. So here it is!

Wow. That was bad. That was really, really bad. I just watched The Mortal Instruments - City of Bones and it was laughable. Like I literally laughed out loud in several places. When I don't think I was meant to. But even though it was terrible, it was still pretty entertaining. 

What I liked

• I thought the cast were pretty great and fit their characters well. Lily Collins is GORGEOUS and a great Clary, and even Jamie Campbell Bower, who I had my doubts about, was good as Jace. He did have the whole angelic/lion-like thing happening, although I didn't find it particularly attractive. My one gripe with the cast is that the actors playing Isabelle and Alec, although talented, look like they're about 30. No way can they pass as teenagers, even the Hollywood version of teenagers.
• There's a line inserted that makes the big twist less WTF-worthy. Though it's still pretty WTF. And the line didn't make sense with what followed. But whatevs, I think they needed to include something like that.
• The action scenes were well done. Isabelle with a flame-thrower thingy (I'm all up on the weaponry terms, clearly) was awesome.
• There's some funny dialogue. Intentionally funny. But there's also a helluva lot of unintentionally funny dialogue, which brings me to...

What I didn't like

• There are many laughably bad moments. Including some awful, awful dialogue and characters doing really stupid things. It really dragged the movie down.
• It's completely action-packed, with major events jammed in all together, which is fun, but it also means there's not a lot of emotional depth. I didn't get a good sense of Clary's worry about her mum, her shock at discovering the Shadowhunter world, or her feelings building for Jace. It all happens too quickly.
• The soundtrack is pretty bad, and there's one scene in particular (the greenhouse scene) where the music is overbearing and completely ruins the mood, rather than enhancing it. It was so cheesy, and I was laughing when I wanted to be swooning.
• The steles looked plastic. Hodge's bird looked like a puppet. The greenhouse... don't even get me started on the fake flowers and general terribleness.
• Valentine has these terrible fake plaits attached to the back of his head for no apparent reason and they made me irrationally angry.
• Watching it on screen, the Harry Potter stealing influence was more obvious than ever.

I was still entertained, but it was one of the worst movies I've seen this year. And I've watched Sharknado. If you're a fan of the book you'll probably like it. I think it was actually better than the book (although looking back, I gave the book three stars - I think I was more patient and generous back then, ha). Otherwise, maybe wait for DVD. And take a drink every time someone says or does something stupid or cheesy. You'll be passed out halfway through.

Rating: 2/5

Top Ten Movie Adaptations

1. Jane Eyre (2011), based on Jane Eyre by Charlotte Bronte. It packs a lot into its limited running time, and manages to capture the emotions and feel of Bronte's classic beautifully. Plus Michael Fassbender.

2. The Princess Bride (1987), based on The Princess Bride by William Goldman. It's so faithful to the book and just plain awesome.

3. The Notebook (2004), based on The Notebook by Nicholas Sparks. One of those rare movie adaptations that's actually better than the book. Much, much better.

4. Never Let Me Go (2010), based on Never Let Me Go by Kazuo Ishiguro. Gorgeous, heartbreaking movie to fit a gorgeous, heartbreaking book.

5. To Kill a Mockingbird (1962), based on To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee. The acting is a highlight of this classic adaptation.

6. The Secret Garden (1993), based on The Secret Garden by Frances Hodgson Burnett. It may not always be faithful to the letter but it is very faithful to the spirit of the book, filled with the same whimsy and magic that's present in the original.

7. The Last Unicorn (1982), based on The Last Unicorn by Peter S. Beagle. Sure, the animation isn't exactly high-tech, but it does manage to convey a lot of the same beautiful imagery that's in Beagle's book. Such a strange, kinda creepy but magical tale.

8. Clueless (1995), based on Emma by Jane Austen. It says a lot about both the movie and the novel that studying them in high school didn't forever sap my enjoyment of them. On a superficial level Clueless doesn't have a lot in common with Emma, but below the surface they are clearly kindred spirits.

9. The Muppet Christmas Carol (1992), based on A Christmas Carol by Charles Dickens. It's just not Christmas without this book or movie. And Gonzo as Dickens? Pure genius.

10. Little Women (1994), based on Little Women by Louisa May Alcott. A gorgeous movie that hits all the right emotional notes. Which means a few laughs and a helluva lot of tears.

Top Ten Tuesday is hosted by The Broke and the Bookish.

The Movie Was THE WORST: The Host

Words cannot convey how bad The Host movie was. But maybe Gifs can!

I have to admit when I read the book about four years ago, I quite liked it. I thought the writing was an improvement on The Twilight Saga and the story was entertaining.

When I found out they were making a movie, I was moderately excited.

When I heard they cast Max Irons, I may have let out a little squee.

Still, I was nervous about how The Host would translate on screen, especially considering a large portion of it is two people interacting in one head.

As it turns out... it didn't translate. It didn't work at all.

'Melanie' was this weird echoey voiceover while 'Wanda' talked to her out loud, but it just looked like she was talking to/arguing with herself.

Things got hella awkward when the two guys were introduced.

Although Max Irons was pretty.

But the corny, corny lines and obligatory kisses in the rain were laughable.

And the love triangle square was completely absurd to watch.

Especially when Wanda would be kissing one of the boys while Melanie's voiceover screamed in protest.

Not even Max Irons or Saoirse Ronan (who I actually think is pretty great) could salvage this awful, awful movie.

I can say one good thing about this movie: It made me laugh.

A lot.

But I don't think that was its intention.

I give The Host one star.

The Movie Was... Meh: Breaking Dawn Part Two

 
So. I've ended my relationship with The Twilight Saga. It's over. And not a moment too soon.*

Last night I dragged the Husband along to see Breaking Dawn Part Two, and I can't say either of us were particularly excited about it. I HATED the book, especially the second half, but I felt like I should watch the movie to, you know, get a sense of closure. The Husband just came along because he's a good sport. He subsequently slept through half the movie.**

As I mentioned in my post about Part One, I had a lot of problems with the book, which in turn meant I had a lot of problems with the movie(s), seeing as it's the same story and all. There were a few redeeming qualities,but not many. Spoilers ahead!

What I Liked

• The lullaby was played during the opening credits AND Edward actually plays it again to Bella and Renesmee. It's quite sweet. 
• The sex scenes were OK. Lots of facial close-ups. I guess they had to keep it PG or whatever. Sigh.
• Bella bashing up Jacob when she finds out he's imprinted on her daughter. Though her screaming about the Loch Ness Monster nickname was cringey, as is everything else about that name.
• Unlike in the book, Charlie actually wants to know what has happened to Bella. She refuses to tell him, and he gets really frustrated. I couldn't stand it in the book when Charlie went from a caring father to someone who was all "don't want to know", so I was really glad they changed it in the movie.
• The end, when Bella shows Edward her memories, was sweet, and the flashbacks provided a nice sense of closure.
• It was cool that they featured everyone from the saga in the credits, even if they didn't appear in this movie. It was a nice way to finish it off. Although by the end it started to feel a bit soap opera-ish, with the actors turning and smiling towards the camera.
• There was more action than there was in the book, but...

What I Didn't Like

• Of course it wasn't real action, it was just Alice's vision. I knew that going in, because I had read spoilers. The Husband, knowing nothing about the book or movie, said he thought that was going to happen anyway, because there was no "flash" of Alice's vision otherwise. But when the "twist" was revealed, everyone in the theatre laughed and there was more than a few cries of "are you serious?!" and "you've got to be joking!" I don't think many people were very impressed. I certainly wasn't. It's still lame that there's all that build up and nothing essentially happens. They're freaking vampires and werewolves, and no one dies? Yaaaaaaawn.
• RENESMEE. Everything about that character is The Worst, including the CGI - that baby was so freaking unrealistic, it was laughable. Literally. I couldn't take any scene with her in it seriously. When she finally turns into a real girl, she's too big. And the whole Jacob thing is still incredibly creepy, no matter how they try to make it seem like it isn't. The vision that Alice gets of Jacob and Renesmee together in the future is not only cheesy, it also doesn't make any sense - Alice can't get visions of Jacob OR Renesmee, which is why she can't just show everyone it's going to be fine in the first place.
• Bella looks good, but everyone else in the cast looks pretty terrible. The styling, hair and makeup was once again totally off for pretty much everyone. Edward was not hot. Which defeats the main purpose of the movie, really.
• Bella's narration was unnecessary (hello, Captain Obvious!) and distracting.
• Everything turns out perfect. Too perfect. It's boring. I blame Stephenie Meyer.

Rating: 2/5

*Seriously, I'm contemplating getting rid of the books. Maybe I'll give them one last hoorah before I dump them, but I think it would just be painful.
**Random anecdote: Before leaving for the movies, I was mucking around and threw some glitter at the Husband. It didn't really wash off. He had to walk into a Twilight movie as sparkly as Edward. Teehee.

Book Vs Movie: The Neverending Story

The theme song makes me ridiculously happy. It brings back so many good childhood memories.

The Neverending Story was one of my favourite movies as a kid, and having recently read the book, I thought it was time for a revisit. Did it stand the test of time? Well... yes and no. The special effects obviously aren't great, and the acting is really, really bad. But the story is still pretty magical. It may be the nostalgia talking, but I still enjoyed it. Even though I laughed at it way more than with it. On to the comparison...

Note to filmmakers: getting a kid to scrunch his eyes up and splashing water on his face does not equal realistic crying.

Changes that worked

• The land was named Fantasia in the movie, rather than Fantastica. Maybe it's because I grew up with the movie, but I much prefer the name Fantasia. 
• We first meet Atreyu in the Ivory Tower, rather than his own land. I can understand why this was done - I'm sure it was for budget/time reasons, but I liked how it moved us straight in to the action.
• Atreyu doesn't have green skin, but really I think it would have just been distracting. Apparently the filmmakers did experiment with turning the actor's skin green with a few different techniques, but nothing looked right. I'm glad they passed.
• Artax the horse can't speak as he can in the book, but again I think it would have just been cheesy if they had carried this over to the film. Plus Atreyu has the ability to understand him, anyway.
• There were only two gates to get to the Oracle, not three. It's not as pretty or "magical" a number, but I can see why it would have been cut for time constraints. The Oracle itself is a pair of sphinxes, rather than a bodiless "song" - again, I can understand why this change was made. As it was in the book I don't think it would have worked on screen.
• The Nothing looks like a storm, rather than literally nothing. Again, the book version wouldn't have worked in a visual medium.
• Atreyu meets the Rock Biter. I liked that it tied the beginning of the story in to the larger narrative.
• We see Falcor and the other characters almost immediately after Fantasia is restored, as opposed to the numerous chapters it takes to get back to them in the book. They're the characters we've come to care about, so it makes sense to continue the journey with them as soon as possible.
• The movie only covers the first half of the book - but where they end the story makes a lot more sense than the way it was dragged out in the novel.

I used to think Atreyu was dreamy. Huh.

 Changes that didn't work

• In the book, Bastian's dad is still mourning the loss of his wife and barely functioning, neglecting Bastian as a result. Bastian, while he misses his mum, wants to get on with life, and part of the beauty of the book is the way his journey ultimately takes him back home - to his dad, and to love. In the movie, however, it is Bastian who is struggling to cope without his mother, while his dad urges him to move on. His dad is caring but distant and a little hard on him. I just felt Bastian's loneliness was more palpable in the book, where he had effectively lost two parents at once. The movie also didn't resolve Bastian's relationship with his father, which was frustrating.
• The book-within-the-movie, The Neverending Story, is described as a dangerous, one-off magical item, whereas the book-within-the-book was just one of many pathways to Fantastica, the land of stories. The movie version weakens the allegory of what it means to get lost in a story. In fact, Fantasia is described as the land of dreams, not stories, in the film. Not the same thing!
• When Bastian takes the book, he leaves a note saying he'll bring it back - something he doesn't do in the book. While this makes him a nicer character, it doesn't explain why he has to hide away in the school attic all day, creating a plot hole.
• AURYN's power isn't explained properly, so, for example, it's not clear why Atreyu isn't pulled down by the sadness in the swamps.
• Falcor rescues Atreyu, not the other way around. This is pretty random and doesn't explain Falcor's devotion to the boy.
• The Nothing doesn't seem as threatening as it does in the book - people don't feel the compulsion to walk in to it (that, for me, was the scariest part). We even see Falcor flying through the Nothing - which makes absolutely no sense. It's not Nothing if you can fly through it! OK, it's not Nothing if you can see it either, and I said that worked for the film - but having Falcor and Atreyu travelling through it just makes it seem even less frightening.
• The Empress is much less empowered in the movie. She doesn't take action herself, as she does in the book. Leaving zero strong female characters.
• The Empress gives Bastian sand, "all that's left of Fantastia" to make a wish, instead of AURYN. Seriously, why did they bother putting AURYN in the movie if they weren't going to make use of it?!
• After Bastian restores Fantasia, EVERYONE comes back, "like the Nothing never was". I'm all for a happy ending, but even Artax comes back - and he didn't even die because of the Nothing. He died because of the swamp. It makes no sense, and again undermines the danger of the Nothing in the first place.
• Bastian flies on Falcor's back through New York City (don't ask me how they get there) to take vengeance on his bullies. An eye for an eye isn't exactly a good message (though perhaps I'm particularly sensitive to that thanks to the current atmosphere in blogland), but moreover - it's just tacky, cheesy and really, really lame.

Remember the finger thing?! I didn't until I saw it again and then had all these flashbacks to my friends and I trying desperately to get our fingers to do that. I don't think any of us succeeded. Luckily, we didn't break any fingers either.

Changes that didn't matter

• I know some people may disagree, but the change in Bastian's physical appearance (from fat and unattractive to skinny and cute) didn't materially affect the story for me. You don't have to be fat to feel like an outsider, or to be bullied, or to want to get lost in stories. Just sayin'.
• The Rock Biter is the character we first "follow" into Fantasia, rather than the Will-o-the-Wisp, but the scene achieved the same message - that the Nothing was consuming all parts of the land.

ARTAAAAAAAAAX. Still made me want to cry

Screencaps via Eternal Fantasy

Review: The Neverending Story by Michael Ende

The Neverending Story was one of my favourite movies growing up, but embarrassingly, I didn't actually realise it was a book until recently. I ordered it from Book Depository as soon as I found out, and finally got around to reading it on my honeymoon.

This has been a hard review for me to write because I'm so torn about this book. Or, rather, The Neverending Story feels torn to me - because it was like reading two books, the first part of which I absolutely loved, while the second part gave me mixed feelings. Interestingly, it's the first half of the book that the movie is based on - while the sequel, The Neverending Story II, is based on the latter half of the book. Perhaps my experiences with the movies shaped my reading, but there was a cut-off point midway through the book that felt like a good place to end it. Unfortunately, it just kept going, taking on a far different tone that really did make it feel like a different book. At that stage, the title The Neverending Story felt quite fitting - and not in a good way.

But let's go back to the beginning - which, as I said, I adored. It tells the story that every '80s or '90s kid will be familiar with - Bastian Balthazar Bux is a bullied boy (alliteration FTW!) who takes refuge in an attic with a magical book that follows the young warrior Atreyu as he battles monsters and rescues dragons on his quest to save Fantastica (not Fantasia, as it is in the movies) from the Nothing. It's a wonderful story in itself and also in the way it's written as a homage to stories. The asides that showcase Bastian's thoughts and actions as he reads will be recognisable to any reader. It's a book about the enjoyment of books and the importance of stories, which is just lovely.

But that story reaches its resolution halfway through the book. We're then taken on an entirely different journey, as Bastian enters Fantastica himself and is revered as a saviour. The magic he's given there, and the actions he takes, cause him to literally lose himself, as he forgets everything but his first name and must somehow still find a way back to "what he truly wants" (to love). I think Ende was trying to balance out the first half of the book here and send the message that it's important to use stories not just to escape, but also to enrich reality, so you don't lose yourself or what really matters along the way.

That's all well and good, but the problem for me was that I just didn't enjoy the story all that much. Bastian goes from being someone the reader can sympathise with to, well, a complete turd. As soon as he enters Fantastica things don't feel right; after spending hundreds of pages anxiously following Atreyu and Falcor's journey, they're nowhere in sight and he doesn't give them a second thought for quite some time. He's no longer a reader, too wrapped up in his own adventures to worry about their fate. Unfortunately, I was still a reader, and I wanted to know what had happened to them, dammit.

It's downhill from there for Bastian, and for me as a reader. There were some lovely moments and many new fantastic, whimsical characters and settings along the way, but with such a horrid main character I found my interest in his adventures waning and I was impatient for the whole thing to be wrapped up.

Overall, I liked the book, but I didn't adore it the way I thought I would. If I was to rate it as two separate books, as it felt, I'd give the first half 5/5 and the second 3/5. I guess that averages out to....

Rating: 4/5

Related
I just had to post this. Oh, the hilarity nostalgia...

Coming Up
I'll be revisiting the movie for the first time in nearly 20 years. Let's see how time has treated it... 

The Movie Was Amazeballs: To Kill A Mockingbird

I finally watched To Kill a Mockingbird. Wow. I wasn't going to post about it because, just wow. It's perfect, and I don't know if there's much more I can say about it. But I'll try.

I was surprised, to start with, at the opening credits - usually with old movies you assume they'll have those basic flash-card titles that go on forever. Not this one (I guess it's not that old, hey?) - the opening credits, showcasing what we later find out to be Jem's box of treasures from Boo, sets the nostalgic, innocent tone wonderfully and instantly pulls you in.

The story remained remarkably faithful to the book. There were a few changes, naturally, with numerous minor plots edited out. I missed Mrs Dubose's storyline in particular, but I understand why hers and others' stories were missing - what enriches the book would have bogged down the movie. As it is, we're left with a very powerful telling of the two major plots - the court case and Boo. There wasn't a lot added to the film, with the bulk of the scenes coming straight from the book, but what was added, I liked. The early introduction of Mr Cunningham, and his interaction with Scout, for example, made the later mob scene even more effective. I also appreciated the way the trial was introduced pretty quickly, and we got to see more of Atticus' perspective.

But the most outstanding thing about To Kill a Mockingbird was, of course, the cast. OK, Gregory Peck was too young to be Atticus, technically - but with his performance, it didn't really matter. He was Atticus - dignified, wise, kind, intelligent and loving. The kids were also brilliant in their roles - exactly how I pictured Jem and Scout. Robert Duvall's young apperance as Boo Radley was short but memorable, and Tom Robinson was tragically compelling. Bob Ewell was skin-crawlingly creepy; my only small gripe (and this is probably going to sound petty) was that his teeth seemed too white and straight for someone as rough and poor as Bob.

All in all, I loved this movie. I'm just sad I waited so long to watch it! But it's OK, I know I'll be rewatching it for years to come.

Rating: 5/5

Related
Review: To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee

Review: The Wonderful Wizard of Oz by L. Frank Baum

I grew up on a steady diet of The Wizard of Oz movie, but, embarrassingly, never read the book. Until now. Sadly, I didn't love it. It was quirky but it lacked the whimsical sense of fun that I was expecting. I know it's not fair to compare it to the movie, but with the story so ingrained in my brain, it was hard not to. I was amazed at just how different the two versions were. I knew that in the book, the famous slippers were silver, not ruby, but I didn't expect so many other things to have been changed.

The same basic plot is there, of course. Dorothy and her dog Toto get whisked up in their house in a tornado, travelling from Kansas to the land of Oz. She immediately wants to go back home, and has to travel to the Emerald City along the Yellow Brick Road to request the help of the great wizard Oz. Along the way, she picks up friends in a Scarecrow who wants brains, a Tin Man who wants a heart, and a Lion who wants courage.

But while the movie intertwines the worlds of Kansas and Oz, as the latter is a manifestation of Dorothy's subconcious, the book presents all the events as real within the world of the story. Dorothy really does travel to the land of Oz. While there, her adventures are a series of disconnected incidents with no cohesive thread - other than the fact that Dorothy wants to get home, of course. The Wicked Witch of the West does not hound Dorothy out of revenge or a desire to claim the silver slippers as her own. In fact, she doesn't even appear until the second part of the story. She attacks Dorothy and her friends purely because she's wicked.

Given the fact that L. Frank Baum states in the introduction that he wanted to create a modern-day fairy tale without the violence and horror of traditional stories, there was a suprising amount of gore and death. All of the characters, Dorothy included, attack others in gruesome ways with few qualms. Granted, it's often in self-defence, but it's still pretty disturbing. This didn't help me connect or sympathise with the characters. On top of that, they all repeat themselves so often (the Scarecrow on his lack of brains, the Tin Man on his lack of heart and so on) that it gets quite tedious. I know it's a children's story, but I got tired of reading the same things in every bit of dialogue.

There were some wonderful parts to the story, of course. A highlight for me was the charming china village. The prose is lovely. Perhaps I would have adored the book if I had read it as a child. As an adult, I wanted it to be half the length and twice as enchanting.

Rating: 3/5

The Movie Was Awesomesauce: The Hunger Games

Warning: This post contains a lot of fangirling and CAPS and not a lot of coherence because ALL THE EMOTIONS.
 

You guys. YOU GUYS. The Hunger Games movie is HERE! And it is AMAZING. It's everything you expect it to be. I think I love it as much as the book. Well, almost.

The cast is perfect. Jennifer Lawrence is brilliant, as expected. As soon as you see her pull back that arrow for the first time, it's like, "Oh hey there, Katniss." Liam is fine as Gale - he doesn't get a massive amount of screen time, to be honest - but Josh Hutcherson, oh my goodness, JOSH HUTCHERSON! He blew me away as Peeta. I'm not gonna lie, I had my doubts about him - mostly superficial, it's true - but he nailed it. His Peeta is full of depth, emotion, humour and charm - gah he's just so great.

The supporting cast are also fantastic. Elizabeth Banks is hilarious as Effie, Lenny Kravitz is fah-bulous as Cinna, Stanley Tucci is PERFECTION as Caesar, Wes Bentley is chilling yet surprisingly sympathetic as Seneca, Woody Harrelson IS Haymitch (and the wig isn't even distracting), Donald Sutherland is eviltastic as Snow, Willow Shields is adorably helpless as Prim and Amandla Stenberg is completely heartbreaking as Rue.

The sets are wonderful and really bring to life the world of the book, and the costumes are truly spectacular. There was clearly so much attention to detail, and the Capitol costumes in particular are standouts. As for Cinna's creations, let's just say that those who were disappointed by Katniss' fire dress in the trailer will be pleasantly surprised in the movie. The filmmakers definitely kept some secrets hidden. The one thing I didn't really like was the shaky camera movements, especially at the start, but it wasn't a major problem.

As for the story, it was remarkably faithful to the book. Some things are cut, of course, but for the most part I didn't miss anything. There were also a few changes or additions that I thought were really effective. I'll outline them below - beware, there'll be some spoilers.

Changes that worked

• I really liked the "behind the scenes" aspect of the movie, with the frequent cuts to the gamemaker's room, as well as Caesar's commentary. It definitely strengthened the realism of the world. I particularly enjoyed the fleshing out of Seneca's story, and I actually felt really sorry for him by the end. The insight into Snow's motivations was also great.
• Even though it was kinda sad - but understandable - to have no Madge, I thought the way the Mockingjay pin was exchanged between Katniss and Prim made the whole thing more meaningful than it was in the book.
• The cut away to District 11's reaction to Rue's death was powerful and gave a hint at things to come.
• Rue's death was slightly different and not quite as gruesome as in the book - it was kind of a relief not to have to see that on screen. As it is, it's still quite brutal.
• The muttations didn't have the Tribute's features (I didn't really get that in the book, TBH).

Changes that didn't work (for me)

• I wish the importance of the bakery scene was made a little clearer, as well as Katniss' feelings for Peeta. I wanted MORE KISSING in the cave scene, especially the kiss where Katniss realises she does feel something for him. I also missed Peeta's realisation at the end that Katniss was playing the game. A friend of mine who hasn't read the books was totally confused about the fact that one second Katniss is angry at him, and the next she's all affectionate. They do develop the idea that if they're a couple, people will like them, but perhaps the reasoning behind Katniss' actions wasn't as obvious if you haven't read the books.
• There were a few cuts to Gale in key parts, but I wish they'd bulked his part up a little more, and shown him looking after Katniss' family and/or being interviewed by the TV crew. Again, my friend who hasn't read the books was like, "Gale is barely a character! Why is he made to look like one of the main three?!" And I kinda agree.

Changes that had no major impact

• The Avox story was missing.
• Peeta injures his leg, but doesn't lose it.
• Jennifer Lawrence's singing voice isn't amazing, like Katniss' is supposed to be, but it's really only a superficial difference.

Rating: 4/5

Have you seen the movie yet? What did you think? 

The Movie Was Better: Breaking Dawn Part 1

So. I just got back from watching Breaking Dawn Part 1. As I've mentioned a few times this week, I haven't been that excited about watching it - I especially haven't felt the anxious excitement that I experienced with the first film (and, to a lesser extent, the second and third). Part of this I think is because it's been so long between movies, and my interest has naturally subsided. Another part is the fact that it's split into two movies, and I knew I'd have to wait another whole year to get the complete story... But mostly I think it's coz I really hated the book. It makes me ragey.


All that being said, the movie was... OK. It was pretty much what I expected it to be. There were a few things I LOVED, many that I laughed at, a couple that I hated, and still more that left me feeling not a lot at all. I'm going to break it down below, so if you don't want to read some massive spoilers for the movie STOP NOW.

The first and probably last time I'll use car-related humour. (Source)

What I liked

• Bella's wedding shoes and the back of her dress are gorgeous. I wasn't a fan of the front though. 
• The wedding vows were adorable - especially because they played "Flightless Bird, American Mouth" by Iron and Wine in the background as they said their vows and then as they kissed, with the camera panning around them. It was a lovely, unexpected echo of the first film that tied it together nicely and reinforced the fact that Bella is getting exactly what she wanted when she first danced with Edward to that song.
• Jessica is a welcome voice of reason and hilarity - "Do you think Bella will be showing?... Please, why else would you get married at 18?!"
• The lullaby is back! After going missing in New Moon and Eclipse, Bella's lullaby is played not once, but TWICE in Breaking Dawn Part 1. The first time is when Edward is doing his speech, and the second is towards the end, in a flashback montage of Bella and Edward's relationship. I was so happy to hear it again and thought they used it really well, especially the second time.
• The honeymoon is pretty cute. There are some sexy scenes, though nothing too graphic obviously. But it was MUCH better than the fade-to-black in the book. When I read it, I hated how Edward freaked out and Bella practically had to beg him to have sex with her again, but it's not as annoying in the movie. It's actually kinda cute, with scenes of them having fun together as Edward tries to tire Bella out, she tries to seduce him and he tries to resist. Their interactions are pretty sweet. Then she gets pregnant, and it's all downhill from there.
• There were a few things that were cut from the book that I was so glad not to see, especially the term "little nudger", and Edward's request that Jacob give Bella "puppies". Ugh.
• Edward actually gets some balls and becomes really angry with Bella. He even yells! He apologises later, naturally, but at least he wasn't a total wimp like he was in the book.
• They kind of made a joke out of the fact that Bella (read: Stephenie Meyer) chose the worst name ever for her baby. WORST. NAME. EVER. They all looked totally embarrassed to say it out loud. Which was pretty hilarious.
• The part where Edward "hears" the baby (I'm avoiding that name as much as possible) for the first time happens when he's alone with Bella, and it's actually quite a touching, beautiful moment between the two of them.
• The fight with the wolf pack at the end added some much-needed action.

What I didn't like
I'm not going to list everything, because then we'd be here all night. Needless to say, I've got a lot of issues with Breaking Dawn - much the same issues I think many fans have. As for the movie, its faults are largely due to the crappy plot it inherited from Stephenie Meyer. But there were a few movie-specific things that irked me:

• The hair and makeup. I swear, it's been getting worse with each movie. The one that bothered me most was Edward. He's supposed to be BEAUTIFUL, but his hair was way too dark and flat most of the time, and his face was way too pasty. I know he's a vampire, but it was just not a hot shade of white. What made it even worse was that a few times when, say, he had a top button open on his shirt, his skin was clearly a different colour below the neck. Lame. The one area makeup worked was when Bella is preggo. She definitely looked like crapola, as she's supposed to.
• I don't really remember Renee being so happy with Bella getting married in the book. And wasn't she warning Bella OFF getting so serious with Edward in the last movie?! Her excitement when she receives the invitation just felt a bit wrong to me. Charlie's reaction, on the other hand, was pretty spot on - as was his speech at the wedding!
• It's been awhile since I read the book, so I could be wrong, but I also thought Bella knew long before Breaking Dawn that Edward had killed people. His last-minute confession on the night before their wedding was just weird and out of place.
• The scenes where the pack are all in wolf form and communicating telepathically are kinda, well, lame. 
• I was personally glad not to have to witness Bella spewing up blood, but the birth scene, while not all that graphic, was still pretty gruesome. The director definitely tried to add in some more horror elements in this movie, and I can appreciate that, but let's face it - 99.9% of fans are watching this for the love story. You don't go to Twilight if you want to be scared. It's like McDonald's trying to add salads to their meals. Missing the point!
• RENESMEE. Need I say more? Everything about the name, the character, the whole plotline, is horrible. It's bad in the book, but it was kinda worse in the movie, especially watching Jacob fall to his knees at the sight of a baby. Pretty creepy. It's even creepier when Edward has to explain to everyone that Jacob has imprinted on his daughter. It was icky enough to read about, but hearing it out loud was totally gross. Wrong, wrong, wrong.
• I think I'm going to dislike Part 2 even more, because that was the part I really didn't enjoy in the book. There's so much RENESMEE in it, which I can't stand, and I found it hard to relate to Bella as a vampire. But I still don't want to have to wait a whole freaking year to see it. It's WAY too long between parts, in my opinion. They're just prolonging the pain.

Rating: 2.5/5

If you've seen Breaking Dawn Part 1, let me know what you thought!

The Book Was Better (But The Movie Was Still Great): The Last Unicorn

As I said in my review of the book, I loved The Last Unicorn movie as a kid. I watched it repeatedly, and I remember thinking it was sooo pretty and had a wonderful story, though it was sad and kinda strange in places. Upon rewatching it as an adult, I discovered that not much has changed - it's still pretty, still wonderful, still sad and, yes, still a little strange.


Having read the book this time around, I was surprised by how faithful the movie adaptation was - though I guess I shouldn't have been, considering that author Peter S. Beagle also wrote the screenplay. Some things - such as Schmendrick's immortality, and the town of Hagsgate - were cut out, simplifying the plot slightly, but ultimately not damaging it. The only thing I did kinda miss was the Hagsgate prophecy and Lir's connection to the town, because I liked how it added another layer to his character. However, I can see that it might not have fit within time constraints, and it's not a major issue - the removal of this subplot still leaves a strong and lovely story.

As for the movie itself, while the animation doesn't flow the greatest in places (it's not exactly high-tech), the imagery is beautiful and a pleasure to watch. But it was the voices that really spoke to me (no pun intended) - Mia Farrow, Angela Lansbury, Alan Arkin, Jeff Bridges, Christopher Lee... they brought the characters to life and greeted my ears like old friends. The only thing that made me cringe a little - and I remember that I didn't like it much as a kid, either - was the music. To me, it made the film seem more dated than it would otherwise. But with that being said, it's still a classic.

Rating:  4/5

The Movie Was Wack: The Little Princess

I love this movie. It's really entertaining and fun... but it's not A Little Princess. Literally - notice the The? It's a Shirley Temple film first, and A Little Princess adaptation second. Or maybe even third or fourth. It doesn't have a helluva lot in common with the original text - sure, character names are the same, and the bare bones of the plot are there, but all the muscle has a decidedly different shape. If there wasn't another great adaptation, that might annoy me more, but as it is I was pretty happy to go along for the Templetastic ride.

She is her adorable self in this film - complete with all the singing, dancing, pouting, dimply smiles and a good dose of by-golly-goshness. But she's not Sara Crewe. Oh, that's her character's name, and there's talk about how she'd rather read books and imagine things than do anything else, but her actions speak loudly in contradiction to this. I guess I can't complain too much, because I still found her more likable than Sara in the book. It was the movie characters that didn't exist in the book at all that tended to bug me; I felt they detracted from the story more than they added to it, in particular replacing some of the whimsical and magical aspects that are so great in the book. So, while as a Shirley Temple film this is awesome, as an adaptation it's not so much.

Rating: 3/5

Changes That Worked

• As in the more recent adaptation, the fate of Sara's father is changed for the better.
• Shirley gives Sara much more sparkle and spunk than she has in the book - one of my favourite moments is when she dumps a bucket of coal dust onto Lavinia's head. I also enjoyed her song and dance numbers, even if the second one is oddly timed (in the middle of her search for her father), and the dream sequence is totally random and trippy.
• Becky was also given better treatment in this version, even receiving gifts at the same time as Sara. I really enjoyed her character, even though she didn't get a lot of screen time.

Changes That Didn't

• The addition of more adults for Sara to befriend at Miss Minchin's essentially replaced her friendships with the girls (except for Becky) which was a shame.
• The war storyline overshadowed Sara's experiences at the school.
• I also found Rose's romance totally unnecessary - sure, it was a sweet story, and would have been nice in another movie, but it had no place in this one.
• I don't understand why Queen Victoria had to be there - or why the movie ended with Sara and Captain Crewe meeting her, with no real resolution, especially for important characters like Becky and Miss Minchin. WTF?!

The Movie Was Better: A Little Princess

The 1995 version of A Little Princess was one of my favourite movies growing up, and I'm happy to say it's stood the test of time and is still lovely to watch now. I got an instant hit of nostalgia as soon as the opening chords of the theme played, and was drawn once again into Sara's story. Yep, I actually liked Sara in the movie (unlike in the book) - she's got a bit of spunk to her in this incarnation, and benefits from the removal of the endless praise she receives in the book.

One of my favourite parts of the movie is the score - I haven't heard it in so long but, as I already mentioned, it's instantly recognisable, effectively creating a magical, whimsical mood. The gorgeous cinematography is another highlight; there are some things that don't make a lot of sense in the story (like Sara happily dancing in the snow wearing nothing but a nightgown), but they sure are pretty. The acting is pretty good all round, and the script itself is remarkably faithful to the book, despite one or two rather drastic changes (spoilers ahead)...

Changes That Worked

• By placing the story at the outbreak of WWI, it gives Sara's father a stronger reason for sending her to school. The separation that hurts them both so much is not by choice.
• As I already said, Sara is a much more likable character. She's definitely not too perfect - she's downright "wicked" at times ("cursing" Lavinia and pranking Miss Minchin) - but these are some of her most triumphant moments, where her strong spirit shone through.
• The other girls at the school were also more likable. I love the way they put themselves at risk to get Sara's locket back for her - their friendship was touching.
• Sara treats Becky as an equal, they BOTH receive gifts from Ram Dass and in the end it even seems as though Sara's father adopts Becky.
• Which brings me to the biggest change - and the one that made me happiest: Sara's dad lives! I love happy endings.

Changes That Didn't

• I don't get why the action was moved from England to America. It's not a big deal overall, I just thought it was pointless -  and it weakened the story somewhat with regards to the neighbour/benefactor. The transformation of Captain Crewe's friend into an old man who loses his son at war wouldn't bother me in itself, except that as an American, it makes no sense for the boy to have gone to war at that stage. The US didn't enter WWI until 1917.
• I could have done without Miss Amelia's romance - I just thought it was a bit silly.
• Miss Minchin is almost too much of a biatch to start with - she doesn't quite suck up to Sara as much as she does in the books. Plus her reasons for hating her are much less apparent, making her character more two-dimensional.
• I missed the shopping scene with Captain Crewe and Sara, when they find Emily. I didn't like how it was the Captain who bought Emily himself, and named her, and even told Sara about how dolls come alive when we're not looking. In the book, she picks Emily, names her, and imagines that she's real - and it was one of the few things I liked about the little brat.

Rating: 4/5

The Movie Was AMAZEBALLS: Never Let Me Go

It's rare that a movie is better than the book it's based on - especially an amazing book like Never Let Me Go - but I think this one might just have done it. Well, it was at least as good as the book... beautifully shot, brilliantly acted and wonderfully told. It hit all the right marks, and was just as heart-wrenching, gut-wrenching and just generally wrenching as the novel. I'd normally do a detailed comparison of the changes from book to movie, but I don't think I can do it this time. It would be a shame to pick it a part, as it's such an emotional experience. Plus, it's incredibly faithful to the book - there were a few changes, but they were mostly pretty minor and worked well in the film. I seriously can't fault it.

Did I mention how brilliant the acting was? Andrew Garfield, holy moly. I loved him before, but wow. He perfectly captured Tommy's vulnerability, sensitivity, hope and heartbreak. Man, the heartbreak...And Carey Mulligan! She did such a wonderful job of bringing Kathy to life, conveying so much emotion in just one look that I felt for her even more than I had in the book. Keira was also great as the nasty Ruth, who I actually managed to feel sympathy for at one point. The child actors were also amazing - not only did they look a helluva lot like their adult counterparts (young Kathy especially looked freakishly like Carey), but they could also actually act. This was so important, as their story does take up a large part of the movie, and without this strong foundation it wouldn't be anywhere near as powerful later on. As it stands, it's probably the most powerful film I've seen in a long time.

Rating: 5/5

The Movie Was Better: Red Riding Hood

I finally saw the Red Riding Hood movie this week. It was totally craptastic. And I loved it!

After being disappointed by I Am Number Four, reading countless bad reviews of Red Riding Hood, and kinda hating the book version, I was a bit wary going into the cinema. I had a feeling it was going to be pretty bad. But I also hoped that it would be the kind of bad that I liked. Thankfully, it was.

If there's one thing Catherine Hardwicke does well, it's sexual tension. Boy, does it permeate this flick. I think that's what made it so much more exciting and fun than the book. The story was the same, pretty much point by point, but the stunning visuals (they really milked that red cloak!) and soundtrack effectively enhance the mood and play up the characters' emotions of longing and paranoia. Of course, there's still a bunch of plot holes that bugged me and quite a few unintentionally funny moments, but I was entertained and happy - which is what you want from a movie!

Changes that worked

• As I mentioned, the plot follows the book pretty closely - or, I should say, the book followed the movie pretty closely, because it is a novelisation after all. So there aren't too many differences, but one massive one that really worked was the fact that the whole boring/weird first section of the book isn't in the movie. Funnily enough, without this extra "back story", the motives and actions of all the characters made a lot more sense - including, importantly, Valerie's love for Peter.
• The actress playing Madame Lazar is even scarier than I pictured her to be in the book.
• There were a few things that weren't explained very well in the book that were a lot clearer in the movie (like how Valerie obtained the contents of her basket at the end).
• The ending, believe it or not, was included in the same product! Unlike the book. Yes, I'm still bitter about that.

Changes that didn't

• (Spoiler alert) The truth about Lucy's parentage is revealed quite early on in the film, whereas in the book it was part of the big twist ending. I'm not sure why they changed this - I think it works better at the end.
• The snow was pretty, but not much else, apparently. Everyone was running around, quite happily, in thin clothes like it was the middle of summer. It detracted from the movie just a bit (I know, coz everything else was so realistic, right? But it bothered me more than anything else). 

Rating: 4/5 (note: for enjoyment, not quality).

Eye candy
I have no complaints about Amanda Seyfried as Valerie - she was beautiful, as usual. And my, what big eyes she has!

I don't know what it is about Shiloh Fernandez, but he just doesn't do it for me. I still didn't really want Peter or want him to be with Valerie. I think maybe he's just too short (I like tall guys). Although, I'll admit, he did kinda make me swoon in the dance scene. That was hot.

Then there's Max Irons. Oh, Max. I think I'm a little bit in love with him. OK, more than a little bit... I may have spent the past two days googling pictures of him. I hope Max is the breakout star of this film, coz I want to see a lot more of him! He's gorgeous as Henry, who's once again SO MUCH more preferable to bloody Peter. My friend and I were discussing this in our postmortem of the movie, and decided that if they just switched the places of Peter and Henry, the story would be a hundred times better. They screwed up by making the "third wheel" so much more likeable and pretty than the leading man. Poor Henry - he sure had me swooning!

 Earlier

• Review: Bonus chapter of Red Riding Hood.
• Review: Red Riding Hood by Sarah Blakley-Cartwright and David Leslie Johnson.