I just recently finished reading And Another Thing... by Eoin Colfer. The book is the sixth in the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy trilogy, originally penned by Douglas Adams. Unfortunately, Mr. Adams is no longer with us, but left behind notes for a possible new book. Mr. Colfer took on the challenge and turned out a pretty good book.
Now, I know this is a movie blog. I'm getting there... I'm getting there. In 2005, right before Mr. Adams passed away, a movie version of the first book was released. I figured since I finished the book yesterday and my entry that day was books that were adapted into movies, it would be perfect to do a review of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.
Guide has been portrayed in so many mediums. It orignially started out as a radio program on the BBC. Then Adams started to write it as a book for the fans who couldn't listen to it each week. The book was the first to enjoy huge success. It was then turned into a play and eventually a TV show that covered the first two books of the series.
I was actually amazed that it wasn't until 2005 that a movie version was in the works, but I'm actually glad they waited. The TV had a wonderful charm with obvious and purposely cheesy effects. I love the show, but I'm glad that the movie has costumes that are a bit more believable and a Marvin (voice of Alan Rickman) that doesn't walk so stiffly.
At first, I was quite shocked at the casting decisions, Mos Def as Ford Prefect being the biggest one. Even though I love my Zooey Deschanel, too, I never really imagined Trillion as a brunette. (Though in And Another Thing..., Colfer describes Trillion as a brunette, probably due to this change in the movie.) However, I ended up loving the cast. Especially Sam Rockwell as Zaphod Beeblebrox. I think he did an absolutely fantastic job. He had his naivity, evil tendencies and ego-mania down perfectly. [SPOILERS AHEAD] Oh, and how they portrayed his second head was genius!
So, as I came to the conclusion yesterday, some movies can definitely do justice to the book. Sure, things were changed. [SPOILERS AHEAD] Hollywood needed a love story, so they had Arthur (Martin Freeman) and Trillion (Deschanel) get together at the end. If they had stuck around to do all the books, they would have had their love story once Fenchurch came along. (Besides, I think Deschanel would make a better Fenchurch than Trillion) But I can't fault them. They still turned out a great film.
06 May 2010
05 May 2010
Don't Judge a Movie by Its Cover
I've already discussed TV shows that are made into movies. Now I'm going to touch on literature that is adapted into film as well. Books have been used as inspiration for movies, obviously, longer than TV. Some of the most classic movies were based on novels. (Gone With the Wind, Wizard of Oz, Dracula, etc.)
Every movie that is based on a book has some controversy whether the original work or the film is better. I can't just give you one answer that applies to every movie. It truly depends on how well the script is written (Did they cut out anything crucial to the plot? Did they adjust the dialogue to sound more realistic when spoken?) and then the rest is left up to the director.
It is really hard to take a 500 page novel and condense it to fit an hour and a half. Some things are going to be changed: characters will be altered and side plots will be cut out.
It is possible to do right by a book. There are several movie version of novels I love that I enjoy. In fact, most of them I saw the movie first and it was so good that I was compelled to go out and read the novel.
The Princess Bride is the best example I can come up with. I grew up with that movie and always loved it. (I even owned the "As You Wish" shirt with Westley on it.) I probably watched that movie 100 times over by the time I picked up the novel. I believe the book is definitely better even though I had the whole movie memorized before I even thought of reading it. [SPOILERS AHEAD] There is this one element in the novel that could never be translated into film. The exact time period is never mentioned in the book nor film. In the book, however, subtle hints are dropped when the narrator says "This was after soup, but then again, everything was after soup." It's a small part of the novel that I just love.
I know I was a bit more cynical when it came to television shows I love being made into films. I think that it's a bit different considering that a TV show can run for several seasons and accumulate over hundred of hours of footage. With a novel, it's an easier task to accomplish and the characters don't already have faces the fans know and love.
Every movie that is based on a book has some controversy whether the original work or the film is better. I can't just give you one answer that applies to every movie. It truly depends on how well the script is written (Did they cut out anything crucial to the plot? Did they adjust the dialogue to sound more realistic when spoken?) and then the rest is left up to the director.
It is really hard to take a 500 page novel and condense it to fit an hour and a half. Some things are going to be changed: characters will be altered and side plots will be cut out.
It is possible to do right by a book. There are several movie version of novels I love that I enjoy. In fact, most of them I saw the movie first and it was so good that I was compelled to go out and read the novel.
The Princess Bride is the best example I can come up with. I grew up with that movie and always loved it. (I even owned the "As You Wish" shirt with Westley on it.) I probably watched that movie 100 times over by the time I picked up the novel. I believe the book is definitely better even though I had the whole movie memorized before I even thought of reading it. [SPOILERS AHEAD] There is this one element in the novel that could never be translated into film. The exact time period is never mentioned in the book nor film. In the book, however, subtle hints are dropped when the narrator says "This was after soup, but then again, everything was after soup." It's a small part of the novel that I just love.
I know I was a bit more cynical when it came to television shows I love being made into films. I think that it's a bit different considering that a TV show can run for several seasons and accumulate over hundred of hours of footage. With a novel, it's an easier task to accomplish and the characters don't already have faces the fans know and love.
04 May 2010
I Can Smell Your Brains
Why do I love zombies? I don't think I can really answer that question. I usually like horror movies with serial killers as opposed to monsters because they're more realistic. Being a logical person, zombies are as far from real as you can get. Yet, I can never get enough.
I do know where my love for zombies spawned from. When I was eight, I watched the original Night of the Living Dead with my dad. [SPOILERS AHEAD] I was so shocked by the ending. At first I was devestated. I had really wanted Ben to survive. It took awhile, but I eventually realized it's the best ending of any horror film ever. It made me realize, they can't always make it out alive.
Since then, I have been hooked on zombie films. I am obviously a huge Romero fan despite his downfalls. (letting them remake NOTLD and the fourth installment, Land of the Dead) I absolutely adore the whole "zombedy" genre. (Shaun of the Dead, Fido, Night of the Living Dorks, etc.) I even read zombie literature like crazy. (World War Z, Breathers, Pride and Predjudice and Zombies, etc.)
Now, first we have to get something straight. Zombies are NOT cannibals. Sure, zombies started off as humans, but it is not a virus. Sure, in some cases it is depicted as spreading like a virus. But once the person dies and becomes a zombie, it is now a new species all together. Oh, and most zombies don't actually eat brains. The first (and for the longest time only) movie where zombies actually called "Brainssss..." was Return of the Living Dead.
Zombie movies can become very formulaic. Introduce main characters. Outbreak occurs. Characters try to survive. One or two make it out alive. Feds come in and start to kill zombies off. There can be some very unique zombie films that have great, fantastic twists. (Return of the Living Dead 3, Diary of the Dead, etc.) Much like a zombie who can never finish one meal before heading to the next, I don't think I'll ever get enough of zombie flicks.
I do know where my love for zombies spawned from. When I was eight, I watched the original Night of the Living Dead with my dad. [SPOILERS AHEAD] I was so shocked by the ending. At first I was devestated. I had really wanted Ben to survive. It took awhile, but I eventually realized it's the best ending of any horror film ever. It made me realize, they can't always make it out alive.
Since then, I have been hooked on zombie films. I am obviously a huge Romero fan despite his downfalls. (letting them remake NOTLD and the fourth installment, Land of the Dead) I absolutely adore the whole "zombedy" genre. (Shaun of the Dead, Fido, Night of the Living Dorks, etc.) I even read zombie literature like crazy. (World War Z, Breathers, Pride and Predjudice and Zombies, etc.)
Now, first we have to get something straight. Zombies are NOT cannibals. Sure, zombies started off as humans, but it is not a virus. Sure, in some cases it is depicted as spreading like a virus. But once the person dies and becomes a zombie, it is now a new species all together. Oh, and most zombies don't actually eat brains. The first (and for the longest time only) movie where zombies actually called "Brainssss..." was Return of the Living Dead.
Zombie movies can become very formulaic. Introduce main characters. Outbreak occurs. Characters try to survive. One or two make it out alive. Feds come in and start to kill zombies off. There can be some very unique zombie films that have great, fantastic twists. (Return of the Living Dead 3, Diary of the Dead, etc.) Much like a zombie who can never finish one meal before heading to the next, I don't think I'll ever get enough of zombie flicks.
03 May 2010
Vampires Don't Sparkle
"The only time a vampire should sparkle is right before he bursts into flames." - My Dad
I almost died when my dad said that after I had intially described what Twilight was about. I have to completely agree. I'm not a huge fan of the vampire myths. I disliked every Anne Rice book I attempted to read. (I also disliked most of the movies as well with the exception of Interview with a Vampire.) I never went as a vampire for Halloween as a kid. I was always more a zombie kind of gal.
I have to say however that when it comes to my vampire myths, I'm perfer tradition over inovation. Dracula (Bela Lagosi) is still the biggest lady killer I know. Edward (Robert Pattinson) ain't got nothin' on him. So when a friend of mine told me to read Twilight (recommendation including a detailed account of pretty much the whole book), I was a little apprehensive going into it. I eventually gave up after five chapters.
You would think that due to this, I would not go to see the film. Unfortunately for me, I was dragged along with a group of friends who loved the book series. Sure, I never finished the whole book, so you can consider my opinion unimportant. Book or not, though, this was a horrible movie.
The acting was incrediably stilted, and it's not the actors. I have seen most of these actors in other films where I thought that they did fantastic jobs. (see Kristen Stewart in Adventureland and Jackson Rathebone in S. Darko) I blame the script. The dialogue between characters sounded forced. There were periods where I thought that my eight year old cousin could have written it better.
Granted, I don't usually go for romance movies. I do have a select few that I admit are brillantly done, though. (Ever After, Uptown Girls, etc.) The chemistry between Bella (Stewart) and Edward is non-existant. It seems that the only reason Bella really stays with Edward is because it feels rebelious. "Oh, your boyfriend is captain of the football team? Well, mine's immortal and sparkles like a pansy in the sunlight."
Oh, and let's not forget the obvious machoism associated with Edward. Bella can never seem to fight for herself. Edward has to protect her from the other vampires when they interrupt the baseball game. Then he comes to rescue when James (Cam Gigandet) kidnaps her.
I'm sorry, but I think that Twilight is teaching young girls that it's okay to set ourselves back fifty years. Without Edward, Bella is an emotionless, worthless person. Yet when Edward is around she's HIS emotionless, worthless trophy girlfriend. There are so many better movies (and books) out there for young girls (and their crazy moms) to read with better role models. I just wish that for once something worthwhile could become the next trend.
I almost died when my dad said that after I had intially described what Twilight was about. I have to completely agree. I'm not a huge fan of the vampire myths. I disliked every Anne Rice book I attempted to read. (I also disliked most of the movies as well with the exception of Interview with a Vampire.) I never went as a vampire for Halloween as a kid. I was always more a zombie kind of gal.
I have to say however that when it comes to my vampire myths, I'm perfer tradition over inovation. Dracula (Bela Lagosi) is still the biggest lady killer I know. Edward (Robert Pattinson) ain't got nothin' on him. So when a friend of mine told me to read Twilight (recommendation including a detailed account of pretty much the whole book), I was a little apprehensive going into it. I eventually gave up after five chapters.
You would think that due to this, I would not go to see the film. Unfortunately for me, I was dragged along with a group of friends who loved the book series. Sure, I never finished the whole book, so you can consider my opinion unimportant. Book or not, though, this was a horrible movie.
The acting was incrediably stilted, and it's not the actors. I have seen most of these actors in other films where I thought that they did fantastic jobs. (see Kristen Stewart in Adventureland and Jackson Rathebone in S. Darko) I blame the script. The dialogue between characters sounded forced. There were periods where I thought that my eight year old cousin could have written it better.
Granted, I don't usually go for romance movies. I do have a select few that I admit are brillantly done, though. (Ever After, Uptown Girls, etc.) The chemistry between Bella (Stewart) and Edward is non-existant. It seems that the only reason Bella really stays with Edward is because it feels rebelious. "Oh, your boyfriend is captain of the football team? Well, mine's immortal and sparkles like a pansy in the sunlight."
Oh, and let's not forget the obvious machoism associated with Edward. Bella can never seem to fight for herself. Edward has to protect her from the other vampires when they interrupt the baseball game. Then he comes to rescue when James (Cam Gigandet) kidnaps her.
I'm sorry, but I think that Twilight is teaching young girls that it's okay to set ourselves back fifty years. Without Edward, Bella is an emotionless, worthless person. Yet when Edward is around she's HIS emotionless, worthless trophy girlfriend. There are so many better movies (and books) out there for young girls (and their crazy moms) to read with better role models. I just wish that for once something worthwhile could become the next trend.
02 May 2010
Soundtrack Available
Most of our favourite movies wouldn't be quite the same without their soundtrack. Music sets the mood, gives us a time period and fills what would otherwise be awkward silence. Granted, alot of my favourite movies do have some awkward silence during scenes, but you have to keep in mind that I like the quirky indie films that don't follow rules.
I'll be honest, I don't own alot of the soundtracks to my favourite movies. Many of the ones I love I already owned a decent amount of the music that was used. For instance, The Go-Getter's soundtrack consists of mostly M. Ward and The Replacements. I already own all of their albums.
So The Go-Getter cheated. I already was in love with that music. The same can be said then for movies like Juno (The Moldy Peaches, Kimay Dawson, etc.), Wristcutters (Gogol Bordello) and Adventureland (more The Replacements, Velvet Underground, etc.). It was too easy for them to win me over with their brillant choice of tunes.
Excluded these movies then, what is my favourite movie soundtrack? It is a very tough decision to make. I decided, however, that the answer is an easy one when I think about it. Empire Records is one of my favourite soundtracks, and if it weren't for that movie, I would not have known many of those bands.
The movie was made in 1995 when I was just a wee child. I didn't see the movie until I was about 13 years old. I immediately fell in love. The movie is completely over the top with characters that you can easily assign to your friends.
The music is a mix of 90's indie rock (Toad the Wet Sproket), punk (The Adolescents), 80's pop (Billy Idol) and original music for the movie (Coyote Shivers and, of course, Rex Manning). I find myself singing along with the tunes just like the employees of Empire every time I watch the movie. Every song that was chosen fits perfectly and definitely fits the vibe of an independent record store.
I'll be honest, I don't own alot of the soundtracks to my favourite movies. Many of the ones I love I already owned a decent amount of the music that was used. For instance, The Go-Getter's soundtrack consists of mostly M. Ward and The Replacements. I already own all of their albums.
So The Go-Getter cheated. I already was in love with that music. The same can be said then for movies like Juno (The Moldy Peaches, Kimay Dawson, etc.), Wristcutters (Gogol Bordello) and Adventureland (more The Replacements, Velvet Underground, etc.). It was too easy for them to win me over with their brillant choice of tunes.
Excluded these movies then, what is my favourite movie soundtrack? It is a very tough decision to make. I decided, however, that the answer is an easy one when I think about it. Empire Records is one of my favourite soundtracks, and if it weren't for that movie, I would not have known many of those bands.
The movie was made in 1995 when I was just a wee child. I didn't see the movie until I was about 13 years old. I immediately fell in love. The movie is completely over the top with characters that you can easily assign to your friends.
The music is a mix of 90's indie rock (Toad the Wet Sproket), punk (The Adolescents), 80's pop (Billy Idol) and original music for the movie (Coyote Shivers and, of course, Rex Manning). I find myself singing along with the tunes just like the employees of Empire every time I watch the movie. Every song that was chosen fits perfectly and definitely fits the vibe of an independent record store.
01 May 2010
Murder for Dummies
I started writing today's entry hours ago, decided I didn't like what I was writing, watched Fanboy and Chum Chum and crashed on my couch. I have returned, though, bearing another movie review.
As you have learned from previous posts, me and my friend Coco love sharing movies with each whether we rent them together or discover them indepently. A couple of months ago, she recommended this film to me. I had already bookmarked it myself, and after she had said it was a good film, I decided to give it a go.
This movie would be How to Be a Serial Killer. It's a little horror comedy film that has caused alot of controversy amongst independent film makers. Most say that it's copying better films such as Mr. Brooks and Behind the Mask. I hate to say that I have seen neither of these films. You know I probably will eventually, and perhaps then my assessment will be less biased.
Rip off or not, I did enjoy this movie despite it's few downfalls. [SPOILERS AHEAD] The whole concept of Mike (Dameon Clarke) teaching the "audience" the ways of serial killing a la a magician meets a seminar is absolutely hilarious. The rules he comes up with are so out there, yet make sense. For instance, never kill people you know. It'll just get messy from there on.
[STILL MORE SPOILERS] Which of course, becomes Mike's downfall. Luckily for him, his protege Bart (Matthew Gray Gubler) has been taking notes. I mean, literally, he carries a notebook with them when they go killing people. The Gube is just so good at playing the nerds. He is a good student, and even though they are technically the bad guys, the viewer is happy to see Bart following in Mike's footsteps by the end of the film.
I won't lie. I'm a sucker for the anti-hero so of course I was going to like the whole concept of the serial killers being the characters you feel for. It is true that the best part of the film is Mike's lecture and sometimes the whole mocumentary style does not fit, but it's worth a good laugh.
As you have learned from previous posts, me and my friend Coco love sharing movies with each whether we rent them together or discover them indepently. A couple of months ago, she recommended this film to me. I had already bookmarked it myself, and after she had said it was a good film, I decided to give it a go.
This movie would be How to Be a Serial Killer. It's a little horror comedy film that has caused alot of controversy amongst independent film makers. Most say that it's copying better films such as Mr. Brooks and Behind the Mask. I hate to say that I have seen neither of these films. You know I probably will eventually, and perhaps then my assessment will be less biased.
Rip off or not, I did enjoy this movie despite it's few downfalls. [SPOILERS AHEAD] The whole concept of Mike (Dameon Clarke) teaching the "audience" the ways of serial killing a la a magician meets a seminar is absolutely hilarious. The rules he comes up with are so out there, yet make sense. For instance, never kill people you know. It'll just get messy from there on.
[STILL MORE SPOILERS] Which of course, becomes Mike's downfall. Luckily for him, his protege Bart (Matthew Gray Gubler) has been taking notes. I mean, literally, he carries a notebook with them when they go killing people. The Gube is just so good at playing the nerds. He is a good student, and even though they are technically the bad guys, the viewer is happy to see Bart following in Mike's footsteps by the end of the film.
I won't lie. I'm a sucker for the anti-hero so of course I was going to like the whole concept of the serial killers being the characters you feel for. It is true that the best part of the film is Mike's lecture and sometimes the whole mocumentary style does not fit, but it's worth a good laugh.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)