Books to Movies: Beautiful Creatures and the Perks of Being a Wallflower

I had pretty low expectations for Beautiful Creatures. My book club went to see it the first weekend it was out and emerged unimpressed, saying it was completely different from the book. However, my sister-in-law had it rented and I was curious to see how it compared, so I watched it with my husband. 

I have a philosophy on books that are adapted into movies. Most people say that you should read the book first and that the book is always better than the movie. I disagree. They are different mediums. A movie is primarily visual and limited in time. A book is primarily intellectual and has no limits for time (gotta love those chunksters). I'd rather watch a good movie than a movie that is faithful to the book. In addition, sometimes the medium of a movie is more compelling than the medium of a book. Not often -- I am a book lover all the way. But sometimes, it works better. 

I don't think Beautiful Creatures was any better or worse than the book. It was different. It had the advantage of showing some of the beautiful images that were created in the book, such as Lena's writing on her bedroom walls and the way she manipulated the weather. It also made almost all of the characters much more compelling to me. In the book, I thought of Ethan as a shy, slightly nerdy guy. In the movie, he was charming, sweet, and totally hot (but not as hot as you, husband! xo). I thought of Lena as this overly emotional, annoying girl. In the movie, she was still sort of weird and dramatic, but she was also snarky and likable. I also thought that the book version of Ridley was extremely cheesy, what with the lollipop licking and pink highlights, but in the movie, Ridley was a complete femme fatale. Looking back on the book, I can see how the characters could have been interpreted that way, but they didn't read that way for me. With the visual medium, they translated much better for me.

Yes, the plot was totally different. If they make more of the movies, I'm not sure where they will take everything, because everything is different except for a few key elements. But you know what? It made a good movie. And my husband liked it, which is significant, because he doesn't like movies. 

I also wasn't sure what to expect from The Perks of Being a Wallflower. I'd heard mixed reviews. I loved the book, but I also read it all in one night when I was extremely pregnant, hormonal, and unable to sleep. In a word, LOVE. In a sentence, it was better than I could have imagined. In a list, here's what I liked:

1. Logan Lerman as Charlie was a WIN. In the book he came across as so socially awkward that it was hard to imagine him dating some of the strong women that he did. In the movie, he was clearly, clearly troubled, but also adorable and lovable and heartbreaking.

2. Same for Patrick. I loved Patrick in the book, and Ezra Miller did a perfect job.

3. Shall I keep going? Hermione Granger Emma Watson was phenomenal as Sam. Total girl crush.

4. And also Mae Whitman! The wins continue!!

5. The way each scene was set up was beautiful and unique without being over the top. I loved that it gave an indie vibe while remaining accessible and not going into bizarro territory.

6. This movie had me bawling by the end. I am an emotional person, but movies don't usually do it for me for some reason. However, I was a wreck at the end of Perks, in the best possible way.

7. It also leaves so much for discussion. My husband hasn't read the book, and we spent another hour after the movie talking about it and reminiscing about the total crap that was high school.

8. Also, my husband yelled out at one point, "I just want them to be together!" Again, husband doesn't like movies, and really doesn't like movies without explosions and superheroes. So. 

Go see it. Bring tissues and wear waterproof mascara. 

Book to Movie: Emma Movie Marathon

A few weeks ago, I finished reading Emma for the second time and decided to watch ALL THE MOVIES on Netflix based on this book. Here they are, in a nutshell.

Can you DNF a movie? I watched the first fifteen minutes of Aisha, a Bollywood musical based on Emma, but it wasn't working for me. I think I just wasn't in the mood for the zaniness of Bollywood, and there were other things I wanted to watch more. I might return to this one sometime, but I'm not sure.

Recently crowned champion of the "Teen Movie Madness" competition on Forever Young Adult, Clueless is definitely one of the most fun and quotable movies of the nineties. I'd actually only seen it in its entirety once before, and when I had watched it I was young enough to not know that it was based on Emma. Watching it with the new perspective made it much more entertaining, and I was impressed with how good an adaptation it actually was. Clueless is the perfect example of a spinoff -- it stays reasonably true to the original, while being entertaining in its own right. (And I love that Christian was Frank -- due to the "going to London for a haircut" incident, I'm sure). 

I had also seen this adaptation once before, but I hadn't enjoyed it very much. It was before I had ever read Emma, and my parents had picked it up at random to entertain my siblings and me when they went out for the night. This time around, I absolutely loved it -- I'm not sure if it is being out of elementary school or having read the book, but I thought the movie was beautiful and well done. I am a huge fan of Gwyneth Paltrow, so that was an automatic point in its favor, but I really thought all the actors did an amazing job. I'll probably watch this again.

In writing this post, I realized that I didn't really like any of these adaptations when I was younger, but love them now (with the exception of Aisha). I had the same feelings toward the book Emma when I first read it -- maybe there is a reason for all of this. I think when I was younger I couldn't appreciate the humor in Emma and felt that it wasn't especially romantic, just annoying. Now I can appreciate the subtle humor, and through that, enjoy the romance. 

Bookish Show: Sherlock Season 2

I know, it's about time, right? The 2nd season of Sherlock only just recently was put on Netflix, and I managed to miss the last episode when it was airing on PBS. I think I enjoyed this season even more than the first. Brief thoughts on each of the episodes:

A Scandal in Belgravia

Scandal indeed. The BBC show's take on Irene Adler is a bit more risque than I would have preferred, and I found this episode to be rather oversexed. However, I will say that I really enjoyed the way Sherlock and Irene Adler interacted. I think it is always more precious when a boy or man who isn't that into dating takes notice of a girl or woman for the first time -- in this case, "The Woman," and that was enjoyable, minus the sighing text messages (if you've watched this episode, you know what I mean).

The Hound of Baskerville

I loved this one -- I loved the concept, the chill factor, everything. I know that I read this book a long time ago (when I was eleven), but I don't remember much of anything about it, so I'm not sure how everything ties in with the original story, but I thought this episode was incredibly well done.

The Reichenbach Fall

This is definitely the episode freshest in my memory, as I watched it so recently. It is also a story with which I am somewhat more familiar. First of all, I loved all the elaborate hoaxes Moriarty constructs to baffle those around Sherlock and lead them to betray him (and by loved, I mean they were fascinating twists to the story). I originally struggled with the BBC's adaptation of Moriarty, associating him more with the bearded, silently sinister man portrayed in the Robert Downey Jr. adaptations, but the more I watch of Sherlock, the more I prefer the crazed, slightly frenzied, but always calculating version they present. I also loved how Sherlock's fall was orchestrated -- I am dying to see how it all works out in the next season.

Overall, a great season! I can't wait for Season 3.

Book to Movie: Snow Flower and the Secret Fan

When I noticed that Snow Flower and the Secret Fan was on Netflix, I jumped at the chance to watch it, having just finished the book. The movie had several differences from the book, but I think the changes helped the book transition well to a film format.

The book focuses only on the relationship of Snow Flower and Lily, but the movie begins with two modern-day girls, Nina and Sophia, who are close friends, but who slowly drift apart. As Nina and Sophia's relationship changes with careers, boyfriends, and family, they drift apart until a tragic accident causes Nina to look into Sophia's recent past. She finds a book that Sophia has been writing, Snow Flower and the Secret Fan, which is the story from the book and, in the movie, is based on Sophia's ancestor.

The narrative in the book is slow and dreamy, and was told in a short few scenes in the movie. While some details were left out, I think the medium was effective interspersed with the drama between the two modern girls. I also think that the message was more clear and relatable with the modern perspective of two girls going through a similar experience in their lives to the two girls from history.

I enjoyed the slow, dreamlike quality of the movie despite the fact that at times it dragged. It is contemplative but has moments of genuine beauty. If fans of the book are not overly concerned about perfect faithfulness to the original story, I think they will find something to enjoy in the movie adaptation. For those who found the book difficult to relate to, the movie tells a more condensed version of the story with ties to modern times.

Bookish Show: Sherlock Season 1

I am aware that I'm a bit late jumping on the bandwagon with this one. While I'd heard many people raving about it, I didn't really think of watching it until my husband suggested it. My husband hates all TV shows and most movies, so I was shocked that there was something he wanted to watch. I'm glad that we did dive in, because it has proven to be a great show so far. 

The show is actually more like a mini-series. In the first season, there are three episodes, all lasting about 90 minutes each. Season 1's three are "A Study in Pink," "The Blind Banker," and "The Great Game." I assume that "A Study in Pink" is based upon "A Study in Scarlet," although I haven't read it and can't say for sure (anyone know?). As for the other two, I am in the same boat, although certainly "The Great Game" has elements of traditional Sherlock Holmes that I am familiar with. The premise of the show is that Sherlock is a brilliant amateur detective in the present day, tortured by his need to find something interesting and too wrapped up in his overly intelligent mind to form lasting friendships -- until Watson, an ex-military doctor with a neurosis about a leg injury, shows up to share the rent in his flat. Watson, intrigued by Sherlock's bizarre behavior and adventures, begins a blog about their experiences, and assists Sherlock in many of his endeavors. 

In a nutshell, here are the thins I love about the show: 

* First of all, I love spin-offs -- this is a well-documented thing on this blog. I love retellings. I think certain bits of literature and media become our modern mythology, told again and again in new forms but never growing old.

* Benedict Cumberbatch is brilliant as Sherlock. The recent Sherlock movies starring Robert Downey Jr. are favorites of mine, but I dislike the way Sherlock Holmes is at times portrayed as slapstick. While there is dry humor and a sense of the ridiculous at times with the way Sherlock behaves in the BBC series, it is not silly. The humor is more mature, more erudite. And I like it. 

* Also, Benedict Cumberbatch.

* I love the length of the episodes. They are practically their own movies, but we get more than one.

* I love the way technology supplements Sherlock's deductions. I think it is very cool to see the way someone with an extensive supply of information in his mind can use an endless supply of information at his fingertips.

* Favorite episode? The third, where we are introduced to Jim Moriarty, who is a surprise in every way. I probably wouldn't have portrayed his character the way he is portrayed, but it is a fresh take. And the madness of Moriarty is definitely boundless.

Overall? Highly recommended. 

Book to Movie: Sarah's Key

I actually saw the movie before reading the book, but I liked the movie enough to read it. If you would like a summary, see my review.

There were many aspects of this movie that I loved. As I've mentioned before, I am not a film critic and have never even taken a class about film, so all my opinions are my own and noto supported by any evidence or theory. However, I loved the colors in this film. Despite the bleakness and the sadness of the subject matter, every scene seemed infused with light and beauty to me. Sarah and Julia's stories are filled with inner dialogue and quiet moments, and the power of the scenes went far to fill in those quiet moments.

I was also impressed with the acting. Kristin Scott Thomas definitely played her role with emotion, albeit quiet emotion. I felt drawn to her character and her emotional quest to both have her own child and understand what happened to the children like Sarah who were taken from their homes by the French police. The actresses that played both the young and older Sarah were also powerful, with their wide-eyed, silent grief. I also love that old man that played DuFaure. My husband and I had to laugh because we saw War Horse the next day, and he also plays the elderly French farmer in War Horse. Apparently he is the token character for that type of role.

I also felt that the film did an excellent job of building the tension of what Michel, the little boy behind the door, experienced as his fate. Every moment is filled with foreboding tension as the scenes progress nearer to the revelation of his fate, and I actually was having a sympathetic (in the physiological sense) response -- gripping the chair, heart pounding, breaking out in a sweat. I was very emotionally affected by what happened.

I also liked the little addition of how Sarah and her husband met. I don't recall that being in the book, but I enjoyed the flashback in the movie.

My one issue with the film was more a factor of the medium of movies in general than the way Sarah's Key was made. Because the progression of the plot is often internal, at times the moments of silence left me wishing I could be inside the characters' minds. I looked forward to reading the book for that reason, although it didn't always give me quite as much insight as I would have liked (I like books that give you the nitty-gritty on everything. I'm not really a subtle person).

Overall, I thought this movie was very well-done. It is streaming on Netflix right now, so if you have an account, go watch it. :)

Book to Movie: The Hunger Games

Guys, The Hunger Games! It happened! It was epic! So much has already been said that I will not attempt to be coherent -- I just want to share my own opinions. I'll start with the negative because I want to end on a positive note. {SPOILERS follow}

Things I didn't like:
1. Peeta seemed kind of cheesy. Granted, I wasn't a huge Peeta fan in the first book, anyway. I mean, I liked him, I thought he was sweet, but I was Team Gale all the way at first. I can't tell if Peeta was portrayed as slightly less awesome than he really is, or if it is just the same thing I experienced with the first book, but he didn't quite wow me.
2. So much was left unexplained. I know, I know, it is a movie, and we don't have the privilege of being inside Katniss' head. And I think they did the best they could -- we can tell there is tension between Katniss and her mother, we can tell that Katniss is not quite all there in the cave with Peeta, etc. But I wondered if I could tell because I had read the books, or if the movie was really portraying it accurately, if that makes sense.
3. I wish that you could tell that the Mutts were made from the tributes. That was such a total piece of creepiness, and it is missing in the movie.

Things I liked:
1. Gale. I know he has been mocked as a mouth breather and a brooder, but I loved him. I was Team Gale for a long, long time, and Liam Hemsworth surpassed my expectations. When he is waiting for Katniss at the end, with Prim on his shoulders, I melted a little bit.

2. Effie Trinket was beyond amazing. Well done, Elizabeth Banks.

3. I was also a fan of Cinna. For some reason, I could never quite picture him in the books. I feel like Lenny Kravitz did a good job of portraying Cinna's tenderness toward Katniss, despite the limited screen time.

4. Katniss as the Girl Who Was On Fire. I loved the costumes. I also loved how the interview scene was portrayed.

5. In fact, Katniss in general. It is undeniable that Jennifer Lawrence is a stellar actress. There was not a single scene where she disappointed me. Even though so much is left unsaid in the movie, she does as well as anyone humanly could in conveying the unsaid sections.
6. The Rue scene. Sad, sad, sad, but well done.
7. The end near-suicide scene. This is the one scene that completely redeemed Peeta for me in this movie. The absolutely hopeless look on his face, the way he reaches out to tug Katniss' braid -- I loved him.

8. Seneca Crane was impeccable.

9. I know some people complained about this, but my brilliant husband, who has taken a film class, explained to me that the shaky camera, the way up close shots of Effie during the Reaping, and the ringing you hear after the Careers' food supply is blown up are all film techniques to help you be in the mind of the character. While I wouldn't have picked up on this on my own, being able to think about it made me really appreciate it. I think it was very effective.

What did you think of the movie?

Book to Movie: Sherlock Holmes 2: A Game of Shadows

You may or may not have been subjected to my gushing when the first Sherlock Holmes movie came out. I absolutely loved it. In fact, I consider it to be one of my favorite movies. So I was very excited when the second movie was released. My husband and I are cheapskates (read: still in college) so we waited for it to hit the dollar movie, but we were definitely anticipating something wonderful when we headed into the crowded theater on Saturday night.

There are a few significant differences in what I came in with when I went to this second Sherlock Holmes movie. First of all, I had high expectations. I loved the first film, and I fully expected to love the sequel. Secondly, before I saw the first film, I had not read any Sherlock Holmes stories. Now, I've read two different volumes, so I have literary expectations as well.

While the film was enjoyable, it didn't live up to the first in my mind. Bear in mind that I do not even begin to pretend to be a film critic; I don't know anything about lighting or sets or cinematography or anything. I only know what I find appealing. So, if you are a film critic, please realize I am aware that my assessments are not in line with film theory. End of disclaimer.

Here are the things that disappointed me: (Spoilers are present, but you will be warned before they appear)

1. I'm not quite sure how to state this. The mood of the first film was really consistent -- dark, dreary, mysterious London. Everything seemed to mesh well together and the atmosphere was perfect. In the second film, we are a bit all-over-the-place -- Sherlock's house, a cabaret, a wedding, a train ride, all over Europe -- the mood seemed to be changing all the time. I guess I just enjoyed the mood in the first one so much I am a bit disappointed it wasn't finished.

2. I felt as if there was a bit too much slapstick in this film. In other words, the pony-riding scene (and a little bit the cross-dressing scene) just about killed me. I know that Sherlock's idiosyncratic personality definitely allows for some humor, but I prefer it a bit more subtle. It seemed as if whomever makes those decisions was trying too hard for a laugh in this case. Granted, I haven't read all of the Sherlock stories and there could be literary evidence for these scenes, in which case I would forgive them.

3. ***SPOILER*** The end, when Sherlock turns out to be alive. I thought the scene was well done, but I don't think it would have really happened. In the story when he tumbles down the cliff with Moriarty (it's a cliff in the book), I had the impression that it was the end, that he'd finally met his match, not that he'd almost met his match but was going to dramatically reappear afterward. I think they probably want to make another film out of it, but it bothers me because it is so drastically off of the stories. The majority of both films are different from the books, but they at least stay true to the general concept. Sherlock coming back to life seems completely off.

However, there were of course some things I enjoyed. I love Watson and Sherlock's relationship. I also absolutely adore Mary, Watson's wife. While she isn't thoroughly in on and the action, she is definitely spunky and manages to get in some great moments. And ***SPOILER*** I thought everything with Irene Adler was extremely well done. Despite the fact that she is only slightly present in the stories, I loved her in the films, with her complicated relationship with Sherlock and her duplicitousness. I was sad to see her go, but I thought the way Sherlock handled it, verbalizing nothing but clearly still experiencing pain, was portrayed really well.

So in short -- it is a good movie, enjoyable, but I'm glad I only saw it in the dollar theater. I don't plan on seeing it again, while I have my own copy of the first movie that I tend to watch over and over. If a third movie does come out, I will see it, but I will grumble.

Book to Movie: The Help

So, I know I'm a little late to the party with this one. I was so excited to see the movie version of The Help that I watched the trailer over and over again. However, I didn't get the chance to see it until it had been out for several weeks. However, I wasn't disappointed with this mostly faithful adaptation of the film.

I do remember leaning over to my husband several times while watching this film and saying, "It was different in the book here," or "In the book they did this." However, the details that were different were mostly insignificant -- insignificant, at any rate, that they didn't completely change the story line, which happens more often than not in film adaptations (Slumdog Millionaire, anyone?).

I was very happy with the characterization. The portrayals of Skeeter, Aibileen, and Minnie were perfect, just how I had pictured them in my mind. Hilly was a little bit different -- I pictured her more chubby and outspoken rather than pretty and subtly evil. I've always enjoyed villains that are so awful you can't help but be in awe of them while you hate them, and Hilly's character in the movie was one of those characters. I wanted to slap her throughout the movie, but at the same time I was in awe of how smoothly she manipulated everyone, how everyone lived in fear of her and did what she wanted.

I've heard criticisms of both the book and the movie saying that they make light of the inequality issue. I personally found the book to be powerful; it was amazing especially to see Aibileen emerge from being mistreated to someone who was well aware of her talents and abilities. Maybe the story didn't show some huge, overwhelming victory in the civil rights movement, but I think it did show personal growth and strength in the individual characters, which is essential for big things to happen. Small victories precede the big ones, and I thought it was moving to see these women on both sides of the issue learning to overcome their prejudices and their inhibitions and come closer to the lives they actually wanted.

So overall, this was enjoyable to me. I liked that it was fairly faithful to the book and I enjoyed watching it.

Book to Movie: The Ruby in the Smoke

A few weeks ago, my husband and I were trying to think of something to do on a Friday night. I mentioned that I'd checked out a movie from the library and he just looked at me and said, "It's one of your BBC book-to-film movies, isn't it?" Um... yes? Do I even watch anything else anymore?

Anyway, I was very excited to notice a mention of The Ruby in the Smoke on a blog that I forgotten now (I'm sorry that I forgot you, by the way, because I am very grateful that I came across your post). His Dark Materials, another trilogy by Phillip Pullman, is collectively my second favorite book, and I read the Sally Lockhart trilogy by Phillip Pullman soon afterward and loved it almost as much. (There is also a companion book which is even better -- The Tin Princess). I read these books over and over again, at least three times, but I hadn't thought of them in years.

Because it had been so long since these books had even crossed my mind, the opening scenes of The Ruby in the Smoke were pure magic for me. They brought me back ten years into one of my favorite books. When Jim came on the screen, I just about died -- he is one of my biggest literary crushes of all time, and seeing him speaking and moving on the screen instead of just in my mind was unbelievable, especially when he was in a scene with Adelaide, the little girl he promises to protect.

When I get outside of my personal nostalgic bias towards this story, the movie itself was only mediocre. It is a spare 90 minutes long, and while this was good for the pacing and the action, it did nothing for the character development. So much happens in this story that all the attention is given to the action. And while the story is a nice, exciting mystery, complete with opium, dazzling rubies, not one but TWO handsome men and a murderous middle-aged crone with no teeth who buries little girls in her yard, the real allure for me was always the characters and how much I loved them. I enjoyed the hour and a half I spent watching the movie, but if I hadn't already been in love with and invested in the characters and story, I think it would have been a weak effort. So overall, if you already love this story, you'll have fun with the movie. If not, read the book, and then we'll talk.

Book to Movie: Jane Eyre (2006 Mini-series)

While I truly loved Focus Films' adaptation of Jane Eyre, I was sad about a few things that were left out and decided that I wanted to see a more comprehensive production (and, by the way, have you noticed there are approximately 387 productions of Jane Eyre? There is even a musical). So to my beloved Provo Library I went, and I was not disappointed.

Instead of going into in-depth analysis about the quality of the film and the cinematic elements (subjects I know nothing about, other than what pleases my eye and what doesn't), I am going to make for you a lovely little list of things I enjoyed about this movie. It is tied in my affections with the 2011 version, because they are both appealing for different reasons.

1. Lucy Pevensie plays the young Jane Eyre. (Okay, her real name is Georgie Henley). I hadn't seen her in anything but the Narnia films and I think she is adorable. It was nice to see her acting in a new type of role.

2. The gypsy scene is (somewhat) intact. It doesn't follow precisely with the book (AVERT THINE EYES IF YOU WANT TO AVOID SPOILERS) - Mr. Rochester isn't dressed up as the gypsy; he has simply employed her. (SPOILERS END) Although the scene wasn't perfectly faithful to the novel, I do think it is important enough to be included.

3. For frivolity's sake -- I simply can't decide which Mr. Rochester I like better. I was completely taken with the portrayal in the 2011 film by Michael Fassbender, but I think that Toby Stephens may have beaten him out in this film. His emotions are brought wildly to the surface, and we see a bit of the madness that threatens him due to the burden of his wife, although it isn't allowed to take hold. Compare and decide for yourselves, oh readers.

Toby Stephens

Michael Fassbender

4. The veil scene happened, albeit quickly and still not as freakily as I would have hoped.

5. The end scene between Jane and Mr. Rochester was more powerful, I thought, in the 2006 version than in the 2011 version. I was more emotionally moved - I felt that their emotions were stronger and more present. It was honestly one of the more touching scenes I think I've seen in a movie ever.

Granted, there are also aspects of the Focus Films production I preferred. I loved the portrayal of St. John Rivers (although deplored the exclusion of Rosamund) and his sisters. The landscapes were breathtaking. The music was beautiful. And Jane herself was played very well by Mia Wasikowska.

Both films have something to offer is my point I suppose. The 2006 production of Jane Eyre is more thorough and certain scenes have more power, but the new 2011 adaptation is certainly not a film to miss.

Book to Movie: Something Borrowed

Something Borrowed is based on the novel by Emily Giffin. Rachel and Darcy have been best friends since childhood, and Darcy has always been the leader - the most stylish, the one the men flock to, even getting into Rachel's top choice college when she was rejected. It makes sense that Dex fell for her when Rachel introduced them years ago. However, after a party with a little too much drinking, Rachel and Dex discover that they have strong feelings for each other. The major problem? Dex and Darcy are getting married in a few months. 


Here's what RottenTomatoes.com had to say about this movie: 
"Something Borrowed" is something ... ew."
"An intoxicated condition might be the best one in which to watch this terrible movie."
"It should have borrowed some charm."
"Prepare to leave feeling something blue."


So why did I like it so much? It's about cheating, a subject I hate. It's extremely cheesy. But for some reason, I absolutely enjoyed it. I think that reason is probably Ethan, played by John Krasinski (aka, Jim Halpert. Need I say more?). In the book, he was living in London for the entire story. However, in this movie he is actually in New York, with the characters. They also throw in a more direct allusion to Ethan's feelings for Rachel that made me just want to cry. There is a kiss on the forehead scene that gave me visceral pain because it was so sweet. I am clearly revealing my weakness for chick flicks, here - feel free to scorn me. So, Ethan is the main thing that this movie has going for it. I also enjoyed Ginnifer Goodwin's performance as Rachel (and can I just say it is extremely obvious that Ginnifer Goodwin is a much better dancer than Kate Hudson?).


Another small departure that the movie had from the book was that I think I had a clearer sense of Dex and Rachel's attraction to each other before Darcy's entrance into Dex's life. Nearly everything that happened in the movie was also in the book, but for some reason seeing it visually had a stronger impact for me than reading it in this case. In the book, I still felt as if it was a stretch that Dex and Rachel had been in love before. However, in the movie, I could see the attraction and the emotions at play. 


I didn't like the portrayal of Marcus or Dex. In this movie, Marcus was just a big, dopey moron. He was definitely more of a caveman than the other male characters in the book, but he was still credible as a person Rachel could show interest in. In the movie, he is not even remotely believable as an adult. I cringed whenever he was on the screen. I also didn't love Dex. I already wasn't wild about him - in my opinion Rachel should have just gone for Ethan and everyone would have been happy - but in the movie he seemed so eager to please and unsure of himself. He never went for what he wanted, except when he was drunk. 


Obviously, this movie is a huge drama fest. We don't learn anything fundamental about human nature, and I don't think it will last through the ages. However, if you need a little drama fix or if you read the book and are as much of an Ethan fan as I am, this movie is probably a frothy little diversion you will enjoy. 

Book to Movie: Midnight in Paris

Okay, okay, it isn't really a book to movie. However, Woody Allen's Midnight in Paris is definitely for the bookish. An engaged writer, Gil, who is dissatisfied with his lucrative life writing comedy screenplays and wants to work on his novel, falls in love with Paris as he spends time there with his fiance's family, who have traveled to Paris on a business trip. After a night of walking and avoiding his fiance's didactic and pompous friend, who has taken to tourist-ing with them, Gil is swept away to the Lost Generation, where he meets Hemingway and Fitzgerald, has Gertrude Stein critique his book, hears Dali wax bizarre on painting, sees Picasso womanize away, hears Cole Porter perform live, and meets a lovely woman who shares his nostalgia for the past.

First of all, the real star of this film is Paris. My husband had to essentially clap his hand over my mouth because the first several minutes of the film were a montage of places I knew and loved and I was freaking out. I could sit and watch the movie with the sound turned off (okay, maybe not in the Cole Porter scenes) and still be happy.

The book also appealed to me with its inclusion of bookish characters (and others from that era). I love Fitzgerald and have been learning to love Hemingway (and can't help but love his character... especially the way his lines are written to sound just like him). Cole Porter is one of my favorite jazz composers. Shakespeare and Co. is one of my favorite spots in Paris. It was exciting to see each new character come on the screen and to see them expressed (and at times parodied).

The movie had two weak points for me. First, Rachel McAdams' character was so inexpressibly awful that I couldn't stand when she was on the screen. I know that I profess to really enjoy those love-to-hate characters, but she was such a witch that I wanted to plug my ears and sing until she went away. I usually love Rachel McAdams, but she did a little too well at playing a selfish upper class brat in this movie. Secondly, while everything came together neatly, the climax or "a-ha!" moment had a little too much cheese for me. The moral was a little blatant. This isn't a huge glaring flaw - I still enjoyed the movie. It just felt a little contrived. I am by no means a film critic - these are entirely my own opinions.

However, overall, this was a fun movie - definitely one I would buy if it were five dollars at Target. I might go see it again in the dollar theater. I certainly want to see those breath-taking scenes of Paris again.

Book to Movie: Jane Eyre (2011)

I'm always a little worried when I go to a movie made from one of my favorite books, especially when it is a book I have finished recently. If I've put a bit of a time buffer, I am usually not quite so sensitive to the differences as long as they are not too noticeable. However, when they are too close together, I am forced to make comparisons.

Fortunately, with this film version of Jane Eyre, the comparisons were mainly favorable. The film was done by Focus Films, which also did the adaptation of Pride and Prejudice starring Keira Knightley. I know a lot of peopl

e did not enjoy that adaptation because "it left so many things out," but I thought it was exceptionally well done. I think one thing all readers forget when a beloved book comes to the screen is that what makes a good book does not always make a good movie. A director's challenge is to make adjustments so the translation will fit accessibly in a 2 hour time frame. Anyway, like the Focus version of P & P, the scenery and music were hauntingly beautiful. The atmosphere was spooky, giving a very Victorian feel to the film.

I also thought all the acting was excellent. Jane was plain but feisty, and it was delightful to see her as a character instead of just reading her thoughts. I also really enjoyed Jamie Bell as St. John Rivers - his intensity and arrogance were perfect for the character. And oh my goodness, Mr. Rochester... isn't he supposed to not be handsome? I am extremely partial to Mr. Rochester as a character anyway, and by the end of the movie I was obsessed.

There were two significant things left out of the film that made me sad, especially because I thought they were elements that could have transferred very well to film, although they would have made the movie longer, of course. These are spoilers for the film and book, so if you want it to be a surprise, don't read the rest of the paragraph. The gypsy scene, in which Mr. Rochester dresses up like a gypsy and questions all the females of his house, including Blanche Ingram and Jane, was missing. I thought this was the funniest part of the book and really shows Rochester's bizarre personality at its best, so I was very disappointed in missing that one. The other thing they left out was Bertha sneaking into Jane's room and ripping her veil in half. That had the potential to be so spooky, and according to my friend Erin it was a great scene in an earlier film adaptation. I was looking forward to that moment throughout the whole film, and was pretty disappointed when it didn't happen.

However, other than these two missing scenes that I was disappointed in not seeing, I thought Jane Eyre was very well done and a movie I would like to watch again. I also want to track down the other adaptation with the creepy veil scene, because I feel cheated of it in this adaptation. I'm going to close with a picture of Mr. Rochester. You're welcome.