Which is Better? The Maze Runner

Finally! This post series is back! The movie was on HBOGO for a while, but then was taken off, and now it was put back again! It was a double feature of this movie and Scorch Trials (which will be discussed in another post), and I was very much entertained by The Maze Runner.

I was very pleased with the adaptation of the novel. The Maze Runner was a straightforward YA dystopian novel where the end of the world happened, but it's a mystery through the eyes of a young protagonist. Usually YA have a female protagonist (the one) but this time it's a guy.

Who has the personality of a foot, but we'll continue on.

The characters are expertly cast with Thomas as the blandly handsome one who the audience is supposed to identify with and Mr. GOT and Love Actually as Newt. He has definitely 12 year old face but since they were looking for young actors, he suited the role. It took me a moment to recognize the actor for Alby (Sens8), but he did a really good job of playing "younger."

I thought the maze, the glade and and the Grievers were really well imagined. Dashner wrote vague enough so that the reader could imagine it in their own way, and the movie also rendered something that's not offensive. The maze is imposing and confusing with lots of foliage and dead ends, though I wish they kept in the parts where Thomas outruns the Griever and climbs up the vines, and then the Griever learns and follows him the second time.

Much of the book was condensed in the movie, but the major plot points were hit. It was even a bit suspenseful because even the movie altered some of the action scenes in the book to just major ones.  

I wonder if The Maze Runner would have been better as a TV show. I understand that it was a movie, but a lot of the personal relationships and the strengthening of these friendships fell by the side, so when that pivotal moment when Chuck jumps in front of Thomas and sacrifices his life for Tom, you don't really feel the awfulness that you do in the book. It would have been more emotionally wrecking to build up that connection to Alby, and him being ripped from the reader's hands two/thirds of the way through the book.

I really liked the way they characterized Gally. Someone who wants order and believes in how things have always been done, but isn't necessarily a bad person. 

Before I saw the movie, I couldn't imagine why, or how they would change the book for the movie, since it was pretty action packed and clearly visualized. Sure, there were some things that were changed and sped up, but overall, pretty good. 

Which is Better? Vampire Academy

I remember when the trailers for this movie came out, and rolling my eyes at it. I wasn't going to pay to see that movie, and it looked dumb anyway! Was it satire? Were they trying to appeal to twilight fans who desperately needed a fix of vampires? How is this movie a thing?

Vampire Academy came and went, and I thought no more of it until it showed up on my Netflix a few weeks ago. I was home alone, after a long day of work, and decided to indulge myself.

And you know? It was really entertaining.  I was sort of surprised it wasn't a bigger hit since there were a few comic book movies that were just as good as this one that did relatively ok at the box office. I googled, as we all do, on our phones when we want to know more about what we are watching, and I realized that it was a book (though the more I googled, the more I remembered that it was a series that I also rolled my eyes at when it came out) and that it was part of a series.

Were they going to make a sequel? I had to know.

Well, unfortunately, it bombed at the box office. The movie was funny, satirical and made exclusively for the teenage girl. AKA, the kiss of death. It's hard enough to market a movie that is satirical (isolating audiences, etc.) but one that was made for the teenage population? The teenage girl population, a part of the female population that the market never takes into consideration anyway? I'm surprised it was made at all.

It was heartbreaking the gofundme that was created to try and make the sequel failed. I hope it becomes a cult classic, like other movies that bombed at the box office,  and a sequel is made in the future, but since the fandom of teenage girls are often pushed to the side in favor of male nerdom, I'm not holding my breath.

So, as for the comparison of the movie and the book? The movie was great and it doesn't take away from the book at all and vice versa. I can see why the changes were made. For example, it's much more dramatic to have the cuts appear on Lissa's arm rather than her hurt herself after she tries to heal an animal or a person.

I also liked how the movie shot from the hip, much like the book, in telling the audience the world in which the book is written in. Within the first 20 minutes, you understand Dhampirs, Moroi, Strigoi and Guardians. You miss the other backstory, like the complicated relationships between Dhampir women and Moroi men along Dimitri's backstory that changes Rose's perception of "blood whores" but there was no way that could be fit into the movie.

There is more excitement and action in the movie with more appearances of Strigoi in the beginning, which was missing in the book. It didn't necessarily take away from the book that it wasn't in there, but it shows the differences of art and the interpretation of the story through different mediums.

However... Richelle Mead... what were you thinking with the title? I think the title, "Vampire Academy" was also the kiss of death when it came to the movie. It's just an awful title, and anyone who didn't know the book (like myself), would immediately write off the movie as some head of corporate who has no idea how to market to youngsters and was desperately trying to recreate the Harry Potter and Twilight craze. It might not have been your choice, but whoever had final say in the series title needs to be chastised severely. It might have been more successful if the title was different.

Anyway, I strongly recommend to go watch the movie if you have a night where you're in the mood for something funny and silly. It's cute, it's all about girl power and female friendship and there are vampires. What's not to like? Grab a glass of wine, watch it, and then go buy the book for some added fun.

Which is Better? The Red Dragon

Whereas Silence of the Lambs was a masterpiece and a movie that was so unexpected that it won a few Oscars, the movie Red Dragon unfortunately, a prequel shot 10 or so years after Silence of the Lambs, falls flat. Now, I am unsure if my opinion on the movie Red Dragon is the result of over saturation of all things Hannibal Lector or if I really was just underwhelmed with the movie in general, but I digress.

There are a few major problems with the movie.The first problem was the casting of Will Graham. In the book, Harris takes you through the downfall into madness of Graham and his relationship with Hannibal Lector. Lector isn't very involved in the book, but Graham, in looking at Francis, starts to lose his sense of self. In order to catch a serial killer, he has to think like one, and in the book, it just tears him apart. In the movie, Norton is just walking around like he owns the place and that he is not phased by what he has to do.  In the movie, Edwards Norton is a badass. He isn't overpowered by Francis at the end and he sort of regains his life after Francis is shot by Molly. His relationship with his wife and stepson falls apart in the book and alludes to a divorce.

The second major problem with the movie is that the book, is set before Silence of the Lambs, but the movie is made over 10 years later. Anthony Hopkins is noticeably older and my husband pointed out that Hopkins wore a girdle to keep himself trim. They recasted Crawford... and I get why they brought Hopkins back, but I think it would have been well served if they got a younger Hopkins look alike to play his younger self. In the movie, after watching Silence of the Lambs, he just looks ridiculous.

I really liked the backstory of Freddy Louds in the book. I was able to see his inner workings and how he was shafted for most of his life and just decided to take control of it. He was really valued at The Tattler, but everyone hated him in the journalists world. Throughout the book, he was a guy that knew that no one would look out for him but him, and he did what it took to be successful. All he wanted was to be a serious journalist with lots of money and it was very sad when The Dragon took him. In the movie, I didn't really didn't feel any sort of way for him. He was played by Phillip Seymour Hoffman, who does sarmy very well. There was never any sort of backstory to him other than skeevy gossip journalist.

In the movie, they alluded to his backstory and showed the time with his grandmother when he wet the bed when he was a child. What is lost in the movie is the time frame. This whole serial killer case was done in the 1970s, which makes Francis' low self-esteem and self loathing due to his cleft palate much more probable if the audience knew that he grew up in the 40s and 50s.

Reba's interpretation in the movie is mostly spot on. She's white with golden pageboy hair and she's blind. I liked her inner monologue in the book, but in the movie, you lose that. You feel for her because she genuinely likes Francis and he can't get past his own abuse (or really, into therapy) to be available for her. He is so far gone by the time he meets Reba. It's sad because The Dragon helps him be more confident and strong but also drives him to kill people and encourage him to kill Reba.

All in all, Red Dragon is better as a book than a movie. You get more material and the motives of characters which is lacking in the movie. It would have been better served to recast Lector just for the simple fact that Hopkins is noticeably older in a movie that was supposed to take place before Silence of the Lambs. The movie is entertaining, however, so if you want to just settle for watching something thrilling, then it's a good way to spend a few hours.

Which is Better? Silence of the Lambs

It was incredibly hard to review the book without also reviewing the movie, but I think I succeeded! Nevertheless, now it's on to see which is better, the book by Thomas Harris or the movie, that won a few oscars, including best picture.

Confession time: I watched the movie before I read the book (I've been doing that a lot lately....) but honestly, now that I've been a teacher and worked with students who have reading challenges, unless the adaptation blows (which sometimes it does), I don't think watching the movie before reading the book is a bad thing. Now, I think sometimes people don't want to read the book after they watch the movie because they've seen the movie so there is no point in reading the book which is bad! Unless the book blows (and sometimes it does), read the book too! 

Ok, now back to the Silence of the Lambs movie. First of all, I watched the show Hannibal with Mads Mikkelsen. I loved the casting for that show because Mads Mikkelsen has an other wordly persona and look to him. I knew he was a serial killer before it was revealed in the show (most audience members did), but he gave off that vibe that he was different from the others. That he was wearing a "person suit." Anthony Hopkins was a very different direction but I equally liked him. He's a great actor, and Anthony Hopkins' Hannibal is terrifying in a different way. He sort of looks like a Dad, or a therapist. He seems to blend in and melt away into the crowds, whereas Mads definitely stands out. No wonder so many people died with Hopkins as Hannibal. Eventually, I will go into what went wrong with the other movies and the show, but for now, Silence of Lambs deserves every one of those Oscars. 

Jody Foster as Clarice Starling is magnificent, but of course she's awesome. That's what makes her Jody Foster. She's understated, gritty and determined to prove herself. She brings more life to the character and even though I try to separate myself from the movies when I read, all I could think about when I was reading was her as Clarice Starling. 

What I liked about both Hopkins and Foster is that they brought more life to the story than the book itself. Not only was it acted well, the script and the direction of the movie makes it a masterpiece. The reveal of Buffalo Bill, the downfall of Chilton (who, to Harris' credit, creeped me out MORE in the book) and the cinematography just brings the story of Hannibal and Clarice together. Whereas the book does a lot of tell, instead of show, the movie does a great job of doing both showing and telling. They interject information into dialogue that the audience needs to know, but doesn't do it overtly where it makes me want to roll my eyes. 

It's very clear to why Silence of the Lambs Oscars. When I was telling a few friends that I watched Silence of the Lambs for the first time and then read the book, they all agreed that the movie was better than the book, and they also commented that type of film wouldn't have been nominated for an Oscar today. I'm not a huge film buff. I like movies and I have some knowledge of them, but I don't actively follow them or care about awards season. However, I can see how they could make the statement that Silence of the Lambs wouldn't have made a big dent in Oscar season. That type of movie now and days don't really get nominated for Oscars. 

Keep an eye out for the rest of my reviews on the Hannibal series and the movies. I did watch all the movies (besides for Manhunter) before reading the books for "Shock-tober." My husband states that the books get progressively worse as the series goes on, but that is to be determined! Stay tuned! Comment below if you disagree with my review of the movie or my opinion of the book! 

Silence of the Lambs by Thomas Harris

So, confession time. When I was growing up, I was terrified to watch Silence of the Lambs. I thought the poster looked terrifying, and I imagined that Hannibal Lector eating people in the most gruesome way. I had, (and still have) a very vivid imagination, especially when it comes to horror movies. Ghost movies? Haunted Houses movies? Totally out. Zombie movies? Dawn of the Dead terrified me for the longest time. The Ring? The Grudge? I can't even do it. Torture movies? SAW is seared into my brain forever.

Interestingly enough, my husband LOVES scary movies. He was a film major before switching to English (therefore, going into teaching) and took a class on scary movies. He enjoys watching them, but we never embarked on watching them together. 

Fast forward to this year. He and I both LOVE Halloween, and he has taken to call this month, "Shock-tober" (I know... you wonder how I snagged such a man). We also discussed what Halloween-y things we could do this month (that you know, don't cost a lot of money) and he suggested a few scary movies. 

And guys... I wasn't immediately, "Hell to the naw!" about it. I thought for a few seconds, and I realized that I should watch more scary movies. I'm older now, experienced more life and I'm not scared out of my mind so much anymore. So we discussed a few movies to watch, and the topic of Silence of the Lambs came up. Now, he and I watched the show together, and he stated that the movie wasn't completely scary and more of a thriller. He also suggested that I do a "Which is Better?" posts about all the movies and the books along with the show. That's what I'm going to do now! First I will review the books, and then the "Which is Better?" post will come out next for each book and each movie. 

After watching the movie, I went ahead and read the book. It's going to be really hard to not review the movie with the book, because well, the movie follows the book with a few minor absences that weren't really needed in the movie. It opens up to Clarice running through the FBI training grounds when she gets a notice to go see Jack Crawford. They begin discussing Buffalo Bill and Hannibal Lector, with Jack sending Clarice to go see Hannibal because he feels like she can get something out of him. Finally, Jack warns Clarice to not give up any personal information because Hannibal likes to amuse himself. A lesson that Jack learned with Will Graham. 

Harris' style of writing is very straightforward. He's a mystery and crime novelist and his mode of writing is very direct and to the point. At some points, especially during action scenes, I felt as if I was watching the fight happen, instead of experiencing it. When intense dialogue and conversations taking place, especially with Clarice and other characters, I felt like I wasn't experiencing her discovery and realizations. I was just sort of reading about it. Finally, I thought that some of Harris' descriptive language was a bit odd. There was one part of the story where he describes a female character who puts her hand on her vagina to hide while in the well. I can't speak for other women who are scared, but I felt as if Harris was sexualizing her? Why point out that she covered her vagina? I'm not sure what the purpose of that was. 

Harris also switches between perspectives jarringly and sometimes I would have to reread in order to figure out that the inner monologue of characters switched. I don't mind experiencing a shift in perspectives, but the transition wasn't smooth. 

Finally, even though I'm not a fan of crime novels, I thought it was an enjoyable read. After watching the show, I liked reading the novel that began it all. 

My husband's favorite book, which is my next book in the series (after I take a break from Hannibal Lector), is Red Dragon. He thinks that it's the best book of the series and even better than Silence of the Lambs. 

What do you all think? Stay tuned for Which is Better? Coming out in a few weeks! 

Which is Better? Girl with a Pearl Earring

Like the book, the beginning of the movie is cumbersome. At first I was really excited. The first scene shows Griet cutting vegetables and I thought they were going to shoot the firs scene right out of the beginning of the book. But then, she stops cutting vegetables, goes to her Dad, takes a tile that he made and then packs to leave her home. Her mother mentions something about staying away from the dirty Catholics, and then she's off to work as a maid for a richer family.

There is no explanation to why she had to go work for them unless you knew Dutch family structure and culture of the 1600s. The dad's blind, so there was no money coming in. Mom has to take care of Dad, so it's up to Griet to provide for her family.

You see Griet trying to get used to her new life but the viewer is waiting for the other foot to drop. The appearance of the master, Mr. Vermeer. ScarJo plays Griet as if she is already lusting after Vermeer, but they had not met yet. However, Colin Firth... did not disappoint.

And so... like the book, I didn't care about the characters until I actually did. It sort of snuck up me, how I suddenly was invested in the characters, waiting for the moment when Griet is actually painted.

The movie does a great job of building the tension between everyone in the household, not just between the master and Griet. I also loved how they showed the power deferential between Griet and Vermeer, and also between the wife and Vermeer.

I also loved how they showed Griet torn between the butcher's son and her love for the master as well. I also loved the different spin ScarJo put on Griet's situation. As if she knows that the Butcher's son is her only viable option, but she wants to fly close to the sun.

A noticeable difference between the book and the movie is the omission of characters. I felt like the other family members added to her backstory, and her drive to become a maid and work for her family. It also adds an element to why she begins a courtship with the butcher's son. He'll provide for her family, much more so than her wages as a maid.

I also thought it was very funny that the meeting with Griet and Vermeer didn't occur until 20 minutes into the movie. I felt like it didn't really have a beginning until they meet, and it should have been done immediately. It was the same deal with Cordelia, the devil daughter of Vermeer. However, they used her in the background in an interesting way for the rest of the movie. I thought that illustrated just how devious she was.

At first, I wasn't into the casting of the wife but she leaned into her role halfway through the movie and conveyed the petty but pretty wife written in the book. I wish they had done more with Tanneke and their complicated relationship. How they went from friends, to enemies, to acquaintances again.

The ending was off, with the giving of the pearl earrings. She is supposed to be several years older and she goes back to the master's house. The mistress gives her the pearls and Griet sells them but does nothing with the money. One of the points of the book that is drove home is her class and status, which is missed by the brief ending.

I think the movie, overall, is a great adaptation. Scarjo and Colin Firth are phenomenal as the main characters, and the other actors contribute a lot to the movie. I do feel like movies are limited on character development, and Pearl Earring definitely falls victim to that. Nevertheless, the movie is shot well and the sets were properly made, instead of CGI.

Which is Better? I feel like it's a draw. The book and the movie are great for different reasons. Read the book and watch the movie!

Do you have a different opinion? Respond below!

Princess of Mars v. John Carter of Mars. Which is better?

Princess of Mars is the first book out of the book series by Edgar Rice Burroughs titled John Carter of Mars. Confession time: I first watched the movie a few years ago with BAE, but the only thing I remembered about the movie was Tim Riggins, and green aliens. I already written a review of the book, here (enter link here). So if you haven't already, click on the link and read my hot takes.

BAE brought me the Blue Ray of John Carter of Mars. I didn't remember that Disney made the film. Interesting. Oh, It was only 4 dollars, which, I think, says a lot for how well the movie fared since it's released. However, the movie is still wrapped because BAE and I caught the movie on cable when we were down at the beach for the start of our spring break! Lucky us!

Side note: How do people with cable not eat themselves to death? The thing about just having Netflix (no advertisements), and Hulu (minimal advertisement) is that there is no bombardment of the same ads over and over telling the viewer to get Sonic because if they don't, they will be the saddest human being in the entire world. I had an urge for Sonic like no other after watching this movie.

Alright the movie John Carter has the same gist as the book. John Carter is transported to Mars where he is picked up by green men, know as Tarks. He is captured and taken back to the horde of green men. He meets a red woman by the name of Dejah Thoris, and the pair, along with Sola, a green woman, get into many adventures. However, that is where the movie and the book similarities end.

First off, John Carter in the movie is very different from the book. John Carter in the book is a "Gary Stu." He is attractive, honorable, smart, reliable and everyone freaking loves him. If they don't love him, well, they're dead within the next few chapters. John Carter in the movie is a royal fuckup. They keep his confederate soldier background and his desire to find gold, but he is also a drunk who is running away from his problems. John Carter in the book does not have a family, whereas in the movie he leaves his family to fight in the war, and comes home to the cabin burned to the ground with his family inside.

So, John Carter has demons in the movie. He also is commissioned to be a captain in the United States Army, and there are scenes where he escapes from the other soldiers only to be thrown in jail. He is snarky, rude and beholden to no one. He's shunned honor because of his family dying... I guess. Maybe also has something to do with the fact that his side lost the Civil War.

This leads me to the second big difference between the book and the movie. John Carter in the book is an honorable dude (to the point where John Carter can do no wrong) and throughout his adventures, seems to get out of every situation without sacrificing his honor. John Carter in the movie? This motherfucker cannot wait to get home. He gets to Mars, looks around, concludes a big "NOPE!" and tries throughout the movie to get home. He pulls Dejah and Sola into his plan to get home as well, which leads them onto separate adventures from the book.

The mention of Dejah Thoris leads me to the third big difference between the book and the movie. So in the book, Dejah is a thirst trap. When John lays eyes on her for the first time, she is literally naked, covered in metal and jewels. She is a Princess and is set to marry the Zodanga prince but for the most part, relies on both Sola and John Carter to ensure her safety. She kind of  sucks in the book.

In the movie, she is smart and though she still has to marry the prince of Zodanga to ensure the peace of Helium and Zoganda, she doesn't rely on anyone else to find a way out of it. Along with her education, she is a badass and fights alongside John Carter for most of the movie. Though there is initial attraction between them, Dejah finally helps him to get home, despite her desire for John to remain and fight for Helium, teaching his fighting and jumping skills to the other red men.

So the plot of the movie is much more complex than the book. John Carter in the books stumbles into a cave where it takes him to Mars. He navigates the culture of the Tharks, dazzling them with his jumping and fighting abilities and is all in when he meets Dejah Thoris. John Carter saving Dejah is the whole plot of the book with each chapter a separate mini adventure. The movie attempts to tie John Carter's adventures and take the focus off the Damsel in Distress by introducing the Therns. Bald men dressed in blue robes who have an amulet that transports them between planets. The Therns also introduced this blue lightening technology, the 9th ray to the Zodanga, Helium's enemy to destroy them. Dejah Thoris has to marry the Prince of Zodanga, but she is desperate to find a way out of it.

Enter John Carter. John Carter of the movies stumbles into the cave, gets attacked by this bald person, and then is transported to Mars. He is captured by the Tharks and meets Dejah after she escapes from the Prince to also be captured by the Tharks. The movie focuses on John desperate to get home with the antagonists as the Therns and their adventures trying to get there.

Finally, the ending of the movie. In Princess of Mars, John lives on Barsoom for 5 years with Dejah and they have a child together. However, Barsoom falls into crisis when the tower with the rays stop working when the final person running the tower dies. John remembers an encounter with the guy, and goes off to save Barsoom. However, as he gets there, he tells the sounds to the guard and falls unconscious. He wakes up on Earth again unsure if Barsoom survived.

In John Carter, John defeats the Therns but is unable to capture them. Dejah, free from her engagement, agrees to marry John. On their wedding night, John throws away the amulet he acquires from his fight with the Therns and begins walking back to Dejah when a Thern pops out, puts an amulet on John and takes him back to Earth.

So the verdict? Which is better, John Carter or Princess of Mars?

The movie is better.

Is it a ridiculous movie? Absolutely. Is it the greatest movie ever? No. Will I love Tim Riggins forever? Yes.

What skewed my decision was how they treated Dejah Thoris, and the attempt to weave the story together by using Therns. Dejah was a character in the movie and not a means to an end. They even attempted to give John a more flawed character instead of the superhero in the books. The Therns were an interesting take on the plot. I'm not sure if I liked them but it was a story telling tactic that got the movie moving.

Also, no mention of Apache Indians as "Braves" and not a peep of slaves worshiping John Carter. Dejah Thoris actually wore clothes and stood on her own. All good things in a movie.

Now I will read the next book in the series, John Carter. Here's to hoping there is less racism, sexism and white savior but I am not holding my breath.