So, like most books I've stumbled across in this blog, I nabbed Ender's Game by Olson Scott Card from the Independence School book closet last summer. I've heard about Ender's Game from many people over the years, praising the book as a must read for science fiction. Getting the opportunity to read the book (for free), I decided to take it on as a summer reading project. This was before I knew about Card's beliefs against homosexuality, gay rights and gay marriage, though I believe it was made more apparent as the countdown began with the movie's release.
The movie was released 2 years ago. My co-teacher and I assigned Ender's Game as an extra credit project for 10th grade English and we were both a little worried they would watch the movie and not read the book. Well, we didn't have to worry too much because none of them did it anyway!
I wanted to first start off with my impression and attitude toward the book, in spite of Card's strong advocacy against gay people, is that the book is insightful and thought provoking and is about the atrocities of war, and of young men fighting the old men war. Ender's journey is the hero's journey, with a twist (and a few prequels and sequels). I'm surprised by Card's stance on homosexuality and gay marriage because Ender's Game seems to be a book about inclusiveness and misunderstandings. Upon reading many reviews and articles about Card, he has also turned into a conspiracy theorist (though he's not a racist, which... I guess is good? Why a social justice warrior for one cause and not all others?)
Now, onto the movie. I will say, the movie does a good job of adapting 1st person perspective. I felt like the movie does really good highlights of what the book was about and touches on the main points without sacrificing much of the story. The viewer understands his loneliness and isolation through scenes with other characters and how they treat him. The viewer gets how smart he is through his actions, and the movie does a pretty good job of showing, not telling, the society and the desperation they all feel to defeat the aliens. They show highlights of his journey through battle school and command school, up to his final war game with the Formics and his friends.
Whereas I believed most of the actors in the movie, (Harrison Ford just seems to be collecting a paycheck, I feel) and I felt like Ender could really kick anyone's ass who crossed him, I felt like there was a lot missing from the movie. I'm not sure how it would have been remedied, but though there were scenes where you see Ender be sensitive and empathic with strong ties to his sister, I felt like the final impact of realizing that the Formics couldn't orally communicate didn't really come across. It happened in the book through the game and through his exploration of the game, which was lost in the movie.
I also understand there was a big difference in technology between when the book was written and when the movie was filmed. When I read the book, I envision the kids playing video games and playing the war games in a literal video game (like N64). In the movie, though some of them seemed to be using consols and sitting at like arcade games, Ender was looking a full size screen which looked like a legit camera to zoom in on the actual fighting. To me, it didn't seem like there was much of a separation there between the game and the actual fighting.
Even though the movie wasn't bad and I enjoyed watching it (there was a great cast assembled, Harrison Ford included), I feel like reading the book adds more dimensions to politics and war that is not seen in the movie. The movie also left out the political side of the book, which is an another part to war with Valentina and Peter, Ender's siblings.
Showing posts with label movies. Show all posts
Showing posts with label movies. Show all posts
Tuesday, August 18, 2015
Tuesday, July 14, 2015
Which is better? Book Thief
I read The Book Thief last year. I don't remember how I acquired the book but I remembered that it was a great, big deal. I think BAE got me a copy of the book from Perry Hall? Or was it from the Independence's book closet? Anyway, I read the book last summer and a few days ago, I finally got around to watching the movie.
Man, oh man, I liked both the book and the movie. However, goodreads reviews always makes me second guess myself. Some of the reviews aligned with my opinions on the book, was that it was very good, albeit, dense. However, some of the reviews rip the book apart, which makes me think, 'oh, do I not have good taste? Am I not critical enough of books?'
But you know what? Sometimes we read for entertainment. Not every book we read has to enhance our lives for the better, or make us think of how to improve the world. Also, we don't have to constantly criticize whether the book will move the world or whether it makes the reader aware of what is out there. When people put themselves under that kind of pressure to change themselves or to change their universe, not only are they burned out, but nothing ever gets done. You don't change your life because every little thing you could change isn't enough... and if you want to improve the world, every little thing you do is also not good enough.
Anyway, I liked the book. I was confused in the beginning with the character of Death and the omniscient 3rd person perspective. Or was it 1st person when he was speaking? I honestly don't remember and I gave the book back wherever I borrowed it from. The Book Thief is marketed as a young adult book, but honestly... I don't see how. It's a dense book with colorful prose and a plethora of metaphors and other literary devices, some quite sophisticated. If it is, then I'm not sharp of a reader I perceived myself to be!
Back to "The Book Thief" movie. Like I said before, I liked both the book and the movie, and the movie goes well as a companion to the book. What I noticed about the movie was that they took scenes and events from the book and lifted them off the page. The introduction with Death and the death of her younger brother is exactly how I pictured it. She picks up The Grave Digger Handbook and starts her journey as a book stealer.
The movie was very well casted. They chose superb actors and actresses as well as the children to play Liesel and Rudy. Geoffrey Rush and Emily Watson's performances as Hans and Rosa actually gave context to how much Liesel meant to them in the book. In the book, Hans was very reserved and his love for his foster daughter came out in very subtle ways which needed to be translated for the screen. Rosa was a very difficult character to play and she nailed it. Everyone's on screen chemistry was excellent.
Now, the downsides to The Book Thief movie. The character of Death, which starts off as a narrator but turns into more of a character as the book goes on, is lost in the movie. His monologues are cut down to practically one liners. He has stirring lines at the end of the movie as he wraps up Liesel's story, but he doesn't really amount to anything other than a narrator.
The Book Thief book is also much more complex (which is why I'm still befuddled to why it's considered young adult) with much more events occurring in Nazi Germany with Liesel and Rudy, Max, the Hubermanns, Nazis and the Steiners. I completely missed that the father enlisted so that Rudy didn't have to be part of the Nazi Youth leadership because it seemed to be a 5 second scene. The movie alluded that Hans was not in favor of the Nazis, but the book really goes into Hans history and then how his actions lead to him getting drafted. There were also many other characters in the book that the movie did not cast, which characterized Nazi Germany as much more multifaceted than it did in the movie.
The movie largely focused on Liesel's story, but in the book there was Rudy's story, the Steiners, Max, the Hubermanns, and the mayor and his wife and through those stories showed the spectrum of living under a tyrannical government.
Overall, I highly recommend reading the book and watching the movie. They are both great stand alones, and one doesn't have to choose to either read or watch. I would recommend that students who read the book should also watch the movie in order to better understand the plot and Nazi era Germany. I agree with most of what the movie cut and adapted the premise of the book wonderfully.
Man, oh man, I liked both the book and the movie. However, goodreads reviews always makes me second guess myself. Some of the reviews aligned with my opinions on the book, was that it was very good, albeit, dense. However, some of the reviews rip the book apart, which makes me think, 'oh, do I not have good taste? Am I not critical enough of books?'
But you know what? Sometimes we read for entertainment. Not every book we read has to enhance our lives for the better, or make us think of how to improve the world. Also, we don't have to constantly criticize whether the book will move the world or whether it makes the reader aware of what is out there. When people put themselves under that kind of pressure to change themselves or to change their universe, not only are they burned out, but nothing ever gets done. You don't change your life because every little thing you could change isn't enough... and if you want to improve the world, every little thing you do is also not good enough.
Anyway, I liked the book. I was confused in the beginning with the character of Death and the omniscient 3rd person perspective. Or was it 1st person when he was speaking? I honestly don't remember and I gave the book back wherever I borrowed it from. The Book Thief is marketed as a young adult book, but honestly... I don't see how. It's a dense book with colorful prose and a plethora of metaphors and other literary devices, some quite sophisticated. If it is, then I'm not sharp of a reader I perceived myself to be!
Back to "The Book Thief" movie. Like I said before, I liked both the book and the movie, and the movie goes well as a companion to the book. What I noticed about the movie was that they took scenes and events from the book and lifted them off the page. The introduction with Death and the death of her younger brother is exactly how I pictured it. She picks up The Grave Digger Handbook and starts her journey as a book stealer.
The movie was very well casted. They chose superb actors and actresses as well as the children to play Liesel and Rudy. Geoffrey Rush and Emily Watson's performances as Hans and Rosa actually gave context to how much Liesel meant to them in the book. In the book, Hans was very reserved and his love for his foster daughter came out in very subtle ways which needed to be translated for the screen. Rosa was a very difficult character to play and she nailed it. Everyone's on screen chemistry was excellent.
Now, the downsides to The Book Thief movie. The character of Death, which starts off as a narrator but turns into more of a character as the book goes on, is lost in the movie. His monologues are cut down to practically one liners. He has stirring lines at the end of the movie as he wraps up Liesel's story, but he doesn't really amount to anything other than a narrator.
The Book Thief book is also much more complex (which is why I'm still befuddled to why it's considered young adult) with much more events occurring in Nazi Germany with Liesel and Rudy, Max, the Hubermanns, Nazis and the Steiners. I completely missed that the father enlisted so that Rudy didn't have to be part of the Nazi Youth leadership because it seemed to be a 5 second scene. The movie alluded that Hans was not in favor of the Nazis, but the book really goes into Hans history and then how his actions lead to him getting drafted. There were also many other characters in the book that the movie did not cast, which characterized Nazi Germany as much more multifaceted than it did in the movie.
The movie largely focused on Liesel's story, but in the book there was Rudy's story, the Steiners, Max, the Hubermanns, and the mayor and his wife and through those stories showed the spectrum of living under a tyrannical government.
Overall, I highly recommend reading the book and watching the movie. They are both great stand alones, and one doesn't have to choose to either read or watch. I would recommend that students who read the book should also watch the movie in order to better understand the plot and Nazi era Germany. I agree with most of what the movie cut and adapted the premise of the book wonderfully.
Tuesday, June 30, 2015
Which is better? Queen of the Damned
Interview with the Vampire, The Vampire Lestat and The Queen of the Damned, without a doubt, are Anne Rice's best work. Despite being completely different books, Interview, Vampire and Damned are eloquently written, bringing to life Rice's vampires and the lore surrounding vampirism. Though the series does not open up with Lestat, the "Brat Prince" clearly steals the show in the next two books. However, he does not overshadow Rice's supporting characters and adversaries. The reader isn't bothered to read about others besides Lestat, but when he comes back into the picture, they are overjoyed.
"Queen of the Damned" movie starring Stuart Townsend, Marguerite Moreau and R.I.P, Aaliyah, however, doesn't hold a candle up to the books. I can handle campy, low budget movies (and this movie was defo LOW budget), but this movie does a disservice to the books.
Side note: Stuart Townsend must have the most tragic film career. He turned down the role of Aragorn in "Lord of the Rings" to play Dorian Grey in "League of Extraordinary Gentleman." He used to date, maybe even be married, to Charlize Theron, who is now the biggest superstar in the world. According to google, he has a secret family in Costa Rica. Oh, Stuart, what are you doing, man?
I watched "Queen of the Damned" with my writing partner in crime, Ashley. Now, I read the books, I know what is supposed to happen, and who are all the characters, but it's a bad sign when someone who hasn't read the books turned to you during the movie to ask for clarification. She watched the movie before, so even now, after watching the movie the second time, she still has questions!
"Queen of the Damned" movie adapted two books, The Vampire Lestat and The Queen of the Damned and meshed it into one movie. Ok, I would argue it's very hard to do something like that, but it can be done. What they did next, never the less, was water it down to the point where characters were making choices that had no basis in logic or reason just to move the story along. The movie also took a crap load of characters out of the book and focused on Jesse, who is a character in the book, but minor at best. So in order to go step by step in what the movie missed, I'm going to go by the characters.
Lestat: What made The Vampire Lestat and The Queen of the Damned so compelling was the first person point of view of the antagonist from Interview with the Vampire. Lestat is "the brat prince" but is torn between his own selfishness, his love of immortality, but also, what it means for his existence in a place that was not meant for him. In order to find other vampires, namely, 'Those who Must be Kept', he decides he will become a rock star. He is self-destructive but curious to meet the original vampires. It is very clear in the books what motivates Lestat. Lestat in the movie, you don't quite get where he's going. There are a few monologues but I found them to be lacking. To be honest, I just saw the movie a few nights ago, and I have no idea what they were about. Townsend does OK as Lestat, but he has some big shoes to fill with Tom Cruise as the original Lestat (wow, I can't believe Scientologist Tom Cruise actually played Lestat and did a great job of it). Also, Lestat is supposed to be blond. This fact is mentioned several times in the books and also, one of the reasons why he was made a vampire to begin with. COULDN'T TOWNSEND HAVE WORN A WIG?
Maharet: Alright, not only does the movie chopped the twins in half, they also make Maharet, who is one bad ass bitch in the books, play second fiddle to Jesse, who I will discuss later. You see her briefly looking at a literal family tree (uh... ok, script writers, we get it, there is a great family), telling Jesse to "stay with her own kind" and then you see none of her until the end where Lestat is about to play at the concert. At the end she defeats Akasha but you don't know why, or how... and then they turn her into stone. Literal stone. "Those Who Must be Kept" aren't literally stone... which is also a point that is driven home by Rice several times in the book. Rice's vampires don't turn to stone. If they had gone into her backstory with her twin, Mekare and the start of vampirism, the whole 'last blood' deal would have made far more sense... and they wouldn't have had to turn Maharet into stone. It would have also clarified the conflict between the vampires and Akasha. Mekare is also such a cool character and what happened to them would have underlined what a terrible Queen Akasha is.
Marius: Alright, so Marius is very eye-roll-y in the books as well. He's like a super old vampire who is very angsty (like Louie on steroids) and reallllly likes young boys. There is this whole backstory with Armand, but I digress. I'm not sure if they knew what to do with the character of Marius in the movie, because his character is all over the place. One minute he's super serious, and then he's super silly. Marius, like all of Rice's vampires, is supposed to be gorgeous. Marius, at best in the movie, is OK. He's not terrible looking, but he does have a 5 head that he needs to fix. It would have helped the story immensely if they capitalized on the complex and ultimately treasonous relationship he has with 'Those Who Must be Kept' and Lestat. Though Marius protected the stoned original vampires for centuries without ever a thank you, Akasha gives Lestat her blood within a few days of Lestat staying with Marius. When Akasha awakes, she almost kills Marius when she destroys his home without a second thought.
Akasha: I'm sad that the singer's life was cut short. I never really understood the hype surrounding Aaliyah's death (recording studios had memorials about her and her face on tee-shirts and stuff for YEARS) since she only had a few hit songs and acted in 2 films, but after actually seeing her in this movie, Aaliyah had so much potential. When she was on screen, she outshined her cast mates, even Townsend. At one point in the movie, Ashley turned to me and stated, 'Now, I believe she's a vampire.' Now, in the books, she is a force to be reckoned with and her master plan is truly diabolical. If the movie showed more of what she could do and even revealed her plan of destroying vampire kind and mankind in order for women to worship her, then the drive for the vampires to destroy her would have made a ton more sense.
David Talbot: I have to keep reminding myself that he doesn't become a bigger character until later on in the Vampire Chronicles. That being said, I'm so disappointed with their casting choice. He is an old man. He lived a full life in the Talamasca and when Lestat and David start their relationship later on, this theme is poignant. They casted a man who's clearly in his 40s who then tells Jesse that he's 'too old' to be a vampire. Sigh. Then at the end, they have Marius go to him? Why? Is Marius going to turn David or eat him? Weird.
Jesse Reeves: It's very clear who Jesse is meant to represent in the movie. She is meant to represent the viewer, who is entranced by the vampire world and of Lestat. Now, it's important to note that here, Ashley also asked the question, 'wait, why is Jesse obsessed with Lestat?' We could argue that she's obsessed with Lestat just like everyone else is; he's a beautiful rock star vampire. However, in the books, this is not so. Jesse is a minor character at best, who helps the others track down Lestat and defeat Akasha. She is the point of reference for Maharet and Mekare and really, Jesse is the focus of the family that Maharet followed for generations. However, the viewer gets none of that in the movie. At one point, another vampire mentions that Akasha wants to destroy Maharet's "great family" but that's where it's left off. There is much more to why Maharet and Akasha are at odds with each other, which again, if the movie added that to the plot, would have made more sense to why they all want to kill Akasha.
Talamasca: This organization appears in several Anne Rice books, with the Mayfair Witches, the cross over books and the Vampire Chronicles. I'm happy that they used it, and had David and Jesse apart of it. I think the Talamasca organization is so cool. Maybe Anne Rice would just write a book or two about their adventures? I have no qualms with how the movie depicted the organization. I'm delighted it was even mentioned at all.
"Interview with the Vampire" is such a good movie, with a top notch cast. "Queen of the Damned," it's sequel, is a joke. From the horrible casting (besides for a few noted actors, Aaliyah included) and the absolutely shot-y script that takes 2 books, and gutted both of them to come up with a watered down movie that makes no sense, the movie isn't even good to watch ironically. Even though Aaliyah's charisma and enthusiasm is shines through, it's a shame that this movie was dedicated to her.
Marius: Alright, so Marius is very eye-roll-y in the books as well. He's like a super old vampire who is very angsty (like Louie on steroids) and reallllly likes young boys. There is this whole backstory with Armand, but I digress. I'm not sure if they knew what to do with the character of Marius in the movie, because his character is all over the place. One minute he's super serious, and then he's super silly. Marius, like all of Rice's vampires, is supposed to be gorgeous. Marius, at best in the movie, is OK. He's not terrible looking, but he does have a 5 head that he needs to fix. It would have helped the story immensely if they capitalized on the complex and ultimately treasonous relationship he has with 'Those Who Must be Kept' and Lestat. Though Marius protected the stoned original vampires for centuries without ever a thank you, Akasha gives Lestat her blood within a few days of Lestat staying with Marius. When Akasha awakes, she almost kills Marius when she destroys his home without a second thought.
Akasha: I'm sad that the singer's life was cut short. I never really understood the hype surrounding Aaliyah's death (recording studios had memorials about her and her face on tee-shirts and stuff for YEARS) since she only had a few hit songs and acted in 2 films, but after actually seeing her in this movie, Aaliyah had so much potential. When she was on screen, she outshined her cast mates, even Townsend. At one point in the movie, Ashley turned to me and stated, 'Now, I believe she's a vampire.' Now, in the books, she is a force to be reckoned with and her master plan is truly diabolical. If the movie showed more of what she could do and even revealed her plan of destroying vampire kind and mankind in order for women to worship her, then the drive for the vampires to destroy her would have made a ton more sense.
David Talbot: I have to keep reminding myself that he doesn't become a bigger character until later on in the Vampire Chronicles. That being said, I'm so disappointed with their casting choice. He is an old man. He lived a full life in the Talamasca and when Lestat and David start their relationship later on, this theme is poignant. They casted a man who's clearly in his 40s who then tells Jesse that he's 'too old' to be a vampire. Sigh. Then at the end, they have Marius go to him? Why? Is Marius going to turn David or eat him? Weird.
Jesse Reeves: It's very clear who Jesse is meant to represent in the movie. She is meant to represent the viewer, who is entranced by the vampire world and of Lestat. Now, it's important to note that here, Ashley also asked the question, 'wait, why is Jesse obsessed with Lestat?' We could argue that she's obsessed with Lestat just like everyone else is; he's a beautiful rock star vampire. However, in the books, this is not so. Jesse is a minor character at best, who helps the others track down Lestat and defeat Akasha. She is the point of reference for Maharet and Mekare and really, Jesse is the focus of the family that Maharet followed for generations. However, the viewer gets none of that in the movie. At one point, another vampire mentions that Akasha wants to destroy Maharet's "great family" but that's where it's left off. There is much more to why Maharet and Akasha are at odds with each other, which again, if the movie added that to the plot, would have made more sense to why they all want to kill Akasha.
Talamasca: This organization appears in several Anne Rice books, with the Mayfair Witches, the cross over books and the Vampire Chronicles. I'm happy that they used it, and had David and Jesse apart of it. I think the Talamasca organization is so cool. Maybe Anne Rice would just write a book or two about their adventures? I have no qualms with how the movie depicted the organization. I'm delighted it was even mentioned at all.
"Interview with the Vampire" is such a good movie, with a top notch cast. "Queen of the Damned," it's sequel, is a joke. From the horrible casting (besides for a few noted actors, Aaliyah included) and the absolutely shot-y script that takes 2 books, and gutted both of them to come up with a watered down movie that makes no sense, the movie isn't even good to watch ironically. Even though Aaliyah's charisma and enthusiasm is shines through, it's a shame that this movie was dedicated to her.
Townsend... what are you doing, Man?!
Tuesday, April 28, 2015
New post series: Which is better?
I came up with this idea when I chose to read the "John Carter of Mars" series when I remembered that I watched the movie with BAE a year or two ago when they were trying to make Tim Riggins a big star.
Poor Tim Riggins. So cute and endearing but... maybe not so much a huge action star. If it was a better everything, I would have supported him as Gambit. But alas, that movie was such a disappointment...
ANYWAY.
Right now, I am posting 2 reviews a week on books. I am an avid reader, but eventually, I think the posts are going to catch up with me. To even out my reviews, I am going to write reviews on books that have been made into movies (and there are a lot of them out there). I am also going to answer the question, which is better, the book or the movie?
Some of them will be no brainers, but I suspect that there will be some hot takes!
What movies and/or books should I start with? Comment below!
Poor Tim Riggins. So cute and endearing but... maybe not so much a huge action star. If it was a better everything, I would have supported him as Gambit. But alas, that movie was such a disappointment...
ANYWAY.
Right now, I am posting 2 reviews a week on books. I am an avid reader, but eventually, I think the posts are going to catch up with me. To even out my reviews, I am going to write reviews on books that have been made into movies (and there are a lot of them out there). I am also going to answer the question, which is better, the book or the movie?
Some of them will be no brainers, but I suspect that there will be some hot takes!
What movies and/or books should I start with? Comment below!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)