Books vs. Movies : Part Trois

This week's Books vs. Movies showdown is between Lovely Bones, the book written by Alice Sebold and the movie adapted for the screen directed by Peter Jackson.

First on to the book, written in 2002 by an unknown, it became a hit and was an instant success staying on the New York Times bestseller list for over a year. The movie rights were purchased by Peter Jackson personally, so I thought that it would be well done but I was incorrect.

The girl that they got to play Susie Salmon was too beautiful. In the book, she is described as a plain girl and there is nothing plain about Saoirse Ronan at all. There were a couple things that were a bit over the top. Like the heaven sequence, and the fact that there was no transition; she just sort of walks away, and finds out that she's dead. That's not how the book has it. Other than that, the movie was alright. I will never get used to Mark Walberg playing a father, he seemed too young to be playing the father of teenagers. Everyone else seemed adequately casted, except the ones aforementioned. Don’t get me wrong, Saoirse is an amazing actress for her age, which is saying something because most of the teen actresses, such as Emma Roberts are quite awful. 

I didn’t really expect much, because of the fact that so far, the movie adaptations that I have seen that don’t have the author directly involved, with the exception of Chuck Palahniuk books’ movie adaptations, suck. They don’t stay true to the core of the book, because they are entirely unaware about that core. The interesting thing about the adaptation is that those who read the book were mostly on the fence about whether they liked it or not, and those who didn't read the book mostly loved it. But I think the movie will be forgotten, which is sad because Saoirse is such a phenom. 

The book wins this round, but check the movie out if you want. But don't say that I didn't warn you. 

Books vs. Movies: Part Deux

Recently I watched It's Kind of a Funny Story, which is a movie adaptation of an amazing book by Ned Vizzini, who is a phenomenal writer. This movie, starring Keir Gilchrist, Zach Galifianakis, and Emma Roberts, was overall a good movie. IMDB gives it a 7.2 out of 10. This movie, even though it was released in theatres, is very indie.
There are three reasons as to why I say that: 1) It's about a very taboo subject, teen depression and suicide, which a lot of films are afraid to address because it's not a happy subject and happy subjects make money, 2) a fifteen year old says the f-word, which is actually quite normal but in the movie world, it's not, because that word usually makes the movie rated R, but this movie got away with a PG-13 rating, and 3) it takes place in a hospital, just like Girl, Interrupted, this movie will gain a following, who will then read the book and decide that the book is better.
There was a lot of casting against type, like Zack Galifianakis, who plays Bobby. I think because of his work in the Hangovers and Due Date and most of the projects that he has attached his name to that this role wasn't one of his normal ones. Bobby isn't meant to be funny, but Zach does a good job of taking the role seriously, which is something that we have literally never seen before. Jim Gaffagan, who is again known for comedy, such as TBS comedy series,My Boys. To see him as a father who is wound up too tightly, is not very believable. As for Keir Gilchrist, he was a let down, everything that I had hoped for in Craig's performance was sad and mildly ridiculous. He seems fine in the United States of Tara, however, in this, I felt that literally anyone would have been better. I didn't like who played Noelle (Emma Roberts) because she's not a very good actress, but I see how they could want to have her name attached to the project, because she is relatively well known and her aunt is Julia Roberts. Nia was played by Zoe Kravitz, daughter of Lenny Kravitz. The dialogue was great because most of it was taken straight from the book, but the actors were lacking. It seems like in casting it was just about whoever would take the work. The only one that I was happy with was Bernard White, who played Muqtada, Craig's Egyptian roommate and he's not even really Egyptian, he's from Sri Lanka. Overall, there is no contest. The book is better, but there is a scene near the end in which Muqtada is present; I will not ruin it because it is near the end. However this is an okay movie and if you really want to watch something interesting, watch it. 

Books vs. Movies : Part One

Since it’s the beginning of the month, I would like to introduce a segment that I like to call Books vs. Movies. I do a lot of versus articles on here and something I hear a lot when a book is going to be made into a movie is that “they are going to mess it up”, and sometimes “they” do, but here is the arena where they duke it out and where I am the judge and you are the jury. 

We all know that Hollywood is pretty much fresh out of original ideas, so let’s talk about those adaptations and if you think of any that you want me to talk about, feel free to comment below. 

Percy Jackson and the Lightning Thief: 

Based on a children’s series called Percy Jackson and the Olympians by Rick Riordan, this movie confused audiences when it came out at the same time as Clash of the Titans, whose main character is also named Perseus. The confusion came over the fact that the fathers were different; in Clash, Perseus’ father is Zeus and in Lightning Thief, Perseus’s father is Poseidon. I don’t think people were aware that Lightning Thief was a work of fiction and that Clash of the Titans was meant to be an adaptation of an actual myth, however inaccurate it was. Nevertheless, the inconsistencies between the novel and the movie are not too great, however the little things have large consequences. Like the fact that in the first book, Percy is 12 and in the movie, he’s more along the lines of 16. I assume the reason why they did that is so that Percy could have a romantic interest in Athena’s daughter, Annabelle, which I think wasn’t necessary because the building of it through a series of movies, like for instance Hermione and Ron from the Harry Potter series, would have gone over better, in my opinion. The reason why I think the age change wasn’t a good idea is because there are five books and it’s a gradual progression of age, by the end of the series, he’s 17 and done with adolescence. By starting the series in movie form with Percy being older, it is going to be hard to make the rest of the books in the series without encountering the whole college thing. Besides that, the movie did a good job of portraying the particulars of the Greek mythology. When I read the books, and generally when I read books like this, I try to cast them in my head because a lot of books are becoming movies, like the Hunger Games. I think it was well cast. I was surprised by the choice of Pierce Brosnan as Chiron/ Mr. Brunner, though happy surprised. When it comes to being true to the words, sometimes there are things that you cannot do when converting to paper to film, but I believe that there was a great effort made and that should be acknowledged. 


However, only one can win. So I'm leaving it up to you. Leave in the comments below which you think is better. 

UK Television vs. US Remakes

I am a big fan of UK television so perhaps that makes me bias, but a number of US shows have been copied from the UK. The ones that are most popular, and the ones that you are most familiar with would be most notably, the new-ish MTV show Skins, NBC's the Office, and Showtime's Shameless. A few more that should be mentioned include Men Behaving Badly, both versions of it are really old (19 & 15, respectively.), Life on Mars, Top Gear, and Whose Line Is It Anyway. Check them out if you like.

Let's dig right in.

1. Starting in with Skins (US vs. UK): Since this series as been deemed the most controversial in a very long time, I have to wonder why there was no big uproar in the UK about it. Anyway, as far as the US series goes, it's an replica as the UK one except it is four seasons behind and doesn't have the same characters (the names are the most the same but there is no charisma.) There is nothing to make you care about them. There is one less person, because the producers decided to erase an entire character (the only black character, by the way). For example, Tony, who is a charming douchebag, is not charming at all. Just a douchebag and within ten minutes, you wonder why he has friends. Watching the pilots of both shows, I found that the US version was difficult to watch.
So who won?
Skins (UK). The UK version has more situational comedy than the US version, however I think the US version tried too hard to put that comedy out there. Another thing that is making the US version unpopular is the fact that it is on MTV; I realize that they were trying to reach a young audience, however that kind of content has to be on a network like HBO, Starz, or Showtime. Honestly I think that a US version should not have been pursued at all, because they didn't improve on anything; they hacked it to pieces.


2. The Office (US v. UK): A lot of people who watch the Office, starring Steve Carell, don't know that it was originally a British comedy, starring Ricky Gervais, who is starting to find his feet in the US, with shows on HBO like Talking Funny and The Ricky Gervais Show. Unlike other television shows stolen from the UK, The Office (U.S) has been the most successful, with over a hundred episodes, and unlike other shows, went on longer than its UK counterpart. I watched the pilot from both series and the dialogue (script) is practically the same, so either it's the actors that has made this series so successful or cultural differences in audiences.
So who won?
I'm going to say the US version and the reason why I say that, not just because of the fact that the The Office (U.K.) only had two seasons, but because the US version captured the essence of a lot of the characters. For example, the UK version didn't really gauge the reactions of the staff to David Brent, the Regional Manager, and there was no explanation for various people that showed up, like the man who picks up Dawn. I think that in the end that made a big difference.


3. Shameless (US v. UK): The new US version premiered on Showtime in January of 2009. According to Wikipedia, the Pilot was viewed by almost one million people, making it the most successful launch since 2003 with the cult hit, Dead Like Me. Watching the first two episodes of both series, I found some inconsistencies, but not the good kind. The UK version was released in 2004 and has just been picked up for a ninth season. It has been categorized as a comedy drama and is BAFTA-award winning television show.  
So who won?
The UK version is a little more believable when it comes to the possessions the kids have; for example, in the US version, Ian has an iPod color mini and the house is equipped with a large flat screen television. The US version has Emmy Rossum playing Fiona, the eldest sister, however, when comparing her performance to Fiona from the UK version, Anne-Marie Duff, she doesn't compare.

However, the reception of the US version of Shameless is great. From what I've heard, it's simply because of the accents. There are good aspects of both version, so I"m going to leave it to you. 

Visit http://www.sho.com/site/shameless/video.do for and youtube for the Shameless (UK). Tell me what you think in the comments below.