Books-To-Movies: How I See Them (A Candidate For Worst Title Ever)

(I guess this is kinda an addendum to my Scott Pilgrim review. An additional bullet point, if you will. And you will. So, yeah.)

Being someone who read the complete series of graphic novels before seeing the movie, I had to wonder whether I would be able to follow along as easily had I not.

With a lot of adaptations (book, TV show, movie, etc.), I always find it helpful to have some kind of background knowledge at least to have a good understanding of what's going on. For example, the Harry Potter movies: even when they were first coming out, I knew that it would be best to read the book first to have a complete understanding. However, these movies are top-notch adaptations in that they cover the majority of the books (this is true for the earlier ones, at least). The first movie sets up the HP universe well-enough that someone who, for some weird reason or another, hasn't read the books could still completely understand what's going on.

However, having read the books first allowed me to have free reign to whine about the little things missing. I like having my permission to whine, thanks very much. This is what happens with a lot of movies based on books that I've read. Atonement is widely considered a good movie, but I read the book first. That book is mad dope, y'all. (What does that even mean?!) It was one of the best books I read last year. But the movie just couldn't compare. Instead of enjoying Saoirse Ronan's acting/existence (don't ask) like I should have been, I found myself glaring and saying, "NOPE, BOOK WAS BETTER!" or "THAT WASN'T IN THE BOOK" or whatever. And it was a generally faithful adaptation, too. But oftentimes having read the book first will affect your perception of the movie -- usually negatively.

The thing is, I don't like watching the movie first, especially if it's faithful to the book.. I don't like reading books where I already know everything that happens. I couldn't read Fight Club for this reason, even though I probably would have liked it. It just bored me out of my mind because I already know that Tyler Durden is part of the narrator. (Sorry if that's a spoiler for you. I just read a Shadow of the Colossus spoiler so I understand how upsetting they can be. T_T)

However, with something like Scott Pilgrim, or like Harry Potter, watching the movie is seeing your favorite characters come to life. And I guess everything I just wrote about is really irrelevant, because SP and HP are totally different. The Harry Potter movies, like I said, have really good exposition. Scott Pilgrim vs. the World? Eh.

I think with something as insane as SP, it would be hard to understand what's really going on. The story is very streamlined, and it's not too confusing. It's random and nonsensical, but for someone who hasn't read the comic but likes video games it won't be too implausible. Weird, but possible. The thing I worry about for the non-reader who watches this movie is they're going to have a warped perception of the comic books if they ever to choose to read them later. While having read the books first influenced my opinion of the movie (which you can find here), someone who doesn't know that Kim Pine is more than a misanthropic, cynical jerk with a gigantic stick up her butt might will get the impression that that's who she is. It's not the case. It upsets me. Very, very much. It makes me so sad, so very, very sad. Although apparently some moviegoers enjoyed her depiction. I guess it's their perceptions not matching mine that upsets me.

Also, not having read the comics first, I would be confused about why Envy was so important, I might think Ramona is boring, and maybe even sort of NICE, which is not the case at all, and I might think that Young Neil is more important and socially awkward than is really the case.

In short, not knowing the comics will make you not know the real story. Will the story that appears confuse you? Well, the reviews by people who didn't even know about the comic don't seem to talk about being so confused (although there are people saying "WHY DO THEY TURN INTO COINS WUTWUT"), it's more like they're saying they can't relate. That is something that's lost in the movie, too. As I said before in the review that I will pimp as many times as possible, no one receives real characterization besides Scott. Knives grows up a little bit, too, but aside from that it's all about Scott. It makes sense, since this is Scott's side of the story. But reading the comics, you come to love everyone. In this movie, unless you're one of those weirdos who finds Movie Kim likable, you won't want to root for anyone. That's the biggest loss.

That, and you're missing out on a really good series of graphic novels.

Sorry this was so rambly and nonsensical. What I really just want to know is, for people who did not read the comic books first, what did you think of the movie? Does it make you want to read the comic books now? Did you understand everything without trouble? 

The Things We Do When There's Nothing Else To Do

Today I watched two movies. Would you like to know what they are? Check either an emphatic "Yes!" or a slightly bored, "Sure, okay." Would you like to know what I thought about them? Your options are, once again, of enthusiastic or apathetic affirmation.

Basically, you're going to hear about them either way.

Copy-pasted from my Flixster page:

The Science of Sleep

My "review" (I gave it 3 stars out of 5):

I love Gael Garcia Bernal in this movie, and Charlotte Gainsbourg was surprisingly not at all annoying. But this movie just had no real plot to speak of. It plodded on, boringly, and nothing really HAPPENED. The imagery was sometimes cool, sometimes garish and painful to look at. The movie seems to ride too much on the visuals and too little on the story. There was some good dialogue, though, dialogue that I'm sure the 20-somethings will quote in all seriousness, saying, "YES I AM LIKE THESE CHARACTERS" when really, they are not. But while dialogue like that bothers me in most other movies, I find myself wanting to quote these things, too, because they are meaningful, even while they are trying to be.

Additional thoughts: About the dialogue thing. It's the same with another, much better, and more popular Michel Gondry movie, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. The plot of that movie is inherently easy to relate to for a young person, and there are so many conversations that the characters have that you can, and do, see said young people quote and apply to their own lives. However, these snippets aren't TRYING to sound clever or witty. They're not trying to sell posters. Gondry (well, Charlie Kaufman wrote that movie, but still) has a knack for selling the sometimes preposterous dialogue as realistic. These movies are not annoying.

Well, okay, actually, Science of Sleep is annoying at times. But it's good to know that it's not because of the dialogue. It's annoying because, as I said before, nothing really happens at all. People sing the praises of experimental films, saying a plot isn't necessary, and there doesn't have to be a character you like. The latter, I can concede, is true for the most part. But it's my personal opinion that a film is trying to tell you a story. There are a lot of films that convey emotion, but, to me, the best movie is the one that conveys emotion within in a story. This movie is just preoccupied with feelings, although I'm not so clear as to what those even are here! One quote I really like is from a review of the first Back to the Future by the BBC: "Every scene, every line works but then later you see how you were set up: nobody says anything that doesn't become important to the plot later. That should be terrible, but it's done so very well that it's a treat. It's undeniably formulaic but so outstandingly executed that it vindicates the formula." There shouldn't be completely pointless scenes, especially if said scenes are extremely boring like the ones in this movie. Every scene should have a purpose, even if that purpose isn't to drive the plot along.

Here's one crazy scene from the movie. I think it's emblematic of what it basically is:

The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo

 This review that I posted on my Flixster basically covers all of my opinions about this movie (I gave it 4 stars out of 5):

It cut out a lot of the stuff that I hated from the book, making the plot a lot tighter and easier to follow (for the most part). However, it also cut out a lot of Mikael's characterization and a lot of the stuff that I really liked from the book - namely, the stuff involving his magazine. My favorite characters in the book are Berger and the graphic designer whose name I can't remember, and Berger's subplot was completely ignored. It's really important, too, so what the heck? And the graphic designer wasn't even in the movie!

Since Mikael's backstory was ignored in favor of having more scenes with Lisbeth in them, it was really hard to pay attention to him. Luckily, Lisbeth carries the film. While I didn't personally imagine her to be as...intense as she was in this movie (in terms of how she looks, really), I do agree that the casting is pretty perfect. Also, Lisbeth is much less awkward and irritating. She's more talkative without losing the anti-social behavior that makes her who she is. I'd say that if they added at least SOME of the Millennium stuff, then I would have liked this movie WAY more than I liked the book. But as it stands, I'd say that I liked it a little more than the book. I definitely appreciated the fact that I didn't have to read this movie and face the horrible writing and drawn out descriptions. That helped.

Additional thoughts: More on the book, really. I make it sound like I absolutely HATED it. This isn't true. I actually really liked it! The writing wasn't that good, but I guess at the time I was just too used to reading all those fancy novels we read in school and such. This is more "popular" fiction, you know, like Dan Brown, Stephen King, Tom Clancy, etc. Also, I hadn't read a mystery novel in a long time, so I didn't remember what they "felt" like. But this movie reminded me of how interesting the plot was. Once again, that is most important to me: a good story. The book, and the movie, had a very good story. While the book decided to convey the story sometimes with "drawn out descriptions" (seriously: there was a WHOLE CHAPTER just dedicated to Mikael Blomkvist's day at the cafe! Ugh) it really did get the job done. The book did a way better job of letting you get to know the characters, as well.

So, that was my day. Notice that I am considering my day to be over when it's not even 2:30 yet! Such is the nature of the summer. *dramatic pose, then even more dramatic fall to the floor!* Excuse me...I feel so faint...I haven't yet had a cookie today...I should correct that situation at once!

Books Are Relevant, Too.

Today I finished a book. I love finishing books. I treat finishing a book the way other people treat getting a Trophy in a PS3 game, earning an Achievement on the 360. I love the feeling and it makes me want more.

So, here's my Goodreads-HTML-provided, very short review of the book I read today. I suggest you check the book out. It's excellent.

A Gate at the Stairs by Lorrie Moore

My rating: 5 of 5 stars


The negative reviews this book seems to be getting on this site both shock and sadden me. I loved this book from beginning to end. Maybe I'm more welcoming of "Lifetime movie adoption plots" and perhaps I'm too young to completely understand the toll that 9/11 did on the lives of -real- college students during that time period. But I loved this book, a lot.

View all my reviews >>

Buy A Gate to the Stairs here.

Thinking

 "He awoke each morning with the desire to do right, to be a good and meaningful person, to be, as simple as it sounded and as impossible as it actually was, happy. And during the course of each day his heart would descend from his chest into his stomach. By early afternoon he was overcome by the feeling that nothing was right, or nothing was right for him, and by the desire to be alone. By evening he was fulfilled: alone in the magnitude of his grief, alone in his aimless guilt, alone even in his loneliness. I am not sad, he would repeat to himself over and over, I am not sad. As if he might one day convince himself. Or fool himself. Or convince others--the only thing worse than being sad is for others to know that you are sad. I am not sad. I am not sad. Because his life had unlimited potential for happiness, insofar as it was an empty white room. He would fall asleep with his heart at the foot of his bed, like some domesticated animal that was no part of him at all. And each morning he would wake with it again in the cupboard of his rib cage, having become a little heavier, a little weaker, but still pumping. And by the mid-afternoon he was again overcome with the desire to be somewhere else, someone else, someone else somewhere else. I am not sad."

           --Jonathan Safran Foer, Everything is Illuminated

 Download: "Lonely" by the Middle East

I think that every person who has ever felt lonely should join together so that no one will ever feel lonely again.

"I like to see people reunited, I like to see people run to each other, I like the kissing and the crying, I like the impatience, the stories that the mouth can't tell fast enough, the ears that aren't big enough, the eyes that can't take in all of the change, I like the hugging, the bringing together, the end of missing someone."

--Jonathan Safran Foer, Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close

Download: "North by North" by Faded Paper Figures

(Yeah, I'm on a JSF kick today.)

Buy The Recordings of the Middle East here.

Buy Dynamo here.

(PLEASE) buy Everything is Illuminated here.

(PLEEEEEASE) buy Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close here.