Book - The Lost Symbol by Dan Brown

Any talk about the Twilight books being "potato-chip literature" can now be thrown out the window. I can't remember if "The Da Vinci Code" was written this incredibly poorly, but let me assure you that there have been "Choose Your Own Adventure" books with more linguistic nuance than Brown's latest page-turner. That being said, "The Lost Symbol" takes the reader on a fun and exciting journey into the real-life world of American Freemasons and Noetic Science.

You don't watch the "National Treasure" movies for the method-acting, and you don't read Dan Brown to build your literary chops. You do it for fun! And while at the same time you might find your brain getting squishy from reading the phrase So-and-So "did a double-take" or "it's so obvious! How could we not have seen it before?" over and over again, or when you realize that that man has been described as "elegant" enough times that you have to assume he's actually a swan, the book actually does teach you a little about American History.



Another interesting note about this book... I can't help but wonder if Dan Brown is throwing a middle-finger at the production studios trying to turn this into another blockbuster movie. There are a lot of aspects to this thriller that will make it difficult to translate to screen. For one, we need to be shocked about the powerful members in our society who are actually Freemasons, and that's going to be hard to do in a short period of time without actually casting prominent political figures. There's also a weirdo death and resurrection scene and perhaps most difficult for a movie adaptation, one of the most exciting chase scenes takes place in absolute pitch-black darkness. 10 minutes of looking at a black screen might make for a strange cinematic experience... Read more!

Book - The Lovely Bones

Alice Sebold's debut novel was a huge best-seller a couple of years ago. Now more readers are looking at it with a more critical eye. Why? Because it doesn't really live up to the hype. The story is a bleak one: a 14 year old girl, Susie, is raped and murdered by her next-door neighbor. I'm not spoiling anything by telling you that, it happens in the first couple of pages. Susie then proceeds to heaven where she is able to look over her grieving family and have insight into their thoughts.

Don't be fooled: this is not a murder mystery. The story is not about the evil man getting caught and being brought to justice. Although Susie's father pursues finding the culprit, this novel is much more about how each member of the family deals with grief... and nothing really happens. They live troubled lives and suffer a bunch but nothing really progresses except time (the book spans about eight years).

Beyond the critiques of the narration "gimmick," due attention has been brought to the fact that the writing style is forced. There are some crazy similes, one of the worst being "Her pupils dilated, pulsing in and out like small, ferocious olives". THIS WOMAN wrote a hilarious and scathing review that is worth reading for other examples of the crazy language and just for a good laugh. However, whereas this woman would only recommend the book "to enemies" I would recommend it to anyone who can handle somewhat sappy stories. The book isn't all that long and the depiction of heaven is interesting and thought-provoking.

Even though this review is long enough already, it's still worth talking about the fact that this is going to soon be a major motion picture that has been cited as a possible Oscar contender. I have to say this is an incredibly ambitious endeavor. Let alone the fact that there is 14 year old getting raped and murdered at the get-go... half of the story takes place in heaven! There's also the fact that the story covers eight years (the younger brother ages from 4 - 12 years old)! It is also a book that depends greatly on the like-ability of multiple children and tweens (yikes! child actors!). And, without giving too much away, there is a bizarre, erotic, exorcism-type scene. So yea... should be good! I certainly want to trust Peter Jackson, however, this is also the director who decided it was okay to leave this as the final line of "King Kong": " 'Twas beauty killed the beast!" 'TWAS IT?! Read more!

Film - The Time Traveler's Wife

Although a classic case of "the book was better," (read my review of the book HERE) the film version of "The Time Traveler's Wife" is not completely without merit. I like Eric Bana and Rachel McAdams, and they are given a huge pass by getting to play much more watered-down and likable versions of Audrey Niffenegger's characters. However, their like-ability comes at the price of depth. And they are not the only elements of the book that are sanitized. In the book, Henry's injury is much more severe, Clare faces even more difficulties with her attempts at conceiving a baby, the overall language is borderline caustic, and the ending is.... different.

As for the time-traveling itself, without having read the book the movie's explanations of Henry's "Chrono-Displacement Disorder" might be a hard pill to swallow.

If you've read the book, this would be a nice supplement to your reading experience. If you haven't, no need to see this film.



Read more!

Film - Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince

I am really lucky. There is almost nothing that can get between me and my love for all things "Harry Potter." Before I saw the 6th movie in the series, I had heard the grumblings that "true" fans were pissed. However, when I heard the little "dah dee dah dah dee dah deeeee dahhhhh" I was not sitting with my arms crossed across my chest, waiting to be disappointed - I was squealing. And I left the theater with a big smile on my face, too. For a further discussion full of SPOILERS, click read more.



Would I love it if the movies were two-day-long page-by-page recitings of the novels? Of course! Did the movie over-emphasize the teen-romance aspects of the book? You betcha. Even with its over two-and-a-half running time, they left out a lot of incredible scenes describing the history of Voldemort and his ancestry and the Horcruxes (hello - the House of Gaunt, please!!) in favor of some serious hormones.

However - I am not without hope. After all, the seventh book is being made into two movies. Perhaps this sixth film is a bit of a place-holder, and our one last chance to really laugh and think like teenage students before we leave Hogwarts for the next two films and prepare for the final show-down. [There's a word for the funny song that comes up late in Act Two during musicals that brings levity to the trying times, but I can't remember what it is. Maybe it's just "comedic relief." ] So maybe the seventh movie will go back and address some of the more Horcruxy-elements of book six to help flesh-out the film.

I hope so.

But even if not, I'm still probably going to love that seventh movie. And the eighth, too. It's so much more fun to giggle than grumble and I love the Harry Potter Universe so much it'd take a real stinker to drag me down.

And just to touch on some other elements of Half-Blood real quick:

The Ginny and Harry kiss was not just majorly different from the book, it was also slightly problematic. Is Ginny going to be the one to remember the tiara in the Room of Requirement?

And Harry not being frozen for the final Dumbledore scene was a bit weird. Instead of being paralyzed they sort of established that he was trusting the "Shhh"-y Snape to take care of matters upstairs, and that seems like a stretch.

As far as the acting goes, Emily Watson's performance was LOADS better than her work on Pheonix. Daniel Radcliffe actually has real potential. Jim Broadbent and, as always, Alan Rickman were pretty great.

Were the changes too egregious for you to enjoy yourself? Who of the children actors will shape up to have a real acting career, after these films are finished? I want to know!
Read more!

Book v. Movie: Revolutionary Road

Without a doubt, we have a dark subject matter here.  A couple struggles to hold it together as they deal with the monotony of suburbia in the '50s and the stifling of the creative spirit.   They shout and threaten.  They denounce affection and cheat.  This is not a pleasant experience! 

The book was a triumph.  Although your stomach twists into knots while agonizing through the battles between the Wheelers, the writing is incredible.   Yates gives a voice to every character, switching up the narrative styles frequently to shed light on each of their natures.  

The movie falls short.  I felt like I was being thrown into fast-forward, as so much was being told too fast and so much was being left aside to make room for progress.  Kathy Bate's character was greatly cheapened in comparison to how she was presented in the novel.  Frank Wheeler (played by Leonardo DiCaprio) was not given the time to show his true insecurities.  April Wheeler's character was denied further understanding by being given some shoddy filler-dialogue created in a great departure from the book.  Why not use that time to have her reflect on her parents, who played a major role in the development of her essence (as Yates so powerfully illustrated)?   

Some people say that this film should have received more attention by the Academy.  Although I think the performances were well-done, the story didn't settle well.   If it was able to flesh out the stories of all the players a little more, perhaps it wouldn't have just felt like a gut-twisting downer, but more like a moving character piece. 

Read more!

Book v. Movie: The Reader

A movie adaption of a novel is a tricky thing.   Often times dialogue has to be created in order to make up for the lack of narration.  These lines are incredibly emotive and make character interactions much more dramatic than was necessary in the book.    Also, there is something to be said about actually being able to see the body language of a character and how that reveals more about their nature than can be done in a book.   

The film version of The Reader was very true to the story by Bernhard Schlink.  There was more emotive dialogue than was found in the novel, but again, it was necessary considering we could not hear the thoughts of the protagonist, Michael.   

Also, being able to see Hanna's facial expressions and body language directly, rather than just read the descriptions of Michael's memory, revealed more about her *true character* more quickly than in the novel.    

I asked my friend who had seen the film and had not read the book when she was able to detect elements of Hanna's character that had not been apparent to me until the end of the novel.  As I predicted, she understood certain plot points almost immediately.  It could be that I was just being oblivious! However, I'd like to think that had I not read the book, I too would have connected the dots early in the film.  Discovering Hanna's *true nature* later in the novel as an unexpected plot twist was much more fun for me.   Nevertheless, I enjoyed both the novel and the faithful film adaptation tremendously. 

Read more!

Book v. Movie: Benjamin Button

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button was originally a short story by F. Scott Fitzgerald. The version I read I was just 26 pages long, and I read it in the bathtub.  The story was prefaced with a review of the piece: a letter to the magazine that first published Fitzgerald's work.  The review was not-positive to say the least, and I have to agree with that writer that this story was not well-written.  It was choppy and non-sensical.  The idea of aging backwards is a fantasy, but the movie succeeded where the book failed in making it seem, not plausible, but embraceable as a miracle. 

In the book, the baby was born with the mind of an 80 year-old.  He wanted to wear suits and was unmoved by kindergarten activities.  As he aged he seemed to forget his life's experiences, and died with the brain of a child: a blank-slate.  

This defeats the entire purpose of tackling the common theory that "youth is wasted on the young."

The movie succeeds where the book fails on this front: Brad Pitt's character has a child's mind that goes along well with his aged body.  By the time he is a young man, he has learned important life lessons and can use his youthful energy and agility to his advantage by appreciating love and traveling the globe.  

The film featured the adoption of Benjamin Button by Taraji P. Hensen's character, and an interesting dynamic between a regretful father reaching out to his son overtime.   In the book there was no-such adoption, and the book focused rather on the unpleasant resentfulness the father felt toward his son, and eventually the resentment Benjamin's own son felt toward raising his baby-minded father.  I much preferred the movie version's take on this element, as well. 

One concept that I will give to the book is how they captured the mind of an infant.  As a new mother, reading such beautiful and haunting descriptions of how the child's mind works, embracing only colors and emotions rather than thoughts, was fascinating and not something the movie was able to illustrate.  

Read more!