December Movies

Lots of movies come out in December, and with winter break coming up, you'll have plent of time to enjoy them. Here's my top 5 to watch.

Krampus- the premise is this: No one on Santa’s list is good this year, everyone is too wrapped up in the commercialized version Christmas. So, instead of getting presents under your tree, you’ll get Krampus. Santa’s demon helper sent to punish those that don’t have the proper Christmas Spirit. While this is probably just  a ploy to get people to come watch the movie and have a laugh at the ridiculousness, i’m okay with it. I will definitely be watching this christmas horror movie.

The Ridiculous 6- This Netflix original movie and comedy tells the story of six wild west outlaws who share one thing in common. Their father. When this minor detail is found out, they must band together to find him. With a mostly diverse cast of actors and comedians (and actual Native Americans playing Native Americans) this movie appears to be a funny western that I’m definitely making time to watch.

Star Wars episode VII: The Force Awakens- The latest Star Wars sequel promises to be a nostalgic galactic adventure for all ages. While the actual plot has me a little hesitant ( it appears to be just Darth Vader II) the cast and characters have me excited, as well as the classic Star Wars tech and aesthetic. I’ll probably be watching it Christmas day with my dad and brother, and am super excited.

The Hateful Eight- While this western’s name is unfortunate (I originally thought it was just The Ridiculous 6 part II) you shouldn’t dismiss it. With director Quentin Tarantino and lead Samuel L Jackson, this is an automatic can’t miss movie. When a hangman takes a 10,000 dollar prisoner to her execution across the state, a bounty hunter-and five others- conspire to keep her alive long enough to collect, and kill their untrustworthy companions. A story asking for a plot twist or two, I will definitely watch this movie.

Sisters- This comedy starring the inseparable Amy Poehler and Tina Fey is the story of two middle aged sisters throwing a party at their childhood home. And watching it turn into a disaster zone. With lots of cameos by celebrities like John Cena, expect this movie to be a hilarious story of self discovery.  

Mockingjay (part II) Suzanne Collins

*I’ll give a spoiler warning here, since the movie is still in theaters*

The last part of the last book in the Hunger Games series, Mockingjay part 2 was a highly anticipated movie, and came out just this past November.

Honestly, I feel that while this movie included more than I expected, it didn’t include as much as I hoped (including one of my favorite parts of the books). It had the scenes from in District 2 at the mountain, where Prim’s death is... foreshadowed? Explained? I don’t know if that’s what it was, but it did allow us to understand that District 13 was in possession of the bombs that killed her. The whole movie made you hate Coin a lot more than in the books. I’m a little torn about that. It made her death a lot more obvious, you knew watching that Katniss wasn’t going allow Coin to be in charge from the beginning. In the book, you knew that Coin wasn’t a good person, but her death was still a surprise. And you’re in Katniss’ head. That may be why they made the reasons for Coin’s assassination so obvious, so it wasn’t so surprising... I don't know. The scene was beautiful though, and the shot of coin in gray with blood dripping down the steps, while morbid, was so well done.

The love triangle wasn’t done as well as in the books, but it was still pretty good. Because you can’t read Katniss’ mind in the movie, you have to read the books to really understand why Katniss married Peeta. When Gale told Peeta that Katniss would choose whichever of them she could not survive without, Katniss had thought to herself that she could survive without both. She chose Peeta not because the alternative was the guy that killed her sister, but because Peeta balanced her. And she wanted that. The movie’s inclusion of the love triangle was weird too, like the writers forgot it was even a thing until halfway into the movie. It was unclear whether Katniss and Gale were friends, “dating”, or whatever, so Peeta entering the picture led to more ‘I have no idea what's going on’ rather than the intended ‘I wonder who she will choose’ thoughts.

Prim’s death (and the aftermath) was also interesting. The movie made it clear that Snow had already given up when the bombs came, but in the book he was using the children as human shields. He did not kill them, but thought District 13 wouldn’t kill them either. He wasn’t quite ready to surrender. Katniss’ reaction to Prim’s death was a let down, too. Katniss was scarred mentally and physically, while in the movie she gets out with barely a scratch. She has a break down briefly after she gets back to District 13, but she’s just cold otherwise. Where is the depression? Her refusal to speak? Her scars where the skin grafts from her 3rd degree burns meet her skin? The same goes for after she killed Coin. She was in jail a lot longer than the three hours in the movie. She tried to kill herself. Actually, from the beginning of the book Katniss is almost always on some kind of psychological meds to help her heal from the games and the losses she experienced. The ignoring of her mental illness was incredibly disappointing.

One thing I always forget about the Hunger Games, is just how gorey they are. In the lizard scene in the sewers, there are other pods getting activated while Star Squad flees for their lives. A huge meat grinder that tries to swallow them up (and succeeds with one) and an alien abduction type beam of light that paralyzes and melts the flesh off anyone captured within it’s trap are the some of the worst. While I understand the movie is trying for a pg-13 rating, I would have liked a little more of that (and the trauma it inflicts) to have made it to the big screen.

So, great movie, but overall it could have shown more of the mental and physical effects of war, and found ways to allow insight into the love triangle and kept it more cohesive with the main plot.

Maleficent

A fairly popular adaptation of sleeping beauty, Maleficent tells the story of the antagonist   a la Wicked. While this movie has many great parts to it, the few things that bug me REALLY bug me, making this a hard movie for me to watch.

First, the plot twist. Considering this was the first Disney movie to come out after Frozen, you would think the directors would have met up and said ‘hey, our plot twist is exactly the same, maybe we should do something about that?’ and then not both done the platonic love is what cures the curse thing. Watching this I saw it coming as soon as the prince was introduced and given no personality whatsoever. They could have tried to hide it at least.

Then, there’s the setting. Either the kingdom is really tiny, or the king picked the least strategic spot for a castle. An hour away from the possibly dangerous fairyland. And when the fairies took Aurora away, they took her even closer to the definitely dangerous fairyland. And did absolutely nothing to take care of her. Like letting her wander around in the forest going right to fairyland. peaking of the fairies, how do their powers work? Why does Maleficent need wings to fly when she can levitate things? Why does she even bother with fighting when she can control people? How are her wings still alive after being severed off her body and manage to reattach themselves after at least sixteen years?

And, of course, my pet peeve. Everything is CGI but none of it is good CGI. The fairies, the flying, the tree things, the soldiers. Everything. Rewatching the movie less than two years after it came out should not have me cringing every scene at the special effects like it's a nineties movie. To already be that dated shows that they needed more than the two year production time given.

One thing I did like was how Maleficent’s ex-love interest was portrayed. His changing into something of greed was done well, and the scene in which Maleficent’s wings were taken was wonderfully emotional and heartbreaking.

This movie has a decent plot, a lot of plot holes, poor CGI and a good main character but an underdeveloped supporting cast. I won’t tell you not to watch it, as it does have good parts, I just wouldn’t watch it expecting it to be super well done.

Mockingjay Part I Suzanne Collins

As much as I dislike when movie franchises divide up books to create multiple films, I’m rather happy the Hunger Games final book Mockingjay was given this treatment. There was little that was skipped over, and the inclusion of aspects of the revolution Katniss had no idea about in the book gave a nice glimpse into the world of the Capital and its districts that you wouldn’t ever know about if you hadn’t read the books. The Hunger Games movies have been consistent in trying to keep info dumps and exposition at a minimum. That is really hard to do when in the book you had the ability to read Katniss’ mind to learn what was going on. For the writers to be able to slip those details into conversations while keeping the story from slowing down is really impressive.

There were some details of the book that weren’t included in the movie, but they were mostly things that hadn’t been in any of the other movies, so it would have been odd to include that stuff now. Katniss’ stylists are the main thing I noticed missing but, they weren’t included in the other movies, so it was probably best they stayed out of the story at this point. I also missed Katniss’ recovery after the Games, and missed the potential training montage of her and Gale becoming District 13 soldiers so they could visit the districts.The plot had a few slow moments, but it kept the story moving with the acting, music, and stunning visuals. While Peeta’s retrieval in the book was completely secret until the rescue team got back to district 13, movie Katniss found out about it while it was in the process, which still allowed for us to see how everything went down.

One thing I always liked about the Hunger Games is that it showed that during war, there’s not some face off where the protagonist and antagonist duke it out and everything is done. War is fought with people and the ones leading the war aren’t the ones on the battlefront. This shows in the movie, with Katniss being reluctant to stay out of the fighting and disliking how distant Coin puts herself from the districts she uses like tools to get what she wants.

Mockingjay part I is definitely a movie I would recommend, it sticks to the book's plot, but adds additional details when necessary. It does not disappoint.

The Maze Runner James Dashner

The Maze Runner, another in the dystopian revolution book to movie adaptations. The book itself has its flaws- way too many questions with no answers, at all, and a lot of unnecessary deaths, and (even after looking up the explanation of the book) it just doesn’t make sense. Well, take a convoluted book, adapt it to the big screen with even less explanation than the book, and you have The Mazerunner movie. First, the movie had adult men playing teenagers, which is always ridiculous, no matter how you spin it. Then, there is little explanation as to what's going on, either for the main character or the audience. When the main character tries to figure out where he is after getting amnesia, no one tells him any information. So of course he gets curious and does stupid stuff to try to figure out what's going on. And, according to the other citizens in the glade, he’s the only one to be curious??? It really frustrates me when characters are valued for characteristics that are human nature, like in Divergent. The explanation for how the maze works didn’t make sense either. Not only did they change it from the book to make it more complicated, they also made it completely impossible to understand. The whole escape was actually really overcomplicated. In the book, everyone escapes through an invisible door. I thought it was kind of dumb, but then the movie changed it to something even worse. A series of pointless doors that really shouldn’t be there that lead to the labs. I prefer the invisible door. The movie also cut out the mind reading, which i’m glad. It didn’t seem very believable in the books. There remained, however, all the pointless killings and deaths of the teenagers. In the series, I believe the challenges were meant to narrow down the group of teenagers down to the strongest in order to create a vaccine, but what if the strongest died arbitrarily in the maze? what if those who survived did so only by pure luck? pointlessly killing all those kids doesn’t make sense, at all. The story seems purposely bleak and I’m not into stories that get the majority of it’s thrills from shock factor. It’s also quite the sausage fest for no reason. There could easily have been as many girls as there were guys, and why send up one last girl to the group of guys. To disrupt them? I don’t really understand why WICKED was so obsessed with destroying it’s last hope. Honestly, I like the actors even if they were too old, and the movie was okay, but considering where the story is goin, I don’t think I can recommend it.  

Why Aren't Adaptations Faithful?

No book to movie adaptation can be 100% loyal. It's impossible, and even if there were the option, the movie wouldn’t be very good. That doesn’t mean it’s a good thing when writers scrap the original plot of the book, however. The best adaptations fall somewhere in the middle, but are extremely rare. I’ll list here a couple of reasons writers will make the changes they do, and whether those changes are a good thing or not.

1. To appeal to a larger audience. This is why Katniss Everdeen is white, Percy Jackson is sixteen , and Hermoine Granger has nice hair. It’s to prevent potential (white male) ticket buyers from thinking that the movie’s trying to be too politically correct, or that the movie’s for kids, or that the main female character isn’t attractive enough. I think all of these are rather silly reasons, and that offering more diverse characters that are accurate to the source the movies would not only appeal more to the fanbase, but also to viewers that rarely have the opportunity to see themselves in mainstream movies.

2. To better explain what’s going on in characters heads. This can go either way for me. If the writers achieve this by adding a scene that lets you learn more about the character, I’m okay with it. If they try to do this by over explaining the character (having them narrate their feelings, or have other characters explain what's going on) then I’m not okay. Of course, this can go the other way as well, and the writers give you no insight into the character's head at all. This leads to the brooding main character with a traumatic backstory stereotype. It’s not really that great either. The worst part would probably be narration. It’s difficult to find book adaptations that don’t include some kind of monologue or explanation in the first scene. While some movies play it off well, it’s better to not include it at all. It can pull you out of the story, and treat the viewer like a child by creating a large info dump rather than explaining the plot through acting, because this is a movie.

3. To fit the time limit. While I personally wouldn’t mind a seven hour long movie completely loyal to the book with perfect casting and an excellent soundtrack, usually movie budgets don’t allow it. And not a whole lot of other people will want to watch it either. Soooo, the book will need to be slimmed down, scenes (hopefully filler) will be cut, and minor story arcs will be removed. All fans of the book can do is cross their fingers and hope the characters and plot won’t suffer too much from it.

In the end, all we can hope for is that the writers try to stay as faithful to the book as possible, and only make changes that are absolutely necessary.

Eragon Christopher Paolini

This story was begun when Paolini was only fifteen years old, and is composed of a world heavily based in the fantasy genre. It has everything you can imagine a magical book would have, dragons, elves, dwarves, warlocks, and more. While the books did have a teenager feel to them, they were still quite good, and even after a few years I still remember some scenes word for word.

Now, for the movie. Like the Divergent movie, every similarity to a previous series is made incredibly obvious, while everything unique is swept under the rug. They changed Arya’s race, from a dark haired elf to a blonde princess (the elf thing was also really important so I don't know how the authors thought they’d get away with it). The actors (save for, like, two) weren’t good. Like, at all. As for the plot, the movie did skip some of the filler of Eragon traveling and developing, but otherwise that was the only improvement. The beginning of the movie was solely exposition. Angela, the very important fortune teller, made a small and useless appearance. Arya’s rescue, and the fact that she was poisoned the whole time , was kind of messed up. She didn’t get poisoned until after her rescue? Why? And Murtagh’s personality does a complete 180. He goes from a secretive guy that refuses to travel with Eragon past the valley leading to the Varden, to a complete airhead. In the movie, he’s super pumped and excited to go to these people that he knows will imprison him. It just doesn’t make sense??? And then he’s not allowed to fight, despite Eragon being a lot less trustworthy and still taking part in the action. Also, I feel the need to mention costuming. There is no identifiable culture or fashion in this story. Where Eragon’s from, everyone’s medieval. The Varden have a north African, Middle Eastern thing going on. Okay. But then there’s Arya. She goes from wearing medieval clothing, to oriental clothing, to some Native American stereotype complete with a feather in her hair. The least the wardrobe department could do is be consistent. I’m actually not sure if she’s elf or human but you’d think she’d still have a continuity to her fashion choices. Then, the ending. I’m just going to ask, was the dragon behind the tapestry there the whole time? Or was that supposed to be a coincidence? It seemed a little ridiculous.

In the end, this movie just doesn’t work, either as a stand alone or when compared to the book. It’s rather regretful, considering the fact that staying loyal to the book would have created an immense loyal fanbase, and another three (or more) movies. The poor writing, mischaracterization, forced romance,  missing plot points, etc. kept this from happening and, unfortunately, we will probably never get the movie this book deserves.

November Movies

Spectre

out November 6

The latest James Bond movie, this film promises all the allure of the traditional Bond movie, but with a slightly more diverse cast and a little darker plot line. I’m not usually excited for new Bond movies, but Daniel Craig seems to have his eyes open to the flaws in Bond as a character, and in the 007 universe. I hope he brings this out in his acting, altering the negative parts of Bond (like the throw-away love interests), into something more positive (like Bond actually respecting the women he’s involved with on a deeper level).

The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 2

out November 20

The finale of the Hunger Games trilogy-turned-saga, I anticipate that this will be the best of the four. If you’ve read the books, you know how the series ends, and seeing the clips in the tailor was heart wrenching. I hope they portray Katniss’ mental instability properly, as she loses those she cares about to the revolution. It was the most meaningful part, to me. That, and Katniss’ fight to keep District 13 from going overboard, fighting for revenge rather than for justice. I expect to cry a couple times in this movie, but that’s just how it goes in a series as well written in this. I just hope the movie lives up to my expectations.

The Night Before

out November 25

Okay, Okay... this movie looks super dumb, and it’s probably seriously problematic, but Anthony Mackie. Enough said. Honestly, though, from what previews I’ve seen for this movie, it doesn’t seem that bad. It has a number of actors I love and respect, like Anthony Mackie, Mindy Kaling, and Joseph Gordon-Levitt. Maybe I’ll wind up wincing in pain from terrible jokes, but at this point it seems to promise a silly comedy with the christmas spirit kinda sorta worked in there somehow.

The Good Dinosaur

out November 25

A cute animated movie about a dinosaur and a dog-like little boy. I’m not sure what the plot is,exactly (something about Littlefoot finding his family I think???) but it seems like it will at least be entertaining. The animation looks stunning, though the more cartoony dinosaur doesn’t quite fit the other more realistic ones, but I’m excited to see what all disney does with the movie. I’m also a little iffy when it comes to the whole ‘animals act like dogs’ thing, I just find the humor played out, and am uncomfortable with how the movie applies this trope to a person (this is also completely inaccurate to how our evolution worked out, but I digress).I won't judge this movie yet, though, and you shouldn’t either. Give it a watch this holiday break.

November Reading List

November is a quiet month for book releases. Usually the majority of those occur in October while November is for movies, but there is one book coming out this month that I’m excited for.

Winter

written by Marissa Meyer, out November 10th

While I try to avoid including books that aren’t the first in series in these sorts of lists, I felt the need to include Winter because I am sooo excited for this book. It is the fourth and final installment in The Lunar Chronicles, an amazing book series that, while the original premise may seem overdone, really is original and exciting. The fairytale themes are a guideline, but not so strictly followed that the story is too predictable. This book should be quite the dramatic finale to the series, as the main cast of characters navigate interstellar war and politics to end the Lunar queen’s reign. The cast of characters is diverse, and the romances aren’t forced. I highly recommend this series for its complex female characters, awesome sci-fi worlds, and the fantasy elements woven throughout the action packed scenes.

Divergent Veronica Roth

Hunger Games 2.0, this book became incredibly popular when The Hunger Games trilogy finished, and it’s easy to see why it quickly became a new favorite in the dystopian genre. It has a lot of similarities- The population is divided into isolated groups, there are life and death competitions, there’s star crossed lovers, and the main character is a Strong Female Character™, who has to single handedly take on the oppressive leaders in a sort of twist on the Chosen One cliche. I love the Hunger Games, but that doesn’t mean I want to read/watch it again, only with less compelling characters and world building.

Actually, the book was ok. The writing was iffy, and some of the plot twists were predictable (or just didn’t make sense), and I do take issue with some of the pacing, but it was fine. The movie, however...It took everything wrong with divergent, and made it sooo much more obvious.

Tris’ kind of creepy relationship with her mentor became even creepier when a thirty year old guy was cast to play a sixteen  year old’s love interest. Shailene Woodley may have been twenty one at the time, but that is still a big age difference between the actors. Tris’ evolution from Abnegation  to Dauntless in the book was fast, but it was easy for the reader to fill in gaps and picture her working harder and looking stronger by the time Dauntless initiation comes to an end. In the movie, she only got a little angrier, and suddenly she was this super awesome fighter. There was no obvious change physically. She didn’t gain muscle or really practice and yet it is supposed to be believable that she is improving at such a fast rate and becoming this great fighter. On the topic of fighting, the majority of the fight scenes were either poorly choreographed, obviously staged, or both. The pacing of the movie was also weird. There are scenes where it should have taken a character much longer to complete a last minute save, and there are scenes where it’s just odd, how much time they’re taking to have a conversation in a time sensitive scenario. When writing a book, the laws of physics are bendable, and details are flexible, but when you transfer that to film... you have to make adjustments to pacing that just didn’t happen in this movie. Another thing left out of the movie, was details. There wasn’t a very good explanation of the test in the beginning of the movie, leading to some confusion. There was also little explanation of the dauntless community, and how it worked. Actually, there was little explanation as to how any part of this society worked, unlike in the book. The end of the movie had a huge info dump, though. If they could spread out information throughout the movie, the ending would be a lot more understandable.

I’m not even going to go into why the concept of divergent is also confusing... I know a lot of people in the Divergent universe are divergent but... shouldn’t everyone? Doesn’t everyone have more than one personality trait and a complex moral code? This was the same in the book and the movie,though, so I can’t really dock the movie any points for it.

Overall, this movie was rather dull, and didn’t do anything for the book series. I wouldn’t really recommend it.

City of Ember Jeanne DuPrau

Another childhood disappointment. I remember in fourth grade when everyone was reading these books, and I remember getting excited for the movie. And then the  movie turned out not only bad, but weird. First, the actors. While the twelve year old character Lina was played by a fourteen year old (reasonable) the twelve year old Doon was played by a twentyfour year old. Yes, that is correct. Harry Treadaway was born in 1984, making him twentyfour when the 2008 movie came out. A pre-teen was played by an adult. Without any aging up of the character. They hired leads that were ten years apart in age to play twelve year olds.
Then there’s the added thrills of giant animas. Were they in the book? No. Should they be in the movie? No. Was any explanation as to why all the animals were giant? No. So what's the purpose of including them? Tension? Drama? To fill up time? If you can’t make a story about people escaping a dying city interesting without having to add weird killer moles to create action, something is terribly wrong. Actually, the script in general had some questionable lines, The actors themselves worked well with what they were given, but when you have lines like “There’s more to a bottle cap than keeping liquid from leaking out of glass”, it’s difficult. Like, what is that even a metaphor for???
But, anyway... parts of the plot were changed for no reason, creating some minor plotholes, some of the escape route was changed, making it a very dangerous escape route, and one of my favorite parts of the book was left out. Early in the book there was a scene where Lina, who likes to draw, ran out of black colored pencils. Instead she uses one of her rarely utilized pencils to color in the sky. Blue. And then she thought to herself that it would be strange to have a blue sky. A simple scene, but for some reason it has always stuck with me over the years. Overall, the movie was a disappointment for fans of the books, but not bad for a movie, even if it was a little weird.

Harry Potter J. K. Rowling

If you're my age, you probably grew up with the Harry Potter movies instead of the books. When Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone came out, I was two. Not really the age to read the book before watching the movie. Because of this, it took me a while to read all the books and, when I did, they probably didn’t have the same effect on me as it did on other older Harry Potter Fans. Actually, the only book I was able to read before the movie was The Deathly Hallows. Still, while I will always have a close connection to the movies, especially the first few, I have to say the books were better. As they got longer, more and more was left out of the movies. Questionable casting choices and the subtraction of plots meant that the books were much more developed and unconventional. A few of the casting issues are: the age of the Maruaders generation -James and Lily were twenty one when they died, why were the actors so much older?-, Ginny- her actress just didn’t have the same energetic personality-, and Hermoine. Emma Watson was perfect in the first two movies, but after that she lost the Hermoine hair and opted for a style that book Hermoine had to work for hours to obtain. As for excluded subplots,I missed Hermoine ranting about S.P.E.W., and Lupin and Tonk’s adorable son Teddie, and Neville’s family life and connection to the prophecy.

The first two movies In the Harry Potter series are probably the most loyal. The majority of the books were included in the movies. The overall atmosphere was more balanced; there was more of a warm feel to the movies that balanced out all the dark parts. You actually saw Harry, Ron, and Hermoine going to class (I think the movies showed only one class per film after The Prisoner of Azkaban), and having them go on their holiday breaks, and overall actually being students. The movies just didn’t have that sort of vibe to them as they progressed.

I could go on, explain why Voldemort’s death was better in the book, how Hermoine slowly took over for Ron in the movies reducing Ron to a punch line, how Harry and Ginny were awkward and uncomfortable in the movies, but I think you get the idea. These are the movies I grew up with, and I love them, but to say that they were an authentic adaptation of the Harry Potter series wouldn’t be realistic or honest, and I think I prefer the books to the movies.

Of Mice and Men John Steinbeck

I’m going to do something a little different, and solely review the book. The movie was loyal, and accurate to the characters, so I have no issues with it. I dislike the original content though, so that’s what I want to talk about.

First, the premise. I don’t appreciate John Steinbeck using the learning disability as a plot tool, killing Lennie to develop the plot and characters. If someone had only helped the guy learn the social norms that often went over his head, he wouldn’t have killed someone. Really, all the ‘minority’ characters (Crooks, Curley’s wife, and Lennie) are treated poorly, but not in a way that addresses the issue. Rather than saying what not to do, you know, making it explicit that the different forms of sexism, racism, and ableism in the book aren’t okay, they weren’t addressed. You could argue that since this book was from the thirties the author didn’t know any better, but in a book like this... well, if you’re not going to address social issues what’s the point. I suppose mentioning the fact that they’re lonely do to prejudice is something, but everyone’s lonely in this book. The target audience already knew about the depression (they lived through it) so the story wasn’t meant to educate.

Looking back at the story, it’s difficult to see what the message exactly is. The most likely meaning is probably on the topic of dreams. That they’re difficult, and impossible to attain. No one in this story achieves their dreams or fulfills their wishes. The other recurring topic is loneliness. Like I said earlier, everyone is lonely in this book. And the only characters that try to do anything about it suffer and then give up. Or die. I just... don’t understand the point? Is the message to give up before things get worse? That things won’t work out? That caring for others will only end with someone getting hurt?

The part that really gets me, though, is the way Curley’s wife is portrayed. She is never given a name. From start to finish she is written like Curley owns her. She’s meant to be viewed as a sort of temptress, unfaithful to the guy that abuses her. And then she dies without any of it being resolved.

If you're interested in books that tell you how hopeless life is, this is the book for you. If you want a book that has hope, and isn’t going to make you feel like you wasted an hour of your time, skip this.

Matilda Roald Dahl

Everyone has either read this book or seen the movie. Growing up, I know Roald Dahl was a favorite of elementary school teachers and students alike. I remember reading the book, discovering Matilda’s powers with her, rooting for her as she defied her parents, being scared for her of the punishments she could receive in school. I felt the same in the movie. The characters kept their over the top personalities, something that can sometimes be lost in adaptations for “realism”, but the story didn’t come off as completely unbelievable. It was just silly enough to mask the darker tones of abuse and stay appropriate for children. The overall tone of the movie kept a sort of whimsical feel to it, with the villains being distinctly bad, with the heroes being distinctly good. Actually, the overall attitude that you don't’ need to always respect your parents and elders is rather refreshing. The fact that respect is something you need to earn regardless of age in the movie is comforting. I appreciate that this is a message for children that sometimes adults aren’t nice and responsible, and that it's not the child’s fault. I like the ending, where Matilda finds someone who cares deeply for her and takes care of her when her parents skip town. I like that the happy ending doesn’t involve her parents suddenly realizing they were being terrible and suddenly being nice. It would be unrealistic to expect that.

The one thing the movie really altered was the ending. In the book, Matilda develops telekinesis because her brain wasn’t being challenged enough in her kindergarten class. After she is allowed to skip a couple grades to take a more difficult class, her telekinesis goes away. In the movie, Matilda’s telekinesis just develops suddenly, and she retains it throughout the rest of the movie, even after Miss. Honey enrolls her in more difficult classes. This sort of changes the meaning of the story a little bit. It shifts from a ‘this will happen if you aren’t challenged enough in class’ to ‘look at these awesome powers this girl uses to get back at those who are mean’. I don’t know if I really dislike this, but I do miss the original ending.

Overall, this is a good nostalgic movie to watch and enjoy, even if it is a bit childish in its black and white morals. The dark messages and light humor balance each other out, and while if you hadn’t grown up with the story you may not enjoy this movie as much, it is still quite nice.

Catching Fire Suzanne Collins

The second in the dystopian trilogy, this book described the ramifications of the 74th Hunger Games, both on Katniss and Peeta, and on the entirety of Panem. Showing us the desperate attempts at control the Capital uses against the districts, and growing discontent of the citizens, this book gives us the transition from the quiet resentment of the people, to full blown revolution. The movie delivers. While it leaves out many factors, like parts of the tour, Katniss getting trapped in the woods, and the preparation for the wedding, It keeps the most important details.

The Hunger Games most obvious message is about the media, and it was obvious here. Snow trying to convince angry Capital citizens to be okay with having their favorite victors sent to die, trying to sell to the districts a message no one was buying. Using the fashion and the romance of the Hunger Games as a way to distract from what is really happening. This all reflects our own media, and it’s in the movie. Katniss and Peeta use it against the government, using weddings and babies to anger Capital citizens. To create as much chaos as they can when they realize Snow won’t let them go free. The games captured the anger of Johanna and Finnick, and the constant fight for them to stay sane. They showed the sacrifices and difficulties that they had not yet recovered from during the last games. The arena showed that the whole point of the Quarter Quell was to torment the victors, with poisonous gas, blood rain, and the screams of their loved ones. The best scenes, though, were probably the last ones. When Katniss figures out the plan to escape, figures out Beetee’s plan, and Shoots her arrow at the sky while Snow is aghast on the other side of the cameras... It’s a powerful scene. And, it’s a little funny watching Snow call for his Gamemaker for an explanation, only to find that he had fled.

I wished the past Hunger Games had been talked about more, how Haymitch and Katniss’ mom knew each other and what past Hunger Games were like. I also think it would have been fun to watch Katniss, Peeta, and Haymitch try to get back in shape after sitting around for a year (even more for Haymitch).

I know a lot of people compare this movie to the first, saying that it is funny how the worst book got the better adaptation, but I disagree. The first movie had a more unfinished feel, fit for the mining town it starts in. The second movie is definitely well done, but I think it’s on the same level the Hunger Games, not above it. Regardless, this is an excellent adaptation and movie.

The Outsiders S. E. Hinton

It’s one of the few required reading books the majority of students like, and thats probably because it’s one of the most relatable. Rather than saying that poor kids are thugs, who are violent and trigger happy, this book paints another picture. It’s about how hard it is getting out of a financial rut, how the nicest people can get hurt so easily. The way the story handles class disputes is also handled well. The wealthy aren’t all assholes, but the fact that they have money is shown to play a part. The greasers are relatable, caring about eachother and others, but faced with difficult lives in regards to family life and money problems. The main moral, however, seems to be to stay you, to stay gold. To hold on to the good.

The movie captures this well. There may be some cheesy acting and special effects at times, but the overall story was there, and overall the acting was emotional and honest. Not much was left out, too. The characterization, the atmosphere, the story, it was all there. The movie was funny, and sad, and hopeful. I can’t really say there was anything wrong with it, other than some awkward transitions or occasional phrasing. And, for an 80s movie, you couldn’t really tell from the fashion or the slang that it was made around the same time as National Lampoon’s Vacation. There wasn’t many obvious fake blows, and avoided cheesiness pretty well (other than when Ponyboy blacked out while drowning) This movie was a faithful adaptation that even caused a few tears to be shed, and I am happy that it still holds up all these years later.

What Modern Day Movies Are Missing

Writing this blog, I’ve begun comparing the pros and cons of movies and books a lot more now. I think that one of the reason we have so few well done, original movies these days is actually a variety of factors coming from Hollywood, the audience, and the need to make money off the movie. To better organize my thoughts, I’ll put this in list form.

1. Time. In books, the author can write a book to be the exact length it needs to be. You can fit in a good introduction, and interesting plot, character development, and interesting supporting characters with their own backstory and motivations. In a movie you have 1.5- 2.5 hours to accomplish everything, plus room for all the action a book may graze over. TV shows often make better forms for adapting books, because the season lengths can vary, but movies can’t be too long or the audience will start to check their phones to see when the movie will be over.
2. Money (and prejudice). Whenever a movie goes into production, the idea of what will sell is prevalent. Often this means doing what has worked in the past, as opposed to trying something new. Already famous (usually white) actors are cast in movies to bring in the fan base, the same token female actress is the love interest, the same token black guy is the villain (or sidekick). Nothing new is brought to the table. Part of this is because of the way writers see the audience. They don’t seem to realise including more female characters doesn’t take away from the male audience, it only gives to the female audience. Including minorities that aren’t there just so that the writers can say they aren’t _____-ist  would bring in audience members that aren’t often catered too. Of course, since the perception that movies with girls are just for girls, but movies with men are for everyone is still maintained by the general population (for example, the term ‘chick flicks’), Hollywood won’t change until it sees an increase in demand. I don’t want to imply white people are uninteresting, but when that is the only story told by movies... it gets boring.
3. Special effects. This is just a pet peeve of mine, but one reason I dislike modern movies is the reliance on CGI. When you watch classics like Jurassic Park, the reason the dinosaurs still look good is because they are puppets. The textures, lighting, physicality... you can tell that that t-rex takes up space. Modern movies are just lazy. There is no need to CGI the set. Using it to create every alien/ monster is unnecessary. Using it so much only means that in ten years everything will look dated and cheesy. Often times it already does. Directors need to tone things down so the animators can make what has to be CGI the most realistic it can possibly be. I know they want to show off their huge budget, but it's better to use that on actually good writers.

October Movies

While there are plenty of new October movies coming out, especially in the scary movie and suspense genre, only two really stood out to me. One of them isn’t even meant for Halloween! However, if you're looking for something that is hopefully more than just jump scares and dramatic music this halloween season, these two should be the ones you watch.

The Martian

Out now, this movie promises to be both exciting and scientifically accurate. After astronaut Mark Watney is left stranded on mars, he must do whatever he can to survive the time it would take for a rescue mission to be launched to save him. Adapted from the book by Andy Weir, this movie should definitely be on your watch list.

Crimson Peak

Out October 16. A young woman named Edith is brought to her new husband's mansion in out in the middle of nowhere. Her new sister-in-law is hiding something, something dark and dangerous, something that could put Edith’s life in danger, but she has a secret weapon. She can see ghosts. So far this movie appears to be visually beautiful, and I’m excited about the costume design. Directed by Guillermo del Toro, this horror mystery is something I am desperate to watch in theaters.

October Reading List

1. Six of Crows by Leigh Bardugo

already out, Sept 29

I know, I know. Not technically October, but since I didn’t do one of these for September, I felt this book would be worth including here. This is another sort of companion novel (or trilogy, in this case) but it’s not really necessary to have read the previous trilogy- The Grisha Trilogy- already. So far the author’s track record has been good, having created a complicated, magical world inspired by Russia, and including well executed plot. This new trilogy is about a group of thieves and vagabonds planning to execute a high stakes heist. This book is an action packed story, and is said to be very dark, so if that’s your thing, pick this book up now!

2. Carry On by Rainbow Rowell

Out Oct. 6

The sequel (or more of a companion novel) to Fangirl, this is the story of Simon Snow, the fictional character the protagonist of fangirl was, well, a fan of. Meant to parallel Harry Potter, and maybe poke a little fun at it, this story will include magic, ghosts, and adventure. I don’t know if it’s necessary to have read Fangirl, but you’ll probably appreciate the easter eggs and inside jokes better that way. I have high hopes, as Rainbow Rowell has done well in the past, writing one of my favorite books, Eleanor and Park. I am a bit nervous about the genre however, seeing as the majority of her past books have been realistic fiction, I worry she may not be able to accomplish the world building and refreshing lore required for a fantasy novel.

3. The Rest of Us Just Live Here by Patrick Ness

Out Oct 6

We’ve all probably wondered at one point or another about what it would be like to be the background character of your favorite show, or to be that one non-magical friend in a group of progedies. This book answers that question, and that answer is… Annoyed. It’s about a high school boy named Mikey, who’s sick of apocalypses, who is tired of having his school blown up, and who is trying to ignore the fact that his friend is being worshipped by mountain lions. Patrick Ness has written great novels in the past (have you read More Than This???). So great, however, that anything else he writes will most likely never compare. That doesn’t mean I’m not excited for this book, though, and I think you should be, too.

4. Illuminae by Amie Kaufman

Out Oct 20

This is a sci fi novel about refugees escaping a distant planet being fought over as a resource. It’s also a story about a plague spreading through the masses. Don’ forget the double agent AI. And conspiracy, lot’s of conspiracy. While I do worry this may be too much for one author to handle, if she can pull this off, this book will be awesome! It’s told through diaries, transcripts, and reports, and it has pictures! Well... sort of.... but this is definitely a book I am excited for, even if it’s just because of my love for space.

5. Welcome to Night Vale by Joseph Fink and Jeffrey Cranor

Out Oct 20

If you haven't already heard the hilarious podcasts that inspired this book, what are you waiting for??? And if you have, I don’t know what I can say to convince you to read this book because you already have this on your reading list, right? This promises all the mystery and humor that WTNV is known for, plus the new form of media may mean we get to learn even more about this mysterious desert town, where wheat and wheat by-products are as illegal as the mountains.

6. Our Lady of the Ice by Cassandra Rose Clark

Out Oct 27

This sci fi novel is about an Argentinean colony in Antarctica, faced with increasing blackouts and the possibility of freezing to death, but it is also so much more. Full of action, drama, conspiracy, gangsters, and artificial intelligence, this book promises a lot of things, but it’s nothing the author can’t handle. This novel also promises both racial and gender diversity, something often missed in sci-fi.

Ender's Game Orson Scott Card

This popular book was turned into a movie in 2013, and visually it is stunning. The story, however...

It missed out a lot on the parallels to racism. The attitude towards “Buggers”, the wars, their extermination, was only really addressed so that the plot would make sense. The movie lost touch with one of the major points of the novel, and it disappoints me. They didn’t include the fact that humans had stolen technology from the aliens, had used it against them, had ruthlessly attacked them even after the “Buggers” had called for retreat. Also, by aging Ender up, the question of child soldiers and of how children are affected in war was less called into question. I liked the actors, but having a six year old become part of the military is very different than a fourteen year old joining the military. You don’t see how growing up in that environment can affect you. Enders depression after he unwittingly committed genocide, killed an entire fleet of people, and personally killed two of his classmates was realistic and eye-opening. It didn’t glorify war, like many similar books do.I also missed Ender’s siblings. Watching children take over the world by outsmarting adults is quite enjoyable.  The ending, in which Ender tells the truth to the people of earth by writing about the “Buggers” and Ender’s brother, who became leader of Earth was a hopeful but indefinite way of ending the story.

The movie, however, didn’t show how he matured after the Bugger War. Actually, his emotions in general were not touched upon. In the ‘simulation game’ in the book, he is isolated from his friends, and kills his entire fleet in the final battle in the hopes of being expelled. Also, because all he sees of the battles are blips on a map, it’s reasonable that he did not know his battles were actually being fought. While I understand that the tech needed to be updated from the 1985 version of ‘high tech’, it still seemed odd and hard to believe that Ender had no idea the simulation was real. In the book, the weapon used to destroy the “Buggers” had similarities to the atom bomb. It was used to end a war, completely obliterated the population rapidly, and had a similar moral dilemma. This was lost in the movie, because not only was the weapon only briefly spoken of, when it was fired, the destruction of the planet was slow and dramatic. The reactions of the adults in charge were also extremely different. In the book, they were joyful, but in the movie everyone was somber as always.

This movie missed out on all the sensitivity and emotion of the book, swapping it for drama and cool visuals, and I think it suffered for it.

Percy Jackson Rick Riordan

           You probably already know where this is going, but let's face it, it's soooo much fun to tear this movie apart. So i'll start at the beginning.  Aging up percy means that the major plot point of bad things going down on Percy's birthday pointless. Making Grover black would've been fine, if he hadn't been turned into a stereotype. The gods meeting on a rooftop to discuss the missing lightning bolt was confusing, why wouldn't they meet somewhere like, oh, Olympus??? And then there's Camp Half Blood. There was a complete lack of personality or the eccentricity of the design of the cabins and the Big House. None of the characters running around in the background were kids, like the majori in the book were, and it seemed more like a war camp than a summer camp. Annabeth was not well represented. She in no way really referenced her lineage or used her gifts at all? And Percy somehow seemed smarter than her??? The capture the flag seen was poorly choreographed and the fact that Percy somehow beat all those Aries kids after only fighting five did not make sense. Hades appearing in camp also didn't make sense. This was a pretty low key dude in the books who just wanted his helm back and here he was in the movie being way too evil. After the quest was begun, it wasn't to get to LA to go to the underworld, it was to get three pearls that in the book were just given to them. Once they use the pearls to return to the surface, the decision to leave Grover behind was completely off base for Percy's character. In the book he left his mom behind, knowing that once he got the gods their things back she would be okay. Percy fighting Luke was just ridiculous. Percy only knew he had his power for a week and suddenly he's mastered it? And Luke thinking that just because he has a lightning bolt he can overthrow the gods and somehow magically become an immortal being is laughable. The book at least made it clear that Luke wasn't working on his own. You also saw how broken up Annabeth was when she found out. She didnt really seem to be too upset in the movie.
           This movie overall is terrible as a stand alone, let alone when its compared to the source material. I recomend a watch, if only to laugh at the silly jokes and the many plot holes.

The Giver Lois Lowry

Even if you haven't seen the movie, you've probably read the book. It's a required reading in most schools, and the book itself isn’t a very difficult read. You've also probably heard the complaints when it was adapted into a movie. The characters were aged up, romance was involved, Taylor Swift made an appearance, and the entire movie was a complete waste and you should never watch it. Don’t get me wrong, there were things that bugged me in the movie. When Jonas gained the ability to see color, it would have had a stronger effect if we were able to see the colors one by one as well. The way the giving- and loss- of memories was treated was also not very well done, in my opinion. I did not, however, take issue with the aged up romance. In the book, Jonas is twelve when he begins to develope a romantic interest in his friend, and it is immediately suppressed by a pill. The movie only expanded this point to add drama, having an older Jonas try to share what he learns with the girl he cares about. Since the romance in the movie isn’t overwhelming or long lasting, I don't really take issue. I do, however, take issue with the way the giving of memories were explained. In the book, the process was left mysterious and unexplained because, well, it was impossible. The movie adaptationers (or whatever they are called) should have left it at that. Instead, they created some complicated, still not fully explained, reason as to why Jonas lost the memories of the past the farther he got from the Giver and still didn’t explain how the memories worked. In the book, the farther Jonas got from the community the more memories began to fade, and that was it. There was no complicated barrier or wave of returning memory, they left him one by one. I did love the last scene of the movie, where Meryl Streep and the Giver are arguing about whether people should be free to choose. The sudden wave of memory worked well, even if the logic was faulty.

The main worry I had for the film was that the message of the book would be covered up by romance altered plotlines, but I was pleasantly surprised to find the movie was relatively accurate to the book, and definitely made sure the message shone through;  that without pain we can’t feel happiness, and that people should be able to choose for themselves (and the whole reason for the book, that communism is bad). I would recommend this film to at least try, because I personally found it to be surprisingly good.

Howl's Moving Castle Diana Wynne Jones

A story about a hat-maker's daughter, a trans-dimensional wizard, and a fallen star, this movie broke the box offices in japan, turning it into an instant classic. The story has many fairy tale themes: multiple curses, witches in disguise, and inanimate objects turned animate. The title's namesake- the moving castle- is reminiscent of Baba Yaga’s house that walks around on chicken feet. The plot of the story was a little... overbuilt? There seemed to be plot elements that were brushed over for lack of time, and other details that only received a sentence of acknowledgement. This is understandable, seeing as it was taken from a book with many different storylines, but it's still a little frustrating to only get a peek at all the other events going on in Howl’s world. If you’ve seen the movie, you’ll probably figure out i’m talking about the major war going on in the background, and Sophie’s family. You got bits of information on both, but none of it seemed complete. The ending was also a little confusing, but I liked the movie as a whole. The whimsy and humor balances the darker themes, and the moral of acceptance and forgiveness with the Wicked Witch of the Waste was sweet.

While many people grew up with the Academy Award nominated animated movie, not many know this Japanese film was based on an English book of the same name. This is understandable, seeing as the original story was published in 1986, but I also find this is regrettable. There are many details in the book I wish had been in the movie. The overall plot was changed, from a dramatic ‘everything’s happening at once in a tiny room’ climax to a more warmhearted, compassionate ending. Other plot points, like Sophie’s magical gift and her seven league boots, were dearly missed. I also missed her family. In the movie, they appear to be superficial, caring about Sophie only when it doesn’t prevent them from doing their own thing. In the book, though, you really get to meet her sisters and step mom, who isn’t as frivolous as she initially appears. They even get their own little story lines. The war was explained more, as well, and you learn a bit more about Howl’s past in the mysterious world of the 1980’s.

I’m not saying say the movie was bad or poorly written, it just didn’t seem complete after having read the full story of what all was going on in the complicated world of Howl’s Moving Castle, and I wish it was more fully developed. The characters were realistic and humorous, the designs were beautiful, and the magic was reminiscent of fairy tales without being a copy. This is definitely a must watch, if animated movies are your thing, and even if it’s not you should still give it a try.