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.

The Hobbit J. R. R. Tolkien

Unpopular opinion? I wasn’t a huge fan. I’ve grown up with Lord of the Rings, the movies entertained me on trips, and The Hobbit was my bedtime story. I was super excited to see the movies and while at first I loved them, with each movie that came out, my excitement waivered. The animation and special effects quality was mediocre- The Battle of Five Armies was horrendous-, and the writing was frustrating. Usually when movies are multiple parts you can expect the majority of the original content to be there, so the money grabbing is acceptable, but when you stretch a story out so much that content must be added, there’s a problem. The added story arcs were confusing, I still don’t understand why orcs were running around, and it just made the story complicated and boring. The writers obviously were trying to make the movies more ‘adult’, because the book was very fairy tale, children’s book like, and the movies tried to have a darker quality, while keeping the more innocent humor, and it didn’t work very well. I missed the scene in Mirkwood Forest with the elves. It was always one of my favorite parts, having the dwarves chasing the elves off into the forest, and had the traditional fairy tale themes of ignoring a warning, and having an event occur three times. I did like the added female characters however, though the weird love triangle was, well, weird.

 The foreshadowing was confusing and interrupted the stories flow, especially one of the last scenes in The Battle of Five Armies, when Thranduil told Legolas to find Aragorn, about 30 years before Aragorn was born. Who thought that made sense? Additionally, I have no problem with unrealistic fight scenes as long as what’s going on is remotely probable and not completely predictable however, during the fight scenes, there was always something wrong; Either someone coming from nowhere and saving the day, someone not dying even though anyone else would have in real life, or the physics and the continuity of the fight scene was so messed up that everything was just ridiculous. Often all of the above would occur. I missed the scene in Mirkwood Forest with the elves. It was always one of my favorite parts, having the dwarves chasing the elves off into the forest, and had the traditional fairy tale themes of ignoring a warning, and having an event occur three times.

         So overall, the movies lacked most of the fun of the book, and the whimsy of the story. The actors worked well with what they were provided, however. Martin Freeman’s humor and Ian McKellen’s composure pulled the movies out of the reject pile and into the ‘Good for watching once or twice with friends’ pile.

The Hunger Games Suzanne Collins

Arguably one of the biggest book to movie franchises yet, The Hunger Games is full of everything teenage girls want, a relatable female protagonist that deals with realistic mental illness, two attractive love interests that would do anything to keep her safe, and enough bloodshed that the movie barely passed the pg-13 rating. The movies shaky camera filming gives a realistic, rugged feel to the movie, all while giving viewers motion sickness. The characters are captured well enough by the actors, though the directors made some questionable acting choices. Hiring twenty somethings to play teenagers doesn’t work. Having adults fight to the death is not nearly as effective or startling as having children do so. The special effects overall were quite good, accept for the iconic girl on fire chariot scene. It was painful to watch the actors pretend to be amazed by photo shopped flames that were barely noticeable. The only other thing that didn’t make sense, was the berry scene. When Katniss and Peeta tried to kill themselves in the books, they put the berries in their mouths and almost swallowed. They had to wash out their mouth with lake water to make sure they weren’t poisoned. In the movie, they barely had the berries in their hands before Seneca Crane stopped them in desperation. The viewer doesn’t realize that Katniss and Peeta aren’t trying to trick the game makers, they are actually serious about killing themselves.

Compared to the books, The Hunger Games movie is a mostly faithful adaptation. While it does exclude Madge, changing the story of how Katniss got her pin, the plot is overall retained. When it comes to casting, there are a few problems other than just age. Katniss is described as short and light, which is why she’s able to maneuver around trees so easily, and she, like the rest of the poor community of District 12 living in The Seam, is not white. She, Gale, and her father are described as dark haired with olive skin and gray eyes that clashes with the middle class community of blue eyed blondes, like her sister Prim and their mother. Hiring a blonde haired, blue eyed actress taller than her romantic interest to play Katniss simply doesn’t seem like an authentic and honest decision, especially considering the casting process only asked for white actresses. Casting aside, the movie overall reflected the source material accurately, and you could tell a lot of care went into the production

The Hunger Games is definitely a watch, and I would recommend it to anyone that wants to see a well done dystopian.

The Great Gatsby F. Scott Fitzgerald

Why not start off a blog with a classic, right?

"An adaptation of F. Scott Fitzgerald's Long Island-set novel, where Midwesterner Nick Carraway is lured into the lavish world of his neighbor, Jay Gatsby. Soon enough, however, Carraway will see through the cracks of Gatsby's nouveau riche existence, where obsession, madness, and tragedy await."-IMDb

First things first, the 2013 movie as a standalone.

 With Leonardo DicCaprio as a lead, the acting was exceptional. The movie was visually stunning, with heavy emphasis on Gatsby’s grand parties and the mood. The 1920’s aesthetic was there, even if it wasn’t always accurate.  As for the plot, it was coherent, which is a bare minimum that not many movies today really meet. Daisy’s family life wasn’t touched on enough, personally. We didn’t see enough of her with her daughter, which made her inner conflict at the end of the movie seem inappropriate, but overall the tone of the book was there. The major hang-ups I had with the movie, was that it seemed… over processed. There was a heavy (and not very subtle) use of CGI, and the soundtrack, while overall good, didn’t include much of the jazz age part of the 20’s. This seems like a missed opportunity. I do appreciate the dark humor, though, in playing ‘A Little Party Never Killed Nobody’ during a scene centered around the pool where Gatsby died.

In comparison to the book?

The movie missed very few scenes from the book, often quoting from it directly, and captured the characters well. The awkwardness of Nick, the humor of Gatsby and Daisy’s reunion, and Jordan’s daring all came through on screen. The parties in the movie were even more elaborate than in the book, most likely to exceed the expectations of what modern parties are like. The eclectic partygoers and lush lifestyles of the rich New York was captured effectively  Much of the symbolism of the book is reflected in the movie, the most obvious being the unreachable green light. The last chapter of the book, though, was what really made the movie. It kept the contrast with the beginning and end of the story, of overcrowded palaces to empty mansions. Nicks fall into depression, going from someone naïve to someone jaded.

Overall:

                A good movie, and worth the watch, but due to the overused CGI and modern soundtrack, it will most likely become dated quickly.