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.