Decent book + talented young actors = likelihood of a bloody good time
...just in time for the Christmas break.
I'm currently in the middle of reading the 3rd (Eclipse) of a projected 4-5 book series written by a vampire-lore neophyte, and it is actually pretty good. The characters wear a bit sometimes, but the movie translation of the first novel (Twilight) should be good. I'm pretty hopeful.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1099212/
The site shows that the movie is already in production, and I am only just now hearing about it (!)
Kristen Stewart will be a decent Bella; a pretty, clever, precociously mature high school student who consistently undervalues herself without really straying from 'simpathetic' to plain 'pathetic' character. I think she is pretty 'right' for the part.
I'm also pretty amused with the casting for Edward, the love-interest. I adored Robert Pattinson's Cedric Diggory in HP: GoF, so I am optimistic that the movie won't come off as childish (the books don't, but we all know how movies don't always maintain the text's original magic). I think that is part of the magic of Meyer's writing, is that her characters are believable teens without being belittled by it.
Showing posts with label book. Show all posts
Showing posts with label book. Show all posts
February 22, 2008
December 11, 2007
'Compass" Translation Shines
Epic fantasy book + great cast + good effects + spice of scandal = intriguing holiday movie
I am sure that we all know by now that the more epic and the more fantastic the movie, the more I want to see it. I have been looking forward to seeing this movie all year long and I was not disappointed. I make this statement knowing very well that there has been little but Harry Potter worth getting excited over this year (much to Lunanshee's disgust).
Most of this movie was admirably faithful to the book; surprisingly. I agree with some of the edits that Chris Weitz made to the script, namely the removal of a few minor characters and Lyra's extended stay among the Gyptians (which was pretty unnecessary even in the novel, in my opinion). I didn't really see the need for the addition the weasley Fra Pavel (admittedly played well by Simon McBurney) except that it is just too confusing to have the original person who tried to poison Lord Azriel in the movie (I am still not very clear why the person in the book did it...). If anything, the addition of this character introduced more religion into the narrative. (I could actually go on about this a great length, but the short of it is that I don't think that Chris Weitz took out many religious references, but that he put even more in!).
One (professional) critic stated that this film succumbed to the typical device of making the battles bigger than they were in the book to give the story more excitement and 'draw' (LotR-The Two Towers/Battle at Helm's Deep, anyone?). I watched for this through the majority of the movie and didn't find it; in fact, I thought that the edits to the story helped the pacing of the movie while still maintaining the proportion of events. That is, until the last (and here) climactic battle between the hoards guarding The Station (did it remind anyone else of the White Queen's Narnian castle??) and the 'forces of good' (Gyptians, Witches, and Ice Bear). Still, I think the battle was done well and that the stakes were sufficiently high so that the viewers were engrossed by the action. They also did not linger to long and sufficiently obscured the majority of the carnage (easy to avoid blood-splatters if you are bundled up in sub-zero gear). Even the end of the ice bear combat was sufficiently tame, given it's potential for gore. I applaud the director for this, because he doesn't dwell on the bloodiness of the conflicts, but rather what they mean to the characters and the action of the series.
The casting was so spot-on that I can hardly believe it. I think I blogged before about how perfect Nicole Kidman and Sam Elliot are for their parts; they were MADE for these parts, and pull them of delightfully. I am still not sure how two beautifully blue-eyed parents produce a brown-eyed main character (could they not have had Daniel Craig wear contacts? He is imperious enough, no matter what color his eyes. Mrs. Coulter needs hers to be blue, I would contend)?!
Speaking of, I think Dakota Blue Richards was a marvelous Lyra! Really, she was the perfect hellcat for the character, without being off-putting, shrill, or whiny. I do hate it when children in movies are entirely too precocious; it is sickening, really. Nope, this actress was a great find, even though I didn't like her as much as I wanted to (I say this because we are trained to always have sympathy for the main character/hero).
--See 'Comments' for more discussion--
I am sure that we all know by now that the more epic and the more fantastic the movie, the more I want to see it. I have been looking forward to seeing this movie all year long and I was not disappointed. I make this statement knowing very well that there has been little but Harry Potter worth getting excited over this year (much to Lunanshee's disgust).
Most of this movie was admirably faithful to the book; surprisingly. I agree with some of the edits that Chris Weitz made to the script, namely the removal of a few minor characters and Lyra's extended stay among the Gyptians (which was pretty unnecessary even in the novel, in my opinion). I didn't really see the need for the addition the weasley Fra Pavel (admittedly played well by Simon McBurney) except that it is just too confusing to have the original person who tried to poison Lord Azriel in the movie (I am still not very clear why the person in the book did it...). If anything, the addition of this character introduced more religion into the narrative. (I could actually go on about this a great length, but the short of it is that I don't think that Chris Weitz took out many religious references, but that he put even more in!).
One (professional) critic stated that this film succumbed to the typical device of making the battles bigger than they were in the book to give the story more excitement and 'draw' (LotR-The Two Towers/Battle at Helm's Deep, anyone?). I watched for this through the majority of the movie and didn't find it; in fact, I thought that the edits to the story helped the pacing of the movie while still maintaining the proportion of events. That is, until the last (and here) climactic battle between the hoards guarding The Station (did it remind anyone else of the White Queen's Narnian castle??) and the 'forces of good' (Gyptians, Witches, and Ice Bear). Still, I think the battle was done well and that the stakes were sufficiently high so that the viewers were engrossed by the action. They also did not linger to long and sufficiently obscured the majority of the carnage (easy to avoid blood-splatters if you are bundled up in sub-zero gear). Even the end of the ice bear combat was sufficiently tame, given it's potential for gore. I applaud the director for this, because he doesn't dwell on the bloodiness of the conflicts, but rather what they mean to the characters and the action of the series.
The casting was so spot-on that I can hardly believe it. I think I blogged before about how perfect Nicole Kidman and Sam Elliot are for their parts; they were MADE for these parts, and pull them of delightfully. I am still not sure how two beautifully blue-eyed parents produce a brown-eyed main character (could they not have had Daniel Craig wear contacts? He is imperious enough, no matter what color his eyes. Mrs. Coulter needs hers to be blue, I would contend)?!
Speaking of, I think Dakota Blue Richards was a marvelous Lyra! Really, she was the perfect hellcat for the character, without being off-putting, shrill, or whiny. I do hate it when children in movies are entirely too precocious; it is sickening, really. Nope, this actress was a great find, even though I didn't like her as much as I wanted to (I say this because we are trained to always have sympathy for the main character/hero).
--See 'Comments' for more discussion--
October 22, 2007
30 Days of Night
Faithful translation + convincing acting + claustrophobic isolation = decent vamp movie
Once again, I read the source material before I saw the film adaptation. They did a good job; bonus points for stretching one graphic novel into a 113-minute movie without straining story or the pacing too much. (I felt it was a bit slow, but I also knew about the twisty-ending, so I am not a fair judge. My sweetie said it moved along just fine, however.) I was curious going into the movie whether the writers would stray too much, as they tend to do when their inspiration is inked, not typed. Nope, they did a good job there, and the actors did a great job of really making their desperation relate-able. It's got to be pretty hard to be thrown into day-for-night for 70 days of filming. I would be jetting off to a Caribbean island where the only thing that I would have to be leery of is the local water and making a fool of myself after too many mini-umbrella-ed drinks!
When I first heard that the movie was being compared to 28 Days Later for the carnage-factor, I was curious. I mean, I know the movie was going to be about a town being slaughtered, but to me, the story is more about the cat-and-mouse game to be played out between the vamps and the survivors. They did a good job of spinning that out, but man, were those vamps wasteful with their initial glut! I would have thought that they would have kept a few more like cattle, to save for later. To me, the ripping rather than biting seemed like a waste; no wonder these vamps were hungry--they play with their food too much. What use is red snow?
What really impressed me was the birdseye view of the carnage; that was neat in its execution.
The leading actors, Josh Hartnett and Melissa George, did a really credible job as two butt-kickers who have fallen out, but once teamed up, are greater than the sum of their parts (or issues). I think they spent a tad too long on their strained relationship (seriously, after being locked in an attic together for more than an hour, I would have to talk things out! What else is there to do?). I am glad that the writers didn't make up any "issues" for them; this was not a relationship drama, it was a survival drama.
The human characters met or exceeded my expectations, although I was a little underwhelmed by the vamps. In the graphic novels, I took their demarcated speech to mean that it was sibilant, not some Slavic-tinged language. C'mon, it's got to be hard to talk around those teeth, so they still would have needed the subtitles. I guess it was easier to make the actors unintelligible in a systematic way than to have them speak English.
...
--More to follow, as a 'comment'--
Once again, I read the source material before I saw the film adaptation. They did a good job; bonus points for stretching one graphic novel into a 113-minute movie without straining story or the pacing too much. (I felt it was a bit slow, but I also knew about the twisty-ending, so I am not a fair judge. My sweetie said it moved along just fine, however.) I was curious going into the movie whether the writers would stray too much, as they tend to do when their inspiration is inked, not typed. Nope, they did a good job there, and the actors did a great job of really making their desperation relate-able. It's got to be pretty hard to be thrown into day-for-night for 70 days of filming. I would be jetting off to a Caribbean island where the only thing that I would have to be leery of is the local water and making a fool of myself after too many mini-umbrella-ed drinks!
When I first heard that the movie was being compared to 28 Days Later for the carnage-factor, I was curious. I mean, I know the movie was going to be about a town being slaughtered, but to me, the story is more about the cat-and-mouse game to be played out between the vamps and the survivors. They did a good job of spinning that out, but man, were those vamps wasteful with their initial glut! I would have thought that they would have kept a few more like cattle, to save for later. To me, the ripping rather than biting seemed like a waste; no wonder these vamps were hungry--they play with their food too much. What use is red snow?
What really impressed me was the birdseye view of the carnage; that was neat in its execution.
The leading actors, Josh Hartnett and Melissa George, did a really credible job as two butt-kickers who have fallen out, but once teamed up, are greater than the sum of their parts (or issues). I think they spent a tad too long on their strained relationship (seriously, after being locked in an attic together for more than an hour, I would have to talk things out! What else is there to do?). I am glad that the writers didn't make up any "issues" for them; this was not a relationship drama, it was a survival drama.
The human characters met or exceeded my expectations, although I was a little underwhelmed by the vamps. In the graphic novels, I took their demarcated speech to mean that it was sibilant, not some Slavic-tinged language. C'mon, it's got to be hard to talk around those teeth, so they still would have needed the subtitles. I guess it was easier to make the actors unintelligible in a systematic way than to have them speak English.
...
--More to follow, as a 'comment'--
October 12, 2007
The Dark is Rising 2.0
Classic YA book - Arthurian legend + cinematic liberties = pretty good time
As I mentioned in my comment on Lunanshee's posting about this movie, I have read all of the books in this series, and would recommend them to just about anyone. Apparently the actor Ian McShane found them too dense, but I think that YA readers can handle them just fine.
The fly in the ointment for this movie is that it is overshadowed too much by the other "Boy Who Conquered the Forces of Evil." HP may have Voldemort, but I would like to contend that Christopher Eccleston was really creepy as The Rider, particularly when he shows up in his buttoned-down psycho alter ego in Will's world. Still, the comparisons between the two are entirely too easy, to the detriment of a viewer's experience.
I also think that the release date doesn't work in the film's favor. This movie would have done incredibly well at Thanksgiving, not in the no man's land of between summer and holiday movies, with TV's premier week to distract us. As the author for the Chocolate and Vodka blog (see link in response posting) points out, these books/movie are best experienced around the Christmas holidays, when the atmosphere is just right for that brand of British mysticism. I don't know about you guys, but it is warm and sunny here, so it is more difficult to mentally transport oneself to the misty moors of England, or to a quaint village.
That being said, the visuals of the movie were just right. I loved the small town; to me, it was a believable setting. I also think that even though the story bores Ian McShane, he was a passable Merriman Lyon. I always pictured him exuding an omniscient stateliness, so when Frances Conroy (doing her very best Dame Maggie Smith impression) begins to bicker with him about the right way to communicate with a teen boy, I was a little surprised. However, as the movie went on, the interaction between the two leading Old Ones grew on me; they are more or less human too, with their own blind spots. Who does know how to deal with teens? Not many, and that is why they are so interesting yet frustrating. I do think that the writers imbued Will with too much doubt. Book-Will was a little too self-assured for an 11 year-old, but movie-Will reminds me too much of Book-Harry Potter in Order of the Phoenix, when I wanted to tell him to stop whining and get to business. Still, Alexander Ludwig did far better than I expected, and that is always nice.
--See 'comment' for more.--
As I mentioned in my comment on Lunanshee's posting about this movie, I have read all of the books in this series, and would recommend them to just about anyone. Apparently the actor Ian McShane found them too dense, but I think that YA readers can handle them just fine.
The fly in the ointment for this movie is that it is overshadowed too much by the other "Boy Who Conquered the Forces of Evil." HP may have Voldemort, but I would like to contend that Christopher Eccleston was really creepy as The Rider, particularly when he shows up in his buttoned-down psycho alter ego in Will's world. Still, the comparisons between the two are entirely too easy, to the detriment of a viewer's experience.
I also think that the release date doesn't work in the film's favor. This movie would have done incredibly well at Thanksgiving, not in the no man's land of between summer and holiday movies, with TV's premier week to distract us. As the author for the Chocolate and Vodka blog (see link in response posting) points out, these books/movie are best experienced around the Christmas holidays, when the atmosphere is just right for that brand of British mysticism. I don't know about you guys, but it is warm and sunny here, so it is more difficult to mentally transport oneself to the misty moors of England, or to a quaint village.
That being said, the visuals of the movie were just right. I loved the small town; to me, it was a believable setting. I also think that even though the story bores Ian McShane, he was a passable Merriman Lyon. I always pictured him exuding an omniscient stateliness, so when Frances Conroy (doing her very best Dame Maggie Smith impression) begins to bicker with him about the right way to communicate with a teen boy, I was a little surprised. However, as the movie went on, the interaction between the two leading Old Ones grew on me; they are more or less human too, with their own blind spots. Who does know how to deal with teens? Not many, and that is why they are so interesting yet frustrating. I do think that the writers imbued Will with too much doubt. Book-Will was a little too self-assured for an 11 year-old, but movie-Will reminds me too much of Book-Harry Potter in Order of the Phoenix, when I wanted to tell him to stop whining and get to business. Still, Alexander Ludwig did far better than I expected, and that is always nice.
--See 'comment' for more.--
September 21, 2007
Atonement
Young hot actors+tragedy=bearable Atonement
Here is another book that I have 'read' in preparation for the film version. I don't think that I would have picked it up if the lovely Ms. Knightly hadn't seduced me in to it. First of all, I don't like stories that are too tragic; the book seemed like a big downer, and in some ways it is (sexual assault, particularly of a minor, is never fun to me). On the other hand, it is also a beautiful character-study for so many of the main players and I am content with the time I spent listening to the audiobook.
I think James McAvoy is going to be a great Robbie and Romola Garai is good enough to make the audience not totally despise Briony, the younger sister whose misunderstanding instigates the the tragedy. I am in; this cast has sold me on the hope that the sadness of the story and the bittersweetness of what little redemption the book affords will not turn into a lachrymose mush on-screen.
I can tell you right now that my best movie buddy will not be interested in seeing this with me, so I may have to review it all by myself. While I think it is too early to talk about a movie's chances at an Oscar (it is always too early, particularly if a movie hasn't even come out yet. Wait until November, people!), this movie seems like a jury-pleaser, from what I know of the book and the actors. Admittedly, the actors are still the biggest draw for me, but the cinematography also looks fantastic. We shall see.
Here is another book that I have 'read' in preparation for the film version. I don't think that I would have picked it up if the lovely Ms. Knightly hadn't seduced me in to it. First of all, I don't like stories that are too tragic; the book seemed like a big downer, and in some ways it is (sexual assault, particularly of a minor, is never fun to me). On the other hand, it is also a beautiful character-study for so many of the main players and I am content with the time I spent listening to the audiobook.
I think James McAvoy is going to be a great Robbie and Romola Garai is good enough to make the audience not totally despise Briony, the younger sister whose misunderstanding instigates the the tragedy. I am in; this cast has sold me on the hope that the sadness of the story and the bittersweetness of what little redemption the book affords will not turn into a lachrymose mush on-screen.
I can tell you right now that my best movie buddy will not be interested in seeing this with me, so I may have to review it all by myself. While I think it is too early to talk about a movie's chances at an Oscar (it is always too early, particularly if a movie hasn't even come out yet. Wait until November, people!), this movie seems like a jury-pleaser, from what I know of the book and the actors. Admittedly, the actors are still the biggest draw for me, but the cinematography also looks fantastic. We shall see.
Going to see it: No Country For Old Men
I just finished the audiobook for this title, in preparation for the movie coming out. I prefer to read (or 'read', in the case of audiobooks) the text a movie is based on, before I see it. This may not be the best plan, since I am usually a little disappointed with the movie's comparatively limited scope, but I do have fun agreeing or disagreeing with the casting choices (Tom Hanks as Robert Langdon? Please!).
I liked the book a lot. Tom Stechschulte's voice did the gritty landscape of the novel justice, and from the previews, the movie will too. Javier Bardem (a great actor, even if I don't appreciate him very much) is super creepy, even in an awful haircut. I think he is going to be terrifyingly good as the psychopath Chigurh (on cd, pronounced more like a deeply southern slur of "chigger" than "sugar"). Josh Brolin is not an actor that I think very highly of, but he certainly looks the part, as does Tommy Lee Jones (a great actor, who makes some unfortunate choices). I adore Kelly Macdonald, so I will see her in almost anything. I will be even more impressed if she can pull off the deep-southern vulnerability of Carla Jean without being overbearinly needy. I am not so sure about Woody Harrelson; I can't take the guy seriously, even if he is set up to be the 'problem solver' deployed to reign in Chigurh's killing spree.
Now all I have to do is hope that the producers don't try to 'update' the setting; for me, that would ruin it, even though all the way through the book, I was dying for a good CSI team and some DNA-tests.
We'll see how well the translation from the page to the screen works out. I am prepared to like it, although I don't think that Lunanshee will be eager to see the movie, much less like the ending. I think the dark, gritty, rangy prose of the novel will come to life on-screen.
I am glad that I read the story first, because I know what a deliciously unsettling scare I am going to be in for with the killer's calm application of the cattle stun-gun. Maybe the metallic chunk of a high-pressure tank being set down on concrete will make me jump for years to come. (Darn, and I really like to scuba-dive!)
I liked the book a lot. Tom Stechschulte's voice did the gritty landscape of the novel justice, and from the previews, the movie will too. Javier Bardem (a great actor, even if I don't appreciate him very much) is super creepy, even in an awful haircut. I think he is going to be terrifyingly good as the psychopath Chigurh (on cd, pronounced more like a deeply southern slur of "chigger" than "sugar"). Josh Brolin is not an actor that I think very highly of, but he certainly looks the part, as does Tommy Lee Jones (a great actor, who makes some unfortunate choices). I adore Kelly Macdonald, so I will see her in almost anything. I will be even more impressed if she can pull off the deep-southern vulnerability of Carla Jean without being overbearinly needy. I am not so sure about Woody Harrelson; I can't take the guy seriously, even if he is set up to be the 'problem solver' deployed to reign in Chigurh's killing spree.
Now all I have to do is hope that the producers don't try to 'update' the setting; for me, that would ruin it, even though all the way through the book, I was dying for a good CSI team and some DNA-tests.
We'll see how well the translation from the page to the screen works out. I am prepared to like it, although I don't think that Lunanshee will be eager to see the movie, much less like the ending. I think the dark, gritty, rangy prose of the novel will come to life on-screen.
I am glad that I read the story first, because I know what a deliciously unsettling scare I am going to be in for with the killer's calm application of the cattle stun-gun. Maybe the metallic chunk of a high-pressure tank being set down on concrete will make me jump for years to come. (Darn, and I really like to scuba-dive!)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
