The Hunger Games: Catching Fire in Theaters Now

Though I've been excited to see Catching Fire, I find myself, surprisingly, with little to say after having watched it. I feel like I need to watch it again to fully absorb it. I really enjoyed it, but another pass or two might help me to fully appreciate it.

In some ways, this sequel didn't grip me the way the first movie did. Nothing has really changed; just the newness has worn off. But I don't think it is inferior to the first movie. I thought this new director would change the feel of the movie, but he manages to capture the weight of the first movie while also adding his own flair nearly seamlessly.

As for keeping close to the book, I don't remember well enough. I read it years ago and purposefully did not read it again so that I wouldn't compare too closely. But now that I have seen the movie, I can say this: it felt right, and it just made me want to read the book again, which I will now allow myself to do. If a movie adaptation can be entertaining and make you want to read the book again, I'd say it's done its job.

One change from the first movie to the second that I thought was well-done, and perhaps even an improvement from the first, was the layout and action in the arena. Granted, the second movie had more to work with from the book. The 75th Hunger Games are special and meant to be extra "exciting." Catching Fire captures this change with a more fascinating, tighter arena and heart-pounding suspense. Although I loved the first movie, the arena itself didn't seem all that high-tech and other-worldly. It didn't matter so much because the focus was on the characters and their fight to the death. (SPOILER alert) In Catching Fire, the dynamics between the characters are much different than in The Hunger Games, less cutthroat, so you almost need that special arena to heighten the stakes.

Another change I heard about was that Peeta was going to be a little tougher in the movie than in the book. I thought that was kind of a cheap Hollywood thing to do, but somehow the movie actually keeps his character intact. Having not read the book recently, the change was not blatant to me. Peeta is still soft and caring and protective in his own way--everything that makes him who he is. If he's now also a little more handy with a small weapon and a little more sure of himself, I don't think that takes away from his significance.

One thing I do love about the movie, as I did in the first, is its characters, all played with so much feeling. I can't list them because then I'd have to list all of them. No one really felt off to me. And the way those characters interact...well, that's really the author's doing, but the movie captures it poignantly.

Catching Fire is rated PG-13 for, obviously, violence, disturbing themes, and some language, apparently. I think the language is probably a low concern next to the violence. A boy, probably ten years old, was sitting behind me in the theater, telling his mother he was going to "literally die" as he waited for the movie to start. Ironic...but more importantly, he was only ten. This is a mature book and movie series, whose popularity, unfortunately, has probably created something of a culture the author was actually speaking against. Readers and viewers don't always use their best judgment and sometimes seem to mindlessly absorb whatever they see. My blog is a teeny tiny revolution against that. (And I bet you thought I had nothing in common with Katniss.) I do believe there is value in such books and movies, even as entertainment, but they should be approached thoughtfully and with a concern for discerning right from wrong, something that does not come as easily to those younger viewers. (Cue stepping off soapbox.)

I would like to see this movie again. I would like to own it. I am very pleased with how this series has been adapted to the screen, and I'm curious as to whether or not they will be able to keep it up with the controversial last book.

Four stars.

Ender's Game in Theaters Now

I read the book Ender's Game in preparation for watching the movie, so with that semi-fresh in my mind (read that review here), these are my thoughts on the screen adaptation.

I'm not going to go into exactly what the story is about. For that, you can read my book review or stumble upon it just about anywhere on the Internet. This will be more of a comparison review of book to movie, with emphasis on the movie.

Overall, I thought the movie stayed very true to the book with the exception that befalls all movie adaptations: that much of the book had to be compressed. Impressively, this movie is very tight and moves the plot and the action right along, clocking in at under two hours. There's no drag. On the other hand, such speed of plot leaves little room to draw out depth of character and emotion, and that's what I found lacking in the first half of this movie. If you don't already know Ender from the books, you cannot possibly grasp what he is going through in the movie. The book takes us deeply into Ender's heart and mind, and it's extremely difficult to translate something so internal into something external and visual.

(Minor SPOILERS follow in this paragraph.) I'm not sure a true translation would have been possible in the first place without making a much longer movie that might have included more of the set-up of Ender's isolation. The movie cuts out the constant set-backs Ender faces in his quest for acceptance, and without those, you don't feel his plight nearly as strongly. The movie tells us he's purposely being isolated, but it skips the parts that show it, narrowly focusing instead on the opposite: how Ender attracts his followers. Without seeing the agony of his losses, we can't fully understand the significance of his victories. In fact, if you only had the movie to go by, you would think that Ender's superior, Colonel Graff, fails in his mission to isolate Ender, but that's not quite the case in the book. So, the first half of the movie, while true to the spirit of the book, lacks some of the soul of the book.

However, the second half picked up some of the lost emotional threads I was looking for and tied them into a fabulous ending, made all the more powerful by what I already knew from the book. This is one case where I am very glad I read the book first, though sometimes I am not so finicky about that. It is possible that I read more emotion into scenes because I knew what the book contained. Even so, Asa Butterfield, except for being taller than I thought he should be (and he's definitely older than the character in the book, but to get an actor with any depth, he'd have to be), is a fantastic Ender, and he plays the emotions beautifully.

(Very minor SPOILERS in this paragraph.) In fact, I was happy with nearly all the characters. Valentine, perhaps, didn't match up with how I envisioned her, especially in the latter half of the book, but she's in the movie so little that it doesn't matter (she and Peter's roles from later in the book were one of the sacrifices made due to time constraints). Harrison Ford as Graff and Viola Davis as Anderson seemed just right. Granted, I wasn't expecting Anderson to be a woman, and Davis brings a more motherly (though still military-tough) approach to the character that I never would have envisioned from the book, but somehow it works. At least, I liked it. The other trainees with Ender don't get a ton of screen time, but we still get to see a few of the book's key moments in which certain ones become something more to Ender. However, there's no time in the movie to deal with the complications those friendships go through in the book.

Just a note about morality since that's one of my big things. I don't have anything really bad to say about the movie, but I do want to give you the basics. It's rated PG-13 for some violence and heavy thematic material. (In short, if your kid's as young as Ender is supposed to be in the story, he's probably too young to watch this!) There's bullying, manipulation, questioning of authority, calculated violence. But the whole story is one big dialog of right and wrong. For that reason, with parental guidance, of course, I think some younger ages (middle school especially) can handle, or even should be allowed to handle, this. There's a lot to talk about.

Finally, I just enjoyed the look of the movie, the tech, the battle room, the aliens. It was all well done, and nothing seemed too amiss when compared to what I had envisioned in the book.

Though the first half of the movie leaned more toward three stars for me, the second half brought it overall to four stars. When the credits finally rolled, I had shed a few tears and just needed time to process the whole thing. There's this beauty to the story that the movie manages to capture a small part of, and it's timeless too. Several decades since the book's first publication haven't lessened its relevance and impact. I'm happy to see this story on the screen, despite being only a very recent fan, but I do highly recommend that you enjoy the book first.

Jack the Giant Slayer in Theaters Now

Jack the Giant Slayer was my second choice to see in theaters this month, but when you have kids, sometimes you just have to go with the time that works. Oz the Great and Powerful comes out next weekend, and Jack was in town now. So, we went to see Jack. My expectations were set rather low. By now, I should know better than to trust any reviews from Entertainment Weekly Magazine. As much as I enjoy getting my copy in the mail every Friday, I rarely agree with their opinions on movies. Jack got a C+ from them, and though to a certain extent I can see why they thought it was only an average movie, I thought there were aspects of it that really made it stand out from the typical fairytale fare we're often served.

Overall, I really liked Jack the Giant Slayer. I didn't see it in 3D, which is probably an adventure all by itself, but it didn't need the effects to be entertaining. Jack has danger, wild adventure, a bit of romance, and just the right touch of humor, all of these characteristics melding together into a lighthearted but still epic tale of heroism. It doesn't try to be funny just to be funny, but it doesn't take itself too seriously either. It's fun.

The plot itself is very straightforward, but that's not to say it's entirely predictable. The princess gets snatched. The farm boy goes to save her. All kinds of adventure follow. But the conflict isn't drawn out as many other similar movies do. Nothing takes too long to resolve. No conflict lasts throughout the movie. Bad guys die off like flies. But all this keeps the movie moving and changing, and the viewer doesn't get bored. The stereotypical mistrust you often have between a story's good characters, all the misunderstanding that slows the plot down, just isn't there. Although that kind of stuff can make good conflict sometimes, it's so overdone in movies, especially romances, that you feel like yelling at the central characters to get over themselves and see what the audience saw long ago. But Jack moves things right along in a way that's refreshing. Sure, you don't get a lot of in-depth character development, but that's not why you go to see a movie like Jack.

And you don't need a lot of character development when you have fantastic entertaining characters to begin with, as Jack does. Though, admittedly, they are static and somewhat stereotypical, they are also individualized. Even the minor characters stand out, quirky and fun, and you care or at least have an opinion ("he deserved to lose his head") about nearly all of them. I really enjoyed seeing a relatively new face in Jack himself, played adorably by Nicholas Hoult. And Ian McShane and Ewan McGregor give fun, heartfelt, memorable performances as the king and the head guard in charge of the princess's safety. They have the best lines.

Jack is rated PG-13. A fair amount of people die, some rather gruesomely eaten by giants, but nothing is very graphic. There are probably some middle-schoolers who would absolutely love it, but I, personally, wouldn't take younger kids.

(Minor SPOILER alert!) Jack certainly has its over-the-top moments (like falling with a giant beanstalk and landing safely, or the princess coming out of her tent with perfect curls literally ten seconds after looking like she'd just ridden aforementioned falling beanstalk a mile to the ground), but the moments fit in fairytale land without making the movie completely implausible for those of us who like things a little more real. It's a solid fairytale movie without the singing or overabundance of cheap jokes that many lighter, bubblier fairytale movies have. Comparing it to other fairytales adapted for the screen, it's not nearly as serious as Snow White and the Huntsman, but it's not as ridiculous as Ella Enchanted (which I enjoyed anyway, back in the day) or Mirror, Mirror. There's a happy middle that evokes childhood memories of listening sleepily to your parents reading grand adventures. Incidentally, but perhaps not accidentally, that's exactly how Jack the Giant Slayer begins, with children listening to tall tales. And if you go see Jack, just sit back, become a kid again, and enjoy the telling.

The Help on DVD

I waited forever for The Help to come out on DVD and then come through Netflix. I kept hearing great things about it, and it was so highly in demand on Netflix that I waited for months with it at the top of my list. Finally, finally, it came, and it exceeded expectations and was definitely worth the wait (though I could have picked up a copy much sooner at my local DVD rental store, but it's not like I'm bored at home with two kids and I do pay for Netflix, so I waited).

I am probably the last of you all to see it, but just in case I'm not, get down to your rental store and pick this one up! It definitely deserved the Oscar nods and wins, and it's highly entertaining, to boot! (Those don't always go hand in hand.)

Being a story about a small Mississippi neighborhood in the Civil Rights era, this movie (based on a fictional book, by Kathryn Stockett) is a little piece of history, though this particular story itself is fabricated. I'm not typically into historical pieces. But it's the characters (I'm always about character!) that make this story, and it's the actors who make this movie!

The girls in Jackson, Mississippi, are raised by black maids, and when they are old enough, they become wives and mothers of their own, their highest ambitions to be the head of that society or this or to have the best-kept lawns. You know those old pictures from the 50's and 60's, advertising cleaning products, with super happy women in bobbed hair? The white women in this movie are just like that. That or The Stepford Wives.

But one young woman in Jackson sees a different future for herself. Returning from four years of college to find all her old friends married and having babies, Skeeter doesn't fit in. She wants to be a writer and gladly takes a position at the newspaper, writing the cleaning column. Since she herself knows nothing about cleaning, she goes to one of her friends' maids, a black woman named Aibileen (played by Viola Davis). But when Skeeter sees the way her friends speak condescendingly about their maids and how they segregate them by building separate bathrooms for them, she realizes there might be a story there to write. The only problem is that writing anything that points out the mistreatment of blacks is illegal in Mississippi, and the maids are afraid to talk.

But given courage by the start of the Civil Rights movement and just plain tired of the ill treatment, the maids do begin to talk, sharing both the good and the ugly, sharing about their love for the little girls they raise only to have those little girls trample them down when they are grown up. And you will love how they ensure their safety when the book Skeeter and Aibileen write is finally done and published and all those white women are reading their own appalling histories!

Viola Davis (Oscar nominee) and Octavia Spencer (Best Supporting Actress winner) are amazing in their roles as oppressed maids but fierce, determined, loving individuals. Emma Stone plays a loveable Skeeter, and other actresses such as Bryce Dallas Howard (the villainous Hilly!), Allison Janney (Skeeter's mother), and Jessica Chastain (Celia Foote, a wealthy white woman ostracized by her own, who becomes close friends with Octavia's character, Minny. I loved Celia!) have memorable roles. It's a cast of strong women. The men almost don't factor into the story.

The Help is sometimes hilarious, sometimes heart-wrenching, but altogether, it's a beautiful look at the heart of a person, what makes us human despite wealth or skin color.

It's a long movie at two hours and twenty-six minutes, but it doesn't feel like it. It's rated PG-13 for thematic material only. Besides the obvious one, the mistreatment of blacks, there is a scene where a woman is bleeding all over the floor during a miscarriage.

This is a movie to see, for sure, maybe even to own. I haven't read the book (shame, I know), but I didn't feel like the movie lacked anything. I was very pleased. I can only imagine the book provides an even richer experience.

Five stars. Really.

Snow Flower and the Secret Fan on DVD 2011

Again, this is a book I haven't read and wasn't actually interested in, but I saw the movie preview on another DVD and liked the look of the movie enough to Netflix it. It's a terribly sad story in some ways, but it's also very moving and beautiful, too. For me, the good outweighed the dark and heavy.

The story takes place in two separate generations. In modern times, two girls become friends in China and decide to become laotongs (heart sisters for life) like one of the girls' ancestors, Snow Flower, and her laotong, Lily. But when Sophia becomes comatose after an accident, Nina realizes how far apart they have drifted, and she's brought back to her heart sister through Sophia's written account of her ancestor Snow Flower and the secret fan. In 19th century China, Lily is a poor girl whose circumstances change the day she gets her feet bound in the hideous tradition of the old Chinese world. With perfect, tiny feet, she can reverse her circumstances, and the matchmaker finds her a wealthy girl, Snow Flower, to be her laotong and help bring her up in the world. And Lily's fortunes do, indeed, change, as much as a Chinese girl's could. She marries into a wealthy family at the cost of a loveless marriage and a domineering mother-in-law who doesn't let her visit her laotong. Meanwhile, Snow Flower's fortunes are also reversed, and she marries a butcher and lives in poverty in the country. But the two women still find ways to communicate through a secret fan, and risking much, they even meet secretly. When their sisterly love is tested, they discover what real, sacrificial love is. And so does Nina as she reads their story.

Knowing nothing about the story myself, I wasn't sure what I was getting into. Something like Memoirs of a Geisha maybe, with too many sexual overtones? It was nothing like that at all. There is nothing homosexual about the laotong relationship, at least as portrayed in the movie. It is the simple, beautiful love of two friends who are closer than sisters. Two friends, I might add, who don't even get a choice in the matter of their friendship. It's a lot like an arranged marriage. But through their pain and suffering, they learn to love together. A lot of marriages could learn from that.

I know very little about the custom of binding women's feet, so this was an eye-opener. I expected it to be painful, of course, but it actually made me cry to see children, just seven years old, getting their feet bound until they bled, calling for their steely-eyed mothers who watched, and having to walk and toughen up immediately, a rite of passage for sure. It broke my heart to see them calling out in pain for their mothers from their beds at night. I'm more sensitive this way since having children of my own.

Another scene that deeply affected me and had me sobbing was the death of a boy about my son's size, and as if that isn't enough heartache for a mother, the father blames and beats the mother and won't let her hold her son's body or see where he is buried. Grief upon grief. I wouldn't be able to bear it. But these women are strong, perhaps made so by the very thing that causes them pain all their lives, the binding of their feet. Definitely not saying we should seek out hardship or condone abuse for the sake of growing strong, but it's undeniable that hardship has the potential to make us that way.

Bingbing Li acts as both Nina and Lily, and Gianna Jun acts as both Sophia and Snow Flower. They do such excellent jobs that I didn't even realize they were playing two parts until the credits.

With a very heartfelt performance, this amazing, though fictional, story comes to life, detailing a world that did exist and that we can barely imagine. If you can stand the grief, I highly recommend the movie Snow Flower and the Secret Fan. It's rated PG-13 for minor sexuality and some violence. The book is by Lisa See, if you'd prefer to experience the story that way, but I can't comment or compare since I haven't read it.

Four stars!

Water for Elephants on DVD

If you haven't read the book Water for Elephants, by Sara Gruen (which I have not), then all you might know about the movie adaptation is that it stars Reese Witherspoon and Robert Pattinson (the heartthrob of the Twilight vampire movies). That's all I knew, at any rate. Also, the book had been recommended to me, but lacking time to read, I opted for the visual medium instead.

Visually, Water for Elephants is a delight. It's a period piece, so the costumes and sets and 1930's Depression atmosphere combine to transport you to not only a different era but a different world of sorts. The circus is its own world with its own rules and government. So discovers Jacob, who loses his Polish parents and future veterinary career in one day. With nowhere else to go, he hops a train, not realizing it's a traveling circus. There, he finds work, friends, and even love. But his salvation could easily be his undoing as Marlena, the woman he falls in love with, is the wife of August, the circus manager, a man used to getting his way by force and brutality. When an elephant becomes the circus's new star attraction, Jacob is thrust into the middle of a dangerous game as he attempts to train the elephant for Marlena and protect both Marlena and the elephant from August's temper.

The movie is brilliantly acted with Robert Pattinson as Jacob, Reese Witherspoon as Marlena, and Christoph Waltz as August. Witherspoon is always fabulous, and Pattinson proves he has more than vampires to offer. The minor characters are all loveable as well, providing a fully entertaining movie in both the major plot and subplots.

I can't compare the movie to the book, not having read it, but I occasionally like to see a movie adaptation without the benefit of already knowing the story to see how it holds up by itself. I think Water for Elephants as a movie does a pretty good job of standing on its own feet. I thought it moved a little fast, perhaps. I'm sure the events of the story take place over a longer period of time in the book, but you have to compress time or at least make it feel like a lot of time is passing quickly when you make a movie. It's not that the movie is rushed. I was just caught off guard by how quickly Jacob made it into the circus and then how quickly things started to come crashing down. But, otherwise, the portrayal of events moved at a good pace.

Now, to the moral aspects of the story, and there, I do not have such glowing opinions. In fact, I cannot decide if I actually like the movie, and there are two reasons why. One, from the very first, I wasn't sure I liked Jacob. The movie starts with him as an old man telling his story, and almost the first thing you find out about him is that he's all alone in a nursing home because his five kids won't take care of him. So, my immediate thought was, what kind of man raises five kids who can't take care of him when he's old? I didn't like what that implied. Second, the whole romance and plot of the movie revolves around a man having an affair with another man's wife. I can't condone that at all. It bothered me, even though August was a brute of a man who didn't deserve Marlena. Still, adultery never flies in my book.

The movie ended well and was not as sad as I kept expecting. Actually, it was a great happy ending, but for me, it was tainted by the moral dilemmas of the story.

The movie is rated PG-13 and contains a sex scene and some violence, part of which is done to animals. I was warned about the animal cruelty and so expected it to be worse than it was. But it's bad enough. I appreciated the movie's subtle message that cruelty toward animals is no worse than cruelty toward men. In our society, it often seems like animals get preferential treatment. Such would certainly not have been the case in 1930's America.

Overall, my opinion is that this is a great period piece, but though I usually love romance, this romance, however realistic is might have been, just didn't sit right with me. I think I would average out the rating to three stars.

Breaking Dawn, Part 1 in Theaters

I went out to a movie by myself a few nights ago. After a month of never being alone, it was nice, and I enjoyed myself. The movie was Breaking Dawn. Now, I may already have lost some of you a sentence ago, but hear me out.

I have been a fan of the books all along, and I've enjoyed the movies, however different from the books they have been. Twilight has been my favorite book of the series, with Breaking Dawn right behind it. Though others were put off by Bella's moodiness, I didn't mind it. In fact, I sort of empathized. Maybe I would have a different view now, re-reading the books, I don't know. But one thing has changed. I noticed Bella's sadness and depression in this movie like I hadn't in the ones before, perhaps because I've been surrounded by people pointing it out to me, and finally, I grew tired of it. I guess I must admit, I've been drinking the Kool-Aid, and my taste buds are looking for something new.

I still enjoyed myself, and I am still very much looking forward to Breaking Dawn, Part 2, which will correspond to my favorite part of the book anyway. I expect Bella, also, to be a changed person, but maybe that's just my hopes and not reality. The second half of the story is much more about vampires, and (SPOILERS for those of you who haven't read the books or seen this most recent movie), Bella makes a cool vampire. I think audiences will appreciate the high-stakes danger of the last part of the story, which while still about love, goes deeper than human infatuation with perfection.

I guess Bella's depression has never bothered me as much as certain aspects of her relationship with Edward. I never completely jumped ship to the Jacob fan club, believing that for Bella (as opposed to any other teenage girl), Edward was really the best choice. But I did have a problem with some of Edward's possessiveness and the way, in Bella's eyes, he could do no wrong. Undeniably, if this were a romance between two humans, we would call it a dangerous and potentially abusive relationship. And I acknowledge, Bella has never been a great role model for girls. No problem for me since I'm not looking to Bella for advice on life, but I suppose many teenage girls might be, and that is definitely a problem.

In Breaking Dawn, specifically, my attention was called to the fact that Bella is not excited to be getting married. That always bothered me. I don't have a problem with her marrying young, like some do, but she should be happy with her choice, not letting it be made for her. I did appreciate Bella's protectiveness of her unborn child. She begins to take responsibility and made her own decisions, and I don't think she should be put down for that.

I'm not thrilled about the sex scenes in the movie, PG-13 as they may be, but if they have to be there, I'm glad they take place after marriage. Small concessions. And, finally, a word about the gruesomeness of the last scenes of this first half of Breaking Dawn. The book was bad, and I was afraid of what the movie might recreate. Honestly, it wasn't as bad as the book, but for the visual media, it was bad enough. Bella grows skeletal, and the birth scene is gory. Not as much blood as you might expect, but the ideas portrayed on and off the screen tell a tale of absolute horror. Edward rips the baby out with his teeth, for instance (off the screen, but still...). I don't have a problem suspending disbelief that such a birth situation is even possible. A big deal was made about that in a magazine issue of Entertainment Weekly. So what? It's fiction. It's vampires. In that fantasy world, it makes enough sense to get away with it. But I mention the gruesomeness because it's on an R-rated level in a PG-13 movie (which probably shouldn't have been for the sex alone). I'm not sure younger teens should be going to see this, and I'm betting a lot younger than that are.

So, as a Twilight fan but not a fanatic, my overall impression of this movie was that it was slow, sometimes inappropriate, yet vaguely enjoyable on a first watch. I'd even give it three stars, but that rating is for Twilight fans. If you aren't one, don't go see this.

Jane Eyre on DVD (2011 Adaptation)

Just so you know, I have never read Jane Eyre. *Gasp* I know. How can I even call myself a book reviewer? Even my husband has read it. But I am not totally unfamiliar with the story. I did see the 1997 made-for-TV movie with Samantha Morton as Jane Eyre, and I must say, 2011's adaptation was more enjoyable for me, if "enjoyable" is the correct word to use in regards to such a depressing story!

I mean, seriously, why is this story so beloved? Don't get me wrong, I cried a bucketful myself watching this one. But Rochester is old (though not too old in this version), rude, cruel even to Jane at times, and deceitful. What is the appeal?

I'll try to answer my own question. He engages Jane's mind and lets her be herself in a world that has treated her very badly. He's passionate, and Jane's own natural passions have been beaten nearly out of her. He's mysterious, tall, dark, and handsome (at least in the 2011 movie version), which helps modern audiences fall in love with him, too. I don't know if he's good looking in the book, but he has tall, dark, and mysterious going for him for sure. He's essentially the stereotypical "bad boy," who gets his hooks into Jane's innocent spirit and then is somehow softened by her, though the opposite is likely to be true in the real world. For a girl, this kind of domineering, forceful man seems romantic. In the courting dance, where girls play hard to get, they want someone who will play harder to win them. I get that. But I don't think such a match turns out so happily in real life, and I think books like this encourage the belief that it does.

Perhaps I'll read the book one day and be just as enamored as the rest of its fans, but from somewhat of an outsider's viewpoint, this is a strange story, indeed.

Now, as I said before, I did enjoy the 2011 adaptation with Mia Wasikowska as Jane Eyre and Amelia Clarkson as a young Jane. It helped, too, that Michael Fassbender is a totally better looking, younger Rochester than Ciaran Hinds from the 1997 movie. I felt for Jane, loved her even. I was intrigued by Rochester, felt his magnetic pull on Jane working on me, too. I was thrilled when they finally got to kiss. (Though, is that in the book? I know Austen never had a kissing scene.) I cried when Rochester broke Jane's heart and when they were finally reunited. The story, undoubtedly, has an emotional appeal.

I give the book this praise because it's true, but also to appease those of my readers who might be tempted to assail me with cries of outrage. I don't want to offend, but I do seek to be honest. And stories are meant to be interpreted as the reader will. Some will resonate with Jane Eyre, and others, like me, may hold less favorable opinions. I still acknowledge that this is a classic piece of art, and this movie, in particular, was well done.

Four stars.

Never Let Me Go on DVD

Lately, I've picked some really depressing movies to watch. Never Let Me Go is definitely that, but it also has a certain tragic beauty to it that appeals to me. The book club I take sporadic participation in read the novel by Kazuo Ishiguro and then saw the movie together. (Kazuo Ishiguro was an executive producer on the movie as well.) I did not read the book and, therefore, did not go see the movie with them. But I was interested in it, so after many months, I decided to watch the movie on my own. I have mixed feelings about it.

First of all, I might have enjoyed it better had I read the book, but maybe not. A movie should stand on its own, and I had too many questions watching this one. Let me get into the plot, and then I'll explain (but be prepared for spoilers, which I will try to keep vague and at a minimum).

The story starts in the 1970's, which I found odd, considering that it has a somewhat futuristic, science fiction aspect to it. Kathy, Ruth, and Tommy grow up on a glorified organ donation farm. Together with other children, they attend classes and live as though at any other "normal" boarding school. The exception is that they are being carefully monitored health-wise so that when they are of the appropriate age, they can begin a process that will let them donate up to four vital organs, one at a time, after which they will die. The only way to defer their donations is by becoming Carers. For a few years, Carers care for Donors, and then it's their turn to donate before they get too old. That's the background story, but the main story focuses on these three children as they grow into teenagers (played by Carey Mulligan, Andrew Garfield, and Keira Knightley), fall in love, fall apart, and try to live normal lives within the confines of their very abnormal existence.

I just had a hard time buying the story or the characters' reactions, mainly because of one question. How do you grow up knowing you are going to die young and not realize at some point that people can't do that to you? The characters attempt to defer their donations in whatever way is presented for them, but it's like they can't think for themselves. And maybe they can't. Maybe they are so brainwashed that this is the realistic outcome. But they never once try to escape. The whole movie shows them scanning their bracelets every time they leave or enter a building all their lives, and they don't question it once. I felt like they should, but maybe that's where I'm missing what the book has to offer. I wanted to know why these farms existed, why the author felt he had to put something futuristic in the past, why the kids accepted it without question. It didn't sit right with me at all, and I don't believe it was supposed to. But I don't like the unsettled feeling, and I wanted a little more explanation about the logistics.

I'm very curious now to hear what my fellow book club members who actually read the book have to say. I want to know if the book did the story more justice.

Aside from the intriguing but confusing premise, the storyline is somewhat unsatisfactory as well. There's a love triangle, and it's annoying because on top of their crappy lives, these characters can't even enjoy a simple love. I like when they get it right, but that enjoyment is short-lived as the story ends predictably and realistically (for the type of plot). Maybe that's why I can't enjoy this story; it's too realistic. I like happy, or at least hopeful, endings. Stories should be a form of healthy escapism from the realities of life. I can appreciate a more realistic ending, but I get true enjoyment only from something that's bigger and grander than the real world.

And yet another strike against the movie: it's rated R for some nudity and sexuality. It's done much more tastefully than some movies I've seen. The only real frontal nudity is the tops of women in a magazine. There are a couple sex scenes, which are fairly careful not to show parts (you might catch a glimpse if you look closely, but I don't, so I can't tell you for sure). The sex scenes are all about lust, and the one time there is a closer connection between the people, they don't show the sex scene. That's fine by me, but why do that? Did the movie makers think that it was more sacred, or something, because it was true love? News flash: sex is sacred. Period. They understand only the half of it.

My final take. I thought the movie was mostly well-done, emotional, and heart-wrenching. From a cinematography viewpoint, it's beautiful. It has a historical feel, while being weirdly futuristic, an odd and interesting mix, to be sure. But I can't say I enjoyed the movie. It's hard to enjoy something so hopeless.

I'm really quite torn about what star rating to give this movie. I didn't hate it, but I'm not sure whom to recommend it to either. Probably best to start with the book, unlike me, and go from there. Let's just draw the line down the middle at two and a half stars.


ADDENDUM: Above, I stated that my book club read the book and then saw the movie together. I was wrong. They did read the book, but as of this post, they had not seen the movie together yet. I apologize for the error.

The Adjustment Bureau

I was excited to see The Adjustment Bureau because I knew it dealt with the world in a matrix-y kind of way, not that I would compare it to The Matrix at all. It's not the same, but it carried that same sense of wrongness with the world, of things being arranged beyond human control. It actually reminded me a little bit of Dark City, though it wasn't nearly as...well, dark.

I ended up being disappointed in the movie. Perhaps I wanted it to be a little darker and deeper than it was, to have a greater sense of an evil force at work controlling humankind. The "bad guys," or the world adjusters, came off as more of an angelic intervention by human-looking nonhumans who take their orders from the Chairman...or you might as well call him “the man upstairs.” The movie is never clear on who they are, so for the sake of this review's clarity, we'll call them angels from now on.

And if you've read my other reviews, you know what I think of putting angels in fiction. Normally, it doesn't work for me, and this was no exception. Though the angels were wrong sometimes, I never got a sense that what they were doing was evil, and to be honest, I wanted it to be evil. I wanted the protagonist lovers to be fighting for a good reason, other than just the right to control their own destinies.

What I really didn't like was that at the end, after the whole movie talks about the Chairman's Plan, (spoilers here) the protagonists end up following an original Plan that had previously been scrapped. So, in my opinion, they never controlled their destinies after all. They just followed the Plan that was meant to be in the first place. Disappointing. As for who they say the Chairman is, more unsatisfactory, vague, mumbo jumbo answers.

I wanted to like the movie, and I wish I could give it something. My husband liked the dialog between the main characters, but to be honest, it's already left my mind, having seen it a few days ago, and I can't tell you my personal opinion. I do remember discussing with him that we understood the man better than the woman, that we didn't really get her motivation or see why she would give everything up for this guy.

This movie is based on a short story: "Adjustment Team," by Philip K. Dick. I've seen some of the other movies made from his stories, and I enjoyed those better: The Minority Report and Paycheck. The Adjustment Bureau is an interesting portrayal of what it means to have free will, but maybe the story was lost in translation from paper to movie. Perhaps my husband will comment on why he enjoyed it a little more than I did.

But if you're looking for something with more tension and real bad guys, I think Dark City is better.

I Am Number Four (book and movie)

If you read my last blog, you know that I am on a brief kick of books turned into movies, or in the case of Red Riding Hood, screenplays turned into books. I read I Am Number Four as an advance reader's copy (not even the published hardcover) just last year. I'm amazed at how quickly they can do that. Advance copy one year. Movie the next.

You'd think, then, that the movie wouldn't be all that great for being made so quickly, even before the populace had time to spread the hype on this book. You might be surprised. Alfred Gough and Miles Millar helped write the screenplay. They are also the creators of Smallville; the content is similar.

Here's the basic plot without too many spoilers. Number Four is one of nine alien children from the planet Lorien sent to Earth to avoid a bloodbath by evil Mogadorians, aliens who took over and destroyed their planet. The problem is that those evil aliens have come to Earth to do the same, and all that stands in their way are these nine kids. But the number is down to six because three have been destroyed, and Number Four knows he's next due to a convenient safety measure that only lets the Mogadorians kill the nine in order. Every time one dies, a new tatoo appears on the others' legs.

So, the nine have always been on the run, never staying too long, never making close friends, always forging new identities, with the help of a Protector for each one. When Number Four and Henri, his Protector and father-figure, discover Number Three's death, they erase their lives in Florida and start anew in Ohio. But Number Four, now called John Smith, isn't willing to hide in the shadows forever. He wants to live life and find love and be as normal as he can be, so he goes to the local high school, where he begins to make both friends and enemies and stir up unwanted notice. Even an innocently taken photograph can lead the Mogadorians to his doorstep, and he's running out of time.

I loved the movie. Perhaps it's because I couldn't remember many details from the book, having read it a year ago. But the details began to come back to me as I watched, so I know the movie was following the big picture of the book, at least.

As with all movies made from books, a lot of simplifying has to go on. The story has to fit into two hours, and it has to make sense without a lot of exposition. I thought the movie handled the basics really well without feeling like it was trying to cram all of the book in. It felt like a movie, not a book turned into a movie.

There are differences, of course, that the diehard fans will hate. Personally, I don't think the movie had the budget to pull off the book's crazy, complex, layered last battle, but the simplified movie version is good enough for the movie watchers. It might disappoint book fans as so much is left out. But it would have taken too much explanation and time to fit it all in. The movie stayed simple, and that's why I think it works. However, if you do see the movie before the book, read the book, too, so you can get all the cool stuff from the end.

Remembering more of the book now that I've seen the movie, I'll add a few words on that. Sadly, but perhaps tellingly, I didn't review I Am Number Four when I read it, even though I was reviewing a lot of other books at the time. I think what happened is that I was reading a lot and I'd just had a baby, so I reviewed only what I considered the best. I don't think I Am Number Four was so bad. It just wasn't the one that stuck out in my mind at the time. I thought the idea was unique, I do remember, and the only negative thing I can concretely remember thinking was that the main character, Four, seemed younger than he was supposed to be. He's made to be older than I remember in the movie, though. I think he felt a little like he was in middle school in the book when he's actually in high school. But the movie makes him look like a senior, at least. Could be the choice of actor; he just looks older.

One of the things I particularly enjoyed that they kept well from book to movie was the role played by the Chimera (though still cooler in the book), but I can't say anymore; too spoilerish.

Although the movie is rated PG13 for scary aliens and alien-related violence, including a scene where a small ball with razors revolving on it is placed in a guy's mouth (but no blood or gore is shown), I was pleased with the morality of both the book and movie. No clothes coming off. Nothing more than kissing. And the icing on the cake, aliens from Lorien fall in love with a person for life...so no cheating!

Overall, the acting was good, the special effects were decent, the storyline was clear, and the movie was just fun. Even if you've never heard of I Am Number Four, which I doubt by now, since they've been advertising it like crazy on TV, I think you will enjoy it. No need to read the book first. Save it for after, and you won't be disappointed. You'll feel like you're getting more story by reading the book second, and you'll want that because I Am Number Four is just the beginning of a series and the sequel, The Power of Six, isn't available until September.

Red Riding Hood (the book based on a screenplay)

I will be writing a couple of posts here about movies based on books or, more rare and intriguing, the opposite, as is the case with Red Riding Hood. More on that in a minute.

I am excited to see I Am Number Four, released in theaters tomorrow, because I read the advance reader's copy last year. Last year. Wow. They made that one into a movie fast! It's interesting how excited I am to see this movie when I wasn't particularly thrilled with the book. It was a good enough book, don't get me wrong, but it must not have made a big impact on me because in looking through old reviews, which I wrote before I started this blog, I Am Number Four, by Pittacus Lore, didn't have one. Sad. Now I will have to see the movie in the hopes that it triggers memories of how I felt about the book. But I am excited to see the movie partly because my memory is foggy and I have hopes that I have forgotten enough of the book to make any adaptations and changes less agonizing and partly because the previews are looking fantastic. I love previews. But enough on that movie/book for now because I will be coming back to it, and on to the book Red Riding Hood, by Sarah Blakley-Cartwright.

Red Riding Hood is a movie, set to release on March 11. Speaking of previews, when I first saw the preview for this one, I was fascinated. It had the feel of M. Night's The Village and the atmosphere and beauty of a Catherine Hardwicke film. (Whatever you think of Twilight, book or movie, Hardwicke made it a lush, beautiful work of cinematography.) In addition to its look, the movie intrigued me for its story; I love fairytale adaptations. So, I marked my calendar with the release date (yes, I do that) and mostly forgot about it.

Until...

Until I found the book at Barnes & Noble (where I browsed and then called Summer to have her order the book from her own store for me). I was surprised to see the book there and then sort of disappointed and excited at the same time. Disappointed that, seemingly, yet another movie adaptation of a book was being created. Can't people come up with original screenplays anymore? Excited that now I would be able to delve more fully into the world I'd caught only mysterious, intriguing glimpses of. I didn't look much at the cover or inside. I was getting the book, no matter what. That's how deep a preview can get its hook into me.

When I finally had my own copy in my hand, I noticed again how the author's name wasn't even on the front cover, just on the binding. Actually, the front cover contained Catherine Hardwicke's name in a little blurb saying she'd written an introduction to the book. I'd found it odd at the time but hadn't given it much thought. Come to find out...this novel is based on the screenplay by David Leslie Johnson, an original screenplay! Well, original enough, since it's a complete re-imagining of the classic fairytale. So, this original screenplay popped up on Hardwicke's desk, and she loved it and decided to give it to a recently graduated, up-and-coming writer friend of hers to transform and flesh out into a more complex story than two hours in the theater can give. So, this is not just a novel copy of the movie, reliving each movie scene, but a separate entity, a story of its own, a rare thing: a book based on a screenplay.

I was torn about whether I should read it before I saw the movie because, really, the movie is the original. If you should read an original book before seeing its movie adaptation, shouldn't you do the opposite if the situation is reversed? But I couldn't wait, so I dove in, and here's my overarching view on this phenomenon: I hope the movie is better. The book was okay, more interesting toward the latter half, but in some ways, it was slow. Movies aren't meant to be slow, and I have high expectations that the movie will move at a better pace because, after all, the movie script was written first, and the author of that didn't have to try to squeeze in a novel's full details. In the end, I might have to say, watch the movie first, and if you are still intrigued, read the book to flesh out the characters. I'm excited to see this movie because I have no fears that it will disappoint. It was created to stand alone, which makes a big difference from book-to-movie adaptations.

Now, if the movie disappoints, it will be because of a lack in the original story itself, and on that, I'm not sure what to expect. I would hate to give away spoilers on this movie, which will be suspenseful and mysterious. Spoilers would ruin the movie-watching experience. But I have to review the book.

So, I will make a concession and review the book as much as possible without spoilers and then revisit the book review in March after I've seen the movie.

Red Riding Hood, as a book, is the story of Valerie, a woodcutter's daughter who lives in a village of fear. It's a small village full of old tradition and law, where women and men's lives intermingle little, where a girl can be promised to a man by her parents, where the Church holds the law, and where an animal sacrifice is made monthly to appease the Werewolf. The people live in stilted homes where they lift the ladders at night and never feel quite safe during the day.

Valerie feels like a stranger in her village of Daggorhorn, even though she's lived there all her life. Her father is the town drunk, but there's more to her feelings of unbelonging. She longs to see the world outside, to live a life without fear, to climb the tallest trees, to be someone special. In short, she feels what many a teenager has felt, stifled, needing to stretch and become someone. But no other teenager in her village seems to feel the way she does. And then Peter returns.

Peter was her childhood friend, until the town ran him and his father off after the death of Henry's mom. And Henry is Valerie's arranged future husband. Henry is sweet and attentive, rich, a prize catch for any girl in the town. But Peter is passionate, and the outsider in him calls to the outsider in Valerie. Typical teenage angst here. 

Honestly, the beginning of the book had me a little bored, not bored enough to quit reading, but disappointed. The writing was a little stilted. Certain phrasing by itself was poetic but was not always put together in a lyrical way. Sometimes it was wordy. Sometimes it wasn't subtle enough, not trusting the reader's ability to put the puzzle pieces together.

But it really picked up toward the middle of the book, which I finished in just two days (and that was only during my son's naps and after he went to bed). You can really begin to see how this story was made to be a movie when you get to the point of nonstop action. I'm thrilled to see these scenes translate to the screen. It definitely has that feeling of M. Night's The Village, and I suspect it will be edge-of-your-seat suspenseful as the murders pile up and the identity of the Wolf is revealed to be a villager, but whom, nobody knows. The end of the book has a very Gothic feel. It's deliciously dark and creepy, mysterious to the final words.

But the very last pages of the book disappointed me again. I have a feeling I know what the author was trying to do, but I hope the movie conveys the idea better. We'll have to see, and I can't say much more without spoiling it for you. Just this, a moral issue, because that's what I deal with primarily on this blog: I was unhappy with the moral ambiguity. I think it adds a haunting feeling to the story, and I can appreciate that. But I thought Valerie's actions and thoughts in the final pages of the book were inconsistent. Expect to hear more on this when I've seen the movie. That review will definitely have spoilers!

In the meantime, enjoy my upcoming review of I Am Number Four as I try to remember the book and compare tellings. I should be seeing it within the next week.