The movie was better

You know how every time there's a new movie out and you really like it, some hipster wannabe has be all "The book was so much better." Usually they roll their eyes a little and maybe even snort a bit at the fact that you liked the common, mainstream, film adaptation of their beloved novel.

**By the way, if you happen to not have clicked through all the Disney hipsters... go check them out**

And most of the time, I have to agree. A seven hundred page novel just cannot be done justice by a two and a half hour film. Every once in awhile, though, a book is adapted into a film and becomes so much more than it ever could have been on its own. Small, poorly written, confusing books get cleaned up and updated and ready for public viewing.

So, here's my list of the Top Five Movies That Were Better Than The Books They Were Based On. 

1. Legends of the Fall based on Legends of the Fall by Jim Harrison.
I love this movie. I *may* have watched this back-to-back on Bravo. Ahem.  It's beautiful, heart-wrenching, tragic and amazing. Beautifully shot, amazing performances from some of the greatest actors of their generations, possibly of all time. Seriously? Julia Ormond, Brad Pitt, Anthony Hopkins, Aidan Quinn. Amazing.

 
The book is rambling, but still somehow ridiculously short. The author will begin telling you about what Tristan is doing and by the end of the paragraph, he's talking about salmon and seems to have forgotten his train of thought entirely. Poor grammar, run on sentences, flat characters, just terrible. Such a shame.


2. The Bourne Identity based on The Bourne Identity by Robert Ludlam
The Bourne movies are some of my favorites. They reinvented the spy genre and made James Bond look like a distracted has-been, dependent on his gadgets. 007 needs Batman-style gadgetry to hurt somebody, Jason Bourne needs his two hands and a ballpoint pen. Action packed, awesome car chases, political intrigue, cover ups and conspiracies. Amazing.

The book... well, I think the book just fell victim to the passage of time. It feels dated, and not in a timeless, period-piece sort of way. Outdated technology, the burgeoning global economy, a post-feminism character that only a man could dream up, all add up to make the whole thing feel stale.


3. How the Grinch Stole Christmas based on How the Grinch Stole Christmas! by Dr. Seuss
A children's book, that takes about ten minutes to read out loud cannot possibly provide enough storyline to create an entire two hour movie. While the book is, quite frankly, perfect, the movie does an excellent job expanding on the existing story to create something more. For the first time, we see a backstory on the Grinch. There's character development, there's an antagonist set up against our anti-hero and there are all these other rich characters that learn along with our cranky old Grinch.

And, really, Jim Carrey was born for this role.

4. The Prestige based on The Prestige by Christopher Priest
This was one of those rare times where I really thought the book was going to be equally as good as the movie. I liked the movie a lot, and as I read the book, I enjoyed it, too. There were differences, of course, but the differences seemed to be those that made sense when shifting mediums: storylines were condensed (it's easier to juggle complex storylines in a book, you can take more time balancing and explaining things), characters were emphasized or de-emphasized based on how easy they were to portray and convey to a film audience. I was going to like both the book and the movie equally.

And then the last chapter happened in the book, and I was totally, completely freaked out and couldn't sleep for days. No way. Nuh-unh.

::heebedubleebeduh::

Sorry. That was the "heebie-jeebies" dance. Nah, the book was too creepy. And plus, there was no Hugh Jackman to stare at. That fact alone ought to have warned me that the book was not worth the time investment.

5. The Wizard of Oz based on The Wonderful Wizard of Oz by L. Frank Baum
This movie is brilliant. The music, Judy Garland before the crazies hit, ahead-of-their time costumes, makeup and effects, the most brilliant use of color at the time (have you watched this in Blu Ray? Amazing) all add up to make one amazing movie. This is one of those iconic classics that you can love all the way from your childhood up through your golden years and it is still as beautiful and fun as it was the first time you saw it.

Too bad the book totally blows. I know the book was written as a children's book, and as such it's written in a simple language. OK, I get that. I don't fault the simplicity and straightforward narrative, that's all well and good. My problem is that the story just gets too out of hand. For every major event that made it to the film, there's three in the book (or so it seems). With a book as short as this, those events and adventures are obviously truncated and, as such, feel entirely rushed and almost confusing.

I know that there are other Oz books, and I have been told that the others are better and you really ought to read them all to get the whole picture that the film was really based around. I don't know if this is true or not. I was so traumatized by the awfulness of this book, that I cannot bring myself to further tarnish my vision of this movie with any more of the books.

There you have it, the Top Five Movies That Were Better Than The Books They Were Based On. Pretty catchy title for a list, if you ask me.

This post was written in response to the Weekly Geeks prompt: Books and Movies.

Read it or Watch it: The Bourne Identity

The Book: The Bourne Identity
By Robert Ludlam released in 1980

Ludlam's widely acclaimed spy novels have spawned a trilogy of $200M+ movies, but how it did this is a mystery to me. It was also apparently voted (by someone who votes on these things) to be the second greatest spy-novel of all time. If this is the second greatest, maybe I just don't dig spy novels.

The book opens upon a scene so familiar in literature it has almost become an art form unto itself: a man is injured and unconscious and when he awakens, he has complete amnesia. As he tries to piece together the clues of his life and find out who he is, he stumbles across more than a few disconcerting abilities. Apparently, in his forgotten life he was a super-assassin. Bumbling around Europe, he is trying to escape from... somebody and trying to get... somewhere to learn... something. He doesn't know what. But, nonetheless, he is being chased and attempts are made on his life multiple times a day. It is certainly exciting and fast paced.

The disappointment with this story is a simple byproduct of time. Ludlam began writing this story in the late 1970s and it was published in early 1980. The spy game- or at least the way we view it- has changed significantly since that time.

In the novel, Bourne spends a great deal of time tracking down calling cards and waiting around at payphones. He picks locks. That's right, regular old, brass-key locks. Nobody in the story has implemented biometric technology and magnetic key-cards have yet to be invented.

Now, don't get me wrong. I like a nice period piece as much as the next person, but in this context, time is not kind to the story. It seems the story is just old enough to be rusty and out-of-date, but not old enough to be a classic. The novel was published in an unfortunate decade for a technologically driven piece: the technological world experienced a seismic shift over the next ten years, and the landscape of Jason Bourne's escapades is left behind.

Not only is the technology out of date and annoying to sift through, but the cultural norms of a 1970s Europe are difficult to sympathize with. Jason has intimate relations with Marie, but only because she is there. There is virtually no tension-filled build up to the sex, it is just expected that a post-feminism woman will fall into bed with any rogue that drags her out of a hotel lobby as a bullet shield. The cigarettes, the talk of burgeoning fashion designers and the emergence of a global economy all make the story feel stale.

The story certainly had potential, but needed to be polished around the edges. The second greatest spy novel of all time? I would hate to read the third...

stardustrtrailers.com

The Movie: The Bourne Identity (DVD)
Starring Matt Damon released in 2002
Rated PG-13 for violence and language

Matt Damon needed no introduction before playing Jason Bourne. He was already an Academy Award winner and America's golden boy from "Ocean's Eleven", but this was the beginning of cementing in pop culture: nobody will ever forget that Matt Damon is Jason Bourne.

"The Bourne Identity" was released in the same year as the James Bond picture, "Die Another Day", and reminded the public what they were looking for in a spy-thriller. "Die Another Day" was widely panned as being a commercialized load of crap; it was more important to show Halle Berry in a bikini and promote more than 20 product placements within the film than it was to actually do any spy-work or kill any bad guys. "The Bourne Identity" relied on none of the modern James-Bond trappings: he fought with his bare hands, the girl was as normal looking as any movie star could be, there was tension and suspense and a plot.

While the story was changed drastically from the novel, I think the changes were good: refreshing, even. The director (Doug Liman) had been a fan of the novel since high school and stayed true to the characters, the purpose and the overarching story while making it relevant to a 21st century audience.

Marie's character was changed; modernized and given a hippy-dippy make-over, making her a contrast to the sleek, automated, techno-fancy world that Bourne is careening through. She becomes a partner to him, not just a sex partner, but somebody he comes to actually trust.

The details of the story are polished and updated. Bourne's backstory is streamlined and shifted to reflect the current political climate.

The story, the fighting and the chase scenes may not be what one would call "realistic," but in comparison with the crap that was 007 the year this came out (ejector seats being used to flip a car over?????), it's pretty awesome. And I swear to you, my neck hurts every time I watch Jason Bourne in a car chase. It's just so freaking tense.

Plus, nobody plays a jerk quite like Chris Cooper.

Bottom Line:
While the film and the novel are vastly different, and I know the fanboys are gonna kill me for this, I'm going to say that in this particular instance, you should watch the movie instead of reading the book.

Read it or Watch it: The Count of Monte Cristo

The Book: The Count of Monte Cristo by Alexandre Dumas


Alexandre Dumas, the genius who brought us The Three Musketeers, reached the pinnacle of his fame with The Count of Monte Cristo. The story is written contemporaneously, or very nearly so anyway. Dumas relies on the fact that his audience knew all the intimate details of recent (at the time) French history. So, if you are like me, you might be a little lost as terms such as "the ascension" or "the usurper" are thrown around. If you can get your hands on a copy that includes an introduction with a brief historical overview, all the better, you'll be good to go once the story starts up.

Keeping that in mind, the story is very well told. It is the classic story of vengeance and love and pain. Dumas has the uncanny ability to send shivers down your spine while you watch two characters in love interact with one another- without having them touch each other or even say the other person's name. That, my friends, is talent.

However, the story is not perfect. It relies on a fair bit of coincidence. OK, a LOT of coincidence, to keep the plot moving. Dantes' enemies all move to Paris? And they are all now high-ranking members of society with everything to lose? None of them stayed in Marseilles and led simple lives? If you can get past all of that, then the intermingling of complex story lines is brilliant. Dumas keeps a bevy of characters in play throughout the story and manages to so intricately develop each one that you really feel their pains and joys as the pages turn.

The biggest hitch in the story for me was simply the fact that losing "everything" in mid-19th century society meant something quite different than it does today. Most of our characters are "ruined" when their reputations are tarnished. Dantes doesn't actually have to drive them to hurt each other or into despair, he simply plays them into debt, ruins their "good name" and allows them to wallow in their own grief.

If you're anything like me... that just doesn't add up. Yes, I want people to think positively of me (I cry a little every time I lose a follower), but I wouldn't consider myself "ruined" and as good as dead if, for instance, I was in debt. Or somebody thought I had lied. Don't get me wrong, I am an honest person, but we have our priorities in a slightly different order these days.

Nobody in 2002 (the release date of the film) could care less about their reputations. They are concerned with money, love and power. Which begs the question: what price do we now put on our good names and reputations? Not high enough, I'd wager...


The Movie: The Count of Monte Cristo

Starring Jim Caviezel and Guy Pearce released in 2002

Rated PG-13 for violence/ swordplay and some sensuality



This story has been converted into film over and over again. IMDb returned 18 titles, and that doesn't count any "reinterpretations" of the story. However, there is a reason that this 2002 release stands as the most popular. It's good. Really good.

There are some major story adaptations made, and all of them for the better. You simply cannot convert 1300+ pages of hardback story into a 2 hour film. There must be cuts. The writers were very smart and strategically cut entire characters and their relative subplots. With the elimination of these subplots, the narrative is condensed down to basically just Dantes, Mercedes, Mondego and Villefort, with Danglars and the Priest as secondary characters.

One thing that will always bother me is that movie makers (and authors, for that matter, but that fact doesn't really apply here) love to impose modern-day "morals" on historical stories. In this case, they change MANY of the characters willingness to sleep around, both before and after marriage, which I find irksome. However, it does lead to a change in the story that adds a welcome bit of drama in an otherwise vanilla-flavored tale.

The drama, in general, is heightened considerably. The Count, on film, is flashier with his cash, more daring in his escapades and more passionate about everything, from women to food. Jim Caviezel plays Dantes with much more range than he was written with in the novel; he is young and naive at the beginning, falls into hopelessness, then cynicism before giving in to his overdeveloped sense of vengeance. In the novel, Dantes has bid his former life adieu; he see Mercedes as a lost cause, and gives no effort to reuniting with her. In the film, his love and affection burns passionately for her, despite the turmoil their lives have been put through.

Mercedes, incidentally, is played by the gorgeous Dagmara Dominczyk throughout the entire film. At the beginning of the story, Mercedes is 19, and by the end of the tale, she is 36. Dominczyk was 26, go figure. Tell me, does this look like the mother of a 16 year old?

And, can I just say, Luis Guzman is the perfect comedic relief.

This film is honestly one of my favorites. This is a go-to date night movie: swords, blood, vengeance all wrapped up in a love story for the ages. Kind of like The Princess Bride for grown-ups.

Bottom Line:
Watch it!
Not that the book isn't good, it is very good, it's just a considerable investment of your time (1300+ pages, in paperback), and unless you were a French history major, it's a tad on the uninteresting/confusing side. The movie is condensed, updated and a lot more fun.

Read it or Watch it: Twilight

Book: Twilight
by Stephenie Meyer released in 2005


Just in case you are one of those people that just REALLY isn't paying attention to what is happening in the entertainment world around you, Twilight is the first book in a series by Stephenie Meyer.

Within a few weeks of meeting, Bella and Edward are openly declaring their love for one another. While you might write this off as typical teenage romance, it falls more in line with the Romeo and Juliet idea of young love: it feels heady and miraculous and it is only in retrospect that you realize it was so swift. Through the course of their whirlwind romance, Bella discovers Edward's big secret: he is a vampire, as is the rest of his insanely beautiful and aloof family. Don't worry though- they're vegetarians, and they sustain themselves on animal blood, not human blood.

Hanging out with vampires, though, comes with a distinct set of dangers and Bella, of course, comes face to face with these dangers. Bella meets James, Victoria and Laurant, three nomadic vampires and becomes the mouse in an elaborate and violent cat and mouse game. There is a whirlwind chase to Phoenix, deception and violence that seems to lead to absolute death for Bella.

The characters are the driving force of this story, absolutely no question about it. Readers can remember falling in love for the first time (or the only time, as the case may be) and the headlong rush into these emotions are written in a very realistic way. To those who are cynical, it will be viewed as saccharine, but the fine line of balancing young love, lust and everything that goes with it is perfectly achieved. The characters seem to literally breathe with every turn of the page. Even with the over-the-top romance, there is a constant danger lurking in the background, and the moniker of star-crossed lovers seems all to appropriate, forcing the reader ahead at a break neck pace to find out if Edward, Bella and their love will all still be in tact on the last page.

With all the focus on the characters, there really is little room for anything else in this NASCAR-paced novel. The foreshadowing is... rudimentary. The plot is simple, but that is part of what drives it forward at such an unrelenting pace- if it were any more complicated, readers would have to move more slowly to digest it, but as it is, they are free to read frenetically in pursuit of the resolution. The dialog is actually really funny. This is the big surprise to most readers: Stephenie Meyer is genuinely funny, and it comes out in Bella's sarcasm and the witty banter between the "siblings".

The first time I read this novel, I read it in about 10 hours, straight through, without a single break. I literally could not put it down. For an easy read, and a little slice of fantasy that you think just might come true, you cannot get better than this.


Movie: Twilight  (DVD)
starring Robert Pattinson, Kristen Stewart released in 2008
Rated PG-13 for violence, sensuality and light language.

This movie adaptation, handled by the semi-independent studio Summit, hardly lives up to the hype. When Summit began producing this film, Twilight was a popular book series with a hard-core following of loyal fans. When they finished production and released the film, Twilight was the second highest selling book series of all time, (the 3rd installment setting single day sales records) with a world-wide pandemonium of FANATICAL fans. Nothing can live up to the hype that was Twilight, especially not when it was conceived with low-budget goals in mind.



If this wasn't a big enough warning about exactly how bad the movie was going to be: 

then nothing would be. Honestly, a gorgeous Bella, in a shoulder-baring gown, and ugly Edward with a sideways belt? This has to be the worst-thought-out PR shot ever. EVER.

The hype was a huge hurdle to overcome. The Hollywood writer's strike was another. As a result of the strike, Twilight received virtually no "tweaks" after the initial script, and the director and actors wound up creating new lines, and it shows. There are several pieces of dialog that seem overly contrived and almost painful to watch as the actors seem to struggle just to put words together on the spot. Kristen Stewart in particular spends a lot of time huffing and rolling her eyes as she fishes around for what to say. Whether this is her doing, the director's doing or simply the result of trying to re-create lines is hard to say. Either way, it's hard to watch.

With the indy-ish budget to deal with, the CGI in this movie is far inferior to what most people were expecting. Most movie goers were expecting a Harry Potter type of film: where the CGI blends seamlessly with the live action and you are transported to a magical world where this is all just so real! Summit didn't have the money for that kind of seamless integration, and relied instead on a lot of old tricks: treadmills to make characters look like they're moving faster than they are, etc. Be prepared for this: when Edward is in the sun, he is supposed to be sparkling. Not sprouting rainbow fur. If I didn't tell you (or you didn't read the book) you would never know.

All that aside, this is still Twilight, and there are some fun characters and relationships to bolster the film. Charlie in particular is amazing, as is Carlisle. And despite the sub-par directing, the driving romance still pulls the film along. Some of Meyer's wit comes through, and in the end, the love between Bella and Edward is what really matters. This will probably be the only version of this film, as the hype as put it into the "unremakeable" (not a word) category. As such, it is good enough. Not good. But good enough. If you didn't read Twilight AND Midnight Sun, you probably won't get it.

Bottom Line:

Read It or Watch It: Legends of the Fall

I'm going to start doing some side-by-side comparisons of books that have already been made into movies. Mostly because I just cannot read fast enough to churn out 4 new fantasy casts every week. I also had a virus on my computer this week, thus the lack of posting on Thursday. Boo for that. Anyway, here's this week's Read It or Watch it comparison for Legends of the Fall. 

The book: Legends of the Fall by Jim Harrison

I have to say that this was one of the most disappointing stories I have ever read. I don't know that it even qualifies as a "book" or "novel", it's so short. The fact that Amazon has at least one copy being sold for one penny, says something.


The story of three brothers who all, to some degree, love the same woman, gets told in a very meandering sort of way. Harrison rambles on about unrelated subplots and stories. More than once, I would get to the end of a paragraph- which had lasted for more than a full page- and wonder, "What the heck was he talking about? What does this have to do with Tristan (or whoever was the focus at the time)?"


Harrison has been lauded as one of the great story tellers of his generation, and I cannot for the life of me fathom why. Maybe because he wrote about sex, drugs, suicide, infidelity and crime? Maybe because he set his story in a time when those things weren't in fashion, and he lived in a time when they were in fashion? The literature of the 1970s seemed to enjoy force-placing their morals on simpler times: it was deemed "enlightened" to pretend that the debauchery of the day had always been in place... maybe that is why Harrison was so highly regarded.


Another theory is that there was tremendous potential in this story. Three brothers, one beautiful woman, the affection of one stubborn father, a picturesque setting and a forgotten era between wars. If only someone had taught Harrison about punctuation. Or staying focused on a topic.

The movie:  Legends of the Fall starring Brad Pitt and Anthony Hopkins released in 1994
Rated R for violence, language and sexuality






This film is one of those that stays with you long after the end credits roll. If you ask me to name my five favorite movies, this one probably doesn't make the list. Yet, if I see it on TV, I sit and watch it all the way through to the end. Or, as was the case last time, watch it back to back all the way through, twice (My husband came home 5 minutes before the first showing ended, at least I have a decent excuse for watching the same movie twice in a row).
 
The characters that seem so wooden on Harrison's pages are brought to vivid life by one of the most extraordinary casts ever assembled. Anytime that somebody like Aiden Quinn plays a supporting role, you know it's got to be great. The love stories are greatly embellished, breathing life and emotion into a triangle (rectangle?) that is otherwise sordid and gross.


The director, Edward Zwick, takes full advantage of the setting in northern Montana and plays up the freedom, the beauty, the harshness, the unadulterated possibilities of living on the northernmost edge of America's frontier. The Natives are treated respectfully, One Stab becomes our narrator (as opposed to Harrison's story which is surprisingly racist for a man educated in the arts during the 60s).


Susanna's emotional distress and psychological disorders are more fully explored, as are the emotions behind the Tristan's wanderings. You feel the pain from both of them- helped in large part by the fact that they are played by some of the most talented actors of their generation, Julia Ormond and Brad Pitt, respectively. And, yet, despite their atrocious behavior, you grieve with them, you pray for their happiness.


The bottom line:







Agree? Disagree? Post your thoughts in the comments? 
Images: Google Images