Book

Movie
Director: Peter Jackson | Released: 2003
Screen Play: Fran Walsh
Starring: Vigo Mortensen, Ian McKellan, Elijah Wood, John Rhys-Davies, Orlando Bloom, Andy Serkis

The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the Kings is the final chapter of J.R.R. Tolkien’s LOR series. Like its predecessors, the movie has a fair share of accurate portrayals of the book’s journey, and throws in its own elements as well. It is hard to argue against the book or film, unless you want to argue against one of the most beloved authors of all time or groundbreaking, record-shattering filmmaking. Still, like most stories passed down through the ages, The Return of the King has changed with the times. And if for nothing else, we can set the record straight here and now…
Time Lapse
One of the bigger differences in timing shows through when High Elf Elrond (Hugo Weaving) delivers Anduril, the fabled sword to cut the ring from Sauron’s hand, to Aragorn. In Tolkien’s version, Aragorn has the sword far earlier. About two books earlier. Jackson uses the sword as a climactic shift in Aragorn’s temperament. After receiving the sword, he starts acting like king–breaking hearts and kicking even more arse.

Long Live the…Pimp?
As I have mentioned in my reviews of The Fellowship of the Ring and The Two Towers, there is much more romance in the screen adaptations of Tolkien’s story. In this movie, director Peter Jackson includes many dream elements for Aragorn (Vigo Mortensen) and Arwen (Liv Tyler). Their star-crossed love is magnified in the movie, whereas in the book you can hardly feel its presence. Jackson’s nurturing of the love story is an interesting interpretation of the original work, and it made me miss not seeing more of it in Tolkien’s writing. Tolkien focused far more on the journey of Aragorn and Ring-Bearer Frodo (Elijah Wood).

 Also, the lady Eowyn’s affection for Aragorn is exagerrated in the movie. In the movie she is a passionate woman devoted to her father, King of Rohan, her people, and Aragorn. The book portrays her much more of an Amazonian warrior, and her affection towards Aragorn is only suggested, rather than made into a mini soap opera.

Chopping Block
Jackson made some precise choices in making the film. Like I’ve mentioned, he wanted to focus heavily on the love stories. He also wanted to cut out new characters to focus on ones that were already established. Characters such as Beregrond, a citidel soldier, and the Dunedain, Aragorn’s kinsmen, didn’t make the final cut. Beregrond had lengthy scenes with Pippin inside of Gundor’s walls. He represents the strength of Gondor’s people and the attitudes of its soldiers. The Dunedain are Aragorns kinsmen and valiant warriors. They met Aragorn and rode with him through the Dimalt Road (Road of the Dead) in the book, but in the movie it was only Aragorn, Gimli, and Legolas who accompanied him on the perilous road to the City of the Damned.

Though I didn’t really miss Beregrond in the movie, the Dunedain created a more realistic feel for medieval battle, whereas in the movie you get the feeling that it is one man versus an army throughout the saga. To be fair, though, the addition of the Dunedain made it difficult to learn the new characters and follow some of the plot lines, but only minorly.

Jackson also cut much of the action following the epic battle at Gondor. After the enemy is beaten back, there are chapters dedicated to the recovery of the survivors–mainly Merry and Eowyn. This is also the time where we watch Faramir court Eowyn, whereas in the movie this is totally left out. Tolkien also includes a history behind the Great White Tree–Gundor’s symbol and the mythical plant signifying the days of the King. Jackson includes the tree, but not with the depth that Tolkien provides. Tolkien’s details help create a history to Gundor and a sense of majesty to the return of the king, whereas the movie assumes much of these sentiments.

There are many cuts the movie makes. Some of the larger ones include: Aragorn’s staring battle with Sauron through one of the seeing stones is cut from the film; orc squabbling in the guard tower where Frodo is kept prisoner; much of Frodo and Sam’s (Sean Astin) adventures through Mordor.

It is also important to mention that the book and movie start at different points. The movie opens up with a flashback of Smeagol murdering his kinsmen for the One Ring; whereas the book upons up on the precipice of war with Gandalf and Pippin travelling to Gondor. Also, Jackson gives Pippin a singing scene…which I could have done without.

Bird-Eye Vs. First Person
Beating the dead horse, I have to mention one final time the differences in perspectives Tolkien and Jackson use in their versions of the LOR story. Tolkien prefers to deliver the story from a much larger point of view when describing battles, landscapes, and the characters’ journies. Jackson focuses much more heavily upon his cast. He uses cinematography to show an entire army storming the castle in the climactic battle, but you really watch the action unfold from the eyes of Gandalf (Ian McKellan), Aragorn, Frodo, and the supporting cast.

Reflection
In my opinion, the book and the film are equally worth viewing. Nobody can describe a landscape, or create an alternate reality, quite like J.R.R. Tolkien. It’s a brilliant art form long forgotten. Peter Jackson did an equisite job throughout the saga in visually representing the landscapes and creating an epic sized journey. He also did a great job at staying true to Tolkien’s vision when it counted. Frodo’s scene at Mount Doom; Aragorn’s storming of the Black Gate, and many other vital scenes were left in tact and represented honestly. 

The movies are wonderful companions for the books, but to be truly immersed in Middle-Earth, you are going to have to read Tolkien’s work. It is hefty reading, but truly rewarding.  Now that I think of it, Jackson created nine hours of film to represent the three books, so both are pretty lengthy but well worth the commitment.

Movie:
Director: Nick Cassavetes | Released June 2009
Starring: Cameron Diaz, Abigaail Breslin, Joan Cusack

Jodi Picoult certainly knows how to tug at your heart strings with medical dramas surrounding children, and the choices that parents must make. In both the written and on-screen versions of My Sister’s Keeper, you find yourself asking “What would I do?” If you’re looking for an answer, however, you’ll find the answer quite different between the two telling.

My Sister’s Keeper is the story of Anna, her dying sister Kate, and the decision that may kill them.

Focus, Focus, Focus

Picoult’s novel is told from multiple points of view, including the over-protective mother (Sara) the rebellious brother (Jesse) and the semi-scumbaggy lawyer who handles Anna’s case (Campbell Alexander). As reading, I questioned how Cassavetes would be able to carry this over into the film, as it was often hard enough to follow through the novel format. The answer was simple: He reduced the number of characters, and dismissed most of their inner dialogue.  Instead, he walked through their stories as Kate paged through her memory book.

In this new format, characters are shallow shadows of the multiple stories that Picoult weaves. Older brother Jesse morphs from a trouble-seeking pyro living over the garage in the book to a silent artistic type who hangs out on the wrong side of the tracks in the movie. Whether Evan Ellingson (who plays Jesse on-screen) had the chops to play the harder version of Jesse, we’ll never know.

There’s also the seemingly small issue of Julia, the guardian ad litem appointed to research Anna’s situation and make a recommendation to the judge regarding Anna’s plea for medical emancipation. Her role, including a rekindled relationship with Campbell, provides more insight into each member of the family as she interviews each of them to uncover the effects that Anna’s illness has had on the family. Perhaps she was too hard to cast, or trying to weave a love interest for Campbell was too much for Cassvetes – either way, the entire character and story line erased as easily as if they’d never existed.

You’ve Lost That Lovin’ Feeling

As with nearly any film, there has to be an element of romance. Since the romance between Campbell and Julia (above) was dismissed, a smaller relationship was brought to center screen: that between Trevor and Kate. The Romeo & Juliet story between the cancer-stricken teens provided plenty of tearful moments on-screen, as he held her while she was sick from chemo, her transformation for the hospital prom, and her eventual despair at his quick death. A mere side-story in the book, this became a central relationship to the movie. As Kate spoke to Anna about her life, and impending death, she indicated that she wasn’t afraid because maybe Trevor would be on the other side, waiting for her.

The other relationship that changed was that between Brian and Sara. The relationship would obviously be strained after 13 years of struggling with one child’s illness; but in the book you can feel the underlying love that has held the family together. Sara is harried and Brian escapes to the firehouse, but at the end of the day, there is love. Their film relationship slips farther apart in the movie, when Sara threatens to divorce Brian for taking Kate to the beach. He has simply had enough of her controlling and meddling and saving – he wants to be able to just live with Kate for the time she has left.

Staring Death in the Face

The most moving moments in the movie couldn’t adequately be captured on paper: Kate’s deterioration due to kidney failure.  Her portrayer, Sofia Vassilieva, was a beautiful young woman, dying of a terrible disease. Through the extraordinary work of the make-up artists, she lost her hair, her weight, and eventually it seemed obvious that she was on the brink of death. The most stunning was her eyes – as her kidneys failed, the toxins built up around her eyes, clouding their color. In Kate’s closing scenes, the increased translucency of her skin combined with the destruction of her eyes provided unforgettable images.

The endings between the two are strikingly different – while both culminate in a death, Picoult and Cassavetes take different turns. In either version, it’s a new twist on “what would I do?”

Movie:
Director: Ron Howard | Released: March 2009
Starring: Tom Hanks, Ewan McGregor, Ayelet Zurer, Skellan Starsgard

Yin and Yang. Jennifer Aniston and Angelina Jolie. Books and movies. Angels and demons. All of these duos are opposing forces, yet they intermingle in an unending cosmic balance of good and evil. Books are often heralded as the better over a screen adaptation in terms of storytelling. But, movies more often rake in the bigger bucks and popularize the title.  Dan Brown’s thriller prequel to Da Vinci Code, Angels & Demons resurrects the ancient rivalry between science and religion. And since Ron Howard has taken both of Brown’s bestselling novels and turned them into big production movies, perhaps Howard and Brown are now interlocked as opposites thriving for dominion over the same title. Preferably the movie would coincide with the novel in a tidy screen adaptation, but we all know that never happens. So, what demons does Howard have floating about this time?

Don’t Forget To Have Your Characters Neutered Or Spayed
Amongst the several things snipped and yanked from Brown’s original concept of Angels & Demons, is Howard’s apparent lack of sexuality and mojo. In the novel, Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks) is mainly a sexually supressed super-geek that has his nether regions awoken by a stunning Italian scientist named Vittoria Vetra (Ayelet Zurer). In the movie, Langdon hardly notices Ms. Vetra, and is instead more of the arrogant geek stereotype than the perv stereotype.

The sexy, impulsive Vetra seemed to have taken a few sedatives while making the journey from the book to the movie. Howard’s version of the character can’t stand in the shadow of Brown’s hot-blooded Italian vixen. In the book she chases her father’s killer with a clear abandonment of fear and disregard to danger. In the movie, though, she hardly ventures past the walls of the Vatican. Also, in the book she puts everyone in the Vatican on edge with her short shorts. The movie was kind enough to give her a plain black skirt…that went down to her knees. It’s okay for a character to dress conservative, but it detracts from Brown’s character who was clearly meant to be a source of sexuality and sexual tension for virtually every male character in the story.

To go one step further, Howard cut out the emotional bond that forms between the lead man and woman over the course of the story. He also removes (SPOILER ALERT) a sexy game of cat and mouse between Langdon and Vetra in a hotel in the book’s closing chapter. Rather, Howard opts for a much more pious ending to the movie. The movie’s ending isn’t bad, but it certainly doesn’t play to Brown’s romantic side of his storytelling.

The assassin also loses much of his virility in the movie. In my opinion this was a missed opportunity, as the hassassin in the book was a much more vicious character and source of chaos that played really well off of Langdon’s mix of genius and blossoming fondness for his female counterpart. Good villains are always a keystone to a great story–and Howard castrated this one.

The novel’s assassin (or hassassin, as Brown refers to him for his Middle Eastern roots) is a sexual predator the likes of which we haven’t seen since American Psycho. He is also a killer without pause or mercy in the novel, but he is the utter opposite in the movie. Sure he kills the cops without blinking an eye, but when it comes to the unarmed Langdon and Vetra he has code. In the book he can’t wait to ravage Vetra as a prize for his terrorism over the Vatican, but he doesn’t even notice her presence in the movie.

Inspector Olivetti (Pierfrancesco Favino) also seemed to lose much of his alpha-male mojo in the movie. In the book he not only holds a higher rank in the Swiss Guard, but he was Langdon’s number one ballbuster. There was not one conclusion Langdon found throughout the story that Olivetti did not contest in the novel, but in the movie he acted more like Langdon’s lackey. This is not a total loss, however, as most of Olivetti’s arguments with Langdon were given to a character created just for the movie.

Easy Come, Easy Go
The movie added a main character while eliminating one of the novel’s main characters. Commandante Richter (Stellan Skarsgard) was a mish-mash of several characters from the novel. One scene in particular that he had in place of Maxmillian Kohler, the head of CERN research facility in the novel, was the scene where Camerlengo McKenna (Ewan McGregor) was branded with an Illuminatti brand. And just as a sidenote, the movie has a different brand for the Camerlengo than what Brown uses in the novel (for inexplicable reasons). Anyway, eliminating Kohler from the story created a deep rift in the storyline. For instance, in the movie Langdon is absconed from his Harvard life by the Vatican, but in the novel, he is rushed to the CERN facility at the behest of Kohler. Obviously, this created a chain-reaction of changes to the story and how characters met, etcetera. Also, as stated before, the Commandante received the majority of Olivetti’s dialogue with Langdon, for whatever reason.

The Right Stuff
One particular part the movie represented well was most of the assassinations. There were four in the book and three in the movie. But I guess three out of four ain’t bad. The ones that Howard did follow-through with were portrayed with startling accuracy. He unabashedly burned, maimed, stabbed and asphyxiated three out of the four kidnapped cardinals. As mentioned above, Howard spares the fourth cardinal from his watery grave. Also, there is something to be said for seeing the Vatican and outlying Rome. If you’ve never visited the area, this movie gives the audience a beautiful glimpse of the superior architecture and artistry amassed in the region.

Touch-Ups
There are many other discrepancies to be listed, of course. Many of them are minor and did not alter the story. But there were others that shifted the plotline severly. (SPOILER ALERT) For example, one of the cardinals survive the Illuminati assassinations in the movie. This changes the end of the film and how Langdon solvese the puzzle: the Path of Illumination. The assassin’s death is different (but not necessarily worse) in the movie. However, the confrontation between Langdon, Vittoria, and the assassin felt vastly different. There was also a much larger role played by Roman and Vatican police enforcement in the movie. This detracted somewhat from the drama for the main characters, as they had lots of security to back them up as opposed to going up against the Illuminati and its assassin alone.

The Camerlengo’s insanity levels and utter collapse were different as well. In the book he takes Langdon up in the helicopter while saving the city from the antimatter bomb. There is one parachute, and the Camerlengo leaves Langdon to his fate with the bomb miles above the Vatican. In the movie, Langdon never gets on the chopper. Also, the Camerlengo finds out much more about his father and why he shouldn’t have killed him. This is another missed opportunity for a chilling moment for the movie. Lastly, the Camerlengo is also deprived one of his biggest ‘church beats science’ speeches.

The movie also lacks Brown’s use of the media in the novel. There is a character by the name of Glick who is commissioned by the hassassin to cover the murders, and he and his camerawoman become players in the outcome of the story. One last change to mention is that Vittoria finds her dead father in his room. This doesn’t happen in the book and severly alters the sequencing of the story.

Movie:
Director: Ron Howard | Released: 2006
Starring: Tom Hanks, Audrey Tautao, Ian McKellen, Jean Reno, Paul Bettany
The Da Vinci Code is as controversial a novel as it is brilliant. Love it or hate it, this story’s depth and insight into the past–and using the past as a window to see our present–is something to admire. And it’s no mystery that this international blockbuster would eventually be made into a movie. The curiosity and fascination the book sparked in people obviously would make for a king’s ransom at the box office. So, is this the holy grail of screen adaptations, or another dead end on the quest for truthful screen adaptation?

Crappy Tour Guide
Dan Brown took careful aim to elaborate on the book’s settings. Afterall, in The Da Vinci Code characters explore some of the most famous buildings in Western Europe. Brown does this through third person narration and the lead character’s inner monologue. In using Robert Langdon’s (Tom Hanks) inner thoughts to explain the historical significance of these buildings, he is not only helping the viewer understand the importance of the locale and painting a clear picture for our imaginations, but he is also verifying himself as a historian and scholar.

In the movie, however, we do not get to hear Langdon’s admiration of the buildings or rambling thoughts on the cults and sects that dwelled there in centuries past. This has dire consequences on the validity of the character. Instead of hearing his expertise on the locations he takes us through from chapter to chapter, the movie proves his expertise in a quick and dirty prologue where he is lecturing an audience on symbology. The prologue is interesting, but fails to fill in the blanks on the dozen locations we see throughout the journey. It is only fair to note that Howard does provide some historical background, sporadically via flashbacks. But most of the historical significance is lost.

Removing these “tour guidesque” descriptions of places like Paris’ Louvre, London’s Westminster Abbey, Templar Church, and Chatteau Villette, really detracts from the experience as a whole. Imagine following a tour guide through Paris, but he doesn’t say anything at all about where he is taking you. That is how the movie feels in comparison to the novel.

Selective Memory
There were too many bits and pieces of the novel left out of the movie, but there were a few surprise changes that are debatably for the better or worse. The most significant of these, in my opinion, comes in the end of the movie where Langdon and Sophie (Audrey Tautao) find the Priory of Sion’s documents in the bottom of Roslin Church. This doesn’t happen in the novel, as they get their answers from a more direct source. In the novel they do not find documents or the holy grail, but Sophie gets her memory back and finds her grandmother in a cottage by the church. From her we learn about Sophie’s past in a triumphant reuiniting–rather than Langdon extrapolating her history by pilfering the Priory’s ancient documents. Trading the scenes at grandma’s cottage for an extra scene at the church where we are led to believe Langdon and Sophie will be beat-down by the Priory, also leaves a hole in Langdon’s quest, as Sophie’s grandmother helped Langdon discover the current location of the grail. In the movie he figures it out himself.

In Landon and Sophie’s next dialogue scene, Langdon becomes this waxing philosopher on religion and spiritual power–which is 100% contradictory to his unwavering academic personality. Plus Howard leaves out their promise to reunite a month later in Italy–boo! The least he could have done for the brainiacs in the audience is promise them a hot date with a Frenchie for all their booksmarts.

Other notable changes come in all of the extra gunfire added in the movie. Shootings in churches? Oh boy. Howard also cut out the cocky usher from the Templar Church scene, which was a nice little episode of drama and a hint of suspense. The hospital scene with Inspector Fache (jean Reno) and Bishop Aringarosa (Alfred Molina) was cut, and left those two characters as enemies rather than friends. And for a quest movie to cut out an entire puzzle from the story was odd to me. Langdon solves two cryptex puzzles in the novel, but only one in the movie–an edit made to save time I’m sure. There are many more, but I’ll spare you the smaller points. But if I missed anything else major, please chime in. I don’t claim to be a Da Vinci Code conspirator, so by all means, conspire.

Characters
I’ve heard people grumble about Tom Hanks as Langdon, but I don’t think he was all that bad. Maybe Russell Crowe could have fit the mold better, but I digress. As mentioned before, the audience really doesn’t get to know just how deep Langdon’s intellect goes. And to put insult to injury, rather than displaying Langdon’s academic supremecy, Howard gives him a weird photographic memory superpower where he moves objects in his imagination to solve puzzles. What?! Just let the genius bore us with too much information! That’s what geniuses do!

The puzzle-pieces are hardly an obstacle in the movie, but they are nearly characters unto themselves in the novel. Also, charactesr spent little time on admiring the artificats found, whereas in the book pages were spent on describing the objects found. All-in-all, the characters, excluding Leigh Teabing (Ian McKellan) seemed blase about the adventure. The majority of scenes that made Sophie useful to the quest were cut or given to Langdon–which is odd since the movie is about discovering women’s rightful power in the world. But, then again, the big theme of the book is about the church depriving women of power–much like Howard stripping Sophie of her scenes. Instead, she comes across as dumb eye-candy…pity.

Also worth mentioning are little tweaks, like how Teabing is much more menacing and Fache is much more tame in the movie, while they were the exact opposite in the novel.

Verdict
The movie is a so-so flick, but does the movie shame in my opinion. But, alot of the things the movie fail to convey are very hard elements to express in film. The characters, locations, and objectives of the story just seemed hollow in comparison to the novel. Let’s hope Howard’s Angels & Demons is a better interpreation Brown’s work. Stay tuned for the review.

Frame from graphic novel "Watchmen"

This animated movie is a spinoff of a comic book within the graphic novel Watchmen. The movie does an excellent job of keeping true to the core of this (fictitiuos) comic book. We watch the hero go through stomach turning atrocities that ultimately transform him from an honorable ship captain to a hallucinated madman.

It lacks, however, any tie-ins with Watchmen, as it strives to be a stand-alone entity. But, unfortunately, it’s hard to justify any film clocking in under 30 minutes of reel time with a price tag of $30 retail. Gerald Butler (King Leonidus from 300) is a sexy guy and a great voice-over, but not that good.

The movie starts off right in the middle of a bloody naval battle between a monstrous black ship and what seems to be an honest naval ship (maybe British). It would have been nice to see some homage to the spinoff’s roots, visa vi a prologue of the fanboy reading “Tales of the Black Freighter” at a newsstand in NYC. After all, that’s how readers followed the comic: the fanboy would talk to the newsstand vendor, then we would get a glimpse of Freighter and the action would perfectly coincide with the discussion fanboy was having–but with a really twisted, gory perversion of the conversation.

All-in-all it’s interesting, but not worth the dough. Maybe if nothing interesting is on your Netflix list you should give this DVD a shot, but don’t expect to be pulled into the story for long. I recommend the graphic novel instead.

Movie:
Director: P.J. Hogan
Starring: Isla Fisher, Hugh Dancy, Krysten Ritter, Joan Cusack, John Goodman
Release: February 2009

I confess that I didn’t have much faith in either the book or the movie Confessions of a Shopaholic. Every time I saw one of the books in my local Target I rolled my eyes – I’ve never been a label girl, so going thousands of dollars into debt for shoes and scarves is outside my realm of experience. However, I found Rebecca Bloomwood to be engaging in the same vein as Bridget Jones, except with a collection of shopping bags instead of diet fads.

The drastic differences between the book and the movie make them hard to compare, although both have redeeming qualities (including a note to self: stay away from credit cards and sale racks!). In novel form, Shopaholic focuses on Bloomwood’s financial difficulties, but when translated to the big screen, you get much more of a romantic focus.

Location, Location, Location

One of the most obvious differences between the book and movie is the location. Kinsella’s Becky lives in Fulham, London, while the Rebecca portrayed on-screen by Isla Fisher lives in the bustling fashion center of Manhattan. She strolls down Fifth Avenue, welcomed and taunted by the store mannequins, while struggling to make her ends meet in the competitive publishing world.

Of course, the delightfully misguided Rebecca couldn’t live in either of these areas without her wealthy roommate, Suse. Suse helps cover the bills when Rebecca can’t; and on-screen, she even helps keep track of the innumerable excuses that Rebecca uses to dodge bill collectors. Amusingly enough, they keep a list on a fold-down ironing board.

Keep it in the family…

Kinsella uses her pages to introduce dozens of characters with complicated relationships and motives. We get to know Rebecca’s insecurities and flaws, in both the financial sector and her emotional life. Of course, most movies don’t have the budget for dozens of characters, so Hogan combines characters and plotlines. One major change is Tarquin (Nick Cornish): In Kinsella’s novel, Tarquin is Suse’s wealthy cousin (and one of London’s most eligible bachelors) who is infatuated with Rebecca. In a somewhat revolting turn of events, Hogan’s Tarquin is Suse’s fiancée. Of course, this means that Isla’s Rebecca can focus on Luke Brandon, her boss at Successful Savings, and of course her personal dire financial situation.

In another odd turn of events, rather than ruining the financial future of her parents neighbors with ill-advice, an anonymous article Rebecca writes inspires her parents to throw all of their retirement into an oversize RV. Since the neighbor’s ruin was Rebecca’s springboard to fame, her writing prowess as the “Girl in the Green Scarf” must take center stage.

It’s in the Bag

Of course, one of the major themes for both must be shopping. Otherwise, why would it be called Confessions of a Shopaholic? Rebecca’s shopping habit is downplayed in the novel – focusing more on her attempting to control it, and her career aspirations. In Manhattan, you can’t help but shop. The mannequins beacon to Rebecca despite both she and Suse’s best efforts. And true to the title, Rebecca goes to a shopaholic anonymous meeting at the request of Suse.

Overall, Rebecca’s a selfish girl who has to learn the hard way that her habits are not just detrimental to her pocket book, but to her relationships. She ruins dating relationships, some of the dreams of her parents, and nearly the relationship with her best friend. While neither the book nor the movie knocked my socks off, or sent me shopping, they were both enjoyable ways to pass a few hours.

Movie:
Director: Zack Snyder
Starring: Malin Akerman, Billy Crudup, Matthew Goode, Jackie Earle Haley, Jeffrey Morgan, Patrick Wilson
Release: March 2009

You don’t have to look too hard before finding somebody that worships DC Comics’ Watchmen. Its popularity has survived tests of time, and one could argue that Watchmen is the lynchpin of the graphic novel’s (and comic book’s) credibility as “serious” literature. Had it been made into a motion picture in the late 80s or even 90s, the lack of computer graphics and special effects may have tarnished the experience. But, now that movies almost have too much computer animation, it is safe to attempt this seminal work. Or is it? Afterall, with great success comes even greater expectation…and criticism. Watchmen fanboys are going to be, umm…watching, with scrutiny for any miscues. So, how did Zack Snyder fare in recreating this cult hit?

Before judging the movie’s accuracy, it is important to remember just how hard it is to recreate Alan Moore’s Watchmen on-screen. It is a very dense, convoluted story. Watchmen bounces between the 1940s, 50s, 60s, and 70s (or 1939 for the Watchmen police). Many characters share the spotlight as the story juggles a love triangle, global hysteria, gumshoe detective work, and more. And, Moore created additional content like “Tales of the Black Freighter“, a comic book within his novel; excerpts from characters’ autobiographies or published essays; psychiatric profiles, and other references. Oh, and did I mention that there is at least one flashback in the majority of Watchmen’s chapters? Simply put, Synder had his work cut out for him.

Tunnel Vision
Snyder did a solid job focusing on Watchmen’s core. Though skipping through the golden years of the masked heroes, flashbacks, and other peripheral content kills the novel’s charm, the movie does an excellent job of staying true to the content it does focus on. To counter-balance the decades Watchmen builds up over, the movie runs through the first 29 years: the inception of the masked hero; heroes selling out; outlawing masked heroes; and disbanding of the Minutemen (first organized group of masked heroes) in the opening credits. For those who haven’t read the graphic novel, this part of the movie could be easily overlooked as a cute montage of throwback heroes-but in fact it is vital back-story. In fact, it would be fair to say that Watchmen the movie was made for Watchmen students-not the passive viewer.

To explain further, Synder fully utilized the “A picture says a thousand words” proverb in the movie’s prologue. Still-frame and slow-frame fragments of the graphic novel are summarized, yet succinctly understood.

A Place In History
The time period of Watchmen shuts out the audience somewhat. This is not Snyder’s fault, of course. But again, for a younger audience the context of the story can be confusing. For instance, we see a lot of Richard Nixon as he weighs the Soviet nuclear threat. So, without any knowledge of the Cold War and the arms race, a viewer is already partially blind. There are many other examples to support this. If you take a look at the cast and credits you’ll see that a serious number of iconic figures from the 60s and 70s are captured in the movie. (Dr. Manhattan…first man on the moon? Too cool.)

It’s not Snyder’s fault for inheriting a script fixed in this time period, but some attention to explanatory dialogue would have been helpful. But, this goes back to staying true to the graphic novel. Besides cutting out peripheral content, the movie is extremely accurate to the graphic novel-almost to a fault. That, my friends, is up to you to decide.

Mirror Image
Where Watchmen really shines as a screen-adaptation is in its representation of Moore’s characters. The graphic novel hosted lovable, turbulent characters, and the movie did the novel justice in getting the cast right and letting the novel shine on. Rorschach (Jackie Earl Haley) was a perfect Rorschach. Billy Crudup played a brilliant Dr. Manhattan. The monotone, apathetic voice enhanced the character (and gives us something to think about in the “Dr. Manhattan/God” theory). Malin Akerman and Patrick Wilson did an excellent rendition of Silk Spectre and Night Owl. The only thing missing was some early-on awkwardness and drooling Night Owl gets caught up in. Matthew Goode didn’t exactly look the part of the square-chinned statuesque Adrian Veidt, AKA Ozymandias, as his frame is more slender. But, the acting performance was brilliant enough to be convince me he was a diabolical, insurmountable hero (or villain…hrm). Jeffrey Dean Morgan played a five-star Comedian. His sarcastic laughs during tense scenes colored in the Comedian’s sick sense of humor and perspective described in the graphic novel.

The supporting cast was excellent as well. Edgar Jacobi played a great Moloch. Robert Wisden is a passable Nixon (though the prosthetics and makeup are a bit obvious). Carla Gugino, though I hate seeing her wearing makeup that ages her, was a cool, casual Sally Jupiter. I truly could not have asked for more from cast. How did you like the casting?

Who’s Watching The…Omissions
Besides shorting us on the extra documents Moore created-which totally help create the illusion the Watchmen’s characters are real people-there are some little snips here and there that could have been good moments for hardcore fans and newbies alike. For instance, we do not see Hollis Mason, the original Night Owl, bite the dust. Also, Rorschach’s social impotence is hardly expressed in the movie. One big thing I would have like to have seen from the graphic novel is the graffiti of the two lovers’ silhouettes outside his apartment. It showed great foreshadowing for the big twist at the end-just a snippet of Moore’s genius that would have been neat to see.

Another cut comes from a flashback we do not see. Though Snyder lets us watch Jon Osterman become Dr. Manhattan, we do not see what makes him tick. This comes in the graphic novel via a flashback to young Osterman tinkering with a watch’s parts, as he is training to follow his father’s watchmaker footsteps. The movie neglects the conversation in which his dad pushes him to be a nuclear physicist, and, well, the rest is history. I’m sure there are other cuts that I missed. Maybe you can help fill in the blanks.

Overall, it’s an accurate portrayal of the graphic novel. The movie often is an exact representation of the novel, frame by frame! I’d say the biggest cuts in the movie came from leaving out some of the peripheral content, especially the “Tales from the Black Freighter.” In general, Moore is a master at doing parallel stories. Black Freighter echoed what was going on in the real world and the comic’s drama perfectly. Brilliant! The other biggest cut was leaving out the (Spoiler Alert!) Ozymandias’ giant alien monsters who supposedly were responsible for nuking the world. I mean, come on, a giant slimy cyclops alien in Times Square-how could Snyder pass that up?! Instead Dr. Manhattan takes the fall for the explosions, which works, I guess.

Movie:
Director: Peter Jackson
Screenplay: Fran Walsh, etc.
Starring: Elijah Wood, Sean Astin, Viggo Mortensen, Orlando Bloom, Bernard Hill, Ian McKellan, John Rhys-Davies
Release: December 2002

The Two Towers is the second installation of J.R.R. Tokien’s Lord of the Rings saga. Director Peter Jackson took greater departures from this book than the previous adaptation in part one, The Fellowship of the Ring. He seems to have stuck to his award-winning formula, in that he added more conflict, and romance than Tolkien focused on in the book. Some of the risks Jackson took were difficult to swallow and even nudging up to cheesy for commercial fans, let alone stout Tolkien fanboys. Besides adding some soap-opera elements to the film, Jackson decided to play Jenga with Tolkien’s sequence of events as well.

Because I have not yet read the third and final book, The Return of the King, I can not definitively say whether every “extra” scene Jackson added that I did not find in the book was pulled from his own bag of tricks or bumped up from Return of the King. Maybe you can fill in some gaps for me. But, if you take a look at Fellowship and Two Towers movies, you’ll notice that he as already staggered Tolkien’s story and criss-crossed some parts from each. But, being that I haven’t read anything about Frodo (Elijah Wood) running out into the open and offering the Ring of Power to Nazgul (the enemy) in Two Towers, I’m about 99% sure Jackson conjured this up for a little dramatic flair. But let me back up and start at the beginning.

Split Personality
Along their path to Mordor, Frodo and Sam (Sean Astin) are tied up and taken prisoner by Faramir, captain of Gondor. Simple, right? Wrong. And here’s where Jackson starts playing with Tolkien’s vision. In the book they are not bound and taken as prisoners, but led by mutual agreement to Faramir’s lair. In the book, Faramir finds out the Frodo is carrying the Ring of Power through Sam; whereas Gollum (Frodo and Sam’s guide) gives up the big secret of Frodo’s parcel in the movie.

Faramir knows some lore about the Rings of Power, but his knowledge is different in the film and movie. In the book he knows about a powerful trinket-not a ring per se-that has the power to fully restore Lord Sauron’s destructive powers. But, in the movie he knows the lore of the Rings of Power. In both he finds out Frodo is carrying the One Ring, but in the book he is not corrupted by temptation and sets Frodo free (with vital provisions!)

Unfortunately, Jackson decided it’d be more exciting for Faramir to be hypnotized by the One Ring and steal Frodo to Gondor-to use the One Ring against Sauron. Now, since Faramir is supposed to be educated in the history of the One Ring that deceives the human race to the ruin time and time again…why would he opt to bring it to men? So, rather than Frodo leaving Faramir with a new friend and fresh food, he is kept-and in turn enemies find Frodo and come within a claw’s grasp of ripping the One Ring out of Frodo’s outstretched hand.

This leads to another major point. Jackson’s interpretation of Frodo makes him far more corrupted than Tolkien’s. At times in the movie, Frodo wants to be taken by the enemy. In the book, the Ring takes Frodo over at times. Frodo is considerably stronger in the book: in his manner of speak when talking to Faramir; when battling the seduction of the One Ring; and in dealing with Sam, his companion.

Stop Hitting Yourself
Continuing these observations of Jackson’s disregard for Tolkien’s subtle characters, Gollum is an absolute lunatic in the movie. A true on-screen drama queen. He has a full-blown split personality: a frothing, fuming monster willing to kill anything to get the One Ring back; and the gentler Smeagol, Frodo’s faithful lap dog. The audience watches several monologues/dialogues of these characters choosing Frodo’s fate. The mean side chastises the soft side like a bully straight out of 6^th grade. In the book, Gollum is much more steady. He grumbles about the journey, but he leads on. Readers catch on to his plot in the same scene as the movie-but he seems far less deranged-but equally maniacal.

Frodo, as stated earlier, is far more wretched in the film. Jackson does well in paralleling Frodo and Gollum as the same character (but 500 years different in age). But, this leads to Frodo treating Sam like the whipping boy in the film; whereas in the book they are still very much companions. But, in all fairness, the little love triangle between Frodo, Sam and Gollum is something to behold. Better than watching soaps (way better special effects).

Three’s Company
Just like Jackson’s effort to insert romance in Fellowship of the Ring, he continues Aragorn’s (Viggo Mortenssen) and Arwen’s (Liv Tyler) romance in Two Towers. Though Tolkien gives us very little to go on in the book, Jackson spends a chunk of time on sweet sappy reminisces-and in Two Towers he adds a third party: Eowyn of the House of Rohan. Though this is (up to this point) unfounded in Tolkien’s books, Aragorn and Arwen, who once were an item; broke up because he is human and she is elf (cue waterworks here). Enter human lady, Eowyn. Eowyn instantly falls in love with Aragorn (of course), but Aragorn wants his elf-lady back (of course!) All Jackson is missing to solidify this as a big-screen soap is extreme close-ups of overly dramatic facial expressions and Susan Luchey. Alas, in all fairness, Tolkien’s story has a faint heartbeat and it’s hard to blame Jackson for trying to give the girls more screen time. A major deviation, but arguably makes the story more well-rounded.

Battle of the Beards
Other major drama that Jackson adds is a wizard duel. Gandalf (Ian McKlellan) tries to break Saruman’s spell over Theoden, King of Rohan (Bernard Hill). The “battle” is a mental one, where they exchange words (Saruman speaks through Theoden telepathically), and Gandalf triumphs by removing Saruman’s presence and restoring Theoden to a healthy, conscious state.

Jackson loves adding wizard duels in the movies, though Tolkien takes a more subtle approach in the novel. In fact, Tolkien holds a brain-duel between these two wizards in Two Towers, but it is in no way related to the duel mentioned above. In the book, Gandalf and Saruman meet face to face after Saruman’s tower, Orthanc, falls at the hands of begrudged Ents (in lamens, walking trees). Saruman tries to persuade Theoden and Gandalf to befriend him and take over the world. But, Gandalf wins, breaks his staff, and leaves the broken wizard to rot in his tower. It’s a pretty intense bit of the book.

All in all Jackson did not create a bad movie. The Two Towers is packed with action and drama, and he vividly portrays the major battles accurately. But, he starts to seriously break off from the books in the movie. The endings are very different, placing all the characters at different points in the journey, and I just do not know where the third and final chapter, Return of the King is going to go. Stay tuned.

Movie
Director: Iain Softley
Screenplay: David Lindsay-Abaire
Starring: Brendan Frazier, Eliza Bennett

I loved the premise of Inkheart from the moment I first saw the previews and the idea of bringing to life the characters who inhabit the pages of our favorite stories. The pages of Funke’s book didn’t disappoint either-it’s filled with quips, quotes and anecdotes that any book lover can relate to. And Softley’s film version is true to the book inspiring even the most reluctant reader to explore the world of words.

In the “real” world, there are people with special powers, known as readers, who can read characters and other elements of the story out of the book and into the real world.  Luckily, what those readers bring out of the storybooks brings excitement and danger to the story: Capricorn, the enemy of all, and his henchmen, led by Basta, and Dustfinger – who is just confused and wants to go home.

Straight to the Point

Funke spends the first 100+ pages of her book introducing Mo (Frazier), Meggie’s obsessed father; Meggie (Bennett), the precocious 12-year old; Dustfinger the fire-juggler who longs to go home; and Elinor, a crotchety old woman who loves books more than any living person. We learn about how the family worships books: Mo works as a book binder and Elinor’s entire home is devoted to her book collection. Dustfinger first appears at the old farmhouse where Mo and Meggie make their home – a mysterious figure in the rain, who Mo invites in. He calles Mo “Silvertongue” and tells him that Capricorn would like to see him. The mismatched trio travels together to Elinor’s mansion, from where Mo is kidnapped by Capricorn’s men. Elinor, Dustfinger, and Meggie must track him down – where they all end up in Capricorn’s village.

Of course, Softley doesn’t have the equivalent of 100 pages of time on screen to introduce the characters and bring us to the heart of the action. Instead, Meggie and Mo run into Dustfinger in a village on their way to Elinor’s. When Silvertongue lies and says he doesn’t have a copy of the book Inkheart (from which Dustfinger, Basta and Capricorn are read) and thus can’t read Dustfinger home, we think he disappears. When he reappears at Elinor’s mansion, he isn’t alone: Capricorn’s men have come with him, and before they take the whole family, they destroy Elinor’s library.

While this change saves precious filming time, you lose a great deal of the history between Dustfinger and Silvertounge. In the book, Dustfinger feels like an old friend; in the film version, he’s another nemesis with whom Meggie, Mo and Elinor must contend. They also cut Meggie’s book box, replacing it with her mother’s copy of The Wizard of Oz that Elinor gives her.

We’re Off to See the Wizard

The Wizard of Oz plays a major role in the on-screen version of Inkheart, although it is never mentioned in the book. We’re first introduced to the book when Elinor gives the copy to Meggie which Dustfinger later saves from a bonfire of books. Because Meggie smuggles the book with them to Capricorn’s village, Mo can use the book to bring a tornado to Capricorn’s village, providing the perfect cover for an escape. Of course, the flying monkeys that are seen in the cells are also from the Wizard of Oz. And when Meggie discovers her skills in the film, she reads Toto out of the book when she’s staying at Fenoglio’s.

Whether the changes were made in an attempt to Americanize the story; to avoid copyright problems; or just to create additional action [is debatable, but forgivable]. Funke uses a wider range of stories from which to bring out characters. Meggie learns of her skill while she and Fenoglio are being held captive by Capricorn: she discovers books under the mattress and while reading aloud, TInkerbell appears. In order to prove her skill, she also reads a tin soldier from a Hans Christen Anderson fairytale.  The wider variety of books that Funke uses encourages the reader to expand their horizons, while Softley’s version has familiar and comforting scenes for most American viewers.

“Reading”

Of course, the story couldn’t be complete if the only people that were read out of books were from years before the action; and Mo can’t be the only person with the skill. First we meet Darius, a new reader that Capricorn has found. Darius reads an army of henchmen from Inkheart for Capricorn’s evil doings. However, because of Darius’s unfortunate stutter, the people appear with unsightly tattoos and physical flaws (the flattened facial features of Flatnose, Resa’s missing voice). He also proves to be unreliable for Capricorn’s other motive: to read treasure from books. In the movie, Capricorn’s cells are filled with magical creatures that Darius has read for him: a unicorn, the ticking crocodile from Peter Pan and flying monkeys from The Wizard of Oz. (The book doesn’t show us who else is in the cells.)

Neither Mo nor Meggie have the trouble that Darius does, as whatever they read out of books appears flawlessly. None of the readers can control what comes out of the story, and in Funke’s version, the readers don’t use their power for personal gain. Mo won’t even read outloud without force or coercion – his only goal in reading aloud is to now read back out his wife, who disappeared on the night that Basta, Capricorn and Dustfinger appeared. Little does he know that Darius already read her out, and she’s now the mute maid that works for Capricorn.

Capricorn needs a good reader to complete his final evil deed: to read The Shadow out of Inkheart so that he can use the power to wreak havoc on the world. Since Mo has escaped his grasp, Capricorn can use Meggie’s skills to complete his evil plot. But in the end, reading is what must save the story, since reading is what created it. Fenoglio, the original author of Inkheart, comes up with the idea of re-writing The Shadow, so that rather than bending to Capricorn’s will, the Shadow would attack Capricorn and then disappear back into the story. Funke’s version has Meggie hide a new page up her sleeve (literally), written so that the Shadow turns into all the people (or fairies, etc) that he’s destroyed. Again, lending to the excitement of the big screen, Meggie herself must re-write the ending (on her arm) to protect those she loves.

Do the changes to the story reduce its appeal or detract from Funke’s vision? Definitely not. Rather, they bring the excitement needed for the big screen while staying true to the basic story and premise that Funke has laid out. There are several opportunities for increased depth and discussion in both stories (like what happens to people who are read into the books, and what happens to the books from which characters are read?), but Funke has written two more books in the series that may address these questions, and which may be brought to life on the silver screen.

Book

Movie:
Director: Peter Jackson
Screenplay: Fran Walsh
Starring: Elijah Wood, Viggo Mortensen, Ian McKellan, Orlando Bloom
Release: 2001Rating: PG-13

It was only a matter of time before someone made a film of The Fellowship of the Ring, J.R. Tolkien’s first book of the The Lord of the Rings trilogy. The story is a masterpiece. The characters each have their own plight and rite of passage. The conflict and journey are epic. But it’s a slippery slope to try and adapt a timeless story such as this for the big screen. To quote a character from the story, “Stray but a little and you will fail.” Fortunately, Tolkien proves to be a wonderful guide in his wizardry and craft, and paved a clear path for director Peter Jackson and screen writer Fran Walsh. All they had to do was follow the map.

It should be noted that Tolkien did not completely render every nook and cranny of his saga. To detail every hillside or facial feature of characters or elven craftsmanship in their weapons would have taken a lifetime-and he had bills to pay. Rather, he used broad strokes for such things, letting the reader fill in the gaps. This is where the movie comes into play, and for the most part movie is a wonderful compliment to the book.

To go one step further, the screen writer did a wonderful job of creating little scenes here and there that reward the Tolkien fan club. For instance, we find the main character, Frodo (Elijah Wood) and his companions sitting under what looks to be monsters carved into stone. These statues, however, are actually a trolls turned to stone in the saga’s prequel, The Hobbit. But, for every nuance added, there was one taken away.

Director’s Cuts
Tolkien had a wild imagination and a classic style. So, when the journey sets out, it passes through several common scenarios that we see in many stories, but with Tolkien’s fantastical flair. The Lord of the Rings is a fantasy sci-fi story at heart, but Tolkien at times may have gone too far for the average movie-goer.

For example, Frodo quickly finds that he is being chased along his journey, and flees to a dark, treacherous forest-which is a standard writer’s tool for confusion and/or evil (classic style). While traveling through the Old Forest, Frodo and his hobbit companions are entranced and Sam Gamgee (Sean Astin) and Pippin (Billy Boyd) are engulfed by a carnivorous tree (enter Tolkien’s imagination). But a man-of-the-wood named Tom Bombadil beats the tree with the power of song.

The movie skips over the perils of the Old Forest entirely. But, I can see how the director might foresee the average audience finding a hobbit-eating tree bested by a singing, skipping woodlander a bit too much sci-fi. Instead Jackson simplified the formula: Sauron, Ringwraiths and orcs are the bad guys; hobbits, humans, elves, dwarfs are the good guys.

To expand on the concept of eliminating songs from the movie, there are many poems and songs excluded from the movie. In practically every chapter of The Fellowship of the Ring someone’s singing an old story or working on a new lyric. It’s not surprising that they were left out, though, as the movie has to keep its mainstream appeal, and people probably wouldn’t care much to hear the actors’ vocals. Unfortunately, stripping the movie of songs and rhymes leads to several scene changes, and some interesting lore. None of the “filler” for the missing songs damage the story, and they fit well enough with the journey’s flow.

Live By The Sword
The book is also far less violent and alludes to conflict much more than it embeds the audience in it. The wizard battle between Gandalf (Ian McKellen) and Saruman (Christopher Lee) in the tower Isengard is an exaggerated version of Gandalf and Saruman’s quarrel and Gandalf’s capture. Also, how Gandalf escapes is twisted to eliminate the introduction of another character (a beast-master wizard named Radagast).

In the climax of the movie a final battle on the hillside of Amon Hen claims the life of Boromir (Sean Bean) in a valant effort to regain his honor in sacrificing his life for the sake of his hobbit companions. Meanwhile, Frodo and Sam flee the fellowship to seek their fate alone. In the book Tolkien leaves us with only Frodo’s path, as Boromir’s final stand is not revealed yet.  The movie provides a rewarding climax, however, and it is not totally unfounded. The second book, The Two Towers, records the battle on Amon Hen.

Aragorn (Viggo Mortensen), a classic hero character, is a lost hero looking for strength within. Tolkien gives us a glimpse of Aragorn’s impotence and refusal to lead, but in the movie he is much quicker to grow into the leader. The biggest change for Aragorn, in my opinion, is Anduril, his sword and heirloom. In the book, he carries a broken hilt in his sheath. This is the heirloom that he seeks to remake one day upon the rise of the human race, and it is remade into Anduril, the blade that defeated the evil Sauron in the Battle for Middle-Earth. In the movie, the sword is found in the elven city Rivendell, where it lays broken in shards.

The movie couldn’t afford to have Aragorn not fighting, so he needed to have some sword, if not the mythical Anduril-but in the book he has no need for a sword as of yet. The battle with the Nine Ringwraiths on Weathertop is one of the few instances where he fights for his companions, he used torches-but in the movie he used torch and blade.

Love Conquers Author
The movie makes way for a strong female character and love interest, in yet another attempt to create a blockbuster event out of Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings saga. Arwen (Liv Tyler) saves Frodo from certain doom on the way to Rivendell. With her aid the Ringwraiths are washed away in a flood she commanded with her elf craft, and Frodo is healed by the elf elder, Elrond (Hugo Weaving). While Frodo heals, Aragorn and Arwen share moments of forsaken love between human and elf, but in the book they hardly speak. Rather an elf named Glorfindel saves Frodo and his horse rides Frodo across to safety where Elrond and Gandalf create the flood. But, there’s always room for romance, even if a little re-writing is in order.

In a funny way, you could say that Samwise Gamgee (Sean Astin) and Frodo are also a couple. Sam is bound to Frodo as his servant. In the book their relationship is much like this: Sam calls Frodo master regularly and follows him with the loyalty of a dog. In the movie they make sure to not use the word master, and replace the servant-master relationship with one of love and commitment.

Whether or not all the little changes add up and destroy the book’s foundation, or if you believe that taking something old and making something new is the best way to treat Tolkien’s classic, the movie does do most of the book justice. Gandalf’s final battle, the temptation of Galadriel (Cate Blanchett), personification of the One Ring, Bilbo’s (Ian Holm) corruption, and countless other parts of the book are represented with outstanding accuracy. Unfortunately, a lot of back story and references to the prequel, The Hobbit are lost, but as a whole it is a testament to the book.