Film vs Novel – The Dark Half

What would your bad side be like, and how would you confront it?

 

The opening chapter of the novel does not pull any punches and immediately throws some gore and a shiver up your spine. We get further hits of this through antagonist George Stark’s point of view scattered throughout the book, his actions are truly grotesque… I wanted to cover my eyes until it was over – but of course you can’t do that if you’re reading. The film, consequently took a while to get going, and the SPFX felt a touch amateurish, but was most likely state of the art for the time of its release in the ‘90’s. I don’t think ‘The Dark Half’ took the time to build a creep factor as much as his other film titles.

I felt moments in-between when reading, where the narrative dragged out – embellishing characters and their back-stories, or descriptions of the landscape of the novel that slowed the pace and had me speed-reading through. Though my interest in the novel never waned. I always wanted to know what was going to happen next. Eager to learn the secrets of protagonist author Thad and his alter ego Stark. I actually watched the movie in three chunks because of the same issues in pacing – which is not something you want in a horror/thriller.

Thad was an interesting protagonist (played by Timothy Hutton). I related to him immediately being a writer, and how he would get lost in a fugue of writing as if being taken over by another presence entirely. Though the smoking, drinking, patriarch stereotype that edged its way into this character annoyed me a little. But on the whole I found Thad to be intelligent, imaginative and a real risk taker; all with layers of love and compassion. I found perfection in his layers of imperfection. We did not see this set up in the film however. It starts with a montage of Thad’s past and then starts the film off in present day. We don’t get to see the duality of Thad as succinctly as in the novel. And while he is set up to be a family man, there isn’t time to explore the depths of his personality.

His wife, Liz – of which I frequently was reminded of the phrase about poking a mumma bear with a stick when her twin children were threatened. Liz was always the quintessential homemaker, adoring her little family and supporting her husband. But the moment any of that was endangered she roared and snapped like a wild animal. Her protective spirit and tenacity created a deep respect. She was part of the team and very present in scenes with Thad in the novel. Comparatively her screen version played by Amy Madigan was watered down. We did not get to see her strength and though front and centre in the storyline, wasn’t as essential in the plot.

Our straight-man (so to speak) being Sheriff Alan Pagborn filled the much needed critic against the supernatural. He guides the reader and grounds the narrative. The sceptic who deals only in facts and proof to form a conclusion. His added point of view helps to add credence to the theories Thad and his wife instinctually know. I loved his character in the book – the one person a reader is to use as a voice of reason. Not so in the film. He felt more like a plot device to counter the supernatural and be there at the end to witness the strangeness so it couldn’t be written off as imagination or a crazed Thad. We also never get to see the husband and wife team follow their hunches with uncanny supernatural radar – it was reduced to a raving and yelling Thad for a few scenes. The dynamic between these three characters is lost in the movie version.

I found the cast interesting, fully developed and added something unique to the story line, ultimately rounding it in some realism. Though the plot itself did fell drawn out a little too long, the journey there was paced well and held my interest. Stephen King’s writing style is prominent, though more intimate than his earlier works. For a novel nearly 600 pages long, I seemed to fly through it. But the film felt disjointed – subsidiary characters revealed plot points way to early destroying any unexplained evil phenomena to tease and scare us. I feel there was even some missed opportunity to creep us out even further with some of the murder scenes – especially when Stark and Thad are in the same locale.

I was a little disappointed in the mythology of the novel – I’d read about the significance of sparrows before in Trent Jamison’s Deathworks novels, so this aspect was not a huge surprise to me; though Thad’s role felt like it was left hanging. Why had this event taken place in the first instance? Does Thad have some sort of ability? Was it Stark all along, clawing his way back from some dark place? I felt like I was wanting more resolution to this, or even a paragraph explaining why, but we didn’t get an answer in the novel. Comparatively, we get more answers in the film, but they fall flat. And the climactic scene felt comical. In the novel there is more of a struggle between Stark and Thad, and more of a symbolic changing of places before the final showdown. Even Thad’s twins were much more involved. There felt like there was a lot at stake, more paranormal forces in play for the novel – the film just showed one scene with special effects and that was it.

I’ve read creepier, gorier books from King. But I have to say, ‘The Dark Half’ had just enough of both to satisfy this genre without making it difficult to read. The thriller-suspense is light, but a great story to ignite the imagination of any wanna-be writer. But the film was no-where near what I expected it to be. The suspense and build were not executed strongly enough, and I hoped for more of an air of mystery around the paranormal events, but they were explained away far too quickly and easily.

The novel could have been a tad shorter, a tad more intense, and ended with more of an exclamation point, but I’d be happy to recommend to all. I’d have to rank it in the top half of my King favourites. The film however, though entertaining in a nostalgic B-grade horror film sort of way, I’d happily miss, especially since it was two hours long. Definitely the novel for the win J

© Casey Carlisle 2017. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Casey Carlisle with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Film vs Novel – Before I Fall

Reliving mean girl teen rudeness.

It’s been well over six months since I’ve done a book to film comparison, and given there have been a plethora of titles released recently I thought I’d better pull my finger out 😉

I started reading ‘Before I Fall’ a few times, abandoning it and returning before making any head way. All the immaturity, the teen girl snarkiness and bullying was just so tiresome. Plus the Groundhog styled repetition of the same day lagged the pacing. However I didn’t get that same lengthiness and drag from the film.

I didn’t particularly like Sam for most of the novel. She wears the moniker ‘bitch’ unapologetically and seems to pinball from one social scene to the next, swaying under the banner of peer pressure and grasping to remain at the top of the social hierarchy. Then about halfway through the novel things changed. Sam became much more interesting, her choices became more altruistic. I laughed so hard in her ‘rebellious’ day it added a much needed punch to a novel I was starting to find boring. In contrast the film version of Sam (played by Zoey Deutch – and the main reason I wanted to see this film) seemed to be more of an observer and the quiet one of the group, where in the book she is much more involved in the bullying and teen drama.

Additionally, the sex scene with Rob (her teacher) was messed up – didn’t even know if they have sex, but it is heavily alluded to in the film, whereas the novel kept it at heavy flirtation.

One big difference in the plot was in the book she only repeats the day seven times – it’s much more in the film with numerous versions of the day being flashed up on the screen montage-style.

The supporting cast felt all “very teen” – wrapped up in their own dramas and self-importance. So the characterization was bang on, though I had little patience for their carry on. Sheesh I felt so old reading this book. It didn’t have quite that impact on me with the film version – while they were still representing teens drinking, partying and being rebellious, it didn’t feel as frustrating. Possibly because that behaviour was given less screen time in comparison to the dominance in the story line.

‘Before I Fall’ has a pretty easy writing style, a plain melodic beat that once the pace picked up in the second half of the novel, I flew through. I liked the tone the novel set: it glances at repercussions of behaviour, atonement, bullying, suicide, depression, compassion, and acceptance. For such a wishy-washy teen babbling premise, it alludes to some much more serious issues. The movie kept the concept and tone (and the message) but overall the narrative felt flat and drawn out (but better than the written version). It took a while for the story to get its legs and many of the characters really aren’t that nice of people. But they redeem themselves in increments… something I didn’t really get from the novel.

I found there was also some missed context in some of the scenes of the film – they did not make a whole lot of sense, where in the book there was always an explanation. I think those who have not read the novel before viewing the movie may not quite grasp the relevance of some scenes.

I’d recommend the novel to lovers of YA who don’t mind a slow developing story. Plenty of drama and hijinks. Weird in some places, but the cyclical structure of the story resolves everything nicely. And like the proverbial light in the opening scene, you see it coming and there is nothing you can do to avoid it. The movie was fun – and if you only thought it was okay – and don’t attempt the novel. The visual summarisation is slightly more entertaining in my opinion.

Id’ give the novel 3 ¼ out of 5 stars, and the film a 3 ½ … close, but the film for the win.

© Casey Carlisle 2017. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Casey Carlisle with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

 

Film vs Novel – Fallen

Where some angles fear to read.

I read the book over three years ago, and wasn’t overly impressed, but was interested to see if the movie could improve on my opinion.

On the surface, ‘Fallen’ is a thrilling story about forbidden love. And I enjoyed all the supernatural elements in the novel, though its execution was burdened with over-used tropes glutting the YA market. The movie did little to fix this, the characters still felt two dimensional, and it even managed to create a worse insta-love scenario between Luce and Daniel.

The whole age-old mythology of angels vs demons and reincarnation lost its edge.

The story itself is interesting, although nothing new or surprising, and if it hadn’t been such a lumbering read I would have rated it higher. You could predict the plot easily and I was a little disappointed how the climax (battle) of the book took place off screen. There were some unique devices within the novel, like the use of shadows to glimpse a window into the past, I really liked how this was done. But amnesia and flashbacks are two of my pet hates in a novel – they are cliché and overused.  The film watered down the story line so much – dropping out the roles of certain characters that teach and interact with Luce to the point that I just about wanted to puke. The reason/role the school of the Sword and Cross was also omitted. By the end of the film, I felt like I’d only gotten half of the story. The film failed to do a lot of the set up established in the novel, and did a gross disservice to ‘Fallen’ in my opinion.

The SPFX, especially that of angel wings, was pretty impressive though – it was my favourite aspect of the movie. ‘Fallen’ is aesthetically beautiful and melancholy. The visual tone is executed really well. But that old saying about polishing a turd…. with such a problematic story to begin with, there wasn’t a great deal you could do with it and remain true to the original novel. Personally, I wouldn’t have minded if it had a much darker, biblical tone, given the characters some depth and attitude that wasn’t steeped in an ancient battle of good and evil.

Having said that, there were some scenes that felt like an ‘80’s music video : lighting effects, camera pulling in and out of focus, hair blowing in the wind… cue the ‘Heart’ soundtrack.

Luce, the main character, was too insipid for me in the novel. She reacted to the circumstances around her, and lacked strength. I can understand what Lauren Kate was trying to convey with this story, but neglected to give her main cast any sort of edge. Similarly Daniel and Cam, fighting for Luce’s affection, were equally two-dimensional. Both had strong chauvinistic attributes and I failed to connect with any of the characters or their love story. The film managed to give Luce an edge I was hoping for – I actually liked Addison Timlin’s portrayal of her. Daniel was played well by Jeremy Irvine (*swoons*), but I still found his character too aloof and brooding to care about. Cam felt much more dynamic on the screen (played by Harrison Gilbertson.) I had mixed feelings in the novel with him being painted as the tempting villain, but in the film, a layer of genuine concern of Luce’s well-bring shone through.

Lauren’s writing is easy to read, and I enjoyed her style – she just kept losing me. I feel if you cut the book down to half its size to ensure the pace pulled you through the story, Luce would have been seen as a survivor rather than someone who simply endures. By the end of the novel I was more interested in the periphery characters: they had powers and attitude that stirred my curiosity. In the film I sat there blinking at the screen when the end credits rolled – I did not know what was going on with the periphery characters at all. And Penn – what happened there? Blink and you miss it, and none of the cast seemed concerned or affected by what went down.

Many of the reveals in the novel are slowly released, where in the film, much of it is dumped on the viewer in the first fifteen minutes and I was left wondering where the story had to go. If it weren’t for the digital effects I would have gotten really angry.

I do know the studio bought the film rights for all the books – and some sequels could help redeem this series, because this movie debut did feel like the first instalment of a series or a tv pilot… so there may be more to come.

Given the movie managed to interest and entice me much more than the books, it definitely surpasses the written version; though I felt it missed out on some important elements of interest from the books – and the pacing was a little off.

But if you love epic love stories, and angels, and don’t mind a passive protagonist then you will love this book or film. I had rated the book two stars on Goodreads, and in comparison, I’d rate the movie 2.5… an improvement, but still, no cigar!

© Casey Carlisle 2017. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Casey Carlisle with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Film vs Novel – Nerve

The novel ‘Nerve’ had the distinct tone of a toned-down horror movie – the film, however, was a completely different creature.

I found the book compelling. I giggled at some of the dares the Players of the app are put through, and my pulse raced in others. I also liked the interactivity of the Watchers. The concept of the game gave me that silly high you get when you do something stupid as a teenager. That thrill of breaking the rules and giving into abandonment. Some of the dares are lame, but it is to be expected for building tension. The film highlighted different motivations for the main characters – redemption, money, or breaking out of the box people keep labelling you with. I found the movie much more thrilling, and the complexity between the cast more interesting with tension and jealousy coming in to play. It also added an air of mystery around the origin and reason for the game, and the introduction of the Watchers (and Controllers). Where the book is fun and innocent, the film is intricate, daring, and foreboding.

Our protagonist Vee is a cute, bookish and unassuming girl – very much how I was in high school. She has a strong moral compass which is what kept me reading. She was crapping her pants, but stuck to her morals and always found a solution she could live with. She remained true to this impression in both the film and the novel. I loved Emma Roberts portrayal of her. She nailed the shy yet determined aspect of Vee to a tee. You could also see the uncertainty and excitement come through a lot more with Emma Roberts’ interpretation of Vee.

Ian, one of the men in Vee’s life, felt a little stereotypical, and a lot of eye-rolling went with his story, but by the end of the novel I actually thought he was pretty decent and genuine. The same goes for Sydney, Vee’s bestie for the experience I got reading the novel. In the film we get a more possessive Ian and a self-absorbed Sydney. I felt it added a better dynamic and allowed our protagonist Vee to shine. Praise goes to the screenwriters!

Tommy, the love interest for the book … well I’ll let that one go. He’s a bit of a mixed bag and I think there is still more of his story to tell. This can be said for many of the cast as well. They all have their motivations for joining the game NERVE – to better their lives, to become famous, to have an adrenaline rush… but the snippets into their lives was truly interesting. Like peeking into the lives of strangers, grotesque and fascinating. The movie explored this much more deeply with the interpretation from actor Dave Franco. We get a horrific and tragic backstory for Tommy. Also there is a nefarious element to the game not present in the novel that I felt added something extra – leading up to a more satisfying climax.

The ending for the book, though I loved the intelligence and strategy of it, did not have the thrill of the beginning dares. It devolved into a clichéd Mexican standoff. But I did like the twist ending. I love a bit of cheesy, in-your-face tone that leave the reader/viewer saying WTF? The movie, though still remaining true to the concept of the book, added a layer of social responsibility.

The pacing is top-notch, I found myself reading three-quarters of the book on one sitting, until my eyes started drooping. The storyline isn’t what is so attention grabbing, it’s more like the anticipation of what comes next… and that’s the whole book in a nutshell. It’s done really well for what it is. It reminds me of those campy cult classics people love, where substance is low, but it connects to something primal that we find impossibly entertaining. The movie did it all better, but the storyline felt flawed to start with, but the big screen version certainly redeemed ‘Nerve’ in my eyes. Still cliché, but entertaining.

The whole book was a wonderful satire on fame, and what it costs you. It was also a sanatised poke at all these ‘Saw’ movies… Surprising to find layers like this in ‘Nerve.’ I’m glad the film departed from this element, instead focusing on the core motivations as to why someone would choose to partake in the game, as either a Player or a Watcher.

Jeanne Ryan, had a wonderful writing style. I felt like I was thinking the words as I read them. No grand descriptions or lengthy inner monologues. It was simple and to the point – which is what you need to build tension and move the pace along. The treatment of the film was as equally thrilling, entertaining and funny, though I am confident in saying it pulled it off with greater finesse than the book.

I would have enjoyed the novel far more if we got to get to know the characters better (like the film), had dares with higher stakes (like the film), and more adrenaline inducing scenarios (like the… well you get the point). Additionally, a bigger conspiracy and a bigger peek behind the curtain – and that is in the film! It’s as if the screenwriters read my mind and added all the little things I felt were lacking from the book. Even though ‘Nerve’ is a standalone, it sets things up enough that it could be considered the start of a series. I liked the open-ended tone that both film and novel conclude on. Enjoyable, silly fun.

Book 3.5 stars, movie 4 stars

 

© Casey Carlisle 2017. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Casey Carlisle with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Film vs Novel – The Girl With All The Gifts

The novel by M. R. Carey got a lot of press on its release, surprisingly the film adaptation entered the market with a murmur. Which is surprising considering the big named actors in starring roles. I was wondering if the film wasn’t going to be all that good since the distributors hadn’t put a lot of funds behind promoting the movie. But it turned out to be more satisfying that I had expected.

The novel starts with Melanie’s point of view. A child in chains and strapped down, locked away in a high-security facility. We get more background and explanation of who Melanie is, and her scope of intelligence in the novel – some of it a little long winded – but both screen and written version project her innocence and curiosity while hinting at some dark danger hiding underneath. I will say that Melanie, and the other children like her, residing in the facility looked healthier than described in the novel. I didn’t get that cute-creepy-fragile-dangerous image from the actor (Sennia Nanua) portrayal of Melanie.

We also get a large helping of scientific and biological background in the novel about the epidemic and about Melanie and her class through the narrative, where in the film we get small info-dumps along the way. I think I preferred the way the movie unveiled the plot, though I felt we needed more of an introduction to Melanie and her cognitive abilities. Who knows, maybe it was there and ended up on the cutting room floor during the editing process.

One major element that annoyed the heck out of me from the film: the music was distracting and off-putting. It didn’t add to the ambiance or add feeling and tension where it was meant to. In my opinion, Cristobal Tapia de Veer did a massive disservice to the film with her soundtrack.

Glen Close added dimension to the scientist (Dr. Caroline Caldwell,) subtle hues that made her character more realistic. I felt the written version of her was too single minded at times, dangerously coming near to reading like a caricature. Gemma Arterton captured Helen Justineau perfectly, her performance depicted everything I’d seen in my head when reading the novel.

There was a certain ‘campness,’ like a B-grade horror film to the book at times, but thankfully I didn’t get any of that when watching the film. Though I will say the soldiers felt more like secondary characters in the film, where they provided over-stylized machismo in the novel that actually had me laughing.

The ‘Hungries’ seemed more zombie-like in the film because of the onmipresent viewer, where in the novel from Melanie’s POV I got more of a rabid dog/monster vibe. I would have liked to see the epidemic steered further away visually from zombies. It was getting there, but didn’t quite match what I thought was being described in the novel.

The film is definitely visually brutal. Maybe because of the changing POV’s and lengthy description in the novel, I didn’t get so much of the gore as I did from the film – the impact lessened by the amount of words in between key events. Additionally, I had a different vision in my head of the fungal ‘trees,’ nowhere near as megolithic as shown in the film. Maybe a little more like something you’d have seen on classic Star Trek episodes on some alien planet.

There were some small plot points in the film that had me going ‘huh?’ I had to flip through the book again to see if I was remembering them correctly… I won’t discuss them here though. I can see how they were included for the tone of the film and while they won’t spoil the ending, they would remove certain surprises. So I’ll say that the overall story of the film is similar to the novel, it just has a few tiny tweaks. And I put that down to M.R. Carey also having written the screenplay.

I liked the tone and perspective of the novel, and how it was based (mostly) in a youngsters mind analysing scientific data; but found the movie more entertaining (minus the weird soundtrack) and paced much better. There is definitely a stronger tie in to the Pandora metaphor in the film – but doesn’t have the speculative ending like in the novel.

On a side note, I’m glad they kept with the original name of the novel for the film adaptation, I know they were tossing around ‘She Who Brings Gifts’ for a while.

It’s a close battle to which I prefer, but I’d say the film only just scrapes in above the novel, based on more realistic depictions of the cast, pacing of the story, and the symbolism throughout – all keeping in the same tone for the film throughout. The novel, while wordy, suffered pacing in parts, and some of the scenes felt forced or unrealistic, though much more creepy than the film.

Go check out the film.

Go M.R. Carey!

 

© Casey Carlisle 2017. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Casey Carlisle with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

 

Film vs Novel – Miss Peregrine’s Home for Peculiar Children

There was a lot of hype around the release of both the film and the novel – but did it live up to expectations? Was the extrapolation onto the big screen true to the narrative of the book? I have some mixed feelings, but both mediums were highly entertaining.

I found ‘Miss Peregrine’s Home for Peculiar Children’ a bit slow at the start of the novel. With two false starts, I ended up persevering over a Sunday before I got hooked. The setting was described brilliantly, I really felt like I was there. A back drop of WWII almost felt like an homage to the battle within Jacob’s conscious, as well as the challenges the “Peculiars” faced. The twist on the origins of the gifted, or those with abilities – known as peculiars, in addition to the introduction of time manipulation was brilliant. Completely sucked me in. The melancholy strong in the narrative of the novel was replaced with eerie sense in the film. The movie also instantly throws us into the action, little time was spent setting up Jacob’s circumstances and frame of mind.

Tying in old photographs into the narrative brought a fresh aspect to the reading experience adding authenticity to the story. It’s great to find novels starting to break the mould when it comes to formatting and finding more interesting ways to present a story. They were equally represented in the film, though lost that air of creepy. I did like the colour grading of the movie though, a soft muting of colour and shift in hue gave the movie an old-time feel.

The writing style is mature for YA – there were a few words that I needed to look up in a dictionary – which I liked. I love learning new ways to express myself succinctly in print. The composition of Riggs sentences was almost lyrical at times, like an old fable. The dialogue of the Peculiar Children and Miss Peregrine matched the era they were living in, which added a layer of authenticity and fascination for me. Seeing this play out on the screen however, was sometimes a bit cheesy. Whether it was bad accents on the actors behalf, or their delivery of the lines, I found myself giving the side-eye at a few moments.

Thankfully, after a stumble through the beginning, the second half of the novel was incrementally more gripping. The movie, however, true to adaptations, was well paced and moved the story along quickly. I will say it took license to grandiose some of the scenes that had me wondering what the hell was going on – that wasn’t in the book!

Our protagonist Jacob is an intelligent young man grappling with his own demons, wondering if he is mentally ill. I love how he grows throughout the novel, in small graded steps – it felt very realistic that he goes through small changes instead of one giant leap. You get a real sense of wonder and fascination through his eyes as he slowly starts to prove or disprove the stories his Grandfather has been telling him all his life. In the film, played by Asa Butterfield, I felt captured the hopelessness and depression of Jake’s life brilliantly. Out of all the casting – Asa matched how I pictured Jake the most. The slow and gradual development of his character transformed into a bit of a rush on the screen. His relationship with Emma was tweaked a little and brushed dangerously close to instalove.

As for the Peculiar Children, and Miss Peregrine… while I came to sort-of like them. There is still a lot of unknowns, and I’m sure we’ll get to know them more intimately in the following two books of the trilogy. Something about their behaviour was ‘off’ Even though they are likeable, until I hear some more backstory, or an origin story, I don’t think I’ll feel entirely comfortable with them. Miss Peregrine, played by Eva Green in the film did a commendable job. I’ve seen her in other works and have to say the acting, make-up, and wardrobe really let her shine.

I also have to mention how sufficiently creeped out by the white eyed wight in the novel. *shiver* Though the film gave them (and the hollowgast) a more comical tone and I wasn’t frightened at all… and can I mention the CGI – umm, yeah not spooky or matching the tone of the novel at all. Leading up to their reveal I was anxious, but as soon as their wriggly form appeared, I just wanted to shrug. Though to be fair, it they had been made too scary, it would have pushed the rating into ‘MA’ territory and completely missed the demographic.

Pretty much all the characters were all interesting (even if they weren’t peculiar) for the novel, because they all had mysterious motivations. I’m dying to find out more. This was a great first book for a series in setting the scene and intrigue. With the movie, it destroyed a lot of the mystique for me. Sometimes it was stereotypical, sometimes over the top. Some of the characters cast with actors I felt too old for the part and didn’t look as though they were born in the era they were supposed to (see the photographs in the novel). Though their performances were good, the production lost authenticity for me – much in the way the Twilight franchise had with over-made-up actors.

I noted how the special abilities the characters possessed hailed more from the day of travelling Side-Shows rather than psychic powers or X-men type abilities, which I felt add to the ambiance of the novel, tying into the old photographs and the WWII setting. These abilities were tweaked in the movie to either be more present in the storyline, or add cinematic special effects. So much so that at the end of the movie I’m concerned that I’ve been spoiled for books two and three in the trilogy. Yes – the ending of the movie is different to the novel. I’m uncertain if it is because the movie is a solo endeavour, or because of poetic license, but things went down that I definitely did not read about, (about the wights, the hollowgast and their motives, not to mention Emma’s ability) and hope it hasn’t ruined the rest of the novels in the series for me. So maybe it’s better if you read the entire trilogy before viewing the film… I’ll let you know after I read ‘Hollow City.’

I got many surprises from the plot. There was an obvious aspect around Jacobs fate, which is needed for this series to work, but the rest of the arcs had me guessing. Which I loved. There are still a lot of surprises in the film too – its divergence from the plot of the novel, the special effects, the costuming, some added scenes. It’s all very entertaining, but the overall plot, like the book, is predictable.

A highly entertaining novel and film, and something I’d easily recommend to all my friends, family, strangers on the street… Really excited to see where this series goes. But the book slides in just above the movie for my rating. The entertainment value and ability to set the tone for characters and keep the scare factor of the darker elements of the story are far superior in written word.

 

© Casey Carlisle 2016. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Casey Carlisle with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Film vs Novel – ‘Cujo’

Will Kings’ story of a rabid Saint Bernard stand up on the big screen?

Though ‘Cujo’ is not as spooky as many of Kings other titles, I did like the supernatural element and themes of dominance through violence. I’m not convinced that it translated to the movie as the interconnectedness was lost through omission of certain plot points. Where the book is slightly misogynistic, the film in its 80’s horror cinematic style fails to capture the soul of its written counterpart.

The novel took a long time to build up. However, the writing style helped keep it from getting boring. There was always a little snippet of life outside the main plot – given that not a lot actually happens in this book. I loved all the little details. Masterful storytelling. I was engrossed even though the pacing felt slow in the first half.

I also love the mix of the supernatural even though it was small, it added a layer of connectedness and contributed to tension making some scenes terrifying. With a variety of characters and points of view, both good and bad and all different shades in between, each important ingredients to a wonderful narrative. However, the movie failed to include the malevolent presence in Tad’s closet – it was reduced to Tad’s childhood fears. Where the novel used the closet monster as both a precognition of foreboding, and a supernatural presence that haunted the area; the movie just had a rabid dog.

 

Great complex characters, including Cujo the dog, whom left me with conflicting emotions. His story is so bittersweet. As a dog lover, I did find it difficult to see the corruption of such a beautiful and caring canine from something out of his control. Whether intentional or not, the symbolism of rabies, alcoholism, violence, and the evil entity infect and corrupt completely; and it takes sacrifice and a lot of guts and determination to battle such elusive foes. The dogs acting was pretty good for the film, although wagging his tail in some of the attacks gave away some of his menacing air (not to mention his hair goes from short to long and back to short again in some scenes.) The make-up was a little over done, both on Cujo and towards the end on Tad and his mother. Both humans being the star of the film (Danny Pintauro and Dee Wallace respectively) and victims trapped in a smouldering car as Cujo’s rabies forces him into insanity and violence.

Tad’s screaming got on my nerves somewhat, I wanted to throttle him at one point, and ended turning the volume off to continue with the movie.

Steve Kemp’s (played by Christopher Stone) retaliation on Donna (Tad’s mom) in the movie for ending their affair, was made to look more like a violent break in and abduction rather than a sexual power display of vengeance and shame as it is described in the book.

One other thing of note about the film were the policemen. Those scenes were constructed terribly. And the work the Sheriff’s station partook looking into Kemp ridiculous. It had much more efficiency and a sense of urgency in the novel. On the screen everyone in a uniform seemed like some bumbling hick.

The novel has lots of gore towards the end, adding to the desperation and devastation it drove home the shock at the end – which I did not see coming. This conclusion is different for the film, I guess to appeal to cinema audiences (and King himself stated if there was one change he could make, this was it), and dramatic effect. Pretty cool but loses the tone and themes of the book.

There was one thing that was not tied up though, and even missed in the final comments for the written version, and I thought King dropped a prime opportunity to leave us with a shiver. It has been connected as a sequel to ‘The Dead Zone’ where the supernatural presence in Tad’s closet is a boogeyman incarnation of Frank Dodd. Both the novel and film failed to tie up this loose end, or leave us with an ominous scene that the presence is still out there.

All in all a turbulent horror story about the corruption of innocence and inevitability of evil (and man). It still stands as a tale today, but certain technology (like cell phones and better mechanics) may render the plot a little defunct.

‘Cujo‘ is the only book to date (apart from Kings detective novels) that hasn’t had me pulling my legs up off the floor for fear of something reaching out of the darkness to try and pull me under. And well, the movie, I was too astounded at the ‘80’s special effects, occasional overacting and cropped storyline to get any type of fear or anxiety built up.

I’d rate the novel one notch higher than the big screen version… go Kingy!

© Casey Carlisle 2016. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Casey Carlisle with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Film vs Novel – The DUFF

Mean girls and pop culture clash with friendship and first love…

This review and comparison comes as a massive surprise for me – mainly because I had such polar opposite emotions concerning each, and the outcome as these two duke it out have bucked the trend…

The novel was both fun and frustrating; where the film was hilarious, engaging and intelligently comedic without being offensive.

I liked the sarcasm and comedy in both mediums. As well as some of the issues it tackled – like slut shaming. And the ending for both was pretty cute too.

My frustration came because some of the characters were stereotypical in the novel, and a little swearing that felt like it was included on purpose to give the book an edge… And its approach to sex. We don’t get any of that in the film. I know many adaptations tend to sanitise aspect of the book for a ‘G’ rating and wider audience appeal, but this time it was a matter of social responsibility. Additionally, the book is very much ‘white-washed,’ where we get greater diversity in the film. *hoorah!*

I didn’t really connect with the written version of Bianca at all – her casual approach to sex at such a young age. It was self-destructive (and yes, that’s the point) but I wouldn’t be comfortable letting my nieces and nephews read this book in their pre-teens unless I could engage them in an intelligent conversation over sexuality and intimacy. It pitched the characters into situations they weren’t emotionally prepared to handle. I’m not naive, I know this situation can be very real and happens in a real high school setting, but I felt as though there wasn’t a strong enough emphasis placed on the decision to engage in no strings sex with a random partner/s. It was fickle and frankly, distasteful. The movie kept the relationships (minus the sex) grounded in something tangible, which added depth and realism to the characters and story line. I appreciated and applaud the topics ‘The DUFF’ tackles.

Bianca spent the entire novel kidding herself – it was so frustrating. I literally shook the book at one point trying to get her to wake up and stop acting like a flake. Which is great that it is so engaging, but all for the wrong reasons. When I got to see her played by one of my favourite actresses on screen, Mae Whitman, I was elated. She was genuine, approachable and socially inept in a geeky-girl sort of way, more reflecting the age when girls grow up and become aware of the social mechanics of the sexes; as opposed to an ugly duckling story.

Wesley was just as bad with his attitude from the book. Seriously, if this is the calibre of teens and role models, I really worry about society. Couldn’t Keplinger have rounded them out with some redeeming features at the start of the book to stop me feeling like I was hanging out with a pair of lame-assess? Thank goodness the screen version, played by Robbie Amell added some boy-next-door qualities, making him likable and a more grounded human being.

I did not appreciate the parental story arc in the novel – it lacked something organic to make it feel believable (for both of the main cast) and the plot twist, though I can appreciate the drama of it all, was not written all that well in the aftermath. The films twist on parental roles only enhanced the tone of the story, and added a much more poignant message to tug at your heart strings.

Keplinger’s writing style is pretty easy, but a little flat. For a teen narrative, and an ironic one at that, I was expecting much more humour, one liners and brilliantly timed coincidence… but there was none of that. We get it in spades with the film. The plot, though interesting and engaging meandered a bit and left the climax with a soft punch instead of some big dramatic event we have come to love in YA. Again, the film resurrected the tone and climax in true (if somewhat spoony) style.

I have already purchased the sequel to the novel ‘Lying Out Loud,’ and hope this will redeem Keplinger for me, otherwise, if I get another lack-lustre impression, I will abandon any interest in any of her titles for the foreseeable future.

The movie adaptation was sooo much more sophisticated, had better comedic timing and pop culture references, and dealt with the DUFF phenomenon in a much better (socially responsible) fashion. I don’t think I want to recommend this book to my friends, unless you’re a big book nerd and curious to see the origins of the screenplay to the Hollywood blockbuster. But a big nod to the movie. It’s everything a fun teenage comedy should be. Film for the win!

© Casey Carlisle 2016. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Casey Carlisle with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Wrap up – The Divergent Series by Veronica Roth

Started off with a pow… and ended in a fizzle.

There was a lot of hype around this trilogy, and I resisted picking up the box set for a few years after being disappointed with some other YA series released around the same time. News of a film franchise being kicked off is what finally encouraged me to start reading. Though I didn’t power through the books – I really enjoyed ‘Divergent’ and rated it for the experience I had, thinking this was going to be an amazing trilogy. I’m not a big lover of dystopian novels, so the subsequent sequels were spread out over the following two years, each spurned on by looming release dates of the film franchise.

Overall, it is a fun, imaginative and gritty series, but I would probably recommend some others in this genre to my friends before the Divergent trilogy. My satisfaction diminished with each volume. It has a great conclusion, but ultimately the narrative style is what dragged my rating down.

I’d probably rate the boxed set as a solid 3.5. It has become a big part of the YA reading culture, and with the films, hard to ignore. So while a phenomenal story, fantastic packaging and a strong female protagonist role model, it didn’t make the impact on me I’d hoped for… whether my expectations had been elevated by the hype, or that I did not gel with Roth’s writing style, it’s still an action packed journey worth a look.

On the whole I feel as though I have enjoyed the movie franchise a lot better than the books, especially the SPFX, and much of the superfluous story lines stripped away, leaving it compact and throwing a punch. Really excited to see the final movie, ‘Ascendant.’

To read individual reviews:

https://strokingfire.wordpress.com/2015/05/08/film-vs-novel-divergent/

https://strokingfire.wordpress.com/2016/03/12/book-review-allegiant-by-veronica-roth/

https://strokingfire.wordpress.com/2015/11/18/book-review-insurgent-by-veronica-roth/

© Casey Carlisle 2016. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Casey Carlisle with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Film vs Novel – Warm Bodies

A zombie tale with heart

‘Warm Bodies’ was marketed as the ‘Twilight’ for zombies, and being such a lover of the paranormal, YA and film with supernatural themes, it was the movie that first got me hooked on this story.

Such a unique little love story. I liked how the symbolism eluded to (more strongly in the book) that they weren’t actually zombies (in the traditional sense). Merely a symptom of something bigger that was wrong with society. (We all know how zombies were meant to symbolize consumerism in the first place).

One big difference between the film adaptation and the novel that lost some of the interpretation in the film, was the quasi-civilization/ society of the zombies in the novel, and the Boneys weren’t so comical and less of a threat. The older generations in this book, (i.e. Julie’s Dad and the Boneys) stand for something about the old world… and alternatively our protagonist, R, and his love interest Julie stand for something new.

The people, much like the earth, is dead or in a state of decay (hence the zombies) – it is hope that changes things… as illustrated by Julie’s Mum, Peter, and Julie’s Dad to an extent.

I did think towards the end the characters jumped around all over the place a bit too much when reading the novel – it was difficult to picture the landscape because lengthy descriptions would’ve ruined the pace. In that respect the simplicity of the film was much easier to follow. Like the set of the stadium: where in the film it was the backdrop for the culminating battle and Julie’s secret place; and in the book it was the fortress that kept the humans alive containing all their shanty houses.

Dark irony and comedy was kept from book to film, which I’m greatful for Isaac Marion has a brilliant sense of humour. Also, I would normally be against superfluous profanity but in the novel Julie’s swearing added some humanity to the bleak monochromatic landscape. I was kinda glad her potty mouth didn’t make it to the screen, I doubt it would have made the same impact. Plus, you know, ratings and classifications…

I really appreciated the build in the relationship between R and Julie – some reviews (and the film to an extent) give the impression of instalove, but in actual fact, if you pay attention in the book, they grow from friendship, to trust, to fondness, to love and hope. Peter (Julie’s unfortunate ex’s) brain is merely a catalyst of what is already inside of R, and the dreams/flashbacks are the conduit for R to work it all out and come to terms with his actions and what is happening to him/the world.

R, played by Nicholas Hoult in the film adaptation did a commendable job. The right amount of stoicism and humour. In the novel he gets married and adopts two zombie children, again there is important symbolism here, but this mini arc was completely omitted from the film.

I also noted that the film failed to show how R slipped up a number of times in his attempt to ween off eating brains.

R’s change was more gradual in the novel, like his growing affection for Julie. Comparatively the majority his transformation was in a single scene during the movie, a knock on R’s head somehow the catalyst. In the novel, R was also a bit more damaged, a stab wound to the forehead, but the film opted for a more cosmetic treatment – a bullet would in R’s shoulder is what bleeds after the “change.” (Pfft – there’s a change of life joke there somewhere)

Julie, (Teresa Palmer in the film) goes through some changes in the novel that did not make it to the big screen. Like when eyes change colour after a kiss, resulting in Julie getting infected, but fought it off (and I’m guessing was forever changed?) It certainly adds another layer to the novel.

A notable performance in the film for me was M, played by Rob Corddry. He’s not an actor that I particularly like in some movies, but he was spot on in “Warm Bodies.”

One massive disappointment was that the Boneys came off as camp in the movie. Showing them as always malicious, where they were old zombies stuck in their ways in the book, leaders in the zombie community.

A little gripe I had with the story as a whole, was the amount of daydreams and flashbacks – although they each dropped a small nugget of wisdom, they were getting a little tired in the plot. Surely there was another method to impart the need to know bits that still captured our interest?

The movie remained true to the tone of the novel and I enjoyed the comedic moments better. It also had better pacing, though losing some of the importance and layers of the book, coming off a bit cheesy – though that still worked for the tone of the film.

But I have to say I liked the novel better – it skims a fine line between philosophy, the soul, and the meaning of life.

 

Now this is where the film and book hugely digress: the final battle! Zombies did not come to the aid of R and Julie as in the movie – it was R and Julie’s union that released some sort of energy wave that dispersed the Boneys… the zombies were all in hiding. Somewhat corny, but fit the theme of the book. I definitely loved the action scenes in the film though.

The novel also depicts Julie’s Dad being killed by a Boney, failing to have a change of heart – depicting the old way of things dying (as the Boneys themselves do).

In the movie it is love and human connection that heals, where in the book it feels more like the will to live and hope (love is by and by something to live for). Both saccharine sweet and like a nice warm hug. Both a satisfactory conclusion.

© Casey Carlisle 2016. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Casey Carlisle with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.