I love books that don’t beat around the bush and jump right into the heart of a subject. “The Art of Film Funding” by Carole Lee Dean is one of those great books that gives you a lot of information, and leaves it up to you to get the job done. The book is informative, witty, and was written by someone who really knows what they are talking about. Read on for more details.
“I had seen so many book trailers which were exactly like every other book commercial you see: scary-voice-guy tells you what it says on the back of the book jacket. But none of those trailers ever invested you in the story. Or the characters.”
Brad Meltzer, the author behind popular DC Comics’ universe changing miniseries Identity Crisis and more recently, the Justice League of America, has created a film style trailer to advertise his new novel, “Book of Lies”. Meltzer told EW the above comment and went on to add that his goal “was to create the trailer for the greatest movie that didn’t exist. And then, like any independent film, I called in some friends. The goal was simple: we wanted to change how books are sold”
The friends that he called in to help were Joss Whedon (creator of Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Firefly), Damon Lindelof (Lost executive producer/writer), Brian K. Vaughn (writer of Y: The Last Man), among others. They all “star” in the trailer, which can be viewed here.
It is an interesting trailer (although with a bit of over the top cheese), but does it change the way books are sold?
Sean Connery might have retired from acting, but that doesn’t mean that he is gone for good. Yesterday, Connery returned to his home town of Edinburgh, Scotland, to celebrate the launch of his autobirgraphy, “Being a Scot”.
According to the Associated Press, the book “looks at Connery’s early life as a milkman in Edinburgh’s Fountainbridge neighborhood, then delves into a wide-ranging look at Scottis culture including the work of poet Robert Burns, novelist Sir Walter Scott and Mary, Queen of Scots.”
To learn more about the book and event, click here.
Maybe you should brace yourself, because most people will hate what I have to say…
Hugely popular and considered one of the best books of 2006, this is the story of Amir, who witnesses something horrific happen to his best friend, Hassan, and does nothing, then tries to redeem himself by returning to Afghanistan many years later to help Hassan’s son. I know that I’m hugely in the minority here when I say that I really disliked this book. But hear me out for a second. It’s a riveting story and it’s great for those who are looking for a quick and easy read (easy like it flows well, but that won’t make it any easier to stomach the material). However, I got to a point about halfway through the book where I became annoyed with how many things were going wrong. I don’t want to spoil it for the few people out there who have yet to read this, but everything was just too coincidental, too horrifying for the sake of being horrifying. It’s written to pick you up with glorifying images, then knock you down with a traumatic incident, then pick you back up…and knock you down again, over, and over, and over. I realize that there are many hardships to those in Afghanistan and that traumatic events happen every day to children and adults alike over there, but everything in this book happening to one person is just too depressing to be real. For example (this is by no means a spoiler), Amir meets with someone in the embassy at one point to travel back to America and that person is rather short and rude to him. On his way out, he says “Your boss could use some manners” to the secretary, and she replies back with, “Yes, he hasn’t been the same since his daughter killed herself.” Really? Seriously? Why did that have to be so shocking!? Why can’t this character, who literally exists in all of 3 or 4 pages of the book, just be a crabby guy? Does he have to have such a tragic background? He can’t just be in a bad mood? Apparently not. And that’s why I hated this book, because about halfway through I got sick of everything being so damn sad and started laughing at the ridiculous circumstances that make it this way. This book has a great story in there, if you just subtract some of the bad coincidences and give it a reality check. However, it seems as though it was written to be a Hollywood film, complete with twists and tragic turns and in my opinion, that is no way to write the sad story of two Afghani boys.
The movie captured a lot of the book, in both beautiful and haunting images, yet something felt as though it was missing. While the book is twisty and tragic, the film is all off on the deliverance. When it reveals the book’s biggest twist, it’s a fact that’s simply stated to Amir and takes just moments for him to accept. It relies too much on the audience to fill in the emotional blanks, and I just couldn’t do it. Even the few parts that choked me up in the book did nothing for me on film. I did enjoy the kite flying and racing competitions. As silly as it may sound, the sound effect that accompanied the cutting down of kites was really neat. I never realized that the point of flying kites was to cut down other ones (personally I would have been pissed if someone did that to my kite when I was a kid), but to see it executed on film was pretty cool. Other than that, I really had a hard time enjoying this film and it wasn’t because it was so sad to watch (though it is), it was because it was lacking any engaging performances or plot lines.
The film manages to cram a lot of the book’s material into it, but of course there are some losses. We don’t get much of Ali, Hassan’s father and the missing mothers are cut out altogether (most noticeably Hassan’s gypsy mother who reappears in the book). When Amir arrives in Pakistan, there is less of him and Rahim Khan and no fake American family living in Pakistan taking in orphans. There’s a lot less of Farid, the driver who takes Amir from Pakistan to Afghanistan and we don’t meet his family at all. There’s no embassy issues, no hospital stays, and finally, the most notable absence is the last tragic event of the book that befalls Amir and Sohrab.
Not a lot. The film is almost a direct adaptation that cuts characters and plot lines out, but never adds to it. Even most of the dialogue is ripped directly from the pages of the book.
I didn’t like the book, and therefore liked the film even less. While I can see how the book would be very emotional to some, the film felt like it lacked that heart. They were just going through the motions of adapting this tragic story, rather than embracing it and making it their own. There are cases when a direct adaptation is not necessarily a good thing, and I believe this is one of them.
Okay, commence the insults because I know they’re coming. I have yet to meet someone who didn’t like the book, so I imagine all the ones who love it will be a bit upset by this review. But bear in mind, I’m in no way belittling the hardships that have fallen on those who still live in Afghanistan or have managed to escape. I know that it’s not easy, and these tragic things happen every day, but this book just does it too neatly for me to truly believe it. I’m generally against the norm in my opinion, and this is no different.
This blockbuster was actually based on a short 50’s sci fi novel by cult writer Richard Matheson, which has been adapted to film three times now, though upon comparison you may never have known.
A great, quick little novel that puts a unique spin on the age old vampire story. In Richard Matheson’s world, vampires are the product of a virus that’s been around for centuries, spawning all the myths and fables. The virus experiences a surge in its spread, aided by the fall out from a nuclear war, and seizes the entire population, save for Robert Neville, a lowly office drone who becomes the “last man on earth.” Every day he searches for supplies and survivors, every night he sits in his house, listening to the vampires calling out to him, beckoning him to come out. Neville begins to study the virus, taking blood samples from test subjects during the day when the vampires are comatose, and seeks a cure. The inner dialogue is key in this novel and Matheson writes Neville with a great familiarity. His burning sexual desire is that of a man who hasn’t touched a woman in 3 years and his curious will to live, despite the deterioration of the world around him, is uplifting as the reader roots for him to make it home before sunset each night. The novel captures human nature in such an interesting setting, as Neville teaches himself how to be a scientist and learns everything he can about the virus infesting the Earth’s population, because he believes he is the only one out there who can. I found Neville so relatable and interesting, as he tests and debunks old vampire myths (the garlic works, the mirrors do not, and the crosses only work on those who were Christian when they were alive…a Jewish vampire cowers from the Torah!) and rids the surrounding area of vampires once he finds out he doesn’t need stakes to kill them and can simply drag their bodies into the daylight. Eventually he comes upon a dog without the virus which gives him hope that there may be others out there. His plight comes to an end in the form of a woman named Ruth, whom he finds walking in the sun during daylight hours. At the end of the book, he is a legend that will go down in history, though in a completely different way then how it is portrayed in the film.
It is ironic that this is the third incarnation of this book on film, yet the first one to use the book’s title, since the title is nearly the only thing the book and film have in common. There is the main character still, Robert Neville, who seeks a cure to the virus that has spawned what he calls “The Dark Seekers.” Neville spends his days driving around the deserted Big Apple with his German Shepard Sam, conversing with mannequins that he has set up all over town (presumably to keep his sanity somewhat intact, though he looks a bit crazy eyeing up the mannequin in the video store every day and never getting up the courage to speak to her), and experimenting on test subjects to no avail. He also waits by the Brooklyn Bridge every day at noon to see if anyone will answer his distress broadcast. By night, he sits in his bathtub with his gun and Sam, hoping that the “dark seekers” will never discover where he lives. When one day he falls into a trap, he spirals into an angry rampage against the dark seekers that leads him to meet Anna and Ethan, a mother and son who have been beckoned to New York by his broadcast. During the last half of the film, the quiet, solitary life we have seen Neville lead turns into an action-packed crusade to find a cure and avoid the “dark seekers.”
One of my favorite parts of the book, the character Ben Cortman, a once dull neighbor who has turned into a rather clever vampire whom Neville often finds amusing, is completely gone from the film, replaced by a nameless “dark seeker” leader. Another great part of the book, where Neville figures out what vampire myths work and don’t work by trial and error is gone since the movie never refers to the infected as vampires. Finally, in the book there are two different kinds of infected people- those who were alive when they were infected and turned into vampires, and those who died, and then were reanimated by the virus. This difference becomes very significant in the book, but simply doesn’t exist in the film.
The movie takes place in New York, the book in Los Angeles. The virus was spread by nuclear aftermath in the book, and by a cure for cancer in the movie (explained by Emma Thompson, in a really random cameo). Neville is conveniently a scientist in the film, whereas in the book he has to teach himself science and biology in order to start seeking a cure. Sam the German Shephard was Neville’s dog before the virus hit in the film, and in the book he simply comes upon an unaffected dog one day. Neville’s past and family differ greatly from the book to the film. There is no mention of vampires in the film, and the “dark seekers” don’t go comatose during the day, they simply hide in dark places and are just as deadly. There are a thousand other differences, but most notably the second half, at the point where Neville meets the woman (in the film’s case it’s Anna and her son Ethan, in the book’s case it’s Ruth), things change drastically. The biggest difference, perhaps, is the reason why Neville “is legend,” as the title suggests. This change affects how each version ends; the book being a far more eerie and poetic ending, while the film opts to take the Hollywood route.
If I hadn’t read the book at all, then I may have enjoyed the film a little more. Will Smith has certainly proven himself as the type of actor who can hold his own for an hour of just him and a dog. And while the end turns a bit towards mindless, jump-out-at-you, action, the first hour or so of the film is pretty engaging. However, having read the book first, I was annoyed by how little justice the film did to it. Why bother taking the title if you’re going to take just one element of the plot, one surviving man against a virus who seeks a cure, and change everything else? I’d love to see a film that honored this book, as it is a truly wonderful story, but this is not that film.
I’ve been meaning to write up this one for a while- if you haven’t yet seen the movie, I’d advise reading the book first. They go so well together and both are terrific!
A 13 year old storyteller, Briony, sees her older sister Cecilia with Robbie, the housekeeper’s son, and makes assumptions that will change all of their lives forever. Weaving together the three central character’s narratives, we read what they saw, or in some cases what they think they saw. The story moves seamlessly through more than half a century, paralleling the war in France and the heightened anxiety as the soldiers retreat and the terror encroaches on England.
Beautifully shot with a thrilling score, this movie was truly a joy to watch. Fantastic performances from the whole cast, especially Keira Knightley and James McAvoy, but the real scene stealer is Soairse Ronan as young Briony. All three actresses that portray Briony are fantastic (and amazing how much they really look like the same person!), but Ronan stands out in a real breakthrough performance. I loved nearly everything about this movie when I first saw it, and the only real problem I had with it after reflecting was a small nitpick with the ending, however, I truly believe that this film deserves all the awards attention that it’s receiving. It was stunning, beautiful, and very well made.
The war sequence is significantly shorter in the film than in the novel, but just as affective. We lose a few bombings and the scene with the gypsy is quite different (there’s no pig for one, and she appears to be more of a hallucination), however it still remains a devastating part of the film with an amazing five minute tracking shot through all the soldiers on the beach that would have been far more impressive if I hadn’t seen the incredibly moving ten minute tracking shot in last year’s Children of Men.
The ending is almost the same, but creates an interview setting for Briony to discuss her last novel of a new name. While I understand it would have been hard to do otherwise by replacing the setting they put Briony’s character in a situation where she is literally explaining the ending. This is a surefire way for me to lose interest in a film that had otherwise been fantastic- by talking down to the audience and detailing everything so that we fully understand. This is often a major flaw in film adaptations, however it’s usually done through a narrative, so in the very least they’ve come up with a more original way to do it. I didn’t mind it so much during the actual execution, but when my boyfriend pointed out how much it bothered him I thought back and realized that it wasn’t sitting well with me either. In their defense, if they had kept the original setting for the end, all of that likely would have been done in narration and it probably would have been cringe-worthy.
The film is very true to the book and they’ve found great actors and wonderfully visual way to tell the story. I wish there had been a better way to tell the ending, I would have loved for them to go back to the house, however, they probably found the best possible way to do it without being too cheesy. All in all, I look forward to seeing this as an entry in the Best Adapted Screenplay category at the Oscars this year, amongst the many other nominations it is sure to get.
Believe it or not, I somehow managed to rifle through tons of mandatory literature in high school and college without hitting this epic poem. So I picked it up right before I went to see the movie and was surprised at how easily I got through it. To see my thoughts on both the book and film, read below.
This story about a hero and his battles and accomplishments was far more straightforward than I expected it to be. Granted, I likely would have benefited from a professor’s detailed notes and discussions to accompany the book, but as a standalone piece I was surprised at how much I grasped up front. It generally takes me at least two reads to really get what’s going on in Homer, or even Shakespeare. This story, however, is very simple. Beowulf is a hero, born and bred. He comes to the aid of King Hrothgar, whose mead hall Heorot is being attacked by the monster Grendel. After a fierce battle with Grendel, Beowulf incurs the wrath of Grendel’s mother, whom he confronts in her lair. Finally, the third act picks up Beowulf’s story fifty years later when his kingdom is threatened by a dragon. Overall, the story depicts the life of a selfless hero, who simply desires to protect and serve for the greater good.
There have been many adaptations of this story to film in the past, but this one was not only the largest, most anticipated, and heavily promoted, but by the trailers it appeared to be the truest to the source material. Mostly it is, with the exception of incorporating Wiglaf into the story from the beginning (which I found an inspired way to avoid his sudden appearance that occurs in the third act of the original story), until the end of the second act. The film sticks to the books three-act format, however changes something major in the fight between Beowulf and Grendel’s mother in order to weave an underlying plot that is constant through each part and leads up to a twist ending.
The results are far more detrimental to the film than may have been intended: Beowulf’s character is transformed from a selfless hero to a selfish, corrupt, and pretentious warrior. It also succeeds in changing Hrothgar, Queen Wealthow, and possibly, thanks to an ambiguous ending, Wiglaf into despicable versions of the original characters. Plus the dialogue’s stab at modernizing the ancient poem often makes for unintentionally laughable lines (“There have been many brave men who have come to taste my lord’s mead.”) All in all, the movie is only worth seeing for the stunning visual effects in fantastic 3D.
Since the poem is relatively short, there’s not a lot missing, just a lot that has changed. Beowulf no longer returns to his homeland Geatland for the third act, but stays in Hrothgar’s kingdom. Also, instead of introducing Wiglaf in the third act he is introduced from the beginning as Beowulf’s most trusted warrior. In the poem, Beowulf’s most trusted warrior, Eschere, is killed in the second act and Wiglaf is introduced in the third act as the only warrior who stays by Beowulf’s side as he faces the dragon. The introduction of Wiglaf sooner makes for a more relatable, and at times touching, relationship between Beowulf and Wiglaf.
From the moment Beowulf enters Grendel’s mother’s lair, all the way through the end of the film, there are a lot of new elements to the story. Grendel’s mother takes on a much larger role and is not gone after her battle with Beowulf. When Hrothgar learns the true resolution to Beowulf’s battle with Grendel’s mother, he steps down from his post as king (literally, heh) and relinquishes his kingdom (along with his queen) to Beowulf. Thus changing the third act and some very important details that lead to the circumstances surrounding the appearance of the dragon.
It’s not necessary to update every story (especially the oldest story in our language) to conform to a typical Hollywood movie. Just because it’s old doesn’t mean it’s out of style. This story would have been better off left alone, and tampering with it discredited the entire film. By weaving the acts together they have succeeded in making it a Hollywood film, complete with unlikeable characters who lack motivation, sex icons, and heroes with questionable morals.