Movies based off books

This past weekend I had the good fortune of being able to watch Laz Burhman's version of The Great Gatsby, based off the book by F. Scott Fitzgerald. I personally loved the film because of how over the top it was. I thought the audio was unbelievable and was so well done that I don't think people even caught everything they did unless you watched it twice intentionally listening for things. The one thing that I loved was how the high pitched noise you heard whenever you saw the green light from Daisy's dock was the same exact pitch and most likely derived from the ringing bell of Gatsby's phone. They fade it  together so well at the end that they really over emphasize that it's Daisy he's waiting for to call. It's obvious in the storyline but the sound was just over the top for me. That being said I really enjoyed the movie but my little brother's reaction was completely different. He recently just read the book for his English class and his main problem with it was that it didn't match the book enough for him. Of course I told him that they are two different mediums and it's like comparing a photo to painting and not being happy with the painting because it's not identical to what was really there. This made me think of movies that were based off books and did well and why they did well.









            VS








The first one was Perks Of Being A Wallflower originally a book by Stephen Chbosky who also directed it. That I think was key for it doing so well. The guy who wrote the book was able to be there step by step to make sure the movie did the book justice. I personally thought the book and the movie were pretty similar in quality but that being said it probably isn't fair when the director was the author of the book.

The next one I thought of was the Harry Potter series based of J.K. Rowling's books which had 3 or 4 different directors. To me these movies did not capture the books at all but they weren't bad either. I mean some of them were bad but come one they had 8 movies and for all them to be pretty decent is an accomplishment in itself. I think these movies did well because they focused on the characters and the biggest and most important story in the book, to end the everlasting threat of Lord Voldemort. They did have to cut a lot of minor story lines and scenes out but after experiencing the stress of producing a 16 page fiction one film, approaching a 600+ page book and turning it into a film is daunting.

Finally I thought of the opposite situation of the Harry Potter books and looked at The Hobbit directed by Peter Jackson and based off the book the Hobbit by J.R.R Tolkien. In this movie they added completely new story lines and reasons for the treasure hunt that the book didn't have. After reading the book I completely understood why they did because to me the real reason they went after the dragon was because they wanted some gold. They weren't looking for their old home but they just wanted money and I guess that isn't a completely good moral reason for heroically fighting dragons in Hollywood. And also they added the white Orc which I thought gave a nice conflict through out the film but there was no such character in the book. If you stuck to the book, I personally don't think the story would have fit a movie screen as well because that story wasn't meant for that medium. Leading me back to my original statement in which you shouldn't think a movie is bad because it doesn't match the book it's based off of. The movie is an artistic expression inspired by the book not an identical recreation.

Perks of Being a Wallflower

Earlier in the year I wrote a post about Game of Thrones as a television series. In it, I mentioned my general dissatisfaction with books and their movie adaptations. After reading Perks of Being a Wallflower by Stephen Chbosky this summer, I was excited for the movie, but I was also preparing myself for the inevitable letdown afterward. The movie has a few of my favorite actresses, from my guilty pleasure, Nina Dobrev, to in my opinion, one of the most underrated actresses in Hollywood right now, Mae Whitman. The movie also totes the name of Emma Watson.


The movie was released to select theaters, so I had to wait a while to get the chance to see it until I went to Boston for fall break. Within the first minutes of the film, all my fears had been wiped away.

The author of the book, Stephen Chbosky wrote the screenplay for the film, as well as directed it. This meant it was his vision through and through, something that is so rare in book to movie adaptations. If there was ever a doubt that someone could do all three, it was squashed. Chbosky wrote Perks of Being a Wallflower through the main character's letters to an anonomous person. I really liked that Chbosky kept that in the film with pieces of narration scattered throughout the moive. Narration in general is very hit or miss in movies, but in this case it worked seamlessly into the story, to the point where you forgot that it was even happening at some points. If you came out of reading the book, not quite knowing what to think or say, chances are it'll happen all over again...and if you are prone to being a bit of a sap, I'd recommend a box of tissues.

I loved that every ounce of the story was preserved, nothing was sacrificed for cinematic effect, and nothing was held back either. The heavy nature of the story was allowed to stay, and Charlie's blackouts were beautifully woven in. The film worked around a lot of the more gory scenes in the book by cutting out at just the right moment. You were never left wondering what just happened, but you also weren't overwhelmed with blood.

The acting was brilliant. Emma Watson's American accent left something to be desired, but you can tell she improved as filming for the movie occured, on account of her accent was better in some scenes than others. It was never bad, but if you were paying attention, it definitely wasn't perfect. Logan Lerman, who played Charlie, did a fantastic job at playing the quiet, thoughtful character. He did a great job at playing a thoroughly awkward character without being annoying about it or trying to hard. However, Ezra Miller who played Patrick was the standout performance. You believed every ounce of the character, and you couldn't help but love him. His chemistry with Watson was perfect for their brother/sister role, and watching him strut around as Dr. Frank 'N' Furter was just an added bonus.

While the movie itself is not the best movie I've ever seen, it's pretty close; it's definitely the best book adaptation I've ever seen. It does all the things a movie should make you do. It makes you think about things. It makes you appreciate what you have, while also making you feel just about every emotion you possibly could. I definitely recommend seeing it.