Books on screen - Nimona

 

Nimona by ND Stevenson

I haven't done one of these in a while but I finally watched Nimona this weekend and we have to talk about it. Because here's the thing: I love Nimona. I read it as a webcomic. When it was released as a print book I badgered my manager until she promised me we would buy a copy for the library. And when it was first announced that there was going to be a movie I was immediately ecstatic, immediately followed by apprehensive. I love the book so much that I was terrified that the movie would ruin it. That's why it took me four months to actually watch the thing.

Let's start by admitting that the movie makes some big changes. I could make a post much longer than this one pointing out all of the differences in characters, plot elements, even messaging between the book and the movie. But that's not why I wanted to talk about it today. I will very quickly say that I still like the book better. I think the humor is sharper and Ballister is a stronger character in the original form. There is one thing the movie does better, though: it asks better questions. When you read the book you can tell it started life as a web comic. It meanders around, making nonsense jokes and cackling at its own cleverness before it finds focus and tells a coherent story. The movie cuts all of that extraneous information (no matter how much I love it) and focuses the conflict. Most importantly instead of just being about a corrupt system it asks two important questions: once you've been judged is it possible to change perceptions; and why does society vilify things just for being different. The central emotion, then, isn't righteous indignation but weary desperation which lends the movie a maturity that the book lacks, even as it has been modified to be appropriate for a younger audience. It makes this a rare case where both forms are worth consuming though for entirely different reasons.

Books on screen

A Wrinkle In Time

 

I wrote previously about my less than pleasant viewing of the first movie version of A Wrinkle in Time. It wasn't terribly long after that experience that I heard another movie was in the works. I had some hope, given it's bigger name cast and big budget, but had managed expectations.

Let's start by pointing out the obvious: A Wrinkle in Time is a complex, theoretical story. It takes the reader through multiple dimensions, talks about physics and time travel, dips into philosophy, and has heavy religious and moral overtones. This makes it difficult to represent on film, especially for the mass market. Necessarily, changes get made. Some have little bearing on the overall tone of the story, even if they are startling or disappointing (like removing Aunt Beast - I love the character but she can be removed without harming the plot). I want to take a look at three changes and their impact on the movie.

1) The nature of Mrs. Who, Mrs. Which, and Mrs. Whatsit. In the book, they are described as looking like crones, our standard idea of witches. They are craggy, wispy, and a bit disconcerting. The movie version of the Mrs is more spritely. They're like fairies, but more substantial. This is primarily a cosmetic change but also impacts their general perception. 

2) Camazotz. In the book, the planet Camazotz is eerie. It's disturbingly uniform. This is it's menace. The scenes on Camazotz are meant to make us uneasy. The movie makes Camazotz a little "off" but more enticing. Meg, Calvin, and Charles Wallace are seduced  by IT rather than being beaten down by the sameness.

3) The religious elements. L'Engle's writing isn't Christian, per se, but has definite religious overtone. Various religious texts are quoted throughout the novel and religious figures are pointed to as the heroes of the light. The movie quotes, instead, artists and scientists and the light bringers. While this makes it more accessible to the general public it does take away from L'Engle's message.

Here's the thing about A Wrinkle In Time: it's complex. It is intentionally opaque. We're not supposed to understand it in a single reading. L'Engle believes in the importance of asking questions that we can't answer. She values asking questions, thinking about them. I  think that's the main point of the book, to get us thinking about big questions. As such, it makes it difficult to film. Movies are generally built on clear answers, solid conclusions. Two people may read the book and take completely different things from it, conclusions that are different from the one in the movie. And for the viewer who hasn't read the book, there's a lot of weird, unexplained occurrences that are hard to understand without the book for context. It's a much stronger effort than the last version but it simply can't hold a candle to the novel. Give this movie a view, but always go back to the book if you really want to understand the story.

Books on screen

The Musical Monsters of Turkey Hollow / Turkey Hollow

Originally conceived as a television special that was never produced, one would expect the movie version of this story to be much stronger than the graphic novel. Especially given the role that music plays in the original story. Really, though, Langridge's version feels closer to what Jim Henson intended to produce. 
The plot: With the help of mysterious monsters living in the woods near Turkey Hollow, Tim and Anna stop a scheming farmer from stealing their aunt's land. This is the base plot of both versions of the story. The book is a bit more light-hearted, focusing on music and playfulness. The movie version has a bleaker tone from the outset. It adds a recent divorce, an apparently life-threatening feather allergy, a terrifying local legend, and makes the aunt a fairly angry naturalist. 
The plot of the two versions differs on a lot of details. More importantly, the tone is vastly different. The book captures the innocence of early Muppets. The movie has the more cynical outlook of modern movies. If you love Jim Henson, buy the book.

Books on screen

Paddington

When the Paddington movie was first announced I was, at best, dubious. I was a big Paddington fan as a child. They were my introduction to British humor and I read every volume that my library owned at least 3 times. I owned one and I read it until it literally fell apart, at which point I taped it back together so I could continue rereading. More About Paddington is one of only two books I've actually purchased for my Kindle. Needless to say, I have more than just a passing familiarity with the plot of Paddington's stories. Each story is built on a similar premise: Paddington's misunderstanding, naivete, and general luck lead to misadventure. This works fine for a short cartoon but I couldn't see that working for a feature film. Not to mention, the stories themselves can feel a bit dated. My love for the source material was strong enough I wasn't eager to have it sullied by a mediocre movie. After a few positive reviews, though, I thought I'd give it a shot. 

First, know that the movie plot bears no real resemblance to the books. There are some similar plot elements, some small instances of misadventure, but as one might expect it adds two larger plots. We have the Brown family rather fractured and at odds with one another and the mystery of the adventurer who visited Paddington's family in Peru. The side characters of Mr. Gruber and Mr. Curry are both in the movie though they aren't particularly as I'd have imagined them. I could spend the full length of the movie pointing out the deviations. A little begrudgingly, though, I have to admit I enjoyed this movie. It embraces and adds a modern twist to a beloved story. The cast is strong and does justice to the script.

Books on Screen

Bridge to Terabithia by Katherine Paterson

I wasn't sure at first that this book would work as a movie, for a couple of reasons. 1) The book is largely focused on Jess's internal journey. It's a story of recognizing possibility, of embracing your creativity in a world that demands you become more practical. 2) It's a little dated. While the central barrier to Jess's dreams is poverty, we also see some political issues. There's mild racism and sexism, radical politics. In modernizing the story for the movie, they had to modernize Leslie's differences. She's more quirky than enlightened. The bigger difference is the portrayal of Terabithia. In the novel, we're mostly just told that Jess and Leslie imagine an involved world out in the woods. The movie presents us with several scenes in which this imagined world is almost real, to the point that it borders on delusion. Over all, the tweaks that modernize the story work well and make the movie accessible while remaining true to the intent of the original story.

Books on screen

I Am Number Four

For the most part, the events of this movie mirror the book fairly well. We see much of the same progression of hiding to confrontation. The big difference comes with characters. While their names and relationships are largely the same, their essential beings are different. John and Henri don't have the friend/father relationship we see in the book. There's more rebellion, more antagonism. John's classmates are vastly different in character than we see in the book. Not worse, necessarily, just different.

The big question is, which version is better? To be honest, neither version is amazing. The book gives us more context for the conflict between the Loriens and the Mogadorians, more detail of Lorien culture and hints about future events. The movie, on the other hand, moves a few events around and actually provides a more logical structure for events. Both have their merits.

Books on screen

Matilda

Readers know, the difference between the book and the movie can be startling. It is delightful, then, to come across a film that remains true to the events and intent of the novel. And that's the case here. There are, of course, differences. It has been somewhat modernized and some changes were needed for the story to work in an American setting. Most of these changes, though, are superficial. The heart of the story, an extraordinary child finding ways to win out over despicable adults, remains. The real key to this movie is the casting. Mara Wilson is wonderful as Matilda of course, but who doesn't love DeVito and Perlman as the Wormwood parents and Pam Ferris blows us away as the Trunchbull. While I will always love the book, I can help but rewatch this underappreciated movie a couple of times a year.

Books on screen

Ender's Game

Orson Scott Card's book is a slow moving, contemplative exploration of the nature of war and loss of childhood. The movie version is a majestic exploration of the morals of war and space exploration. Both of these stories, viewed separately, are successful. The movie isn't a particularly accurate representation of the novel, though. While many of the plot elements are present in the movie, there is an issue of scope. At the start of the novel, Ender is 6 years old. The book follows him through several years of training and the way each step of that training steals a little more of his innocence and humanity. The time frame of the movie isn't 100% clear, though it seems to be a matter of months. While Asa Butterfield portrays the 12 year old Ender well, his age by nature means that a great deal of that innocence and childhood is lacking. Butterfield's Ender has less distance to fall. And therein lies the problem. Card's novel hinges on the idea that those in charge have determined that the only way to defend the planet is to utilize the innocent creativity of a child. In the process of getting their solution, they essentially destroy Ender. It's a process that takes years of progressively chipping away at his soul. The movie version, while it has beautiful graphics and a fantastic cast ( Harrison Ford and Viola Davis and Graff and Anderson blew me away), it lacks the impact and depth of the novel. All of that to say, in and of itself Ender's Game is a decent movie. But, if you're familiar with the book, it may be a bit of a disappointment.

Books on screen

The Incredible Journey/Homeward Bound

Homeward Bound was a notable movie in my childhood, one I can recall watching on multiple occasions and I was surprised to find I still enjoy now. It wasn't until I became a librarian that I realized that it was based on a book. There are a number of similarities between the two and a few notable differences. Many of the major plot points from Burnford's novel are played out on screen (or if not the exact plot elements, something similar enough to recognized it's origin). One could say that the heart of these two stories remains the same. The book, though, is largely a drama, a survival tale. It chronicles the drive of a group of animals to find home, the ways that they take care of each other and the lengths that they will go to in order to survive. The movie, on the other hand, is a family comedy. The adventure/survival elements are still present, they're just tempered by humor. The movie gives the animals voices and alters their personalities, creating interpersonal conflict to amp up the drama. To my mind, though, both of these stories are worth experiencing.
In my research, I discovered that this is the second version of The Incredible Journey that Disney has made. I wasn't able to get a copy of the 1967 version. If anyone has seen it, I'd love to hear what you thought of it and how it compares to the original book.

Books on screen

Maximum Ride

I was not surprised that the movie version of this story deviates from the plot of the novel. Firstly, the movie takes it's plot from only the first half of the novel, the part I would argue is less interesting. And it is a significant deviation. More concerning to me is the change in the characters. Their basic personalities and the way they interact with one another in the movie are a far cry from the book. Patterson presents us with this group: Max, the strong but loving leader; Fang, the dark and brooding, secretive protector; Iggy, the playful boy with hidden depths; Nudge, the excitable talkative girl; and Gazzy and Angel, siblings who are the most child-like, the most "normal" in spite of their enhancements. We see their special abilities, but also the bond between them. They are a family, a flock. Closely connected. None of that is present in the movie. The characters are indistinct and do not form a particularly tight knit group. In fact, they fight more than anything. Even their relationship with the School, Jeb, and Ari is altered, and not in a way that strengthens the story. It's not a particularly good representation of a complex series.

Books on Screen

A Series of Unfortunate Events

When The Bad Beginning first came out I was enamored. It wasn't the adventure or the mystery. It was the tone. A Series of Unfortunate events relied on a tongue-in-cheek, self-mocking, intentionally over-wrought tone. My brother and I devoured each volume. When the first movie was announced, I was thrilled. The dramatic, action oriented nature of the plot was well suited to film and the right cast could do justice to it's pseudo-serious nature. When they cast Jim Carrey in the role of Count Olaf, I figured it would perfection. The reality was ... less than perfect. In this case, I think it's a failure of the script, which combined several books and eliminated many of the best elements. It takes itself  too seriously and cuts out most of the quirky narration. The cast does it's very best, of course, but there is little you can do to fix a poor script.
Fast forward a decade to the Netflix miniseries. After the disappointment of the film I wasn't thrilled by the announcement. Even when I found out Neal Patrick Harris was slated to play Count Olaf. This new effort is stronger. While the cast is a bit lackluster at times (particularly the children) it has the same charm of the original novels. Lemony Snicket himself is a more present character. There are new jokes that keep true to the sense of the source material. I don't know that it is as engaging as the book but is worth watching. I've only seen the first two episodes, those based on the first novel, so I can't speak  to the series on the whole but it's a promising beginning.

Books on screen

Where the Red Fern Grows

Before I get into the details of my comparison I want to be clear: I watched the original 1974 film adaptation, not Disney's 2003 remake. If you've seen the Disney version I'd love to know how it compares. Feel free to share your opinion in the comments.

For the most part, this is a pretty faithful adaptation of the book. While small details frequently deviate from the book this is often the case with movies. The spirit of the story remains the same, with one significant exception. The big coon hunt is a much shorter scene in the film than the book and has a vastly different ending, giving Billy more of a moral victory and imparting a life lesson rather than the literal victory in Rawls' original story. It's a slow moving story, both on the page and on the screen, but the movie lacks much of Billy's internal journey. Without the monologues on sportsmanship, the relationship between a boy and his dog, and the nature of God, there is surprisingly little to this story. It plays well on screen, though, especially if one can handle the rather cheesy soundtrack. 

Books on screen

The Giver

I could spend pages detailing the minutiae of how the book and the movie differ in this instance, all of the things that the movie messed up. Rather than nit-picking, though, I'd like to look at the bigger picture, how the message differs. And it all starts with the decision to make Jonas older.
At first, this seems like a relatively minor issue. Movies adjust details like this all the time. The developmental difference between 12 and 18 is significant, though. By making Jonas 12, Lowry accomplished a number of things. Firstly, it marked the community as "other". We're accustomed to facing a change in life, setting out on adult responsibilities, at 18. This is easy for us to understand and allows us to identify with Jonas in the movie. Seeing Jonas taking on such a level of responsibility at 12 is the first flag to the reader that something is wrong in this society. He is literally having to grow up too soon. Also, by making Jonas 12, his awakening to emotions and cultural memory is a clear parallel to puberty.
My other major issue is with the portrayal of the community. The book shows us a flawed but stable society. No, they don't have choice or colors or even real emotion, but they don't know any better and are entirely satisfied with their lives. They lack emotional pain or conflict. It's a peaceful place. Superficially, this is the case in the movie though we see a number of examples of discord, of governmental machinations. There is a sense of menace and foreboding in the community in the movie that simply isn't present in the book.
This all comes together to affect my final complaint: emotional impact. The book is very much about Jonas' inner journey, his slow awakening to all that is missing from their lives and his inability to stay once he knows the truth. It is his story so when he leaves, though there is danger of being discovered for a time, the final pages are still only about him. I'd go so far as to say that we only see Fiona and Asher in the early part of the novel to serve as a comparison to Jonas and the way he changes. The movie give Jonas a love interest with Fiona and interpersonal conflict with Asher. Obviously this is meant to make the plot more external and thus more cinematic but it does, then, weaken the original point of the novel. We see both Fiona and Asher choose loyalty to their friend over obedience, something they shouldn't be capable of per what we are told by the movie, as they get injections to suppress all emotions. Asher in particular should not be capable of that level of loyalty as he, unlike Fiona, has not skipped and injection. And it's not just these two. We see even Lily express a small rebellion in the final scenes. The final scenes of the book and the movie are vastly different, telling completely different stories.
If you haven't experienced either version of The Giver, you might be satisfied with the movie. If you, like me, enjoyed the book I wouldn't put it high on the list of adaptations to watch.

Books on screen

Goosebumps

When I first heard there was a Goosebumps movie in the works, I wondered how it would work. There were so many Goosebumps books, how could they possibly pick one to adapt. No matter which one they selected some fan would be upset to have his/her favorite monster excluded. The solution really is ingenious. The movie features all of the monsters, all of the books. The plot of the movie, then, becomes a Goosebumps book itself. Just as the books were the perfect introduction to the horror fiction genre for kids, the movie is like a horror film with training wheels. It has the standard jump scares and romantic elements but with enough humor and lack of violence to be acceptable for preteens. It does suffer from some logical failings and a notable amount of overacting, so it may not hold up to multiple viewings but that was often true of the books as well.

Books on screen

Arthur and the Minimoys/Arthur and the Invisibles

This movie is actually based on two books: Arthur and the Minimoys and Arthur and the Forbidden City. Plot-wise, the movie follows the books relatively well. There are changes of course. It is inevitable in a movie for timelines to be shortened, locations to change, that sort of thing. Casting is sort of a mixed bag. Freddy Highmore was a great choice for Arthur, Mia Farrow as Granny not so much. My biggest issue with this movie is actually the pacing. While the books tend to drag a little, the movie races ahead, jumping from scene to scene without pause or reflection. Even the dialogue progresses too quickly. It doesn't reflect the natural flow of a conversation at all. I felt like the movie focused entirely too much on special effects and quips instead of the complex plot and world-building of the novels.

Books on screen

Ella Enchanted

I actually saw the movie version of this one before I even knew the book existed. That is probably why I enjoy both of them. There are some small, though notable, differences between the two. For instance, in Levine's original novel Ella and Char are friends in their youth, before Ella is sent to charm school where she meets her soon-to-be stepsisters, Olive and Hattie. The book has far more magical entanglements, more "gifts" bestowed by the fairy Lucinda that complicate Ella's life. The resolution is simpler in the movie, a single ball with a poisoned crown plot set by Char's uncle (also his guardian), while the book has a series of matchmaking balls set by Char's parents (not dead in this version) that Ella attends in costume before a group of plotters get hold of her and force her to become a part of their plot. I'd also say that the movie is cheesier though that cheesiness actually works in it's favor, giving it a sort of eye-rolling charm While it's not the most faithful representation of a book I've ever seen, this movie is well worth watching. Just don't be afraid to give the book a read as well.

Books on screen

Curious George

As is often the case with film versions of picture books, this movie bears little resemblance to the original book. Really, though, does it need to? Curious George is a pop culture icon. Kids who have never read a Curious George book know George. And honestly, the first book would not have made a particularly good movie. It has questionable morals and a less than solid plot. The movie is not based on the books so much as the spirit of Curious George. That's what makes this movie work. It truly captures the blend of mischief and wonder that characterizes George. Will Farrell is likeable as Ted (this naming of the man in the yellow hat is the one thing I don't particularly like about this movie) and the plot is kid friendly, yet complex enough to entertain the parents watching with them. 

There are two more Curious George movies (which I have not seen) and a PBS kids series (which I enjoy and thoroughly recommend).
 

Books on screen

The Smurfs and the Magic Flute

The original Smurfs books, and especially this first story, are surprisingly different from the cartoon of the 80's. In fact, the Smurfs are secondary characters in this story which focuses on Johan and Peewit (renamed John and William in the British dub of the film). For the most part, the film follows the plot of the book fairly closely. A few scenes are combined or altered to improve the flow of the movie and a couple of songs are added (probably to pad the movie length a little). These songs serve little purpose in terms of the plot and one of them (about the Smurfs' personalities) was so irritating I could barely stand to listen to it. The humor and story-telling style are more reflective of the comics than of the cartoon. Strictly speaking, this movie is strong representation of the original book. As a movie, it's not exactly the most entertaining though. If you're a real Smurf fan, give this one a watch. Everyone else could probably skip it.

Books on screen

The Tale of Despereaux

I know that The Tale of Despereaux was an award winner and is beloved by thousands. It wasn't my favorite though. So I didn't have very high hopes going into the movie. Again, not a bad movie though it's not my cup of tea. More importantly, it's not the best representation of the book. Firstly, Despereaux is a very different character type on screen: brave and adventurous rather than the fearful shy mouse in the book. Another important characterization change is that of the antagonist, Roscuro. In the book, he is twisted by circumstance, conspiring to destroy the lives of royalty to suit his dark ideas. In the movie, he is more of an anti-hero, a wandering rat who causes accidental harm and seeks revenge on those who judge him unfairly. When you look at these changes along with a number of other, smaller changes, you can see that this all comes down to a difference of intent for the two mediums. The book is focused on characters overcoming their nature for the good of others, finding bravery when one is fearful, looking past the prejudice we are taught, and so on. The movie, on the other hand, looks at how others judge us and we must use our actions to help them see through their prejudices. In all, the book is stronger as it gives motivations and history to secondary and tertiary characters.

Books on screen: Holiday edition

Eloise at Christmastime

Let's be frank: the book and movie here bear little plot resemblance. The book chronicles the everyday doings of an excitable, mischievous child at Christmas. She eats treats, decorates, sings, and exchanges gifts. The made for tv movie adds two dramatic plots: the romance between Bill and Rachel Peabody and Mrs. Thornton's pending eviction. The original illustrations supply the inspiration for at least the second of these plots (Eloise includes a drawing of a sour-faced woman with a poodle scowling at Eloise and Skipperdee). Most importantly, though, the movie truly captures the spirit of Eloise. Sofia Vassilieva not only resembles Eloise, she mimics her facial expressions and postures. And Julie Andrews is delightful as Nanny. This movie is a great one to add to your holiday rotation.