Beautiful Creatures

I read half of the Beautiful Creatures series last year and really enjoyed it.  My friend Keenan would disagree as she's been having trouble even getting through the first book.  Anywhoodle, I was excited when I read that they had cast some heavy hitters like Emma Thompson, Viola Davis and Jeremy Irons in movie adaptation.  I was fine with the two relative unknowns that were cast for the two main roles of Lena and Ethan.  I was less happy with the casting of one other character, Ridley, but I'll get to that.  I was truly angsty about this adaptation when I saw the trailer and sadly, the movie didn't prove me wrong.

So overall the movie was fine.  I really, truly tried not to sit there the whole time comparing it to the book but then that's just impossible.  The story is this: a girl, Lena, with powers moves to a small-minded, small town in S.C. and becomes outcast, undesirable #1.  The good news is there's a cute, smart, boy, Ethan, with (early)Ginsberg glasses that's hot for outcast witch girls.  Lena is about to turn 16 and when she does, she and her powers will be claimed for either the light or the dark (supposedly based on her true nature). There's a lot more to it but I think the movie didn't really do a great job of getting it all across.  Instead they picked the main plot and stuck with the basics.  But then I guess that's what they have to do when adapting a book for the big screen.

There were problems.  One problem was the accent used by a few characters.  Actually the aforementioned heavy hitters did just fine (it's been proven time and again that the Brits have no trouble with a southern accent).  The kids?  Well actually the girl who played Lena, Alice Englert, did fine but then she's from New Zealand.  The actor who had the most trouble was the guy who played Ethan, Alden Ehrenreich...an American.  His accent was soooo thick and comical that it was distracting.  Plus he tended to get a bit high-pitched and screechy at times, which didn't help.  The actor himself is utterly adorable (he's 23 so it's legal for me to swoon) and pretty much embodied who I thought Ethan was so that's good. 

What did I like? Um, well, uh, mostly the movie worked on the whole but when it's broken up into parts then I get a bit stabby about it.  Some of the choices made by director Richard LaGravenese were a little head-scratchy but most of those were because I wanted it to be truer to the book (like keeping it filmed in SC instead of New Orleans-but I'm sure it was a tax thing).  My biggest issue was the casting of the aforementioned Ridley:

Ridley is supposed to be more teen Lolita than a vampy, slutty 20-something.  Emmy Rossum is a fine actress and was ok in the film but I can't figure out why they went in such a different direction with only one character.  Everyone else looked pretty much the same as the characters were written.  Sometimes I'd really love to know exactly how decisions were made and the motivations behind them but I won't so I'll have to learn to live with that disappointment.

Anywhoodle, see the movie, don't see the movie.  I just don't care.  It's making no money so it's not like there's hope for the sequels to make it to the big screen.  So I'll just keep my fingers crossed that the Hollywood powers-that-be don't hold it against Ehrenreich.  I'd love to see him screech his way through some more movies.

Adaptation Angst: Gone Girl

One of last year's most addictive, confounding, provocative, and discussion-worthy novels was Gillian Flynn's Gone Girl. Now reports are surfacing that David Fincher is in talks to direct the adaptation, which Reese Witherspoon is producing. Fincher is one of my favorite directors (so much so, I've come up with a little nickname for him: "The Finch"--don't tell him if you ever meet him). However, I don't unequivocally love everything he's done. See, for example, Exhibit A: The Curious Case of Benjamin Button. Which I downright loathed, and which has led me to adopt this rule of thumb concerning his directorial predilections: Fincher Needs a Sociopath.

His finest films, Fight Club, Seven, Zodiac, even the underrated The Game all feature characters that have very little regard for, or even understanding of, the emotional repercussions of their actions on others. They are obsessed with observing and creating reactions, but not overly affected by them internally. And I'm not just talking about the villains here. Think about The Social Network, for my money the finest film of the 2000s. Fincher's Mark Zuckerberg, to put it mildly, is not overly concerned with consequences.

Gone Girl fits the Fincher Paradigm perfectly. It is dark and twisty and complicated and I think he could work wonders with the dual narrative structure of the book. The only reason I'm not placing the angst score at an unprecedented zero is the strong possibility that Reese Witherspoon might cast herself as the titular Girl. I'd be happy to be wrong about this, and if anyone can exploit the flint that undergirds Witherspoon's steel magnolia charm it's the Finch, but I kind of want Jennifer Lawrence.

Angst Level: 1

Les Miserables - No one said this life (or this movie) would be a happy one

I just got home from seeing Les Miserables with my dear, sweet mother.  We balanced a fine line of what we know and what we experienced.  I'll explain.  We knew ahead of time that the film was not going to be perfect.  We knew that there were a few people singing above their natural octaves.  We knew that some of the shots were going to be way too tight.  We knew there would be vibrato.  But we also knew that this was the first time a director chose to have his actors sing live and not lip-synch songs that were pre-recorded.  We also knew that no matter what, we love Anne Hathaway. 

I so wanted to love the film as much as I've loved the stage musical, but it was not meant to be.  I liked it a lot.  I wept with the rest of my theater (no exaggeration-you could hear folks sobbing at the end of the film) and there were things I really loved about the film.  But there were things I didn't love at all.  One of those things was the frustration that came with knowing some of the actors could sing better than what I was hearing.  I know Amanda Seyfried doesn't always sound like a chipmunk.  I know that Hugh Jackman can sing differently. I know that movie newcomer, Samantha Barks was very good but I also know that no one can compare to Lea Salonga when it comes to "Eponine."

What I didn't know was that I was going to enjoy Russell Crowe's singing voice.  I didn't know that Gossip Girl's Aaron Tveit had my favorite singing voice in the entire cast.  I also didn't know that I could form an entirely different emotion to material I know so well.  I've seen Les Mis on stage three times.  I own two different cast recordings.  I love this musical and I've always been very attached to it.  This was the first time I got to see the story acted.  When you're experiencing a story from singers who can act on a stage, there's a bit of a detachment.  You can't really see their faces unless you're in the first few rows.  Their job is to project emotion through voice only.  But when seeing a story on film, with actors who can sing, well it's a totally different experience.  They have to not only sing that emotion but they get to express it through their facial expressions.  There was true, raw emotion from most of the cast but most especially Hathaway and Eddie Redmayne who put his heart on his sleeve.  Some folks, ahem...Russell Crowe, didn't quite capture that emotion (he should have been much more menacing).

So yeah, overall I liked it.  I'm a sucker for redemption stories.  It's such a downer of a story with lots of death and pain but there's hope and I love me some hope.  As for the style of the film itself, some of the sweeping camera was interesting and well-used and some of was not. Some of the tight shots on faces were great and some were not. I respect director Tom Hooper for doing this kind of production but a lot of it just didn't quite work out.  I knew I would have a problem with a lot of the singing voices but I really can't imagine other actors in these roles. 

I will leave you with part of my incredibly earnest post-movie discussion with my mother:

Mom: “If you could harness all that vibrato, what could you do with it?  Could you power a city?”   

Me: “Well…at least a train” 

The Twilight Saaaahhhhgaaaahhhh: Breaking Dawn pt. 2 - the quickie review

Honestly I was hoping Tracy would have had the chance to see the final installment of the Twilight franchise this weekend because she's so skilled with the subtleties and nuances of a Twilight film.  Ha!  Nuances of a Twilight film.  I crack myself up.  Anywhoodle, this will serve as a quickie review until she sees it and is able to discuss the film as only she can.

It's confession time, y'all!  I didn't hate it!  I know!  I actually really liked it and, yes, as far as the Twilight films go, this was probably the best one.  Granted that's a relative statement in that we are discussing Twilight films but it wasn't terrible.  It still has all the same problems as its predecessors (bad acting from a mostly wooden cast, weak story, etc., etc.) but there was something different about this one.  Maybe it's because it is the last one so I was feeling kinder and a bit more nostalgic.  Maybe it was actually a better film.  Who knows?  Who cares?  It was fun.

There were a few problems beyond the expected and one specific one comes to mind.  They make a point of introducing us to Alistair, friend to Carlisle Cullen.  Alistair takes off in the book but it's explained.  However, in the movie the character is featured and then gone with no explanation.  Unless I fell asleep and missed it.  Did I miss that part?  Missing characters can be blamed on the director and the editor. So them I say, "Boo!"

Other than that and a couple of other truly inconsequential things, I really did get a kick out of the movie.  This was by far the worst of the four books but they were able to turn it into something I didn't hate.  I still hurl a bit at some of the stuff series author Stephenie Meyer came up with but they did their best with the movie. 

You may have heard there is a twist in the film.  I was able to forget to look for the twist and then was totally surprised when it happened.  It made sense and ended up being fun (after the twist itself was revealed to us). So yeah, it's still a crappy Twilight movie but I will always love these movies and this was the perfect send-off.

Trailer Park Thursday!

I missed last week and there have been too many trailers coming out to wait another day!  Interestingly, only a few of these are NOT a book adaptation.  I'm not sure what that says but I'm both happy and sad about that.

So here are some of the ones that have struck me...good, bad, or meh.  In fact, let's start with a bad. 

The Mortal Instruments - This is heartbreaking to me. I love the book series and was excited to hear they were making a movie of it.  The casting, IMHO, went awry and it looks like they're trying way too hard.  But hopefully I'm wrong.  For now, though, I'm all kinds of angsty about this adaptation:

Oz: The Great and Powerful - My feelings about James Franco aside, this could be interesting.  It's another one that looks like it's trying too hard but I mostly trust director Sam Raimi so I'm willing to give it a chance.

The Host - I've not read the book but this could be ok.  Maybe?

21 & Over - Oy.  Though it does star my new crush from Pitch Perfect so it has that going for it.

World War Z - Another book adaptation.  There seems to be some differing opinions about this trailer.  Some folks love it and some folks think it looks like a train wreck.  It's big and epic but problematic, much like the production of the movie itself.  Part of me would rather see Jimmy Fallon's version.

Warm Bodies - After seeing this trailer I really want to read the book.  Also...JOHN MALKOVICH!!!

The Grandmasters - I'm in a martial arts film groove right now and was disappointed when I read there are no current plans to release this in the US any time soon.  BOO!  For now I'll just watch all the other Ip Man stuff out there. Oh and if you watch the trailer, don't expect English subtitles.  Just watch for the imagery and you'll get it.

Side Effects - Yay!  This looks very cool.

John Dies at the End - I've heard some good buzz and I loved Bubba Ho-Tep so this has some real potential.

And two docs for ya:
The Road to Red Rocks - Seeing a show at Red Rocks in Colorado is pretty high on my bucket list.  Seeing Mumford & Sons at Red Rocks would be awesome.  This is not going to theaters but if you're a fan, it's worth checking out.

West of Memphis - This is the theatrical trailer (I think I did another trailer earlier).  I need to see this but need to prepare myself for how potentially emotional I'll be through the entire thing.

Trailer Park with a touch of Adaptation Angst

42 - This could be very, very good

Gambit - Let me get this straight...Alan Rickman, Colin Firth and Stanley Tucci in a Coen Brothers' movie?

I think I've died and gone to heaven.  If only it weren't Cameron Diaz.  

Great Expectations - An adaptation but not the one I'm angsty about.

Beautiful Creatures - Here's where my angst about an adaptation comes into play.  I love the YA series, the Caster Chronicles by Kami Garcia and Margaret Stohl.  So you can imagine my excitement when I found out they were making a movie of the first book, Beautiful Creatures. I was terribly disappointed by one of the casting choices, 26-year old Emmy Rossum as a teenager.  Then I found out they weren't actually going to film it in South Carolina, where the books are set. However, I liked many of the other choices in casting:  Viola Davis, Jeremy Irons, and Emma Thompson so I was willing to give it a shot. 

This morning I spotted the trailer and actually squeaked in excitement.  Then I watched it. Meh.  The look of it is very cool.  The accents are a bit thick but I'm probably nitpicking.  I do like the two leads so that's good but I'm still really miffed about Rossum.  Whatever. Here it is:

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey - Instead of dwelling on my disappointment with
Beautiful Creatures, I decided to cheer myself up with the second Hobbit trailer.

I feel no angst about this adaptation AT ALL.

Please to enjoy:

Also there are some alternate endings to the above trailer:

Casting Couch: 50 Shades...

...Of Rubbish!

My disclaimer (that I’m guaranteed not stick to):  

This is not a review of the book.
Though I will say, the psychology of it isn’t 100% accurate.  See, I already contradicted myself!   

My open note to author E.L James:

No one in the states (who didn’t originally come from the UK or who has spent less than 6 months there) says “Laters.”  No one.  “Later” maybe but not “Laters.” That is strictly British slang.   I have so many other things I'd like to say to you but this will have to suffice.  For now.

Oh, and for all you readers out there…imagine if Chuck Pahlaniuk had written 50 Shades.  Now that would have been a good book. Now that I'm thinking of it, is there potential for the screenwriter of this to actually make the material better?!?! 

This review on Goodreads perfectly mirrors my feelings toward the book; however my feelings use a lot less blue language.  Seriously, she uses every offensive word there is.  Forewarned is forearmed, people.  And also, Katrina, you are fabulous!

I was perusing EW the other day and saw that Emma Watson had to publicly deny rumors that she was circling the female lead in the movie adaptation of the novel.  Good for her.  She's busy and I'm sure has much better things to do than star in this poorly-written drivel.  But then I realized that casting discussions have been floating around the interwebs for long enough and I wanted to throw in my 2 cents.

Ok, let’s get to the casting couch part of this post.  We'll start in the most logical of places: the character descriptions.  I don’t actually own the books (thanks for the loaners, Bobbi Jo!) so I’m getting these off the 50 Shades wiki.

Christian Grey*:

28

The 50 Shades wiki does not have a paragraph on Mr. Grey's appearance so I got this information somewhere else.

“wickedly handsome, with gray eyes and copper-colored hair (a lot of gorgeous, copper-colored hair). He's tall, he's well dressed and his moods are mercurial.”

Mercurial is putting it lightly.  Dude should be on mood stabilizing drugs.  Also, they’re forgetting: jealous, petty, controlling, and icky.

Christian, as seen by the fans:

The Top 10 list of Choices for Christian Grey

(if you are opposed to clicking on links the list is as follows: #1 Ian Somerhalder; #2 Chris Pine; #3 Henry Cavill; #4 Matt Bomer; #5 Kellan Lutz: and so on)

Somerhalder has been lobbying hard for this role.  I see it.  He’s not tall enough or young enough but when has Hollywood paid attention to character descriptions?   I can't stop laughing at Somerhalder saying (in the link provided) he wants Angelina Jolie for the role of Ana.  Like that would happen.  I can totally see Bret Easton Ellis adapting this though. This is right up his alley.

My vote is for Matt Bomer.  He is the most beautiful man on television, plus he can act.  If you’ve seen White Collar (and you should, it’s a thoroughly entertaining program) you know he could play Christian in his sleep.  He is due for a breakout movie role and this could be it. 

Anastasia Steele*:

21-22

The wiki did have a paragraph on Ms. Steele and I had to clean up some typos.  That’s a commentary on the fans right there but I’m going to resist putting it into words since I admittedly read all three books.  

“Ana describes herself as the pale, brown-haired girl with blue eyes too big for her face. She is insecure about herself being skinny, pale, and scruffy. She has thin lips and often blushes.”   

I actually don’t remember the thin lips part.  All I remember about her lips is that she bit them a lot.  Also they’re forgetting: clueless, annoying, low self-esteem, etc.

Ana, as seen by the fans:

The Top 10 list of choices for Anastasia Steele

(Again, for those who are link-phobic [I hear that’s a thing], the list is as follows: #1 Emmy Rossum; #2 Emma Stone; #3 Amanda Seyfried; #4 Shailene Woodley; #5 Alexis Bledel; etc.)

Oddly, I care a lot less about the casting of Ana.  Maybe it’s because I didn’t care much about the character.  Not that I cared about Christian, but at least he had a story and did something with his life.  Ana literally fell into her life of a rich boyfriend and fancy publishing job.  There I go on a tangent again.  Ok, so looking at the list most of them are too old and have better things to do with their time.  I have no real opinions about Emmy Rossum and wouldn’t care one way or the other if they cast her. 

My vote would be for Shailene Woodley.  She looks the part and is closer in description to Ana.  Plus she can act.  No, I’m not talking about that scripted teen pregnancy show she can’t seem to get away from.  She was great in The Descendants but then she had a great director, which makes a difference.  Who knows who they’ll get to direct this thing.  But Shailene would get the immediate response this film needs and that's the creepy factor.  If Ana is a recent college grad in a relationship with an older executive, why not cast a girl who looks the part and gives the audience the creepy feelings those of us who read the books felt?

Emma Watson could have pulled it off but I really like her and I hope she stays way too busy to come anywhere near this project.  I just had a funny idea. I wonder if Lindsay Lohan is trying to get this part.  I wouldn’t put it past her.  And once upon a time I could have totally seen it.

So yes, I have a real distaste for the books.  Of course I’ll probably still go see the movies but I would be doing it for you guys.  I’m a giver.  Back when they announced it was being made into a movie, my friend Ann R. (Hi Ann!) mentioned she thought it would have made a better series on HBO or Showtime.  I have to agree with her.  I guess studios still think there’s more money to be made in the theaters but it would have translated very well into a television series on one of the over-sexed cable channels.  Ew, then it might have been a panel at Comic-Con.  Nevermind. 

*Honestly, did EL James throw first and last names from various Harlequin romance novels into a hat?  The names are soooo derivative.  Then again the entire book reeks of unoriginality.  Heh, there I go reviewing the book again. 

Total Recall - Maybe they could help me with my memory problem

The beginning of this post would be a good place to compare the current Total Recall to the Total Recall from 1990.  Except there’s a problem…I can’t remember much about the original.  I guess I need Rekall Inc. to help me remember the movies I’ve seen.  That’d be cool.  I do remember the original being comically over-the-top.  I remember faces changing or melting or something.  And of course I remember the lady with the 3 boobs.  But that’s about it.  I’m a purist by nature and feel Hollywood should leave well-enough alone.  The only reason to remake a film, when one gets right down to it, is money.  There was no reason to remake Psycho but they did and they blew it.  There was no reason to remake Karate Kid but they did and they actually didn’t blow it (though the title is wrong since he learns kung-fu but I’m splitting hairs).  There was no reason to remake any number of movies but it won’t stop so quit your whining.  (I’m speaking to myself here too.)  I understand wanting to leave movies alone, even if they’re goofy, sci-fi classics.  But I also kinda understand wanting to offer up a different version of something, especially if it was a goofy sci-fi classic.  I’ll tell you my rule of thumb…never see a remake without seeing the original first.

So what I do know about the original is that it was directed by Paul Verhoeven and starred Arnold Schwarzenegger and Sharon Stone.  Mr. Verhoeven is known for such cinematic genius as Showgirls and Starship Troopers.  Ok, the director of the current Total Recall, Len Wiseman (aka Mr. Kate Beckinsale), isn’t much better (two Underworld movies and Die Hard 4) so we can’t really compare the directors.  I will say that I liked the world that Wiseman created better.  I also appreciate that he took a movie that was goofy and tried to give it some gravity.  I’ve read the Phillip K. Dick short story, “We Can Remember it for You Wholesale,” on which the original is based and the Schwarzenegger version is closest to that source material because of one thing…Mars. But that's all I'm gonna say about that.

So what did we end up with in this version of Total Recall?  Well first off the effects were way better.  And as I mentioned earlier, the world created for this film was pretty cool looking.  It was dark and dismal and I can see why Colin Farrell’s character, Doug Quaid, longed for something more.  Speaking of, the story is this: Doug Quaid, factory worker and husband to Kate Beckinsale’s Lori, dreams of escaping his boring life. Doug finds himself at Rekall, the place that implants memories of a bigger, more interesting life.  The only problem is, Doug had a bigger, more interesting life or did he?  No, he did.  So he spends the rest of the film trying to figure out who he was and why his wife is trying to kill him. Jessica Biel and Bryan Cranston are in it too and both try to pull Doug to their side of the scuffle.

If it were a better movie it would have gone into the whole 'struggling with identity' thing but it wasn’t so they didn’t.  I guess they didn’t have enough time, what, with all the shooting and running and stuff.  The acting was what you’d expect from an action film.  I do so love Farrell and will never hold these types of movies against him when I’ve seen things like Ondine and In Bruges.  Biel I can take or leave.  She just doesn’t do it for me.  Beckinsale is fine and really the best thing about her and, honestly, the best thing about this film was her hair.  She has the best freaking hair!  Plus it flew around all slo-mo style as she’s chasing Farrell down.  I covet her hair.

If it were a better movie they may have addressed some of the logical issues, like how the un-breathable air stays away from the inhabitable part of the city.  But it’s not a better movie.  It’s a fun, action flick perfect for summers.  So go, enjoy Kate Beckinsale’s hair on the big screen and try telling me I’m wrong about it being the best part of the film.

Adaptation Angst: Dracula

Frequent OMwG guest-blogger and full-time partner-in-crime Nat alerted me to this upcoming 10-hour adaptation of Dracula NBC is planning. Here, in no particular order, are the elements that give me pause:

• This quote: "This latest version of “Dracula” will be set in London in the 1890s, with the count transformed into an American businessman interested in bringing modern science to Victorian society." Um, what? I like that they're preserving Dracula's "otherness," as part of the power of the novel is how the supernatural count is used as a literalization of anxieties about Britishness intersecting with the foreign, but American? Not exactly a threatening alterity. And a businessman? Okay, if you're going to do some sort of bloodsucking capitalist thing, but what up with the "modern science" angle? It's not like Victorian society was, you know, unfamiliar with or disconnected from encroaching modernity.

• Jonathan Rhys Myers has been cast as Drac. Myers is cute and all, 

See?

BUT, I haven't seen him work the oily seductiveness you need for Dracula since Velvet Goldmine. True, I haven't seen The Tudors, but it seems Henry VIII has a different, shall we say, leadership style than the count?  As an aside, while researching this post (see what I do for you people?) I discovered today is his 35th birthday. No hard feelings and many happy returns, JRM!

• No one else has been cast yet. I'm seeing visions of Kelsey Grammar as Van Helsing and Miley Cyrus as Mina. 

Angst Level: 8

Adaptation Angst: The Leftovers

Oh, for Christ's sake. According to io9, Damon "never elucidate when you might obfuscate" Lindelof is in talks to adapt Tom Perrotta's novel The Leftovers for an HBO series. Usually the phrase "HBO series" connected with any of my favorite novels is enough to make me all giddy-like. But the phrase "Damon Lindelof" is the antidote to my giddiness, especially when dealing with material as delicate and sadly strange as that found in Perrotta's novel.

The Leftovers was sort of marketed as a "what happens after the Rapture" novel, but that's not what it's truly about. In fact, there is no official explanation, ecumenical or otherwise, for what causes a sizable majority of the population of the planet to disappear one October afternoon. I imagine this is where some genius in production decided to bring in former Lostie, current Promethean Lindelof. "Oooh," I picture said exec thinking to him/herself, "imagine the convoluted, contradictory, and ultimately unsatisfying theories Damon Lindelof could construct around such an inexplicable event!"

Problem is, the point of the book is in no way to explain the disappearance. Instead, and this should come as no surprise to anyone who has read or seen the excellent adaptation of Perrotta's earlier novel Little Children, the story is supremely concerned with how people cope with an apocalyptic trauma. That is, any trauma that shocks the human consciousness with an unbearable loss. That is, any trauma. The "rapture" is the lens not the image. Lost and Prometheus haven't given me the utmost confidence that Lindelof knows the difference.

Angst level: 9

Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter

Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter
Director: Timor Bekmasomthingorother
Stars: A lot of people you'd recognize but may not know their names

Oy.  I just saw AL:VH tonight and thought I should post about it before I lose any steam. In fact I went for a drink with my dear friend Jenna after the movie and before I could enjoy my cider, I had to jot down some notes so I wouldn't miss anything.  The problem is, this may all come out as gibberish.  I'm not a writer and I'm aware of that. When something burns my bacon this badly, I tend to make even less sense than usual.  Also I'm watching my Gamecocks pull out a win against Arkansas so I'm a little distracted by that too.  It's the top of the 9th but we're only ahead by one run.  Wow, these guys look really young.  I'm getting off track.

My notes look a bit like this:
Jenna's quote
Blast SGS for writing this drivel
Action good but tired of slo mo fighting/blood splatter
CG was terrible
Mary good as Mary but not crazy enough
Dominic Cooper was good but the hair. Oh the hair.
Stylized, if one enjoyed Wanted...
TRAIN WRECK.  Literally.

Now I will expand a bit on the notes.  Jenna, again I will remind you, is a dear, sweet friend.  She goes with me to all the bad movies.  She was with me for Conan and many others since.  She, like me, has low expectations for movies like this but it's rare that one actually pisses us off.  At one point in the movie she leaned over and said, "More vampires than you could swing a dead horse at."  Mind you at this point in the movie a vampire was literally swinging a horse around by the hoof.  Also the swinging of the horse took place during a stampede.  This was one of the fakest looking things I've seen on screen in a while.  (Buh Bye Razorbacks!  Where was I?)  There was another shot of the Gettysburg battlefield that looked terribly fake too.  Shameful use of CGI when it was obvious they blew their budget on the slow-mo fighting scenes.  The whole Matrix way of slowing down action for effect is So. Overdone.  It's especially obnoxious when buckets of blood splatter out all over the place.  But this is a vampire movie and there needs to be blood.  Plus the fighting was pretty cool.  So while I'm on the subject of the look of AL:VH I will mention the director, Timur Bekmambetov.  He directed the Angelina Jolie/ James McAvoy action film, Wanted.  I liked Wanted.  It had some issues but was an enjoyable film.  Timur (I'm not typing his last name out again so he'll have to forgive my informality) likes overly-stylized films and this one, though set in the 1800s, was still pretty stylized. 

I think my biggest problem was the writing.  I read the book, written by Seth Grahame-Smith, and enjoyed it. The whole time I was reading it I kept thinking, "they're going to have to add a lot of action for it to work as a movie."  I didn't like myself for saying that but it's sadly the truth regarding audiences and what studios thing audiences want.  I think the reason the book worked was because it reads like a real Lincoln biography and the vampire stuff was just another layer to his life.  The movie didn't achieve that.  They took out all the clever vampire politicians, the assassination, and the ending (which I really enjoyed).  They added a best friend (played by Anthony Mackie, who I adore) and a vampire baddie (played by Rufus Sewell who I also adore) for unknown reasons. As the credits rolled I had this thought that the Seth Grahame-Smith who wrote the book would (should) be so angry with the Seth Grahame-Smith who wrote the film.  It felt like such a sell out situation.  In the movie, Lincoln only had one son.  In the book he had four, like in real life.  In the movie Mary Todd Lincoln got kind of depressed after the death of her son.  In the book she really lost it and never quite came back, like in real life.  I understand that movies are limited to the amount of content that can be included but would it have killed them to show a few other boys running around the White House?  Would it have killed them to have Mary be inconsolable?    Oh!  I can't forget the literal train wreck.  It seemed rather meta for them to do it but there was a real train wreck inside of a train wreck of a movie.  It was at that point that I nodded and said, "Yep.  That's about right."

I'm not even going to bother going into the actual story.  It's not worth the time or effort.  Plus it's late and I'm tired.  I'm just disappointed because they could have done some really cool things with the material from the book. The movie jumped around and skipped over stuff that should have been there.  It's just so frustrating.

So what was good about the movie?  I did mention the fighting and even though I'm tired of the slo-mo I did get a kick out of it.  Also good was Benjamin Walker who played the eponymous Abraham Lincoln.  He really struck me as a young Liam Neeson.  Then I looked him up on IMDB and realized he actually played a young Liam Neeson in Kinsey.  Give that casting director a pat on the back.  He did a good job in a crappy situation and really knew how to wield an axe (not a euphemism).  In fact all the actors seemed to rise above the material. Mary Elizabeth Winstead was cute and sweet as Mary Todd Lincoln.  Dominic Cooper was good (as usual) as Henry, the Giles to Abe's Buffy.  And, as I mentioned, the rest of the cast did what they could. 

I'm done.  It was better than Conan but I had higher expectations for this than I did for Conan.  I knew AL:VH was going to be bad but I didn't think it was going to be this bad.

I know how you feel, dude.

Adaptation Angst: Life of Pi

Guest blogger and partner-in-crime Nat alerted me to this footage from the upcoming film adaptation of Yann Martel's genius novel Life of Pi. To give too much of the plot away would be an epic crime, but if you keep the words "memory", "promiscuous spirituality"; "shipwreck", and "big-ass tiger" in mind, you should have a sense of how wonderful, in the sense of full of wonder, this novel is. If you lack the energy to click, here is the clip embedded:

My angst level was CONSIDERABLY lowered once Ang Lee, whose name will get my ass into any theatre seat, replaced M. Night "the grass is mad at you so outrun the wind" Shyamalan as director. At one time Alfonso "has the artistic seriousness but not the whimsy" Cuaron was also attached. However, as much as I trust Lee, coming off a conference in which his "failed" adaptation of The Incredible Hulk was much discussed, I do agree that his strengths lie in the investigation of the self's relationship to a social stystem that is highly structured in some way antithetical to freedom (see Sense and Sensibility; The Ice Storm; Lust,Caution, and even Ride with the Devil). It is not immediately apparent to me that Life of Pi fits neatly into this paradigm (correct me if I'm wrong, any other fans of the book--it's been a while since I read it). Also, for reasons that are entirely personal, it makes my ass twitch that Tobey Maguire is playing Martel in the film.

According to Nat, we won't be getting a conventional preview anytime soon, but rather these snatches of action. Though I was initially resistant to that, I actually think that giving us fragments of the film and asking us to piece them together might be a nice entre into the way memory and narration work in the novel. This book managed to make a devoted postmodernist (Nat) and a fervent modernist (me) both fall in love, and I have reasonably high hopes that Ang Lee can give us a film that will do the same.

Angst level: 4

Adaptation Angst: Y: The Last Man

As Film School Rejects reminds us, Y: The Last Man, the mega-genius ten-volume graphic novel from Brian K. Vaughan, has been in development hell basically since the last issue dropped. The good news about that is, now I'm fairly certain Shia LaDouche is out of the running to play Yorick, the saga's hero and (sort of) last surviving living being with a Y-chromosome on the planet after an apocalyptically mysterious plague takes out all the dudes.

Though that summary sounds like the story is all premise, no execution, I think Vaughan manages to ride his thought experiment into some fascinating and progressive territory in regards to gender (duh), but also politics, performance, and identity itself. The project needs good writers, and the latest scribes to sign on are all veterans of shows I've never seen nor really heard anything about (Jericho and Warehouse 13).

What worries me most is that it seems the project is still being imagined as a theatrically released film, rather than the HBO (or AMC, or even Syfy) miniseries its complicated and lengthy plot clearly requires. Kids, I'm concerned.

Angst Level: 9

Adaptation Angst: The Corrections

When I first heard rumors swirling about a cinematic adaptation of Jonathan Franzen's 2001 tour-de-force The Corrections, my only response was "I hope HBO makes it a miniseries." The novel, which takes place during the late-90s American tech-boom, masterfully illuminates and argues for a relationship between psychological neuroses and the cultural climate through the complicated, maddening, and deeply human Lambert family. This trope, echoed in Franzen's follow-up, Freedom, makes for characters that are simultaneously infuriating, pitiful, hilarious, dignified, ridiculous, sympathetic, and very, very recognizable. How would one do that in a 120-minute feature?

Well, maybe the powers-that-be are finally reading my diary, as The Corrections is set to air on HBO for four ten-episode seasons. Allow me to say: squee. Even better? Noah friggin' Baumbach is going to adapt and direct the series. This is a writer-director who knows all too well how to mine the tiny tragedies of everyday lives for cinematic gold (The Squid and the Whale, Margot at the Wedding, and Greenberg, anyone?). However, he's also the auteur behind Kicking and Screaming and Mr. Jealousy, showing he can bring the funny as well.

The cast is also so far, so good. Chris Cooper and Dianne Wiest are rumored to be playing the Lambert parents, with Ewan McGregor and Maggie Gyllenhaal as the two younger siblings. Imagine me singing to the tune of Alanis Morisette's "Thank You": "Thank you HBO, Thank you Baumbach, Thank you Ewan Mah-Gre-GOR! "

Adaptation Angst: 2

Adaptation Angst: The Fault in Our Stars

I'd been hearing a lot of good buzz about the YA novel The Fault in Our Stars even before it got optioned this month, so I decided to pick it up last night. When I put it down, finished, early this morning, I was terrified.

The novel, though sharing key plot points with not a few Lifetime movies and at least one Cameron Diaz flick, does not surrender to the easy cliches of a "kids with cancer" love story. Though you might see the resolution coming from about halfway through, the book's strengths (and they are formidable) come from the way it gets there.

The book's star-crossed lovers, teenagers Hazel and Augustus, are stricken with thyroid cancer and osteosarcoma, respectively. The two engaging and fully realized characters are simultaneously constantly consumed with, and utterly disinterested in, their diseases. You will like them before you pity them, which all sounds well and good for a movie adaptation. Except . . .

The ravages of illness on both of their bodies are veritable plot points in and of themselves. Hazel has a steroid-swollen face, hair still growing in from chemo, and an ever-present oxygen tank. Augustus lost a leg to his bone cancer prior to the action of the novel. The film will have to cast, especially in Hazel's case, an actor who is not conventionally healthy-looking, let alone beautiful.

Also, the two speak in the sort of hyper-educated and quirky patois that reads like a dream but can turn precious and cloying in film (see the dialogue of the eponymous heroine of Juno, which I quite liked but others felt was too contrived). However, dialing down the idiosyncratic smarts of either character means losing a crucial part of their backstory. Hazel and Augustus have both spent a lot of time out of school, reading in bed. Pretending that didn't affect what they know and how they speak would be a betrayal not only of the source material but also the integrity of the characters.

I would love to see this film done right, but I have nightmares of Dakota Fanning and Peeta/Gayle dancing through my head.

Adaptation Angst: 9.5

Adaptation Angst: The Yellow Wallpaper

Brace yourselves, fans of American and Gothic literature alike: this is happening. Those of you who have read (and taught) Charlotte Perkins Gilman's short story "The Yellow Wallpaper" know that this chilling and slippery tale of a woman's patriarchy-aided descent into madness is not as easy to "get" as it might seem on a cursory reading. Because the short story is written in first person through the heroine's journal entries, the question of reality is constantly, well, in question. Is there a similarly confined woman, ghostly or otherwise, in the yellow wallpaper that covers the room in which the narrator is undergoing the notorious 19th-century "rest cure" for "nerves"? Or is she projecting her own damaged and oppressed artistic psyche onto her surroundings as a response to her depression and her husband's prohibition on writing? Well, at least from the description offered by the site, this adaptation could care less. Rather than being dropped into an unnamed (though even this detail is debatable) narrator's troubled and isolated mind, we get "Charlotte" and her trauma-inducing (and lazy) backstory. A fire! A dead daughter! A sister! Most wrong-headed of all, the summary implies that she chooses to withdraw into the attic room, rather than being passive-aggressively forced to rest there by her physician husband and, crucially, his sister. A dead child is also a misstep, as there is much textual evidence in Gilman's work that her heroine is suffering from post-partum depression, not a diagnosed condition in the time and place of the story, which adds to the narrator's inability to articulate, much less be treated for, her illness. I think anyone who has seen a "women are nuts" horror story can probably guess the likely "reveal" of this film. I'd put good money down that the fire wasn't caused by a freak accident. Though I like Juliet Landau being crazy as much as the next Whedonite, it looks like the only thing this movie will share with its source material is the home decor.
Adaptation Angst: 10.

Adaptation Angst: Boneshaker

According to io9, my source for all news geekery, Cherie Priest's steampunk alt-history novel Boneshaker got a movie deal. It's very early in production, so all we know is that the Nurse Jackie screenwriter has been tapped to pen the adaptation. Priest's novel, nominated for a Hugo last year, is a pretty snappy little book that I reviewed over on my Examiner site. Basically, she gives us a version of 1880s Seattle where the Civil War is still raging, and steam-powered gadgets and goggles dominate the city. Why do I think the first novel in Priest's "Clockwork Century" is getting this attention? One word: Walkers. I suspect that the studio is hoping to capitalize on the popularity of the Walking Dead by playing up the flesh-eating zombies that the novel's eponymous gold-seeking drill had a hand in creating, and which are contained within a nightmarish "Old City" into which the main characters descend. Much like the acclaimed AMC series, the novel isn't really about the undead at all, but rather the living: Boneshaker is the story of a son seeking the truth about his father, and a mother who will turn herself into an action hero to protect him. A steampunk Walking Dead? Yes, please.
Adaptation Angst: 2

Adaptation Angst: The Dark Tower

Hile, gunslinger! Those who love Stephen King's epic fantasy series The Dark Tower do so psychotically. And I, I am one of those people. Adapting the seven-volume beast is really a job fit only for HBO, and it looks like they're going to do it. We all say thank-ee, sai. Unlike A Song of Ice and Fire, King's magnum opus is complete, so casting becomes an even stickier wicket, since all the fanboys and girls know exactly what's going to happen to whom and when. Also, several characters from King's other novels make appearances in TDT, so continuity from previous films is an issue. However, Javier Bardem as Roland is a good start. I'm hopeful and excited about this one! Angst-level only at a 3! Long days and pleasant nights until the man in black flees across the desert, and the gunslinger follows.

In the meantime, check out the GN. It'll make you cry, it's so good.

Adaptation Angst: The Invention of Hugo Cabret

I fell in love with this Caldecott Medal-winning novel hard and fast, and not just because I have a thing for books marketed to individuals half my age or younger. Brian Selznik wrote and illustrated a gorgeous novel that happens to hit me where I live. Historical-fiction? Check. Steampunky clocks and automata? Check. Paris? Yep. So I was, shall we say, distressed, when I heard that Martin Scorsese was making a film based on the book . . . just called Hugo . . . in 3D. *Shudder.* But according to Salon's Andrew O'Hehir, who saw an unfinished cut at the New York Film Festival, the flick owns. And it does have Chloe Grace Moretz and Sacha Baron Cohen in the cast. I'm lowering my angst level from a 7 to a 4.

Visual style of the book doesn't't scream Goodfellas to me, but maybe I'm wrong.

Adaptation Angst: Lev Grossman's The Magicians

How I wish a Deschanel sister was young enough for the cast.

According to io9, the writing team who brought us Thor and X-Men: First Class, two films I hearted, are at work adapting Lev Grossman's 2009 novel The Magicians into a pilot for Fox. My angst level is at about a 5. I trust the writers, but Grossman's novel, rather annoyingly hailed as Harry Potter for adults (as if HP weren't), is complicated, dark, and just a touch cynical. Basically everything Terra Nova, Fox's latest offering to the geek crowd, so far isn't. If nothing else, consider this an imperative to read Grossman's novel, along with its sequel, The Magician King. At least then we'll all be stressing out together.