Film Review: I Am Legend

• Based on the book: I Am Legend
  
• Directed by: Francis Lawrence
  
• Screenplay by: Mark Protosevich and Akiva Goldsman
• Warner Bros. Pictures (2007)
• PG-13
• 101 min.
• I watched this film on Dec. 14

Okay, so I'm not trying to be one of those asshats who's all: "Oh, the movie was sooo much better than the book!" because: fuck that noise, the are different things. But I will be the first to tell you if a movie is different. You may remember that I read this book and reviewed it: here. Also, here's more info on the book, but beware of spoilers in that link.
Anyway, Will "Parents Just Don't Understand" Smith is Robert Neville here and his name, the general scenario and the title are about the only similarities to the book. But let's put those facts aside for a moment and discuss the film.
Smith, as usual, is beautiful, strong and really an actor who deserves more credit. I would image it's pretty damn hard to carry an entire movie with only yourself, a dog to deal with (also some hungry girl at the end - eat a cookie!). He is entrancing as someone who is in this impossible situation, who is both fixed on survival and a bit mad. I actually teared up (just call me Weepy McEstrogen) at one part just because of his face. I literally couldn't watch he was emoting so believably.
So, you can imagine that the story of the last(ish) man on Earth is a fucking bummer, and that's true. But, it's also creepy. The vamp/sickies were creepy, though a little too CG at times. Either way, I do not want to get eaten by one of those guys.
Okay, now, the things they changed, ie: everything. They totally changed Skinny McHungrypants as a character which was lame and that in turn changed the whole effing ending and the reason for the title. Which is kind of lame. I'm not going to get into it, you should read it, but trust me, it's bizarre. Though, this ending gave a more sunshiny, lollipops kind of ending, unlike the book.
Once again, I really did like this movie. It was intense, it was creepy, there were some good jumps and there was lots of emotion (possibly even a chuckle). So, see it. But...you know, read the book too.

Film Review: The Golden Compass

• Based on the book: The Golden Compass by Philip Pullman
• Directed by Chris Weitz
• Screenplay by Chris Weitz
• New Line Cinema (2007)
• rated PG-13
• 113 min.
  
• I watched this film on Dec. 7

So, okay. Wow. Remember this? I have only gotten more excited to see this movie since then. And let me tell you, this movie did not disappoint.
So, right from the beginning to the very end the story adaptation is good, it doesn't make crazy shit up or leave out important things. It cuts our story off a bit before the end of the book, but I feel confident that they will include that all in the beginning of the next. And, if for some reason there is not a next, I will have to punch a bitch.
Either way, I wasn't sure how I was going to feel either about the little girl playing Lyra, or Nicole Kidman, and they both impressed me. Dakota Blue Richards is the girl, and this appears to be her first movie. She's very good and believable as Lyra, who, is really a great character. She's rude, she's a trouble-maker, and she's brave, and this girl did a fantastic accent - almost exactly what I imagined. Kidman played Mrs. Coulter like a goddamn crazy person and it was pretty cool. Who hits their own daemon?! Religious crazies who are cuckoo for cocoa puffs, that's who. She also looks beautiful (as always) and very, very thin and tall. Her costumes accentuate that. And, her golden monkey is effin creepy. You almost feel bad for it because it's clear that Coulter's craziness even freaks him out (and he's CG).
People's daemons are super cool. Lyra's Pan switches his form effortlessly and sometimes midair, which is super cool. Also, apparently, he's voiced by Freddie Highmore. And they look real and cuddly.
OMG - bear fight! First off, I didn't realize Gandalf was the voice of Iorek. The bears were super sweet and the fight was amazing. Seriously, it was crazy talk. They kept going for the money shot of the bear growling (howling? yelling? wtf noise do bears make?) and you'd think it got old, but man, it never did. Chills.
I feel like they are playing up the religious aspects a bit more than the first book really did, which is fine with me. I also think the ensuing kerfuffle about it is, of course, insane. It's like the stink they made over DaVinci Code, but the difference is, this movie is actually good.

A Clockwork Orange: film review

• Based on the book: A Clockwork Orange by Anthony Burgess
• Directed by Stanley Kubrick
• Written by Anthony Burgess (book) and Stanley Kubrick (screenplay)
• Warner Bros. (1971)
• rated R
• 136 min
• I watched this film on Oct 8

Alright, kiddos, I read this one way back when, near the beginning of this blog. (Actually, my review of it kind of sucks, I'm much funnier now, I feel) So, anyway, I'd never seen the flick. I think for some reason in high school my male pals didn't want me to watch it cause they though it was gonna be too violent for me or something. Hee. Pussies.
So, our young ne'er-do-well, Alex, is a total violent nutbar. He gets into trouble, gets cured and gets un-cured again. I've got to say, I dig their outfits and the milk bar is super cool looking. I totally want to drink my diet pepsi with lemon at a bar with creepy white naked mannequins, effin rad. It was nice to hear that crazy made up language being spoken and I felt all kinds of smart because I had sort of memorized it when I read the book. I totally want to start calling people my droogs and referring to my head as my gulliver. Think that will fly?
Also: let's talk about Malcolm McDowell for a second, k? Linderman was looking kinda good in this, a bit like Ewan McGregor, I feel. All I'm saying is, I might have wanted to make out with him a little. Either way, he had fantastic hair. Also, why I do I remember him from Milk Money so much? Really, why do I remember that movie at all? Ack.
Back on task: so this film followed the book pretty well, but why leave out the last chapter? Boo that. (if you're interested in reading a super in depth synopsis check this out, but really, if you're that interested just watch it) Either way this one followed the story a lot more faithfully than Kubrick's adaptation of my boyfriend Stephen King's The Shining. All in all, I didn't really find this movie all that violent. Maybe with today's standards of gorno movies I am desensitized. Either way, extra points for lots of gratuitous breastages and a giant ceramic boypart.

Blood and Chocolate : film review

• Based on the book Blood and Chocolate by Annette Curtis Klause
• Directed by Katja Von Garnier
• Written by Ehren Kruger and Christopher P. Landon
• Sony Pictures (2007)
• PG-13
• 98 minutes
• I watched this film on September 3

Oh, my. First, let me preface this by saying I loved the book. A lot. Which is why I was so stoked to see the movie. And why, having seen it, I'm so angry now. Garbage!
Okay: there is so much changed from the book that basically the only thing that's the same are the characters' names and the fact that some of them are werewolves. First, they made the characters older. Okay, I can deal with that. Then they inexplicably changed the setting from America to Bucharest. What? Also they managed to take out all the beauty, all the moral all the...well, good stuff.
The book is about a teenaged werewolf who is struggling with sexuality, with her heritage, with her identity. In the end she resolves those issues and finds peace. In the movie a pretty blond girl runs around, fights and betrays her identity for a moderately attractive random dude (but, oh, he writes graphic novels, so he's edgy!). Also, because they can't bother to really explain the title they have Vivian work in a Chocolate shop. Get it? Cause the title has the word chocolate in it! So clever. Also, they scraped Vivan's mural, which I would have really liked to see. And, oh, by the way; in an expert move of abandoning everything the whole book stood for: Vivian ends up with the wrong guy in the movie! HATE!! There were points where I was wondering if the people who adapted this even read the book.
Is there some good? Well, the phasing to wolf is borderline cool. However, they morph into honest to God wolves, not mythic Loup-garoux. There are some good looking people in it, but no one in this whole film has chemistry with anyone else. How could Oliver Martinez, who was so hot in Unfaithful be so bland here? Though I hated that movie, his performance was much better when he was philandering with Diane Lane. And Agnes Bruckner who plays Vivian is...I dunno, pretty, or whatever, but she did nothing for me. The worst part is the director brought us Iron Jawed Angels which was super good. And the same producer made Underworld, which I loved.
So you know, Rotten Tomatoes agrees with me that this movie was balls. If, for some reason you are interested in visiting the hilariously bad site for the film...well I warned you. (Also, what's with her fake nails? They are on the movie poster and splashed all over that site. Vivian is so not the kind of girl to sport big fake acrylics). I do highly recommend the book, and you can read more about that here.
Alright, that's it, I'm done. I'm so annoyed that the more I think about this movie the more I'd like to punch someone in the throat.

Stardust: film review

• Based on the book Stardust by Neil Gaiman
  
• Directed by Matthew Vaughn
• Written by Neil Gaiman and Jane Goldman
• Paramount Pictures (2007)
• PG-13
• 128 Minutes
• I saw this movie on August 11

Okay, my lovelies. As I mentioned I was thinking about starting to review movies I saw based on books I have read. So, here goes.
As you may remember, I reviewed Stardust here, and gave it the esteemed bee Seal of Approval.
First off: visuals. This movie was extremely good looking. Claire Danes, Michelle Pfeiffer, and Charlie Cox. Remember how I said I hoped Danes looked like she did in Polish Wedding? She did, but better. Not to mention Mark Strong, who plays Septimus (I like the bad boys, sue me). All the settings are very cool, and the magic is represented by sort of jets of light. Awesome. Also, when the star (Danes) shines the effect is very cool. Oh, and the flying pirate ship helmed by Robert DeNiro (do you think his friends call him Bobby?) was well done and DeNiro was funny if a little Baron Munchausen.
Second: the adaptation. Now, when I watch a movie based on a book I loved I try to look at it separately as it's own work rather than tirelessly comparing. The story in the film is changed somewhat from the book, but I thought the changes brought some interesting ideas and very cool action. The narrator of the movie is Ian McKellen (who I sort of wish was my grandfather) and to be honest, I could have used a little more of him. Gaiman's narration in the book was witty, smart and incredibly sharp. I would have liked to hear a little more of that.
Overall, I really liked it. I laughed and smiled and got a little mushy. Definite warm fuzzies. For more info about the film go here. For some reviews go try Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic. Also, I highly recommend Gaiman's blog. He has talked a lot about the adaptation and various other extremely interesting things. You have to love a man whose nickname is Scary Trousers. Also, we have the animated adaptation of Coraline to look forward to sometime in 2008.
So, that's it for our first movie review! Just another service brought to you by your friendly local booknerd!