Curmudgeon's Corner: Lord of the Rings 2.0

 

So... my husband comes home after Black Friday with a huge new TV. So what are we supposed to do with that? My answer: watch some really cool movies on it. So I bought him the Blu-ray DVD set of Lord of the Rings, extended version. Boy, I knew they were going to be long, but they were REALLY long.

But they were really fun to watch. I have some qualms about some of it, but I admit, I thoroughly enjoyed it. Me and my achy back.

Fellowship of the Ring is probably my favorite of the three. I know I'm probably in the minority here since not much happens. My bias comes from a couple of places-- I think they do Hobbits Really well in this movie. I love all the moments with Pippin and Merry... hilarious! And we start to see a friendship bloom between Legolas and Gimli, one of the other strongest parts. Lastly, the movie is just much more interesting than the book. New Zealand is gorgeous, and the film takes advantage of that.

Two Towers is a lot more action, which is fun too, but a little more piecemeal. We meet the Ents, who are really funny, and Eowyn, my other favorite character. I was surprised to see some of the prose taken straight from the book, which I appreciated. This is the first time I had ever seen the extended version of this film, so I was surprised by some of the additions. In particular, there was a lot more about the side plot of Faramir. And I was also surprised that the crazy dad (Stewart of Gondor), is none other than Walter Bishop, from Fringe fame. That made his delusional state all the more hilarious.  Lastly, poor Gollum gets more screen time, but probably not for the better. He gets beat up several times in succession-- strangled, thrown against rocks, etc. to the point where it just seems rather gratuitous. I would hate Humans/Hobbitses too!

The last movie was better than I remembered. This is because I had such a low estimation of the movie the first time I watched it because I made the unfortunate mistake of reading the book right before watching the movie. Return of the King is the best of the three books, but to me, the worst of the three movies. My pet peeves: 1) Saurman getting impaled by a stake at the bottom of the tower and Grima getting killed pretty quickly. OK, I guess this was a quick way to get rid of Saurman, but the readers know that both of these guys survive to the end. 2) The flaming fireball. Probably my least favorite part of the film. In the book, this is an extremely creepy scene where Faramir's father is determined to burn himself and stands in the flame until he dies. I had chills for days afterwards. In the movie, the stupid guy is like, "What? Faramir's ACTUALLY ALIVE?!" even though Pippin has been saying this over and over for like 10 straight minutes. The steward is like, oops! And then runs out of the hall screaming and flings himself off of the cliff, and viewers see a small flaming fire ball at a distance. REALLY?! 3) Eowyn's scene at killing the Witch King was way too short. But if I'm fair, it was barely mentioned in the book as well. 4) Lastly, this makes my heart hurt. There is a wonderful scene in the book where Pippin finds Merry after that battle and he thinks he's dead. Merry stirs and looks at Pippin and says, "Pippin, will you bury me?" I cried buckets after that scene. In the movie, the prose that replaced this, was, "Hey, you ok?" Meh.

That said, these are terrific movies, and a great way to break in our new TV. I won't even go into the Hobbit, which Shawn Keenan has already talked about (and I haven't watched yet), but I will say I am bitter they are stretching it out into a Trilogy. Really?

My husband bought me the 8 DVD set of Harry Potter for Christmas, so that'll be next on the viewing list :-)

What's on your to watch list?

Curmudgeon's Corner: Notes on Les Miserables: the movie, after reading the book

(Note: this post will have copious spoilers for both the movie and the book, and assume you have seen one or the other.)

Okay, I finally saw the movie Les Miserables and it was totally wonderful!

I saw it right after embarking on -- and finishing -- a reread of the 1500-page brick! Normally, going back to the source text for me is a terrible idea when I see adaptations, but for this movie? It totally helped me appreciate the movie more! And after about the fifth time I said to my sister in reply to some point, "Ah, but you see, in the book --" she was all, "So, maybe you would like to write a post about this?" :)

In the movie, they interpolated a lot of lines that weren't in the original musical. (Note: I also have the Complete Symphonic Recording of the musical -- that is to say, I have the entire thing pretty much memorized, so I knew when they were adding stuff.) Most of these lines -- although sometimes they were kind of weird because they didn't have any meter, what happened there? -- to me, elucidated something that was drawn out in the book but wasn't clear in the musical, or contributed to further character development following the book.

Javert: Okay, do not even get me started on how I actually am very unhappy with both Crowe's singing (though, okay, whatever) and his interpretation of Javert (which is much more woobly than the book, in which Javert is quite a bit more harsh and unyielding and I DO NOT LIKE FILM JAVERT, although I do acknowledge that it is a perfectly valid interpretation and makes Javert more human! And see my notes on Marius! Though it makes his suicide a little more strange in context). However! There were lines added about how Javert wants to resign because he denounced M. le Maire as a convict, and I loved those added lines because it really does give Javert more character.

Valjean: I adored Hugh Jackman like anything! His interpolations: While I was not a huge fan of "Suddenly," the new song, as a standalone song, I really loved it because it brought out something that Hugo spends a great deal of time on in the book: the way that Valjean's life is transformed by having Cosette in it, that having something to love changes and redeems him. The other lovely thing was the couplet they gave him about how he has always feared the day a man would come to take Cosette away from him, because this is kind of a central conflict for Valjean in the book: that he has to save Marius despite, actually, loathing the guy (there's a line about how he's trudging through the sewers and gazing at Marius in hatred. It's awesome!) -- showing the struggles he has to go through.

Marius: Marius' character is basically completely different from the book, except that they're both lovesick kids. Marius in the book is extremely self-righteous and kind of a prig and actually not all that likeable. He basically talks to Eponine, like, once during the book, and doesn't know her at all. He doesn't consider any of the revolutionary college students his friends except for Courfeyrac. He is basically the cause of Valjean dying at the end (by giving him the cold shoulder once he finds out Valjean is a convict). I think Hugo had reasons for this, mind you! But in the movie, Marius is a nice kid who is friends with and cares about Eponine, who considers all the other students his friends and even his brothers. Normally (see Javert) I don't like changes in book canon, but here I love it, because movie Marius is quite a bit more likeable! (I know movie Javert is quite a bit more likeable too. Shut up.)

Eponine: Eponine, in the book, is a much more pathetic -- but also fascinating -- figure than in the musical. She is a street rat. She isn't pretty. She's ugly, dirty, has a raspy voice, is basically alive because it's too much trouble to die, but figures that one way or another that won't last long. She may or may not have something going on with Montparnasse (in addition to being in love with Marius). She tells Marius to go to the barricades (I think... this may happen in the movie too? Can't remember) because she figures this way if she can't have him, at least no one can have him -- but at the end is redeemed by her love for him. In the musical/movie, she doesn't get a whole lot to do besides be in love with Marius, but at least they gave a nod to her interior struggles in the movie, I think.

Cosette: I thought movie Cosette was pretty close to book Cosette, but neither gets a whole lot of screen time.

The Bishop of Digne: Looooooved that he showed up at the end; the book has a strong implication that the Bishop is present at Valjean's death, and thematically it makes a whole lot more sense than Eponine (although the trio with Eponine sounds really nice).

In conclusion, I LOVED THIS MOVIE SO MUCH!

What about you? Anyone else read the book? Did I forget to discuss anyone's favorite character?

Curmudgeon's Corner (SK): Too Much of a Good Thing?

Welcome back Shawn Keenan, the author of The Intern's Tale and The Buried Covenant. If you haven't read these two awesome books, pick it up over the holidays to have something fun to read! They are definitely special. He also has a great blog. Stop by!

http://www.errantauthor.blogspot.com/

I watched the movie THE HOBBIT this weekend.  I’m not as big a fan of Tolkien as some, but I have read the LORD OF THE RINGS trilogy, THE HOBBIT a couple of times, and watched these stories on the big screen. 

I say I’ve watched THE HOBBIT, but I’ve actually only watched about a third of what is that relatively short story.  And it took almost three hours.  That means I probably have about another six hours ahead of me to get the full story presented in all of its 48 fps glory.  (Not sure if that’s how I actually saw it, it just looked like a movie to me).

So here’s my rant.  Did Peter Jackson do this classic story a service or an injustice by stretching it out, puff it up, and possibly making it a bit bloated in his efforts to create another trilogy? 

Bottom line, yeah, just a little.

The book THE HOBBIT is very unique.  In so many ways, it’s a rough draft for the three-book saga that is THE LORD OF THE RINGS.  You can see him trying things out, playing with themes, and taking a first swipe at what would be expansive world building in his trilogy.  And I find a charm in that.  I don’t go so far as to say it’s a children’s book, but there is a fairy tale quality to it and Bilbo, I think, would be very relatable to younger adults and even preteens who feel like they are setting off on a journey into a larger world filled with Giants, Goblins, and Dragons every time they step out their front door.

In my opinion, Jackson has tried to turn THE HOBBIT into a sequel to LOTR’s, without recognizing that the story is distinctly a prequel, and is in many ways more like an extended prologue.  By adding plots, weight, and melodrama to what is a more straightforward story, he burdens it a bit.

My point is this (maybe):  When you take a beloved story, even though you are staying very true to the author’s source material, if you ignore the essence of what that story is, you may lose something in the process.  I think LOTR fans will love this movie and so will most other moviegoers. 

I don’t think anyone who ends up seeing all three movies of this new trilogy will have experienced much of what people who read the book THE HOBBIT felt in reading it, and that’s ok.  Movies are movies and books are books.  Sometimes a movie can’t accomplish what a book does, and that’s part of the magic of books. 

What do you think about The Hobbit being stretched out to three movies?

Enter some great giveaways!
Current Giveaways
1. Interview and Giveaway of dystopian YA novel, There Comes A Prophet by David Litwack, US/Canada giveaway of paperback of his book
There Comes a Prophet giveaway

2. Interview with Jennifer Lane, author of Streamline, US giveaway of signed paperback + bookmark and International giveaway of e-copy, 12/16
Streamline Giveaway

3. The Best of 2012 Giveaway Hop Featuring Jonathan Maberry, Author of the Rot and Ruin series (one INT and one US winner of signed copies of Flesh and Bone), 12/27-12/31
Rot and Ruin giveaway

My First Movie Review: The Dark Knight Rises

The main reason this is my first movie review is because this is (sadly) the first movie I've watched in a LONG TIME. And I don't even want to get into how long it has been since I've seen a movie in the theater-- does Avatar come to mind? OK, maybe I've seen something more recent.

But I digress. I was looking forward to this final entry into the wonderful Batman trilogy done directed by Christopher Nolan. I have to say I'm a huge fan of Christian Bale and have been since his much younger days when he starred in Disney's less well known Newsies (still have that soundtrack) and played Teddy in Little Women. Since then, he has really honed his acting skills and has become an excellent actor, and to me, is the perfectly cast for Batman.

I have heard mixed reviews from my friends about this movie. I think in some aspects that is because this is really not Bruce Wayne's movie or Batman's even. I would argue that this movie is really James Gordon and John Blake's movie.

Just as a short synopsis for those of you who have not seen this movie yet (but honestly, I think I was probably one of the last people to do so since it's been out a while), eight years has passed since the events of the last movie. Batman has taken the fall for Harvey Dent, who died in the last movie, and Bruce has become a recluse. Gordon has perpetuated this lie in order to politically keep evil people behind bars (don't tell me to explain this to you because I didn't really get it), but now, a new menace has come to town-- a hulking brute with a sinister voice named Bane. He has mysterious ties to Bruce's old mentor from the first movie, and he decides to take up Batman's mantle once again.

This synopsis makes it seem like the focus would be on Bruce/Batman. But it's not. Most of the movie, which I loved, is focused on John Blake and his ideals as a police officer. We learn how he grew up and because of this, how he understands Batman better than probably anyone else. He makes one of the most interesting character arcs in the movie, and his decision at the end of the movie is very satisfying.

The second most important is Gordon. He has felt unbelievably guilty about the burden of this lie he has been keeping, and he almost decides to bring the truth to light, but then decides against it. Unsurprisingly, this comes to haunt him later on in the film, and he continues to play a nice foil to both young Blake and Bruce himself.

A newcomer that I loved was Anne Hathaway as Catwoman. I never really liked Rachel Dawes as a love interest, and finally in this series dominated by male superheroes, we get a woman that kicks butt. I like that she is not the conventional good girl, she starts out as a thief and then can't get out of it since that's all she's ever known. I also loved the touch of her goggles as her "cat" ears. I do wonder at the reason for the mask-- no one in the audience or even in the movie is fooled at all. Maybe it's just to finish off the tight leather bodysuit?

There are some great twists that were not completely surprising but incredibly satisfying. I love how the story came full circle and it reminds me how much I appreciate when movies and books are well done. I wholeheartedly award this movie 5 out of 5 stars. I think out of all of the superhero movies, the Batman trilogy as a whole has been the strongest of any of them.

What did you think of the latest Batman installment?

Don't forget to enter these great giveaways!
a Rafflecopter giveaway
a Rafflecopter giveaway
a Rafflecopter giveaway