Book v. Movie: Best & Worst YA Adaptations: Best: Bridge to Terabithia

I loved this movie actually, but then again I never had an opportunity to read the book.

 

Next: "A SOUND OF THUNDER" (2005)

"It could have been a second Jurassic Park. Instead the sci-fi flick, based on a Ray Bradbury short story about a store called Time Safari that transports people back in time and allows them to hunt prehistoric animals, suffered from cheap special effects and a kitschy tagline of ''Evolve or die.''"

 

Next:

TROY (2004)

"This dumbed-down version of Homer's Iliad was more an homage to Brad Pitt's bronzed pecs as Greek warrior Achilles than to the great Trojan War. In another risible accomplishment, the characters ? Diane Kruger as Helen of Troy, and Orlando Bloom as Paris ? age nary a white hair in the 10-year duration of the film's plot."

 

Actually, the plot of The Iliad unfolds over the space of just 40 days, IIRC, but otherwise I agree. Great movie, but truly craptacular adaptation. The decision to remove the Olympians really guts the story.

 

I love this film. Chancellor_Ewok is correct that the movie does not unfold over the course of ten years, as the epic poem does. This to me is evidence that its detractors were not actually paying attention to the movie; perhaps they decided from frame one that they were not going to like it ("Brad Pitt looks like a super-hero! Waaahhh!"), and stuck with their undeservedly negative assessment throughout -- even as this splendid, engrossing, action-packed and moving adventure film played its heart out before their eyes. The movie did gangbusters business in Europe, where people certainly know their Homer; perhaps over there, audiences understood that Troy is not so much an adaptation of Homer, replete with complex rhyme-schemes -- and scheming gods a-la Clash of the Titans -- but rather a look at what the historicity of a real Siege of Troy might have been like. Homer still exists; you can still read any number of translations of The Iliad (I recommend Fagles), but this movie stands quite apart from that sprawling, 3500-year old literary work, which I submit could not be made into a satusfying film largely because of the lengthy descriptive passages and patterns of verbal repetition.

 

I loved the film, but haven't gotten around to reading the epic poem yet.

 

Chancellor_Ewok is correct that the poem does not cover the whole ten-year war, only the last few weeks. You need to go back and re-read the book (if you don't already own it, the Fagles translation is very good).

The best bit of Troy is the short-lived fight between Achilles and whoever the big champion is at the start of the film - unexpectedly brief and impressive. Also, Sean Bean stands out as Odysseus, despite his relatively small role. Apart from that, not so impressive. They should have looked at Sean Connery's fight with the Minotaur in Time Bandits - now that feels mythic!

 

i have to agree with vortigern here that the film was maligned unfairly. it's an awesome attempt to put the events in perspective and it works really really well.

 

At last, darth_frared and I can agree on something!

 

I liked it. The characters don't age because the movie doesn't take place over ten years. Brad Pitt was meh, but I really liked Sean Bean and Eric Bana.

 

Next, the blogger on: #5. "300" (2007)

"The Flick: Frank Miller's graphic novel (accent on the "graphic") explodes onto the silver screen in the form of hilariously toned abs, gyrating nude oracles and trolls with lobster claw hands who we'd imagine must have had a lot of difficulty using the facilities.

The Inaccuracies: Setting aside the use of magic missiles, lack of body armor and the appearance of both a hunchback and a villain that resembles a 7-foot lisping version of Dhalsim from Street Fighter II, 300 seems to glorify some aspects of Spartan life-prowess in battle, fighting for democracy, loyalty to the homeland, constant spear throwing-while slyly downplaying others, such as the fact that Sparta was a fascistic church-run warrior caste of slave owners who regularly enjoyed pederasty."

The homoerotic content of this movie is pretty obvious, just from the stills (I haven't seen it yet)

 

RE: Troy


The director's cut is a great, great movie.

 

I have only ever been able to read snippets here and there but to the best of my knowledge the things it faults the movie for are pulled almost directly from the page.

 

There are comic-movie comparison shots on the internet. I really can't think of anything that would be more of an adaption then that off the top of my head. If they are crying about historical inaccuracies, shouldn't that be in another thread?

 

True, they both were pretty much straight off the page and minus a lot of visible penis because believe it or not 300 is even more homoerotic in the graphic novel.

 

VANITY FAIR (2004)

"Mira Nair's glittering adaptation of the William Makepeace Thackeray novel sure looked pretty, but that's about all it had to offer. Even sweeping, panoramic views of the Georgian English countryside couldn't save this film from falling from grace, or boost Reese Witherspoon's sadly personality-deflated heroine, Becky Sharp."


It was oddly uninvolving. Perhaps the novel can't be successfully adapted.

 

THE HUMAN STAIN (2003)

"Adapting a Philip Roth novel for the big screen requires a Herculean effort, and this intellectual thriller definitely lacked power. Anthony Hopkins's college professor and Nicole Kidman's janitor with a haunted past experience much of their action through flashbacks, which reads far better than it looks."


Some books shouldn't be adapted.

 

"THE CAT IN THE HAT (2003)/ DR. SEUSS' HOW THE GRINCH STOLE CHRISTMAS (2000)
The Dr. Seuss children books are the kind that every child should have, tucked away on the nightstand. But an obnoxious Mike Myers and over-the-top Jim Carrey caked in makeup, mimicking the creatures? Exactly the kind of things that keep kids awake and scared of the dark."

Dr. Seuss does not suit live action...the stories are too slight, and the humour suits animation much better.

 

CASE IN POINT: Horton Hears a Who, released earlier this year. I really enjoyed it, although I felt it had a slow beginning. The animation was brilliant and imaginative and technically very, very well done. It was a beautiful realization of Dr. Seuss in my opinion, and I cannot possibly think of how it could have ever worked in live action. Animation was the perfect vehicle for it. It also did very well at the box office:

It cost 85 million to make and every penny was up on the screen.
It earned 287 million dollars world-wide and when you add television revenue and DVD income, that's a very successful film. I think if had been live-action it would have met with a similar reaction to CAT IN THE HAT.

 

I haven't seen "Horton", but the reviews were very good, and the animated TV version of the Grinch is a half hour of perfection.