The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo - The Friday Adaptation

One of this Millenniums biggest literary hits is the Millennium trilogy by Stieg Larsson. The trilogy is made up of The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo, The Girl Who Played With Fire and The Girl Who Kicked The Hornets Nest. I read them all when they came out and soaked up the twisty-turny world of Lisbeth Salander and Mikael Blomkvist. I LOVED them. I used to be a subscriber to Empire Magazine too and when the film came out (the original Swedish one) they raved and raved about it. I waited til I read the rest of the books then saw the films. I really enjoyed all three but have to say the first film, and first book, is the best. But which is better? The book or film?

As I've stated constantly on previous Friday Adaptations, film versions are 99% going to cut stuff out of the book. The whole start of The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo has been cut from the film and is just about mentioned at the start; Why is Mikael going to prison? It's a wise move from the film makers as it adds practically nothing to the story, just a bit of character building to see why Mikael is ultra cautious in the story later on. (Basically, he fell for a duff witness). If this were filmed this would have taken 15 minutes of screen time for little gain. Another thing left on the floor at the screen writers is the open relationship of Mikael and his business partner Erika Berger. Although it comes to light in the next films, it's not even touched on in the Dragon Tattoo (I don't think). Again, wise move. To the story they want to tell on screen, it's not needed.

What Larsson does well, with his major protagonists anyway, is really give them not just a detailed make-up, but he really fleshes them out and tells you exactly why they are like they are. The lesser characters not as much (especially some of Harriet Vanger's Aunties and Uncles, I had to reread parts to get who was who!). On screen Lisbeth shines. Noomi Rapace who plays her is simply brilliant. Curt, cold, direct and angry, she IS Lisbeth. Blomkvist is also cast well but its Rapace that steals the show. The appalling rape scene in the book is brought to life so authentically it's actually sickening. It's a brilliant film and a brilliant book.

Stieg Larsson

Coming from Scandinavia, the film has the added aesthetic of a country so vast yet with little population. Lakes, rivers and countryside are used to great affect showing how isolated the community of Hedeby Island is. One thing that the book and film both do, that any good book and film should do, is ask questions. If you were in the same position, what would you do? Would you do the same? It's a very tough question to answer.

The following books and films are also great but it's the added whodunit of Dragon Tattoo that elevates it higher than its follow ups.

The critics and public seem to agree with me too with both giving it 86% and 85% respectively on Rottentomatoes.com . Hollywood remade it just a year or two later with David 'Fight-club' Fincher in the directors chair and they made a good job of it too, but there was no way Noomi Rapace's performance would have been beaten. The American actress Roony Mara did a great job though.

I'd definitely recommend the trilogy as a whole. Have a look on our site for copies of the trilogy (p&p £1)

Thoughts?

Michael

About A Boy - The Friday Adaptation

I'm a big Nick Hornby fan, but bizarrely I've seen all the film adaptations before reading any of the books. Fever Pitch the book completely took me by surprise after I expected a few incompetent loveable clowns arguing about football but instead found a deep, moving diary about the beautiful game. High Fidelity is my joint favourite film of all time (tied with Jurassic Park) but even so, I loved the book too. About A Boy however, is a conundrum.

Let's start with a clean slate. I love the film, I really do. Yet I love the book, in the same way, but in a completely different way too. The film pretty much follows the story of the book until three quarters of the way through then, well, it doesn't. It couldn't get any different unless aliens came down and gave Will some kind of probe. Part of the problem (is it a problem?) is the 'Hollywood factor'. In the book towards the end, Marcus (the aforementioned Boy of the title) goes AWOL with Ellie, an older girl into Nirvana. They break a window and generally feel better about themselves, but at the same time, a bit crappy still, life hasn't changed. Bit of a downer.

In the film Hugh Grant grabs a guitar and starts singing with his eyes closed at Marcus's school concert to alleviate the awkwardness. A nice big happy, smiley moment. A bit Hollywood yeah?

After watching the film though, again remember I saw it before I read the book, I loved it, and I still love it. Would I have loved it if I had read the book first? Who knows. The film IS a warm and fuzzy (and very funny) version of the warm, fuzzy (and funny) book, but it just adds the sheen. It's been Hollywooded.

One reason some didn't like the film is Hugh Grant. A lot of folks simply don't like the floppy foppy fringed English git. Well, I treasure him. This role is so far away from that of Notting Hill and Four Weddings (which are still great films).

After checking RottenTomatoes.com I'm amazed it only has a 51% public likability rating. But then it is quite an English film. Maybe it's Americans not quite getting it. The critics seem to love it though at 93%!


If I had to make a choice I'd say that the film wins, but only just. Nick Hornby seems to have gone a little too dark in recent years, although I am yet to read his past couple of tomes.

What do you think?

Michael

The Da Vinci Code - The Friday Adaptation

As it's Dan Brown week on our website (all DB books reduced!) it seems the best time to have another look at one of the most controversial books of recent times, along with it's film companion. Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code was released with massive uproar in 2003, and I mean book-burning, marching-on-the-street uproar due to it's 'challenge' on the relationship of Jesus with Mary Magdalene. In hindsight a lot of people have decided it was all a bit over the top (you think!?) and all the hoo-har only helped to actually promote the book and shift an extra few million copies. With most things that get hyped be it a book, film or game, it was only a matter of time until it was turned into a film.

The UK book cover

I read the book around the time it came out and was sucked in from the start. In 2 days I had consumed all 500+ pages. Many people have said how appalling the writing is but at the time I just wanted to read fast paced, ridiculously high concept genre fiction and it's exactly what I got. But what about the film, seeing as this is the Friday Adaptation? It held so much promise. Taken from a major novel, directed by Ron Howard of Apollo 13 and Happy Days fame (and one of my favourite films Frost/Nixon), featuring Tom 'Can-do-no-wrong' Hanks and several highly regarded character actors including Gandalf, Doc Occ and Leon. But boy, did they mess it up.

It's a box! A magic religious box! Let's talk about it!

The issue I have with it is that it's just plain boring. The high stakes, high paced action from the book seems to have taken a back seat. Sure there is action but it seems subdued, as if the director thought the story might be lost in an array of explosions and blood. What it needed was MORE chases, MORE explosions. It is the perfect vehicle for it. Maybe the critics of the book were right and the source material is just not good enough but the way it is directed is more akin to a political thriller than an action thriller. A director as unsubtle as Brett Ratner (Rush Hour) could have made a better film. Howard, you dropped the ball on this.

The one thing that sticks out more than anything else though is Hanks. He is known as a nice guy, a charmer, so why is his Robert Langdon such a dullard? Unlikable in fact. Leaving his charisma behind was the biggest gaff.

Dan Brown, looking like a boss

The film made a tonne, so much so that another Dan Brown film was made featuring Hanks. Angels and Demons was an appalling film and even worse than The Da Vinci Code. I know it's appalling as on my Honeymoon in Sri Lanka, the only TV channel we could get was a movie channel that played Angels and Demons, Coraline and Iron Man on repeat. Due to a deafening ear infection (literally) I was in bed for 4 days with the TV. I have seen these three films about 6 times each in 4 days. It kinda made me think that actually the books might be a bit rubbish, but having only read The Da Vinci Code which I liked, I can't substantiate this.

RottenTomatoes.com has given it a dour 25%, with the public giving it 64%. I agree with the critics. It's not a disastrous film, just more a mess. My wife really enjoys it though. On the nose with the most agreeable quote comes from the critic Rob Gonsalves from eFilmCritic.com

"Any Movie with a sulking albino assassin begs for campy, self-aware treatment, but Howard and scriptwriter Akiva Goldsman serve it all up straight-faced"

"If I look down, maybe no one will notice how bad this film is"

Brown's new book is released in a few weeks and will again will sell in the millions. Maybe it's time I re-read Da Vini Code or gave one of his other books a go to see if my taste has changed. Get your Dan Brown fix from our (superior) books right HERE.

What did you think of the book and film?

Michael

Breaking Dawn - The Friday Adaptation

Our second Friday Adaptation comes from the 'love it or hate it' world of Twilight by Stephanie Meyer. The last film Breaking Dawn part II has just been released so lets have a look at the last book in the series and how it compares.

The newest popular Hollywood technique to get as much cash as possible is to split the last part of a series in to two parts (Harry Potter and Hunger Games have done this too). We've yet to receive the Hunger Games film but the Harry Potter final instalment gained millions of dollars (as expected) but actually (in my opinion) made two very good films, and cramming all that happens into one film may have lost a lot. This is where Breaking Dawn falls down. Flat on it's face.

Awesome action! Isn't it?

Let me say though, I have not read the book. I know, this is a comparison for the book, but I've asked an expert (my wife, read it once) and here is what she said:
"I can't remember the book very well but not a lot happens in it." but she does mention that a whole chunk was missing from the final film. "There was a whole back-story for a load of the vampires that wasn't touched in the film." Why split a book that not a lot happens in, into two films, then miss out a load of stuff that would help the viewer (me in this case) understand better? Having watched Breaking Dawn part 1, where absolutely NOTHING happens for an hour and twenty minutes, I have to ask, surely moulding the two films together would have made a better adaptation?

Stephenie Meyer - Author 

I have sat through all the twilight films and generally not enjoyed them. I know it's not aimed at my demographic but more at teen girls. I did like the odd bit in a few films. Anyway, the last film...

At last some action! There is a slight (major) spoiler here so look away and skip a paragraph if you don't want to know the ending. The last twenty minutes of the film absolutely had me glued to the screen. Suddenly, out of nowhere, main characters die, horribly. It's not the action per se that I enjoyed (although it was by far the best of the entire series) but the shock at the characters, and the amount of characters, that perish. Fifteen bloody, shocking minutes this goes on for. Absolutely excellent. Then...It's all a dream. I'm not kidding. It's a 'wtf' moment. The baddies say " alright then, see you, thanks very much" and that's the end. The end of one of modern days most bankable series. It's so appallingly bad I was angry. The fifteen minutes before we're so so good. It's like eating a hearty bloody steak with chunky chips and a Belgian beer, followed by a cheese cracker that's fallen buttered side down on the dirty kitchen floor picking up all the grime and cat hair. But that's my opinion. What did the public and critics think?

RottenTomatoes.com have given it 48%. There is one review that I agree with and it's by Jeff Bayer at The Scorecard Review:

"I rolled my eyes, laughed at, and laughed with this film. I was entertained. It's a sloppy enjoyable mess, and the most fun I had watching a 'Twilight' movie."

I agree with this. It was silly, harmless fun. The whole series takes itself too seriously and when there is a slight funny moment, it's pretty laugh out loud! If I ignore Breaking Dawn part 1 and the very ending of part 2 I'd say it was fun.

The book obviously made a mint as by the time it was published the Twilight phenomenon was in full swing but it may suffer from the 'guff' factor; just too long. This is again, from my wife. Blame her, not me.

Buy Stephanie Meyer books from the shop HERE

Michael

The Hobbit - The Friday Adaptation

Every Friday we'll be discussing one film or TV series that has been adapted from the book or graphic novel. We'll be discussing which version is better, why the adaptation happened and the critical response to both book and film.

The first Friday adaptation comes in the shape of this weeks new DVD release of The Hobbit.

With the success of the Lord of the Rings films it was only a matter of time until this prequel saw the light of day on screen. It wasn't plain sailing though as the original director Guillermo Del Toro after a few months left the directors chair, with Lord of the Rings director Peter Jackson taking over. It was always going to be Peter Jackson's baby though.

Peter Jackson has decided to broaden the story on screen by splitting it into not two but three films. Another trilogy. Everyone loves a trilogy but there has to be material there for it to be split and The Hobbit is a fairly slender book. Added to The Hobbit trilogy are parts from other Tolkien books I am told but even so, there was far too much slow motion and panning of huge vistas in it for my taste. It's pretty, but at 163 minutes you kinda just want it to stop faffing with all the lovely fields and get to the gritty action. I am in no way an expert though as I read the book when I was a wee lad and not since (on my to-read list) so I asked some dedicated Tolkien fans on Twitter whether the adaptation succeeded. Thomas Mathie AKA @Headphonaught is an avid collector of The Hobbit books. I asked him if the film lived up to expectation.

"Yes & more. I loved it. What did I like? The Dwarves. The Trolls. The Goblin King. Seeing Erabor in all its finery. I also loved seeing Bilbo, Galadriel and Saruman. Radaghast was brilliant too. Oh and the music...I loved the soundtrack". 

@bigcomfybooks I also loved seeing Bilbo, Galadriel and Saruman. Radaghast was brilliant too. Oh and the music ... I loved the soundtrack.
— thomas mathie (@headphonaught) April 9, 2013

Anything you disliked?

"Didn't like the introduction of Azog the Defiler. Understand why he's there but I didn't like him"

Another fan of the book is fellow musician Lew Bear AKA @LewBearMusic

"I liked it, but wish the dwarves were less comical (in the main). Radaghast was awesome though! :)"

He also agrees with Thomas about Azog.

"...the army is led by Borg in the book and would have worked better."

So it looks like the fans of the book were satisfied, but what about critics? On RottenTomatoes.com it gets a fairly average score of 65% with fantasy magazing SFX saying "There is a good film here, but with many double albums, you have to sift through a lot of padding to find it." In Empire Magazine it got 3 out of 5 stars and this tends to be the consensus amongst most.

The book came out in 1937 and instantly became a hit, winning several awards. It became so popular that the publishers asked Tolkien to write a sequel, which became the Lord of the Rings trilogy.

My memory has erased much of the book so going into the film fresh may have helped me. I do feel it is over long but nonetheless I thoroughly enjoyed it. The casting of Bilbo was exceptional. Martin Freeman does bumbling yet confident with perfection. And in a little side note, my wife's old Uni colleague is one of the dwarfs. 

Peter Jackson, director of Tolkien films

As always there is always going to be something missing from a film version of any book (see my Hunger Games book review) so there will never be a 100% correct answer, but The Hobbit film adaptation was a pretty big success.

Buy Tolkien from the shop HERE

Comment below with your opinion...

Michael