X is for Xanadu

You want a trip in the surreal? Maybe with rock music? Someplace where ELO meets Big Bands...and Gene Kelly. Oh, and there's roller skating too!

Sound like a fever dream? Maybe...

It's Xanadu!

First a poem titled Kubla Khan in 1797 by a poet Samuel Taylor Coleridge (belo w is the first stanza), it's about the Mongolian ruler Kubla Khan, the grandson of Genghis Khan dreaming in his pleasure palace;  a movie in 1980; and later musical in 2007.

In Xanadu did Kubla Khan 
A stately pleasure-dome decree: 
Where Alph, the sacred river, ran 
Through caverns measureless to man 
Down to a sunless sea. 

Xanadu is defined as an idyllic place, a place place of great beauty, luxury, contentment. From dictionary.com and Merriam-Webster online dictionary.

Xanadu is many thing all rolled into one. The primary story centers on the Greek muses, nine sisters and one muse in particular, Kira's (real name is Terpsichore. Clio in the musical.) and her adventures on earth. The funny part is the movie is adaptation of a movie from Down to Earth (1947), which is an adaptation of a play Heaven Can Wait. The movie is filled with rock music from ELO (Electric Light Orchestra), Olivia Newton-John, who plays Kira in the movie, and early animation from Don Bluth. Never mind that it is about a roller disco and features Gene Kelly in his last movie role; and one amazing scene that blends 1940s and 1980s music into the most intense mash-up ever.

It was also one of two movie nominated for the first ever Golden Raspberry Award, but lost out to the Village People movie, Can't Stop the Music.

It also needs to be seen to be believed.

A Musing Inspiration

Where is the inspiration?

The Greeks believed the Muses inspired,

giving mankind a leg up in creativity

in song, poetry, and dance.

The Greeks believed the Muses inspired,

nine sisters to grant humanity gifts

in song, poetry, and dance;

to create something out of nothing.

Nine sisters to grant humanity gifts,

although I prefer my gifts to be my own,

to create something out of nothing,

but maybe I am wrong.

Although I prefer my gifts to be my ow,n,

weaving words across a page or colours across a canvas,

but maybe I am wrong,

that gifts are given to us, for us make our own.

Weaving words across a page or colours across a canvas; 

that is our job, isn't it?

That gifts are given to us, for us make our own,

out of the spiritual ether around us.

That is out jobs, isn't it,

make the art that the world needs

out of the spiritual ether around us?

That might just be the gods bequeathing their gifts.

Make the art that the world needs,

giving mankind a leg up in creativity

that might just be the gods bequeathing their gifts.

What is the inspiration? 

Q is for Quiet (Place, A)

Okay I have to cheat a little today. I haven't read a single book that starts with the Letter Q, and I'm slightly ashamed by this. A Quiet Place is today. Anyway, this movie was worth two novels, from the content to the acting. I usually prefer to have explanations for my characters and plot, but after re-watching Cloverfield and then seeing 10 Cloverfield Lane, I understand why storytellers will give you only a bare bones backstory (okay that was a lot of alliteration there).

A Quiet Place is a story to be seen. It is not quite the horror movie that the trailers are promoted. I think it falls into a science fiction thriller. John Krasinski wrote this screenplay, and I seemed to have forgotten that he was on the office as Jim Halpert.

Although, I did have to remind myself not to jump at the jump scares. It didn't really work this time, sadly...I enjoyed this movie. But jump scares aside, this is a solid plot with a fascinating concept, and top notch acting, especially from the non-humans.

The actors really needed to be able to act with their faces and hands as there there is little to no spoken dialogue. The actress, Millicent Simmonds, who play the daughter is actually deaf. Her and John Krasinski were wonderful together.An entertaining movie and one I would consider buying on DVD, which says a lot  because I am super picky about the movie I buy on DVD.

And, A Quiet Place was shot in Pawling, New Paltz, and Little Falls, NY. Favourite shot in the moive is of Main Street in Little Falls, so creepy and beautiful, but I have a thing for things that are old and abandon, or at least made to look abandoned.

So, some of you are probably here for the poem. Okay, I can when you are humouring me rambling on about movies and such. Today's pantoum that is so silent, well, it might kill you if you make a noise while reading it, Dear Readers. A bit of humour for you today.

Enjoy!

Silent Steps

There is nothing left but silence

throughout the empty streets.

Don't say a word, walking silent steps,

because that is how they know.

Throughout the empty streets,

the soft footfalls muffled upon sand,

because that is how they know,

when your feet hits a creaky spot.

The soft footfalls muffled upon sand,

walking to town, gathering supplies leftover.

When you make a sound,

and forget the nightmare all around you.

Walking to town, gathering supplies leftover

when your are sick with a fever,

and forget the nightmare all around you,

on prescribed paths outlined everywhere.

When tour are sick with a fever

after all the people are gone.

On prescribed paths outlined everywhere,

silent, because they can hear you breathing.

After all the people are gone,

everything becomes a chore,

silent, because they can hear you breathing

and knowing that frightens you.

Everything becomes a chore.

Don't say a word, walking silent steps

and knowing that frightens you;

there is nothing left but silence.

Benji: A Retrospective

Once upon a time there was a little mongrel named Benji....

Higgins as Benji

Actually, named Higgins, but played the title role in the 1974 movie. I grew up watching this movie over and over again. Probably was in my top 10 movie when I was younger. Interesting to note that out of the 6 movies made from 1974 to 1987, I only ever watched Benji and Oh! Heavenly Dog, the detective comedy starring Chevy Chase. I always thought that Oh! Heavenly Dog was fun and even cute, in retrospect not the best movie ever, but campy enough to warrant a place in my heart. Note: The Cinema Snob does a excellent review of the movie.

But what about Benji?

I recently acquired most of the Benji movies on DVD, and includeing a really nice VHS copy of Benji: The Hunted from my local Salvo Store. I do not have Benji Goes to Marineland or Benji, Zax, and the Alien Prince, yet. This blog will feature commentary on the original movie and the 2004 Benji off the Leash. Future blogs will discuss the other movies and more obscure productions.

I never thought of Benji as anything but a fun movie about a dog when I was growing up, but now when I watch it I feel that the movie is half "a day in the life of" Benji as he visits his friends in a Texas town, followed by a loosely built plot about kidnapping of the main children who are Benji's guardians. This doesn't mean that don't think Benji is a terrible film, but for character development, I feel that there is some lacking. The characters are all very basic, and generalyl really flat. I guess that is because the story is more about Benji, but sometimes it is nice to have developed human characters. Although Benji's acting is pretty spot on and stellar for a canine.

As for the movie, there are a fair number of human character that stand out. The two main kidnappers, Henry and Riley, are well played by (Tom Lester - Eb from Green Acres and Christopher Connelly - Paper Moon with Jodie Foster); and there's Deborah Walley as Linda Sue (she was Gidget in Gidget Goes Hawaiian and her character's name is my Mother's name, incidentally) to be a family friend adds a bit to the basic plot. As for storytelling, there could have been more of it and some subtext, but that's the inner storyteller in me kicking in. Benji is the star and stand out character. Trained by Frank Inn, who has trained Orangey the cat (from Breakfast at Tiffany's and The Diary of Anne Frank) andBenji can look everything from sad to pensive to excited. Higgins played Benji in the original Benji and For the Love of Benji movies, and whose daughter (named Benjean) played Benji in Oh! Heavenly Dog and Benji: the Hunted.

Another fun point are the special guest stars featured that included Francis Bavier as The Lady with the Cat (Aunt Bea from The Andy Griffith Show), Edgar Buchanan as Bill the cafe owner (Petticoat Junction and The Beverly Hillbillies), and Terry Carter as Officer Tuttle (McCloud and Battlestar Gallactia: Saga of a Star World and Second Coming).

Benji's Theme, "I Feel Love", sung by Charlie Rich was nominated for an Oscar and won a Golden Globe for Best Theme Song.

Benji was filmed in mostly in McKinney, Texas, but also in a park in Dallas, TX and the City Hall was used for the police station, in Denton, TX. And after having lived in Dallas for a bit I think I remember seeing the park where some of the scenes were filmed, but don't quote me on that. I found this video which shows some of the McKinney location, then and now. You can also see some comparison pictures on Todd Erwin's Blog, 1974 Locations.

Cut to 2004 when Joe Camp, director of the Benji movies returns to the franchise in Benji off the Leash. This little movie has  much more character development and a story that fills up a 90 minute run time than the original, but lacks the simplicity of the dog on camera action. The plot includes a boy whose father runs a puppy mill and is trying to save an ill dog and her puppies from the mill. The runt and mutt of the litter is cast out because she looks like a mongrel and not purebred like the others. The  boy raises the puppy in secret in his secret lair in the woods and then the puppy (dubbed Puppy throughout the movie) tries to rescue his mother from the puppy mill all while befriending another stray named Lizard Tongue, old Zachariah Finch, and two bumbling animal control officers.

Puppy turned Benji

There is clearly more of an attempt at a plot, and although very silly at times, it serves the Benji series well. While I harp on the original for a very simple plot and less than stellar character development, I can look at both the original Benji movie and now Benji Off the Leash with a fondness. There is a charm to them and the dogs are clearly very talented, often emoting more that some human actors.

If you like a like silliness and some camp you should check out the other Benji movies. Most of them are on DVD. Benji: the Hunted is currently only on VHS, and the others I have yet to find copies of any kind. According to the Meet Benji website Benji Goes to Marineland is due out on DVD soon!

Lizard Tongue - Benji Off the Leash

Benji (1974)

For the Love of Benji (1977)

Benji's Very Own Christmas Story (1978 - TV Special)

Oh! Heavenly Dog (1980)

Benji, Zax, and the Alien Prince (1983 - TV Show)

Benji: The Hunted (1987)

Benji Off the Leash (2004)

Benji goes to Marineland (this one maybe be harder to find)

Benji at Work

The Phenomenon of Benji 

Thanks, Dear Reader!

RENT (the Movie): A Short Review

I have never seen a live production of RENT.

This is fact!

I remember in college, freshman year, when the halls of my dorm echoed with La Vie Boheme. I knew NOTHING about the show it was from, except that everyone was singing it.

This is also fact.

In 1999 or there about one of my bestest friends made me a mix tape that included this song about RENT. What?

More fact.

Sometime ago I purchased a CD of the show RENT, vowing I would at least listen to the music.

Truth, but I only listened to it once.

Okay, Dear Readers, you are probably asking yourself what is the point to this post. Plenty. See, I don't post anything on my blog that isn't about something I haven't encountered or experienced. If I haven't seen something I will tell you thusly and it will only be a brief passing statement on blog post X, Y, or Z. I will never string you along about anything, when I mention something, there is a propose. What I am trying to say is that after a decade or so, I have finally seen a version of RENT.

Now, I know you might be thinking does she mean the musical or the movie?

It was the movie. And before any of you jump up fretting about movie versus music, please see my review of Charlotte's Web (features the animated movie, the live action movie, the book, and the musical). I want you to know that I will watch a theatrical production (even if I have to buy a DVD of it first) of RENT in the future. Over the years I have heard a number of things about RENT the musical, RENT the movie, RENT this RENT that....so, yes I watched the movie. And no, I didn't hate it.

Believe me I knew next to nothing about the characters, maybe a vague description about who was who and knew about five of the songs well enough. And yet I enjoy watching the WHOLE movie.

While it does kind of throw you into the world of NYC struggling artists and their messy lives, you do feel like getting punched in the feels. In a good way of course. OH THE FEELS!!! The acting, from what I can see, was good. I felt vested in these characters while I watched. Musically, I could enjoy all the songs, even got context on some of the songs that I didn't know before.

Some have told me that maybe it wasn't like the musical, but for a movie it was entertaining, touching, had a lot of musical moments, and I was entertained. I have a question to you, Dear Readers, have you watched the movie or the musical? What do you prefer? Leave me some love below...

If you were to ask me, Dear Readers, I could have to say the Mark is my favourite character. I could understand him and sympathize his arc. But, musically, I loved Mimi and Roger's songs, Light My Candle and I Should Tell You. As a whole the story is touching and give a real feel to this mismatched set of characters and their lives.

It was weird to not hear the standard dialogue that is featured in the musical version of the song RENT. But I think that was a directorial choice.

Note: it was nice to see Rosario Dawson in a musical role.

Overall, it was a decent movie, even go so far as to say a touching movie. It makes me curious to see a live production of it in the future.

The Little Prince review: Book vs Movie

You know when I do these reviews, I try and look for the worst in the movie adaptations. Of the adaptations that I have reviewed, I have found the truly terrible to the surprisingly good. As an avid bibliophile, I love books, so much so that sometimes I prefer them over the movie or television adaptations that have come out.  But, I have also be proven wrong.

Doing these reviews I have learned a lot about storytelling, of how stories are told in movies, and thus how they are transposed into the visual medium. It has opened my eyes to the possibilities within stories. I can see when a movie fails at storytelling by telling, not showing. There is a greater appreciation for stories by view a story in print form, movie, TV show, musical, comic book, etc. Little Prince is no different. In fact, I can see how both the the book and the movie brings a different perspective to the people.

The Little Prince was a cartoon that used to watch when I was younger about a little boy (who was a prince) on a little asteroid B-615. I remember watching the cartoon on one of the Canadian stations in the late eighties.  I was not aware of the term anime and didn't know that The Little Prince was a book until I was older. IT was a simple pleasure. It was one of those things I watched and it filled me with a greater happiness. I wasn't always able to catch it, but when I did the Little Prince on a planet just big enough for him, 3 volcanoes, a small house (only in the cartoon version), and a rose.

The cartoon was created for Japanese channel, TV ASAHI in the late 70's, 1978 to 1979 and then aired in Canada and United States in the mid to late 80's. But it has also been a theatrical production, radio broadcasts, cartoon, movie, pop-up books, opera, and ballet. Quite a diverse collection of adaptations that a children's novella written by an exiled French aristocrat and pilot.

Did you know that Little Prince has been translated into 250 languages, including Braille? Impressive!

Anyway...

It has been a good ten years before I read the book that the cartoon was based (loosely) on. Now that I look at the story by Antoine de Saint-Exupery, I am left wondering what is the back story. The opening begins with the narrator alone in the Sahara desert after his plane has crashed. It is there that he meets the Little Prince, who wanders out of the desert asking that the narrator draw him a sheep. He learns about the Little Prince's home and the Rose he loves, but doesn't always appear to return his love. So, the Little Prince feels the need to leave and go out into the universe to learn.

It's a touching story of trying to find your way in the world, being lost because you don't understand any of it (because clearly adults are stupid), and realizing that what you knew as a child is just as important as what you know as an adult (maybe more). The book is pretty special, even though it was a sad and thoughtful story.

But, I cannot hate the movie adaptation of The Little Prince, it was made in 1974. It was a musical with cheesy songs (written by Learner and Loewe and the Snake Dance number choreographed by Bob Fosse), that told the story. I mean the songs were pretty silly, one is about  the drawing of a hat/boa constrictor that swallowed an elephant and what people think it is that is simply called, "I Need Air (It's a Hat)". To be fair, the singing voices of the all of the actors in the movie were spot on and in tune; and Gene Wilder is a born song and dance man, not just with Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. I totally have even more respect for him after watching this movie.

Also there is Bob Fosse, the master of modern dance and choreographer as the Snake; and Richard Kiley, who has performed as Don Quixote in Man of LaMancha and Caliph in Kismet, as the pilot/narrator. These are two super talented and maybe oddly placed performers, yet, Fosse is a snake personified and Kiley is very believable as a rejected artist, turned pilot narrator.

It is true that as I watched the 88 minute musical, I found that while I groaned at the songs, they truthfully told a story. A good story even. Maybe it was a bit repetitive to my adult mind, with the songs, but I could watch this all the way through and even watch it multiple times. The book is a poignant story about being made to be an adult and coming to terms with the youthfulness of the Little Prince, but also learning that you are responsible for the things you love and tame. The movie made the characters even more vivid.

I won't lie, I was crushed that they didn't include the Lamplighter planet, shifted the Snake and Fox's order in the story, and made the end a clear cut 'ending'. That is NOT a spoiler! But the movie/musical does include de Saint-Exupery's original drawings and much of the original Narrator's dialogue. That was a nice touch. Another down side, the snake used in the movie is a boa constrictor and NOT POISONOUS, while the snake referenced was a poisonous snake. Okay, that was probably due to logistics and safety. But really?

Did you know de Saint-Exupery was a pilot and ended up in exile in America, beginning in 1940 after France's defeat? He wrote The Little Prince in 1942 and combined his experience as a pilot and his time in the Sahara Desert and echoed his loneliness that his exile caused.

Both mediums have done a decent job representing the story of de Saint-Exupery. While the cartoon is only loosely based on the story, it also gives you an the innocence and the simplicity that is the Little Prince. I recommend give the movie a watch, it's cheesy and the songs are over the top, but it's awfully close to the original story. And it's good! The acting is actually good and the singing is excellent. But, I also suggest that everyone (who likes to read) should read The Little Prince anyway.

Charlotte's Web: Book vs. Movie (and Muiscal)

“Look at Charlotte’s Web!”

Look at it, indeed! It has been a book, an animated movie, a stage musical, and a modern live action movie. I think one can say that it ranks in the upper echelons on people’s hearts and memories of their childhood. I grew up on Charlotte, both in book and animated form. Each holds a special place for me. 

Maybe not after I write this review? Okay, here does nothing...

I am so familiar with the animated movie that I think I can quote it forwards and backwards and sing all the songs. I was partial to Templeton myself. It was a favourite when we would go and rent videos from Tops Market, back when it was a thing to have video rentals at grocery stores. I also read the novel many times growing up. It wasn’t until years later that the live action movie was made (which I didn’t watch until this review); and later still when I encountered the musical adaptation when I got the chance to direct a full scale musical of Charlotte.

So, how do I feel about the movies?

Honestly…I was surprised by how each one fared. There is something truly amazing about this story. Each version I has held something different with me, yet there was still something marvelous about it. Here’s the thing, most of the time when I compare the original source material to a modern adaptation-in this case novel versus movie-I find all the differences that the author or screenwriter puts into their work. This time I not only saw these differences (from book to movie to musical), but I saw a number of elements, lines, and nuances that are in every single version of Charlotte’s Web. That's amazing that a story can captivate people so well and inspire them to tell a story that continues throughout the years, throughout multiple adaptations. In every version the story is always there, with many of the same lines, go from the book to the movies and are even seen present in the stage musical. 

What I did find fascinating is that with these two movies-at the same length (only a two minute difference in the run times)-the recent live-action movie did more with the original story than the animated movie did. I find it tough to swallow, but the 2006 live action movie, made by Paramount/Walden Media (same as "Bridge to Terabithia") /Nickelodeon is the clear winner.

Now, why would I say that, straight out of the gate in this review? Because sometimes I am wrong with my

predictions of how my reviews go. I usually tout that books are always better (most cases they are), but this time I feel the adaptation, the 2006 version is at least as good as the book. I went in wanting to find fault with the 2006 version featuring Dakota Fanning. See, I grew up watching the Hanna Barbera movie from 1973, with Debbie Reynolds as the singing spider, Charlotte and Paul Lynde as the smart ass, snarky rat, Templeton. I sang the songs, recited the lines, and probably even wished for a pet pig when I was a kid. But there is something magical about E.B. White’s story that keeps that magical child-like innocence, but so does the 2006 movie. I see it as the closest representation to the original story out there.

How so?

First, the novel does not have songs; it’s a story first and foremost. The 1973 version, even though it’s terrifically hard to say, but the songs feel tacked on. They don’t really add to the story, but if you were to take them out, you would still have a compelling story. This is not to say that I don’t absolutely love the theatrical musical version of Charlotte, because I do. The songs featured in the musical are far more designed to tell the story of Charlotte, Wilbur, Fern, and Templeton. You have far more character development in songs like “Eating”, “Whose Says We Can’t Be Friends?”, and “Charlotte’s Spinning Song”. Where the only song or two in the 1973 version that fits “Chin Up” or even "Mother Earth and Father Time", they are the most lovely and I like them. Debbie Reynolds is singing too. The songs were done by the Sherman Brothers who wrote songs for Mary Poppins, The Jungle Book, and Chitty Chitty Bang Bang (much of their careers were when they worked with the Mouse). So, the verdict with the music, not necessary (I will feature a more detail review of the musical in greater detail at a later time).

I never hated the 1973 animated movie, but after some of the following considerations I have altered my view of the animated movie.By adding unnecessary additions to the plot drag down the story from Jeffrey the Gosling, who is supposed to be a side-kick to Wilbur. Maybe it was cuter when I was younger, but looking at it now, it is unnecessary and he was an annoying character with no relevance on the core story. 

Another one is that Wilbur in the 1973 version is a very whiny and kind of a brat, something that the novel doesn’t feature heavily on, nor the 2006 re-make, or even the musical. Wilbur is a character that starts off young and kind of naive, but learns and become greater than himself. It's like any journey story, the character grows and changes as the story progresses. I feel that the 1973 movie is a poor representation of his journey, as he spends more time whining until right at the end. Where it’s forced into the last 10 minutes.

Something else, Wilbur doesn’t not talk until he arrives at the Zuckerman Farm, which isn’t obvious in the novel as it is in the movie. The goose ‘teaches’ Wilbur to speak. It feels not only unrealistic, but forced. In the musical,Wilbur talks from the get go, as he does the 2006 movie, even though you don’t hear him until after he arrives at Zuckerman’s. There really isn’t a need for Wilbur to talk until then, and then I prefer it to be that he just starts talking normally, as if he always knew how to talk. He didn’t really have anyone outside of Fern to talk to, so it does make some degree of sense.

There are a couple of items that were omitted in the 1973 movie that are most crucial to the story. First, Wilbur’s attempt to escape the farm is not even mentioned. Wilbur makes a break for it and breaks out of his pen. Yet, when presented with freedom, he chooses the farm and food over the freedom of life outside the farm.  It’s a critical moment in the book, and it’s not even acknowledged in the animated movie.   There is also the scene in the barn with the rope swing, prior to the rotten egg stink bomb. It not the most important of scene, but there is something about seeing Fern swinging on the rope just prior to Avery trying to get Charlotte for his collection. It really a short scene, but it gives you a feel of youth on the farm and lazy summer days playing. Also, there is the exclusion of the Gander. You never see the Gander in the animated movie.  

The 2006 re-make includes all of these and it enriches the story for the better. I feel that each of these items weakens the story when not included. There are a number a points that strengthens characters that without these points lessens the story as a whole.

The 2006 movie is not without its flaws either. They made Fern a bit too aggressive in saving Wilbur’s life. She all but takes Wilbur from her father, when originally he acquiesces and give Wilbur to her to teach her a lesson about farm life. It’s not so much that I can’t believe someone wouldn’t do that, but Fern is supposed to be eight years old and naturally it feel weird to have her act so mature. Maybe it's a Dakota fanning thing? There is also a whole scene where Fern takes Wilbur to school and keeps him in her desk. It feels like fluff. It contributes nothing except a bit of cheap humour. And with the addition of a couple of crows that torment Templeton throughout the move, it doesn’t add to the story. Overall, these are not enough to hate the movie, but acts as distractions. So the 2006 movie stands pretty strong on its own, regardless of these details.

What was good in each of these versions? Well, the dialogue in much of the story is word for word from Novel to Movie. Granted the movies have much more dialogue-as a movie hedged more on dialogue than a novel. But many of my favourite lines are in each, if not every version, "I only distribute pigs to early risers. Fern was trying to rid the world of injustice," or "You lack a sets of Spinnerets and you lack know how."  The story in itself is timeless, even if you were born far removed from the time that the story is set in, you can still relate to the characters. That is probably the biggest reason why I still go back to the story of Charlotte’s Web.

I feel compelled to note that after this review, I may have a harder time watching the 1973 movie, because it is the lesser story. Heck, even the musical’s story is much stronger character development. It feels as though the story doesn’t need music to be told, which makes the novel and the 2006 movie the clear winners here. But, I am not excluding the musical here, after all, the way it’s told and the songs are truer and stronger to the character’s personalities.

Time to rate: 1973 Animated Hanna Barbera Movie - 7 out of 10 it's more fluff than anything; 2006 Live Action Movie - 8.5 out of 10, truer to the story, greater character development; 1952 Novel - 9.5 out of 10, the first and will always have a special pace in my heart, ; and Musical - 9.5 out of 10, my first time directorial debut and I had the best cast ever.

I had a blast traveling down memory lane with these stories, some of which are deep rooted in my history. I hope you have enjoyed traveling the yellow brick roads and the roads to the Zuckerman’s Farm. I am always looking for Book to Movie Adaptations for future review, but after this month I plan to make October my Adaptation Month. You can leave me a comment in the box below with a suggestion and maybe some love.

Photos from Lake Country Players, and Google Search

The Wizard of Oz: Book vs. Movie

 I don’t think that I can adequately put into word my love for Oz and all things Oz related, but I am going to try.

I grew up watching the movie, singing the songs, and wishing I could go and visit the land of Oz (thought I was gonna say "Over the Rainbow", right?). Truthfully, I never read the novel until I was in high school. For the most part I hardly paid attention to L. Frank Baum and his work's. I enjoyed the sequel that was made in 1985, starring the little misfit herself, Fairuza Balk. Again, I seem relatively unaware that any other Oz stories existed, until sometime while I living in Dallas. I found the original 14 books (over a course of time at Half Priced Books, a dangerous placed for any Bibliophile). I bought them.I read them.

Then everything changed.

I re-read “The Wizard of Oz” and that was when I fell in love. Each book that I read made me more in love with Oz and Baum’s work. It was magical. A serious love affair began.

I grew up on the movie and can hardly find a way to hate the movie and its attempts to bring to life a world created by a dreamer. That is what L. Frank Baum is, a dreamer, but a wonderful dreamer. An actor, writer, storyteller. This man made world come to life for countless children both during his life and after. There is a delightful bio-pic about Baum that is included on the 70^th anniversary “The Wizard of Oz” DVD, featuring John Ritter as the father of Oz. To anyone that loves Oz, you should check it out. It's called "The Dreamer of Oz".

There are a number of differences between the novel and the movie that I would like to point out. The major one being the witch’s shoes. This is probably the biggest and most obvious to anyone who read the book at all. In fact the cover of the Del-Rey version even has Dorothy wearing the silver slippers. Also, anyone who has watched the movie is all too familiar with the now uber famous ruby slippers. But the Baum originally had the Wicked Witch of the East wear a set of silver, not red slippers. It a slight change and honestly not one that ultimately makes a difference to the story. I think that when they made the movie, Technicolour was such a new thing that some one wanted the shoes to make an impression. 

Impression made!

The second major difference between the novel and the movie is that book acknowledges that Dorothy really was in Oz and that time had passed since she disappeared into Oz during the cyclone and her return to Kansas. While the movie makes the whole journey a figment of Dorothy’s imagination brought on by a bump on the head. It seems rather silly to just make the whole adventure just a dream when the original intent was to make Oz a true place. I understand the movie, but something inside me gets that warm happy feeling when you know that the Wizard, Scarecrow, Tin Woodsman, and Cowardly Lion are real, and not just a version’s of the farmhands that work of the Gale farm or a traveling fortune teller. It leaves me feeling a bit odd about the movie, almost a disconnection from the story. 

But, moving on...

Other changes from book to movie range from Glinda-who was originally the Good Witch of the South-into the Witch of the North. Or omitting that each country in the Lad of Oz has a specific colour attributed to them, heck it’s barely hinted that there are separate countries in Oz at all. Note: there are four countries that surround the capital city of Oz: Munchkins (Blue, East), Quadlings (Red, South), Winkies (Yellow, West), and Gillikin (Purple, North). Much of the other Oz books feature characters and adventures that occur in these other lands, some of which do include Dorothy.

And what a set of stories indeed, there is even a fair amount continuity through all fourteen novels, except for a kitten that changes colour from one book to the next. That the  only major break in continuity that I can readily recall.

Yet, I can hardly turn my back on a classic movie. I don’t feel that movie movie is a terrible representation of"The Wizard of Oz." Or, the musical adaptation. There's The Muppets movie version too. and the countless animated versions.  Each version bring something of the original, while creating a new spin on the original story.Some are entertaining, while some are quite absurd.

Baum's work. There are a number of variations of the Oz story and each brings a feeling a youth and wonderment. There is a TERRIBLE silent vaudevillian movie from 1924. There are other movie made in and around the 1910's and 1920's, this was the first one I happened to watch. If you are curious, I can watch it here: "The Wizard of Oz."

I find myself siding with both versions for equally good reasons and neither fails at its job of telling a story to the enjoyment of all. Whereas, before I would find the changes unnecessary, annoying, and maybe aimed to a certain demographic. I feel less so about Oz the novel versus Oz the movie. There is much more detail to the novel, and there were parts that were cut out, but not to the detriment of the story.

Oh, I find the logistical changes to be annoying and unnecessary, as a completist, but there’s still a story there. A good story. So, what if Glinda lives in the North, instead of the South. Is the shoe colour really that important to its power? There are other questions that arise such as where is the Queen of the Field Mice? Yes, there is a whole chapter about the field mice pulling a cart with a sleeping Cowardly Lion out of the Poppy Field. That’s the good part, but bad part includes the chopping off of a Wildcat’s head at the chapters beginning. That is probably why it didn’t make it to the movie. Or, how Dorothy and company must wear the green glasses so they are not blinded by the brightness of the Emerald City. I wonder why some things were left out (I am sure the Wildcat losing its head is an obvious choice for the cutting room floor as to why it was not put into the movie).

The Muppet’s Wizard of Oz in fact used some of the original details, having Glinda reside in the South, wearing a more staple witch outfit (as the book explains), and having the munchkins wear blue (because it's the colour of Munchkin Land. I do recommend watching it. It’s an interesting and cute adaptation.

How do I rate this, well, the movie will probably always get an 8 out of 10 in my eyes. My reasoning is simple, as good as the story is ultimately is in visual form, I cannot get past the changes made to the ending, or Glinda's re-location. I could probably forgive their moving Glinda's location or the change in shoe colour, but I it doesn't feel right. When they were small enough changes that changing them wouldn't hurt keeping them in as is. Judy Garland was a fabulous Dorothy and I absolutely love the farmhand trio, their singing, dancing, and acting skills truly made the movie a classic. The songs still hold up after all this time, and even after stage crewing the stage production back in 2007 (with the raising and the lowering of the damned bubble and countless set pieces), I still love Glinda and the Bubble. Awesome means of travel!

As for the novel, it might not be Shakespeare, but there is something truly endearing in Baum’s writing. Simple and effective. Not grand, or eloquent, but to the point. I like that in a writer. Flowery language is great, but not if you lose something in the telling. I story has to make sense, to flow. Baum succeeds in every way imaginable. And for someone who was a born dreamer, writer, actor, Oz couldn’t have happened to a better person. 

For a book first printed in 1900, I think it has stood the test of time, one of the few books that has and continues to be a classic. For a man who started with a pressing print and his own newspaper as a child, to becoming a traveling salesman, store owner, then a writer and actor; Baum certain made his mark on the world.

Further reading on Baum: "The Real Wizard of Oz: the Life and Times of L. Frank Baum" by Rebecca Loncraine.

Pictures from Google Search 

Next Week: Charlotte's Web

 

Bridge to Terabithia: Book vs. Movie

I wanted to hate this movie. I was really ready to note every flaw, every incorrect detail that the screenwriter wrote (son of the actually author), but I couldn’t. Seriously, I couldn’t. I cannot hate this movie. And honestly, I wouldn’t want to.

It’s a good enough adaptation to strand with or without the novel. The greatest crime is that it is way more Disneified than the novel.

Honestly, what did I expect from a Disney movie? Probably what I hate most about Disney and their movies. The saccharine sweet story plot? The not really defined characters? Or maybe, the addition of additional material unrelated? It’s true that all three thoughts ran through my head. Truth time, I couldn’t see anything but a relatively good kid’s movie, with a pretty awesome story and even good lesson attached to it.

Oh, there are things that I really hate, such as the attempt to pull the story into the 2000’s, when the original story is set in the 1970’s. I find that many film adaptations have forced modernization of the story, Terabithia is not a stranger to this. The biggest case of this is when the teacher tells the class that the use of electronic devises will not be tolerated. It could have been dropped and none would have noticed.

But as a whole, the movie is really very similar to the book. There are the standard items that got altered and things were added. Something that occurred to me during the writing of this blog is that a novel (in the general sense) does well with,  more often descriptions and scene setting; where movies tend to rely on action to move the plot, although dialogue is equally as important.

After re-reading the novel, I discovered that much of the story that was changed for the movie was changed

because it wouldn’t work in the style of a motion picture. The opening scene of Jess waking up to run in the morning in the book as a lot of subtext and internal monologue that doesn’t always lend well to a movie, while in the movie it’s more of a non-dialogue montage of Jess’s morning ritual. Both versions are valid, I may prefer the novel, but at least with this movie I can understand the motive behind the scene.

What I love about the book is the raw gritty feeling of the characters. They feel like real people, and as the author based the lead characters on her son and his friend, you can imagine Jess and Leslie as real people, even the bullies in Lark Creek are real Janice Avery and Gary Fulcher. It’s that realism that draws me into the world of Lark Creek and Terabithia. it makes me feel like I am actually there.

Terabithia in the movie is needs to be obvious, as it is through their imaginations are what fuel their reactions to their own worlds. It’s basically their defense mechanism to how they deal with their world filled with Janice Averys, Gary Fulchers, and Mrs. Myers. How often have we as children had an imaginary friend and make believe land that allowed us to be free, to sort through our problems? I know I did. Stylistically, Terabithia mirrored Lark Creek in the same way. That made me closer to the characters, in a greater way than the book had. Not a bad representation.

Not to say that Disney and David Paterson got it all right. There was the change in the dynamic between Leslie and her parents. She much more connected to Judy and Bill (as she calls them) in the book (and it’s Bill who is fixing up the house with the help of Leslie), where the movie forces the family to suddenly be close during the Golden Room painting. It feels much too Disney and a bit distracting. It’s like putting that scene into the Disney machine and cranking the crank and out pops a saccharine scene of familial bonding.

Or making the father work at the hardware store, instead of driving all the way to Washington for work. It feels less right. Maybe I am too accustomed to the original story, but when we see the struggle of his father leaving early everyday and returning late at night, it packs more of a punch that they are struggling.

I do love that the Twinkie scene with May Belle (Jess’s little 6 year old sister) and is mostly word for word, action for action. That makes me happy. It a crucial scene, when Janice Avery is about to get her comeuppance. Or when Leslie asks to go to church and May Belle says, “Don’t God damn you to hell if you don’t believe in the Bible?” The actress playing May Belle says it with such conviction; it gives me a warm feeling of damnation. It plays nearly the same it either version and it’s just a really touching moment in both versions.

Even with the death of Leslie (crying as I typed this), you can tell that both the book and the movie were a labour of love, handled with care, and treated with the right amount of respect that a Queen of Terabithia should be treated with. It is truly an awesome scene to read and watch, both are poignant in their own ways. The book simply because the words just feel right, and the movie, because not everyone can treat death in a movie with that kind of respect.

And, honestly, the acting is really pretty good too I can believe, even if they age some of the character a bit more. Robert Patrick (T-1000 from T-2: Judgment Day) play a great father and AnnaSophia Robb really makes Leslie stand out, although her Leslie at times feels a little more obsessed with Terabithia than the book Leslie. Zooey DeChanel is the perfect fit for Miss Edmunds, the hippie music teacher and it utilizes her guitar and singing skills perfectly.

But over all a very pleasant adaptation.

Which would I honestly prefer? I am not sure I can pin it down, as both are equally good. I will always like the novel just a tad bit more (it’s the literary geek in me). I recommend anyone to read it, it is a beautiful read. For the movie, I’ll give it a 8 out of 10.

Up next: "The Wizard of Oz"

A Wrinkle in Time: Book vs. Movie

I wanted to like this movie. I really did. After all, “A Wrinkle in Time” is one of favourite young adult fiction/science fiction-fantasy novels ever. I first read it in 8^th (or 7th) grade in English. It was one of those books that gave me a warm feeling of happy when I read it, even years later it still holds up.

The movie, not so much! It’s not for lack of trying either. I tried to be forgiving. I tried to see it from all angles. I even tried to see the movie as a story for folks who may not have read the book before (a harder task indeed). But, the movie did so much wrong, even when they got things right. It doesn’t help when the CGI and green screening is pretty terrible.

I could go on and on about Madeleine L’Engle’s books, but I will say this, the woman knew how to tell a story (several in fact). A writer of Christian faith, as was C.S. Lewis, she found a way to use her beliefs and yet not ostracize readers of different faiths. I hardly knew that back in 8^th grade. After reading the Time Quintet (as they are called) year later I see how she connected faith, art, fantasy, epic battles of good and evil all together into an amazing set of stories. If you get a chance to read any of the Time Quintet series, I highly recommended them: “A Wrinkle in Time”, “A Wind in the Door”, “A Swiftly Tilting Planet”, “Many Waters”, and “An Acceptable Time”. The best part is how she connects all of her books through her characters, even after the Time Quintet is over.

I think the appeal of L’Engle books are because her characters are real. People can relate, sympathize, and even empathize with Meg, or Calvin, or even Charles Wallace. I know was quite the awkward kid growing up being tall, or feeling very inadequate around my classmates, maybe coming from a poorer family, or only child, and also being terribly shy.

Okay, back to the review! Like I said, I wanted to like this movie. I had see it sometime earlier (alas, I cannot remember when) back when I hadn’t read the book in a while. I remember not hating it then, but totally liking it either. It was a Disney movie after all (not even accurate statement, as Disney just distributed the movie). It was made in Canada by a Canadian production company in 2003. After re-watching it, it feels much like a Disney movie. See, there is a formula to many of the Disney movies that are made now-a-days and often this formula is used by others to get the “Disney Effect” for a movie.

"Take a object or person; put them in the Disney machine,

turn the Crankendy Crank, and out pops a Disnefied object or person." (my own words)

This is what happened with this version “A Wrinkle in Time”, it has become a Disnefied version of the original story.

What is it that makes this movie so terrible?

Is it the plot? Oh, yes, there is a plot! But, no, it’s not the plot.

What I find bothersome about “Wrinkle” the movie, is a number of things; things that any storyteller or avid reader would agree with me on. There is weak character development. It truly bothers me when characters are not given a personality and there is no development. It’s even worst when I am watching an adaptation and I know there is a character there, but the movie doesn’t convey it. The biggest example of this crime is poor Calvin O’Keefe; he just sort of rides into the scene and sticks around throughout the story. You do not feel vested in him as a person, and the ONE time they try to give him back story, it’s pushed off as barely important, when in fact it is. It’s really kind of sloppy writing if you think about it. Calvin is the popular kid at school. Smart and athletic, but he comes from a horrible family; one of several siblings and a mother that hardly care of his well being. The book shows how Calvin, despite his near perfect exterior, is just as fragile as Meg. The movie Calvin I hardly care for, yet the book Calvin, I can feel for, even empathize with. He is just a pretty face in the movie.

It’s not just Calvin, but Mrs. Who, Mrs. Which, and Aunt Beast are not fully developed, in some cases they are barely touched upon. Aunt Beast is hardly mentioned, and her name only brought up by Calvin in conversation. You get a whole scene within the novel with Meg and Aunt Beast because Meg was frozen by the Black Thing (IT); in fact Meg even gives Aunt Beast her name. Even more irritating is Ixchel, the planet where Aunt Beast lives is barely explained and even falsely represented. That is actually a greater crime than poor character development, when a movie falsely represents something. Ixchel is a planet within the same solar system as Camazotz (where Meg’s father is a prisoner) that they escaped to from Camazotz. This is not mentioned at all, there is no conversation between Meg and Aunt Beast about the Black Thing and the battle that Ixchel fights everyday, and the failure of Camazotz in the said battle. Even the representation of Ixchel in the movie is wrong; it’s a world of grays and brown, but beautiful scents and birdsong, not a frozen icy world. It may look pretty and flashy, but it’s wrong. I know, those who haven’t read the book, wouldn’t know, but it feel terribly wrong when you don’t at least have the moment between Meg and Aunt Beast.

You are introduced to Mrs. Who and Mrs. Which much later on the planet Uriel, while in the book each of the ladies are already on earth. Mrs. Who even interacts with the world by stealing bed sheet, while the movie just has them showing up on Uriel. Mrs. Which is not even represented properly. She is the oldest of the three and barely keeps corporeal form, but she is also the wisest of the three. Yet the movie makes her the prettiest and she actually insults Meg outright. I cannot understand why this change occurs outside of the reason that maybe the actress prefer to portray Mrs. Which in that way. The ladies are supposed to me non-corporeal energy beings, like angels. It makes the whole interplay between Meg and the ladies different, not as strong.

Something else that really bothers me about “Wrinkle”, it feels too long. With a run time of 128 minutes in far surpasses the 90 minute children’s movie span. Bet you didn’t know that this version was originally made to be a 2 part mini-series, which I think is the reason for the extra long exposition and the longer running time. It still feels like they were trying to cram extra character development and background information into the opening. Meg Murry is one of the few character that is developed, but much of her development is geared toward awkward emo teens. While Meg is clearly the awkward protagonist, they tried far too hard to make her a mopey emo teenager. Meg’s problems are very real, and part of the story, it just feels that the screenwriters tried too hard to show Meg as the struggling awkward genius and it just comes off and lazy and moody.

Also, the ancillary characters in “Wrinkle” are supposed to be far harsher than the movie portrays, whereas the movie sugar coats much of the real tension between Meg and her teachers, class mates, and family. These are things that define Meg as a character and when you make the character and her world less than what was originally written, you give less value to the story as a whole. Meg is a troubled character. She NEEDS to grow, find her faults, deal with her feelings, and become the person she is supposed to be, but she is also a character with emotion and that emotion is just as important and shouldn’t be skimped on.

I love the story of “Wrinkle” because it feels real. The characters feel real. You see and feel what Meg is feeling, you know how she distrusts Calvin at first and then starts open up to him without a forced attempted at a relationship. Never mind that in future books Calvin and Meg do get together. The forced relationship just makes Meg and Calvin’s relationship in the movie less valid. You need to see where they are and where they go, because hands down it’s a journey story.

What draws me to “Wrinkle” is the truth deeply embedded in the story. It’s a story of everyone’s journey to find themselves. And anything I have ever enjoyed has been on a journey, from seeing new places to discovering new things about the world and myself.

Alfre Woodard is on the left

As movie, “Wrinkle” falls so very flat; not just in the delivery, but in the purpose. While the acting is not terrible, it not stellar, there was so much that could have been done. I give Alfre Woodard, who played Mrs. Whatsit, she did a good job with the role. It was one of the better representation, she made Mrs. Whatsit real. The others were not given enough to work with, and what’s worst what they were given was incomplete or wrong. As an adaptation, it doesn’t work. Too much was changed and reworked to it's detriment. As a movie, it’s just barely watchable; even if you never read the book, I think you would. It has far too much exposition and tells you far too much, while not showing enough. It may be okay for a kid’s movie, but only if you don’t care to think too deeply.

Time to rate this puppy; I give it a 4 out of 10. Why? It was relatively true to the books, in some facets. There was some character development, but not enough for me to care about the characters. It would probably do well if someone riffed it, otherwise I will stick with the book.

Next week, I tackle “Bridge to Terabithia”.

Eragon: Book versus Movie

*Updated as of 3/10/2018*

Eragon: Book versus the Movie

I sat down and watched the movie Eragon after having read the book. I did this while book was still fresh in my mind and I was ready to takes notes. I wanted to pay close attention to the little details that were either in both versions and what was changed and/or omitted. It is my first attempt to compare two mediums and right off the bat I was rudely awakened to how much of a difference there was.

It was quite the viewing, I must say. 

I was very angry by the end. There were a number of points left out of the movie (some with reason of course) and some blatantly incorrect information presented as fact. I will take you and a trip through my viewing and what I consider to be a thorough review of the movie and the book.

Before I begin, there will be spoilers! If you haven’t seen the movie or read the book proceed at own risk! You have been warned!

Emotional outrage aside, there are some things that I can accept in movie adaptations:

          1. There is a time limit! A movie is only so long and logically you can only put so much into said movie.
          2. Sometimes you have budget constraints. You can only film what and where you can afford to film at/where.
          3. There are director’s cut. Directors have a right to pick and choose what gets in the movie. They can also adapt the story to fit their needs, or budgetary demands are.

So, there are things that even if they are not what is presented in the movie that I could and would ultimately forgive for not being correct to the book. The things in the movie that royally anger me range from the omitting of crucial details or flat out presenting incorrect facts.  Eragon is guilty of these two items on numerous occasions.

To start off with the biggest peeve of this movie is that they blatantly disregard a character that is critical for the second book, “Eldest”. In the book there is Eragon, Roran-Eragon’s cousin, Sloan-the butcher, and Katrina his daughter who is in love with Roran. She is not included in any of the movie. First, if you don’t include Katrina, then how are you going to continue the movies series? When (for those who have read the book) she appears in “Eldest” (the book) as the reason Roran and Eragon leave the group to go and search for her. It is frustrating because she is to become a central character (for those who have read the books). But, something else, Katrina has interactions with Roran and Eragon. Without these interactions at the very beginning in Carvahall (Eragon’s home) I feel that something is lost. Of, course if you haven’t read the book then you would know this. I just happen to know of a bunch of fellow readers who agree with me on this.

Speaking of Roran, in the movie he tells Eragon he is leaving because he is of age to be recruited to Galbatorix’s Army, which he doesn’t want. While in the book Roran is being apprenticed out to Dempton, a Miller from Therinsford (a nearby town). This is because Roran wants to marry Katrina, but doesn’t have the money to do so. By becoming Dempton’s apprentice, Roran will be able to save up money with which is can then ask Sloan for Katrina’s hand in marriage. This causes Eragon a bit of stress knowing that Roran is leaving (in both versions). Not only that, but now Eragon has Sapphira, his dragon, that creates a whole new tension; and this part of the book is non-existent in the movie and is confusing to me. You feel for Eragon, in the book, but in the movie the whole scene feels rushed. Eragon’s and Roran’s relationship is barely developed in the movie.  Even Sloan has only ONE short scene with Eragon in the movie (plus one very short scene with the Ra’zac).

Speaking of characters that are misplaced in this movie, there are at least three scenes throughout the movie that feature Galbatorix directly, while in the book he is only referenced and never actually shown. This feels like a distraction in the movie, because the story is supposed to be focused on Eragon and HIS journey. But you have this King who is not critical to the actual story plot (he is just a referenced plot point) who has his own scenes and it kind of becomes distracting. You don’t need to have Galbatorix when you have the Ra’zac, Durza (the shade), the Varden, Brom, and Murtaugh, all of whom actually interact with Eragon. He learns more about all of these characters as he goes on his journey, hence the concept of a JOURNEY. You don’t need to bring in Galbatorix, unless you just promised John Malkovich a role, when clearly he isn’t even interacting with Eragon directly.  In fact, here’s another point, Galbatorix in the book doesn’t learn of Eragon’s existence until about halfway through the book. By then, he has sent his army of Urgals to track and catch Eragon and Sapphira. I feel that getting John Malkovich to play Galbatorix was just reason to get more butts in the movie theatre seats. His scenes do not even add anything to the story, more of an exposition dump.

Okay, let’s focus on the plot now. The purpose of Eragon leaving Carvahall is because his uncle (Garrow) had been killed by the Ra’zac. In the book has Eragon is angry at the Ra’zac, he wants to kill them for Garrow’s death and the destruction of his home. He also has a dragon and guilty about what Roran will think. The presentation is wrong in the movie has Eragon is afraid of the Ra’zac and is now fleeing for his life. This irritates me when movie makers change a character’s motives. I like how Eragon is angry at Sloan, at Roran, and even Garrow (to an extent), but when he realizes that what the Ra’zac are and that they have done, he wants revenge on them. The movie changes the dynamic of the story. I feel that you lose something when the story is changed like that. Also, Eragon’s character is a boy on the cusp of manhood, faced with a cruel and changing world. He has to react and adapt, grow up, and deal with these changes. The book shows his changing and growing emotions, whereas the movie just glosses over many of these points. Eragon in the movie is already the character he is by the end of the book.

Speaking about weakened character development, let’s talk about Brom. He is an awesome father figure to Eragon, and is an enigma at the beginning, but is grows and develops throughout the story (in the book anyway). While in the movie he gets the short end of the stick. In the movie, his role in Carvahall is not even explained. So, when it’s revealed that he was a Dragonrider with the Varden and his dragon was killed in battle, and he went into hiding/was shamed by fleeing to Carvahall. This isn’t even correct! In the book he came to Carvahall to act as a watch for the Varden. Also, what setting they show of life in Carvahall doesn’t mention much of Brom let alone anyone else in Carvahall. Did you know that Brom was masquerading as a storyteller? You couldn’t tell in the movie. You don’t get his motive explained. The storyteller point is a set up for Eragon to get more information from Brom on dragons. The movie uses the opening narration to give us most of this information. This feels like cheating, because Brom is supposed to be a teacher and a father figure to Eragon. You don’t get invested in Brom in the movie because of this. You don’t even get Brom teaching Eragon much of anything, except a bit of ‘sword fighting’ with sticks and a magic vocabulary.

Now for Arya. Forced character development is something that this movie used easily to get you vested into Arya’s character. She is the lady who originally rescued Sapphira’s egg from Galbatorix. In the book you see her at the beginning fleeing from some of Galbatorix’s men (as with the book). The difference is that in the book she is captured and tortured. She only interacts with Eragon through telepathy, yet in the movie she is awake and an active member of Eragon’s journey (still captured and needs to be rescued in both versions) instead of another character in the story, Murtaugh who is Eragon’s traveling companion in the book. Arya is a FRI (forced romantic interest), similar to Arwen in the Lord of the Rings movies (even though Arwen was already a love interest, so to speak).

       Movie: Eragon has a dream with Arya and Eragon talking together in a forest.
       Book: Eragon has a dream of a woman who is imprisoned and being tortured.

This is very trite and overused in many modern movies. Also, Arya is an elf, but you wouldn’t know that from the movie, would you? She has no pointed ears, nor are her ‘people’ referred to as elves anytime in the movie. She claims to be from Ellesmere, but you know nothing of the people of Ellesmere or of her people.

Another point, there are also no dwarves in the movie. There is ONE line from one of Galbatorix’s scenes that mention elves and dwarves. Only one!!

The whole movie feels forced and lacking in character development for most of the characters that are in the story. Also, there are characters not mentioned such as Katrina (explained earlier), Orik (Hrothgar’s nephew), Hrothgar (the Dwarf King), and the Twins (mysterious magic users); while Sloan (the butcher), Horst (the blacksmith), Angela (the fortune-teller), and Murtaugh (outcast) are barely touched upon in the movie. There are those who are like Eragon, Brom, Sapphira, and Durza who are not fully developed and that loses something for me while watching the movie. You don’t feel connected to the characters.

There are facts that are incorrect, or stretched, such as when Eragon meets Angela in Daret (which is by what looks like a  lake) in the movie. While in the book originally Angela resides in Teirm (which is by the sea) with the were-cat Solembum (also not mentioned in the movie). These are things that, in my opinion are crucial to the story. I found that their lack of inclusion or distortion of the facts made the story weaker as a whole.

I must also note that when I first watched Eragon in the theatres back in 2006 I enjoyed the movie immensely, as I am fan of fantasy movies and books. When I read the book, much later, I was surprised by the differences, but hardly as upset as I am now having really compared the two in greater detail. The part of the absent Katrina in the movie still frustrates me (after I had read “Eldest” and realized what had been done). Still I thought that I could live with both, after all I have seen some poorer movie adaptations or sequels made, but still found them enjoyable to watch as a stand alone movie. It’s hard to watch Eragon now, knowing how vastly different the book and movie are from each other.

To those who like the movie. Go ahead and like it! I did (for a while anyway). It’s a decent movie if you have no connection to the book. It’s still not a good movie. In my mind,  the characters don’t feel fully development and there are many forced plot points that are too trite for my taste, and that leaves a bad taste in my mouth personally. I will stick with the book on this one. If I must watch the movie, I will watch the Rifftrax version nowadays, because that IS funny and really entertaining to watch.