Dune (2021) Review

REVIEW

I saw the movie the night of October 21st. It was the most opportune time. It turned out to be a unique experience: the first time in my life I've seen a movie before its official release date. The theater was full and the audience attentive--and the movie is nearly 3 hours long!--but then I suppose fans are already committed. A good reason to go when I did! 

Below is my list of what I hoped to see alongside commentary: 

*Spoilers*

 

1. The movie focuses on Paul immediately in the opening scenes and doesn't get bogged down by its own mysticism/mythology.

 

The movie doesn't begin with Paul. It begins on Arrakis, Chani narrating. My initial reaction was disappointment--except that in a very brief sequence, the narrator lays out the Atreides versus Harkonnen struggle. Bang! External conflict instantly established!

The movie never loses this focus. The emperor's minions are brought into the story but never the emperor. I was highly impressed.  

After the brief opening, the movie immediately moves to Caladan. It is exactly how I always imagined it--if a tad more Scottish (seriously, there are bagpipes). Settings and dream sequences emphasize Caladan's abundance of water versus the lack of water on Arrakis. Finally! Someone gets the point!

2. The movie gives Jessica due credit as a fully rounded character. She is neither diminished nor dropped on a pedestal.  

Played by Rebecca Ferguson, Jessica is an impassioned powerhouse. She is not as complexly presented as in the book, but I can allow for the difference. As mentioned elsewhere, movies are by the dictates of their medium tethered to the images they choose to present. The 1984 movie tried to do too much. The Dune miniseries tried to narrow its focus at odd moments, giving the series a haphazard feel. 

Dune (2021) keeps the focus on Paul, where it should be kept. I agree with this choice.

3. Paul as potential prophet is established early on. He is portrayed as neither a yuppie nor a war leader. 

Paul is our perspective into the story. Paul being played by Timothee Chalamet makes a difference. 

He is, for one, how I imagine Paul. If he reached adulthood on Caladan, he would become a friendly, relaxed, thoughtful, charismatic, yet somewhat removed and enigmatic leader. Send him to Arrakis: he becomes something else. But the elements are there already. 

Early on in the movie, Paul endures the test of the Gom Jabbar. Thankfully (since I always thought it was kind of tacky), we don't see his hand burning. All we see is his face as he reacts to the test. Chalamet may not yet have Freeman's extraordinary range of subtle facial movements; he is rapidly getting there. 

4. The Harkonnens are intelligent rivals, neither too awful (if memorable) nor too "everybody has a dark side!" token symbols. 

I still don't get how the Harkonnens could be in charge of anything. One thing these movies fail to realize is that evil men like Stalin had supporters--among intellectuals and among leaders drawn to a supposed adherence to their own philosophical wishes. 

The Britishers in Star Wars are at least amusingly dry.

Bad guys in drab cities sitting around bare metal rooms without furniture and then sinking into sludgy, oily baths are kind of...blah.

Frank Herbert gives the Harkonnens an Ancient Roman Caligula vibe, which is at least somewhat explanatory (bread & circuses). The movie doesn't.

The Baron is darkly intelligent. But still, I would think he would have multiple uprisings and riots on his own planet to worry about--not much time to deal with Arrakis. Oh, look, his people would say, it's a bad guy! He hangs around rooms with no chairs!

In justice, the movie isn't about the Harkonnens but about Paul. I have to commend that decision again. 

6. The movie is intelligently paced--the last two-thirds of the story has a decent flow.

I likely would have realized the following if I had watched previews and read up on the movie beforehand. I didn't. 

The movie is Book 1. 

About 1-1/2 hours (I presume) into the movie, I thought, "What is with these Dune scriptwriters? They aren't leaving enough time for the last 2/3rds. It's going to be a mishmash (again)."

Then, about two minutes later, I thought, "You dummy, Kate. It's Book 1."

I was impressed.

It's still a problem.  

6. Complicated Dune politics are explored, or at least referenced, through characters like Liet-Keynes. Other characters are combined.

Liet is massively underused. The exigencies of the script may have left the writers no choice.

I mention above: only the emperor's minions show up. The emperor doesn't make an appearance in Dune (2021). Nor does Princess Irulan. They don't need to! The political problem plays out intelligently without throwing every character in the book at the screen. I was extremely impressed. 

7. The movie isn't preachy. Not sure how it can be but everything seems to be these days. So--the Fremen are complex, not irritatingly self-righteous as The Victims. 

The movie isn't preachy. In fact, it adheres closely to the book's notable action sequences. These sequences carry the political/religious context. 

 

The problem is that unlike LOTR--which was, granted, split into 3 books by its publisher, not its author--Book 1 of Dune doesn't have a natural conclusion/wrap-up. By focusing on Paul (let me say again: awesome script choice!), the movie was able to end not on an upbeat note (the book doesn't have many of those) but on Paul's acceptance of his fate on Arrakis--or at least, on as much of that fate as he can foresee. 

 

Still, it's not exactly the same ending as Frodo parting from the Fellowship or the rescue of Helm's Deep or, even, Bilbo et al. escaping the Misty Mountains. I'm not saying Dune (2021) fails. I'm saying...

 

See below.

I don't think anyone in the audience was disappointed. I did hear one young man say to his friend, "The 'original' [his word] was half the time and covered the whole story." To which, someone in his group mentioned something about Book 1. I muttered it to myself. 

He wasn't complaining, however! His voice was one of wonderment. As my theater companion said, "I guess...2022." (The sequel, which will cover Books II and III, might not come out until 2023.) Various audience members paused outside the theater to  exchange thoughts. I don't know if they all approved of the movie, but nobody was saying, "Wow, what a waste of my entire Thursday night!" 

It is nice to go to an opening night with people who already care.

IN SUM

I was completely engaged by Dune (2021). The movie is well-worth seeing on a big screen. The focus on Paul (and through him) is one of the smartest script choices for a book-to-movie I've experienced. 

It is a problematic book to bring to screen. 

Here's why: 

There is a strong shift in tone at Leto's death. As soon as Paul and Jessica escape into the desert, the story veers in a new direction.

In the book, to a huge extent, the reader is prepared for the shift by the opening chapter blurbs, delivered (mostly) in the voice of Princess Irulan. The fatalistic essence of Paul's life's course is established. 

In the 1984 version, this tone is established early on, which I commend. It is not the scriptwriters' fault that Kyle MacLachlan is the least fatalistic-looking person in the universe. 

Not exactly Keir Dullea.

The miniseries didn't attempt to establish the fatalistic tone. The writers relied on the break in episodes, which was smart and the best approach overall. 

The 2021 movie establishes Paul's unique personality and fate, but the new tone after Leto's death is glaring. The movie should have ended with the escape from the palace, possibly with the descent into the storm. 

But it then would have become the most depressing mystical sci-fi movie since Hal started killing people off out there on a lonely space station. 

COVID could be to blame here. The sequel is still in pre-production. If the movie had come out as originally scheduled, the sequel may have been more of a certainty. The studio could have afforded a cliffhanger. 

As it is, the film editors gave the movie a resolution of sorts. 

(I have to wonder, how many fans based on previews, not fans of the book or prior movies, are rushing home this weekend to check out the book/prior movies?)

It is an odd circumstance since in a way the editors/studio had to opt for some kind of resolution as opposed to an aesthetically coherent film. I don't fault them for the choice--but--

It is a difficult book to render on film. 

Hmmm, how soon will a director's cut come out?

PRIOR REVIEWS:

Dune (1984)

Miniseries, Part 1

Miniseries, Part II 

Miniseries, Part III

 

Taming of the Shrew Retellings

Shakespeare's Play: Taming of the Shrew, 1590/1591 (near the beginning of Shakespeare's career)

Definitive versions: Taming of the Shrew (1967) with Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton, Taming of the Shrew (1980) from The Complete Dramatic Works of William Shakespeare, starring John Cleese (The Complete Works did all the plays, so, hey, it's definitive).

Retellings: 10 Things I Hate About You and Taming of the Shrew from Shakespeare Retold

MIKE SAYS of all the the Shakespearean retellings I've seen, 10 Things is by far my favorite, mostly due to the fact that if a person were completely ignorant of Shakespeare, that person would have no idea that it was an adaptation.

Every time I watch the film, however, I'm always surprised by the crude humor in the first half of the film; it's so overpowered by the later half that I forget all about it. The film is superbly written and acted, smart and funny throughout, and far closer to the original play than it has any right to be.

The core of the movie is really Gordan-Levitt and Heath, who bring star power to the film years before either would hit it big.  Stile's Kat is fun and well done, but it's far more fun to see the other actors react to her grumpiness. It's also obvious that the actors are having a blast on the set, and the fun permeates the movie.  It's also apparent that the writers really love The Bard, and this love is evident throughout the film.

The understated humor in the film is what I enjoy most: I still laugh every time I see the gym teacher stumbling in the background after being shot by Bianca's arrow.

The Shakespeare Retold version is far more odd and usually in more odd ways.  This version was unexpected in a lot of ways. I went into it not knowing how long it was, what tone it would take, or even who was in it.

Henderson's Katherine is downright terrifying and is completely convincing.  The rest of the cast is fun, and Sewell's Petruchio is just plain nuts.  It's a clever re-imagining, if a little dark and scary at times.  My wife walked in on the wedding night scene, and it took me a full ten minutes to convince her it wasn't a rape scene.

Probably the biggest difference between the two is the intent of the versions.  Retold is all about telling the story in a way that was new and current for a culture that knew the story inside out, while 10 Things is for a culture that wouldn't care about or even understand the original.  Both work and capture the fun of the story.

KATE SAYS the two retellings do a far better job capturing the humor and pure magic of this play than more artsy, literary productions.

For the play to work, Petruchio can be portrayed one of two ways: as an old-fashioned, domineering bully. Or a whack job.

Either way works. The Elizabeth Taylor/Richard Burton version is an excellent example of the former. Taylor and Burton are so full of piss & vinegar plus pure animalistic vigor, the movie just cannons from beginning to end.

But then in the 1980s and 1990s, directors got all feminist and self-aware, blah, blah, blah, and Petruchio became a total prick. To be fair, I should write that Petruchio became a progressive feminist out to tame the love of his life. This is how the Complete Works presented Petruchio (played ironically and self-deprecatingly by John Cleese).

The problem with making Petruchio all forward thinking is that he comes off as much worse as a "sensitive" guy than he does as a bully. Instead of being this big, weird, pushy guy who falls in love with a bigger-than-life, weird, pushy gal, he comes across as a condescending jerk who thinks it is his job to "enlighten" the ignorant woman and bring her into the 21st century for her own good. I've met this type of so-called male feminist, and he makes you want to vomit.

Sorry, just getting a bit too much it to the "Kate/Kat" persona.

Regarding the Shakespeare Retold version, it also helps that I love the actors. The movie includes two of my favorite comedians of all time: Shirley Henderson and Stephen Tompkinson. In addition, the movie showcases Rufus Sewell all grown up and hilarious, so now that's three comedians that I love (until Shakespeare Retold, I'd only seen Sewell in serious dramas from his 20's).

I never would have guessed Shirley Henderson for the role of Katherine, but she is perfect--not only in her hunched strutting walk and baby voice that can pierce ears but in her tininess. Half of the film's jokes come from the vast difference in height between her and Sewell, partly because Sewell's Petruchio still finds Henderson's Katherine completely intimidating (when he isn't finding her utterly alluring) and partly because, as Jack on Stargate would say, Henderson's Katherine is a "4-9 fighting machine." Henderson is just this adorable, rampaging ball of fire (I can call her that: at 5' she is slightly shorter than me).

10 Things I Hate About You also has a good cast although 10+ years later, I find Stiles the weakest of the group. But Heath as Patrick Verona is truly good (my favorite scene is his singing/dancing number where he gets to use his physical acting skills). Heath's Petruchio is not quite as crazy as Sewell's but close enough to really sell the part. Interestingly enough, the teen film is somewhat closer to the original play in which money plays a somewhat larger long-term role than in the Shakespeare Retold version. (However, I was glad that the Shakespeare Retold writers got rid of the money motive early on, concentrating instead on the supposed “taming.”)

The most remarkable thing about 10 Things I Hate About You, however, is the supporting cast. David Krumholtz, who I happen to adore in Numb3rs, does an great job as the funny friend though my absolute favorite fall-down laughing scene is the detention scene: no, NOT Stiles showing her boobs—the beginning of the scene where David Leisure accuses a student of having marijuana. It’s completely hilarious.

There’s tons of tiny moments like this from Larry Miller on the exercise bike to Daryl Mitchell's Mr. Morgan sending students to the guidance counselor.

And Joseph Gordon-Levitt, naturally, effortlessly pulls a straight-man act out of a hat. 

To return to my original point: these versions are much closer, I think, to what the play is supposed to be like than so-called "artistic" versions. The combination of sex jokes, pure slapstick, and surprising visual humor is actually much closer to Shakespeare’s brand of comedy than more refined literary-type jokes. Shakespeare was about as bawdy as a writer can get; the only reason he isn’t censored in high schools is because nobody understands the language!

But then, that's what retellings are for.

Little Women (1994)

When: 1994, Bale's 11th film

Age: 20

Genre/Director: Chick flick (to the nth degree); Gillian Armstrong, director; Louisa May Alcott, writer; Robin Swicord, screenwriter

Mike says while watching Little Women, I went through all the required steps for watching a chick flick: I laughed, I cried, and I hugged my pillow.  The problem is, I don't think I did any of them in the right order, and all of it was pain and suffering inspired.

The thing that surprised me about the film is how relentlessly happy and cheerful it is.  Sure, the girls fight; sure there's sickness and death and boy troubles, but it all ends in hugs and tears and laughter and sickly sweet cheerfulness that made me reflect (several times) on how awful a human being I was compared to these four wonderful ladies and women in general. Which I believe was the secret agenda behind this film the whole time!

Sure, women have to endure childbirth, but we men have to endure two things far more terrifying: pregnant women and CHICK FLICKS.

After writing the above, I was suddenly terrified I had crossed the line into rudeness, which prompted me to read it to my wife to check its appropriateness. As she just grinned, rolled her eyes, and went back to eating her cereal, I'm going to assume it's fine.  But women of the world, if you're insulted, I am sorry.  But . . . come on.  The movie didn't even have one fist fight!  And after having two kids, I feel qualified saying pregnant women are scary (admittedly, I didn't read THIS sentence to my wife).

Anyway, right, the movie.  It's definitely beautifully shot, and while I've never read the book, the movie is made with such care that it's obvious the filmmakers cared about the story. The cast is actually fairly impressive, and I'm somewhat surprised that only a couple serious British actors (including Bale) were in the film (though, it is an classic American novel, so really, top American actresses should be a no brainer).

The trouble with having no classically trained British actors, is that modern Americans can't really pull off  the classiness of the novel's era . . . it could be my own bias, but the acting was a consistent distraction for me.  Often it felt more like children playing "make believe" than professionals setting a dramatic scene.

Admittedly, this sounds overly harsh, and honestly, it might be.  As the film trucks solidly along, it does become more tolerable, and many of the actors seem to grow into their roles, especially Bale.  But none of the actors ever truly disappear into their roles for me.

The story, well,  it does its job as well as any such film can.  For a movie that could have easily  carried the subtitle of "GO Women, RA RA RA!" the film definitely uses a sledge hammer to drive the point home but surprisingly never resorts to the jack-hammer.  The film definitely flirts with the line between female equality and female superiority, but it never fully crosses it. The movie was made BY and FOR women, but it seems it was acknowledged that a few husbands might be conned into seeing the thing.

Bale does well.  His casting is again a kind of "well, DUH" choice, as he was very popular with the target audience (i.e., teenage girls), an established dramatic actor, and well, British.  It's funny how much weight that can really carry for an actor.  The only real difference here is how mellow the role of Laurie is for Bale.  He seems relaxed and enjoying himself, and for someone we've discovered is a VERY physical actor, the role isn't very demanding.

In the end, I am glad I saw it.  It's a story I've never really understood, and it clarifies a lot of my sister's odd behavior from when we were teens.

But that still doesn't mean I'm not THRILLED to have an action flick on the slate next week.


Kate says I confess I've seen my share of Steel Magnolia type flicks (though not Beaches). This is one!

It does stand out from other chick flicks, however, in the loving sincerity of its adaptation. Steel Magnolias, which is quite a good film, is designed to MAKE YOU LAUGH, then CRY, then LAUGH, then HUG.

Little Women is far gentler in its goals. Even Beth's death scene (and yes, that is spoiler, but really, everyone should know about Beth's death by now, even if it's just from watching Friends: "Joey, do you want to put the book in the freezer?") The director and screenplay writer are obvious fans of the book, something I appreciate in movies even when I'm not a huge fan of the book itself.

The movie's only major flaw is the lack of continuity between the amazing Kirsten Dunst as Amy and her grown-up counterpart; Samantha Mathis is a decent actress, but Kirsten Dunst really sells Amy as a fully complex little ball of fire. The tone of the two actresses is different enough to give the film an uneven feel. Mathis's Amy seems a watered down version of the original. (I've always been a fan of Dunst whose charisma is not entirely reliant on her looks; like Julie Andrews, she glows.)

The director avoids the break in continuity with Laurie by having Christian Bale be both 17 and 20-something. Although TV "teens" are far less weedy-looking than real teens, Bale has a youthful enough face to let us pretend he is 16/17 without guffawing. (I can't say the same for Tom Welling; every time I would watch Smallville, I'd think, "Give me a break. No one notices that this 24 year old is running around a high school!? I know he's Superman, but surely, someone from the school board would have kicked him out by now.")

Other than being a character who grows up in two hours, Bale doesn't do much else but show up and act well.

Because, let's fact it: the movie isn't about the guys (geez, what's the father even in the movie for?). Gabriel Bryne is slightly less incidental than Bale but not by much. The movie isn't really even about sisters--although they do have the perfect mother! It is about girlfriends: four girls of different personality types growing up together. Stick them in Florida in the 1980s--they're the Golden Girls!

This is mostly the movie, not the book. The screenwriter intelligently focused the movie on Jo's development from youth to adulthood. Although Jo is a major player in the book (and many people's favorite character), the other characters are somewhat more fleshed out in the book. But, again, I can't fault the screenwriter for her decisions. Reducing a large classic to an endurable (Mike can debate that last word if he wishes) 2 hours is fairly impressive. The 1994 movie is also far less saccharine than its black and white counterpart (believe it or not!), bringing it closer in line with the book. Alcott had a strong core of realism (though, like Jo, she wrote thrillers, which are actually quite fun to read).

I can't say I took away anything about Bale from this movie (while I wouldn't say he is "phoning in" his performance, I do agree with Mike that he just seems to be enjoying himself--this isn't really a "I'm going to stretch my abilities" kind of role for him). Mostly, I took away the difference--just in tone--between an adaptation that values the original work and one that doesn't. Give me book-lovers any day over directors and writers who just purchase the title!

Treasure Island (1990)

When: 1990, Bale's sixth film

Age: 16

Genre/Director: Action/Adventure; Charlton Heston's son, Fraser Clarke Heston

Mike says my only real thought while watching the film is how ADHD modern adventure films are with fast cuts, shaky cam, and elaborate action sequences.

This film, however, is charmingly simple in comparison: mild even.  This mildness pervades every scene, to the point that suspenseful scenes have a way of sneaking up and past without much warning, and come as a surprise, well, MILD surprise.  Such as when the row boat is leaving the ship with cannon fire hitting all around.  The tone of the scene is so consistent with the rest of the movie, that it was with, again, mild shock that I watched the boat get hit and sink.  Oh, I guess there was danger. Cool.

I'm not sure what it was exactly, whether it was the limited soundtrack, or the rather calm narration by Bale that made the film feel very passive . . . as if these things are happening, and we'll film them, but in a rather calm way.

Despite this description, I don't think it's a bad movie; rather I think the modern movie goer, such as myself, is used to far more stimulus than the standard story needs, which often results in films being far overdone to appease an overstimulated audience.

The sheer economy of this film is impressive.  Not cost, so much as the restraint used to communicate only what the story needs.  The film is actually very faithful to the novel, featuring scenes straight out of my memories of the original story.

Bale as Jim seems to be one of those "well duh" decisions.  You have a very talented, well-reviewed, British child actor about the right age to portray a classic hero from literature.  The young actor seems to like challenging and serious roles.  In fact, one wonders if Bale saw this as a break, or "fun role" after a string of very serious dramatic roles.

As I mentioned, the narration isn't very moving, or even useful, but his performance throughout the film is fairly good, although somewhat mellow.  The only real spark of mania in the film is Heston's Long John, a cheerfully enthusiastic performance that seems almost out of place in the film's otherwise calm and steady pace.

That truly sad part of all this is that the American audience has chosen Michael Bay films over this type of storytelling.  Loud explosions every few seconds, lense flairs and dramatic poses wash the thoughts out of a viewer's mind.  Treasure Island, on the other hand, seems to rely on the viewer's interaction and involvement as much as the novel did.

Now, could someone point me to the nearest explosion?

Kate says the one thing I really like about this film is that the pirates are complete thugs. They aren't romantic figures at all. Despite my enjoyment of Johnny Depp as "the worst pirate ever," I've never really understood the attraction of the pirating-life. Or why Disney Land would even have a pirates "ride."

But Treasure Island's pirates are greedy, selfish thieves. The clever cool-headedness of Israel Hands and Long John Silver is off-set by superstitious, short-sighted brutes. A few generations later, the latter pirates would be snorting their own drug supply.

In comparison, Long John Silver's amorality looks almost meritorious. But it is still an absence of moral thought or reasoning. Jim correctly identifies the squire, doctor, and Captain Smollett as more worthy of his loyalty despite their rather English, unimaginative stolidness.

It's a good story! And Turner Entertainment does a respectable job telling the story. Realizing that Charlton Heston's son directed the movie explained a lot to me, however. There have dozens of Treasure Island movies (including one from 2012!). Why this one at this time with these actors? I'm guessing it was a personal project.

And Charlton Heston does an excellent job as the scoundrel Long John who is both likable and detestable at the same time. And I get a kick out of Clive Wood as the captain. James Cosmos (of Highlander) shows up again to do his dying Scottish thing. In fact, the minor parts are quite well-played.

I wince to say it, but the remaining characters come off as rather more wooden (this was not my reaction as a youth, by the way)--at least in terms of dialog. Christian Bale's strength throughout the film does NOT lie in his verbal delivery of lines. Rather, his strength is in the sheer physical energy of his scenes. In general, the action scenes are the best part of the movie and are often quite evocative. Bale forcing Hands to move the ship is a particularly good one (though I do like the swivel cannon blowing things to smithereens; it reminds me of the Buffy episode "Innocence" when Buffy pulls out the rocket launcher).

I hadn't really realized--until beginning this list--how much Bale is in fact a physical actor. Amid the pigeon-holes of my brain, Bale was slotted into the "cerebral/artsy movies" hole despite a great deal of evidence to the contrary.

Not that Bale doesn't DO cerebral/artsy movies but, like Keanu Reeves, he tends towards physical action. Reeves--who is perhaps one of the most dreadful drama actors in existence (though I did like him in The Lake House)--is a magnificent physical actor. It never occurred to me until now that Bale--who is not usually a dreadful drama actor--belonged in the same category.

It seems Bale has been preparing for Batman for much longer than I realized!

Empire of the Sun

When: 1987, Bale's fourth film

Age: 12-13

Genre/Director: True story, Spielberg

Mike says I usually avoid this type of film, and, as my viewing reminded me last night, I probably will for the rest of my life. I can recognize that it’s a powerful and well-made film. But for me, a war movie needs something fictional (aliens, giant robots, elves, Time Lords, etc.) in order to make it tolerable.

Instead, I have to choke down a film where HORRIBLE things happen to a young child, such as being separated from a parent, witnessing multiple deaths, war time violence, starvation, and captivity all without the benefit of any fictional “spoonful of sugar” equivalent to ease the passage of such bitter and depressing events.

While I have a whole rant about this topic in general, I’ll save it and just say that I avoid serious, heart-wrenching dramas for the same reason I avoid the news- -it stresses me out!

As such, I really don’t have many positive things to say about the film. I think the film is beautiful to look at, and found that it didn’t feel dated or old by any standard; in fact, it is only the young faces of known actors that really show how old the movie is.

I  have to credit Christian Bale; even as a young man, he was a phenomenal actor. Every part of his emotional journey, even those parts that don’t have any real moral other than pure suffering, is believable. Bale is instantly believable and unlikable as the spoiled brat, and through his journey, we see him grow… though I can’t say if he ever becomes likable. I don’t sympathize or empathize with the character… rather, I pity him. Lost in a world beyond his comprehension, he has no choice but to slowly lose his grip on his values, his sanity, and nearly reality itself.

For a 12-year-old actor to so convincingly portray a descent into madness (that wasn't caused by hormones) is really quite impressive.

So impressive and believable was his performance that it merely enhanced the pure agony I experienced while enduring the film. I have no doubt that the film is historically accurate (and looks as much), and I have no trouble imagining several children went through a very similar journey.  And I have to admit that the film is excellently made, directed, and acted.

 But here’s the thing . . . Real life can be so damned depressing, it’s really not much fun to dwell on the horrible things that happen to people . . . especially not as a form of entertainment.

Even worse is the brutal reality that Spielberg hammers in with each horrible incident--not only are these thing awful, but they are meaningless, random happenings without cause or explanation. Sure, these are consequences of war, but there’s still no one for Jim to hold responsible. The film is the story of his coming to grips with just how unforgiving life can be. His going mad seems to be the only rational action he can take in a world so empty of hope.

The end of the film was the director's last chance to redeem himself in my eyes; the last chance to explain to me, justify, what I had endured with the character. What lesson had I learned? What truth would I be rewarded with? Instead, we’re given only the scene of parents discovering the remains of their child--a scarred and traumatized child that may never lead a normal life. I understand that this is a very jaded and cynical view of the end of the film, but two things should be taken into consideration.

First, I work in children’s mental health, and I’ve seen that traumatic events aren’t so easily overcome as Hollywood would like us to think. And second, it’s a cynical and jaded film that takes no opportunity to show the good side of the world. Jim sees only misery, even to the point that the two things that seem to bring him hope--God and Airplanes--both lose their magic with the news of the dropping of the atomic bomb.

The good news is that after a film like this, Shakespeare is going to feel downright CHEERFUL.

Kate says the remarkable aspect of this film is the lack of heavy-messaging (which often shows up in Spielberg's later films). The story is so entirely from Jim's point of view that the film remains almost one of observation rather than commentary.

The observation does bring to light several fascinating ideas, such as the ability of human beings to adapt and the tendency for context to lose historical or cultural relevancy--Jim adapts to camp life with little trouble and even enjoys it. Even after the March to Nantao, he doesn't begin to place his experience into some kind of narrative until he hears the radio broadcast about the bombing of Japan: oh, this is what is happening to me.

It reminds me of the scene from Hope and Glory where the school children cheer when their school is bombed. Context is exactly what it means to them at that moment.

If there is a theme, it is rendered through Jim's relationship with Bassie. Jim undergoes a Maslow's hierarchy type of development whereby his natural, and useful, desire for survival is eradicated, rather than intensified, by the war--first, by his desire for affection; next, by his self-actualization or acknowledgment of his own situation: he is a child who has come through an impossible situation. He ends by turning his back on Bassie; although the film doesn't pass judgment on Bassie, Jim perceives that Bassie's Lord of the Flies philosophy is not enough to explain what he has gone through.

Consequently, to me, the final scene is a huge relief--like coming through the bottle-neck. Jim is finally able to relinquish the burden of his own survival; he'll never be the innocent, normal schoolboy again (the briefly flashed-on self-image that he tries to save at the end), but he'll be able to surrender his responsibilities for a time and simply belong. He is moving up the hierarchy.

It is in many ways a heart-rending film and brought me to tears several times--not the sort of film I watch over and over and over again to relax! However, I have to argue with Mike (slightly) regarding the lack of positive scenes: I think there are many but, again, I think Spielberg steps back from any kind of judgment about what is occurring. He simply lets us see how the British established their camp--the willingness of Dr. Rawlins to defend his hospital and follow the sick on their journey; the weary amusement of Jim's foster mother towards his hyperactiveness; the odd kindness of the Japanese soldiers towards the retarded young man who would never become a pilot in other circumstances (although that kindness is tempered by the question of motive); Jim's kindness towards the same young man; the fellowship of the non-Kamikaze Japanese pilots with Jim (Saint-Exupery suggests in his books that flying is a higher calling than anything else, putting astronauts and pilots in a different realm from ordinary mortals). And before the camp scenes, I was impressed by Jim's father's lack of prejudice; at first, he seems like an self-satisfied Britisher who is thoughtless and tunnel-visioned, but in just a few minutes, he is shown as more insightful, tolerant, and compassionate than he initially appears.

This is the quintessential show-don't-tell movie.

As for Christian Bale: it is fairly appropriate that this is the first film of his portfolio we are reviewing. Bale is a relatively unusual actor since he started so young yet has continued to be successful. Often, child stars have trouble leaping the gap between the "cute" years and films that require more than kootchie-kootchie-koo reactions. Look at Shirley Temple. And what will Daniel Radcliffe be doing in twenty years?

Bale does a rather remarkable job although I think he is strongest at the beginning and end of the film. The middle of the film seems to falter into "cuteness" territory; Bale owns the character less. However, in comparison to other child actors, Bale's portrayal of Jim Graham is a true tour de force.

And I always appreciate an appearance by Nigel Havers!

Percy Jackson and the Olympians: The Lightning Thief

Release Date: February 12, 2010

Time Mike wanted to see it: I was vaguely interested since I saw the preview, about 3-4 months before the release date. And, coincidentally, I finally watched it on Sunday, February 12th (2012), exactly 2 years from release!

Reason Mike procrastinated: I meant to see it in the theater; I might have even made plans that fell through. But I somehow missed it, and I think I was meaning to read the book first... anyway, somehow it fell off my radar until recently.

Category: Children's Fantasy Novel Series Adaptation

Mike says I still haven't read the novel. I've been meaning too, but somehow I haven't. But I thought, "Meh, there's no rule that says I have to read it before I watch the movie . . ." And so I did.

If it wasn't for this list, I'm not so sure I would have ever gotten around to watching this, and finding it for sale for 5 bucks didn't help matters. Even when I saw the preview, I knew that the movie was a bid for the Harry Potter crown, and after already seeing The Golden Compass come and go away in failure, I didn't really expect much from this movie.

Like I said, I knew this was a Harry Potter bid, but I had somehow missed the fact that it shared a director with the Potter franchise: Chris Columbus, the man who started it all.

And so, having already mentioned it twice, I should go ahead and say it upfront: yes, Percy Jackson is a Harry Potter clone. There's no real point in denying it. The movie follows many of the same story beats as the first Potter film, and even shares some of the same mythological creatures.

Despite Columbus obviously trying to duplicate his Potter success, Percy does largely maintain its own identity, having a unique atmosphere and tone. The film also quickly breaks the "candy coating" of the first 2 Potter films, delivering several decapitations, sword wounds, and even one near disembowelment.

Percy also strays from the clean and and tidy feel of the Potter films, name dropping terms like ADHD and Dyslexia, almost in a blatant attempt to communicate that the fantasy learning environment of Hogwarts won't be appearing in this film. As if to underscore this, when Camp Half-Blood, the learning place of the demi-gods, is finally shown, there are no images of scholarly learning, only exciting action scenes and a surprising amount of violence.

Despite the familiar elements (or those obvious attempts to avoid the familiar), Percy is actually pretty entertaining. The cast assembled for some of the supporting roles is impressive, with Sean Bean and Pierce Brosnan lending their credibility to this American fantasy (much as those British actors did in that OTHER series I keep mentioning).

The main cast does a fine job, though they are far from amazing. The story is fun, though, with some pretty clever amalgamations of Greek mythology with American culture. I found the idea of Olympus being at the top of the Empire State Building very cool, yet kinda familiar . . . then I remembered an unpublished novel I read years ago by a very talented writer . . . But maybe I'll let her talk about it (nudge nudge, Kate!).

Columbus did seem to avoid the page per page approach he took with the Potter films. In the last couple days I've started reading the novel, and the movie definitely takes some liberties, changing the identity of the thief, the fate of a few characters, and even the purpose of the quest (to a point). Several adventures and random happenings from the book are actually tied into the main story really well for the movie, giving the story a more organized, driven feel.

The film also gives some characters the freedom to act as they really would, instead of tying them to the outcome of the book (which seemed a little out of character in some instances). Essentially though, if one were to combine Harry Potter (yeah, I said it again, sorry) with Clash of the Titans, Percy Jackson is pretty much the film you would get.

That said, I did enjoy it, and overall found it a pretty entertaining film and found myself really impressed with the visuals. I'm also pretty entranced by the mythology the movie presents. I want to know more about this modern magical world and its history. Though, in the end, I couldn't help but think the film was missing one obvious line:

"Release the Kraken!" oh well..... maybe next time.

Kate says I started the book (by Rick Riordan) awhile back. It's not bad, but it didn't engage me.

The movie engaged me more. If I remember correctly, I think the main character is slightly older than in the book for which I personally was grateful. Harry Potter used up a lifetime of interest in little kiddies having magical powers. (More about this later--as Mike mentions, it is hard to avoid comparing the two franchises.)

I was extremely pleased to see Sean Bean and Pierce Brosnan's names pop up. What a treat, especially Sean Bean! Unfortunately, he isn't in the movie all that much. I realize the movie is about and for kids, but there are a number of truly awesome actors playing minor parts in this film, and it's hard not to be a tad disappointed when they make no more than token appearances (Joe Pantoliano always makes me laugh). I did get a kick out of all the crisp British accents. Such authority!

Several things about the movie are very cool. It's hard to get excited about settings these days, knowing how easy it is for filmmakers to create fantastical environments for cheap, but I liked the use of modern sites to reach Olympian sites. And the movie opens with a STUNNING image.

In terms of plot, I always appreciate action movies that give me the problem right away. Plus, I've always been a fan of Greek mythology (yeah, Mike, I thought of my Greek mythology novel, too; problem is, if I published it now, everyone would say I was borrowing from Riordan!), so I was highly amused by the "updated" version of many of the gods. Luke as Hermes' son, for example, is quite believable (especially in his love for high technology). The rock 'n roll dysfunctional Hades and Persephone are downright amusing.

In fact, I have few complaints about the movie. The mother's "death" is rather casually dealt with, and, like so many action movies these days, the movie is too long. The quest is interesting--the Lotus Casino with "Poker Face" playing is especially clever--but each scene could have been considerably shorter. Whatever happened to the good old 90-minute movie?

And there is the whole over-done kid-with-instant-powers stuff. I'm not opposed to the motif: it has a long and noble pedigree. But it's been done to death. Percy is slightly more believable than Harry Potter here in that his "flaws" (dyslexia, ADHD) turn out to be strengths, i.e. he has been learning how to handle his "powers" all his life. But I found myself far more invested in the emotional problem (his separation from his father) than in his heroic abilities. Consequently, the absence of those aforementioned awesome British actors became more and more bothersome as the movie progresses. (I did find Grover quite amusing.)

Like Mike, I remarked the director linkage between Harry Potter and Percy Jackson. In all honesty, this was initially a bit of a turn-off. I consider the first Harry Potter movie a boring slide-show that tries so hard to be the book, it fails to BE a movie.

I think Percy Jackson avoids this. The movie really moves (as Mike mentions, there is a surprising degree of adult content and some lines I'm amazed got in). Which makes me wonder how far Rowlings and the fans hampered the initial Harry Potter movie's "success" ("success" here being entirely relative since Rowlings certainly shouldn't complain).

But it also makes me wonder how die-hard fans of Percy Jackson feel about this movie. With only two chapters of the first book under my belt, I never felt lost or confused. I also never felt bitter (ah, they left out the best part!). But die-hard fans may feel differently.

All said, the movie is worth renting, and I'm a tad surprised that it didn't get more press. Percy has more going for him than Harry, including age, a mild sense of irony, and toughness. Perhaps things will take off with the second movie.

Field of Dreams (1980s)

Mike says when suggesting this film for the list, I was afraid that this movie was too recent to really justify the list. Watching it again, it's impressive how timeless the movie really is. While Ray's background is deeply rooted in the sixties and the time period he grew up in, the film doesn't have any imagery or content that truly dates it as an eighties movie.

As such, I was rather relieved when I found the movie was released in '89 placing it well withing the range of my childhood (I was ten). Sports were never very important to me, and while my dad loved baseball and was a gymnast in high school, it was never really a big deal in our house ever. Sure, me and Dad went through the obligatory father/son baseball motifs: playing catch in the yard, going to a Dodger's game, and playing tee-ball at age six.

But, being that the Star Trek and Star Wars themes were commonly heard in my home growing up, it should have been expected that none of us would ever be great athletes. A consequence of that was that I was never really a fan of sports films either.

But this one, somehow, was different. We watched it soon after it first hit video and quickly fell in love with it. As a kid, I think I loved the simple magic used in the film. It was so subtle, that it could almost be missed if one weren't paying attention. But I really loved it.

Watching it now, it's still one of my favorite films of all time, and surprisingly, for the same reasons. The things I pick up on now that I'm older are just a bonus. My favorite films have always been the ones with a small bit of magic weaved into life. The Green Mile, Field of Dreams, Stranger than Fiction, and The Prestige are all films that I love that have a small touch of magic to an otherwise normal drama.

The writing, casting, and direction of the movie are all stellar. The score is especially charming. The movie could have easily become goofy or corny, but these moments are effortlessly avoided by the simple rules of the world the story takes place in. By keeping the players on the field, there exists a boundary between reality and fantasy. It keeps the story where it belongs, instead of getting lost on tangents and set-ups for crotch jokes.

The final theme of the film has always been something that I understood, but my understanding has deepened with age. While I certainly didn't always understand or agree with the father I grew up with, I feel that we had enough in common that we did have a great bond that still exists. A few years ago I met my biological father, which was a interesting experience to say the least. His being a sports fan has been a bit of an obstacle. But finding common ground is really what the film is about and that has been the key to forging a relationship.

I'm amazed at how this film doesn't seem to age for me. The look and feel of the film are truly timeless, and the story is such that the message doesn't get old. With so many remakes these days, I truly hope that this one never gets remade. Because, to put it simply, it doesn't need to be. It's perfect as it is.

Kate says this is a wonderful movie! It is inexpressibly touching. It is also the perfect show-case for Kevin Costner's talent. Robin Hood--eh, not so much. Ray in Field of Dreams--perfection.

What makes the movie really work is how normal and everyday workable the family is, right from the beginning. This is definitely a story touched by magic rather than a story about magic. The rules of the field are lightly impressed on the viewer. But overall, all the "magic" is so ordinary, so much a part of everyday life, you never notice that you have made that leap of faith. Of course Shoeless Joe shows up. Of course Terence Mann heard the message too. Of course Ray can meet Doc Graham who has died. Of course.

Speaking of Terence Mann, the supporting roles in this movie are lovingly done from the magnificent James Earl Jones to the break-your-heart Burt Lancaster to the supremely perfect Ray Liotta. Could any one else play Shoeless Joe? With that mixture of childlike enjoyment and wise insight? I can't imagine.

I was impressed that the movie aged with me--I mean that in a good way (about both of us, I guess). When I was younger, I understood the theme of Ray and his father, but I saw the movie much the way Terence describes it: "penance." Ray meeting his father was a pay-off for all that came before.

But now I see the entire movie as an effort by Ray to get to know his father. During the entire movie, he is exploring his father's world, his father's age group, his father's dreams. I comprehend, as I didn't when younger, that urge to come to terms with one's past as well as one's current circumstances. That desire is as much a dream--sometimes wholly fulfilled, sometimes partially fulfilled--as the dream of baseball,

In many ways Field of Dreams is Sandlot for adults. Sandlot captures the dream and nostalgia of one's childhood. Field of Dreams captures the effort to recapture that dream or at least to understand it in the context of grown-up responsibilities. Which makes me realize that it is the perfect movie to end our list of "Movies We Grew Up With"! (Well, from my point of view.)

HAPPY HOLIDAYS! MERRY CHRISTMAS!! HAPPY NEW YEAR!!!

Diary of a Wimpy Kid

Book: Diary of a Wimpy Kid

Gap between first publication and film release: 3 years--2007 to 2010 (shortest yet!)

Closeness to original characters: 90% (Kate)

Closeness to original story: 88% (Kate)

Mike says middle school is one of the periods of my life I have really struggled to forget. As such, I couldn't decide if I was impressed or horrified by how well this movie captured the overall experience, thus bringing back every repressed memory that was hidden in the shadowy parts of my brain.

I've been meaning to read Dairy for a while, but I still haven't gotten to it! The movie, however, is pretty well done, and I did enjoy it... mostly. Greg's overall lack of understanding and compassion for Rowley makes it fairly hard to watch. While Greg does redeem himself in the end, throughout the entirety of the movie I found myself feeling that he deserved every rotten thing that happened.

Roderick made a definite impression on me. Growing up, the closest thing I had to an older sibling was my cousin Vito, who regularly made my life pretty miserable. He died recently, leaving me with some unresolved feelings about him. The actor playing Rodrick channeled my cousin Vito, both looks and personality, so precisely that I actually had to stop the movie for a short time! But, as the evil older brother, he did a great job.

Rowley was great, cute, and fun to watch. I did have to share Greg's confusion in the movie, as the "funny" and popular kids in my school never seemed to have a sense of humor I understood.

Overall, a cute flick, and one that would probably have been a little too accurate for me to watch as a kid. Sheesh, even watching it now, I start sweating and worrying about late homework.

Kate says in some ways the book is far funnier than the movie--simply due to the nature of Greg's diary. As the narrator, Greg automatically conceals information leaving readers to figure out what "really" happened. There are gaps between what he confesses and what is actually occurring. This creates some very funny exposition.

However, the movie is extremely funny and has great moments: the peeing incident, the "self-esteem" video with the substitute break-dancer (this particular moment elicited bellyaching laughs on my part), the baptism by water on Halloween (even though I knew it was coming), the kindergartners caught in the rain, the "I'm sorry, women" speech, Rowley and Greg's hopeless fight.

One disappointing difference is that Greg seems more obsessed with popularity (present and future) in the movie than in the book. Granted, the issue of popularity is raised in the book, but Greg is more concerned with survival than coolness or, rather, coolness as a way to survival than a goal in and of itself.

It's a subtle distinction, but I found book-Greg slightly easier to relate to than movie-Greg. Movie Greg seems a tad full of himself in a way he doesn't in the book. He also seems more clueless in the movie. In the book, Rowley's oddness is a continual issue for Greg, and the reader mostly believes that Greg kind of has a point. (For one, in the book, Greg's cartoons are funnier than Rowley's, being quite clever.) But in the movie, it takes about 2 seconds to figure out that Rowley is one of those kids that everybody just adores, so what is Greg's problem?

However, the pay-off (Greg sacrificing his reputation for Rowley) is just as touching in the movie as in the book.

And Zachary Gordon as Greg is witty (quite dryly sometimes) with perfect intonation and facial expressions. Robert Capron as Rowley is, well, adorable.

Everyone else--the family, the fellow students, the teachers--are right on the ball as comedic types. Angie is a little out of place, being more of a high school than junior high type. Rodrick is played by an actor who is NOT 16. However, they both play important roles, Rodrick especially.

And the junior high students are scarily right--supremely strange Fregley, tiny Chirag Gupta--not to mention the scary junior high customs, such as Lord of the Flies gym classes and school plays where no one follows (or remembers) the lines.

Diary of a Wimpy Kid is the kind of movie I could never watch when I actually was in junior high--it's too close to reality! But from safe adulthood, it is a hilarious, sweet, trip into the weird world of early adolescence.

Harry Potter: Goblet of Fire et al.

Book: Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, plus others

Gap between first publication and film release: 5 years--2000 to 2005 (the first Harry Potter came out 2001, four years after the first Harry Potter book was published)

Closeness to original characters: 95% (Kate)
First three movies: 99% Final five movies: 90% (Where'd the real Dumbledore go?) (Mike)

Closeness to original story: 70% for the series, 60% for Goblet. (Mike)

Kate says to prepare, I reread most of Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone. However, I didn't get a chance to reread Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, so I've provided a percentage for "closeness to original characters" but not one for "closeness to original story" (since I don't remember the fourth book that well).

In terms of the look of the characters, the casting is inspired. The only person who doesn't look completely like her book persona is Emma Watson as Hermione, and she does such a fantastic job capturing the personality of Hermione that it doesn't matter.

But Hagrid, Snape, Neville, Professor McGonagall, Harry . . . are all so much how the book describes them, it's hard for me to recapture my first pre-movie-franchise impressions!

I do remember that pre-movie-franchise, the rules of Rowlings' world mattered to me . . . well, not at all. One problem with series (and with series that become extremely popular) is that (1) the growth of the universe involves more and more connections that need to be tied into prior connections and since most fantasy writers don't spend years creating a complex history of several thousand years like Tolkien (who only produced his popular work as something of an after-thought), there are bound to be snags; (2) with popularity come growing expectations and criticisms. A writer who attempts to satisfy both expectations and criticisms will embroil herself in more problems and complications.

Inevitably, one begins to wonder about the nature of Voldemort's original war (before Harry's birth), why Dumbledore is so impossibly bad at keeping evil people out of Hogwarts, why Hogwarts even has a Slytherin House, why--if Dumbledore can prevent the Weasley twins entering the contest--he can't just say, "Harry can't compete." Why Barty Crouch Jr. doesn't just kill Harry . . .

If one ignores these problems (and Rowlings' continual efforts to solve them rather than just ignore them), the stories are enormously entertaining.

And this is where the first four movies have an edge (the fifth movie was a bust, and I haven't seen the last three) because the rules matter less. The nature of film is to promote image and plot over literary continuity. With Goblet of Fire, this is most effective. Image-wise, the settings are gorgeous--mysterious, vivid, intricate, eerie. All those towers and rugged terrain, gorgeous magical ships, dragons. Truly alluring. Plot-wise, the story focuses on the contest and, through the contest, on the vagaries and fears and anxieties of growing up.

The latter is one thing the movie does absolutely right. The teenage joking, angst, jealousy, friendships, awkward apologies, uncomfortable dating, etc. etc. etc. are all entirely appropriate/dead-on. The director did a remarkable job pulling natural reactions/tones/moods out of a whole parcel of child actors. And Daniel Radcliffe's acting skills have definitely expanded.

I'm not sure, however, that I would have watched Goblet initially if I hadn't seen the previous films. The beginning scenes demand some prior knowledge. On the other hand, like with Two Towers, the director may have decided to assume an "educated" viewership rather than try to engage new viewers.

And maybe I would have watched Goblet even if I hadn't seen the previous three! Goblet has guest actors that I simply adore: Robert Hardy, David Tennant, Shirley Henderson, and Roger Lloyd-Park. No, I'm afraid Robert Pattinson doesn't make my list although it is rather disconcerting to see him pre-Edward. I've only seen one of the Twilight movies, but Pattinson's image as Mr. 21st Century Vampire is SO omnipresent, it is hard not to start looking for fangs.

Maybe, Daniel Radcliffe and Robert Pattinson should get together and discuss what it is like to BE an icon for a large portion of one's life (although Radcliffe has been one longer).

Mike says the Harry Potter books and movies have been a huge phenomenon for years, and it's kinda of sad that it's all over... for now at least.

I always felt the films did a great job of capturing the spirit of the books, and the characters. While things had to inevitably be cut from the adaptations (the books are HUGE, after all), overall you got a good idea of what the overall story was.

I will absolutely agree, however, with those who complain that some vital plot lines and explanation were cut because it's absolutely true. With different screen writers and directors over eight movies, there was no unifying vision, other than Rowlings', to tie the movies together.

Perhaps the one movie that was most viciously cut was Goblet of Fire. There was simply SO much to cover, the Tri-wizard events were basically all that fit into the movie. But this is forgivable, as the movie moves fairly quickly and is rather enjoyable....that is, until it makes the biggest mistake it could: Dumbledore.

As Kate mentions, the casting was inspired, and each character is absolutely true to the book. While not every character moment makes it to screen, the characters themselves act and speak as they should, with a slight tint of reality that doesn't exist in the books. At least, this is 100% true for the first three movies.

When Michael Gambon first took over the role of Dumbledore after Richard Harris' death, he managed to give a rather subtle performance in Prisoner that didn't distract too much from the casting change. But in Goblet of Fire, Gambon's Dumbledore makes a serious deviation from both the books and Harris' version. In the movie, after Harry's name is called as a participant in the tournament, he retreats to a side room with the other contestants. Now in the book, Dumbledore handled the entire matter calmly and without surprise, allowing the thought that perhaps he was the one behind it.

Dumbledore was constantly like that in the books--his happy mood and goofy manner could rarely be ruffled by whatever was happening.

Gambon's Dumbledore, however, enters the side room, arguing loudly with the other teachers, rushes Harry, grabs him by the shirt, and slams him into the nearest wall, demanding that Harry tell him who broke the rules.

When I first saw this scene in the theater, it so effectively broke my suspension of disbelief that I cursed in shock, and spent the rest of the film wondering what the hell had just happened. I looked around, and while there were a few others slightly confused, no one seemed as upset as I was--that character wasn't Dumbledore! I didn't know who he was, but he was an imposter, and my brain would not, could not accept who he was supposed to be.

As a result, I've never really enjoyed the following movies as much as I probably should have. Sure, I loved the two part finale, and I agree the last few films are very good. But every time Dumbledore enters the scene, I get grumpy, and my attention wavers, which made Half Blood Prince especially frustrating.

In the end, the Harry Potter movies will never be as good as they could have been, for me at least. What I learned from this, however, is that casting and consistent acting is important, but solid and consistent writing is just as crucial to making characters work, especially in adaptations. When you change one of the most important characters from a sweet, kindly, bumbling, and brilliant old man into a rash, angry and violent man, you betray the source material and its fans.

I do enjoy the Harry Potter movies, but I'll always wonder how much more I would have liked them if the wonderful Richard Harris had lived to complete the series.

BBC Sherlock: "Study in Pink," "The Blind Baker," "The Great Game"

Book: Sherlock Holmes stories/novels by Arthur Conan Doyle, specifically A Study in Scarlet

Gap between first publication and film release: 123 years--1887 to 2010 (1st Sherlock Holmes movie appeared in 1900)

Closeness to original characters: 97% (Kate)

Closeness to original story: 60% (Kate)

Mike says this is a great show! Modern reinventions are always a bit of a risk. People have the classic idea stuck in their head, and often don't like seeing the thing they love get twisted to somebody else's vision. American television, especially lately, has a long string of failed reinventions and adaptations. In my long and varied career of TV watching, I can think of at least four other Sherlock Holmes pilots I've seen over the years that went kaput. House is probably the closest to a Sherlock Holmes series that has really ever taken off, but that was merely in spirit. And then there were the Next Generation episodes--I don't care what people say, Brett Spiner would make a GREAT Holmes.

While American TV can't seem to pull off the reinvention, the BBC seems to have it down to an art. From the wonderful revitalized Dr. Who to Hyde, a re-imagining of the classic, the BBC really seems to be on a roll. Sherlock has been on my watch list for awhile, but upon finally watching it, I was thrilled to see that it continues BBC's trend.

The success of Sherlock, I think, lies in the successful translation of the characters. Not only are Sherlock and Watson there and very recognizable, but there are in fact very believable as modern people. The modern twists to their characters are slight, yet bring with them a measure of believability that makes the entire series work.

The chemistry (and I do hesitate to use that word, but it's really what it is) between the two actors is also wonderful. That Holmes needs Watson is fully apparent, and I do enjoy that Watson very actively serves a purpose in this show. He is competent, resourceful, and courageous, Something you don't see in most adaptations.

I've said it for awhile, and I hold to it: American TV really needs to start following the BBC way of doing things--when you make a series a collection of mini-series, you get a refined product that is much more cohesive and polished.

Anyway, perhaps the only minor flaw I find in the show is the direction they have taken Moriarty. While I get it--if Sherlock is a functional sociopath, then Moriarty is less so--I was still slightly disappointed that he seemed so... tame. But, admittedly, I'm not sure what I would have done different. I was, however, extremely pleased that Moriarty was not Watson. That would have been one reinvention to far.

Anyway, a great show, a wonderful adaptation in which the characters really survive the transfer and make the series work as a result.

P.S. I also LOVE that Watson has a blog! As many adaptations take Watson's perspective, the one thing that was always missing was who wrote the novels. A blog completes the loop!

Kate says I adore this series! Which is kind of odd.

For one thing, the series relies (at least partially) on a conspiracy (and I dislike conspiracy plots). For another, the scripts play homage to the original stories/novels but in no way try to retell them (unlike the masterly 1980s BBC series with Jeremy Brett). Lastly, they are movies, not one-hour dramas (my preferred watching). So, on paper, I shouldn't be a fan of Sherlock!

But I have currently seen the first movie "A Study in Pink" four or five times, and I'll probably see it another four or five times until Season 2 comes out!

During my first watch-through, I was disappointed by the lack of close adherence to the original short stories. I was hoping to see classic Holmes' stories translated into contemporary life. The writers of Sherlock are serious Sherlockians who KNOW their Holmes (their commentary for the movies is quite engaging), and their scripts make constant references to the stories and novels, but they don't try to follow any particular plot line ("A Study in Pink" comes the closest).

Despite the lack of adherence to Doyle's plots, the writers not only capture the feel of Doyle's texts, they are absolutely true to the characters!

Benedict Cumberbatch as Sherlock Holmes is right on. He combines House with Jeremy Brett's Holmes. (He is less confrontational for the sake of confrontation than House and slightly more extroverted than Brett's interpretation.) He has the height and the sweeping coat.

Cumberbatch also brings a layer to Holmes that appears in the books but is rarely highlighted. Despite his self-characterization as a "high-functioning sociopath," Cumberbatch's Sherlock is not indifferent to how others view him. He desires approval/respect/support. He is embarrassed when Watson considers 221B Baker Street a mess (due to Sherlock's scattered stuff). He is highly embarrassed when he has to admit to Watson that he once took drugs. He asks Watson to help him because he needs someone on his side at crime scenes. He is charmed (and surprised) when Watson is frankly impressed by his genius.

Martin Freeman as Watson is the show's strength. I hate shows and stories/novels that portray Watson as a doofus. The whole point of Watson is not that he is stupid but that Holmes is so brilliant, Watson looks clueless in comparison. Watson is us.

Martin Freeman's Watson is not only a reasonably intelligent guy whose reasonable intelligence highlights Holmes' genius, he is interesting in his own right. I love the revelation (so counter to accepted wisdom) that what Watson craves isn't peace but a new war. ("And I said dangerous, and here you are.")

This craving for danger gives him remarkable sangfroid in the face of Sherlock's unpredictability. My favorite example of this sangfroid, however, happens in the non-dangerous restaurant. Sherlock is trying, somewhat defensively, to explain that he doesn't have or want an intimate relationship; Watson interrupts him, saying, "It's all fine." Sherlock looks startled and responds with stammered thanks.

I also happen to love Watson's jacket! This may seem odd, but that jacket is a great representation of Watson's personality: sturdy, non-glamorous with a slight 19th century military look and the barest hint of classiness in the shiny velvet strips.

Freeman's Watson has a somewhat different presence than original Watson (original Watson is much more "everyman"). However, all the information/characterizations given to Freeman's Watson can be found in the books/stories (he even fought in the same country--Afghanistan--if not the same war).

The biggest difference between the books/stories and Sherlock is Lestrade who is far more laid-back and far less weaselly in the 2010 television series than in the books/stories. I prefer 2010 Lestrade whose dry humor and indifference to ego make him a nice counter to Holmes. I get a big kick out of the pilot's opening scenes where Lestrade--bored and fed-up--answers the reporter's question, "How do people keep themselves safe?" with the dry response, "Don't commit suicide."

And, of course, there is the marvelous Mark Gatiss (also one of the show's creators and writers) as Mycroft. First watch-through, I didn't guess he was Mycroft (for obvious reasons), but I don't think Mark Gatiss is a cheat. For one thing, he has that great voice, not to mention the stellar 1920s Lord Peter Wimsey vibe, and, of course, there are all those jokes about diets.

Oh, and I love the show's music.

I can't wait until Season 2! Unfortunately--*sigh*--it may be awhile.

The Shawshank Redemption

Book: Rita Hayworth and the Shawshank Redemption by Stephen King

Gap between first publication and film release: 12 years--1982 to 1994

Closeness to original characters: 95% (Mike)

Closeness to original story: 85% (Mike)

Kate says I read the novella a long time ago but don't remember it well enough to compare it to the movie. So my remarks are just about the movie.

I should first mention that it's harder for me to watch movies than episodes from shows. This doesn't make any logical sense since I will spend the same amount of time watching either, but investing in a single movie is a big deal to me. So the fact that I sat through all 2+ hours of The Shawshank Redemption and enjoyed it is quite something. It is rather slow in the middle 1/3rd but not in a boring way, just in a slow-moving way. (This was my second viewing, but the first viewing was so long ago, I barely remember the experience.)

Before I get to the characters, I should mention that the movie's lighting has the same brilliant yet quiet allure as The Green Mile (which viewing I do remember). Darabont's films look like films, not just television episodes that accidentally made it to the big screen.

Regarding the characters, Tim Robbins as Andy Dufresne and the Amazing Morgan Freeman as "Red" are a good match. Of course, Morgan Freeman could narrate a driver's ed manual and make it sound like holy writ; as a voice-over narrator, there are few better. However, he doesn't come off as miscast. He is entirely believable as a cynical, hardened, uneducated criminal (with a gentlemanly soul).

Tim Robbins as Andy Dufresne captures the persona of reserved, thinking man perfectly. At one point, Red gives this voice-over about Andy:

He had a quiet way about him, a walk and a talk that just wasn't normal around here. He strolled like a man in a park without a care or a worry in the world, like he had on an invisible coat that would shield him from this place.

The cool thing is that Tim Robbins makes you believe that description. It isn't just the writers hoping you won't notice that the actor doesn't work in the role. (I cannot imagine Harrison Ford and Tom Cruise in these roles--if that was indeed considered as the Internet Movie Database claims. For one thing, Tom Cruise always seems to play his roles with an underlying aura of "poor, poor me," even when the role doesn't call for it. Andy is a victim, but if he is played that way, he will lose the audience's sympathy. Robbins, thank goodness, doesn't play him that way.).

There are a few places where the criminals-with-hearts-of-gold stuff gets a little too sweet. But the day-to-day camaraderie in extreme hardship is quite believable (and seems to be a recurring motif of King's).

The movie plot is Joseph in Egypt (the prison parts) plus The Count of Monte Cristo plus The Sting: the bad guys' comeuppances are quite satisfying. But the main theme is the need to survive with a sense of hope, which translates into a sense of self-worth. The future/freedom/non-prison life represents hope, but for many of the characters--such as Brooks--that hope is more frightening than the known prison life, however harsh. (The scenes with Brooks are some of the most touching & melancholy; they are also the parts I remembered from my first viewing.) Although almost all the movie takes place in prison, it is really about preparing for life outside it.

Face to face with that other life, a person with vision becomes necessary as well as larger than life. Andy's gift is not just that he can free himself but that he can give a lifeline to someone like Red, who has the stamina and the guts but needs the dream to keep him strong.

Very cool movie.

Mike says when it comes to Stephen King, the shorter, the better. King's works of the last couple decades have become rather bloated and rambling. While he is a VERY talented writer, his main problem seems to be that he's Stephen King... As such, no one's really brave enough to edit him the way he should be. The end result are novels that weigh half a ton, with climaxes and resolutions that span maybe twenty pages.

The main problem with this is that King's novels rarely work as movies. In fact, the best movies are based on his shortest works. Shawshank is no exception, being one of the truly excellent films adapted from King's works, which was itself a novella included in the collection Different Seasons (Stand by Me was based on The Body from the same collection, and The Green Mile was also one of his shorter works) .

King's true strength lies in creating living breathing human beings, who have true bonds of friendship with other characters that are just as strongly written. At the heart of every King novel is a relationship: friendship, love, or family. Each character is flawed in their own way, but nearly always seek to overcome, or at least come to terms with, these flaws.

The criminal "family" of Shawshank is brought to the screen with surprising accuracy and care, and the relationships of this family come to life just as they should. While there was some tweaking, character combining, and in one case a major reinvention, the main cast of the novella are all perfectly cast and written in the film.

Andy is brought to live just as from the novel--hopeful, intelligent, and determined. Many of Red's descriptions of Andy are lifted straight from the text. As such, Tim Robbins was given the most accurate information on which to base his version.

Casting Morgan Freeman as Red was a true stroke of genius. In the novella, Red was a red headed Irish man who had murdered his wife for the life insurance money (by cutting her car breaks ). Morgan Freeman, however, makes this potentially BIG difference a minor one. The reason for the nickname is quickly joked away, and his ability to communicate the good heart of a man who made a great mistake truly makes the character work. Despite the difference in appearance, Morgan Freeman was the perfect choice (This actually gives me a lot of hope for another unexpected character race change" Laurence Fishburn will be playing Perry White in next year's Man of Steel).

The Warden and Guards of the movie are an amalgam of sometimes two or three characters, and the fates of a couple characters were changed (like the young prisoner Andy bonds with, who was transferred instead of killed), but these changes all strengthen the story and create a single narrative for the audience to follow.

The character of Brookes is the most drastically changed, or expanded, as his presence in the novella was a single paragraph! The story was essentially the same, but the moral of Brookes' story was expanded to help clarify the message of the movies as a whole. By making him a real part of the film, the audience cares about his fate, and remembers what happened to him when Red faces the same situation.

The story as a whole is fairly accurate to the novella. While some minor details were changed, such as the origin of Andy's new identity, and the accuracy of the true killer's confession, these alterations are truly for the better. A trademark of King's work is the uncertainty of everyday life. Sometimes we don't know something for sure, no matter how much we may want to. Unfortunately, this doesn't work as well in a film. So things were simplified and clarified, and tied or combined with other plot points to unify the movie. King likes to use a lot of plot threads, many times making things a tad more complicated than they need to be.

Shawshank is that rare, wonderful adaptation that not only succeeds in being accessible to readers and non- readers alike, but may actually outshine the source material itself.

The Muppet Christmas Carol

Book: A Christmas Carol by Charles Dickens

Gap between first publication and film release: 149 years--1843 to 1992 (the earliest film was in 1901, as soon as a film could be made)

Closeness to original characters: 96% (Kate) Agreed (Mike)

Closeness to original story: 94% (Kate) Agreed (Mike)

Mike says of all the movie versions of A Christmas Carol I've seen (approximately 2 dozen), The Muppet Christmas Carol is by far my favorite, and perhaps one of my favorite movies of all time. When I finally read the novella in college, I was delighted at how close everything was. Not only are the plot, characters, and tone captured magnificently, but the use of actual lines from the book to drive the narrative really succeeds in keeping the film on track.

Kermit as Bob Cratchit was probably, to be fair, a marketing ploy. As one of the few lovable supporting characters that truly dwells within the heart of the story, Cratchit is the traditional slot where most franchises stick their mascot (Mickey Mouse has also filled the role).

Despite this, Kermit really fills the role perfectly, lending his gentle spirit and loving nature (sorry, I grew up with the Muppets, so I think of them as real) to bring Bob to life as a sympathetic "real man" that witnesses Scrooge's strange transformation.

Michael Caine does such a wonderful job as Scrooge, it's hard for me to see anyone else in the role. He brings Scrooge to life with real humor and emotional baggage. As you watch, you see this isn't just a greedy man who hates the world because it suits him. He has been disappointed by life, and it has poisoned his soul. The intervention of the spirits helps to heal him.

When I first read the novella, I couldn't help but see and hear the Muppet cast in my head as I was reading it. Gonzo as "Charles Dickens/the narrator" seems too odd...yet it works so well!

I love how true the movie stayed to the source. The addition of the music, for me, is just frosting on the cake. I love every song in the movie, and for me, it doesn't slow or drag the film at all. But, I may be biased.

The Muppet Christmas Carol is a truly wonderful film, but, most unexpectedly, it's also a surprisingly good adaptation.

Kate says so there have 2 billion film versions of Dickens' famous novel.

Okay, not really but close.

Believe it or not, The Muppet Christmas Carol is one of the most accurate. In terms of characters, can you think of anyone more appropriately cast as Bob Crachit than Kermit the Frog? Or Fozzie as Mr. Fezzi--oops, I mean, Fozziwig? Or any two Muppets better suited to the Marleys than Statler and Waldorf?

The non-Muppet Michael Caine is also perfect. Scrooge can't be too cruel or his redemption will seem, well, like Darth Vadar's redemption at the end of Return of the Jedi: just too effortless. Caine mixes gruffness with a bleak though sincerely-held worldview, all offset by the capacity for sly humor. His changes over the course of the film are entirely believable.

The plot is also quite accurate, being cut to stress the most important scenes, meaning that all the boring commentary is cut out. More than many other adaptations, it captures the feel of Dickens' novella, especially the pain of Scrooge's broken engagement (whatever Dickens' wordiness problems, the wretched cry, "Spirit, show me no more!" is great raw writing) and the dismal aura of Scrooge's "future." The use of a spider Muppet to buy Scrooge's filched possessions is downright chilling.

As for making it a musical: My general attitude towards musicals is that they are inevitably three songs too long. The version of The Muppet Christmas Carol I saw did cut Belle's song; it created a rather abrupt jump, but it was an intelligent decision. The song is pretty but unnecessary. Other than that, most of the songs are quite memorable.

I do wish that the movie had ended in Scrooge's office as the book does--it is a great "switcheroo" scene where Crachit thinks he is going to be scolded for being late but instead gets a raise.

However, they did keep the line, "Tiny Tim, who did NOT die . . ." (emphasis in original text), and Gonzo says it the way it reads.

One of the Muppets' best, methinks!