You know those people who sit next to you at the movie theatre, lean over with a mouthful of popcorn, and whisper in your ear with a fleck of corn spewing into your hair - "This was so much better in the book"? They're the worst. But sometimes they're right - movies have a knack for cutting out book-lovers' favourite parts. Part of it is natural. Movies and books are different forms of media, and because of that, the story can't be told the exactly same way. Other times, you can't help but wonder what the director was thinking.
Here are five movies you probably remember that were based on novels for young people. Some of them are so good that popcorn-stuffed partner of yours will keep their mouth shut - but others will make you want to walk out of the theatre altogether.
Holes (***1/2)
A faithful adaptation of the hit novel that millions read in class, Holes introduces the world to Shia LeBeouf and tells a wonderfully interwoven tale.
I’m currently re-reading this novel for the first time in a long time with my class, so I’ll save my comments about the story itself for when I review the book. Instead, I want to focus on the movie on its own. Firstly, the movie captures the heart and atmosphere of the book, plunging us into the world of Camp Green Lake without making any major changes to the narrative. Sure, Stanley Yelnats isn’t overweight like he is in the books, but this change is largely superficial and doesn’t impact much of anything else. The cast is a lot of fun – it’s hard not to fall in love with Yelnats’ fellow gang of misfits, and Tim Blake Nelson and Jon Voight play wonderful interpretations of Mr. Pendanski and Mr. Sir, respectively. Sigourney Weaver has all the gravitas that her character demands, and she brings her A-game to what is admittedly a much smaller picture compared to her biggest hits. There wasn’t anybody that dropped the ball. Shia LeBeouf and Khleo Thomas as Yelnats and Zero are the heart and soul of the film, and their interplay was one of the most fun parts of the movie to watch. You were really rooting for the two of them, and you could tell how much they meant to each other. I loved that.
I loved the aesthetic of Camp Green Lake – they really highlighted the dusty, dry emptiness that was described in the novel. They also perfectly capture the back-and-forth nature of the narrative, leaping from Yelnats’ life to the history of the land he’s now working on. There may have been a slight over-reliance on musical interludes, but it was a common feature of Disney flicks at the time – particularly in their animated direct-to-video sector.
Holes might not have deserved any Academy Awards, but for the demographic it was built for, this is a compelling and efficient narrative. It’s the story that first got me thinking about the great twists that are possible in narrative when authors plan ahead.
Bridge to Terabithia (****)
I started this movie to fold laundry. I didn’t expect to be crying into a folded T-shirt.
In many ways, Bridge to Terabithia feels like a movie that was made for me specifically. A young boy with a struggling family unit turns to an imaginary world as a form of escapism and self-actualization. He’s not quite ready yet to admit to himself that he likes the new girl Leslie, but there’s something mysteriously enchanting to him about her and his music teacher Ms. Edmunds. For me, there really was a fantasy world I built in elementary school, and there was one girl at school that I shared it with. Seeing this film for the first time in years, I was reminded of the insecurity of that age and the freedom of making your own rules. But this isn’t just a movie for me – it’s a movie for anyone who hasn’t given up on their imagination.
The cast is stellar for a film this small (the budget was a paltry $17 million). We had Josh Hutcherson of Hunger Games fame as young Jesse, AnnaSophia Robb (who was one of the biggest child actors at the time) as Leslie, Bailee Madison (another rising child star) in her film debut as Jesse’s little sister May Belle, Zooey Deschanel as the music teacher Jesse had a major crush on (and who would blame him?), and Robert Patrick as the integral role of Jesse’s strong-silent-type father. Each of these actors adds something special to the film, particularly the relationship between Leslie and Jesse. At first, I thought that Hutcherson wasn’t giving us much in terms of his performance. A lot of his job is to stare dumbfounded at the girls in his life. But then I realized that that was kind of the point. It’s not as though Jesse fully understands his feelings towards either Leslie or Ms. Edmunds. Instead, there’s just this hypnotic intrigue towards them. We, the audience, can recognize it as a crush, but he might not be at that level of self-awareness. And I think we see that in Hutcherson’s performance, which is really cool. I might be giving him too much credit, but that’s definitely the way that I read it.
The special effects were pretty sparse for this film considering that it’s all about a fantasy world that exists in the minds of two kids, but the advantage was that we got to focus on the purpose of this imaginary world rather than the splendour of imagination itself. Seeing Jesse’s drawings, the treehouse that he and Leslie fixed up, and the iconic rope swing all kept this fantasy film firmly rooted in reality, which is partly what makes the story feel so believable. I even think that it contributed to the gut-wrenching heartbreak of the film’s critical moment.
Leslie’s death is a sucker-punch to the gut, shaking Jesse to his core for a few reasons. It challenges his dependence on a fantasy world that can’t possibly cope with the loss of a loved one. It condemns him for the feelings he still doesn’t fully understand towards Ms. Edmunds. More than that, it puts his as-yet-unchallenged faith in the God of his parents to the test. There’s a thought-provoking scene before Leslie’s death where Leslie, Jesse, and May Belle go to church together, and the concept of God “damning people to hell” is brought up. Leslie says that she finds this hard to believe, saying instead that God is too busy “running all this”. What’s interesting about the scene is that Leslie, the uninitiated, actually has in my opinion a better understanding of God’s character than Jesse’s younger sister who emphasizes the horrors awaiting those who do not believe. See, May Belle is caught up in the idea that eternal punishment awaits the non-believer. And, to be clear, the Bible uses those words exactly – eternal punishment – when it’s talking about what happens to people who aren’t Christian after they die. But that’s not what the Bible is about. I don’t think Jesus said “I have come to make sure you don’t go to hell”. I know that he did say “I have come that you may have life, and have it to the full.” The emphasis isn’t on who God isn’t, but on who he is. So if I had been in the back of that truck, I might have said that hell is a real place, but God’s not the kind of god watching you and waiting for the moment to throw you in it. He’s the one working to make sure you don’t end up there.
I loved this little look at a young boy whose life is permanently changed by the imaginative heart of one girl. It’s a film that celebrates the beauty and mystery of youth, and it’s a story that invites all of us to share our own Terabithias with the world. I’m very thankful that I got to watch this film, and I look forward to watching it again.
Eragon (1/2)
There’s so much wrong with this movie that I don’t know who to point a finger at.
Eragon is a movie based on a best-selling novel of the same name by an author named Christopher Paolini. The book was the first in a series that was originally going to be a trilogy, but Paolini ended up following the Hollywood strategy of stretching the final act into two parts so that the series ended with four books. As such, this film had a difficult job ahead of it. Not only was it setting out to tell a good story, it was setting out to tell someone else’s story AND it wasn’t a complete story. If you look at The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe for example, that was a film that would’ve been easier to produce in the sense that although it was based on one book in a series, the book itself was a self-contained narrative. You can read C.S. Lewis’ novel and not read any of the others and still have a good time. Eragon isn’t like that. By the end of the book, the evil king is still on the throne. Our protagonist hasn’t ‘gotten the girl’ yet, nor has he defeated his ultimate enemy. It’s really just the first chapter – and that’s tough for a movie to pull off. I’m not saying it’s impossible – take ‘Fellowship of the Ring’ for example – but whoever signed on to do this movie certainly bit off more than they could chew.
It’s clear to me that this movie did not have the resources it needed to succeed. There are so many moments where the execution of the narrative fell flat and it always seems to be because of money. The Urgals are supposed to be orc-like monsters, but instead they’re just angry men with war paint. Why are they even called Urgals? It’s never explained in this movie – we just have to assume that they like dressing that way. My guess is they didn’t have the budget to put prosthetics or CGI over these actors. Then there’s the Varden’s secret hideout, which constantly feels so much smaller than it did in the book. The size of the Varden as far as this movie is concerned can’t be more than a couple hundred people based on the recurring faces that keep popping up on screen. One of the pivotal parts of the final act of the book is when Saphira crashes through a beautiful glass ceiling to breathe fire for the first time and help defeat the primary antagonist of the book. That entire moment is gone, and instead Saphira breathes fire for the first time just because she feels like it. Again, I assume they didn’t have the budget or time to make this segment happen.
Then there’s the casting. Jeremy Irons does the best he can as does Rachel Weisz as Saphira, but so many important characters just don’t have any life to them. Durza is never anything more than a stereotypical villain. Galbatorix is almost laughable in the way he’s so detached from the plot and yet so invested. Eragon’s performance wasn’t compelling in the slightest, which is a critical failure because he’s the one running the show. Arya is supposed to be a love interest, but there isn’t a hint of chemistry between them – and to be honest, they barely even talk to each other. Then there’s Murtagh, who looks like the ‘bad boy’ but never really gets the chance to show it. It’s like there’s all these ingredients for a good story, but there’s no competent chef who can put them all together. No one steals the show, and there isn’t much of a show to steal to begin with.
This is a comparatively small gripe compared to my others, but there’s a scene where Arya shows Eragon some dragon armour for Saphira. But later when we see Saphira suited up, the armour looks nothing like the one we saw before. The original armour was a practical prop, and the latter was CGI. I rewound the film to make sure. They didn’t look alike at all, either in colour or in shape. Did these two teams not coordinate their design at all? Who the heck is in charge here?
I was a fan of the books back when I was younger, and even then I remember being profoundly disappointed by this film. I’m not saying the books are literary genius, but they were better than this. This had no heart to it. The one redeeming quality of this film was the animation for Saphira. She looked really cool. But why did she grow up all at once? She flew into the sky like a baby, got struck by lightning or something, and then she was fully grown. At first I figured this was supposed to be symbolic for the passage of time, but then Eragon’s standing there with his mouth open and I realize it literally happened the way we saw it. That one moment is emblematic of this whole movie. They took shortcuts every chance they could, and the result is a product that feels too rushed and too lifeless to mean anything.
Because of Winn-Dixie (**)
Boring and dumb.
I gave this a shot because I was in the middle of a short and fiery phase where I was only interested in watching films based on books I could find in my classroom library. I had a vague memory of the book this film was based on, and I was also eager to see AnnaSophia Robb nail another role after just seeing her in Bridge To Terabithia. Tragically, this film is nothing compared to Terabithia. A girl makes some friends with her new dog, and then she nearly loses the dog, but then she doesn’t. I’m not exactly sure what the big deal is. Where’s the climax? Where’s the film headed? It feels like the story just meanders from scene to scene without ever really getting to the point where it has something interesting to say.
Skip this.
Tuck Everlasting (*)
There’s nothing inherently wrong with a story of young love, but this was just stupid.
Alexis Bledel of Gilmore Girls fame plays Winnie Foster, a rich girl who wants adventure in the great wide somewhere. Along comes the Tuck family, a couple of folks who live in the forest that belongs to the Foster family. Winnie catches the 17-year old (sort of) Jesse drinking from a pool of water at the foot of a big tree. He freaks out and ends up kidnapping her. Here’s where things start to get really stupid.
So Winnie has been kidnapped, right? Picture yourself in that position. Your kidnappers seem to think you know too much, and are keeping you around while they figure out what to do with you. And it likely has something to do with that pool, because Jesse was totally weird about it. But even though Winnie is still technically on her own family’s property, she makes no attempt to escape. Instead, she becomes positively chummy with her captors. And she goes as far as to fall in love with Jesse – before she even learns why he kidnapped her in the first place. With Belle in Beauty and the Beast, Belle at least had willingly taken her father’s place and understood that she was a permanent resident of the castle before allowing herself to get emotionally invested in her roommates. As far as I’m concerned, Winnie got snatched by men in a white van, and started liking them before they even let her out of the car. That makes no sense to me.
I’m okay with the idea of a tree that makes you immortal – but let’s not forget that Europeans were not the first in America. Have any First Nations people drunk this water? And do you have to keep drinking it to maintain its effects? If not, why are the Tucks so attached to their home? If they really wanted to keep this immortality from the rest of the world, they’d burn the forest down and be on their way.
MCU fans will appreciate seeing Ben Kingsley and William Hurt in this film – but the love story is too cheesy for me and the plot itself doesn’t make a lot of sense. Skip this.