Change Your Image
Vanvernal
Reviews
Lord of the Flies (1963)
Book vs Movie review
Lord of the Flies (1963)
Book title: Lord of the Flies
Adapting one of the best books in history is no easy task. Adding that all the characters are kids doesn't make it easier. To approach complicated themes of wilderness and death with the given actors should be nightmarish. Good thing the rating system wasn't invented yet. Still the final product was professional.
Maybe this is one if those literary works that is almost impossible to truly adapt. It was written by an adult to a mature audience but with kid characters. It's a fictional story that would be unethical to adapt. None the less it was done and even with the era resources is still a good movie.
Adaptation
- General story: Loyal.
- Small aspects: Minimum changes but overall faithful. Some lines were on the script and the young actors interpretations contribute to the immature atmosphere.
Acting: Most kids act awkwardly, but A for effort.
- Best portrayal: Ralph. Troubled, brave and mature. Perfect.
- Not the best portrayal: Jack. The antagonist needed someone more talented, given that the actor was much older.
Music and Score: Adequate. Kyrie Eleison and the slay song elevate it to the next level.
Cinematography: Satisfactory. Real location instead of studio deserves some kudos. I hope the kids weren't that uncomfortable.
Editing: Enjoyable. Provides a better pace than the book.
Final decision: Good movie, solid adaptation.
Winner: Book by split decision.
World War Z (2013)
Book vs Movie review
World War Z (2013)
Book title: World War Z: An Oral History of the Zombie War
The book basically gives the writers 75% of the script. Turned into a series, could be the best zombie media ever, hands down. What was the point of buying the rights if the content was not going to be used? Should the movie use the same name of the book if it's not going to adapt it? False advertisement here for readers.
Adaptation
- General story: different story, different characters, even different zombies.
- Small aspects: 1 chapter was adapted. Parts of other chapters were added as easter eggs.
Acting: Nothing extraordinary.
Since the characters are original the portrayals can't be compared.
Music and Score: same Muse song on loop.
Cinematography: Standard.
Editing: basic action pace.
Final decision: not a bad zombie movie, but still generic.
Winner: No Contest. Insufficient characteristics to be able to compare.
The Diary of Anne Frank (1959)
Book vs Movie review
The Diary of Anne Frank (1959)
Book title: The Diary of a Young Girl
Diaries are hard to read, maybe because they are meant no to. A movie adaptation must be one of the hardest cinematography challenges. Not only there is no general story to follow, and this diary in particular can be suffocating due to the same residence it takes place. However, this movie excels in its rendition. Praise to the play adaptation in which is based.
Adaptation
- General story: fairly loyal.
- Small aspects: pretty much the same entries. Maybe the movie fills the description gaps and adds some events, but no complaint can be filed, in fact they are much appreciated.
Acting: Solid work.
- Best portrayal: Otto and Margot Frank. The father portrays calmness, rationality and fondness and the sister obedience and compliance. Excellent character adaptation.
- Not the best portrayal: Anne Frank. We can't deny that Millie Perkins manages to appear young and innocent, but the strong American accent breaks the Dutch atmosphere. Maybe someone a less gorgeous but a little more talented would have fit better.
Music and Score: golden age score. Always superb, always classy.
Cinematography: black and white that somehow radiates vivacity.
Editing: the house is set as a theater stage, which excellent contributes with the narrative.
Final decision: outstanding movie. A well-deserved nomination to best picture.
Winner: No Contest. Diaries must not be judged, specially this one.
White Fang (1991)
Book vs Movie review
White Fang (1991)
Book title: White Fang
The story revolts around Ethan Hawke, not the animal, thus the story is adapted to a human perspective, still most of the book is depicted.
We have a new story that succeeds to expand the book universe. Family movie indeed but not boring, although a lot of gunshots and attempted murder for a PG.
Adaptation
- General story: loosely adaptation.
- Small aspects: passages were included in the new story almost exactly as in the book, which was actually really good.
Acting: Infant movie, thus not a lot of effort was put into it.
- Best portrayal: Jed (the dog). Came for the wolf dog. Was not disappointed.
- Not the best portrayal: the extras. Mainstream Disney's comic villains.
Music and Score: Fairly appropriate for the classic 90s score.
Cinematography: Good. The first part of the movie depicts the beautiful Alaska's wild.
Editing: Childrens' pace, but adequate.
Final decision: Pleasant movie. The book fans and the families are happy. Everyone had a good time.
Winner: book by unanimous decision, but the crowd applauds the contender. It was an enjoyable fight.
Lord of the Flies (1990)
Book vs Movie review
Book title: Lord of the Flies
The movie feels like it was made by the kids. I couldn't find the love in the project. Feels somewhat rushed.
Most of the movie feels like PG - PG13 until the end, why the sudden change of heart? Ironic that the actors couldn't watch their job for half a decade.
Adaptation
- General story: loyal.
- Small aspects: irrelevant deviations that honestly didn't add anything interesting to the plot. A surviving adult? Come one! But "Clever girl" actor from Jurassic Park makes a cameo, that was nice.
Acting: Pretty good for young actors.
- Best portrayal: Jack. What a teenage madman. Young "eyebrows actor" made a really good job. Ralph "Ben Affleck's son" wasn't bad either.
- Not the best portrayal: Simon. Pivotal character left as an extra with no development. Shame.
Music and Score: classic 90s background soundtrack. Unimpressive.
Cinematography: disappointing. Not making the best of the island was a wasted opportunity.
Editing: Good. Keeps a reliable pace for a book adaptation.
Final decision: Bad movie. If the last copy was left stranded on an island no one would be sad.
Winner: book by KO.
Nineteen Eighty-Four (1984)
Book vs Movie review
Filmed in the same location in the same year the author established. Does that really increase the film value?
We love movies not because they give life to our beloved book stories, but because we can experience the same story through someone else lenses. The story is not that important per se as how it is retold.
I think a director should take the liberty to wander off the book, the art resides in explore new content without stop being loyal to the original source. The lore is fascinating, I wanted more but gained nothing by watching the film (except maybe a crush for Suzanna Hamilton). The sad true of ad verbatim.
Adaptation
- General story: Exactly the same.
- Small aspects: Exactly the same. The only deviation I could encounter were the advents of the room 101.
Acting: Good.
- Best portrayal: Julia. Wow, just like Smith in the book you fall for her.
- Not the best portrayal: Smith. There is something that just doesn't feel right about the depiction.
Music and Score: not outstanding, not even the Eurythmics song.
Cinematography: Just like you imagined in your head. Sad and decayed communism.
Editing: Decent. Maybe too book loyal.
Final decision: Not a bad movie, but it could've been a lot better.
Winner: book by unanimous decision.
Noruwei no mori (2010)
Book vs Movie review
Book title: Norwegian Wood / Tokio Blues
Did you notice how oddly fast the protagonist walk in their promenades? Perfect allegory for the film: so swiftly you don't actually enjoy it.
If you've read the book don't watch this film, you'll get angry how bad it portrays the story.
If you haven't read the book don't watch it, you won't understand it without the background reference.
Adaptation
- General story: loyal.
- Small aspects: the night marathon with Reiko and her sugar mommy kiss at the train station were cut off. That was disappointing.
Acting: not bad.
- Best portrayal: Midori, you just love her mysteriousness.
- Not so best portrayal: Naoko, failed to depict her pivotal character.
Music: meh Cinematography: surprisingly outstanding. There are some far away classical Japanese takes that are really good.
Editing: BAD. You just can't follow the story or even catch the narrative itself. Is it about the young years of Toru? The cultural depression? The duel of losing loved ones?
Remember how some chapters of the book were nonlinear; so bad edition you don't know if some scenes were in the past.
Final decision: don't waste your time in this film, it's not worth it.
Winner: book by KO.