Showing posts with label Movie Review. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Movie Review. Show all posts

Monday, May 27, 2013

Angie & Laura Go to the Movies

Welcome to "Angie & Laura Go to the Movies," where we compare movie adaptations of classic novels we read in the book club. For the ranking system, Angie and Laura will determine if you should, "Go see it at the theater," "Rent it," or "Walk out." Enjoy! For this edition, Angie and Laura watched Ang Lee's adaptation of Yann Martel's Life of Pi, which we read in February 2013. 



Life of Pi is a story of Pi Patel, the son of a zookeeper, who is the sole human survivor of a  violent shipwreck. We see his struggle for survival aboard a 26 foot boat with a Bengal tiger named Richard Parker who is initially a threat to Pi's life, but ultimately saves his life.

Laura Says: See It At the Theater! 

This movie certainly did the book justice for me. A visual feast for the eyes, the film lives up to the imagery described in the novel. I did not see the movie when it came out in the theatres, but I can imagine how even more beautiful it must have been. It was as if someone took the color on my TV screen and turned it up to number 12.

One such beautiful scene is when suddenly at night, Pi is surrounded by glowing jellyfish which light up the night; meanwhile, a whale rises and soars out from underneath the water. It is one of the most visually impressive scenes I have ever seen and Ang Lee’s visual effects team is deserving of the Oscar.

Many scenes I was looking forward to being in the movie were actually in the film. One is the scene where Pi writes his name on the board at the start of each class to best make his name memorable to his classmates and teachers. Also true to the novel, we also see the alternate ending Pi gives to the detectives.

In terms of differences, while the movie is very close to the storyline novel, the book is much more in depth. The scenes with Pi's religious contemplation is much more involved as well as his survival on the boat. On the contrary, the scene when the boat is caught up in the storm and about to sink is actually more intense than that scene in the book itself.

Another difference to note is that the movie is not as graphic as some scenes in the book. With scenes of some of the animals attacking and killing each other on the boat, as well as the "interesting" food choices Pi is forced to make trying to survive, I expected a little more gore...although I cannot say I am disappointed to be spared seeing such moments, especially since I watched it with my four year old son! I suppose in order to appeal to children and maintain a PG-13 rating, these graphic elements could not be included.

My verdict is to see it at the movie theater! Definitely the movie theater. In fact, I am positive I would have enjoyed Lee’s Life of Pi even more had I experienced the visual effects on the big screen. This is definitely an enjoyable film, even to those who adore the book. 

Angie Says: Rent it!

I agree with much of what Laura says. The movie was much better than I thought it was going to be. I, also, didn’t see it at the theater. Even so, it was visually appealing and mostly true to the book. Also, I particularly enjoyed seeing Pi pelted by flying fish. It was quite entertaining! 

That being said, there were several differences between the book and the movie. One, that Laura mentions, is when Pi writes his name on the board, emphasizing that he wants to be called Pi, rather than his birth name, Piscine, because it sounds too much like “pissing.” While, in the book, Pi does write his name on the board, he does not have the mathematical equation memorized. He does not write it down on the board. There is never a teacher confirming that he has the number correct. Pi is not a genius.

In addition, in order to truly grasp the violence that Pi is exposed to in the boat, the audience should have experienced more of it with him. Instead, we were given a modified version in order to appease the masses, which, in my opinion, makes the movie benign and boring.

One of the most obscure scenes from the book is also left out of the movie: when Pi and Richard Parker are both blind (which doesn’t really happen in the movie either), Pi’s boat bumps into another man’s boat, a French cook, who ultimately tries to eat him. Most likely, this moment in the book is a brief window into Pi’s psyche and the reality that Pi is trying to deal with. This scene would have been difficult to portray in the film, so I can see why the director chose to leave it out.

A scene I was glad to see was left out was when Pi tries to eat Richard Parker’s feces while on the boat. It was bad enough reading it and then reading the alternate ending, realizing he likely was eating his own feces. This was probably best left out of the film.


Verdict: Rent it if you have read the book. I was kind of bored by the overuse of computer animation and lack of violence. Both stories that Pi tells are equally horrific, but I think the movie makes both too easy to take. We feel bad for Pi, but we aren't as horrified by what he has gone through as we are when we read the book. However, if you are someone who has not read the book, you probably would have enjoyed it in the theater more than me because you wouldn't feel like you were being cheated by during certain scenes.

So, what's your verdict? Did you see Life of Pi? Please share with us what you think! 

Monday, April 29, 2013

Angie & Laura Go to the Movies


Welcome to "Angie & Laura Go to the Movies," where we compare movie adaptations of classic novels we have read. For the ranking system, Angie and Laura will determine if you should "Go see it at the theater," "Rent it," or "Walk out." Enjoy!
*Angie and Laura read this novel several months ago now, so our account of details of the novel are not very fresh. Most often, we will watch the movie adaptation (if there is one) the same month we read the novel with the CWAtC book club. During months where there is no movie adaptation to a book we are reading (as in the case of Brave New World), we will filter in movie comparisons to books we have read in the past, as we are doing now.


flickfacts.com
The Age of Innocence

The Age of Innocence by Edith Wharton tells the tale of Newland Archer, engaged to May Welland, but in love with her cousin, Ellen Olenska. Unfortunately, Ellen married a Polish gentleman and moved to Europe, but her husband was unfaithful and abusive, so she left him to return to New York. Sadly, New York high society in the 1870’s is unforgiving to any woman who would consider leaving her husband, let alone attempt to get a divorce. And, because Ellen would suggest such a thing, she will never truly fit into this society. Even though Newland Archer loves Ellen, for various reasons, he is unable to break his engagement to May and run away with Ellen.

Angie says: Rent it!

Scorsese's film version of The Age of Innocence follows the book well and has wonderful actors/actresses. Winona Ryder plays May Welland perfectly; Michelle Pfeiffer, while not exactly like I pictured her, played Ellen Olenska amazingly; and Daniel Day Lewis, like every character he ever plays, was fantastic as Newland Archer. There is little to complain about and it is well worth watching, especially if you have read the book and wish to see it in action. Even if you haven’t read the book, the story is engaging, heartbreaking, and frustrating.

That being said, if this movie were out in the theater today, I would not run out to see it for $10. It moves a bit slowly, like the book. And, although I enjoy that quality in a story at times, it is not a quality that I seek out in a movie that I watch. However, I recommend renting the movie for only a couple bucks. It gives a great picture of high society snobbery in NY in the 1870’s. I’m so glad I missed that era!


Laura says: See it at the theater!


What struck me throughout the film was how well done the picture was made and how it stayed true to the novel. The Beaufort house for instance, is as I imagined it with ornate paintings, drapes, and intricate design. Usually the directors make many changes, as if they feel they can convey a better story than the actual classic author did, but this was not the case for The Age of Innocence. For instance, the costumes, which were first rate, only enhanced the feel of the story. May often wears white, representing her apparent naiveté, while Ellen, the more free-spirited and independent woman, is often seen in red with her blonde curls and red lips.  

The acting was fantastic. Winona Ryder captured the character of May Welland seems unsuspecting and does not reveal that she is at all perceptive until later in the film. Daniel Day Lewis portrays Archer as a lawyer, part of traditional old New York, who is conflicted by his passion for Countess Olenska. His advice to Ellen wavers as in the novel. First he supports her right to divorce then convinces her that due to the traditional mindset of New York society, it is in her best interest to remain married. When he waivers once more saying he would have married Ellen if he could, she made him realize it was his own advice that led to the impossibility of their being together. Through her anger and tears, she says "You don't know all the good you've done for me that I never knew....I can't love you unless I give you up." This scene itself was emotional and reminded me of what a fine actress Michelle Pfeiffer is.

For me the movie was the book come to life.  I would say see it at the theater to someone who enjoys stories of unrequited romance or enjoyed the novel.  

So, if you see The Age of Innocence, tell us what you think.  Is it worth paying money to see in the theater, only worth renting, or is it a movie you would walk out on?