The Lion, the Witch & the Wardrobe

Review by Jack Waghorn

Novel/Film: The Lion, the Witch & the Wardrobe

Author (novel): C.S. Lewis

Director (film): Andrew Adamson

Genre: Children’s Fantasy

Overview: The Lion, the Witch & the Wardrobe follows the story of four siblings, Peter, Susan, Edmund and Lucy Pevensie, as they are magically transported through a wardrobe into the fantasy world of Narnia. The children must seek the aid of Aslan, the magical lion, and the only one who can defeat the White Witch, who has plagued Narnia with oppression and eternal winter.




Novel Review:

The Lion, the Witch & the Wardrobe is both a charming and creative story. The language and tone is simple and easy to read, as obviously this novel is intended for children. I was impressed by the sheer amount of creativity and imagination it invoked while reading. It’s a short read, and an adult will be able to pour though it in less than a day.

I would have preferred the story to take it’s time, as it a little rushed in some places. The pacing can be off sometimes, for instance, the character Lucy discovers Narnia on only the fifth page of the text. This may just be simplicity intended for children however.

The description of the setting was very well done. It was very easy to visualise the environments, which I think is essential for a children’s books, seeing as how children have such vivid imaginations.

A technique that served the novel well was the multiple viewpoints. Most novels will only follow a single character though the events of the plot. The Lion, the Witch & the Wardrobe however follows all four siblings, focusing on individuals when it’s needed. This serves the novel well because we can see single events through the opinions of multiple characters, allowing the reader to get a greater prospective on the situation.

There really isn’t too much to say about this novel. It’s so simplistic but does its job so well. It has a charm that just makes it so likeable. It’s a perfect example of a novel that follows the hero’s journey. A must read for all children and even adults.
Film Review:

Again, The Lion, the Witch & the Wardrobe film, directed by Andrew Adamson, is just one of those films that I enjoy watching.

This is because the film is completely loyal to the original source material. Everything that was in the novel made its way into the film.

Obviously it’s very difficult to translate a children’s book into a feature length film, especially considering that children’s books are so short in length. So when filming The Lion, the Witch & the Wardrobe there was a lot of scenes and moments that were not included in the novel to bring it to feature length. This worked to the films advantage, as the audience was show everything from the novel plus more. A big complaint that I hear about movie adaptations it that the film ‘left so much out from the book!’ So it’s safe to say that The Lion, the Witch & the Wardrobe doesn’t have this problem.

Special commendation needs to be given to the set, costumes and makeup. Although a little heavy on the CGI at times, the film looked exactly how most people visioned it, full of creativity and imagination.

There is always a risk when including child actors in a movie. But all the actors in The Lion, the Witch & the Wardrobe performed their parts well, especially the four children. I just have to say that everything looks and feels exactly how I imagined it would, and for a movie adaptation of a children’s book that’s the best thing you could ask for.

The world of Narnia gives off a mystifying sense and the action scenes are great. An enjoyable family film.



Comparison:

Although I may be scorned for this, I have to say that the film is superior to the novel. Despite the novel being a classic I feel that the film did a much better job at telling the story it wanted to tell.

The main reason I have made this decision is that the film had better pacing and build-up. We are not introduced to Narnia straight away and get to explore the interior of the ordinary house first, a nice contrast to the wonders that reside in Narnia. The dialogue and events are also drawn out, as I felt that they were too rushed in the novel.

I was also disappointed in the novel how we never got to see the battle at the climax of the story. In the novel the characters arrive only in the last few minutes, and the details of the battle are never told. The final battle, meaning the death of the White Witch, seems to be the films climax that it’d been building up to. Granted that this event happened in the text, but it was only mentioned, and never described. This is where the film comes ahead, showing the battle in its entirety and giving a great action scene.
There really isn’t much you can compare between these two mediums. The film just seemed to have everything that the novel has except more. It was loyal to the story, had great visuals and style, only changing what was needed, and honestly tells the story better.

Misery

Review by Jack Waghorn

Novel/Film: Misery

Author (novel): Stephan King

Director (film): Rob Reiner

Genre: Horror/thriller

Overview: Paul Sheldon survives a near death experience by being dragged from a horrible car accident in the middle of a severe snowstorm. Paul is a writer, and is rescued by his number one fan, Annie Wilkes, a former nurse. What at first seems like an act of compassion takes a turn for the worst, as it turns out that Annie is an unstable woman, and begins to hold Paul against his will, in her isolated house in the middle of nowhere.

The situation becomes worse. Paul cannot move because both his legs were broken in the accident, and are in constant need of medical care. When Annie discovers that Paul has killed off her favourite literary character, she forces him to write a sequel in which the character is brought back to life. Because if Paul doesn’t she will do things to him, terrible things.



Novel Review:

As a fan and follower of Stephan King, I have to say that Misery is one of, if not his best novels. After reading numerous Stephan King stories I’ve found that the best ones don’t include anything paranormal, as these have the best payoffs. Misery is no exception.

Misery is both original and creative. The story itself has been parodied many times in movies and TV series. I believe that the story is any writer’s worst nightmare, being held hostage by a crazed and unstable fan.

The premise of Misery is unique because the entire novel takes place in Annie Wilkes’ house, and the only interaction is between the two characters. In any other case this would seem like a boring and terrible idea, but not in Misery. The backgrounds, motives, and mindset of the characters are so well explored and explained it really feels like we know who these people are. We detest the actions of Annie and truly wish to see Paul escape at the end.

Misery makes excellent use of metaphors, particularly the ones which relate the pain in Paul’s legs to the risings of the tide. The whole novel comes off as more of a character study than a story driven by events.
I hardly ever say this, but I cannot find a single fault with Misery without being incredibly nitpicky. The pacing was spot on, the tension built up perfectly and it steers clear of too many corny Stephan King clichés. I still maintain that Misery is the best Stephan King novel I have yet read.



Film Review:

I’ll admit that I was a bit sceptical when first seeing the Film Misery. Directed by Rob Reiner, the film received almost all positive reviews from critics. And so I gave it a chance to impress me. I can honestly say that it did.

I think everyone can agree that the thing that made this film so great was the performance of Kathy Bates as Annie Wilkes. She was exactly how I pictured Annie; she looked the part, sounded the part, and acted the part. What’s so intriguing about the Annie Wilkes character is how she can go from calm to homicidal in mere seconds. Kathy Bates did this perfectly, bringing out the rage and psychosis in the character.

The film had a very claustrophobic feel to it, like the audience was trapped in the house with Paul. Everything that they changed or left out from the novel was perfectly acceptable. It didn’t feel like they strayed too far from the source material.

The reason I was so sceptical at the beginning was that the novel was so great because it worked like a giant interior monologue rather than a stream of events. We felt like we were in Sheldon’s head rather than in the room, which was a unique experience. Seeing the novel in film took away from that experience, but this really couldn’t be helped.

I was also a little disappointed with the casting choice of James Caan as Paul Sheldon. I’m not saying that James did a bad job at acting; in fact, he did an excellent job portraying the character. He just didn’t look like Paul Sheldon to me. From the novel I had always pictured Paul as a young brash man, who would constantly taunt and insult Annie for all her craziness. In the Film Paul just seemed too mature and composed, with no real outbursts of anger. This is probably due to the fact that we can’t see inside Paul’s mind in the film. In the novel he was composed around Annie, but in his head he was thinking of the horrible things he could do to her. I suspect it’s the same in the movie but we just can’t see it. Again, this is a factor that can’t be helped. It was an inevitable part of the transition from novel to film.



Comparison:

Although both the novel and the film were great, it’s a no-brainer that I enjoyed reading the novel more.

As I said before, the novel really gets inside the head of the main character, and explores his thought process in such a horrible situation. In the film we see all that going on, but we can’t see what Paul is thinking.

The film was also ruined for me for one reason. In the novel we are never shown any events that go on outside of the house, it is all told from Paul’s point of view. This is not the case in the film, as it has constant scenes which show the police finding his wrecked car and beginning a search for him. Although this isn’t a big factor it did ruin the experience for me. What I found so impressive about the novel was that it managed to keep my attention without the need of multiple setting and characters. That’s not an easy thing to do. With the added scenes and characters in the film all that impressiveness is gone.

The insight into Paul’s mind is what’s so fascinating. Seeing his thought process throughout the events gives more insight into his character than the film ever could.

While both the novel and the film are great in their own respects, it is no competition that the novel is superior. It was more intriguing, suspenseful, and it kept all the moments between Paul and Annie. It is by far my favourite book by Stephan King, showing how much of a powerhouse author he is.

The Notebook

The Notebook Review
Ashlea Shaw

Genre:

Romance

Age Group:

Late teens onwards.

Stars:

Book 5 stars
Movie 5 stars

Book Review:

I must say I went into this task fairly dubious because The Notebook has been one of my all time favourite movies since its release in 2004. I was very pleasantly surprised. Actually, just like Allie and Noah, I fell in love. Nicolas Sparks truly has a way with words and he is able to capture emotion that I’ve never seen in any other writing. I generally don’t read romance since I’m admittedly a bit of a cynic when it comes to love, but I honestly couldn’t put this book down. I love the whole idea that the story has happened over a long period of time and that the two main characters will stop at nothing to preserve their memories and the experiences that they’ve shared throughout their life. It makes it even more personal that the narrator is one of the main characters and that he is telling the story to the woman he loves (corny, I know!) and that the reader is allowed to see something that would normally be so private and intimate. I really felt like I was there, having Noah read to me and not just me reading it to myself. Highly recommend that all readers, not just lovers of the romance genre, go and get your hands on a copy and be as dazzled and delighted as I was with every heartfelt page! Make this book a staple in your home and make sure you recommend it to others too. Everyone deserves the chance to get to read such a great book and to be able to have the chance to feel those emotions while reading.




Movie Review:


If this movie is not amongst your DVD collections, then please, go to the shops right now and purchase a copy of it! Oh, I just adore this movie and have felt this way about since the very first time watching it many years ago. I have watched it so many times I know every word and yet, I still cry at the exact same places and end up a blubbering mess by the end of it. My tally of how many times I’ve watched this hovers around the 60ish mark (quite sad, really!) and I’ve been known to watch it more than once in a day. The idea that love this powerful and epic could possibly exist in the world today is both thrilling and daunting, because it’s the type of love that you could never move on from (not that you’d want to I suppose). The thought of having someone care so deeply for you and you for them, that just by reading you a story they can cut through the sickness of Alzheimer’s is just so mind blowing! I know it’s just a story but it makes you wonder if something like that could actually happen in real life? Could two people love each other so deeply that their love could conquer anything? Hmm...

Comparison:

Overall my vote is pretty tied. If asked to choose between the two I don’t think I could do it...I’ve loved the movie for years and will now love the book for many years to come. There are so many different components that I like about both! The book is such a brilliant read and I can honestly see myself reading it over and over again as the years come, just as I know I will continue to watch the movie all the time. Both the book and the movie will always be staples in my life and no matter where I live there will always be a copy of each in my possession! So to conclude, we definitely have a tie between these two and it is the closest so far to a movie beating out the book in the reviews that I’ve done so far.

The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring

Review by Jack Waghorn

Novel/Film: The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring

Author (novel): J.R.R Tolkien

Director (film): Peter Jackson

Genre: Fantasy

Overview: The Fellowship of the Ring is the first novel in the Lord of the Rings trilogy. The story follows Frodo Baggins, a Hobbit tasked with the burden of carrying the One Ring. The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring begins the journey of Frodo, as he ventures to the cracks of Doom to destroy the One Ring, the only thing preventing the Dark Lord’s return.



Novel Review:

Would it be fair to call The Lord of the Rings a timeless classic? The answer in an absolute yes!

The Lord of the Rings has revolutionised the way fantasy is written and depicted. It has been one of my favourite novels for years. Almost all major fantasy novels and stories owe something to The Lord of the Rings. It set the fantasy groundwork that has been built upon since it was first published in 1954.

Although slightly outdated by today’s standards of story telling, Tolkien’s language is both poetic and full of detail. His way of describing is almost unmatched, even today. He doesn’t just tell the reader what the character is looking at, he shows them.

The Lord of the Rings was unique because there was nothing like it at the time of its publication. The sheer extent of the world that Tolkien created is staggering. He not only created characters in his novels, but maps, cultures and a complete history of Middle Earth. The attention to details in the story is truly something to marvel at.

But Tolkien’s great details can also be a weakness of the text. At certain points I believe that the passages on detail can drag on for a bit, without making any advancement in the story. Getting the reader to visualise the text is both fun and rewarding, but grasping the reader’s attention is also important. Tolkien seems to do this well, with only the occasional slipup.

But is The Lord of the Rings really a great book, or a classic that no one would dare speak out against? In all honesty, the novel really does hold up. Granted, it does require some patience and an understanding of the world of Middle Earth.


Film Review:

It had originally been thought that The Lord of the Rings could never be translated to film. The story was too vast and complex and would require more effort and effects than could ever be available. Most believed it couldn’t be done. But in 2001, director Peter Jackson proved all of them wrong with his vision of The Lord of the Rings.

Of course, the movie adaptation has many differences to the original text. At first I was almost sceptical, as so much had been changed from the text. But I left the film feeling fulfilled by the content. It seems whatever plot points that Jackson didn’t include where either non-essential to the main plot or would slow the plot down. Keeping in mind that the film is already three hours long, imagine how long it would be if they included all the scenes from the text!

I was pleasantly surprised by the overall quality of the film. The costumes were great, the sets were amazing and the special effects were very convincing.

But most of all I was impressed with the cast. They looked the part, sounded the part and acted the part. I especially applaud the performances of Elijah Wood as Frodo Baggins, Ian McKellen as Gandalf the Grey and Christopher Lee as Saruman the White.

You just have to glance at this movie to see the humongous amount of work, thought and care that went into the making of this film.

I was simply blown away! It truly is a great film!


Comparison:

It’s difficult to compare such entertaining works of film and literature. Both have their own strengths and weaknesses. But which one tells a story better, which is more entertaining, which is superior?

In all honesty, I’m going to have to say that I had a more enjoyable time watching the film than reading the text.

A big problem I had with the text was that it had scenes that would break the tension too often. The tension would subside, but then quickly pick up again. This wouldn’t be a problem if it only happened once or twice, but it happens quite frequently, especially during the first half of the text. The film doesn’t seem have this problem. The scenes that break the tension are almost completely removed, allowing the suspense to build appropriately before being resolved. This gave the film a far more intense and urgent feeling, which made it all the more exciting.

I also feel that the text may be too heavy on descriptions. Descriptions are great in novels because it helps the reader to visualise a scene. But in a film the visualisations are done for us. When you take away the description all you’re left with is story, and the film’s story just seemed more condensed, quicker paced and reached an appropriate climax towards the end. It’s one thing to read descriptions, but another to see them. This wouldn’t have worked if the film was not accurate in translating the descriptions, but everything looked almost exactly how I pictured it.

Granted that both the novel and the film are great, and it’s obvious that they both had a lot of work put into them. But I’m going to say that the film is superior, but only just barely. The film had great directing, great sets and great actors.

Little Women

By Peta Hawker

Little Women, by Louisa May Alcott, was originally published in 1868. Despite it being nearly 150 years old, this book still resonates with people today, both young and old. I don’t remember the first time I read this enlightening book, but my copy is very battered and obviously well-read. It is a story that I grew up with; the four girls are the sisters I wanted but never really had. I hadn’t read it in years until recently when I got very sick, and wanted something comforting. No TV show, no music, no phone calls from my mother could do what that book did. Even though I am much older now, much more ‘grown-up’, I laughed and cried as I followed the girls on their adventures, triumphs and turmoils.

The novel is loosely based around Alcott’s experiences growing up with her three sisters. The main character, Jo March, is modelled off Alcott herself, in both personality and build. With her sisters Meg, Beth and Amy, Jo goes on many adventures and befriends a young boy called Laurie, who lives next door. The story line essentially follows all five of them as they grow into young adulthood, ending with Meg’s engagement. Good Wives, which was originally the second volume of Little Women but is now often sold separately, follows the sisters into womanhood – marriage, children, and careers.

The book on its own, even without Good Wives is simply fantastic. It is embedded with beautiful moralistic ideals as well as unique and truthful relationships between siblings, parents and friends. The mother and head of the family, Mrs March, often experiments on her children in the hope that they might learn a valuable lesson. On one occasion, the girls comment how lovely it would be to have no work to do, and to only have leisure time. Mrs March decides to enrich their lives by sending the family servant, Hannah, on a holiday, and then disappearing for a day herself, leaving the girls to their own devices. The sisters quickly learn how a small amount of housework each day allows them all to live in a well-kept, peaceful home; an important lesson for anybody to receive. The book is so full of love, friendship and hope that it is almost impossible for anyone not to admire it at the very least. Delving into its depths is like cuddling with a loved one before a roaring fire; it is comforting and warm in a way that, in my experience, no other book is.

The movie version of Little Women that I watched was made in 1994. It has a star-studded cast (although they weren’t all so famous back then); Winona Ryder as Jo, a tiny Kirsten Dunst as Amy, Susan Sarandon as Mrs March, and the ever-handsome Christian Bale as Laurie. The movie is not simply the first instalment, but rather it follows both Little Women and Good Wives, meaning that two 300 page books were transformed into a two hour movie. Each scene does get played out in the movie; however, the real gem of the novel is not in the action but is in the character development. It is hard to understand each of the sister’s motives behind their actions when you watch the movie, even if you have the background knowledge from the books. While it was so exciting to actually see these characters on screen, the lack of development is a huge let down. The film simply jumps from one action scene to the next, with none of the important insight into each girl and their battles and victories. It was hard to even get a sense of anybody’s personality; although it is obvious that the actor’s did their best with the script they were given. The best thing about the movie is a sense of liberation that is hard to explain. Watching characters come to life via a medium that wasn’t invented when the original was written is absolutely captivating. Nothing quite beats it.

In my opinion, the book of Little Women is far better than the 1994 film. The movie does have a few redeeming features; however its biggest asset has nothing to do with the actual movie, but rather with the fact that a 150-year-old book has been brought to screen. The character development, the moral lessons, and the overall sense of love and hope that prevails in the book will see me choose it over the film any day. 

Garrigan Guarantee: The Importance Of The Right Tools

Parody of The Last King of Scottland, starring Nicholas Garrigan

Taran Tells: The Importance Of Saying What You Want

Parody of The Black Cauldron, starring Taran

The Black Cauldron

Review By Phil Gray

Parental guidance recommended is not a rating that you normally see on a Disney DVD. Then again, this is not your normal Disney sing-along with friends. The Black Cauldron animated film is based upon the ‘The Chronicles of Prydain’ series by Lloyd Alexander. In other words it’s a mismatch of the bits the writer/director thought would make an entertaining film. I’ll let you in on a little secret; I saw this on the cinema when it first came out. I even had the sticker book to go with it. Not that I collected many of the stickers, as The Black Cauldron disappeared without a trace soon after its release. This might give you a hint at how good the film is and why it took a thirteen year holiday before it poked its head out on video.

Taran, the assistant pig keeper, has a bland and almost annoying voice (played by Grant Bardsley). In contrast, the Horned King, the red eyed, evil, soul sucking bad guy - has a fantastic voice (played by John Hurt). Evil drips from every word the Horned King mutters, while Taran sounds like he’s wondering how he got the job with every chirpy sentence. The highlights in the film for me are Gurgi and his never ending search for a good apple, Fflewddur Fflam being changed into a frog and being hit on by one of the witches, and The horned King resurrecting his dead army with the Black Cauldron.

The Black Cauldron book continues on the adventures of Taran, the assistant pig keeper. It follows Taran and his merry band of stragglers on a mighty quest to stop cauldron-born soldiers being hellishly made. The Black Cauldron is in the hands of ‘the evil Lord of Annuvin’, which is kind of ironic as there is more evil lurking in the hearts of those on the quest, than in the sock draw of ‘the evil Lord of Annuvin’. In fact the whole ‘evil Lord of Annuvin’ is a bit of a ruse, he’s probably at home darning his favourite pants with flowers on, while Taran and his gang are busting up the neighbourhood.

The whole story is like this, they get split into teams to go spank ‘the evil Lord of Annuvin’ with his own cauldron. Taran gets put in the reserve team with Adaon, Ellidyr, Doli and Fflewddur. That ‘special’ team gets gate crashed by Eilonwy and Gurgi. Yes, you can thank Lloyd Alexander’s appreciation of the Welsh for all the nice names. They get chased around a bit by hairy men, which will probably remind most ladies of a night out at Sugar Cubes night club. After a night of clubbing they end up in a marsh with three witches, there they find the Black Cauldron. They try to destroy the Black Cauldron; they can’t, and end up with rather nasty hangovers instead. I’ll not spoil what happens near the end, all I’ll say is keep an eye on Ellidyr.

Playing spot the difference between the film and the book is pretty easy. The film chops a load of characters out, trying to gradually introduce the main characters into the story in a quest-like fashion. The noticeably missing characters are Adaon, the dreamer and Ellidyr, the prince who shouldn’t be allowed orange juice. These characters should have been allowed into the film as they would have given it a more rounded perspective. Instead, Taran in the film is a mixture of himself and Ellidyr. This means that Taran comes over as pig headed in the film (well, he is an assistant pig keeper) compared to his balanced attitude in the book. His personal journey is much better defined in the book, showing his flaws and his strengths.

In the book, Taran has to give up a magical broach in exchange for the Black Cauldron. That magical broach was given to him by Adaon on his death bed. In contrast, in the film, Taran thieves a magical sword from a tomb and passes on the hot item to the witches who can pawn it off to the Horned King. The sword means that there’s more action in the film, as Taran swings it round daringly without any idea what he’s doing. The magical broach in the book gives Taran, wisdom and insight into everything around him. Obviously this would have been harder to portray in a film, Taran looking pensive and his companions saying to him ‘I know the beans where a bit on the strong side last night’.

Mo Moments: The Importance Of Stories Before Bedtime

Parody of Inkheart, starring Mo Folchart

The Last King Of Scotland

Review By Phil Gray

Pack up your bags, lads and lasses, we’re off to Africa. More specifically, Uganda in Africa, it’s the 1970’s and it’s coup time! The Last King of Scotland focuses on the adventures of Nicholas Garrigan, a doctor who enjoys having mishaps in Africa. Written by Giles Foden, the book is split into two parts. The first half is all about Nicholas Garrigan and his first taste of African medicine. The second half deals with the fun and games he has with Idi Amin (if you can call being in fear of your life every day fun). It’s a charming book with a great deal of character, like a warm whiskey on a winter’s day, followed by your favourite stew with a dumpling on the side. The first half of the book would be the warm whiskey while the second is your favourite stew, with the dumpling you’re not sure you want to swallow whole.

The first half is better than the second, now that isn’t so hard to warm up to with that glass of whiskey in your hand. I’ll explain why the first half is the better functioning half; a man living in a pillar box, smoking a pipe. It’s as easy as that, all the interesting characters are in the first part of the book. While the ones you don’t really want to swallow are in the second half. The first half has the awkward romance between Sara (an Israeli doctor) and Nicholas Garrigan while the second half has Nicholas Garrigan wanting to change his pants within the first chapter (fear does that, even to doctors). The pants changing occurs all the way through the second half, even at the end with the phone call out of the blue, ‘who is it darling, oh it’s just the ex-dictator of Uganda, I won’t be long’.

Welcome to the playboys mansion in Africa! I think they should have renamed the film of The Last King of Scotland to ‘The First Swinger in Africa’. Garrigan (played by James McAvoy) gets his groove on even before all the credits have gone up. Yep, he meets a woman on the bus in Africa, cracks joke about monkeys being deep fried in Scotland and then he’s got her riding his bicycle with both wands in the air. Smoother than 007, Garrigan in the film gets the girls, gadgets and a swift getaway (albeit after a slight kicking and being hung from meat hooks). If Sean Connery was thirty years younger he could have easily played Garrigan, I was half expecting James McAvoy to come out with the famous line, shaken but not stirred, whilst jiggling ladies coconuts.


Not only does Garrigan get it on with a random African lady, he tries it on with the X-files lady (Gillian Anderson playing Sarah) when that fails he sets his sights higher and bags one of Idi Amin’s wives. That does not end up well, as he successfully gets Amin’s wife pregnant which ends with some of her body parts being swopped around. Yes, the film does have some unpleasant scenes amongst the naked bosoms and cool tunes. It gets darker as the film progresses, more people die and Garragan is caught up in the ugly world of African politics. Policies such as ridding Uganda of all the Indian Asians, meaning that Garragan has to make his own suits and can’t buy earl grey tea anywhere.

The differences between the book and film of The Last King of Scotland are vast. At no point in the book does Nicholas Garrigan go gun crazy, shooting all the cattle within a hundred miles just so he can concentrate on his bandaging dictator’s scout’s badge. The film concentrates on action, sex and death while the book is slower paced, concentrating more on bumbling, inadequacy and fear. The film is streamlined, like an Olympic diver, it does an impressive pirouette, double twist and triple tuck before hitting the water with a minimum amount of splash. The book is more like an old fashioned bomber, someone who jumps off the high diving board, rolls into a ball and causes all the water in the pool to exit whilst they land.

I wonder if I can fit some more analogies in. If Mike Tyson was the film, it’d bite both of the ears off the book. If George Lucas was the book, it’d wear a wookie suit so it could rip the arms off the film (in slow motion). Okay, end of analogies, the film is better than the book. Don’t gasp so loudly! The film is a very succinct piece of work while the book is flabby and suffers from Nicholas Garragan being too much of a fool. If you like interesting characters, read the first half of the book with a warm whiskey. If you like James Bond shenanigans, watch the film while squinting with one eye (Forest Whitaker impressions make the film better). I’m off to squint at a cow and practice medicine with my baseball bat.

To Kill a Mockingbird

To Kill a Mockingbird
Ashlea Shaw

Genre: Literature/Classic.

Age Group: This book is suited for all ages from 12 and up.

Stars: Book - 5 stars
Movie - 3 stars


Book Review

Harper Lee’s To Kill a Mockingbird is the very reason why people read. It is loosely based on real events that happened to Lee’s neighbours when she was a little girl. This is such a great book! I’ve read it a few times and each time I read it I love it a little bit more. It is such a sad story, and Lee has no trouble addressing the racism that unfolds and is still the case today over 50 years later. Harper Lee has sufficiently set the scene for the story and also shows us what life is like through her sense of imagery and descriptions, of Maycomb County and the people that live there. Her portrayal of one, Atticus Finch, and a rape trial so full of emotion and horror it brought me to tears. The characters in this story are brilliantly defined and well thought out; the storyline is relatable and heart-warming; and the setting is realistic. She was a very courageous person to address it at the time that she did, and had to put up with a lot of criticism surrounding her only novel. She had a voice that she wanted to be heard, and a message she wanted to be sent out and she has done both things perfectly in this story. Her style is straight-forward and to the point – she writes simply, however, she manages to do it elegantly and effectively. The prose is beautiful and light-hearted coming from the eyes of a young girl named Scout, yet, she has managed to capture a moment that is so serious and mingle the two together effortlessly.

Movie Review

In this black and white film adaptation of To Kill a Mockingbird starring Gregory Peck, the storyline has been kept fairly close to the book of the same name. Yes, it’s an old movie and the special effects aren’t in the same league as they are today, but the story itself is what sets this movie apart from others. The music is typical of a film made in that era – in other words when something bad is about to happen, that awful music reminiscent of the Jaws movies (I know Jaws was made long after this, but you catch my drift!). Gregory Peck is the perfect choice for Atticus Finch and his ability to play the ever solemn lawyer/ father/philanthropist all mixed in to one, is no mean feat. The movie is still packed full of the same action that can be read in the book. The young actress who plays Scout Finch (the narrator of the book) is one of those children who is both exceptionally obnoxious but exceptionally loveable at the same time and I loved watching her get in to mischief with her big brother Jem. I would’ve liked to have seen more of Boo Radley in the film since he was such a vital part of the book, but he is only seen towards the very end of the film. I think this was a mistake on behalf of whoever wrote the script because it detracts from the movie for those that have read the book first. The town itself is just like what I’d imagined it to be – quiet, sleepy and everyone knows each other’s business. I would love to see a remake of the film in colour simply because I think it would add to the overall picture of the town.

Comparison

Once again, the book is far superior to the movie. In this instance though, the movie was going to have to be one of the best ever made to beat out the book. Lee’s written word is just too good to be topped and it’s a shame that she chose never to write another novel again. Overall I would recommend both the book and the movie to anyone wanting to read a book that will stay with them and touch them as much as it touched me. So whether you choose to read the book or watch the movie, this story by Harper Lee will resonate in your minds forever and you will find yourself wanting to go back to it over and over again.

Inkheart

Review By Phil Gray

‘Step away from the book, sir, hands behind your back and up against the wall’. The book police are in town, or at least they would be if Cornelia Funke’s book, Inkheart, was real. Mo ‘Silvertongue’ Folchart has been banned from reading out loud. Not because he has a really annoying voice, or a lisp, or doesn’t know how to pronounce tomato. He doesn’t read out loud because when he does book characters come out of the book and into the real world. Now doesn’t that sound exciting, yes, it does sound exciting; unfortunately I’m being ironic. The excitement stops shortly after the whole premise of bringing story book characters to life. I’m warning you now, this is the first book I’ve had a fight with. I actually punched it because I got so frustrated with the stupid characters and lame dialogue. The book came off better than me, I had to put my hand in ice (it’s quite a thick book).

The news doesn’t get any better, it’s a trilogy. Three books of lame dialogue and drippy characters. Maybe the real magic got lost in translation as the author, Cornelia Funke, is German and the book was originally written in German. Then again, I’ve read All Quiet on the Western Front, that was translated from German and that was awesome. Putting the translation problems aside, the book at its heart is a travelling adventure romp suited, in my opinion, to teenage girls. The daughter protagonist, Meggie Folchart, will keep teenage girls interested enough, until they grow out of My Little Pony. Like any girl hitting her teenage years, Meggie Folchart is gradually pulled out of her childhood by the general weirdness of the world around her. Her abilities (making book characters come alive) kick in shortly after being scared to death by some scary story book people.

Got any silly putty or play doh? I’ve invented a new game; it’s called ‘Bendy Brendon Fraser Face’. Catchy, eh? All you need is a film DVD or Blu-ray staring Brendon Fraser, such as Inkheart and some material you can mold with (even blu-tack will do). Pause the film at an opportune moment, when Brendon Fraser is using his special jowl power. Then as quickly as you can, remake that face with your preferred craft material. See if your friends can guess which film your ‘Bendy Brendon Fraser Face’ comes from! I used the scene just after Meggie Folchart (played by Eliza Bennett) says ‘My mother? What’s this got to do with my mother?’. It’s about nine minutes and three seconds into the film and it’s a classic (recreate the same masterpiece I made).

After all that fun, the film suffers from lame dialogue and lack lustre acting. True, as a child you’ll probably be able to overlook these flaws but as adult you’ll be asking for your money back. Capricorn the main villain (played by Andy Serkis) is about as scary as a handful of rainbows and gum drop flavoured care bears. His threatening behaviour doesn’t work, he was fantastic as Golem in The Lord of the Rings and very convincing in King Kong, but in Inkheart he’s a bit of a potato. Actually if you pause Inkheart, when there’s a close up of Andy Serkis’s face, you can make an evil looking Mr Potato Head out of your left over craft material. The only redeeming character in this film is Dustfinger (played by Paul Bettany), his scars look real and he can blow a fireball out of his left nostril.

By now you’re probably asking which could be better out of this lame attempt at entertainment. I don’t know if I can gather my strength enough to compare the two different mediums. The book has only one scene that rang true with me and made me actually care about the characters. It’s the short chapter named Going Home, it’s the part when Elinor Loredan (the book crazed aunt) comes home and finds all of her books have been destroyed. The emotion in that scene nearly made me forgive all lameness that surrounded it. It’s sad because the book could have been so good. Having a quote from a (better) real book at the beginning of each chapter doesn’t help either, as it highlights the rubbish that you’re reading. If only I was a teenage girl maybe I could enjoy it.

Yes, that means I’ve decided the film is better than the book. Not because I lost in a fight with the book (we've made up now and are going out for hot chocolate next week). It’s due to the fact that Paul Bettany (Dustfinger) and his little furry horned friend can act. Paul Bettany has done an amazing fete of making lame dialogue and bad story plotting reasonably interesting. Plus watching him spin fire is kind of cool. I wish I could do that. Instead I’m going to find more films with Brendon Fraser in so I can continue playing ‘Bendy Brendon Fraser Face’. I think Bedazzled will be next.

The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

By Peta Hawker

The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy was originally a radio broadcast that was started in 1978 by Douglas Adams. Later, it adapted to different formats; a ‘trilogy’ made up of five books, a TV series, a comic book series, and lastly, the 2005 film.

Reading the novel version of this utterly unique story held a sense of completion for me. Even though the television series was made before my time, I grew up watching it on VHS with my dad. I have such fond recollections of a blonde-haired Trillian, a Ford Prefect who was somewhere between Tom Baker and Michael Palin, and of course, a Marvin the depressed robot that looked like a whole stack of alfoil-lined boxes piled together. When the movie came out in 2005, I watched it without disappointment. This is why reading the novel, finally, was like completing what I started with my dad nearly 20 years ago.

Douglas Adams, the author of The Hitchhiker’s Guide, has a remarkable sense of humour and a peculiar way with language. My absolute favourite sentence from the book was when Arthur Dent is searching for a cup of tea on the spaceship: ‘He had found a Nutri-Matic machine which had provided him with a plastic cup filled with a liquid that was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea’ (Chapter 17). As I once read in an excellent grammar book, it is only once you understand the rules that you can break them, and Adams is a perfect example of this. Given that the plotline of the book is somewhat erratic, the character development is quite important, and Adams achieves realistic individuals with ease. Zaphod Beeblebrox is actually quite smart, and has a few pressing issues he is dealing with. Trillian is, in fact, a mathematician and astrophysicist who couldn’t find a job on earth, but fits in perfectly in space. The awkward love triangle between Arthur, Trillian and Zaphod simmers under the surface of the story line and causes tension points, particularly between the two men. All in all, the book is an excellent example of Adams’ ability to craft and manipulate language to create a completely unique experience for the reader.

The movie, released in 2005, contained very different looking characters to those I remembered from the television series.  Fortunately, it had been a good 10 years since I had seen the show, and though the images of the characters were still in my mind, I was able to comfortably watch the new versions. Perhaps the best thing about the film is the knowledge that Adams himself wrote the screenplay for it, before his death in 2001. The difference between an author reimagining his work onto screen, and somebody else turning another author’s work into a film is very obvious when watching the film. Adams’ sense of humour is not lost, and much of the dialogue remains true to the original. Stephen Fry as the narrator was an excellent choice; his excerpts from the Guide take on an extra quirky note when he reads them. Martin Freeman was also a great choice; he manages to pull off the bewildered, lonely, tea-loving Arthur Dent with ease. The animations used to illustrate the excerpts from the Guide are fun and adequately attempt to find some harmony amidst the chaos that is Adams’ work.

To compare the novel with the movie is an interesting task, to show that one is better than the other seems impossible. Each version gives something that the other inherently lacks. The movie is able to show the sweeping scenes of space and planets that one could only imagine before. As it has been said, a picture is worth a thousand words, and in this case it is true. Reading about Earth’s reconstruction is nothing compared to watching the various vistas unfold before Arthur Dent; it is almost like watching a fantastic Attenborough documentary. At the same time, the movie lacks a true representation of character development, in the way that only a movie can. In the novel, every action taken by each character makes sense as you follow their journey, their triumphs and their failures. This is all quite unclear in the movie, particularly with Zaphod Beeblebrox, who comes across as a bumbling idiot who makes random, illogical choices. In actual fact, Beeblebrox is quite smart, and has his own reasons for making each choice that he does.

It really is too hard to say whether one is better than the other. With the knowledge that Adams wrote the screenplay for the movie, we can assume that he manipulated certain elements to make them work on screen. It certainly gives me faith to know that sometimes, a movie can be equally as good as its novel. And always remember: Don't Panic!

The Reader

Reviews of The Reader (book and film)

The book

The Reader by Bernhard Schlink.

This was Shlink’s first novel, after spending many years as a lawyer. When a fifteen year old Michael Berg becomes ill on the way home from school, a stranger helps him out. After a winter spent with hepatitis, his mother sends him to see the stranger Finding his way into the house, he surprises her when she arrives home. Michael watches through the crack in the door, running away when she sees him.  On his return to see her, their affair begins.

When Michael next sees Hannah, he is a law student, and she is on trial for a war crime. During the course of the trial, Michael makes a discovery about Hannah  which provides a dilemma for him: can he reveal the secret to the judge?

When Hannah is sentenced to life in prison, Michael is haunted by guilt.

As time goes on Michael finds less meaning in his work as a lawyer. His marriage fails, but he then begins recording his favourite books to send to Hannah. He then learns that she will soon be released from prison, and visits her.

Shlink’s novel is a fine piece of writing, exploring the moral dilemas facing someone in Michael’s position. It speaks of many themes, chief among them fear of action/inaction and redemption.

However  a  drawback of the novel is that some events appear a little too perfunctory, as if they had to happen to make the story work.

The Reader (The film)

The 1995 film is directed by Stephen Daldry  with a screenplay by David Hare (who wrote the screenplay for the Hours, and many plays such as Skylight, Amy’s View and Racing Demons). It opens in1995 , on a morning when Michael Berg (Ralph Fienes) is preparing breakfast for himself and a woman with whom he has spent the night. Looking out the window, his eyes meet a tram, and he begins to recall events of his teenage years, in particular the relationship with Hannah Schmitz (Kate Winslet) .

The film recounts the  breakdown of the relationship, and Michael’s discovery of Hannah’s real past, and the consequences of the relationship for Michael.  We see the tension within Michael when he realizes Hannah’s secret, and his unsuccessful attempts to reconcile his actions in light of this information. We also see the breakdown in his relationships.

The  film ‘s plot plays out as a three act structure, and there is some superb acting by all concerned, and some excellent direction from Stephen Daldry.

Throughout the course of the movie we see the ebb and flow of Michael’s life, as he sometimes has control of what is happening, and other times does not. We see his guilt at not being able to tell the judge about Hannah’s problem, and conflicts which exist about accepting not just one’s own past, but the past of one’s country.

Comparing the book and the film.

As I’ve said, the book’s structure means it is  ideal  for a film: it has the ideal three –act structure, and because of its focus on two main characters,  it allows  the director and the actors to show depth in the protagonists.

Though the film follows closely the book (notwithstanding the flashback to begin the story), there are some subtle differences . In the film, Michael’s daughter is taken to Hannah’s grave, and he consults the lecturer(and not his father) about his dilemma. Michael’s initial illness is glandular fever in the film, but not in the book.

Being able to see the ruthlessness of the relationship between Hannah and Michael makes up for the lack of interior perspective (film adaptations of first-person novels often struggle with this dilemma). Hare has chosen to ignore the need for a voiceover to overcome this difficulty, seeing the book’s content as sufficient material for the screenplay.

Hannah appears much more arbitrary in her behaviour in the film, and  she never uses Berg’s name (calling him “kid”) . Fiennes’ careworn appearance as an adult Michael Berg is perfectly judged.

 Book and film suffer from the same problem: an inability to deal  with the  responsibility for such crimes; the premise is too flimsy . Even as a piece of fiction,  both versions of the story can appear clunky.

 Are we supposed to believe she is that emotionally immature because she can’t read?  Is this why she can’t call him Michael?

Somehow neither presentation works as well as it could.

Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone Review

I have decided to take on the laborious task of reviewing the book and movie of Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone. I say laborious because it will be impossible to undertake this without any bias. I grew up with the Harry Potter novels, and in my mind, nothing could ever compare.

Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone, by J K Rowling, was first published in 1997. I didn’t read it until about 2000. Although I would like to review it afresh from this (approximately 25^th) time of reading it, it is impossible to forget the first time I consumed the book. It changed my life. No book I had read up until that point made me stay awake into the wee hours of the morning trying to finish it. How can I possibly explain what the book meant to me as an 11 year old girl? A young boy is transported from his horrible reality into a magical world where he is special and adored; that is the essence of The Philosopher’s Stone. My life wasn’t anywhere near as awful as Harry’s, but I was heading into puberty, a scary world in its own right. I could relate to him; who wouldn’t love to be carried away to a beautiful school where you are taught how to use your inherent magical abilities and fight off the bad guys like a true hero (at 11 years of age I was still clinging on to the hope that there was some magic blood in me, somewhere).

Somehow, the book means the same thing to me now as it did then. It is the perfect form of escape, and although it has been ten years since I first read it, I still relate to the story and the characters. I think, perhaps, that it has become a part of me, an imagined memory that I hold onto hoping it was true.

Perhaps this is why the movie annoyed me so much. It was released in November 2001, and I was 12. I don’t remember going to the cinemas to see it, although I must have. Either way, the first time I saw it, I was angry. Upon watching the movie again recently, I was surprised to find how little my anger had abated. As a movie in its own right, I’m sure it’s okay. But as I mentioned before, it is very hard to analyse it without the bias of being a fan of the novel.

In attempting to separate myself from the book in order to write this review, I can comment on how well Daniel Radcliffe portrays Harry Potter. He was quite young when the movie was made, but his ability to get into Harry’s mind shows on screen; this is the best thing about the movie. There are so many things to dislike about the movie that I thought I’d stick to the good stuff. The problem with a book to movie rendition is that it is hard to get inside the characters head; there are no soliloquys in The Philosopher’s Stone. Yet somehow, Radcliffe is able to portray Potter’s turmoil, his confusion, his disturbance without ever having to recite a monologue. Rupert Grint and Emma Watson (Ron and Hermione) also play Potter’s support roles quite well; they set up the characters well for the movies to come.

I promised to write a comparison of the two, although I’m not sure why I agreed to do such a thing. Is it ever possible for a movie to live up to a book? Possibly, especially when you have the illusion of time to aid you (I’m thinking of the time elapsed between the novels and the movies of The Lord of the Rings). The movie of The Philosopher’s Stone was released only 4 years after the book, obviously to cash in on the popularity of the novel. I often wonder if the movie had been produced in fifty or a hundred years’ time, maybe it would be better? Maybe more care would have been taken in reproducing the book to a higher quality? Too bad, we’re stuck with the terrible 2001 version. It is has its good parts, as I’ve said, mainly Radcliffe’s ability to channel Potter and make him a reality. However, other than the basic events, the movie was nothing like I had imagined in my head. Everything about Hogwarts was wrong (compared to the Hogwarts in my head, at least) and events happened in the wrong order or were skipped entirely. These are my biggest aggravations with the movie, and somehow, I don’t think time will heal this wound.

TEDdy Talks: The Importance Of The Right Tie

Parody of Shutter Island, starring Teddy Daniels

Shutter Island

Review By Phil Gray

Teddy is a head case, a regular wacko, I’m warning you in advance. Shutter Island, the book, is carved into four parts; Rachel (Day One), Laeddis (Day Two), Patient Sixty-Seven (Day Three) and The Bad Sailor (Day Four). Just in case you can’t count, even while using your fingers, the splitting of the book means that the story is set over four days. Four days full of mayhem and wandering around an island investigating the disappearance of Rachel Solando. Oh, yes this seems like a normal day at the office for U.S. Marshal Teddy Daniels. With him tracking vanishing women, being hit by storms, scaling cliffs, hanging out with beady eyed rats and having strange dreams about his wife.

His wife, by the way, is a loon too. Not that I’m giving much away by saying that, it’s kind of obvious from the start that you shouldn’t leave her anywhere near a cutlery draw. I quite enjoyed this book by Dennis Lehane, it’s not something I’d normally read as it doesn’t have any beeping robots in it. The plot is a bit holey though, especially when it gets past Teddy having a seizure. The way that Teddy is manipulated at the end is a bit dumb too. Nobody wants to tell him outright what is going on, even though in my opinion it would be in the best interests of all parties involved. Not that I’m a qualified psychiatrist, it just annoys me when people don’t tell the truth. There’s plenty of porky pie weirdness going on in this book.

Leonardo Dicaprio getting sweaty. Now that got your attention. Although, it’s not the kind of sweaty that you’d like, puking over the side of a boat and having massive headaches without the night before drinks bender sweatiness. Along with this special appearance of sweat, Leonardo Dicaprio (portraying Teddy) is the master of the fighting eyebrows, those caterpillars of hair only separated by a brow that is forever creased. Maybe he was having problems remembering his lines or his original 1950’s pants were riding up his crotch too much. In Contrast, Mark Ruffalo (playing Chuck, Teddy’s new cop partner) looks at ease in the 1950’s setting, oozing charm and moving with the grace of a dancing butterfly.

The film of Shutter Island has a powerful cast and an all-powerful director. Martin Scorsese at the helm commands a lot of respect, just from his previous manifesto of directed film work. I sneaked a look at what other reviewers had said about Marty boy’s directing. It wasn’t good, which is weird, as I like the way this film is directed. It has a noire feel and the pacing that is needed for a psychological thriller. The only scene that I thought wasn’t portrayed very well was the change in the relationship between Leonardo Dicaprio and Mark Ruffalo, when Leonardo (Teddy) pushes Mark (Chuck) away rather limp handily. The switch in friendship is too quick and brushed over, which I guess can’t be helped as a film has a limited amount of time to get its message across.

Which is better then? A heavy weigh director backed up by champion actors, or a book written by one man who likes his rivers to be mystic? It’s a hard choice, as both have their fantastic moments of truth and realism (slightly warped and wearing a skirt Dolores). The book does an amazing job of showing the inside of Teddy Daniels head, something that the film comes nowhere near. Teddy’s exploding headaches are given a whole extra dimension under the craftsmanship of the book writer, Dennis Lehane. The book is well written and splits the story of Teddy Daniel’s crazy obsession with anagrams up perfectly. I didn’t have any problem following the threads that Dennis Lahane laid down, something that apparently many people had a problem with in Martin Scorese’s film version (the twisty turns); maybe the general public are just a little bit thick.

Not enough explosions and muscle pumping to entertain the average audience or maybe too many crazy dream scenes with encrypted flash backs. Why are you all wet, baby? Another lovely example of encryption used in both book and film. The average audience was probably saying ‘I’d like a refund on this film, as it distracted me from eating my popcorn and scratching my butt crack’. I personally loved the visualisation of the fake pistol scene in the lighthouse. Ben Kingsley having tomato ketchup squirted over himself and then instantly removed without the aid of washing detergent. I’d say in my professional opinion that the book and film are on equal par. Excuse me, while I get back to my anagram making and 1950’s hat wearing.