Okay, I know some of you have read that title and are already scrolling through quickly and skim reading to either prove how WRONG the title is, or how RIGHT the title is. It seems this debate is very passionately debated, and I will be no exception people – so buckle up…
Die Hard is not a Christmas movie, and here’s why.
The Christmas Setting is Incidental While Die Hard takes place during Christmas, the holiday is merely a backdrop to the film’s thrilling plot. Unlike traditional Christmas movies, this action-packed masterpiece focuses on a high-stakes hostage situation rather than spreading holiday cheer or promoting the spirit of giving.
The Absence of Holiday Themes
Christmas movies are known for their heartwarming themes, such as family, love, forgiveness, and redemption. Die Hard, on the other hand, delves into themes of heroism, survival, and sacrifice. It lacks the central elements associated with traditional Christmas movies.
It Appeals to a Broader Audience
Unlike classic Christmas films that appeal primarily to family-oriented viewers, Die Hard caters to the action-loving audience year-round. Its focus on intense action sequences, memorable one-liners, and a charismatic protagonist draws fans of the thriller and action genres, irrespective of the time of year.
While Die Hard may be set during the holiday season, it falls into the category of an action film and not a Christmas movie. Its thrilling plot, absence of holiday themes, and broad appeal contribute to its distinction. So let’s put the debate to rest and enjoy Die Hard for what it truly is – an iconic action-packed masterpiece.
alrighty kids – here we go with the FINAL book vs movie! (*subject to change, availability and basically any decision of me if i wanted to do another one of these at any time for any reason).
Book vs Movie: Legally Blonde
legally blonde has been a movie i have seen, quoted and also generally liked all around, so when i found out it was based on a book – i was there! It was super hard to find, but once i actually got my hands on the elusive copy it took me SO MANY MONTHS to finally slog my way through it.
Elle Woods, Rewritten (and Improved)
while the movie had some great characters that were grounded and fleshed out (if not a little naive and initially wrongly motivated) that had growth and a story that wasn’t ashamed of being blonde, fabulous and a little ditsy.
there was a toxic romance, a healthy one, and a girlie finding a surprise career that she loves and wants to excel in. plus you have bend and snaps, romances with ups guys and manicurists, and all the fun hijinks that ensue in these types of movies. did the movie have flaws? yes. was the book worse? also, yes.
Final Verdict: Fabulous, But Frustrating
this book was a 2.5 stars for me and as i have marinated on that, it may even be less. honestly, here was my initial review:
Warner is a creative??? Why the heck is he even in law school in the first place
Elle doesn’t care as much about law school and doing well as I hoped. Literally reading a magazine in class….
It’s legal learning babble a lot
Elle doesn’t have another love interest in this one that shows some guys are capable of loving you for all of you not just how you look
Pretty meh
Does that seem a little chaotic? yes you say, well that’s because it’s how my thoughts remain to this day as i sit and try to articulate my thoughts on this book.
look, people are going to like different stuff, and resonate with different stuff, which is what makes entertainment in general interesting and highly debatable and commentary worthy, but when something is just so below average but above some other dreck out there, it doesn’t mean it’s good – just not as low as the bar for some of the other books i’ve read.
i loved the kindness that reese brought to the role of elle woods, and it was a good thing they changed some of the book because i am NEVER an advocate of cheating to “get back your man” which is something that did happen in the book. the elle of the book didn’t appear to care about anything beyond a guy who clearly doesn’t want her, and her own self image… sound familiar? because i’m getting everyone on the internet right now vibes for sure and it ‘aint healthy.
while the book was a big ol fail for me, the movie remained funny, interesting and still held heartwarming relationships that i could get on board with (friend and romantic).
i read a book that i didn’t ever really see myself finding if it weren’t for the film that came out, and guess what – the BOOK was way better!
So, why was the book so much better than the film? i’m going to tell you but first i must warn you, this post WILL contain spoilers (though i won’t give everything away), so if you don’t want that – hop out of this post now and watch the movie/read the book, then come back.
alrighty, let’s get started then. Firstly, what is this story even about? assasins on a train is the easiest way to explain, but let’s go just a little deeper.
The Father/Prince:
A father whose young child is in a coma in hospital boards a train to kill the teenager who was responsible. when he sees his moment, the teenager surprises him and ties him up, instead playing mind games with him the entire trip.
a teenager who’s brain works differently than most, and who has discovered how to manipulate people for the sake of it – just to see what happens. throwing a kid off a roof just because he was annoyed at how the father had ruined his plans to torture a kid by electro shocking his dog in front of him.
this pair has an interesting past and story as it progresses. while the prince was the absolute WORST person aboard this train (and that’s a train full of professional killers), the father managed to let him push him around for the hope that his son would survive the train ride.
their dynamic was…. interesting. while i found it interesting to be inside the mind of a complete psychopath with literally no empathy, remorse or the answer to the question of why it’s wrong to kill, i often found myself frustrated with his POV.
the movie managed to gender swap this role, and have the “prince” not only be a girl, but also related to the big bad – a russian race swap – which i found to be unnecessary. there were a few other characters which easily could have been swapped if they so desired, but i also didn’t think it was necessary full stop.
Ladybug:
My actual favourite character (minus Lemon, but i’ll get to him in a bit). the most unlucky “bad guy” i’ve ever read about but i found myself rooting for him and hoping that above all, he would be the one to make it out of this ridiculous train alive.
only when stuff really hit the fan did this guy zero in and get cat like reflexes. a great adaptor to situations, hilariously just wanting to get off this dang train and hired to steal a suitcase which contained lots of money. Ladybug was a great character who was always trying to call Maria (his handler) and get help, or information.
Fruit:
Lemon and Tangerine. twins, but not twins. a killing team that tried to rescue a mob boss’ son, and were also carrying the briefcase full of money. the briefcase that becomes very popular on board.
Lemon loves Thomas the Tank Engine, and talks about it constantly. he is a brutal killing machine, but has an odd kid like obsession with trains. he was sloppy, but kind of endearing. i liked Lemon a lot.
Tangerine was a bit smarter, and always quoting obscure literary fiction. he was also a brutal killing machine, but had a soft spot for Lemon (though he would never admit that to anyone). these guys try to figure out who killed the boss’ kid, and who stole the briefcase while also trying to stay alive.
The Hornet:
a hardly heard of killer that seems to make their way on board the train and swiftly kill while they’re there. Without giving away too much, there is a limit to what i can really say. i will say though, the movie swapped her out with someone i really disliked. i found the character they chose to make her into was brash, annoying, and just not at all the right choice of change in personality.
The Big Bad:
A mob boss to the extreme. certainly not a white russian in the book, and definitely scary enough without the change. he seems to have a hand in practically everything and is a dangerous person – until this book however.
The Others:
The wolf is another assassin which gets a very short viewing, the man on the train who just seems to be someone you can talk easily to but has a tragedy in his own past – and manages to give a good answer to why it’s bad to kill people, and a few others along the way. they were there, advanced the plot but never felt unnecessary or annoying. just the right amount, just the right interaction.
The book itself was an intricate and delicately weaved story. it spent just enough time with characters to engage you, and connected everything beautifully. there was limited gore, only a handful of cuss words, and majority of the story was really focussed on the inner workings of the characters minds. following psychopaths and crazed killers was actually quite interesting.
The movie on the other hand, seemed to “American-ify” the whole story. it became clunky, cluttered, focussed instead on added and unnecessary gore, loads more cuss words, changed fight scenes for no other reason than i can assume an attempt to have different choreography in those moments. it changed HUGE character arcs (like with Lemon) and also completely changed the ending. not to mention changing the “big bad” into a white Russian stereoptye.
when i compare the two, it becomes clear that even though Brad Pitt was hilarious, and it was cool to see so many celebs cameos and moments that were somewhat interesting (falling out of a moving train and the bullet train crashing was NOT part of the original plot, but it did give a good showing for the visual medium), this was the no winning piece for me.
the book held such beautiful grace and sophistication. even though we were following killers as they basically pick each other off for lots of misunderstandings and greed, it was still a study of how these people thought. how they reacted, how they saw the world, and how the story drew connections that couldn’t be expressed in any other way rather than a book.
have you watched the movie? have you read the book? have you done both like me? share your own thoughts in the comments.
okay, i finally did it. i read divergent. am i a long way from the hype of when it originally came out? yes. do i care? no.
i watched the movie and read the book, so let’s compare.
The Movie’s Biggest Change
as is the case with pretty much every book to movie adaptation, it was condensed. the trials and tests are way shorter in the film, and it didn’t really make a difference to the overall movie. while it was fun and interesting to see that in the book, and while it did remove some of the tension, i didn’t really miss it – so point one for condensing things.
Where the Book Did It Better
HOWEVER, point for the book was the condensing of Al’s story. when he ends up in an ‘un-alived’ position, it was way more impactful in the book – the movie almost erased his character altogether. understandable, given how much they really needed to speed through. scenes like tris taking al’s place in the knives and how four actually handled that in the book vs movie was… different. different feels and honestly, i prefer the book.
shortening books is nothing new and i think i complain about it in every one of these comparisons… so yeah. there you are.
The Struggle of Adapting Tris
tris is very quiet. that didn’t translate well in the movie. the actress was okay, but it is a little difficult to fully understand the character when most of whats happening is inside her head. no narration i think was the right call, but it did make for interesting and boring all at once
The Ending Problem
divergent does end in a strange place, and thats because the series continues, but when it comes to movies ending on cliff hangers, i’m not a fan. id rather an ending that i can be happy with and then come back for the continuation of the story – something the hunger games did really well.
Divergent vs The Hunger Games
speaking of hunger games, this and that get compared all the time – so lets do that. i think hunger games book was LIGHTYEARS better than the film – but i think divergent book was only a bit better. so that’s progress, and maybe gives some insight into how well both movies did. plot wise, they are very different – so no comparison there. character wise, i did actually prefer katnis over tris – but it was a tough call.
so, should you watch the divergent movie or read the book? both…? they were ultimately the same story so if you’ve done one without the other, its pretty much same same… except for expounding on some things in the book. if that’s what you want – go for it! i enjoyed both.
Okay, I finally read Charlie and the Chocolate Factory for first time! After liking the Gene Wilder Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory film, and hating the Johnny Depp version I thought it was time to see what the book had to offer originally.
There were a few differences that I noticed between the book and the movies. I will say now, that mostly I am comparing to the Gene Wilder (GW) version of the film (as I actually like that one), but I might mention the Johnny Depp (JD) version on occasion as well.
I like that Wonka seems a lot more likeable in the book. He had more of a lighthearted attitude and relationship from the films. The GW Wonka was a bit more brusk in moments to make sure he was really choosing the right successor, and the JD was way more creepy. I also enjoyed things that were different with the kids and how they ended up being drawn into the factory. For example, Veruca Salts parents were also down the rubbish chute with her, because a kids spoilt behaviour is acutally not entirely their fault. Someone has to spoil them in the first place. I like that the book dared to say things like that!
Timelines were a little different, like when the group and Mike TV went into the TV room or glass elevators. Also interesting, was the GW scene where Charlie and Grandpa Joe snuck into the bubble room, this was nowhere in the book. No Slugworth “test” to see if they could keep company secrets, but there are more books to my recollection, so maybe they brought it in for the GW film?
I have to say, the Oompa Loompas seemed a lot more cheeky in the book, and more mysterious in the film. Their origin was really explored in the JD film, but even then I think they just had more cheek and less seriousness in the book. I really liked that, and maybe because they were so interesting and unlike the other characters (all humans), I would have loved to have seen and heard more.
A few final thoughts: I missed the songs they added into the film. JD was MILES away from what the book portrays Wonka as, but that is somewhat on the shoulders of Tim Burton though, as he was the director. He always seems to like doing really creepy stuff… I don’t know why.
Well, those are my thoughts, but if you read the book as a kid and loved it, or watched either of the films, what was your favourite part?
I don’t know how relevant this debate is anymore, but let’s take a stab at it shall we!
In recent years Disney has been leaning more into the ‘woke’ ideologies, and even though we can see some of those things throughout the decades, it has really hurt their bottom line. The classics that we know still perform well, but the new movies and shows they are coming out with tend to not be hitting the same, or offering the same instant marketability that they used to.
Don’t get me wrong, there is an occasional hit – like the recent movies of Moana, and Frozen (and when I say recent, I mean more so in the past ten years rather than two)… but does that mean Disney is still the superpower it once was? Does it mean that every movie they come out with is not an instant success push Pixar to the top spot?
If there is still a divide (which I don’t think there really is anymore…. potentially), I actually DO have a side of the fence where I sit. I’m Disney over Pixar all the way. Back in the day, yes Pixar gave us Toy Story – something that most of us are grateful for, however the movies coming out now seem pretty different. Pixar fall more on the side of ‘woke’ and unusual ideas, but Disney still have a little more of the old school charm in them… don’t believe me? Let’s explore..
I always saw Pixar and Disney hand in hand, and that every few movies or so, it would be the dream team, then just Disney by themselves once again…. Movies like Toy Story were the beginning of the partnership, and the animation style was very different than Disney had been doing before. The continuation of advancement in animation made some amazing partnerships, and eventually a takeover.
In 2006 Disney bought out Pixar, and since then all we see is the combination of the two – if not in name, then in company. With Disney also buying out many other projects, they seem to be an unstoppable super power… or are they? According to my own research on the topic, Pixar’s approach to creating movies are more along the lines of ‘wouldn’t it be cool if…’ but Disney has more of a focus on the ‘once upon a time’ stories.*
I don’t hear many people debate which are the better movies anymore – particularly because Disney and Pixar work under the same banner these days. Let’s take a quick look however, in the more recent Disney, or Disney/Pixar films and see which side of the fence that YOU fall on in terms of better movies:
DISNEY
PIXAR
So, which side do you fall on? Do you maintain that Disney is better, or are those colabs with Pixar the movies that YOU love? Share in the comments, because I’d love to know!
I’m Baaaaack! We have another book vs movie to do today and this was NOT part of our regularly scheduled programming (and by that, I wasn’t planning to do this one any time soon).
All the same, here we are. The reason I’ve done this one was because the Narnia books have been calling my name, like a lions roar from inside a wardrobe… okay maybe not quite that dramatically but I was very interested to read at least the Lion, Witch and the Wardrobe. Then I figured, why not compare it to the film! So let’s do it now:
The Book by C. S. Lewis
I started with the book (my preferred method for these explorations anyway) and there were some great elements that I’ll share first. Every so often, Lewis added this little asides – almost like 4th wall breaks or funny quips – that really gave some levity and fun to the book. The premise was built upon it being written for a young child that Lewis knew, and so he wrote it as if it was a secret story just between the two. We get to be in on the secret, and that was really nice. The voice was more of the narrator 3rd person, than a particular character, which meant we could get some exposition from various characters and places in the same chapter without it feeling too jumpy. It was really quite easy to read, and just under 200 pages – so not too much of a time commitment. I think just under two hours is what it took me to get to the end.
One thing I did notice, was that the magic system for Narnia wasn’t really explained much at all. There seemed to be rules, but they were often contradictory and not explained as to how they worked – they just did. Although these days I am used to reading more stories that have at least a cursory explanation, I didn’t mind it for Narnia. It wasn’t something that bothered me so much that I switched off from the book and the story. Another thing I noticed – which could just be me – was something very interesting in terms of the door opening in getting to Narnia. The book made a point to mention how silly it would be to close the door on yourself inside a wardrobe, and when Lucy alone goes in and they all go in with Peter at the door, they both leave it open (see above reason). However, when Edmund follows Lucy in, he closes the door and is the only one to come across the witch when he goes in. Coincidence? Maybe… 😛
The Movie
Overall the movie was better than I remembered from school (which is where I watched it the first time.. boy I’m old). It had some lovely cinematic choices (like a silence right before the moment of battle at the end) and the animation of the animals and such was surprisingly good. Something I noticed was that Aslan (and most of the others as a matter of fact) was better animated and created than ALL the Lion King remake characters combined… which was a little sad for the Lion King. Nice bits and pieces from the book were hinted at like the books Mr Tummnis owned on humans, or the drawing of a moustache on a stone animal staying when it was reanimated.
The Witch wasn’t as white as she should have been. It wasn’t describing her as slightly more caucasian than most, she was supposed to be paper white – sickly and ghastly looking – but the film didn’t go quite as hard as they should have with the makeup in my opinion. I will say that Aslan’s death was a lot more impactful when you watched it – and something which wasn’t in the book was that look between Lucy and Aslan as he died was very sad. On the flip side, we got to see something really fun which was the way the trees were alive, and how that looked – something the book never explained.
Major Comparisons
While the book seemed more plot drive, it was clear that the movie wanted a more balanced – and dare I say leaning closer towards character driven – story. By doing this, they gave characters (in particular Peter and Edmond) richer setups for their characters and the choices they were going to make in the movie. They added a lot more animosity between the boys, and they had moments of greater meaning that hadn’t been in the book to give more impact for those moments. An example of this for Peter, was the scene on the melting river with the wolf, then finally getting his chance to kill him – only the latter was in the book. Similarly for Edmond, Mr Tummnis alive and in prison with him having a heart to heart, before he went out and the fox was turned to stone in front of him. Something that gave Edmond more time to realise what he had done, rather than come to that realisation pretty quickly and with a lot more self interest (like he did in the book). As for the girls, well Susan was a bit more sharp in the films, and they had minimal character development.
We got extra scenes like the war at the start, and how that impacted the children, more about the siblings and their relationships, Mr Tumnis’ realisation of turning over Lucy was great, the missing internal dialogue was a shame in some moments, and the general timeline for some events were a bit different (like Edmond sharing where Aslan would be located). Out of the few things that the movie didn’t explain very well, was my personal annoyance – the Turkish Delight. It was actually magically enchanter. The book explains that it was enchanted to make the eater just want to continue it forever, and it gave a lot more reasoning into why Edmond wanted to hand over his siblings for candy. I think not explaining did his character a disservice. One thing we did get though, was seeing the start of the final battle from Peter and Edmonds POV – something that we missed in the book.
I don’t know why they decided to just give these “kids” titles like “The Just” and “The Gentle” when they hadn’t earned them yet (something that only came after years of ruling as Kings and Queens), but whatever. My final question, which I think is the most important of all, was HOW THE HECK DID MR TUMNIS NOT GET COLD WHILE HE WASN’T WEARING A SHIRT IN THE SNOW????
Anyway, thanks for reading and I hope to have another Book Vs Movie out soon. What were your thoughts on The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe? Did you agree with my insights? Share in the comments.
It is kind of surprising HOW MANY movies are actually based on novels. I had no clue that Father of the Bride was based on a book that was released in 1949! I will admit, I have only seen the Steve Martin version of the film, though the earlier make would be fun to watch also. When I realised, I decided it simply HAD to make it onto my list of Book vs Movie reviews.
It’s been a while since we’ve done one of these, and this is the first time I’m doing a more in depth blog post about it, so let’s get into things!
For a change, this book didn’t feel like it had been condensed for the movie. Normally, you get the distinct feeling of a compressed storyline for film, which is totally understandable. You don’t often get the time constraint for a novel, whereas a movie takes place in 1.5-2 hours. Even though not all the same antics take place, you don’t feel like the story missed out on several key factors. I think the main reason for this, was because the book was actually quite short. It was only 230 pages, and covered a lot of wedding aspects.
Which leads me to the next point, not every moment in the book was copied in the film/s, BUT the main points and themes were. I will admit that in the book, I missed certain film elements (which I will cover next), but for the most part the gist of the story was taken across into a film format. It’s a good example of a movie doing WELL by the book – though I have only watched the Steven Martin movie for this comparison, so I couldn’t say about the others.
One thing that I will say, is that I MISSED Franck! One of my favourite element of the film, was Martin Short’s portrayal of the difficult to understand and over the top wedding coordinator. The closest we got to this character in the book, was a snobish caterer – but he wasn’t nearly as interesting.
In terms of the characters we did still have, there were some notable changes. The names for one thing. Though the last name “Banks” was the same, all the first names (and the surname for the fiancé) were different. Not such a huge deal, but different none the less.
Also, the character of the daughter (Annie for the movie, and Kay for the book) was a lot more immature, whiny, and bratish. I didn’t like her in the book, but not because she was an unlikable person – we didn’t actually develop her character outside the wedding, so it would be hard to like or dislike her at all – just that she seemed so unsophisticated as a supposed adult.
Because this book was written in the 40s, the language is more “old world” and uptight. This is always a challenge for me to read, as it isn’t my preferred style. I also noticed that there was A LOT of italics used (somewhat like me using CAPITALS a bunch so far in this post.. but worse). The writer, Edward Streeter, seemed obsessed with italics.
A great feature in the book, were the illustrations. Almost every page or two, there was an image of Mr Banks and party in the various antics from that or the previous page. It gave the book a light and humorous feel which was quite nice.
Finally, and most important (in my view) was the theme of Fathers and Daughters in the context of weddings. This is where, I believe, the movie did a much better job than the book. The whole story is focussed on a father helping his daughter and wife put together a wedding. The character of Mr Banks, in both iterations, was somewhat frustrating. They were worried about the money, the damage, the number of guests, and making the day special for their daughter. Though they were different in many ways, that was a constant. However, I feel like the character in the book lost the heart that Steve Martin put into Banks for the film.
It really did come down to how much he loved his daughter, and wanted her to have the best in life and in her wedding day. There were a lot more comedic and neurotic moments in the film, which I think were best placed in the film with a comedic timing. Though I admit it was better for that format, I do miss that element in the book. Less prudent and sensible, and more neurotic and falling into pools is what I say!
Okay, so let’s do an overall thoughts to finish this post off. I think, though the book had some great points, the movie wins hands down. It had more heart, more humour and more Franck! I did enjoy seeing some of the different points and aspects the book take (particularly from the perspective of a 50s style wedding), but the film just had something the book did not.
You must be logged in to post a comment.