Check out Entertainment Weekly's "Read the Book: 23 Disappointing Movie Adaptations." It definitely brought back some very painful memories like Mike Myers' "Cat and the Hat," but I found it interesting. There are so many films that are adapted from books these days — more than you realize, too many to even try and list. Are these truly the worst or simply the most recognizable? The books/film on this list are among some of our most popular (The DaVinci Code) and classic texts (The Scarlet Letter). That's what made me start to opine that perhaps this list has more to do with how high our expectations are. If you didn't read Vanity Fair would you like the film? I did.

Does the quality of the book have anything to do with these expectations? The Golden Compass was the first among the photos and I don't know if that means it 's #1 on the list, but that seems a little harsh. Yeah, I agree it was a little bit of a let-down, but I was prepared. On the contrary, I didn't expect anything nearly as wonderful as the book. I knew it couldn't be done. I think that allowed me to enjoy the movie for what it was: one version of the story — a different illustration, if you will. I also wonder if it had been so long since I'd read the books, that I wasn't as committed to my own mental impressions?

In the case of Twilight, I don't even want to see the trailer. (I linked to it, but I didn't watch.) It's too soon. I'm just finishing New Moon and I am savoring every minute. I want Bella and Edward exactly as I've created them in my mind before giving into someone else's vision. (My Edward is a handsome cross between Bright Eyes' Conor Oberst and the guy who played Mark in Showtime's 'Meadowlands'. My Bella is more Ellen Page (Juno) than Kristen Stewart.) I'll come around, I know, but for now I'm not ready.

I don't understand how a bad movie would inspire anyone to read the book, but here's a great list of books that are on their way to the big screen to read first. (Powell's)

"Nancy Drew" is out on DVD and I watched it this weekend. It was super fun, and I thought, quite well done. In a recent post about all of the attention the seminal Harriet the Spy was getting, one reviewer suggested that girls in the 70s had to choose between the two sleuths; you were either a Nancy-Drew-girl or a Harriet-the-Spy-girl. It was implied that Harriet was cooler, and that Nancy was a square. Gasp! While I love sister Harriet, I think this movie could change people's minds. In fact, the movie "Nancy Drew" just might inspire a new generation of readers of the classic mystery novels — if not a new fashion craze.

Emma Roberts (Julia Roberts' niece) is a dead-on good girl, no-nonsense, smarty-pants depiction of Nancy Drew. Not only was she able to pull off Nancy's sensible, sleuthing, singlemindedness, but she does so with panache. Girlfriend looks good! The art direction was fabulous. A combination of elements that played retro while grounded in the present formed a seamless connection between the series' 1930s origins, 1950s popularity and the present. Take, for example, her roadster or the Fedoras and trenches the men wore. These playful choices placed the perfect amount of yesteryear against Nancy's trendy L.A. schoolmates to create a world which seemed ageless.

But it was the costuming that really caught my eye. I loved looking at her clothes! In spirit only, it reminded me a little of Clueless and Alicia's Silverstone's brilliant reincarnation of Jane Austen's Emma. Bordering on geek-chic, Nancy has a trim, smart, librarian-esque style all her own. Her loafers and knee-highs, matching headbands and wool jumpers totally rocked. She always looks put together telling us she cares about her appearance, yet it's obvious that it's not her primary concern. Nancy likes "old-things" she says, and gives them a modern twist. There's also a line that suggests she makes much of her fashion herself. Gush. DIY to boot. One of my favorite scenes is when Nancy's friends (translation= frenemies) take her to be made-over at a posh Beverly Hills boutique. The sales woman thinks the intended makeover is for them, while fawning over Nancy's personal and unique "look." I laughed out loud and reminisced about Sassy's famous "make-unders."

I love Nancy Drew and think that her snappy dress only underscores what a one-of-a-kind gal she truly is. Not only is she intelligent and confident, she has impeccable taste. Mystery-solving ability aside, her fabulous fashion sense makes for a refreshing respite from the pantiless celebutantes so many of us are so sick of seeing.

Stay tuned…next month: "Prince Caspian". I CAN'T WAIT.

"Nancy Drew" is out on DVD and I watched it this weekend. It was super fun, and I thought, quite well done. In a recent post about all of the attention the seminal Harriet the Spy was getting, one reviewer suggested that girls in the 70s had to choose between the two sleuths; you were either a Nancy-Drew-girl or a Harriet-the-Spy-girl. It was implied that Harriet was cooler, and that Nancy was a square. Gasp! While I love sister Harriet, I think this movie could change people's minds. In fact, the movie "Nancy Drew" just might inspire a new generation of readers of the classic mystery novels — if not a new fashion craze.

Emma Roberts (Julia Roberts' niece) is a dead-on good girl, no-nonsense, smarty-pants depiction of Nancy Drew. Not only was she able to pull off Nancy's sensible, sleuthing, singlemindedness, but she does so with panache. Girlfriend looks good! The art direction was fabulous. A combination of elements that played retro while grounded in the present formed a seamless connection between the series' 1930s origins, 1950s popularity and the present. Take, for example, her roadster or the Fedoras and trenches the men wore. These playful choices placed the perfect amount of yesteryear against Nancy's trendy L.A. schoolmates to create a world which seemed ageless.

But it was the costuming that really caught my eye. I loved looking at her clothes! In spirit only, it reminded me a little of Clueless and Alicia's Silverstone's brilliant reincarnation of Jane Austen's Emma. Bordering on geek-chic, Nancy has a trim, smart, librarian-esque style all her own. Her loafers and knee-highs, matching headbands and wool jumpers totally rocked. She always looks put together telling us she cares about her appearance, yet it's obvious that it's not her primary concern. Nancy likes "old-things" she says, and gives them a modern twist. There's also a line that suggests she makes much of her fashion herself. Gush. DIY to boot. One of my favorite scenes is when Nancy's friends (translation= frenemies) take her to be made-over at a posh Beverly Hills boutique. The sales woman thinks the intended makeover is for them, while fawning over Nancy's personal and unique "look." I laughed out loud and reminisced about Sassy's famous "make-unders."

I love Nancy Drew and think that her snappy dress only underscores what a one-of-a-kind gal she truly is. Not only is she intelligent and confident, she has impeccable taste. Mystery-solving ability aside, her fabulous fashion sense makes for a refreshing respite from the pantiless celebutantes so many of us are so sick of seeing.

Stay tuned…next month: "Prince Caspian". I CAN'T WAIT.

A few months ago I wrote about a made-over and re-released book,Girl by Blake Nelson. Well, I'm back on the Blake Nelson bottle and this time it's with Paranoid Park. Published in 2006, it was recently made into movie and premiered this week. The film, directed by Gus Van Sant, was lauded and loved at Sundance. Here is a pretty stellar review by David Edelstein on Fresh Air, too, in case you need more convincing of its merit. I watched it on cable in the "IFC In Theaters" category. (What a great Comcast feature for movies that are a little more obscure than your average blockbuster and have only shown in the bigger cities.)

Needless to say I loved the book. I also loved the movie. It was beautiful and airy and lyrical while conveying the gritty clumsiness of adolescence. Van Sant delivers his experimental films with respect for his characters and their point-of-view in an elevated, artistic way that never cheapens them. Often dealing with the pain and confusion of youth, he never sells them out like so much of the teen-sploitation we see everywhere today. It's refreshing.

Van Sant transformed the story and the main character in ways that I find hard to describe. There is an ethereal quality to "Paranoid Park" that is not present in the book. The overall voice of the character is different, too. He narrates like a boy — Like a competent, but uncomfortable reader, unaffected. It's nice, but in spite of the circumstances I read Alex as a more confident protagonist. He's presumably writing a confessional most likely never to be read by anyone. Yes, he's young, but this is his story, not someone else's. Van Zant also changed the details that surround the train-hopping "accident." I found it curious that Van Sant assigned more fault to the main character. In the book the incident as it happens is clearer, but the issues of guilt and responsibility are more confusing.

Reading Paranoid Park and watching the film reminded me of an important issue in a world where every film we see seems to have been based on a book: They are different experiences. Different works of art. Different creative expressions. In this particular case, the story is there, the characters are the same, some of the dialogue came directly from the book, but the book and the film are unique in and of themselves. Separate and equal. Comparing them seems irrelevant. I can't decide which I prefer — not which version of Paranoid Park, but a movie that stays true and close to the original book, or one that takes it to another level completely. I think the latter.

That being said. It depends on the book, doesn't it? Imagine the bloody revolution of muggles had the Harry Potter books been re-created in anything but the closest and truest film version possible. Anything interpretive would NOT have been tolerated nor would it have worked. "Paranoid Park" works and it's gorgeous, just don't expect what you expect.

A few months ago I wrote about a made-over and re-released book,Girl by Blake Nelson. Well, I'm back on the Blake Nelson bottle and this time it's with Paranoid Park. Published in 2006, it was recently made into movie and premiered this week. The film, directed by Gus Van Sant, was lauded and loved at Sundance. Here is a pretty stellar review by David Edelstein on Fresh Air, too, in case you need more convincing of its merit. I watched it on cable in the "IFC In Theaters" category. (What a great Comcast feature for movies that are a little more obscure than your average blockbuster and have only shown in the bigger cities.)

Needless to say I loved the book. I also loved the movie. It was beautiful and airy and lyrical while conveying the gritty clumsiness of adolescence. Van Sant delivers his experimental films with respect for his characters and their point-of-view in an elevated, artistic way that never cheapens them. Often dealing with the pain and confusion of youth, he never sells them out like so much of the teen-sploitation we see everywhere today. It's refreshing.

Van Sant transformed the story and the main character in ways that I find hard to describe. There is an ethereal quality to "Paranoid Park" that is not present in the book. The overall voice of the character is different, too. He narrates like a boy — Like a competent, but uncomfortable reader, unaffected. It's nice, but in spite of the circumstances I read Alex as a more confident protagonist. He's presumably writing a confessional most likely never to be read by anyone. Yes, he's young, but this is his story, not someone else's. Van Zant also changed the details that surround the train-hopping "accident." I found it curious that Van Sant assigned more fault to the main character. In the book the incident as it happens is clearer, but the issues of guilt and responsibility are more confusing.

Reading Paranoid Park and watching the film reminded me of an important issue in a world where every film we see seems to have been based on a book: They are different experiences. Different works of art. Different creative expressions. In this particular case, the story is there, the characters are the same, some of the dialogue came directly from the book, but the book and the film are unique in and of themselves. Separate and equal. Comparing them seems irrelevant. I can't decide which I prefer — not which version of Paranoid Park, but a movie that stays true and close to the original book, or one that takes it to another level completely. I think the latter.

That being said. It depends on the book, doesn't it? Imagine the bloody revolution of muggles had the Harry Potter books been re-created in anything but the closest and truest film version possible. Anything interpretive would NOT have been tolerated nor would it have worked. "Paranoid Park" works and it's gorgeous, just don't expect what you expect.

What book could be a better "Page to Screen" feature than "Inkheart", the wonderfully imaginative and clever book by Cornelia Funke? I thought it made perfect sense because in Inkheart, the concept of page to life is the whole fantastic premise. "Inkheart" was produced by New Line Cinema who also did the "Lord of the Rings" films and was directed by Iain Softley ("Skeleton Key" and "K-Pax").

And what a great cast. I've loved Brendan Fraser ever since "Gods and Monsters" and think he will make a great Mo. Capricorn is played by Andy Serkis and he looks perfectly devilish as Capricorn. A British actor, he's been in a ton of things but most interesting and exciting to me is that he was the voice of Gollum in the "Lord of the Rings" films. How cool is that? And of course, there are these two words: Helen and Mirren! OMG. As my two year-old son says, "I'm so 'sited."

The film was scheduled to be released this spring but was just recently pushed back. I wonder why they did that. Some say it could be as late as 2009. Were the powers-that-be disappointed with ticket sales from "The Golden Compass"? Sometimes producers want a release date with better chances at a higher box-office returns. Sometimes they want less competition with other films that share their audience. I don't know enough to make a guess at what the motives are but… I'm bummed. Aren't they worried about wasted hype and that movie-goers will lose their mojo for the film? Does that happen?

Nevertheless, I think it's going to be great. 'Inkheart' is primed to showcase cool CGI stuff and I'm looking forward to seeing how it's done for this particular story. The ways in which Mo brings words to life is so magical, it will be fun to see how that concept is actualized. Also, Cornelia Funke is an absolute master of creating a sense of timelessness and place in her books. In The Thief Lord, for example, Venice was such a location of a million locations, during a time of a million times. The spirit of her work is so enchanted yet real. I think Inkheart is similar and I hope that same spirit can be delivered by the movie.

Ugh. The waiting is going to be rough, though.

What book could be a better "Page to Screen" feature than "Inkheart", the wonderfully imaginative and clever book by Cornelia Funke? I thought it made perfect sense because in Inkheart, the concept of page to life is the whole fantastic premise. "Inkheart" was produced by New Line Cinema who also did the "Lord of the Rings" films and was directed by Iain Softley ("Skeleton Key" and "K-Pax").

And what a great cast. I've loved Brendan Fraser ever since "Gods and Monsters" and think he will make a great Mo. Capricorn is played by Andy Serkis and he looks perfectly devilish as Capricorn. A British actor, he's been in a ton of things but most interesting and exciting to me is that he was the voice of Gollum in the "Lord of the Rings" films. How cool is that? And of course, there are these two words: Helen and Mirren! OMG. As my two year-old son says, "I'm so 'sited."

The film was scheduled to be released this spring but was just recently pushed back. I wonder why they did that. Some say it could be as late as 2009. Were the powers-that-be disappointed with ticket sales from "The Golden Compass"? Sometimes producers want a release date with better chances at a higher box-office returns. Sometimes they want less competition with other films that share their audience. I don't know enough to make a guess at what the motives are but… I'm bummed. Aren't they worried about wasted hype and that movie-goers will lose their mojo for the film? Does that happen?

Nevertheless, I think it's going to be great. 'Inkheart' is primed to showcase cool CGI stuff and I'm looking forward to seeing how it's done for this particular story. The ways in which Mo brings words to life is so magical, it will be fun to see how that concept is actualized. Also, Cornelia Funke is an absolute master of creating a sense of timelessness and place in her books. In The Thief Lord, for example, Venice was such a location of a million locations, during a time of a million times. The spirit of her work is so enchanted yet real. I think Inkheart is similar and I hope that same spirit can be delivered by the movie.

Ugh. The waiting is going to be rough, though.

So I guess it's time for me to say my piece about The Golden Compass. I have not seen the movie but I have read all three of Philip Pullman's trilogy, His Dark Materials. I am not surprised at the outcry and subsequent boycott from the Catholic Church. Honestly, did anyone expect anything less? Really.

As usual they've most likely only drawn more attention to the thing and sparked more interest among youth.

There has been such hubbub over The Golden Compass' "opinions" on Christianity, and Catholicism in particular. There's everything from speculation about Nicole Kidman's absence at the NYC premier (an ardent Catholic herself) to the accusation that the film promotes matricide. Come on! It's all made me start to wonder- Will it be possible to see the stories for what they are? Stories. Fantasy. Fiction. There is so much more to see than just the controversy over religious doctrine. As a child, I read C.S. Lewis' Chronicles of Narnia, and I was completely oblivious to the religious overtones. Totally missed them. Allegory and metaphor were way too big for me. They completely went over my head. What I got, was the depth of the characters, the icy-coldness of Narnia, the amazing warmth of Aslan, the brilliance of the plot, and of course, the impending stand-off between good and evil. It was marvelous. I loved it. Then I re-read the books as an adult, and while I was certainly able to understand some of the deeper political and religious messages, it was the story itself that stayed with me.

I am probably being naive about The Golden Compass in this regard. The power behind the message is just too intense. Not all viewers will get all of the nuances, but in general the grand theme, is hard to miss. There are other elements of this rich, epic, tale on which to focus though. And I feel like they're being overlooked in all of the coverage of what the Church thinks. Bleh. If you're like me, you've been waiting for this film forever and will be first in line on Friday. I say boycott the coverage of the boycott. Ban reading and writing about the ban. Just go see the movie, and love the totally amazing and imaginative world Philip Pullman has created for us.

Here's some more on the subject:

From Salon

And pomomusings (Thanks Andrew)