What I'm saying is that my dislike for this movie is not for the sole reason that I expect it to be word-for-word like the book - like the people who hate Marvel movies because "zOMG this isn't canon warblgarbl!!!" . Yes, it was different from the book which is fine because sometimes things need to be changed to make a story flow better or because of time constraints. In my opinion the movie Howl's Moving Castle was not very good. If the book had been written this way I wouldn't have liked it either.
tldr: I enjoyed the book and hated the movie because of the way it was rewritten not just because the story was reworked.
What I'm saying is that my dislike for this movie is not for the sole reason that I expect it to be word-for-word like the book - like the people who hate Marvel movies because "zOMG this isn't canon warblgarbl!!!" . Yes, it was different from the book which is fine because sometimes things need to be changed to make a story flow better or because of time constraints. In my opinion the movie Howl's Moving Castle was not very good. If the book had been written this way I wouldn't have liked it either.
tldr: I enjoyed the book and hated the movie because of the way it was rewritten not just because the story was reworked.
I'm a big fan of the original Arnie flick from 1990. I grew up on that movie and have re-watched it several times throughout my life. It's fun, it's campy, and thanks to Arnold, it's got a lot of charm.
This? Well, it's not bad by any means. It just takes itself way too seriously and tries too hard to take all the fun from the original and make it super serious. The special effects and the world depicted are damn impressive, even if little is really done with it save for some really fun chase sequences. The car chase, in particular, was a lot of fun. But I didn't give two shits about the characters. Where the original had you thinking and re-thinking whether it was all a dream, this one really didn't make me believe it was anything but real. The great scene in the original where they try to convince Quaid to wake up is re-done here and it...just doesn't work...despite how long the whole scene goes on.
I probably shouldn't be comparing it so much, but given how many throwbacks this had to the original, it's hard not to compare. Still, it was fun enough and I don't regret seeing it, but I don't imagine I'll be re-watching it again, unlike the original.
Just watched Howl's Moving Castle. I read the book about a week ago. I don't like the movie. It's beautifully done, as with all of Miyazaki's movies, but the story is very different from the book. That was disappointing.
Oh my god, RIGHT?! They took out WAY too much stuff from the book, they changed Howl's apprentice from 16 to...8 I think(in turn destroying an interesting sub-plot), AND WHY THE FUCK DID HOWL TURN INTO A CROW?! And don't say magic because even then this would only make sense if their was some sort of symbolism. In this he made a deal...with a fire demon. WHAT?! Huh-zuh-WHAT DOES THAT SYMBOLIZE?! If he made a deal with like a crow god or something than sure, that have made more sense symbolically but this is just random! Magic pacts with demons should NOT random! You may call me silly for not thinking magic isn't random, but if Ghost Rider made a deal with the devil that got him infused with hell fire and he got water powers YALLZ would be confused. Personally I think they just made him a crow guy because he looked cool, which is just sad, because Howl in the book to me looked cool on his own. I mean...HE'S A FREAKIN' WIZARD!t
Not to mention that they COMPLETELY changed the third act of the story which annoyed me immensely. Is it the true antagonists are the witch and her familiar whom I won't even put in spoiler tags because its a good twist. In the movie, they changed it to the duchess. And honestly I was confused why the hell she was attacking Howl in the first place. I think she was trying to get his secrets or something, I don't know, I don't care.
Also unlike in the book it wasn't really explained in the movie how
Sophie became herself again. It just...happened. I don't get it, I still don't get it, I never will get it.
It was just poor writing.
Not to mention it took out numerous sub-plots from the book, such as with Howl's apprentice's age change. In the book he was a teenage and was in love with Sophie's sister and that was interesting considering she rebuked Howl's advances. In the movie... he's a freaking kid and that sub-plot was dropped entirely. What the hell? I get that in an adaptation you can change little things but this changed the character completely! WHY?!
And a lot of people parade this film's use of imaginative animation, but in my opinion it wasn't imaginative enough. The book piqued my adolescent mind full of all sorts of weird imagery. This one...felt plain compared to the images from the book. Yes Miyazaki fans chastise me if you must, but I feel that the film could've done more to bring the world of the book to the big screen. The castle looked more robotic to me than magical, the witches true form wasn't so much ugly as she was really really fat. And that scene in the book where the witch created this crazy ass illusion was scrapped entirely.
So in turn, I as well did not like this movie. It fails on its own, and fails even more as a film adaptation. Miyazaki I love ya, buy you ain't perfect.
Also the other day they were re-running "Open Season" for the billionth time on Cartoon Network. I figured what the fuck, maybe it would be one of those GOOD 2-star kids comedies. Long story short: It wasn't. There was hardly a plot, the characters were almost all stereotypes, the jokes were shit, and the CGI designs looked worse than most 3-D games from the 90s and early 2000s. So in short, if your babysitting someone's kid and THIS is their favorite movie, my sympathy goes out to you.
Some interesting direction going on in that movie, by the way. Everyone looked so...beaten down and real. Not broadway at all...in some scenes it was actually uncomfortable, increasing the amount of 'feels'.
I thought they were going to go for a spectacle for a few minutes based on the first thing you see...but after that it's pretty gritty.
I can't say I've seen a movie made musical quite like it.
Oh my god, RIGHT?! They took out WAY too much stuff from the book, they changed Howl's apprentice from 16 to...8 I think(in turn destroying an interesting sub-plot), AND WHY THE FUCK DID HOWL TURN INTO A CROW?! And don't say magic because even then this would only make sense if their was some sort of symbolism. In this he made a deal...with a fire demon. WHAT?! Huh-zuh-WHAT DOES THAT SYMBOLIZE?! If he made a deal with like a crow god or something than sure, that have made more sense symbolically but this is just random! Magic pacts with demons should NOT random! You may call me silly for not thinking magic isn't random, but if Ghost Rider made a deal with the devil that got him infused with hell fire and he got water powers YALLZ would be confused. Personally I think they just made him a crow guy because he looked cool, which is just sad, because Howl in the book to me looked cool on his own. I mean...HE'S A FREAKIN' WIZARD!t
Which is why he can turn himself into a crow. Did he only use magic involving fire in the book? From the wiki page, it doesn't sound like it, so what's your problem with him using magic not involving fire in the movie?
Not to mention it took out numerous sub-plots from the book, such as with Howl's apprentice's age change. In the book he was a teenage and was in love with Sophie's sister and that was interesting considering she rebuked Howl's advances. In the movie... he's a freaking kid and that sub-plot was dropped entirely.What the hell? I get that in an adaptation you can change little things but this changed the character completely! WHY?!
Immediate off-the-cuff guess, time. We had a full length movie without that subplot, adding it in would have had to at least moderately increase the runtime.
So in turn, I as well did not like this movie. It fails on its own, and fails even more as a film adaptation. Miyazaki I love ya, buy you ain't perfect.
I want to see Les Mis but it doesn't strike me as the kind of movie I should see by myself and I can't find anyone who's really interested and NOT MY MOM.
I really liked Les Mis. I even liked it more than the musical, but that's probably because by the time I saw the musical it was on its nth cast and the performers didn't give a shit by that point.
Fact: The Social Network is one of those extremely rare films that is pretty much perfect in every aspect. Chinatown would be another example of a perfect in every way film.
Fact: The Social Network is one of those extremely rare films that is pretty much perfect in every aspect. Chinatown would be another example of a perfect in every way film.
Seriously? Do yourself a favor son and get on it. I don't call many films perfect but those two? Whoa. Alien might be in that group as well as Jaws. Maybe. I'm still mulling them over. It's not an easy list to get on.
