The BFG

Steven Spielberg has a solid filmography of family films, from E.T to Hook, Jurassic Park to Tintin, all of which found commercial success. But Spielberg’s latest release, an adaptation of Roald Dahl’s classic The BFG, seems to be turning into the flop of the summer. But is it deserved?

Sophie (Ruby Barnhill) is a young orphaned insomniac living in a London orphanage that she doesn’t particularly like. One early morning when all else is quiet, she sees a giant lurking about, who snatches her from her bed and takes her off to Giant Country. He introduces himself as the Big Friendly Giant or BFG (Mark Rylance), the runt of the litter and a lot smaller than the other giants. Sophie empathises with him and she helps the BFG devise a plan to get rid of the bullying bigger giants.

The BFG is one of the closer adaptations of Dahl’s work, although Spielberg does much to conceal darker themes in favour of a family friendly PG-release, surprisingly without much detriment to the end result. There’s almost never a dull moment, and whilst a lot of the humour may edge more on the childish side there’s certainly a lot for parents to like. The first two acts in particular carry the story through and explore mystery in such a uniquely Spielbergian way, and the dream catching sequence is probably the most well executed of these moments.

However after the first two acts comes a third chapter that’s more difficult to judge, on the one hand it’s totally true to the book and so should be there, but on the other it just seems so out of place that it takes away from the rest of the film. Perhaps this is an example of Dahl’s bizarre frivolities and Spielberg’s broad-audience mindset clashing. On its own it has merit but it just doesn’t sit well with the rest of the feature.

It’s difficult to fault the acting overall, Mark Rylance (who earned an Oscar for teaming up with Spielberg in last year’s Bridge of Spies) shows his breadth as the BFG and his unique take on language. Ruby Barnhill is enjoyably bossy as Sophie, and Penelope Wilton finds a comic way to play the Queen that doesn’t lean too heavily on caricature. The other giants are also very good and I was surprised to find out that the leader of the group Fleshlumpeater was played by Jemaine Clement. The motion-capture has been meticulously done, and whilst there’s still a noticeable gap between the CGI giants and the rest of the world, it’s never really distracting enough to take you out of the film.

It seems unlikely that The BFG will find the audience that most Spielberg summer blockbusters do, which is sad because whilst it’s far from his best work, it stands above most of the other films that are taking the share in this release period. The BFG is well-acted, often funny and always fun, and whilst it may not be as dark or complex as the novel, it stays true to the intentions and tone of Roald Dahl’s work.

Bridge of Spies

Despite the critique from many a historian, nobody does history as consistently well as Spielberg. Schindler’s List, Lincoln, and Munich were all fine retellings that balanced fact and emotion extremely well. Other of his films such as Empire of the Sun, War Horse and perhaps most-notably Saving Private Ryan inhabit a detailed, rich historical world, despite adapting the circumstances into their own story. His latest film, Bridge of Spies takes a look at the events surrounding the exchange of Soviet spy Rudolf Abel and American U-2 pilot Gary Powers. 

The year is 1957 and in Brooklyn, KGB spy and talented painter Rudolph Abel (Mark Rylance) goes about his business; retrieving secret messages and not getting caught in the process. However, this time the FBI are on his tail and he’s arrested whilst his hotel room is raided. Elsewhere in town, insurance lawyer James B, Donovan (Tom Hanks) is asked by his boss (Alan Alda) to take on Rudolf’s case. It’s imperative that the U.S justice system is seen to be fairly representing the spy, and the Bar association has unanimously voted that Donovan should draw the short straw. 

A guilty verdict is a forgone conclusion, however Donovan gives the case his all, and even after the verdict, talks with the judge to downplay the sentencing from death to incarceration. There may be a time when an American is captured by the Russians and a trade required. That’s exactly what happens when U-2 reconnaissance pilot Gary Powers (Austin Stowell) crashes over Russia and fails to kill himself. Donovan is chosen to negotiate the trade, however he must travel to the divided Berlin to do this. 

Bridge of Spies plays out like a classic espionage thriller, subtle and nuanced like the most recent notable example Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, but with Spielberg’s personal touch thrown in for good measure. The period style is immediately evident through the set design, and the entrenched fear of the time palpable through minor details like everybody’s favourite civil defence film Duck and Cover. In the Berlin scenes, the fear and panic is noticeable as construction starts on the Berlin Wall; a snapshot of Europe’s instabilities at the time. Thomas Newman’s score stays largely unannounced, but when it does come out, there’s a distinct Road to Perdition feeling to it all. 

Much like his last film Lincoln, Spielberg accents the themes of this quite astounding story through what can be most closely described as ‘selective patriotism’ – drawing out the inherent humanism in liberal American values, whist rejecting the cold bureaucracy that seems to have taken their place. Donovan cites the constitution in his appeal for Abel, partly because he believes in its protective principles – even if Abel’s not an American – partly because he’s foresees the value in keeping him alive, but also because he empathises with Abel. It’s here that Spielberg reveals his true intentions, which are as usual to draw out compassion and build character. 

These areas are what really sets Bridge of Spies apart from what the film could have been in lesser hands. The well-rounded, often witty Matt Charman/Coen Brothers script covers the historical ground exceptionally well, and the gritty cold-war environment is brought to life through Janusz Kamiński’s reserved cinematography. However the good-natured James B. Donovan is the root of this film and carried through by the always-exceptional Tom Hanks. Hanks gives this film everything, both to his role and to others. He’s well known for his generosity as a co-star, and it really shows. Everybody that shares the screen with him is at their very best. Mark Rylance brings a composed genteelness to Abel that makes him immediately likable, and other standout roles include Stowell as Powers, Jesse ‘Lydia O Lydia’ Plemons and all-round acting legend Alan Alda (despite only making a brief few appearances). 

Not only does Bridge of Spies continue to prove that any Spielberg/Hanks collaboration turns to gold, but it marks a strong return to the classic espionage sub-genre, evident even through the notably “old-school” editing. This film is unashamedly Spielbergian in all its glory – from the human interest core to the final moment of minor sentimental overreach. Many criticise Spielberg for his neat and tidy endings but as a piece of historical storytelling, you don’t need anything more. This is a film that brings out the humanity behind the events and is also the first film I’ve seen in ages that got a healthy round of applause at the end, which certainly says something.

Classic Movie Review: The Lost World: Jurassic Park (1997)

The Lost World: Jurassic Park is the second instalment and at the time of its release it was seen as a very poor sequel to the original film. And while it does live up to comparisons with the original film, it is a very fun movie in its own right and has a cast of great characters and all new dinosaurs to hold up even eighteen years later.

Set roughly four years after the events of the first film, Dr Ian Malcolm (Jeff Goldblum) is summoned to the home of John Hammond (Richard Attenborough) where he is asked to lead a team of experts to the second island that contains dinosaurs in Costa Rica. However when Malcolm discovers that his girlfriend, palaeontologist Sarah Harding (Julianne Moore) has been sent in advance, the team leaves a little early. However, once the team gets to the island, they discover two things; Malcolm's daughter Kelly (Vanessa Lee Chester) has stowed away in one of the trucks, and that a team of InGen scientists led by Hammond's nephew Peter Ludlow (Arliss Howard), the current InGen CEO has led a team to the island to extract a number of dinosaurs for a theme park in San Diego.

The Lost World takes no time in getting to the action. This movie relies on none of the suspense in getting to the dinosaurs that the first film did and as a result we can get a lot more fun. Within thirty minutes we are in the middle of a chase of the InGen team and a whole herd of dinosaurs. From this point on it is all action, right up to the thrilling climax which involves a T-Rex rampaging through the streets of San Diego. While this sequence may seem out of place to some, it is a perfect place to show off how big dinosaurs were in comparison to our modern buildings.

This movie has some pretty cheesy, but memorable quotes that are delivered quite well by Jeff Goldblum. The line "Where you're going is the only place on Earth where the geese chase you" is but one of the many wonderful lines. The character of Dr. Burke has some absurd long explanations about different dinosaurs that are fun to sit through as they are quite complex and scientific, but are one of the details that make this film well rounded, but at the same time it isn't taking itself too seriously. The film also has a surprising amount of characterisation for a film of this budget and genre. The leader of InGen's safari team Roland Tembo (Pete Postlethwaite) is a well built character and his relationship with others, especially his second-in-command Dieter (Peter Stormare), is something to write about.

The movie introduces some new dinosaurs into the mix. Every kid's favourite spiky tailed herbivore Stegosaurus gets a lengthy action sequence early on, as well as a new small dino called a Compy that terrified me when I was a kid. The Velociraptors also play a much bigger part in the film and their intelligence is fleshed out a little more (although not to same extent as in the third film. The CGI dinosaur design had developed a lot further than what they were at the first time and as a result the dinosaurs are a lot more mobile. Spielberg however still uses a lot of animatronics that work seamlessly with the CGI and is something that you won't find in movies made today.

Jeff Goldblum really does steal the show in this movie. He is well practiced with his character of Ian Malcolm and his own idiosyncrasies just add to his character. Julianne Moore is superb and was having a couple of good years around this time with both Boogie Nights (1997) and The Big Lebowski (1998). Arliss Howard (of Full Metal Jacket fame) is great as the greedy villain Ludlow. My only criticism is that Vince Vaughn should have stuck around for longer as he disappears two-thirds of the way into the film. Keep an eye out early on for a twenty-five year old Eli Roth playing Subway Man (you'll know the character when you see him).

While this is far from being Steven Spielberg's magnum opus (I think he's still searching for that himself), it is an amazing film to re-watch and rediscover as a fun part of the Jurassic Park series. I know for a fact that I enjoy it time after time.

War Movie Month: Empire of the Sun (1987)

The Japanese invasion of China is an oft-forgotten aspect of WWII, but when you think about the idea of the small island empire invading its larger neighbour, you can definitely see how big the undertaking was. Combine this with Steven Spielberg's epic style of film-making and you get a pretty big and exciting film.

Jamie Graham (Christian Bale) is a privileged English boy living a life of luxury with his family in Shanghai, where his father owns a corporation. Soon after the Japanese attack Pearl Harbour, they invade Shanghai, leading to the separation from his parents. Left wandering around the city after leaving his home due to starvation, he is saved by Basie (John Malkovich), an American sailor. They are both eventually captured by the Japanese and sent to Soochow Creek Internment Camp. Jamie, now named Jim by Basie, finds a father figure in Dr. Rawlins (Nigel Havers) and runs a successful trade network that even includes some of the Japanese officers.

Spielberg's bigger picture really does come into play here. There are many scenes with hundreds of extras that blow my mind away. They're definitely something that doesn't get done today, massive groups of extras would just be added in digitally in contemporary films. There are also some great aerial battles, albeit watched from the ground through Jim's youthful eyes, and these are a wonder to watch.

I'm a little disappointed that treatment of the people living in the internment camp isn't something that is covered too much in this movie. Japanese camps were well known for not having the best living conditions, but again we watch this movie through the eyes of a 12 year old boy. Anyway, this is something that Spielberg portrayed much better in Schindler's List. Spielberg does also throw in a small group of scenes with young Japanese pilots training for kamikaze missions. These culminate with a scene of Jim singing the Welsh lullaby Suo-Gân as they fly off on their mission.

Christian Bale is more known for his roles as Batman and Bateman, but his skill as an actor started at an early age. He was 12 when he got this part, he came recommended by Spielberg's then-wife Amy Irving. Young Bale had a certain innocence that was perfect for role and was capable of showing terror when it was needed. John Malkovich isn't as scary as he would become later on, such as his role in Being John Malkovich, and I find it weird that his character is revealed in a way as though we'd be surprised that it's him. He has a pretty distinctive voice and we hear him talk a fair bit before we see his face.

Supporting roles from Nigel Havers and Miranda Richardson help aid the main stars, but they're not entirely memorable. One of the better smaller roles is Dainty, a gang member of Basie's and played by a young Ben Stiller. In fact it was on this movie that he got the idea that would eventually become Tropic Thunder.

Verdict: A fantastic war film and a great introduction to Christian Bale.

War Movie Month: Schindler's List (1993)

"Whoever saves one life, saves the world entire"

Unless you've been living under a rock for the past 75 years, you're probably quite aware of the Holocaust and the horrific events surrounding it. However, you may not be aware of the story of Oskar Schindler, a rich industrialist that used his production empire to save the lives of some 1,200 Jews from certain death. His astounding work is the focus of Steven Spielberg's film, Schindler's List.

At the beginning of World War II, in the Kraków Ghetto, Oskar Schindler (Liam Neeson), a businessman and member of the Nazi Party, opens an enamelware factory, hiring Jewish workers because they are cheaper labour. He appoints a local Jewish man Itzhak Stern (Ben Kingsley) as his managerial assistant, all the while, Oskar maintains his links with local officials and members of the SS, bribing them to allow his workers to stay. A notorious womaniser and drinker, Oskar maintains a high profile and lavish image whilst many of his workers struggle to survive.

With a new concentration camp to be constructed in Kraków, SS member Amon Goeth (Ralph Fiennes) is put in charge of the project. Goeth is relentless in his anti-Semitic actions, often referring to the inhabitants of the Ghetto as "rats" and executing people randomly for his own amusement. When Schindler meets Goeth, he forms a pseudo-friendship with the man, in the hope that he will prove useful down the line. Indeed, towards the end of the war, when Goeth is ordered to send the remaining Jews for extermination, Schindler is able to bribe him into letting him keep his workers. The names of these workers and their families, compiled by Schindler and Stern to send to Goeth, would become known as "Schindler's List".

The film was finally made, largely thanks to Holocaust survivor and 'Schindler Jew' Poldek Pfefferberg, who had been attempting to get the Schindler story made into a film for years with no success. That is, until he met Australian author Thomas Keneally. Keneally wrote the Booker Prize-winning novel Schindler's Ark, which inspired Spielberg to make Schindler's List. Keneally said that what drew him to the story was Schindler's flawed nature,"the fact that you couldn't see where opportunism ended and altruism began". Schindler is portrayed by Neeson as complex and difficult to read, but undeniably charitable. Whether his plan was always altruistic, or simply due to the transformative experience of a country deep in war, his actions permeate a sense of hope from a dark period in history and are presented through Spielberg's poignant biopic.

Presented almost entirely in black and white, the colourless imagery of Schindler's List depicts a low point in recent human history. Spielberg and his regular cinematographer, Janusz Kamiński felt that the black and white gave the film a documentary style, which they tied together with plenty of handheld shots, making it less subjective. However that doesn't make it any less of an emotional viewing experience. Certain elements of shots, including the flame from candles and the red coat worn by a little girl, were left in colour. This involved a painstaking process where the colour shots had to be greyed out, frame by frame, leaving just the desired colour. The result, given the symbolic nature of these moments, is really very moving. The musical score by, you guessed it, John Williams (Spielberg's go-to composer) seems very fitting for the sombre tone of the film and won Williams an Academy Award, one of seven awarded to the film. Schindler's List sends you through a barrel ride of emotion, and much of this is down to its superb presentation.

Spielberg couldn't have chosen a better cast with the then relatively unknown (now major action star) Liam Neeson leading the way as Schindler. Neeson's performance is crucial in creating a character that isn't simply a messiah, but rather has uncertain goals and personal demons to grapple with. Kingsley is astoundingly good as the intellectually brilliant Itzhak Stern, his performance is honest and often touching. Fiennes is very fierce as Goeth, which must have been an emotionally exhausting character to play given his horrific and heartless actions. Supporting them are Caroline Goodall as Schindler's wife Emilie, Jonathan Sagall as Poldek Pfefferberg and Embeth Davidz as Helen Hirsch, the Jewish girl that gained Goeth's admiration's whilst working as his maid.  

Schindler's List is an honest look at the Holocaust, and the man that combated it with his power. Through all the haunting imagery rests a positive message of hope that leaves you both ready to mourn history's victims and celebrate those that try to make a difference. A movie for humans.

War Movie Month: Saving Private Ryan (1998)

Saving Private Ryan, one of several Spielberg war films that we'll examine this month, has been heralded for its incredibly realistic portrayal of combat, and for its harrowing performances from cast members, including of course, Tom Hanks. However it has also come under the scrutiny of veterans and filmmakers alike. It's a film that can be quite unnerving to watch, but ultimately can stand up against some of the greatest war movies made thus far.

After a present-day prelude, we are taken back to June 6th 1944, the D-Day invasion on Omaha Beach. Captain John H. Miller (Tom Hanks) leads the 2nd Ranger Battalion up the beach and toward German defences as severe carnage ensues around them. Several days later, after the situation is more controlled, Miller learns that his company is to find Private James Ryan (Matt Damon), a missing-in-action soldier and the last remaining of four brothers fighting in the war. 

Saving Private Ryan is well known for its realistic representation of combat conditions, especially in the opening scene of the landing on Omaha Beach. Just as Oliver Stone aimed to represent his experiences in Vietnam in Platoon, so did Spielberg strive for accuracy in his representation of the landings. The 27 minute sequence cost millions to make and wasn't even storyboarded, with Spielberg preferring to move the camera freely to capture the action. The horrific details of seasickness, machine-gunfire, bloody water and limbs being torn off make for some difficult viewing, with some WWII veterans regarding it as the most realistic representation of the events that they have ever seen. The power of the film rests in this realism, and the relatable characters  that are placed within this insane situation, on a controversial mission that will cost several lives just to save one. If I have one criticism, it's that at times, it becomes overly patriotic to the point that it can come across as less about the men using their allegiance to grapple with the situation, and more as a justification for their actions.

Whilst receiving critical acclaim both on release, and since, Saving Private Ryan has also had it's critics, one of which being the aforementioned filmmaker and veteran, Oliver Stone, who believed the film's patriotic and violent representation of WWII may have inadvertently fuelled America's love of war. Although Brian De Palma (Scarface) suggests otherwise, stating that the level of violence is Spielberg "trying to show something about the brutality of what happened". Be that as it may, it's an interesting point about the influence of a film on society. Personally, I have always found the battle scenes so intense that they put the horror and significance of such a conflict into perspective.

Saving Private Ryan has a unique, slightly-soft and desaturated look, with a heavy amount of film grain, reminiscent of WWII-era newsreels. Many of the battle scenes use a slight 'shaky-cam' effect which is never particularly disorientating but helps to place the audience in the action. Janusz Kamiński again collaborated with Spielberg as DP on the film, after he utilised some quite stunning cinematography in Schindler's List (which we'll look at later in the month).  Kamiński won Best Cinematography for Saving Private Ryan. Working together with the images is a screaming sound stage which adds to the intensity of the battles. Bullets flying left, right and centre, shells whistling over-head, it can be horrifically unnerving and rightfully earned the film the Academy Award for Best Sound Design.

The fury of the battle scenes is put into perspective by the poignant performances from the cast. Hanks is magnificent at portraying characters that are inherently human, and as Miller, he conveys the challenging and conflicting nature of leadership. The battalion is full of intriguing characters but some standouts include the loyal Technical Sergeant Horvath (Tom Sizemore) and the sharpshooter Private Jackson (Barry Pepper), who frequently reads verses from the bible whilst pointing his sights at the enemy, a perfect representation of the conflicting nature of warfare.

Saving Private Ryan is a strong war film that uses realism to confront the horrific nature of warfare. Its tale of sacrifice and heroism may be overshadowed by an overly-patriotic message but the chilling scenes and heartbreaking performances elevate it to another level. 

Robin Williams Tribute Month: Hook (1991)

Only Steven Spielberg could make a live action sequel to the Peter Pan tale that almost lives up to Disney's animated classic, and after viewing, it's almost impossible to imagine anybody other than Robin Williams in the leading part.

Peter Banning (Robin Williams) is a successful lawyer whose relationship with his kids, Jack (Charlie Korsmo) and Maggie (Amber Scott), is on tenterhooks due to his busy schedule and inability to see things from their perspective. The family are on their way to London so Peter can deliver a speech in honour of his wife's grandmother, Wendy Darling (Maggie Smith), who helped Peter find a family when he was an orphaned child.

However, whilst they're out for the evening, Peter's children are kidnapped by Captain Hook (Dustin Hoffman), a scheming pirate and Pan's enemy. Eventually, Tinkerbell (Julia Roberts) turns up to take Peter, who has forgotten that he is really Peter Pan, back to Neverland to beat Hook and save his children.

Written by James V. Hart (Bram Stoker's Dracula, August Rush), the film has an interesting take on the Peter Pan story arc, taking him away from Neverland and letting him grow up, so that he effectively has to start over again to prepare for his fight against Hook. Generally, it's a good script that is creative in the direction it takes the characters and never fails to amuse. However watching it back again all these year later, I would have preferred it to be a bit shorter.

This film has a great cast of actors that fill the roles very naturally. Maggie Smith may slightly overact the elderly lady gestures and tones, but she's still believable, and whilst I might find personally find Julia Roberts a bit annoying, she's great as Tinkerbell. Then there's the late Bob Hoskins, possibly the most cockney man who even lived, who makes the most perfect Smee imaginable. Though if anybody equals or even surpasses Williams in Hook, it's Hoffman as the titular character. Captain Hook's terrifying, barbarous charisma is brought to life more by Hoffman here than even Hans Conried in 1953, and he had animation to help him!

This is one of those roles that seems to fit Robin Williams perfectly. As an adult Peter, he may have grown up, but Williams' energy brings the inner Peter Pan out. His sense of humour comes through too when he's delivering all the great one-liners that are spread throughout. Though playing totally different characters, his performance here is quite reminiscent of some of his other children's films such as Jumanji and Patch Adams.

Ok, so this film certainly has it's issues, not the least of which is it's 2 Hour 20 minute running-time (for a children's movie? seriously?) but it never fails to be enjoyably childish and fun, which is what Peter Pan is all about right?

Adaptations: You're doing them wrong!

I came up with the idea for this essay back when I saw The Fault In Our Stars. What I'm going to attempt to do is look at some of the more prominent book to movie adaptations and look at whether or not they fit into the idea of a good adaptation. Also in the middle of the debate, we have one writer who's works have been done adapted to death, Stephen King, and a director (one who is considered one of the greatest), Stanley Kubrick, who's entire filmography (bar one or two movies) is made up of adaptations.

So everyone's favourite dictionary, the Merriam-Webster, defines adaptation thusly; "something that is adapted; especially : a movie, book, play, etc., that is changed so that it can be presented in another form." Now I'm going to add a caveat to that definition. An adaptation for me doesn't blindly follow the source material scene for scene. If that was the case, why don't you just read the novel, or comic book, or play the game or see the play again. No for me an adaptation must take the story of the source material, sure, but when it comes to parts that are either not relevant or extraneous to the forwarding of the plot, they can be ditched. The main ideas, themes and evocative feelings are needed for an adaptation. I'm going to split this article between good and bad and then at the end talk about Stanley and Stephen.

The Good

Jurassic Park (1993)

It is generally agreed that this is a good movie, especially for it's time. It has probably garnered more praise for the fact that it was ground breaking in the field of computer-generated images than it's story. Michael Crichton's original novel came out in 1990 and it hadn't even been released before Steven Spielberg snapped up the rights. The first few drafts were written by Crichton himself before screenwriter David Koepp was brought in.

But enough about the movie's production, let's briefly look at the stories side by side. The overall plot of both the book and the movie are the same; a wealthy entrepreneur opens a park full of dinosaurs and, after an accident on the island where it is located, he is forced to bring in experts to evaluate the park and how safe it is. Things go wrong when one of the tech guys in the park is working for a rival company and corrupts the security system with a computer virus.

Some of those major plot points are differ from the book. The accident that happens at the start to cause the events of the film occurs when a worker is killed transporting one of the dinosaurs. In the book, this is a long series of scenes involving a little girl who is bitten in Costa Rica (we'll revisit this later in the article) as well as attacks on babies in nearby nurseries. Another difference is that the two main characters of Alan Grant and Ellie Sattler are romantically involved. In the book, these two characters are mentor and student.

There are, however, some parts that were removed from the story completely to make a more streamlined film story. Scenes involving the board of directors at the rival company are removed, as well as some of the scenes that focus on chaos theory mathematics, which I struggled to read through. These scenes would have slowed the film down and I doubt that it would have become as classic film as it is.

Adaptation (2002)

Spike Jonze's meta comedy-drama is probably the best adaptation ever made because that is what it about. It is adapted from Susan Orlean's non-fiction book The Orchid Thief and is about an attempt to adapt that same book. Nicolas Cage plays two characters; Charlie Kaufman (who wrote the actual film) and Donald Kaufman (who doesn't exist, but is still credited with writing the film). The other characters who appear are similarly fictionalised versions of real people appear, including Susan Orlean herself.

The reason this is such a good adaptation is because it tells the story of the actual book, whilst blurring the lines of fiction and reality at the same time. This movie is very organic as well and doesn't really have the same feeling of a regular movie, rather it feels like it just came into being.

Planet of the Apes (1968)

For the longest time I didn't know this movie was an adaptation, but as soon as I saw the book "La Planete des singes" at a bookshop, I knew I had to read it because I love the film so much. The overall plot is present, but minor changes have been made. The biggest change and the one that benefitted the film most was the level of civilisation the apes had reached. In the novel, the ape's civilisation was on par with contemporary technology (or that of 1963), however, this was replaced in the film with a different path of technological advancement.

I'm going to attribute this well made adaptation to screenwriter Rod Serling (best known for creating The Twilight Zone). He chose parts of the novel that worked best and tweaked parts that lacked punch, most notably the ending, which makes the most defiant statement of the final film.

The Bad

War of the Worlds (2005)

H.G. Wells sci-fi novel is considered a classic novel for its time and I'm not saying that the movie is bad, I think it works quite well on it's merits. And that's why I'm calling it a bad adaptation. It only has the most tenuous of ties to the novel it is based on, these being that the aliens ride around in 'tripod' machines and there is a character named Ogilvy. Other than that, it is a pretty stock standard alien invasion movie that just focuses on Tom Cruise running around with a squealing Dakota Fanning.

David Koepp again teamed up with Steven Spielberg (who will pop up in this article again). His script seems to miss out on all the underlying themes of the original work, such as natural selection, religion, colonialism and evolution, to make a popcorn blockbuster.

The Fault In Our Stars (2014)

I know that this is going to make me wildly unpopular, but as I said in my review this is a bit of a pointless adaptation, especially when you just want to put everything from the book in the movie. There is a large portion of the film which wasn't necessary and though it worked in the book it had no place in the film. This of course was the two character's obsession with a book. It's not like this book was the instigator of their relationship, rather it was just a distraction and took up time where we could have focused on a romance building. The only thing we got from that detour was a great performance from Willem Dafoe.

This is something I see more increasingly in adaptations of young adult novels, Hunger Games, City of Bones, that kind of thing. I think the main problem is two-fold. The books that are being adapted are already extremely popular so to change it would lessen the financial return for studios. But also there is an underlying perception that the intended audiences (kids aged 9-14) won't be able to comprehend and recognise the film as being adapted from the original work if they change it too much.

Jurassic Park: The Lost World

So we come full circle back to Steven Spielberg and Jurassic Park. Again it's not that I don't like this movie, but more that it goes way too far from the source material, rather than hugging it extremely close.

The sequel focuses on Ian Malcolm (Jeff Goldblum) from the first film, just as the novel does. This is probably the only character to remain intact from the novel, which is about Malcolm discovering that there was another island with dinosaurs on it, whereas in the film he gets sent to the island to record the species that live there. The antagonists in this film are different also. In the book, rival company Biosyn (who make a minor appearance in the first film) are on the island to steal the cloning technology. In the film, it is John Hammond's own company, who are rounding up dinosaurs for a theme park in San Diego. Other characters have been changed or added, like Malcolm's daughter who is one of the most annoying characters in any film ever made.

The Creators

So who are the people being adapted and doing the adapting. Stanley Kubrick and Stephen King are two creators who have been on either side of this divide with many of their works.

I'll start with King because his works have been adapted so many times there's even a Wikipedia article about it. There have been 61 movies made from his books so far (I didn't count the ten that are yet to be made or released) and 32 TV related projects (some of those are single episodes of other TV series). A lot of projects on that list have been made more than once; three adaptations of Carrie and two of both IT and The Shining. The quality of these adaptations can vary. Movies like Misery and Stand By Me have been very good adaptations, the 1990 TV version of IT was quite bad.

Pretty much all of Kubrick's most well known works were adaptions. Of the 13 he directed, 11 were adaptations. If he hadn't of died, he would have collaborated with Spielberg to make A.I. Artificial Intelligence, which is another adaptation. I am in no way saying that Kubrick was unoriginal though. He brought his own style to many of these works to make them his own. Both A Clockwork Orange and 2001: A Space Odyssey have more of his auteur style than being influenced by their source materials. 2001 was incredible that it made many wonder whether man has actually been to the moon or if Kubrick simply filmed the landing, but to those people I ask if they've seen the quality of the moon landing footage, that wouldn't fly with Kubrick.

But there's is a connection between our two creators: The Shining. Kubrick's 1980 adaptation of King's 1977 novel is a prime example of adapting a novel for the screen. All the horror that is contained in King's writing is perfectly conveyed through Kubrick's direction with a little added something that makes it feel just right.

Although I've shown that there are some good adaptations out there, I haven't gone over the huge amount that aren't that great. But there's no reason adaptations have to be bad, with a good screenwriter you can achieve anything. Looking at the current list of upcoming films though, it seems that we just have to keep our fingers crossed that the big studios decide to fund some more original ideas.

Let us know how you feel about adaptations. Which ones do you love or hate and why?

Lincoln

I went into this movie expecting standard Spielberg fare, that we have come to know of late. But I was surprised to find a film that played to filmmaker sensibilities inside me and I can see that a lot of meticulous detail went into making this film the best it could be.

We join Abraham Lincoln (Daniel Day-Lewis) in 1865, the Civil War has been going for four years and Lincoln has just been re-elected for his second term as president. Everyone around him, including his wife Mary Todd (Sally Field) and his Secretary-of-State William Seward (David Strathairn) are urging him to make peace with the Confederacy and thus put an end to the bloody and gruesome war.

But Lincoln wishes to banish slavery forever, a condition which the Confederacy will not stand for. So before his inauguration at the end of January, Lincoln wishes to get his 13th Amendment passed in Congress, that will hopefully put an end to the war.

Before I saw this movie, I had no idea how the US Congressional process worked. Now I feel slightly informed, albeit a little confused. But like all democracy, Lincoln must have a majority vote in order to get his bill passed. He must get some votes from noncommittal Democrat congressmen, whose party is opposed to the idea of the abolition of slavery. And he will get these votes anyway he can, he's the president, damn it.

So, William Seward is entrusted the task of hiring some men to acquire these votes (played by James Spader, John Hawkes and writer/director/actor Tim Blake Nelson). These men go about their job and acquire these votes, that lead to the inevitable passing of the amendment, much to the dismay of the Vice President of the Confederacy (Jackie Earle Haley), who had been sent from the South with terms for a peace agreement.

Spielberg has formed an interesting insight into a man who died almost 150 years ago. We not only see the popular public figure that was Abraham Lincoln, but we also get a glimpse at a family man, who consoles his wife when she is sad and fights with his son, who wishes to do his bit and be a part of the fighting.

Although I have not been a fan of his work in the past, Day-Lewis has really earned the praise he has received. He has thoroughly done his job, which is convincing me that that man on the screen is a not a character, but a person. He really plays up the popular person who was Lincoln, whilst at the same time showing the personal struggles that the man went through. He deserve the Oscar for his performance.

David Strathairn (The Bourne Ultimatium) is excellent as Seward, a man who supports his president, but also wishes to see an end to the conflict. Tommy Lee Jones plays the man in charge of the Abolition movement and gives a stellar performance. A surprise for me was Joseph Gordon-Levitt, fresh from the success of Rian Johnson's Looper, as Robert Todd Lincoln. He played the role with conviction and showed the immense frustration felt by his character.

Steven Spielberg has helmed a masterful cast led by Daniel Day-Lewis, with the story of one of the most beloved US presidents. Even if you're not a fan of the US political system or the history of the Civil War, see this movie for the amazing performances.