Book vs. Movie: "The Martian" by Andy Weir

Have you read "The Martian" by Andy Weir?  Did you see the movie starring Matt Damon?  Which did you like better?

I borrowed the book from my digital library, and I really enjoyed it.  A lot of the scientific descriptions and details bored me, but overall I was entertained, and I especially loved the character of Mark Watney.  I was surprised, in fact, by how much I enjoyed this book - it's just not my typical read.  But I was really anticipating the movie!  I thought that through the magic of Hollywood and the ability of filmmakers to bring all those boring scientific details to life visually, this movie had the potential to outperform the book for me. 

I brought my eldest daughter to see the movie a few months ago, in 3D no less, and I thought it was fantastic!  Matt Damon was completely perfect as Mark Watney, and the rest of the casting was great, too.  The action, suspense, and visual effects made for an excellent moviegoing experience!  I wasn't sure if my daughter would like the show, or if it would be a bit over her head, but every time I looked over at her, I could tell she was totally into it.

So, my verdict?  Book was great, but movie was even better!  But you need to experience both, because both versions are just that good!

Book vs. Movie: "Wild" by Cheryl Strayed

"Wild" is on Netflix!  My husband and I both read the book several months ago, then we watched the movie together.  So which was better, the book or the movie?

This is rather a difficult question for me to answer, first of all because of my disappointment with the book.  I didn't exactly love the book, I was expecting less introspection and more adventure.  I also couldn't believe that anyone, regardless of background or education, would be naive enough to go out into the wilderness as completely unprepared as Cheryl Strayed did.  Why wouldn't you at least try on your pack to find out if it fits, or start your stove to see if it lights, or set up your tent to see if you can do it?  Isn't this the commonest of common sense?  I am not the most outdoorsy of people, but even I would think to do that much.  I found myself wondering if maybe the author embellished the truth just a bit in order to make a better story.  So, in my mind, I rated the book 3 out of 5 stars, which is decent, but not excellent.

Contrast this with the movie.  I thought Reese Witherspoon's acting was fantastic, and I really liked how the filmmakers were able to incorporate the flashbacks to show how Cheryl came to the decision to try hiking the PCT on her own.  However, there was so much left out, mainly Cheryl's introspection that wasn't really able to be captured on film, that I had a hard time connecting with her character.  By the end of the movie, I was ready for it to be over, and if I hadn't have read the book beforehand, I think I would've felt like I'd wasted my time.  

Normally there is a clear winner in my mind when it comes to book vs. movie, but in the case of "Wild", I'm going to say that they are tied.

Book vs. Movie: "Still Alice" by Lisa Genova

I just finished watching "Still Alice" on Netflix for date night with my husband, and while I thought the movie was good and Julianne Moore's acting was fantastic, overall the book comes out on top in my mind.  Amazingly, my hubby agrees!  Here are three reasons why I think the book version of "Still Alice" beats out the movie version:

1.  There was a lot more information in the book.  

Movies usually leave a lot of stuff out, and I suppose it's a time issue.  Still, there are many things/scenes from the book that left a big impact on me, and I wonder if those were originally filmed and then cut for time.   For instance, I remember laughing while reading the section in the book where Alice wanted to get changed for a run, and tried to put a pair of panties on as a bra.  She laughed at herself, but her husband got all upset.  Well, there was a scene in the movie where Alice/Julianne opened a drawer to pick out an outfit for her run, and I thought, "Oh, this is where she's going to get a pair of panties stuck on her head!"  But then...nothing.  I thought that was a missed opportunity on behalf of the filmmakers, and that was just one instance I noticed.

2.  Two of Alice's children, Anna and Tom, were very underdeveloped.

When Alice tells her children that there is a test to determine whether they are a carrier of the gene for Alice's particular type of Alzheimer's, each of the three children have a decision to make.  This really struck a chord with me while reading the book.  What would I do in their shoes?  

In comparison, the movie seemed to just brush over this whole conflict.  Anna called Alice and they had a brief conversation about what Anna and her brother and sister had decided to do, but that was it.  I think if I didn't have the previous background from the book, I would have missed the whole importance of that conversation.  Fail, once again, for the movie version.

3.  Kristen Stewart's acting.

I'm not a hater.  Really, I'm not.  I thought Kristen did a great job as Lydia, except for in the scene when she was up on stage acting in a play.  It was seriously painful to watch!  Even my husband commented, and he really likes her normally.  I think she would have been more suited to a contemporary, modern production rather than a historical play, in my honest opinion.

So if you love books, my advice is to go out and read "Still Alice" if you haven't already.  It's one of my top favourite books of all, and certainly an important book if you have a loved one suffering from Alzheimer's or another type of dementia.  However, if you hate to read, then go watch the movie.  I won't say you'll like it, because it is a rather sad story, but again, it's an important topic that everyone needs to know more about.  

Three Reasons I Loved the "Insurgent" Movie More Than the Book

I went to see "Insurgent" with my daughter and a friend at the theatre a while back.  It was mere days after finishing the book, so of course I couldn't help compare the two.  Here are some of my thoughts!

1.  There was a LOT they changed from the book!

And I didn't hate it!  In fact, a lot of the changes seemed to make the story stronger.  The plot certainly made more sense to me in the movie version.  Many times while reading the book, I felt so confused.  I even asked my daughter afterwards if she understood everything that went on in the movie, thinking it might have been a bit over her head, and she said, "Yeah, pretty much!"  (She's ten and hasn't read the books.)

2.  The movie had a lot more action!

And that was definitely a good thing!!!  I felt the book dragged in a lot of places while the movie did not.  For example, I really enjoyed the train scene, which was something that the movie folks totally added in.  It was awesome!  Tris and Four kicking some ass, and even Caleb getting a little action - why wasn't that in the book?  Scenes like that would have only made the book better, in my honest opinion.

3.  Miles Teller.  'Nuff said!

He did an incredible job as Peter!  He had the best one-liners, and he totally stole whatever scene he was in.  My daughter at one point during the movie said, "I don't know whether I love him or hate him!"  Exactly!  He's the one you love to hate!

And that, in a nutshell, sums up my thoughts on movie "Insurgent" vs. book "Insurgent". How about you?  Have you read the book and/or seen the movie?  I'd love to hear your thoughts and comparisons!  Come on, don't be shy, leave me a comment and I'll be sure to reply.  Hey, look at that!  I'm a poet and I didn't even know it!