Movies 2007 Roundtable Spectacular

Part II: Books to Movies - Trust the Source Material

Click here for Part I of this roundtable

No Country for Old Men was also the best movie I saw this year. It’s about a near flawless movie that one can see. There are no missteps, the acting is top-notch across the board, and the unfolding of the story is paced to perfection. I remember when No Country, the novel was released, and reviewers called it Cormac McCarthy’s “most cinematic” novel. While that may be true when compared to his earlier works, after I read No Country I didn’t know how a movie would work without changing the core of the book – sure the plot of found drugs by an everyman and the trouble that ensues is great movie fodder, but plunging the depths on the page, I thought, would be almost impossible. The Coen Brothers pulled it off superbly. It’s sound odd, to me, to say that, No Country is a “risky” movie, but compared to other adaptations this year it is, well, risky to stick so closely to the source material, especially when that source material challenges the viewer and assumes we’re actually paying attention to every frame. The greatness of No Country is that from the opening voice-over, I had no other choice than to be riveted to every scene, every camera movement, every word spoken and, as the characters here are a taciturn bunch, unspoken.

No Country was a great movie because it stuck to the rich source material and didn’t alter the ending in such a way to make a nice tidy conclusion. Here’s two movies that I did like, but fall short of the source material especially in the use of their endings: I am Legend and Stardust. I fully understand your qualms with I am Legend and agree with all your points. But, perhaps my expectations were lowered by having read the story beforehand and watching the trailer and giving up the hope of any similarity outside of the premise of the last man being plagued by the undead, that I found myself enjoying the movie. The climax was rushed and the ending way too sugar-coated, but, after reflection, there were enough worthy scenes to justify my being entertained by it. I actually really want to dislike it for various stupid plot-points, but find myself unable to. I can’t justify it, as I totally recognize its flaws and have no counter to your arguments. How it tied the title to the ending was clunky – especially considering the brilliance of the meaning of the title from Matheson’s novel.

Stardust is an enjoyable, quirky fantasy, but how I wished it stuck more closely to the ending of the Neil Gaiman/Charles Vess story. Rather, it opts for special effects and Hollywood explosions instead of the quiet and beautiful and heartfelt ending. How richer would Stardust be with that ending – the journey of Tristan loses it’s full meaning within the bombast of the noisy, silly, typical ending. Stardust could have been a triumph of the fantasy movie genre instead of just another well-done but by-the-books Hollywood style extravaganza. I should note that the bits lifted directly from the book are the ones that caused the film to better than average. The Hollywoodization of the story dragged it down. Trust the source!

300 trusted its source, panel for panel at times, and turned out to be a rousing blood bath. Harry Potter condensed too much and the plot seemed too rapid fire at times to be as great as the previous two HP installments. Those two trusted the source but added and took away as needed - there's a fine balance to be had, of course. Beowulf added and subtracted as needed and it was fun to watch, especially in 3D, but that capture-motion animation doesn't work for me and the android nature of the actor's features prevented it from living up to the epic status of the Beowulf story.

You didn't like 3:10 to Yuma, but I was pleasantly surprised by the Western I did see: Seraphim Falls. It was released almost a year ago and is, in my opinion, an overlooked gem of the past year, especially when considering that Westerns like Yuma are viewed as part of a western revival of sorts.

A few questions for you, Nimero: what do you make of the odd laughter in the theater during No Country? Are audiences made uncomfortable by the story? Are people expecting another Big Lebowski that they think they're supposed to laugh at certain parts? Of course there's some morbid humor in the film, but the Funny HaHa reaction is strange? (I suppose this may apply to There May Be Blood as well where the same odd laughter happened at certain points.)

And, why are good comedies so hard to find? Knocked Up was the Most Overrated Movie of the Year followed closely by Waitress. Only Hot Fuzz really made me laugh. (And Brand Upon the Brain, but to pigeon-hole that film as "comedy" does it an injustice.)

Finally, in the interest of full disclosure, here's a list of what I did see this year, ordered, somewhat, according to preference.

The Best
No Country for Old Men

Highly Recommended
Eastern Promises
There Will Be Blood
The Host
Lust, Caution
Seraphim Falls
Brand Upon the Brain!
Away From Her
Zodiac

Recommended
An Unreasonable Man
Hot Fuzz
300
Year of the Dog
Beowulf
Tears of the Black Tiger

Good But Flawed
Stardust
Death Proof
Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix
I am Legend
The Hoax

Disappointing
Knocked Up
Spiderman 3
Waitress
Stephanie Daly