Written by contributor Sophia Mattice
April has been a month for book adaptations coming to the silver screen, hasn’t it story-lovers? From teen romance riding 50 Shades of Grey’s coattails, to horned devils from graphic novels and reanimated cats from Stephen King’s archives, we got a wide spectrum of cinematic offerings created from books. Which is better, the book or the movie? Let’s discuss!
After
Written by Anna Todd and inspired by fan fiction for former British pop band One Direction, After premiered in theaters April 11.
Let me start off by saying that I went into this knowing that I am so not the target audience. If you’re older than 13 and you’ve actually kissed someone you more-than-like on the mouth, maybe skip on to the stories that are after After.
The plot is as follows: Tessa (played by Josephine Langford) is a sweet, motivated girl with a hovering mother, and an equally pleasant, dependable boyfriend. She has just started college and moved into her freshman dorm when she runs into black sheep Hardin (Hero Fiennes-Tiffin). With his tousled dark hair (of course it is), arrogance and tattoos, Hardin is unlike anyone the sheltered Tessa has ever met. Mostly dysfunctional dynamics and tepid sex that wants to seem exciting ensues.
I don’t want to come down too hard on After, the book or movie, for its efforts at steaminess. I remember my own first fiery crush upon my entry into higher education and those sweeping feelings of passion mingled with confusion are real. That’s where After stops at any sense of either relating to that stage in life or erotic fantasy, and both the book and movie suffers the same problems as the popular 50 Shades of Grey series: stereotypical characters with no colourful melodrama to bolster the narrative.
Granted, it’s refreshing to see the kids talk consent and practice safe sex in the moment (now I’m really dating myself), but I like to think that even if I was still a teenage girl, I would find mandatory pep rallies more engaging than After. The actors are trying their best in the film, and Langford instills Tessa with a spirited vulnerability that keeps you from checking out completely. However, I couldn’t help but feel that the adult actors, which include Peter Gallagher as Hardin’s dad and Selma Blair as Tessa’s mother, need to be rescued from this cinematic conglomeration of pop songs set to heavy breathing and given better roles. And while I would never encourage anyone not to read, if you want YA romance with some brains and heart, After isn’t that book.
Pet Sematary
I can’t lie, I was excited for this one. Thirty years after the original 1989 movie adaptation, and 36 years after Stephen King’s novel of the same name was published, this remake hit theaters April 5. With its themes of mortality, marriage, and grief set against the backdrop of King’s supernatural Maine, the book is one of my favourites, and will still be just as good as it is now in another 36 years.
In the novel and the film, Dr. Louis Creed (Jason Clarke) moves to Ludlow, Maine with his wife, Rachel (Amy Seimetz) and two children, Ellie (Jete Laurence) and baby Gage (Hugo and Lucas Lavoie). They are befriended by their elderly neighbor, Jud (John Lithgow), who tells the family of the pet cemetery near their home where local children lay their beloved animals to rest, but warns Ellie and Rachel that the woods beyond are dangerous. He changes his stance though when the Creeds’ cat, Church, is killed in the road near their house and he takes Louis to bury the animal in a graveyard deep in the forest. Much to Louis’s surprise, the cat is resurrected, and brings with it horrible consequences for the Creed family (insert dramatic musical crescendo).
Does the latest adaptation (directed by Kevin Kölsch and Dennis Widmyer) live up to its source? For me, if you haven’t already guessed, the book will always be better. However, the new Pet Sematary is a good movie and I look forward to watching it again. No offense to Mary Lambert’s 1989 take, which has its strengths, but the 2019 movie is more satisfying in its focus on the characters and their germane reactions to what is happening. There isn’t a poor performance in the cast and the filmmakers don’t rely too heavily on FX. The downside is that it’s not that scary. There are moments of tension and genuine creepiness, but anyone expecting to be kept up at night with the lights on will probably be underwhelmed.
If you’re curious, definitely check it out, but don’t forget to go to the source with King’s book, which will make you switch on that nightlight.
Hellboy
Here’s where it might get heated, and I don’t mean in the sense that our titular, horned hero unleashes the full fierceness of his hellish birthright in this latest adaptation of writer-artist Mike Mignola’s creation. I didn’t grow up with the Hellboy comics, but this is a case of better late than never. The art is arresting, with Hellboy’s looming, red figure punctuating the action amidst the tones of grey and black. To get to the point, it’s a delight to read.
I wish I could give similar praise to the latest movie incarnation of the character, which premiered in theaters April 12. It has alluring aspects, like Neil Marshall directing (he helmed modern horror classic The Descent and cult darling Dog Soldiers) and offered a starring role to David Harbour, widely known for his role on Stranger Things as Chief Jim Hopper. Harbour brings a warmth and underestimated intelligence to his character of small town lawman and his performance grounds a lot of the more fantastical elements of that show. When I heard that he had been cast as Hellboy, I thought it was a perfect choice. Yes, I know we all love Ron Perlman as the character in Guillermo del Toro’s 2004 Hellboy and 2008’s Hellboy II: The Golden Army, and I wouldn’t try to take anything from that. This new film certainly doesn’t, but because any comic book character occupies vast variations of storylines and crossovers, there is more room for Hellboy’s adventures to be furthered onscreen.
Or at least, there was.
After this latest outing, del Toro’s version might be the final say on the subject in terms of a film franchise, but perhaps that is for the best. The plot is straightforward enough: Hellboy, a supernatural superhero working for the Bureau for Paranormal Research and Defense (B.P.R.D.) fights to protect a suspicious, seemingly ungrateful humanity from an ancient, wicked sorceress called Nimue, the Blood Queen (Milla Jovovich).
Upon first reviewing this movie I made a crack about how the name Hemoglobin Hotties must have already been taken by the badass grandmas that run the chili feed at your local blood drive, but then a friend told me that the Blood Queen is a character from the Hellboy comics (I never claimed to have read them all). Of course, she looks monstrously cool and intimidating in the comics, and Jovovich has the presence to pull her off, but like Harbour and Ian McShane as Hellboy’s surrogate father, Trevor Buttenholm, their characters aren’t able to overcome the script’s banality. It all mounts up for a rather disappointing faux blockbuster for a story with such a hauntingly horror-based foundation.
