If you’ve seen After in cinemas you probably went because you loved the books. Or you saw the trailer and thought “mm, get me some of that please”, for some reason. However, any pro-book After lover will agree, and let’s just say, there were many, many differences between the movie and the book.

Some of the most noticeable changes happened in the first few minutes of the movie, and that was the portrayal of Tessa’s mother and Tessa’s boyfriend. Her mother was nice in the movie, a stark difference from the book, which lends itself to be a giant conflict later in the book because Tessa can’t go home. So, turning the mother into a nice lady was not the best choice. It made the story feel shallow.

Let’s not talk about the fact that Noah looked like a hipster surfer who’d get all the ladies. I don’t know about you, but I pictured Noah as short with slicked back hair, wearing cardigans, and saying things like “goodness”. They made him way too normal in the movie, which seems to be the theme here.

In terms of Tessa’s appearance and character, I thought they did quite well to capture her passive yet snarky personality however downplayed it may have been. Hardin, however… did sort-of look like himself from the book but less bad-boy-home-wrecker and more just-a-normal-attractive-boy-on-the-street. Where were his piercings? Where were the rest of his tattoos?

Now, let’s talk about Landon, Tristian, and Steph. Probably the second biggest change in the adaptation. As for Landon, let’s just say he had a genetic makeover. I didn’t mind this change, however shocked I was. Voltage Pictures and Offspring Entertainment needs its diversity tick, I guess. Landon’s change was the only one I welcomed happily as it actually added to the story with an extra layer of humour. When Landon tells Tessa he and Hardin are related, he goes on to add “well, step brothers” which is somewhat comical. In the books, Landon and Hardin are polar opposites, and by comparing Landon and Tessa together, it highlights how strange Tessa and Hardin are together. However, in the movie, it’s harder to get this point across because Hardin doesn’t look shocking, he just looks normal.

I didn’t really like the fact that Tristian turned into a girl for the movie and now Steph is a lesbian, because it felt forced. It’s one thing to go for LGBTQ+ representation in a movie, it’s another thing entirely to just throw it in at the end as an afterthought. It just felt disrespectful, but hey, they did make a cute couple, so I’m looking past it.

The most interesting change in the movie was the lack of Hardin’s violent nature. Yeah, we saw a couple vases smashed on the ground but not once in the whole movie did he even raise his voice. Which, if we’re being honest here, was the heart and soul of the book. Now, I get it, you can’t romanticise violence in the box office, but part of the allure of Hardin was his violent, troubled nature, then watching him change and grow.

However, it’s interesting to note that in one of the teaser trailers before the movie reached cinemas, they showed that scene where Hardin throws the Wuthering Heights book at the wall. It doesn’t make an appearance in the movie, which means someone had to actually take it out after they had filmed it.

The problem with changing the target demographic is that your audience becomes significantly smaller. Lovers of the book become disgruntled or simply won’t watch it and new audiences that walk into the cinemas will be similarly disappointed. Here’s why:

Without graphic sex-scenes, Hardin’s violence, and adult themes, the movie turns into a bland premise. Good girl Tessa falls in love with a moody teenager and then finds out there’s a bet to make her fall in love with him.

When I finished the book, I was in shock. I began moaning in pain and despair and desperation. I couldn’t believe how it ended because in the books, Tessa doesn’t just find out a handful of college students have been in on this bet, oh boo-hoo. In the book, Hardin shows them the bloody bed linen from him taking Tessa’s virginity, he shows them the used condom, describes her most vulnerable moments with him, then tries to pay people to stay quiet about it. It ends up explaining so much of the events throughout the book. Like why he kept the sheets and condom, why he was always worried she would leave him, and why he didn’t want her wandering the frat house alone. In the book it feels so much more destructive. A huge bombshell. This is why I have trust issues.

In the movie, this feels bland. The characters are bland, the soul is gone, and the shocking conclusion is barely surprising. Or maybe that’s because I’ve already read the book. However, looking at the movie as a standalone, it’s pretty boring. It’s like someone condensed every romance movie trope into one place and then made every character stare at each other wordlessly for the whole movie. It’s cute, but it doesn’t really stand on its own. I’d watch it again if I felt like watching something I don’t want to emotionally commit to. Which is not what you want from your audience.

In the end, the people reading After by Anna Todd weren’t reading because of the cute PG romance.

Have you read the book? Tell us your thoughts in the comments below!

The post Book Versus Movie: Anna Todd’s ‘After’ appeared first on The Nerd Daily.

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.

What did you think about these adaptations? Tell us in the comments below!

The post Book To Screen: 3 Adaptations In April 2019 appeared first on The Nerd Daily.

Avengers: Endgame

Shazam!
TRAILER

Pet Sematary

Louis Creed, his wife Rachel, and their two children Gage and Ellie move to a rural home where they are welcomed and enlightened about the eerie ‘Pet Sematary’ located nearby. After the tragedy of their cat being killed by a truck, Louis resorts to burying it in the mysterious pet cemetery, which is definitely not as it seems, as it proves to the Creeds that sometimes, dead is better. Starring Jason Clarke (Zero Dark Thirty), John Lithgow (The Crown), and Amy Seimetz (The Killing).

Little
TRAILER

Someone Great

Hellboy
TRAILER

The Perfect Date

Teen Spirit

The Best of Enemies
TRAILER

The Haunting of Sharon Tate

Missing Link
TRAILER

The charismatic Sir Lionel Frost considers himself to be the world’s foremost investigator of myths and monsters. The trouble is none of his small-minded high-society peers seems to recognize this. Sir Lionel’s last chance for acceptance by the adventuring elite rests on traveling to America’s Pacific Northwest to prove the existence of a legendary creature. A living remnant of Man’s primitive ancestry. The Missing Link. Voiced by Zoe Saldana, Timothy Olyphant, and High Jackman.

What movie are you most excited for? Tell us in the comments below!

The post April Movie Releases appeared first on The Nerd Daily.