Spider-Man: No Way Home

This review has SPOILERS concerning what characters appear in this movie. Plot-wise, it's spoiler-free. 

When the whole world is told that Peter Parker is Spider-Man, that doesn't turn out so well for Peter. But it's not until his best friend Ned and girlfriend MJ are tainted by association—rejected by MIT for reasons of "controversy"—that he decides to act. What he does, with help from Dr. Strange, doesn't turn out so well either. They open a rift in the multiverse, and people start filtering in who know that Peter Parker is Spider-Man. Strange, villainous people who Peter doesn't know. (But we do!)

Time for Peter to make some choices and mistakes of his own.

I've long been on the outs with the MCU. But I have maintained a hope (a faint and fading hope, as Gandalf would say) that Tom Holland could make a great Spider-Man under the right circumstances. So even though I'm not interested in the interconnected Marvel universe anymore, I wanted to continue giving Spider-Man a chance—and I'm glad I did. My favorite aspect of Homecoming was that director Jon Watts seemed to be working hard to keep Peter grounded, even through the over-sized stakes and "bigger is better" and "connect everything" worldview that the MCU brings. In this third installment, Watts connects things, makes it bigger, and ups the stakes like he's supposed to, but he also has reason to. He uses the required method to give me what I want—a Spider-Man that isn't under the thumb of the MCU.

At least, not as much. This story asks the question, "what does it REALLY mean, to be Spider-Man?" and then it answers it, by using past Sony Spider-Man's (Spider-Men?) Spider-Men as the standard to be measured by. Tobey Maguire and Andrew Garfield make real appearances, not just cameos, and they're treated with reverence and respect. Holland's Peter makes well-intentioned mistakes and tries his best and then learns from the Spider-Men that his good intentions and trying his best is the Spider-Man way. He learns that bad things happen despite his efforts but is encouraged by them to keep going, because "with great power comes great responsibility." And his efforts cease to be a joke or some fun side-gig where he gets his suits made by Iron-Man, his missions from Nick Fury, and team-mates from the famous Avengers roster. He grows into a full-fledged Spider-Man, and it's a little bit glorious. 

Holland has always been the best thing about this iteration. This movie aspires to be worthy of him.

The path taken to get him there... is a little bit messy. One by one the past hang-ups are put to rest. No more Stark glasses. No more voices inside suits. No more adults making decisions for Peter. No more villains whose real beefs are with Iron Man. No more double life. And with every step taken, the movie feels more and more like a classic Spidey film, and less like a Marvel drone. The jokes are funny sometimes. The characters are like real people, not awkward or unfunny on purpose. There are dramatic moments that aren't undercut by humor. There are humorous moments that have underlying pathos. There is an end goal throughout besides "make money with CGI." Gosh, even the more blatant fanservice moments didn't make me angry, because they were calling back to the old classics with genuine glee. 

It feels messy because the movie is about cleaning up a mess—in the storyline, and in real life! The process is not streamlined. There are moments when it's a chore, but the end result is satisfying in the same way all things are when they're clean and used to be messy. And as the mess dwindles, we get a look at how Holland's Spidey works unencumbered. And he's fantastic. Peter uses his fast thinking in creative ways during the fights, and Holland's physicality plus the magic of modern effects and choreography make the action land in real and entertaining ways. And the character dynamics between him and his friends and family take on a more serious edge as he weighs the consequences of his actions and relationships. 

One of few MCU films that actually needs most of its 2 & 1/2 hour runtime. It's a big mess to clean.

The returning villains weren't my favorite thing ever, but I appreciate that they were not turned into jokes (which was what my cynicism expected) and instead added real value to the story. Especially Alfred Molina's Doc Ock and Willem Dafoe's Goblin. Spider-Men Maguire and Garfield steal the show, so I'm glad they aren't in the whole thing. Most of the movie's best, most engaging emotion comes from them—maybe because of nostalgia, maybe not. All I know is they leave the current Spidey in a place I'd like to see more of. It feels like a set-up for a fresh start. One that already has a good cast in place, and has proved it understands the Spider-Man mantle better than past endeavors indicated, and is ready to take the character in some more conventional, classic, SPIDER-MAN directions. 

No Way Home is a messy, sprawling, fun, and ambitious film with a determined goal, real stakes, real consequences, and a real end result. It stops trying to reinvent the character and embraces what's always been this version's strengths, while bringing back some of the classic strengths of Spider-Man, as well. It has brought our friendly neighborhood Spider-Man back to his friendly neighborhood life.

Upcoming Movie Roundup - October

Bye summer! September went as planned and I saw both of my must-sees in theaters. It Chapter Two wasn't as great as Chapter One, but didn't leave me disappointed either (review) and Ad Astra rocketed itself up to be one of my favorites of the year -- and probably a permanent favorite of rich science fiction. It was everything I wanted it to be! (Review!)

Besides those I did some catching up from August. Ready or Not was a fun horror flick though not exceptionally so (review). It had a breath of fresh air quality to it. State like Sleep from January was interesting but unfulfilling though pleasantly noirish in tone (review). And, Body at Brighton Rock from April was a severe and incompetent disappointment (review).

Finally, there was the rollercoaster ride that In the Shadow of the Moon gave me. A September Netflix release that I missed in the roundup, I was briefly extremely excited for it, as it starred one of my favorite actors, and was solidly in the scifi noir genre, but after a few days of excitedly anticipating it, it was the biggest disappointment of the year. A maddening waste. I panned it as hard as I could in my review.

Now, October has a ton of big releases, and many that I feel like I should see, but not too many that I'm genuinely excited for. Here's hoping there's some surprises! What looks good to you this fine fall month?



Joker
In theaters October 4th; R
My only real worry concerning this movie is that it'll simply be too dark and intense for me to enjoy. I know there's a lot of controversy around it now, but I don't think it's possible to weigh in on the discussion until you've seen it. I'd like to see it, but I'm also scared to. Even Heather Ledger's PG-13 turn as the Joker unsettled me in ways that I didn't care for, and Joaquin Phoenix seems to have turned it up to 11, and then way past that. He's a fantastic actor and I feel like this will be one of those films that make an impact on the culture and become a must-see. I'm just not sure I'll get to the theaters for it.




Lucy in the Sky
In theaters October 4th; R
This one's getting panned in such a way that I can't figure out if it means I'd be less or more likely to enjoy it. I'm not a Natalie Portman fan, nor does it seem super exciting to watch a movie in which a person wants to go to space the whole time but little screen time is spent there, but -- I am a scifi and space movie fan, so I suspect I'll watch this someday whether I hate it or not.




Sometimes Always Never
Limited release on October 4th; PG-13
I think there's no hypothetical scenario in which Bill Nighy plays Sam Riley's dad in a movie and I wouldn't be interested in seeing it. This one is also about Scrabble, and Nighy's character looking for his other grown son who stormed out and disappeared after a bad game. The trailer has a sweet and sad yet comical tone to it that works so well with British films. I'll definitely give this one a chance!




Low Tide
Limited Release on October 4th: R
The guy from Alita: Battle Angel and Jaeden Martell as brothers in what looks like a slick southern gothic story involving gold coins and running from the law. Reminds me of Mud but in a more extreme, unrealistic way. Unrealistic isn't a bad or good thing, it just depends on if it's good and entertaining and has real meaning attached to it. I tend to like movies like this, but this one seems like it could be particularly good if it plays right. Looking forward to seeing if it does!




The Addams Family
In theaters October 11th; PG
Here's the cast on this thing: Oscar Isaac, Charlize Theron, Chloe Grace Moretz, Finn Wolfhard, Nick Kroll, Bette Midler, and Allison Janney. And yet. If you were to watch the trailer, you would realize -- this movie would be pure torture to sit through.




Gemini Man
In theaters October 11th; PG-13
If the de-aging Will Smith CGI is that noticeable in the trailer, just think how bad it'll look in the actual movie, where the screen is bigger and they can't mine the best shots to show off. But don't get me wrong -- I'm quite willing to watch this. Provided it's at home so I can laugh without bothering anyone.




Parasite
Limited release on October 11th; R
Everyone's talking about this and I know nothing about it, so I'm not anticipating it and probably won't go and try to see it in theaters, but I'll definitely keep it in mind for streaming days. The trailer is intriguing to say the least!




Zombieland: Double Tap
In theaters October 18th; R
Jesse Eisenberg, Woody Harrelson, Emma Stone, and Abigail Breslin are all back. I liked the first Zombieland; I like zombie comedies; I like the cast -- I'll see the movie! Barring the possibility that it stinks and I lose interest, anyway. I'm not dead set on it but it does look like a fine fun time even if it isn't at the level of the original. And even if they steal jokes from Shaun of the Dead and overplay them.




Maleficent: Mistress of Evil
In theaters October 18th; PG-13
So Maleficent back to being evil? Classic cheap sequel, reverting the characters back to their original state and giving them the exact same character arc again. I did not like the first one of this, but I didn't like it in a way that I really enjoyed -- thinking about why and what could have been better, and for that reason I actually am curious to see this sequel. Also Sam Riley is back and there's a NEW and improved (?) actor playing Prince Phillip, so maybe we'll get some good romance this time! (Unlikely, but I can wish.) Ugh, this looks so bad, I actually feel bad for wanting to see it anyway.




The Lighthouse
Limited release on October 18th; R
Another that everyone's talking about. This one I'd probably be interested in on my own, for a few reasons. After Robert Pattinson was cast as the next Batman I've been a little more interested to check out a range of his work. That is probably why most people want to see this too, now that I think of it. Also I'm always intrigued by black and white movies. You can't be a good film fan unless you at least pay attention to A24 releases, and finally, stories set at lighthouses get my attention easily. Still, I kinda doubt I'll like it when it's all said and done. Hard to tell for sure, that's just my impression. I'll certainly give it a chance, and hope it's not too scary.




Jojo Rabbit
Limited release on October 18th; PG-13
When all is said and done, I WILL watch this movie, because Sam Rockwell is in it. As for the rest, I have loved Taika Waititi's work (What We Do in the Shadows) liked it (Hunt for the Wilderpeople) and... not... liked it (Thor: Ragnarok). This looks closest in style to the one I loved so that's a good sign. I'm also not offended by people making fun of Hitler and Nazis through satire. The trailer makes me laugh, which is the best sign of all -- I think I may be even excited for this one!




Black and Blue
In theaters October 25th; NR
I've been on a kick of watching a lot of police body-cam videos recently, some for entertainment, some for educational purposes, so I imagine this movie would annoy me by having the footage be so "movie." It also seems too far-fetched that she can't find one single good cop to help her out. Still I do like one person vs the world kind of movies and I really like Naomie Harris, so I'll keep an eye on this. If it turns out cheap, or nothing but political propaganda, I won't bother.




Countdown
In theaters October 25th; NR
What if an app could tell you how long you have until you DIE??? This looks silly. I'll watch it at home with my brothers and it'll be a good time.

Aquaman

Spoiler-free!

Pro tip for the DCEU: don't try to copy Marvel. First, because you're bad at it so you'll fail, but also because it's an over-saturated market anyway and as the off-brand you'll never be anything but last place.

I'm so tired of Disney's Marvel movies that when I go to movies like Aquaman and something bad happens I think to myself, "Well, at least I'm not watching another Marvel movie." But Marvel movies are (mostly) still objectively better. (They have a secret ingredient, and unlike your grandma, it isn't love.) I want a new, better, game-changing method to be thought of, so superhero movies can be exciting again -- so, Dear DCEU, I have your best interest at heart.

Okay maybe MY interest is at heart, and your interest is right next to it.

Here's what you need to do, from the perspective of someone who wants to like superhero movies, but more often than not doesn't: Take risks. The last risky Marvel movie was Guardians of the Galaxy and that movie changed their game. The biggest risk y'all ever made was Wonder Woman, and she is, without a doubt, keeping your franchise afloat. Aquaman is a decent movie. It's got a fine cast who are having fun, a unique central setting, a basic plot with lots of locations to visit... but for a live-action movie that takes place 50% underwater, it's surprisingly un-risky. It's good enough. But in today's world, good enough is practically bad.

It has a lot of individual issues, each one speaking to a different origin of misguided intention. For one, it wants to be funny, but outright jokes rarely land and are mostly used to cover up lazy writing. Example: "You could've just peed on it." Yes. Or spit on it. That line draws our attention to the fact, but does little to endow the scene with any more sense. It would've been funnier to me if he had stopped her halfway through collecting his sweat with her superpowers and just spit a nice glob of foamy saliva on the thing. What is most genuinely funny in the movie is when it embraces its own bombastic clichés, so we laugh with them, not at them.

Self-awareness that circumvents the cliché > self-awareness that points out the use of a cliché.

Jason Momoa's presence is amusing in a completely natural way that works. Things like the hair flip, the way he plays off jokes, and his epic poses and awesome hero moments -- he's having a blast and it translates. For that reason, a comedy tone seems like a good idea, but the movie misses matching its tone to him still; it's comparatively dead. He even plays the drama well and comes across as sincere and comfortable, and kinda leaves the film behind in his wake. It gets bogged down in its effort to keep up with him by trying to structure that free-spirit vibe too much. Movies need structure, but this was an undisguised step-by-step adventure, and could barely establish itself in a location before he was ready to move on. It was holding him back.

When the focus was solely on him it always seemed to work. But I rather liked the supporting players so I'm not sure I'd wish for less of them. My favorite was his half-brother Orm, the primary villain played by Patrick Wilson. There was a early-era Loki vibe there, but not in a copycat way, that I enjoyed. Orm is very theatrical and I loved how often he'd yell and it would almost sound like he was singing. His motivations are also not convoluted, unlike the secondary villain (Yahya Abdul-Mateen II), who is necessary, yet still distinctly feels like he detracts from the film. I also loved Nicole Kidman and the drama that she brought. Her strange romance with Arthur's father (Temuera Morrison) was a highlight of the movie.

I figured he'd be my favorite part of the movie, and I figured right. His hair was awesome and that's saying something because everyone's hair was a really big deal.

Mera (Amber Heard) I could take or leave. She stole too much of Arthur's thunder, but her presence was necessary, and the Shakespearean battling wits might've worked excellently with a smidge more chemistry and more biting writing. Willem Dafoe was perhaps underused, but better that than overused. The movie seemed afraid to put Arthur in scenes alone, but the best scene was the one where he was alone (well there was a giant monster there too, but it counts), and got to carry the scene without someone inadvertently stepping on his toes. I'm sure it wasn't intentional, but his interactions with Mera especially feel more like a passive-aggressive fights to upstage the other instead of an actual scene where the actors play off and elevate each other.

Visuals are a big part of the movie, and overall, I was impressed. Atlantis looked vast and vibrant and almost like a lived-in futuristic water city. Creature design was cool -- they went all out for that giant sea-monster thing. And there was some memorable and neat camera work. Especially in underwater fight scenes it takes on a less 2D perspective of the environment like scenes in outer space. (Should've taken that further!) The underwater effects were my biggest worry and turns out they were well-founded. The animated floating hair was so distracting, I couldn't pay attention to the actors' expressions. And the water distortion bothered me a bit too. I was always relieved when scenes took place on ground or in air pockets.

 Lol check out Willem photo-bombing in the back.

The action isn't anything particular except when paired with good visuals or a pleasantly hammy performance. That second one-on-one brother duel would've been quite good if only Orm had lost that dumb helmet at the start of it. Seems like the whole movie was that: pretty good ideas killed by lazy details and no follow-through. Still, my experience skewed toward enjoyment with the deviance from the Marvel formula -- though I'm sure the idea was to copy it. People have called it a rehash of Black Panther but that's in passing plot points only. Overall, taking tone, theme, and plot into account, it's more similar to Thor, and in a way that I liked.

I had a fine time watching, but it was more the lack of irritation and less the presence of good that was the cause. It's silly, cheesy, and pleasantly extravagant; but in such a risk-less and amateurishly calculated way that much of the magic gets dried up before it reaches us. So, in the end... and I'm sorry for this... it doesn't make any waves. I'll see myself out.

Murder on the Orient Express

Spoiler-free!

Every so often, the world requires a new version of Agatha Christie's Murder on the Orient Express. Not because no good film adaptation exists, or because there's some new gimmick or development in the world that requires the story to be made anew, but simply because it's what's done. It's a tradition! Perhaps unnecessary, but not at all unwelcome.

Much like this face decoration.

There are two great things about this latest adaptation, and they are both Kenneth Branagh. He takes the helm as lead actor and director, and the only thing that overshadows him even slightly is his glorious mustache. His directing style is so inviting yet grand; elegant yet strong. It fits the era wonderfully, and is an absolute pleasure to watch. Beautiful, but not showy, and he finagles around in the cramped train space gracefully. He directs with easy confidence, and the story is such a classic; it's a sure-fire combination for successful entertainment.

With equal confidence, he takes on the role of "probably the greatest detective in the world" Hercule Poirot; a character heavy with the baggage of many fine performances. But Branagh is more than up to the challenge, and proves the Belgian detective is far from being overdone. I expected to love his direction, but was surprised at how easily I accepted him as Poirot -- mustache and all. He disappears into the quirky, interesting role wonderfully, and is an easy stand-out among the talented and large cast. The character gets more devotion than the mystery itself, and I think that's exactly how it should be.

The rest of the cast produces absolutely no complaints whatsoever!

I'm pretty tired of seeing Johnny Depp in movies, but even he pleased me with a nice, subtle and memorable performance. Daisy Ridley didn't disappoint as a non-Star Wars character. I can't forget Tom Bateman because he was very nice. I really liked Olivia Colman, and Penélope Cruz impressed. Judi Dench, Willem Dafoe, Leslie Odom Jr., Josh Gad, Derek Jacobi and especially Michelle Pfeiffer were all excellent. I also liked the less-known Sergei Polunin and Lucy Boynton, but they were slightly forgotten, along with Manuel Garcia-Rulfo and Marwan Kenzari. With so many characters it was bound to happen.

The mystery might have been done better. My sister and her husband had recently read the book and mentioned a few left-out details they noticed and missed. I only recalled the basics going in, but everything made perfect sense to me, and I left satisfied. A few additions were also made. Some -- most really -- were uncalled for, but didn't do harm to the story either. Mainly they were meant to add a little action, but I found the plot itself to be exciting and interesting enough on its own. One did create a plot hole, which can be explained away only with some reaching. Overall it's a solid, classically simplified adaptation. 

I really enjoyed those tracking shots -- from inside and outside the train.

In fact the movie as a whole perfectly fits the description of classically simple and solid. Only one thing irked me; the ending that hinted at a sequel of Death on the Nile, and took me out of the moment for a second. There's nothing ground-breaking to see here, but nothing ground-breaking is required. As far as adaptations of this story go, I don't think you can do much better. If you're willing to be left happy, than you almost certainly will be. This is a straight-forward production of excellent quality, and a job well-done.

Odd Thomas

This review is spoiler-free.

He's pretty familiar with death. He can see dead people, and they can tell him how they died. Sometimes he can even tell when death is coming. He is clairvoyant, or psychic, or something; he's gifted, he's weird, he's strange. He is odd -- Odd Thomas.

And that's not just a title or nickname, that's his real name. A name he lives up to every day, because not only can he see dead people, he feels a responsibility to do something about it -- like, maybe apprehend their murderer -- which can get some strange looks as he chases people down the street. He also doesn't want anyone to discover his gifts. Then they might start calling him more than "Odd."

Guess why I wanted to see this movie. I'll give you a few hints -- it wasn't for the ghosts, and is pictured here. Give up?

Anton Yelchin plays our paranormal crime solving weirdo. He was the reason I wanted to give this obscure movie a shot, and ultimately he was the reason I was happy I did. Odd isn't actually that strange acting, he's mostly just an unusually endearing, enthusiastic twenty-something with an overload of charming confidence. Think a classic jaded noir mystery film PI, but young and modern, and, well, happier -- for the most part. He even does the narration, explaining things to the audience that might be tedious to understand otherwise, and cracking one-liners like the best of them. Narrations can go either way with me, and this one is a winner.

The only people who know about Odd's abilities is his girlfriend, Stormy (see, everyone in this movie has interesting names) played by Addison Timlin, and the local Sheriff, played by Willem Dafoe. Though he tries to keep her out of his escapades, Stormy is often his backup; the Ned to his Nancy Drew; the Dr. Watson to his Sherlock Holmes. And Sheriff Porter is the go-to guy once the bad guys have been caught, and Odd needs a good cover story to keep his secret safe.

Strange Weather.

Because the film is not rated, I'm going to put a little content review here. I'd give it a PG-13, for a little bit of language, plus brief strong language; a bit of sexual content, plus one girl in some revealing underwear; lots and lots of scary/tense/suspenseful moments, a good amount of out-and-out violence, and some disturbing/gross moments. Also, there are some disturbing creatures. The violence and creepiness was definitely the worst of it, but that I didn't mind as much at all. And I was glad for how well the scary and suspenseful was balanced with comedy.

In fact my favorite aspect has to be the comedy. The script had some great humor for all the characters, but mostly for Odd. Odd practically never stops talking between his narrating inner thoughts and his real-life penchant for hearing his own voice say smart-alack-y things, and as long as he's saying words, he never stops spinning them out with a generous helping of wit. Watching him put together the pieces of a puzzle was so fun and exciting, not necessarily because of what he was figuring out, but because of the way he went about figuring it.

Short-order cook by day, crime-solver by-- well, day and night actually.

As for the plot and the mystery, it kept me guessing, and in the end made a good amount of sense with one or two small holes -- but no more than you'd find in a popular American TV crime drama any night of the week. However, if Steven Moffat tried to pass it off as a Sherlock episode, people would doubtlessly be disappointed. It's all about context though -- I didn't expect a Sherlockian-type complexity, I just wanted to see Anton Yelchin fight evil, and the mystery allowed for that with amusing style. And in the end I was even impressed at how sensible it was -- never trying too hard to outdo anything, or take on more than it could handle, just skipping along happily to the beat of its own witty little drum.

Odd Thomas isn't breaking any new ground here, but some things never get old, especially when they're done with a heart and a soul, a dashing hero, and a cheerfully cynical attitude.

The Fault in Our Stars

This is a spoiler-free review.

And, this is my 100th post on this blog! So I just wanted to take a moment to say thank you to all my readers. I appreciate your support and encouragement -- you are all wonderful. Here's to the next 100! Now on to The Fault in Our Stars...

Hazel Grace Lancaster (Shailene Woodley) has cancer in her lungs. Terminal. It's really a miracle she's lasted as long as she has. But she's still dying, and she's depressed (it's a side-effect of dying) and worried about the scar she'll leave behind when the inevitable happens. So her ever patient mom (Laura Dern) sends her to a cancer support group where she has one friend -- sorta -- a soon-to-be blind dude named Isaac. (Nat Wolff) Augustus Waters (Ansel Elgort) had cancer at one point, and lost his leg to it, but now he's okay. He comes to the support group to, well, support his soon-to-be blind friend Isaac. And there, Hazel and Gus meet.

And with an opening like that, you can be sure that angst-filled romance is to follow.

In case you didn't know, this movie is based on the novel of the same name by John Green. It's an extremely popular book, but I'm usually not big on teen romances, especially if there's fatal illnesses involved. (And that was a big understatement.) But armed with an understanding of the awesomeness of the author, and the promise that it was better than a typical cancer romance, I gave it a shot. And if all sappy teen romance novels were as good as The Fault in Our Stars, then I probably would have read more than just one in my life.

Gus, Isaac, and Hazel may not look like much -- between the three of them they have five legs, four eyes, and two and a half working pairs of lungs. But they also have two dozen eggs.

So, as it always is with novels and their film adaptations, I already knew the best version of the story (the original is the best by rule) which I think helped and hindered my enjoyment of the film at the same time.

It helped in ways like making me even more impressed by already impressive acting and characterization through of my previous knowledge of the characters. Shailene Woodley was guaranteed to be a perfect Hazel from the very beginning, and she didn't disappoint. She is sweet and sullen and honest and caring and endearing and everything Hazel is supposed to be -- except not a teenager. She fakes it well of course, and Hazel is a mature sixteen-year-old anyway. Ansel Elgort matches Woodley's acting stroke for stroke for his part, and makes a very charming, adorable and accurate Gus. With the story belonging to Hazel, he received more of the dreaded Chopping Block of Adaptation, but managed wonderfully in spite of it. The two make as great pair, and I especially love how their friendship shines through their relationship more often than romantic tension.

They were obviously having fun with their roles, but not too much to spoil the performances.

 
Often with adaptations, the source material is only used as "more what you'd call 'guidelines' than actual rules," so much so that occasionally you wonder if the writers' book was actually different from yours. The best though, are always done treating the book as a rule book, and that is what was done here. And it lands this film somewhere in my top five best book-to-film adaptations. Having John Green involved in the filming probably helped, fear of the wrath of the fans probably helped, but the biggest factor I'd say is very simple: the book demands its respect; it is unquestionably its best version this story could be. The filmmakers knew that, so they made it as similar as possible. Changes are minute and usually insignificant. But -- there are exclusions, as there always are.

Here is where knowledge of the book hindered my enjoyment. There isn't much original material that could be qualified as bad or unnecessary, so good parts are left out. Some being amongst my favorites; things I was anticipating seeing acted out on screen. It's the nature of the beast, but it still leaves empty spaces wanting to be filled. And being catered to the General Audience -- a relentlessly shallow creature -- it felt less personal than the novel.

I guess I just favored the less commonly liked parts more.

I wish I could separate the two, and judge the film without reference to the book, but they are so similar that I start every paragraph with the intention of doing just that, and still wind up using the word "adaptation" again. The film is the book, but less; and the best I can say about their differences is this: the film's best parts are different from the book's best parts, and that was very interesting and pleasing to see.

Watching the story rather than reading was enjoyable in a different way, and that plus the all-around fantastic performances from thoughtfully cast actors, and the simple, lovely look makes the film well worthy of its existence. It may not go as deep as the book, but it still goes deeper than any other films of its type that I can think of. The sap and the sentiment are both layered on as thick as it can get, but finds plenty to balance it with on the other side, with delightful light comedy and moments of honesty and sincerity. At the film's opening, our heroine tells us that there are two ways to tell sad stories: sugar-coat it, or tell it how it is. I think in this case though, the best route was taken, and it was neither; but rather a mix of sugar and honesty that made a happy, and sad, and heartfelt medium.

The fault, dear Brutus, is not is our stars / But in ourselves, that we are underlings. -- William Shakespeare