Okay, so, I'm STILL catching up on book reviews, but at least I've written TWO for books I've read THIS year.  Go, me!  In the rush to get all my reviews completed, though, I almost forgot that I wanted to take a little break and talk about movies.  I'm no movie critic—seriously, I go to the movies about three times a year on average and only watch maybe twice that at home.  It's not that I don't love movies—I do—it's just that I've usually got better things to do (like read).  However, in the last few months, I've actually seen several bookish movies.  Two of them were even in a real, live theater!  I'm going to save my non-theater film for another day so I can review it when I talk about the book it's based on, so that leaves these two:

THE BOOK THIEF:

My husband and I were walking around downtown Chicago one night in early December.  We were near Millennium Park when we saw an ad for some movie and decided, hey, we're footloose and fancy-free in the Windy City, why not catch a flick?  We'd taken the el from the airport to our hotel, so we didn't have a rental car.  Since it was a lovely night, we decided to walk to the nearest theater, which was down by Navy Pier—about two miles away!  I'd been wanting to see The Book Thief, so after our little urban hike, that's what we did.

And ...

I liked it.  Didn't love, love, love it, but enjoyed it nonetheless.  The script stayed pretty close to the book and when it did veer off, I could understand why.  What it did stay very true to was the theme and the feel of the novel.  I knew the film wouldn't get it exactly right, but it did a decent job.  My husband and I were both touched by it.  It gave us a lot to talk about on our 2-mile trek back to our hotel :)

SAVING MR. BANKS:

I realize Saving Mr. Banks isn't based on a book, but it does follow the story of a movie producer (Walt Disney) trying to get the film rights to a book series/character (Mary Poppins) from its author, P.L. Travers.  If you haven't seen the movie, may I suggest that you do?  And soon.  It's one of those warm, endearing films that just makes you want to cheer.  Or sob.  Or both.  Since it deals with some mature subject matter (alcoholism, death, etc.), it's rated PG-13, but I would still label it family friendly.  Truly, it's a wonderful movie.  Even though I sniffled my way through most of it, I fell in love with it.  So much.  I don't know how much of the film's story is absolutely historically accurate and how much has been "Disneyfied," but I don't care.  I adored it.

Whether Walt Disney actually said this or not, I love what his character tells Mrs. Travers:  "That's what we storytellers do.  We restore order with imagination.  We instill hope—again and again and again."  Lovely, right?

Speaking of Mary Poppins, the other night my husband and I went to see one of its stars, Dick Van Dyke.  He and his a capella group, the Vantastix, performed in our area to a packed house.  Most were senior citizens, but that was okay, we had a great time.  The show was excellent—funny, upbeat, very entertaining.  At 88 years old, Dick Van Dyke's still got it going on.  He can sing, he can dance, he can banter with his crazy white-haired groupies ... he's pretty darn spry (maybe it has something to do with his 42-year-old wife?).  As much as I loved hearing him sing Mary Poppins songs, this sweet song was my favorite of all that he and the Vantastix performed (the video's a couple years old, but you get the idea ...):


It was better in person, of course.  And just so, so sweet.  Made me think of all my babies who aren't babies anymore (*sniff, sniff*).

So, have you seen either of these movies?  What did you think?  What other bookish flicks have you seen lately?  Which do you recommend?

If you've got a Little Women fan on your Christmas list this year, you've just found the perfect gotta-have-it gift idea: it's the Louisa May Alcott: The Woman Behind Little Women DVD. Based on Harriet Reisen's 2009 biography of the beloved author, the PBS film delves into both the commonly and uncommonly known facts of Alcott's life. It recalls her unconventional upbringing; lessons she learned from literary greats; her service as a nurse in the Civil War; her prolific writing career; and the painful physical maladies that caused her early death. The film biography also notes the Alcotts' immense poverty, a condition that forced Louisa to write pulp fiction in order to support her family. Her abolitionism, feminism and fiercely independent spirit are also highlighted in the movie.

Elizabeth Marvel, a three-time Obie winner, plays Louisa to perfection. By turns playful, morose, and determined, the actress shows us all the faces of the writer. Commentary by Pulitzer Prize winner Geraldine Brooks (March) and other Alcott scholars round out the story, offering an absorbing and complete picture of a most fascinating woman. Although the film gets a little long (84 minutes), it really is enchanting. I enjoyed it immensely and cannot wait to read Reisen's book.

For more information on Louisa May Alcott or to purchase the DVD for yourself a loved one, please visit http://www.alcottfilm.com/

To the FTC, with love: I received a free copy of this DVD from the generous folks at Newman PR in exchange for an honest review. Thank you!

It doesn't happen often, but occasionally, Hollywood surprises me. Every so often, those California filmmakers manage to produce a movie I like better than the book on which it's based. Diary of a Wimpy Kid, for example. While Jeff Kinney's novel in cartoons is funny, a fleshed-out storyline coupled with excellent casting, makes the film version hysterical. On-screen, Greg Heffley's story even becomes heartwarming. What never really occurs in the novel plays out in bright Technicolor on the big screen - our scrawny, 7th grade hero learns that there's more to life than following the crowd.

(Readalikes: The other Diary of a Wimpy Kid books; the Dear Dumb Diary series by Jim Benton)

I usually don't review movies on this blog, but it just so happens that I watched three book-to-movie adaptations over the weekend. Before you think I'm just plain lazy (I did skip a woman's retreat thing-y because I needed to "get ready for school to start"), I got some school shopping done as well. Plus, my husband's aunt invited 3/4 of my kids over for a sleepover - the hubs and I had to take advantage of that by having a night "in" together. There's also the fact that two of the movies have been sitting here for several months, so it was time, you know?

This week is going to be a fun one at BBB - I'll be drawing a winner for the Taken By Storm giveaway, announcing more giveaways, and I may even have a review or two. But first, I must rant. Hubs and I watched Twilight last night - oh boy, have I got a few things to say about that! If you adored the movie, you may just want to skip this post. If not, read on ...

So, I know I'm the last woman on Earth to see Twilight. I had plans to see it when it came out, but after hearing friends' mixed reviews, I wasn't sure I wanted to watch it at all, let alone pay astronomical amounts of money for theater tickets. Now that it's out on DVD, though, curiosity got the better of me - hubs brought the movie home last night and we watched. And snickered. And rolled our eyes. And giggled. It was soooo, soooo bad. Honestly, the best part of the movie was the scenery. Of course, I'm Washington born and bred, so I could be a bit biased ...

Perhaps I'm being a bit too critical (Me? Never!), but seriously, the movie was awful. The plot was choppy - I don't know if it would make sense to anyone who hadn't read the books. None of the actors seemed comfortable in their roles - Bella was too serious; Edward too awkward; Jacob too - I don't know - wrong. The relationship between Bella and Edward progressed too fast, and I didn't feel any real chemistry between the two. In fact, all of the actors seemed stiff, cold and melodramatic. The only person in the movie who acted naturally was Stephenie Meyer herself! And as for the dialogue - yikes. Cheese, cheese, cheese.

All you have to do is scroll through this blog to see that I am a Meyer fan. Not a screechy, obsessive, prom dress-wearing, psycho fan, but a fan. I adored Twilight, loved New Moon, and liked Eclipse. True, I haven't quite gotten around to Breaking Dawn (even though it's been sitting on my shelf for months), but I will. Like I said, I'm a fan. Of the books. The movie just didn't capture the drama and passion of the story at all. Not that I'm surprised - in my opinion (be it ever so humble), films rarely do justice to the books on which they're based. There are exceptions, of course (Gone With the Wind comes to mind), but Twilight is soooo not one of them. I did stay awake through the movie, which is saying something since I snoozed through The Dark Knight, Quantum Solace, and every other DVD I've viewed lately, but I think that had a lot more to do with the two glasses of Mountain Dew I drank rather than any magic happening on-screen. Or maybe it was my husband laughing uproariously on the couch next to me. At any rate, I think you get the picture - Twilight (the movie) just plain sucks. And yes, the pun was intended.

Don't you hate it when you love a book, and Hollywood announces it's making a film based on the story? You wonder if the writers/actors/producers will do justice to the words and characters that swept you away when you read the book. You cringe to think of the many, many ways Hollywood could alter - or even destroy - the work you love so dearly.

This is why I watched Stardust (the movie based on Neil Gaiman's novel of the same name) with so much anxiety. I loved the book. It was charming, magical and sweet. I hoped the movie would be the same, and that I would adore it as much as I did the book. But, I just ... didn't. Don't get me wrong - I didn't hate the film, I just didn't like it as much as I wanted to. Somehow, it lacked the magic of the book.

On the Plus Side: I did like Charlie Cox as Tristran. I thought he was loveable, with the right mix of vulnerability and inner strength. I also thought Michelle Pfeiffer was well cast as Lamia, the hag. Also, the movie, on the whole, succeeded in being whimsical and lighthearted, which was one of the reasons I enjoyed the book so much.

On the Other Hand: For some reason, I wasn't impressed with Claire Danes as Yvaine. She just seemed awkward in her role. I also think she and Charlie lacked chemistry. Some of the minor characters irritated me as well, especially the dead princes. However, I loathed what the filmmakers did to the kindly pilot, Captain Alberic. They turned him into Captain Shakespeare, a blubbering, cross-dressing fool (Robert DeNiro's most humiliating role since Jack Byrnes in Meet the Parents/Fockers). Ugh.

In general, the movie was disappointing. I really, really thought I would love it and I think I would have if Hollywood had stuck closer to Gaiman's original words and characters. Taking the Gaiman out of the story just took away the magic for me. What did the rest of you think?