How to use this Page

Finally finished the series. I was surprised that it was only 25 episodes. It seemed that the story arc was developing very slowly and then rushed to resolve Haruka's conflicts. It's still a fun anime to watch and I just ordered the first three manga volumes from Tokyopop for the library. I wonder how the middle school kids will respond to this series. They did like Petshop of Horrors.

This challenge was to read three books that have been made into movies. I read six. So even though this one isn't over quite yet. (It ends December 1rst.) I'm declaring myself done. I read three children's books, and three adult books. Overall, I must say I really enjoyed this one.

To Kill A Mockingbird by Harper Lee
Babe by Dick King-Smith
Charlotte's Web by E.B. White
Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austen
Charlie and the Chocolate Factory by Roald Dahl
Journey to the Center of the Earth by Jules Verne

King-Smith, Dick. Babe: The Gallant Pig.

I read Babe for the Four-Legged Friend Challenge and it is certainly suitable for the book-to-movie challenge as well, though it's not listed on my original list. I love the movie. It's become so much a part of me, that I really can't remember a time when I didn't love it. It is just so good. So quotable. So true. So perfect. It's one of those meaning-of-life, beauty-in-simplicity movies. Anyway, I could gush for hours. How does the book compare? Well, the movie will always be better in my opinion. (Rare I know.) But the book was good. The plot is less complex. There are fewer characters, fewer conflicts. There is no "Rex" just Fly. There is no Ferdinand the duck to lead Babe into trouble. There are definitely no singing mice. It's good; it's enjoyable. But you really can't get better than the movie.

Sad but true...searching YouTube for Babe...even with "pig" added does not lead to the kinds of results you might expect. I was unable to find any clips of the movie, which I feel is kind of surprising given how popular this movie is.

Charlotte's Web by E.B. White. Illustrations by Garth Williams.

What can I say about Charlotte's Web that you don't already know? Really. It is a must read for each and every person. If by some chance you never discovered it as a child, you really must read it as an adult. Charlotte's Web is all about the wonder of living. The wonder of life. Seeing the world around you in terrifically radiant ways. Of seeing magic in the small things, the ordinary things. Finding miracles in unexpected places. It captures the beauty of innocence, the heartache of loss, and all the finer points of life in between the two. Wilbur, a spring pig--the runt of the litter--is saved by Fern, a girl who sets out to rid the world of injustice. Fern raises this pig for his first month of life. Bottle-feeding him, caring for him, pampering him. But then it's time for Wilbur to learn to be a pig--to learn about farm life. So he is sold to Uncle Homer. Luckily, the farm is within walking distance and Fern can visit her friend regularly. Wilbur has to make the adjustment to life in the barn. And that adjustment isn't always easy. What Wilbur wants more than anything is a friend--a true friend--but the other animals just aren't interested in providing solace and comfort or entertainment to a pig. Just when Wilbur is at his lowest, he hears a voice whispering soft words of hope and promise. With the dawning of the day, Wilbur learns that his new friend is a spider. What can a spider do for a pig? Well, if that spider is Charlotte--anything and everything imaginable. As the two become friends, as they learn and grow together, Charlotte imparts many words of wisdom to the pig who is innocent, naive, and oh-so-lovable. Charlotte's Web is about life and death and everything in between. It is about the ebb and flow of life. The changing of seasons. An illustration that there is a time and place for everything...things must pass away, must change...because that is the nature of things. Fern can't always be a little girl. She can't always be there for Wilbur. Nor can Charlotte. But some things--like love, friendship, and hope--never pass away. Some things are eternal. It is a beautiful, beautiful story.

I had the pleasure of listening and reading to Charlotte's Web in the past week or so. I first listened to it on audio. It was narrated by E.B. White. It was a special anniversary edition, and I presume that the narration had been restored or put onto cd for the first time most likely. I thought that was very well done. White was especially good at rendering the dialogue of the animals--particularly the gander. There was something so touching, so beautiful about listening to the author read his own book. I know that not every author can be talented in that regards. Sometimes it is better to let professionals do the job, but this one was nicely done.

What can I say about the movie? Well, I loved it. I cried. Who cannot be touched by Charlotte's love and sacrifice? Her devotion, her goodness, her compassionate and wise soul? And Julia Roberts did a great, great job in that role.

What do I love about Charlie and the Chocolate Factory by Roald Dahl? Everything. This is one of my childhood favorites. (I don't know how many times--more than two less than six--I probably read this one growing up.) But I recently, last week, read it for the Book to Movie Challenge. I loved the story. I loved the characters. (Especially Charlie and Grandpa Joe.) I loved the humor. Those oompa-loompa songs are just too much fun! I loved the illustrations. (For the record, the illustrations were by Joseph Schindelman). So when I said everything, I meant everything.

For the few that may not be familiar with the story, Charlie Bucket is a young boy, a poor boy, who wins a Golden Ticket--one of five--and is allowed into the ever-so-mysterious chocolate factory owned by Willy Wonka. Why is it so mysterious? The factory closed down years ago--spies in the company selling secrets--and it reopened years later. But no one ever goes in or out of the factory. The gates remain closed. Who are these "mystery" workers? Is Wonka as 'out there' as he seems?

I love the Charlie and the Chocolate Factory movie as well. The new one. Not that dreadful, dreadful one. Why? It follows the book better. It capture the *essence* of the book. It has the heart and soul of the original even if they change a few details now and then. What do I love most about the movie? A lot of the dialogue comes straight from the book. Not all of it. But enough that when you reread the book you see examples on practically every page. The songs especially are authentic to the book. When you read the book, you hear the songs from this movie. They have brought it to life. What they added to the movie that wasn't in the book was the fact that Willy Wonka's father was a dentist and that they had a strained relationship was an odd twist. In the movie, he had a reluctance to embrace families. He was a loner. In the book, he didn't have this 'odd' quirk and was more than willing to embrace the whole Bucket family from the start. Even though the movie didn't get it quite right at the end, they redeemed it enough where I could accept it.

Do I love Charlie and the Glass Elevator? No. Not really. Not at all. But the first one is classic. It's an unforgettable rags-to-riches story of a deserving boy who finally gets a break.

Of interest:

http://www.hbook.com/history/magazine/camerondahl.asp

This was actually my first experience reading Jules Verne.

I was actually inspired to read this novel after watching--or should I say enduring--the Hallmark 1999 production of Journey to The Center of the Earth. The movie--originally a miniseries--was broadcast on Ion--an essentially useless station that rarely has anything entertaining on. (It's not always the case, but it's often the case). However, they pride themselves on having four hour long movies on every weekend. This movie starring Jeremy London, Treat Williams, Hugh Keays-Byrne, and Tushka Bergen barely resembles the classic 1959 movie production. It was set in New Zealand for one thing--not Iceland. And the whole point of this expedition was NOT to get to the center of the earth in the name of science and mankind, but to venture down into the unknown ONLY for the sake of trying to find this woman's husband. Alice Hastings is a woman whose philandering husband has undertaken a mysterious journey to the underworld. She 'hires' Theodore and Jonas Lytton to help her find him. They, of course, need a guide but it won't be one named Hans. This one's McNiff. Now Alice's husband, Casper, wasn't seeking this expedition in the name of science and mankind either. He was looking for a way to get rich quick. Different setting. Different emphasis. Different plot twists. And let's just say that they took liberties adding an underground party-driven, sex-crazy tribe. Of course, Jonas Lytton (Jeremy London) has to get busy with one of the natives and cheat on his fiancee. There are just so so so so so many things that are wrong with this movie.

Read some User-Comments from IMDB

Here is one of my favorites:

Marcus Eden-Ellis writes, "Oh my, such a great tale so artlessly told...I guess if you really want to know about this film, watch it and see for yourself but I warn you now, it's about fifteen hours long. At least that is what it felt like! But I guess the best flavour of the piece comes from the fact that the women of an underground undiscovered tribe of natives wear make-up, speak English in a late 20th century idiom and shave their armpits with some kind of incredibly close shaver. And they dance disco style! All this in the nineteenth century...Go on, try it. It's one of those "so bad, it's good" type movies..."

But oddly enough some people actually like it. They even praise it. They even claim it follows the book. Methinks they have never read the book. I'm not a genius but when I kept seeing sex scene after sex scene, I was thinking...this doesn't look very Jules Verney to me.

For a very nice and not too openly saracastic summary (but sarcastic enough to be liked by me), read here.

Here is what I have to say about this movie. One good thing came from having watched it: I went to my local library and checked the book out. True, I did it only to *prove* that the movie was so, so wrong in its spin on the classic. But it did motivate me.

The 1999 movie was set in 1875; I believe, that the 1959 movie is set in 1885. The book was published in 1864. Therefore, I would imagine that it is set in the early 1860s.

The 1999 movie had Theodore Lytton, Jonas Lytton (nephew), McNiff, Alice Hastings.
The 1959 movie had Sir Oliver S. Lindenbrook, Alexander (Alec) McKuen (student), Carla Goteborg, Hans Belker, and Gertrude. (The beloved duck)

The 1959 movie is set in Scotland with largely Scottish and Icelandic characters. The 1999 movie has the Lyttons being American, I believe, although I can't be 100% sure since I'm trying my hardest to forget as much as I can from that experience. The book has the professor/uncle character being German. His name: Professor Von Hardwigg. The nephew is called Harry or at times Henry. (The last name is Lawson. He is English.) The book has a guide named Hans which they pick up in Iceland. I'm not going to search to find out what his last name was. The point being that there is no woman along for the expedition. And sadly, there is no duck.

Another big difference, there are no villains in the book. No race to be the first. No Count Saknussem character that haunts, chases, or threatens them. No murder plots that add the element of danger from another human being. No weeping widow to bargain with.

The book is narrated from Harry's point of view. In the book, he is a reluctant traveler. He wasn't eager to join the expedition. In fact, he does everything in his power to persuade his uncle that it is madness. But his girlfriend, his uncle's goddaughter, Gretchen, is the one coaxing him to go. Pleading with him to go out and be an explorer, an adventurer. His narration is what I enjoyed most about the novel, actually, his skepticism, his sarcasm, his doubts and fears. His observations of this whole 'crazy' scheme from beginning to end.

I do enjoy the 1959 movie. I had seen it at least twice as a child. And I rewatched it this weekend so I could write my review. It has its enjoyable qualities. I especially liked the addition of Gertrude as a character. And I must say that Peter Ronson and Pat Boone weren't hard on the eyes. I had not realized that before. I apparently didn't notice things like that back then. (Or maybe they just didn't rate compared to Michael J. Fox or Kirk Cameron?) It has its laughable moments as well. It's hard not to notice how ridiculous some things are. But overall, I enjoyed revisiting this movie.