Atlas Shrugged (Part I)

I enjoyed this book not because of the plot or the ideals, but because I found it wonderfully written. Also, I thought Ayn Rand's views were shaped partly because she would have been in her 30's (and a US resident) during FDR's many public-assistance programs. (e.g. Social Security, Welfare) If a political-minded intellect followed the implications of these programs - that is, if they were to grow and take over our government, one could picture the world outlined in Atlas Shrugged.

But to bring this novel onto the screen more than 50 years after it was written, and to present this world as 2016, is much more far-fetched than the context of the novel.

The movie was, overall, terrible. Although I found the casting adequate, and the acting acceptable, Ayn Rand's words and concepts come through as thin and laughable.

When Dagny traded for the Rearden steel bracelet, we can almost glimpse Rand's insights. But these glimpses are few and far between. We can feel Dagny and Hank's frustration and determination, but the other characters seem extremely one-dimenstional and impossible to believe.

I hope Part 2 (and 3!) are filmed, but only because Atlas Shrugged is a story that deserves to be told.

Remains of the Day

This book was suprisingly interesting and easy-to-read. It did not translate to the screen well. It is obvious Emma Thompson loves Anthony Hopkins, and that he does not know what to do with this. It is not as obvious that Mr Stevens is now struggling with his dedication to his long-time "lord". This becomes a gradual realization in the book, with Stevens initially defending Lord Darlington vehemently. In the final pages, he admits something to the effect of "I was wrong to believe in him, but it is water under the bridge."

The movie follows the plot of the book pretty closely, but the reserved emotions of Mr Stevens just do not seem to shine through. It was nice to see Miss Kenton actually on a date (added to the movie), and the trapped bird at the end of the movie must represent something... (maybe Stevens finally freeing himself of the demons of the past?)

Overall, I did not enjoy the movie. But I wonder if such a boring storyline could have been translated to the screen any better.

Water For Elephants

I read this book a while back. The story was excellent. The movie was even better. Once I stopped seeing Robert Pattinson as a vampire, he was a believable nice-guy-veternarian. The movie flipped the ending (Jacob as an old man talking to a circus employee) into the beginning. But it made sense that way. The scenes from the book with Jacob in the old folks' home were completely eliminated. But trying to add them in would have caused distraction from the main story arc.

August was easy to hate, and that is essential to finding the ending satisfactory. It was hard to watch the scene where he beat Rosie the elephant with the bull hook. As Jacob's anger towards August builds, the tension in the movie is almost tangible. Although I knew Jacob does not kill August, I found myself almost wishing he would.

I loved the old-time movie scenes at the end, following Jacob and Marlena as they joined Ringling, took care of the horses and Rosie, and welcomed their children into the world. They were so happy and touching, I found myself crying.

My favorite part of the book was the ending - where Jacob as a very elderly man runs away with the circus. It took me by surprise, and was such a wonderful way to conclude. The movie includes this plot point as well. It was not quite as powerful in the movie, partly because I knew it was coming, but also because without the scenes of Jacob miserable in the home, it is not as sweet.