Sunday, February 15, 2009

Confessions of a Shopaholic

Last night my husband took me to see Confessions of a Shopaholic because he knows how much I love the series of books by Sophie Kinsella. Becky Bloomwood is a frustrating yet lovable character and the books are intelligently funny. So I walked into the theater hoping for the best. 

They bastardized the books. In fact, that is exactly the statement I made to my husband last night, to which he responded, "That's not a word." I proved to him via Merriam Webster that it is, in fact, a word. I guarantee he'll start using it in conversation in a matter of weeks. But I digress.

My first issue - Becky is supposed to be British. British characters are always better than American characters. They fucked that up. 

In fact, they fucked up pretty much everything they possibly could have, resulting in the movie not resembling the books really at all. So much of the irony was lost because they changed the timeline of things. They made her boyfriend her boss! 

Anyway, I still enjoyed the movie for its lightheartedness and laughs. 

But why do movie producers and screenwriters always have to fuck with everything? Did any of you see Eragon after reading the books? That movie was a fucking travesty. Running With Scissors was another one that made me want to cry with disappointment!

Do they not realize that most of the people who go to see these movies do so after loving the books? I don't get it. 

The only exception I've seen so far is The Devil Wears Prada. The movie was soooooo much better than the book (which sucked ass, as far as I'm concerned). 

What's the worst movie you've ever seen that was adapted from a book you loved?


Comrade PhysioProf said...

Movies suck shit. What passes for "acting" these days is a motherfucking joke. The last decent movie I've ever seen was Spinal Tap.

Professor in Training said...

I must agree with PP and say that Spinal Tap is one of the greatest movies in living memory (with the best song lyrics ever written).

Re movie adaptations of books: for the most part they suck but that's largely because the greatest beauty of books are the images created in the head of the reader ... and this differs between readers.

Given the choice, I'll take almost any movie made before 1960 over anything that's being made today (unless it's from Monty Python).

Hermitage said...

Movie adaptations of books suck 99% of the time. I pretty much cried trying to watch Chronicles of Narnia because it was so watered down and lame. LOTR came close, but then there was no Tom Bombadil.

DuWayne Brayton said...

LOTR were the only book/movie adaptations that really got me excitable in recent years. Though I have to admit I rather enjoyed the first couple Harry Potter movies, before the books got to long for movies and the movies got choppy.

And for the record, I would suspect that very few actually read the book before seeing the movie, which is why they can get away with that shit.

All right, back to the working again.

amused said...

I always wonder how the authors feel about the movie when it is butchered like that, if they feel proud or embarrassed. I loved the Shopaholic books too and hate that they took her out of London and made her American, so sucky (are they going to make the next book Shopaholic takes London?) I actually haven't seen the movie yet -- I want to but I am a little scared. I always try to wait until I can't remember the book that well so that I won't be disappointed by the movie's bastardization of it (e.g., Harry Potter, The Golden Compass, and Twighlight among others)

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...