I'm a huge fan of the book and think this was a movie that was pulled off superbly. Bret Eastern-Ellis, the author of the book, who's pieces tend to focus primarily around characterisation as opposed to deeply profound/complex plots, wouldn't be disappointed with the way in which Avery has adapted his initial vision and given each character a journey worthy of the big screen. It's in his (Ellis') characters and the emotional and interpersonal journey they embark upon that drives his narratives and it's that that tends to stick in the mind. This is the prime reason readers have tended to find it easy, as opposed to taboo, to fall in love with such unsympathetic characters, and it is in this task that the actors take to admirably. In fact, I'll go as far as to say the acting was great; James Van der beak put in a superb turn as Seam Bateman, Shannon Sossamon, although not a perfect adaptation of the Lauren character (she was much more unlikable in the novel) was as charming and as magnetic as ever and Ian Somerhalder as Paul, has never looked so comfortable in a role, the guy was great. It was also very, very nice to see a film in which you could sense, just by watching the way in which the film was executed, that the director was extremely dedicated to what it was he was trying to convey. To me Avery worked wonders to pull off what was essentially being marketed as a teen flick in such an unapologetic, cynical, and dark manner. He never strayed too far from the purpose of the plot and rarely sold out to the temptation of cliché, which was a relief.
The film, as a stand alone piece is excellent, but as a companion piece it moves to another level, as the book allows the holes the film leaves to be filled properly. And whilst there was things about the film that weren't perfect there were any things that were so far beyond perfection I often wonder whether Avery didn't actually write the novel himself. For instance, the use of the re-wind effect. It wasn't merely laid on haphazardly as some "cool" MTV style effect to wow the audiences, and it wasn't layered upon the scenes in order to portray subtlety, which if you'd watched the film, read the book and understood the characters at all you'd know that the film and the trilogy of books in general are anything but subtle. The purpose of the re-wind was to simply put forth the idea that the story was not your conventional linearly told story with an established beginning, middle or end, it was put in place to simply drive the idea that the story is a multi-faceted tale told irrespective of time and or space. The re-wind simply sold the idea that it was moving backwards in time and was unapologetic about doing so, hence the lack of tact in putting forth that particular aspect of the narrative. It was a brilliant use of a basic cinematic tool by Avery nd one that confirmed to me just how passionate Avery was in doing proper justice to the novel, even if production tried to force him into creating a run-of-the-mill, archetypal teen drama, something Rules, was never meant to be.
I love how he film, much like the book, starts and ends mid-sentence too. It's a ploy that really shouldn't work (and has confused some of the more intellectually challenged people I know) but it does, and to devastatingly good effect too. The opportunity for interpretation is vast because of it, and any film, or indeed book, that evokes the level of thought this one does is doing its job well.
In comparison to the novel, which tends to take emphasis away from character empathy and sympathy and focus far more on what it is that makes them the way they are and develops the characters, their relationships with one another and their general plots in far more detail, the film could ever have really accomplish this and tends to brush over some of the more fleeting issues of the original texts. A frustrating gripe, but totally understandable. No slight on Roger Avery's vision, of course, but with the constraints than a Hollywood production provide it would have been nigh on impossible for Avery to not only entertain adequately and match the general expectations the audience have of a film of this ilk, it would also have been unlikely that he'd have the runtime available to him in order to extract every ounce of detail from the original text.
The book is much darker than the film and due to it's crude and overtly descriptive nature leaves little to the imagination; the film, whilst morbid in a lot of places encompasses humour and leaves a lot of scenes open to interpretation, which is an element of the film that I did enjoy. Not sure I preferred it, but I did enjoy it.
Whilst I prefer the book I still see the two pieces as two almost faultless productions, and both should certainly be enjoyed.
The film, as a stand alone piece is excellent, but as a companion piece it moves to another level, as the book allows the holes the film leaves to be filled properly. And whilst there was things about the film that weren't perfect there were any things that were so far beyond perfection I often wonder whether Avery didn't actually write the novel himself. For instance, the use of the re-wind effect. It wasn't merely laid on haphazardly as some "cool" MTV style effect to wow the audiences, and it wasn't layered upon the scenes in order to portray subtlety, which if you'd watched the film, read the book and understood the characters at all you'd know that the film and the trilogy of books in general are anything but subtle. The purpose of the re-wind was to simply put forth the idea that the story was not your conventional linearly told story with an established beginning, middle or end, it was put in place to simply drive the idea that the story is a multi-faceted tale told irrespective of time and or space. The re-wind simply sold the idea that it was moving backwards in time and was unapologetic about doing so, hence the lack of tact in putting forth that particular aspect of the narrative. It was a brilliant use of a basic cinematic tool by Avery nd one that confirmed to me just how passionate Avery was in doing proper justice to the novel, even if production tried to force him into creating a run-of-the-mill, archetypal teen drama, something Rules, was never meant to be.
I love how he film, much like the book, starts and ends mid-sentence too. It's a ploy that really shouldn't work (and has confused some of the more intellectually challenged people I know) but it does, and to devastatingly good effect too. The opportunity for interpretation is vast because of it, and any film, or indeed book, that evokes the level of thought this one does is doing its job well.
In comparison to the novel, which tends to take emphasis away from character empathy and sympathy and focus far more on what it is that makes them the way they are and develops the characters, their relationships with one another and their general plots in far more detail, the film could ever have really accomplish this and tends to brush over some of the more fleeting issues of the original texts. A frustrating gripe, but totally understandable. No slight on Roger Avery's vision, of course, but with the constraints than a Hollywood production provide it would have been nigh on impossible for Avery to not only entertain adequately and match the general expectations the audience have of a film of this ilk, it would also have been unlikely that he'd have the runtime available to him in order to extract every ounce of detail from the original text.
The book is much darker than the film and due to it's crude and overtly descriptive nature leaves little to the imagination; the film, whilst morbid in a lot of places encompasses humour and leaves a lot of scenes open to interpretation, which is an element of the film that I did enjoy. Not sure I preferred it, but I did enjoy it.
Whilst I prefer the book I still see the two pieces as two almost faultless productions, and both should certainly be enjoyed.