Review of The City of Bones Movie

WARNING: There be spoilers ahead!
This review contains major spoilers for both the book and the movie. You have been warned.

The City of Bones by Cassandra Clare is a pretty good book. It isn’t as good as the Harry Potter series, but it’s better than Twilight. I really liked how Clare took some of the basic ideas from the original Star Wars trilogy, and gave them a few twists. I enjoyed the read.

The movie, of course, is a whole different animal. Now, I know that movies have to be different, but they don’t have to be so different, do they? I mean, it's not even the same story anymore. The basic plot points are there, but it's barely recognizable.

"Angelic"?

Let’s start with appearances, and get that out of the way. In the book, Clary has bright flame-red hair. In the movie, she has dark auburn hair. Okay, fine. That’s close-ish. But then there’s Jace. In the book, he is described as angelic in appearance. He looks like a Renaissance painting of an angel. The actor they hired to play him in the movie looks nothing like this. He’s not even very handsome, in my opinion. Maybe other viewers would disagree with me, but I was disappointed. At least his hair is the right colour, though.

That's your daughter, creep.

Jace and Valentine are both blond in the book, but Valentine has dark hair in the movie. And he has dreads or braids or something weird in the movie. While Jonathan Rhys-Meyers is a great actor, and could easily be Valentine, the script didn't allow him to do the character justice. The Valentine of the book is more like Lucius Malfoy from the Harry Potter series, while the Valentine of the movie is like a cross between Sirius Black and Barty Crouch Jr, with a hefty dash of Sid Vicious thrown in for good measure. He doesn’t just look different; he’s a completely different character.

Now, we get into the story. In the book, when the Ravener demon attacks Clary in her apartment, she kills it by stuffing Jace’s Sensor down its throat. When Jace arrives, he finds Clary unconscious with the demon’s dead body on top of her. In the movie, Clary doesn’t have Jace’s Sensor, and cannot defeat the demon. She is about to be killed when Jace arrives and stabs it with his seraph blade, killing it and saving her. It’s as if the director said, “She’s a girl! She can’t kill a demon. She needs a man to save her.” Ugh. Oh, and she faints at least twice in the movie. You know, because she’s a girl and girls faint, right? I’m rolling my eyes so hard right now.

In the book, there is a party in Magnus Bane’s apartment where Simon gets turned into a rat and some vampires accidentally take him home, thinking he’s one of their pets or something (yes, they have pet rats). In the movie, Simon never gets turned into a rat, and there is no explanation given why the vampires take him. Viewers who haven’t read the book must be very confused—or they just brush it off as vampires wanting him for some vampiric reason. Who knows?

This is where the movie decides to spoil the second book, which I hadn’t read when I watched it. Simon wakes up after his rescue from the vampires and he no longer needs his glasses. I was reminded strongly of Tobey Maguire’s Peter Parker in the first Spider-Man movie. Then Clary finds two little holes on Simon’s shoulder that are just the right size and spacing to have been made by vampire fangs. In the first book, no one suspects that Simon might have been bitten. It isn’t even mentioned in passing. I’m currently reading the second book, and it still hasn’t been mentioned, though it probably will come up soon. Thanks a lot, movie makers.

In the book, Clary doesn’t find out that Valentine is her father and Jace is her brother until nearly the very end. In the movie, Valentine tells her he is her father the first time they meet—and it’s rather anti-climactic too. He gets in her face and says, “You’re my daughter.” She doesn’t want to believe him, but it’s no Darth Vader moment.

I loved Luke in both the book and the movie, though the movie didn’t give him enough screentime. The movie also didn’t really make it clear that he used to be a Shadowhunter and his real name is Lucian Graymark. He’s almost a mixture of Harry Potter’s Severus Snape and Remus Lupin, combining the best traits of the two. He was by far my favourite character in the movie. I think he’s the one thing the movie actually got right.

As a rule, the book is usually better than the movie. But sometimes, the movie is pretty good, as in the case of Peter Jackson’s The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit. However, this is not one of those cases. This movie is a pretty sad attempt at putting this story onscreen. The book is better.

My Review of Man of Steel

I've mentioned before that I have a thing for nice guys. One of my earliest geeky crushes was Clark Kent, who is one of the nicest guys (if not the nicest guy) in comic books. From a very young age, I wanted to be Lois Lane. Although, she can drive me crazy with the blind stupidity some writers give her. (Seriously, she’s an investigative reporter who is trying to find out who Superman really is, and Clark Kent works with her, and they end up dating even. How she doesn't figure it out has made for some really convoluted atrocities of plots.)

This past Saturday, I watched the new Man of Steel movie. I love this Lois Lane. The writers haven’t handicapped her with the unreasoning blindness I hate so much. I want to be this Lois Lane. And I have a new favourite Superman movie.

Before this past weekend, there was one movie on the list of “Movies That Made Me Cry Within the First 10 Minutes:” Up. Now, there are 2 movies on the list. The opening sequence of Man of Steel gives us Kal El’s birth, and follows the events leading up to when his parents, Jor El and Lara, send him to the stars. Lara’s pain at being separated from her newborn son was so real, so raw, I couldn't hold back the tears.

It is very difficult to write a character like Clark Kent, and do it well. Not only is he a completely good person, he is invulnerable. Most enemies can’t come close to being a real threat. Bullets bounce off him, he can walk through fire untouched, and he can fly. The only real weakness he has is to kryptonite radiation.

Smallville does a really good job of humanizing Clark, and giving him some non-physical weaknesses, but the movies have to create a bigger spectacle, give him an enemy that threatens him physically. One movie I watched a few years ago (I think it was Quest For Peace), created an enemy who wore a suit that essentially stole Superman’s powers. The stronger Superman was, the stronger the bad guy was. I seem to remember Lois and Jimmy placing a piece of kryptonite on Superman’s chest so the bad guy would be weak enough for the police or the army or something to capture. It wasn't a very good movie.

Man of Steel, however, has an excellent villain. General Zod isn't evil for the sake of being evil. He doesn't want power for the sake of power. He is that rare and wonderful antagonist who believes that he is right, that what he is doing is the best thing he can do. And what he is trying to do isn't completely wrong; it is his methods that bring him into conflict with Clark. And the conflict isn't merely Clark vs. Zod. SPOILER ALERT! Clark has only recently discovered that he is from Krypton, and that the planet died; Zod is another survivor, a fellow Kryptonian, and he offers a chance to rebuild their world. They don’t have to be the last Kryptonians. However, in order to do this, humanity must be destroyed. No matter what he does, Clark loses: if he joins Zod and rebuilds Krypton, his adoptive world and people are lost; if he stops Zod and saves Earth, his birth people are lost. In the end, he makes the only choice he can, considering his character.

Before he knows what Zod wants, though, Clark has another choice to make: Zod threatens to kill every human on Earth if Kal El doesn't surrender himself. Clark hesitates, not because he fears for himself, but because he doesn't trust Zod not to kill everyone either way. He’s right, of course, Zod’s plan has always been to build a new Krypton on the bones of the humans who stand in his way. Again, Clark makes the choice that is in character.

And here is where the movie got really interesting for me.

The original purely good person, Christ Jesus of the New Testament, is the model for everyone who follows. In university, I learned that a character who fits this mold is called a “Christ figure.” I am fascinated with this idea. There are many characters who can be said to fit in some way or another (few fit perfectly). Aslan, Gandalf the Grey, Frodo Baggins (even Aragorn Elessar), Luke Skywalker, and Sailor Moon are just a few.

In Man of Steel, Clark Kent is 33 years old, which is the age at which Jesus began his ministry. Clark is not of our world, and his father sent him here. Most telling of all, when he surrenders to the military so they can “hand him over” to Zod, he makes it very clear to them that he is in control, not them. Just like when Jesus said, “I lay down my life... No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord.” (John 10:17b-18a NIV) Of course, Kal El doesn't actually die, but he does have to make sacrifices, like I mentioned before.

This is the first time I've really thought of Clark Kent as being a Christ figure. I can’t believe how blind I was (maybe I have more in common with the old version of Lois than I thought). I guess I never really noticed because he’s never sacrificed himself before. (Or did he? What about the Doomsday plot in the comics? Maybe I am blind.)

Now, this is a summer blockbuster movie, so they had to include some big explosions and the like. And they gave Superman an enemy who can actually threaten him. Zod is from Krypton, so our yellow sun gives him the same powers it gives Kal El. This makes him Clark’s equal physically. Furthermore, Zod was born to be a warrior and has trained his entire life. Clark grew up on a farm, and his greatest physical struggle was adapting to an alien atmosphere, which wasn't really that hard. Clark has never had much trouble with anything physical. He can lift anything, and nothing on Earth can hurt him. Zod and his allies are a shock to him.

And Clark is alone in his fight. Lois and the “ghost” of Jor El (some kind of computerized construct of his memories) do their best to help, but when it comes down to it, Clark must face Zod alone. And Zod is not alone; he has a squad of Kryptonians with him. So truly, this is a fight that Clark cannot hope to win. Yet, somehow, he does. I’m a little hazy on the details here, but it seems that 33 years spent adapting to Earth’s atmosphere gives him that edge he needs, or something.

After the obligatory fight scenes between Clark and the Kryptonian criminals, the movie ends with a kiss between Lois and Clark and a new, uneasy truce between Superman and the military. I walked out of the theatre unsure how I felt about the film as a whole, and I’m still conflicted. It was definitely the best Superman movie I've seen, but the climactic fight was confusing and strange, and the ending was disappointing. I loved it, but I wished for something more.

A Tale of One City

Warning: This blog post may contain minor spoilers.

It was the best of times,

it was the worst of times,

it was the age of wisdom,

it was the age of foolishness,

it was the epoch of belief,

it was the epoch of incredulity,

it was the season of Light,

it was the season of Darkness,

it was the spring of hope,

it was the winter of despair,

we had everything before us,

we had nothing before us,

we were all going direct to Heaven,

we were all going direct the other way--

in short, the period was so far like the present period, that some of

its noisiest authorities insisted on its being received,

for good or for evil, in the superlative degree of comparison only.

I watched "The Dark Knight Rises" this weekend. I found myself thinking about the quality of the writing a lot more than I ever used to. I've always liked to dissect movies afterward with my friends, discussing why this or that happened, and wondering "What did that mean?" But now that I've been focusing so much on crafting a story and making it the best it can be, I am even more critical of storytelling. This movie did not disappoint.
In this film, Batman/Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale) faces his greatest challenges yet, and comes to the brink of defeat and despair. He is challenged to his limits physically, mentally, and emotionally. In one scene, he quite literally climbs out of a pit of despair.
The movie opens with the legacy of Harvey Dent. Due to the "White Knight's" efforts, most of Gotham's worst criminals are in prison with no hope of parole, leaving little for the police force to do, and nothing for Batman to do. Accordingly, Batman has not been seen in years. However, as Selina Kyle (Anne Hathaway) puts it, "There's a storm coming, Mr. Wayne. You and your friends better batten down the hatches, because when it hits, you're all gonna wonder how you ever thought you could live so large and leave so little for the rest of us."
Bane's takeover of Gotham City, ostensibly so the people can "take control" for their "liberation" reminded me strongly of the French revolution in "A Tale of Two Cities." Anarchy sounds good to some--rule of the people with no one to answer to--but in reality it becomes might makes right. Just take a look at the "choice" of sentencing the kangaroo court offers to those whom they have already found guilty without a trial.
Director Christopher Nolan has been quoted as saying that this will be the last Batman movie he will make, but the ending was still left open for a possible sequel starring a different main character. I can't say anything more for fear of giving away too much.

"It is a far, far better thing that I do than I have ever done;

it is a far, far better rest that I go to than I have ever known."