Back in January, I went to see Blood and Chocolate at the theater. Clueless wonder that I am, I didn’t realize at first that it was based on the book by the same name by Annette Curtis Klause. Normally, I can enjoy a movie but love the book at least equally or more because there’s more space to fully explore the plot and characters. Such is the case with the Harry Potter movies — love the books and the movies.
I finished reading Blood and Chocolate last night. I’m not sure if it’s because I saw the movie first and thus went in with no preconceptions, but I liked the story in the movie better, though it was much different. I’ll probably get some heat for that. While the book was enjoyable, I didn’t like Vivian’s character as much. She seemed to fall for Aiden much too quickly and seemingly without solid reason in the book. There were moments when I thought she showed glimpses of being the strong werewolf supposedly destined to be the queen of the pack, like when she determines to undertake a selfless act near the end of the book. But overall, I liked the Vivian in the movie better. She’s a bit older, not so careless, has a more motivating backstory. And to me, the star-crossed love between the Vivian and Aiden in the movie was more believable than the one in the book.
Also, I thought the setting for the movie (Romania) was richer than the book (the Maryland suburbs), but I can see why Klause chose her setting. It makes for a stranger clash of cultures — surburbanites versus werewolves. Romania seems more accepting of the reality that there are creatures of the night (werewolves, vampires, etc.), and that Old World feel adds to the story.
So are there any movies you liked better than the books they were based on? Or is it usually the other way around? Do you think it makes a difference which you do first — read the book or see the movie?
February 22nd, 2007 at 7:49 pm
I think it does make a difference. I almost always read the book first, and then the movie departs too much from the book and distracts me. Even a movie like Sahara, which came out so many years after I read it I couldn’t remember most of it, was too jarring with its horrible casting (Matthew was fine, the rest sucked).
But I admit I was very disappointed when I read Hunt for Red October after seeing the movie. In the movie, they hide the fact that he’s defecting. In the book, it’s clear from the first page he appears. Killed the tension. Also a tension-killer? Describing all 89 parts of a weapon and loading the book with SEi979 identifiers.
February 22nd, 2007 at 8:33 pm
LOL on all the weapons info.
February 23rd, 2007 at 6:03 am
I almost always read the book first. Movies are usually way different, though.
Funny, the librarian at school is doing this lesson with the kids.