Page to Screen

Turning a beloved book into a feature film can be risky business, because it is difficult to please both readers and viewers. Thus far in my life, the best movie adaptation of a book that I've seen in Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone, so each time I see a new book-turned-movie, I tend to use that as my measuring stick. Faithfulness to both the plot and theme of the story are important, as is the casting. It's very gratifying to see the characters on the screen look exactly as you have pictured them in your mind.
I watched The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian (2008, Walt Disney Pictures), which of course, is based on Prince Caspian by C.S. Lewis. A sequel to The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe, the story takes place over a thousand years later in Narnian time, but only a year later in England for the four Pevensie children. The kingdom of Narnia is in crisis and the children are summoned back when Prince Caspian blows Susan's magic horn. The children help overthrow the enemies to ensure that Caspian takes his rightful place on the throne. The film remained true to the book, with the exception of an extra major battle scene when Peter attempts an attack on Miraz's castle and has to retreat. I have to admit that I grew a little battle-weary, but my two sons loved it. On my Harry Potter scale, this film earns 4 of 5 possible stars.
Next, my family watched How To Eat Fried Worms (2006, New Line Cinema), based on the classic book by Thomas Rockwell (New York: Franklin Watts, 1973). I really enjoyed this movie, and I think it remained faithful to the spirit of the book, but the details were significantly different. In the book, Billy Forrester is challenged to a bet by Alan, a kid he's known since kindergarten, to eat fifteen worms. If he eats one per day for fifteen days, he wins $50. Alan and his sidekick, Joe, try to think of all kinds of ways to trick Billy out of eating all the worms, but Billy manages to do it. In the movie, however, Billy is a newcomer at school who falls victim to Joe. The terms of the bet are also different; Billy has to eat ten worms all in one day, and the loser must go to school with his pants full of squiggly worms. Bill is befriended by the smart but gawky Erica, a character that's missing from the book. The male characters in the movie all have nicknames which make them sound more like a gang than the seventies-sounding names in the book. There are some really funny scenes added to the movie, such as the one in which the principal accidentally eats one of the worms intended for Billy. There's the same trickery as in the book, but I actually like the ending of the movie better, because Billy has found a niche at his new school as "Wormboy", and both boys actually go to school with wormy pants, which makes for a funny finale. On my Harry Potter scale, this film would earn 3.5 out of 5 stars.
The third movie I watched was The Tale of Despereaux (2008, Universal Pictures), based on the book by Kate diCamillo (2003, Candlewick Press). I read the book in only two sessions, but the movie failed to grab me, and I have to admit that I dozed off once. First of all, I get turned off when a movie begins very differently from the book. The book began with the birth of Despereaux, while the movie started with Roscuro the rat on a ship bound for the kingdom of Dor, something that wasn't in the book at all. I didn't like the fact that the movie began by placing so much empasis on the love and subsequent banning of soup, which cast the kingdom in a shadow. In contrast, the first several chapters of the book focus on Despereaux and his nonconformity, which is a very important theme in the book, but gets little emphasis in the movie. One of my favorite things about the book was the fact that from time to time, the narrator directly addressed the reader, sometimes foreshadowing, sometimes philosophizing. This conspiratorial feature was lost in the film. The character of Miggery Sow also lost a great deal of depth in the movie. I realize that for a broader audience, filmmakers might not have wanted to deal with the fact that she was a victim of child abuse in the book, but that was a major part of her character. The movie also made it look like her father hadn't wanted to give her away, when in the book he willingly sold her for a blanket. So, on the whole, the differences seemed to diminish the story. On the positive side, the animation is very well done, and some wonderful actors provided the voices. On my Harry Potter scale, I'd give it two stars.