A-List: Book Adaptations That Shouldn't Have Been
By Josh Spiegel
October 15, 2009
BoxOfficeProphets.com
Hence the skepticism. Moreover, I get worried because, as you will see from the list below, there have been many movies in the last few years made from short books; most of these movies are not only bad in concept, but bad in every way possible. Unforunately, one of those films' stars, Jim Carrey, is looking like he's going to headline another potential clunker, an adaptation of A Christmas Carol where Scrooge is, at one point, shrunk down to the size of a mouse; you remember that scene in Charles Dickens' novel, right? No. Of course you don't. It's not in the novel. Doesn't mean Robert Zemeckis, that film's writer-director, won't add in the scene randomly, and—
Oh, right, the topic. Sorry for the tangent. My point, though, is that some adaptations of books are bad all the way around. Two sets of this list's entries feature one major similarity; though money was made on both films, their quality is lacking. Not all of these movies are the worst of their genre; though I am skeptical but looking forward to Where The Wild Things Are, for example, I'd be shocked if it's out-and-out bad. Still, these movies are based on great books, so their lack of goodness is just more disappointing and more painful to take. Let's take a wincingly nostalgic look down memory lane, shall we?
Jumanji
Oh, what a good, good book. What a bad, bad movie. Granted, Jumanji, the 1995 adventure movie about a jungle-themed board game that comes to life with wild results, has some interesting sections, and the special effects aren't all bad. Considering that the film's director, Joe Johnston, has a background in such technology, they ought to be good. However, the main plot, which is completely different from the book by Chris Van Allsburg, is silly at best and overwrought at worst. One unlucky player is sucked into the titular game for over 25 years until a pair of siblings let him out while playing their own game. Lucky for us, he comes out looking like a bearded Robin Williams! Oh, did I say "lucky"? I meant the opposite of lucky. Yeah, Williams is more subdued here than in other mid-1990s films, but his constant freakout at the game never sells.
The cast isn't bad, including supporting turns from Bonnie Hunt, Bebe Neuwirth, David Alan Grier, and Jonathan Hyde, but there's something uninvolving and cold about the movie. When there's a stampede coming through a New England mansion, shouldn't we be excited? Also, considering the movie is rated PG, and targeted for families, it's a bit too scary, what with all the spiders, mosquitoes, killer plants, and Kirsten Dunst. OK, OK, not everyone is scared of mosquitoes. Seriously, though, Dunst isn't bad; this is a movie during her precocious phase, not her dead-eyed phase. In general, Jumanji is a great example of something that might, kind of, sort of, maybe work on paper; on screen, it's a failure.
Dr. Seuss's The Grinch Who Stole Christmas
I hate this movie. I really do. Clarification, immediately: I'm not referring to the Chuck Jones version of the Grinch. No, my anger is focused at Ron Howard's 2000 version of the holiday classic about the creature who hates Christmas so much that he wants to take it away from the tiny denizens of the city below him. For this version, Jim Carrey plays the Grinch, channeling Robin Williams at his riffing worst. The Grinch as a director! The Grinch as a little girl! The Grinch as...hey, how about the Grinch as the Grinch? The children's classic is, of course, barely long enough to fit an hour of television, commercials included. To solve this problem, screenwriters Jeffrey Price and Peter S. Seaman decide to answer the age-old question: why is the Grinch such a meanie? Right? You always wanted to know that, right?
It's here that I feel like paraphrasing comic Patton Oswalt, when he rages against George Lucas for explaining how all the cool things we like came to be; we don't like these cool things because of the origins, we just like them because we like them. I don't want to know why the Grinch hates Christmas. He does. Let's just accept that. I also don't care if the Whos in Whoville are having some kind of Christmas decorating competition, or about Cindy Lou Who's dad's problems at work. I just want to see the Grinch slink around Christmas trees and steal stuff. Of course, a few years later, Ron Howard would absolve himself from all his filmmaking sins thanks to "Arrested Development", but a movie like The Grinch doesn't help anyone's cred.
Mr. Magoo's Christmas Carol
OK, this one is a bit of a stretch, but I'll be honest and up-front: here's something else I just cannot stand. When it comes to A Christmas Carol, I'm a bit of a stickler and thus am frustrated that every time an adaptation of the Dickens classic is released in theaters, it's a "twist" on the story. The Muppets do Christmas! Scrooge sings! Bill Murray is Scrooge! Jim Carrey is Scrooge...and the Ghosts of Christmas Past, Present, and Future (and don't forget Gary Oldman as Tiny Tim)! In this case, Mr. Magoo is Scrooge, and Scrooge sings! Sometimes, sticking to the source is a safe enough idea. Here, though, we have an hourlong special featuring one of the stupidest ideas for a cartoon character ever. I consider myself a guy with a good sense of humor, but what is so damn funny about a nearly blind man getting himself into life-threatening trouble?
And why should said nearly blind man play Scrooge in a musical version? Why not, I guess? I appreciate that many people see this as a classic; the songs are regarded well, thanks to the composers being Jule Styne and Bob Merrill. Still...Mr. Magoo stars in a special that goes so slowly, it feels like a three-hour epic opera. Even better, Tiny Tim is played by Gerald McBoingBoing. Sigh. Oh, and the characters don't have British accents. None of that accuracy for Mr. Magoo! Although I may be nearly alone on this one, I just can't get behind such a pointless grab for attention and money.
The Cat In The Hat
They just don't learn. Whatever lessons could have been learned from The Grinch were ignored for the 2003 would-be comedy The Cat In The Hat, which puts Mike Myers as the title character, a magical mischief-maker who gets two kids out of the doldrums of a boring day. And what better way to have such a movie than with plenty of inappropriate sex jokes and a cameo from famous kids' entertaininer Paris Hilton? What, you haven't seen this movie? You weren't aware that Paris Hilton actually shows up in this movie? Yeah, I wasn't kidding about that. Nor about the frequent jokes about how hot the kids' mother, Kelly Preston, is. Oh, and let's not forget the jokes at the expense of the kids' narcoleptic Asian babysitter.
Oh, and Mike Myers. 2003 was the beginning of the end for Myers, as he toplined Austin Powers in Goldmember and started ruining his career. The road to The Love Guru began here, as he defiled any good childhood memories of this Dr. Seuss classic. You could argue that the production value is impressive (seeing as Bo Welch, a famed production designer, is the film's helmer, it ought to be), but...Mike Myers as the Cat. Alec Baldwin as a lascivious neighbor. Kelly Preston as the so-called hot mom. Sean Hayes (ergh) in two roles (double ergh). Nothing good can be found here. Jim Carrey made up for The Grinch with Horton Hears A Who, which isn't great, but it's better than either of these films. Mike Myers will doubtfully be so lucky.
The Lost World: Jurassic Park
It's hard to argue that this movie was a bad idea. When you made one of the most successful films of all time, who wouldn't want a sequel? Some of the purists will criticize the liberties taken with the first Michael Crichton novel (let's not forget that in Crichton's book of Jurassic Park, Ian Malcolm dies), but a good movie is a good movie. The first Jurassic Park is arguably one of the best action-adventures of all time. Bringing Jeff Goldblum, as the wisecracking mathematician who may be the only truly sane man on Earth, back is a great idea for The Lost World. Unfortunately, the movie is both harsh and silly. Some of the deaths are harsher than they should be (the nicest person in the movie gets the grossest and most unnecessary end), and the various twists are nuts.
Steven Spielberg had a bit of a dry spell between 1993 and 1999, when he made Schindler's List and Saving Private Ryan, respectively. The Lost World: Jurassic Park was always meant to be a huge success; financially, it started out that way, but with the exception of the frequently funny Goldblum, who doesn't stop mocking everything around him, the movie is just bad. Sure, let's have the dinosaurs attack...San Diego? That's the idea of the climax, and it's as silly as Godzilla attacking Madison Square Garden ended up being. Spielberg is still a great director, but when he makes a mistake, it's painful to watch.