Best Streaming Entertainment 2022

 l made a list of stuff I watched this year that I liked for a friend:

MOVIES

Picture a Scientist (doc) - exceptional film about sexism in science

The Janes (doc) - great film about the Chicago collective providing illegal abortions right before Roe v Wade

Emily the Criminal - fun strange film about a woman who sort of falls into a life of crime and flourishes there

School for Good and Evil - really fun fantasy that satirizes fairytale conventions

I Want You Back - kind of an anti rom-com

Good on Paper - great cynical rom-com based on a true story

The 355 - kick ass girl power action movie

Lou - Allison Janney in an odd spy thriller

SERIES

Kindred - adaptation of Octavis Butler's novel - super well done and not too gruesome

Yellowjackets - weird badass series about women in a plane crash with a great cast

Away - terrific speculative fiction series about the first mission to Mars with Hilary Swank as the commander

The Bear - exceptional drama series about a family diner in Chicago

Damnation - violent but excellent series based on a true story about union organizing in the Midwest in the early 20^th century

Midnight Mass - super weird but riveting limited series about dark doings on an isolated (Canadian?) island

The Patient - disturbing but compelling limited series with Steve Carell as a therapist kidnapped by his patient

Pieces of Her - thriller with Toni Collette, limited series based on a book

Our Flag Means Death - weird but charming series from Taika Waititi

Heartstopper - absolutely adorable limited series about first (gay) love, based on a graphic novel

Movie recommendations

 This showed up in my FB memories from 10 years ago. This list held up really well.

My movie list. Two important things: it's not my favorite movies of all time, it's my favorites that I thought my friends would like, and it's comprised of movies I thought my friends wouldn't have seen, so it's mostly movies no one's heard of!

Remember the Titans (2000) - obviously sports movies are not my genre, but this is special

Gattaca (1997) - atmospheric exploration of a future world where advances in genetics has led to discrimination against "naturals" - people born without genetic engineering

The Siege (1998) -- terrific political thriller; it's scary how prescient this movie was, about the American government manipulating the situation in the Middle East in order to declare martial law in the U.S.

Absolute Power (2002) - not one of Clint Eastwood’s most celebrated films, but a fine intelligent mystery enlivened by terrific performances; based on a novel by David Balducci

The Interpreter (2005) - strangely under-rated; the subplot involves political developments in the UN and an African country, but the main story is a moving exploration of grief

Signs (2002) - ostensibly about an alien invasion, this is really a meditation on lost faith

The Third Miracle (1999) -- Ed Harris as a priest having a spiritual crisis; based on an equally terrific book

Return to Paradise (1998) - before he was a staple in raunchy comedies, Vince Vaughn gave a few dramatic performances and this is the best; this movie poses the age old question “am I my brother’s keeper” with devastating results

Matewan (1987) - hard to pick a favorite Sayles film, but this one really shines; about a coal miners’ strike in West Virginia; amazing performances and stellar writing; everyone I recommend this to becomes a fan

Coupe de Ville (1990) - terrific road movie and family dramedy about feuding brothers taking their father's treasured car across country, bickering all the way

Funny Bones (1995) - dramedy about family relations and the roots of comedy's soul, with Jerry Lewis, and Oliver Platt in one of his best roles ever

Safe Men (1998) - quirky comedy about a group of bungling burglars; stellar cast includes Sam Rockwell, Steve Zahn, Michael Lerner and Paul Giamatti in an early role that suggests he’s destined for greatness

The Imposters (1998) - offbeat comedy with Stanley Tucci and Oliver Platt as hapless comedians stowing away on a cruise ship

Zero Effect (1998) - odd but super entertaining comedy about “the world’s greatest private investigator”

Who Am I This Time? (1982) -- based on a Kurt Vonnegut short story (though you'd never guess) with Christopher Walken (in a rare sweet performance) and Susan Sarandon; they fall in love during a community theater performance of A Streetcar Named Desire.

Little Fires Everywhere

I just finished the mini series on Hulu. Of course the acting was top notch. I thought they fixed a couple of issues I had in the book and they also left a lot of the content that I objected to.

I don't really accept the premise that white people with money are worse people than people without money. A lack of money doesn't make you pure or clear-eyed.

The big fix was Pearl - her reaction in the book to finding out the truth about her mom is so muted. In the series, they give her a chance to be angry and rail against her mom. We also hear her thoughts when she talks to Moody about the things she is learning, like "my mom thinks it makes me a better person to be poor" and she talks about wanting things when she was younger - pretty clothes, etc.

And I think they show Mia more upset by her choices, more upset by Pearl's reaction.

I also think they did a much better job in the series of explaining why we are supposed to dislike Elena - not just because she is rich and snobby, but because she is perpetuating a lie of perfection that is hurting her family. The series makes it much more clear that Lexie is suffering from trying to be perfect and she even yells this at Elena, who storms away, refusing to accept it. That pressure is bad and wrong, and a loving mother would not apply it. However, the pressure that Mia puts on Pearl to be carefree and unencumbered is also wrong. Both women see this in the end.

Both the book and the series, in my opinion, are too hard on Elena. She does mean well, she does try to help. She is ineffective and she is not completely self aware. But both the book and the series forgive Mia her sins (which are substantial), but they hold Elena completely responsible. In the series, Bill says to Elena, "people will be held accountable" (as she wants), which the audience clearly understands means HER (though of course she doesn't get it).

I read a review of the series that talked about how much the audience is supposed to (and does)  HATE Elena, and I was annoyed all over again. I really hate MIA and find HER insufferable and smug. But because she is an ARTIST, all is forgiven. Bleh. BOTH women are flawed, in some similar ways actually, but Mia comes off as wise and Elena as doomed.

I think the series does a clearer job of acknowledging the wrong Mia has done to the Ryans, another frustration I had with the book.

And both Linda and Mia make wonderful points during the hearing about how motherhood is hard, no one is perfect at it, everyone makes mistakes. And it is even said that it's not about who is the "best" mother. But then Mia gets to say "only Bebe IS her mother." Which I think is ridiculous. Obviously blood has almost nothing to do with mothering.

The money is so problematic. In the series, all 4 Richardson children disavow their upbringing in a (almost) final scene. But it annoys me even more to have all of them react this way, as opposed to just Izzy, as in the book. Being white and privileged is problematic but it's not evil. Having money is necessary. Mia agrees to be a surrogate in order to get money to pursue her dreams. That she drops out of school and still magically is able to make a living as an artist is a contriance that the book's author has wrought - Mia is SO talented of course, that her success is assured. Of course, many talented artists die unknown. In the novel and the series, Pauline's agent helps Mia by selling her work. So she HAS money, though she pretends not to - her poverty is an act to help obscure her location from the Ryans.

While I am a bleeding heart liberal to the core, it really bothers me that the book ignores how necessary money is to our lives, how it enables us to fulfill our goals. The Richardson children don't understand and appreciate all the comforts of their upbringing, but just rejecting these comforts and calling them foul doesn't improve the lives of people less fortunate. Which brings me back to Elena - in the series, Bill suggests that Elena has caused the trouble with Bebe by bringing Mia into the situation - in their rental, in their home, even into Linda's home, at the BD party.  So none of this is Mia's fault, it's Elena's for allowing (or facilitating) it. And the fact that Elena really was trying to help (both Mia and Linda) doesn't count.
 

Oscar fashion

My favorite dresses:

Regina King of course.

I loved Emma Stone and Laura Dern in copper:

Brie Larson and JLO in metallics.

Loved Helen Mirren and Angela Basset, both looking regal.

All the women from Crazy Rich Asians - Michelle Yeoh, Akwafina, Gemma Chan.

Linda Cardellini was HAUT!

Rami Malek's date Lucy Boynton in purple looked so lovely:

Best Picture Oscar winner causes upset

Lots of hullabaloo about Green Book winning Best Picture. I'm both surprised and disappointed, but it's not like Oscar always crowns the greatest cinematic achievement of the year.  I liked the movie for its obvious appeal, but saw the flaws too. I read a couple of articles about it this morning (the Morning After), one written by the LA Times reviewer after the win and another that appeared on Huffington Post at the end of 2018.  Here's my reaction to the latter:

I understand what the folks in this interview are saying, I totally do. And I don't think it was the best picture of the year by any stretch. But I also think that some of the criticism is really unfair. Like the scene where Tony throws away the glasses that were used by the black repairmen. That sort of thing happened all the time in the 1960s, that's the point of the scene - it's instructive.

More to the point, I think Nick Vallelonga has as much right to tell his story as anyone else does. His story from his perspective is a valid story. It's not the only story and the fact that we are discussing that fact is a good thing, IMO. And I totally agree that we need a movie about the real green book and what it meant and why it was needed. But that doesn't mean that this story is bad or wrong or is an affront to the Universe.

"The Kindergarten Teacher"

I just watched the movie this weekend. I found the ending and the implications of the film very thought-provoking and interesting, and the poignancy of that final line: "I have a poem" is intense. As well as the poignancy of Jimmy not having realized quite what he was giving up by reporting the teacher to the authorities - he's only 5 years old after all. And of course Maggie Gyllenhaal is amazing as always. HOWEVER, as a mom, I was super uncomfortable with Lisa's choices, both in the way that she tried to steer Jimmy to create poems for her class assignments, and then, later, kidnapping him in order to save him from a life of banality. I get her motivation was to support Jimmy (hence, she sacrifices the instructor's good opinion of her, as well as her job and family), but her actions were really unsettling (as intended, I am sure). Doing the right thing in the wrong way is possible, even common, and you can make a strong case that this movie examines that exact issue.

"The Red Pill"

I was looking for something else on Kanopy, the film site you can access through the library. This documentary by Cassie Jaye (the title references the Matrix and is commonly used in the men's movement to indicate someone who has awoken to the unvarnished "truth") caught my eye and I listened to it while sitting at the research desk on a quiet Sunday afternoon.

She makes some very valid and interesting points, but overall I found the film quite disappointing - very selective and one-sided in the presentation of the issues. I like what a self-proclaimed feminist man says early in the movie: "everyone suffers, but suffering is not the same as oppression." Of course there are men who have been treated unfairly by family court; of course there are men who have been tricked into raising a child who is not theirs biologically. HOWEVER, if the filmmaker had bothered to share some sad stories from women who have been abandoned by their partners, treated poorly by the courts, tricked by men, etc, you could show that there is suffering and unfairness on BOTH SIDES.

The film provides NO CONTEXT for the current situation and status of the sexes. The services for women, the protests for women, etc, etc, come from women who have fought for DECADES for attention and for care. Do you know what the #1 cause of death for pregnant women in America is RIGHT NOW? Murder by their partners. If you don't think men are predators, watch The Hunting Ground. Men DO oppress women - read about Gamergate. Highly qualified women are regularly driven from jobs in tech by vicious harassment, it’s been well documented. And if the media ignores the boys killed by Boko Haram, why is that women's fault??? The media is not controlled by women. Women fight for women, men should fight for men.

She starts out the movie talking about the misogyny that she read on the "men's rights" websites, but she never mentions it again. The film starts with statistics about the predominance of men in our society, such as 98% of the Fortune 1000 companies having a male CEO, but never returns to discuss the implications of this after the filmmaker has supposedly awoken from her feminist "brainwashing."

Unfortunately, the legitimate arguments of the oh-so-reasonable leaders she interviews are DROWNED by the tidal wave of hatred that the movement followers exhibit toward women, which is barely mentioned. Not addressing the continued dominance of men in so many areas of society and the continued very real victimization of women makes the film much less credible. You could produce a really powerful film that makes the case for men but still respects what women have faced and what they have fought for and what they have overcome and what they still deal with, but she has not made that film.

My latest essay for Laura's Pride Guide:

HOPE FOR NOW, AND THE FUTURE

To begin, since I have a captive audience, I must discuss the most high profile LGBTQ film of the past year, Call Me by Your Name. This was the second year in a row where an unapologetic depiction of gay desire was feted by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences: in 2016, Moonlight won Best Picture, and many other awards as well. CMBYN was the winner of the Best Adapted Screenplay (by James Ivory, from the novel of the same name by Andre Aciman) and nominated for three additional Oscars (Best Picture, Lead Actor, and Original Song). The film was also the recipient of many other nominations and awards, including winning a BAFTA (often called the British Oscars) for Best Screenplay, and Golden Globe and Screen Actors Guild nominations for its stars, Timothee Chalamet and Armie Hammer. The film was also honored by the Independent Spirit Awards, as well as receiving a GLAAD media award, and awards from GALECA (the Gay and Lesbian Entertainment Critics Association).

Despite all these accolades (and perhaps partly because of them), I was sorely disappointed in this film. Don’t get me wrong, I like a gay coming of age romance as much as the next pansexual woman, probably more so. I know I am at risk of angering many (maybe most of) my readers, but here it is: I’ll admit that I thought CMBYN was long (over 2 hrs), slow, and not very romantic. (And I don't think a director should get any credit for making Italy look beautiful!)

Although the casting was much admired, in the book, Armie Hammer's character, Oliver, is 24, but Armie Hammer is 31, and he looks it, and those extra years make the relationship somewhat less appealing, IMHO. In this era, we are much more aware of the exploitative implications of romance when there is a large age difference between the people involved. I was not the only viewer who was uncomfortable with this aspect of the film.

I was also not the only viewer who found Elio (played poignantly by Timothee Chalamet) unapologetically privileged and rather spoiled (he spends most of his screen time pouting and glowering at everyone); as an audience member, I wasn't very invested in his getting his supposed heart's desire. In addition, (SPOILER ALERT) he’s having sex with a local girl who he dumps quite unceremoniously once his prospects with Oliver improve. Even worse, she forgives him completely, because, well, he did it for True Love (the female characters in general are underdeveloped and serve mostly as props). As a fan of the romance genre, I can say that I have seen many films that I think portray that first love experience much more authentically and in a more compelling way for the audience. From its rapturous reception, I expected something much more lovely and moving. If this is your genre of choice, I would recommend you watch the 1996 British film, Beautiful Thing, or another recent movie: Love, Simon (based on the popular YA novel, Simon vs the Homosapien Agenda by Becky Albertalli).

Love, Simon is also a flawed story, IMO, but it’s also the first film featuring a gay teen lead character ever released by a major studio (20th Century Fox). Simon is a high school senior, and gay, but afraid to come out (despite being surrounded by the most supportive and loving friends and family ever assembled in movieland). Simon is ably portrayed by heartthrob Nick Robinson (who also appeared in the interracial teen romance released last year, Everything, Everything, co-starring rising star Amandla Stenberg, and also based on a beloved YA novel). The theater where I saw Love, Simon was filled with teenage girls who were audibly delighted by the movie’s long-awaited (and fairly chaste) kiss at the end. The film is effective romance and a rather charming coming out story. The filmmakers were motivated to portray those experiences in an admittedly idealized way because, as we all know, representation matters.

Which brings me to the point of my essay, and why I titled it as I did.

My teenage daughter is a major fan of the DC universe (also called the Arrowverse) as portrayed on the CW television network in such programs as Arrow, Supergirl, and The Flash. The other day she was watching another favorite CW show, The 100. (I would watch more of these shows if I had the time, but I dip a toe in from time to time, just to keep track of what she’s being exposed to.) The 100 is really dark and gritty and sci fi, so I said, “If you like this show, you should watch the Battlestar Galactica reboot” (currently available to watch on Hulu, but not Netflix). And she said, “Does it have any gay characters?”

This got me thinking. She genuinely expects her entertainment to include LGBTQ characters. And not just token characters, she expects couples - fully formed LGBTQ characters with relationships portrayed with depth. She expects it. And if you look at the shows aimed at teens, they have them.

While I was turning my attention to teen offerings, I noticed something else. The teen entertainment landscape is littered with what I think of as “remakes,” but they are really reimaginings of characters and worlds from previous eras, sometimes going pretty far back, but giving these reboots moderns twists and sensibilities. And LGBTQ inclusion is part and parcel of those sensibilities.

When I was young, there wasn’t anything that represented the idealized and asexual teen experience more than the Archie comics and animated TV show. Even those born much later than I will hum (or sing) along with Sugar, Sugar, the smash hit song (in both the US and the UK) produced for the TV show in 1969 (and often pointed to as the epitome of the Bugglegum Pop phenomenon). The song has been utilized relentlessly since, in commercials, TV shows, and movies, as both a punchline and background music (see, for example, The Bee Movie and Orphan Black).

The Archie universe has been recently reimagined as a TV show constructed around a murder mystery (!) and other dark doings in the fictional town of Riverdale, starring none other than Disney channel perennial, Dylan Sprouse, as Jughead Jones. Archie (KJ Apa), Veronica (Camila Mendes), and Betty (Lili Reinhart) are present as well. Riverdale, as with most current teen entertainment, features a deliberately mixed race cast, and, as has also become standard, prominent LGBTQ storylines. The new show is also far from the chaste presentation of teen life highlighted in its 1960s counterpart, with frank portrayals of all types of sexuality.

Is it fair to call the latest incarnation of the long-running Canadian series DeGrassi a reboot? It’s been in production almost continuously since 1979 (except for a break in the 1990s), dealing with teen issues from abortion to online bullying. Its early incarnation was broadcast on PBS and the longest-running, Degrassi: The Next Generation, aired for 10 years on TeenNick. In 2016, it was reimagined, recast, and renamed for Netflix, as DeGrassi: Next Class. Perhaps because it came from Canada, all the versions of Degrassi have included lesbian and gay characters and storylines, and in recent seasons have also featured trans and genderfluid characters as well.

Though it landed with a thud, it’s still notable that the Paramount network attempted a recent reboot of the 1988 teen “black comedy” (referring to the style of humor, not a reference to race) Heathers. The original film was radical at the time, presenting a darkly skewed vision of teenagers, which pulled back the curtain on high school life thus far portrayed in teen films, and conveyed teens’ darker desires, including revenge on the popular (read: tyrannical) clique. It also introduced to the American lexicon such useful phrases as “What’s your damage?” and “Fuck me gently with a chainsaw.” A musical version of Heathers ran briefly Off Broadway in 2014. (Meanwhile, Heathers’ darling Veronica, Winona Ryder, is appearing in this generation’s off beat obsession, Stranger Things. But I digress.) The new version of Heathers, which is no longer available to view online (or anywhere as far as I can tell) still tried to say something radical about teen life: the 3 Heathers in this version are a gay guy, a genderfluid woman, and a black girl. They terrorized the students and teachers in their school with their unapologetic lifestyles and their witty one liners. Teens stayed away from this show in droves and much ink was spilled by critics pointing out how very, very much the writers had missed the point.

However, my point is that entertainment has come so far in a relatively short time that a show in which the heretofore bullied are portrayed as the bullies was created, cast, produced, and broadcast. No, that’s not my point at all. My point, and I do have one, is that my daughter’s generation expects to see characters of all races, all genders, and all sexual proclivities portrayed in their entertainment, and that gives me hope for the future.

Kingsmen: Golden Circle really sucks

I only went to this movie because my kids were excited to see it. Wow, just too dumb for words.

So retro, but not in a good way. Every female character either sits behind a computer or is there for window dressing. (And one is actually murdered for having sex, like a 1970s horror film, or the third installment of Indiana Jones [that's obviously another commentary altogether].) My point, and I do have one, is: where is the ass kicking which we have come to expect from female good guys in today's film?

And such a waste of the monumental talents of Julianne Moore as the strangely passive drug king pin who frolics around a 1950s themed compound surrounded by the world's most ineffectual henchmen. She schemes, she cooks (!), and she watches events unfold on the screen of her laptop.

It very much has the feel of the Bond movies of the past, and I don't mean that as a compliment: the men race around (we're in London, we're in Kentucky, we're in Italy, we're in Cambodia), dodging bullets as if by magic, while the women wear sexy clothing and make goo-goo eyes at the big strong men. WTH? I have to rewatch Wonder Woman just to get the bad taste out of my mouth.

I appreciate a well placed F bomb as much as the next person, but this movie takes gratuitous swearing to unheard of levels. It's distracting, the way they shoehorn the F word into every scene. (Darling daughter tells me it's the hero's catch phrase . . . fer crying out loud, if that's not the laziest writing in movie history).

And the laws of physics do not apply to this universe, wherever it is. In the obligatory car chase that opens the film, a car smashes into a concrete barrier, but then pulls away without a scratch on the hood. A gondola spins and careens down a snowy slope, the trapped heroes walk away immediately after without any adverse reaction. Etc, etc, etc, etc.

I know it's escapism, but it's the worst possible kind. I really thought that we had entered a new era of action movies, with a more nuanced take on plots, character development, and relationships. This movie is a dinosaur. Bleh.

I gave the movie 2 stars (out of 10) - one for the weird but delightful presence of Elton John (HE gets to kick some bad guy ass!), and one for the weird anti anti-drug message and the mocking of a foolish, small-minded president.

Latest movies

Two in theaters and one on video~

The Sessions - A wonderful gem, not for the faint-hearted, but just amazing performances and a thought-provoking look at the life of a man determined to live life to the fullest despite limitations.

Lincoln - What can you say about a sterling cast presenting one of the most vital moments in American history (the passage of the 13th amendment, abolishing slavery). Epic not in scope but in impact. I cried several times - so moving and meaningful. Oscar will come calling, I'm sure.


Carnage -  Not quite as much "there" there as I had hoped, and not a whole lot of laughs for a "comedy" but not a bad movie. A little too real at some points - almost painful to watch. But the end was clever and it was definitely worth watching.

Unfilmable books

Super interesting story about making books into movies when the book isn't really "filmable."

The centerpiece of the film Life of Pi is a boy adrift on a lifeboat with a tiger in the middle of the ocean. That's easy enough for Yann Martel to describe in his novel — but hard to make happen on the set of a movie. As it happens, Pi is in theaters with another movie based on an "unfilmable" novel: Cloud Atlas, with six different plots in six different time periods.

Some books are challenging to film because they're challenging to read. Take Ulysses, James Joyce's stream-of-consciousness masterpiece, published in 1922.

"Ulysses was for a very long time considered unfilmable both because of the complexity of the plot and the point of view of the characters," says Maria Konnikova, a freelance writer who recentlyexplored unfilmable books for The Atlantic.

She points out that Ulysses has actually been filmed — not once but twice.

Other novels are considered unfilmable because they're too introspective and heady. Take Joseph Heller's dark World War II novel, Catch-22.

"Both the paranoia and kind of the sense of helplessness in the plot makes it difficult to kind of get out of the head of the characters and translate that to the screen," Konnikova notes.

That didn't stop director Mike Nichols from trying. Critics panned the movie version of Catch-22. And Heller himself had mixed feelings about it, though he also acknowledged that "complex novels don't make good movies."

It's for that reason that David Mitchell never thought his ambitious novel would make it to the screen. Cloud Atlas won a British Book Award and was short-listed for the Booker Prize, but Mitchell didn't think it had a chance for a movie deal.

Cloud Atlas is all over the place, intentionally. It follows six completely different stories, in genres from science fiction to crime thriller to romance.

It took three people to bring it to the screen: Lana and Andrew Wachowski (who made the theMatrix movies) and Tom Tykwer, perhaps best known for Run Lola Run.

As with the novel, there are six movies within the movie, set in the past and the future.

Another reason Mitchell thought his novel would never make it to the screen: the size of the cast it would take. It doesn't cost a writer a dime to add a character, but it can cost a filmmaker a lot to add an actor to a cast. The Wachowskis got around the problem by having actors play as many as six completely different roles. Tom Hanks, Halle Berry and Hugh Grant, among others, are transformed to the point of being unrecognizable through Hollywood makeup and costume magic.

By casting it this way, Mitchell believes, the filmmakers also made it easier for viewers to understand his concept, of one soul moving through the many different worlds.

"The directors have played to the advantages of film as a medium," he says.

Playing to the advantage of film as a medium was the only way director Ang Lee could adapt a fantasy novel like Life of Pi. When Lee was filming, the young actor and the tiger were never on the lifeboat at the same time.

"I would have liked to, but I was not allowed to by 20th Century Fox," Lee says. The hesitancy of the studio is understandable. A young boy on a lifeboat with a wild animal is a great tension-filled situation for a story, but probably a liability-insurance nonstarter.

Instead those scenes were shot separately, with a combination of real tigers and computer-generated big cats. Only through editing and special effects does it seem to the audience that the boy and the tiger are adrift on the ocean together.

Technology alone can't make the film Life of Pi as big a success as the novel. Fortunately for 20th Century Fox, Lee brings his extraordinary imagination to the project. He was also given an enormous budget.

Konnikova thinks some filmmakers overuse CGI at the expense of the story. Take the Lord of the Rings films: Even though they've been critically and commercially successful, Konnikova says they've lost the emotional depth of Tolkien's writings to what she calls "special effects plot points."

"You lose kind of the dynamics," she says. "You lose the inner struggles that are happening within each character, which are so finely wrought on the page."

Konnikova thinks it's better to take the spirit of a novel and work it into a new, original movie. The classic example is Clueless — Jane Austen's Emma, reimagined in a Beverly Hills high school in the 1990s.

"Amy Heckerling showed an insight when she did that, to make it so different that she completely, I think, captured the spirit of Austen without dragging it down," Konnikova says.

Ang Lee agrees that some movie versions fail because the filmmakers have tried to be too faithful to the original text.

"There's a saying in the business: Either you ruin a novel and make a great film, or you can be loyal to the book and make a bad movie," he says.

Author David Mitchell cautions against another old Hollywood trope. Be careful, he says, when a filmmaker says, "I won't change a thing."

Latest movies

I've only gotten to the theater a few times recently, but have seen several  movies On Demand (this is sort of in order of how much I liked them):

That Guy . . . Who Was in That Thing - I stumbled onto this fabulous documentary about character actors, so glad I saw it! Must See for all film lovers. (Only bad thing about it is the awkward title.)


Wreck-It Ralph - maybe the most entertaining film I've seen lately; lots of references to older games (for the older members of the audience) and a terrific story about persistence, friendship, and being yourself.

Game Change - terrific performances of course, but this is really "The Sarah Palin Story," which we mostly already know; I'm glad I watched it, but it could have covered more ground and been more compelling

Arbitrage - definitely a matter of too high expectations; Richard Gere gives a bravura performance (and  Susan Sarandon is wonderful, but rather wasted in a tiny part), but there's not much "there" there - very little commentary on the fiscal behavior of the Masters of the Universe, rather just a tired retread of adultery among the privileged class; really wish I'd waited for this on video

The Secret Life of Arietty - a Japanese film based on a British book (The Borrowers) dubbed into English; charming but not as creative as others of this genre, like Ponyo.

Abduction - in search of family friendly entertainment, we gave this a try; Taylor Lautner is perfectly adequate, and the secondary roles are played by a pantheon of great actors like Sigourney Weaver (who should have demanded a better script), but the biggest problem with this ho hum film is epitomized by the fact that no one is actually abducted - in other words, it mostly makes no sense. Not bad, but certainly not memorable.

Eight Crazy Nights - another attempt to find family entertainment; Adam Sandler's animated film from 2002; not at all what I expected from the title; a rather cliche story of an adult who has never recovered from the death of his parents when he was 12, the only twist is that they died during Hanukkah; several Hanukkah references, which are fun, but otherwise very predictable and nothing special, and some of the humor is way too crude for a family film.

Dystopian books into movies

I'm sort of tickled that I've read most of these - I just finished the Chaos Walking trilogy, The 11th Plague, and Enclave, and I'm finishing Shatter Me right now.  I read Ender's Game earlier this year, as well as Divergent, Matched and Delirium.  I read Uglies a couple of years ago.  I already have Partials, Under the Never Sky, Across the Universe, and especially Legend on my Must Read list.  I think they would all make great movies.  The only one that I have no interest in is The Selection, which sounds like garbage.

'Hunger Games' Success Proves Dystopia Is the New Supernatural

By Brooke Tarnoff 

From "Nosferatu" to "Twilight," supernatural movies have never gone out of style. Vampires and their monster homies have enjoyed a constant stream of cinematic exposure since the turn of the last century, but they've never been more pervasive than in the last few years, breaking out of horror confines and sparkling their way into other genres.

We'd be naive to say supernaturals are on their way out — they'll never leave, and we wouldn't want them to. But we'd be blind not to notice the creepy new sheriff in town: Dystopia.

As themes go, it's nothing new ("Children of Men," "Blade Runner"... "Idiocracy") but amidst the insane success of "The Hunger Games," studios are snapping up the rights to similar books the moment they land on shelves — and in a few cases, before that.

So move over, monsters. In honor of "The Hunger Games'" record-breaking opening weekend, we're looking at some horrifying visions of future governments that will soon make the leap from page to screen.

"Divergent" By Veronica Roth

HarperCollins

The Gist: Roth's futuristic Chicago is divided into five separate communities: Abnegation (selfless), Candor (honest), Dauntless (brave), Amity (peaceful), and Erudite (intelligent). At 16, each citizen decides which virtue to embrace — singularly and permanently. Like all dystopian stories, this "perfect system" has a few skeletons in the closet, which Dauntless initiate Tris uncovers (with the help of her hot hottie mentor).

Movie status: Summit is developing this, with "Snow White and the Huntsman" writer Evan Daugherty tackling the adaptation. Check outour interview with Roth for her take on the progress.

"Ender's Game" By Orson Scott Card

Tor

The Gist: Proof positive that the Dystopian genre is no flash in the pan — "Ender's Game" was written in 1985. Living on a far-future Earth, twice threatened by a species of insectoid aliens nicknamed Buggers, the government of "Ender's Game" puts small children in horrifically violent situations to locate and train the tiny fleet commanders who will one day save the planet. It's a small price to pay for the safety of humanity... unless you believe little kids shouldn't beat each other savagely with weapons, or something.

Movie status:The film version will be released on March 15, 2013 by Summit, starring Asa Butterfield, Hailee Steinfeld, Abigail Breslin and Harrison Ford. "X-Men Origins: Wolverine" director Gavin Hood is running the show.

"Legend" By Marie Lu

Putnam

The Gist: Day is on the run from a military government in what used to be the United States when he meets June, a military prodigy from an elite family. Though Day is accused of murdering June's brother, the two stumble on the Republic of California's dirtiest secrets together. Warning: You might want to marry Day, even if you're a boy.

Movie status: It's being produced by "Twilight"'s Wyck Godfrey and Marty Bowen, and directed by "Warm Bodies" helmer Jonathan Levine. Check out Hollywood Crush's interview with Lu about the adaptation.

"Matched" By Ally Condie

Dutton Juvenile

The Gist: If "The Handmaid's Tale" and "The Giver" had a clever little baby, it would be Condie's first book in a series of dystopian YA novels. Cassia is a happy, well-adjusted teen living in some undetermined future where mandatory mates are delivered by pictures on digital information cards. It's only when a glitch flashes the wrong boy's face that Cassia considers the relative merit of dating options — and therefore questions the whole nature of her world.

Movie Status: Disney snapped up the movie rights —and "Rock of Ages" director Adam Shankman is lined up to produce.

"Chaos Walking" Trilogy By Patrick Ness

Candlewick

The Gist: A post-plague world populated only by men — and polluted by a constant stream of audible inner monologues called "The Noise" — is suddenly turned upside down for teenager Todd when he meets... a girl... though Todd's own government swore they were all dead. Uh oh.

Movie Status: Lionsgate's announced plans to adapt "The Knife of Never Letting Go" — the first book in the "Chaos Walking" trilogy — for the big screen, with Doug Davison ("The Departed") set to produce.

"Shatter Me" By Tahereh Mafi

HarperCollins

The Gist: HarperCollins has called Mafi's debut novel "'Hunger Games' meets 'X-Men'" and we can't disagree. An invigorating blend of romance, super-powers and post-apocalyptic survival techniques on a police state stage, "Shatter Me" was basically made to be a movie.

Movie Status: 20th Century Fox bought the rights — read an interview with Mafi about it on theFABlife.

"Delirium" By Lauren Oliver

HarperCollins

The Gist: Love is a disease — everyone who's ever been dumped knows this. But in "Delirium," love is literally classified as a disease, and citizens of Oliver's future society receive a mandatory surgery to cure them, for the good of a healthy, sane community. Unless they, like, escape and fall in love with a fellow rebel. For instance.

Movie Status: Producers Paula Mazur and Mitch Kaplan are developing "Delirium" for Fox 2000. Oliver talked to theFABlife about her involvement with the movie.

"Under the Never Sky" By Veronica Rossi

HarperCollins

The Gist: Aria has lived her entire life in a dome, generations after the outside world was deemed uninhabitable by the government. After she's banished from the dome in a vicious political maneuver, she teams up with a love interest hunter who has his own reasons to challenge those in charge of her home.

Movie Status:"Under the Never Sky" been optioned for film by Warner Bros.

"Uglies" By Scott Westerfeld

Simon & Schuster

The Gist: In Tally Youngblood's society, ugliness is a thing of the past — upon citizens' 16th birthday, they each get plastic surgery that removes unsightly bumps, blotches and, oh, the ability to think like normal, intelligent people. Unfortunately, the surgery is very mandatory, and the penalty for escaping it is steep. Just maybe not as steep as the penalty fornot escaping, you know? We love thinking.

Movie Status: 20th Century Fox and producer John Davis bought the film rights to the novel.

"The Selection" By Kiera Cass

HarperTeen

The Gist: In the former U.S., citizens are separated into a rigid caste system that dictates their love lives, their professions and more. Only one thing can elevate a girl above her inherited station: a "Bachelor"-esque dating competition created by the country's ruling family to find Prince Maxon a wife. Outside the castle, there's civil unrest and a little starvation, but inside: pretty dresses, etiquette lessons and TV cameras. Fun for everyone! Well... everyone inside the castle.

Movie status: We think this would make a great movie, but the geniuses at the CW went and made a pilot with the adorable Aimee Teegarden and Ethan Peck — even though the book's not coming out until April. With "Angel" and "Vampire Diaries" writers Elizabeth Craft and Sarah Fain onboard, we have high hopes.

And more!

These haven't been optioned — yet — but they're a few more excellent examples of dystopian fiction and we'll be monkey's uncles if some studio doesn't snap them up soon: "Partials," "The Eleventh Plague," "Enclave" and "Across the Universe."