| Overall Grade: |
B |
|
| Story: |
D |
|
|
| Acting: |
B |
|
|
| Direction: |
C |
|
|
| Visuals: |
B |
|
|
Funny but Incredibly Inaccurate
by Stevvie (movies profile)
Feb 14, 2009
31
of
48 people found this review helpful
I had reservations about going to see this movie because of what I had seen in the previews. I am such a devoted fan of Sophie Kinsella's; I've read all of her books (multiple times) and have passed them on to all of my female friends and family members. However, I did feel obligated to the movie for this reason.
Though the movie was funny (especially Isla's outrageous dance moves) and in parts accurate, the movie as a whole was absolutely nothing like the novels. I was very disappointed by this. I am fully aware of Hollywood's needs to condense books to fit a two hour time-frame, but I also believe they should, as much as possible, stay true to the novel.
Becky as well as her friends are all from Great Britain, which is where the first novel takes place! Where were the accents? The casting did not stay true to the novel, either. While I think they made an excellent choice in casting Isla Fisher as Becky, couldn't they have insisted on a British accent? Krysten Ritter is a great actress and played her role well, but she was nothing like the Suze character S. Kinsella described. (Not blonde for one!) Luke Brandon was well cast, but it was disappointing seeing him portrayed as such a weak character. Why could they not keep him the founder of Brandon Communications? Why did this movie center around magazines? Outrageous scenes were invented that were in no way present in the novel. Derek Smeath and Becky actually end up as semi-friends in the novel, not vengeful mortal enemies. Her parents were not thrifty nuts, though I do approve of the casting choice. The list of what I found wrong with this movie goes on and on. I fail to understand how S. Kinsella could allow this movie to be so inaccurately produced.
With that I will say that though we did enjoy the movie, we left feeling very frustrated. |