Rachel MacAdams has been cast in the movie adaptation of The Time-Traveller's Wife.

I watched Beowulf and Grendel last night. I'd been looking forward to it, 'cause...Gerard. Butler. 'nuf said. It was odd, and one of those films where you want to like it because you know the cast and crew really suffered to bring it to you. A venture down wikipedia lane just now, however, made me not like it much at all. Very broad interpretation and a serious redux of the poem. Somehow adding Sarah Polley as a character not even mentioned in the poem..so that she can be the greek chorus of explainy things just didn't make it any better.

Rachel MacAdams has been cast in the movie adaptation of The Time-Traveller's Wife.

Interesting.

Niffenegger's novel is about a Chicago librarian who involuntarily travels through time and falls in love with a young heiress along the way.

That's...the first time I've ever heard it described that way. The fact that it's adapted by the same person who did The Notebook worries me because, like, I know the core of the book is this romance between Henry and Clare, but to me, it was about so much more than that.

Also, Dracula 3000...because Hallowe'en is fraught with tradition around my house. A very bad horror movie must be consumed. This one? So bad, it wasn't even fun. Looked like a student film...no lie...that would not have garnered a D in any school of repute. Casper Van Diem, with a seriously spray-painted Fred Flintstone 8 o'clock shadow, seems to be chuckling his way through the proceedings. Udo Kier does a video-log within the movie...he must not have read the rest of the script when he signed on. Ick patoo!

OK, if you are ready for another movie quiz, this one is really well done and pretty. [link]

I'm not sure I'm on board with all their "halloweenish" movie choices, though.

Oooh. I hope the movie version of TTTW is good. I really enjoyed the book.

Franken: Yeah, it kind of was a happy ending. Except for the really freaky, freaky ending set in the modern 20th century.

Okay, and the reason I am kind of thrown off is our introduction to the world of the prestige and of Angier and Borden is through Borden's great grandson, who has always felt like he's had a twin brother but never actually did. He was adopted by another family. And he ends up meeting Angier's great-granddaughter, and without it being trite it becomes apparent that Borden and Angier's rivalry followed, inexplicably but without fail, down his line.

When their parents were fighting over the same thing, the reveal of the secret of Borden/Angier's tricks, the Angier father dares the Borden father to try the prestige machine. They get it all fired up, and Borden looks at it and says "no way." So Angier, in a fit of crazy, throws Borden's toddler son into the machine. But just as with Angier in the past, they pull the plug midway through, so that a copy of the infant--who is our first perspective in the story--is caught, frozen in time and as a child. The original was traumatized and blocked it out, until he saw his tiny younger self, which explained his feelings of "having a twin."

So you think it was disturbing *before*. But man, that was a whole other level.

Jeepers!

I've had a must/must not impulse around reading the book...and with each of SA's revelations, the pendulum swings wildly from side to side. I think I'm getting whiplash.

Heh. I'd take responsibility for them, but I rest them squarely on the author's shoulders.

I saw the book in the store today and I almost bought it. But I really want to see the movie first, because reading the book would give too much away. Hopefully, I'll be able to get to the movie this week so I can get caught up on all the whitefont before all the good discussion goes away and anything I have to say is banal and "we know that!"

Aronovsky made The Fountain old-school: without any CGI.

It's really pretty.