I don't get to see a lot of movies these days.  We don't have easy access to a babysitter, and when we do go out alone, we generally prefer an activity that lets us talk with each other, rather than sitting quietly in a dark theater for two hours.  In 95% of cases, I have no idea a movie has been released until it makes it to Netflix.

But I sure as heck knew Gone Girl was coming out.  WOOT WOOT!

After I read, and positively adored, the book in 2012, movie rumors were already being circulated.  (You can check out my review HERE.) I was cringing, because (go ahead, say it with me!) THE BOOK IS ALWAYS BETTER THAN THE MOVIE.  They were saying Reese Witherspoon might be Amy (ughhhhhhhhhh) and that alone was making me nervous for the adaptation.

However, as you know by now, the movie was made and started getting some pretty decent reviews, so I knew I had to see it.  My darling husband had zero interest in this flick though, so I gathered a group of my mommy friends, and this past Thursday we made a night of it.  Of the 5 of us, 3 had read the book, and 2 hadn't.  So we got some interesting perspectives within the group.

Here are my thoughts, and yes, HERE THERE BE SPOILERS.  You have been warned!

Overall, I loved it.  Rosamund Pike was an exceptional choice for Amy.  She does an equally good job being the serene, well-adored Amy and the calculating, I'mma-cut-you-with-a-box-cutter Amy.  Ben Affleck plays a perfect Nick as well--aloof, self-absorbed, kind of a jerkface, but still curries some favor as he tries to find his crazy-ass wife.  And Neil Patrick Harris is a CREEPY Desi Collings.

Beyond the cast: the soundtrack adds much suspense, especially at the end.  And I was impressed with how Amy's diary entries were handled, as flashbacks with her narration over them.  Much like in the book, they are well-placed throughout the story, and mislead you just enough (especially in the beginning) that you don't see The Big Twist coming.

But, you know, the book always has to be just a TEENSY bit better than the movie.  Right?  So I had two little things that I liked better in the novel.

1. The Big Twist.  When I was reading the book, I hit the end of Part 1 and had no idea, not one clue, what Amy was up to.  Then I read the first page of Part 2, and...there is a reason I used a nuclear bomb GIF in my original review.  KA-BOOM.  There were expletives spoken aloud.  The entire book was turned on its head, and I loved it.

In the movie, it didn't feel that way to me.  Granted, I knew it was coming, having read the book.  But even despite that, I was so excited for that big twist, and I felt like it wasn't as explosive on screen as it was on the page.  Perhaps because we had already heard Amy's voice continuously through flashbacks previously in the movie--so when she starts talking about her staged disappearance, it doesn't feel as shocking?  I'm not sure.  But for me, that twist felt better in print.

2. The pregnancy at the end.  One of the reasons I enjoyed this ending in the novel so much is because it was done with very little fanfare.  Part 3 of the book is not very long, and so the pregnancy is introduced, with some additional detail, but there isn't a lot of dialogue and it is kind of left hanging--very ominous, something that sticks in your head for a long time afterwards.  However, in the movie, the pregnancy is introduced, and then there's a lot of back-and-forth between Amy and Nick, plus the reveal to Go, and then on national television, etc. and it felt like too much.  I just wanted the pregnancy revealed, maybe reactions from Nick and Amy, and that was it--no more talking.  I wanted it more abrupt, to match the feel of the book.  However, I will say that my friends who didn't read the book seemed a bit frustrated at the lack of detail in the movie's conclusion (what happens next after the pregnancy is announced, etc)...so this is likely my own personal issue as I pick apart one of my favorite novels.

As you can see, those two tiny caveats are...tiny.  This movie was truly awesome.  In my eyes, David Fincher has done Gone Girl justice.  Well done, Hollywood!

Who else has seen Gone Girl (the movie)?  What did you think compared to the book?  Those who haven't seen the movie--are you tempted to do so, based on your reaction to the book?  Why or why not?

Back in 2011 (pre-blogging years), I read World War Z by Max Brooks.  And it was the first step toward my total infatuation with zombie novels.

If you've never read WWZ, essentially it is written from Brooks' (fictional) perspective as if the zombie apocalypse has already happened, and now he is traveling around the world to get the testimonies of survivors.  Why did I 5-star it?  The novel has a tone that is so rational and well-detailed, I couldn't help but find myself thinking I was reading nonfiction at various points in the book.  Brooks creates a post-zombie world so chillingly realistic, you will find yourself sleeping with a baseball bat under your pillow by day's end.

After finishing the book, rumors were just ramping up that it was going to be made into a movie.  I was SO EXCITED.  How could anyone screw this up?  Zombies were MADE for Hollywood!

Then I saw the first trailer.

And wailed despondently.

For a while, I said I wasn't even going to watch the Brad Pitt movie adaptation.  I could tell from the trailer that it was a total abortion of the book's premise, and didn't want to bear witness to such an atrocity.  However, as with most things that I say I will never do (except read 50 Shades of Gray, I STILL WILL NEVER DO THAT), I watched it.  Last week, in fact.

So here's my last word on World War Z: book vs. movie.

In the movie, Brad Pitt stars as a former UN employee who is called upon to help stop the zombie apocalypse soon after it begins.  So yes, the very premise is different: we are in the midst of the zombie attack, not reporting from after it.  And Pitt's character is not wandering the world, gathering witness testimony, but instead is jet-setting around the world trying to find a cure for the zombie disease before humankind dies off.  There's lots of zombies and blood and death and screaming and zombies.  And more zombies.  (They're actually pretty terrifying zoms, I'll say that.)

In the end, my feeling was this: if I knew nothing about the book, the movie would have been pretty decent.  The zombies were scary, the action was good, the ending was kind of cool and I didn't see it coming.  Compared to the book: it's a totally different world, and my initial reaction was to be mad about that.  I can't stand when an author's work is obliterated after Hollywood buys the rights.

HOWEVER.  I can at least see why Hollywood made the changes that it did.  Having the movie take place during the apocalypse (vs after) is an obvious plus for the audience, because it's an excuse for non-stop action (vs flashbacks to the action, which is what the Brooks novel would require).  And making Pitt's character a bit more invested in the plot was necessary for a big-screen version as well.  They did at least attempt to have some vague connection to the novel, in the sense that Pitt's character travels the world and gets a lot of different perspectives on the outbreak (just for an entirely different reason than the novel did).  I appreciated the common theme there.

Final verdict?  As a movie, World War Z kept me entertained.  If I hadn't read the book, I would have loved it.  BUT, I did read the book, and even though I understand why Hollywood made the changes that it did, I still can't completely get over the fact that Brooks' work was basically dismantled.  (Are you kidding?  I can't handle it when the character's hair color is different in a movie vs a book, let alone the entire plot premise.)

Readers, what say you?  Have you both read and watched World War Z?  What did you think?  If you've only read it (or watched it), will you be seeking out the other version to compare?