As a middle school student — an outcast — I often found, and still find, books to be an escape. Anyone who takes pleasure in reading knows that feeling: being whisked away to make-believe lands, falling in love with unforgettable heroes and feeling as though you’ve lost a friend when the story finally comes to an all-too-sudden end. And so these were the circumstances that led me to pick up, for the first time, the first book of The Mortal Instruments Series: City of Bones.
During the time I was reading City of Bones, each page I turned was like a megaphone shouting creativity and intricacy. With every chapter came thrilling twists and turns that made it simply impossible to put the book down. In short, I became a huge fan very quickly, even going so far as to name it my favorite book. Knowing this, you may have guessed how excited I was when the announcement came: City of Bones would be made into a movie.
However, I didn’t let myself become too excited, as movies are rarely able to capture one’s heart the way any good book does. After all, many would agree that the film adaptation of The Count of Monte Cristo and The Hunger Games were not nearly as good as their counterparts. This may be because a mere hour-and-a-half is not nearly enough time to squeeze in all the savory details that make a book so appealing, or it could be that a director’s interpretation could be quite different than your own — the book is lost in translation. Nevertheless, I was not prepared for what I experienced on opening night, Aug. 21.
The movie was, in a word, horrible. And here are just a few reasons why:
1. Acting: Though I was disappointed by the first half of the movie, I stayed and reasoned with myself, saying the introduction of Magnus Bane, a sassy, generally likeable character who is the favorite character of many fans (including myself) was sure to rekindle my interest. However, I was disappointed when Godfrey Gao, the Taiwanese-Canadian actor that played Magnus Bane, portrayed him as boring and forgettable, and even with a monotone voice (as if the eccentric Magnus Bane would ever speak in such a way). This unconvincing performance left me desperate for something to love, but alas, I was again disappointed by the uncharacteristic performances of practically everyone in the film. The only hint of passion or persuasive portrayal in any of the actors came from Lena Headey as Jocelyn Fray, but that could just be because she was in a coma for the second half.
2. Excessive plot/character changes: For many movies, the removal of a few details is necessary for time management. This is disappointing, but understandable. However, this film seems to go out of it’s way to invent new plots and completely disregard the originals. It’s almost as though the movie is independent of the book, it just happens to share a name with the book. Yes, the changes are that radical. I don’t want to give the ending away to those still interested in seeing the movie for themselves, but I think it’s safe to say that the ending will have die hard fans tearing out their hair in anger.
3. Cheesiness: Though the book was geared toward adolescents, the movie seem to be princess-like, geared toward small children in the romance aspect (with some demons and vampires mixed in for the older ones). For example, when Jace and Clary have their first kiss in the indoor garden, the sprinklers just happen to go off, dramatically drenching them as though they were kissing in the rain. Not only is this super cheesy, but it doesn’t happen in the book and the explanation is delayed, confusing watchers for quite some time. If director Harald Zwart was trying to achieve a feeling of epic romance, he completely failed.
4. Redundancy: Throughout the movie, several pieces of information, some as important as the location of the Mortal Cup, are repeated multiple times. This would be okay if the movie was subtle in doing so, but instead, the redundancy is clear and hard to overlook, which insults the reader’s intelligence. Unless this movie was specifically geared toward adolescents with attention disorders, then this aspect was largely unsuccessful.
Though I was eager to overlook everything that went wrong (including the nonessential pentagram theme), Zwarts’ seemingly non-existent care for the work he was doing was impossible to ignore. But, if you would like to see a copycat Twilight film and don’t mind the absence of talent and substance in a movie, then by all means, this is the movie for you.
