I went and saw “Holes” with my sister today and we were both very, very pleasantly suprised. People magazine said that it was the sort of kids movie like Shreck: the kind adults will enjoy as well. An internet movie critic site, can’t recall which one, panned it, so I was worried. But it was very good. Really. We both walked out and said, “I can’t believe how much I enjoyed that movie!”
Warning: The following spoiler relates to the end of the movie and may impact severly as a result. Caveat emptor.
The only part that I didn’t like was when the main character found the treasure and the warden asked to see it – he patently refused to show her. It seemed the sort of act of spite that was totally inappropriate. It would have been much better, IMO, if the kid was magnanimous about it. Of course, that may have required changing the end a bit, but I think the lesson would have been very good. Especially since she, the warden, was evidently a pretty heavily abused child, at least emotionally, and deserved a little sympathy & forgiveness (though not in the eyes of the law).
That one complaint, however, didn’t detract from my enjoyment of the movie. I strongly recommend it. I didn’t read the book.
Since Louis Sachar had control over the movie, too, the movie is almost exactly like the book.
I read the book when it was slightly above my reading level and I think I didn’t comprehend it as well. I didn’t really understand all the complexities and the way the ending tied everything together. But watching this movie, I appreciated the way everything was explained, and it all really did seem to work together.
About your spoiler,
[spoiler]I really must agree. I had the same thought when Caveman/Stanley refused to show the Warden what was in the trunk. I mean, from the scenes we were shown of the way she was treated as a child, she really couldn’t have grown up any other way. Who would turn out OK after being forced to dig holes all through their life?
He should have at least said ‘Not right now but I’ll let you know what was in it.’ Heck, I might’ve even cut her in for a bit of the profit depending on how I felt! I mean, there was enough to go around.[/spoiler]
The boy who played Zero was excellent; actually, all the actors were, except perhaps Siobhan Fallon (I think), who played Stanley’s mom. Her delivery seemed a bit off to me, but perhaps that was just me.
Caesar’s Ghost, was the racial harmony thing played out more strongly in the book?I recall them referring to Zero as Caveman’s “slave”, and the issue seemed to go away on its own (kind of). I was wondering if it was more thoroughly explored in the book.
Is the book good? Probably, since they made a movie of it?
Basically, the tagline, “the book is now the movie,” is pretty damn right. It’s such a great book, and the movie is almost completely faithful to it.
Zero and all the other boys were excellent, and so were Mr. Sir and Pendanski.
js_africanus:
It says in the book that Stanley was glad their wasn’t much racial tension at the camp. The “slave” thing wasn’t a very big deal in the book either, except for the other boys objecting to Stanley not having to dig his own hole.
A great movie. I figured I’d say the book is better than the movie–since the book is so good–but I can’t. They’re both great. I, too, saw a lot of reviews panning the film, and I can’t understand why. The film moves along, it doesn’t devolve into any Disney cheesiness, etc. etc. And I think Jon Voight as Mr. Sir was great. Ditto Sigourney.
I was wondering how faithful it was, since I hadn’t read the book. Good to know.
That’s the way she acts; it is kind of . . . unusual. If you remember Men in Black, she played Edgar’s wife. Same off-beat delivery in spades.
I saw an early show – about 4:30, so the theater had lots of kids and their mothers. Most of the kids were girls, though, about a 4:1 ratio to boys. Did the book appeal mostly to girls or was it just something odd about the start time?
Actually, I thought it was more popular with boys. Could be wrong. In any event, my screening (9:30 PM) was mostly adults and teens (mixed groups of boys and girls).
I loved the film too, just saw it yesterday. Went in without any expectations, but was pleasantly surprised, zero’s cool, although I found it kind of odd when he suddenly started talking.
I Haven’t read the book, didn’t even know there was one. Should I still read it, you think? And: when was it written, approximately?
I really loved the paranoia-kid. His eyes still make me laugh
I went in knowing absolutely nothing about the book, but found the movie excellent–a good “kid” movie that doesn’t pander to its audience, and has enough imagination, humor and tension that it never feels like it’s simply ripping off something else. Flashbacks can be clunky, but they’re handled deftly here, giving you just enough information to allow you to put the pieces together without feeling obliged to cheat with a “twist” out of left field.
As for the spoiler above:I thought it was fine Stanley didn’t show the warden what was inside. He had no way of knowing her past; all he know is that she left him and Zero for dead. That booty was more important to her than the lives and esteem of any of the boys. She had no claim on the contents and she’d have to live with the repercussions of her actions.
I have seen one preview for it so far…so I have one question. Is that the kid from Disney’s Even Steven’s? If it is, I will have to go see it for that reason alone.
Yeah, deftly is an understatement. I’m suprised at how well the three plots were woven together. I’m also more impressed with Jon Voight than ever. When he first appeared, I leaned to my sister and said, “Does he ever play a good guy?” But he wasn’t recognizable as himself at all, except for his face – not much he can do about that without too much make-up. So even though he played a bad guy, it wasn’t what I expected from him at all.
Good heads up about that spoiler. That never occured to me. Thanks.
I don’t follow the box office trends in the news; I hope this movie is doing well. It certainly deserves to.