The Girl With All The Gifts

pixelburp

I only just finished the novel the other day; I didn't even know there was an adaptation brewing. The setting was fairly pedestrian, but the books strengths were definitely in its language & characters; the bittersweet relationship between Melanie and her teacher in particular.

Hopefully the screenplay has kept that emotional core in its translation & isn't entirely a by-the-numbers

Zombie

flick. The trailer itself is very action-oriented but that's not a huge surprise.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HjGkB_oWTe0

Mr E

That looks very good!

Also Starring LeVar Burton

The book instantly became one of my favourite novels of all time, and the trailer looks like it's sticking pretty close to the text, so hopefully it's a solid adaptation.

conorhal

While I liked the book, Justineau's naivete was grating at times and (ending spoiler)

I'm sick to my back teeth of nhillistic bleak Zombie /dystopian movies and their downer endings, and yes, humanity wiped out counts as a downer in my book.

Give me an adaption of the Arisen series any day of the week! Of course that would need a budget bigger then 6 Game of Thrones.

stesaurus

Trailer leaves very little to the imagination, all but the final act really. I enjoyed the book but felt others have done similar better.

I knew as soon as I'd finished that it would be given the hollywood treatment but had no idea it was so far in development.

The audiobook is fantastic. It's narrated by Finty Williams, who also did M.R. Carey's other book, Fellside.

Didn't even know there was a movie coming!!

Mr E

This is out on Friday.

I finished the book over the weekend, so I'm really looking forward to seeing how it transfers to the big screen.
Having just looked at the trailer again, I think they've done it justice.

Hopefully they don't change too much.

Banjaxed82

It's a terrible title, especially for something with a horror/thriller slant.

Outlaw Pete

Started off excellently and I was engrossed to begin with but it feels quite repetitive in parts, threatening all the while to pick up... but never really did for me.

pixelburp

Banjaxed82 wrote: »

It's a terrible title, especially for something with a horror/thriller slant.

The title makes total sense within the narrative of the novel, and has an understandable, if on the nose, origin.

Banjaxed82

pixelburp wrote: »

The title makes total sense within the narrative of the novel, and has an understandable, if on the nose, origin.

I well imagine that it makes sense, but purely from a marketing point of view, and the joe on the street who's never heard of the novel. Just seems a little risky.

Mickeroo

Banjaxed82 wrote: »

I well imagine that it makes sense, but purely from a marketing point of view, and the joe on the street who's never heard of the novel. Just seems a little risky.

When I originally saw the title of the thread I thought it was a sequel/spin off to The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo.

pixelburp

It's not like we live in an era anymore where a poster and showtime was the only prominence a film might get for Joe Public. Even the average cinema website carries trailers for its films and 30 seconds of YouTube or Google will give answers.

I don't buy into the notion that a film name needs to explicitly spell out a truncated version of a movies theme / story / mood out of anxiety it might alienate a section of a presumed audience.

I'd certainly loath any adaptation that feels the need to change or dumb down the sources title under the belief that there's aren't sufficent avenues to get a film out these days. They could call the film "Death Child" or something, but is that really going to help the box office? Maybe for one demographic, but definite at the expense of another

Mr E

5 stars in Empire.

The best zombie-ish apocalypse in years. Sennia Nanua is a major discovery, but it’s the dense social commentary and moral dilemmas that will haunt you.

Mr E

Just back from it. It was fantastic and very faithful to the book (apart from one segment which was removed - the

house

and a few smaller pieces from the last third). The ending (for those who read the book) translated well to the big screen too.

Close, Arterton and Considine were all great, and Sennia Nanua has a great future ahead of her.

I have to say that it probably should have been 16s instead of 15A - it was pretty gruesome. I wouldn't let anyone younger than 15 see it.

Also Starring LeVar Burton

I was somewhat apprehensive going in as I absolutely adored the novel and was worried the screen adaptation wouldn't hold up, but was pleasantly surprised how well it translated to the big screen - probably helps that Carey himself wrote the screenplay. I was just as tense watching it as I was reading it, and considering I knew what to expect going in, that's probably the best review I could give it, it was really well done.

FunLover18

I've heard some really good things about this but I hate scary movies. So, is this scary or is it more suspenseful?

Mr E

More suspenseful. There are no jump scares (apart from maybe one) and there is some gore. It's not scary though.

homerun_homer

FunLover18 wrote: »

I've heard some really good things about this but I hate scary movies. So, is this scary or is it more suspenseful?

I didn't find it very scary, nothing made me jump so you should be ok. It depends what your scare threshold is. I saw Don't Breathe last week and that was more tense and prone to providing the odd jump scare.

I enjoyed this, would give it 4/5. A small gripe I had was with continuity at times.

The images of the girl with blood all over her face are very present in the advertising. When she made her first kills she had a little bit of watered down blood over her mouth and chin, and then later in the truck she's full on blood and guts like in the adverts/posters on her face.

Little things like that annoy me.

Also, why did the soldier go on a food run when in the end, when Gemma Arterton can't leave the compound, she's clearly surviving on whatever's in there?

ohnonotgmail

went to see this last night. Probably the best film i've seen this year. More suspense than frights as some people have said but none the worse for it. the lead was fantastic. the sound really added to it.

In response to the previous post about the ending

The vehicle had an airlock so i presumed that the children were bringing food to her via the airlock. there was plenty of food in the shop

one last comment

I really hope the doggy got away but i fear that it didnt

lawred2

Banjaxed82 wrote: »

It's a terrible title, especially for something with a horror/thriller slant.

?

did you read the book?

Radiosonde

Thought it was pretty poor, with flat characters and every zombie cliche imaginable.

Mark Hamill

While I enjoyed it, it felt a lot like the videogame

"The last of Us"

gameplay mechanics crossed with the book

"I Am Legend"'s

ending.

constitutionus

Mickeroo wrote: »

When I originally saw the title of the thread I thought it was a sequel/spin off to The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo.

me too.

it was the first thought i had , the second being "christ not another one of them" .

took this thread for me to realise its a zombie film. i can imagine a fair few of "the girl..." fans going to this by accident and wonderin WTF happend !

Saw it during the week. Excellent. Absolutely excellent.

The only downside for me was the whole

interaction with the other child Hungries

, but I'm almost certain I disliked that segment in the book too.

p to the e

I liked the first hour or so. There were some original ideas and set pieces added to the zombie/post apocalyptic genres and some genuine feelings of terror but for me the last 20 minutes went a bit too out there.

All I could think of when I saw the kids was Mad Max: Beyond Thunderdome.

Slydice

Just saw it. Cool story and a well made film.

Only issue

the 1 kid v many kids fight

yeah maybe if like the one kid was part of the group but nah, here's a stranger coming in and beating up one of yer group... that felt out of place in the film. I was thinking they'd have done it better with a fight between her and maybe 2-3 stragglers from the ambush.. or just have the ambush be with 2 or 3 of the kids and them using tools like a rope or net to get yer man.

only a small nitpick though film has to be up there with 28 days later for a kinda new way of doing zombies

pixelburp

Slydice wrote: »

Just saw it. Cool story and a well made film.

Only issue

the 1 kid v many kids fight

yeah maybe if like the one kid was part of the group but nah, here's a stranger coming in and beating up one of yer group... that felt out of place in the film. I was thinking they'd have done it better with a fight between her and maybe 2-3 stragglers from the ambush.. or just have the ambush be with 2 or 3 of the kids and them using tools like a rope or net to get yer man.

only a small nitpick though film has to be up there with 28 days later for a kinda new way of doing zombies

Book spoiler:

That kid with the baseball bat was the alpha of the pack of feral kids, in the book it's made more obvious and clear he's the one in charge IIRC. So Melane killing him was like a pack of lions, in that she proved her ascendancy and the other kids followed her.

As good an adaptation it was, it lacked a lot of the nuance and detail between the characters that made the book tick IMO.

Slydice

pixelburp wrote: »

Book spoiler:

That kid with the baseball bat was the alpha of the pack of feral kids, in the book it's made more obvious and clear he's the one in charge IIRC. So Melane killing him was like a pack of lions, in that she proved her ascendancy and the other kids followed her.

Makes sense, one of my first reactions was it must have had something to do with the book. Don't think it carried well into the film.

Frank O. Pinion

Zombies. Zombies. ZOMBIES.

When did writers get so pretentious, that while they want to make zombie movies/TV shows, they don't want to use the word "zombie". If they just said monsters or creatures, that would be one thing, but when the characters say stuff like, "hungries", "walkers", "biters", etc., it just takes me right out of the scene, and in my head I'm screaming "just f*cking say ZOMBIE!"

Also, in the silly scene with a bunch of feral kid zombies barking like dogs, (you can tell they're feral, because of their unkempt hair, you see), all I thought was, can't we just get beyond thunderdome?

I appreciate the effort to do something different with the zombie genre, but it's not going make my list of favourite zombie films.

kunst nugget

Slydice wrote: »

Makes sense, one of my first reactions was it must have had something to do with the book. Don't think it carried well into the film.

I haven't read the books but I thought it was pretty obvious what was going on in that segment.

pixelburp

Frank O. Pinion wrote: »

Zombies. Zombies. ZOMBIES.

When did writers get so pretentious, that while they want to make zombie movies/TV shows, they don't want to use the word "zombie". If they just said monsters or creatures, that would be one thing, but when the characters say stuff like, "hungries", "walkers", "biters", etc., it just takes me right out of the scene, and in my head I'm screaming "just f*cking say ZOMBIE!"

IIRC, Robert Kirkman said that he intentionally wrote Walking Dead to be set in a universe where the Zombie genre didn't exist, hence the use of 'Walkers' and the like.

I think it's fine, and don't believe it's any kind of pretension: I always get the impression most of these zombie based fictions to be set in worlds without the pop-culture existing in the first place, hence peoples' general ignorance when the threat finally manifests. With that in mind, I'm generally willing to accept any specific nickname that world would give to the monsters.

Slydice

kunst nugget wrote: »

I haven't read the books but I thought it was pretty obvious what was going on in that segment.

nah,

they didn't dumb down the kids enough, anytime we ever saw any of the other kids was pretty much in a school setting.. "hey look, they have brains and ain't animals"

Frank O. Pinion

pixelburp wrote: »

IIRC, Robert Kirkman said that he intentionally wrote Walking Dead to be set in a universe where the Zombie genre didn't exist, hence the use of 'Walkers' and the like.

I think it's fine, and don't believe it's any kind of pretension: I always get the impression most of these zombie based fictions to be set in worlds without the pop-culture existing in the first place, hence peoples' general ignorance when the threat finally manifests. With that in mind, I'm generally willing to accept any specific nickname that world would give to the monsters.

Oh, I know what Kirkman said. It's a copout for writers of zombie stuff to make dramatic tension, and have their characters act stupid. If a zombie apocalypse happened in real life, everybody would know what to do because of all the zombie films/shows, but "setting it in a universe where the Zombie genre doesn't exist", allows the writers to get away with every zombie cliché and trope. Like not knowing to kill someone right away after one bite, even their wife/husband/child, etc. Or how you have to kill the brain. Yawn. They're zombies, we know how it works.