The Long Walk (2025)

The rules of the long walk are simple. Participants must walk at least 3mph. If they walk slower than that, they receive a warning, three warnings and they're shot. If they leave the road, they are shot. If they attack the soldiers, they are shot. There is no finish line. The last one standing gets a wish and all the money they need to be set for life.

Based on a 1979 novel of Stephen King, the participants are all young men chosen to participate via a lottery system. They all have different reasons for joining the walk, though the prize money helps. McVries (David Jonsson) dreams of using the money to make the world a better place. Garraty (Cooper Hoffman) seeks revenge on the Major (Mark Hamill).

The premise is an interesting one, but there are moments where it gets old as the walk goes on. There is only so much that can happen when the most likely outcome is death.

That being said, the film is in the hands of a very capable director. Francis Lawrence has directed five of the Hunger Games films. He knows how to show the deaths of young people who are forced to participate in events that are for the supposed good of the country.

Although I can't tell you what good the long walk does for the country. There are mentions of a war and the honor it is to be picked to participate in the event, but otherwise the film doesn't really explain how this event came to be and why it is necessary for it to exist.

We are given flashbacks from Garraty's point of view that explain why he seeks revenge. In these flashbacks it is revealed that there are certain thinkers that are illegal to review, but beyond that I'm not sure why it is so dangerous to study Nietzsche or Kierkegaard. The main focus of the story is the brutality of the walk and King insisted that it be graphic.
 

 The best part of the film comes from the bond formed by four of the boys. It gives you something to root for and against in the form of the bullies that are inevitably found.

This bond is also a welcome distraction from all the blood and gore found in this film. King himself has stated he didn't want the film to shy away from the violence despite there being teenage boys amongst the ranks of the participants. The graphic nature of the film proved to be too much for me at one point and I wished we didn't need to see every single gruesome aspect. 

The film is two hours long and while I did enjoy it, I feel like the film could have been slightly shorter. The action all takes place on the road and knowing that everyone except one person must die, it gets repetitive.

Mark Hamill is unsurprisingly a perfect major. He's cold and intimidating. The biggest issue with his casting is that there is simply not enough of him in the film.

A standout performance for me was David Jonsson as McVries. McVries has lived through a lot and despite the things he has gone through, he still chooses to see the beauty in life and believes he has the ability to change the laws if he wins. Cooper Hoffman is also fantastic as Garraty. Garraty is the character we get ti know the most and Hoffman is able to fill Garraty with enough hope underneath his anger, that you can see him grow from beginning to end.

 

The Long Walk is brutal and while the graphic nature made it difficult for me to watch at times, it truly found a way to make you legitimately care about every single one of the characters. You experience the pain and embarrassments they do. The blood, the crap, the sickness... it's all there.

I truly wish it was fleshed out more why a war caused the long walk to be created. I wish we had gotten to know the details of the USA of the film came to be and why things came to be banned. While some may say that we may be headed that way now, we still need something in the film to anchor the walk's existence.

That paired with the graphic nature of the film are my biggest complaints. I reached a point where I couldn't enjoy the film anymore because I couldn't stand to see one more gruesome thing happen. Orlando reached a point where he was completely desensitized and while the characters in the film make a point to say they never hope to be desensitized by the deaths of those around them, he did and I don't think the filmmakers would want the audience to reach that point either.

The film premieres on September 12, but I won tickets to an advanced screening courtesy of Scribner Books! 

 

Weapons (2025)

 

Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: A Journey through Book and Film Adaptation

Douglas Adams' "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" has become a cornerstone of British science fiction comedy since its inception as a BBC radio show in the late 1970s. The story's journey from radio to book to film represents an interesting case study in adaptation, particularly when the source material features such a distinctive style of humor and storytelling. Having experienced this story multiple times throughout my life, I've developed a unique perspective on both the book and its 2005 film adaptation directed by Garth Jennings.

The book itself began as a radio show before being published in 1979, launching what would eventually become a five-book "trilogy." The core story follows Arthur Dent, an ordinary Englishman who is whisked away from Earth moments before its destruction by his friend Ford Prefect, who turns out to be an alien researcher for "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" – an electronic guidebook for interstellar travelers. Their cosmic adventures introduce readers to a cast of eccentric characters including Zaphod Beeblebrox, the two-headed President of the Galaxy; Trillian, another human from Earth; and Marvin, a chronically depressed robot with "a brain the size of a planet."

What makes the book distinct is its particular brand of British humor – dry, absurdist, and often philosophical. Adams weaves bizarre concepts like the number 42 being the "Answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything" and the Babel fish (a creature that, when placed in your ear, instantly translates any language) into a narrative that manages to be simultaneously nonsensical and profound. The writing style features frequent asides and encyclopedia-like entries from the fictional guidebook itself, creating a unique reading experience that can be jarring for those unfamiliar with this style of humor.

The 2005 film adaptation starring Martin Freeman as Arthur Dent attempted to capture this distinctive tone while making the story accessible to a wider audience. While largely faithful to the source material's plot points, the film added several elements to create a more traditional narrative structure. Most notably, the relationship between Arthur and Trillian was expanded into a romantic subplot that wasn't present in the original book. The film also introduced new characters like Vice President Questular and created additional adventures like Trillian's kidnapping by Vogons to provide more conventional dramatic tension.

What's fascinating about comparing the book and film is seeing how visual media interprets Adams' abstract humor. Some concepts that work brilliantly on the page – like the infinite improbability drive or the description of how unpleasant Vogon poetry is – require creative visualization on screen. The film used a combination of practical effects, CGI, and stylized animated sequences to represent the guidebook entries, creating a distinct visual language that complemented Adams' world without being restricted by technological limitations.

Ultimately, one's preference between the book and film may come down to their relationship with British humor and science fiction in general. The book offers a more complete experience of Adams' unique voice and allows his digressions and asides to flourish without constraint. The film provides a more accessible entry point with visual spectacle and a more structured narrative, though it necessarily sacrifices some of the book's meandering charm. For newcomers to the series, the film might serve as an excellent gateway to exploring Adams' wider universe, while longtime fans may find it lacks some of the nuance that makes the books so beloved.

Whether you're a fan of the book, the film, or both, "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" remains a testament to the enduring appeal of British absurdist humor and science fiction's ability to comment on the human condition through the lens of the fantastical. Don't panic – whichever version you choose, you're in for an unforgettable journey through the cosmos.

 

Mickey7 vs. Mickey 17

The age-old debate of whether books are better than their film adaptations has found a new testing ground with Edward Ashton's "Mickey 7" and its cinematic counterpart, "Mickey 17," directed by acclaimed filmmaker Bong Joon-ho. This science fiction tale presents a fascinating case where many argue the film actually improves upon its literary source material.

At its core, both versions follow the story of Mickey Barnes, an "expendable" - a person whose job is to risk death repeatedly for the good of colonists on the ice planet Niflheim. When Mickey dies, a new version of him is created with his previous memories. The central conflict begins when one version of Mickey (Seven in the book, Seventeen in the film) survives what should have been a fatal mission, leading to the existence of two Mickeys simultaneously - something strictly forbidden in their world.

The film adaptation makes several significant changes that arguably enhance the narrative. The most obvious is in the title itself - from Mickey 7 to Mickey 17 - reflecting director Bong Joon-ho's decision to kill the protagonist ten additional times, creating more opportunities for character development and dramatic tension. Robert Pattinson's performance adds layers to the character as he portrays different versions of Mickey with subtle yet distinct personality differences, a nuance not present in the book where the two Mickeys are virtually indistinguishable from each other.

The native species of Niflheim, called "creepers," undergo a substantial transformation from page to screen. In Ashton's novel, they're somewhat ambiguous creatures who kill colonists before eventually reaching a tentative peace agreement. Bong Joon-ho reimagines them as largely peaceful beings who only resort to violence in self-defense. This shift creates a more nuanced exploration of colonialism and communication between different species, themes that Bong has explored masterfully in previous works like "Okja."

The supporting characters also receive more depth in the film adaptation. Marshall, the colony's leader, transforms from a one-dimensional authoritarian figure in the book to a more complex character played with gleeful abandon by Mark Ruffalo. The addition of Toni Collette as Marshall's manipulative wife Yifa creates another layer of political intrigue absent from the source material. Steven Yeun's portrayal of Timo (renamed from Berto in the book) continues the actor's talent for creating charismatic yet morally ambiguous characters.

What makes "Mickey 17" particularly successful as an adaptation is Bong Joon-ho's ability to maintain the philosophical core of the novel while streamlining its exposition. The book occasionally gets bogged down in technical explanations and flashbacks that interrupt narrative momentum. The film preserves the central questions about identity, sacrifice, and colonialism while presenting them in a more cinematically engaging package.

The critical and audience reception reflects this dynamic, with the film receiving strong reviews while the book, though well-regarded, hasn't achieved the same level of acclaim. This case study demonstrates that adaptation isn't simply about faithfulness to source material but about translating a story's essence to best suit a different medium. In this instance, Bong Joon-ho's visual storytelling, combined with outstanding performances from the cast, elevates "Mickey 17" beyond its literary origins, offering a rare example where the film might actually be better than the book.

 

Books vs. Movies: The Haunting

Shirley Jackson's "The Haunting of Hill House" stands as one of the most influential haunted house stories ever written, a masterpiece of psychological horror that has inspired countless adaptations. In our podcast episode, we dive deep into comparing the original novel with its 1999 film adaptation, "The Haunting," directed by Jan de Bont and starring Liam Neeson, Lili Taylor, Catherine Zeta-Jones, and Owen Wilson. What emerges is a fascinating case study in how adaptation rights and creative choices can dramatically transform source material.

The 1999 adaptation differs significantly from Jackson's novel due to interesting copyright constraints. As we discuss in the episode, the filmmakers weren't legally permitted to call their work a remake of the 1963 film "The Haunting" or even pay homage to it. This forced them to create a "new interpretation" of Jackson's novel, resulting in fundamental changes to the story. While the book presents a subtle psychological study of Eleanor Vance, a woman with a traumatic past who becomes increasingly drawn to Hill House during a paranormal investigation, the film transforms the narrative into a more conventional haunted house story with explicit supernatural elements.

One of the most striking differences lies in the characterization of Eleanor. In Jackson's novel, Eleanor is a complex, socially awkward woman who has spent years caring for her recently deceased mother. Her journey to Hill House represents her first taste of independence, and the house's apparent interest in her provides a sense of belonging she's never experienced. The book's Eleanor has a difficult relationship with her sister and brother-in-law, essentially has nowhere else to go, and gradually develops an unhealthy attachment to the house. The film, however, portrays Eleanor as having a much more supportive family and gives her a literal connection to the house by making her a descendant of its builder, Hugh Craine.

The portrayal of Hill House itself differs dramatically between novel and film. Jackson's Hill House is architecturally unsettling but ultimately recognizable as a house - its horror comes from a sense of wrongness, heaviness, and disorientation rather than outlandish features. The 1999 film takes a much more literal approach, filling the house with bizarre rooms including a carousel, a river crossing, mirror mazes, and numerous disturbing statues. This transformation from subtle psychological horror to visual spectacle exemplifies how Hollywood often trades nuance for explicit scares.

Perhaps most significantly, the film introduces elements entirely absent from the novel - particularly ghost children. In Jackson's work, there are no children involved in the haunting at all. The 1999 film makes them central to the plot, with Hugh Craine portrayed as obsessed with filling his house with children's laughter, ultimately resorting to kidnapping and murder. This addition fundamentally changes the nature of the haunting and shifts the focus away from Eleanor's psychological deterioration toward a more conventional ghost story with clear villains and victims.

Despite these significant departures from the source material, the film does make some positive changes, particularly in character relationships. In Jackson's novel, the other participants in the study are often inexplicably cruel to Eleanor, particularly Theodora. The film portrays these relationships more sympathetically, with Theodora genuinely caring about Eleanor's well being. This creates a more engaging dynamic between the characters, though the film's excessive sexualization of Theodora's character (played by Catherine Zeta-Jones) feels dated and unnecessary by today's standards.

Whether you're a fan of Shirley Jackson's masterful novel or just enjoy campy horror films, both versions of "The Haunting of Hill House" offer distinct experiences. The book remains a quintessential psychological horror story that leaves readers feeling unsettled about the house long after the final page, while the 1999 film provides more straightforward entertainment that, while not particularly faithful to its source, can still be enjoyed as a silly, fun horror movie from the era of bombastic late-90s filmmaking.

 

 

Going Clear

The documentary "Going Clear: Scientology and the Prison of Belief" and its source material, Lawrence Wright's comprehensive book, offer a shocking glimpse into one of the most controversial religious organizations in modern history. Both works meticulously dissect the Church of Scientology's origins, its Hollywood connections, and the troubling allegations that have followed it for decades.

The origins of Scientology trace back to Lafayette Ronald Hubbard (L. Ron Hubbard), a prolific science fiction writer who transformed his self-help system, Dianetics, into a full-fledged religion. Wright's book delves deeply into Hubbard's background, revealing contradictions between his claimed military heroism and actual service record. This context proves crucial for understanding how a science fiction writer created a belief system where humans are vessels for alien spirits called "Thetans," trapped on Earth after an intergalactic catastrophe millions of years ago.

The concept of "going clear" refers to the process by which Scientologists attempt to rid themselves of negative influences from past lives through "auditing" sessions. During these sessions, individuals are connected to an "E-meter" (essentially a rudimentary lie detector) while answering deeply personal questions. The organization claims this process helps members overcome trauma and unlock superhuman abilities. However, both the book and documentary suggest these sessions primarily serve to collect compromising information that can later be used against members who attempt to leave.

Scientology's infiltration of Hollywood represents one of its most successful strategies. The organization deliberately targeted celebrities through its "Celebrity Centre" in Los Angeles, understanding that star power would provide legitimacy and protection. Tom Cruise and John Travolta emerge as the most prominent Scientologist celebrities, with the documentary making explosive claims about how the church manipulated Cruise's relationships, including allegedly orchestrating his breakup with Nicole Kidman and later "auditioning" potential partners for him without their knowledge.

Perhaps most disturbing are the accounts of physical abuse, intimidation, and exploitation within the organization, particularly after David Miscavige assumed leadership following Hubbard's death. Former high-ranking members describe a culture of fear and isolation in the "Sea Org," Scientology's elite religious order, where members sign billion-year contracts and allegedly face harsh punishment for perceived infractions. The documentary highlights the "Rehabilitation Project Force," described as a prison-like re-education program for members who question authority.

Both works examine Scientology's aggressive legal tactics against critics and former members, including harassment campaigns labeled as "Fair Game." The church has consistently denied all allegations of abuse and misconduct, dismissing former members as disgruntled liars. However, the sheer number of consistent testimonies from high-ranking former officials lends credibility to these troubling accounts.

For those interested in this subject, both the book and documentary offer valuable insights, though Wright's book provides significantly more detail and context. The documentary serves as an excellent introduction, while the book delivers a more comprehensive understanding of this fascinating and disturbing organization that continues to wield considerable influence despite ongoing controversies and legal challenges.

 

Books vs. Movies: the Handmaid's Tale

The Handmaid's Tale stands as one of the most powerful dystopian novels ever written, and its adaptation to television has sparked numerous discussions about adaptation choices, visual storytelling, and the timeless warnings embedded in Margaret Atwood's original text. In this deep dive, we'll explore the key differences between the book and Hulu's acclaimed series adaptation, examining what these creative choices reveal about both mediums and how they affect the overall message.

Margaret Atwood's haunting novel presents a chilling vision of America transformed into the Republic of Gilead, a totalitarian theocracy where women are stripped of their rights and fertile women are forced to become "handmaids" – bearing children for the ruling elite. The Hulu adaptation, particularly its first season which covers the entirety of Atwood's novel, remains largely faithful to this premise while making significant changes to characters, plot elements, and the visual presentation of this dystopian world.

One of the most notable discrepancies involves the ages of key characters. In the novel, the Commander and his wife are described as significantly older, which creates an important subtext about fertility and blame - these older men may be sterile themselves, yet the blame for not conceiving falls entirely on the handmaids. The television adaptation casts younger actors like Joseph Fiennes and Yvonne Strahovski, undermining this crucial theme. This casting choice weakens one of Atwood's key social critiques about how patriarchal systems place reproductive burdens and blame exclusively on women.

The graphic depiction of violence differs substantially between the two versions. The television series notably increases the visual brutality, adding elements like Janine's eye removal as punishment and the genital mutilation of Ofglen after her same-sex relationship is discovered. While these elements aren't explicitly portrayed in the book, they represent the show's approach to making the implied horrors of Gilead visually explicit. This raises questions about adaptation choices - does making these implied threats visible strengthen the message or sensationalize the violence?

Character journeys also diverge significantly. In the TV adaptation, Moira's escape narrative is expanded, culminating in her successful flight to Canada. The novel offers no such resolution, leaving her fate at Jezebel's as a tragic commentary on how even the strongest resistors can be broken by the system. Similarly, June's relationship with Nick becomes a full-blown affair in the series, while remaining much more ambiguous in the novel. These changes reflect television's tendency to provide more concrete character arcs and emotional payoffs than literary fiction sometimes allows.

Perhaps most interestingly, both the novel and the first season of the TV series end with the same cliffhanger - Offred entering a van, uncertain if she's being rescued or arrested. However, the novel follows this with "Historical Notes" that frame Offred's story as historical testimony being studied in the future, suggesting Gilead eventually fell. The TV series, needing to continue beyond season one, couldn't incorporate this epilogue in the same way, fundamentally altering how audiences might perceive the story's ultimate message about resistance and historical memory.

Whether experiencing The Handmaid's Tale through Atwood's prose, Renee Nault's stunning graphic novel adaptation with its striking watercolor visuals, or Hulu's award-winning series, each medium brings unique strengths to this timeless warning about extremism, reproductive rights, and the fragility of democratic institutions. The differences between these adaptations don't necessarily suggest one is superior - rather, they reveal how different storytelling mediums can illuminate different aspects of the same powerful narrative.