Oh wait…I forgot.

A few days ago, The Huffington Post published a list of The 10 Most Anticipated Book Adaptations of 2012. What’s funny is that I’ve read most of them fairly recently, and I’ve blogged half of them.

Here’s the list:

1. Life of Pi: I tried reading it several years ago and failed. Maybe I’ll give it another try. I’ve heard it’s really good.
2. Cloud Atlas: My favorite book of 2010 – not that I read many books that year. It’s very Murakami-ish and very long. A movie version should be…interesting.
3. The Hunger Games: I read the trilogy last year and loooooved them. I’m really excited about this movie. The trailer looks good.
4. The Great Gatsby: I haven’t read it in a few years, but it’s one of my favorite novels. I’m not sure what to think about this movie because I don’t know how they can top the Robert Redford version. Also, I hear they’re shooting it in 3D, which sounds stupid.
5. Cosmopolis: Ahhh, DeLillo finally gets a book on the silver screen. Why couldn’t it be a good one? I didn’t like Cosmopolis at all.
6. The Hobbit: How can you not love The Hobbit? I just hope it’s as good as The Lord of the Rings movies.
7. The Wettest County in the World: Haven’t read it, hadn’t heard of it. No idea on this one.
8. Anna Karenina: tl;dr. I know I should. It’s been on my to-read list for quite a while. I don’t really care about the movie, though, because it’ll be like those Austen and Dickens movies I can’t stand.
9. The Perks of Being a Wallflower: The book is okay, I guess. I’ll probably see the movie once it comes out on DVD.
10. Great Expectations: See #8.

All of this means I might go to the theater a few times this year. I think I went once last year – I’m not a movie person. I’ll take a book any day. It’s just strange that I just read the novels to so many adaptations coming out this year.

If these reports are correct, Baz Luhrmann is the biggest idiot ever. Evidently, he wants to remake The Great Gatsby in 3D. Yes. The Great Gatsby. 3D. The very idea makes me want to vomit. And that’s not it: Leonardo DiCaprio, who I really dislike, is playing Gatsby. Carey Mulligan is cast as Daisy. I have no idea who she is. Tobey Maguire is also in the cast; I’m guessing he’ll be Nick.

The Guardian cites some nice Tweets: “Baz Luhrmann, I will punch you in the face so hard, I swear your great-grandchildren will still feel the pain”; “Why not Arse-O-Vision too?” – or more reverently referential: “Baz Luhrmann’s Great Gatsby Might Be 3D … The green light burns in your lap ‘Sophisticated – God, I’m sophisticated’.”

The two movies I’ve seen for which Baz Luhrmann is responsible are Romeo + Juliet and Moulin Rouge. I didn’t really mind either of them, and both were pretty to look at. Neither, of course, were 3D.

What I want to know is what value he sees in remaking a film of what is possibly The Great American Novel in 3D. First of all, I don’t see how a remake is called for. The one from the 60s with Robert Redford and Mia Farrow is perfectly good and not outdated. There is also no use for special effects in The Great Gatsby: no fancy technology, no dragons flying through the air, no dramatic age progressions, etc, etc. I also think that the audience will be limited. Sure, lots of high school students still read the novel, but I’ve never heard of one of them (English majors aside) who liked it. It’s in the same boat as The Scarlet Letter. But I could be wrong. It could be the next Avatar for all I know. Maybe Luhrmann is looking into making it into an action flick: imagine the car accident with a fancy 3D explosion! Oh whaaaaat!

I hate Luhrmann for even thinking up this idiotic idea.

Jacob and I went to see Invisible Girlfriend yesterday at Robinson Film Center. It was…interesting. Jacob loved it. I didn’t, though I think it’s reasonably good. Here are some of my issues.

1. This one’s basic: the camera was terrible. It looked like they used a camera you can buy at best buy for a couple hundred bucks. It was digital, and the quality was way too bad. It looked unprofessional.

2. They cut bits and pieces of film together very strangely. At one point, they’re not far south of Monroe around the Mississippi River for one scene, and the next, which is supposed to be a continuation of the first, is shot somewhere around the gulf where there are seagulls and cajuns. I found that distracting, but a non-Louisianian (or, at least someone who isn’t from the gulf south) might not notice. Also, the bonfire scene is an issue? Where was that shot? Looks like the stuff they do on the Levees around New Orleans – not in February.

3. The discussion after the movie was annoying. I admit, here, that I generally don’t like people in the movie industry because I had such a terrible time when I was involved in it. I think most of these people are pretentious assholes. These filmmakers seemed nicer than most, but urrgh. Also, I question some of their decisions. After the movie, they described the three possible endings to this movie, and I like the alternatives better than the one they used. There was evidently a lot more footage that could have taken the film in an entirely different direction, and I think they’d have been better off if they’d explored that more thoroughly. I’m just sayin’. Oh. ALSO, Charles, at one point, said the bicycle trip to New Orleans wasn’t even his idea – it was one of the filmmakers’ – that totally turned me off. Too much of the film was planned. It was kind of like a scripted reality show, although they swear it wasn’t scripted.

4. This is my biggest issue. I don’t like Charles, the crazy guy who is the subject of the documentary. Now, I must give the filmmakers credit: as Jacob pointed out, they didn’t exploit him for his craziness. I might have enjoyed it more if they did – I think that might be why I liked the Showbiz Pizza documentary so much. Anyway, Charles is a sleazy hick. Okay, maybe he’s not, but in my mind he is. He reminds me of two people I don’t like: a guy at LSUS who I won’t name but who is known for his ridiculous lying habit and my mother’s fourth husband (Bucket #1). I should probably devote a whole post to that, but my mom might read it and be devastated. Anyway, Charles seems sleazy and gross, and I wouldn’t want to be anywhere around him. I think this is the main thing that kept me from liking the movie, and the filmmakers can’t do anything about that. Jacob seemed to like him well enough.

So now that I’ve enumerated my issues with this film, I like it a lot less. I would say it’s good for a low-budget documentary, but I’ve seen better. Significantly better. They could have made this film so much better.

Supposedly it’s been a big hit. The theater was relatively full for something like that, but that might be just because the Robinson Film Center is awesome and always provides a good experience.

5. So here’s a fifth – related to the Robinson. This isn’t their fault, but I would have enjoyed this movie so much more if there hadn’t been two assholes in the audience laughing the whole time. Even during the parts that were not funny. At one point, I saw a lovely man in orange lean forward and tell them to shut the hell up. They were quieter after that, but after the movie I heard them bitching about him in the bathroom, saying, “We weren’t talking that much” and so forth. I almost yelled from my stall, “Yes you fucking were!” I was really annoyed. People need to behave themselves in theaters. You expect stuff like this at mainstream theaters like Tinseltown, but not at Robinson.

Update: EVERYONE I’ve talked to about this movie absolutely loved it. It appears I’m the odd one out.