PS I Love You: Book vs Film

I saw the film a while ago and was aware of one massive thing that had been altered in the book to film conversion - the location. I was told that the book is set in Ireland and yet the film has been relocated over the ocean to New York. What I didn't realise is that this is not the only thing that has been altered.

PS I Love You was Cecelia Ahern's debut book and became a bestseller pretty quickly. The plot revolves around Holly, who has been widowed at the tender age of 30 and without husband Gerry is lost and doesn't know how to move on. Then she learns that while Gerry lay dying, he thought to write her notes - one for every month for the rest of the year - and each note is going to guide her forward.

This concept is what was taken over to the film and all the incidentals around that seem to have been lost. Holly and Gerry remain the same. Gerry, played by Scotsman Gerard Butler, is Irish (terrible accent though sorry Gez!) and Holly, played by Hilary Swank, has two best friends called Sharon (Gina Gershon) and Denise (Lisa Kudrow). Her cooky younger sister Ciara and mum are in it too and there is a barman called Daniel... and that's it.

For the film adaption, characters were cut or merged into new people and large chunks of the plot are completely altered or created from scratch. Holly's poor dad and THREE brothers are all ditched, possibly in an attempt to make the film more girly. They play a massive part in the book as Holly is a family girl and has them around her often, even against her wishes! In the film, she sees her mum more out of obligation than anything.

The little nuances of the book are still there - the bedside lamp that forces them to get out of bed on a cold night and walk back in pitch black, the passionate rows, the new job tradition that only they know about and the idea that this is a relationship so tightly wound that he has been her reason for existing for so long and now she doesn't know how to be without him.

The book examines Holly's constant battle with depression, loneliness and the uphill battle to keep up appearances and not be a total downer with her friends as their lives just seem to get better and better. The film deals with a more external battle and the moments where Holly gets really overwhelmed and emotional are much fewer and far between, meaning that they have more effect than in the book where she seems to be forever crying or worrying or over-thinking something.

This is one of the rare book to film conversions where I would say the two have very little to do with each other and should not be looked at as a comparison. Instead they should be viewed as two completely different mediums that took an original concept and went with it. The original concept remains in tact - the letters from a lost love guiding you through the haze of the aftermath of their death - but the incidentals, the concurrent storylines, even the characters are largely altered and are so far in many cases from the original they don't even warrant a comparison. The supporting cast in the film are a mixed bag but all interesting enough with the likes of Kudrow, Gershon, Kathy Bates, Harry Connick Jnr, James Marsters and Jeffrey Dean Morgan.

Much like One Day, the book was well written and interesting - but dragged on for too long. The film was trimmed and the result was a punchier, easier to digest, more compact version of the same topic. The idea is a brilliant one but even brilliant ideas can be laboured.

So, bizarrely - even though the film made a God-awful attempt at converting the book onto the big screen, I preferred it to the book. It lacked the longevity which made the book drag and achieved more of a balance between heartbreak and laughter.

Book - 3/5 FOBLES
Film - 3.5/5 FOBLES

Misery: Book vs Film

It is rare to find an actor so good that when they are the only thing on screen you want to stick around for two hours just to see what they do. Tom Hanks managed it, Will Smith not so much... Misery certainly managed it as 99% of the entire film revolves around only two people and their relationship. It's compelling and creepy because of two things - its plot and its two main actors.

Firstly, Kathy Bates and James Caan are incredible! Secondly, Stephen King is a master story-WRITER (in joke for those who have read the book!) if not THE master so any plot conceived and made by him is a great place to start.

Bates plays Annie, an ex-nurse who lives in the middle of a remote US town far away from her neighbours and other townspeople when she stumbles across an overturned car in a snowstorm. As she pulls the dying man from the wreckage, she is shocked to discover that it is none other than her all time favourite author Paul Sheldon, writer of her favourite book series ever - the Misery books.

So nice Annie takes Paul in to her home to look after him right? WRONG! She takes him home and gives him pain killers and feeds him and changes him. But she isn't nice - she's psychotic! And as Paul starts to recuperate he quickly realises his "saviour" has a temper and he had better keep on the right side of it.
The plot develops at a relatively quick pace as Annie asks permission to read the latest Misery book Paul was carrying with him when he had the accident - only to discover that he has done the unthinkable and killed Misery off. Furious, she forces him to write her return and Paul soon discovers his own form of escape in the 19th century world of his most lucrative creation.

The thing to realise about this film is that Paul is in an impossible position. His legs are so badly broken from the crash that he has no choice but to stay where he is - in the spare bedroom at Annie's house looking at those same four walls. And as time goes on and there seems to be no sign of somebody trying to track him down, he resigns himself to his situation. But Annie is volatile and she doesn't like to be told no which makes Paul the victim of her horrific bursts of rage with one scene particular nasty where she decides she can't have him heal and restores him to his former crippled self. And as Paul quickly learns, Annie may well be crazy - but she is not stupid. The language she comes out with is priceless and King manages to make phrases like "you dirty bird" menacing simply by making Annie say them.

Paul's frustration and Annie's mental instability make for a fascinating relationship as the film develops with a dramatic ending that doesn't disappoint.


Now as for the book, which I have just finished, holy crap! I am a massive Stephen King fan and have read many of his dark and twisted novels and thoroughly enjoyed them... but even this (sorry Stephen!) may have been too much for me. The "hobbling" scene as it is often reffered to makes the film version look like something out of Cbeebies by comparison and was so detailed in its graphic horror that I think I may have forgotten to breathe for a few seconds. And it isn't just that scene, there are quite a few parts in the book that were jaw-droppingly horrific. It's like watching a nasty car accident. You don't want to look, you know you shouldn't, it's just going to get worse - but something compels you to keep on...

Overall, the film sticks very well to the plot of the book so it certainly falls into the good King book to film conversions (there are many bad ones!) What the book has, however, that the film doesn't have is time. The book really manages to explore the sheer length of time Paul Sheldon is stuck in that bed, wholly dependant on Annie - his saviour/captor. And the further into the book you get, the crazier Paul gets. The writer in him starts to imagine scenarios that aren't actually happening, starts to plan lavish ways he could escape or what was going on in the outside world he has for so long been cut off from. The imprints on the ceiling start to take shapes, the calendar on the wall, forever on February, makes for the longest month of his life. And when you realise that he is there for months not weeks you feel his frustration and his anger and his fall into madness. The chapters in the book are also broken up into different lengths - with some less than a page to show Paul slipping in and out of consciousness from the pain and the drugs.

The film just doesn't manage to pull that descent into madness off, and keeps Paul relatively sane right up to the end.

So overall, I really couldn't tell you which is better. If you are more faint-hearted perhaps just stick to the film but if you think you can handle it, the book is a disturbing masterpiece.

Both would get a 4 out 5 FOBLES.

I'd say enjoy but.... well you know.

LE xx