Spoiler Alert: this is meant for people who have already read A Good Girl's Guide to Murder, Harry Potter, and The Hunger Games. Please be aware that if you haven't, you will spoil the ending (and possibly be totally lost.)

The age old debate, the book or the movie? Most writers and avid readers would say the book. This could just be because the original version is always the basis, and because you probably already pictured the story in your head. That said, let's get into it, because after reading these reviews, you might change your mind!

Take the Quiz: Which "The Summer I Turned Pretty" character are you most like?

Find out which character from the hit show "The Summer I Turned Pretty" is your personality twin!

1. A Good Girl's Guide to Murder- 3/5

There are good and bad things about this one. I guess my main issue with this is that it simply cannot live up to the book- it's impossible. Without my prior knowledge, I would have enjoyed it a lot more. That said, Emma Myers is a very skilled actress, and for the most part we are able to care about show Pip very much, if in a different way than book Pip.

However, the show butchered so much of the fandom's favorite things that it felt like a whole new story.

Mainly, it just messed up the characters and relationships.

• First, Ravi- who cried multiple times during the book and was much more emotionally capable and colorful than Pip seemed.. completely dead inside. Which makes sense, and could happen due to grief. But it's just not what happened, and it doesn't fit with his personality. He was much more outgoing and likable in the book, and had a different response to his trauma. Furthermore, the scene where he leaves her? Ravi has severe attachment issues and loneliness after losing Sal and being ostracized, and immediately found himself incredibly attached to Pip. This is VITAL to the storyline. He never would have moved away. (Not that this would be wrong, plenty of people would leave town, but because once again, the show disregarded Ravi's trauma.)
• The romance. The whole scene in which Ravi got angry at Pip just seemed pointless, because their romance was never the focus of the book but rather just helped drive the story- his job was to support her when she couldn't support herself, and they were a team. Turning their relationship into a conflict or a major plot point shifted focus off their investigation, and at this point, a hopeless cliche. Plus, a big flaw of Ravi's was his fear of confrontations and fights? Also, some of the iconic lines and scenes were just... gone. Their romance developed out of their proximity to the case- NOT VISE VERSA.
• Pip, on the other hand, lacks a lot of her intelligence. Like many adaptions, rather than showing her investigative work, they just had random people give her the answers. Plus, her hilarious social anxiety and awkwardness
• Becca was NOT a villian in the book. She was sick, and extremely messed up, and did some insane things, but she was not cold-blooded. She cared deeply, and likely had some kind of mental disorder following the abuse she and Andie suffered. She also never wanted to kill Pip and couldn't bring herself to in the end. Why would the show make her some cliche, heartless villain?

However, it got some things really right.

• Asha Bank's portrayal of Cara, though? Spot on. Not kidding, she was so much more involved and colorful than book Cara, really her own separate character instead of a sidekick.
• Actually showing Sal and Andie's doomed romance was amazing and bittersweet and really broke the hearts of everyone watching. The way where they were probably waiting for each other, and both ended up dead? Heart-breaking.

2. The Harry Potter Series- 5/5

This one is probably the best adaption I have ever seen, almost equal to the books (the key word is almost!!). Apart from Ron and maybe Ginny (which I'll get to later), the characters and important points of the book remained, and were simply showed in a different format. This is the epitome of keeping the essence of a book while making it better, and it even was better than the book at parts, because of it's ability to better do what the book attempted- immerse readers in a reality-adjacent, but whimsical and unique, world.

Readers visualize the oddity of the Wizard universe, the little cultural aspects, it almost felt like being transported to another country. Emma Watson, meanwhile, is a phenomenal actress and I found myself immediately drawn to Hermione, empathizing with her and understanding her much faster than in the books. It also was great at keeping the funny, random moments: Harry Potter is not a sad book, but an entire culture and universe, with silly mistakes, dumb fights, and everything else.

The series did, however, butcher Ron a little bit in the later parts of the series. While the friendship between Harry and Ron was still pretty strong and significant during the films, many of Ron's best moments were given to Hermione (perhaps because of her acting skills?) That said, I'm sure Rupert would have been great in those scenes as well. The series also could have better portrayed the Cho-Harry romance during the Order of the Phionex- not because anybody liked them, but because it explains a lot about Harry's trauma response and mentality.

The biggest criticism I have seen of the series is the portrayal of Ginny, but this is one I disagree with. Ginny was not at all involved in the series until the last two books, where they immediately start dating. While both versions did a pretty good job developing the romance, there simply wasn't enough time to develop her character.

The films chose not to spend too much time on it, having readers just accept that Harry loves her and that's that, but the books instead chose to suddenly inject Ginny with every cliche girl-power trope known to womankind. Apparently Ginny is gorgeous yet unconcerned with appearance, sporty, popular but fairly rude/blunt, BUT a total sweetheart to people who are important to the books, friends with all the good guys, and is never criticized or flawed. Sure, the portrayal could have been better, but I was pretty thankful I didn't have to watch a perfectly normal, sweet girl become superwoman over the course of a couple chapters.

3. The Hunger Games Original Trilogy- 2/5

I didn't want to finish this series, if I'm being honest. It had this tendency to ignore the whole point of the Hunger Games. That said, the acting?

Absolutely INCREDIBLE- but for the wrong film. The Hunger Games was emotional, but not explicitly. All the emotion was implicit, a side effect of the horror of the games, a sort of almost manic desperation that you could feel only when the lights went out, in the atmosphere. The Hunger Games, while classified as dystopian, might better be categorized as horror, a portrayal of senseless violence and constant cruelty in a world where grief is suspended in midair, unreachable. Katniss cannot feel her emotions, nobody can in that hellhole, where the only goal is to survive another day. So why was the movie so focused on being emotional and poignant, of developing a love that Katniss is almost unable to feel, of showing relationships that Katniss knows she can't afford to get too attached to? The Hunger Games is an objectively fantastic book series, written exactly right for it's purpose.

If the Hunger Games wanted to be better, it wouldn't have focused so much of the fear and sadness. It would have focused on the war, on the bodies, on the inevitable fact that the people in the Hunger Games, and everywhere else, had given up, succumbed to the greed and power-hunger of those in the Capital.

Remember, all opinions are subjective! Just because I felt a certain way about something doesn't mean you should! However, film is a form of a art, and book adaptions are a particularly challenging type, so it's important to critique and discuss how to be better in the future.

Maybe you have a different favorite adaption. Maybe you hated one I liked. Let me know what you think in the comments!