'Beautiful Creatures' Movie: Magical Or Mundane?

The witching hour is here! With the Valentine's Day release of "Beautiful Creatures," fans of Kami Garcia and Margaret Stohl's best-selling novel are finally getting a glimpse of the authors' Southern gothic world brought to breathtaking life... albeit with a number of alterations.


Now, if you're a source-material purist, you very well may be irked by the fact that Amma and Marian were mushed into a single character portrayed by Viola Davis, or that Mitchell Wate never emerged from his room, or that "Sixteen Moons" was nowhere to be found on Ethan's iPod, or that Lena's actions during the film's climax didn't echo ancestor Genevieve's critical mistake, or that the ending, ultimately, was completely different from the book.

Obviously, a film will never be a carbon copy of the novel upon which it's based, and it's best to go into the viewing experience not expecting that to be the case. However, this particular adaptation included a lot of fundamental changes that, for me, were not always welcome. That's not to say I didn't enjoy "Beautiful Creatures" for what it was, but I would have liked a little more continuity between the original and its celluloid reproduction.

Of course, everything I've said is moot if you haven't read the YA best-seller (or aren't nearly as precious about source material as I am), but this is just my take. Now I want to hear from you! What did you think of the film? Do you care that it diverged from the book? Or does it not matter? Vote in our poll below!

Let's continue our discussion in the comments below! Tell us anything and everything you thought about "Beautiful Creatures"! Tweet us too!