f13.net

WTF?





this movie is a mess.  Deserved?

It was badly marketed. Daniel Craig was all over the trailers, but really, he wasn't in any way a main character in this one. The effects were kind of cool, but the whole attacks on the Catholic Church were so thinly veiled they might as well have just hit your over the head with the Catechism.

I've seen it twice, but have barely paid attention to it in both cases. Kind of just played in the background.

It's Gaiman right?

Anyways, it strikes me as a sort of kids adventure movie, but with too much violent for kids (even if blood is replaced with explosions of "dust").

Uhh, no (http://www.amazon.com/Materials-Trilogy-Golden-Compass-Spyglass/dp/0440238609/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1232049709&sr=8-2).

Oops. After a quick google, I mistook it for "Stardust" (which I haven't seen). I think the films came out around the same time, both had "stardust" in them, and I confused them. :roll: :wink:

Really hated the book, never bothered with the movie.  Who would give this crap to kids?

Stardust, OTOH, is awesome.

QFT, the only redeeming quality is pissing off/on the church.  After reading I just put Philip Pullman on the "don't ever let babysit my daughter list". 

Out of a mild "how can they pull this off in a PC way/do any actors ever read the source material" curiosity I watched the movie, naturally they butchered it but who would care.

I like bears in hats. I'd be fine with them having their own movie.

Bear fight was awesome. Beyond that, "meh".

And Stardust was definitely good.

The Bear fight was kind of cool... But it's an example of something pretty violent, in a movie that otherwise says something else. Whatever the book was about, or how adult, it seems like they were trying to do some kids movie here. It reminded me of Neverending Story or Narnia (in tone, I mean.. not in quality), yet it had bears mauling the shit out of each other and lots of gunfire. I can't really figure out who the audience was supposed to be.

Eva Green was pretty damn hot too. She should try doing fantasy again.. She has the perfect face for it.

I've seen Eva Green in lots of fantasies.

It was definitely made for 13 year old boys. Bears beating each other up is full of win if you are 13. Especially pet bears. Plus I'm sure Lyra is dreamy if you are 13.

I'm pretty sure I'd still go for Eva Green, even if I was 13.

Wasn't in it enough actually, but is pretty hot in the promotional materials.

(http://www.iesb.net/images/stories/posters/GC_GrvBnnr_Serafina.jpg)


Yes, yes.. I'm familiar with more enticing images.

On the film: yes, it was a mess. It really looked like the director filmed chapters out of the book with no real regard for the overall flow of the story.

The lead actor did a reasonable job with the material, but she was just cold. Nicole Kidman cold.

And speaking of Nicole Kidman: yeah, she was as solid as ever, but she's box office poison. She's an ice queen. Her role called for that, so it worked out, but she's not a sympathetic actor.

from the Kermode and Mayo  (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=1&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bbc.co.uk%2Ffivelive%2Fentertainment%2Fkermode.shtml&ei=DeNvSaW5JKH4NM7XrIsH&usg=AFQjCNFIGwphg98JGHjb4uGFWu6mTCu1OA&sig2=deuyFv2cvBMPBzAex1Jxjg)show not long ago:

someone writes in that in a ESL class they overheard two young girls talking about "Australia: Teh Moveh", starring...


Yeah.  THAT was golden.  But Golden Compass and its world is like sub-Disney fare. 

That movie would have been drastically improved by more armored Polar Bear fighting and  less everything else. Ok, maybe Serafina Pekkala flying above them for eye candy and Lee Scoresby quipping from the sidelines.

That promo pic of Eva Green looks a lot like my high school yearbook photo.

In case you need clarifying that's a bad thing. :awesome_for_real:

The books are among the best things I have read in my 38-year life as a literary nerd. I want to read them again soon.

The movie was a mess because it was re-edited by the studio, who were terrified of the Christians. Nicole Kidman's character is supposed to be an agent of the Catholic Church, which is the evil organisation of the books. I would love to see a Director's Cut.

You could see the studio's re-edit in some disjointed scenes - for example, the random ice bridge thing that was turned into a "bridge collapses as they cross and they barely make it" Indiana Jones stunt, was actually meant to be a very special bridge to a location that was left out of the re-edited movie.

The visual representations were very faithful to the book. The storyline was FUBARed. Bizarrely, the movie ended a few chapters before the end of the first book, and this showed. Again, they were too scared of the Christians to include the real ending, which involves a key adult character killing a key child character to do something with his soul.

And now for something completely different!*

So, really not worth seeing? I as thinking about checking it out but this feeling was dampened by a strong aversion to yet more Magical British Children.





*Wedge this in between post 16 and 17
Yet more is something that starts to sound very strange if you say it enough.

Read the books instead. The only thing I got out of the film was moving pictures of the characters and locations, clearly created by a fellow fan. But they went nowhere with it.

Wtf? Were you peter pan in a play or something?

Or LARPer.

Apparently: (http://www.emotty.com/images/emoticons/601.png)

You've been cockblocked.

I think technically he was  :awesome_for_real:-blocked.

I'll same you some time.

Lolwut?

His spoiler for the books, while a definite spoiler, is like saying The Lord of the Rings amounts to "midget melts gold to stop war". There's a bit more to it.

My wife loved the books, was disappointed in the film.

Also: Sam Elliot was awesome, as usual.

If that had just been written on the back cover of The Fellowship of the Ring it could have saved me many hours of tedious reading.

But yeah, this film is yet another example, in a ridiculously long list, of a film adaptation completely removing and/or missing the entire point of the source material. American movies, making the world dumber one blockbuster at a time.

I meant more in the face and hair than the outfit.

And with abs, right?  :wink:

But, Tale, one line reviews are awesome! 

I can't watch anything with Nicole Kidman in it. She annoys me on some sort of primal level. Same as Nicholas Cage.

I like Cage, but I see how he can annoy some people. Kidman I don't understand. She's pretty subdued. Overrated at worst.

Odd, I find myself strangely mesmerised by Nicole Kidman, to the point where I become unable to listen to the dialogue or notice anyone else in any films she's in. I still have no idea if Eyes Wide Shut is any good or not, despite having watched it three times.

I actually enjoyed the movie and it made me want to read the books. It wasn't super awesome but was well worth seeing I thought.

Definitely recommend the books, they're excellent.

OK I've decided. It's shit. Really bad. At first I wasn't sure if I was missing something in it or not, but I wasn't, it's hamfisted, badly acted, shallow, unsubtle, unpleasant and boring. And the repeated use of blue/orange crosslighting is intensely annoying and painfully overdone. And Nicole Kidman is rubbish in it, really.

I should probably have made another thread for this but I didn't think it deserved it.

The books are in my top five favorite stories.  The movie was shit. 

Sorry, I was necroing this thread to talk about Eyes Wide Shut. I'm a bad person, I know  :grin:

Many people I've talked to who have read the book and seen the movie like one in roughly inverse proportion to how much they like the other.