I thought this was OK, wasn't terrible, but wasn't amazing.

 

Some of the effects were good, but some of the scripting was terrible, and in parts the film just seemed so free-flowing and it didn't really seem right. :lol:

I love Pullman's books, I thoroughly DETEST this film.... :angry:

 

More unctious American garbage p***ing on a great BRITISH author.... So much of the book hacked out, many important, integral elements either dumbed down or missed out completely in the obsession to churn out a film that's under two hours... What a bleedin' insult, as if Pullman's typical readers have the attention spans of braindead goldfish... :angry: . This excellent series of books has been given nothing like the respect given to Tolkien or Rowling, and that is just utterly detestable IMO....

 

In the hands of someone like Peter Jackson, Ang Lee or, heck, Steven Spielberg , this would have been an absolutely marvellous film, but nope, they give it to the sodding producer of "American Pie 2" and "American Wedding"..... :lol: :lol: :lol: Good one......NOT!!!!!

 

2/10, what should have been one of the best films of the year has turned out to be one of the absolute worst.....

 

Still, not quite as sh!t as "The Seeker, The Dark Is Rising"......

 

Totally disagree - ok, there's a lot of the book missed out and I for one would've been more than happy to have had a 3 hour movie by Peter Jackson instead of a choppy 2 hour one by a cruddy US director who has about as much understanding of the book as Simon Cowell does about great music.... BUT... as a movie, it stood up well, I thought.

 

As much as I think Kidman has delivered dreadful performances after her stunning To Die For and can't act her way out of a paper bag - I liked her in this movie. OK, she is totally far removed from Pullman's dark, exotic, mysterious character in the book - but she looked mesmerising and acted well.

 

Daniel Craig is great as James Bond.... but I've yet to see him in anything else where I've been impressed - he's a dreadful, haughty luvvie whose screen time in Golden Compass is thankfully short - again, he's been miscast.

 

I don't think the film is right for America - it's too intelligent for the kiddie audiences there - and I don't think the books did too well in the States, either, hence the adults not getting it either. But just because it's done poorly in one country - it seems to be doing great business everywhere else, so why on earth would this scupper a sequel? There'll be a sequel...and another. Without a doubt.

 

America needs to catch up - far from leading the cinematic world, these days, they trail it. Their only inspiration is insipid remakes of established classics, dumbed-down CGI-laden action movies or revolting teen tripe.... thank God France, Germany, Japan, Britain, Denmark and Australia still produce, on the whole, real quality cinema, without the pressure for oodles of CGI, budgets budgets budgets and big names to gloss over the fact the story, in the first place, just aint good enough....

 

7 and a half out of 10 (and the Kate Bush end credits song Lyra is simply gorgeous, too)

Totally disagree - ok, there's a lot of the book missed out and I for one would've been more than happy to have had a 3 hour movie by Peter Jackson instead of a choppy 2 hour one by a cruddy US director who has about as much understanding of the book as Simon Cowell does about great music.... BUT... as a movie, it stood up well, I thought.

 

As much as I think Kidman has delivered dreadful performances after her stunning To Die For and can't act her way out of a paper bag - I liked her in this movie. OK, she is totally far removed from Pullman's dark, exotic, mysterious character in the book - but she looked mesmerising and acted well.

 

Daniel Craig is great as James Bond.... but I've yet to see him in anything else where I've been impressed - he's a dreadful, haughty luvvie whose screen time in Golden Compass is thankfully short - again, he's been miscast.

 

I don't think the film is right for America - it's too intelligent for the kiddie audiences there - and I don't think the books did too well in the States, either, hence the adults not getting it either. But just because it's done poorly in one country - it seems to be doing great business everywhere else, so why on earth would this scupper a sequel? There'll be a sequel...and another. Without a doubt.

 

America needs to catch up - far from leading the cinematic world, these days, they trail it. Their only inspiration is insipid remakes of established classics, dumbed-down CGI-laden action movies or revolting teen tripe.... thank God France, Germany, Japan, Britain, Denmark and Australia still produce, on the whole, real quality cinema, without the pressure for oodles of CGI, budgets budgets budgets and big names to gloss over the fact the story, in the first place, just aint good enough....

 

7 and a half out of 10 (and the Kate Bush end credits song Lyra is simply gorgeous, too)

 

I object mainly to the lack of respect offered to Pullman's works, I would argue that the "His Dark Materials" books are far better as literature than Harry sodding Potter and those seem to be treated like they were bloody GOSPEL; and Pullman's work is definitely on a par with Tolkien, and deserve the respect and the marvellous attention to detail and, well, actual LOVE that Jackson showed to LOTR... This is just cruddy commercial fodder made for the US teen market by comparison... Compare this to "Stardust", which was certainly given a lot more respect...

 

CGI is certainly overused, but when used properly, can be incredibly effective, eg the LOTR films where the CGI was used in a way to bring the books to life and not used just for the sake of it. LOTR was magnificent cinematic spectacle, this is just an empty vessel by comparison....

 

Totally agree on your assessment of US cinema in general, but sometimes you do get pretty wonderful films sneaking their way out the studio system - the extremely artful "Assassination of Jesse James" being one such example, and the utter mindfukk that was "Inland Empire" being another....

 

I don't think the film is right for America - it's too intelligent for the kiddie audiences there - and I don't think the books did too well in the States, either, hence the adults not getting it either. But just because it's done poorly in one country - it seems to be doing great business everywhere else, so why on earth would this scupper a sequel? There'll be a sequel...and another. Without a doubt.

 

America needs to catch up - far from leading the cinematic world, these days, they trail it. Their only inspiration is insipid remakes of established classics, dumbed-down CGI-laden action movies or revolting teen tripe.... thank God France, Germany, Japan, Britain, Denmark and Australia still produce, on the whole, real quality cinema, without the pressure for oodles of CGI, budgets budgets budgets and big names to gloss over the fact the story, in the first place, just aint good enough....

Totally agree on your assessment of US cinema in general, but sometimes you do get pretty wonderful films sneaking their way out the studio system - the extremely artful "Assassination of Jesse James" being one such example, and the utter mindfukk that was "Inland Empire" being another....

 

I disagree on the comment on American cinema vs the rest of the world, as it is such a global product / system you cant state that America just produces sub-standard product as in many cases the world bo and those auds are just as important to the process of development and many films are a co-production so you dont know where the imputs coming from. for example this big bollywood film [ beloved ] staring salman khan is from sony !!!

 

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1081/1396911378_082d1427e7_o.jpg

 

and you should not be thanking France, Germany, Japan, Britain, Denmark and Australia etc for quality pictures, you should be thanking soda, thinkfilm, revolver, tarten, curzon artificial eye, ifc, momentum etc etc

for shifting out all the c**p.

 

http://www.primissima.it/uploads/film/wi.jpg

 

for example this was highest new entry @ #8 in the world bo, nov 30 - dec 2 from just one market territory - italy, so obv its not gonna all be cinema paradiso and the consequences of love

 

http://www.sofacinema.co.uk/guardian/images/products/7/43367-large.jpg

 

all you have to do is get a copy of screen int's cannes buyers guide and then you realize that these countries produce as much c**p as they do quality, stuff that never gets to screen over here and its just a good job we have buyers at these indie film distributors that are picking up intersting films and trying them to get many screens on the circuit to put them on so we can see them

and you should not be thanking France, Germany, Japan, Britain, Denmark and Australia etc for quality pictures, you should be thanking soda, thinkfilm, revolver, tarten, curzon artificial eye, ifc, momentum etc etc

for shifting out all the c**p.

 

Well, it's a pity that someone doesn't do the same sort of "quality control" for Hollywood product then innit...? So then we wouldn't have to wade through insufferable sh!te like "Shrooms", "American Pie 27" (or whatever number we're up to now...) and all these lousy remakes and sub-standard sequels... The VAST majority of Hollywood product is fit only for going straight-to-dvd or cable..... And I've often found that the worst of the European or Asian films tend to be the ones that try to ape the Hollywood commercial aesthetic, and many of the best Hollywood films this year seem to be made by non-US directors - "Bourne Ultimatum" (Paul Greengrass - British), Assassination of Jesse James (Andrew Dominik - New Zealand), "Eastern Promises" (David Cronenberg - Canadian)....

I would disagree that the best Hollywood films of the year have all been non-US directors. Ratatouille (Brad Bird), Knocked Up (Jude Apatow), and Sweeney Todd (Tim Burton) have all been critically acclaimed and all from US directors.

I would disagree that the best Hollywood films of the year have all been non-US directors. Ratatouille (Brad Bird), Knocked Up (Jude Apatow), and Sweeney Todd (Tim Burton) have all been critically acclaimed and all from US directors.

 

"Sweeney Todd" doesn't get a release date in UK until the end of January 2008, so I dont include it within the context of films of 2007, but I dont doubt it's good... "Ratatouille" is a good film, but it's not really the vision of one particular director or film-maker, DOZENS of animators are just as involved in the creative process, so it is very much a collaborative process, as all animated films are... And, as for "Knocked Up", well, it's okay, but nothing special IMHO....

 

"Sweeney Todd" doesn't get a release date in UK until the end of January 2008, so I dont include it within the context of films of 2007, but I dont doubt it's good... "Ratatouille" is a good film, but it's not really the vision of one particular director or film-maker, DOZENS of animators are just as involved in the creative process, so it is very much a collaborative process, as all animated films are... And, as for "Knocked Up", well, it's okay, but nothing special IMHO....

 

Ah, alrighty, I thought it was being released 2007 everywhere.

 

Still, what movies are good and bad are really all up to the viewer. Like you said, Knocked Up was just okay in your opinion, but there are people out there who loved it (hence its rating on sites like Metacritic and Rottentomatoes - and I agree, it wasn't really that special, just an example really). Even with Ratatouille being a bit of a collaborative process, it was still tied together by the American director who was probably working with mostly American animators.

 

I'm not saying that the movies your listed are bad. I just feel that while America releases a lot of c**p films, it releases extremely good ones as well. There are tons of great indie flicks I didn't list as well.

 

And on the topic of the Golden Compass, I still really think it was quite a good movie tbh. I'm saddened it's doing so poorly, but it stands alone well enough for me.

Is this any good?

I've sorta read The Sublte Knife :)

i saw this yesterday and enjoyed the film. maybe that's because i haven't read the books?...i'm thinking about picking up the books now & giving them a read.

I saw this today and thought it was pretty good. I have heard how bad it is in comparison with the book, so I will read the book soon and re-evaluate the film.

I saw this today and thought it was pretty good. I have heard how bad it is in comparison with the book, so I will read the book soon and re-evaluate the film.

Watched it tonight also. Seemed excellent!

 

If reading the book puts you off the film, then why read the book?

Edited December 25, 200717 yr by e-motion

And I've often found that the worst of the European or Asian films tend to be the ones that try to ape the Hollywood commercial aesthetic, and many of the best Hollywood films this year seem to be made by non-US directors - "Bourne Ultimatum" (Paul Greengrass - British), Assassination of Jesse James (Andrew Dominik - New Zealand), "Eastern Promises" (David Cronenberg - Canadian)....

 

and that last one being a BBC drama project that was so good it was re-developed into a film!!!

 

"Sweeney Todd" doesn't get a release date in UK until the end of January 2008, so I dont include it within the context of films of 2007, but I dont doubt it's good...

Ah, alrighty, I thought it was being released 2007 everywhere.

 

well thats always a problem when doing a best of a year type thing on a site like this which can be accessed internationally and doesnt really have a set 'style book' of rules, for example do we just take the British view and the release dates in the UK or is when the film out in its home market the date we set it as being (esp. when some films from the USA, Hong Kong, India wherever, can go round the festival circuit and distribs for like 2 years and then come out for a week on a grand total of 6 screens in the uk.

 

And, as for "Knocked Up", well, it's okay, but nothing special IMHO....

Still, what movies are good and bad are really all up to the viewer. Like you said, Knocked Up was just okay in your opinion, but there are people out there who loved it (hence its rating on sites like Metacritic and Rottentomatoes - and I agree, it wasn't really that special, just an example really).

 

well yeah to some extent it depends on the viewer (and factors like whether the like that genre, star involved, what they have seen recently, they are in a good mood, bad mood or very very drunk) but also the film as a poorly made film wont have much going for it and generally critically many films score about the same over many different mags and [quality] newspapers (apart from the indie - where only v arty new things get more than 3 stars :lol: )

 

but as for Knocked Up, i thought it was alright, but ultimately disappointed by it as the hype machine had it as something much much more, something you would die laughing to and tbh as films go think i'd rather watch Enchanted or, (for the XXXth time Sideways again or find a copy of Zyzzyx Road to watch!!!!

 

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/42/ZyzzyxRoad.jpg

 

Even with Ratatouille being a bit of a collaborative process, it was still tied together by the American director who was probably working with mostly American animators.

 

Well tbh Ratatouille could be one of the worst examples to have brought up here to the witness stand for the jury to question :lol: - Brad Bird had to be brought in later as there were loads of production difficulties with the project under the watch of the Czech-British director Jan Pinkava who started it off.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/305256.stm

 

as for animators they could be anywhere (hopefully cheap!!! :lol: ) as for eg TMNT was actually done in Hong Kong

If reading the book puts you off the film, then why read the book?

 

With all due respect, that is a really stupid statement, which is surprising because usually you come up with such good, well thought out arguements... For a start, the film would not even exist without the book, and in the second place you are making excuses for extremely BAD, second rate film adaptations of very good source material... Dont you think that both fans of the books AND cinema audiences actually deserve a bit better than some two-bit fukkin' HACK coming along and basically gutting and dumbing-down all the greatness out of a good body of work....? Because I happen to believe that people who are paying good money for this sh!t DO deserve better than this.....

 

This is quite simply the worst film adaption since the god awful Ron-Howard-fukked-up "Da Vinci Code".....

well thats always a problem when doing a best of a year type thing on a site like this which can be accessed internationally and doesnt really have a set 'style book' of rules, for example do we just take the British view and the release dates in the UK or is when the film out in its home market the date we set it as being (esp. when some films from the USA, Hong Kong, India wherever, can go round the festival circuit and distribs for like 2 years and then come out for a week on a grand total of 6 screens in the uk.

 

I take the view that Buzzjack is a UK-based website, with predominately UK-based posters, therefore I feel that it is reasonable to look at things in terms of UK cinema release dates....

With all due respect, that is a really stupid statement, which is surprising because usually you come up with such good, well thought out arguements... For a start, the film would not even exist without the book, and in the second place you are making excuses for extremely BAD, second rate film adaptations of very good source material... Dont you think that both fans of the books AND cinema audiences actually deserve a bit better than some two-bit fukkin' HACK coming along and basically gutting and dumbing-down all the greatness out of a good body of work....? Because I happen to believe that people who are paying good money for this sh!t DO deserve better than this.....

 

This is quite simply the worst film adaption since the god awful Ron-Howard-fukked-up "Da Vinci Code".....

Yes, admitably that was quite dumb of me!

 

What I meant is having watched the film, is it sensible to now read the book?

You might think the film is second rate, but having just watched the film(without the influence of the apparently poor books adaption) it is quite possibly film of the year, even if it's not true to the book.

The women next to me in the cinema whom I spoke to at the end of the film said she watched the film because she had read all three of the books and thought the film was also excellent. I guess not all may agree.

 

Would you recommend reading the first book?

In some way I've read that the film is anti-religious. Is the book(s) like this also? More so or maybe less?

 

 

edit: found that answer to that question. http://www.theopencritic.com/?p=21

Edited December 28, 200717 yr by e-motion

I still need to see this film it looks really good.

I'm looking forward to watch this movie even though I have busy schedule.

Would you recommend reading the first book?

 

definitely... it's one of the best books ever written IMO.