|
Originally Posted by FunkDaddy J
I just read this article from Mark Morford, a San Francisco Chronicle columnist I love to read.
"Jesus Loves 'His Dark Materials'" ... It goes like this: If your ancient, authoritarian, immutable belief system is truly threatened by a handful of popular novels, if your ostensibly all-powerful, unyielding creed is rendered meek and defenseless when faced with the story of a fiery, rebellious young girl who effortlessly rejects your stiff misogynistic religiosity in favor of adventure, love, sex, the ability to discover and define her soul on her own terms, well, it might be time for you to roll it all up and shut it all down and crawl back home, and let the divine breathe and move and dance as she sees fit. Don't you agree? It's so funny when the don't let your kids be exposed to unreligious ideas type folks get agitated over something. Or in the words of Kevin Smith with the protests over Dogma - "It's a movie with a f---ing rubber poop monster in it," Lighten up people. Focus on keeping your kids from REALLY doing things they shouldn't. Like maybe their online video game playing. So I wouldn't have to listen to your kids calling me a f***king f** on Xbox live all night. |
Originally Posted by Joe Molotov
Golden Compass: Please increase it's Rotten Tomatoes ranking by not making a crappy movie!
|
The U.S. Catholic Bishops say the film is O.K. - good, even.
http://www.kansascity.com/entertainm...ry/392412.html Posted on Thu, Dec. 06, 2007 10:15 PM Catholic bishops give thumbs-up to ‘Golden Compass’ By ROBERT W. BUTLER The Kansas City Star “The Golden Compass” — and Philip Pullman’s His Dark Materials trilogy of novels on which it is based — has been criticized in some quarters for being anti-religious and specifically anti-Catholic. But the U.S. Conference of Bishops recently issued its official review of the film, and it’s a rave. Writing for the Catholic News Service (catholicnews .com), critics Harry Forbes and John Mulderig call the movie “lavish, well-acted and fast-paced.” “The good news,” they write, “is that the first book’s explicit references to this church have been completely excised, with only the term Magisterium retained. “The choice is still a bit unfortunate, however, as the word refers so specifically to the church’s teaching authority. “Yet the film’s only clue that the Magisterium is a religious body comes in the form of the icons which decorate one of their local headquarters. “Most moviegoers with no foreknowledge of the books or Pullman’s personal belief system will scarcely be aware of religious connotations, and can approach the movie as a pure fantasy-adventure. This is not the blatant real-world anti-Catholicism of, say, the recent ‘Elizabeth: The Golden Age’ or ‘The Da Vinci Code.’ Religious elements, as such, are practically nil.” While noting that “Pullman’s fanciful universe has a patchwork feel, with elements culled from other fantasy-adventure stories — most especially The Chronicles of Narnia (a work Pullman disdains),” the review goes on to say that the film has “hardly a dull moment.” Whatever Pullman’s motives in writing the story, the film “can be viewed as an exciting adventure story with, at its core, a traditional struggle between good and evil and a generalized rejection of authoritarianism,” the review says. “To the extent that Lyra” — the movie’s young heroine — “and her allies are taking a stand on behalf of free will in opposition to the coercive force of the Magisterium, they are of course acting entirely in harmony with Catholic teaching. The heroism and self-sacrifice that they demonstrate provide appropriate moral lessons … “Is Pullman trying to undermine anyone’s belief in God? Leaving the books aside and focusing on what has ended up on screen, the script can reasonably be interpreted in the broadest sense as an appeal against the abuse of political power.” Addressing the question of whether the film may inspire teens to read all three books, the writers suggest that “rather than banning the movie or books, parents might instead take the opportunity to talk through any thorny philosophical issues with their teens.” The religious themes of the later books may be more prominent in the follow-up films, they note, but for now “this film — altered, as it is, from its source material — rates as intelligent and well-crafted entertainment.” |
Clearly the Bishops didn't get the email. -ohbfrank-
|
I've never seen a 4 star review from Ebert that I hated, so I'm definitely checking this out.
|
Just got back from seeing it and I *LOVED* it. It moved along at a nice clip. The special effects were beautiful. As was Nicole Kidman. And Dakota Blue Richards was spectacular. I cannot believe this was her first movie. Whoever picked her deserves a raise and promotion.
|
Does Ebert just throw out 4-star reviews on a whim, now that he knows he's about to kick the bucket? He's probably given twice as many this year as any other year I've read him, or at least it feels like it.
|
Originally Posted by hardercore
Does Ebert just throw out 4-star reviews on a whim, now that he knows he's about to kick the bucket? He's probably given twice as many this year as any other year I've read him, or at least it feels like it.
BY ROGER EBERT FILM CRITIC / October 26, 2007 Q. It seems that your reviews since your return from illness are "nicer." Are you viewing life and films differently now? I can't remember ever seeing so many three- to four-star reviews from you, week after week, as I have in the past few months. Or do you think that movies are just getting better? What has changed, you or the quality of the films? Garry Hasara, Tampa, Fla. A. Maybe I'm just so happy to be writing reviews. Or maybe several other factors are at work: (1) Oscar season began in September, and autumn movies are traditionally superior to those of other seasons, (2) I no longer automatically review virtually every movie released and so tend to choose the ones that seem more interesting, (3) distributors have stopped screening most horror films for critics, (4) I enjoy calling attention to less-known indie films and tend to choose those I like, and (5) when I double back to review a movie that I missed earlier, of course I don't go looking for lousy ones. http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/...710250314/1023 |
Just saw it and I wanted to love it because I love the books but I just couldn't. Too rushed, too episodic. I thought the pace was good at the beginning but became rushed around the time Lyra
Spoiler:
Also, it didn't grab me emotionally like the book. It seemed a little distant and cool. On the plus side it looked great technically and Dakota Blue Richards is an amazing find. **½/**** What I am hoping against hope is that there is a much longer fleshed-out director's cut that we'll see on DVD. |
I caught this one today myself, and I hated it. Weitz has no clue how to handle an action movie. Or an epic. The compositions and editing were so awkward, and the big epic moments were underplayed, while smaller and less dramatic scenes got far more pomp than they deserved. The film was far too rushed. Characters would pop in, say their names, and then immediately begin moving the plot along. No character development. The film also had this annoying habit of making many of the characters call each other by their first and last names all the time.
So many of the problems stem from the filmmaking. Weitz either doesn't understand how or refuses to extend sequences to maximize suspense or excitement. And the camera is maddeningly flat. How many medium two shots with a cutaway to a wide shot can we see? In order to have a sweeping epic, you need to do a little sweeping sometimes. And the movie doesn't go out of its way to explain anything. If you haven't read the book you will walk out wondering why anybody thought this was a good idea for a film. Just massively disappointing all the way through. Even more annoying, you could see how the movie could have been a lot of fun had New Line handed the directorial reigns to anyone else. Christ, even Paul W.S. Anderson could have done better. Chris Weitz was simply the wrong person to have involved with this. Apparently, before Weitz was involved, Tom Stoppard wrote a treatment for the movie. When Weitz came in, he didn't even look at what Stoppard had done before doing his own thing. What a boneheaded move. Even if this does somehow become a hit (and with the budget reportedly ballooning to close to $200 million, I don't see how it could be), I sincerely hope that Weitz isn't asked back for the sequels. Edit: I did enjoy the CGI on the smaller daemons. Anything bigger than a cat looked really fake, though, including the bears. |
Originally Posted by Suprmallet
I caught this one today myself, and I hated it. Weitz has no clue how to handle an action movie. Or an epic. The compositions and editing were so awkward, and the big epic moments were underplayed, while smaller and less dramatic scenes got far more pomp than they deserved. The film was far too rushed. Characters would pop in, say their names, and then immediately begin moving the plot along. No character development. The film also had this annoying habit of making many of the characters call each other by their first and last names all the time.
So many of the problems stem from the filmmaking. Weitz either doesn't understand how or refuses to extend sequences to maximize suspense or excitement. And the camera is maddeningly flat. How many medium two shots with a cutaway to a wide shot can we see? In order to have a sweeping epic, you need to do a little sweeping sometimes. And the movie doesn't go out of its way to explain anything. If you haven't read the book you will walk out wondering why anybody thought this was a good idea for a film. Just massively disappointing all the way through. Even more annoying, you could see how the movie could have been a lot of fun had New Line handed the directorial reigns to anyone else. Christ, even Paul W.S. Anderson could have done better. Chris Weitz was simply the wrong person to have involved with this. Apparently, before Weitz was involved, Tom Stoppard wrote a treatment for the movie. When Weitz came in, he didn't even look at what Stoppard had done before doing his own thing. What a boneheaded move. Even if this does somehow become a hit (and with the budget reportedly ballooning to close to $200 million, I don't see how it could be), I sincerely hope that Weitz isn't asked back for the sequels. Edit: I did enjoy the CGI on the smaller daemons. Anything bigger than a cat looked really fake, though, including the bears. There were two scenes which i somewhat enjoyed more than the rest of the film (the bear fight and the "exploading toaster"). i also took that the powers of Golden Compass itself werent even that cool. |
Originally Posted by Suprmallet
I caught this one today myself, and I hated it. Weitz has no clue how to handle an action movie. Or an epic. The compositions and editing were so awkward, and the big epic moments were underplayed, while smaller and less dramatic scenes got far more pomp than they deserved. The film was far too rushed. Characters would pop in, say their names, and then immediately begin moving the plot along. No character development. The film also had this annoying habit of making many of the characters call each other by their first and last names all the time.
So many of the problems stem from the filmmaking. Weitz either doesn't understand how or refuses to extend sequences to maximize suspense or excitement. And the camera is maddeningly flat. How many medium two shots with a cutaway to a wide shot can we see? In order to have a sweeping epic, you need to do a little sweeping sometimes. And the movie doesn't go out of its way to explain anything. If you haven't read the book you will walk out wondering why anybody thought this was a good idea for a film. Just massively disappointing all the way through. Even more annoying, you could see how the movie could have been a lot of fun had New Line handed the directorial reigns to anyone else. Christ, even Paul W.S. Anderson could have done better. Chris Weitz was simply the wrong person to have involved with this. Apparently, before Weitz was involved, Tom Stoppard wrote a treatment for the movie. When Weitz came in, he didn't even look at what Stoppard had done before doing his own thing. What a boneheaded move. Even if this does somehow become a hit (and with the budget reportedly ballooning to close to $200 million, I don't see how it could be), I sincerely hope that Weitz isn't asked back for the sequels. Edit: I did enjoy the CGI on the smaller daemons. Anything bigger than a cat looked really fake, though, including the bears. granted I knew the movie is part of a trilogy, the ending was an eyeroller because the entire movie felt like an overextended teaser for a (hopefully) much better second movie. Even though I hadn't read the book, I felt like there was alot missing. Secondly it didn't help that the DLP presentation I saw was terribly flawed, this is the second time I've seen a DLP film on Cinema De Suck's auditorium 8, and while it's a great big screen, the system itself has a lot of bugs, this go around there was a constant flicker throughtout the entire film which while subtle, was still damn annoying to me. oh and that horrid end song over the end credits - yuck! |
Given that Chris Weitz has only directed "About a Boy" and "American Pie" (both with his brother Paul), I think he did an exceptional job with "The Golden Compass". Sure, a more accomplished "action" director probably would have made this movie soar. But I still enjoyed it a great deal. I thought Chris did a great job. Especially given his limited directing experience.
|
If you think about it, Peter Jackson wasn't an accomplished action director, either. He did mostly low budget horror and then Heavenly Creatures, a drama, and The Frighteners, a comedy. It's not about achievement in action, it's about understanding how to use the tools at your disposal. And for what it's worth, I adore About A Boy.
|
Originally Posted by Giles
oh and that horrid end song over the end credits - yuck!
Uh uh. |
Originally Posted by Suprmallet
If you think about it, Peter Jackson wasn't an accomplished action director, either. He did mostly low budget horror and then Heavenly Creatures, a drama, and The Frighteners, a comedy. It's not about achievement in action, it's about understanding how to use the tools at your disposal. And for what it's worth, I adore About A Boy.
|
Originally Posted by Suprmallet
And for what it's worth, I adore About A Boy.
|
Originally Posted by movielib
That song really did suck. It looked like they were going for an Academy Award LOTR type song.
Uh uh. "lyrah... Lyraaah..... Lyraaauuuuh" :suicide: |
Originally Posted by Daytripper
Given that Chris Weitz has only directed "About a Boy" and "American Pie" (both with his brother Paul), I think he did an exceptional job with "The Golden Compass". Sure, a more accomplished "action" director probably would have made this movie soar. But I still enjoyed it a great deal. I thought Chris did a great job. Especially given his limited directing experience.
I liked it too, I thought it was much better then the Narnia flick. Nicole Kidman looked great and I thought the movie was handled very well by Chris Weitz. I agree with some who said it could of been longer. |
Originally Posted by Giles
but as I and a few others have pointed out, it seems like the most obvious flaw is that the movie is disjointed and doesn't flow well, the question is, how much footage was shot, if in fact there's more footage can a longer cut actually improve it overall? Peter Jackson's extended cut of The Two Towers is an excellent example where the reinstated footage improved the film greatly.
|
I'm watching this and no religous zealot nor any self proclaimed guardian of morality is gonna stop me.
|
Originally Posted by FunkDaddy J
But what's the motive behind movements like these? Is it insecurity? Is it a feeling of collective shielding against ideas that differ from those of the insular group? It's fascinating in a sociological sense. But also annoying.
Does making the film more successful help your self esteem because in some weird way it champions your views? Sheesh... |
A shame about it bombing and not even being received well critically. Looks like chances for a follow-up are very slim indeed...I don't think it has anything to do with the supposed controversy, rather just the reasons that've been given right here...quality.
So, did they in fact shoot the last part of the book? (the twist which I know nothing about) If so, at least hopefully we'll get an extended cut that stands on it's own a little better. Still wanting to check this one out. Also, just wondering...Kidman's character is called Ms Coulter right? Any...ahem, reasons for that...just found it humorous. |
Originally Posted by Kerborus
Well what's behind this post? Insecurity?
Does making the film more successful help your self esteem because in some weird way it champions your views? Sheesh... The thread title is meant to be ironic. |
According to Variety, $8.6 million box office Friday. Not very impressive. May be premature but I'd say the sequels are in jeopardy.
Edit: Box Office Mojo says 8.8 million. Enchanted is second at $2.9 million. The Golden Compass didn't even have any competition from other wide releases this weekend. Looks terrible. |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:47 PM. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.