While I was reading the book, I kept wondering how on earth (or an alternate universe) they could possibly turn this into a movie. Not just in a "Lord of the Rings"-too-many-storylines-to-decide way, but because so much of the book is based on internal emotions and perceptions.
All in all, I think that they did a pretty fair job of translating it to the screen. Even though none of the characters (except for Lyra) looked *anything* like how I imagined them. They had so much 'action' to pack in that they were deftly able to keep it out of the internal realm. I suspect, though, that it goes too fast if you haven't read the book - much the same (but not as extreme) as the third Harry Potter movie (after the two dreadfully ssslllooowww ones) whipped you through at a crazy pace.
I was most disappointed by The bear fight, which turned a *brilliant* moment in the book into a scene straight out of "Back to the Future" (which is one of my all-time faves, but that doesn't make altering a story to quote it ok).
I also expected the movie to go on for at least one more scene. It ended completely differently than the book. Changing some things was fine, even expected in the Hollywood canon, but this major change left me completely confused (not to mention eliminating a great cliff-hanger).
I hear that box office receipts were disappointing, so they might not continue making the series, which would be a shame. I'd continue to watch, even when it's rated 4.
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
"The Golden Compass" by Philip Pullman
First, what I didn't like:
1) I'm getting pretty tired of the plot device of "the chosen one". From "Star Wars" to "Harry Potter" to "The Matrix", it's a bit formulaic by now (and by "by now" I mean "since the New Testament became a hit").
2) It must be a boy thing to envision your spirit solidifying at puberty. ("Men were quite clear that they had read their formative fiction around the age of 15," quotes one study on the reading habits of adults) If I were remotely the same person that I was when I was 13, I would cry. Daily. Just like I did then.
3) It's a kid's book. Yeah, so is Harry Potter, but I'd been reading some more grown-up stuff recently, so it seemed like a confusing step back.
4) It was explained how the story takes place in a world similar to ours, but not ours, in small print in a random credits page, so I didn't know until after I read th book, which totally confused me, trying to figure out when it was supposed to be and stuff...
5) How could they so purposefully insult the church? Heresy! The pope should issue a fatwa on the author!
Still, it was fun for a kid's book, with some heady stuff, and I'll gladly continue reading the series. Rated 3-.
1) I'm getting pretty tired of the plot device of "the chosen one". From "Star Wars" to "Harry Potter" to "The Matrix", it's a bit formulaic by now (and by "by now" I mean "since the New Testament became a hit").
2) It must be a boy thing to envision your spirit solidifying at puberty. ("Men were quite clear that they had read their formative fiction around the age of 15," quotes one study on the reading habits of adults) If I were remotely the same person that I was when I was 13, I would cry. Daily. Just like I did then.
3) It's a kid's book. Yeah, so is Harry Potter, but I'd been reading some more grown-up stuff recently, so it seemed like a confusing step back.
4) It was explained how the story takes place in a world similar to ours, but not ours, in small print in a random credits page, so I didn't know until after I read th book, which totally confused me, trying to figure out when it was supposed to be and stuff...
5) How could they so purposefully insult the church? Heresy! The pope should issue a fatwa on the author!
Still, it was fun for a kid's book, with some heady stuff, and I'll gladly continue reading the series. Rated 3-.
Albums by Year
Yeah, there about 20 things that I haven't yet taken the time to write down, but Felix (inspired by a Llama, etc.) posited an interesting exercise: best album by year, from the year you were born. I excluded compilations and soundtracks, which seemed to pare down my collection by a significant amount, and by "best" I mean what I enjoy the most. ...so if you think "Back to the Egg" sucks, well, you're probably right, but I like it, anyways:
1975 Queen, A Night at the Opera
1976 Stevie Wonder, Songs in the Key of Life
1977 Gilberto Gil, Refavela
1978 The Rutles (kind of a soundtrack, I guess, but the best I could come up with)
1979 Paul McCartney, Back to the Egg
1980 The Cure, Boys Don’t Cry
1981 Depeche Mode, Speak & Spell
1982 Michael Jackson, Thriller
1983 Prince, 1999
1984 Madonna, Like a Virgin
1985 Dead Milkmen, Big Lizard in My Backyard
1986 They Might Be Giants
1987 George Michael, Faith
1988 kdlang, Shadowland
1989 B-52s, Cosmic Thing
1990 Jane’s Addiction, Ritual de lo Habitual
1991 Marisa Monte, Mais
1992 Suzane Vega, 99.9*F
1993 Bjork, Debut
1994 Tori Amos, Under the Pink
1995 Pizzicato 5, The Sound of Music
1996 Beck, Odelay
1997 Les Elles
1998 Soul Coughing, El Oso / or / Rufus Wainwright
1999 Cibo Matto, Stereo Type A
2000 Golec uOrkiestra, 2
2001 Gorillaz
2002 Flaming Lips, Yoshimi Battles the Pink Robots
2003 Kaada, Thank You for Giving Me Your Precious Time
2004 Of Montreal, Satanic Panic in the Attic
2005 Petra Haden, The Who Sells Out
2006 Sean Lennon, Friendly Fire / or / Regina Spektor, Begin to Hope
2007 Cocorosie, Adventures of Ghosthorse and Stillborn
2008 Flight of the Conchords???
2008 isn't over yet, and that's probably the only album I've even (mostly) heard from this year. It takes time for stuff to filter through to me (or to stand out from the crowd on kcrw).
I had *huge* troubles populating the early 80s, which is surprising - a period of great tunes - but not many noteworthy albums. In fact, 1990 beat DM’s “Violator” only b/c I could find *no* other good album in 1981, and I was going on the premise that I'd only have one nominee per artist. It was hard work to pare down the list from 1989-1999, which makes sense - the albums that I could sneak to buy in HS, then when I had freedom in college, and finally as a compulsive concertgoer living in NYC. The few albums that I know and cherish from the last few years all seemed to stem from the same year or two, so, overall, competition was uneven...
I agree w/ the llama that it may not be worth the time it took to make the list, but so it goes.
1975 Queen, A Night at the Opera
1976 Stevie Wonder, Songs in the Key of Life
1977 Gilberto Gil, Refavela
1978 The Rutles (kind of a soundtrack, I guess, but the best I could come up with)
1979 Paul McCartney, Back to the Egg
1980 The Cure, Boys Don’t Cry
1981 Depeche Mode, Speak & Spell
1982 Michael Jackson, Thriller
1983 Prince, 1999
1984 Madonna, Like a Virgin
1985 Dead Milkmen, Big Lizard in My Backyard
1986 They Might Be Giants
1987 George Michael, Faith
1988 kdlang, Shadowland
1989 B-52s, Cosmic Thing
1990 Jane’s Addiction, Ritual de lo Habitual
1991 Marisa Monte, Mais
1992 Suzane Vega, 99.9*F
1993 Bjork, Debut
1994 Tori Amos, Under the Pink
1995 Pizzicato 5, The Sound of Music
1996 Beck, Odelay
1997 Les Elles
1998 Soul Coughing, El Oso / or / Rufus Wainwright
1999 Cibo Matto, Stereo Type A
2000 Golec uOrkiestra, 2
2001 Gorillaz
2002 Flaming Lips, Yoshimi Battles the Pink Robots
2003 Kaada, Thank You for Giving Me Your Precious Time
2004 Of Montreal, Satanic Panic in the Attic
2005 Petra Haden, The Who Sells Out
2006 Sean Lennon, Friendly Fire / or / Regina Spektor, Begin to Hope
2007 Cocorosie, Adventures of Ghosthorse and Stillborn
2008 Flight of the Conchords???
2008 isn't over yet, and that's probably the only album I've even (mostly) heard from this year. It takes time for stuff to filter through to me (or to stand out from the crowd on kcrw).
I had *huge* troubles populating the early 80s, which is surprising - a period of great tunes - but not many noteworthy albums. In fact, 1990 beat DM’s “Violator” only b/c I could find *no* other good album in 1981, and I was going on the premise that I'd only have one nominee per artist. It was hard work to pare down the list from 1989-1999, which makes sense - the albums that I could sneak to buy in HS, then when I had freedom in college, and finally as a compulsive concertgoer living in NYC. The few albums that I know and cherish from the last few years all seemed to stem from the same year or two, so, overall, competition was uneven...
I agree w/ the llama that it may not be worth the time it took to make the list, but so it goes.
Lost, Season 3, the second half
It's almost as if they asked the writers to hurry up and shove out whatever dreck they could before the strike, and then they actually worked on developing the scripts *during* the strike.
The second half of the season is actually interesting again! While it doesn't have the same excitement and intrigue of the first season, at least I don't feel as if I'm being dragged through a drinking game, and I'll continue watching without resentment. Rated 4+.
The second half of the season is actually interesting again! While it doesn't have the same excitement and intrigue of the first season, at least I don't feel as if I'm being dragged through a drinking game, and I'll continue watching without resentment. Rated 4+.
Monday, July 21, 2008
Wall-E
The best movie I have seen in years, I think.
What's amazing is that the first third is, essentially, a silent movie. Then, for the next 20 minutes, there are no more than three or so words exchanged. It's only in the last third that there is any dialogue. Usually, I'm a words girl. The plot has to be reeeally well-executed for me to have any interest in a low-dialogue production. But this was amazing.
It will probably never make the Rated 1 in my book (which cannot happen in the first viewing) because the end is a *little* bit too glossy, but it comes really close. So good. Rated 2.
What's amazing is that the first third is, essentially, a silent movie. Then, for the next 20 minutes, there are no more than three or so words exchanged. It's only in the last third that there is any dialogue. Usually, I'm a words girl. The plot has to be reeeally well-executed for me to have any interest in a low-dialogue production. But this was amazing.
It will probably never make the Rated 1 in my book (which cannot happen in the first viewing) because the end is a *little* bit too glossy, but it comes really close. So good. Rated 2.
Batman: The Dark Knight
Babygoat playing in daycare while I'm not working for one day has given Mr.Goat and me the unbelievable luxury of free time, which the desert heat dictates that I should spend in a nice, air conditioned theatre, instead of shoveling concrete in the backyard (which would be the practical alternative).
I was pleasantly surprised to enjoy this movie. After years of dreck being thrown from the graphic novel to the screen, I am so very, very turned-off to 'comic book' movies... To the best of my recollection, I haven't really liked one since the first "Spiderman". There were a few that I didn't wholly *dislike*, but nothing that I consider "good". ...but i whatever ads I saw didn't look too horrible, we had the time, and at the very least I could ogle (the very talented) Christian Bale. Yet even though this episode in the series did not contain any Bale-push-up workout scenes, I actually liked it.
A few things I did *not* like: 1) turning the Joker into "a freak who wears makeup". This is not what the Joker is. He has a backstory (as instable as it may be). I know how hard it is to make a bad guy have pathos and still be a bad guy, but his pigmentation is one constant of his character. Blah. 2) The movie was about 30 minutes too long. They could have split the whole 2-face conflict into a separate movie. Instead, I found myself thinking, "omg, ANOTHER fight?" about two story arcs before the end of the show. Really, they didn't need any additional explosions or vehicles. Blah-blah.
Despite these flaws (kudos for at least having the token female in an advanced stage of her career at least looking like she's in her 30s), at some point, I actually thought "this is what I had wished the movie in 1989 had been like". Rated 3.
I was pleasantly surprised to enjoy this movie. After years of dreck being thrown from the graphic novel to the screen, I am so very, very turned-off to 'comic book' movies... To the best of my recollection, I haven't really liked one since the first "Spiderman". There were a few that I didn't wholly *dislike*, but nothing that I consider "good". ...but i whatever ads I saw didn't look too horrible, we had the time, and at the very least I could ogle (the very talented) Christian Bale. Yet even though this episode in the series did not contain any Bale-push-up workout scenes, I actually liked it.
A few things I did *not* like: 1) turning the Joker into "a freak who wears makeup". This is not what the Joker is. He has a backstory (as instable as it may be). I know how hard it is to make a bad guy have pathos and still be a bad guy, but his pigmentation is one constant of his character. Blah. 2) The movie was about 30 minutes too long. They could have split the whole 2-face conflict into a separate movie. Instead, I found myself thinking, "omg, ANOTHER fight?" about two story arcs before the end of the show. Really, they didn't need any additional explosions or vehicles. Blah-blah.
Despite these flaws (kudos for at least having the token female in an advanced stage of her career at least looking like she's in her 30s), at some point, I actually thought "this is what I had wished the movie in 1989 had been like". Rated 3.
Backlog
Obviously, I haven't "made" the time to register my consumption in quite some time... so now I have to rely on memories, which may be erratic. Ohwell.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
