Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
The Golden Compass - Movie Warning  
User currently offlineTyphaerion From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 619 posts, RR: 4
Posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 2394 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I was so frustrated this evening after visiting the movie theater that I had to warn people. I will write no spoilers here so anyone can read this.

As some background, I am a big fan of the novels. Also, I don't buy into the church controversy, I am from a Christian background and after only having read the books I didn't see what all the fuss was about.

That being said, after having see the movie I now see where it is coming from.

Please, if you love a good story, do not watch the movie The Golden Compass before reading the books. The movie is not true to the original story and is pretty disjointed in comparison. In my sole opinion, the movie was not done very well. The graphics were great and the acting was good, but the book did well without being illustrated and in my opinion the story was more important than the pictures and they screwed it up. It reminded me of Star Wars Episode 1 a bit, where the graphics were phenomenal, but the story line left a bit to be desired and had some parts that didn't make sense.

So, if you like pretty pictures, go ahead and see the movie, but if you like a good story better than flashy art, read the book first and wait for the movie to come out on DVD.

If you have seen the movie I would love to know what you thought of it, I would be even more thrilled to hear what you think if you have both seen the movie and read the books, though I think we may have spoiler issues if we go into too much detail.


For some, the sky is the limit. For us, it is only the beginning... -- Jack Hunt
72 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21106 posts, RR: 56
Reply 1, posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 2368 times:

I've read two of the books - I hope it's safe for me to see the movie without having read the third.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineJafa39 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 2366 times:

My son said the same thing about the Lord of the Rings trilogy....but I couldn't read the books....waaay too boring, the films were great though.

Each to his own eh bro?  Smile


User currently offlineFreckles From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2007, 386 posts, RR: 8
Reply 3, posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 2332 times:

To be fair, I completely disagree in every way.

Firstly, who cares if you are a Christian, stop putting your hand up - there are underlying themes of a religious style, but the film does not portray these themes as hard core church controversy, it just doesn't. It could well be Congress for Mr Joe Bloggs.

The graphics are superb, yes, the acting is superb, yes, the portrayal of the original book is flaky, yes, but what do you expect of a Hollywood interpretation? It should have been called Northern Lights, but guess what changed that?

The book itself, I have to say is mediocre, and I think that the filmmakers did an excellent job of transforming it into a Hollywood epic for the whole family to enjoy. It was clear, exciting and filled with suspense, and you do get the very basic plot foundations, which is what is most important, especially as it leads on to the sequels.

It was a great effort at frankly an average book, but the comments about religion are absurd, the story is portrayed very well, and it is a fantastic film for all the family to go and see.

In fact, I recommend that you do.

Whats more, the score is superb, and a joy to listen to incidentally within the film.

Morgan


User currently offlineJGPH1A From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 2322 times:

I'm looking forward to seeing the movie - the books were good but a little flaky, especially the middle one (was that the one with the wheeled animals in it - what the hell was that all about ?) - I want to reread Northern Lights to see how the movie differs.

Re Lord of the Rings, I loved Peter Jackson's interpretation of the books. The books are very hard going in places, but he managed to convey the weight of the text without filming every line, and that took some rare skill. I think JRR Tolkien would have been very pleased with the result (with perhaps one or two reservations about some omitted characters).


User currently offlineWingnut767 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 2254 times:



Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 4):
I think JRR Tolkien would have been very pleased with the result (with perhaps one or two reservations about some omitted characters).

He did do a great job. The only problem I had was weaving Arwen Evenstar into the movie more than she was to cover a demographic. Liv Tyler is nice but it was Glorfindel At the Fords to help Frodo.


User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21353 posts, RR: 54
Reply 6, posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 2250 times:



Quoting Wingnut767 (Reply 5):
He did do a great job. The only problem I had was weaving Arwen Evenstar into the movie more than she was to cover a demographic. Liv Tyler is nice but it was Glorfindel At the Fords to help Frodo.

Sure. But I would say that this particular change made by Frances Walsh, Philippa Boyens and Peter Jackson makes a lot more sense than the haphazardly tacked-on storyline with Arwen in the books. That always looked weird and unfinished to me, even when I first read the books an age and a half ago.

The movie changes in that regard make it an organic part of the story which makes much more sense in my view. Tolkien always knew that he had his limitations as a writer and never claimed perfection for his work. I don't think it's an accident that two female writers rounded out an aspect of the story which he obviously had his troubles with. He'd probably appreciated the change himself.


User currently offlineJGPH1A From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 2246 times:



Quoting Wingnut767 (Reply 5):
The only problem I had was weaving Arwen Evenstar into the movie more than she was to cover a demographic. Liv Tyler is nice but it was Glorfindel At the Fords to help Frodo.

For purists I guess this one was a sticking point, but making more play out of Strider's romantic interest (which after all is canonical, even if only in the appendices) helps not only to round out his character (it gives him a dilemma to resolve and a sacrifice to make), and makes more poignant the fate of the Elves and their final journey into the west. It worked for me. As for who helped Frodo at the ford, from a storytelling point of view, to have stuck with the text would have introduced a new character who would promptly disappear again - it was clever to use the incident to introduce Arwen instead. Yes it was to introduce some kind of romantic interest, but they did it smoothly, cleverly and with total respect for the spirit of the book.

P.S. I'm NOT a Tolkien purist, nor am I particularly knowledgeable about the books - I enjoy them, and have read both the Hobbit and LOTR a couple of times (the second time for LOTR I admit was to coincide with the release of the movies) - but having re-read the book, I can see the huge problems that Jackson would have encountered in translating them to film - I think he did a sublime job, for me the LOTR trilogy stands as a benchmark in film-making that it will be hard to top.


User currently offline777236ER From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 2235 times:

The film is terrible. It's obvious that the movie studio is worried about the religious backlash, so edited away all of the interesting themes in the books. The Magisterium isn't the Catholic Church, and all of the anti-religious tones in the book are missing. The book is clearly and unequivocally anti-religious, the movie is bland. Every single metaphysical point is labouriously explained, I'm not sure God is mentioned once, the themes behind the daemons are never touched upon; the thing is a huge disappointment.

Free speech is at a point where movies about great books have to be dumbed down to prevent a backlash from religious zealots hell-bent on forcing their bigoted view of the world on everyone else. There are boycots of Harry Potter, there are even boycots of this film despite the massive attempts made to ignore the anti-religious sentiment in the books. The nonsense surrounding this film proves Pullman's point.


User currently offlineMortyman From Norway, joined Aug 2006, 3701 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 2218 times:

On a different note...

The actors were never in Norway, but alot of the backround is shot in Norway...


Here is the famous " Bryggen " landmark in Bergen, Norway






Svalbard:




User currently offlineRayChuang From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 7929 posts, RR: 5
Reply 10, posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 2209 times:



Quoting 777236ER (Reply 8):
The film is terrible. It's obvious that the movie studio is worried about the religious backlash, so edited away all of the interesting themes in the books. The Magisterium isn't the Catholic Church, and all of the anti-religious tones in the book are missing. The book is clearly and unequivocally anti-religious, the movie is bland. Every single metaphysical point is labouriously explained, I'm not sure God is mentioned once, the themes behind the daemons are never touched upon; the thing is a huge disappointment.

What will hurt this movie are two problems: 1) they cut out too many of the themes from the original novel and 2) everybody knows about Philip Pullman's very blatant atheism, and that won't work here in the USA, especially with the strong Evangelical movement and the powerful Mormon church. The Lord of the Rings movie did very well because Tolkien wrote the original novel to still confirm with his devout Catholic beliefs (if you look at the concept of angelic beings from his work they closely match that of general Catholic beliefs on the hierarchy of angels).


User currently offlineAirTranTUS From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 2203 times:



Quoting 777236ER (Reply 8):
Free speech is at a point where movies about great books have to be dumbed down to prevent a backlash from religious zealots hell-bent on forcing their bigoted view of the world on everyone else.

Have to? Not even close. No one forced them to change it, they did it themselves.


User currently offlineJGPH1A From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 2193 times:



Quoting AirTranTUS (Reply 11):
Have to? Not even close. No one forced them to change it, they did it themselves.

And that is the saddest thing of all. The idea that a beloved book should have to be reduced to a shadow of its own meaning to pander to fanatics is distressing. If this was done off the studio's own bat for a fear of some potential backlash that is even more pathetic. If they have to do that, then at least produce a watered-down (US) version and a real (Rest-of-world) version - why spoil it for the whole world just to please a small minority in one country ?


User currently offlineDL021 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 11445 posts, RR: 76
Reply 13, posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 2183 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting RayChuang (Reply 10):
everybody knows about Philip Pullman's very blatant atheism, and that won't work here in the USA, especially with the strong Evangelical movement and the powerful Mormon church.

The "powerful Mormon church"? Guys...seriously...this whole thing where people equate organized religion (of which I'm not really a fan in many cases...and that's cross-denominations and theologies) to a grand conspiracy which runs this country reminds me of the people who think that the Rothschilds, Rockefellers, Windsors, the Mormon leader and the Pope run the world in some chamber deep within the walls of the Vatican. It can start to border on fetish conspiracy junkiness, and it distracts from real conversation.

The books were clearly atheist in tone and content, and were written with the intent of offering a different fantasy book perhaps in the authors mind to counter authors like Lewis and Tolkien. The Christmas month release of the book could be interpreted as counter Christmas programming if one were truly given to conspiracy theories.

Plus...everyone knows the Jews run Hollywood...and they're not atheists, are they? I read that in the National Enquirerer so it must be true!

Quoting AirTranTUS (Reply 11):
Quoting 777236ER (Reply 8):
Free speech is at a point where movies about great books have to be dumbed down to prevent a backlash from religious zealots hell-bent on forcing their bigoted view of the world on everyone else.

Why do people equate market capitalism with censorship?



Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
User currently offlineMBMBOS From United States of America, joined May 2000, 2597 posts, RR: 1
Reply 14, posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 2183 times:



Quoting AirTranTUS (Reply 11):
No one forced them to change it, they did it themselves.

Did you not read what 777236ER said? He said "...dumbed down to a prevent backlash..."

I think he's made himself very clear. And I agree with his statements. If the movie hadn't been dumbed down, we would have had sanctimonious people from the Catholic church and other churches in a state of outrage, organizing boycotts, condemning Hollywood, etc.


User currently offlineMt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6546 posts, RR: 6
Reply 15, posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 2179 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

The movie is very mediocre. The ending sucks. Acting is first rate thought. Dakota Blue reminds me of a young Tilda Swinton.

From the movie, i can tell that he book is way more interesting and i am curious to read it. Remember - this is a movie BASED on a book. It is not the movie OF a book. I do believe that screenwriter should mold the original story to make a movie. After all - film and books are completely different mediums and as such a photocopy of each other is seldom good.

Look at Alfonso Cuaron's Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkeban. Good book, excellent movie. He changed things around for the best.



Step into my office, baby
User currently offlineJGPH1A From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 2179 times:



Quoting DL021 (Reply 13):
Why do people equate market capitalism with censorship?

Is it not censorship when powerful minority interests exert pressure for certain statements not to be made ? It certainly is interference with freedom of expression, albeit through financial rather than judicial sanction. It certainly sucks just as much.


User currently offlineDL021 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 11445 posts, RR: 76
Reply 17, posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 2163 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 16):
Is it not censorship when powerful minority interests exert pressure for certain statements not to be made ? It certainly is interference with freedom of expression, albeit through financial rather than judicial sanction. It certainly sucks just as much.

I would say that depends on the definition of censorship people have in their head. Too often people equate government censorship with private censorship. If a private individual or entity decides to or to not publicize or disseminate information then that is their right in my country. If the government decides to prevent a private individual or entity from speaking or demonstrating then that is censorship and the only question is whether it's with due process or not.

However many feel that private individuals or entities should be required to act as public entities and be held as such. They believe that their rights supercede those of others and if they want to know something they should be allowed to know it even if it's private. It's the source of much controversy here, and hypocrisy. The same people who want abortion records held still want the gun purchasing records opened, and vice versa. We've got football fans making Freedom of Information Act requests for phone records on their teams coach so they can embarrass and oust him. There are those who believe that we should not adopt societal standards for comportment and behaviour, and others who feel that the standards encoded are too lax.

The censorship exercised by a private entity over the content of anything it produces out is a matter for that company and it's consumers as long as no one's rights are being violated. No one has the right to legally demand that a film producer make a movie a certain way (the old blue laws have consistently been shot down in the court system)....although they have certainly attempted to disprove that. The distribution of films can certainly be a matter of public argument, but the companies have the right to make decisions based on economics. Whether they're correct or not is a matter of opinion and results, but that's a different discussion.

Does that long assed post make sense to you? I'd like to think I was clear in my clarification, because you're correct in your definition of censorship...it doesn't have to come from government. It's just that many people think that private entities should NOT be able to self-censor.

[Edited 2007-12-09 08:47:12]


Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
User currently offlineJGPH1A From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 2145 times:



Quoting DL021 (Reply 17):
The censorship exercised by a private entity over the content of anything it produces out is a matter for that company and it's consumers as long as no one's rights are being violated.

But we have here to consider the source of the pressure for "self"-censorship. If this was simply an editorial decision on the part of the producers/director of the picture, purely for the artistic integrity of the work, you're right, there is no argument to be made - it is entirely their artistic/editorial choice. But the choice was imposed upon them by external organisation by mean of a real or implied threat. The choice to cave in to this real or implied threat is the studio's to make, but it still amounts to censorship. One party does not wish the general public to be exposed to certain view points and exerts pressure to ensure that the publishing party does not do so. That is censorship. It is not about anyone's right to SEE said material, in fact it's not really about anyone's rights at all, it is about integrity and freedom from religious persecution (because that is what this amounts to). But the ones really at fault here are the studio for caving in in so craven a manner.

Quoting DL021 (Reply 17):
The distribution of films can certainly be a matter of public argument, but the companies have the right to make decisions based on economics. Whether they're correct or not is a matter of opinion and results, but that's a different discussion.

I disagree - that is entirely the discussion we are having here - the decision to "self"-censor was a weak and gutless one - if the work can stand on it's own merits, it should be published as is and allowed to stand or fall. How else is the kind of market power these religious organisations wield to be challenged and overcome ?

Quoting DL021 (Reply 17):
It's just that many people think that private entities should NOT be able to self-censor.

If the "self"-censorship is for the reasons I've given, ie. artistic integrity or editiorialisation, fair enough they have that right. But to cave into fanaticism is the worst possible cowardice.


User currently offline777236ER From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 2145 times:



Quoting RayChuang (Reply 10):
2) everybody knows about Philip Pullman's very blatant atheism, and that won't work here in the USA, especially with the strong Evangelical movement and the powerful Mormon church.

The Church doesn't trust cinema-goers so they have to boycot even ridiculously dumbed-down films like this one?

Quoting AirTranTUS (Reply 11):
Have to? Not even close. No one forced them to change it, they did it themselves.

Yes, have to, to prevent a backlash. Read what I wrote. There are already boycots of this film, imagine the response had the film been true to the book. The book is one of the greatest children's books ever, yet a true film adaption of the book would cause outcry and boycot in the US. Might as well go the whole hog and start book-burning.

Quoting DL021 (Reply 13):

Why do people equate market capitalism with censorship?

Market capitalism? Boycoting a film because you think it espouses an evil atheist anti-Christian message isn't capitalism, it's closed-minded, religious zealotry that belongs in the Middle Ages. Should Hemmingway have dumbed-down his books because of the 'market capitalism' of the Nazi majority in Germany? Don't be so ridiculous.


User currently offlineRSWA330 From United States of America, joined Jun 2007, 261 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 2114 times:



Quoting 777236ER (Reply 8):
The film is terrible. It's obvious that the movie studio is worried about the religious backlash, so edited away all of the interesting themes in the books. The Magisterium isn't the Catholic Church, and all of the anti-religious tones in the book are missing. The book is clearly and unequivocally anti-religious, the movie is bland. Every single metaphysical point is labouriously explained, I'm not sure God is mentioned once, the themes behind the daemons are never touched upon; the thing is a huge disappointment.

Free speech is at a point where movies about great books have to be dumbed down to prevent a backlash from religious zealots hell-bent on forcing their bigoted view of the world on everyone else. There are boycots of Harry Potter, there are even boycots of this film despite the massive attempts made to ignore the anti-religious sentiment in the books. The nonsense surrounding this film proves Pullman's point.

The makers of the film could have put what ever they wanted to in the film. It has nothing to do with Christian zealouts oppressing their right to free speech. You are right though that many Christians would backlash against the movie (many already have). Like it or not, over 80% of the people in the U.S. claim to be Christians. We make up a very large customer base and the movie's primary goal is to make money. They do this by appealing to a wide array of customers. To make the movie as anti-religious as the book would have been suicide because it would have immediately turned off a HUGE percentage of the potential customer base. I love how you claim we Christians are "forcing our bigoted view on the world", yet you sit here and complain that the movie should have disregarded the beliefs of 80% of Americans simply to accurately portray the book.

Also, we "bigoted" Christians have the same rights you do. If we want to boycott the movie, that is our business and not your's. That being said, I could care less about the anti-religious undertone of the movie. It is just a movie after all.


User currently offlineJGPH1A From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 2106 times:



Quoting RSWA330 (Reply 20):
If we want to boycott the movie, that is our business and not your's.

The curious thing is though, why should Christians feel so insecure about their faith that they have to boycott a Hollywood movie that disagrees with it ? Surely a good Christian has such faith that nothing could cause one to deviate from it, no matter how intelligently or alluringly presented. Surely the sheep who might be lured from the fold by such heinous atheism would be lost anyway, because of their lack of faith ? No loss then, you would think.

Once, just once, it would be nice for the intellectual and the logical to win out over the blind and unreasoned. Just once  Yeah sure


User currently offline777236ER From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 2100 times:



Quoting RSWA330 (Reply 20):
I love how you claim we Christians are "forcing our bigoted view on the world", yet you sit here and complain that the movie should have disregarded the beliefs of 80% of Americans simply to accurately portray the book.

Don't be ridiculous, do think the Passion of the Christ should have been dumbed-down to pander to atheist sensitivities?

Quoting RSWA330 (Reply 20):
If we want to boycott the movie, that is our business and not your's. That being said, I could care less about the anti-religious undertone of the movie. It is just a movie after all.

So you accept that it's laughable to boycot films. Tell that to the Christian groups boycoting the film.


User currently offlineHalcyon From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 2070 times:

Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 21):

I read the books in 6th-7th grade, a year after I read Tolkien. I loved them, and found that theme with God being a "lie" to be interesting. They're some of my favorite books of all time, and I am hoping to see the film.

As you know, I'm religious. So please don't paint us all as "blind and unreasoned," because some of us are able to separate ourselves from our religion and enjoy some great storytelling. I may not agree with people, but I'm always willing to listen as long as it's not some BS about chemtrails.

Peace?

EDIT: And Eva Green is hot.  Wow!

[Edited 2007-12-09 10:50:12]

User currently offlineWingnut767 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 2053 times:



Quoting Klaus (Reply 6):
The movie changes in that regard make it an organic part of the story which makes much more sense in my view. Tolkien always knew that he had his limitations as a writer and never claimed perfection for his work. I don't think it's an accident that two female writers rounded out an aspect of the story which he obviously had his troubles with. He'd probably appreciated the change himself.

I agree. I had read the trilogy, silmarillion and the hobbit around 8 to 10 times in my early days. I still have one shelf in my library dedicated to al of my old Tolkien books. I did love the movies and think they did a great job and that part was just one small point in a great series of movies. I wish they would make the Silmarillion.


25 JGPH1A : This is exactly my point.Your statement demonstrates that it is perfectly possible to have strong religious faith and yet not be blind or unreasoned.
26 Freckles : Then again, you complain about everything don't you. Morgan
27 OceansWorld : In general I prefer to do it the other way around because otherwise I'll see the gaps in the movie. And seeing a film first doesn't stop me from read
28 Post contains images Klaus : Okay, I certainly can't compete with that... Yeah, the movies weren't perfect either, but still far better than anybody had a right to hope for. Now
29 777236ER : Oh dear. Let's look at your post then. Then I doubt you've read it or understood it. The book regularly features in lists of greatest books of all ti
30 Post contains images Halcyon : Well I'm glad that there are people like us, who can read things contradictory to what we believe and still appreciate them. I saw a FB group that wa
31 JGPH1A : No, you're giving yourself due credit for the brains you were born with. Everyone owes it to themselves to consider very deeply the things they belie
32 Halcyon : I certainly pegged you wrong! I didn't know that supreme overlords were allowed to be benevolent. In all seriousness, I also think that worship like
33 Post contains images JGPH1A : We're not - you just got lucky. My smiting robes are at the cleaners, and I can't find the key to the thunderbolt locker What ? Next you'll be tellin
34 Post contains images DL021 : Who says it should be overcome? If the public wants something badly enough market capitalists will deliver it one way or another. OK...well then let'
35 Post contains images Halcyon : She is in the movie as a witch in hot clothes. I know because I've seen the commercials and have them on my computer. Let us join together in our goo
36 JGPH1A : It's not an entire category of people saying it. It is one or two powerful and influential church leaders using their influence to generate a populis
37 Post contains images Klaus : If I had any interest in that kind of adulation, I would not bother with arguments. I would just get a dog.
38 Post contains images DL021 : Well, it could legitimately be argued that he was increasing his stature with every film until he decided to expose his evident true feelings with th
39 Post contains images Halcyon : Damn, my lunch was a lot better going down than coming up.
40 Post contains images Freckles : Filled with praise for the film? And you're complaining ramblings doesn't excuse poor spelling.. You're the resident complainer And yes, I have read
41 Post contains images JGPH1A : I was iffy about The Passion but only because it was by Mel Gibson, who is a renowned and world-class knob. I have since seen bits of it on TV (but w
42 Post contains images DL021 : Same goes the opposite. You miss so much context with even the accurate subtitles, which are not the norm. That film played in churches across the Un
43 Post contains images RJdxer : Apocalypto mundo ipso facto!!! But even though he didn't make it, ya gotta love all that leather in the Mad Max movies!! BTW, The Patriort? Were you
44 DL021 : Pet Sematary and The Stand were both pretty well done. I'd say that alot of his stuff has been done fairly well. But then there's been some disasters
45 Post contains images JGPH1A : No it didn't - oh please, Dorothy Parker he ain't . Although "Abandonate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate" was on a sign above the door of my old Latin
46 Post contains images RJdxer : And that is why there are movie critics. I'd have to disagree, especially on the Stand and even more especially since it was made for TV. You just ca
47 Post contains images Typhaerion : Okay, I am terribly sorry for starting this whole thing and taking this long to get back involved. I don't want to seem like a drive by poster, but my
48 Post contains images DL021 : well, you may rest certain that I am no Dorothy...... My HS latin teacher was Greek and she had a poster of the Parthenon and a sign stating that the
49 Post contains images JGPH1A : Maybe just a friend of Dorothy then You question my infallibility ? Tsk tsk.
50 Mt99 : Dont forget: "Misery" with Kathy Bates.. Talking about movie versions.. is anyone else crossing their fingers that the Tim Burton version of "Sweeny
51 Freckles : Don't be sorry! Misunderstanding! RE: The score - glad you agree. Morgan
52 Post contains images RJdxer : Infallibility, or inevitability?
53 JGPH1A : That too !
54 Post contains images RJdxer : I know, it has to do with one of Newtons laws, you know, once something gets moving. I thought the thrust reversers were out for an inordinately long
55 Post contains images JGPH1A : Yes well it would seem that way, seeing as you were sitting SO far down the back ! Up the comfy end, it felt like a very short landing
56 Slider : Here's my question--from the descriptions of the book series that I've heard (and I've not read them admittedly) they get rather intensively and over
57 Post contains images RJdxer : There might be some truth to that, because up where the windows face the direction of travel, the landing always does seem to take less time!
58 Typhaerion : In my opinion only, the books are not anti-Christianity so much as they are anti-church. In a twisted way, the themes that the books express follow C
59 OceansWorld : I've seen the movie last night, and really enjoyed it. Time flew by so fast. I'm now even more looking forward to read the book.
60 Typhaerion : Very cool. I am really glad to hear that. You will find a lot of differences, but in my opinion the book is even better than the movie. He is a very g
61 Slider : See, again I’m not qualified to speak on this, but in some of the quote I’ve read from the books in various publications and news outlets, they a
62 Post contains images Typhaerion : I think you are going to have to read yourself to be able to make that call. I didn't see it as that, though others may. God is portrayed differently
63 Post contains images JGPH1A : Now you're just being mean
64 Post contains links Jmc1975 : According to www.boxofficemojo.com , as of today, The Golden Compass has only brought in just over $91 million in global revenue. The production cost
65 777236ER : All it proves is that Christians are sheep who will listen to whatever a loud voice will tell them they should and shouldn't watch, read or see and a
66 Jmc1975 : There's nothing wrong with being a sheep when there is an all-mighty, all-powerful and righteous Shepherd protecting His flock.
67 Klaus : Sure. That's just not the case, as all kinds of massacres and persecutions have proven.
68 777236ER : So you're calling the Catholic League an 'all-mighty, all-powerful and righteous Shepherd'? Sounds like you're worshipping false idols. Has God himse
69 Jmc1975 : He doesn't need to as press releases are a finite means of communication.
70 QANTASforever : Oh for goodness sake... Look, I'm glad to have a fantasy film that doesn't try to shove a thinly veiled "god" or "jesus" down me or my kids throats.
71 Post contains images Jafa39 : So who do you pray to every night before you go to bed? "Dear ??????, instead of tonights prayer, here is a list of people i wish to be struck down b
72 Post contains images QANTASforever : You know to whom I pray. QFF. P.S. And no, that was not just my signature.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
The Official Anet Movie Review Thread posted Sun Mar 4 2007 05:52:16 by FutureSDPDcop
The Next Bond Movie...Coming Out This Year?!?! posted Tue Feb 20 2007 22:23:52 by Speedbird747BA
The Golden Joystick Awards 2006 posted Fri Oct 27 2006 22:53:01 by 9V
"The Aviary" Movie - Anyone Actually Watch It? posted Tue Sep 5 2006 09:53:03 by EA CO AS
The Golden Snowball Award posted Fri Apr 21 2006 19:10:42 by Ksyr
'Brokeback To The Future' Fake Movie Trailer posted Mon Feb 6 2006 19:40:02 by NZblue
The Dirtiest Joke Movie? posted Fri Jan 20 2006 21:23:03 by KiwiinOz
What's The Last Foreign Movie You've Seen? posted Wed Nov 16 2005 22:09:55 by LHMARK
The Best Disney Movie? posted Tue Apr 27 2004 21:09:20 by SASlover
LOTR: Return Of The King Comments ,spoiler Warning posted Sat Dec 20 2003 04:48:56 by Zak