That seems to be a commonly reported problem. I really struggled to finish Northern Lights but I'm glad I did. About halfway through it really gets cracking and then the rest of the trilogy is amazing.

What is really frustrating is I read part of A Subtle Knife and was completely sucked in, but didn't want to continue without knowing what came before.
Pullman is an odd man though. I much prefer Morgurgo.

I really struggled to finish Northern Lights but I'm glad I did. About halfway through it really gets cracking and then the rest of the trilogy is amazing.

Exactly!

Naomi, SERIOUSLY, read the first book. The first half is, um, dull, but once you're past that you're into one of the best stories (I mean the whole trilogy) written. It is fantastic!

The Subtle Knife is probably my favourite one in the trilogy. I do think you'll need to read the book rather than watch the film because I suspect it will be a little different.

JB

I saw Stardust last night and loved it, as did my two friends, who are not fantasy fans. I'm slowly converting them though.

However, I'm not a big fan of big CGI effects and some of the bigger visual sequences and zooms over the land left me cold. Saying that, I did really like the final battle scene because they used the effects to drive the story. I am a big fan of Princess Bride, so I guess I'm just a low tech lover.

To be controversial, I really liked the start of Northern lights, but I've spent a long time in Oxford, so I think it was more because I knew the area. I can see why if you'd never been to Jericho or the canals or seen the roof tops lit up at night you wouldn't find it quite so intriquing. And yes, there really are vaults underground, some say they are filled with vampires....

BTW anyone see the trailer for the magical toy shop/store? It looks as good as the original Charlie and the Chocolate Factory.

Azjale

I agree Nik, Stardust is in a different league to Mirrormask.

I was a bit disappointed by Mirrormask and felt disloyal.

I also rented Neverwhere - loved the book but thought the TV version was 'flat' - which may have influenced my original comment about that intangible element to Neil Gaiman's work that doesn't quite translate to the screen.

That could just be because I love the books so much

But Stardust was magical - though like JB I regret the missing 'fuck' - and also the mushrooms!

Sarah

BTW anyone see the trailer for the magical toy shop/store? It looks as good as the original Charlie and the Chocolate Factory.

I did, and it looked really interesting - loved the idea of things walking off the pages of the catalogue! Unfortunately it looks like it's got a typical shmultzy storyline, and I can't stand the Dustin Hoffman character - all that rubbery padding made it look like he's out of lip-sync.

This was one film-goer lulled more into dozy resentment than breathless wonder.

NMott, I agree with you that Robert de Niro saved this film, although it was all done in the worst possible taste and that crew member's remark 'We always knew you was a whoopsie, anyway,' recalled the dark days of 'Are You Being Served?'(Which, by the way, I quite enjoyed at the time)

Admittedly, I didn't see the first five minutes - it was another of these films where I joined in to be sociable on my 'unlimited' ticket and maybe I'm being spoiled by high quality stuff in the festival. Even so, the lead character was so lacking in charisma even the spirited attempt by the heroine couldn't redeem him. Has he really been in other things? I liked him best when he was changed into a chipmunk.

Are children really sitting through stories about grotesque old women who'll do anything, no matter how evil, to preserve their youth? Just because, no, especially because, they are young and impressionable, they shouldn't be exposed to this kind of misgynist junk in the name of entertainment.


All the cutting about from scene to scene and the myriad subplots and whizzy explosions may have been designed for short attention spans but it didn't stop the pre-teens in a pretty full house from chatting in the second half.

I would recommend you see 'Ratatoille' instead, on moral as well as entertainment grounds.

Sheila

<Added>

misogynist

I only dropped in to post a review of a talk I'd been to.

Naomi,
Now you mention it, I see what you mean about the possible schmaltz. I tend to ignore that in focus on the imagination side of things.

Shelia,

I hadn't thought about the plot like that but I see you point. I did think it was good that there were several important female characters as this can be missing in fantasy writing and films (Lord of the rings being the classic example).
Azjale

Misogynist junk? Some people just love throwing that word around, don't they?

Sure, don't like the film, trash the movie and the review - your choice - but please keep your moral agenda out of the discussion, if at all possible.

BTW a woman wrote the screenplay. And a damn good job she did too.

Thanks.

JB



<Added>

I did think it was good that there were several important female characters as this can be missing in fantasy writing and films (Lord of the rings being the classic example).

Sorry, but are you seriously suggesting that books now written should all be PC to calm the waters of feminist outrage? As I recall, LOTR had several strong female characters - one of whom single handedly destroyed the king of the ring wraiths. Did we even watch the same movie?

Hi JB,

But wasn't it a male elf in the book?
Bad example, but the female characters are seriously beefed up for the movies.

I think you are reading too much into my comment. I don't think books should be written to be PC, but, unless gender imbalance is a major theme, I find books with very few women OR very few men a bit weird and hard to relate to. That is my personal experience of reading and not part of an evil feminist plot. My point, not well made, was that although some of the female characters might not be ideal role models, at least there are lots of them, creating a balance. Clare Danes was brilliant, witty and strong willed. BTW if I looked like Michelle Pfierrer I'd be wanting to hold on to that too.

deep breathes all round huh?

Azjale

Sorry, I should have said that I liked the review. My problem was with the film.

It wasn't just the unwelcome cultural messages - some of the scenes were unnecessary. Take the one where the heroine and hero are fleeing though that hall with the exploding windows: it seemed to go on forever, each set of windows imploding just as the pair dodged past, and all that flying glass didn't even raise a scratch . I suppose the intended response might be amazed suspense, but to me it just seemed predictable.

I know that some people like to just sit back and enjoy the spectacle, and that's fine, but I like to think about the meaning. Its just a habit.

I suppose a moral agenda, which I don't have, might be releavant to a film meant for children.

Besides, I'm only expressing my point of view. As I said, the cinema was full and I've read lots of positive reviews. I'm just saying why I personally didn't like it. It made me dizzy and it seemed very silly. Apart from that, there were some good points, which you have highlighted. Thank you - I like to know, although it doesn't make any difference to my response at the time. It was somebody else's choice of film and I was prepared to like it.

Sheila

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Md7qa2HxoU8

might be of interest.

Nik

There were no unwelcome cultural messages in this movie. Only unwelcome reactionary statements made about it. The crew accepted
Captain Shakespeare's sexuality and the star saved Tristan. You're entitled to your opinion, based on taste, but I wonder that if you approach art with such a highly strung moral outlook you can really enjoy anything. No offence. There is expressing one's point of view, and then there is spreading propaganda.

Azjale, sorry, my response to your comment was coloured by Sheila's absurd remark. I wrote the review, I support the author, I loved the movie. In some way, I'm being called a misogynist - yet again.

Misogyny has it's opposite, you know. It's called misandry. But no one ever talks about that, do they?

JB

'We always knew you was a whoopsie"

Mybe it was a bit too Cliched for our generation, Shiela, but it was the one line from the whole movie which my son repeated ad nauseum for days afterwards - and it is a children's film afterall. As for the exploding windows, don't forget he still had the protection of the glass snowdrop in his jacket.

I'm dying to see Ratatouille, so no spoilers please

I have to say I loved the exploding windows

Lamia was desperate to cling on to life - not just youth - and Septimus wanted absolute power and to rule forever.

I think we shouldn't forget that this film also endorsed fratricide, killed several innocent animals and horribly mistreated a goat. Did Arthur Weasley really deserve that?

Not to mention the environmental issues - dispose of your litter carefully children, and please don't fling foreign objects into space.

And the religious angle - poisoning an archbishop - by mistake(!)

As for the unfortunate Bernard who suffered an abrupt and disconcerting change of sex - without counselling - horrible.

I also feel that the makers of this film took a very irresponsible attitude towards the whole issue of safe sex and teenage preganancy. Why did Dunstan not use a condom?

Poor Tristan's unhappy upbringing as the child of a single parent was also brushed under the carpet.

Dunstan was clearly unsuitable as a parental role model - encouraging Tristan to buy and consume alcohol under age. Tristan suggesting to Victoria that they should finish the champagne - enjoy alcohol responsibly? If that star hadn't fallen when it did this could have been a date rape movie.

And most disconcerting of all - elder abuse! How could Dunstan and Tristan attack that poor defenceless old man?

Shocking

Sarah