^^it's a really great film, you should watch it . I've been dying to see The Young Victoria since it was released in England, but I think I'll have to wait until it's on DVD, b/c I'm barely able to convince my parents to even let me watch PJ. We just don't go to the theatres that often

I saw PJ on Sunday finally! I've been ranting about it on the Town Square in Ditto Town but I though I would come here to talk more about it

Ok a few things

1.

Overall I thought the movie was ok, but as an adaption is was horrible. It was completely over-sexed for a children's film and some of the violence was a bit...I guess, over emphasised. I didn't mind it, but some kids behind me in the theatre were, um, crying. And they were like 10-12 . The best part of the movie was Logan as Percy, though I hated how he was listening to the iPod in the museum b/c in the books Latin is his favorite class so he was paying attention. And do I really need to say I hated Grover? And Persephone? Hades was better than I thought he would be, but I hated how he became a demon, that only lowered my mom's opinion of the movie. It's a pity it was so bad b/c now my parents think the books are just as bad as the movie

I'll post some more later, if anyone replies

Glenstorm, that's pretty much what I thought. ^^ Logan as Percy was fantastic, and his mom was just like Sally, but everyone else was completely out of character.

Maybe you should get your parents to read the books, so they'll know they're completely different. The movie was pretty good as a stand alone, but as an adaptation it was AWFUL.

1.

Spoiler

You know, it was really unclear. Notice though, that Percy gave him the scar on his face. So if they make a second movie, I'm sure he'll be back. (I hope they don't though. They'd really have to scramble to make it resemble the overarching plotline even a little bit. And I hate to think of what they'll do to Thalia and Nico and Bianca. )

P.S."Brooklyn!"

My brother and I saw Shutter Island last night. I thought it was very good. It was intensely dark, grim and disturbing, mysterious, unsettling and sometimes downright scary. My brother and I picked up the twist very early on into the movie (you probably will too if you're used to psychological thriller/horror) but that didn't diminish our enjoyment of the movie. Instead we enjoyed the journey and later, discussing what really happened. Brilliant acting from all quarters, a very good story and script and amazing cinematography. Lots of creepy moments where we (the cinema audience) laughed nervously to dispel some of the fear.
I thought Leonardo DiCaprio did a great job with his character. I've never liked him but he's proved his acting chops. I'll no longer have the need to call him 'pretty boy', especially with him also starring in Christopher Nolan's upcoming movie, Inception. Anyway, great movie for young adults and older!
Warning: contains disturbing images, occasional graphic violence, some strong language, brief nudity (non-sexual) and adult themes. 8/10

Rising_Star:

I don't know if they'd read them. If they read at all it's mostly theological books and stuff...*sigh*

1. Yeah it is. I noticed that, I don't know if I like it or not. One thing that really annoyed me was

I saw PJ a couple of weeks ago and really enjoyed it. But my word did they destroy the book! All the comments on all the pages above are so, so true. I don't know how they can continue the series as they've taken away all the characters' motivations. However, seeing it has made me appreciate the books even more.

Today I went to see The Lovely Bones. It was dreadful. I think it would be very hard to understand without reading the book, but having read the book I think it's a terrible adaption. I was willing to forgive Peter Jackson for the overlong King Kong but he's totally lost my respect now. All the amazing things about Sebold's novel - the beautiful, soft atmosphere and the gorgeous description - were replaced with obvious characterisation, cinematography, and some truly ridiculous and superfluous CGI. Saoirse Ronan was the best thing in it. In fact, all the actors were very good; it was the script, the adaption itself, that was so terrible.

EDIT: Woah, you guys just got The Young Victoria?! I always forget that while I often have to wait for things like Up and Prince Caspian, you all have to wait for our lovely British movies.

The cinematography in The Young Victoria is so good that it made me gasp out loud in the cinema. It still makes me shiver now when I watch it on DVD. It is such a good film, definitely on a par with Amazing Grace, if not better. I love how wonderful the relationship between Victoria and Albert is, and that story's so brilliantly backed up by the acting, cinematography and costume. Ooh, I want to watch it again now!

I haven't seen the Percy Jackson film yet (perhaps this weekend!) but noticed another mythological reference in the spoilers above (from GtG and Ryan):

The

Today I went to see The Lovely Bones. It was dreadful. I think it would be very hard to understand without reading the book, but having read the book I think it's a terrible adaption. I was willing to forgive Peter Jackson for the overlong King Kong but he's totally lost my respect now. All the amazing things about Sebold's novel - the beautiful, soft atmosphere and the gorgeous description - were replaced with obvious characterisation, cinematography, and some truly ridiculous and superfluous CGI. Saoirse Ronan was the best thing in it. In fact, all the actors were very good; it was the script, the adaption itself, that was so terrible

It's interesting to see the prospective on this movie from someone who read the book. As I did not, I did find that I was very confused at certain parts, but I certainly didn't condemn the movie as horrible. Actually, I left the theater not knowing whether I absolutely despised it, or absolutely loved it. It was a bit odd really. I thought after my thoughts on it sat for a few days I might come to a decision; I didn't. I'm still undecided. I think I would watch it again, if not only to find out if I love it or hate it. The one thing I was able to realize was that it suffered from an identity crisis; it didn't know if it was a creepy thriller, a gripping drama or and epic fantasy and therefor came across as a bit confused. Part of this, I think, is do to the fact that there was supposedly a disagreement between Peter and a few others on the film as to the creative direction of the film; when other people start messing with a directors vision, all sorts of things can go wrong. At any rate I certainly haven't lost faith in Peter; I still think he has a great knack for storytelling.

I'll always be a,
NL101

stargazer: ah I see. It makes more sense now.

The one thing I was able to realize was that it suffered from an identity crisis; it didn't know if it was a creepy thriller, a gripping drama or and epic fantasy and therefor came across as a bit confused. Part of this, I think, is do to the fact that there was supposedly a disagreement between Peter and a few others on the film as to the creative direction of the film; when other people start messing with a directors vision, all sorts of things can go wrong. At any rate I certainly haven't lost faith in Peter; I still think he has a great knack for storytelling.

Yes, I think you're right - it didn't know what it was. The "sort-of funny" scene with Susan Sarandon seemed very inappropriate considering the tone of the rest of the film. In the book, Susie's grandmother is like that, but it's written in an ironic rather than a hilarious way.

I'm still disappointed that Lynne Ramsay didn't direct the film, as she was originally supposed to. I think she would have captured the feel of the book better. However, there were good moments in the film, I just wonder what parts of the film were Jackson's. I think I read somewhere that

Perhaps not "horrible"; just disappointing. Really, really disappointing. I won't be seeing it again, ever!

AJAiken, I haven't seen the movie, but apparently the ending as you mention was changed after audiences at test screenings did not like the way that it was originally depicted in the film.
Reuters article

Also filming was actually halted at one point due to creative differences between Jackson and one of his art directors. http://www.slashfilm.com/2008/05/01/pet ... tive-rift/

I think I may have seen the Reuters article before. I guess that's where I heard about the changed scene from Jackson, then.

I knew The Lovely Bones had gone through a lot of problems but I didn't realise it was quite that bad! What a shame.

Another thought on Percy Jackson:

^^

Spoiler

I liked when they realized what was happening too. The hippie guy was hilarious! "Yeah I've seen it on DVD." "DVD?" "Seriously man?" "I think it's the best movie of the year." "The year? Wait, what year is it?" "1971." That's from memory so I'm sure it's not perfect

I just saw Alice in Wonderland, it was definitely Tim Burton all the way through, I liked it and was glad that I had read both the books before the film. Johnny Depp was great as Mad Hatter!

^^so it's good then? I've been wanting to see it but my mom doesn't like Tim Burton or Johnny Depp, though for some reason or other I like them both . I'm probably gonna wait til it's on DVD to watch it anyways but, just wondering, is there anything questionable in it?