The Republic of Heaven

Aw, you thought of me

Hang, on, I forget were you live... Atonement was out in jolly old England a while back...

My friend loved the book and made me read it before we could go and see the film. I'm so glad she did because it's now one of my very favourites. I've since read Birdsong by Sebastian Faulks (different war, similar themes and structure) and if you end up liking Atonement I'd recommend that too!

The film is beautiful. Without giving too much away if you've not read the book, there's an epic longshot on Dunkirk beach that is just incredible... even Keira Knightly managed well (probably because posh, cool English girl isn't too hard for her to manage:)).

Hope you enjoy it!

Thanks! Yeah... Atonement is coming out next week for us. I'm defiantly considering seeing it!

Saw the film last night!!!! The bear scenes WERE INCREDIBLE!!

daemon_light wrote:Thanks! Yeah... Atonement is coming out next week for us. I'm defiantly considering seeing it!

Atonement is a wonderful film. Not quite as good as the book, but there you go!

Good to be back on the Forums.

Anyways, Saw the movie 2 weeks ago just days after it opened, and the Amored Bear scenes where by far one of the best parts of the film. The scene where Ioreke breaks the other bear's jaw off (I can't remember his new name) the entire Theatre was like "Woaaaaaaah..."

They were very good in some respects... much like the whole film in fact. The design was fantastic. The animation was excellent. The script was generally good. But the direction and editing undermined it all.

I refer to the Lyra-tricks-the-king scene mostly, which felt very flat compared to the book (what's the point of the scene unless it's the ultimate tst of Lyra's lying - i.e. you know that bears supposedly are untrickable). I actually thought the fight worked well - especially considering the huge difficulties in giving a live-action film wholly over to animated characters for several minutes. Weitz generally seemed more at home direction action dequences for some reason. Weird, when you remember his background.

The translation of fight from book to screen was pretty faithful and worked well in its new format. Its one of the best bits of the film if you ask me. I liked how they kept in the jaw-ripping bit but kept the shot wide, and then had Iorek break Ragnar's neck. Violent but merciful, and a good stand-in for actually eating his heart

Kyrillion wrote:I refer to the Lyra-tricks-the-king scene mostly, which felt very flat compared to the book (what's the point of the scene unless it's the ultimate tst of Lyra's lying - i.e. you know that bears supposedly are untrickable). I actually thought the fight worked well - especially considering the huge difficulties in giving a live-action film wholly over to animated characters for several minutes. Weitz generally seemed more at home direction action dequences for some reason. Weird, when you remember his background.

Yeah, I personally suspect that it comes off badly because it was originally supposed to be fleshed out more. Had it been planned to be this short from the beginning it could've used the space better. As it is I think there's a bunch of stuff missing that was shot and meant to be in the film. Really hoping for a directors/extended edition...

Gabe, going completely off topic for a moment, why do I keep thinking you have a picture of Bristol in your sig? Have other sraffies who know Bristol (Peter? Max?) noticed this?

I also liked that they kept Iorek Rippng off Ragnar's/Iofur's jaw.

Enitharmon wrote:Gabe, going completely off topic for a moment, why do I keep thinking you have a picture of Bristol in your sig? Have other sraffies who know Bristol (Peter? Max?) noticed this?

Well that's interesting...it's a little city just south of Vancouver BC called Bellingham. Though typically less American than the rest of the country, I don't know that it is intentionally similar to other cities. Most of the stuff in that shot is pretty old though...hmmm, have to research Bellingham's history...

Gabrobot wrote:Yeah, I personally suspect that it comes off badly because it was originally supposed to be fleshed out more. Had it been planned to be this short from the beginning it could've used the space better.

I think the final shooting script -- with all the studio meddling prior, combined with Weitz's relative lack of subtlety -- would've been entirely forgivable if only they had kept the ending. With the ending intact (and the correct Bolvangar --> Svalbard interlude in the balloon) and an approximate running-length of 2:30min, it would make a lot of sense that the script kept rushing things. Pullman's story is probably long enough to warrant a fast pace, anyways. We would have left saying, "Gee, that was so F-ing rushed, but at least it was a HUGE story and they got to tell it in less than 3 hours! That's feat, ain't it?"

As it stands now, New Line cut out the ending at the last-minute, making the whole rushed/sped-up feeling seem fruitless. No one in the studio bothered to weigh the consequences of their decision. This poor film has been dealt more of a treacherous blow than Titus Andronicus and Julius Caesar combined. I felt that the rushed pace was supposed to pay off at the end when we reached the film's ending, which was never shown and thus audiences felt betrayed (well, not me, but everyone else on the planet felt that way) by not having enough depth in the first 2 hours.

Or, by contrast, if Weitz knew from the beginning that he'd have to cut the last 3 chapters, he'd probably have written the script better to reflect that change. But they only informed him of the cut when almost all of the principal photography had ended. From where I see it, critics are attacking an UNFINISHED film that was never meant to stand alone as a 2-hour picture. The fact that The Golden Compass still has such high value despite this is simply miraculous. It's hard to imagine another major Hollywood film that could possibly survive such a brutal insult to its artistic freedom and still look this good.

Anyone else feel the same way?

That sounds like a reasonable rationale.

namster wrote:

Gabrobot wrote:Yeah, I personally suspect that it comes off badly because it was originally supposed to be fleshed out more. Had it been planned to be this short from the beginning it could've used the space better.

I think the final shooting script -- with all the studio meddling prior, combined with Weitz's relative lack of subtlety -- would've been entirely forgivable if only they had kept the ending. With the ending intact (and the correct Bolvangar --> Svalbard interlude in the balloon) and an approximate running-length of 2:30min, it would make a lot of sense that the script kept rushing things. Pullman's story is probably long enough to warrant a fast pace, anyways. We would have left saying, "Gee, that was so F-ing rushed, but at least it was a HUGE story and they got to tell it in less than 3 hours! That's feat, ain't it?"

As it stands now, New Line cut out the ending at the last-minute, making the whole rushed/sped-up feeling seem fruitless. No one in the studio bothered to weigh the consequences of their decision. This poor film has been dealt more of a treacherous blow than Titus Andronicus and Julius Caesar combined. I felt that the rushed pace was supposed to pay off at the end when we reached the film's ending, which was never shown and thus audiences felt betrayed (well, not me, but everyone else on the planet felt that way) by not having enough depth in the first 2 hours.

Or, by contrast, if Weitz knew from the beginning that he'd have to cut the last 3 chapters, he'd probably have written the script better to reflect that change. But they only informed him of the cut when almost all of the principal photography had ended. From where I see it, critics are attacking an UNFINISHED film that was never meant to stand alone as a 2-hour picture. The fact that The Golden Compass still has such high value despite this is simply miraculous. It's hard to imagine another major Hollywood film that could possibly survive such a brutal insult to its artistic freedom and still look this good.

Anyone else feel the same way?

I agree with you on the whole. But photography had I think long ended when they decided the ending was to be changed. Which really is one of the most stupid studio decisions in years. If they hadn't done that I think it would have made for a much better film, not only because the story would just work so much better, but then they could have just quitely finished the film, giving it the attention it required instead of rushing everything to meet the deadline.

Anyway, I do think Weitz had in mind to make a film that moved relatively quick, but there's a difference between fast moving and rushed. As it is now the film is hard to follow because it moves at this relentless pace rarely stopping for a moment.

I'd say this film was treated more like Lavinia than Titus Andronicus.

I don't know if i feel betrayed - perhaps Weitz has a right to feel that way though. I certainly feel a little pissed off that the studio feels they can fob the audience off with any old tat and they'll lap it up and buy the merchandise. They have no concept of what made the book good and no understanding of why people liked it.

didn't deborah forte say something along the lines of "the theme isn't important"? (this is why i blame new line.)

I really don't think the film was rushed per say, and I can actually completely understand why the last chapters were cut... it would have felt a bit draggy.

But I think just some extra scenes and transitions might have made the film not completely JUST plot... improving its pacing.

where I was watching, everyone actually started laughing when iorek first appeared and started talking....think the voiceover from ian mckellen is a little funny at times