I saw the entire thing at Comicon.
I and all in my group enjoyed it immensely. It is not a strict adaptation of the book, so don't expect that. Especially the last quarter. Every preview or snippet I'd seen before (such as at the Paramount panels at the 2006 and 2007 Comicons) made me worried and gave the wrong impression. As per my usual self, there are many things I nitpick about, but it's still worth seeing.

Has anyone else seen it? Try to keep things spoiler free for now

It's not playing anywhere near me until August 10th and I'm extremely busy that day (Crowded House concert in Philadelphia)

So I'll be useless for a few days after that.

I don't think we're getting it in the UK until October. I thought the trailer looked great, though.

I'm going to see it Friday if I can. The clips Gaiman's posted on his blog look pretty good, but I'm still a little apprehensive.

Just won tickets to see it Thursday night! I'll post my spoiler-free thoughts ASAP.

Don

congratulations pdli!

Saw it last night. Free advanced screening. Twas most excellent, I thought. Though I have a difficult time finding faults in things I like.

It wasn't the book of course.

De Niro is such a ham.

I saw it last night, at an advance screening. I have not read the book (yes, I know, I'm a naughty monkey).

I LOVED it. Romance, adventure, humor, danger, and the witches with the scary - Bravo, I say. Bravo. A tale (and a movie) for all ages, all genders.

Let me put it this way - I joined this forum solely because I wanted to tell Neil Gaiman that he's a freaking genius. And I already knew that!

(Welcome, Chuckybones!)

As Emerald says, we saw a screening last night. The film does tend to ramble on a bit, but it's very happy rambling.

The ghosts of the Princes of Stormhold were hilarious. Pfeiffer was really excellent, and the rest of the cast was quite good, and well-chosen for the roles.

The production design is GORGEOUS! Costumes, sets, cinemtography on location - all stunning! It was a pleasure to watch just for the visuals.

Our audience - quite a mixed bag, with young men aged 16-21 and assorted senior citizens (!) in the majority - didn't get restless at all, that I could tell, despite the 2-hour length. They laughed quite a lot in appropriate spots and even clapped and cheered a little at the best bits of derring-do.

- Cho

As blown away as I was the first time, I managed to finagle my into a 2nd advanced screening. And the second time around was even better. I was even moved to tears a few times.

As much as I missed all those things left out, they kept the spirit and the feel of the book completely intact. And there was not single misstep in the casting, especially De Niro, who was waaaay over the top but still made you believe in him.

I cannot stress strongly enough what a wonderful film this is. See it with somebody special.

Having seen this film for free twice in the past 8 days, I'm looking forward to paying for the privilege this Friday.

Just got back. It was alot of fun! Definitely "based on the book", but it stands on it's own very well.

Goldman took the plot in a couple different directions, tying things together in new and interesting ways.

All the actors were top notch. As far as Pfieffer or de Niro being the stand out... Pfieffer plays it straight and scary very well. Excellent villain.

de Niro plays it loose and ... not so straight. He and his crew are awesome!

Look forward to owning the DVD.

Don

This message has been edited. Last edited by: pdli_5,

What's with all the reviews saying he traveled into "another land, Stormhold" (CNN)? From the book I was under the impression that Stormhold was just one of the many kingdoms of Faerie. Do I misremember?

quote:

Originally posted by Bringa:
What's with all the reviews saying he traveled into "another land, Stormhold" (CNN)? From the book I was under the impression that Stormhold was just one of the many kingdoms of Faerie. Do I misremember?

Perhaps Stormhold is just one of the many lands of Faerie in the same way that England is one of the many lands of the mortal world, but Stormhold and England are the lands that are adjacent to the Wall

No, you are correct. Whereas the timeline was shrunk from 6 months (book) to 1 week (film), I think the concept of the ever-expanding Faerie was too large to present. So they limited it to "the Kingdom of Stormhold".

Doesn't really hurt the overall story.

I have to admit... I thought the movie was terrible.

I completely, 100% understand that it was not intended to be the book. However, it used the shell of the novel and it took out the magic.

I felt that too much was wasted on theatrics, like Captain Shakespeare being gay, and not enough on the adventure.

Why did they take out so much from Tristran's journey? Why did they suck out the magic and heart of the book in favor of cheap Hollywood tricks?

They essentially removed the Neil Gaiman from the story and were left with a simple Hollywood tale.

I'm very disappointed.

Well... I can understand that, but I do disagree. I thought there was a good amount of adventure, and that this version of Tristran's journey didn't lose much. The only thing that felt really forced was the Star falling in love in such a short amount of time (especially since T didn't release Star from the chain himself, which was an underlined action in the book). The end of Tristran's adventure in the book was not theatrical at all. The Unicorn intro was lost because of budget. Otherwise you lost the Hairy man and the Tori tree, neither of which I felt were too large of losses. I think they work fine in the book, but in a movie? By making Babylon candles far rarer in the movie, it helps explain why everyone else didn't get one and *blip* arrive at the Star instantly (Tristran's location sense could of explained it, but would sound a bit convenient as well). Captain Shakespear's extremely stereotyped gay character (good lord, he does T's hair!) I'm a bit torn about. It felt good to have everyone come together in the end, something N did not do in the book but which works very well for movies. It's been awhile, but did Star, T, Septimus and the Witch all meet in the book? Flipping through, it seems that it was only when T was a mouse! I prefer seeing a bigger fight for an adventure film than what was in the book.

As for the magic and heart of the book, I can't discuss that as directly. What would you consider the heart of the book?

ok, I have one other question for you: How would you differentiate Theatrics from Adventure in a film?

quote:

Originally posted by GMZoe:
Otherwise you lost the Hairy man and the Tori tree, neither of which I felt were too large of losses.

BLASPHEMER!!

Just watched it tonight, with escher and his mother. We all quite enjoyed it.

I found myself paying attention to the audience's responses (i usually couldn't care less), because i wanted everyone to like it. I was pleased that they laughed frequently, and amused that there were many gasps and cries of mild horror ("Oh my God!" "What the crap?!" to be exact) when the witches first cut open an animal to read its entrails, and when the roasted cat was shown and chopped in half (that part did make me cringe too). The audience wasn't as full as i'd hoped but there were still lots of people there to see it.

They seemed to laugh at DeNiro and the ghosts the most, and i did enjoy those parts too. I'd thought, while watching previews and waiting for today, that i would be nitpicky about the details and be annoyed by some bits, but instead i was able to relax and remind myself that some things inevitably had to be altered.

I was quite excited to see a trailer for Beowulf before the movie too! Can't wait for that! Was a bit disappointed that you could barely catch Neil's name - i only saw it because i was looking hard for it.

It feels weird that this beloved author who hardly anyone i know except people i've met over the internet have ever heard of is now making movies with these big famous people in them. (Okay, yes, i know he's pretty well known, just no one in my everyday life except people i've introduced to his work know of him.) I find myself feeling very happy for him the way you would be pleased for a family member or old friend who became big and successful.

quote:

Let me put it this way - I joined this forum solely because I wanted to tell Neil Gaiman that he's a freaking genius. And I already knew that!

Oh my goodness, me too! No spoilers, so don't worry. Charlie Cox is adorable and dashing. I got a very strong Princess Bride vibe, but not as jokey.

I don't know if Neil Gaiman is happy with it, but I hope it does well so we can finally get Good Omens on the big screen!

Or even American Gods. But Good Omens first please.

I loved it. I'm too sleepy to do a full review, but there were some really choice bits.

Pfeiffer was good, very good

but

I loved DeNiro -and- his crew more.

The brothers were the perfect peanut gallery

and

Billy!