2000 AD Online Forum

The review in the latest Meg savaged it, but the handful of reviews I've looked at online seem positive. Any thoughts? Worth the time and money?

Despite buying the orginal four issues and the fancy hardback years ago (current hardback edition is horribly expensive and the reproduction doesn't so hot), I still haven't read it yet. I'm wondering if I can watch the film without having the original spoiled.

Regards

Robin

I read the book for the second time last month, in anticipation of seeing the film.

I'd read the book first, as the film (I think) places greater emphasis on minor characters. I say this without seeing the film, but knowing that the character played by De Niro is in the book for about three pages and having no idea who the Gervais character is.

I liked the book a lot, and recommend it. I'll try to find a way to see the film, despite permanent-late-shift-and-no-babyitters hell.

I can't decide whether to be amused or pissed off by Jonathan Ross, who keeps admitting he's not objective because his wife co-wrote it, then features it at length on one of his many BBC programmes.

Still, Piffiffer's a babe.

- Trout

Neil Gaiman's also a close friend of his...though I seem to remember his review of Mirrormask was only lukewarm (though it's got the usual taken-out-of-contect quotes on the cover), and he loved League Of Extraordinary Gentlemen film, despite being a Moore fanatic. I assumed he's probably bow out and get someone else to review it though in a way it would be admitting that he's partial - I think he'll be pretty used to reviewing friends' films by now. That said, it would be difficult if it had been a stinker.

I like some of Gaiman's work though I can't say I'm very drawn to this by the trailer - the Gervais cameo seems very predictable and incestuous (other than Brent, he's just not an actor), the flying ship CGI looks very hokey and Gaiman alsoways seems to move his stories along with the same 'have to find the next magic object or character' device. But then maybe it's just notaimed at me.

Kids' film. Why in the world would I...? etc.

What do you mean, kids film.

I thought David Essex looked the part as a rock star!

And what a fine movie that is too, the David Essex one, that is.

Haven't seen the movie yet but Jonathan Ross' review seemed pretty balanced to me. Really enjoyed the book(only other Gaiman book I've read was Neverwhere which didn't really do anything for me) but the trailers for this haven't convinced me they've made a good movie of it. Will probably wait until I can rent it or watch it on tv rather than risk a wasted cinema trip.

I thought 'That'll be the day' was better.



V

I was pleasantly surprised with this after seeing the trailer, which didn't give a good impression. It's a very good kids film and as I was watching I thought that had I seen this 20 years ago I'd have loved it.

It omits some minor characters ,and there are some modern phrases that jarred a bit but is very faithful to the book in other aspects.

It looks very nice too

Saw it.

Liked it.

Forgotten most of it already.

Except Robert DeNiro is a terrible at playing camp

I enjoyed it and so did Tiny Tips (7).  It's pretty much a very straight forward fairy story; very little of the knowingness of Princess Bride that some of the reviews/previews would have you belive is there.

The leads are likeable (eventually), there's lovely scenery, Michelle looks positively radiant and you leave with a nice warm feeling.

Amusingly, I've seen Gaiman on MAKING OF... shows saying, "They changed all sorts from my original story but, what the heck, it's all good stuff".   I know he's probably being paid to say that but it does make a difference from "They've ruined it!".

I tend to disagree with Worley about nearly all of his film reviews so I've stopped paying attention to him.  It's only an opinion after all.

Yeah I thought Worley's review was quite scathing and uncalled for in a way - he's the type of 'critic' (used loosely) to whom I often think 'do I give a shit what he thinks' and it actually makes me want to go and see the film.

I tend to ignore most critics anyway. Anyone who funds their life fauning over others or on the other foot, kicking them down, needs to have their head looked at.

'do I give a shit what he thinks'

Tbh, that's what I think about *all* critics of every kind, and the answer's always "no". Food critics being particularly odious twats.

Mr Ross might just have a teeny weeny bit of bias in his review seeing as his wife had a major part in the script. Even so that doesn't stop it being a good film if it is (I haven't seen it and I don't think I will as there may not be enough gory deaths for me).

Just seen it.
Thought it was great.
Loved the showdown at the end.
Some great and inventive stuff going on.  And De Niro was hilarious and brilliant.

It's the best of Gaimans books in my opinion. Its just one of those 'nice' reads. I'd certainly recommend it.

Really didn't like Neverwhere, and only thought American Gods was ok.

Hope to see this at some point.

She's got her knockers.

"Really didn't like Neverwhere, and only thought American Gods was ok."

I quite liked the original TV version of Neverwhere, although it could have done with being shot on film and having a slightly bigger budget and a few better actors. I may read the novelisation at some point. American Gods wasn't bad, but nothing I hadn't seen in The Sandman or various home-grown roleplaying games I played in during the early 90s.

Regards

Robin

I felt that about Neverwhere - it had the same feel as studio-bound 1980s Doctor Who for me at first, though revisiting it it did feel kind of refreshing that the drama had a chance to breath as a play would without the overuse of blue/green colour filters that seems mandatory in any kind of sci-fi and non-sci-fi film-making today and editing stitched together in the editing suite.

I also liked the scene filmed on a real (unused) underground station in which, as I recall, real trains passed by as a group of characters in Victorian garb sit down to a dinner party on the platform - I'd love it if any of the passengers looked out and caught a glimpse of the scene. Ironically, unused underground stops are known as 'ghost stations'.

Couldn't comment on the live action version as have yet to see it - found it a bit dull as a book though.

I quite liked it as it had a lot of interesting ideas and was different enough to keep my interest. That said it was a bit uneven with a lot of hammy performances not least from DeNiro and the lead who looks too much like Gareth gates for comfort.

Similar to The Last legion in that every scene had a 'name that bit part British actor' in every scene. Stardust had Walliams, Williams, Gervais, the one armed dish washer from Robin's nest, one out of Dick and Dom and one of 'Our Friends from the north'' whereas The last Region has Kevin McKidd, James Cosmo, Ben Kingsley, John Hannah, Dr Bashir of DS9 and Peter Mullan.

Wake might prefer the latter as it uses plenty of the battle re-enactment society in the final rumble.

Better than both was Eastern Promises which has the most brustal sauna fight scene that you'll ever see. Frightening through the fingers stuff!

Sorry for the many spelling errors. Night on the sauce to blame. No more misspells from me, for a couple of days at least, as I'm off to Wembley for the NFL game - go Giants!

Finally got around to seeing this last night, really liked it. It had a nice dark sense of humour running through the whole thing, particularly the whole seven princes plot. And the sword fight at the end was pretty inventive, not to mention cool.

I'm not a Gamian fan by any stretch, but I did enjoy this, for the most part.

Ricky Gervais' shop being about half an hour from our house was cool. I even liked DeNiro's hammy turn.

What I didn't like though, was the whole 'all us pals together' feel that it had- with too many of Ross', and by extenstion Goldman's, celebretard pals showing up to do a turn.

Michelle Pfiffifer (is that enough 'f's?) is so gorgeous she makes my eyes bleed.

I've only read one of Gaiman's books, American Gods, which I loved, so I suppose I'd call myself a beginner. But I think he's got a great imagination, and it made for a great story here.

I wasn't too bothered by all the celebrity cameos, most of them were fairly entertaining. The only one that actually irritated me was Gervais, since he was just playing Ricky Gervais, and as much as I love The Office and Extras, his schtick is getting old. DeNiro was fun, and it did lead to one of the film's best lines *Minor spoiler* :

"It's alright captain. We always knew you was a woopsy."

Celebretard!
Never heard that before rac, quality!

I wonder if Alvin got paid for lending his name to the film.

Celebretard!
Never heard that before rac, quality!


Thanks Satchmo! It's not one of mine, I'm afraid. I heard David Lee Roth use it in an interview a while back and thought the same as you.

"Better than both was Eastern Promises which has the most brustal sauna fight scene that you'll ever see. Frightening through the fingers stuff!"

I saw this last night. I had heard legends of the sauna scene beforehand, but damn, it's vicious! I'm not usually bothered by violence in films, but every knife slash really looked (and more importantly SOUNDED) like it hurt. Or maybe it looks sore because Viggo does the whole scene in the nip, zero chance of having any padding tucked under his shirt. :D

Damn good film as well.....

i only wanted to see it so i could annoy everyone picking out & naming all the locations locally and then moaning about how the whole film entourage never employed anyone locally or had any effect in the area except mysterious little signs on the road for a few months.

upon seeing it, i found even more to moan & rant about, the lack of continuity with scenes & seasons.. " why thats the coulin pass in march & now theyre 100 miles away at dunvegan in october, oo and back to march, theres the snow, now its gone etc "

i was most amazed that they didnt bother CGI-ing out houses, industrial barges & yes, a fish farm in the distance, i guess most people were looking at the mountains, of pfiefferfferfs saggy tits tho.

what i wasnt expecting was to actually enjoy the film at all, which i did. and so did the kids, which is kindo the point isn't it ?

Nicole Kidman ruins everything she is in, because as soon as you see her, its yet another film to enhance HER career and nothing more. (According to her).

I*'m with that group of public than generally despises her, maybe, but she evokes such when, everything she touches, turns to stomm.


Phew. I think I just exorcised a demon.

Just look at her botox head she has no expressions!

While I don't blame her entirely, the Nicole Kidman film The Invasion perfectly sums up everything I can't stand about soulless Hollywood "content".
Ok,I do blame her :)

I've finally seen this - got in this morning with a £1.50 per child Kids Club - less than £8 including sweets and coke!

I loved it. I haven't read the book yet, but I got it for Christmas (my wife always buys me a Neil Gaiman book).

Cheers,

Wake

While I don't blame her entirely, the Nicole Kidman film The Invasion perfectly sums up everything I can't stand about soulless Hollywood "content".
Ok,I do blame her :)


I haven't seen it but I dislike the idea. Especially as the 70s version was such a great film. And it really isn't that dated when you watch it... it still works.

I wanted to se thsi film because of the flying ships.

Did use anything like weird stone.

I don't think they entreily explained how the flying ships worked (although I could be wrong there)

After watchung the trailer again. They look abit like airships.

Unforntunitly, it's no longer playing. I guess I will wait for it to come out on Box Office.

 *The Invasion perfectly sums up everything I can't stand about soulless Hollywood "content". *

Oh come on. There were three previous versions of this story made in Hollywood and they all rocked. They'd already beat the odds, not suprising fourth wasn't the charm.

I just saw this on Box Office and as it began... I rather liked it. There's some very atmosphereic location photgraphy set in around England and Wales.

Though, once the story started moviing along. I didn't like the way one scene progressed to the next in a very usual fashion. Too linear.

Somes parts of the movie had it's charm. Michelle Phieffer's goat drawn mini chariot. Though I believe with her advancing years in real life that the rejuvenation process in the film was there to remind us that she's still attractive.

The female lead, ( Forget her name.) looking  strikening attractive with her long yellow locks, sclupted face. Funny, as I found her to be reasonably hot looking in 'Romero And Juliet' and then grew less and less interested in her appearance as years progressed.

I thought her mother was hot looking. The lady in blue and when she made a reappearance towards the end of the film looking just as young despite what must have been her advanced years.

Whats his face, ( I forget his name also, though he's well known.)the Pirate captain of flying vessel. Nice touch, but I still prefer 'Pirates of the Carribean.' The flying vessel, good, but there was something lacking about it. Somebody on this messageboard earlier said this was very HOKEY. Yeah, I sort of agree there.

This would have been few scenes here when I might have gotten my 'Slaine, Sky Chariots of Fire' fix.

Apparently not......


The rest of the film was so.. so. abit boring.

Though I liked how the last brother was dispatched by the witch toward the ending. A watery grave. Sort of like the bit from the Matrix when Morpheus asks Neo 'Do you think that's air you're breathing now?'

The green flashs of light, and that Inn or Tavern that poppped out of nowhere.

Not good at all.

Then again, it's there for the children.

There's some very atmosphereic location photgraphy set in around England and Wales.


Is there really??
I think you'll find it's actually in Northern Scotland and the Isle of Skye.

According IMDB.COM England predominiates on the list.

Wales is mentioned.

As well Isle of Skye.

As well as alot of the Northern places that must be Scotland.

So, I would say that we'll both right there.

What I should have said was 'parts of the english country side' as England is too broad a term.



 

Link: Let them know if you think they are wrong.

I think the term you're grasping for is "British".
England and Scotland are different countries.

Think of it as a bit like Australia and New Zealand.
They're both in roughly the same part of the world, but it might get irritating if someone kept calling you a kiwi.