I saw a "sneak peek" screening in L.A. yesterday... I'd heard rumors that Weitz cut the ending for being "too depressing," but I didn't think it would actually happen. IT DID. The ending was so forced, so ridiculous, that the entire audience sat in appalled silence as the credits started to roll. THAT WAS NOT A MOVIE ENDING! Everyone was waiting for the film to continue! With all the fuss about intercision, Weitz made the mistake of cutting the soul away from this film.
The really disappointing part about all of this is that the rest of the film was wonderful. Aside from some extraneous scene cutting (ex: exploring with Roger), changes in chronology (Svalbard before Bolvanger, scary bridge on the way to Bolvanger instead of while chasing Asriel), and plot simplification (ex: Tony is replaced by Billy Costa, Serafina joins the action a little earlier, etc.), the film was true to the book. This is why the ending is such an injustice... the part that confuses me most is Weitz had no problem leaving the graphic mauling of a polar bear's jaw in the film. Why take out the ending? See, it's not even a question of being true to the book... the ending, even if it was for an original film, is still extremely poor. It looks like he's holding out for "The Subtle Knife," but I'd say he's counting chickens before they're hatched. If word gets around that the ending is non-existent, it might take a hit at the box office, equaling No Sequel For You, Mr. Weitz.
Some Points:
-Dakota (Lyra), for being an unknown, does a heck of a lot better than Emma Watson (Hermione Granger) and the rest of the Hogwarts Trio did in the first Potter film. I couldn't take my eyes off her, and she brought life and character to the screen every time she was on it.
-I'm on the fence about the beginning: it's nice to be filled in really fast, but it was a lot of information to load on the audience so quickly. Plus, it takes away the mystery and wonder that cloaks the "parallel worlds" arc in the book.
-On the whole it was okay, but it could have been great. Though younger fantasy fans will eat it up (...but NOT if they've read the book), it's sad to leave a film with a bad taste in your mouth.
The really disappointing part about all of this is that the rest of the film was wonderful. Aside from some extraneous scene cutting (ex: exploring with Roger), changes in chronology (Svalbard before Bolvanger, scary bridge on the way to Bolvanger instead of while chasing Asriel), and plot simplification (ex: Tony is replaced by Billy Costa, Serafina joins the action a little earlier, etc.), the film was true to the book. This is why the ending is such an injustice... the part that confuses me most is Weitz had no problem leaving the graphic mauling of a polar bear's jaw in the film. Why take out the ending? See, it's not even a question of being true to the book... the ending, even if it was for an original film, is still extremely poor. It looks like he's holding out for "The Subtle Knife," but I'd say he's counting chickens before they're hatched. If word gets around that the ending is non-existent, it might take a hit at the box office, equaling No Sequel For You, Mr. Weitz.
Some Points:
-Dakota (Lyra), for being an unknown, does a heck of a lot better than Emma Watson (Hermione Granger) and the rest of the Hogwarts Trio did in the first Potter film. I couldn't take my eyes off her, and she brought life and character to the screen every time she was on it.
-I'm on the fence about the beginning: it's nice to be filled in really fast, but it was a lot of information to load on the audience so quickly. Plus, it takes away the mystery and wonder that cloaks the "parallel worlds" arc in the book.
-On the whole it was okay, but it could have been great. Though younger fantasy fans will eat it up (...but NOT if they've read the book), it's sad to leave a film with a bad taste in your mouth.