It was not that bad


When producers make movies, very few of them can make a long one without going through a lot of *beep* to do it. Hell, Peter Jackson had a theater release and then had the directors version which is the extended cut. I guess many think that when you make a movie you get to make it any way you want and there is much more to it than that.

I liked the cast, it had some very good veteran actors with newer ones and yes, there are always ways to improve on that become apparent after the fact. Could it have been done to be better, probably, but with wall the action that takes place and all the story lines it can be very difficult to cut it down into a movie under two hours. Sometimes a miniseries is better because it does allow more of the story to be told including the history, character development, etc. and also allows more time to tell the story in. I think the timing can seem very rushed when it is a motion picture but then again, a motion picture does allow for great special FX and I am not sure about the budget for a miniseries.

The performances were not bad because Jared Harris, Lena Headey, Jonathan Rhys-Myers, C.H. Pounder and Aiden Turner are excellent performers. Even the young and relatively new Lily Collins was good in it as well as the rest of the kids. However, I do agree that another format would have been better like the series where they could have had about 10 hours for each book similar to True Blood, Game Of Thrones. Some book series cannot be made into a movie that is going to satisfy everyone. That is just my thought on it.

I did not think it was as terrible as some are saying.

reply

I agree with you that it wasn't that bad & that the filmmakers had to squeeze a lot of story into a short amount of time, which is not easy to do & still end up with a good product. There are things in the movie I absolutely love (the music, actors, special fx, sets), and things that could have been handled better (plot changes, Valentine, character development & backstory, and they did not sufficiently & creatively show that the Shadow-world is all around & intertwined with the mundane world).

I feel like they relied too much on there being a sequel, so plot lines got introduced in the movie (that would have been explored/explained/resolved in the 2nd movie) and then were dropped, making them seem random or confusing or just plain dumb. The most egregious of these, for me, was Simon's vampire bite. Your best friend gets kidnapped by vampires, and you see what looks like a bite mark on him, and you don't tell anyone?! This would have been dealt with in the 2nd movie, but without that 2nd movie, this scene just seems weird. Like things that were never explained on "Lost."

But for me the movie accomplishes one of the most important things any adaptation can, and that is that it got me interested in the books. Thanks to the movie I'm now in love with and immersed in the world of Shadowhunters. Not every book to film adaptation can achieve that.
Anyway, I'm glad there's someone else out there who feels the movie was not a total loss. It at least spawned the upcoming TV show, which will hopefully address some of the issues in the film.

I can't swim.
--Vasiliy Fet

reply

Yea, I think with a book series or saga, they should think about the miniseries or netflix or something else that can answer questions that the book does that I think are important to the story. I think people would have liked the Twilight series better if they had used that format because even though I liked for the most part, I thought the actors did a great job it still runs into the problem of squeezing a lot into a limited amount of time. I hear there is to be a miniseries with different actors regarding this story, but I do wish they would have the same actors in it.

As far as "Lost" is concerned it was up for interpretation and it is a conversation show. There was a small video clip that was released that put a couple things to rest. You can find it on youtube I think. I dealt with Hugo and Ben and Walt since Hugo was the one left in charge of the island and was going to do things his own way. Ben was an interesting character, both the villain or anti hero and also the ally and somewhat hero too.

reply

I agree with you about Twilight. What's sad is that before Twilight was a movie, they shopped the story around with the intentions of creating a TV series to HBO & other cable channels, but everyone wanted to make such extreme changes to the story that it would have been unrecognizable! In a way I'm glad they held out and made the movies, because they at least are mostly faithful to the books, unlike a TV series apparently would have been. But the crazy success of the Twilight films helped a lot of other books get green-lit for movie & TV adaptation, including The Mortal Instruments.

"Lost." What can I say? It was a delicious intriguing show until the last few episodes. It just felt like a lost opportunity....

Awww...shortest honeymoon ever!
--Vasiliy Fet

reply

Wasn't too bad, but wasn't that good either. The story was all over the shop. The vampire bite dead end mentioned above. Hodge ... the leader who acts nothing like a leader. Are we, aren't we siblings? Another Twilight lovesick trio. Lena Headley spending 90% of her onscreen time comatose.

Lily Collins was good as Clary though. 🐭

reply

I think this was harshly critical of this film since the first book is kinda weak




Look like Tarzan talk like Jane! HAHA

reply

Just watched MI CoB & thought it was excellent; cast, CGI, tempo were spot on. Got me wanting more.

reply

Yeah, I liked it, too. I feel like I'm the only one, lol! I mean it wasn't excellent, but it was decent. Why does everyone hate it so much?? I never read the books, so maybe I wouldn't like it if I had... But as a standalone, not an adaptation, I thought it was kinda good.




"You'll shoot yer eye out, kid"

reply

I'm glad to know I'm not the only person who liked the movie. It's strange how divisive this movie is. The same things that some people love about it are the exact things that other people hate about it. I'm always shocked that some people hate the score (I mean they really think it's rubbish!), but I absolutely loved the music!
Oh well, I'm excited to see what the tv show does...


I can't swim.
--Vasiliy Fet

reply

I agree. I enjoyed it too.

reply

I also liked the film; it’s in my
library; but the male lead is the definition of weak, as he was as King Arthur in the Showtime series, Camelot; so now the franchise has passed to a Disney-owned cable/satellite channel, with inferior actors and production values, not that those aged 13 and under will either notice, or care.

reply