Les portes du temps

That should just about sum it up, but I'll continue. There were about 3 things about Susan Cooper's magnificent book that were preserved in this movie: a couple of names (but certainly not all of them--where was the difficulty in letting his father be named "Roger" rather than changing it to "John"??), a rook feather in the snow, and... that's about it. Sorry, couldn't think of a third. From the color of the Rider's horse to the number (AND AGE) of Will's siblings, from the abilities of the Old Ones (Swords and crossbows? Really?) to the utter importance of the Walker (I wanted to scream)... nothing nothing nothing was safe from being altered, disregarded, obliterated, and out-and-out ignored. I wasted $7.50, but had to be sure that it was as awful as I feared. It was worse. The last time a superb book-turned-rubbish-movie angered me this much was when I was forced to see Jim Carrey prance around as Count Olaf, who should've been one of the greatest villains to scare the wits out of little kids everywhere.

I'd like to say I'm done with adaptations, but The Golden Compass is coming out, and that one looks like more than the gaffer actually read the bloody book.

If you watch this movie through the lens of a 10-14 year old you will probably find this movie enjoyable enough. It does all the things this genre requires and does most of them well enough.

It does suffer the unique affliction of being both too long and too short. Longer and they could have provided much needed depth, shorter it could have avoided some of the boredom.

If Christopher Eccleston was any more wooden in this movie he'd be Pinocchio!! His is a dreadful performance, the film could have absolutely benefited from someone else as the villain.

Overall much better than the majority of films I had to watch as a parent!

I haven't read the book it's based on but from other reviews, it seems as though the book has been butchered by Cunningham. Well, I can totally understand that because this movie is perhaps one of the most boring movies of 2007. It's pretty to look at though. The special effects, visuals etc are well done. The swirling camera-work is overdone. The screenplay is a mess and the characters are nothing noteworthy. The performances are miserable. Even Christopher Eccleston couldn't save this film. The reason why I ended up watching the whole thing is because I was at a friend's who rented it (she likes fantasy films) and I didn't want to be rude by walking out. I almost dozed off but managed to keep myself awake out of courtesy. Cunningham probably tried to cash in on the success of fantasy films like the Harry Potter series and the many fantasy films released in the last years but his product is a huge disappointment. Given the material he could have made something great but alas!

I was beside myself with glee when I first heard of this movie. The book it is based on has been a book I have read and reread as well as given to children and adults alike over the years. So I was HORRIBLY disappointed at the changes made in this adaptation. Key elements left out, characterizations gutted, the mythos it was based on trivialized.

After such great adaptations as LotR, Narnia and the Potter books to see this classic ruined was a sad sight.

The books concepts depend on British folktales and legends (Arthurian based) and the movie seems to have tossed that aside in an attempt to woo American audiences. The family is changed, leaving out the close knit structure that is the basis of the story.

Don't see this movie. Don't let your kids see this movie. Do yourselves a favor and read the book.

Someday someone will make this movie with an eye to the source material.

I am quick to love movies, especially ones set in Britain. This one could not pull me in if it had a rope around my neck. The actors of this film do not deserve any ire. They did the best that they were told to do. Which involved over-emoting and false drama. For that the director deserves horrible ratings. The real villain of this movie is the writer. Now, I have not read the book, I pray that it is better than this waste of an hour and 39 minutes. Though if the screenplay is based on the book, it is probably 26 pages long. The dialog was uninviting, there was not a shred of suspense. Everything was stumbled upon or told immediately by another character. I give credit to the producer, the money spent on the actors was probably worth it I did think that there was a bit of integrity because of the actors (I was wrong). Though in the future they ought to spend more on rewrites. The screenplay writer needs to never work with the pen again. It would be better that way. Don't spend money on this. Take the time to find a place that is still showing Stardust, if it is 2 counties away, still worth more than subjecting your self to this terrible "coming of age" fiasco. I want my money back.