The Golden Compass (2007) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
738 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
6/10
Entertaining, but missed opportunity
JerusalemFace6 December 2007
Warning: Spoilers
His Dark Materials: Northern Lights, the original name for the book, in the UK. What a poignant, mysterious title for a book. The Golden Compass? Well, it doesn't quite have the same impact, does it? The use of the American name of the book for the film really didn't bother me at first, but as early warning signs come, it doesn't get much more obvious than this; we should have guessed from the off that this was going to be a very different beast to the book.

As a huge fan of Philip Pullman's epic trilogy, I had been eagerly anticipating this film adaptation for at least a year. I had fallen in love with the books a while back; not due to the fantastical elements, but due to the way it introduced this fantastical parallel universe to the reader in a slow, subtle, familiar way and made it feel real and tangible. The books are gritty, rugged and at times violent, and the stories' themes are philosophical and even spiritual in a way. It grieves me to say that the film misses the point; concentrating instead, on the fantasy, the action and the giant talking polar bears (panserbjorne).

The story is the same: it follows the exploits of a young orphan girl, Lyra, who lives among scholars at Oxford's Jordan College, in a world parallel to our own, in which every human is joined to a physical manifestation of their soul (daemon). One day Lyra hears hushed talk of an extraordinary particle which is rumoured to possess profound properties that could unite whole universes. But there are those who fear the particle and would stop at nothing to destroy it. Children are also being kidnapped left, right and centre, and Lyra's best friend, Roger, is among them. Catapulted into the heart of a desperate struggle, Lyra is forced to seek aid from witches, gyptians, and formidable armoured bears, to help her save her friends from these evil experiments.

But the soul of the story is all but gone. Gone is the mystery; the slow, developing understanding of a person's bond with their daemon; and the gentle, calm introduction to each character and their entwining relationships. Granted, such a complex story was always going to be difficult to adapt, but surely restricting it to such a short-time span (114 minutes) to tell the story just increases that difficulty. By ripping out the very things that made the novel so spell-binding and original, we're left with an ultimately quite hollow, shallow and self-conscious movie, which is more interested in showing off it's (admittedly breathtaking special effects) than telling an interesting story.

The problem isn't that I've read the books. The problem is that this film is very nearly a complete disaster, even as a film unto it's own right; there is no character development, some of the dialogue is awfully contrived and the pacing is all over the shop. Virtually everything from the book is in there, in fact; it's just every scene flies by at a ridiculous pace. The characters are given no time to breathe or grow and concepts such as the daemons, Dust and the magesterium are explained to you via convoluted exposition rather than simply shown to you. The result is a rather detached feeling and thus you never care about any of the characters, which is a crying shame, considering the source from which the stories came.

Oddly, despite nearly being a disaster, the film could have gone the other way - some of it teeters on perfection even. For one, it is visual eye candy, with the design departments each paying extraordinary attention to detail in their creation of Lyra's world and it is not their fault that Weitz's (or New Line's) vision differs so wildly from Pullman's description. Also, the acting itself from almost everyone is very strong, with each actor portraying the characters from the books superbly. Daniel Craig owns both scenes he's in, as Lord Asriel does in the book; Nicole Kidman's magnetic, seductive beauty is perfect for Mrs Coulter; Sam Elliott charms and delights as Lee Scoresby; and Dakota Blue Richards is every bit the lovable rogue of the Lyra of the novel. (Had there not been the need for her to be so pleonastic, the audience might even have actually cared about her).

As far as entertainment goes, the whole film is actually pretty high up the scale; captivating and engrossing the audience throughout, who barely have time to catch a breath. It's a damn good spectacle, that's for sure. It's just an utter shame how great this could have been on many levels, and how as it is it's only a little better than your average family adventure film. Children from about 8-14 WILL love this, but it doesn't have the depth or layers of, say... The Lord of the Rings (the comparison was always inevitable), to not only entertain, but to excite, thrill, shock, scare, move, and even inspire viewers of all ages, like it could have done.

As far as summaries go, you need just watch the film, which is over in an instant and in fact runs very much like a summary of the book. It's worth watching for the entertainment value but you'll probably have forgotten about it by tomorrow.

It sounds like a pretty scathing review, but I still think the quality of the story shines through in the end, and most people will find something to enjoy on some level. It is certainly unlike anything you've ever seen: so very good and yet so very, very unsatisfactory.

Must do better.
514 out of 634 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
If you haven't read the book you'll love it, if you have you'll be a bit disappointed.
simonparker19906 December 2007
The Golden Compass in my eyes was the must see film of this Christmas. I am a huge fan of the His Dark Materials books, and was reading all three in preparation for the movie to come, I was praying this would be the new fantasy epic to watch. I suppose I got myself way too hyped for this movie, even the slightly negative reviews didn't stop me from being excited, so what a shame to say this cannot help but be a disappointment for me. I have a few major problems with this mainly, mainly I suppose because of the changes from the book, in fact had I have not read the book I most probably would have completely adored the movie rather than have just liked it. The Golden Compass is not a bad movie, its definitely better than the first Narnia movie and Harry Potter movie, but after reading the book I couldn't help but criticise because I know how amazing this movie could have been. Thankfuly the entire cast, yes the entire cast, are absolutely perfect, there are two notable set pieces and the storyline still keeps its grip on the audience despite being rushed. The lack of the ending from the book actually didn't even bother me that much, so long as people who have read the book are aware its going to be in the second movie then I believe that they won't be that bothered. Overall Golden Compass is an entertaining two hours, that could benefit from another half hour. Its a great film to watch for Christmas and will hopefully do well at the box office so the Subtle Knife is made very soon.

The biggest surprise of the cast definitely comes from Dakota Blue Richards as the lead, Lyra. In the trailers I actually thought that Lyra looked terrible, her voice sounded monotone and the girl showed no expression. Thankfuly in the movie that is far from the truth. Richards pulls off the character of Lyra perfectly, she's cheeky, at times rude but alway likable and definitely well acted. Her cockney accent surprisingly works and never gets too irritating, although at first it takes some adjusting too, and her emotions throughout the film are very well displayed. She carries the entire movie very well and it will be great to see her return in the future films as I know how much dramatic stuff she will have to do. But its Nicole Kidman who practically runs over the hills with this movie. Mrs Coulter was always my favourite character in the movie, and Kidman delivers an icy turn as the villainess. Kidman makes her multi-layered and highly memorable, her best scenes definitely being towards the end. Daniel Craig unfortunately features very little, but he delivers a great performance. Eva Green is superb as Serafine Pekkala but once again features way too little for my liking. The other two superb characters, and my joint second favourite performances, come from Ian Mckellen doing the voice of Iorek, and Sam Eliott who is perfectly cast as Lee Scoresby.

However despite the incredible performances its the cruel way things have been changed or cut that made me incapable of ever giving this higher than a 7/10. I will never understand to this day why the polar bear fight was changed from near the end to the middle, and why the Bolvangar scenes are so unnecessarily rushed its almost cruel. Also changing certain characters and changing certain facts just infuriated me all the more! But the ultimate problem with the movie is the fact it is way too rushed. Occasionally it is a blessing to get a two hour movie rather than a bloated two and a half hour once, but this story requires all the time it can get, and with events just taking up mere seconds and events being cut out (fans of the book will hate The Cocktail Party not being in the film) makes the film feel too short and missing something. Thankfuly the bear fight is as incredible as I hoped for, it ends in very cool way, and the final battle at Bolvangar, while way too short is definitely well done. The movie also packs an emotional punch at times, the intercision scenes are pitch perfect and the ending is amazing in my eyes in terms of emotion. The effects of the daemons are very well done, and the daemons themselves are pretty cool, most namely Mrs Coulter's golden monkey which will terrify kids for a while.

The Golden Compass is hardly the new Lord of the Rings as many, including me admittedly, had hoped for, but thankfully it looks much more promising than the Narnia series and perhaps with a new director, and less editing, this series could really take off. But for now I just need to get over my slight disappointment of it. Still very much worth watching though.
302 out of 426 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Ask the Dust
WriterDave9 December 2007
An evil empire called the Magestirium attempts total control of the population by hiding the secrets or parallel universes and a unifying particle called Dust in Chris Weitz's clunky but entertaining adaptation of Philip Pullman's "The Golden Compass".

"Harry Potter" and "The Lord of the Rings" have never apologized about their overt paganism. Likewise, "The Chronicles of Narnia" have never been accused of being subtle as a Christian allegory. These series, in both literary and film forms, have been monster hits due to their unapologetic natures that speak truths to their ardent fan bases. British writer Philip Pullman's darkly subversive anti-religious fantasy books have also been hugely successful, more so overseas than here in the States. Stripped of the books' overt atheistic messages, "The Golden Compass" takes a reverse psychology approach in its film treatment and oddly positions itself as an apology for Pullman's work. The result is a tepid affair that joins a long line of fantasy films about children discovering they are the chosen ones destined to save the world. At least this film is refreshing in its stance on girl-power as represented in the main character Lyra, played wonderfully by newcomer Dakota Blue Richards, who apparently is a graduate of the Dakota Fanning school of acting. Whether or not this tactic to strip the film of its soul (much like the Magesiterium strips children of their daemons) will make the film broadly appealing enough to warrant a franchise has yet to be determined.

The film comes across as more anti-authoritarianism in general than specifically anti-religion. In the 21st century the line between authoritarian politics and organized religion has become increasingly blurred. Since we currently live in a world where a born-again Christian sits in the White House and wages wars in Muslim nations, it's easy to see why folks from both sides of the aisle, ardent fans of the books and conservative Christians alike, have been worked up into a mindless and silly frenzy over even just a watered-down film version of the first of Pullman's "His Dark Materials" trilogy, with one side saying it's not wickedly subversive enough, and the other side saying it's still subversively wicked.

However, viewing the film out of the context of the books upon which it is based and the ridiculous faux-controversy surrounding them, it makes the grade as a big-budget fantasy flick. Yes, there are too many characters to keep track of, and the film has rushed feel to it as if it was edited at the last minute, but it still makes for an interesting trip. Kids will be wowed by the elaborate set designs and CGI effects, which are far superior to the ones in the similarly clunky but still entertaining "Chronicles of Narnia" and culminate in an awesome battle sequence involving armored polar bears--take that Global Warming! Adults will get a kick out the nimble ensemble cast, who all seem to be having a great deal of fun with the self-seriousness of the whole production and are headlined by Nicole Kidman--botoxed, full-lipped and deliciously frosty in a creepy villain role that suits her perfectly.

Possibly the strangest aspect of the film comes as an accidental subtext resulting from its apologetic nature. With its depiction of mystical-minded do-gooders rallying against the totalitarian Magestirium, "The Golden Compass" almost comes across as a period piece anti-Communist allegory rallying for the fall of the Soviet Union. It makes the film feel charmingly dated. There's also the disturbing subtext of child abuse at the hands of the Catholic Church as seen in the Magestirium's cruel experiments with kidnapped children, which makes the film feel charmingly grotesque.

Bottom Line: Any movie that depicts Nicole Kidman walking around with a monkey and preaches the importance of free will, making bonds, sticking together, and fighting for your friends and loved ones can't be all that bad. Despite some of the themes of the books being exorcised and arbitrarily presented by a poorly chosen Chris Weitz (a director known for his comedies "American Pie" and "About a Boy"), "The Golden Compass" still has enough interesting elements and old-fashioned razzle dazzle presented with new age CGI to make it entertaining. At its worst, it presents two hours of dark fantasy-land eye candy. At its best, it encourages adults and children alike to use their free will to do something far better with their two hours, like read.
175 out of 262 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An Unfinished Journey
Chrysanthepop27 December 2008
I am among those who have not read the book and I found it to be initially confusing and boring but the film picks up after Lyra is taken into Mrs. Coultier's lavish house. The pace picks up but it may seem a little too rushed. The ending was sort of continuous, requiring a sequel. I would have liked to see the second movie but unfortunately, there is a rumour that it may not happen which is quite a pity because I thought 'The Golden Compass' was going somewhere. It is not the best movie of its kind but I thought it was not so bad either. The special effects are good. The characters are lively. I loved the daemons. It's got quite a stellar cast but only Nicole Kidman gets enough screen time to be noticed. Gorgeous, glamorous and deceitful, could not picture anyone else for the part of Mrs. Coultier. (I am almost sure that the rest were promised a lengthier role in the sequels). Daniel Craig only has about 15 minutes but he makes the best of it. Sam Elliot is funny. Dakota Blue Richards is a confident young actress and she carries off Lyra well. Overall I enjoyed the world that was created in this movie and the characters. Too bad that it's left incomplete.
101 out of 114 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
A Decent Adventure
resli-112 May 2008
Warning: Spoilers
The "Lord of the Rings", and "Harry Potter". These two movies are what "The Golden Compass" reminded me of. The Golden Compass is a fantasy adventure movie which does stand on its own with these two other movies. It features an array of decent actors, who both have ups and downs in the film.

The downside to the film is largely the beginning. It introduces the movie's concept of dust, something that is normal in everyday life for us, is in the film, a dimensional material. Therefore, the beginning is very confusing, and the story does not develop until well into twenty minutes of the film.

After the rocky start, the film is quite well done. The CG is exceptional, such as the polar bear fight. Another thing that drew me into the plot was the introduction of new characters along the way. The movie begins with the protagonist by herself, but as the story continues, she begins to incorporate new allies into her group. The introduction of characters made me want to keep watching.

There are decent fight scenes, a main one being the Polar Bear fight. The finishing blow was nicely executed. However, the ending fight scene of the movie left me disappointed. There was no organization, nothing that really drew me into the fight. With a brawl of over a hundred people, lacking variety of attacks and CG makes it dull and quite irritating.

Finally, if you like a movie that focuses more on adventure and development of characters, with a nice integration of CG, I suggest watching the film. It is a good one time movie, and hopefully a sequel is created. =]
4 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Pretty good movie
Calicodreamin17 September 2019
The golden compass is a pretty comparable children's movie. The acting is well done, both from the kids and adults. The cast ensemble is made up of some fairly prominent names. I quite enjoyed watching, though I'm still not sure I get what dust is, or why the college let Nicole Kidman take the girl "as an assistant". It was all fairly good, watching ioryek slap the jaw off a polar bear was a highlight. But my main grievance is that they set up for a sequel that never happened, leaving the ending lacking.
16 out of 23 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
An entertaining, if not classic, fantasy adventure
TheUnseenMovieLover21 January 2008
Warning: Spoilers
The Golden Compass is based on a classic novel, which raises expectations. My expectations were also raised because it is one of my favourite books. This is why it was quite disappointing to see events from the book being mishandled on screen.

I'll start with the film's flaws. Firstly, it seemed rushed at times, as if it is only aiming to be a standard adventure instead of a Rings style epic. The cast also suffers from this mistake, with actors such as Daniel Craig and Eva Green only appearing in two or three scenes. As well as this, the ending is seriously misjudged, ending on a cliffhanger instead of the book's barnstorming ending. What if the film makers don't decide to make the other two films? The ending would be almost completely worthless.

As well as this, the intriguing plot focusing on several original, religion-orientated ideas followed in the book has been dumped for a more typical, less original plot. This may make some parts of the story (such as references to the "Authority") slightly confusing for people who haven't read the book.

The story kicks off at Jordan College in Oxford, in a world parallel to our own. Lyra Belacqua (Dakota Blue Richards) has been placed here by her uncle, Lord Asriel (Craig). During one of Asriel's visits, Lyra rescues him from an assassination attempt, and overhears vital information about a substance known as Dust. Her uncle advises Lyra to forget about the subject, but she can't. Meanwhile, children have been disappearing, one of whom is Lyra's friend Roger (Ben Walker). Enter Mrs. Coulter (Nicole Kidman), who immediately bewitches Lyra. Mrs. Coulter take Lyra from Jordan College to her home. However, after discovering that Mrs. Coulter is the head of an organisation which is kidnapping children for some foul purpose, including Roger, Lyra escapes on a determined quest to rescue the children and aid her uncle, whose scientific investigations have the potential to change their world forever.

The film does several good points. Visually, the film is a gem. The established and terrifically creative crew create a believable fantasy universe, with intricately designed sets and props. The creatures in the film are also terrifically animated, and develop lives of their own extremely quickly. Prime examples are the daemons, which represent a character's soul.

There are some good action sequences. They don't challenge the bone-crushing battles in Lord of the Rings, but they are still impressive enough to leave an impression. The best action set piece is when two ice bears clash over Lyra, with their huge blows and expertly co-ordinated combat keeping me on the edge of my seat.

There is also an incredibly committed cast. Blue Richards gives an honest and heartfelt portrayal of Lyra, matching my expectations for how the character should be portrayed. Nicole Kidman is both menacing and complex as the villain of the piece, whilst Sam Elliott is wise and charming as aeronaut Lee Scoresby. Despite the fact that he is restricted by the film's short running time, Craig is also brilliant, painting a thoroughly compelling portrait of his character in his short screen time. Also terrific in supporting roles are Derek Jacobi, Simon McBurney and Jack Shephard.

Chris Weitz gives lacklustre direction, putting little effort into breathing life into the film. The fact that Weitz had been slacking for months in California before becoming the films director could be the reason why. It is a exceptional testament to the superb cast and crew that the film is as entertaining as it turned out to be. I sincerely hope that they hire a better, more accomplished director for the next film.

Weitz also delivers the screenplay for the film, which is just better than his work behind the camera. The first act of the film, which is spent setting up Lyra and the story, shows good potential for effective characterisation throughout the film. However, this potential is lost in the rush of the second and third acts, with the cast valiantly fighting to make their characters memorable.

Overall, this is a effective fantasy adventure, with a brilliant cast and crew, excellent visuals and decent action sequences. During the credits, I was feeling quite resentful towards Weitz, but the terrific Kate Bush song "Lyra" cheered me up.
8 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Disappointed
thebutcher808 December 2007
Warning: Spoilers
I was so extremely excited for this movie, I had just read the books and truly could not wait to see how it translated to the screen having such a vivid and vibrant plot. My excitement was short lived however when this butchered movie began to roll. The largest flaw was that of character development. The whole beginning of the book truly creates Lyras character and her supporting characters such as Roger, Lord Asriel, Master of Jordan, and so forth; this instead was replaced with a few minutes of monologue, and if you happened to sneeze you would miss the explanation of daemons (which is integral to the plot) they could have included the catacomb exploration to explain that but alas they clipped that as well. And what about Lord Asriels visit, why change who tried to poison him? and what happened to the trepanned head of Stanislaus Grumman? This was a powerful scene in the book, but it became a 2 minute meeting on screen. Also, I don't know about you but I pictured Lord Asriel as this big powerful looking man that commanded a room, not quite Daniel Craig.

So she leaves with Mrs. Coulter and again a rushed relationship which never develops as it does in the book. No visit to the Royal Artic Institute, no fitting for arctic clothing, where did it all go; and then the escape, which was perfect in the book, became a very short scene that was completely different.

The Gyptians. This was a HUGE part of the book, especially her relationships with them, all of it was axed. Once she arrives at the Gyptian city there is a ton of character development between Lyra and John Faa, Farder Coram, Ma Costa; none of this was included, in fact what took weeks in the book was dwindled down to a short conversation immediately upon Lyras arrival. What happened to finding out that Ma Costa nursed her as a child? or finding out from John Faa that Lord Asriel and Mrs. Coulter were her parents, and why she ended up at Jordan College? We leave this part in the movie not knowing why the Gyptians want to help, why they agree to take her along, no town vote or attack plan, in the book she is taken under Farder Corams wing for weeks.

From here it is a rush job to a cut off ending. Her relationship with Iorek is cut, she all of a sudden has a strong relationship with him? The boy who was "cut" was not Billy Costa, why change that, and the boy ends up dying. The Samoyans bring her to Bolvangar and all the events leading to her escape were cut out. The movie brings us to the Ice Bears directly and although things were cut the bear fight was done pretty well, but there was no build up so it was not as intense as it should have been, no pinnacle. Even Ioreks background was changed, he was outcast for killing another bear. The final fight scene after the children's escape was also anticlimactic due to the lack of build up and tension, you almost didn't care.

Now I understand they were making way for the next movie, but cutting out the entire ending??? The movie left you with nothing resolved, Lord Asriel was in it for 2 minutes. I only hope Philip Pullman does not sell his soul on "The Subtle Knife" because he was royally abused on this one.
34 out of 41 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Even better than I remembered
forpassord22 October 2019
I remembered that I liked this movie when I watched it a while ago. But I did not remember that it was THIS good! The only reason for the far too low rating(s) that I can see is christian fanatics that finds ANYTHING resembling criticism towards the church as heresy, or people that have read the book(s) and find that this movie have deviated too far from the original. But for me, the acting, the plot, the visuals, the special effects and the daemons running and flying around, was amazing. If you as I am, are not a christian fundamentalist, or have read the book(s) and like fantasy, I really believe that you as well will enjoy this movie.
29 out of 36 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Slaughtered the Ending.
violence_and_grace2 December 2007
Warning: Spoilers
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.
16 out of 29 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
The blame starts with Chris Weitz and goes north.
mbiajc12 December 2007
Warning: Spoilers
The opening scene was the very first clue that this film was going to be the barrage of formula drudgery that it ultimately turned out to be. Weitz began by unveiling all the information which the reader isn't even aware of by the end of the first novel in a horrific attempt to follow the footsteps of The Lord of the Rings with an opening prelude. Much of the intrigue of Pullman's storytelling is derived from the careful progression of revealed information, letting the reader know only as much as it needs to at any moment, and no more. The mystery is not only lost, it is purposely banished by the blundering slate of exposition which begins with the prologue and carrys on through the film's duration. Every bit of exposition has the feel of a technical bother that must be gotten out of the way so that the action scenes can make some kind of sense. But the real kicker is the obviousness. The obviousness ranging from New Line's less than subtle attempt to repeat a miracle (LOTR), to the individual lines in the film ("Why am I here? What do they want? What is she going to do with me?"), and everything in between. Show, don't tell, is the first rule of third grade story writing, a class these film makers clearly missed.

The film makers (Chris Weitz and everyone above him) have absolutely no respect for their audience. Somehow they expect people to go to a film like TGC for the action sequences and great CG. They expect people can't make inferences and connect the dots unless it is entirely spelled out for them. And the really amazing thing, is that in spite of spilling every possible secret of the narrative before the audience could possibly start to wonder about it, the tangle of facts are hugely more confusing than the novel.

This is a fumble truly.

It was too big of a project for Weitz and there was way too much (it would seem) direction from above the director making this superb story of amazingly real characters in an amazing, whimsical world nothing more than a long string of pretty CG which amounts to a fantastically muddled flop.

I really have to say that the first mistake made was the same one made by Walden Media with the Chronicles on Narnia: making a children's film out of something that wasn't child-material. His Dark Materials are not for children, Narnia wasn't either. They fit into a genre of literature clearly not understood by Newline, Walden, and film studios like them: Novels. Just because the main characters are children people readily assume they are children's stories, but Pullman's work, more so even than Narnia, is written with an intelligent, imaginative, but somewhat cynical audience in mind. Sure their isn't graphic sex and foul swearing, but the themes addressed in his books are not of a pre-teen nature in the least. The main character in the Sixth Sense is a pre-teen, but no one would assume the bulk of the audience would be ten year olds. Somehow in the fantasy realm, studios have seen giant dollar signs over the heads of young children and grasped for material with a previously established audience that appeals to this demographic.

What they forgot about Lord of the Rings is that it was directed by a genius, a genius who cared about both the source material and making as good a film as possible, someone who actually understood the language of film, something that cannot be said for Weitz or anyone above him responsible for this film. Jackson was a dark film maker, his previous films Brain Dead, Heavenly Creatures, and The Frighteners preparing him to deal very appropriately with the material of the Lord of the Rings. Material which, while far denser than Narnia or Compass material, was no more deserving of a serious handling and of caring, talented hands.

The question I have to ask is do the people responsible realize what they have done wrong, and if they do, do they care? My guess is they will begin to care when TGC loses money and perhaps they will begin to understand that audiences don't want a bunch of CG action sequences or pretty costumes. Audiences, for every genre and category, want a good story well told with characters that they care about and mystery they can feel. Maybe the next time they spend 180 million dollars they will ponder this, and maybe then we will see something worthwhile. Until then, we can expect nothing more than a steady stream of Narnia-Compass-Eregon-Etc. drivle from the studio machine.
520 out of 795 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Movie Adaptions will never be like the book...
kjdavis-9347226 August 2018
If you're a book purist, of course you're not going to like a movie. They can't get it exactly the same, with the same amount of detail. Otherwise the movie would be a great deal longer and nobody has the time or budget for that, do they? Now that we've got that covered, this movie had me on the edge of my chair and fully engaged the whole time. The dialogue and world building was of course in part due to the original stories, but the adaptation fit perfectly for a movie and the movie itself was absolutely stunning. The scenery and cinematography was on spot, the editing was beautifully paced, and the CGI is classic 2007 CGI- not very convincing now but, the voice actors did a wonderful job. Kudos to the team and actors that made this wonderful film.
6 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Entertainment at the cost of profundity
pyrocitor10 December 2007
Literary adaptations are always a testy business, with filmmakers consistently trying to appease fans of the original work while still making sufficient changes to make the material work as a film. With this in mind, as well as the inevitable uproar from various religious sects, The Golden Compass, adapted from the first book in Philip Pullman's 'His Dark Materials' trilogy was hardly an easy sell, and by no means a sure bid for box office success. Despite all of the negative factors against it, the film, while not the timeless fantasy epic it would like to be, proves a decent adaptation of Pullman's work and a sufficiently entertaining piece of escapism to boot.

Despite initial skepticism, director Chris Weitz of American Pie infamy demonstrates sufficient care and interest in his subject matter to bring the novel to life in a suitably quality fashion. Despite the occasional moment of flashy cinematography or special effects giving the impression of a child experimenting with his film-making toys, Weitz demonstrates a firm and steady grip on his film, keeping the tone light for a younger audience while retaining the occasional darker moment from the book to keep fans satisfied. Weitz's screenplay, while nowhere near as disappointing as it could have been, falls prey to the typical film fantasy pitfall of consistently struggling to force-feed as much information to the audience as possible as quickly and in as simplistic a fashion as possible, leading to a somewhat rushed narrative and an irritating lack of character development or exposition. Fans of the source material will likely grumble due to the occasional creative change, some more noticeable than others, while those unfamiliar with Pullman's books may be lost in a flurry of confusion, bombarded with a constant array of new names, faces and theoretical concepts. However, despite a disappointingly simplistic tone, the sheer enjoyment factor of the novel is not lost, and such is the film's primary strength: entertainment, if at the cost of profundity.

The special effects are for the most part top notch - the shapeshifting daemon effects are impressively integrated, the armoured bear fight is without question the pure, unfiltered exhilarating spectacle of the year, and the final mass battle sequence is similarly thrilling. The film's sets, costumes and props are spellbinding, easily giving the viewer the sense of being immersed in an imaginative alternate world with all of the visual splendour befitting such a fantasy epic. However, the film's musical score is a painful rehash of far too many clichéd epic film scores of late - far too overdone to be in the least emotionally affecting.

The stellar cast prove to be the film's high point, each inhabiting their roles with a comfort suggesting they had been born to play their respective parts. Newcomer Dakota Blue Richards is a revelation, surpassing the wooden efforts of most other child actors and carrying her lead role with ease, holding her own alongside her incredibly accomplished adult co-stars. Nicole Kidman is sheer perfection as the malevolent yet hypnotic Mrs. Coulter, effortlessly walking away with the show - every moment on screen, every glance, every movement is entirely in character, so fully does Kidman make the role her own. Daniel Craig proves a very fitting choice as scientific explorer Lord Asriel, making good use of his far too fleeting screen time, though one can't help but wish his character had a slight bit more of an edge to him.

Sam Elliot gives his strongest performance in years, instilling sardonic aeronaut Lee Scoresby with an offbeat charisma and sly humour wonderfully fitting the role and Eva Green is an ethereal and captivating presence as mysterious witch Serafina Pekkala. The somberous tones of Ian McKellan prove ideal in breathing life and soul into armoured bear Iorek Byrnison, and young Freddie Highmore is well cast as the voice of Lyra's daemon, Pantalaimon. Derek Jacobi and Simon McBurney give strong, if one dimensional performances as heads of the ominous Magesterium organization, as does Christopher Lee, whose 'blink-and-you-miss- him' role appears to be nothing less than a blatant cash in on The Lord of the Rings, but who delivers his one line well at any rate.

While fans of the novels may lament the watering down of the philosophical undertones of Pullman's novel, and the film being directed towards a younger audience, on the whole, despite the inescapable criticisms, as a sprawling piece of fantasy escapism, immersing the viewer in a world of armoured bears, daemons and witches, the film is a rousing success. It's just a shame to see such a strong premise fraught with such an overbearing air of caution and safety to please the lower common denominator, and one can't help but wish the producers had been slightly more daring, and captured a trace more of Pullman's nervy grit and spark to make the film a slightly less generic Hollywood blockbuster, and more satisfying overall. The film certainly isn't the 'next Lord of the Rings' which New Line certainly seems to intend for it to become, but an enjoyable and sufficiently impressive effort to warrant the next installment in the series, The Subtle Knife being made.

-7.5/10
5 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Good acting and special effects. Poor storytelling
richard-kurtz4 December 2007
Warning: Spoilers
I have not read the book so I can't comment on how close the movie follows it. However, as a movie, it is so poorly edited to be barely comprehensible. The whole movie seems like every other scene has been cut out. Characters and situations are not explained, relationships are not developed, and the plot is left with gaping holes. Fans of the book will, no doubt, be able to fill in the details. For the rest of us, I would not bother. This is a shame because the acting is good and well-cast. The special effects are equally impressive. If the movie had lasted another hour, it probably would have been terrific. Hopefully, a director's cut will be released some day that redeems this travesty.
230 out of 352 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Chris Weitz should be Intercised from the rest of the series
Hanover8 December 2007
Warning: Spoilers
Now a review from someone who just finished the book a second time last Friday...

First of all, the actors were not convincing. Not one time did I feel like any of the characters really knew what they were talking about. They were throwing the term "Dust," "Intercision" and the phrase, "It's just a little cut!" around without any meaning. Almost like someone told Chris Weitz, "Hey look, this term Dust...that sounds cool! Make sure you use that as much as possible!" I was waiting for the band Kansas to kick into the soundtrack at any moment.

The meanings in the novel are slowly revealed during the course of the book were part of the discovery and suspense. Lyra had no idea what they meant until later in the book. They explain them during the first 15 minutes of the film, and they suddenly become arbitrary and over-used. No mystery, no sense of menace that the novel had...

Also, the dialog was overly expository. People saying things along the lines of, "I must tell you this because something related to it comes up later in the story, so even though its out of character for me, the audience must know what's going on." Case in point, when Mrs. Coulter explains about how the King of the bears wants to be human to Lyra at the beginning of the movie for no apparent reason at all. Everything else was so glaringly obvious that it wasn't for Lyra's benefit, but for the benefit of the audience. It's lazy writing. Rather than maybe flesh out that part of the story where Lyra learns about it on her own, some character just decides to randomly blurt it out. Even worse, none of this dialog really tells the audience anything because it's too fast and doesn't say enough.

Then there is this whole, "If your Daemon gets strangled, you're getting strangled" thing. When a Daemon gets hurt in the book, the hurt the person has is a very emotional one. It's like your heart literally being broken...an overwhelming sadness as if you're most dearest friend is literally being torn apart from you permanently...a sense of loss. So if someone is slapping your daemon around, you're not going to feel a slap in the face. Mrs. Coulter is seen belting her own Daemon across the face, and using their logic, makes no sense as we should at least see her flinch as if she slapped herself in the face.

Related to the above issue is the fact that none of the character's relationships that they have with their Daemon is ever realized.

Then this dialog came up: "Don't worry Billy, we'll get your Daemon back." At that point, I knew the screenwriter just didn't understand this novel. The whole point is people taking the souls from children is a permanent, horrible thing. There is no getting your daemon re-attached. In the novel, it's a heart wrenching, emotional sucking, worst-thing-that-could-possibly-happen to you experience. In the movie, they're just like..oh well, it happens. We'll fix it. How ignorant can a screenwriter be?

The kid who really lost his Daemon in the book was Tony Markios in a very sad part of the book where he's holding onto a dead fish because it's all he has left while asking, "Have you seen ratter?" in a very zombie-like state. He eventually dies because of it. A very haunting part of the book that has absolutely no weight in the movie. The haunted city where the boy was found in the novel was replaced by this little shed out in the middle of nowhere. A person without their Daemon is also very repulsive to the people in this world. A lot of them kinda kept their distance from Tony at first, almost like they were disgusted until someone yells at them to help the kid.

They also took out the scenes that showed how they tricked the children into coming with them. Without that, there really was no feeling that children were being taken. It was just "said" in an off-the-cuff sort of way. No scene with the children outsmarting their dimwit captors with Lyra's help either. In other words, The Gobblers is just another cool term that Chris felt he should use that seems to have no meaning in the movie....glossing over the whole Oblation Board while he was at it.

The story itself was rushed. We meet Lyra and 10 minutes later she's already been with Mrs. Coulter and is on the boat with the Gyptians. They yanked out a lot of necessary character and story building aspects that really needed to be in there. Showing the Gyptians as just this sort of rag-tag group when there were meetings and planning in the book that showed just how well organized they were...and how much they loved their children. Grumman's head...the whole, "You can't trick a bear" conversation. Too much of the soul of the story was left out.

I know the argument that they cant put EVERYTHING from the novel into the movie, but you can at least try to keep the spirit of the novel in the movie and not change the novel's meaning. If you cant explain why a character is the way he is, then at least let the actor keep that as a motivation and let it be conveyed in the acting. A 5 minute conversation with Iroek and Lyra to help build their relationship isn't asking too much.

The Golden Compass is a dumbed-down picture-book version of the novel with simple characterizations of the people in the novel. Its a bunch of characters going through actions who don't seem to have any motivation or reason for what they are doing and the only reason why they are doing what they are doing is because a script tells them to.
45 out of 64 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
far from perfect but still decent
thiago_19 March 2022
Translates the book's central universe in a cohesive and identifiable way It's not a perfect adaptation, but it doesn't deserve all the hate the books are very complex, hollywood always spoils something that is not theirs the cinematography and cgi are beautiful and there is some good acting here a 7 for trying.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
That's it?! Where's the rest?!
Cypherdude3 May 2008
Warning: Spoilers
This is sort of a Harry Potter clone. It has flying witches, talking animals, everything including a "demon" which changes to and from a cat. The characters call them "demons" but they are really companion animal "spirits." The writers must've had a bad day. I can understand why people, especially children, didn't like it. It's difficult for clones to be successful.

I wasn't surprised when I looked up the Box Office numbers and saw it was more or less a flop. Hopefully foreign and DVD sales will help it break even. I was surprised that it cost $180M! Where did all the money go? Sometimes I think famous actors/actresses are paid WAY too much. Frankly, I think movies can be made just as well with lessor known actors for 1/10 the pay.

When I saw the ending, I knew there might not be a sequel. So my response was: "That's it?! Where's the rest?!" LOL That's unfortunate because the movie really isn't that bad. It tells a story which keeps you interested enough to see the ending. I looked up Nicole Kidman's and Dakota Blue Richards's filmographies and I see no projects to make a sequel so I guess that's the end of it.

I think the producers should have been less ambitious. They should have hired lesser known actors and kept the budget smaller. This way, it would have been easier to achieve a profit and therefore complete the ending.

Just my 2¢. 7 out of 10 stars.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Looks good but lacks substance
saraopie9 December 2007
The film looked good but I felt that the film had been dumbed down to make it suitable for all. A lot of people leaving the cinema had the same opinion. If the film had been longer then it could've contained more of the book and included more of the theological aspects. I think the books were so good because they expected a depth of understanding from the reader and presented ideas about the soul, etc. in an intelligent way. The reader was expected to think, something the film doesn't! The film seemed really cheesy, rather like the Chronicles of Narnia. I was hoping for something with a bit more depth, like Lord of the Rings. The cast was good and the locations all looked as I'd imagined they would. Young children will probably enjoy this and it may encourage them to read the novels.
15 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
A Noble Effort, an almost triumph -- May the Box Office Reward It
john-quel7 December 2007
I went into this film fearing the worst. I had become concerned over the past months as it became increasingly clear that the film was at great risk of losing direction, the vision if you will, that had drawn readers to the books series in the first place. That it was doomed. I feared this strange kind of anti-Narnia, was likely being so diluted that BO disaster was certain. That may still be the case if the bulk of early reviews are to be believed (but see Ebert's all-out glowing review.) Admittedly, the movie probably works better if you have read the first book (I had), but those readers are precisely the people who would likely complain the most. I worried and yet . . .

Despite its breathtaking pace, both in terms of action and concept introduction -- we all agree this is not your typical fantasy -- the Golden Compass worked for me. I thought the people involved had done the best they could in making this movie tell the story, making the best possible film despite the conflict and panic that must have gone into it. The sincerity shows. The cast is superb, the action sequences, the effects, the sheer look of the film, are triumphs. I stayed through all the credits, which seemed to last for almost as long as the movie, and good gracious, what a lot of people worked on this! It's expensive all right, but the money is all on the screen. These people should be saluted.

Dakota Blue Richards (it appears if you want your daughter to have a movie career these days, you had best name her Dakota) in a great year for the debut of young actresses, stands out as the best of them. She has poise, indomitable courage, fierce determination and it just keeps coming. The whole movie depends on her and if she had faltered, they truly would have had a disaster on their hands, a "calender" movie with no where to go and nothing to do. Whatever the ultimate financial fate of the film, I think young Miss Richards has a great future ahead of her.

So I am recommending the film highly, though I respect the objections that have been made against it. I think if people just relax and go with it they will find themselves enjoying it immensely. However, if you grit your teeth and go into critic mode, yep, you guess it, you won't enjoy it at all.

As for myself, I would have liked the producers to have gone with the original extended version - everyone knows the last few minutes were cut. Moreover, with a full three hour version just like "Lord of the Rings," I think all the objections would have been met. A director's cut will likely appear some day and I think at that point people will realize how great this movie truly is. Such an enhanced cut would fill in a lot of the details of this world, more fully develop the scenes and characters, and truly give a feeling of being part of the adventure, instead of just watching it. Of course, for the Golden Compass series, by then it may well be too late.

Here's hoping it's not (I dare not say praying). Here's hoping that audiences will respond so this noble beginning of a great philosophical adventure and permit it to continue.

It's all bottom line at this point, folks.
239 out of 372 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Undecided... the jury is still out on this one.
swissmanager15 May 2008
Some great scenes, some fascinating artwork, and, although in rather short supply, some enchanting acting performances such as from Eva Green who portrayed a witch, or from Sam Elliot who was superb, or from young Dakota Blue Richards who was indeed good, and Nicole Kidman, who always is impressive though this time maybe was not at her best.

I enjoyed the film, yes, but... something was missing and I just can not put my finger on it. The film seems to rush through the story, not flow with the story. The end comes to soon, and yet no conclusions are drawn so that a sequel will obviously follow. However, whether I would bother watching it when it does come, I really am not sure.

A nice little film... but by no means brilliant.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Fell short of expectations...
danzrgurl20003 December 2007
Warning: Spoilers
I was so excited to see this movie. I have read all the books and absolutely love them. I think Pullman is ingenious. The material was all there for another epic fantasy film, just waiting for a great director to pick it up...

Unfortunately, no such thing happened. I am a little confused as to why Chris Weitz (director of films like American Pie and Down to Earth) was allowed to director this. He was clearly the wrong choice. The movie, which I did not expect to follow the book exactly due to limited time, appeared to make no effort to tell Pullman's wonderful tale through images. The screenplay was poorly written and seemed to be dumbed down for a six year old, yet the movie's rated PG-13. There was no intrigue. It was choppy and fast paced. There was no sense of story development. Characters and scenes were switched around, and a major part of the book was cut out entirely! This makes absolutely no sense to me (especially since the previews for the movie allude to this part that's cut out being in it). Nope. Instead, the movie stops short with a terribly corny scene and forced dialogue, making no effort to hide the fact that the movie is concluding. When seeing a special premiere of this on Dec. 2, I can recall the entire audience letting out a groan as the movie ended (a few viewer's even booed).

Even if one had not read the books, as two of my friends who saw the movie with me had not, I believe they would still be utterly disappointed. From a film standpoint, it was very poorly done. There was an exorbitant use of CG, making the movie appear artificial. Every time Lyra went to read the alethiometer, there were some special effects implying Lyra's ability to see things in her mind (because of the alethiometer), which is not how it happens in the book (this being one of many examples). I was hoping that for a movie such as this one, there would be an incredible score to help mount emotions, but I was in for another disappointment. The musical score was dry, flat, and did nothing to enhance viewing.

The one thing that I did like about the movie was the choice of Lyra. I thought Dakota Blue Richards did a wonderful job as a newcomer, in a role that demanded several complex emotions. She executed the character perfectly and it's unfortunate that the movie did not match her perfection. Other cast members (Eva Green, Jim Carter, Sam Elliot) did a good job as well, but did not have enough screen time to really be appreciated. As for Kidman and Craig, I was not thrilled with their portrayals of Coulter and Asriel.

In the end, I think people who have read and appreciated the books who go see this movie will be overwhelmingly disappointed, and those who have not read the books will be confused and dissatisfied as well. In comparison to films like Narnia, where the director knew how to take the time to produce a work of art with effective dialogue, scenery, musical score, mix of real and CG characters, and storytelling, the Golden Compass (unfortunately) doesn't even hold a candle.
208 out of 350 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Surprisingly Good
impairedproductions1 December 2007
For some strange reason, a theater in the middle of the cornfield in Indiana had a sneak preview of the Golden Compass, and being a fan of the books I decided to take advantage of it. I wasn't sure what I was getting into, as there seems to be a rather large glut of Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings wannabes crowding theaters now and in the near future. This version of the Golden Compass beautifully brings the books to life and was very pleasing to watch with rather nice visuals. The acting is quite good, especially from the young lead, and the animation makes one wonder what they can't do with computers these days. The only true complaint I have about this movie is that it is difficult to understand and follow if one is not familiar with the books. Some scenes at the beginning seems disconnected, but after the halfway point the story comes together. The Golden Compass series is rather dark in its nature, and I'm glad that the movie didn't pull any punches with the supernatural combat (which is awesome, specifically when the witches and bears do battle). Some liberty is taken with the story as expected, and many church references are renamed, but the quality of the story never suffers. I recommend the movie and I look forward to seeing the rest of the trilogy completed.
207 out of 333 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
descent enough
jesssika2312 June 2008
Warning: Spoilers
I waited to watch this movie until it was released on DVD. I was sadly disappointed. However, the movie was good. I felt that with all the hype of it being the next big trilogy, it was a let down. They left then ending open so that another could be created to follow the trilogy of books, but now there's news that they might not be making it. I felt that my time spent watching it and getting intrigued by it was a complete waste at that point. I felt that the beginning started off descent, but then they just kept ramming details that you need to know right after another without really elaborating or allowing for enough time to lapse between them to be ready for the next wave of information. After watching this very well graphicized movie, I was still tired from trying to take in all the information. You get in about 1 minute the history of the little girl and all this other history follows right after it. By the time you really start to understand what is happening, the movie has ended and you're left with questions that may or may not get answered in the movies. So, I guess for the author of the books this can be good for sales, but I like to watch and so does most of the general public. I do recommend this film for children who like a movie with animals and some humor, but without the sequels I feel this movie was a waste otherwise.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
This Compass Lied
anyday-24 December 2007
All the elements of a 10 star movie are obviously prevalent here, but they don't all get put into play.

I don't understand why New Line advertised this as the "next Lord Of The Rings epic", when they gave that movie close to three hours of film time and this only two! (?) Another half hour at least of this movie would have done it more justice, because it felt extremely rushed. It seemed like they were throwing information out at you too quick to fully grasp, and never letting the cast just immerse themselves in it.

The music here was nothing short of ordinary. I don't remember a single song from the movie save the "gyption theme". I honestly think the music could have been 100 times better, and bring more immersion in.

However, I believed the cast was great. It is truly great that Lyra, portrayed by Dakota Blue Richards, now has a face. They picked someone with the look and talent to really shine. Lord Asriel, portrayed by Daniel Craig and Ms. Coulter, portrayed by Nicole Kidman were played fantastically. Although Daniel Craig fans will be disappointed. He only has a 15 minute cameo. Lee Scoresby, portrayed by Sam Elliot, was great. It seems they intended him for a bit of comic relief, but I just had hoped they gave him more time to show it off due to the non-stop drama sequences.

The scenery was amazing, and very believable. The daemons, magic, witches, are all very well done and very beautiful.

I see this movie as a financial failure. You have to look at this from a critical view, the "new comers". The people the movie is trying to grab. I brought ten people to the advanced screening December 1st, four of which had read the books (myself included). They (and myself) had said that the plot was too rushed. The six that had not read them either said it was too confusing and ending up requiring explanations, or said it was too boring because they didn't take the time to flesh out the characters. Coincidentally, one of them got too frustrated with it and bored and walked out.

Fanaticly, I really like this movie (but it is real rushed), however I tried looking at this movie with a newcomer view. Reality wise, people walking in who aren't loyal fanatics are probably going to be very disappointed. Unfortunately, the list of "loyal fanatics" isn't going to be enough to make this movie a success. At any rate, this is definitely no Lord Of The Rings... It's just another flick to watch on a rainy afternoon.
253 out of 457 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Some Great Visuals, But Clunky Execution
shark-4329 November 2007
Warning: Spoilers
Differing opinions make the world go around (and also drive movie studios crazy - trying to figure out what moviegoers will respond to) -- I find it interesting that someone who like COMPASS very much was very dismissive of the POTTER and NARNIA films - and I feel just the opposite - I felt that Narnia did a rather good job with its adaptation (especially casting Tilda Swinton) and I feel the Potter movies have had fairly strong adaptations of the massively popular books. However, I felt that the movie version of COMPASS just kinda moves along from one scene to another without any real throughline - I found the pacing off - sometimes it really slowed down and dragged and then it would have an exciting sequence. The film is pretty well cast and the lead girl as Lyra is a true find - she does a wonderful job and Kidman makes a very effective villain (and it is also good to see such great character actors in supporting roles; Jim Carter, Simon McBurney, Christopher Lee, etc.) but I guess my biggest complaint is the huge reliance on CGI for the creatures - some of the daemons look great while others just totally remind you that there is nothing there but a green screen and some guy sat at a computer and added in this somewhat 2-dimensional thing. That's why I have to say - even for 1938 - you look at the Wizard Of Oz and those effects are STILL pretty effective and there is something about the flying monkeys being REAL - that they are truly actors in costumes that make them effectively creepy and have given kids the creeps for generations - now I realize you can't have actors in fur costumes for many of these creatures in COMPASS and the polar bears are the best of the bunch, but fantasy films rely a bit too much on "we'll just add that in later" and I feel it effects the actor's performance and the final visual product. My 12 daughter was even underwhelmed bu the movie and she is a fan of the books.
37 out of 78 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed