Ahoy, squirts! Quint here. We received a ton of reader reviews for THE GOLDEN COMPASS thanks in large part to the pay sneak New Line ran all across the country last weekend. I have seen the movie myself and I'll be working on my review either today or tomorrow. In the mean time, we have a boat-load for you guys. The opinions range from love, hate and everything in between.

As with any popular book adaptation you'll find loose spoilers in the critiques, so be warned if you haven't read the book and want to catch the flick spoiler-free. Let's get rolling shall we?

Good afternoon AICN Crew!

I'm writing to you today to give my feedback on an early screening of the Golden Compass I caught last night. I've been a fan of the books for quite a while, but it's probably been at least four or five years since I last read them so my memory is pretty hazy regarding most of the specifics of the book to film comparison. The main things that I can note as alterations made for translation are the very beginning and the very end. The movie starts out with a quick expository sequence that introduces some of the central concepts and factions of the film through narration and quick flashes of image. I always liked the way that the book dumped the reader into it's alternate reality and got us up to speed as we went along. Some of the concepts touched on in the opening, particularly the multiverse concept, don't get fully revealed for quite some time if I remember correctly, but the book is a pretty dense read that expects it's audience to really engage with it so I'm not surprised that the people involved in a multi-million-dollar film production decided they didn't want to make their audience work as hard as the book's audience did. As far as the very end, well....

[Spoiler]:

That final scene in the book with Lord Asriel? The one where you find out his agenda and you are left with one of the coolest literary cliffhangers ever? Yeah - that ending is totally not in this movie. At all. There's nothing in there that contradicts it really, the movie just stops before it gets there. You could tell which members of the audience had read the books by their reactions to the end of the movie. A bunch of people gave some applause but there were a bunch of pockets of people around the theater who were shouting 'What?', 'Boo!' and 'You've got to be kidding!' I like to think that the people shouting 'Boo' were not giving their verdict on the rest of the movie, but were simply reacting to the movie just stopping like that. I don't know though. I'm not a psychic. I was initially annoyed by this but as I puzzled over the choice in my head I realised that the film-makers may really have known what they were doing with that move. Even though it loses the coolness and 'punch' of the amazing cliffhanger, the thematic content of Pullman's books has clearly had a lot of people nervous since this project first went into development. Most of the really 'dangerous' ideas in the book don't really become explicit in the series until that final scene in the first book. I'm hoping that perhaps the thought behind leaving the final scene out of this production was that it would be easier to put the more challenging/risky ideas of the books in a purer form into the sequel (assuming this is successful enough to warrant one) than it would be to get them past the studio gate with a risky and untested-at-the-box-office first film of the series.

[Spoilers end]

Everything else seemed like a pretty solid streamlining/simplification of how I remember the book going. It's smart enough that you have to pay close attention, but exciting and engaging enough that you want to pay close attention. I'm honestly baffled by how many people seem to be noting how 'confusing' the movie is. I had a middle aged-black couple behind me in the theater and a mixed-race group of teenage girls in front of me, which meant that there was never any point in the movie that I didn't know exactly what the people surrounding me in the auditorium were thinking about the story unfolding before us. The running commentary providided by my fellow audience members made it abundantly clear that they had no trouble following any of the layers of plot whatsoever. They were also really, really into the movie. Hearing how they were all reacting to an exposition-heavy, anti-authoritarian, fantasy/science-fiction hybrid, with limited action, a heavily British tone, and a darkness and intelligence not usually allowed in all-ages films made me desperately wish that I would be able to watch all future episodes of Doctor Who in a packed Urban Theater from now on.

The daemons are integrated wonderfully throughout the movie. I'd be really curious to see what percentage of the shots of the movie are effects shots because every single time that I thought to look for someone's daemon - it was there. They are also integrated wonderfully functioning as independent characters of their own that we care about, but also clearly revealing subtext of interactions between the characters they are attached to through pantomime. They are obvious CG, but they are so clearly simply part of the world, that I accepted their presence fairly quickly and stopped thinking about them as 'effects'. The acting goes a long way towards selling the coexistence of the human performers and their CG counterparts. The cast does a sensational job of doing a number of difficult things, particularly extensive exposition and huge amounts of interaction with non-existent/animated characters and making it look easy. While we might expect this level of quality-in-performance from established pros like Nicole Kidman, Daniel Craig, and Sam Elliott it's worth noting that they are all perfectly cast and pull off the emotional and technical needs of their roles masterfully. No matter how good they were though, the movie would fall apart if Dakota Blue Richards were not up to the role of Lyra. She's a hell of a find. I believed every part of this girl's performance and will be picturing her every time that I read the books in the future. From her tomboyish roughness to her loyalty to her friends to her cunning in the face of danger to her innate intelligence and morality she nailed all of it. I hope that she has a long and fruitful career ahead of her.

I only had one major problem with the casting of the movie. Every time Ian McKellen's voice came out of Iorek Byrnison's mouth it yanked me out of the movie. Ian McKellen's voice is so distinct and obvious that I could never associate it with the Armored Polar Bear that was supposed to be speaking. Every time that I heard his voice I just got images of him in a recording session and animators working at desks and basically saw a little making-of special in my head. It seemed like the kind of celebrity-for-celebrity's-sake voice casting that you get in bad Dreamworks animated pictures and it came very, very close to ruining the movie for me. Thankfully Iorek Byrnison is a cool enough character that his coolness eventually overcame my tendency to think of him as Gandalf-the-Bear. His coolness is cemented in the movie's one big 'Fuck YEAH!' action moment that, all on it's own, takes the movie away from feeling like a particularly intense 'G' rated movie to really, REALLY earning it's PG-13.

The look and feel of the film seems to owe a lot to Terry Gilliam with it's reliance on fish-eye lenses and it's focus on the menace of supposedly comforting figures of authority. Between this and About A Boy, Chris Weitz has proven himself to be one of the most gifted director's of child actors working in film right now, and very adept at maintaining the tone of difficult books in adaptation while changing them enough to make them cinematic. I never thought that I would say this about anyone who had anything to do with American Pie, but I'm there for whatever he chooses to do next. He's now definitely proven himself as a reliably intelligent storyteller who can handle a variety of tones and can get consistent work from actors regardless of their level of experience. Aside from my problems with McKellen, my only other problem was with the wardrobe and effects choices for Serafina Pekkala who continually appeared to have stumbled in from a much cheaper and lamer movie. With the flowy robes and crappy appearing-from-nowhere effects I really thought that she belonged in a made-for-cable movie that was trying (and failing) to achieve the look and style of a Hong Kong supernatural-action movie.

The movie certainly isn't the book, but it's far, far closer than I ever imagined the movie would be. It could still, hypothetically, even be the starting point for a wonderful, lasting, and permanent adaptation of the series of novels depending on how they choose to handle the missing ending of this one in subsequent films. It's definitely a fun night out at the movies, and I'll probably be catching it again in the theater just for Armored Polar Bear Action. I also got a big laugh thanks to the previews tacked on at the beginning of the print that I saw. I'm not used to seeing previews at advance screenings, but I was grateful that there were just so that I could see the preview to Prince Caspian before this. It's a preview that I hadn't seen anywhere before this yet, so I got to enjoy the feeling of Family Fantasy: Point/Counterpoint by seeing Narnia action being sold before the Golden Compass. I'm guessing that Disney was holding the trailer to debut it with the opening weekend of the Golden Compass. If that's the case I wonder if there is anyone who pointed out the irony of marketing the Christian Allegory of Narnia via the athiest response of His Dark Materials.

Thanks again,

Have a great time at BNAT!

-Xander

Thanks, Xander. Here's the next!

Harry, Moriarty et al -

Lady Hotspur and I drove out to Rancho Cucamonga last night to drop the Beloved Hellion off with the grandparents for a few hours and take in the sneak peek of "The Golden Compass." I figured I'd see tons of reviews of TGC on your site today, but, interestingly, no such dice. Never one to leave a breach un-rushed into, I therefore thought I'd give you a rundown of the wife's and my reactions to the movie, in case you feel like posting it. My first attempt at reviewing, so be kind.

First, I'll allow that we've both read the books and find Bill Donohue's media whoring on the film to be in pretty poor taste. (I mean, we're not down with Mel Gibson's particular brand of theology, but we didn't jump on Fox News and tell people to picket and boycott "Passion of the Christ," now, did we?) So if it matters to anyone reading that we're coming at it from a fairly sympathetic perspective, feel free to ignore the rest of what I say -- although I'm here to review the film, not the philosophical agenda of Phillip Pullman.

In brief: the movie gets so much right that you feel a tad guilty for taking exception to what it gets wrong. The production design is the real star, and it's phenomenal in every possible way. Costumes, vehicles, settings are all brilliantly imagined and executed, in a grander way even, to be honest, than what I imagined when I read the book.

The second star is the casting, which is pitch-perfect. I defy anyone to suggest better actors for their roles here than Nicole Kidman, Daniel Craig, Eva Green and Sam Elliott, and they all do work in this movie that ranks with the best I've seen from them. Dakota Blue Richards is, contrary to some of what I've been reading, terrific - she gives a performance filled with darkness and nuance I frankly didn't expect was possible from a kid her age. And anyone who fretted over the casting change of ursine Ians -- McShane giving way to McKellen as the armored bear king, Iorek -- can rejoice, because McShane isn't gone; he's just been repurposed as the bad bear king, Ragna, for whom his voice is better suited anyway. (I think McKellan sounds too old for Iorek, but obviously Bob Shaye and company don't agree with me.)

Is the thematic content of the book, which has the Catholic League's Mr. Donohue in such a tizzy, intact, or has it been tamed beyond recognition? I think it actually mostly survives, and there are a few moments late in the movie which leave no doubt about the analogy being drawn to some of the dogma of one or three of the World's Finest (TM) Religions. But neither does the film just beat that horse way past its time of death; the omission of the word "church" (only the word "Magisterium" is ever used) helps soften it and make it more generally palatable, without significantly altering the themes in question.

As for what's wrong with the movie, it pretty much all comes down to Chris Weitz. I'm not bashing the guy: he's clearly a man with range (I mean, "American Pie" to THIS? Really?) and he got the movie made, for which I give him great credit. The skill he showed in "About a Boy" working with actors in dialogue-heavy scenes with a lot of dramatic content to chew on is put to great use here. The first scene in which Kidman's Mrs. Coulter and Richards' Lyra realize they might be at cross-purposes is striking in its subtle intensity, and Lyra's meeting with the bad bear king, Ragna, is incredibly compelling (the moral ambiguity of her effortless lying skills is another Pullman element that makes it into the movie more intact than I expected). There's some great acting to be seen here.

Where Weitz falls down is in the part of the director's job that goes beyond just working with actors. The shot design is sloppy and the framings pedestrian; Weitz is not a gifted visualist and he has no feel for directing action. (The magnificent paw-a-paw battle between Iorek and Ragna, with a culminating shot that will drop your jaw [heh], is a notable exception.) I can' t count the number of times I caught myself thinking, "God, with this cast and this production design, what might someone like Peter Jackson have been able to do?" And the script is... well, let's say that the Tom Stoppard draft was almost certainly thrown out. Over-exposition abounds; the superfluous opening VO by Eva Green's fabulous good witch, for example, screams of studio interference as it shamelessly apes the opening Galadriel VO in "Fellowship of the Ring" instead of allowing us to form questions about this slightly-but-not-totally different world and then discover the answers over time, as the book does. You can feel the studio's anxious doubt that the audience would get or accept any of this stuff without it being oversimplified and spoon-fed. Pity.

In any case, Weitz was probably right the first time when he resigned briefly as director, fearing he wasn't quite up to the task; he isn't. He simply finds himself overmatched by the material, both as a writer and a director.

But his limitations don't ruin the movie by any means. Yes, it's clumsily over-expository. Yes, it sports one of the most sentimental and cliched music scores I've had the misfortune to listen to in a good long time. Yes, it needs more Daniel Craig. (What movie doesn't?) But the soul of the source material is translated more than adequately, the acting is generally top-notch, and the last third of the movie really takes off and goes somewhere. (I endorse the choice, by the way, to move the book's tragic final plot twist to the next movie; it would have felt wrong at the end of this one.)

Bottom line: I give it a solid B, if we're doing the old school grading system. Not a home run, but a lot of things that could easily gone wrong here instead went thrillingly right. If you're a closed-minded hater who can't stand being exposed to points-of-view other than your own, you might want to stay at home - but everybody else will probably have a good time. And, by the way, I'd cheerfully take my kid to it.

That's the report, reflecting the reactions of both myself and my Lady. As always, love the site. Keep it up!

Best,
Hotspur

Great review, Hotspur. Thanks for sending it in. Next up is Celborn!

Hey Harry,

I attended a sneak preview showing of The Golden Compass Saturday night in Louisville, KY, and I thought I'd send along my thoughts.

I wasn't expecting to see the movie that night and had planned to catch No Country For Old Men at last. When I went to buy my ticket, though, there on the electronic board was a listing for a single showing of Compass. I asked if there were tickets left and at that time (about an hour before the showing) there were about 60. When I returned for the movie itself, almost all the tickets had been sold. The theater was a medium-sized room, with probably about 150-200 seats, almost all full as far as I could tell. The age range was wide, with kids and adults intermixed.

There was one New Line trailer attached to the front of the preview, for Inkheart (featuring everyone's favorite Gollum, Andy Serkis). After that one preview the movie began. There was initially a bit of an annoyance when the house lights didn't go down at first, until finally someone behind me ran out to get someone to take care of it.

Various major intermittent spoilers for the movie and the book below:

The movie itself overall ended up being very gorgeously filmed, particularly the early scenes in Oxford. The actress playing Lyra was a bit uneven in her acting, particularly in some early scenes where she's fleeing pursuers but for all the world looks as though she's not doing much more than taking a brisk jog. However, in several later scenes she begins to strike the right notes of defiance and determination, especially once she meets up with Iorek. There is a very exciting look she gets on her face in those later scenes when she grows more clever that really paint a good picture of her inner thoughts and firey spirit. In the memorable intercission scene at Bolvangar the actress doesn't quite reach the heights of desperation and intensity that I remembered from the books, but nonetheless the scene still puts your heart in your throat.

The animations of the daemons and bears are pretty polished. The bears seem to get a bit more of the lion's share of the attention, though, and come off looking very nice and life-like. Lyra's daemon is also rendered pretty realistically, and I was pleased to see that the film doesn't minimize Pan's tendency to change shapes, showing him doing so often in the movie.

Sam Elliot and Eva Green are both wonderful in their roles in the time they're onscreen, but sadly in both cases that time is pretty short. The only real problem in both cases is that the entire time I saw them I was thinking of the actors rather than the characters, due to their distinctive presences. That aside I found them welcome in the film.

Daniel Craig's Asriel is also not onscreen for a great deal of time, and is a fairly muted performance all around. Much more featured in Nicole Kidman's Ms. Coulter, who slinks and purrs her way around the film very similar to my memories of the character from the book. There is a segment just after Lyra first goes to live with her, and is being amazed by this new sophisticated life around every corner, that I could almost swear was one beat away from turning into a classic "girls go shopping" montage.

As far as the much-bandied issue of the religious themes of the book, and how they're treated in the movie, overall I was fairly surprised at how little was watered down or removed. The Magisterium is still referred to by name, and a meeting of high councilors shown where they're very open about their intent to stifle any question of their authority, and their desire to see the children operated on "for their own good." There's even a bit of an overly heavy-handed line where Derek Jacobi snarls that they have to protect society from "these freethinkers and other dangerous types" that got a chuckle from a few people around me.

The concept of Dust is also discussed pretty openly and extensively in the film, with Ms. Coulter describing to Lyra late in the film that "our ancestors long ago made a mistake and disobeyed the Authority, and that was how Dust entered the world." It'll be interesting to see just how faithful the films continue to be in the next installments.

There were a couple of changes from the novel that I found of interest. First, in the opening scenes it is not the Master who puts the poison into Asriel's flask, but a visiting emissary from the Magisterium working alone. I'm not sure what motivated this, but at the very least it serves to make the Master a more sympathetic and grandfatherly character, since he hasn't tried to kill anyone.

Late in the film, the order of events in switched so that the scenes with the bears at Svalbard occur before the scenes at Bolvangar. Presumably this was in order to make the large battle between the Gyptians, Witches, and others the climax of the film. This also leads to the biggest change from the book: after the battle at Bolvangar, when Lyra is rescued by Lee Scoresby in his flying ship, the movie actually ends with them flying north to find Asriel so Lyra can take him the Compass. Presumably, the producers felt it better to not end the film on the big shock and cliffhanger than ends the book. I can only assume that will open the second film.

Overall, I thought the film hit several of the high notes of the book, but not usually quite as well as the book did. Many of the performances seem muted, and there's a definite sense that the movie is to some degree just plodding from one point to the next, similar to the early Harry Potter films. The major exceptions to this are the scenes with Iorek, and especially the bear single-combat at Svalbard. This scene is extremely engaging and visceral, with a bit more violence than I expected from the PG film. Most telling was that as I was walking out of the theater, I heard a guy behind me telling his friend that he would have liked a movie all about Iorek even better.

Still, there was applause after the film, and everyone seemed to have enjoyed themselves as they walked out. I would certainly recommend the film to anyone who likes the books, which is of course the people who will see it anyway. Anyone who hasn't seen the books may find themselves a bit lost when the talk turns to Dust and similar matters, but on simply the level of spectacle the movie undoubtedly delivers. The main drawbacks are a nagging lack of energy through most of the film, and a sense that few truly "major" events happen at all in the course of the plot. So I'd probably consider it overall a mixed bag, leaning solidly positive.

You can reference me as Celeborn if you use this.

Next up!

Hey,

This is the first real review I've sent in, though I've read the site for a while. Because of the massive amount of advanced screenings of the other night, you probably got at least 100 more of these. Still, after reading some of the other reviews of this movie I thought it worth my time to share my two cents.

New Line apparently has a lot of confidence in this film, or at least enough ot screen this a week early on 800 screens. I think after LOTR the studios think every December needs a big fantasy movie, good or bad, to finish the year off. Therefore, a bunch of friends and myself ran to the theater to see if this hyped up big budget fantasy movie was worth our while.

I have been rooting for this movie. I was hoping for the best. I think Chris Weitz is a pretty good director and he seemed really passionate about the material. So I hate to say that I was disappointed. I am almost completely indifferent to this movie.

Oh this movie tries. It tries a lot. It's flashy and has that high budget sheen all fantasy movies these days have to have. It's derivative, but this isn't exactly a bad thing. The directing, music, and cinematography all seems to liberally steal from Star Wars, Harry Potter, LOTR, and anything else in that pantheon. Hell, when the head dude of the evil government walks into the room I could swear the Emperor's theme from Star Wars was playing in the background. If he had started to say "I AM THE SENATE!" (I swear, he was this close) it would have fit right in. That being said, if you're going to steal there are worse movies to steal from. I mean, Weitz could have lost is damn mind and ripped off Eragon, but he does have some sense. So even though some of this copying made me slightly distracted, it didn't bother me much in the end. I left that to the writing itself.

I can't really explain the plot, because some parts of it weren't exactly explained. The main thrust of the movie concerns a girl named Lyra who is important for some reason and how she journeys to the north to rescue some kids that are being experimented on and find her uncle. Along the way there is a lot of discussions about things like a weird substance called "dust", how people have CG animals that are actually their souls that shape shift when they are young because of some reason (I kept thinking "damn allergies in this world would SUCK"), witches that only are in the movie for about five minutes, how the girl is prophesied to be important in some vague war everyone seems to dread, and how good/bad the evil government really is. None of this is really explained. If I had read the book I probably would have understood some of these things, but instead there is no real explanation given and then the movie ends with a sequel ending. The ending would have been much better suited if a messages appeared before the credits going "I know you're all confused, but we'll explain everything NEXT time."

But this isn't even what bothered me entirely about the movie. In fact, I would have forgiven some of the lack of explanation if it wasn't spoon fed to the audience in an incredibly clunky way. The first few minutes of the movie is lots of exposition given through voice over while staring at images made of sand. This didn't feel naturally, it felt weird. Then some of the conversations come out not in a natural way, but in a "we have to explain EXACTLY what we're talking about so the morons in the audience get EVERYTHING." And then, even with all this really clunky exposition that sometimes seems to go on for too long, nothing really important seems to be revealed. Instead, I am still left confused as to why the hell no one is allowed to talk about dust, and why the witches seem so important.

Of course, these sort of exposition heavy moments led to real pacing problems in the movie. The movie seems to go really fast suddenly, like it's skipping a lot of information to get to a cool looking scene, and then it seems to slow down in order to give us some explanation of something I still don't clearly understand. And all of this dialog, I have to add, seems awkward coming out of the actor's mouths. I mean, they try their best but it doesn't always work. The lead kid in the film seems to have the most trouble. She has screen presence, but sometimes comes off way too cheesy (there is an unintentional laugh in there or two) or stilted when it comes to the explanations. Nicole Kidman has a better time at it, since she gets to have fun acting crazy maternal AND vampy. Daniel Craig seems cool in the film for the ten minutes he's on screen, before disappearing for most of the movie only to show up in the end as a sort of bookend "oh by the way, I totally forgot, this is what happened to this guy!" And it must be noted, Christopher Lee shows up for what literally amounts to maybe 6 seconds of screen time, with what I believe is one line. No, I don't know why either.

I get the feeling this all worked a lot better in book form. And I guess I have to give the movie this much; it made me want to read the book it's based off of.

The movie wasn't all bad though. The second half is about 5 times better than the first half. This is mainly due to two reasons; first, the exposition finally either stops or starts coming more natural, but either way it takes a back seat to some nice action set pieces. Second, the introduction of the air pilot cowboy and the polar bear.

God bless the Polar Bear. Voiced by a growling Ian McKellan, the bear rocks. It steals the whole movie and has the best moments. It growls a lot, kicks ass, and gets like a protective father around the girl. Hell, the last half of the movie should have been called "A Girl and her Killer Polar Bear" because that's really all half the audience cared about. Meanwhile, we have a cowboy like guy who flies an airship and shoots people while saying some witty one liners. these two make a sort of dynamic due that lift the movie up and make it way better than it had any business being. They also tend to do a lot of killing in the action scenes. Good for them.

Meanwhile, the deamons that are actually animals that are actually the souls of people in animal form made out of dust (or something) seem pretty cool. There really isn't a lot more to say, except the idea is interesting and actually explained...sort of. It's explained enough to actually understand it, and when Pan the deamon is threatened by an evil barely explained machine, it's actually worrisome and I bet it will make some kids cry (although why they would want to remove deamons is still beyond me. It's never explained). The scene reminded of some of those older 80s kids movies with some disturbing scary moments in them (Neverending Story pops into mind...the horse dying bothered me when i was a kid) and I only wish there were more scenes like it in the film.

The design of the world is pretty cool too; sort of a steam punk-ish fantasy world mirroring our own. It seemed well thought out and fit the screen decently. There really isn't much more to say on this subject. Moving on.

Finally, it has to be noted that the bear fight will go down as one of my favorite scenes of the year. It's the best part of the film. The lead up to it is well written and fun, and the fight itself is exciting, but it's the ending of the fight that actually made my audience explode with applause. Everyone needs to see this as soon as they can. Even the people who hated the movie seemed to say "we'll that bear fight scene was pretty badass." And really, it is.

It should be noted that not everyone agrees with me. Some of my group loved it. some of my group hated it. I believe this pretty much sums up the reaction this movie is going to get as it goes on to make a lot of money and have a sequel made in the next two years. And I will see the sequel, because I want answers. So if I want to see the sequel, I guess I didn't think this movie was bad. But it wasn't really good. I wish it was better.

Stars - ***1/2

I think it should be said that attached to the beginning of this movie was a trailer for In The Name of the King: A Dungeon Siege Tale, that really long named video game movie made by Uwe Boll. The trailer actually made it look epic and somewhat watchable. This scares me greatly, and you should be scared too.

If you use this, call me The Opinionated Asshole.

Holy Crap! Dr. Boll's 2 year old LOTR rip-off is coming to theaters? God help us all... Next on the review list is from "Red Redding."

Hello. I am a first time contributor who goes to school down in San Diego who just saw an early screening of the Golden Compass. Lets get right to it. I feel I don't need to repeat the plot because you can find it anywhere.

Let me start off by saying that I enjoy good fantasy and felt that Lord of the Rings, The Chronicles of Narnia, and Harry Potter are all good examples. What is different about The Golden Compass is that I felt it wasn't comparable to any of those movies and was more about characters and less about action. It is also more of a kids movie.

What Worked: I thought that all of the acting was good and that Dakota will be a fine actress in the years to come. All of the big names (Nicole Kidman, Daniel Craig, Sam Elliot) do their part admirably, but they are on screen for very little time.The voice talent was also very good with Ian Mckellen and Freddie Highmoore as the standouts. I thought it was paced very nicely and it sped along the story with very few lulls. The movie looks very beautiful and the direction is solid, but nothing special.

What Didn't Work:

It might be just me, but i thought that the cgi wasn't all that great. Every animal looked fake and maybe that is the style they are going for; kinda cartoony. All of the animals moved well, but just looked unrealistic; the dogs especially. I just didn't really feel for the characters all that much because there is very little character building. Also, key characters are only on for 5 to 10 minutes of the time and it just feels like everybody, but Lyra is in an extended cameo (especially Christopher Lee... wtf is that! like 7 words). I mentioned the pace was good but the movie is only like 95 minutes and it ends abruptly when it could have gone and finished the story.

It might seem like i am being too hard, but i did enjoy it. Just don't go in expecting the next Lord of the Rings or Narnia for that matter. 7/10

If you use this call me Red Redding

The next review is probably the most negative of the bunch. He is "Mayor Vaughn" and we all know how stingy he is with the Amity town budget... and how cranky he is in his awesome blue suit with the anchor pattern. Take it away Mr. Mayor!

Hi Harry,

I attended a sneak preview of "The Golden Compass" tonight in Denver. I'll keep this (somewhat) brief and (mostly) spoiler free. Having read the book the movie is based on this past summer I entered the screening with high hopes. Unfortunately, the people behind this movie have taken a subtle, intelligent, and suspenseful novel and smashed together a film which has all the subtlety, intelligence, and suspense of drunken circus clown with a third-grade education punctuating jokes with armpit farts. The script assumes the viewers are so dumb they need to be told three separate times that the device that kind of looks like a golden compass is kind of like a golden compass and that's why the movie is called "The Golden Compass." It jumps from plot point to plot point so haphazardly that any semblance of tension is obliterated. I recall reading somewhere that Philip Pullman considered this book (and its sequels) unfilmable. Watching this clumsy adaptation may not prove him entirely right, but it comes pretty close. Though Weitz and company cast all the major roles with near perfection, they seem to have decided that the target audience is both young and borderline special-needs. The book immerses the reader in a fully realized world and allows the complexity of the story to come through in pieces. For some reason I've yet to figure out, the director seemed to distrust both the source material and the viewer's ability to understand it. Before the powers-that-be decided to make a movie of this book someone should have told them that just because the protagonist is a child doesn't mean the story is exclusively for children. If you use this, please call me "Mayor Vaughn."

Next up is Mr. Gyptian!

Hey Harry,

Just got back from a preview of The Golden Compass here in LA. While the film is visually stunning, has extremely high production values, and a fairly strong cast of actors, ultimately the film fails to live up to the potential of the book. Judged by itself, I think most moviegoers who haven't read the books will have a mixed reaction.

Visually, the film is a stunner. Cutting-edge FX and top-notch production values. It opens with a voice-over explaining the world we're about to see, and we're immediately introduced to Lyra. The story has very little set-up and gets rolling almost immediately. It isn't that the story isn't interesting, it's that we barely have any time to get to know Asriel and Lyra before we're off and running. In the book, a fair amount of time is spent establishing the world and politics of the world we're in. Here, it's kind of shoe-horned in to the first Act, and before you know it (SPOILER ALERT) Lyra is given the Alethiometer by the Master of Jordan College, is whisked away by Mrs. Coulter, has a spat with her and runs away, only to be rescued by the Gyptians who, in turn, spirit her away to the North to find Roger, whose kidnapping is teased but mostly happens off-camera. Indeed, the trailer for the movie shows more of Roger's kidnapping than what ends up in the actual film. In short, the film's story is too condensed to really resonate with the audience. Of course, I'd read the book and was able to peice everything together, but I can only imagine that someone coming to the movie with no knowledge of the books will be a bit confused or simply won't care that much.

But the major change from the book is that the Church angle has been completely watered down. It's been replaced by the "Magisterium" without too much exposition or explanation of who and what they really are. Instead, we get cryptic conversions hinting at the mystery of "what they're really up to". It's so tamed down from the books that all the religious folks who are protesting and condemning this film sight unseen should really shut up. There is absolutely nothing for them to be worried about. The film barely even hints at the religious nature of the Magisterium, which is ultimately where it goes wrong. In the books, the Church has become a part of the State and rules with an eerily familiar notion of conduct and belief. It's essentially a fascist state using religion to keep the masses ignorant of the truth. And what is the truth? Well, the truth is that there are several parrallel universes, and that our souls (or daemons) are somehow connected to a mysterious substance called "dust". The mystery of "dust" is at the heart of the books, but in the film is largely left unexplored. Hence, the discovery of what the Magisterium is really up to is shocking but still confusing since they haven't taken the time to establish the connection between daemons and dust.

Another HUGE change from the books is the ending. To be blunt -- the film ends a few chapters short of where the book ends. Having read the books, I immediately understood why they chose to nix the book's ending. An atrocious and violent act ends the first book in the His Dark Materials trilogy. As dificult as the book's ending was, it was better to change it for the film. Simply put, if there is a second installment, they can begin with the first book's ending, and it will be the perfect inciting incident for the second film.

All in all, the film is a mixed bag. The performances are fine. Kidman is quite chilly and enigmatic as Mrs. Coulter. In the books, she's a lot more malevolent than Kidman's performance. So while Kidman gets points for charm and talent (and Kidman has never looked more stunning), the character should be much more sinister. Chris Weitz has said in many interviews that he always imagined Kidman for the role. This surprised me since, if memory serves, the character in the book is not blonde and has dark hair. Personally, I always pictured Catherine Zeta-Jones in the role. But I digress. Daniel Craig is fine as Asriel, as is Dakota Blue Richards. The one stand-out performance for me was Eva Green. She's actually the most perfectly cast of the group if you compare her to the character in the books.

Anyway, those are my thoughts. Thanks for reading. If you use this review, please call me Mr. Gyptian.

Alright, I was wrong. Mayor Vaughn wasn't the most negative review... The Don has that beat.

Harry,

I just got out of a screening of the Golden Compass and I'm disturbed. Not because of any anti-religion crap that church groups seem to be up in arms about, but rather because the movie just plain sucked. How did this script get greenlit? Was this director out to lunch the whole shoot? I was with a friend and her two kids - one fell asleep - and the other kept asking me if we could go back to the arcade. There's so much trying to happen in this story, that ultimately you don't care much about any of it. With the exception of Lyra, I couldn't tell you any of the other characters names. Is it because I wasn't paying attention? No, it was because I didn't give a damn about any of them.

It felt like the writer/director read the cliff notes of the book and threw together a movie based on an outline. The dialog is terrible. Some scenes are put in with no thought or effort in having them work.

For example - there is a scene where Lyra gets to some random town, is sitting by herself for some reason, and then some random cowboy comes up to her and says "Hey, I don't know who you are...but you should hire me...and you know what, you should hire an armored bear as well...I just happen to know one in this town." OK, so the dialogue wasn't exactly that, but that was the general gist of it. By the way, what the hell is the cowboy expecting her to pay him???

It was terribly obvious that the filmmaker didn't have any passion for this story. And that, ultimately is why it fails. As far as the religion thing goes, I don't see the issue. If a person of faith feels threatened by another point of view, then maybe they should reevaluate what their faith means.

One plus, however, there is one moment that had the whole theater clapping. Not because it mattered much to the story...in fact that scene was completely random and stupid...but the wonderfully violent action was fantastic. If you bother to see it, you'll know the scene I'm talking about. "Is that all"

Please Hollywood, give me a good fantasy flick next year you talentless schmucks.

The Don

The next is more positive... and short and sweet!

Hi Harry

I'm a big fan of the site and check everyday, keep up the good work. Now to business and I'll keep this brief. Tonight I watched an advanced premiere of The Golden Compass. Personally I have always been a lover of epic tales and i love stories told in multiple part and his movie hits the nail on the head. While It is not as deep as LoTR, it was an enjoyable ride.

Frankly, it had Bear Gandalf kicking some Daemon ass, i don't know what more you could possibly need.

Some people may not like this film because a majority of storytelling is used to set up for the sequels, these are the same people that were pissed off after Fellowship of the Ring. These people are to be ignored.

if you use this call me Bill the Butcher.

also BEAR GANDALF!

Our final review is a well-composed, lengthy look at the film from NivekJ.

Hello AICNers, NivekJ here. I managed to pry myself off the talkbacks to check out an early screening of "The Golden Compass" in Tallahassee, FL. Beware the SPOILERAGE. Beware.

It looks incredible. Full of cool, steampunkish designs, CGI animals, and quasi-Catholic kidnappers. And the polar bears? I don't know who spiked their Coca-Cola bottles, but they're juiced up. Fuckin' killing everybody!

Now for the bad stuff. Imagine you're looking at a graham cracker, but not just any graham cracker. It's gorgeous, golden brown, and covered with pretty sprinkles. You can even smell how delicious it should taste. But you bite into it, and it's just a plain-ass regular graham cracker. And worse yet, it's not even as good as a regular graham cracker, because it's all low-fat and sugar-free.

That's The Golden Compass. It looks better than it is. I kept waiting to find out what was the point of the damn thing, and it never had one. A great setup. Countless worlds accessible through magic dust....let's never GO TO THEM! Sure, I know there are more movies, but this entire first film can be summarized as this:

A girl rescues her friend.

That's the whole movie in a nutshell. A $200 million dollar nutshell with CGI animals, alternate worlds and steampunk blimps. Who the fuck cares whether she rescues her friend or not? I'm not heartless, but I just didn't care. All that potential, all that backstory, why even bother?

Peril in the Arctic's a tried and true fantasy staple: Willow, Narnia part 1, Fellowship of the Ring, Monsters Inc. It's all been done, and that's all this movie boils down to.

Christopher Lee was alright, but it just made me think how much of a badass he was as Saruman. Eva Green, frankly, reminded me of Amy Adams in Enchanted because they're both hot. But that's part of a major problem -- everything in this movie just reminded me of something else, and pulled me out of the story. I was never really engaged until Sam Elliott and the polar bear showed up.

When your movie gets upstaged by a cowboy and a polar bear, that's when you have problems.

What Rocks: Sam Elliott, and his bunny. Coulter's chimpanzee, Asriel's tiger, the (main) polar bear, the production design and cinematography

What Sucks: Everything else. Sorry.

What Really Sucks: The ending (or lack of). I know originally it was downbeat, but I'll take completion over upbeat any day. I haven't seen an ending this unsatisfying since Matrix Reloaded.

BTW, I think Daniel Craig must have given the casting director a few extra bucks since his last two leading ladies (Kidman and Green) showed up. It was kind of distracting: Invasion vs. Casino Royale.

In relation to other recent fantasy films, it has more personality and more edge than Narnia. But less substance and is less of a story than Narnia or even the last Harry Potter film, which we know continues but still feels complete by itself. Here's hoping the DVD has the original ending, and puts more meat on the narrative bones.

Two out of five stars. To be honest, just go see Enchanted. Amy Adams is hot.