001485534816.jpg

Lyra’s Oxford

The Golden Compass / Phillip Stephens

Film Reviews | December 15, 2007 | Comments (75)


One of the great things about Philip Pullman’s trilogy of fantasy novels was its unapologetic, challenging conceits — the author pulled no punches in his confrontation (to call it an “attack” seems too reductive and bellicose) of Christian dogma and the institutional church in Western Civilization; the entire story was galvanized with the author’s proud defiance in the name of secular humanism, and the knowledge of his own heterodoxy. From a literary standpoint, this challenge made for an amazing story; His Dark Materials accepted Biblical/Miltonian mythologies at the same time it overthrew them. Whether or not you share an affinity for Pullman’s subtext is irrelevant — what makes or breaks a story isn’t what axe the author had to grind, it’s the trappings that surround it, and we’re fortunate that Pullman housed his alternative to Narnia in a wondrously realized universe with exciting characters and fantastical complexity. Dawkins and Hitchens should take note.

Writer-director Chris Weitz (About a Boy) had the unenviable task of cinematically converting an epic (a daunting task in itself) that had a pre-conceived “controversy” already built into it. Naturally, any references to Pullman’s criticism of certain Catholic elements, overt or implicit, will be ignored or diluted. It’s sad to see these changes, evidence of both studio and audience cowardice toward iconoclasm, but like I said, enough remains in the story’s essence to maintain greatness, provided the proper balance could be struck — shockingly, Weitz was able to pull it off.

The Golden Compass is pretty great children’s fantasy, striking most of the right chords for an adventure with the additional boon of pitch-perfect casting. I’m as surprised as anyone, given the script’s omission of religious implications and a toning down of much of the darkness and violence which gave the original books a real sense of tension, not to mention the rampant production problems (Weitz left the project at least once). But the essentials: great, complex characters and a fully realized world are in fine form.

Lyra Belacqua (newcomer Dakota Blue Richards — thank god she began acting early; porn beckons for that name!) is an orphaned girl who leads a charmed, sequestered life at Jordan College in Oxford. The world Lyra inhabits has a peculiar metaphysical trait — a person’s soul is manifested as a “dæmon,” a kind of spirit which may take the shape of any animal (during the formative years). A dæmon can’t move far away from its human counterpart, and physical actions affect the other; if your dæmon dies, you die, and vice versa. Lyra’s dæmon, Pantalaimon (voice of Freddie Highmore) accompanies her throughout the film; every character has one, and they sometimes provide a chilling glance at an individual’s personality. Lyra’s life is relatively carefree — she’s only haphazardly raised by the scholars, given access to the college’s knowledge and otherwise allowed to run free among Oxford’s stony streets. Occasionally she’s looked in on by her uncle, Lord Asriel (Daniel Craig), an enigmatic adventurer/politico.

On one of Lord Asriel’s infrequent visits, it is learned that his research has led to the discovery of some metaphysical substance called Dust, which purportedly flows into every human through his or her dæmon, and which may point the way to other parallel universes. This pseudo-scientific revelation is not greeted kindly by the Catholic Church Magisterium, a dogmatic crypto-corporate institution which wields dictatorial power in this world, and with whose teachings the discovery conflicts. This event sets the stage for what will become the chief conflict in the series — the Magisterium’s attempts to staunch knowledge of Dust and, later, to manipulate the substance and force it to conform to their existing dictums.

Lyra becomes involved when her best friend, Roger (Ben Walker), is kidnapped by a shadowy force, who may be affiliated with the Magisterium; simultaneously, one of their representatives, Mrs. Coulter (a frostily perfect Nicole Kidman), takes Lyra on as her apprentice. Coulter gradually reveals herself to be insidious, and Lyra escapes, joining with a vagabond group looking for Roger and other missing children, which leads them north into ersatz Scandinavia and an inevitable showdown with the Magisterium.

So, as you can see, there’s quite a bit going on plot-wise to keep the film bouncing along at an impressive clip. The brevity of the individual plot points sometimes makes The Golden Compass feel choppy; ironically, Weitz’s fealty to the book causes him to rush and condense the exposition. Visually, however, Lyra’s world is plenty impressive; Weitz never indulges in CG ubiquity despite the great temptation given his fantasy setting. Real sets and locations finely house real actors, who co-exist next to their beastly avatars rather well and give the action sequences an added vibrancy. And the supporting cast is inexplicably phenomenal — Derek Jacobi, a blink-and-you’ll-miss-him Christopher Lee, Sam Elliott, Eva Green, and the voices of Ian McKellen, Ian McShane, Kristen Scott Thomas, and Kathy Bates; big personalities to match these efforts in epic-ness.

The Golden Compass isn’t always successful, but it’s successful enough to map an exciting new world that engages (and could hopefully be explored further with sequels). I know it’s pointless to note that it isn’t as good as the book, but the source material shines through an otherwise moderate movie, making it something more. And to anyone unfamiliar with Pullman’s books — get on it; to wrap a detailed children’s fantasy around the highest of philosophical and cultural struggles … I can’t stress how rare that is.

Phillip Stephens is the lead critic for Pajiba. He lives in Fayetteville, AR, and does not give two shits about the Razorbacks.


I Am Legend | The License Plate Said Fresh and It Had Dice in the Mirror





Comments

Glad to hear it is good. I kinda wanted to see something fantastical, and this really caught my eye.

Just wanted to be the first to say: does anyone else find it interesting that the ice-cold female villain is named Mrs. Coulter?

Posted by: Vermillion at December 8, 2007 1:36 AM

I'm kind of surprised this movie got such a good review because I've only heard bad things. It gives me a little hope that the some of the books I grew up to aren't completely tarnished by Hollywood.

Posted by: M at December 8, 2007 1:47 AM

Interesting M, I've only heard good things about it; mostly that it's excellent children's fantasy i.e. it's not really for people over the age of maybe 14 or 15.

I'm curious about seeing this and probably only will if my younger sister wants to.

Posted by: NotBlonde at December 8, 2007 2:18 AM

Oh, this is such good news! Last I checked, it had only a 40% fresh on rotten tomatoes, and I found the previews so inexplicably charming, I admit...

Posted by: Brenda at December 8, 2007 2:58 AM

Dear Mr. Stephens,


I love Pajiba's reviews. 99% of the time I agree with every word in every sentence of every review. However, this one falls in the rare 1% of reviews. This movie is a complete abomination to everything that the Golden Compass novel is. Even if the casting is extraordinary. (Kidman as Mrs. Coulter? Amazing! Craig as Lord Asriel? Brilliant! Dakota Blue Richards? Mindblowing!)
This can be chalked up to the fact that the movie is NOTHING like the book.


Weitz's fealty to the book?? You've got to be kidding! There's so many changed plot points to the movie that it should not even be named after the book! Firstly, the whole movie feels as if it's aimed at 7 year olds. There is NO violence. There is no message. The armored bear fight is toned down. Hell, there isn't even an ending! (I am tempted to include page long details of how the movie differs from the book but it would involve spoilers and me tearing out my hair in despair.)


But I will emphasize: THERE IS NO ENDING to this movie. Fans of the book will be outraged as the ending is perhaps one of the most revealing parts of the book. Alas, Mr. Weitz's fealty does not extent that far.


Another puzzling thing about the movie is how little time is devoted to the daemons. Pan is such a small character in the movie that most times you even forget he is there at all, and his character is bland and whiny. One of the most moving things in the book is Lyra's relationship with Pan. In the movie it's an afterthought. Also, why is Pan a ferret 50% of the time? Very different from the novel.


There are 100 other things I could list that are wrong with the movie. Things like why are the witches wearing discarded elf costumes from LOTR (and why are they all dressed alike) to why Yorek never got to polish his armor with seal blubber. Sadly, none of those things came into question when someone had the dim idea to make the Golden Compass into a movie for the under 10 set. This movie is simple, the Magesterium is black and Lyra is white. It's sad to see such a complex novel reduced to such easily digestible pieces. There is no other way to put this: I abhor this movie.

Posted by: io at December 8, 2007 2:59 AM

io,
Do you think someone who has not read the books wouldn't be charmed by this film? You speak as a fan missing the details, for many of us those bits wouldn't be missed.

And bah, personally, since this is obviously part of a triology of movies, so what if they pushed this books ending back into the second book. I know the disapointment one feels about the film adaptations of books, but really, this is just one interpretation and won't diminish the pleasure of the richer books. this movie just looks like light-hearted fun to me.

Posted by: Brenda at December 8, 2007 3:28 AM

I have to agree with Io. Based on what I understand from people who haven't read the book (quite a number) but watched the movie, the plot in the movie was too complicated to follow, too many characters popping up for like 5 seconds before disappearing (and reappearing again).

Posted by: max at December 8, 2007 3:44 AM

It's funny someone mentioned that, because I just got back from seeing this movie, and every other time they mentioned her name my brother would elbow me and loudly whisper, "Mrs. Coulter? COULTER?!?.. Bwahaha!" Think that was a coincidence? Was that her name in the book as well?

And yah- I have to agree with the comment about the weirdly unsettling non-ending. As someone who has never read the book, I didn't know that there was an actual ending that was left out, but the whole thing still felt unresolved. All in all though, it was a fairly good movie. Pretty reminiscent of Lord of the Rings, in a lot of ways. Maybe it was just all the funky names.

Posted by: monkey_b at December 8, 2007 3:49 AM

Brenda,


Frankly, had I not read the book I would have thought the movie fragmented and infantile. Also, lacking character..this from a novel that is bursting with them.


The devil's in the details.

Posted by: io at December 8, 2007 4:15 AM

Brenda,


Frankly, had I not read the book I would have thought the movie fragmented and infantile. Also, lacking character..this from a novel that is bursting with them.


The devil's in the details.

Posted by: io at December 8, 2007 4:15 AM

Yeah. As someone who read the book ages ago, and didn't do the traditional re-reading before watching this movie, I didn't notice any plot points out. Though I'm told they were cut to ribbons.

What I did notice is the unforgiving pacing with almost literal 'blink and you'll miss it' scenes - and I have no idea how someone who hadn't read the book could even begin to follow that movie.

Frankly, all it really did was make me appreciate Peter Jacksons' stuff more.

Posted by: bathoz at December 8, 2007 4:24 AM

Io-I haven't seen the movie yet, and I've been nervous since I heard they were toning down the religious bits. I loved the books, and they played a fairly large role in the defining of my own beliefs--pretty well done, I'd say. I would be sad to lose much of the books that I loved.

At the same time, I think it's silly to expect the movie to contain everything we loved from the books. It's a totally different medium. I mean, we saw with the first two Harry Potter movies what happens when a director tries to bring everything from a book to the movie. The pacing is completely wrong, things that are charming become extraneous and feel tedious. Like the washing of the armour with seal blubber--that's really something you would want to keep in the movie? In the book it's revealing and develops characters, but I can't see any way in which it would be necessary to a film. It doesn't really drive the plot. Visuals and acting need to compensate for information from the technically unnecessary scenes to develop characters in scenes that are necessary.

I'm sorry to hear that you didn't like the movie, even outside of your expectations from the book. I was really looking forward to it. And I was extremely happy to read Phillip's review. I guess I'll just have to watch it and see where I fall.

Sidenote--isn't it spelled Iorek, not Yorek? Or is that the way it is in foreign editions?

Posted by: Jenna at December 8, 2007 4:40 AM

Hasn't everybody figured out by now that books are generally better than the movies? I think that the book and the movie need to be regarded as separate entities. If you literally filmed every scene in (any) book, it'll probably make a terrible film. Aside from length, there are plenty of reasons why this is so--sometimes there are several pages of writing that can be serviced in thirty seconds of film, and vice versa.

TGC is one of my favorite books of all time, and I wasn't expecting the movie to be as good. Generally I thought it was perfectly serviceable and fun to watch. Although I thought each individual scene was pretty good, there wasn't quite enough tying the whole thing together. And at first I was shocked at the ending, but after thinking about it for a while I definitely see why they moved it to the beginning of the second movie. I think people would have been depressed and confused if they'd left the end in.

Posted by: Lizzle at December 8, 2007 5:01 AM

In response to Io, and to address any lingering questions readers may have- there is a good reason the last 3 chapters have been moved to the beginning of The Subtle Knife.

Am I happy about the decision? No, not necessarily; the pacing of the next movie will be thrown off kilter due to this choice. HOWEVER, the motivation behind it is sound. Weitz hopes to get New Line's leash loosened by the next movie, providing this one is a success. With more creative control, he'll be able to give audiences the scenes they deserve... the other scenes that were changed for the sake of time or convienence worked, but any major alterations made to those last 3 chapters would *not*, and Weitz knows it.

Overall, my biggest problem with The Golden Compass was its lack of characterization. The personalities are set up well, but my friend who saw it with me had not read the trilogy and found it hard to empathize with any of the characters. On that note, I'm still bitter about New Line's decision to replace Iorek's original voice actor with Ian Mckellen. A formidable acting talent to be sure, but Nonso Anorzie was absolutely perfect. That initial "I have a contract with the child" sounded exactly as I imagined, but Mckellen is too familiar, too patriarchal. It simply didn't work.

Besides those issues, I thoroughly enjoyed it and felt it did justice to one of my favorite books.

Posted by: Nat at December 8, 2007 5:08 AM

At Borders (where I am employed) we got a notice a month ago telling us that there was "controversy" over this "attacking christian beliefs" and that we should be ready to polity regard customers who have complaints. It was amusing.

Also, doesn't Sam Eliott play the same character....EVERY FILM?

Posted by: Kevin Longrie at December 8, 2007 5:13 AM

I'll leave the finer literary vivisection of the movie to those acutely aware of the differences between book and movie.

But having just gotten back from the midnight showing, I have to give this movie a surrounding "Meh."

I'll dispense with the positives: The little girl, Dakota Richards, was really good. Particularly as fantasy epics tend to put bad acting by kids on display (see: Phantom Menace), it was refreshing to see a girl play a smart, tough, girl. Likewise Sam Elliot manages to bring verve and fun into the proceedings whenever he's around while Eva Green should just stop teasing herself and admit her eternal devotion to my loins. She clearly can't get enough of me...

...or was it the other way around?

And the big triumph is the design of the movie. This world feels and breathes and moves in a skewed, but familiar way. From the airships to the daemons, you want to spend plenty of time in this place.

OK, now here comes the issues: For all its beauty and splendor, The Golden Compass felt hollow. I don't know if it was the rushed nature of the story (I guess after 3 hrs of one Lord of the Rings movie or 2 and 1/2 hrs of one Harry Potter movie, barely 2 hrs of His Dark Materials 1 feels light) but this movie lacks flow and it hinders the story. You meet Nicole Kidman's Mrs. (Ann) Coulter and she goes from kindly lady to evil manipulative bitch in no time. The same for Iorek the Bad Ass Polar Bear who goes from drunk beast of burden to mighty warrior bear in the time it takes you to go grab a soda. BTW, Kidman and Daniel Craig commit highway robbery here. They're barely around and provide only the most stock of performances. It's like they stepped off "The Invasion" and decided to keep acting like they were on it.

Oh, and just a word on the whole "controversy." As The Chronicles of Narnia was desperately trying to get you to buy into its pseudo-Christianity, The Golden Gompass tries to get you to buy into a pseudo-critique of organized religion. At the end of the day, you'll see what you want to see.

The Golden Compass is a great deal of work by CGI artists, designers, customers and actors that unites to provide you with a movie that is exciting at moments, beautiful in spots, but feels dry, cold and aloof. It's full of widescreen vistas and great ideas which fail to unite into a cohesive whole.

Posted by: Fredo at December 8, 2007 5:29 AM

Let me just say that I love the books so much I knew they couldn't do them justice with a film. What makes the book so great just doesn't translate to a 2 hour long film. So I went in with very low expectations and I was still disappointed. The cast was great, but it was just...boring. I guess it would've been exciting for a 9 year old and I think that's the problem, this film just lacked ambition. They shot for the 7-11 age group and left the rest of us to hang. The story was over-simplified, the darker scenes in the book that would have made the story more compelling were left out (like how being severed from your daemon kills you eventually), the Magesterium were turned into silly cackling old men who seem as threatening as headless chicken, and I could go on. I think they could have managed a good story in 2 hours, but they took the easy way out, catered to the masses and sadly, I was not shocked.

Posted by: joker at December 8, 2007 7:44 AM

What?! They toned down Iorek's bear fight?! Gorramit, I wanted to see some violence (when Iorek just smashes the usurper's (what was his name again? It has been so long) jaw off at the end made me laugh as a kid...not because it was funny, but because it was awesome!)! And they replaced his original voice with Ian Mckellen's? That's horrid, I loved the original guys voice...it was just....very Iorek, very bear-like, I guess. Oh well, guess I'll be waiting to see this online.

Posted by: Bob at December 8, 2007 10:22 AM

Very mixed reviews, I better keep my expectations in check then. From the promos Kidman looks surprisingly not horrid in character.

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at December 8, 2007 10:51 AM

Kevin Longrie, bite your tongue! Sam Elliot can do whatever he wants with a voice like that.

Posted by: Finn at December 8, 2007 11:02 AM

I only recently read the trilogy, about 14 years after I would have as a precocious pre-teen. I don't care what anyone says, these books are not only written for children, and I flew through all three in less than a week.

So now that I've read a few really good and a few really bad reviews of the movie version, I'm still on the fence. Will it ruin my visions of the books? The LOTR movies didn't destroy my love of Tolkien, so I think Pullman will be pretty safe. However, I wish these filmmakers would stop trying to turn every beloved novel into a blockbuster (ahem - Love in the Time of Cholera, anyone?) and just create something new.

Besides, as an English teacher in a city high school, I must say that it's ruining teenagers' small desire to read. I keep trying to get my kids to pick up I am Legend which I've been enjoying immensely, and all they say is, "Eh miss, we'll just wait for the movie." SIGH.

Posted by: Ariel at December 8, 2007 11:49 AM

I'm actually most disappointed to hear how much they've toned down the importance of daemons-- I've just finished a term paper on daemons and how they feed our obsession with a blurred line between humans and animals, and was really looking forward to seeing how those relationships played out.

Also, Pantalaimon most often takes the form of an ermine, which looks a lot like a ferret.

I'll have to drag some people to see this before I comment further.

Posted by: Ella at December 8, 2007 11:58 AM

I, too, thought it was amusing that the villainess was named "Coulter." However, Ann Coulter wasn't really a national figure till 1996, and the book was published in 1995, by a British author. I suppose it could be intentional, but it seems a little unlikely to me. The one thing I did think could be completely intentional was the choice of Nicole Kidman for the role. I've never read the book, but wasn't Mrs. Coulter described as having dark hair and dark eyes? Casting the sharp-featured, fair Kidman might not have been a coincidence.

Posted by: Geetch at December 8, 2007 1:40 PM

I saw it last night with friends. In a word 'horrible'. in not so many words...


it was horrid. i'd say 90% of the theater said a collective "what the fuck did i just sit through?!" when the screen went black at the end.


If you've never read the book don't bother watching. There was no connection with the characters. there were more plot holes than one could possibly keep track of. lines were butchered, out of order, said by the wrong characters, etc. all for no good reason other than to make sure the plot of the book sits squarely at an immensely fast forward pace.


If you have read the books don't bother, its painful to watch. there were at least 4 points in the movie were i had to force myself to fall asleep so i could avoid watching the butchering of the book.


it basically ended up being a really bad straight-to-dvd movie that because of the strength and fan base of the books made it to the theaters.


the worst part is, now there won't be a faithful movie version for at least 20 years.

Posted by: Steve at December 8, 2007 2:43 PM

Just to add my 2 cents to the stuff above: in my experience, people that have read the books enjoyed the movie while people that haven't read the books hated it. I think this is because of the ridiculously fast pacing and plot points. There is no way in hell this movie could have been made properly with less than a 3 hour runtime (see: LOTR). They tried to squeeze it all into less than 2 hours and the result moves way to fast for the average movie-goer to follow.

About the books: They may have been written for the 14 to 15 age group, but the last time I read them I was 20 and they were still amazing. I highly recommend the series for anybody of any age group.

Posted by: the_wakeful at December 8, 2007 4:38 PM

Ok, the only big issue I had with the movie was the music- please tell me I'm not the only one. So much subtlety was ruined by the horrendous music- it was like they were trying to make it as cheesy as possible. And then the credits!!! What the f*ck!?!

Other than that, I pretty much enjoyed the movie. I did read the books, although it was about 5 years ago- but after seeing the movie I am going to read them again, since I figure if I enjoyed the movie, with all it's plot holes, the books will be that much better.

Posted by: lfrac88 at December 8, 2007 4:44 PM

I enjoyed the film a lot. No it wasn't the books but oh well. However I'm really pissed at the PG-13 rating it totally did NOT deserve...

Posted by: Luke at December 8, 2007 5:01 PM

Oy gevalt.

Shit was better than "Eragon", I'll tell you what.

Okay: read none of the books, really liked the movie. To inadvertently mention Frank Herbert twice in one week, it was a lot like going to see "Dune" when I was 9. I went in completely cold then, loved the story and the look, didn't get why people thought it was confusing and later I found there'd been plenty of people wondering what in the name of Shai-hulud David Lynch had done to the book. Plus it was kinda steampunk before steampunk, eh? Nice that there's a word to approximate that now, and it's certainly all over this movie's design.

(Plus, aren't sonic weapons, and making *yourself* a sonic weapon, whilst wearing a water efficient Batsuit, more fun than bullet-time Tai Chi in your pajamas?)

Here, I had some opening basics but got there five minutes late. I still followed the plot just fine. I would've enjoyed just watching Nicole Kidman saunter around the whole time looking FAAAABULOUUUS but there was more to enjoy (yes I know the character's not blonde or whatever). Sure there's an ending, there's an Ending of Part One ending. I know it's a trilogy, I have no problem with this. If the ending's *different*, or they stopped short, that's okay with me for now.

I give all due respect to loyalty and can't argue about adaptation and modification, having only one side of the story. BUT, I found this to be a BEAUTIFUL unsubtly anti-authoritarian movie (I had the Sealab captain in my head yelling "we don't need Rome telling us what to do!") with fucking Gandalf the Bear. Again, respect to the poor schmoe that got cut, that ain't right, but Ian didn't take me out of the movie as much as enrich the character just by talking in very little time, and time vs. character is a nasty fight in these things. If that fight's toned down it still climaxes like a mother. Plus weren't a whole bunch of people shot and mauled and whatnot? That's no violence?

So, I was curious, I wanted to support a little rabble rousing, but not sincerely excited, and ended up very pleased that I went.

Posted by: Jay at December 8, 2007 6:27 PM

I was pretty worried by the bad reviews, as I love the books. I thought they did good job, the only issue I have is that it was so rushed. It should have been at least 30 minutes longer. The movie was not perfect, but not dissapointing either.

Posted by: jenn at December 8, 2007 7:07 PM

I saw the movie and fell asleep halfway through it. When it came to the ending, I thought "They're going to end there?!" All that being said, I had a decent time. I do think, however, that this was a decent adaptation, and it could have been so much better. For one, the CGI. There wasn't too much of it, but movie directors are still making CGI worlds that look pretty, but not lived in. The gyroscope "magic" things got on my nerves too. Lyra's world is a world where electricity is still new and rare. There should have been a more steampunk/Jules Verne feel. The other thing that annoyed me was that NOTHING was left to the imagination or for the viewer to wonder about. Reading the book, I kept wondering "what the fuck is Dust? What the fuck are panserbjorne? What are these damn creatures running around?" Figuring out all of this was rather cool. The movie, however, simply tells you in the first 5 minutes and leaves you to enjoy the CGI masturbation that follows.

Posted by: Rowen at December 8, 2007 8:02 PM

I would have to agree with Rowen. The couple minutes of exposition at the beginning left me baffled. In the books you had to figure that out for yourself while reading, but when I saw that I immediately knew that they were trying to shove too much into too little time.

Posted by: the_wakeful at December 8, 2007 8:29 PM

I was looking forward to reading this trilogy, since I had run out of LOTR and Harry Potter's and such. I was very disappointed with the first book, "The Golden Compass." The story didn't make any sense to me and it had no ending. I find it rather amusing that the movie has even less of an ending. I was so disappointed in the first book, that I never read the other two. I probably won't see the movie, either.

I knew that "The Church" (TM) was very upset about the books because they were very anti-church. Now, I'm not Christian, so I just didn't get it. I didn't understand what was supposed to be church related in the book. I didn't understand what the daemons were, since I don't believe in a soul. I thought they were some sort of weird pets or witches familiars. Also, I didn't know what "Original Sin" (TM) was either. When I asked a friend, I thought they were kidding, as that was the weirdest thing I'd ever heard of. Then I couldn't understand how Dust could have anything to do with that.

I'm bordering on being atheist myself, so I thought I would have liked this, but since I don't understand any of the Christian stuff it's supposedly making fun of, I just didn't get it.

Posted by: BWeaves at December 8, 2007 8:33 PM

I must confess, that is quite confusing, BWeaves. I can get that some of the references could go over a person's head if they were not familiar with the basics of the Judeo-Christian theology (which in Western civilization is quite difficult). But you couldn't grasp the concept of the daemons, merely because they reference the existence of souls, even in the context of a fantasy?

I don't mean to offend, it truly baffles me. I don't see how being an atheist somehow confuses the definition of the beings given in the book/movie.

Posted by: Vermillion at December 8, 2007 9:30 PM

BWeaves--I had heard that they were toning down the anti-religion elements for the movies, and I freaked out. You couldn't do the trilogy without that. However, you can 100% do the first movie with it toned down because it's just sort of the evil lurking in the background.

Trust me, the second and third books--they're not subtle about it. And they're totally worth the read. The first one is woo fun exciting new world yadda yadda yadda, the second and third one really take it to an entirely different level. I really hope that the success of this one will allow the full trilogy to be made as it should be, so I'll definitely be going to see it.

Posted by: Jenna at December 8, 2007 9:33 PM

Ditto that, Vermillion. I'm not sure how not believing in something can make you unable to grasp the basic concept of it...I mean, I'm an atheist, but I don't go around saying, "Uhhh, WTF is a 'god'? I don't believe in a 'god'."

Posted by: Jen at December 8, 2007 9:58 PM

Sam Elliot- All Time, All World Moustache Team!

Posted by: mrmook at December 8, 2007 11:26 PM

I told my friend that it seemed like "Heart and Soul" by Joy Division is the alternate universe soundtrack to "No Country For Old Men", since it embodies the whole story, and she said "but Sam Elliott would have to perform it". Since then I've heard "The Stranger" Shatnering Ian Curtis in my head. I was really thrown when I saw him in the trailer. Like, "does there just happen to be a Sam Elliott character in this book? Cause that's full-on moustache mode Sam." Guess there basically is, though I just read in the author's mind he looks like Lee Van Cleef. Too bad the Master Ninja already kicked the bucket!

Posted by: Jay at December 8, 2007 11:35 PM

PS- Author Philip Pullman says he was wrong, Mrs. Coulter should have been written as a blonde

http://www.moreintelligentlife.com/node/697

Found in the paragraph right above Nicole Kidman

Posted by: bpants at December 8, 2007 11:48 PM

Just to add my 2 cents to the stuff above: in my experience, people that have read the books enjoyed the movie while people that haven't read the books hated it. I think this is because of the ridiculously fast pacing and plot points.

I haven't read the books and I didn't have any problem at all following the movie. Neither did my 12-year-old son. I think some things could have been done better, but I liked the movie well enough.

Posted by: Appwitch at December 9, 2007 1:41 AM

"Gandalf the Bear"! Mua-ha-haaa.

Oh, that reminds me. We were also arguing about who voiced the bear: Galdalf... or Magneto. It wasn't until I was halfway home that I realized what sad morons we both were.

Posted by: monkey_b at December 9, 2007 2:55 AM

I think I just figured it out!

Daemons = Pokemon

Gotta catch 'em all.

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at December 9, 2007 6:53 AM

Barbake-o Slim; re: Blade Runner;
go outside away from a city sometime--it's the SHOULDER of Orion--any n. hemisphere winternight. As for genius? Dick, Gilliam, LeGuin, Panshin, Wenders perhaps.

Posted by: mazz at December 9, 2007 8:39 AM

It just occurred to me: if Hollywood wants to make as much money as possible from these films, and if they are always making ridiculous sequels, why didn't they just split The Golden Compass (actually called Northern Lights over in the UK) in two and make the whole series in 6 films. Double the profit and cinematic time to do it right!
Plus I wanted to add, the books definately aren't just for kids and I highly recomend them to any age group. I'm looking forward to the film, even if all you commenters have toned down my expectations.
Also I don't think it's necesarily true that you can't film EVERYTHING in a book. The recentish 6 hour long Pride and Prejudice was pretty good. And given how much everyone watches things at home now (about 2/3 of the people here seem to Netflix everything) maybe there will be more of market for longer films that aren't limited to the 2 hour movie format.

Posted by: ChrisD at December 9, 2007 8:55 AM

I don't know what the hell 95% of you post is about, maybe YOU are the one who's baked. However, the shore of Orion vs. shoulder of Orion "thing" has to do with with what Rutger ACTUALLY said on his speech there at the end.
You see, that was NOT on the final script, Rutger came up with it(ad-libbed) and Scott liked it so much he kept it. Most agree he says shore not shoulder, and you can fucking hear he says shore.

Anyway, take it up with Rutger Hauer bubba.

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at December 9, 2007 11:02 AM

As someone who read, and loved, these books, I knew going in that I was going to be biased. To give them credit, the move was better than I expected but less than the adaptation deserved. and OH MY GOD THE MUSIC.... SPIRIT-CRUSHINGLY BAD.

What bothered me the most was not the missing plot points or the sequel-ready ending so much as the movie was too... light. The scenes were well-lit and airy, lots of sunlight and gold and rosy hues. I wanted there to be some darkness, some smoky background and fog creeping in at the edges. I couldn't reconcile the plot material with all that fairy-tale lighting.

Posted by: Sarah at December 9, 2007 1:20 PM

I haven't read the books (yet), but my experience was that the entire audience (which consisted of adults at a late-night showing) collectively gasped when Gandalf the Bear ripped off the other bear's jaw--it was pretty shocking for a "kid's film", so I don't know why people are saying they left out the violence.

I didn't find the plot hard to follow in the least--there was clearly a lot more going on in the backstory than what was presented, but a viewer of average intelligence should manage to follow along. I got that the Dust was original sin and the Magisterium was the Church and Nicole Kidman was God (or similar) and Azrael was Milton's Satan and so on and so on; the allegory was perfectly obvious.

I've no doubt the novel is more overt and has more depth, but I'm wondering if some of the posters on here saw the same film I did. I saw a good fantasy with interesting philosophical implications and more edginess that I expected. Loved the daemons, the Witches, the Gyptians, and the ice bears. Just all-around good world-building, really, and a great cast. I don't see what's not to like, unless you expect it to be just like the books--which is absurd and silly. They were about as daring as they could be for a mainstream release...and if it had been an edgy indie film, they wouldn't have had the budget for the great cast and special effects.

Posted by: Witchy Woman at December 9, 2007 3:03 PM

In the book, Iorek rips Iofur's (Ragnar's) jaw off and then eats his heart... I was hoping they would show the whole thing, but they didn't.

Anyways... I liked the movie all right. It was rushed, though. And since I read the book 8 years ago, I didn't really notice too many details being changed. Although I do wish there were more. I agree with whoever said that it should have been 30 minutes longer. Just 30 more minutes to create more tension and character development would have been nice. Quieter moments like maybe the part where Iorek explains that panserbjorn (sp?) can't be tricked if they act like panserbjorn (sp?) (which only emphasizes Lyra's awesomness further). I didn't really like how the ice bears came across as talking polar bears with armor. There's much more to it than that.

Witchy Woman - Nicole Kidmon God and Asriel Satan? Please explain?

Posted by: kayla at December 9, 2007 4:29 PM

I'm glad that I came here and read the review first; lowering my expectations helped me enjoy the film more than I would have otherwise.

Good things: Lee Scoresby was awesome. I was beaming as soon as I saw Hester. Also, the scenes at Bolvangar were almost creepier than the original material.

Bad things: Pan was a pussy. There weren't enough scenes with the witches. I read the book 9 years ago and I could tell they left out a shitload. Also, they didn't make Mrs. Coulter nearly scary enough. She should have been more seductively frightening (like the scene where the monkey is holding Pan -- that shouldn't have been a reveal at the end, it should have been interspersed with Lyra getting sucked into her clutches).

As for the end, (and you should know to stop reading here without me having to say SPOILER ALERT, although I just did) -- I think leaving out Roger's death and Asriel going to the new world changed the tone of the movie to something completely different from the book. That's Lyra's raison d'etre for the rest of the series and the whole POINT of the first book is to have a lull in the storm where you think everything is going to turn out alright, and then it ends up being far worse than the situation they just got themselves out of. Argh.

Also, if we're talking Lord of the Rings characters for Iorek Byrnison, they should have gone with Gimli and not Ian McKellen. His voice was a) too recognizable and 2) not deep enough.

Posted by: Alex at December 9, 2007 7:09 PM

I read the first book and barring the astoundingly sluggish pacing at the beginning, thought the movie was far more enjoyable. I am not religious at all and I thought Pullman's slamming of the church being transmuted to the more coherent slamming of control and dogmatism in the movie was a positive step.

Posted by: Adam C at December 9, 2007 9:31 PM

Ugh. I had such high hopes too. Yes, we all know the books are better...but the deviations were crushing. Not to mention the ending totally changes the entire tone of the story. I expected far better.

Posted by: bonnie at December 9, 2007 9:57 PM

I realize this is in answer to something 'way up near the top, but anyway:
io: Daemons are mutable, until the person hits adolescence. Then it takes its final, permanent form. That's why Pan shifts between 2-3 different critters.

Posted by: bjs1109 at December 9, 2007 10:53 PM

bjs1109,

Yes, I'm fully aware of that. My beef was more with the fact that (uh, SPOILER ALERT)you're not supposed to know what Pan's form is going to settle into until later. In the movie he's an ermine (thanks for the person who pointed out that "ferret" wasn't correct) most of the time whereas in the books it's an epiphany when Pan settles b/c ermine is exactly what Lyra's personality would be. I guess this falls into how characters were revealed way to early in story (in the movie).


Also, Alex, I completely agree with your misgivings about the movie. And "Pan is a pussy" is word for word what my friend said upon the movie ending.

Steve: re:"the worst part is, now there won't be a faithful movie version for at least 20 years"...this is what upsets me the most. I basically want to take most of the cast and redo the movie. (replace Eva Green with someone who's spoken english doesn't make me clench my teeth...maybe Rose Byrne)

Posted by: io at December 10, 2007 2:28 AM

io: one of Pantalaimon's favorite forms is an ermine, but when he settles, he's a pine marten. Very similar, but the pine marten's bigger. The movie doesn't "give away" any more than the book does in that aspect.

Too much daemon research... clogging my brain...

Posted by: Ella at December 10, 2007 8:44 AM

'Ditto that, Vermillion. I'm not sure how not believing in something can make you unable to grasp the basic concept of it...I mean, I'm an atheist, but I don't go around saying, "Uhhh, WTF is a 'god'? I don't believe in a 'god'." '

Vermillion, Jenna:

No offense taken. It's not that I didn't believe. It's that I didn't have a background that taught that particular theology, and so I didn't have the concept in my head. Therefore, it didn't make sense to me what the big deal was with splitting the daemons from the children. I was thinking, OK, so they lost their pet, so what?

I did flip through the other two books, although I didn't read them. They just didn't draw my interest. This is just me, OK. I was just wondering if there was anyone else out there who didn't get the Church related stuff because it wasn't in their background.

Posted by: BWeaves at December 10, 2007 9:22 AM

I've thought of an analogy, Vermillion and Jenna:

How much do you know about Scientology? I personally know very little. The few bits I have heard about sound unbelievable to me that anyone would believe that. Now imagine The Golden Compass was anti-Scientology instead of anti-Christian. I wouldn't get the concepts that the book was trying to refer to, either.

I also don't go around saying, "What's a god? I don't believe in one." I go around saying, "I've never heard of this Original Sin thing before. Please explain it to me?" I really did think my friend was pulling my leg when he told me. I have since read up on it. But it didn't make sense when I was reading the book.

Posted by: BWeaves at December 10, 2007 10:06 AM

I've read the books, and my husband has it--but we both enjoyed the movie.

Yes, the anti-church theme was muted. But it wasn't that strong in The Golden Compass, anyhow--the religious notes are there in the book, but are much, much more apparent in the sequels.

As for the lack of an ending, well, it was no less an ending than the point at which The Fellowship of the Ring stopped. Is there more in the book? Yes. And I'm fine with moving it to the sequel, as long as there's a sequel. That seems to be the risk in this decision.

The bear fight ends just as it does in the book; in fact, my husband turned to me and said, "This is NOT a movie for children!" And I think that the re-ordering of some sequences actually works better. It keeps the focus on the main story, rather than breaking it up.

Nicole Kidman was better than I expected. (Come on, she doesn't even look like Mrs. Coulter!) Dakota Blue Richards was excellent as Lyra.

I wasn't in love with it, but I thought it was a decent adaptation, and I'd see a sequel. Mind you, I have no idea how they'll get The Amber Spyglass on screen. IMO, Pullman tried to cover so much ground in that book that it wasn't even a good read. I can't imagine how it will translate to the screen, particularly in any sort of reasonable running time. Maybe if they give it an intermission.

Posted by: Kate at December 10, 2007 11:12 AM

I get what you are saying. It was only the 'soul' line that threw me. I mean, the idea of Original Sin is pretty specific to Judeo-Christianity, but souls (aka life forces, spirits, ghosts, consciousnesses, thetans even) isn't as particular. The idea of the soul (as the unique essence that makes us human, at least) isn't parochial in the least, and one does not need to know about a particular theology to get a basic understanding.

I could not see how one could not have an idea of what a soul was, which is what I picked up from your comment as the source of your confusion about the daemons. If I was mistaken, I do apologize.

Posted by: Vermillion at December 10, 2007 11:14 AM

Oops... that should read "I've read the books, and my husband hasn't." Apparently it's going to be Monday all day long.

Posted by: Kate at December 10, 2007 11:15 AM

Original Sin is not specific to Judeo-Christianity. It is a Christian concept only. Judaism has no notion of Original Sin. The soul thing, too. I was never taught that the soul was separate from the body or could have a life of its own. That's kinda what I'm getting at. There's a lot of beliefs that Christians assume everybody knows, and that's just not the case when you aren't raised Christian.

Anyway, I didn't really want to get into a theological debate, because I'm just not that knowledgeable about it, and that's my whole point.

Posted by: Bweaves at December 10, 2007 12:04 PM

See, now you have clarified it a lot more. The way you phrased it before, it sounded like you didn't understand what a soul was, period. And that confused me. That is all I am saying. Now that you explained your comment a bit further, I am no longer bewildered by this. Thanks a lot.

Posted by: Vermillion at December 10, 2007 12:32 PM

It makes me sad that people no longer have a basic grounding in christianity and mythology; what used to be called a Classical Education. Without it so much of literature and the arts is bound to be lost on a person.

Posted by: tatsu at December 10, 2007 12:39 PM

It makes me sad that people no longer have a basic grounding in christianity and mythology; what used to be called a Classical Education. Without it so much of literature and the arts is bound to be lost on a person.

Posted by: tatsu at December 10, 2007 12:40 PM

If your daemon is cut away, you pretty much become a zombie and then eventually die. I was horrified when I learned what was happening with the children in Bolvangar (in the book) and even more so when I found out that Mrs. Coulter had something to do with it. The movie didn't really play out like that. I can see how someone would think losing your daemon was like losing a pet after watching the movie though.

In The Golden Compass I never interpreted the daemons as having a life of their own. They're connected with their human counterparts. They can't even travel that far away from them without experience severe emotional agony.

I don't really want to discuss the book here, but I thought Pullman did a good job detailing something foreign and making it seem real, for me anyway.

Posted by: kayla at December 10, 2007 12:49 PM

I've been thinking about this for a long time. I love the books, and have re-read them many times. Needless to say, I was excited for the movie, but had very low expectations. I knew that Weitz was going to leave out the last three chapters of the book because it was reported in the New York Times, so even that wasn't very much a surprise.

I think it was probably wise of him to do that. Many of the commentators here have said that the movie felt "hollow" and Stephens touched upon it briefly- without the religious undertones, there lacked tension and gravity to the situations. In the film, Lyra is trying to find out about Dust because she thinks it pertains to children and daemons and Lord Asriel. However, in the book, Lyra is trying to find out about Dust because the entire world that she lives in is trying to use it, or hide it, or harness it- and this bigger cosmic picture makes it even more puzzling to her as to why these adults would wish to concern themselves with mere children (and to hurt them). The presence of a religious dictator makes the issue of Dust much more pertinent, and in the movie, the importance is just not brought across as clearly.

So i think if Weitz had included the ending,it had have been... satisfying, yes. But it would have also left viewers (who did not read the books) with a sense of "So what? What's the big deal? Yes, Lord Asriel hurt Roger, but what does that mean in the big picture?" I think the last three chapters would just not be as significant as it would have been if Weitz had kept the religious aspects of the film.

which he should have, but that's not what this comment is about.

Posted by: dene at December 10, 2007 1:30 PM

I love the books. I've been shoving them at anyone who shows a glimmer of interest for years. I have defended them to my EXTREME right-wing-religious relatives.
I'm going to see the movie tonight with friends. Even after reading all your comments, I'm still hoping that the movie will be redeemed for me. I'm resigned to the fact that it will probably suck as much as the HP and LOTR movies, but I have high hopes anyway.
BTW, is anyone else ridiculously excited about the Dark Is Rising movies coming out soon? The previews for TGC and Dark Is Rising played back-to-back in the theatre a while ago, and I got really excited that all of my childhood books were coming to movies... sadly, it will probably be disappointing too.

Posted by: torontopam at December 10, 2007 2:53 PM

Ok BIG rant ahead that's very negative on the film, so I apologize for the length and if i've repeated anything.

First off, who's stupid idea was it to attach the Sex and the City trailer to a family movie?! I mean, come on! It's a film aimed at young adults and you precede it with a "teaser" (the use of the word implied it should invoke a desire to voluntarily watch four servings of shredded, dried up vag parade about New York) for something that looks like the adult version of Bratz. (And that bullshit about friendships lasting forever...please. This was a friendship that required the right amount of money to exist, just ask Kim Catrall.)

Onto the movie, while it was pretty to look at and the most basic skeleton of what the book did was intact, I still left this film very much disappointed. I thought the polar bear fight was quite well done, in fact that was the only part of the film I really felt alive while watching the film. However, instead of *SPOILER* kids dying because of Intercision, they just turn into bitter shells of their former selves. *END SPOILER* and instead of giving us the true cliffhanger ending, Chris Weitz flips us off and says "Sorry, you gotta give me enough money to see what happens next".

I pray these get remade at some point. Maybe the BBC would be up to the task. Then again, THEY can even wreck a good story. (Their latest adaptation of Dracula was pathetic.) On a lighter note...anyone looking forward to Inkheart?

Posted by: Mike R. at December 10, 2007 2:58 PM

Oh, and Speed Racer. I'm more excited about Speed Racer than I should be, but damn if it doesn't look fun. Here's hoping it makes it into IMAX.

Posted by: Mike R. at December 10, 2007 3:00 PM

How in the hell are they going to tone down the religious themes for the third movie? How are they going to tip-toe around the outraged Christian groups for that one? I wish for once, movies made in the US would just stick the finger up to religious groups and make the damn movie with it's themes and ideas in tact.

SPOILER ALERT!!!


The kids end up killing God who is a senile, used up shell of a creature. Jesus, tone that one down...

Posted by: llk at December 11, 2007 1:58 AM

Yes, it seems impossible that a follow-up movie will be able to avoid giving offense to the One True Church. But then, iven the overall negative reviews the film has gotten, and the butchering (sorry, can't think of a less damning word) of so many key plot points of the books, it's very doubtful that a sequel will be forthcoming anyway. On one hand, that's a real shame, but on the other, it's perhaps more merciful that way. If the film attracts more people to the original books, it will have done a good job.

Posted by: T. Lassiter Jones at December 13, 2007 11:30 AM

Bashing on the Catholic church. Ooooo how cutting edge! Nobody's done that before. The hype for this is so overrated and I'm hardly excited to see a neutered version of the movie. Next!

Posted by: Tony at December 13, 2007 11:06 PM

(nb, some small spoilers)


It's not impossible to adapt these book. I saw the much-hyped stage play at the National Theatre a few years ago and it was excellent, intelligent enough for adults, engaging enough (and not too terrifying) for children.

The reason the play was successful was that it kept the main themes of the book intact, whilst editing 'plot events' quite heavily (but successfully). It was approached in terms of general themes: Lyra's relationships with Lord Asriel, Mrs Coulter, the idea of daemons, the themes of children, innocence and free will.

The film doesn't think in terms of these underlying themes -instead it superficially reports key events from the books without thinking about their significance or the thematic story arcs that underlie them. It has no heart.

This is why Weitz's choice to omit the book's ending is so stupid: it's not out of a sense of purism, but because one of the most touching things about the first book is Lyra's journey from being an orphan, finding parents, then being betrayed by both of them. It's pitting the child against the world of the adults who are ambiguous and self-interested, and scary.

Weitz's choice also makes no sense to me if he wants to make a trilogy. Beginning The Subtle Knife with Asriel's betrayal of Lyra will make it too choppy, and again, ruin the arc of any underlying theme. The tone Weitz has chosen for this piece (read: disney movie where black is black and white is white and all the good guys are always helpful and lovng) will not be able to deal with any of the material from the later books.

People have to realise that you don't have to dumb down complex themes for children to watch your film. When I was young I remember watching films where I missed concepts but was taken in by the bits I did understand, and the visuals. This is exactly how my little cousins reacted to the Lord of the Rings trilogy -they enjoyed it, although much of it went over their head. This could have been made with more visual detail, more attention given to the more magical parts of the story (daemons!) and that would be enough for children to enjoy it. They'll ignore the bits they don't understand and adults won't feel horribly patronised by the whole thing.

Ridley Scott would have made a beautiful film. This film was like the book, lobotomised.

Posted by: E at December 16, 2007 10:55 AM

(nb, some small spoilers)


It's not impossible to adapt these book. I saw the much-hyped stage play at the National Theatre a few years ago and it was excellent, intelligent enough for adults, engaging enough (and not too terrifying) for children.

The reason the play was successful was that it kept the main themes of the book intact, whilst editing 'plot events' quite heavily (but successfully). It was approached in terms of general themes: Lyra's relationships with Lord Asriel, Mrs Coulter, the idea of daemons, the themes of children, innocence and free will.

The film doesn't think in terms of these underlying themes -instead it superficially reports key events from the books without thinking about their significance or the thematic story arcs that underlie them. It has no heart.

This is why Weitz's choice to omit the book's ending is so stupid: it's not out of a sense of purism, but because one of the most touching things about the first book is Lyra's journey from being an orphan, finding parents, then being betrayed by both of them. It's pitting the child against the world of the adults who are ambiguous and self-interested, and scary.

Weitz's choice also makes no sense to me if he wants to make a trilogy. Beginning The Subtle Knife with Asriel's betrayal of Lyra will make it too choppy, and again, ruin the arc of any underlying theme. The tone Weitz has chosen for this piece (read: disney movie where black is black and white is white and all the good guys are always helpful and lovng) will not be able to deal with any of the material from the later books.

People have to realise that you don't have to dumb down complex themes for children to watch your film. When I was young I remember watching films where I missed concepts but was taken in by the bits I did understand, and the visuals. This is exactly how my little cousins reacted to the Lord of the Rings trilogy -they enjoyed it, although much of it went over their head. This could have been made with more visual detail, more attention given to the more magical parts of the story (daemons!) and that would be enough for children to enjoy it. They'll ignore the bits they don't understand and adults won't feel horribly patronised by the whole thing.

Ridley Scott would have made a beautiful film. This film was like the book, lobotomised.

Posted by: E at December 16, 2007 10:56 AM

"When I was young I remember watching films where I missed concepts but was taken in by the bits I did understand, and the visuals."

Exactly. That's how I read the books when I was 11.

Posted by: Kayla at December 17, 2007 9:17 AM

the ice bears were bad ass motherfuckers! like when he ripped the others jaw off during battle!!? i was like, what, did that just happen!!!!?

Posted by: kara f at December 28, 2007 6:57 AM

We (6 & 12 yo girls & me) just saw this yesterday. My 12 year old is hot to read the books now & so am I. We all want to see the movie again .... right now. The first viewing was like a quick taste, now we want to watch it over & over to digest the details.

The bear king scene mentioned above was a little over the top for my 6 year old, but over all she was completely immersed in the storyline. I'm pretty certain neither of them got the secular philosophies v. religious doctrine subtext, but I imagine we'll discuss these themes when we read the book.

Posted by: GinKirk at January 7, 2008 11:05 AM





Video ads popping up after each page view? Try clearing your browser's cookies.