The Golden Compass

→ in
Tools    





Here's my review of The Golden Compass. I finished reading the book right before seeing it, which was very interesting, to say the least. I highly recommending trying such a thing.

I'll be sure to elaborate more on my thoughts later, as I expect there'll be a lot of discussion about this film.

The Golden Compass



Watching The Golden Compass, I found myself in a very unique position. You see, I'd finished reading the book it's based on in the parking lot of the movie theater, a scant 15 minutes before the projector was fired up. To say that it was surreal seeing the images I'd just finished reading played out vividly in front of me would be an understatement. And saying that I was a disappointed would be another.

The story, based on a novel originally titled Northern Lights by Philip Pullman, departs from the book instantly with a prologue disclosing the existence of many different dimensions. Though the book builds to this fact gradually with hints and implications, it's stated outright here, to no discernible benefit. The voiceover goes on to explain that, in our dimension, people's souls live inside them. In the film's world, people's souls walk alongside them as animal companions known as "daemons,” an elegant, concise description which immediately situates us.

Following the prologue, we meet a young girl named Lyra Belacqua (Dakota Blue Richards). Lyra is an orphan being raised informally by a handful of scholars at Jordan College. She is mischievous, clever, and a natural leader; traits that will come in very handy later.

From here, the film starts on a breakneck pace. Within 15 minutes she's saved the life of her Uncle Lord Asriel (Daniel Craig), been given the titular compass (called an "alethiometer") and is happily whisked away by a charming, devious woman named Mrs. Coulter (Nicole Kidman). Five more minutes, and she's fleeing from Mrs. Coulter. Five more still and she's on a ship with a group of seafaring "Gyptians." And so it continues over the bulk of the film. There is scarcely a moment that does not feel forced and constrained by the plot's inexorable march forward.

One of the few exceptions is our introduction to Iorek Byrnison, an armored polar bear voiced by Ian McKellan. McKellan's Iorek is easily the highlight of the film, and though his story is needlessly tinkered with, he is still brilliantly realized. The Golden Compass wisely recognizes his story to be the film's most exciting, and boldly follows through in his show-stopping battle with the king of the armored bears. The battle's violent conclusion is where the film earns its PG-13 rating.

Fans of any given book are, of course, notorious for their righteous outrage when a film adaptation comes along and meddles with the beloved source material. Most directors recognize this as inevitable if they are to make a decent film, but it's difficult to understand the purpose of most of the changes here. Many are harmless, but seem to serve no real purpose.

The most notorious of these changes -- and one which the book's fans are already grousing about -- is the ending. They haven't changed it, so much as they've completely excluded it. The final three chapters (spanning 40 pages) are completely removed, replaced abruptly by a vista and some flowery language. Those who haven't read the book will find the ending sudden, and those who have will be completely blindsided.

The rushed feeling, and the removal of most of the book's third act, could perhaps be forgiven if the film's runtime were an issue. But at just an hour and 53 minutes, it's 30 minutes shorter than 2005's The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe and 39 minutes shorter than Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone. One can't help but wonder what the hurry was, as even younger target audiences have proven receptive to much longer films.

The film has its merits, though. Most of the daemons are lovely to look at, and the way they mirror their human counterparts is delightful. Dakota Blue Richards is solid as Lyra, and Daniel Craig is perfectly cast as the ambitious, focused Lord Asriel.

I would be neglectful if I did not address the religious controversy surrounding the film. Though it is plainly evident that the His Dark Materials trilogy has an anti-religious bent, what little there is in the first book is all but stripped from the film. What's left is an oppressive, Church-like group known only as the Magisterium, which comes off more as a generic bureaucracy than any specific religious institution. There's not much to picket here.

All in all, The Golden Compass never seems quite sure what it wants to be about. Cut short and watered down, it spasms from one set piece to another as if running down a checklist. Director Chris Weitz, just a day after the film's release, announced his intentions to release a significant Director's Cut on DVD, and there are persistent rumors that New Line fiddled with the finished product. If so, there may be a better film in store, but in the meantime, moviegoers may find themselves repeating one of the film’s most dramatic lines: “is that all?”




Thanks for the review, I was thinking about going to see this, now I'm kinda thinking rental. Although I may still be able to enjoy it more simply because I haven't read the books. I hadn't finished reading The Lion The Witch and The Wardrobe 15 minutes before I watched it but it was fresh in my mind when I did see it and I just wasn't entertained. You cited earlier in another thread a lot of what was wrong with that film and I agreed with you then and still do. I just don't understand why so many of these books to films don't work. There is so many good books too. Its sad really. I take that back I do understand the why I just don't like it. Ho-hum...
__________________
We are both the source of the problem and the solution, yet we do not see ourselves in this light...



Thursday Next's Avatar
I never could get the hang of Thursdays.
The story, based on a novel originally titled Northern Lights by Philip Pullman, departs from the book instantly with a prologue disclosing the existence of many different dimensions. Though the book builds to this fact gradually with hints and implications, it's stated outright here, to no discernible benefit.
The 'discernible benefit' here is the inevitable dumbing-down. It is of no benefit to you or I, or anyone who has read the books or is in possession of more than two braincells but it is, apparently, of significant benefit to the mythical 13-year old moron that studios seem to believe is the typical if not the only movie-goer. Whether he (and it is he) exists I don't know. I know the industry has to work with demographics, but still...

Not only is an explanatory prologue necessary but also the removal of any religious controversy and the renaming of the book (Northern Lights is somehow too obscure? Why? Because there is a picture of what looks like a golden compass on the book cover?)



In Soviet America, you sue MPAA!
What's left is an oppressive, Church-like group known only as the Magisterium, which comes off more as a generic bureaucracy than any specific religious institution. There's not much to picket here.
Is there where I say, "Told ya so"?

As for the ending, or complete lack of. The trailer has scenes from what must be the final minutes. I don't know what studio bullying came into play, but they certainly shot more than they showed. I'm eager to see a director's cut, especially since we will likely never see The Subtle Knife or the Amber Spyglass. While both are not entirely suited for the silver screen, they are significantly more thrilling narratives than The Golden Compass.
__________________
Horror's Not Dead
Latest Movie Review(s): Too lazy to keep this up to date. New reviews every week.



Thanks for the great review, Yoda. I'm still not sure what to do: go see it or rent it. I've only read the first book, a year ago, so I didn't know anything about the controversy, and I didn't keep my eye open for the anti-religiousness. I liked it a lot, it was fun and original (much better than that one book J.K. Rowling wrote seven times), but, if you are correct, it seems to me that movie makers did something they do often: they tried to keep the entire story and subplots unchanged, but they also tried to tell it in as little time as possible.
we will likely never see The Subtle Knife or the Amber Spyglass.
How come? If the movie does well at the Box Office, I'm pretty sure they're going to make sequels.



In Soviet America, you sue MPAA!
How come? If the movie does well on the box office, I'm pretty sure they're going to make sequels.
Case in point is that already in this little-replied-to thread two people (yourself included) have mentioned that they will, in all likelihood, not be seeing it in theaters. The Golden Compass is not going to have legs at the Box Office. If we do see the sequels, they will be with significantly tighter purse strings. And all that means is an even more constricted view of a great fantasy world.



Maybe it will fail at the Box Office, but how can you tell? Fantasy movies will always find its audience, even if they are not too spectacular (like Narnia), Philip Pullman has got his fan base, and a lot of people will come just to see what the controversy was all about, even though religious elements were cut out (similar thing happened to The Da Vinci Code). So, I doubt that Golden Compass will fail, even though no one can say it with certainty.



I have to admit I recently went to go see it and fell asleep about 45 minutes into the film. Obviously my opinion is that it's not worth seeing.



Case in point is that already in this little-replied-to thread two people (yourself included) have mentioned that they will, in all likelihood, not be seeing it in theaters. The Golden Compass is not going to have legs at the Box Office. If we do see the sequels, they will be with significantly tighter purse strings. And all that means is an even more constricted view of a great fantasy world.
I may not be the best gauge as to how many folks are going to a movie I rarely go to the movie house anymore. I mostly was thinking about going to see this one because it looked somewhat interesting and there was such a big hub-bub made in the media about it. But not surprisingly now that its out and not getting great reviews I'm probably gonna fall back to my usual stance. Rent it, or buy it from the cheap racks. I just want to see a good movie you know? This one doesn't look like it fits the bill.

As far as the other thing goes so far it's below expectations at the box office but people are going to see it. So its not a complete disaster, it wouldn't surprise me if they popped out another and maybe like you said just tone down the budget a bit.



Is there where I say, "Told ya so"?
To who? All accounts have the first book being pretty harmless, and I've always believed as much. And I've always thought picketing these sorts of things was pretty silly, anyway.

As for the ending, or complete lack of. The trailer has scenes from what must be the final minutes. I don't know what studio bullying came into play, but they certainly shot more than they showed. I'm eager to see a director's cut, especially since we will likely never see The Subtle Knife or the Amber Spyglass. While both are not entirely suited for the silver screen, they are significantly more thrilling narratives than The Golden Compass.
Yeah, I noticed that. Some people around the 'net even have stills from the trailer that never appeared in the film as their avatars. Personally, I don't think a Director's Cut will make this a good film, but it'll probably make it a better one. It really needs some breathing room. Weitz said in an interview that he thinks there's an "inflationary trend" with films like this getting longer, and I suppose he may have a point. But some films really do need to be 2 hours and 20 minutes, and The Golden Compass was one of them.

Regarding potential sequels: Peter's right. First-day numbers alone (less than $9 million) make it look like a long-shot. It may seem insane that you can judge a film's ultimate financial success after a single day's worth of grosses, but that's often the case. Especially if the film is receiving poor or lukewarm word-of-mouth, as The Golden Compass is.

Of course, it figures to do quite well in terms of DVD sales and rentals and all that, but the budget was rather large, and they were clearly hoping for another LOTR/Narnia-type franchise out of this.



Standing in the Sunlight, Laughing
I could just about cry.

While visually rewarding, just about everything that made this book special was torn from the film. It has the depth of cellophane. One of the few writers' choices I do agree with was where to end the telling of it, making it about Lyra and Roger and their committment to each other. But all the back stories are gone, and with them the philosophies that make this more than your run of the mill adventure story. It's truly a shame.
__________________
Review: Cabin in the Woods 8/10



A system of cells interlinked
Great review, and a bummer it didn't turn out so well. I think I shall read the book, and skip the film.
__________________
“It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance.” ― Thomas Sowell



Lets put a smile on that block
I could just about cry.

While visually rewarding, just about everything that made this book special was torn from the film. It has the depth of cellophane. One of the few writers' choices I do agree with was where to end the telling of it, making it about Lyra and Roger and their committment to each other. But all the back stories are gone, and with them the philosophies that make this more than your run of the mill adventure story. It's truly a shame.
I totally agree (Hi Sammy!) and great review Yods, mirrored how i felt exactly. It was a totally generic, bog standard and pretty much soulless (ironically) book to screen adaptation with all the meat removed. As each scene unfolded it literally seemed like a case of running down a checklist to make sure that viewers who were unfamiliar with the story at least could get an idea of what was going on with the story, and even so, i would imagine viewers unfamiliar with the text would still find the story slightly baffling. Each character seemed to only surface in te film as a plot device to move the story along, no development what so ever. I would rather have sat through a 2 hour+ feature and suffered buttock paralysis than the hour and a half blandness that i saw at the flicks. Funnily enough i didnt even get to the end of the film as the projector broke, and my response to this kind of summed up how i felt about the film over all. I just didnt care. Biggest shame of 2007 for me. It could have been the next LOTR, instead it was another Narnia. Blah.
__________________
Pumpkins scream in the DEAD of night!



Movie Forums Stage-Hand
wanting to see this film, a pattern from NARNIA i guess... but still i want to see this flick... don't know the storyline yet...



being a fan of the His Dark Materials books I guess I was never going to be completely satisfied with seeing them on film, but I'd hoped for better than this. If there is any more then I won't be bothering.

The heart and soul of Pullman's writing has been omitted from this film, which is truly a shame as the casting was spot on. There's so much to pull to pieces but basically I feel that a book that must've made kids hearts thump with excitement and whose fingers must've gripped the book in awe ( I include myself in that!) has been reduced to a sappy, unengaging, unexciting childrens film. If we can have a book where Iorek rips the jaw off Iofur and eats his heart, why can't we have that film? Instead we have a bloodless fight between two bears one of whom has even had his name changed in case us thickos can't take in two name that sound similar.

ach, I could go on but it hacks me off



agree with most everyone on this... just seemed to fast, horribly paced, no connection with the characters except lyra, and the changes were just stupid and stupid and stupid, and i hated the dumming down of the whole thing starting with that stupid prologue. Either the directors cut will rock and save the series or this thing needs to be started over by someone else in about 10 years! I started reading the book to see the movie and now im reading the other books because it's such a great read!



Standing in the Sunlight, Laughing
... If we can have a book where Iorek rips the jaw off Iofur and eats his heart, why can't we have that film? Instead we have a bloodless fight between two bears one of whom has even had his name changed in case us thickos can't take in two name that sound similar.(
"Thickos" aaaaahahahaha! Excellent.

This is a great point, as well. It's much scarier to read something and imagine it happening than to go and watch it on a screen, yet they took the violence down a big notch (though the jaw thing drew a satisfying crowd reaction in the theater where I was). I think those who made the decisions (the director has already said he is anxious to release his own cut, a clear sign he's not satisfied with this release) had no faith in the source material.

I also think the best thing about this movie is that it drew interest to the books.



I never read the book, but I went to see it just for the heck of it.

It was alright, nothing special. I agree that the film was a little too fast paced in the beginning, with everything happening way too fast. It kind of made the plot a little hard to follow, because suddenly something else is happening.

And why did they advertise the movie as if Daniel Craig was like the main character in the film if he only appears in about 4 scenes? I kind of like Craig after "Casino Royale", but he wasn't in it all, it seems. If they make a second one, it looks as if he would be a main part of that, judging by the out-of-nowhere ending and the talk about him getting the death penalty or whatever.

I did like the "daemons" though. That was kind of cool. But dang, Nicole Kidman's little monkey thing was ugly as hell. That kind of freaked me out.

I would probably give the film a 2.5 out of 5 or something like that.



How many sequel does the book have?