The Golden Compass Movie
Storyline
TAGLINES
"It is the Alethiometer. It tells the truth. As for how to read it, you'll have to learn by yourself."
There are worlds beyond our own - the compass will show the way.
Lyra Belaqua, living in Oxford's Jordan College, is not but a young girl living among scholars. Her world may seem diverse, from physical embodiments of souls that take the shape of an animal, but similar with people around you to become friends and enemies. She is thrown into a perilous adventure when she overhears a conversation of an extraordinary microscopic particle, Dust. This particle is said to unite different worlds, and is feared by many who want to destroy it forever. As Lyra is flung into the middle of this horrible struggle, she meets wondrous creatures both big and small, and villains who are not what they seem. Gobblers, that kidnap children, will turn out in the most unexpected places. And a magical compass of gold that will answer any question if one is skilled enough to read it. Lyra's adventure continues throughout these three books, and the first is about to be told.
| Nicole Kidman | Marisa Coulter |
| Daniel Craig | Lord Asriel |
| Dakota Blue Richards | Lyra Belacqua |
| Ben Walker | Roger |
| Freddie Highmore | Pantalaimon |
| Ian McKellen | Iorek Byrnison |
| Eva Green | Serafina Pekkala |
| Jim Carter | John Faa |
| Tom Courtenay | Farder Coram |
| Ian McShane | Ragnar Sturlusson |
| Sam Elliott | Lee Scoresby |
| Christopher Lee | First High Councilor |
| Kristin Scott Thomas | Stelmaria |
| Edward de Souza | Second High Councilor |
| Kathy Bates | Hester |
| Chris Weitz |
6.50 out of 10 (23106 votes)
Visitor Reviews
what the crap
posted on 30 Aug 2009okay... so, overall not really a great movie, but not horrible either, me and my friends were drunk flipping through movies, and as we flipped through this we saw this bear with armor and Russians, so we were like. wow, gotta see this...what a clusterf***. i mean, you got this girl with a shape shifting ferret, and like, a friggin compass, and shes flying around in a air balloon that looks like a pair of testicles... then you throw in the gypsies, the whiskey drinking armor wearing bear, Russians, cowboys, and the damn Eskimos. recommend watching this movie drunk, it'll be a much funnier experience
They got rid of the good parts!!
posted on 28 Aug 2009Dakota Blue Richards starts her career off as playing Lyra, a rebellious pre-teen who meets the real world after her best friend Roger was captured by the Gobblers. Lyra goes on a mission to the North to rescue him with the help of her Golden Compass, a device which will answer any question she would ever ask. Sadly, Dakota fails at adding the spice which made up the character of Lyra.Nichole Kidman, still trying to come out of a five year movie slump does play the perfect Ms. Coulter, but in another failed attempt of a movie. Daniel Craig as well was amazing in this movie, but we just don't see enough of him to consider him to have any big role.I wasn't expecting much from the movie after I read the book. For some reason, the writers got smart and decided to end the movie right after the big battle... what happened to golden ending of the book when Lord Asriel killed Roger? Because of the ending, the writers never really told us what happened with the floating city and the "Dust". Since there won't be a sequel, two major questions was brought up and will never be answered.A big part of the book which I enjoyed was Iorek Byrnison and Farder Coram's characters... and the movie ruined them! Iorek was supposed to be a fierce bear who crushed heads and killed under his own demand. Course to keep this movie PG rated, it couldn't show the bear ritual of when Iorek defeated Iofur and tore open his stomach and ate his heart. Sure a morbid part of the book, but still this showed character. Farder Coram was the secondary character in the book, but the movie practically switched Farder Coram's and Lee Scoresby's role.But sure, with every let down there could also be great parts, just like with the final battle scene. My eyes were glued to the screen because it was done very well.Overall, this movie was a disappointment. I am sure I can find many other parts to pick about - keep your money, don't see this movie.
A great example of hyperactive storytelling
posted on 26 Aug 2009I've been reading this wonderful book by George R.R. Martin called A Game of Thrones. It is an exciting tale of fantasy fiction that rivals Tolkien's novels in depth and action. So much happens in this book that it it can become a bit of a challenge to sum up the book to someone making an inquiry. At first I start off with some basic details about the book and then when I get to the characters, I find there's a lot of intriguing information that I want to share but I don't want to get caught up too much so I start to speak faster. Then I mention the royal families and the wars and by the time I finish talking about this book, I'm out of breath and the listener is either scratching his head or nodding his head politely so as to not tell me that I did a horrible job.Unfortunately, I was scratching my head at the end of The Golden Compass. The movie makes incredible leaps and bounds over stories that deserved fifteen to thirty minutes of storytelling but was summed up in five. Apparently the story gets in the way of all the bloodless violence the movie seemed quite eager to display. The action sequences are exhilarating. However, as hectic and chaotic as they appear on screen, these scenes are actually slower than the pace of the actual storytelling. Characters and names get thrown at you. As a viewer, you are dumped in this magical world that appears interesting. Everyone has a magical pet that is tied to their soul called a daemon. They are a curious creatures that take the form of any animal. The movie slowly introduces details about these creatures throughout the movie. However, everything else gets the Cliff Notes version so that by the end, you're no longer emotionally invested in this world and are just hoping for another action sequence to slow the information overload.This movie will do well and I do recommend watching it for some great action sequences and an interesting tale. This movie would benefit from an extended play time from under 2 hours to anything over 2 and a half hours. There will be sequels. Hopefully they will take the time to actually tell a story next time instead of bedazzling us with special effects.
Poor fantasy at best
posted on 26 Aug 2009The film starts with so much promise but fails to deliver. Some top notch actors try their hardest but the real problem lies with both the source material and the child actors. The latter sometimes make the film have that "school play" feel with some...(read more) awful dialogue, and the former just doesn't make for an interesting or well thought out world. The concepts behind the universe in which the film is set are simply too daft to take seriously as they overstep fantasy (and even camp fantasy) to become completely bizarre and badly thought out. Admittedly most of my criticism is levelled at the book and the universe the author has created but that obviously affects the film as a whole, with source material this poor a film should never have been attempted.
Great Movie but Incomplete Ending
posted on 26 Aug 2009Okay, I've read the book and this movie will probably confuse people who have not read the book. Everything about this movie was great except the ending which was kind of a let-down. IN the book, Lyra and Roger arrive in the North to Lord Asriel. Lord Asriel kidnaps Roger and uses him as part of an experiment to open up a gateway into other worlds, which Roger dies in the process. Lyra then leaves in this gateway to find out about dust. The movie just ends when they are about to go for Lord Asriel after they free the children in Bolvangar. Also, this movie is probably going to be pretty confusing if you never read the books. If you have read the books you will notice that things have been changed, mainly a part was added onto beginning. That's all I have to say about the movie.
'You don't call this Bear 'Teddy'.
posted on 24 Aug 2009OK, here's the situation. You're a 12 year old girl ( lets call you Lyra ), you keep you're promises, and now you're in a really big predicament that is going to get an awful lot rougher and tremendously more dangerous. Right now a barrelful of muscle would really come in handy. Who would you choose, Pee Wee Herman, Mr. Bean. or, LOREK BYRNISON, an armoured ton of raw, growling Polar Bear with a penchant for cheap Whiskey and a roar that could shatter a warrior's sword.Lyra picks the bear.....And along with Pantalaimon, her shift-changing daemon that represents her soul, a large group of assorted friends that she has acquired along the way, the Alethiometer, and foremost, her desire to keep her promise, Lyra sets out on her way to Points North, high above the Artic circle where she rises to every challenge, makes the most out of every opportunity, and keeps her promise. She truly is her Parents daughter, drawing on the strengths of each, discarding the weaknesses and setting forth a series of goals that will draw her and her friends deeper and deeper into danger, but with the strengths and comradeship that she has gained in this, her first adventure, she is well prepared for the challenges of the next.If you like fantasy, adventure and novel ideas, then this movie delivers on all three counts.
Golden Effects, but story not up to scratch
posted on 22 Aug 2009I love the idea of having a particular animal that follows you around and is connected to your personality - it provides a lovely insight into the characters' mind that otherwise needs to be expressed solely by the actor/actress. I also thought it was an extremely well conceived fantasy environment from scene to scene, and the work that has gone into the graphical representation is quite mind boggling. However, having only seen the movie and not read the books I thought the story was a little weak in places, and that the world of the story isn't as clear perhaps as it could be. Perhaps I am used to being pampered with fantasy adventures, especially with the Lord of The Rings Trilogy - but still I felt that at 113 min a number of threads were cut a little short and were less developed.I really enjoyed it as a bit of an action adventure, but ultimately I found large portions very forgettable; my main criticism here would centre on the Marketing of the film which seems to have been aimed so much at younger children that it forgot that there is still a film to be made. Quality here has been sacrificed in favour of making as much money as possible - and it is unfortunately a familiar story. Fans of the books will also be disappointed that this version of Pullman's first book does not share the authors' ending.The trilogy will undoubtedly be made, but it staggers me that the strength of creating the next two rested quite so heavily on the success of this film. As a result you get a certain amount of entertainment but leave the cinema feeling it could have been so much better.
Absolutely Brilliant
posted on 22 Aug 2009I just watched this and it was a little late. I actually thought it may be the last screening in Australia but anyhow. I have loved the trilogy of books and have read the first book three times and the other two, two times each. I was pleasantly surprised to find the makers of Lord of the Rings making the movie. Although everyone knew it wasn't going to be Lord of the Rings I was still very happy with the final outcome. The casting is brilliant with Nicole Kidman and Dakota Blue Richards being the most radiant. There were a few changes from the book to the movie like switching the bear fight and saving of the kids around. I found this interesting and afterwords I actually preferred it that way. The young girl Lyra set out originally to save the children. Not meddle with bear politics and it suits the fact that the conclusion was her completing her original task. Why they took out the last three chapters I reasonably understand. They wanted a bit of a sweeter ending rather that have Roger die and still want watchers to wonder what happens next. It was clever though some of the editing was a bit annoying and noticeable. Overall I score it; 7/10 Not as good as Lord of the Rings but a tie with the Chronicles of Narnia. P.S. The reason I gave it ten stars was to try and raise that ridiculously low average. 6.6/10 is very unfair!
I won't see the sequel
posted on 20 Aug 2009I was a little bit disappointed by the movie. At first I should admit that the movie is very well realised: there is a great debauchery of SGI inevitable for such a movie like this and people are playing quite well (Nicole Kidman is wonderful as usual !) even if the huge number of characters spinning around at the beginning could give you a powerful headache, the scenario is not too linear despite being sometimes so foreseeable. What made me feel uncomfortable with this movie is that this little girl, (the main character) could just not stop lying, manipulates people and disobey all the time (even if some would say it's for the good cause). And there is too much violence in the movie, too much killing, too much blood for no valuable reason in fact. So this is the main contradiction of the Golden Compass, an asset that permits you to know where is the truth when people are just lying but that asset belongs to one of the greatest liar of the movie. Finally, I felt really angry at the end when looking at my watch I understood that it's too late to see the conclusion of this story at this time and that the production will suggest us to come back next year for a second sequel and certainly a third one cause there is always three sequels in a trilogy. I won't be there this time.
A Story Compass Needed To Make Sense Of This
posted on 20 Aug 2009I watched this film on a plane journey so maybe the tiny screen led me to miss things, because I have not red any of the books from the series and I have to assume that the books are much better (is that not always the case?) as this is rally not a very good film. It is not terrible and I am pretty sure that children will enjoy it more than adults, but I just felt like we where given a thumb nail sketch of all the characters here and for us to become emotionally invested in them we needed more. The cast in general where full of quality actors of whom we really have a right to expect a better movie, and unfortunately I feel the blame here has to lie with Chris Weitz as he both wrote the screenplay and directed. One really has to doubt whether he was the correct choice to direct this movie given his previous track record and if they do go on to make the sequels in the series then a new director will be needed to lend a sense of life to proceedings. Also for a movie of this magnitude the CGI was poor and when you are after the LOTR and the Harry Potter market this is really unacceptable. I would try and give you more of the essence of the movie but I am nit sure I understood enough to do so and am left with the impression that I will have to seek out the books to find out if I am a fan or not.
Really fun, engaging and fast moving fantasy spectacle
posted on 16 Aug 2009I went in cynical about this, especially after the travesty that was the Narnia film, but i was quickly converted: it's great fun. A really entertaining and immersive film that intelligently builds a fantastical world that the uninitiated can marvel and thrill in. I have to say i haven't read the books so can't comment on a book to film comparison.On the cast, I don't know how it works in the book but the adults are barely in this. Nicole has the most significant work and Sam Elliott, while a late arrival, is a great presence once he's around. However Daniel Craig and Eva Green are barely in it and Christopher Lee has one blink-and-you'll miss him scene. That said the casting is excellent. Green is suitably witchy and Craig makes an impact in his one/two dialogue scenes early on which, along with a couple of wordless inserts of his storyline, put him enough into your mind to wonder about him. He feels set up for a more significant role in future instalments. Elliott is great. That sonorous voice sneaking out from underneath that bushy moustache feels exactly right for Lee Scorsby.Kidman is perfect. There's something indelibly creepy about her rigid manner that works for the elegant but sinister Mrs Coulter. Meanwhile Simon McBurney is magnificently slimy and loathsome as the magisterium main face. You know he's a villain from the moment he enters frame.Dakota Blue Richards is a great find as Lara. While the first two Potter films and Lion, the Witch & the Wardrobe were significantly hampered by the incredibly mannered, unrealistic, wooden acting of the young leads (most of the Potter cast got better, time will tell on Narnia) Richards is a winner from the outset. Precocious and feisty without seeming too forced she is generally believable whether is her rebellion or her loyalty. This is just as well as the film is really entirely on her shoulders. It will work or not for people based on whether you like her. She's in virtually every scene and has a lot of different emotions to get across as well as having to have significant interaction with CGI creations like her spirit animal Pan (the ubiquitous Freddie Highmore) and the polar bear played by Ian McKellen. She has a couple of slightly actorly moments but does incredibly well for a first timer under this kind of pressure.Of the voice-only cast McKellen is a perfect choice for the honourable polar bear while Highmore is either getting less annoying or it's just beneficial not being able to see him, as he is nicely understated as Pan. My only note on this casting would be once or twice I couldn't tell is Lyra or Pan was speaking in their interaction as in quiet moments Highmore and Richards' voices are remarkably similar!The effects are good but not great. I had worried they'd be as weak as Narnia and they aren't. The world is beautifully created and always feels real, whether Scorsby's flying ship or the blimp thing from the trailer, or stunning Arctic landscapes and big cities. The smaller creatures are also brilliantly rendered, Pan in particular. Some of the bigger creatures are less perfect. The polar bears have a cartoony unreal feel but in a fantasy setting with battle armour and stuff they work well enough. Certainly better than Aslan in Narnia. However the leopard creature with Daniel Craig doesn't look right at all.As for the film itself it really zips along quickly. The uninitiated (like me) may occasionally lose track of what's going on early on as strange terms and names are thrown back and forth but it soon settles down and makes sense. Rather than frustrating me that I might be missing key elements of what this world was about I felt happy going with it and was left thinking I'll watch it again when it's released just to be sure I didn't miss anything. It's a relief to see a fantasy film that brings it in at almost exactly two hours and has a cracking momentum, as opposed to the seemingly endless drag of Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter and Narnia. Don't get me wrong taking time can work. I really liked Fellowship of the Ring but the pace of the Potters really tests my patience. Golden Compass moves so fast before you know it it's over and it leaves you wanting more. Indeed at the end of this film I could say it had succeeded in doing something the Potter franchise has never done: it left me desperate to see the next one.However what really made me like this film more than those others is the tone and some of the things they do in it. There are moments in this, that i won't spoil for those like me who didn't know the plot, that really surprised me that they'd do in a family film.A big fight scene between polar bears and the end battle are suitably exciting and i found myself really invested. I cared about the characters. Whereas in Narnia they hadn't done enough to make you care about Aslan's fate (criminal given how effectively the book and the 80s BBC TV serial managed it) this really has you on the edge of your seat for the good guys.Overall I really liked Golden Compass and would give it an 8/10 – compared to LOTR 10/10, 9/10, 7/10 for the series, Potter 5/10, 6/10, 8/10, 7/10, 7/10 for the series and Narnia 4/10. I will be watching this again when it comes out (something I never did for Potter or Narnia) and am looking forward to the next instalment. I hope Daniel Craig and Eva Green get bigger roles in the next film, but all round a great start to a potential franchise that I had middling hopes for.
Biggest Fail as a Book2Movie
posted on 16 Aug 2009I can't believe how the messed this up. They should never have gone forward with making it after all that crap about not being able to use the "God" part of the story. Its like reading the bible without a Jesus in there. Loved the acting! Everything else failed.The Director-Screen Play Writer totally botched this one, and I hope he Never touches film or any sort of Storytelling again. He must have read the book and skipped 20 pages at a time.I just cannot get over how they messed this one up, was hoping this would be a good one. Why oh why didn't they give it to Peter Jackson when he asked for it?? WHY???
Great Effects, Poor Everything Else
posted on 16 Aug 2009I was never a devoted reader of Pullman's books. I got bored after a few chapters and as such I was sceptical to begin with. The acting was; from the beginning, wooden on the part of Dakota Blue Richards (Lyra) She needed more training in my opinion, she seems far too forceful in her acting. The special effects were fantastic, particularly in the big bear fight. I found that the only truly entertaining bit of the film. I do; however, believe that this scene may have been slightly too graphic for the age group. It seems to me that watching a bear have his jaw ripped off and seeing the muscle dangling from his head, then watching (with sound effects) the other bear grab and crack his neck is slightly graphic for a PG audience. There were far too many cut scenes and it seemed that parts were left out, relationships never built up etc. The deletion of the last three chapters to allow for the "best possible beginning to the second {film}" -- Wietz (Oct 9th 2007) was; in the nicest possible way, an idiotic move. It left almost all of the threads loose. Overhearing comments on my way out of the cinema: people seemed disgusted at this decision. Classical Hollywood Narrative is fundamentally built on 'continuity editing' (def: "to smooth over the inherent discontinuity of the editing process and to establish a logical coherence between shots"--Wikipedia) there is a very noticeable example of this in the scene where Lyra crosses the bridge, we see the ice crumbling beneath her feet, in the next shot we see is her climbing up a slope on the other side. The audience sees no evidence of what happened between these two cuts. In conclusion: The film had a good story to base its-self upon and this film just shows how the typical American director spends more money on special effects than they do on what is really important; the story, it was poorly written and in my opinion the $150million budget; from 'New Line Cinema' who have not had the best year and thanks to this disaster, it really can only get worse has been poorly spent. There are two sequels (the next two books) in the pipeline that are dependent on the financial success of this film, as such I think they will never happen, the film has been written and edited badly, it looks like it has been edited on some random free-ware off of the internet, with all that money I would have hoped they could afford some Macs. Lastly; I understand that the target audience for this film is about ten years old... but Weitz has really spoon-fed every detail to the audience, there is very little left to the imagination except for the end which is; of course, a cliffhanger.
What if there would be censorship? ...or there would be none at all?
posted on 16 Aug 2009First i have to say, that, while summarizing this and thinking about the bad writing, the soon to be obvious plot holes (in the following movies), the high cast but moderate acting and the loss of the serious critic intended by Philip Pullman, i am angry, not to have given only 1 point. This, because i have to bear to watch it again, to pick up all the annoying bits and pieces of this wreck of a should be serious fantasy movie.All in all i agree with IMDb-member Luke Ewing, he pointed out a lot about the movie-making, acting, guessed production-intentions and aura of the movie already, so i wont go into this again. He summons it up quite nicely, i was even happy to see, that i am not alone with my feelings about recent 'fanatsy hits' like Eragon and Narnia, childish interpretations of only moderate novels.But my accusation goes farther in many ways. Escpecially regarding the writing and the plot. I was quite angry at the books a few times, wanting to throw one into a corner and never to look at it again. But well, it is a good concept, a lot of fantasy and in the end mostly conclusive, so i managed to finish them. And in the end, i am quite pleased to have read them, not only to learn from the complexity of events, but to recognize mistakes and hopefully do it better one day myself. But the movie manages to destroy that and leaves nothing except fancy pictures of not even top notch CGI, that would have been possible. It is not a children's bock, but it is a movie for childish (not childlike) people. There is great children and teenager literature out there, and films that even excite me as and adult. I watch those over and over again as for the first time and still enjoy them enormously. But the writer, and i don't know, if this was by the dictated intention of the studio, broke the serious critic of Mr. Pullman and portrayed the characters wrongly, made them unbelievable (some only had little in the book and lost all of it now) and easy to accept and forget, once the movie is over, leaving no argument, just a memory of a wasted evening. -The evil magesterium is the church and all orders of authority, no matter which religion is focused on here. All the critic is lost, all the focus is gone, because the magesterium looks more like a military dictatorship with officials, then the body of the church. Should we not connect them with the similar institutions we have here in reality ? Maybe we are not wanted to. But in the end it doesn't surprise me, this movie is made by and for a society, that allows a homeland security to exist, has crosses and prayers in school, pledges to a flag, sings the national anthem on all events, tries to make up a history of culture ('National Treasure' ring a bell?) and lives a superficial, miserable, but patriotic life, no questions asked. Maybe they need a tuned down version of critic, or a cheap flick, that is no real threat at all....Well, so much for intentions. But back to the movie itself. Why is it, that characters saying things they did not in the book and should not do so anywhere else. Why does the magesterium call the 'Experimental Station' Bolvanger, the 'Evil Field', as the sensitive locals do? Why are whole events switched, or mixed up ? Why is Lord Asriel asking for founding an expedition, if he is walking alone? Why is there no child (in darkness) in the picture he shows. Why is Dust not surrounding the man, but flowing into him and disappearing ? Why does everybody know, what is going to happen and what is important, and why do they say so - if all this is about choice, why is Lira making NONE by herself ? Why does the lackey of the magesterium instead of the Master of Jordan trying to poison Lord Asriel - leaving Lira no (in the book very hard) choice again? Why doesn't Lord Asriel kill Roger to open the barrier between the worlds ??? - The main act of this book and relevant for about 8 chapters in the third book of His Dark Materials ??? Maybe we need good and bad characters, so Lord Asriel can not kill Roger for the gain of his Republik. And the Master of Jordan can not poison Lord Asriel for his own reasons. There is conscious thought and there is necessity. Whatever good and evil means, it is in all of us. Every man is capable of great and/or terrible deeds. - That is free will, that is choice. The movie leaves none, just another Hollywood end with no meaning.
Golden Compass' throws the book out the window.
posted on 10 Aug 2009I don't think there are any spoilers in this but just in case read with caution ) I'll be honest, I had high hopes going into this movie. I read the first book over the summer and had enjoyed it. Maybe that was my first problem but the movie storyline was incredibly messed up.The first third of the movie starts out alright, with things happening as they are supposed too with only minor changes, which every book to movie has (and the changes were understandable too). It was the last 2/3's of the movie that were awful.To start they put the ending of the book in the middle of the movie, while those people who hadn't read the book wouldn't know or mind this, it actually makes certain parts really awkward. Lyra is so attached to Iorek at this point when she really had only met him 10-15 minutes earlier in the movie that it makes the dialog seem fake and the situation silly. The bond that was made over the course of the book happened too soon so what they have at this point doesn't seem right. Add in Ian Mckellen's voice for Iorek with the over the top dialog that he has, it makes for a pretty bad moment.When the directors finally decide to put in the middle of the book things seem rushed, with the addition of so many situations they spend most of the movie just blurting out information that was originally discovered in subtle ways. They put certain characters in situations that they were originally not in, which means that they were missing from parts of the movie that they were supposed to be in.Because the directors chose to put the ending scene (from the book) in the middle of the movie, the ending they chose to make create seemed confusing and premature.I went to this movie with 6 other people, only one of them had read the book like I had and her main complaint was the same as mine, the storyline being so messed up. The others who didn't notice the storyline issues' complaints were the dialog and situations were very cheesy and really over the top. Depending on the person many parts may seem like they have unintended sexual innuendos, which in a children's story is so wrong.If you go see this movie and you have read the book, get ready to be confused on why things happen when they do. And if you haven't read the book try to ignore the cheesy lines and silly situations. Of course, this is just my opinion and you might feel otherwise but I really thought they flopped on this. Hope this helps!
A near shambles of an adaptation
posted on 10 Aug 2009The fine writer Tom Stoppard apparently wrote an early screenplay adaptation of "Northern Lights" (the original title of the first novel in Phillip Pullman's "His Dark Materials" trilogy). It was never used as it was rejected by the director Chris Weitz who wrote his own screenplay. One day I would very much like to read Tom Stoppard's screenplay, as I am sure that it must have been better than the near shambles of an adaptation that I witnessed last Sunday.(Saying that, I have also read comments on the web from people who have compared Stoppard's version with Weitz's original, early draft of "The Golden Compass" and said that Weitz's version was better than Stoppard's and was also longer and more satisfying than the filmed version. If that is the case, why the hell wasn't Weitz's original screenplay used? Distrust that an audience could sit through a long fantasy film, maybe? Or was it just down to money? Anyway, onwards...)The key to a good, literary cinematic adaptation is what to leave in, what to take out and what to amalgamate. On those terms Chris Weitz's "The Golden Compass" fails completely to get to grips with the literary source. (Check out "L. A. Confidential", if you want to see what I mean by a good cinematic adaptation. That film had 400 characters reduced to 40, and although the Ellroy's original ending was fudged, it was still a brilliant literary adaptation.)"The Golden Compass" is way too cluttered, busy and disjointed and way, way too fast. It proceeds at a breakneck pace through nearly all of the plot of "Northern Lights" and is squeezed uncomfortably into a sub 2 hours running time. "The Golden Compass" should have been longer. I reckon another hour might have done it justice. (Put this note in your diary. This may be the first time yer Seawalker has ever suggested that a film is too short. Normally it is the opposite way around.)... And the worst thing about "The Golden Compass"? The ending. Awful. Rubbish. Truncated. Hated it. It completely omitted the crucial, turnabout events of the last 3 chapters of "Northern Lights", and in the process, the true cliffhanger. I believe that the material was filmed. Some of the footage made it into at least one of the trailers I have seen."The Golden Compass" does look amazing. Good production design, mostly good special effects (some of the armoured bear CGI is ropey) and the realisation of the daemons is very well done. It also has a fair share of good performances, especially Dakota Blue Richards and Nicole Kidman. Daniel Craig as Lord Asriel is good, although he is not as good as Philip Pullman's choice of Jason Isaac might have been.Disappointing then, but only for me. My Girlfriend said she liked it, but I think she said that just annoy me.
doens't hold a candle to the book....
posted on 10 Aug 2009I was desperate to read the novel before i took in the film, and i'm glad i did because the film doens't capture Phillip Pullman's magic that draws you into another world. The film tells how there are other worlds connected in the universe, and how in the main character's world, Lyra, their souls can be seen in the form of animals, known as demons (goood things). Lyra is given a golden compass by her master in an Oxford school that tells the truth when you ask it something. She learns of a sinister plan that will effect the lives of many children that is very disturbing to her.What was really rich about the novel was how the characters connected really well with one another. Iorek Byrnison, for example, the polar bear, i felt didn't' really connect with Lyra as in the novel, and Lyra, played by Dakota Blue Richards i felt didn't really have the warmth to actually admire her in the film. Nicole Kidman was effective as the icy villain, and Eva Green should have had more appearances. The film was rather rushed and the ending was absolutely done badly. Though the film does slightly contradict the ways of the church, it should have been emphasized more because that is what the novels do. I never understand the Church and their criticisms of everything, but it wouldn't really hurt to have films that are given free speech.Overall, the visuals are gorgeous, special effects quite good but not enough to draw you in.
Had Potential, but Suffered Severely from Poor Pacing
posted on 08 Aug 2009Philip Pullman's popular tale of fantasy finally makes its way onto the big screen in The Golden Compass. Director Chris Weitz steps outside his comedic norm, and also, for the first time, directs a film independently from his older brother, Paul. With the novel's exceeding popularity, it was not difficult to ensemble a cast of actors willing to take part in, possibly, a future classic of the fantasy genre, a la The Lord of the Rings. However, what the film does fail to do is utilize the cast.Nicole Kidman, who Philip Pullman had considered for the roll 10 years before a film adaptation was even announced, acts well walking around looking evil, but fails to add any depth to the performance. Both Eva Green and Christopher Lee do a fine job, the problem is they each have about a minute of screen time. Daniel Craig and Sam Elliott take advantage with what they were given. Newcomer, Dakota Blue Richards delivers a surprisingly strong performance as the hero of the story in a role that over ten thousand were considered for.The story, itself, is interesting and engaging. It takes place in a parallel universe where people have their souls living outside of them in a form of animals, called daemons (pronounced demons). Lyra (Dakota Blue Richards) and her daemon, Pan, hear a rumour of something called 'dust', which resides in the north, and has the power to unite the universe. However, standing in their way is something called the Magisterium (bearing more than a little resemblance to the Catholic Church), which would prefer that this not be found. Lyra finds herself caught up in all of this, as she is the only one who can read 'the golden compass' which answers all of life's questions. It is a remarkable story, which is sadly told in an unremarkable way.The whole film screams spoiled potential. It seems so intent on getting every concept and character from the book into the film, and wanting to stay under 2-hours, that it fails to develop any characters. The director introduces a character, shows him or her in two scenes, and then seems to expect an emotional attachment when the character returns for the climax, but by then, it's more of an afterthought. The sad thing is, the problem could have been solved so easily. By cutting out some unnecessary characters, or simply adding 45 minutes to the screen time. It would have given characters a chance to develop.At parts, the story is as fleshed-out as the characters, and suffers from many of the same problems. Ideas are noted in one scene, and instead of developing the idea and letting the feeling grow on the audience it jumps to the next one so quickly the viewer loses interest. At times it would slow down, and that's where the best parts were, but just when it seems like it might improve, it starts sprinting for the finish, again. The very poor pacing nearly kills the whole film.Where the film is at its most inspired is with the action. Containing awe-inspiring CGI, and some fight scenes that won't be soon forgotten. Most notably, a rip-roaring engagement between two giant armoured polar bears for supremacy in the polar bear kingdom. That scene gives the viewer hope for an exciting climax, which unfortunately, doesn't live up to that first fight.In the end, great source material and a couple of violent polar bears aren't quite enough to offset the very poor pacing and development of characters. **/4.
A not-so-subtle knife to the novel
posted on 04 Aug 2009My expectations, while not stratospheric, were reasonable high for The Golden Compass. Unfortunately the film turns out to be an uninvolving, rather underbaked pudding.Firstly New Line have stuck an extremely dumb voice-over a-la Blade Runner at the beginning of the movie, to tell us exactly where we are - a parallel universe with some similarity to our own but with striking differences. Couldn't, as in the novel, they have left us to figure it out for ourselves? Or do they treat the audience with such contempt that they feel we need a primer? After this the first twenty minutes or so are quite well done, but unlike Lord Of The Rings the film quickly descends into not much more than a travelogue, with out-of-date CGI daemon characters - apart from a few well animated Iorek sequences - and a series of Harry Potter-style "proper actor" cameos, few of which amount to much. Sam Elliot is by far the best character in this first of the trilogy, but he's given so little to do you only wish he featured more often. Derek Jacobi is totally wasted and Christopher Lee barely appears. Daniel Craig gets a James Bond moment, presumably so it can appear in a trailer, giving the misleading impression that he has a substantial role in the proceedings. Nicole Kidman tries hard to bring depth to Mrs. Coulter, but she's always been a take it or leave it actress. On this occasion, I'll think I'll leave it.At least, in Dakota Blue Richards we have a likable heroine. Unfortunately her character is also watered down from the novel. Lyra's just a spunky Disneyesque character here.There is one rather obvious flaw. When the characters finally get to the Arctic none of them appears to be remotely cold - Lyra wears a little woollen cap and appears entirely comfortable. I can't recall seeing any frozen breath coming out of the actor's mouths. There's some good moments, such as the Polar Bear fight and Intercision sequence, but most of it feels like a rather empty and soulless journey around the novel. The direction is really very poor, with hardly a single interesting shot or framing in the entire thing. But I suppose when you get the director of American Pie to make a fantasy movie you deserve all you get. It all feels so safe, the film-makers simply never take a chance. There was more daring taken in the 30 second trailer I saw for Alvin And The Chipmonks than the whole of this movie. The script is lazy, but hell, New Line simply want you to think it's another Middle-Earth saga, to keep the cash rolling in until The Hobbit comes out. And for a book which questions religious orthodoxy one is likely to feel extremely disappointed that the philosophical meat of the story is watered down to almost nothing. The Magisterium could be the Galactic Empire for all we are told. An official accuses Lord Asriel of heresy early on. Er, heresy against what, exactly?And the ending, that shocking moment when Lord Asriel commits murder to open the path to other worlds, is gone! Neatly excised so not to upset the poor little mites who will see the film, thereby ensuring they turn up for the sequels.What a cop-out.
very forgettable and boring
posted on 30 Aug 2009I didn't like this movie. I have never read the books, but my guess is a lot of background and side plots that are in the books were left out of this film. And this film ends set up for a sequel, which may not come. Just not a good ending. Daniel Craig is billed as a star, but he was hardly in the movie. Nicole Kidman had a little more screen time and I liked her character, Mrs. Coulter, the best. She made a good scheming, cold hearted wench. If you know nothing about the movie before hand, it makes little sense in the beginning. Apparently the story takes place in an alternate universe. People have deamons, which are animals that their soul lies in. When they die, the deamon dies. The ice bears were good special effects. Although their purpose didn't add anything to the story to me. The main character is the little girl, Lyra, whom is the only one who can read the Golden Compass. It would have been nice if we would have learned more about the compass and what the pictures meant. Very little is even revealed in this film.FINAL VERDICT: Story not congruent, boring. I don't recommend it.