*** Official THE GOLDEN COMPASS Discussion Thread (1 Viewer)

[Keith Mascarenhas]

First reviews are now up on rottentomatoes and on other places. First impressions are somewhat mixed as was to be expected. People seem to like the gorgeous visuals and the acting but many seem to be put off by the shoddy editing. Indeed the movie is less than two hours long!

 

[Johnny Angell]

I just read Ebert's review and he gave it 4 stars and also left no doubt that the religious theme Has been watered down or removed:

 

[Jose Martinez]

I have a feeling the box office will be lower than expected this weekend. The theater was nearly empty when I saw this today.

As for the film itself, it lacked that certain "WOW" factor that will make it a film to recommend. It's good but not that great. It did feel butchered. Kind of felt like the Weinsteins had their hands on it.

 

[Adam_S]

I've thought the film had oscar potential because of the ending in the book, ever since Weiz revealed they're butchering the end of a self contained story I've had a huge suspicion this is going to bomb with audiences. Sort of like ending Fellowship of the Ring just before the orcs attack in the mines of moria. your comment on the Weinstein's is apt, I could imagine many a studio exec advising Peter Jackson that you have to end the movie before Gandalf dies otherwise audiences will leave the movie upset and sad if he dies in the ending (thos emotions would mean it would bomb)

 

[Robert Crawford]

This thread is now designated the Official Discussion Thread for "The Golden Compass". Please, post all comments, links to outside reviews, film and box office discussion items to this thread.

All HTF member film reviews of "The Golden Compass" should be posted to the Official Review Thread.

Thank you for your consideration in this matter.


Crawdaddy

 

[Jose Martinez]

8.8 million on a Friday is not a good sign. That's Eragon territory

 

[Patrick Sun]

While it's more entertaining than Eragon (by virtue of the lead performance by Dakota Blue Richards), it suffers many of the same deficiencies, and limps to a finish.

Hated the almost night-time "battle" at the training school on ice. Visually, just incredibly dull and tiresome to watch.

Would have liked more screen time from the main actors (Kidman, Green, and Craig). It was ridiculous to flash a quick bit to explain what was going on with Azrael at the end. The screenplay by Weitz was not adequate to balance the 3 main subplots in the 3rd act, and just limps and sputters in mid-reel to its "ending" that comes across like a grocery list of plotpoints for the sequel that will never be made (because it won't do enough box office business to warrant a cinematic return to this multi-verse trilogy).

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

It's interesting that the film faltered in the third act for you. I definitely agree with the "grocery list of plotpoints" complaint, but for me the first two thirds were the culprit, with their endless exposition. (How many times did someone explain alethiometer was? 3? 4?) As the movie chugged along, the plot stepped aside for character moments more and more. I thought everything after Lyra met Lee was gold.

(And incidentally, the episodic nature of the tale in largely inherited from the book too. Since Lyra and Pan change supporting casts frequently, it's hard to build a cohesive whole on screen.)

 

[Patrick Sun]

By "flash" I was referring to Coulter's quick recount of what happened to Azrael after being captured (he bribed his way out of that predicament).

The structure for the film was poor. If you introduce Azrael in the beginning (and cast Daniel Craig) as this bad ass expeditioner, and then just sort of leave his subplot hanging after losing contact with him for most of the middle act, his presence just seemed wasted.

And did anyone really care about Coulter's revelation to Lyra after saving her from the intercision? Again, lack of character build-up undermined the potency of that little pothole in the road.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

I don't know, there are pluses and minuses. Having the Gyptians reveal Lyra's parentage never sat well with me either. It was more straight up exposition, and I didn't feel like those characters had earned the right to reveal that information to her. The scene where Mrs. Coulter reveals it herself after the intercision is a pretty strong scene in my book, particularly because of how Coulter explains herself. Kidman's performance allows multiple interpretations. The trauma of being forced by the Church to give up the child may have turned her into the ice-cold bitch by making control so paramount in her own mind so she'd never be hurt in such a way again. Or her claim that she ever wanted to keep Lyra was entirely empty and she was only too happy to thrust the inconvenient bastard child onto the college in order to better fixate on improving her own social station. Her excuses seem shallow and calculating, but then she's ALWAYS shallow and calculating now.
On the other hand, knowing that Mrs. Coulter is Lyra's mother ahead of time creates genuine suspense by wondering whether she would commit the worst possible atrocity on her own child.

 

[Phil Florian]

Adam, I wanted to echo your interest in the scene with Coulter revealing her parentage to Lyra (and if I am remember correctly, doesn't this happen in the next book or the last? In fact, my wife read only the first two books and when she was the movie was was surprised to hear about their parentage.

But anyway, for all the problems I had with this film, I did like Kidman's Coulter with her wavering loyalties. She at times seems deadly intent on following the Magisterium's word to the letter but then, like saving Lyra from the "little cut" or the parent discussion, we see some different shading. My favorite scene like this was the unspoken scene on the dirigible heading to the north. She is pining over the little photo of Lyra. The Gold Monkey sees this, swats it away and gets pummeled for it. I don't think there is any daemon abuse by the individuals it is attached to in the book but this was an interesting visual addtion to the obvious "the animal reflects the inner conflict of the person" bit. She is clearly conflicted, the ruthless part of her considers this weak and has attempted to suppress these feelings and then the violent part is slapped down by an angrier part. Gads! I love it!

In fact, I think they did a mostly good job with the daemon aspect of it. It is odd but I think that, though the movie was slow, they should have toned down the endless exposition (which was basically the entire movie) and moved more into just setting the tone and living world. Like a lot of rushed epic films, the world seems cold and empty when it doesn't have a character of its own. When you gloss over the world itself and don't allow folks to get a bearing, it loses its relevant and becomes flat.

Jackson realized this with his trilogy. He always made sure to spend time in certain environments. This was needed too because though the books were filled with character names and histories, the actual living world (not the ongoing history lessons in it) was rather empty. Jackson spent a lot of time in the Hobbits world and in Rohan and gave people time to breath in the architecture, the weather, people doing normal things. Made it easier to understand the people better when you knew where they came from.

Pullman does this in the book (his Oxford is very much alive, as is the Experimental Station, the northern town and world of the Gyptians) but Weitz skips over them without taking too much time to establish it.

I hope they take a gamble and do this again with another movie. It doesn't need a huge budget. The second one has special effects but nothing on the level of armored bears. It is more creepy ghost town and even a bit in our own world.

We will have to see.

 

[Michael:M]

Saw this yesterday. Overall, it was just OK. I found the writing and editing very choppy; the story, as presented onscreen, did not flow well at all and it really felt like a lot of things were left out. (And I have not read the books.)

Some thoughts:

- Dakota Blue Richards has great screen presence and delivered her lines with conviction and sold the part....unfortunately, much of the dialogue was stilted and/or flat; as noted above, most of it was exposition rather than natural-sounding conversation between beings.

- Sam Elliot's character really stuck out like a sore thumb to me; no idea how he was written in the books, but he came across as an unintentional parody of the American cowboy, particularly noticeable in world full of Brits and more exotic folk.

- Loved the bears; for the most part, the CGI for Iorek was well done. Didn't like McKellan doing the voicework, as it really distracted. Someone younger, gruffer, and a little less sure of themselves would have worked better for the part. Thanks in part to McKellan's self-assurance, we had very little doubt about Iorek's ability to overcome Ragnar.

- And that pinpoints a problem in the movie: almost zero believable tension. The film was pretty flat, and about the only time I was concerned was when Lyra's daemon was threatened.

- Speaking of daemon's and CGI...I'm generally not one to nitpick, but the CGI for Coulter's daemon was pretty bad - cartoony enough to pretty much take me out of the story.

- Eva Green looked damn good, as usual, but was onscreen for far too short a time (same for Daniel Craig), and the witches really felt like a deus ex machina in the story, since we learn so little about them.

- I found the whole "prophesied child" backstory irritating and tired. The scenes when characters referred to it felt hackneyed rather than full of portent.

- If Iorek went all the way back to get the humans to help Lyra at Bolvangar, why didn't he bring an army of bears, too? He IS the king, after all.

- Nicole Kidman looked icily perfect as Coulter (and what prescience from Pullman with her name ).

- While I've since learned it was in the book, I found the Coulter and Asriel being Lyra's parents far too reminscent of Luke and Vader. I know, it's not something that originated with Lucas, but it's a plot twist that is permanently associated with the SW movies.

My 11 year old daughter really liked it, so they hit that demographic well. But I've no desire to watch it again, and could care less if they make the next one.

 

[Phil Florian]

...but comes from classic literature. The "So-and-so, you are my (insert: Father, son, brother, sister, mother, long lost love, etc.). It is pretty classic, if a bit tired but not because of Lucas. Hell, half the shows in Shakespeare have hidden family relations throughout.

But I do agree with the whole "child of prophesy" bit, though that is as old as stories, too. The parentage bit makes more sense, oddly enough. Since this is basically a retelling of Milton's "Paradise Lost," there is something to Lyra, a person she meets later, her father, mother, etc. It all comes out in the wash by the end. I think the journey without all the subtext still works, though, and I am really curious about Stoppard's script. Did a copy ever make it to the web? Any legally available? Quasi-legally? It would be a neat read to see how someone who CAN write would have tackled this material.

 

[andrew markworthy]

With reference to Mr Ebert's comments quoted earlier in this thread, the books indeed caused little fuss in the UK. Over here the film has largely been given the thumbs down because it's too bland and doesn't make much sense unless you've already read the books.

It's perhaps pertinent to note that the books have also been adapted as a successful stage play in the UK. This used practically no props but instead relied on the audience's imagination to fill in the gaps. Thus proving the adage that if the script's a turkey, all you get by throwing lots of money at the special effects is an expensive turkey.

 

[Jason Hughes]

How on earth did they think Chris Weitz was the right guy to do this movie? He should stick to teen masturbation movies. Ugh.

Too bad this trilogy wasn't an obssession of Peter Jackson, I hate thinking about how good this would have turned out if he were involved. Granted if he were involved, the box office would probably end up being double (or more) and the running time would have easily been three hours (which still would have required leaving some things out, but at least it would have made sense - if I had never read the book, I would not have had any idea what was going on).

I will say that the casting of all the main characters was done very well (although all the Gyptions seemed corny to me).

 

[Craig P]

Not having read the book, my problem wasn't confusion, as such, more that the opening of the movie just didn't feel right. I didn't feel like I was able to settle in and find my bearings in the world before they were already off and running with the plot. I wasn't given a sense of what normalcy was for Lyra before her life was shaken up.

It largely settled in fine after the rescue by the Gyptians, although there are some bits that don't stand much scrutiny afterwards.

 

[Ken Chan]

There were many things wrong with this movie. (Although William Donohue can go stick it where the sun don't shine.)

One minor thing that hasn't been mentioned: there were no flesh wounds. One shot and poof-goes-the-daemon. Maybe they got a bulk discount from the effects house?

 

[Ray H]

I saw this earlier today. I haven't read the books (though I recently purchased them and plan to soon). Overall, I'll say that the movie is relatively entertaining. It's got some good moments and it looks great. Unfortunately, it was rather disappointing. The film is just structured so sloppily. Nothing flows naturally. Rather, entire characters appear on screen to deliver some long-winded expositional clues, disappear, and come back right when the story needs them. Case in point, what's up with the scene where Lord Asriel is captured? The film randomly cuts to a shot of Daniel Craig and his daemon trekking on some snowy mountain. Craig lets out a line to the effect of, "We better be careful. Mrs. Coulter's sure to send some baddies after us." The next thing we know, a bunch of guys jump out from behind some rocks and start attacking. He's captured and his fate is told rather inconsequentially. So why even have the scene? Just to have Daniel Craig fight some guys? Additionally, character moments feel rather forced. For example, one moment Lyra's having a grand old time with Mrs. Coulter. Then, rather suddenly, they get into an argument over her purse. Lyra stomps away, angrily shouting about how much she hates Mrs. Coulter. Where the heck did this come from?

And the ending was disappointing as well. Pretty much, the second that quiet moment between Lyra and Roger came up, I started thinking to myself, "Oh, no. They wouldn't dare end this here." And they did. It just feels more or less like the chopped the ending off. Maybe nothing important happens in the book, but the movie felt like it was building to a conclusion that just never came.

 

[Craig P]

Having now read the book... oy.

OK, I can now see why we get thrown into the plot, as Pullman does that in the book as well. However, the film makes a big mistake not doing something like what Pullman did to pull back and give the reader an overview of Lyra's life to date, and also motivate the concern over the Gobblers.

The re-ordering of Svalbard and the Experimental Station results in plot holes you can drive a truck through. In the movie, Lyra's entry to both locations doesn't withstand close scrutiny, while the book covers both credibly. I can only assume that the screenwriters (or someone over their head) didn't trust the source material, and assumed that they needed to build things up to the big climactic battle between the Tartars and the Gyptians/Witches. I heartily disagree with that assessment.

There's still a lot of good material onscreen, but they had the makings of a much better movie than the mediocrity that was released.