The Golden Compass

(as usual, no spoilers)

First I'd like to say I'm getting sick of the movies that don't end. I know GC is part of a trilogy (or whatever) but that's no excuse not to end the stupid movie.

I think the best part about that movie was the bears. They could talk (small joys, okay. leave me alone.) Is it just me or are there way too many child actresses out there with the name Dakota (yes, two is one too many)? It doesn't help that they look alike.

Okay. What did I think of the movie? I'm not sure. That's the truth. Normally movies like this make me want to read the books they originated from. Not so with this one. Except for the parts with the bears and the talking animals (I like how the daemons and humans interact), the whole thing left me a little indifferent.

I think if it had ended or if I was able to watch the whole thing in one long run, I'd have an opinion. Actually, that's not all together true since LoTR and Pirates didn't end but I loved all the
installments. Though the ending of Dead Man's Chest did annoy me mildly, I still liked the movie.

Basically it's a story that is leaving all the explanation to the end, which is fine and all -- I'm a big fan of that since that's the way I write -- but God only knows how long it will take them to do the
sequels. I don't want another Matrix fiasco.

I say, it's up to you whether you want to see it or not. I, however, cannot recommend seeing it or not seeing it... that whole indifference thing.

D. Renee Bagby<br />
Building New Realms of Passion<br />
http://dreneebagby.com

Philip Pullman is not a great writer. He is a good children’s writer, granted. His Dark Materials is two thirds of a good trilogy for children. But, like J.K. Rowling, Dan Brown and the rest, he is only great if you haven’t read many books. His Dark Materials may deal with astrophysics, metaphysics, atheism and Paradise Lost, but that does not automatically make it worth reading. The same goes for the first big-screen adaptation of one of Pullman’s books. The Golden Compassmight be smarter than Harry Potter, but that doesn’t make it The Unbearable Lightness of Being for ’tweens. It’s Narnia for atheists, no matter what Pullman says. Like the books, the best thing in it is the talking polar bears.

The story centres on a little girl named Lyra Belacqua (Dakota Blue Richards). She is an orphan, raised by the Dons at Oxford in a parallel universe. Lyra’s Oxford is much like the one we know from Inspector Morse, only here it is as if 1900 never ended, a world that decided to stick with the dirigible and the horse-drawn carriage. Lyra’s uncle is named Lord Asriel. He is played by Daniel Craig, so we can’t be sure if he’s a goodie or a baddie (Craig did once play Ted Hughes after all). Asriel comes to Oxford to announce he’s heading off on an expedition to the North Pole. He wants to study a phenomenon known as Dust that seems to point to the existence of other worlds (like ours). A kinda-Catholic-Church-type authority, called The Magisterium (so as to sound secular), doesn’t like the idea of Dust one little bit. Lyra (being an inquisitive kid) determines to follow Asriel.

What happens next involves Nicole Kidman, a monkey, several talking polar bears and a great many “daemons” (“daemons”, in Lyra’s world, are animals which manifest a person’s soul. Nicole Kidman’s “daemon”, for instance, is a monkey. The talking polar bears are just talking polar bears). To say all this is nonsense is beside the point. The world we see in the movie feels about as plausible as it needs to feel, and everyone acts like they belong, so – We go along for the ride. We follow Lyra to Norway, to the frozen wastes and magnetic North. We meet her friends: Iorek Byrnison, the talking bear who speaks with Gandalf’s voice; Serafina Pekkala, the sexy witch who looks like James Bond’s wife; Lee Scorseby, the cowboy (?). And Lyra’s “daemon”, Pantalaimon, who can be whatever he likes.

Dakota Blue Richards, in spite of her gormless name, delivers a good performance. She is not the sawn-off wooden plank that Daniel Radcliffe was when he started, and she can play wilful and selfish as well as stalwart and brave. In the books and the movie she comes across as more Punky Brewster than Harry Potter’s kid sister. It’s of benefit to a young actress not to have to be too innocent or sweet, and Lyra is the kind of role Jodie Foster would have excelled at back when Bugsy Malone marked the high-point of her career.

Daniel Craig and Nicole Kidman have similar fun with their roles, playing up to the moral-vicissitudes in their characters, keeping the audience guessing. Kidman, though seemingly determined to star in every movie at the moment, is seductive and cruel enough to remind you she’s still a star for a reason. Watching her bewitch and intimidate Lyra in quick succession is fun the same way Angelica Huston was fun to watch as a witch (in The Witches); it’s like watching royalty be bad – seeing Princess Grace kick a puppy. Daniel Craig isn’t Bond in The Golden Compass, but he has Bond’s certainty, his blood-scented charisma. Asriel only appears in a handful of scenes in the movie, but he has a Captain Hook/Wendy affect on Lyra, inducing awe to quash her pluckiness.

So is The Golden Compass bad? Not bad, I’d say, just passable. It isn’t that His Dark Materials are bad books; they just aren’t all they’re cracked-up to be. Ours is an age where most people don’t read much, and any writer who’s semi-literate can be lauded as the next Dostoyevsky. But plaudits don’t make a man, and great expectations don’t make a movie. The Golden Compass does aim higher than Harry Potter, but with book’s atheism anaesthetised the story only shows as that much more kiddy. We’re in the land of talking polar bears, and sexy witches, and incongruous cowboys. It’s not an adult world; it’s Narnia. At least C.S. Lewis knew his books were for children.

BOTTOM LINE: A convoluted mess of a film that seems half to set up an impending trilogy and half telling a self-contained story without the running time to flesh either side out. However, the film is visually striking with some nice sequences but at the end of the day it doesn't hold together.

THE GOOD: "The Golden Compass" has been championed as the next "Lord Of The Rings" by its studio maker New Line Cinema and much effort has gone in to making this just as visually striking and epic as those films as possible. One of the things you'll notice straight away is a backstory prologue which works similiarly to the one in "The Fellowship of the Ring" where the world is setup and we understand where we're at and what's been happening. It's done quite well and manages to impart some imaginative concepts such as the idea that there are countless universes with countless "Earths" but all slightly different. Immediately we are told by the narrator that we are not in our world but hers, a place where your spirits do not reside in your body but along side you as an animal. It's kind of nice to have an animal along side you as your conscience! We are then introduced to the Magesterium, an authoritative body that tells everyone what to think and what to say. This is the source of controversy for this film as the Magesterium is a figurative representation of the Catholic Church. I'd like to see the parallels in the book, which are apparently stronger, but even in the film, it's obvious who they are, even down to the way they're dressed and the cathedral-like buildings they inhabit. We are then introduced to Lord Asriel who is on a quest to uncover 'dust', a substance which links us in with the parallel universes. The Magesterium considers this heresy and wants him charged but they cannot stop his expedition to uncover the truth. We then follow the exploits of Asriel's niece, Lyra, who is given a golden compass which when used properly allows you to see the truth in any given situation. Lots of interesting story and plot points here to make a magestical film and at times you get the feeling that director Chris Weitz tried very hard to get that on screen. Much of the imagery is fabulous. The scenes early at a university are grand, as is shots of a zepplin-like aircraft flying over cities, and the battle sequences featuring tough armed bears and Magesterium guards.

THE BAD: Perhaps the film needed to be three hours long. The amount of detail in the plot is so dense that the 2-hour running time of the film ends up making the story too convoluted. It's not until well over an hour in to the film that we finally get what the journey is! And because in the end not much screen time is spent on it, you get the feeling of being cheated out of a story. Lord Of The Rings got away with it because we all knew that there was more, and on top of that, Peter Jackson did a fabulous job to make us not feel cheated out of an ending. "The Golden Compass" on the other hand is forced and contrived by comparison in this regard. The major problem of course is that the filmmakers wanted to turn this in to a series of films so the first half of the film feels more like a set up for a trilogy rather than for an individual film and at almost every turn, we are reminded that there is 'more to come'. So when the ending that is not an ending arrives (just like in the first Lord of the Rings film) suggesting more story is to follow, you really just don't care. This disjointment between what the story is and where it's going ultimately kills the film because it doesn't reel you in. So much is set up, but also glossed over. I haven't even mentioned Nicole Kidman's angle in the story, or the witches story. Daniel Craig is tragically under-utilised in a role that seems to set up the film in one direction but never goes there (well, at least until the proposed sequel). The references to the Catholic Church are intriguing but the point gets lost among the other storylines. And an entire subplot involving an armed bear and his quest to reclaim his throne in the ice just seems out of place, at least the way it was integrated in to the story. I wanted to see more trickiness with the bad guys and how the good guys beat them, not polar bears slugging it out. And despite my early praise for the film's images, it strikes me as a little odd that they're not as grand as those in Lord of the Rings, especially considering $180 million was spent on this film as opposed to the $94 million spent on each individual Lord of the Rings film.

RATING: 6/10

Todd Murphy <br />
http://www.allaboutmovies.net