jbrown84
12-18-2007, 04:32 PM
http://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/new_line_cinema/the_golden_compass/_group_photos/dakota_blue_richards13.jpg
I remember several years ago when this was first being developed, Chris Weitz was set to direct, and he honorably stepped down, saying he wasn't ready to direct a movie of such scope. Well he should have stood by that decision. Weitz, whose previous credits are limited to About a Boy and the Down to Earth remake, is clearly in over his head with The Golden Compass.
New Line Cinema, desperate to recapture the magic of the Lord of the Rings, seemingly forgot the formula for success. They chose a director who completely lacked the pedigree for an epic fantasy, and they crammed the cast with as many names as possible. Do they forget that the biggest name in LOTR when it first came out was Elijah Wood? Or that the biggest star on-screen in the uber-successful first Narnia film was Tilda Swinton? What is going to attract people to theatres for a fantasy film is a great story put on screen with a little magic. But with the Golden Compass, the story is dull and the magic isn't there. Pullman seems to have stolen from everything from Herbert's DUNE to Dahl's Charlie and the Chocolate Factory and Ende's The Neverending Story.
I wanted to like The Golden Compass, despite the brewing controversy over anti-religious subtext. But alas, this tale just couldn't draw me in the way any of these other films and books did. The story is as cold as many of the landscapes of the film. The CG is not bad but nowhere does it come close to the groundbreaking level of Gollum in Lord of the Rings. The climatic battle scene is dark and flat and uninspired, with so many greater battles having been put to film before. I blame this directly on Weitz's inexperience.
Despite all this, Nicole Kidman (always great) is a welcome presence, doing the best she can with a fairly flat character. And despite ending rather abruptly with hardly a hint of closure, I'm intrigued at what might happen next--just a little. It's really no worse than the first couple Harry Potter's, and with better talent behind the camera, that franchise has improved in subsequent installments. Unfortunately for Pullman's followers, they may not get to see the rest of the story on screen after Compass's abysmal box office. I guess I'll have to read the books instead.
6/10 or C+
I remember several years ago when this was first being developed, Chris Weitz was set to direct, and he honorably stepped down, saying he wasn't ready to direct a movie of such scope. Well he should have stood by that decision. Weitz, whose previous credits are limited to About a Boy and the Down to Earth remake, is clearly in over his head with The Golden Compass.
New Line Cinema, desperate to recapture the magic of the Lord of the Rings, seemingly forgot the formula for success. They chose a director who completely lacked the pedigree for an epic fantasy, and they crammed the cast with as many names as possible. Do they forget that the biggest name in LOTR when it first came out was Elijah Wood? Or that the biggest star on-screen in the uber-successful first Narnia film was Tilda Swinton? What is going to attract people to theatres for a fantasy film is a great story put on screen with a little magic. But with the Golden Compass, the story is dull and the magic isn't there. Pullman seems to have stolen from everything from Herbert's DUNE to Dahl's Charlie and the Chocolate Factory and Ende's The Neverending Story.
I wanted to like The Golden Compass, despite the brewing controversy over anti-religious subtext. But alas, this tale just couldn't draw me in the way any of these other films and books did. The story is as cold as many of the landscapes of the film. The CG is not bad but nowhere does it come close to the groundbreaking level of Gollum in Lord of the Rings. The climatic battle scene is dark and flat and uninspired, with so many greater battles having been put to film before. I blame this directly on Weitz's inexperience.
Despite all this, Nicole Kidman (always great) is a welcome presence, doing the best she can with a fairly flat character. And despite ending rather abruptly with hardly a hint of closure, I'm intrigued at what might happen next--just a little. It's really no worse than the first couple Harry Potter's, and with better talent behind the camera, that franchise has improved in subsequent installments. Unfortunately for Pullman's followers, they may not get to see the rest of the story on screen after Compass's abysmal box office. I guess I'll have to read the books instead.
6/10 or C+