I’m wondering…I came a cross a kid’s book on it…looks like a neat, “steampunk” type sci-fi flick.
Did you like it? It must have come and gone-I don’t remember it at all.
It was very pretty eye-candy, and fun to watch, but not more than that.
The books came before the movie. I never read the books, but I saw the movie.
The annoying thing about the movie is that I didn’t know before I saw it that it was going to have a “To be continued” ending - and they never actually made the sequel.
The only thing I got out of seeing the movie is that it’s a nice memory of spending some time with my mother (who has since passed away), but I wouldn’t really recommend watching it now. It would be kind of a waste of time since the film is essentially an unfinished story.
The books are worth reading, though they aren’t really for kids, even though they’re about kids. Philip Pullman is a highly respected author.
The movie is okay, but there’s barely any character development, so it can be hard to really care about anything that happens.
The books are horrible - they are really strange - frankly far too complex for the children’s books they purport to be - they are probably best described as “teen lit” but are wrong for that genre as well. But the adolencent protagonist makes them teen lit. To me “His Dark Materials” series (the Golden Compass triology) are the 1990 versions of the Thomas Covenant series. Unlikeable dreck. (however, the series won numerous awards, so critics don’t agree with me).
But, His Dark Materials, like Thomas Covenant, did have a big following - not really among teens or kids, and Hollywood decided that in the Harry Potter era, they had a great children’s fantasy series they could spin three movies out of. They tried. The art direction is cool, but the story is confusing enough in the first book (and gets fair worse) to translate to film for kids.
Phillip Pullman, the author of the books, is pretty anti religious, and the books and movie carry out that theme in the opinion of many (it isn’t hard to see Pullman’s anti-religiousness in the books, any more than its hard to see the Christianity running through Narnia), creating additional issues in its release.
I loved the books. I saw the movie years ago and thought it was okay. I rented it again after reading the books and couldn’t get through it. I guess I had read it too recently and was still too in love with it to stand the changed details. I hate to be all “the book is better!” because it’s such a cliche, but I really think the books are wonderful and the movie is just decent.
The wife and I saw the movie but did not read the books. We liked it okay and were a bit disappointed that sequels were not made.
The first two books in the trilogy are excellent. The film was pretty average though, IMHO, easy enough to sit down in front of but a bit of a failure given the rich source material. It did generally look good, visually, and Nicole Kidman was an inspired casting choice for Mrs Coulter. Countering that the CGI bears looked awful and Sir Ian McKellan’s voice was completely wrong for Iorek’s character. The ending of the film was pretty bad - it weakly points to a sequel that never materialised (this was acknowledged as such on release IIRC) so doesn’t really ‘end’ anything; and it also made some lame Hollywood attempt to elide over the death of one of the young characters in the book.
Agree on the above in all particulars. I’ll add that the third book, not beloved by even most fans, is IMHO solid enough, just not as good as the first two. Honestly as such things go, IMO His Dark Materials are better written and conceived in just about every respect than the Harry Potter series. Though interestingly enough ( to me, anyway ) Rowling comes across as quite likeable and Pullman as a difficult putz.
But then I once sorta liked the Thomas Covenant novels as well*, so take that as you will ;).
- Couldn’t read them anymore, way too masochistic for my tastes these days.
#1 for liked the books, didn’t like the movie. I saw the movie with my son and his wife, and would have walked out if I’d been alone. No character development, just set pieces to show off some of the highlights/action scenes from the book.
The movie was gorgeous and the casting was excellent, but I didn’t think it was a good adaptation and didn’t care that the sequels didn’t get produced. Anyone who read the books after seeing the movie would be in for a lot of surprises.
Didn’t see the movie, liked the first two books, thought the third was very much like Thomas Convenant as written by Joss Whedon in a depression and edited by Lewis Black on a bender.
I’m still not sure if I *liked *the third book or not, clearly.
Definitely not a book series for small kids. Depending on the kid, around 14 or 15 is about where I’d start considering recommending it.
Saw it, impressive visuals, was impressed by Nicole Kidman for some reason, and while I didn’t love it I didn’t hate it, BUT, it ended on a cliffhanger and I was little enough invested that I had no desire to read the books to see how it turned out and didn’t much care that they didn’t make a sequel.
Kind of like the Lemony Snicket movie.
I thought all of the books were great. The first was my favorite, by far, while the 3rd was my least favorite. (Though I thought the very end of the 3rd was quite good.)
I’ve been bored with a lot of fiction lately, but these books still stick out in my mind, for whatever reason. Give them a read.
I saw the movie after I read 2 1/2 of the books.
I agree, the movie is pretty, but it’s been (understandably) changed a bit from the books. And ending on a cliffhanger is a little aggravating.
Gave up on the books about half-way through the last one. The POV character was underground or something, and it was just interminable. The ending is also kind of bad (I skipped to the end, and I was furious).
Ditto. I like the first two books (I’m not on the fence about the 3rd - hated it, total cop-out), and thought Craig and especially Kidman were well cast for the movie, but it just didn’t engage the audience. It suffers from Hollywood copycat syndrome - they liked one film like this, give them more. (Which is why we’ve got Beautiful Creatures, City of Bones and other Twilight-type films in the offing.
Yeah, the anti-religiousness was entirely deliberate AIUI - Pullman set out to write an anti-Narnia out of a hatred of Christianity that’s matched by only a few individuals around here, some of whom look like a ratS kerT ytiruces draug , up to and including having God turn up and be a senile idiot.
I found the film agreeable enough to watch without being amazingly so, but was amused to find out that the “Golden Compass” referred to in the source text is not the alethiometer itself but a reference to the draughtsman’s instrument that God is depicted using in a famous paintingby Blake.
Finally! You’re the first person I’ve ever found, who agrees with me that the books are awful. They’re an unreadable mess, and I couldn’t follow the plot at all.
As for the movie, it was pretty average – clearly a rushed attempt to cash in on the success of the Lord of the Rings / Harry Potter / Narnia films that were being made around the same time.
That said though, Nicole Kidman was perfectly cast and makes an excellent villian.
The critics may not agree with you, but I do. I disliked the first book but tried to plow on considering how well-liked they were, but only made it through another half of a book. Beyond the anti-religious thing readers are unrelentlessly bludgoned with, Lyra is one of the most unlikable protagonists I’ve ever encountered.
I enjoyed the film and was disappointed that the other two were never made. Maybe the whole series can be made as a HBO miniseries at some point in the future. The film was de-fanged in a futile attempt to avoid getting grief from the Catholic church and wound up pleasing nobody.