I saw it this week too. The visuals were very appealing and kept me interested throughout the movie. I haven’t read the books, but it was clear how rushed the movie was; it was the exact same with the Harry Potter movies.
Coulter was just confusing. I couldn’t figure out her motives at all. And although they make the point very clearly that what a person feels their daemon feels and vice versa, in the scene where she slaps her daemon across the face there is no indication she felt it. Yet when the window slammed on the monkey’s hand during Lyra’s escape earlier Coulter clearly stopped to hold her hand in pain. Does this mean a person can hurt their daemon without feeling it, it’s not really her daemon (presuming the lack of pain is the giveaway), the director forgot to include that reaction, or something else?
The movie did have faults as everyone here expressed already, but I went in expecting a visual treat and wasn’t disappointed. And yeah, I’m interested in reading the books now too.
I thought that was to get across how messed up and controlling she is- if part of her psyche disagrees with her, or has doubts, she’ll beat it into submission. She’s abusing herself rather than lose control.
I saw it recently mesel and found it a big disappointment for most of the reasons already listed - the actress who played Lyra was the only real positive, she nailed that role. Casting Ian McKellen’s voice as the bear was just laughable, almost wilful in its misinterpretation of the character. Iorek is meant to be a savage, inhuman beast; SirIan makes him sound like the ageing queen of the polar bears.
Interesting article about the making of the movie in the December edition of the Atlantic: How Hollywood Saved God. Basic thrust of the article is that the studio was just too afraid of the themes of the book to make a faithful adaptation. They were looking for a generic fantasy franchise that would draw people in, but didn’t want Pullman’s atheism, since they didn’t think atheism has broad appeal. As a result, the hard-core fans of the books aren’t happy with the movie. However, since that theme is such an important part of the Pullman’s creation, watering it down does major damage to the coherence of the movie, as several posters have commented, so the average movie-goer who’s not familiar with the books don’t find the movie very satisfying.
Part of the article involves an interview with Pullman about the movie. He sounds like an interesting fellow to have a chat with, and also sounds like he’s not at all happy with the adaptation’s lack of fidelity to his books, but won’t say so:
It sounds like the studio’s jitters over the atheism theme also caused them to reject Stoppard’s script. Minor nitpick to this earlier comment:
The Atlantic article indicates that the studio originally commissioned Stoppard to write the first script, and suggests that the Stoppard draft was more faithful to the story, but the studio was spooked by it and sat on the script for a year or so. It was Weitz who volunteered an outline, and the studio chose his version over Stoppard’s script, because he tried to finesse the atheism issue.
Weitz’s approach to the issue probably explains this comment:
Don’t let anyone ever get away with calling The Golden Compass a “bomb.” It’s a certified hit. Anyone who says otherwise needs to be smacked. We may well get the sequels.
Finally saw it today. Good stuff- the steampunk angle, Kidman’s gold lame’ form-fitting dress, Eva Green, a Chris Lee cameo, Dakota’s performance, AND A NEW KATE BUSH SONG. Negatives- it was quite rushed & could confuse anyone not familiar with the material.
And the atheism subtext could quite easily be tossed in favor of a Manichean one- The Authority (the term being used in the film without a hint that it means “God”) being the false Demiurge of Matter and Authoritarianism, with Dust being the manifestaton of the True God of Light and Liberty.