The Golden Compass (2007 Video Game) User Reviews (15)

I barely made it half hour in ...

[diaaasky · 5/10 · 25 December 2023]

And my score reflect that. I was looking for to seeing this with my niece for the hollywood but it's clear the adaption of the children books are lost.

Looking at the cast, I sense the money was given to the major stars like Kidman and Daniel Craig. Speaking of which, Kidman looks beautiful. Very stunning. So stunning in fact, I wounder if she was just paid for that reason alone.

I never seen an actor/actress who read their lines with little to no emotions and made it seemed like they were the main character.

What I found interesting was how there was a broken wine glass in the middle of the floor and no one noticed. Literally, it meant people was sitting /standing on broken glass.

The cgi characters was horribly rendered and the voices weren't that great.

Bless those who made it all the way through but I stop once Kidman started yelling embarrassingly at the young girl.

I had enough and bailed.

good acting, bad screenplay

[imdbcrowell07 · 4/10 · 10 December 2007]

Richards and Kidman are great as Lyra and Mrs. Coulter. The problem with this movie is the screenplay, which tries to cram four hours worth of movie into two. There are lots of non-sequiturs and illogical happenings due to over-zealous condensation of the long, complicated book. In the book, Lyra pulls the fire alarm at the concentration camp, and that's thoroughly believable; in the movie, she illogically knows how to set up the controls of the soul-cutting device so that it blows up. A long scene that begins the book is condensed so severely that it doesn't make sense -- nobody notices a broken wineglass on the floor. Important relationships between the characters are shown way too quickly to be believable. For instance, we're supposed to be touched when Lyra apologizes to Iorek Byrnison for volunteering him for single combat against the king of the bears, but instead it just comes off flat, because she's only had about 37 seconds on screen to develop her friendship with him. Likewise her relationship with Lee Scoresby is set up so quickly that you start to wonder if he's a child molester.

This is just a setup for the sequel - and I'm angry about it!

[ThomasGaryHoward · 2/10 · 14 December 2007]

This otherwise *spectacular* movie was completely *ruined* by its obscene lack of closure. The entire movie was just a setup for the sequel. I left the movie theater angry that Hollywood now relies on sequels and trilogies. So much that now they flagrantly pitch teasers and hang plots until the next installment. I do not recommend seeing The Golden Compass until the trilogy is complete and you can view the entire story. Other than that, you should love the movie. I'm not typically a fantasy fan-boy but I thought the story was very original with fantastic characters. I rarely go to an actual theater because I believe it should be an experience worthy of the money. This movie really delivered in terms of sound, action, and plot. My reality was completely suspended while we learned about this other world. Unfortunately, it took me in but didn't deliver an ending that I could walk out with feeling it was worth my money. In the end, Hollywood just took my first of three easy payments. But there there was no money back guarantee.

Ignore the critics, and go see the movie!

[rpierce23 · 8/10 · 11 December 2007]

Do not let the negative fanfare discourage you. The film, while it may not live up to the fullest expectations of the avid readers (neither did the last two LOTR chapters, for that matter), still maintains a view worthy status. It's true that some of the plot seems a bit twisted around, character development is not to its height, and the story leaves off with half a dozen chapters remaining...but honestly, what do you expect in a two hour film.

What remains are the essentials. The basic element and philosophy of the film, the basic character status, and plenty of action excitement and heart wrenching joy are prevalent throughout; regardless of its shortcomings. Go see the film, and enjoy...

Shiny and Hollow, Great and Terrible...

[jamison1066 · 4/10 · 7 December 2007]

On our 12-hour drive to our honeymoon destination, my wife and I listened with rapt fascination to the audiobook of The Golden Compass. We both agreed that it was a wildly imaginative tale with colorful and interesting characters engaged in grand plots and battles.

To put it mildly, the movie version fell disastrously short.

Giving credit where due, the movie was visually dazzling. Well-rendered daemons and special effects were just what I had imagined them to be. However, the director and screenwriter fell into the George Lucas trap and viewers who knew the story and were expecting some semblance of a faithful representation were left sorely disappointed - Bringing all the graphic whizbang Hollywood can muster while ignoring the pivotal points and most of the character development.

Don't expect it to be like the book... in fact, don't expect much at all.

Excellent and Thought-Provoking

[kelmore-2 · 10/10 · 1 January 2008]

I've not read the books, yet, but this movie will see me in the book store tomorrow. There is nothing overtly anti-religious in the movie, though any challenge to authority or dogma (which this movie champions) tends to be interpreted as anti-religious.

In addition, the performances turned in by the cast are nothing short of stellar, and this includes the voice-overs for the CGI characters. And speaking of CGI, there are very few scenes without CGI. And of that CGI, it is among the best I've seen so far. Some of it is simply eye-popping, especially the attention to detail. For example, we've all seen how, as we walk though snow, the snow scatters ahead of us as we step, sometimes rolling into little balls. Such details are not lost in this movie.

There are violent scenes in the movie, along with startling and scary moments. Small children might be upset by some of this, but my 7 and 9 year old did very well with it.

Stunning disappointment

[jwrtjp · 2/10 · 6 January 2008]

I don't know who would be disappointed by this movie more, someone who hadn't read the book and therefore would be completely confused as to what was going on, or someone who knew the original material, and could see how badly it was turned into a movie. The headlong rush through elements of the story make this film difficult to watch. While all movies that are based on books must by necessity eliminate certain subplots, the decision to reorder the events in the story, and make some elements out of whole cloth, are the earmarks of a bad project. And chopping the last bit off, just to set up a sequel? Disgusting. This movie actually made my wife angry.

The opening voice-over, in which the viewer is simply told elements that took the reader chapters to appreciate, is a punch in the stomach to anyone who read the book, and insults the viewer as well. I imagine this was added later on, when the clumsy filmmakers realized that their product had action that conveyed no meaning.

Visually, the movie is an achievement—the design of the sets, costumes, characters, and action is wonderful. And the casting is good—the characters do well with the parts that they are given. However, the lousy screen writing and directing doom this project.

Terrible, Terrible, Terrible - What A Mess!

[jazz_jeff · 1/10 · 1 July 2008]

Dear lord, what a mess the makers and writers made out of this film.

It started off interesting with hope then very quickly it descended into a mess of re-written scripts TOTALLY different to the book. The scenes themselves looked beautiful but everything else after that was a complete mess. Plots were left unexplained, the reasons for many, many characters existents and actions were not even explained or touched on - as well as their very actions being completely changed or invented totally from thin air! You were left wondering many a time "why is this happening" - "who did that happen?" - "what has this got to do with the story" - what the heck is going on?" and "would someone please explain why ALL of the characters are doing what they are doing? And that's just the tip of the iceberg...

The makers of this film TOTALLY took a meat cleaver to the story. Cut huge and I mean HUGE chunks out, totally twisted scenes around to an unbelievable extent, let characters live that actually die, NEVER explained backgrounds of anything! Leaving out the fact that they rewrote the whole book and made a complete shambles of it, just as a non-reader, many have commented to me in the cinema, on the way out and afterward to this present day (June 2008) the equivalent of "you could tell they pulled the good guts out of it".

Dear god, if your going to make a film from a book, stick with the book or make up one of your own completely. Don't waste our time and your own by buying the rights to a book and then ripping it to shreds and sticking it back together again in an unintelligible mess. What is the point of buying the rights to a book in the first place if your going to totally re-write it (and screw it up in the process too to boot)?

I understand that the makers were spineless and cowered to the religious nuts by removing anything that made any intelligence to those with brains. The effect of this cowardice left behind a film that was a total waste of time, an insult to the original writer of the book and a waste of talent that should have been used better in a greater film than this mixed, unexplained unmitigated disaster.

If there is going to be sequels and going by this film, I hope to all heavens there is NOT - can we the audience have a change of makers, scriptwriters and a producer, a director with a brain and at least someone with guts to stand up against the zealous religious right.

To sum up: what a complete mess and waste of talent.

This film could have been so, so so much better.

Rating: one out of ten.

utter piece of ---- (since i cant type bad words)

[englishmf · 1/10 · 7 February 2008]

the director (who also it seems, wrote the screenplay) should be drawn and quartered for his adaptation. He has completely killed the complexity of the the characters and their relationships to one another, re wrote key scenes and used characters out of their original context. I realize that this is something that needs to be done to shorten novels for run time, but the choices made were horrible.)

I read the three his his dark materials books before seeing the movie and was so angered afterward my girlfriend had to yell at me to shut up. How could a complete tool like this director take such amazing source material and turn it in to nonsensical rubbish? The movie needed to be longer, and could have been handled so much better. My only hope is that this douche does not helm the next two movies.

Comparable to LOTR

[bobshock-1 · 9/10 · 15 December 2007]

Really good movie!

Ignore the evangelicals who think the movie is trying to turn their children into satanists, or even worse, atheists!

Good character development for such a complex story.

Over-the-top CGI effects. You really believe in the polar-bear type characters because of their realistic movement in some very complexly choreographed scenes.

One of the rare chances to see a strong young female character in any movie. Can't wait to read the books!

Maybe a little too violent for the younger kids.

Great cast, some good CG. But that's really all

[giorgio-croce · 2/10 · 18 January 2008]

Beign a great fan of the harry potter series I was really thrilled to see another fantasy novel on the big screen. However the disappointment was the rule in this movie since it fails in many important aspects of basic filmography: Script: The writer really does not know is Job. Many scenes appear useless without any real purpose to exist. Of course, having many useless scenes in it You have not the time to build up a convincing stream of events, so, many characters know things they should not know and friendships start without a reason appearing dull and quite stupid without any depth of their own. This is true for everyone, from the gypsies to the bears. Only Pantalaimon seems up to the hype. Maybe because You do not need a scene to introduce it.... Talking about dumbness, it is memorable the moment in which Serafina Pekkala appears for the very first time and, in only two seconds, puts Lyra on a quest to prove herself with the ethylometer(which has always got the same, very lame sequence. just like cheap cartoons...).

And that takes us to the second BIG, HUGE mistake: Timing: Here you do not know if the the director, the mounter, or both are to blame but, to put it simply, the movie does not have pace. Often the scenes seem "glued" together more then in a stream of events. In a second You find Yourself running for Your life, the second after, the same character finds himself in total dullness...characters often know things they should not yet know since no one told them. In the resulting avalanche of events the viewer is completely stoned by a watery soup of bear roars(which, like the ethyliometer is always the same sequence), ice, gypsies, ships and witches.

In the end, if You take pace away from music You get noise. And that goes for movies too.

The strong points of the movie are: Casting CG The second point often fails.Mind me, the scenarios are beautiful but there are many scenes where the animals are out of proportion. Even the bear, which is beautiful, seems to change size over time.

Having such a big budget with an excellent casting puts the blame on the director or the production. Surely Chris Weitz wasn't up o the job and the result was pretty sluggish. Given this experience I think that he really should stick to the "about a boy" and "american pie" series, leaving the transposition of books to more talented directors.

I also believe that the production is to blame since it is really easy to see that the movie it self was badly cutted to not offend anyone.

Makes a great case for a sequel

[paulromney03 · 9/10 · 24 December 2007]

An impressive achievement. I expected the worst after Peter Jackson's egotistical butchery of The Lord of the Rings, but Chris Weitz's adaptation of Northern Lights is exemplary in its deference to the text. Obviously no film can capture all the nuances of a rich literary narrative, and this one misses a lot in its brisk progress through Philip Pullman's ingenious plot. I felt that the Gyptians in particular were given short shrift. They constitute a masterly collective characterization which depends on dialogue, and the screenplay cut this too drastically to convey the full flavour. But the two other major characterizations in this volume of the trilogy -- Lyra and Mrs Coulter -- were well served by the screenplay and brilliantly realized by Dakota Blue Richards and Nicole Kidman. The musical score and the cinematography are both ravishing but always complement the narrative, which is unexpectedly gripping and moving.

The film as a whole is well cast with the exception, perhaps, of Ian McKellen as the armoured bear Iorek Byrnison. His diction is too mellifluous to capture the character's rough edges, and my wife, who has not read the book, was irresistibly reminded of Gandalf. The only major flaw, however, is the ghastly sappy song which crushes one's mood as the post-movie credits commence: they might as well have cut to one of the interminable Coke commercials that preceded the film. We fled.

Bottom line: a well-told, well-acted story, which achieves unexpected tension and pathos. With Daniel Craig, Eva Green and Sam Elliott waiting in the wings for their moments of glory, I want more. But a lot will depend on finding the right actor to play Will Parry.

Lyra Potter goes to Dante's Hell.

[SimonHeide · 3/10 · 17 March 2008]

I wasn't sure that I should comment on this movie as I had mistaken it for a more "mature" movie and therefore was greatly disappointed. I think I was led on by the fact that it stars Daniel Craig and Nicole Kidman but they played a very small part of this movie. I think that Craig was seen less than 10 minutes altogether. Instead you have a 14 year old girl as the protagonist who is resourceful to the point where it becomes ridiculous. Therefore this movie cannot be compared to LOTR. Really! This is more in category with Harry Potter; childish and with the same strange mix of mythologies.

The story was told in a very hurried fashion. Plots and characters were introduced with a minimum of explanation as if they couldn't stand a more thorough scrutiny. Sometimes bad movies still has entertainment value but I can't say this about this movie. I would not recommend it to anybody except maybe to those who are looking for something in the before mentioned Harry Potter genre and doesn't concern themselves with character development.

Regards Simon

Ps. When you read reviews that gives max score check to see if the user has made more than one review. If not consider the possibility of a lobbyist. If you agree consider putting this post scriptum at the bottom at your own reviews.

Spiritual- not religious

[CaramellaButterscotch · 9/10 · 7 January 2009]

We rented this movie and for one I can tell it would have been GREAT on a proper movie screen. It was still good on our flat screen, however. It was so much fun to watch and I thought "all parents would want their kids to see this" until the next day - today- when I looked it up and lo and behold- all this CONTROVERSY! Geez! I was really surprised! It was inspiring and uplifting and adventurous- all the things you think of with a really well done fantasy. I wonder if all that fuss was made about Peter Pan- 40 years ago!! Doubt it- as the "religious right" immoral majority didn't get so much press back then. Really! What about Cinderella and whoever that little lady who "whistles while she works" with all the birds singing with her. I guess that is heresy too! Anyway- Great movie- good for chilluns and even my husband enjoyed it. We look forward to the sequel and I certainly will check out the book series.. Aren't there FAR WORSE movies and books out there for the "Church" to get mad at?

Not intended as a spoiler - Questioning Content

[ronb42 · 22 December 2007]

I have 3 young girls who might be interested in seeing this movie but, I am concerned about the content. The eldest is 14, the youngest being 4; they have all been raised in the church and the last thing I want is to take them to a movie that would discount what they have been taught.

I would suspect that many parents would be interested in this matter.

According to snopes.com The 2007 film 'The Golden Compass' based on books with anti-religious themes.

HTTP://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/compass.asp

I would like to hear some opinions from people who have seen this movie. For those who don't know, snopes is a site that has explanations for urban legends.