3
(dealings with the soul, vague allusions to the church)
7
(mild violence)
4
(might be worth seeing, might be worth skipping)
Phillip Pullman has plenty of fans, but he also has a notorious reputation. He has much disdain for authors I respect and is known to be outspoken against my faith. As a result I had little interest in seeing "The Golden Compass" initially. I was eventually convinced to see it for the purposes of being able to talk about it in a review. I wouldn't go so far as to say I was pleasantly surprised, but neither am I completely put off by what is in the story.
Pullman's reality includes many parallel realities connected by something called Dust. In one such reality the souls of humans are animal spirits known as “daemons.” An organization known as the Magisterium controls civilization and wants only their version of truth to exist. This “truth” excludes the existence of Dust so when Lord Asriel brings photographic evidence of the existence of Dust with a request for funding to venture to the other realities it reveals the Magisterium feels threatened.
Lyra is a young orphan and niece to Asriel. She is excited by the findings of her uncle and upset at the Magisterium's attempts to assassinate him. Barely escaping from their clutches she embarks on an adventure to the North. Along the way she uncovers the secret of the “gobblers” who are suspected of stealing children including her own best friend. Lyra's mission becomes a rescue of the kids who are part of an invasive experiment.
Pullman's universe is interesting and magical. He has a number of enjoyable fantasy elements rich in depth and complexity. The movie gets these ideas across without being heavy-handed about it. I appreciate that about it; viewers need to pay attention and think about what's going on in order to make all the proper connections. My one complaint, minor as it might be, is that if you don't know going into it that “Dust” is different from the typical dust, and you happen to miss the line that introduces it as such then some of the early dialogue may be hard to put into proper context. Why should the dust in Asriel's image be such a big deal? Because it's "Dust" not "dust," but while you can read a difference because of my use of capitalization, you don't get that just hearing the word spoken.
If there's one thing I really like about this film it's the clockwork design. A lot of the technology is reminiscent of steampunk and is intriguing in its uses. From mechanical spy bugs to airships that look like a cross between a blimp and an old-timey rocket I enjoy seeing the designs. It can feel uneven, though. There are a number of stylistic influences not all of which feel like natural expressions.
Dakota Richards does a good job with her role as young Lyra. She's cute, tough, and believable despite having virtually no previous acting experience that I've seen. A number of more famous names show up including Daniel Craig, Nicole Kidman, and even Christopher Lee. The characters feel realistic even when they are interacting with an unrealistic environment. The main exception is the airship captain. As much as I like Sam Elliott his extreme western persona feels forced and out of place.
CG is used a lot to create the impossible elements of the fantasy universe. For the most part it sells well through there are some moments, particularly with the animals (most notably the monkey) that look cartoony. The ice bears tend to look quite good as do the airships and other elements.
I'm not especially enthralled with the music here, but that song in the end credits.... oh my aching earbones. How did a song this horrendous get chosen for a major motion picture? I can suffer through some bad music in movie credits, but this one I couldn't shut off quick enough. The sound design sometimes leaves something to be desired as well.
Put everything together and you have a film that's enjoyable but not really impressive. Ultimately it lacks power in the emotions and themes it tries to deliver. The focus on Dust later in the story can actually be a little annoying, some of the story developments don't work as well as they should, and we clearly leave before the story is finished due to this being the first part of a series which has yet to be continued.
Morality
This is about on par with other fantasies that have been coming out like "The Chronicles of Narnia" and "Lord of the Rings." There is conflict such as people being shot and smacked around, but there is little to no blood. None of it is particularly graphic.
There is very little strong language.
Sexuality and nudity are completely nil.
Spirituality
I'm aware of Pullman's religious beliefs and have heard that they are presented much more strongly in the books than they are here. The director has taken some criticism for omitting too much of this from his adaptation. As a result there isn't a lot here that is directly spiritual, but there is a lot that can be inferred which is what I will focus on. I prefer not to criticize something I haven't read/seen myself (which is not to say I'm against sharing my thoughts on why I would be disinterested in reading/seeing something) so I won't go into detail about what I've been told is in the book series. Nor will I encourage a boycott of this film or the books. If what you hear about here makes you want to see the film to form your own judgment then by all means, please do so. If you are disinterested after hearing my opinion (and/or that of others) then I won't think less of you for choosing to watch something else.
The first thing that struck me is that the animal companions are called “daemons” which when spoken sounds like “demons.” My first impression was that the film put forth the notion that demons are friendly, helpful sorts so I can't help but think that other Christians might think the same thing initially. When I realized this was not the message being presented as these are not “demons” in any religious sense at all, most of my criticism of the ideas presented here vanished though Christian parents may feel the need to clarify these points with their young viewers. If you still have doubts look up what a daemon is.
The Magisterium seems to be a representation of the church, more specifically the Catholic church. They are afraid of free thinkers, act as thought police, knowingly hide the real truth so that only what they WANT the truth to be is presented, and aren't above using force to achieve their ends (sounds like politically influenced American media). If that's all you consider then I can see why such an attack on the bride of Christ would be offensive to many.
Consider this. What if all this had been presented by a Christian rather than an atheist? Would you have the same reaction? The church is not infallible and not everyone who claims to be a part of the church truly knows God. Christ came down hard on the religious leaders of his day. Paul had harsh words to say to some of the churches to whom he spoke, and John's prophecies are not exactly good news for all churches. Remember the church of Laodicea? There is no sin in criticizing the religious practices of men. Jesus was killed not by atheists or even pagans but by religious leaders who did what they did in the name of God. Would they be above reproach for what they did if they had been labeled “the church?” No, Jesus would still have had to pray for forgiveness over them saying “they know not what they do.”
If people, be they religious church leaders or otherwise, are suppressing what they know to be true so that they can get something out of their version of “truth” then they deserve to be called out on it. That doesn't mean people are evil for being wrong, though. It also doesn't mean that people of faith are purposefully misleading people with nefarious intent if they don't at the drop of a hat buy into whatever a critic is selling. Just because you disagree doesn't mean you're right.
The whole notion of Christianity being a direct copy of Egyptian mythologies is laughable, and not one person has been able to present me with enough evidence to cause me to question my stance (because I choose to do my own research instead of just taking their word for it). If you present that idea to me and have no evidence beyond something you read once on the internet to back it up, then you turn around and critique me for suppressing the actual truth in favor of what I claim to be true, don't expect me to take you seriously.
All of that is to illustrate that there is room for criticism of the church as an earthly organization. I support taking a hard look at the practices of men who may very well be serving their own hidden agendas behind a fascade of love and charity, but that doesn't mean that every conspiracy theory, critique, and argument against the church automatically gets a free pass.
Final Thoughts
There are some things I like about "The Golden Compass." I was moderately entertained but was far from blown away. Check it out if you're looking for some fantasy adventure, just know that it's not the best that's available.
Buying Guide
"The Golden Compass" offers more buying choices than I expected. While reviews of the movie are plentiful, I found precious little info that will be helpful for the kinds of buying guides I like to write, and mine is the bare-bones single disc DVD which is perhaps the least helpful edition I could possibly own. As I'm not willing to invest in any of the better editions I'll give you the rudimentary details my research turned up and, of course, tell you all I can about the one I do have.
The single-disc DVD appears to be available in both widescreen (detailed below) and "full screen." A Wal-Mart exclusive (which APPEARS to be this same 1-disc edition) comes with a Beanie Baby.
A 2-disc DVD offers a commentary, several behind-the-scenes features, and some other goodies. A Best Buy exclusive offers a 3rd disc though I can't find any details about what's on it.
A Blu-ray appears to be the 2-disc DVD contents with an extra enhanced commentary and the typical HD quality with at least one review giving it minor praise. I've seen a Blu + DVD combo and alternate cover art, but I can't find enough info to determine what, if anything, these offer to make them worth seeking out over the others.
There are at least a couple of Blu combo packs, but I can't find any info on whether or not they might contain the extras from the standard Blu (my guess would be yes).
Final Recommendation:
It's hard to offer a solid recommendation aside from the obvious ones. If you want HD go Blu. If you want extras avoid the single disc DVD. Sorry I can't be of more help this time.
The original widescreen DVD is a single disc.
Video
2.35 widescreen:
It looks good but not perfect. The sharpness could be better, and there is some grain.
Audio
5.1 EX Dolby, 6.1 ES Discrete DTS, 2.0:
The sound is strong and clear. The mix is quite good with pretty good surround sound.
Packaging
The case is standard plastic.
The interface offers some fairly nice animation and music.
Extras
-Previews: several strung together in one long clip and divided into chapters. It includes a very long “Lord of the Rings” preview and a propaganda reel.
Easter Eggs:
-Credits: Not much of an egg, but I like to include these for the sake of completion. There is at least some music to go with it. On the main menu select the New Line logo.