Golden Compass

I've been waiting for this film to come out with baited breath... but before I go on I need to get a few things off my chest:


1. It's an Alethiometer... Not a Golden Compass
2. It's Iofor Raknison not Ragnar Sturlusson!
3. No one in their right mind would take a paddle steamer into an ice flow.
4. Anbaric engines on a helium airship = asking for an accident
5. Panserboure or Armoured Bear... not Ice Bear

I actually loved this film, but not for the reasons it should be loved.

This film was made to be a PG, as the original story called for some rather gratuitous violence in the Armoured Bear scenes and violence towards children. Its removal is not a bad thing as it adds more accessibility to a wonderful story, but it does water it down. Or rather it would if it contained the original story. The original novel was written by Philip Pullman and called Northern Lights, there's a small history behind the name change, but suffice to say it stuck because of the predominantly American audience, and probably no small part was to jazz it up a bit:

According to Philip Pullman, the title "The Golden Compass" came about
when he was deciding what to name the trilogy that the book this film was based
on was to be the first part of. He came across a passage by John Milton
referring to "golden compasses" as in instruments used to draw perfect circles.
Ultimately, he ended up calling the trilogy "His Dark Materials" based on
another passage by Milton, and named the first part "The Northern Lights."
However, the American publishers heard about the term "golden compass",
mistaking it for a reference to the alethiometer, and insisted on using it as the title
of the first book.

Quoted from IMDB

I don't know what input Philip Pullman had on the screenplay that was ultimately created by Chris Weitz, but unless there is some alteria motive that will become apparent in the next 2 films (Please please please, let them make the other 2 books) I think not a lot.

Now I understand that all film adaptations have to cut things out, LotR being a prime example, there are vast swathes of chapters pertaining to the Shire missing from the films. But this is necessary lest you end up with 6 hour long films. Done with the precision of a surgeons scalpel these can be unnoticeable and not detract from the storyline. Sadly Chris Weitz attacked this story with a rusty hatchet. The ultimate essence of the book is still there but it is somewhat jumbled and a mockery of its former glory. In these cases I tend to ignore the book and take the film on its own merits, but given the vast amounts of background information required to fill the blanks you need to have read the books to be able to appreciate what is going on. Which brings me back to the original problem of if you have read the book you want to stand up and scream at the screen that it doesn't happen like that.

This heavy spleen venting about the storyline being over I will come to the visual aspects of the film... stunning... you are dragged into a beautiful world that is a steampunk version of our own, with the elegance of the Victorian era, and not one second of it is unbelievable, even the CG talking animals only look fake when they speak, and that's because deep down our psychies tell us it must be fake. Casting was excellent, especially Nicole Kidman as Marisa Coulter, she just has that atmosphere around her that makes you think she's the loveliest person in the world, despite the fact she's a "baddie"... exactly as the books portray it.

To fully enjoy The Golden Compass you need to have read the books ages ago, and not like me in the morning before watching it. As you will be able to fill in the essential information that is missing, and be able to overlook (If you're as forgetful as me) the jumbling of the storyline and plot holes. This all being said I still enjoyed the film, but only because it added a more visceral element to my memories of the book.