The attempt to ban the colors red and green during Christmas.

I thought it was really good. I wouldn't call it great, but I was engrossed the whole time so the 2 hours just flied by. The movie likely wasn't as smart as it thought it was, but for an escapist fantasy film, I thought it worked well. Plus, Dakota Blue Richards was very easy to root for, which is important in a movie such as this. I really liked her.

I do admit that a few of the Christian metaphors were a bit eye roll inducing, if only for their lack of subtlety. (A snake spirit demon? Come on.) It didn't keep me from enjoying the movie though.

That would be nice, but please god get someone more competent to direct.

Can people just not read? It didn't make $60 million in the UK.

That report seems to say the UK weekend est. is around $12.3-14.3 million. Combine that with the US weekend numbers and it should pass $40 million.

If fans want the sequels, they'd need the movie to have really good legs.

Saw it this afternoon and found it to be very boring.
Nicole Kidman looked fantastic, though.

I thought I read it right. That $60 million should be the total in the UK for the entire run.

I just came back from watching it with the free movie ticket I got in the Pans Labyrinth DVD. Visually the movie was pretty good and I agree with alot of the comments that Nicole Kidman looked really good, in fact she was gorgeous.

For the most part, I was bored and I had trouble comprehending alot of the plot. Maybe the movie needed to be longer to explain alot of the plot holes. I think the pacing of the movie was a huge problem. Even though the Lord of the Rings movies were twice as long, they were well paced with lots of good action sequences throughout and I was never bored for a 2nd. I'm shocked that New Line green lighted this movie to a director who is primarily known for comedies. I could definitely see a Director's Cut coming on DVD, but I'm wondering how much Weitz actually cut from the movie.

So, is New Line hoping this will be the next Lord of the Rings type franchise? With the LOTR franchise, I was excited and couldn't wait for the next installment the following X-Mas, however for this movie I really could care less.

I'd give the movie a C+ simply because of the visuals.

I just got back from it, and while I was disappointed at the changes made from the excellent source material, I found it a good way to spend a Sunday afternoon. Dakota Blue Richards ROCKED at Lyra and I found she conveyed the maturity of the character quite well onscreen.

I cheered a little during the opening sequence when they explained the world differences, and you could make out the fluttering fabric separating worlds, as if the subtle knife had just been there.

I hope the other 2 get green lit, so I can see how they make those motorcycle animals

Sigh... guess this ends up being the main review thread. Anyway, saw this today and thought it was fairly poor. The editing just seemed off to me, as it just seemed fragmented and made the plot confusing to me Especially all the stuff about dust and the compass that I never really understood. Plus, some of the lines and acting stood out as ridiculously bad, especially among the kids. Lyra was fine interacting with adults and easy to cheer for, but everyone else was pretty bad.

That ice bear fight was pretty awesome though.

fumanstan, I would just about word-for-word echo your review above. But the one thing I would add is: I don't think I care enough after seeing this one to see the other two (and definitely not without a free ticket). I was fairly bored much of the time, and thought the editing & script could've used some tightening up, and more plot exposition at times (i.e. "all the stuff about dust and the compass that I never really understood").

I liked how at the end of the movie that Lyra had to remind everyone in some awkward dialogue that there is still so much more things to do, in a forced way to remind everyone that the movie need sequels. "Don't forget people, this isn't the end of the movie. We just want to remind you that this is not an incomplete film, because it's only really complete after two more spread-out films!"

The movie needed more Eva Green.

These fantasy flicks are certainly looking like spoofs of themselves now - How to make a supposedly succesful fantasy movie:
1. Have it star British kids
2. Have a big battle scene with archers, animals and some generic-type villain army that can easily be defeated.
3. Have a magical object that no one else is allowed to handle and all the bad guys are after.
4. Have Peter O'Toole, Ian McKellen, Christopher Lee in the film
5. Make it epic by having the main characters travel far throughout the movie (Has there ever been an epic movie where no traveling or no road trip is done?)

I would find it tiresome to try and compare movies to Lord of the Rings. Like them or not, they're a cinematic achievement and the combination of the source material and the actual film means that they won't have many equals (for big, sprawling epic trilogies) for decades. That's not to say they're the best movies, but they're certainly one of the best movies of their kind. New Line should know this as well, and not expect to catch lightning in a bottle again.

That said, I don't understand why this movie is not doing better. I'm guessing fantasy as a genre doesn't work unless you're dealing with Tolkien, Rowling, or Lewis. Golden Compass looks to be doing about as well as Bridge to Terabithia.

OK, OK, let's talk about the movie. I really liked it. It's definitely a middle-of-the-road movie that never truly excels but there's enough marvels in the set design and CG animal wizardry that you can forgive clunky aspects of the story. Nicole Kidman looks spectacular, Dakota FaBlue Richards does a great job, and the movie has Sam Elliott! Sam Elliot! The movie took place in a much more belieavable "world" than Stardust. Is it great? No. But I'd much rather see this again than Narnia.

I finally saw this today, and I must say I'm shocked at the hate or lackluster reviews. I found the story quite interesting, the actors all seemed on the same page, and the action was superb. As far as fantasy films go, this is as good as any of the Narnia's or LOTR, of course in its own way, since the story is nothing like those series. And Dakota Blue Richards makes for a wonderful heroine. I definitely want to buy the books.

Caught this earlier tpday and like others, really wanted to like it but was disappointed.

They had the right casting with the big names, good story, and decent cgi, but some of the directing/editing and awkward ending was terrible.

There wasn't enough Eva Green, Daniel Craig, and bears. Dakota definitely did a great job. I'm not sure if I will bother with the dvd (certainly not the theatrical version) since it isn't even clear if sequels will be made, but I'm interested in the books.

But the worst part, the theater I went to had some fancy DLP which showed the picture to be totally crisp and clear but it was set too damn dark and this movie had a lot of dark scenes.

Really really bummed this movie is tanking in America. It's definitely one of my favorites this year. And I cannot believe a turd like "Alvin and the Chipmunks" made more in one weekend than "TGC" has in 10 days. I hope there is a longer version of this movie one day if there won't be any sequels.

Roger's right, again.

@ Ebert. The fact that the movie got mixed reviews at best had nothing to do with it right?

And "Alvin and the Chipmunks" was slaughtered by the critics and look how it fared.

I think they are both targeted at different crowds, despite both being family-oriented. Chipmunks is for the brainless 5-8 year olds who sit there clapping with their fat hands everytime a chipmunk talks, whereas Golden Compass is more of an early Harry Potter crowd movie.

I don't think the reviews had any less of an impact than some sort of 'religious strongarm-ing" that Ebert is grasping at.

Yeah, whenever a movie fails to open, why do some people give credit to the critics? I think if this hadn't been boycotted like it was, it would've had a better reception, mixed reviews or not.

Yeah, you would not believe (OK, you probably would) how many people have heard about all the "information" (the killing God, atheism, anti-Christian, anti-Catholic, homosexuality, evolution, immortality, witchcraft,etc) the Catholic and conservative Christian groups were spreading around. those groups are still big, unfortunately.

But a lot of people that did watch it were disappointed.

Also, my theater showed the preview for Sex and the City movie (by New Line). I'm a fan of the show and I know TGC is PG-13, but this - the title alone) probably turned off some parents that brought or would have brought their young kids to watch TGC.

Personally, I don't think the "boycott" had that much of an effect, but maybe i'm just oblivious to the effect of those type of things. I didn't think it was that widepread.

I don't think the people are crediting the critics with making the movie fail. Rather, they're using the generally poor critical reception as an indicator of generally poor public reception of the film. The scores don't always match up, but generally if critics like something, the public is more likely to like it as well, and if most critics don't like something, the public is less likely to enjoy it.

Going from the user scores at rottentomatoes and metacritic:
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/his_...iews_users.php
http://www.metacritic.com/film/titles/goldencompass

The film wasn't that well received by the public that did see it. Add in that it wasn't as well known a series as Narnia, LOTR, or Harry Potter, and one can see why its initial draw wasn't up to the same level as those films, and why it's petered out so soon afterward. Hell, good buzz might be more important than the opinions of those who saw the film. Take a look at Stardust's scores:
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/star...iews_users.php
http://www.metacritic.com/film/title...ust?q=stardust

Those scores indicate that most people who saw the film really loved it, but that wasn't enough to make it a box-office hit (at least in the US). In that case, I think the marketing didn't generate the right interest in the film, and the same happened a bit with the Golden Compass. I think the public is being overwhelmed with supposed epic fantasy series at the moment as each studio tries to replicate LOTR and Harry Potter, and some of these films aren't going to generate much interest.

However, public reception does play a role, especially in the days after the release, and most people do seem to have liked Alvin and the Chipmunks better than the Golden Compass:
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/1184...iews_users.php
http://www.metacritic.com/film/title...ndthechipmunks

Anecdotally speaking, I know two people at work that are fans of the His Dark Materials series and were sorely disappointed by the movie. If you alienate the fan base, you've managed to undermine one of the strongest free promotional tools for the series.

Yeah, I found that to be an odd trailer choice too. BTW, did they show the coming attraction for Brendan Fraser fantasy film "Inkheart"? Terrible title. But it didn't look half bad. Nervous that it's directed from the guy who did "K-Pax" and "The Skeleton Key" though (shudders).