The Golden Compass

rogerebert.com ^ | 12/07/07 | Roger Ebert

[JamesP81]

"The Golden Compass" is a darker, deeper fantasy epic than the "Rings" trilogy,

Darker, yes. Deeper, I doubt it. Tolkien is so far out of Pullman's league that I don't think you would even be able to see Pullman's league from Tolkien's.

[wideawake]

Kind of a non-review review. More of a description.

[San Jacinto]

I think I’ll run right out and see this pile of crap movie. /s

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

The books have been attacked by American Christians over questions of religion;

Surely there is a better word to describe disagreement than "attacked."

[Borges]

He’s taken to doing that a lot. It’s the first sign of a bad critic. Before the M.A. exam in English we were warned that plot summaries would get you a big ole F.

[G8 Diplomat]

When I saw the previews, I laughed at how stupid the movie looked. A girl named “Lyra”? A talking, armored polar bear? Magic dust? Gimme a break. And then I learned that it was anti-Christian. You’d have to be a fool to spend your money to go see this flop.

[twntaipan]

It is also disingenuous of Ebert to fail to mention Pullman’s own statements about why he wrote the trilogy (to “kill God” and destroy Christianity). But then, hey, Ebert is part of the MSM.

[Borges]

Ebert’s isn’t reviewing the book.

[weegee]

The books have been attacked by American Christians over questions of religion; their popularity in the U.K. may represent more confident believers whose response to other beliefs is to respond, rather than suppress.

Christians are "intolerant" because they take an author at his word when he says that Christianity is evil and should be done away with. Right.

[Dan Lacey]

[weegee]

“The Magisterium has a horror of the truth, because it represents an alternative to its thought control; the battle in the movie is about no less than man’s preservation of free will.”

Man has free will, the philisophical question is whether there is any action that can be labelled “immoral” or “evil”. Man has the free will to “do” evil or not; other men should retain the freedom to label it evil.

Civilization is an ordered society. Whether that order comes “from religion” or not. Some want the freedom to do as they wish without consequence.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/civilized

[Tribune7]

Ebert is a propagandist, not a reviewer.

[weegee]

He likes what it represents even if it is a murky mess.

[Califelephant]

A better review:

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MTdiMjk0NmU4NDQ1ODc1MDUyYTVjMGVhZmMxODVjYzE

[CharlieOK1]

The evil teacher in the film is named Mrs. Coulter?

LOL, gimme a break!

[weegee]

I don’t like movie or book reviews that are designed to give a synopsis to prove that they read/viewed the work as opposed to describing what they liked or didn’t like about the work.

“this happened and then this happened and then this happens...”

as opposed to “...another entry in the What-Hath-Jackson/Tolkien-wrought genre of computer-intensive epic fantasy adaptations, if you were lost watching ‘Dune’ then perhaps a more traditional buddy copy film or romantic comedy will be more your speed. Meanwhile the era of geeks and fanboys has finally come and this offering should please the usual crowd while offering some new twists with a story that incorporates an allegorical argument against organized religion...”

[Borges]

I wonder if that’s the character’s name in the book.

[weegee]

I gather from another review that it is, but that the character has raven black hair rather than being an ice cold blonde as in this film.

[twntaipan]

That may be true, but when he reviewed The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe, he went in to great length to discuss C.S.Lewis (and Tolkein) and the role of Christianity in the book. Read Ebert's review here.

Lewis never attempted to downplay the Christian allegory, and Ebert didn't attempt to hide that fact from his readers (even though he was, as you would want to know, only reviewing the movie, and not Lewis' books).

But Ebert has a different standard when the intent of the authors is reversed. Pullman has said repeatedly why he wrote his triology (to "kill God" and destroy Christianity).

If Lewis' Christian faith was pertinent in the LWW review, Pullman's (militant) atheism is pertinent in this review, yet Ebert leaves it totally out.