[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."

[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.

[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.

[CharlieOK1]

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

LOL, gimme a break!

[G8 Diplomat]

[grey_whiskers]

Armored bears?

"Does it not sicken a man, their padding wooly tread?"

But, Beavers in Chain Mail rock!

Full Disclosure: Never read the books, not going to, either, given the author's views. And if he wants to rail against mind-control, he should be attacking Marxists, not Christians.

Cheers!

[Sloth]

their popularity in the U.K. may represent more confident believers whose response to other beliefs is to respond, rather than suppress.

Believers? What, like a dozen of them? Western European churches are emptier than Michael Richards' day planner.

[x]

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.

That's just a cheap shot. First, how many readers of the books in the UK are believers? Second, how confident are they really? Third, what kind of a response do British Christians make to the book?

Could it be that most of the British readers aren't Christians? That they aren't very confident about their faith? Or that they haven't actually responed to Pullman?

Of course the big point is that disagreement and criticism aren't identical to "suppression." American critics of the book take Pullman's other comments into account. Ebert simply ignores them.

The problem with Pullman is that he wasn't content to simply be a writer and let the books he creates speak for themselves. He also preaches his cause. It makes him less of an artist and more of an ideologue.

People who disagree with his teaching are going to respond. And once a writer's made himself into a preacher, there's no going back to hiding behind the work. If his work is successful, it will stand alone without the preachments and weather controversy. But so far it doesn't look like it is.