"The Golden Compass" Review (Spoilers)
Also reviews for the latest episodes of His Dark Materials and Cosmos: Possible Worlds.
The Golden Compass
That did not work.
Basically, I can compare the film adaptation of Northern Lights to the book and the TV show His Dark Materials, and I find it very much lacking. It essentially tells the same story (more or less) but the way it tells it is far less compelling than the HBO show.
I think the major problem is that this is a Hollywood movie, and Hollywood movies of children's fantasy always have a certain tone attached to them. It wasn't true for The Lord Of The Rings, but it definitely effected the first two Harry Potter movies and The Chronicles Of Narnia. Hollywood is mostly under the impression that children's fantasy should be directed and treated sort of like a bright magical fairytale. That works for The Wizard Of Oz. That doesn't work for freaking His Dark Materials. The sunshiney CGI effects, elaborately perfect, enchanting sets, the British actors talking like they are in Mary Poppins, rather than the way they do in real life, it's all Hollywood. And I wasn't able to really credit the TV show with this until I saw this film, but I responded to Dafne Keen as Lyra because the story was grounded and believable. Part of that probably has to do with a lower budget. But the truth is ten or fifteen years later, I didn't think the visual effects here were all that more impressive than the TV show's. They are more ostentatious and visually bigger. But I don't find them any more convincing than the TV show.
The one exception is the bear fight, and to be blunt I like that we didn't see all too much of it on the TV show. Because I think that the story should be mostly from Lyra's perspective, and even when it isn't, it should only address stuff that matters to her arc. Seeing every brutal inch of the bear fight is Hollywood's bread and butter. But I liked the TV show dealing with Lyra's frightened reactions. It's interesting a lower budget was more accommodating to what was important in that scene, than one that took us outside and into a huge arena. It's a similar reason for why the huge battle at the end meant nothing to me. It wasn't an essential part of the book, and the movie, being a Hollywood movie, framed it as the actual climax.
Do you know what the actual climax in the book and TV show is? Asriel betraying Lyra and killing Roger to open up the gateways to the different Universes. But that is a downer ending, and a completely unresolved cliffhanger to boot. But here's the thing: That's what the franchise is about. The first book doesn't end on a hopeful Hollywood ending. Granted neither did The Fellowship Of The Ring, but Peter Jackson got in enough of the rest of the story that it felt earned. Not seeing the fact that Asriel is a murderer and a bad guy makes the arc of the movie feel unfulfilled, and as if we are leaving things off right before the major things that set up the second book actually occur.
Another major problem with Hollywood gutlessness is that the various anti-theocratic messages in the movie were completely watered down because Christian groups complained. Again, that is actually what the material is about. If the movie isn't willing to explore it, there is no point in making it. The director swore up and down the next two movies, had they been made, wouldn't have shied away from that controversy. But Hollywood never made the sequels precisely BECAUSE they would have been controversial. Hollywood is why we aren't allowed to have nice things.
I was interested in Sam Elliot's casting as Lee Scoresby. To be blunt, he is a far more age appropriate casting than Lin-Manuel Miranda ever was. You could argue Miranda is the one miscast on the show because he's too young, and you'll get minimal arguments from me. But I still like Miranda better. He has more warmth than Elliot does, as well as actual chemistry with Lyra, which is essential. Elliot is charming in his own way, but his arc and feelings feel more distant with Lyra than they should be.
Strong opinion: Television has given us far better child actors than the movies have. Dafne Keen is way better than this movie's Lyra. Haley Joel Osment was an aberration as far as amazing movie kids go. You usually only find kids as amazing as Dafne Keen or the kids on Stranger Things and Game Of Thrones on television. Equally strong opinion: child acting is ALWAYS bad for every kid actor, good and bad, and the world would be better off it it were abolished.
Why is Asriel shaving at the end of the movie? Just to make Daniel Craig more movie-poster ready? Then why give him a beard in the first place?
I'll tell you another Hollywood moment I hated in the movie. Pan reminds Lyra that if he gets hurts she feels his pain. He shouldn't have to say that out-loud. Because she already knows it. He's speaking on behalf of the audience members who DON'T know that, which is a terrible and unrealistic way to have fictional characters speak. Pan and Lyra never talked this expositiony on the TV show and I followed it just fine. Trust your audience, producers. Otherwise your movie will be worse written than it needs to be. If the audience members who didn't read the books still don't quite get that bit after the movie is over that's fine too. Not everything in fiction needs to be explained or spoonfed to the viewer. I know it's a kids movie, but give the audience SOME credit. We can figure some stuff out ourselves.
One last thing before I end this review: I didn't like the movie. But... BUT... It's not a bad movie. But that isn't because the writing and directing, or even acting is so strong. It's because the source material is. It's a such a wonderful concept and story by Philip Pullman, that is incredibly hard to totally mess up. And the fact that the movie is only mediocre to fair is a huge black mark against it. **1/2.
His Dark Materials "The Scholar"
This episode had some definite changes from the book, and some things that seemed like changes, but might not be.
In the book, the stuff with Lyra, Will, Carlo, and Mrs. Coulter was a near-miss rather than an actual confrontation. That's fine for a book, but I completely understand a screen project wanting to make things more exciting. I have no problem with that.
Mary Malone visiting the Specter world where Lyra and Will are hiding out was not in the book, but nothing there contradicts it happening before she traveled to that world with the wheeled creatures. As long as she doesn't meet Lyra and Will there next week it isn't an actual change.
Similarly Mrs. Coulter having the ability to separate from her mysterious golden monkey daemon was never shown or talked about in the book, but it may not be a change because people there HAVE theorized Coulter is a witch, or at least has some of their powers.
I like how uncomfortable Mary Malone made Mrs. Coulter. Mary is a confident, self-possessed woman leading the kind of life Marissa actually deserves for her intelligence and scientific curiosity. Of course she's uncomfortable and jealous of a much lower-maintenance woman unknowingly taking for granted the life Coulter desperately wanted but failed to get.
Give it up, Carlo. She JUST is not that into you. I think one of the reasons Marisa is reluctant to fully embrace our world is because staying here would almost certainly mean becoming Carlo's lover. And he can frame the world as more friendly or empowering for women scientists and scholars if he likes, but I don't think Marisa is eager to depend on a man in order to "earn her keep".
She asks Carlo if he finds her arrogant after he describes Mary that way, and he say tells her of course not. I sort of believe him. I think perhaps Carlo thinks Marisa's self-possession and confidence is justified, which would not make her arrogant. I could be wrong, and Carlo may simply be the sexist d-bag Mrs. Coulter is asking him if he is, but him saying he doesn't think that about her is actually credible.
Very interesting episode. Next week looks to be the biggie for Lee Scoresby. I'm looking forward to it and dreading it at the same time. ****.
Cosmos: Possible Worlds "The Fleeting Grace Of The Habitable Zone"
I know how much Carl Sagan means to Neil DeGrasse Tyson, but I have never liked listening to him, and that's why I find Tyson so refreshing. Sagan was a pessimist, a cynic, and a bummer when it came to humanity. While he wasn't necessarily wrong, I much prefer the faith Tyson shows in humanity and our future. The whole episode has evolved from science facts to science speculation, and the light sails and the faster than light drive are all amazing to think about. Until you hear Sagan's bummer speech about how if humans get even SLIGHTLY less evolved than they are when he currently made the speech, we wouldn't survive. Guess what? We are actually less evolved than we were when Sagan was alive. I don't like Sagan's perspective because it seems a little bit too self-involved and based on his own philosophies and prejudices rather than science. I admittedly did not see the first season of this show when Sagan hosted it. But it was subtitled "A Personal Voyage" which is my problem with Sagan in a nutshell. The Cosmos is NOT a personal entity to any human being alive. I have similar complaints about Gene Roddenberry but at least he was dealing with fiction.
Maybe I'm misreading Sagan. He obviously believed the Universe was "vast and wonderous" and that "life always finds a way". But I think his cynical view of humanity simply made whatever science he was teaching us less fun to ponder and more of a case of having to listen to a doomsayer. There is a place for that. Al Gore is pretty great at being a red flag. But I don't think it's the right attitude for someone trying to get across the wonders of science, evolution, biology, and spacetime.
I am alone in this this, and I'm aware this is an unpopular opinion. But I spent most of the episode with a grin of my face and the potential of humanity's future in the stars in my eyes because of Tyson, only to have that completely stomped on by a fairly typical morose Sagan monologue at the end. I much prefer listening to Tyson on this show. ***1/2.
The Golden Compass
That did not work.
Basically, I can compare the film adaptation of Northern Lights to the book and the TV show His Dark Materials, and I find it very much lacking. It essentially tells the same story (more or less) but the way it tells it is far less compelling than the HBO show.
I think the major problem is that this is a Hollywood movie, and Hollywood movies of children's fantasy always have a certain tone attached to them. It wasn't true for The Lord Of The Rings, but it definitely effected the first two Harry Potter movies and The Chronicles Of Narnia. Hollywood is mostly under the impression that children's fantasy should be directed and treated sort of like a bright magical fairytale. That works for The Wizard Of Oz. That doesn't work for freaking His Dark Materials. The sunshiney CGI effects, elaborately perfect, enchanting sets, the British actors talking like they are in Mary Poppins, rather than the way they do in real life, it's all Hollywood. And I wasn't able to really credit the TV show with this until I saw this film, but I responded to Dafne Keen as Lyra because the story was grounded and believable. Part of that probably has to do with a lower budget. But the truth is ten or fifteen years later, I didn't think the visual effects here were all that more impressive than the TV show's. They are more ostentatious and visually bigger. But I don't find them any more convincing than the TV show.
The one exception is the bear fight, and to be blunt I like that we didn't see all too much of it on the TV show. Because I think that the story should be mostly from Lyra's perspective, and even when it isn't, it should only address stuff that matters to her arc. Seeing every brutal inch of the bear fight is Hollywood's bread and butter. But I liked the TV show dealing with Lyra's frightened reactions. It's interesting a lower budget was more accommodating to what was important in that scene, than one that took us outside and into a huge arena. It's a similar reason for why the huge battle at the end meant nothing to me. It wasn't an essential part of the book, and the movie, being a Hollywood movie, framed it as the actual climax.
Do you know what the actual climax in the book and TV show is? Asriel betraying Lyra and killing Roger to open up the gateways to the different Universes. But that is a downer ending, and a completely unresolved cliffhanger to boot. But here's the thing: That's what the franchise is about. The first book doesn't end on a hopeful Hollywood ending. Granted neither did The Fellowship Of The Ring, but Peter Jackson got in enough of the rest of the story that it felt earned. Not seeing the fact that Asriel is a murderer and a bad guy makes the arc of the movie feel unfulfilled, and as if we are leaving things off right before the major things that set up the second book actually occur.
Another major problem with Hollywood gutlessness is that the various anti-theocratic messages in the movie were completely watered down because Christian groups complained. Again, that is actually what the material is about. If the movie isn't willing to explore it, there is no point in making it. The director swore up and down the next two movies, had they been made, wouldn't have shied away from that controversy. But Hollywood never made the sequels precisely BECAUSE they would have been controversial. Hollywood is why we aren't allowed to have nice things.
I was interested in Sam Elliot's casting as Lee Scoresby. To be blunt, he is a far more age appropriate casting than Lin-Manuel Miranda ever was. You could argue Miranda is the one miscast on the show because he's too young, and you'll get minimal arguments from me. But I still like Miranda better. He has more warmth than Elliot does, as well as actual chemistry with Lyra, which is essential. Elliot is charming in his own way, but his arc and feelings feel more distant with Lyra than they should be.
Strong opinion: Television has given us far better child actors than the movies have. Dafne Keen is way better than this movie's Lyra. Haley Joel Osment was an aberration as far as amazing movie kids go. You usually only find kids as amazing as Dafne Keen or the kids on Stranger Things and Game Of Thrones on television. Equally strong opinion: child acting is ALWAYS bad for every kid actor, good and bad, and the world would be better off it it were abolished.
Why is Asriel shaving at the end of the movie? Just to make Daniel Craig more movie-poster ready? Then why give him a beard in the first place?
I'll tell you another Hollywood moment I hated in the movie. Pan reminds Lyra that if he gets hurts she feels his pain. He shouldn't have to say that out-loud. Because she already knows it. He's speaking on behalf of the audience members who DON'T know that, which is a terrible and unrealistic way to have fictional characters speak. Pan and Lyra never talked this expositiony on the TV show and I followed it just fine. Trust your audience, producers. Otherwise your movie will be worse written than it needs to be. If the audience members who didn't read the books still don't quite get that bit after the movie is over that's fine too. Not everything in fiction needs to be explained or spoonfed to the viewer. I know it's a kids movie, but give the audience SOME credit. We can figure some stuff out ourselves.
One last thing before I end this review: I didn't like the movie. But... BUT... It's not a bad movie. But that isn't because the writing and directing, or even acting is so strong. It's because the source material is. It's a such a wonderful concept and story by Philip Pullman, that is incredibly hard to totally mess up. And the fact that the movie is only mediocre to fair is a huge black mark against it. **1/2.
His Dark Materials "The Scholar"
This episode had some definite changes from the book, and some things that seemed like changes, but might not be.
In the book, the stuff with Lyra, Will, Carlo, and Mrs. Coulter was a near-miss rather than an actual confrontation. That's fine for a book, but I completely understand a screen project wanting to make things more exciting. I have no problem with that.
Mary Malone visiting the Specter world where Lyra and Will are hiding out was not in the book, but nothing there contradicts it happening before she traveled to that world with the wheeled creatures. As long as she doesn't meet Lyra and Will there next week it isn't an actual change.
Similarly Mrs. Coulter having the ability to separate from her mysterious golden monkey daemon was never shown or talked about in the book, but it may not be a change because people there HAVE theorized Coulter is a witch, or at least has some of their powers.
I like how uncomfortable Mary Malone made Mrs. Coulter. Mary is a confident, self-possessed woman leading the kind of life Marissa actually deserves for her intelligence and scientific curiosity. Of course she's uncomfortable and jealous of a much lower-maintenance woman unknowingly taking for granted the life Coulter desperately wanted but failed to get.
Give it up, Carlo. She JUST is not that into you. I think one of the reasons Marisa is reluctant to fully embrace our world is because staying here would almost certainly mean becoming Carlo's lover. And he can frame the world as more friendly or empowering for women scientists and scholars if he likes, but I don't think Marisa is eager to depend on a man in order to "earn her keep".
She asks Carlo if he finds her arrogant after he describes Mary that way, and he say tells her of course not. I sort of believe him. I think perhaps Carlo thinks Marisa's self-possession and confidence is justified, which would not make her arrogant. I could be wrong, and Carlo may simply be the sexist d-bag Mrs. Coulter is asking him if he is, but him saying he doesn't think that about her is actually credible.
Very interesting episode. Next week looks to be the biggie for Lee Scoresby. I'm looking forward to it and dreading it at the same time. ****.
Cosmos: Possible Worlds "The Fleeting Grace Of The Habitable Zone"
I know how much Carl Sagan means to Neil DeGrasse Tyson, but I have never liked listening to him, and that's why I find Tyson so refreshing. Sagan was a pessimist, a cynic, and a bummer when it came to humanity. While he wasn't necessarily wrong, I much prefer the faith Tyson shows in humanity and our future. The whole episode has evolved from science facts to science speculation, and the light sails and the faster than light drive are all amazing to think about. Until you hear Sagan's bummer speech about how if humans get even SLIGHTLY less evolved than they are when he currently made the speech, we wouldn't survive. Guess what? We are actually less evolved than we were when Sagan was alive. I don't like Sagan's perspective because it seems a little bit too self-involved and based on his own philosophies and prejudices rather than science. I admittedly did not see the first season of this show when Sagan hosted it. But it was subtitled "A Personal Voyage" which is my problem with Sagan in a nutshell. The Cosmos is NOT a personal entity to any human being alive. I have similar complaints about Gene Roddenberry but at least he was dealing with fiction.
Maybe I'm misreading Sagan. He obviously believed the Universe was "vast and wonderous" and that "life always finds a way". But I think his cynical view of humanity simply made whatever science he was teaching us less fun to ponder and more of a case of having to listen to a doomsayer. There is a place for that. Al Gore is pretty great at being a red flag. But I don't think it's the right attitude for someone trying to get across the wonders of science, evolution, biology, and spacetime.
I am alone in this this, and I'm aware this is an unpopular opinion. But I spent most of the episode with a grin of my face and the potential of humanity's future in the stars in my eyes because of Tyson, only to have that completely stomped on by a fairly typical morose Sagan monologue at the end. I much prefer listening to Tyson on this show. ***1/2.