No monkey for you

[prog]

Golden Compass is getting knocked by critics, according to Rotten Tomatoes. Even generally positive reviews (like the one in the Globe today) are calling it badly paced, feeling more like it's rushing through the book's story rather than adapting it. This is the reason I took a pass on seeing the most recent Potter pic, and I am not likely to

Comments

[cortezopossum]

That's unfortunate. A miniseries may have worked better.

[radtea]

Dunno--the reviews I've seen are mostly positive, with caveates on pacing and the odd bit of clunkieness. The Globe and Mail's review was really positive, which is impressive as they hate pretty much everything.

I'm not big on the books because Pullman's writing falls flat on my ear. Previews of the film look like the director has brought the richness that other people see in Pullman's world to life, so those of us who don't grok his style can finally get in on the fun.

[rserocki]

Ebert liked it, anyway (4 stars)
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071206/REVIEWS/712060302

[mrmorse]

Above a certain point, I take the Rotten Tomatoes rating to mean that I may like the movie. There's some minimum threshold, like 25%, below which the assumption is that there are no redeeming features to the movie and it's not worth going. Above that the overall percentages don't matter so much, because different people have different tastes. It's safe to conclude that the movie has some good points and the question is whether the good points appeal to you and whether they are offset by things you consider deal breakers.

Scanning through the reviews on Rotten Tomatoes, The Golden Compass appears to have gotten some very favorable reviews from people I respect, if not necessarily agree with. That's good enough for me. I'm not real likely to see the movie soon anyway, but I wouldn't write it off on the basis of the Tomatometer score.