comment #1

MDOC says ...

Ebert gave it 4 stars. He's the gold standard.

comment #2

Mike Schaefer says ...

Owen Gleiberman gave it a "C" and called it "Chronicles of Blarney-a". Not lookin' good for sequels.

comment #3

Noah says ...

Ebert gives everything four stars these days. I think he's seeing the world through very different eyes.

comment #4

MiraJeffAICN says ...

Saw it tonight. Probably one of the worst films of the year, without question. Kidman, Craig, Elliott and Green are probably in it for a half-hour COMBINED. Even Weitz seemed embarassed. In all seriousness, it was unbelievably bad, with the exception of one great bear fight.

comment #5

Aguirre says ...

mira... you took the words right out of my mouth (must have been while you were kissing meeeee... but seriously, folks, god DAMN that movie was poorly thunked out). i can't remember the last time i saw a film that made me care so little about its characters.

comment #6

Brian O says ...

"i can't remember the last time i saw a film that made me care so little about its characters."

JUNO.

comment #7

insidah says ...

When I saw the trailer, all I could think was this - a movie about the journey of a ten year old girl. No THANKS!

comment #8

EOTW says ...

So sad to see this kinda reception. I have yt to see the film, gonig to this afternoon, but i just finished the trilogy on Monday night and it was AMAZING. the ending is so heartbreaking and perfect and anyone who has read the novel knows what I am talking about. As for the guy who mentioned he didn't carefor a 10 yr old's journey, well, read the books and then tell me you don't care. HIS DARK MATERIALS is a classic and ten times any of those Potter books (read those, too). Time to go finish ATLAS SHRUGGED now.

comment #9

bmcintire says ...

"I can't remember the last time I saw a film that made me care so little about its characters."

HARRY POTTER AND THE ANYTHING AT ALL

comment #10

cinemascopian says ...

Here's mine:

http://cinemascopian.com/review-the-golden-compass/

comment #11

lesterg says ...

Sitting at 41% on RT. Given tracking, what's the best case scenario at this point? 30 million?

comment #12

Ogami Itto says ...

Ebert gave it 4 stars. He's the gold standard.

I swear to God Ebert's gone insane -- I can't believe the shit he gives 3 1/2 or 4 stars to.

If memory serves, Ebert only gave the LOTR movies 3 stars, and he didn't seem very enthusiatic about it.

Oh, and JUNO got 4 stars from him as well:

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071206/REVIEWS/71206002

comment #13

Rich S. says ...

This film raises a really fascinating question. The LOTR movies and Matrix sequels were filmed simultaneously, so you knew they'd eventually be released regardless. The Harry Potter films had a built-in audience from the books and they didn't start making those until four of the books had been released (so they knew they had a sure thing). The Narnia books are more-or-less self-contained.

So when *was* the last time the last time a presumed series was released - where the story is not finished in the first film - only to have the first film tank and the franchise die? Bakshi's LOTR?

comment #14

MPNeeb says ...

""So when *was* the last time the last time a presumed series was released - where the story is not finished in the first film - only to have the first film tank and the franchise die? Bakshi's LOTR?""

Buckaroo Banzai and the World Crime League.
Streets of Fire was supposed to have a sequel.
Dune 1984.
Van Helsing.

comment #15

le corbeau says ...

Doc Savage: The Man of Bronze!

comment #16

PerfectTommy says ...

Remo Williams: The Adventure Begins (1985)

comment #17

PerfectTommy says ...

Citizen Kane II: Rosebud's Revenge

comment #18

Greg Wyshynski says ...

In Ebert's defense (as if he would ever need someone like me to defend him):

1. He's always, always, always been a sucker for atmosphere and special effects. Reading his "Compass" review, he seemed very fond of both in this film.

2. Four stars to Ebert is four stars in relation to other works in that genre. He's not comparing "Compass" with "The Godfather"; he's comparing it to the Potter films and Narnia. Basically, he felt "Compass" was on par with the first two Potter films.

He's also someone who's on the record about loathing the "star system" for reviews in the first place...

comment #19

christian says ...

I'm still waiting for that JINX franchise...

Somewhere Ian/Hunter/MM are going mad...

comment #20

christian says ...

"He's also someone who's on the record about loathing the "star system" for reviews in the first place..."

Is a thumbs up-or-down that different?

comment #21

PerfectTommy says ...

"Buckaroo Banzai and the World Crime League" - Obiously I'd have loved this

"Streets of Fire was supposed to have a sequel" - I'm afraid I would have paid to see this and hated myself after

"Dune 1984" - A sequel to one of my most painful theater sits, I don't think so

"Van Helsing" - NO! NO! NO!

comment #22

tophertilson says ...

Saw this film last week. It's not a patch on the source material, despite being vaguely faithful. By changing where the ending comes, they did a great disservice to Pullman's story.

If the tracking on this movie is any indication, we'll never get the intended sequels. I hate to say it, but that might be for the best.

I don't know if it will ever see the light of day again, but the truly great dramatization of the books was a stage production at the National in the UK. Brilliant.

comment #23

Mr. Muckle says ...

Oh, Star Wars 7, 8, and 9 ought to be grand.

comment #24

alan says ...

Yes, Ebert gave the first 2 Potter films (from Chris Columbus, no less) and now The Golden Compass 4 stars each. The first 2 LOTR movies got 3 stars from him, and the third (which is the weakest of the trilogy by far, I think) got 3 and 1/2 stars. These facts alone pretty much invalidate Ebert's star rating system as far as I'm concerned. Still love his writing, though.

comment #25

alan says ...

So will Beowulf hold on to its frontrunner status in the Best Picture race, or will this remarkable late entry come from behind and steal it? Please tell us, Mr. Sinclair!

comment #26

Rich S. says ...

Now that's just mean.

comment #27

AlexStroup says ...

I liked it. It's better than any of the Harry Potter movies so far and at least the third Lord of the Rings movie.

comment #28

MDOC says ...

"So when was the last time the last time a presumed series was released - where the story is not finished in the first film - only to have the first film tank and the franchise die?”

This is a good topic. Chronicles of Riddick was supposed to be a trilogy. When the first one underperformed, plans were shelved. There are still rumors of a second movie but there is no way it will get the 100 million dollar budget Chronicles had. On another topic, Ebert gave the first Chronicles 2 stars, which is about right.

comment #29

le corbeau says ...

Riddick may have been meant to be one, but it's so obvious that Pitch Black wasn't meant to be a trilogy. (Sort of like if the sequel to The Terminator wasn't Terminator 2, but Dune.) Chronicles of Riddick has some promising notions (Linus Roache comes from a smarter and more interesting movie) but collapses under its own weight and the fact that Koepp never really pays off the "fighting evil with evil" thing-- Riddick is just another smartmouthed movie badass, not Hannibal Lecter fighting worse.

comment #30

tophertilson says ...

http://nymag.com/daily/entertainment/2007/12/golden_compass_scripts.html

comment #31

JohnCope says ...

"As for the guy who mentioned he didn't carefor a 10 yr old's journey, well, read the books and then tell me you don't care."

Oh, I've read the books and I can tell you for a fact I didn't care.

In preparation for this movie I reread passages from all three and my memory of them holds up. The first is the only one of any literary worth (and it has quite a bit); the other two are "fast paced adventures" of the sort that, at best, instill interest in THE STORY rather than the characters. Beyond that, I'm always amazed to hear these enthusiastic responses from fans of the books. I wasn't kidding before when I suggested that Peter Greenaway would have been the ideal adapter (though I'm well aware that was never going to happen). There's a cold, dispassionate quality to Pullman's writing throughout that inspires little to no direct identifaction with his characters and only the vaguest sort of sympathy for their plight. Wonder itself is a neutered thing in this realm, which is fitting given his life philosophy, as the revelation of facts becomes subordinate to the facts themselves. The experience, in other words, is subtly given little significance. The latter books feel kind of like automatic writing and are unwittingly good arguments for a kind of Calvinistic determinism that folds in nicely with Pullman's preferred biological variety.

The early reviews of the movie which I've read that note this quality of coldness or emotional disconnect as a negative make me smile as I can't help but think this is the one thing Weitz probably got right and he isn't being congratulated for bringing it to life.

Oh, and in terms of film series that were never completed I would toss in Alex Rider: Operation Stormbreaker. Though that may technically be followed up I suspect it will have little resemblance to the first, woefully misjudged picture.

comment #32

berg says ...

the alethiometer, and the way it is large and round and pops open - it looks like Juno's hamburger phone

comment #33

EOTW says ...

to each his own

comment #34

K. Bowen says ...

I will say this for the film ... at least the kid figures her own way out of trouble, unlike Harry "Hermione, what do I do?" Potter.

comment #35

BurmaShave says ...

Don't forget THE SEEKER: THE DARK IS RISING killed off another hopeful fantasy franchise in its tracks just a few months ago. I dont know about HIS DARK MATERIALS though, it seems like it's getting much better reviews in Britain, and with Kidman and Craig perhaps it has a chance to do well overseas.

I have to say though, I've been defending Ebert all year as still being fairly objective, but when I opened my local rag that carries him in syndication I was a little heartbroken to see his four stars for GOLDEN COMPASS.

comment #36

frankbooth says ...

But it has Sam Elliot, reprising his Lebowski character! How bad could it be?

comment #37

bluefugue says ...

I think the handling of "Back to the Future" was interesting. The final scene (with Doc talking about Marty's kids, and the tag saying "to be continued") clearly sets up a sequel. But the filmmakers hedged their bets -- the narrative of the first BTTF movie is completely self-contained and we would be satisfied even if there were no sequel. Moreover, by the time BTTF 2 was made, the "problem with Marty's kids" plot was deemed insufficiently interesting to be the basis for a whole movie, and instead it became a "throwaway" plot point that was resolved by the end of Act I, leaving room for the (much more interesting) main plot about the sports almanac and time-traveling Biff.

2 and 3, being filmed concurrently and both following from a successful first film, could be more interdependent -- the ending of BTTF2 is clearly unresolved and requires the third film to provide closure. (Same technique as we saw in Empire Strikes back and Return of the Jedi, of course... the first film in the trilogy is self-contained because at the time it had to be a stand-alone movie, but parts 2 and 3 are much more closely interdependent.)

When a trilogy is set up this way, it seems a bit odd when you look back on it -- you can sense the timidity in making the first entry self contained, and it creates a lopsided rhythm for the series as a whole. It's easy to understand why the first movie is made this way, of course, since it's not a foregone conclusion that it will do well enough to justify sequels.

comment #38

Jay Purdy says ...

"So when was the last time the last time a presumed series was released - where the story is not finished in the first film - only to have the first film tank and the franchise die?"

I'm sure Paramount and DreamWorks thought they had the next Harry Potter in Lemony Snicket's A Series of Unfortunate Events. Wow, with that title, how do you go wrong?

comment #39

ZayTonday says ...

"But it has Sam Elliot, reprising his Lebowski character!"

Sometimes, Frank, there's a man.

Sometimes, there's a man.

comment #40

Smurf says ...

Bluefugue, "Back to the Future" sequels violated any potential integrity by ignoring the continuity of Part 1. A) the original 1985 Doc Brown told Marty that one of his own goals in traveling to 2015 was finding out who wins the future World Series (thus his sequel's sudden anti-gambling screed made him an instant 180-degree hypocrite without explanation)... B) The original Marty never had a vulnerability to being called "chicken" so the sequel's emphasis of this Achilles' heel was bizarrely schizo.

BTTF was a classic 80s blockbuster, but Parts 2 and 3 were box-office bronze, disappointing audiences by veering so far off the premises established by Part 1. I still can't understand why Zemeckis' re-cast "Jennifer" (Elisabeth Shue) acted completely different than the original character (ultimately becoming a manic wide-eyed farce)...

Ever since, when I see the finale of Part 1 it's always bittersweet to see the optimistic idealistic enthusiasm, knowing how murkily it was ignored by the mediocre sequels.

comment #41

Luke Y. Thompson says ...

If I remember correctly, VAN HELSING itself was originally supposed to be a sequel to Coppola's Dracula, with Anthony Hopkins in the lead. It sort of evolved a bit in the subsequent years...

comment #42

BurmaShave says ...

Yeah, after they say his fucking batshit performance in DRACULA. Though I'd have preferred his leg-humping madness to Hugh Jackman's sourpuss intensity.

comment #43

bmcintire says ...

The box office for LEMONY SNICKETT is an odd story. It opened to $30M the weekend before Christmas, did another $30M Christmas week and then another $34M the next week. And then it just died, staying in theaters through April but only eeking out another $20M or so in those 16 weeks to cap off at $118M. I don't know how it did on home video (and it didn't appear to catch fire overseas). I'm surprised to see they didn't go back for more, although at a MUCH smaller budget (and probably without Carey's hefty salary). I've heard the books are quite fun, and there is a ton of material there.

comment #44

bmcintire says ...

I don't know how accurate is is (or will turn out to be), but the budgets of CHRONICLES OF NARNIA and PRINCE CASPIAN drop from $180M to $100M. Hmm.

comment #45

Dan Revill says ...

Prince Caspian looks more interesting than LW&W, and much smaller in terms of effects - at least from what they've shown. Maybe more spent on practical and not so much CGI? Anyhow, I wasn't a huge fan of the first Narnia fan, but I liked it well enough to be thinking PC should be worth admission.

As for Lemony Snicket, it's definitely an odd film that's hard to gauge. I know a few people who caught up with it on DVD and love it. I saw it a couple times in the theater and once on DVD. I think it's a wonderful little film. I've read a few of the books, and they could tell more stories in the course of another film, but they sorta suffer from the been-there-done-that vibe...While I haven't gone through the entire series, there don't seem to be any huge deviations from the basic plot of crazy uncle trying to kill children and get the money. I'm happy with one Lemony Snickett flick. Another isn't a guaranteed moneymaker. Maybe in 10 years it'd be fun to see a different spin on the stories though.

The Oninon's AV Club had an article about films that could have equaled franchises, but fell short. One that I remember being mentioned was Master & Commander - clearly had it been more profitable they could have done more. One of the best films of this decade. It's a shame it wasn't more widely seen.
(If I can find the link to the article, I'll post it)

comment #46

Dan Revill says ...

Ah ha: http://www.avclub.com/content/feature/inventory_13_failed_attempts_to

comment #47

Craig Kennedy says ...

Leave Ebert alone. Who among you actually depend on a critic's review anyway? It's all about their passion and style. Ebert's got both in spades.

We all know his weak spots and we're free to ignore him. Go back and read some of his Greatest Movies reviews if you need a refresher in why the guy rules.

I couldn't give fuckall about anyone's opinion of The Golden Compass. Sorry to hear it probably sucks, but I suspect I'll sleep pretty well tonight all the same. Besides, it's another excuse to just go see No Country for Old Men again.

comment #48

bmcintire says ...

Loved MASTER AND COMMANDER - and would have hoped to see more. Maybe someday.

comment #49

MPNeeb says ...

Another failed franchise: Eragon.

Doesn't help that the author of the books is a whiny ass-hat.

comment #50

lipranzer says ...

I didn't hate this movie, but it certainly didn't have the magic of the LOTR movies and the first Narnia movie, all of which I loved. The acting is decent, Weitz doesn't embarass himself in handling the special effects, and they did a good job simplifying the story. But of the major actors, only Kidman has anything to work with, there's no real fire to the story, and the ending is a little blah. And certainly, if the audience I was with is any indication, the movie's not going to be a big hit - I overheard people of all different age groups complaining about it afterwards, especially in comparison to the books (compare that to ATONEMENT - I had problems with that movie also, but the audience I was with sure didn't, as they applauded and were sniffling at the end).

comment #51

PerfectTommy says ...

The sequels I would most like to see that probably won't be are the sequels to "Unbreakable".