I wanted to let you know before I started talking about “The Golden Compass” that I am a fan. It is because I like your work that I was all the more confused when I read your review of this film and then went to see it myself. I really have trouble seeing how it deserved 4 stars.

I understand the things that you did enjoy about the movie. The visuals are very pleasant, and the artistic arrangement creates an awe-inspiring world of Edwardian England meets techno-dystopia. And Dakota Blue Richards is a precocious little girl, and a great find. But can you really give a movie 4 stars  (which means, to me, that it is a movie without flaw, to receive the highgest possible rating) for just its visuals and a few plucky performances?

I know you hate cliches, and the movie is rife with them. How about when Lyra runs into a warehouse (chosen at random) while fleeing Gobblers and has the cliched net fall on her out of no-where from above? Who threw it? The people who are chasing her? Did someone set up an ambush in a random building that nobody could possibly have known she would run into? She’s then saved by the Gyptians, who dispatch the two Gobblers who are chasing her, neither of which appear to have anything to do with why a net has just dropped on her.

I’m reminded of your review for “Elektra”, which I just finished reading in “Your Movie Sucks”. You lambast them for having enemies that poof into gold dust the second they’re killed. The same thing happens to people’s demons in this movie (also happening the exact second they’re struck by bullets, arrows, what have you, regardless of how long it should probably take them to die) Or does the idea that perhaps their animals are turning into “Dust” fix things?

Later in the movie, Lord Asriel (who gets about what, 5-10 minutes of screentime total?) is talking aloud to his demon (which is a pretty convenient tool for exposition) about how “We should be careful because Mrs. Coulter has probably hired mercenaries to attack us”. Three seconds later they’re firing at him. You know, in case we the audience have forgotten what he just said. He might as well be saying to his leopard demon “Hey, a plot piece is about to ocur! Brace yourself!”

Speaking of characters who don’t get screen time, how about Eva Green’s witch character? She has speaking lines in like what, 2 scenes? Her inolvement (basically to be an oracle saying ”oh, big important things are going to happen” ) is far too little for an actress as gorgeous as she is. Perhaps that’s supposed to be balanced out by Kidman’s prescense, but I dunno, I prefer brunettes myself.

Here’s what I’m trying to stay: The movie does some things well. It looks cool. It tries to have an epic scope. It has interesting characters, and an interesting setting. But the pacing is off. We have side-plots upon side plots with no explanation. What happens to children severed from their demons? Billy (the kid they cut the demon away from) seems like a zombie. What’s up with him? Should they really make you wait for a whole other movie to find out if he’s even sentient? How did he get away in the first place? What kind of terrible Orwellian institute is this where the children can escape at their leisure? The movie is full of cliches, and full of moments that just don’t make sense. Take, for example, when all the kids run out of the Ice Station of the North. They look in front of them. We see what’s in front of them. There’s no one there. And then suddenly, poof, an armed phalanx of men with wolves. And then there’s nobody to protect them. We, the audience, as well as the characters can see that. And then, suddenly, as the blow is about to rain down on our hero, boom, the giant ice bear is suddenly there. Nobody heard or saw a massive bear approaching? How about an army of Gyptians, or a flying flotilla of witches? Why do the witches even care to help our character? If the ice-bear is the new king of the bears, why don’t his new subjects follow him to help Lyra?

I am genuinely curious about what your opinion is on all these questions. I’m sure you receive countless emails, and I am also sure that there are probably people reading these things before you that choose whether or not to forward them. I hope they choose this one. I wonder what you think of the questions I raise. Can a movie be a 4 star film based on strengths in some areas? Or do you think that my questions don’t have merit?

I hope to maybe receive a reply at some point. I leave you, then, a Roger Ebert fan of 21, studying journalism, considering a minor in film. Interested in your thoughts.

Yours,
Jim Vorel