criterionforum.org

I didn't know Kate Bush, of all people, had recorded a song for the soundtrack of this movie! This pretty much makes it obligatory viewing for me - how could I pass a chance to hear that woman's amazing voice in the theatre, right?

Find more about it, here.

A Kate tune and a Desplat score -- sounds like a must-buy soundtrack!

As usual, the Vatican is a few weeks late in their unsurprising furrowing of their brows at the film:

Vatican "Consoled" by Poor Box Office for Compass

In an editorial packed with schadenfreude, the Vatican newspaper l'Osservatore Romano said that it found the mediocre box office for New Line's The Golden Compass "consoling." The film had been denounced in America by the Catholic League, the country's largest Catholic lay group, as an introduction to atheism. Although the film itself has no overt anti-religious message the Philip Pullman book trilogy on which it is based, does, and the Catholic League had expressed concern that children who were expossed to the movie would be drawn to the book. "In Pullman's world, hope simply does not exist, because there is no salvation but only personal, individualistic capacity to control the situation and dominate events," Wednesday's editorial said. The editorial also took note of reports that poor returns for the movie would discourage the studio from producing a sequel. "If that should happen, it wouldn't be a big loss," the newspaper said.

I denounce the bible because its an Introduction to God. #-o

Nicole was pretty fuckable in this.

Not sure why it cost $180 million. As much as I hate Terry Gilliam, it would have worked better as a $75 million Gilliam-style film. As it is, it comes across as a setup for a trilogy that likely will never happen.

And they should have turned the English chicklet into a boy with better dentition, but whatever.

Barmy wrote:And they should have turned the English chicklet into a boy with better dentition, but whatever.

That would screw up the whole Lyra=Eve theme. It would also require a gay underage sex scene in the third film. I can't see the Vatican going for that.

Barmy wrote:...it would have worked better as a $75 million Gilliam-style film.

It would have worked better as a $30 million Greenaway film; but of course I was going to say that.

It's true though. If PG had just adapted the play and turned it into a some kind of extravaganza for the BBC he would simultaneously have satisfied fans of the book and revived his own career in one blow.

Think of how awesome it would have been to have gotten these elaborate fantasy scenes presented as unapologetic tableau with the daemons as real animals milling around and with voice overs conspicuously provided by an off stage/screen actor (the strange detachment of Baby of Macon finds another appropriate subject). That approach would certainly have done the tone of the books more justice than the pathetic, emasculated cartoon we were handed, the only powerful scenes of which emerge due solely to association with the source material; everything on screen lacks impact as it's all rushed and forced and confused.

John Cope wrote:It's true though. If PG had just adapted the play and turned it into a some kind of extravaganza for the BBC he would simultaneously have satisfied fans of the book and revived his own career in one blow.

I'm not sure about the first point. Remember the outcry of many of the more conservative Shakespeare fans when they saw what PG did to "The Tempest". And I don't think that Greenaway would have agreed to do the project even if it had been offered to him as he has often spoken against 'illustrated text' in general and against filming novels in particular.

One aspect of the book is of course that it is an adventurous narrative, and I'm not sure whether Greenaway's tableau style would be able to do justice to this. Much as I find your description of what PG's version might look like intriguing, I can't help thinking of another director whose imagination is as unbridled as Greenaway's, but who could probably more tune in to the quest narrative and also the religious/spiritual bits: Alejandro Jodorowsky. I'm still wondering what that "Dune" project would have been like...

How about a €10,000,000 production helmed by Jacques Rivette, and starring Asia Argento as Mrs. Coulter and Oscar®-nominated actress Abigail Breslin as Lycra® Spandex Belacqua (a product tie-in is necessary in order to afford Breslin's fee). It could be structured as a rehearsal for a stage play about an unfilmable novel set in an alternative universe.

Barmy wrote: starring Asia Argento as Mrs. Coulter

Wowwwwwww!

WW gross at $310,000,000. May be hope for sequels.

Oh wow, I didn't realize it did so well overseas

Considering New Line was positioning this as their next LOTR style franchise, that number will be considered a massive disappointment compared to the Fellowship Of The Ring's $869,797,416 worldwide take. Not to mention that huge chunk of change they made on merchandising alone.

I don't think the studio is going to spend another $200 million dollars on a sequel to a film that wasn't as well received critically, did poorly in the United States and barely made twice the budget on its worldwide box office.

Any sequels would presumably have to be made by Europeans (or New Zealanders...) as they seem to be better at putting euros on screen. I agree that this was a disaster for New Line. The problem here is they chose the wrong director/screenwriter. I assume that much of the absurd $180 million budget (the alleged budget of the entire LotR saga was $300 million) went to CGI which still looks fake. Why not embrace the fakeness? The sequels would be virtually guaranteed to make $200 million each overseas which isn't that bad.

Also I am presuming that a longer cut of "Compass" is available for DVD. The movie seems pretty truncated. If so, won't "Compass" likely be profitable?

I didn't particularly like the movie but I think there was potential there that was ruined by the shitty script and ludicrous budget.

Barmy wrote:Also I am presuming that a longer cut of "Compass" is available for DVD. The movie seems pretty truncated. If so, won't "Compass" likely be profitable?

I think you are correct regarding a longer cut. I remember reading that Weitz had filmed some more footage that would be a bridge to a potential second film and that it was excised at the last minute from the theatrical version, but it will appear on DVD.

And certainly, the film will be profitable, but it depends if New Line was smart enough to contractually obligate the stars to any sequels and if they ultimately want to throw that kind of money at a sequel again especially when it doesn't seem that audiences are really clamoring for it.

Barmy wrote:WW gross at $310,000,000. May be hope for sequels.

With the exception of presumably, Vatican City.

The last book, from what I remember of it might very well prove unfilmable. Or at the very least New Line is digging itself into a corner with its 'Lord of the Rings style epic' approach. They might as well have Terry Gilliam on board, at least he's used to filming the unfilmable.

Then again, with his recent luck he might accidentally accelerate the coming of the apocalypse.

The US audience is not clamoring for it. However, I believe it is approximately #10 in non-US box office for 2007 films.

Horrifying. So for once the US theatrical audience actually has more sense than the rest of the world? That's comforting though I suspect the reasons for ignoring Compass were anything but the aesthetic disdain it should engender. Barmy's right about where the fault here lies. If there is a push for another of these I would hope somebody somewhere has the sanity to drop kick Weitz.

Antoine Doinel wrote:And certainly, the film will be profitable, but it depends if New Line was smart enough to contractually obligate the stars to any sequels and if they ultimately want to throw that kind of money at a sequel again especially when it doesn't seem that audiences are really clamoring for it.

I think I heard that Kidman was not on board for anymore of these. Also, if you check out IMDB (always a danger to mental health I know) you will see just how many people are clamoring for sequels. Now even assuming some of this attitude stems from a kind of vaulted up defensive posturing it is still profoundly depressing to me that somebody would desperately desire a sequel to such a woefully underimagined, bland and banal picture as this. What in the hell are these people responding to? I genuinely don't get it and it speaks very poorly of what is expected or demanded from fantasy films or films in general, given that this fails even on that level due to its staggeringly indifferent construction.

Did you see this Antoine? What did you think of it?

I assume the emotional response is from people who have read the book. The film itself of course is chilly.

Although it is bad filmmaking, the way the film just presented plot points (like when that Bond chick swoops down and announces "I am Bleanthra McFiddletits, 'sup with that compass and don't ask me where the fuck my daemon is--he's like far away. Buh byeeee!"), one after another, was actually somewhat appealing to me.

Barmy wrote:Although it is bad filmmaking, the way the film just presented plot points (like when that Bond chick swoops down and announces "I am Bleanthra McFiddletits, 'sup with that compass and don't ask me where the fuck my daemon is--he's like far away. Buh byeeee!"), one after another, was actually somewhat appealing to me.

But the real question is whether the appeal was coming from the exposition or Ms. McFiddletits.

I hate it when they do this.

Barmy wrote:I assume the emotional response is from people who have read the book.

Well I've read the books and the only emotional response I had was vitriol. I assume most of the big fans of the movie actually hadn't read them; otherwise we have to assume that they're so devoted to the source material that they are willing to blindly support any adaptation.

John Cope wrote:Did you see this Antoine? What did you think of it?

Actually, I was already planning on seeing this tomorrow before the sequel speculation began! So I will definitely post my thoughts after I see the film tomorrow. But from what I've read in various places online, those that haven't read the book seem to think more of the film than those who have. I haven't read the books so we'll see what happens

Ok I guess it was the cute lil animalz.

Finally saw this tonight and thought it was a decent, serviceable fantasy but nothing more. Having not read the trilogy (but gotten the gist of it from the endless film vs. book debates) I think it's safe to say the general theme was carried over to the film, though not expressed explicitly. I don't think enjoyment of the film suffers for it though. I will say the big problem with the film is that the CGI bears and Sam Elliot are about a thousand times more interesting than the rest of the cast. It was only during the big polar bear fight that the audience sat up and even gasped at its pretty awesome conclusion. But otherwise, as Barmy mentioned, it's a lot of plot points but little else. And yeah, a lot of the CGI, particularly the polar-bear-and-child-running-across-the-frozen-wasteland are really poorly rendered. However, I do think the final third of the film works a lot better than the rest of it.

If anything, the film is worth admission just to see Nicole Kidman in at least a half dozen fabulous outfits.

And the Kate Bush song is terrible. It's like they handed her a synopsis of the film five seconds before she entered the recording booth and she decided to sing it.

I almost killed myself hearing that song in the theatre before remembering I could just walk out.