Boy, this was bad.

The guy who made this didn't know anything abour framing, story-telling or editing.

I have to agree it was a terrible translation of the book. The film felt like a rush job "right, that scene is done, tick it off the checklist, on to the next!". Unfortunately I didn't think the actress playing Lyra was anywhere near strong enough (may be called Dakota but Dakota Fanning she isn't). I know it was her debut role, but casting someone that inexperienced in the leading role is a big risk, it didn't pay off. I just couldn't believe her emotions, partly due to the script, she was portrayed in such a confused manner (crying in one scene, then laughing a minute later).

Ian McKellan as Iorek just didn't seem right, I always imagined him to be rather coarsely spoken, possibly Icelandic or Scandinavean given the equivalent location. Having Nonso Anozie as originally planned would have worked better.

I don't think the daemons were explained very well at all, or even shown enough. Given how Pan is essentially one half of the lead character it is barmy that we only see him in a couple of scenes. They portrayed the Daemon as more of a pet, rather than as part of the soul which meant the scenes about severing this link or touching another daemon lost any power, significance or importance.

All in all it is a very crude attempt, maybe the directors cut is better (however I doubt it can remedy the above flaws). Although I will argue that Nicole Kidman was the film's saving grace. Her Mrs Coulter being exactly as I imagined (bar me picturing her as a redhead!). Lee Scoresby aswell was very well cast, the rest, not so much.

I think IMDB's 6/10 is spot-on, if a little generous.

Well Alberto, the movie surely got you ranting.

Haven't read book: no problem, shouldn't be required, thanks for sharing. It can help when analyzing or judging a movie. It can also completely ruin whatever own images you had from the book, as well as make you wish you never saw the movie (books take more time to plow through but 1:1, without the time/money taken into account, are almost always preferred over a movie).

Don't walk out of movies: I don't care. Either you miss out or not. If you walked out, you are not commenting on the complete movie because you didn't see the complete thing. By your post it isn't clear if you walked out or not. One can only guess, yet it is the only fact in this context I'd be interested to hear about from you..

About the "guy who made this" we call this a director. You as film student should know this. Chris Weitz wasn't sure on his CGI experience on got 3rd party help on this one. You can read this in trivia/FAQ. Do your research.

Now, you bring up VFX. Personally, I don't really care much about eye candy. I'm easily satisfied here. The movie did get an oscar on this one though. Then you say author did not know anything about framing, story-telling or editing. In your whole post that is the first interesting thing you mention about the movie. But you don't explain or post an argument which gives provides makes your argument nothing more or less than a solid one liner from a student. I don't understand your cast comment. What are you trying to say?

Then you go on about how you don't post IMDB. Why would we give a rat?

Next, the only other comment of any substance thus far in your long rant is you couldn't stand the girl. Is she really that much different from an average pre-teen kid? I adored her character because she stands for what a young child at her age is regardless of background: curious! Also innocent, and throughout the movie she quickly adapts to situations (I see this element in Potter, LOTR, ...). I've read the book and found her an adequate portrayal. For her first movie, I was impressed, and I wouldn't be surprised if she got nominations for awards. Now, to answer your questions: she is an upper class orphan. While discussing the Goblers legend she makes a promise to her best friend if he's ever kidnapped he'd come after him. She finds the connection between Ms. Coulter and the kidnappers, and finds sanctuary within the gypsies who aren't evil after all. She also doesn't trust people like Lee and Iorik right away; they have to prove themselves. She is a a curious but also sceptical/cauteous girl after all. As for your candy/penis comment I guess that describes your rich imagination.

As for your last comments mister film student you can easily figure out who wrote the script and who directed it (I already said above) and you can find their credentials. You can also find, that the movie was trimmed by 1/3 of the footage which is studio choice; not director's. A fantasy setting like this is hard to portrait well while explaining the rich world (a-la LOTR) well enough without sounding like a documentary. I don't think the viewer saw enough character development on Lord Asriel but this is akin to the book; the movie simply revolves around Lyra and whoever she meets in her journey, as well as Ms. Coulter.

On top of the length issue (and 33% cut is a lot of material don't you agree mister film student?), I have some more plausible explanations why this movie didn't do well and they touch a subject you omitted in your post despite being likely a Catholic: the white middle class, Christian role model in the USA didn't approve this movie because of the author's controversy. Anti-Christian movies generally do not go well in the USA. Potter also received a lot of flack, but this movie has some rather obvious parallels with real-life religion instead of wicca and paranormal activities. That is to say, atheism ans science is on the rise as being a threat to Christian hegemony whereas paganism is in decline and a battle long ago fought in medieval Europe. Despite this, Potter was already immensely popular even in USA (the moral battle was already fought). I see this anti-Christian sentiment also in the lack of popularity in a movie like Lars von Trier's Antichrist which is a cinematic masterpiece as well as a controversial brain teaser without a very specific, crystal-clear dogma to follow like the average shoot 'em up from Hollywood or the slightly above average movie which has to make some kind of moral point which leaves no room for interpretation. The major difference between these movies is of course: Antichrist isn't made for children. I find it curious why you expect a fellow with a white beard to give a candy and show his genital in a movie, or why you would expect the script to take such into account. Are you really obnoxious to the fact this movie is meant to be child-friendly as well as adult/parent friendly? In this sense, the movie stayed true to the book.

PS: Oh and yeah because you got yourself a big mouth if I read back this comment of mine in a few years, I'll be sure to Google your name and see what kind of masterpiece you came up with. I expect either I will be thoroughly surprised, or I'll have a good laugh; either way I'd win. First you call what you study, and then when someone asks for your material you evade the issue it addresses (your arrogance). You can't have it both way, mister. If you mention your credentials you can expect people to ask further info on it.

I've been loving too much, caring too little -- TormentoR.

I watched this on tv the other day. I just found it boring. But to be fair, this isn't really my kind of genre, and I haven't read any of the books, so for me it was just a mediocre cgi-fest.

Just watched the film and have to agree with the OP, "embarrassingly bad" sums it up. I'm a sucker for fantasy films & don't have any difficulty suspending belief but this was just a collection of pretty pictures. The plot was garbled,the direction confused and the characters pointless and contrived. Dakota Richards showed some potential, felt a bit sorry for her that her cinema debut had to be in this garbage.

Watch the infinitely superior City Of Lost Children to see how it should be done.

I agree.

This pure vomit.

Life is like a beautiful melody, only the lyrics are messed up.

I disliked it because the fact that the books are excellent! "His Dark Meterials" make up for an exciting and original read, especially when you realize where the story will lead to...it is quite startling!

However given the message and story line of the books, there is no way the studio would have had the balls to put that on screen, still they tried to make some money by producing this really empty, shallow and lifeless movie...I'm glad in a way that no sequels were made because they would have undoubtedly been worse than this mediocre first installment.

If you have the time, I would urge you to read the books, though they might appear to be directed towards children, the subject matter is quite heady and clearly adults can sink their teeth in the material...way darker and more profound than I thought they would be (the novels) when I started reading them!

"Today is the tomorrow I was so worried about yesterday"--Anthony Hopkins

This movie was horrifyingly bad.

Om Mani Padme Hum