I saw it, and it wasn't bad, though the first half-hour is really kind of bland. I wouldn't have thought much of it, I don't think, as a young child. The rest is pretty good, although the ending is sheered off, and I don't know that it should have been. I don't think what they did worked any better than doing what they did in the book (apparently kill the lead character).
The anti-Christian stuff is toned down, and mostly anti-Authoritarian and anti-Fascist in nature. But what is there is simplistic, silly, and clearly seems to imply that monotheism begets simplistic fascism and authoritarianism. This is ground that has been trod dozens of times before, in ways more interesting, and it makes the bits with the Maegesterium and Ms. Coulter more tedious than engaging.
Still, worldwide grosses for the first two weeks have been $133 million, for a film that cost about $180 million, and which probably had another $20 million in marketing (I'm pulling that figure out of my butt, fyi, but I suspect it's conservative). By the time it's gone, it can easily hit $160 million, possibly $180 or higher, worldwide, then there will be cable and DVD sales and so on, and it will make a profit, but a guaranteed blockbuster franchise, ala LOTR, it clearly is not.
Yet, as a Christian, I don't blame this on the anti-religious themes, nor would I encourage people to avoid His Dark Materials because of Pullman's boring and predictable atheism. If the story doesn't appeal to you, fine, but the questions and objections Pullman raises should be answered by Christians (or the religious, generally), rather than run from. Or boycotted. As I have mentioned in other circumstances, I think boycotts are only a level above the burning of books or CDs, and burning things (whether Dixie Chick CDs or American flags) as a form of political statement is just retarded.
Really, there is nothing in the Golden Compass for anybody to be afraid of. Pullman's depiction of religious authority is boring and predictable. The metaphor of Ms. Coulter wanting to "cut off" children's souls is so silly, given thought, it's laughable--not frightening. It's certainly not a deep theological question.
If you want a reason to avoid Philip Pullman's novels, I suggest you avoid them based on his arrogance and hubris. I happen to be a huge J.R.R. Tolkien fan--and I came late to it, only having first read the Lord of the Rings in 2003--and Pullman's condescension towards Tolkien is breathtaking, considering the shallowness, and the sloppiness, of his own work. Pullman says of Tokien:
'The Lord of the Rings’ is fundamentally an infantile work. Tolkien is not interested in the way grownup, adult human beings interact with each other. He’s interested in maps and plans and languages and codes.Elsewhere, Pullman calls Tolkien "trivial", which is not a rational statement, even if you hate his work (which would make me consider you clinically insane, but that's not the point right now). He also says Tolkien didn't ask the right questions in his work . . . Pullman's hubris is breathtaking, and I think a little humility could have done a lot to inform his work, give it greater depth, and, in the end, it could have resulted in a decent story and some good movies; the religiosity, or lack of it, notwithstanding.
Of course, one could speculate about Pullman's antipathy to Tolkien (and, of course, C.S. Lewis): Tolkien was deeply religious. He did not engage in apologetics or allegory, but, certainly, it informed his work. Pullman's distaste for religion, and even moreso for the religious, taints his view of the works of Tolkien and C.S. Lewis, and, in the end, I think it makes His Dark Materials (and the movie based on the first book in the series) a smaller, less serious work than it could have been. And a much smaller work than any random thought Tolkien ever scribbled on a cocktail napkin.
BTW, I Am Legend is tearing it up at the box office and, in addition to action and adventure, I Am Legend is a movie that believes in God. I'm just saying.
