“JANE EYRE” (1973) Review

“JANE EYRE” (1973) Review

When I began this article, it occurred to me that I was about to embark upon the review of the sixth adaptation I have seen of Charlotte Brontë’s 1847 novel. I have now seen six adaptations of “Jane Eyre”and plan to watch at least one or two more. Meanwhile, I would like to discuss my views on the 1973 television adaptation.

For the umpteenth time, “JANE EYRE” told the story of a young English girl, who is forced to live with her unlikable aunt-by-marriage and equally unlikable cousins. After a clash with her Cousin John Reed, Jane Eyre is sent to Lowood Institution for girls. Jane spends eight years as a student and two as a teacher at Lowood, until she is able to acquire a position as governess at a Yorkshire estate called Thornfield Hall. Jane discovers that her charge is a young French girl named Adele Varens, who happens to be the ward of Jane’s employer and Thornfield’s owner, Edward Rochester. Before she knows it, Jane finds herself falling in love with Mr. Rochester. But the path toward romantic happiness proves to be littered with pitfalls.

After watching “JANE EYRE” . . . or least this version, I hit the Web to learn about the prevailing view toward the 1973 miniseries. I got the impression that a number of Brontë fans seemed to regard it as the best version of the 1847 novel. I can honestly say that I do not agree with this particular view. Mind you, the miniseries seemed to be a solid adaptation. Screenwriter Robin Chapman and director Joan Craft managed to translate Brontë’s tale to the screen without too many drastic changes. Yes, there are one or two changes that I found questionable. But I will get to them later. More importantly, due to the entire production being stretch out over the course of five episode, I thought it seemed well balanced.

I was surprised to see that “JANE EYRE” was set during the decade of the 1830s. It proved to be the second (or should I say first) adaptation to be set in that period. The 1983 television adaptation was also set during the 1830s. Did this bother me? No. After all, Brontë’s novel was actual set during the reign ofKing George III (1760-1820) and I have yet to stumble across an adaptation from this period. Both this production and the 1983 version do come close. But since “Jane Eyre” is not a historical fiction novel like . . . “Vanity Fair”, I see no reason why any movie or television production has to be set during the time period indicated in the story.

The movie also featured some solid performances. I was surprised to see Jean Harvey in the role of Jane’s Aunt Reed. The actress would go on to appear in the 1983 adaptation of the novel as Rochester’s housekeeper, Mrs. Fairfax. As for her portrayal of Aunt Reed, I thought Harvey did a solid job, even if I found her slightly theatrical at times. Geoffrey Whitehead gave an excellent performance as Jane’s later benefactor and cousin, St. John Rivers. However, I had the oddest feeling that Whitehead was slightly too old for the role, despite being only 33 to 34 years old at the time. Perhaps he just seemed slightly older. The 1973 miniseries would prove to be the first time Edward de Souza portrayed the mysterious Richard Mason. He would later go on to repeat the role in Franco Zeffirelli’s 1996 adaptation. Personally, I feel he was more suited for the role in this adaptation and his excellent performance conveyed this. I do not know exactly what to say about Brenda Kempner’s portrayal of Bertha Mason. To be honest, I found her performance to be something of a cliché of a mentally ill woman. For me, the best performance in the entire miniseries came from Stephanie Beachum, who portrayed Jane’s potential rival, the haughty and elegant Blanche Ingram. I do not think I have ever come across any actress who portrayed Blanche as both “haughty” and lively at the same time. Beachum did an excellent job at portraying Blanche as a likable, yet off-putting and arrogant woman.

Many fans of the novel do not seem particularly impressed by Sorcha Cusack’s portrayal of the title character. A good number of them have accused the actress of being unable to convey more than a handful of expressions. And they have accused her of being too old for the role at the ripe age of 24. Personally . . . I disagree with them. I do not regard Cusack’s performance as one of the best portrayals of Jane Eyre. But I thought she did a pretty damn good job, considering this was her debut as an actress. As for her “limited number of expressions”, I tend to regard this accusation as a bit exaggerated. Yes, I found her performance in the scenes featuring Jane’s early time at Thornfield a bit too monotone. But I feel that she really got into the role, as the production proceeded. On the other hand, many of these fans regard Michael Jayston’s portrayal of Edward Rochester as the best. Again, I disagree. I am not saying there was something wrong with his performance. I found it more than satisfying. But I found it difficult to spot anything unique about his portrayal, in compare to the other actors who had portrayed the role before and after him. There were a few moments when his performance strayed dangerously in hamminess. Also, I found his makeup a bit distracting, especially the . . . uh, “guyliner”.

The production values for “JANE EYRE” seemed solid. I felt a little disappointed that interior shots seemed to dominate the production, despite the exterior scenes of Renishaw Hall, which served as Thornfield. Some might argue that BBC dramas of the 1970s and 1980s were probably limited by budget. Perhaps so, but I have encountered other costumed productions of that period that have used more exterior shots. I had no problem with Roger Reece’s costume designs. But aside from the outstanding costumes for Stephanie Beacham, there were times when most of the costumes looked as if they came from a warehouse.

Earlier, I had commented on the minimal number of drastic changes to Brontë’s novel. I am willing to tolerate changes in the translation from novel to television/movie, if they were well done. Some of the changes did not bother me – namely Bessie’s visit to Jane at Lowood and the quarrel between Eliza and Georgiana Reed, during Jane’s visit at Gateshead Hall. But there were changes and omissions I noticed that did not exactly impress me. I was disappointed that the miniseries did not feature Jane’s revelation to Mrs. Fairfax about her engagement to Mr. Rochester. I was also disappointed that “JANE EYRE” did not feature Jane begging in a village before her meeting with the Rivers family. Actually, many other adaptations have failed to feature this sequence as well . . . much to my disappointment. And I was a little put off by one scene in which Mr. Rochester tried to prevent Jane from leaving Thornfield following the aborted wedding ceremony with over emotional kisses on the latter’s lips. Not face . . . but lips. I also did not care for the invented scenes that included a pair of doctors telling Reverend Brocklehurst that he was responsible for the typhus outbreak at Lowood. What was the point in adding this scene? And what was the point in adding a scene in which two society ladies discussed John Reed during a visit Thornfield?

Overall, “JANE EYRE” proved to be a solid adaptation of Charlotte Brontë’s novel, thanks to director Joan Craft and screenwriter Robin Chapman. Everything about this production struck me as “solid”, including the performances from a cast led by Sorcha Cusack and Michael Jayston. Only Stephanie Beachum’s portrayal of Blanche Ingram stood out for me. The production values struck me as a bit pedestrian. And I was not that thrilled by a few omissions and invented scenes by Chapman. But in the end, I liked the miniseries. I did not love it, but I liked it.

Advertisements

“JANE EYRE” (1996) Review

kinopoisk.ru-Jane-Eyre-1303436

“JANE EYRE” (1996) Review

According to the Wikipedia website, there have been sixteen film adaptations of Charlotte Brontë’s 1847 novel, “Jane Eyre”. And there have been ten television adaptations of the novel. That is a hell of a lot of adaptations for one novel. A lot. And judging by the numbers, I have no immediate plan to see every movie or television adaptation. But I have seen at least five or six adaptations. And one of them is Franco Zeffirelli’s 1996 movie adaptation. 

Adapted by Zeffirelli and Hugh Whitemore, “JANE EYRE” told the story of a 19th century English orphan named Jane Eyre, who is rejected by her aunt and sent to a strict girls school. After eight years as a student and two years as an instructor, Jane is hired as governess to the French ward of Edward Rochester, the brooding owner of an estate in Yorkshire called Thornfield Hall. Although Jane possesses a mild, unprepossing manner, she also possesses strong internal passions and strength in character that her employer finds attractive. Eventually, Jane and her Mr. Rochester fall in love. But a deep secret that exists at Thornfield Hall threatens their future relationship and forces Jane to mature in a way she did not expect.

I could have delved more into the movie’s plot, but why bother? The story of Jane Eyre is so familiar and has been recounted so many times that I believe it would be best to describe how I feel about this adaptation. And how do I feel about it? Honestly, it is not one of my favorite adaptations. Mind you, it is not terrible. In fact, I find it pretty solid. The movie’s production values seemed to be first rate. I was impressed by Roger Hall’s production designs, which did a very good job of re-creating Northern England of the 1830s and 1840s. Jenny Beavan, whom I am beginning to believe is one of the best costume designers on both sides of the Atlantic, did an excellent job in re-creating the fashions for both decades. And I also liked how David Watkin’s photography captured the beauty of Haddon Hall in Derbyshire, which served as the Rochester estate, Thornfield Hall.

I would probably rate Zeffirelli and Whitemore’s adaptation of Brontë’s novel as slightly below above average, but not quite average. I feel they did a first-rate job of re-creating at least three quarters of Brontë’s tale. However, their adaptation fell apart, following Jane’s departure from Thornfield Hall. They allowed Bertha Rochester’s death and the burning of Thornfield to occur not long after Jane’s departure. At first, I found that odd. But now, I realize that Zeffirelli and Whitemore wanted to rush the story as fast as they possibly could. Matters did not improve when Jane met St. John and Mary Rivers. Jane’s inheritance of her uncle’s fortune and St. John’s loveless marriage proposal happened so fast that my head nearly spinned when she finally returned to Thornfield. The movie’s weakest writing proved to be in the last twenty to thirty minutes.

The biggest criticism that “JANE EYRE” received from critics proved to be Zeffirelli’s casting of William Hurt as Edward Rochester. Mind you, I found Hurt’s English accent a little shaky. But I really enjoyed the cynical and world weary air he projected into the character . . . especially in scenes featuring Rochester’s meeting with his brother-in-law, Richard Mason. And he also managed to achieve some kind of screen chemistry with leading lady Charlotte Gainsbourg. I find this quite miraculous, considering my belief that Gainsbourg’s portrayal of Jane Eyre proved to be the movie’s weakest link. I realize that this is not a popular view. But aside from one scene, I found Gainsbourg’s performance to be completelyBORING. All she had to do was open her mouth and her flat tones nearly put me to sleep. The only time she really managed to effectively convey Jane’s deep emotions was in the famous scene in which the character revealed her love for Rochester. Only in this scene did Gainsbourg gave a hint of the acting talent she would eventually develop.

Other members of the cast gave solid performances. I noticed that the movie featured three cast members from 1995’s“PERSUASION” – Fiona Shaw, Amanda Root and Samuel West. Shaw was very emotional, yet vicious as Jane’s cold Aunt Reed. Root gave a warm performance as Miss Temple, Jane’s favorite teacher at Lowood. And West was very effective in his portrayal of Jane’s religious cousin and savior, St. John Rivers. It seemed a pity that the movie’s script did not allow for a further look into his character. John Wood was perfectly hypocrtical and cold as Jane’s religious headmaster, Mr. Brocklehurst. Joan Plowright gave a delightful performance as the outgoing housekeeper, Mrs. Fairfax. And I was surprised by Elle Macpherson’s effective portrayal of the charming and self-involved Blanche Ingram. Edward de Souza gave a solid performance as Rochester’s emotionally delicate brother-in-law, Richard Mason. But like West, he was barely in the movie long enough to make any kind of an impression. Julian Fellowes made an appearance as one of Rochester’s friends, a Colonel Dent; but aside from a few witty lines, he was not that impressive. But the one supporting performance that really impressed me came from Anna Paquin’s portryal of the young and passionate Jane. It seemed a pity that Paquin was only 13 to 14 years old at the time. Because I believe that her performance as Jane seemed ten times better than Gainsbourg.

Franco Zeffirelli’s adaptation of Brontë’s novel is not bad. Despite a shaky English accent, Hurt proved to be an effective Edward Rochester. And the movie also featured fine performances from many supporting performances. The director did a solid job of re-creating Brontë’s tale for at least three-quarters of the movie. However, the adaptation fell apart in the last quarter, when Jane flet Thornfield Hall following her aborted wedding. And Charlotte Gainsbourg’s flat performance as the titled character did not help matters. Like I said, “JANE EYRE” did not strike me as above average, but it seemed a little better than average.

“THE SPY WHO LOVED ME” (1977) Review

 

“THE SPY WHO LOVED ME” (1977) Review

“THE SPY WHO LOVED ME” became EON Productions 10th entry in the Bond franchise in 1977. It also marked Sir Roger Moore’s third turn as British agent, James Bond, Cubby Broccoli’s as sole producer for the first time and Lewis Gilbert’s second time at bat as director of a Bond film. This is the movie that introduced the catchphrase, “Nobody does it better,” and according to many critics and fans, saved the Bond franchise back in the 1970s. Watching “THE SPY WHO LOVE ME”, I can understand why many would harbor this belief.

Many critics and fans tend to credit or blame Roger Moore for helping to usher in the era of “fantasy” Bond – in other words a Bond movie that basically feels more like a fantasy/science-fiction action movie than a spy thriller. I do not really accept this view, since I believe that 1964’s “GOLDFINGER” was responsible for this change of style in the Bond franchise. In fact, Connery did two other movies that continued this very element in the movies. Roger Moore merely continued what Connery had begun in movies like “LIVE AND LET DIE” and “THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN”. The latter, released in 1974, came dangerously close to ruining the Bond franchise – at least in the eyes of many fans and critics. And in a way, I do not blame them for this attitude. Frankly, I consider “TMWTGG” to be one of the worst Bond films in the franchise and Moore’s worst movie. EON Productions had to wait two to three years to release its next movie, due to the breakup of the Cubby Broccoli/Harry Saltzman partnership. Following this, “THE SPY WHO LOVED ME” premiered in 1977 and became the most highly regarded Bond film in the 1970s and is considered by some to be Moore’s personal triumph. I do not know if I would consider “THE SPY WHO LOVED ME” to be Moore’s ultimate triumph. I believe that honor should go to the 1981 movie, “FOR YOUR EYES ONLY”. However, I do consider it to be his third best film.

At first, the plot seemed reminiscent of the one for 1967’S “YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE”. But instead of American and Soviet space capsules disappearing, British and Soviet submarines vanish. Bond, just recently from a mission in Austria that led to the death of a KGB agent, is assigned to track down the missing Royal Navy submarine via a tracking system that has popped up on the market in Cairo, Egypt. His search not only leads to Soviet agent Anya Amasova (who is investigating the disappearance of a Soviet sub), but to billionaire oceanographer, Karl Stromberg. But what makes “TSWLM” so interesting is that the Egyptian sequences have a strong exotic atmosphere that lends a touch of mystery to the story; and Bond’s relationship with Amasova turns out to be more than just a case of the British agent having a female on hand for sex in the finale.

Probably the biggest contribution to the success of “THE SPY WHO LOVED ME” seemed to be the movie’s lead, Roger Moore. Many fans believe that he finally grew into the role of 007 in this movie. After seeing him (as Bond) cold-bloodedly push one of Stromberg’s men of a Cairo roof and shoot Stromberg four times, I can see why. Personally, I felt that he had grown into the role at first bat in “LIVE AND LET DIE”, but had regressed in an attempt to emulate Connery in “THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN”. But I cannot deny that his performance in THE SPY WHO LOVE ME can not only be considered among his best, but among the best Bond performances in the entire franchise. And he was certainly helped by Barbara Bach’s presence. Although I would not describe the New York born model-turned-actress as a particularly talented actress verbally, but she could be quite versatile through facial expressions, whether expressing jealousy over Bond’s attention to Stromberg’s pilot/assassin, Naomi; amusement over some of Bond’s predicaments or developing attraction toward the handsome British agent. In fact, I can recall at least three scenes in which Moore and Bach interact with each other, beautifully:

1) Their deepening attraction for each other, expressed through smiles after M and Gogol order them to work together;
2) Their discussion regarding their status as enemies turned allies on the train to Sardina;
3) And the piece de résistance – Anya’s discovery that Bond had killed her former lover in Austria

Supporting cast members like Bernard Lee, Lois Maxwell and Desmond Llewellyn ably serve the movie. Shane Rimmer, a Canadian actor who has been working in British films since the late 1950s, ably supports Moore as the somewhat sardonic commander of an American sub. Both Walter Gotell (as KGB General Gogol) and Richard Kiel (as assassin Jaws) make their debuts in the movie. Kiel personally came off as menacing in the movie, in compare to his return in “MOONRAKER”. German matinee idol, Curt Jurgens became the latest Bond villain, playing a billionaire/oceanographer whose response to the world’s growing corruption and self-destruction is use stolen nuclear submarines to blow up Washington D.C. and Moscow. Actually, Stromberg became the first Bond villain with megalomaniac ambitions to rule the world. All those before him were simply interested in profit. Jurgens is his usual competent self and also had the pleasure of uttering a few bon mots. But . . . I do not exactly find megalomaniacal villains to be interesting.

Despite some of the fantasy/science-fiction elements of “THE SPY WHO LOVED ME” – the Lotus Esprit, Stromberg and his two lairs – the Liparus Tanker and his lair/lab Atlantis, the movie is an exciting adventure that features great direction by Lewis Gilbert, a first-class battle between Stromberg’s men and the American/British/Soviet naval personnel, exotic locales in Egypt, a self-assured performance by Roger Moore and great screen chemistry and drama between Moore and Barbara Bach. It is easy to see why it is considered the best Bond film from the 1970s.

Great Quotes

Stromberg: “Well gentlemen, now that the moment has come to bid you farewell, I congratulate both you, Doctor, and you, Professor, on your brilliant work in the development of the submarine tracking system. Thanks primarily to you, I am happy to say that the first phase of our operation has met with considerable success. I have instructed my assistant to be paid into your Swiss bank account the sum of ten million dollars each. And that, I think, concludes our business. Before you go however, I very much regret to inform you that a dangerous development has recently been brought to my notice. Someone has been attempting to sell the plans of our tracking project to competing world powers; someone intimately associated with the project.”

Bond: “Which bullet has my name on it? The first or the last?”
Amasova: “I have never failed on a mission, Commander!”
Bond: “Then one of us is bound to be gravely disappointed, because neither have I.”

Bond: “Oh, thanks for deserting me back there.”
Amasova: “Every woman for herself, remember?”
Bond: “Well, you did save my life. Thank you.”
Amasova: “We all make mistakes, Mr Bond.”

Q: “Now I want to to take good care of this equipment.”
Bond: “Have I ever let you down, Q”
Q: “Frequently!”

Bond: “When one is in Egypt, one should delve deeply into its treasures.”

Hotel Receptionist: “Hello”
Bond: “Hello.”
Hotel Receptionist: (Staring at Bond with lust) “I have a message for you.”
Bond: “I . . . think you’ve just delivered it.”

Bond: “Which bullet has my name on it? The first or the last?”
Anya: “I have never failed on a mission, Commander. Any mission.”
Bond: “In that case, Major, one of us is bound to end up gravely disappointed, because neither have I.”

Bond: “Oh, by the way, thanks for deserting me back there.”
Anya: “Every woman for herself, remember?”
Bond: “Still, you did save my life.”
Anya: “We all make mistakes, Mr. Bond.”

(The motorcycle henchmen flies off a cliff in a cloud of feathers)
Bond: “All those feathers and he still can’t fly!”

Anya: “Commander James Bond, recruited to the British Secret Service from the Royal Navy. License to kill and has done so on numerous occasions. Many lady friends, but married only once. Wife killed . . .”
Bond: (interrupts her) “You’ve made your point.”
Anya: “You’re sensitive Mr.Bond?”
Bond: “About some things.”

Bond: “In our business, Anya, people get killed. You know that. It was either him or me.”

Bond: (Sandor is barely holding onto Bond’s necktie while dangling over the roof of a building) “Where’s Fekkesh?”
Sandor: “Pyramids!”
(He falls to his death)
Bond: (Straightens his tie) “What a helpful chap.”

Bond: (Anya has just used a Bond car gadget to kill an enemy) “How did you know about that?”
Anya: “I stole the plans to this car two years ago.”

Captain Carter: “What’s the matter, sailor? You’ve never seen a major taking a shower, before?”

(Bond and Anya are discovered making love)
M: “007!”
General Gogol: “Triple X!”
Sir Frederick Gray, Minister of Defence: “Bond! What do you think you’re doing?”
Bond: “Keeping the British end up, sir.”

8/10

“HIS DARK MATERIALS: THE GOLDEN COMPASS” (2007) Review

“HIS DARK MATERIALS: THE GOLDEN COMPASS” (2007) Review”

I might as well make one thing clear . . . I have never read Philip Pullman’s fantasy trilogy, “His Dark Materials”. But this did not deter my interest in seeing the movie based upon the first novel, “THE GOLDEN COMPASS”. And quite frankly, I am glad that I had seen it.

Directed by Chris Weitz, “THE GOLDEN COMPASS” opened with the beginning of the “HIS DARK MATERIALS” saga. In it, a young girl named Lyra Belacqua (Dakota Blue Richards), lives at Jordan College (of Oxford University) in an alternate dimension of Great Britain. She saves er uncle, world explorer/scholar Lord Asriel (Daniel Craig) from being poisoned by the Magisterium (the dimension’s religious ruling body) after he has revealed his discovery of elementary particles called Dust – something that the ruling body consider a threat to their authority. After her uncle departs upon an expedition to the North to find more Dust, Lyra befriends another scholar and explorer named Mrs. Marisa Coulter (Nicole Kidman) during a dinner held at Jordan College. While visiting Mrs. Coulter in London, Lyra learns that her hostess is a member of the Magisterium and has participated in the kidnapping of young children, including two of her friends – a kitchen servant named Roger, and a Gyptian boy named Billy Costa. She also discovers that Mrs. Coulter wants her hands on the last alethiometer, a device that resembles a golden compass. This device, which was given to Lyra by Jordan College’s Master, is able to reveal the answer to any question asked by the user.

After escaping Mrs. Coulter’s London flat, Lyra is rescued by the Gyptians, who plans to rescue Billy and the other children. They take Lyra to the Norweigian town of Trollsund, where she meets an aeronaut named Lee Scoresby (Sam Elliot). She also meets Serafina Pekkala (Eva Green) who is a queen of the witches, and an armoured bear named Iorek Byrnison (voice of Ian McKellan). With her new friends, Lyra embarks upon an adventure that leads her to a conflict between her friend Iorek and the false king of the amored bears, Ragnar Sturlusson (voice of Ian McShane); and to Bolvangar, an experimental station in the North where the Magisterium are severing the Gyptian children from their daemons. Before the movie ends Lyra learns that Lord Asriel has been captured by Magisterium spies and that Mrs. Coulter plans to assassinate him. She, Roger, Scoresby and Serafina set out to rescue the endangered explorer by the end of the movie.

Like any other movie, good or bad, “THE GOLDEN COMPASS” has its flaws. There were three of them that I found noticeable. One, the movie’s plot seemed rather vague on Lord Asriel’s fate after he was captured by the Magisterium’s spies in the North. Serafina gave a brief explanation to Scoresby near the end, as they set out to find Asriel. But still . . . I found it vague. Two, the editing by Anne V. Coates seemed a bit choppy in a few spots. And most importantly, the movie’s pacing . . . at least in the first third, seemed very rushed. Some people have complained that too many aspects of the story had been stuffed in the script. I personally feel that Weitz had simply rushed the story. By the time Lyra and the Gyptians reached Trollsund, the director seemed to have finally found a natural pace.

However, I must admit that “THE GOLDEN COMPASS” had turned out to be a lot better than I had expected. Honestly, it is quite good. The story was intriguing. Chris Weitz did a decent job in adapting Pullman’s novel for film, even if he did rush the first third of the story. I simply adored Henry Braham’s photography and Ruth Myer’s costume designs – especially Nicole Kidman’s elegant, 1930s style costumes. But I must commend Richard L. Johnson. Chris Lowe and Andy Nicholson for their sumptious art direction – especially their view of London in Pullman’s world. And Dennis Gassner deserves an Oscar nomination for his production design, as far as I am concerned.

The actors were first rate. What does one expect from a cast with the likes of Nicole Kidman, Daniel Craig, Eva Green, Sam Elliot, Jim Carter, Tom Courtenay? I especially have to give kudos to Craig who seemed like the embodiment of the ruthless, yet enthusiastic scholar Lord Asriel. And Nicole Kidman brought great style, charm and ruthlessness to the role of the villainous Mrs. Coulter. But she also gave the character a much needed pathos, when the lady revealed to our young heroine that she was the latter’s mother. It was quite thrilling to see Eva Green as a woman of action in her portrayal of the queen witch, Serafina Pekkala. Ian McKellan and Ian McShane were excellent as the feuding armored bears. And Jim Carter (who is married to HARRY POTTER actress Imelda Staunton) was most intimidating as the Gyptians’ king, John Faa. Seeing Sam Elliot’s portrayal as the charming aeronaut, Lee Scoresby, reminded me why I have remained a fan of his for so long. His scenes with young Dakota Blue Richards really crackled. He seemed like the embodiment of a fine wine that has aged very well.

“THE GOLDEN COMPASS”‘s center . . . the character that held the movie together was none other than first-time British actress, Dakota Blue Richards. This young lady was a find. She was absolutely perfect as the charming, yet bold and cunning Lyra. Some Washington D.C. critic had compared her unfavorably to another actress named Dakota – namely Dakota Fanning. Granted, the latter is an excellent actress, but so is Miss Richards. She managed to convey all of Lyra’s complex traits without turning the character into an adult in a child’s body. She was simply superb.

I am sure there are fans of Pullman’s novels who are disappointed that the movie did not turn out to be an exact adaptation of the literary version. All I can say is I am sorry, but I have never heard of any movie being an exact adaptation of its literary source. And if you are hoping to find one in the future, you will be disappointed. Yes, “THE GOLDEN COMPASS” has its flaws. What movie does not? But it certainly has enough virtues, including a superb leading actress, that made it enjoyable . . . at least for me.