'Golden Compass'

"The Golden Compass" is less of a movie than we expected. Less controversial, less of an epic. A fun and fine action flick, more in common with the better of the "Harry Potter" or "Pirates of the Caribbean" or "Narnia" series, than "Lord of the Rings." It's all a shame, in a way. It could have been more; it just wasn't.

"The Golden Compass" is a fun way to spend a couple of hours. The animal spirit companions were great in concept and execution, the polar bears spectacular and the transportation of balloon airships and side-wheeler water ships and tricycle carriages, simply fantastic.

But there was no good character in "Compass" as complicated as Frodo's best friend Sam or Frodo himself, no evil as conflicted as Gollum. We knew immediately who were the good guys and who were the bad guys; good guys take on bad guys in grand battle and win, with our heroine walking off into the frozen north to make the next film in the series.

The acting was generally excellent, although wasted. Dakota Blue Richards is an engaging young heroine, rebellious and noble. Nicole Kidman can do manipulative evil in great couture, and Daniel Craig is excellent as an intense and driven uncle/father/scientist out to save the world.

But please, someone tell Sam Elliott to hang up the twinkle in his noble cowboy eye and uniquely soft and deep cowboy voice. He has played the same character in so many movies he has become a cliché of himself.

There was a thinness to "The Golden Compass," probably a problem with the screen writing or in directing, both done by Chris Weitz, who doesn't have much of a résumé for a film this ambitious. There is something missing, either in adapting the book to the screen or perhaps the books themselves are not all that complicated.

I haven't read them yet but will after my 14-year-old daughters get them for Christmas. There goes that surprise.

The girls need to read the books because they were quite mystified why one of their friends would not see the film "because they kill God." My daughters didn't see such a scene in this movie. That whole controversy is just silly. People of personal faith battling a "church" that wants to control their thinking is a common theme, as old as faith, as old as churches, from Jesus turning over tables of money lenders at the Temple or Luther nailing edicts to the door of the church.

That the author chose as his metaphor animal spirits as guides for his human characters and alleges that the controlling church sought to split people from their true faith or identity is not a new tale.

This movie was clearly intended to be the first of a franchise of multiple films. The producers spent enough money to make it worthwhile, and we hope they keep the actors under contract to make the next one.

A new screen writer and director would be welcome if they want to elevate the film to art, but there is a lot to be said for a well executed fantasy.