I wonder, why drag the Pope into the review? His opinion is irrelevant, particularly since the author of the novels intended them as somewhat of a scathing criticism of the Catholic church. And it’s doubtful the Pope ever saw the film, or read the books. He just plays the victim card and tries to keep his flock’s eyes closed rather than risking a few of them wandering away.

No, it would be better to research and quote Phil Pullman. Part of the reason the reviewer was confused is that the producers of the film chose to take the plot but not the theme — the body but not the soul.

As far as a film review — and I understand this is a short film review — you might have actually shortened it further by leaving out paragraphs 2, 3, 5, 8, 9 and 10, all of which don’t have much bearing on what you see on the screen: the film. When reviewing a book, you don’t waste much page space talking about distribution, etc. The final sentence (”I don’t know if it’s a sequel”) reveals how shockingly little research was done. A quick search on wikipedia under The Golden Compass would reveal the books in the series.

Using excuses like, I’m a film student, as reasons why your work is not thorough don’t play well in job interviews. Be thorough.

And by the way, that was only a short review, but I debated with myself before actually deciding not to use “short review” in the title. I was merely covering perceptions in this one, and had intended to watch the movie a few more times before I gave a full review. (Yes, that’s my fault for not using a more appropriate title.)

And before spew and insult me, consider the difference between my perception of what other people might have felt, and my own personal feelings about the movie. You’re confusing the two. I only discussed perceptions here.

(1) Who is going to hear the difference between “demon” and “daemon” while watching a movie, especially in North America. Anyone not familiar with “daemon” as opposed to “demon” is going to assume the difference is in the accents of the actors. You can’t convince me differently, and this is the issue I was getting at. You have obviously read the book (I assume), but most moviegoers probably haven’t.

(2) Yeah, seriously. If you hear “demon” while watching a movie, are you going to think that these demons are “good”?

(3) Oh, stupid me. So I made a mistake. Why does that make me “five”? If you know anything about blogging, you know the language isn’t the same a “journalist” would use.

My pathetic argument? I reviewed the film as I saw it, as well as what I thought others might perceive it as. Despite the research that I did, I slipped re the Pope’s opinion. So sue me. I’m not a Catholic and I did my best to make an educated guess. So I’m wrong. It happens.

1. they are called daemons, not demons. as for the difference, i think this site really gets the gist: http://truthmeasure.net/daemon.htm

2. “But a universe where there are “demons” but not god(s) seems very odd for storytelling purposes.”

seriously? if daemons represent the soul, as even you grasped, then they are not evil, and are not the polar opposites of god. even if they were talking about actual demons, the devil would still be god’s counterpart.

3. “It seems like a world without hope. This is no doubt the reason the Pope called this movie “godless”.”

are you five? i liked your use of “this is no doubt” to attempt to strengthen an otherwise pathetic argument. the pope calling the movie godless has nothing to do with the daemons, but rather the way the church (in the form of the magistrate) was portrayed as something sinister, ruled by the greed and insecurity of men, rather than a higher, benevolent power. however, a world without hope? you did not watch the film.