Now it's interesting to mention that this film is based off a book, with a different title and yet has no recollection or reference to the writer's efforts at all. I mean for instance, the writer Philip Pullman isn't even acknowledged on the advertising for this film. If you look at posters you don't see 'based on the best selling novel by Philip Pullman' anywhere. I see that as being deceitful.
The film is flooded with an all star cast and wondrous production values to add to the hollywood propriety of it in order to entice a viewer into watching it, i.e. making the film income a profit to make up for the big budget spendings. It's how all the films are done. Sometimes, the films income in the movie box office is a larger income and sometimes a movie makes less. Golden Compass's budget was around $180 million and made a profit of £7,243, 984 in it's opening weekend in the UK, and turned a gross profit of $70,083,519 in the US. So it did about average in terms of bringing the money it.
If I had to sum up this film in one word it's 'commercial' this film is just 'commercial' and plays on the strengths of Hollywood glamouring a book up and taking the words of a page and alternating the story in the script, and putting the words from script to screen. There isn't much story in this film at all. Not really. It was incredibly boring and detracted my interest because I didn't feel challenged watching this.
I clearly identify that this film looks good on the screen, has an all star cast of good actors. But it doesn't excite me.