This past year was very similar to its predecessor, with me taking in 15 theatrical films. It is not the prohibitive cost that keeps me from seeing more movies: a genetic condition permits me free tickets to any movie, anytime. It's more a matter of the time investment and working around the theater's schedule, whereas I can watch as much of a DVD as I want, whenever I want. Theatergoing also has a more social element than sitting at home in my pajamas, so I'm further limited by other people's geography and availability. Add in the fact that I don't have TV service and thus am not exposed unwillingly to commercials and trailers, and it takes some other rare factor, such as brand recognition, to make me aware and interested enough to warrant seeing a film.

Of the 15 films I saw in 2007, the best were Live Free or Die Hard, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, and National Treasure: Book of Secrets. (I'd include Star Trek: The Menagerie as a theatergoing experience, but it technically was not a movie.) All three were rock'em, sock'em good action flicks that may've relied on tried-and-true formulae, but executed with finesse and humor.

This year's most disappointing movies were Spider-Man 3, 300, The Simpsons Movie, and The Golden Compass. And downright loathsome was The Transformers, which I recently saw the RiffTrax version of. Sadly, even Mike Nelson and crew could not improve on The Transformers, as I found it even more tedious on a second runthrough. Again, each of these films was based on an existing property, which perhaps led to high and ultimately unfulfilled expectations.

Which of 2007's films did you enjoy the most or least? Did I miss any you recommend?

The film is based on a book originally published in the UK in 1995 — two years before Harry Potter — under the name Northern Lights. This work of young adult fiction is about an orphan whose titular golden compass (or "alethiometer"), like Wonder Woman's magic lasso, reveals the truth. What won't the nations of this fantastical world — or, true to the trilogy's roots in a passage of "Paradise Lost", worlds — do to possess, or destroy, such a powerful artifact?

Though any children's fiction is likely to be overshadowed these days by the behemoth of a boy wizard, Philip Pullman's book is not without its recognition: it earned a Carnegie Medal for children's fiction in 1995, and a popular poll of all 70 previous Carnegie Medal winners awarded Northern Lights top honors.

The success of other fantasy films this millennium has paved the way for more adaptations of this genre; I can only hope this movie serves to bring more people to the original work in a way I previously have not been. My popular knowledge of fantasy and fiction, accrued from a lifetime (albeit a short one) working in bookstores, visiting libraries, teaching high school English, and late nights deep in pages of such adventures, has not crossed my path with that of The Golden Compass. If I'm bold enough to be any indication, it's likely most people will acquaint themselves with this series via its cinematic form, not the undoubtedly superior source material.

I rarely read novels twice, be it the Chronicles of Narnia, The Lord of the Rings, or Harry Potter. So perhaps I'm not hardcore for the genre (though I'd beg to differ) and thus my ignorance can be dismissed. Nonetheless, I'd appreciate insight and advice from anyone more familiar with Mr. Pullman's works. Is the movie worth seeing? Should I read the book first? How excited are you for this adaptation — and the inevitable sequels, The Subtle Knife and The Amber Spyglass?