Timewaster's Guide Archive
Departments => Movies and TV => Topic started by: Eagle Prince on December 09, 2005, 06:05:56 AM
-
I just saw it, and I thought this movie was very good. I will probably go see it again in the theatre.
-
Skar, on the other hand, probably will not (http://www.timewastersguide.com/view.php?id=1211).
-
"And then the slapping starts." Very nice.
-
Thank you.
-
Skars review was kind of what I expected from the trailors and my own experience with moves. LOTR basically set a really high bar, a bar that movie studios really wanted to break because the money involved with LOTR was obscene. LWW seemed like a great choice for a movie, its a cool concept, epic battles, magic, danger, and 4 kids who provide tons of exposition. You know what it didnt have that LOTR did?
A director as passionate about it as Peter Jackson was.
-
While the review makes me sad to go see it, I'll still go see it. At least I'll be properly forwarned. Also, Skar's review itself was a delight to read. Good job.
-
Wow, Skar - tell us what you really think.
And I've said this before, and I'll say it again - this is why I made sure I bought the DVD of the old BBC series before this darn thing came out. I was afraid that it would end up just like this. At least I'll still have my childhood.
Also, look at it this way; the worse the movie is, the fewer fangirls on the internet will be writing bad, disgusting fanfic about it.
-
I haven't seen the movie yet, but by the way, TWG should have more negative reviews, they're a lot more fun to read. The two best kind of reviews are ones of movies you've seen and negative ones.
-
I do not really want to see it and would much rather see King Kong. The one commercial for Kong I saw was more convincing for me than the tens that I saw for Narnia. Sadly none of my family shares this view, and my sister even believes that it is rated R.
-
I appreciate the review. Talking to some people at a Chirstmas party, I was told that the movie was slow and Skar's article seems to confirm this. However, the information that I really need to know is: Can I take my three-year old son to see this movie? I know he likes talking animals and sword fights but will the movie bore him in the first few minutes so that he will not watch the rest?
-
This is also one of my favorite books, and it was one the frist plays I ever did as an actor. My hopes here every bit as high.
We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I loved this movie! I loved everything about it. I've already seen it twice. I thought the acting was decidedly subtle and the characters were captured perfectly. The CGI is the best I've ever seen on film.
-
I adored this movie. Very well done. I'd say it was moving but then i'd have to admit to having emotions, and that just won't do.
- There was only one bad cgi moment in the movie that I saw. The animals looked excellent - they had expressions, life and yet didn't look plastic or non-real.
- The acting was well done. Lucy was perhaps the weakest of the main cast but that's not saying much. I think most everyone had British accents, which I will now claim as a victory.
- The film moved fast. I got out of the cinema thinking it had only been an hour and a half but it was something closer to double that. They covered everything from the book, as far as I can remember. They even added a scene or two.
Hope they do the next one soon. And the girl playing susan was much cuter than the girl playing herminioe, if i'm allowed to make such dodgy comments. ;(
-
"much cuter" is hardly dodgey. I want to see this movie really bad. Skar has not deterred me. But I'm very gladd Eagle, Mr. Gibbs and Ent disagree with Skarsome.
-
"much cuter" is hardly dodgey
But Ent's spelling is.
-
Also, look at it this way; the worse the movie is, the fewer fangirls on the internet will be writing bad, disgusting fanfic about it.
You're assuming that the fangirls on the internet will realize that it's bad.
-
well heres hoping the movie is good, itd be a shame to see someone butcher the book.
-
"much cuter" is hardly dodgey. I want to see this movie really bad. Skar has not deterred me. But I'm very gladd Eagle, Mr. Gibbs and Ent disagree with Skarsome.
I'm glad that I did not deter you. I'm anxious to hear your report on how you liked the film. My opinion is just that. I value specific things in a film. Others value different things. I hope you all enjoy it. I wish I could have.
I must say, though, that after Patrick said what he did about this film, I'm tempted to go see Aeon Flux. Just to see if the disconnect works in the other direction too. ;)
-
"much cuter" is hardly dodgey. I want to see this movie really bad. Skar has not deterred me. But I'm very gladd Eagle, Mr. Gibbs and Ent disagree with Skarsome.
All due respect I meant to Skar's opinion - we simply just have different thoughts on the film. But the more I thin kabout, the more I really love this movie, and I couldn't not have been more satisifed.
-
Scenes like Lucy's wonder at finding herself in a strange winter world for the first time are important but not worth 5 whole minutes of screen time consisting of different shots of her wandering through fifty feet of forest and catching snowflakes on her tongue.
It's less than one minute. I paid attention to this when we went to see the movie yesterday.
We enjoyed the movie quite a bit. I liked it much more than Harry Potter 4. Karen, as someone who has reread all the books in the last couple months, was very happy with it, and was only sad that ONE line from the book was left out. I, as someone who has not read the books in over 10 years, was very happy with it according to what I remembered and how I judged its success internally. Good movie.
Are the Gibbs going to do their own review of this one? Does the site only take one review per movie?
-
We typically only do one, but I'm willing to accept second opinions on really big movies (like this one). Unless someone gives it 6 clocks, in which case I'm gonna start busting heads.
-
It's less than one minute. I paid attention to this when we went to see the movie yesterday.
We enjoyed the movie quite a bit. I liked it much more than Harry Potter 4. Karen, as someone who has reread all the books in the last couple months, was very happy with it, and was only sad that ONE line from the book was left out. I, as someone who has not read the books in over 10 years, was very happy with it according to what I remembered and how I judged its success internally. Good movie.
Are the Gibbs going to do their own review of this one? Does the site only take one review per movie?
We have no intention of doing a review of the film. Skar has already presented a well written review. We do disagree about as strongly as possible, but Skar dissagreed with us on "Jarhead." Different critics, different opinions.
I'd be happ to post further thoughts on it, but this was Skar's movie to review, and do not wish to treadd on his territory.
-
Karen, as someone who has reread all the books in the last couple months, was very happy with it, and was only sad that ONE line from the book was left out. I, as someone who has not read the books in over 10 years, was very happy with it according to what I remembered and how I judged its success internally.
And here is one of my main objections to it. Nearly everyone that I have talked to says they liked it because it didn't leave anything out that was in the book. That in and of itself is a problem. Being slavishly devoted to the book is the perfect way to make a BAD adaptation to the movie media.
And, frankly, I don't understand how people can say that it followed the book that closely when the children, the main characters, acted so completely different in the movie than in the book. For example, there is no scene in the book where you have Peter facing down danger with Susan standing right next to him screaming in his ear about how he should just put down the sword, let their new friends die, and abandon Narnia to domination by the White Witch.
Nor in the book do you find Aslan explaining to Susan and Lucy that the white witch "interpreted" the Deep Magic differently than he did, as though truth is in how you interpret it. (blatant overtones of relativism and Political Correctness here that were most definitely NOT in the book).
-
When it comes to a different Review of the film...
I thank the Gibbs Brothers for their consideration. I am, however, amenable to the idea of someone else posting a second review. Mike Darpino and I both reviewed the first LOTR (and would have probably joint reviewed the other two if I had been in-country for either of them) so there's definitely precedent for two reviews of prominent films.
If the Brothers Gibbs care to review LWW I'd be happy to post it.
-
we will run multiple reviews of the same product provided they have something different to say about said product. Which, apparently, they do.
-
Nor in the book do you find Aslan explaining to Susan and Lucy that the white witch "interpreted" the Deep Magic differently than he did, as though truth is in how you interpret it. (blatant overtones of relativism and Political Correctness here that were most definitely NOT in the book).
Feel free to stop using rhetoric at your own discretion. It doesn't help your arguements.
In the book Aslan says 'there was a deeper earlier magic she did not know about'. In the movie he says something like 'she did not understand the deep magic correctly'. The basics stay the same: her understanding was imperfect. Dialogue was changed like this throughout, tinkering it to make it sound more modern, less gee-whiz.
-
Frankly, analyzing this from a religious perspective, it was nothing but anti-lionist propaganda. It's well known Andrew Adamson coems froma fringe group of fundamentalist animators who reject "The Lion King", and blame the midgets and cows of today for the action of dwarves and minotaurs long ago. Furthermore, the graphic depiction of Aslan's death much too brutal, especially the over long, blood-soaked mane shaving sequence.
Seriously, loved the movie. Points of view differ, especially on adaptations of beloved source material. I respected Skar's respectfull disgareement with me over "Jarhead", and we have the same situation here. A second review is uneccessary. A review is an expression of one opinion, not the site's or it's readers. I know Skar, Fellsfroch and others often disagree with my reviews (I can almost guarantee my upcoming "Syriana" review will elicit some negative reaction), but don't post rebuttals. It's possible Patrick and I will elaborate on our thoughts regarding "Narnia" in our year-in-review articles, but it's diffilcut to say at this point.
-
Nearly everyone that I have talked to says they liked it because it didn't leave anything out that was in the book. That in and of itself is a problem. Being slavishly devoted to the book is the perfect way to make a BAD adaptation to the movie media.
I'll agree that "slavish devotion" to a book can certainly lead to problems with an adaptation, but it is hardly a universal law. I have yet to see the film, but I feel comfortable saying that with a book as short as LWW, the problem I'd see a director having in adapting it would likely be in deciding how to flesh it out, not how to trim it down. Harry Potter IV, on the other hand, needed a good trimming, and it got it. When I hear that LWW had everything the book had, it doesn't make me dread seeing it, or think that it must be a bad adaptation.
In all honesty, Skar's review of the film seems far more obsessed with how he feels that his own personal interpretation of the book failed to make it to the screen.
The children were innocent and brave (if misled in Edmund's case) from the beginning to the end of the book. I will go so far as to say that I think Lewis made them that way on purpose, the better to focus on the themes he was playing with. Trying to tell a book length story on film is difficult enough without trying to make it more complicated by throwing in extraneous and ham-handed character development arcs that work directly against the main themes of the story.
Who decides what the "themes" of the novel are? Who decides what Lewis "intended"? In this case, it is the reviewer. Obviously, these sort of ideas are very much up for debate, and saying that the film failed to capture the "themes" of the novel is just as poor an argument as saying you loved it because it didn't leave anything out. The bottom line for me is that fidelity is a very squishy substance. It changes from one person to another, and using it to evaluate an adaptation works for only one person--the evaluator. In Skar's defense, he did point out specific aspects of the movie he didn't like--the cinematography, writing, acting, and pretty much everything else. That's far more stable ground to build a criticism on, but I still walk away from the review thinking, "Well, so it didn't capture his take on Narnia. I wonder what it will do for me?" My suggestion for anyone who watches an adaptation of one of their favorite books--and hates it--is to go back to the book and try to see what the adapters saw there. Maybe Lewis's dialogue really is rather wooden, or maybe the character arcs aren't really well developed. Or maybe Lewis was trying to capture a fairy tale like feeling, and so he kept the book on the sparse side. In any case, any adaptation--good or bad--should be an invitation to go back to the book and learn more about it.
I also wonder why there seems to be such a great divide between reviews of this film. Judging from Rotten Tomatoes, most reviewers liked it. Some sing its praises. Some say how stunning the acting was--and then some say how awful. Why is that? I really need to get the time to go see this flick, but in the meantime, I have two ideas that might be the cause of it:
1. People are comparing it to LOTR.
2. People are upset about how it handles the Christian themes.
Those of you who have seen it will have to throw your two cents in. I'll have to wait until I'm better informed.
-
The reviews for this movie have been primarily positive (76% on rottentomatoes), but Parker is right in that the opinions vary much more wildly than for a typical movie. Independently, I had come to the same conclusion as to why that might be (LotR and Christianity), but I, like him, haven't seen it. I'm very interested to hear what people have to say on the topic.
-
Here's another take that fleshes out mine.
http://www.ericdsnider.com/view.php?mrkey=2612&PHPSESSID=84fe75d6c61d792f89c1c6d080fd781c
-
In all honesty, Skar's review of the film seems far more obsessed with how he feels that his own personal interpretation of the book failed to make it to the screen.
Aside from all the actual examples of bad acting, bad plotting and shoddy direction that I gave you mean? (Ookla's stopwatch of the Lucy in the snow scene doesn't change the fact that it took too long. The feeling could have been established in ten seconds. If it only took fifty, as Ookla has pointed out, it's still 5 times longer than was needed. Arsenic in an apple pie man.)
I'm totally OK with folks disagreeing with me. A review is an opinion, and I am not the only one that holds this one. Perhaps I'm the only one on the boards, but as my link above proves I'm certainly not the only reviewer that feels this way.
I value certain things in a film: coherent plotting, believable characters and motivation, good dialogue, a smooth flow of ideas...to name a few. If you liked this film you obviously value other things. Where's the problem?
And for the record:
1. People are comparing it to LOTR.
2. People are upset about how it handles the Christian themes.
Neither of those things caused me to give it a bad score. Aside from the brilliant costuming and CGI it was just a badly made film for all the reasons I made clear in my review.
And your primary level explication of how a reviewer/author's opinions color his work do nothing to deal with the fact that the character arcs they tried to add in the film were handled very poorly. They fundamentally changed the characters of the children in the beginning of the film and then tried to jump them, with no discernible transition, into the roles Lewis made for them in the end. It didn't work.
-
Feel free to stop using rhetoric at your own discretion. It doesn't help your arguements.
What rhetoric are you referring to? You didn't quote any.
In the book Aslan says 'there was a deeper earlier magic she did not know about'. In the movie he says something like 'she did not understand the deep magic correctly'. The basics stay the same: her understanding was imperfect. Dialogue was changed like this throughout, tinkering it to make it sound more modern, less gee-whiz.
Nope. Aslan definitely said she didn't interpret it the same as he did. He made no mention of a correct way. And right there they've changed it from a universal truth Aslan understood and she didn't to something that depends on how you interpret it. Not what Lewis was talking about and a rather fundamental change to the story.
Edit: Sorry about three posts in a row. There are rather alot of people disagreeing with me and I feel constrained to respond to them all.
For now anyway.
-
I value certain things in a film: coherent plotting, believable characters and motivation, good dialogue, a smooth flow of ideas...to name a few. If you liked this film you obviously value other things. Where's the problem?
Nominated for most insulting thing said on this board this month.
-
I value certain things in a film: coherent plotting, believable characters and motivation, good dialogue, a smooth flow of ideas...to name a few. If you liked this film you obviously value other things. Where's the problem?
I think it's funny that that line comes only a few sentences after: I'm totally OK with folks disagreeing with me. A review is an opinion
-
One of my main thoughts was to question why it is that there are people with Skar's opinion--namely that everything in the film was crap--while there are others who think it was all a masterpiece. And I'm not talking about yokels thinking it was good--I'm talking about well-known, well respected critics here. I find it very interesting that there are people saying "The acting is awful" or "the film is way too heavy handed" at the same time others are saying the acting is great and the film has just the right touch. One reason for this might be because the book is so well loved. And so if it comes across as having captured the "spirit" of what a reviewer liked, then they think it was a masterpiece. If it doesn't, then said reviewer finds fault with the film in their hurry to defend their own personal interpretation of the novel.
-
Well, I'm glad that SOMEBODY thought it was funny.
-
(http://www.omnistar.org/images/random/storm.jpg)
-
One reason for this might be because the book is so well loved. And so if it comes across as having captured the "spirit" of what a reviewer liked, then they think it was a masterpiece. If it doesn't, then said reviewer finds fault with the film in their hurry to defend their own personal interpretation of the novel.
An interesting idea with merit. I have no doubt that the story/book being well-loved was a reason for the polarization you're talking about. Quite possible.
For my part my main objection to the film was not the treatment of the themes or spirit of the book. I don't think they did a very good job capturing what you so rightly point out are my very personal feelings/thoughts about the underlying MEANING of the book. That's a very minor part of my objections though.
My main objections were the dismal timing, unbelievable motivations, and the hash they made of the tacked on "internal conflict" they tried to give the children. As well as the wooden dialogue and unearned "special moments" they kept inserting and the shoddy directing.
For example, when the children are being chased by "the sleigh" the film cuts to a closeup shot of bright white reindeer running. Then we're supposed to believe it when "the sleigh" turns out to be Santa, with dark brown reindeer.
Or how about when the children come to the river and the beaver, who probably weighs a tenth as much as Peter, goes out to "test the ice" and then the wolves, who were behind the children, are suddenly racing across atop the waterfall (how did they get up there and why didn't the children take that way instead of the bottom of the falls? No one knows).
Then how about the moment when Peter turns to the lead centaur and asks him "Are you with me?" It's kind of late and therefore deeply insulting for him to be asking things like that. But the director played it like a "special moment"
Or how about when the mice are eating Aslan's bonds and lucy and susan are shooing them away but you don't see their hands doing anything, just mice placidly nibbling.
Or perhaps the tunnel from the beaver's house to the badger's that's ten times as big as he needs. "Well, the badger must be much bigger" I said to myself but nope, when we see the stone badger he's barely bigger than the beaver. So why the human-can-walk-upright sized tunnel one asks? No one knows.
My objections are rooted in something other than the fact that the film didn't match what I see in my head when I read the book. I've reviewed films that totally changed what I'll see in my head forever and been glad of it. I'm capable of judging a film on its own merits and I did so in this case.
-
Well, I'm glad that SOMEBODY thought it was funny.
So...it was meant as a joke? Clearly no one reasonable would say that seriously, but there was no hint in your post that it was a joke.
You've definitely noticed more problems than I did while I was watching it. What I did notice: I thought the tunnels were rather large--was this explained in the book, or completely added for the movie? I thought the exact same thing as you when those wolves ran across the waterfall. Those things I did notice didn't ruin the movie for me. I did not notice the color-changing reindeer--that definitely sounds a goof worthy of being listed on the goofs page on the imdb. (Though perhaps the reindeer actually changed color; some animals have summer and winter coats, after all!!!) Mistake, but didn't ruin the movie for me. I didn't notice what they were or were not doing with their hands when they were trying to shoo the mice away, but these ARE pre-1950s girls who might not want to be touching mice. They (or at least Susan; I don't really remember) shouted at them a lot...
I have no plans to see the movie again anytime soon, but I thought Aslan's words were more as Entropy said them than the exact semantics of the way you're reporting them. I also thought that Beaver mentioning (well, this objection was from the Snider review, so perhaps you do not share it) the stone table was before they noticed Edmund was gone, so he could have overheard it. Anyway, some of this just comes down to remembering parts of the movie differently, and it would take viewing it again to check on what exactly happened and was said.
I thought the motivations were fine, and was not bothered by the internal conflict. Karen said she was glad they gave the beginning context of them being sent away from their mother in the war, etc., and that it made their state of mind more believeable. She also said that Peter in the New Testament has internal conflict, so it only made sense for Peter in the movie to have some. Would it have been better/more believeable for there to be no internal conflict?
I did not think the movie was a masterpiece. But I enjoyed it quite a bit, and got a good impression from it.
-
So...it was meant as a joke? Clearly no one reasonable would say that seriously, but there was no hint in your post that it was a joke.
Yes, I was poking fun at my arrogance in insisting on disagreeing with absolutely everybody over such fundamental points. That sentence was originally at the end of my post, which I think would have made it more clear that I was being facetious, but then I went back and edited and added some stuff so it looked like it was buried off-hand in the middle of a post. My fault.
You've definitely noticed more problems than I did while I was watching it...
And that was the short list. To my mind it was chock full of them and I was so totally out of the world because of them by the time Santa appeared that they just kept getting more and more obvious. That doesn't usually happen to me, especially if I have high hopes for the movie. Usually I can overlook lots of things if the rest of the movie is good. This one never pulled me back in despite my wanting to be pulled in so desperately.
Anyway, some of this just comes down to remembering parts of the movie differently, and it would take viewing it again to check on what exactly happened and was said.
Righto. I honestly hope I am remembering wrongly. I'll definitely be seeing the movie again if for no other reason than that my sons will murder me in my sleep if I don't take them. I'm going to hold out for the dollar theater though.
Would it have been better/more believeable for there to be no internal conflict?
I think so, yes, because the story only really stands up in an allegorical way. If the children (Susan) were going to be realistically practical about things they would never have ended up at Mr. Tumnus's house to find it ransacked in the first place. So the writers/directors ended up having to make them realistic and practical only when it moved their version of the plot along and never otherwise. It didn't ring true to me.
I leaned over to my wife and told her they were beginning the film perfectly when they showed the air raids. Like I said in my review, the first quarter of the film was great. It was only after that things started getting stupid.
-
Well I saw the film...and I shall trepidly comment.
I liked the movie, but I don't think it was great. I think it is a little too faithful to the book. There are too many scenes where I felt like I was having to watch this scene simply because it was in the book. I agree with Skar that the pacing is a bit off. It's not that bad, but it create short little lulls in the film. Though I liked the opening scene in London a lot (I'm fairly sure that wasn't in the book).
I don't think the acting is bad, it's just not that great. The actors give merely passable performances in general. Even the voice-acting is rather subdued. Some, like Jim Broadbent, do better than others, like Tilda Swinton.
I think the cinematography could use some refinement. Generally, it is rather bright and cheery, which is not appropriate for all parts of the movie. Particularly during the ending battle sequences, I was craving a few more shadows and fewer garish colors.
The animals and cgi effects are spectacular. They are good enough that when I got home I almost expected my ferret to start talking.
And there a number of mistakes in the film. I wasn't too disrtacted by them. The movie could use some refinement and little focus.
So, IMHO, take your kids to go see. Maybe buy it when it comes out on DVD if you like childrens' stories and fantasy. It just isn't an epic masterpiece by a long shot.
Also, what did people think about the music? The scoring seemed okay, but I'm not too keen on the gospel-pop-rock at the end. Seemed too commercial.
-
I know this thread has cooled off recently, but I finally got the chance to see the film yesterday, and I wanted to throw in my two cents in case there's anyone still debating seeing it or not.
I loved it. I went in quite apprehensive, honestly. As I said before, I heard both good and bad about the film, and I really wanted to love it. I personally was blown away. It wasn't the same sort of jaw dropping awe I felt in LOTR, but it's a different movie. This is a children's movie in the same way that the book is a children's book. I don't know how much I want to get into it here on the boards, and by all means, if anyone has any questions for me, I'm happy to answer them.
I thought the acting, pacing, scoring, directing, writing--you name it--was spot on. I loved how they fleshed out the story, I found it completely believeable, and I intend to buy this one as soon as it comes out on DVD. I have to wonder if one reason that reviewers aren't liking it is that the film depends so much on a willing suspension of disbelief, more so than other films. If you're the type to roll your eyes when Santa appears in the film--or Father Christmas, rather--then this might not be the flick for you. Whether people like that scene or not, there's no getting around the fact that it was in the book. Yes. In CS Lewis's text, Santa does give the children weapons. Merry Christmas. If Snider wants to sputter about this, he should go to the source. As to the gripe about Aslan saying the Witch interpreted the deep magic incorrectly, I really think this is splitting hairs. Yes, the exact text was altered, and yes, it now says that the Witch interpreted the deeper magic incorrectly. As I recall, Aslan did say that there was a true interpreation, but I have to point out that doesn't matter. If he said it or not, we are shown that there was a true interpretation. The Table broke, Aslan was resurrected, end of story. If they had explained Aslan's reappearance by saying he was "only faking it," I could see cause to complain. But not for this.
Other defenses of the film:
In the chase scene with Santa's reindeer, they are only show in extreme close ups. I was paying close attention to this "mistake." The reindeer are covered in snow--that's why they're white. You can see the brown fur underneath if you look carefully. The snow melts because the power of the WW is lessening.
Lucy and Susan do shoo away the mice with their hands. You can see their hands flicker at the edges of the screen.
The tunnel from Beaver's to Badger's is tall for the animals, but it's also hardly spacious for the children. Adults would have a real hard time in it. From what I had read, I pictured it as being easy to run walking upright, but the children are hunching and struggling to move quickly. Didn't seem that bad to me.
I could go on, but I won't. Some things about this film are supposed to look goofy--in my opinion. Peter and Edmund in war, for one thing. They ought to look out of place. How could they look any differently? They're children.
Anyway. Enough. If you let yourself be swept away by this film, it will. Up till now, the best adaptation I had seen was that dopey cartoon, and of course this blows that out of the water. I hope this earns a bundle of moola, and they make all seven. If they're all as good as this one, I'll be jumping for joy.
But then again, I value certain things in a film: coherent plotting, believable characters and motivation, good dialogue, a smooth flow of ideas...to name a few. If you didn't like this film you obviously value other things. Where's the problem?
(wink wink)
-
I just want everyone to know that I accept your thanks for lowering your expectations for this film so that you could enjoy it and not be disappointed.
;)
-
Well, I didn't TOTALLY enjoy it. There were these two Mongolian guys who sat behind us, and one of them was a compulsive noise maker. It was like he was making kissy noises every three seconds. I gave him the half turn, then the full turn with the eye-roll, but he didn't shut up until my wife threatened him. That's what wives are for. So I guess there's a chance that I was too annoyed at him to notice that the film was actually as bad as Skar said it was.
But I doubt it. And yes, Skar--you probably did help me be more blown away than I otherwise would have been. But not by much. Now I just need to go see Kong.
-
Between computer problems and being buried at work, I am just now getting to the film and your opinions of it. It is fun reading such hearty debate about it.
Overall, I thought the film was wonderful. I was anxious to see it and see how they would make a children's novel into a feature film I could enjoy without slaughtering the story or hollywoodizing everything. I was so much happier with this one than with other versions I have seen. Kudos to the comment on expecting your ferret to talk when you came home! I was most anxious about this element. Most attempts at making the animals lifelike looked so cheesy to me. I was so happy to see that I was not at all distracted by the CGI in LWW. They really did an impressive job.
While I disagree with Skar on the level of his dislike of the movie, I must admit that I also noticed a few of the points he makes. For instance, I was surprised at Susan's ongoing protests. I feel they missed some of her character. I was also bothered by the wolves climbing across the waterfall. If they can do it, why can't the children?
A couple of other minor irritations--I also had noisy people around me. So no, I wouldn't recommend taking your three year-old as someone asked. I was surprised at how many other three year-olds sitting around me were taken out just a little too late. :) I also didn't think Lucy was the greatest crier--but do you really expect oscar award tears from a child her age. I still thought she was charming.
Really though, these minor details weren't what made the movie. I still found myself caught up in the story, even though I already knew it. I'm thoroughly glad I saw it, and I will add it to my DVD collection.
By the way, did anyone else notice that Douglas Gresham, the stepson that CS Lewis adopted, was one of the co-producers of the film? I found this interesting. I'm sure most people wouldn't notice that, but I about jumped out of my seat when his name came on screen. I thought that made for an interesting touch.
-
I was genuinely moved by this movie. I felt it was brilliant. I will go see it again if given the chance.
I disagree with skar on almost every essential point. However, the wolves across the river... I'm still trying to figure out how they could have made that scene work. I'd probably rescript it from the start.
I thought Susan was done very well. It made me think of her eventual fate as revealed in The Last Battle.
That Lucy kid was amazing. She could have done tears better, but everything else she acted was dead on. I think she's one of the most expressive child actors I've ever seen.
And because I can't resist: the Lucy entering Narnia for the first time lasts 30 seconds from the time she first sees tree branches to the time she reaches the lamp post.
-
By the way, did anyone else notice that Douglas Gresham, the stepson that CS Lewis adopted, was one of the co-producers of the film? I found this interesting. I'm sure most people wouldn't notice that, but I about jumped out of my seat when his name came on screen. I thought that made for an interesting touch.
Yes! I noticed that too and pointed it out to Karen! She didn't realize who he was until I said so.
(In Shadowlands Joy Gresham's two kids were merged into one and youthened quite a bit for who knows what reason.)
[EDIT: Ah, sorry, this is Ookla on Karen's computer.]
-
I thought that was interesting too. Shadowlands is a favorite movie of mine, and for a long time I thought she only had one child. I read a quote from Douglas Gresham describing the first meeting that he had with Lewis and I think Shadowlands still caught some of the feel of that first meeting. He spoke of his anticipation of meeting this magical man who held the keys to Narnia. I think it was a bit of a shock for him to get there and find a quiet professor.
-
Please don't post spoilers for upcoming sequels, if you want to start a Narnia spoilers in the book section the please feel free to do so. But this thread isn't the place for that.
-
Shadowlands is a bio of CS Lewis' life; it's not a Narnia book
Interestingly, the BBC production of Shadowlands was written by the same man and does *not* conflate the two sons. Nor do either of them show up hardly at all.
-
Shadowlands is a bio of CS Lewis' life; it's not a Narnia book
Yeah, I was confused by his comment too, but you did hint at spoilers about Susan's fate in the final book of the series.
-
ah, but I didn't say what her fate *is*. Only those who've already had it spoiled or who have read it will understand what I mean.
I actually wonder how that last book would pan out on the screen. It doesn't seem like it'd be good for the masses.
-
I actually wonder how that last book would pan out on the screen. It doesn't seem like it'd be good for the masses.
Oh, I'm sure the whole thing with Tash and the neighboring country of evil "Arab" types would go over well....
-
I finally saw it last night. I loved it. Lucy was amazing--I agree with e on her expressiveness. I thought it was well-done, and even if the acting (and I noticed the waterfall scene problem, too--what were they thinking?) by the kids was sometimes a little off, it wasn't enough that I felt it--and though I avoided this thread till I saw it, someone had told me that they thought the older kids were a little wooden, yet I didn't see it any worse than the writing in the book, which wasn't exactly the best-written children's book I've ever read. And as we all know, I've read many.
I didn't like the White Witch, however. I actually expected her to have the coloring that Edmund had--pale, pale skin and jet-black hair. I didn't like her makeup, and her acting didn't help. She felt very transparent from the beginning, and it seems so obvious that even Edmund should notice she's not quite right. Yet the feeling I got from the book is that at least at first, Edmund didn't think she was mean. But it's been a few years since I've reread the books.
-
This movie was MAGNIFICENT! 8)
-
I actually didn't like the movie very much at all. It was long and boring, and far more concerned with how things looked than what they were or what they meant--which can be good with a highly stylistic director, but this was all very straightforward. There was never a moment where I thought "wow, I've never seen that before," which there probably should be in a fantasy movie that has nothing but visuals going for it.
-
It had Turkish Delight which I don't think I've ever seen in a film before.
-
(Since I didn't comment the first time this thread was alive . . . )
Even as a child I thought that having Santa Claus in Narnia was weird. Some of the other Narnia books include Greek mythology and other "outside" elements. That confused me when I was young. "Who is this Bacchus guy and why is he getting drunk?" Now it just annoys me. I understand that Tolkien was upset with Lewis's sloppy world building. He disliked the Narnia books in large part because Lewis included things like Father Christmas. He hated the inconsistency and the mixing of mythologies. But Tolkien went to the other extreme with his world building. His books are excellent in part because of his extensive world building. But would it have been cool if he'd spent a little less time on his extensive histories and grammars and instead written another book. He did start one that had the Lord of the Nazgul surviving the fall of Sauron and returning as the new Dark Lord. But he only made it about a chapter.
Regardless of this "flaw" in Lewis's Narnia books I still love them and have read them many times (I've even read 5 of them in Spanish).
Anyway, I enjoyed LWW: the movie, but it didn't get the deep emotional feeling that I get from the book.
-
But Tolkien went to the other extreme with his world building. His books are excellent in part because of his extensive world building. But would it have been cool if he'd spent a little less time on his extensive histories and grammars and instead written another book. He did start one that had the Lord of the Nazgul surviving the fall of Sauron and returning as the new Dark Lord. But he only made it about a chapter.
Do you remember where you read/heard this? I know in the Letters book he mentions he dabbled with a story set after LotR where kids played at being in Orc cults and such, but he stopped because he basically didn't think there was anything more to tell in that world.
There is the Children of Hurin book coming out this year.
With regards to Narnia (getting back on track) I always liked the admittedly odd inclusion of Father Christmas and the like. Especially reading the book when I was younger, I remember really thinking that the sleigh chasing the children must be the witch, and to have it then be Father Christmas...it was precisely the sort of "wow" moment that can make fantasy, where anything can happen, special.
I can understand Tolkien's criticism, but it also strikes me as ironic given that it was the cross-pollination of his Middle Earth mythologies (themselves based on several mythological sources) into the children's fantasy of The Hobbit that led to The Lord of the Rings.
MattD
-
Do you remember where you read/heard this? I know in the Letters book he mentions he dabbled with a story set after LotR where kids played at being in Orc cults and such, but he stopped because he basically didn't think there was anything more to tell in that world.
In volume 12 of the History of Middle Earth
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Peoples_of_Middle-earth
"The New Shadow - An incomplete sequel (approximately 30 pages) to The Lord of the Rings that Tolkien quickly abandoned, set in the time of Eldarion, Aragorn's son."
One of the few History of Middle Earth books I've read.
-
I can't wait for the day that EUOL dies so his kids can make their livings off of "completing" his unfinished and unpublsihed works for their living. If you live long enough you might see Dragonsteel or Whitesand in the bookstore as completed by EUOL's kids.
-
Do you remember where you read/heard this? I know in the Letters book he mentions he dabbled with a story set after LotR where kids played at being in Orc cults and such, but he stopped because he basically didn't think there was anything more to tell in that world.
In volume 12 of the History of Middle Earth
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Peoples_of_Middle-earth
"The New Shadow - An incomplete sequel (approximately 30 pages) to The Lord of the Rings that Tolkien quickly abandoned, set in the time of Eldarion, Aragorn's son."
One of the few History of Middle Earth books I've read.
That was the one with the kids playing as Orcs. I've read it. I don't remember anything relating to a Nazgul - it really was very short. Bear in mind that Tolkien spends so much time describing stuff it takes him forever to move the plot along...
-
That was the one with the kids playing as Orcs. I've read it. I don't remember anything relating to a Nazgul - it really was very short. Bear in mind that Tolkien spends so much time describing stuff it takes him forever to move the plot along...
I may be mixing up the volume and the story. I just remember the commentary on a story saying that Tolkien was considering a story with the Lord of the Nazgul as the villian. In LotR it doesn't say much about what happened to the Nazgul and the power of their rings. The three Elven rings lost power but I don't remember anything about the human and dwarf rings.
This goes back to childhood when I so very much wanted more Chronicles of Narnia or stories about Hobbits, Ents, Elves and Dwarves. A few years later the Sword of Shannara was published and since then dozens of Tolkien knock offs. None of them as satisfying as the original.
Hm . . . I'm surprised they didn't do Shannara instead of Eragon.
If they do all 7 of Narnia and they perform as well as LWW will they move on to Lewis's space trilogy? And what would the rating be for Perelandria?
. . . I'd better stop. This is becoming a stream of consciousness post.
-
honestly, I wouldn't be very interested in seeing a movie of his "space trilogy"
-
They are probably going to make a Shannara movie, they are talking about it on Brook's website I think (like guessing what book they'll do, etc). Also heard they were thinking about doing Magic Kingdom For Sale, I think someone bought the rights to do it, but I haven't heard anything else since.
-
Magic Kingdom for Sale would actually make quite a good movie, I think. (The rest of the series is utterly forgettable though so hopefully they don't want sequels.)
-
They definitely want sequels, because Harry Potter and LotR had sequels. The flurry of Fantasy book-to-movie conversions right now has nothing to do with making good movies and everything to do with making lucrative franchises (in my grumpy opinion). Studios want big stories that will pull in the same kind of yearly hype that LotR had.
-
I believe Brooks sold the rights to a Shannara movie once before, but they changed the book so much that he pulled the plug. So I am guessing that he wouldn't let them make a bad Shannara movie.
-
Thank the heavens for that! How were they changing it? Did they make Allanon this soft-hearted sorcerer or something?
-
I don't think there was any specific details, at least that I remember. But I think they were focusing a lot on the post-apocalyptic stuff and less on the actual story/characters.
-
why are we discussing LotR and Shannara in a Narnia thread? ~shifty eyes~
-
because we allow our conversations to evolve here. Which is also why we, in contrast with many other sites, discourage thread resurrection. It makes more sense to start a new conversation on a subject when the previous conversation had stopped being about it before it died.