General Chat / Narnia

All time favourite? Wow.

I finally got around to see this (and Kong, which was astounding if flawed, to be brief)

It was pretty good. Much like the book, it suffers from being a slight fairy tale (which isn't necessarily a bad thing, it just keeps the characters at arms length). I'll say that when Lucy and Tumnus were together, the film was pure magic. Swinton was also pretty good, even if she looked kind of uncomfortable.

Neeson worked, but I wish they would have gone with someone who's voice was 1) less recognizable (Neeson's voice is recognizable as it is, this is compounded by him being in about 10 movies this year) 2) more powerful (I would have gone with Brian Blessed... who I doubt any of you actually have ever heard of).

The special effects and art direction were pretty spectacular. It was nice that it went for it's own style rather than aping Lord of the Rings at every turn (though there is certainly some of that to be found in the cinematography). The score was perfect at times, and too blaring and "new age" at others... and God help Imogen Heap after that terrible credits song.

Wardrobe is also much more slowly paced than I would have even imagined it could be.

Anyway, the groundwork is there for the series to get alot better as it goes on (like Harry Potter), and I'm genuinely interested to see how Prince Caspian and Voyage of the Dawn Treader turn out.... however, I think it would be in the series' best interest if they dropped Andrew Adamson (who has little apparent artistic vision).

***/****

Edited by vTd, 24 December 2005 - 10:22 PM.

I thought the credits song was decent.

I just saw it. I guess it was entertaining. But as a dedicated fan of the series, I thought it was shit really. Pathetic even. There was so much opportunity! Oh well. I didn't really enjoy it being the freaking Passion of the Rings, either. I'm with vTd on dropping Adamson.

Well, having been a fan of all the books (though I can't remember a single thing in the slightest, besides reepacheep(sp?)), I thouroughly enjoyed the movies, close to the books as they are. Unfortunatley, I come from a family where we tear movies to the bones for even the slightest flaws (like why the all hid in the wardrobe at one time. It was supposed to be that women leading a tour through the house, not them having broke something.) We found any flaw, no matter how small. Or at least we tried...

Anyways, I thought that the movie was done very nicely, with few things that could be changed/improved. If nothing else could be said, they were better than the older movies. (not saying much, those movies were absolute s**t.)

The music was excellent, went very well with the movie. The cinematography was also excellent, especially of the train. Though that may be just because I liked the train.

All in all, a very good job done.
8.5/10

I believe the reasons why they chose Adamson are apparent. Disney needs a big money maker right now and they thought, with his success with Shrek, that he would make a huge blockbuster.

The real ironey of the situation is that Shrek 1 & 2 were parodies of the Disney Corp.

jesus was not a lion championing people to kill those who disagreed with, and wished harm upon, him and his followers. jesus was a man who championed people treating all humanity with love and kindness, including those who disagreed with, and wished harm upon, him and his followers.

this single thing ruined the movie for me.

if i wasn't a christian i would have thought the movie one of the best films of the year, but i am, and the complete distortion of the christain message, not to mention my general dislike of "messages" in art in the first place, ruined it for me.

besides, i think that many of the reinterpretations of christain mythological events were rather tacky, and lacked the impact of the actual "new testament", especially the sacrifice and resurrection bit.

Edited by cg?, 30 December 2005 - 09:05 PM.

I got around to seeing it the other day, and I was let down severly.
Granted, I've only read this book (Lion, Witch, Wardrobe), and that was about 6 years ago.

But really, I didn't get involved with the characters at all. I was unable to feel for Lucy upon the arrest of Tumnas, or beaver when he was being eaten (which was very unrealistic, by the way, as a wolf could have killed that animal in a quarter of the time, especially since it had the thing around the neck), even Edmund when he got stabbed after breaking the witch's, erhm, wand. Hell, even Aslan's death didn't bother me. I guess it was just as obvious to me that he'd rise again. I just didn't get enough background on any of the characters. It's like I just was put in the action, except the action wasn't too believable either.

Perhaps I didn't understand things well enough, but the way I saw it was that the group went from playing cricket in the backyard to battling on horseback in the span of maybe one week. A bit far-fetched, to say the least. The queen had obviously seen her share of battle (based upon the massive army taken from her castle at the end of the movie), but Peter the Magnificent was able to fend her off, despite her having two swords and his only having at most two days training. The bit with the birds was rather cool actually, and that may be the highlight of the movie for me. I'm fond of birds.

Overall, the movie didn't immerse me one bit. Everything seemed rushed, but at the same time, the movie dragged on and on. I think the story could have easily covered two films, and it would have been better that way, in my opinion, because it would allow more time for details such as Edmund's betrayal and punishment, Peter, Susan, and Lucy surviving in the forest on the way to Aslan's camp and then training for battle. Aslan's death could have been more played out, so that there was more of a feeling of anguish at his death rather than a feeling of impatience for his resurrection.

Anyway, I didn't like it. I suppose that it may have followed the story well, in which case I must stand by my original impression after reading the book 6 years ago: rushed, predictable, under-developed, drudging.

Why not treat it as a non-symbolic film then, cg?? I don't give two shits about any of the imagery or whatever, I just thought it was a kick-ass film.

Absolute frickin corn fest. Corny, corny, corny.

I say NO to this movie.

And I am laughing at any christian that LIKES this movie for it's "message", and you can check out chauncey's earlier post to see my reasons for doing so.

Edited by Blitz, 01 January 2006 - 03:40 PM.

The corny-ness was part of the appeal for me. "peter the MAGNIFICENT" was just hilarious, plus his odd beard once grown up. And the susan-randomly-arrowing-the-dwarf.
I've found myself loving crap films recently They're just so mindlessly entertaining.

Why not treat it as a non-symbolic film then, cg?? I don't give two shits about any of the imagery or whatever, I just thought it was a kick-ass film.

i tried to, but i couldn't. the parallels were far too obvious to me, and, even if i had never known that it was intended to be a "christian allegory", i would have eventually realised it.