Posted on 12/27/2005 11:28:47 AM PST by Bob J
After reading all the hype in the media and on FR, I was excited to see the film of the CS Lewis book. I have to say I was disappointed. For all it's grandiosity and provenance, I found it clunky, sometimes difficult to follow and worse, unbelieveable (even a "fantasy" movie must reasonable enough in the story and behavior of it's characters to hurdle the initial "willing suspension of disbelief")
The religious basis and backdop to the story has been argued at length on FR, so let's leave that at the doorstep and discuss it's cinematic achievements, or lack thereof.
The Story.
This may have been why I had a problem with the movie. After the presentation of the premise and the characters, I found myslef resisting acceptance that an entire fantasy world filled with magic, mythologic creatures, witches, generals and armies was waiting for a four small children to come and save their world....by prophecy and design. It would have been more believeable if they happened into the world by accident and through clever plot twists were responsible for the salvation of Narnia. But there was nothing really special about these kids, no ancestors with a special connection/knowledge to Narnia, no special abilities, expertise or talents, They were not exceptional in any way...they were just kids. Why did the land of Narnia need them? They added nothing that wasn't already there and in fact detracted from it.
The opening.
The setup took far too long. I wasn't watching my watch but it must have taken over 20-30 minutes for the first kid to walk out the back of the wardrobe closet into the land of Narnia. I didn't understand the emphasis placed on this part of the book as it had little to do with subsequent events. Did it matter that much to the story that the the kids were sent off to the professor because their mother was concerned about the danger of WWII? There was a passing reference later about being shipped off to avoid the effects of war only to be dropped in the middle of the war in Narnia (and whether they should get involved at all), but it fell limply to the ground.
The characters.
Ouch. Let's go by the numbers.
The Professor and his maid (?).
Good cop bad cop. The maid is stern, the professor, kind. So what? The movie feints toward this professor knowing more about Narnia and the wardrobe, but it leaves it there. You think he is going to add some specific knowledge or experience that the kids might benefit from (if not be involved himself) but they movie drops it and he becomes a useless figure in the overall plot. Why waste screen time on it?
Lucy - A typical, precocious, British eight year old. The most likeable character in the movie (which might not be saying much) but I grow weary of the English tendancy to cast their child characters beyond their years. I had three "laugh" moments in this movie, two concerning her. First, when she hits the bullseye with her magic "knife" and then when she "flashes it" and heads off to vanquish the armies of evil. A real laugher.
Susan - The most annoying, negative character in the movie. At first I made parallels to Wendy from "Peter Pan, but you believed Wendy was concerned about the younger children while Susan comes off as a party killing shrew. They needed to soften this character but didn't. Throughout most of the movie I kept wondering when she was going to use those damn arrows...had to wait until the last 2 minutes and by then it was anticlimatic.
Edmund - The anti-hero who becomes hero. I busted out laughing (third instance) when they put he and his brother in those stupid looking suits of armor. We are asked to believe this 10 and 14 year old are going to take part in a "Braveheart" type battle with huge warriors and mythological creatures and vanquish all? I might have believed it if they were given extrahuman strength, speed and agility. Even with their magic "implements" the battle scenes with these two were comical. Think of William Wallace in a sword fight with Doogie Howser.
Peter - Peter is supposed to be the 14 year old hero of the story, protecting his siblings while winding their way through the dangers of a mystical kingdom. The residents of Narnia wait for his arrival to lead their armies of druids and gargoyles againt the forces of evil in a final battle of epic proportions and historic finality. Sorry. Through the first 4/5ths of the movie Peter comes off as an effeminate British girlie boy and it is too much to ask the audience to believe he is the saviour of Narnia. Why would they want or need him?
The Witch - Huh? Tilda Swinson does comes off as an evil bitch but I never did beleive she, or anyone, would want to be the King or Queen of Narnia. It would be like Sauron of Moldor and his legions of Orks waging an epic battle for the control of The Shire. Snooze.
That's my nutshell of a take. If you ave seen narnia and would like to comment, feel free to do so but let's keep it clean.
He comes back to this point over and over, in many of the books, but probably the best illustration of this is in The Silver Chair, when Eustace and Jill are trying to hide from the school bullies, and decide they should try to get back to Narnia to escape. Eustace tells Jill you can only get there by magic, and Jill asks, "Do you mean drawing circles on the ground and incantations, and things like that?" and Eustace replies, "No -- and I don't think he'd like that." They make what amounts to a prayer, but before they can finish it events catapult them into Narnia - so their prayer was answered before it was made. Lewis has a lot to say in his more serious books about the problem of temporal prayer to an eternal God. As Eustace says to Jill in a later book, "It's the usual muddle about times, Pole."
She is from another world, Charn. She is not human at all, but a descendant of a djinn and a giantess (Lilith, in fact . . . Adam's reputed first wife.) So of course she has a giant's strength and a djinn's magical powers.
She was brought into Narnia by Digory Kirke . . . and this indirectly resulted in the wardrobe, as you can read in The Magician's Nephew.
"It's all in Plato, all in Plato . . . bless me, what DO they teach them in these schools?"
Your post #54 is outstanding. Here! Here!
I thoroughly enjoyed Narnia and let it carry me away to the place where all things are possible. I've been in an excellent mood for two weeks.
Me and my wife watched it twice so far, may go watch it a 3rd time in a few weeks. Figure it will be around till March.
I thought it was better than most crap Hollyweird produces, CS Lewis wrote during the war and since he was from Oxford I believed he was the professor in the stories.
Think of how ill suited Jesus apostles seemed for their mission. They were ordinary Jewish people who spread his message to the known world. With the exception of Saul (Paul) I don't think any of them had any stature in society.
"Why don't YOU take off your rose-colored glasses."
Long ago removed.
You'll see that, in my first response to you, I never denied Jiminy Carter's appeasement nor Clintax's tail-wagging. Reagan's pullout from Beirut didn't help the fight against terror either, nor did America choosing either side in the Iraq/Iran war. Nor did the fall of Communism help, as it's opened up a treasure trove of nuclear material previously behind the Iron Curtain. Nor did our smashing success in Desert Storm, since Bush I failed to finish the job of Hussein Removal, leaving that matter for his son some 12 years later. Because, if Saddam was truly behind 9-11 as the current Bush Admin claims, then removing him after Desert Storm would've gone a long way towards preventing 9-11. And no, again, Clintax did nothing to stop it either.
Krispy Kreme?!?!? He is supposed to go for Turkish Delight!!!!! My favorite sweet and one of the reasons I liked the book so much as a child. I fer=ared that I might have gone with the witch myself if she had offered me chocolate covered Turkish Delight. lol
"Only boards in the back of your wardrobe."
Good one! I know people for whom this is the perfect description.
I think the point is: if they were going to do a faithful adaptation of the book, without considering how it plays as a movie, then they neded to release it straight to DVD. so the viewer could fast forward through the boring bits (like a=book)
Yep! Never could much get into the Iliad, but the Odyssey was the best!
Ewoyn was a Shieldmaiden of Rohan. She was a trained fighter, not just "a lady" .
And she would have lost a fair fight with the witch-king. She only won because he was stabbed in the back by a hobbit.
"I would have succeeded to, but for those meddling hobbits"
Yep, they did.
Then he wasn't much influenced by the liturgical movment. Of course, neither --much earlier--was Newman, whose Catholicism was theological rather than ceremonial.
Literary license.
Here's my stab:
1) Exciting opening, which audiences seem to require nowadays.
2) Shows audiences and critics (who seize upon anything to thwart a movie they don't care for) that the Pevensies had a childhood at least as hard as Potter's.
3) Peter and Edmund's experience with "The Blitz" gives them the idea to dive-bomb the White Witch's army with boulder-throwing Griffons. That closes the circle with the opening. (An example where the good guys are thinking with the prospect of a surprise to secure a win. Remember, they had to go into the battle without Aslan's help.)
Not familiar with Kael, but I do find Ebert engaging to read. As you say, he's an out-spoken liberal and he does understand the structure of a good film. However, I take all his reviews with a salt tablet.
I can't fathom why he liked Sin City (and I should have known better, by the title alone) and while his review of Narnia is grudgingly positive, it reads as if he punted to keep his in-box from being flooded with hate-mail.
..and what is your point?.....not all were uneducated & of modest means, but some certainly were.
This idea is referenced often in the Bible....(paraphrasing)...of how He achieves His purpose/plans through those of little or no power/imperfect people.
The key is ...faith...
..and a willing heart.
The wife and kiddies loved it!
No movie is going to please everybody, and this one is no exception.
If you are going to be a literary critic, you must learn to use English correctly:
..."when they put him and his brother "...
I am glad that it is closer to making money. 180 is a lot more manageable that 215. Plus once it goes worldwide it will make a great deal of money.
The gay flick will recoup it money and then some, but don't forget that even evil can make a profit.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.