But leave it to the one and only Tom Cruise to cross a vampire with Liberace.
Posted on 01/11/2006 8:36:00 AM PST by presidio9
I was all wrong about "Narnia."
Which is to say, about six months ago in this space I was hell-bent on the white-hot idea that Hollywood and the Christian-right group/billionaire that helped produce the tepid and saccharine flick would absolutely ruin "The Chronicles of Narnia" books, ruin the deep magic and the astounding sense of wonder these books held for millions of children (including this writer) by regurgitating them as a slick, dumbed-down, poorly acted smarm-fest full of ham-fisted Jesus allusions and excessive special effects, all from the director who brought you, ahem, "Shrek 2."
Things did not, shall we say, look good.
Truly, I was of the mind that the "Narnia" books, to my dreamy, rose-colored memory, were these insanely rich and ingenious tales, dense and deeply involved anecdotes of children exploring a phenomenally magical world that was so utterly not of this grungy, terrestrial plane it might as well have been Pluto. Like many, my time-addled vision elevated the books to the status of utter genius, largely due to the feeling of unchecked awe I can still recall them providing. And I was absolutely sure Hollywood would rape that memory for all the pseudo-Christian bullcrap and Burger King tie-ins it possibly could.
I was wrong. Sort of. Hollywood didn't actually ruin "Narnia." Hollywood didn't cheapen it all that much, or reduce it down or remove much of the original majesty by injecting it with too much CGI and not enough heart. Rather, Hollywood has done something even more depressing: It's revealed "The Chronicles of Narnia" books to be what they actually are: a rather lean slice of delightfully wrought but fairly simpleminded, largely hobbled fantasy for the imagination-deprived single-digit set.
I have now seen the movie. -snip-
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
He was wrong about this as well. It has McDonald's tie-ins.
Correct. The King has Kong.
What an unhappy little man this Morford fella seems to be.
When they do see it they feel the need to change the message as in most new vampire movies the vampire is no longer hurt by the cross and holy water. If they are not allowed to change the message they just hate it as in Narnia and Passion.
Eragon is next big kids series. Comes out in December 06.
I'm honestly not trying to compare the two. But to me, Narnia just seemed flat. The white queen looks to have been someone pulled off the street and put in a white dress. Other than her staff thingie, she was simply a face in the crowd. Azlan was barely in the film, and was rather dry. Much like the rest of the characters, IMHO.
To me, there seemed to be a distinct lack of MAGIC in the magical world of Narnia as I felt I could have filmed the human parts of the movie(add the CGI later) in about a weekend for a couple thousand $$$.
You guys MUST stop this. :)
When I was a newbie y'all had me absolutely CONVINCED that MM was an ACTUAL, XX-chromosome woman, not just a girly-man.
> When they do see it they feel the need to change the message as in most new vampire movies the vampire is no longer hurt by the cross and holy water.
In legend, crosses and holy water - and sunlight, for that matter - were not effective ways of dealign with vampires. These are all relatively new concepts. Consider that in Stoker's "Dracula," Drac wandered around in fulll daylight without trouble. Nowadays, a "daywalker" vampire is considered soemthing special. I believe the original "Nosferatu" introduced the notion of sunlight makign a vampire go "poof." And the idea ofa vampire as suave and sexy.... that's *really* new (Bela Lugosi). Stoker and earlier a vampire was a filthy beast, just a scary animal with occaisional superpowers.
The original prescriptions for dealing with a vampire included such things as beheading it and cremating it. Splashing it with water would just annoy it.
So, there ya go. Now awaiting the adventure of Buffy The White Witch Slater.
> The white queen looks to have been someone pulled off the street and put in a white dress.
The only other role I know the actress from was playing the Archangel (Gabriel? Michael?) in "Constantine." She has... an unusual look, to say the least.
But leave it to the one and only Tom Cruise to cross a vampire with Liberace.
I must have missed the line. It wasn't in the book. To be honest, I didn't think that scene was done very well anyway.
I have been reading the series with my 6 year old daughter, and she picked up on it fairly quickly.
"Shrek 2" ROCKED!
I'm talking about the more subtle one. Like when Aslan goes home to his kingdom at the end, the guy he leaves in charge just happens to be named Peter.
Well, we all know Mark Morford sucks, both literally and figuratively.
I believe the jury is still out on that.
Okay, I'll bite...what do you get when you cross a vampire with Liberace?
By the appearance of his scribbling to include this author!
Pray for W and Our Freedom Fighters
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.