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.
Have you ever looked at the stories that you are comparing.
The LOTR books have over 1000 pages.each.
The Harry Potter books have over 700 pages each.
The Chronicles of Narnia have less than 150 pages each. They are made for 8 & 9 year olds to read.
You cannot get that much information out of a book that is less thank 150 pages.
I just read it (Chronicles of Narnia) for the first time and I disagree. I read the first book as if it was the beginning of the story. Yes, there were somethings that kept me guessing but they filled themselves in by the end of the story. This is what kept my interest in reading the rest of the books.
I don't think you lose anything from reading them chronologically, in fact, I think I would have not liked reading them out of sequence.
Thans. The guy at the bookstore (she was going to buy the editions they had seperately in the hope of owning the whole collection when the bookstores reordered) told her it would be cheaper to wait until they restocked and that the whole series bound together should be under $20 dollars.
I don't think I should offer an opinion. I liked "The Fantastic Four" so what do I know? :-D
Actually, I haven't seen the movie yet. I discovered the book as a child (not knowing it had Christian undertones) and I loved it dearly..read it over and over. I *am* a Christian and when I read LW&W later in life I was delighted all over again when I recognized the "hidden" message.
Took my son, daughter-in-law and grandson to see it. We all enjoyed it. yOu have to have a free imagination to let it entertain you. Some parts were a little too intense for little kids.
I think the important thing is to READ them, though.
My kids still quote scads of dialogue from the book (after 50 years, I have all seven almost committed to memory). We were skiing on a BSA Venture Crew trip when my daughter came hauling down the slope, skis parallel, screaming, "Beware! Beware! Beware! The Bolt of Tash falls from above!" Of course she wiped out, and I skied over to the snow-covered heap and inquired, "Does it ever get caught on a hook half way?"
It does help to read the books in the order the author finally intended, but that's not the order they were written or published. And my one sympathy to the reviewer is that the movie should stand on its own without relying on the book(s) to fill the gaps. But I did see the movie, loved it, and find the reviewer's complaints basically an effort at baiting.
Bob, most of your complaints are unfair, since what you really don't like is the premise and the plot. As I understand it, the movie faithfully follows the books, so your complaint is really with C.S. Lewis. Had the children been of exagerrated importance, had there been a scientific explanation for the parallel world, etc., most of us who have read the books would be outraged.
I am sorry you didn't like it, but as someone hinted to you before, God uses the foolish things of the world to confound the wise.
Mr. Tumnus was all faun.
He was not a fawn, a man or a goat. Not by halves or wholes.
If they are going to make a movie into a book, and much more so it it's from a series, the producers and director must do it such a way as those who haven't read the books will understand and accept the plot, as well as bond with the main characters.
All I'm saying is this movie didn't do that.
I respectfully disagree and am wondering if you have read the "The Magicians Nephew" it might answer some of your questions.
I grew up loving these books and am very happy with the adaptation. However the witch did not look like the witch I had envisioned as a child.
You are forgetting Hollywood Welfare, otherwise known as expensive "movie tickets."
Selling these consist of suckering the American public into buying an inferior product based on 30 second commercials of sequels containing the "best" clips of the so-called movie!
These 30 second commercials consist of gratuitous boob shots, kicks to the groin, sexual innuendo, Gay-love, Blasphemes, etc...
Then people go out and spend their hard-earned money on these wastes of time and complain while Hollywood elites only get richer, go on Oprah, bash the President and the troops, curse God and family, and the like...
Sorry for the rant... ;)
I read all the books as a kid and loved them. I think the Silver Chair was the first book in the series that I read, only because it was a gift.
My wife is eager to read the books because she didn't read them as a kid, but LOVED the movie (hear that, BobJ?).
So for someone who hasn't read the books, in what order should they be read for maximum enjoyment?
I just saw the Island the other day at a friend's house. I don't know why I missed it at the theater. I think the previews must not have been impressive. It should have done a hell of a lot better!
OK, I’ll put my two cents worth in.
Yes I did see Narnia, and I’ve read the books as well. The movie was pretty good and the actors did a very good job portraying the characters that CS described in the book. I will admit, after all the publicity hype, the movie wasn’t the overwhelming success I had come to expect, but I certainly wouldn’t say it “Sucked.”
I’d also like to add that I was disappointed in the latest Harry Potter movie. Yes the book is over 700 pages long, and yes the movie couldn’t be expected to follow the book that closely. However, I thought the editing in this movie was too choppy and I’d be willing to bet a lot of story development got left on the cutting room floor just for the sake of limiting the movie to 2 ½ hours.
Go back, and look at the word you show as translated 'children'. It is 'youths', in the same sense that the French car burners were 'youths'. They're in reality late teens or mostly 20-somethings.
I won't go into the religious connotations of what it meant for them to be calling him a 'bald pate', but it was far from a 'teasing' about his age.
As for where all the bears have gone, NJ anti-hunting ecofreaks have given them all sanctuary in their basements. Shhh! Don't tell them that they'll wake up in March very hungry
I don't know how you managed to miss every single important thing about this film . . . that must be some sort of record.
I think the basic problem is that you're approaching it as a grownup . . . and you can't. It's not a grownup's movie and the books aren't for grownups or even for big kids - I would peg them at the 7-8 year old level. I first read them when I was 6.
I will say that, although you can enjoy the movie without the books, it helps to have read them first. I think (I can't really remember when I HADN'T read them.)
A bunch of my 17 y.o. daughter's friends went to see it together, and they were kind enough to let an old lady tag along. They all loved it to distraction - boys and girls between the ages of 15 and 18. One kid who is an exchange student from Croatia was a little bit puzzled about the other kids' very strong reactions to the film -- he thought it was pretty good but didn't understand why everyone was having such an emotional reaction (several of the girls were in tears, and I sniffled a little myself). All the other kids fell over themselves trying to explain, one girl summed it up pretty well I think: "This is our CHILDHOOD!" There's a nostalgia among teens (and grownups) who remember their moms and dads reading this book to them . . . sort of the same thing that drives some of the Winnie-the-Pooh mania. A FReeper whose name I can't remember pointed out that it's kind of like watching home movies -- if you know the folks involved it's a much more intense experience!
I liked it. The objections that Bob J have with the movie are because it is just one of a series of books. You leave the movie with questions. However you leave with less questions than the first of the LOTR trilogy.
You are missing the point, especially from a Christian standpoint.
'Just Saw "Narnia"...it Sucked' I must have seen a different version. Too bad you missed the good one. It was GREAT.
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.