Just Saw "Narnia"...it Sucked

n/a | 12-27-05 | Bob J

[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.

[My2Cents]

but more surprisingly, the frequent mentions of "sons of Adam" and "daughters of Eve."

Thereby offending the detractors of intelligent design. :)

[unlearner]

Narnia is my new favorite movie. I think it comes from having heard and read the books. My parents read all seven of the Narnia books to me as a child several times. I only read them as an adult about a year ago. When you come to the end of the books it is sad because you do not want the story to be over.

For me, the movie is like a continuation of the story because it visualizes it and adds depth and detail. This is the movie I have waited for my whole life. There is only one other story I would like to see as a movie more than this series.

I have wondered how those who have not read the books might respond. I can also understand that not every adult is going to "get it."

I think the main reason you don't is because you haven't read the books. Most of your objections are explained in them.

You said you felt the story started slowly:

"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 entrance into Narnia by Lucy is the first plot point of the movie. This is how pretty much all successful movies do it. Here is the typical structure for plotting a successful movie (numbers are screenplay pages and equal minutes in a film):

1 opening image
5 theme stated
1-10 setup - shows the main character(s) motivations
12 catalyst, aka inciting incident - forces the main character(s) to take action
11-25 unsuccessful attempts to resolve problems leading to bigger problems
25 first plot point or twist taking story into the new direction of the second act
26-54 explore new world and expand on additional subplots
55 midpoint
55-75 escalating danger
75 all hope is lost
75-85 desperate attempts to achieve the main goal or just survive
85 second major plot point leading into third act resolution
85-109 finale - back and forth struggle leading to the resolution of the main conflict
110 closing image

Of course not all stories fit neatly into this paradigm, but most successful movies follow it pretty closely.

In my opinion, Narnia executed the first act flawlessly.

There are inherent weaknesses to the story, mainly what has already been pointed out in relation to the child audience. For me, however, this movie was an incredible example of movie making and, as I already said, the movie I have been waiting for my whole life.

I will be a repeat viewer and plan to buy it on DVD also. But for anyone who is considering waiting, I think it is a movie that deserves to be seen on the big screen.

[Bob J]

That's exactly he point I'm making, that too much of the character development and motivation relies on viewers familiarity with the books. For someone who hasn't read them, the finer nuances will be lost.

[BradyLS]

"The only image
of that AWFUL trilogy
that's still in my mind

is the stupid scene
where Orlando Bloom crowd surfs
during some battle . . ."
---
I agree. The other was the rampaging oliphant with the green ghosts all over it. Scenes like that take me completely out of a film and it's simply excess in an already excessive production.

[Alouette]

to keep up with the nuances in the plot.

"Kingdom of Heaven" had a plot?

Stupidest. movie. ever.

Stupidest moment of the entire stupid movie: "the man in the iron mask" can orate like a BBC announcer even though he has no lips, no teeth, and half a tongue.

[montag813]

I am so sick of fantasy films.
How about REAL movies, where journalists are not portrayed as heroes, but as the America-hating traitors they really are, on missions to undermine our Republic.

How about a bio on Janet Reno, including not just Waco, but how she falsely accused couples of serial child abuse as Dade County DA and railroaded them and ruined their lives--later having every single conviction overturned. Reno started that whole madness and no one knows it.
How about a 3-hour epic on the rise of Al Queda, greased along by Jimmy Carter and brought to full power by Clinton?
I wont hold my breath. But I wont see "Narnia" or "Kong" either. I am so sick of this fantasy crap.

[Taliesan]

If you ad to read the books to get the movie, i would agree with you -- that's a bad movie. No, I think everything I said was in the movie I saw. And about 99% of the other people who saw it.

But, you didn't see it. Fair enough. As the Professor pointed out, that only means you didn't see it. :-)

[Palladin]

barj, Did Lewis convert to Catholicism before or after he wrote the Chronicles of Narnia?

[TennesseeGirl]

I teared up when Aslan died. I can see where it would be too intense for small children. Alas, my husband and I are still awaiting grandchildren...

[Bob J]

I think you point out the problem with the opening. In your design, the opening pages are 10 out of 110 or 9%. I'm not sure how long the intro to the movie went but it seemed like 20-30 minutes. That would be up to 25% of a two hour movie.

IMO, the movie should have opened with the kids at the train station waiting to be picked up and after introductions, moving to the cricket game, hide and seek and finding the wardrobe. That may have taken only 5-7 minutes...they could have used the rest on more character development, particularly Aslan.

[Bob J]

Uhhh, we go to movies escape that crap...if only for a couple hours.

[Blzbba]

"How about REAL movies, where journalists are not portrayed as heroes, but as the America-hating traitors they really are, on missions to undermine our Republic. "


Borrrrrrrrrinng!!! Who'd pay $10 to see that boring tripe?



"How about a bio on Janet Reno, including not just Waco, but how she falsely accused couples of serial child abuse as Dade County DA and railroaded them and ruined their lives--later having every single conviction overturned. Reno started that whole madness and no one knows it. "


Zzzzzzzzzzz. Wake me up when this one's over. Who the hell would pay $10 to see the ugly face of Janet Reno 15-feet high on the silver screen? They'd have to supply barf bags for this boring stinker.


"How about a 3-hour epic on the rise of Al Queda, greased along by Jimmy Carter and brought to full power by Clinton?"


Don't forget that part in the 80s were they were armed to the teeth by the Reagan/Bush Administration during the Russian War in Afghanistan. But the rest just sounds like some Michael Moore crap. People wouldn't pay $10 to see it.


" I am so sick of this fantasy crap."


This I agree with. Hollywood has long been bankrupt of original ideas. Harry Potter, Lord of Rings, Lion/Witch/Wardrobe are all variations of the same "Messiah" theme. Zzzzzzzzz.

[TruthFactor]

Decent kids flick... I don't know why you're upset about that.

[todd1]

I disagree. I enjoyed it just as much as my nieces and nephews did.

[Bob J]

Although I did have some let down when I saw the movie, I'm not that upset about it, I'm being a little provocative...heheh.

Someone posted a thread a few weeks ago haranguing the Potter movies and claiming them to be vehicles of moral destruction for kids and our country. I defended Potter pretty much the same way those here are defending Narnia.

Wanted to see what the shoe looked like on the other foot.

[Oliver Optic]

I belong to the class of movie-goers that only comes out of the woodwork for a film with positive values and a generally Christian worldview.

I was pleased with Narnia ... thought it was well done ... no watering down of the Christian symbolism.

No profanity, no immodesty.

The negatives:

(1) A bit too intense for younger children.

(2) Tumnus was a little creepy ... particularly the scene where he persuades Lucy to come home with him. In light of what goes on today, that didn't leave me with the warm fuzzies.

[Bob J]

One interesting thing, those that supported the "Potter is teaching our kids occult" mentioned that Narnia was a much better movie and that he would enjoy it much more. I was quite taken back by the amount of "occult" in Narnia. Witches, magic doors, mythological creatures, magic weapons, spells, etc.

I'm not sure how one squares criticism of Potter for being occultish and then praising Narnia for not being so. Aside the symbolism of Aslan dying and coming back to life, they were very similar.

[montag813]

Don't forget that part in the 80s were they were armed to the teeth by the Reagan/Bush Administration during the Russian War in Afghanistan

I can see where you're coming from.

[peyton randolph]

Homos offend me, but jokes about homos don't. Should I guess which is offered by Hollywood?

The movie would be considered anti-homosexual if it wasn't homosexuals making the jokes. The primary target of these jokes is Adolf Hitler...Mel Brooks has gone out of his way over the years to ridicule Hitler (like Chaplin).

[GretchenM]

Our experience is pretty close to identical. I couldn't get into the books as a child but it wasn't the book's fault -- it was due to some influences in my childhood. I love TLTWaTW as an adult.

I saw this version of the movie with an adult friend and later he and I took my eight-year-old neighbor to see it and she absolutely loved it, although she had become heavily invested in Aslan's welfare and it was frightening to her when he was hit in the face at the stone table, and when the table cracked so loudly. She did well with the battle scenes.

If Gresham's movie had come out when I was a child and if I had been coached during my childhood before seeing the film regarding its themes, I would have enjoyed it immensely.