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.
"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."
Take off those blinders, young man! It wasn't Jiminy "Appease Prize" Carter who sold them those weapons!! And the Soviets had left AfCrapistan by the time Willy Clintax took office.
Your refusal to accept the truth does NOT change the truth.
You are entitled to your opinion, but the original readers were chidren to whom the evacuation was a recent and powerful memory. The first ten minutes or so were added to instruct audiences who have almost no knowledge of the war. As for boys in armor, the fact is that medieval armies contained knights who were fas young as ifteen and sixteen years of age. To be sure, they were physically much more fit than thesesoft young actors, which may be what bothers you.
Read the books.
No. He was an Anglo-Catholic in the Church of England.
Thank you. I wasn't sure.
James Earl Carter is the Godfather of Islamofacist terror. And Bill Clinton did not retaliate a single time during the endless Al Queda strikes in the 1990's. Why don't YOU take off your rose-colored glasses.
I plan on it.
Well, the suits of armour looked ridiculous along with the unicorn Peter was riding (where did that come from?).
I got understand the point, unfortunately, by the time they executed the redemption I had lost all interest in the character.
The same place that the griffins did.
The Unicorn stable?
BTW, BBC did Narnia abour 15 years ago, and the ARMOUR was better. The special effects were, of course, less than spectactuar.
Thanks for the vanity.
That was the area that I felt the least impact. It was not as dramatic as I recall reading it. I haven't reread the books since I saw the movie. I've been wondering if the impact is different because I didn't know what was going to happen when I read the books. I knew what was going to happen during the movie.
Regarding the occult question.
One movie deals with it as good/evil, with limited abilities by humans to invoke. The other deals with it as good and evil coming from the same place, with no recognition of the difference. The choice as to whether magic is good or evil depends on the intentions of the sorcerer at the moment the magic is invoked.
Potter invokes magic with no observance of a God. "Magic" - to call what happens in both movies the same while comparing the differences, in Potter is invoking the powers of the unseen which can be, and are regularly, dark forces. Tho Potter has a pretense that he is a good guy, his magic stems from the same place as the dark magic. This is then a defacto admission that his magic is also dark, and he is therefore inherently evil.
In Narnia, only two beings are actually capable of Magic. Others may have some gift, but the gifts do what Aslan perscribes, such as Lucy's potion. Lucy is incapable of any Magic that does not involve the potion. Narnia invokes "magic" based on the word of Aslan (God) and the Ice Queen. The Ice Queen knows the "deep magic" because she was a witch before Narnia was created, but she does not know the deepest secrets of God, and therefore thinks she can kill God and in doing so become God. In Narnia, the magic is performed by characters that are clearly supernatural, not the humans, nor even the animals.
In later books, you will be introduced to Tash, who is the God of Calorman. Tash is another evil god, but short of appearing, I dont recall him performing magic. The last book has characters pretending to speak for God and perform magic, and then having to face the Gods they pretended to speak for.
I enjoyed it as did my husband; though he found the lead up to the wardrobe a little tedious, enjoyed it nonetheless... sometimes you have to let your inner child come out and just go into fantasy land.
I liked Kong; and will watch it on DVD release, but overall I enjoyed Narnia more.
According to this (and everything I've ever heard).
He was never a Catholic.
http://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/exposes/lewis/cs-lewis.htm
He was a member of the Church of England.
I saw it and it was the best movie I watched this year. As good as LOTR as far as a good fantasy goes. The message of forgiveness and Salvation was powerful. Best Disney I have ever seen.
Pray for W and Our Victorious Troops
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.