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.
Nitpick away if it makes you feel better.
"The Producers" co-stars Matthew Broderick (heterosexual) and Nathan Lane (homosexual). About half the cast is homosexual but the homosexuality is used to make fun of Adolf Hitler. This is consistent with Mel Brooks' intent to use ridicule to make Hitler someone who should never be admired or emulated. Similar to Chaplin's efforts to mock Hitler. There are some very funny heterosexual roles in the movie played by Uma Thurman and Will Ferrell. This is not a movie about homosexuality. In fact, it would undoubtedly have been considered an anti-homosexual movie (with protests) but for the fact that there are homosexuals poking fun at themselves.
I loved LOTR and Potter and have always been a Sci-Fi/Fantasy fan. Narnia (movie) pales in comparison but that may be because it was targeted to younger audience.
me and my wife are just silly about beavers, and the still shots i saw looked very lifelike. i normally wouldn't go for a "fantasy" type flick, but we were thinking about it just for the beavers. lol.
I chatted once with a believer from a Jewish background who read the Narnia stories, found herself wishing that the universe could contain someone like Aslan ... and the rest is history. I also recommend the John Candy film Delerious as a terrific meditation on how the author of a story can insert himself into the story, and the implications of that insertion. Candy shows all the ways to do incarnation wrong -- with an ostentatious display that warps the characters of the characters, forcing them to act out of character.
That's interesting, since most people think TLTW&TW is the best. That's probably the one they read first. Wonder if it has to do with which book of the series is read first?
>Mr. Thomas the goatman,
Mr. Tomnas (as pronounced in the movie) was half fawn, half man. Not goat.
Maybe you should respond to the question asked rather than the one you want to answer.
You are so wrong.
Narnia was awesome.
Now that I think about it, the beavers were my favorite characters.
Homos offend me, but jokes about homos don't. Should I guess which is offered by Hollywood?
I don't think so. I just bought the complete Cronicles of Narnia in one book and it stated quite clearly that he wanted the stories in chronological order with "The Magician's Nephew first", "The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe second", etc...
And the director's name is -- Adamson.
That is why it is not making any money. It has only made 130 million and it cost 215 million to make. It will tank and end up costing the companies that made it go in the red.
Probably because it was good.
You are wrong. The movie was great. Except for the scene with the kids and the beavers in the tree which didn't need to be in it and the ice breaking part which didn't need to be there either.
You mean ALL of his books are bound into one? Wow....my daughter is planning to re-buy the series in the bound-together edition. I hope it was REAL expensive.
I am a big Narnia fan. LWW was my least favorite of the 7 books. Lewis pointed out in the books that the "air in Narnia" makes people from earth stronger than they would be here, which helps to explain how Peter and Edmund could have held their own for a while. (I wish Adamson would have used that in movie.) Also, in the book, battle was much smaller and shorter so it did not seem so unlikely that the brothers could have survived it.
I think the books work much better, because of Lewis's talent with words and characterization. To me, the movie is excellent right up to the point where they meet Aslan and then it sort of goes hollywood.
My favorite book of the 7 is the Horse and His Boy. It focuses almost entirely on Narnian characters. The English kids are just background.
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.