posted
I quote the whole title, because I long, in my heart of hearts, for movies of all the books.
I saw it this weekend in a packed theater (even at the 3:20 show). There were good points and bad points to the movie, but I believe most of the bad points come from the inevitable comparison to the Lord of the Rings Trilogy. I kept reminding myself of two things through out the movie: 1) It's not Lord of the Rings. It's a kid's story. 2) I've read these books like 10 times... I know what's going to happen already. That said...
THE GOOD
1) It follws the book very well, from what I remember, and appears very faithful to the feel of the original story. The children find themselves ina world where they can, in fact, make a difference, and Peter's struggle to find the king inside himself is brought out very nicely.
2) Casting was perfect. The children look exactly like I always pictured them in my head. Susan could have been a little prettier, but other than that.. spot on.
3) The griffins... wow. Definitely the best CGI part of the movie. And the tie-in back to the bombing of London being used as part of Peter's battle strategy was great.
4) The Beavers were funny.
5) "Do you know why you're here, faun? You're here because *he* turned you in. For sweeties."
6) Liam Neeson's voice. Always good.
THE BAD
1) It felt sort of pieced together, without alot of high dramatic elements. But again... I knew everything that was going to happen. And it's NOT Lord of the Rings. But the return of Aslan could've been much more dramatic. It was the key turning point in the movie. It pales in comparison, though, to Gandalf's return in Fangorn.
2) I don't understand what happened after Aslan killed the Witch. Everyone just sort of blurred and vanished. Was that just to emphasize Peter's emotion at that moment or what? I heard it suggested that it was all of Jadis' servants vanishing when she was killed. But it appeared to be the Narnian soldiers blurring.
3) Some of the animals were not as convincingly real as I would have liked. Particularly Aslan, though he did have his moments. His roar was good though.
4) Jadis' robot-like fighting style. While certainly logical for an Ice Queen, it just didn't do alot for me. And given how skilled she apparently was, I find it a little odd that Peter lasted so long against her with *no* training.
5) Professor Kirk's connection to Narnia and the Wardrobe was barely touched on and done so in a very confusing way, particularly if "The Magician's Nephew" never gets made. I had hoped that a little combining of stories would take place and we'd get a touch of back-story from "TMN" in this movie. But alas...
posted
Yup. I saw it first showing on Friday morning (working the overnight shift does have its occasional advantages), and I enjoyed the hell out of it. I went with three friends from work, two of whom had never read the book. It was a lot of fun watching one of them. When it got to the Stone Table sequence, if she had been any farther forward in her seat she'd have been in the next row!
Of the four children, I thought the boy playing Edmund was the best-cast of the lot, particulary at the beginning; he was such an awful little shit.
I'm afraid I have to disagree with you about Aslan, though. I thought they did a terrific job on him.
As for the differences from the book, I noticed a couple of places where they changed some of the dialogue (for the worse, I'm sorry to have to say). I've only read the book twice though (once 25 years ago, once this spring), and I'm not as familiar with it as I am with Tolkien. Since one of my friends is borrowing my copy of the series, I can't check it for myself.
One of my co-workers, however, has been a fan of the series since she was a little girl. She was supposed to see the movie on Saturday, so I'll find out what she thinks tonight at work. She's already said that, during the scene in the Beavers' house (which was on a "making of" documentary on Starz), she noticed dialogue that Mr. Beaver spoke in the book coming from his wife.
I remember reading an article a couple of months back that said if this movie reaches the $200 million dollar mark, the studio was going to greenlight Prince Caspian. According to scifi.com's wire, the LW&W made $67.1 million this weekend. Hopefully they'll pull in the rest they need; I'd like to see them do the rest of the series.
-------------------- The difference between genius and idiocy? Genius has its limits.
Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
IIRC, PC features the return of all four kids, right? It's not until Voyage of the Dawn Treader that it drops to just Lucy and Edmund with Eustace in tow. The Silver Chair is just Eustace and Jill Pole. The Horse and His Boy, and The Magician's Nephew don't feature the Pevencey kids, Eustace, or Jill at all (the Pevencey's are briefly in THAHB, but as adults), and in The Last Battle, three of the four show up, I think, along with Eustace and Jill.
Here's a question unrelated to casting... on the four thrones at the end, each throne had an icon at the top depicting the gift the kids had received. There was only one shot where you could see Edmund's icon, but I didn't make out what it was. I'm curious, seeing as how he didn't get a gift. They did a good job of having people's heads block it in all the closeups, and that makes me think there wasn't really anything there.
posted
I don't remember if Philip the horse was an addition or not... I certainly don't remember Peter riding a unicorn, either - though you cuold pretty easily tell which shots had the actor sitting astride fake white horse.
Awesome movie. Oddly though, I found myself comparing it more to the previous animated and live action versions, than to anything LOTR - choices regarding what was left out (Edmund pulling the sled, no one mentioning Santa Claus / Father Christmas by name) and what was added in (Philip and the unicorn, a lot of the battle's embelishments, etc.). Still, while the pacing was a littl eoff, I certainly didn't find myself looking at my watch as I did during LOTR. Also:
-The battle blurring was a dramatic choice, I'd say. When Aslan killed the Queen (in the book, I believe he simply trampled her and she vanished; here, Aslan quite clearly mauled her), the battle ended soon therafter. I think they blurred everything to speed up the passage of time and get everyone united and on the saving of Edmund.
-I'm willing that more than a little of the real-world sequences were cut out, including all the Professor's backstory - almost odd to get Jim Broadbent to do two very short scenes.
-Aslan aside, all the other animals were very well done IMO, especially the beavers. I think this is the first time talking animals have been done so dramatically.
-I don't remember the books establishing tha the Pevensies' dad was off fighting in the war - only that they had been sent away. I suppose it would make sense, though.
posted
I thought it was very good. Some of the blue screening of the landscapes was not great, at least not LOTR level work.
As for the story adaption - it seemed well and justly done. Even as it was it was a pretty long movie. I'd have liked to see Lucy defend herself but I suppose the knife throwing scene was all the rating could handle.
-------------------- Twee bieren tevreden, zullen mijn vriend betalen.
Registered: Oct 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
I can't remember... when did Lucy defend herself in the book?
I'm not sure the professor got a whole lot of backstory in the book. It wasn't until The Magician's Nephew that you find out the Wardrobe was made from a tree that came from Narnia (or something like that) or that the professor has actually been to Narnia before. They sort of hinted at that in the movie, though.
I don't think anything about the kids' parents was really established in the book. I believe it just started out with them being sent away because of the air raids, though the very beginning of the movie did a good job of explaining that.
posted
What's with Liam Neeson choosing all the weird "wiseman/mentor" roles in recent years?
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
I don't know that Lucy did, for sure. I've been sensitized (caught it from my wife) to the girls, esp. in Disney movies, waiting on the boys to save them. We didn't - really - have that here except for the fairly critical for Peter's development scene with them being treed by the wolves....
Certainly the girls being with Aslan is a pretty big plot point.
I guess I was just whining .
-------------------- Twee bieren tevreden, zullen mijn vriend betalen.
Registered: Oct 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
Man, I'm going to have to reread this book. Granted, I was about eleven the last time I did, but I'm hardly recognizing any of the stuff you're all talking about...
I am glad the movies (assuming they go forward with the others) are apparently being made in the original book order. Not the chronological reordering you get these days.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Well I'm glad none of you went down the Poly Toynbee route (she published this article in the Guradian newspaper last Monday).
I havn't seen it yet (but from what I hear it's close enough to the book for once, that spoilers are pretty safe), but seeing as all of you seem to like I will.
I just hope I don't get dragged to see Lassie over the hols...
-------------------- I have plenty of experience in biology. I bought a Tamagotchi in 1998... And... it's still alive.
Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
posted
Oh don't get me wrong. I do find the theme for theme links to Christianity to be smeared on a bit thick, but I'm just pretending that I don't care. Aslan is cool. And to be fair, the rest of the books (save The Last Battle) have very few religious overtones that I can recall. They sail on a boat, rescue a prince, kill a snake, etc.
I'm more offended by that woman's article wherein everyone who calls themself a Christian must be like those Nuns she mentioned who used guilt and threat to get people to do things. I love it how people writing about how something is so one sided on an issue take the very same position themselves.
But hey... this is treading dangerous close to Flameboard territory. I'll be done.
quote:Originally posted by Aban Rune: I'm more offended by that woman's article wherein everyone who calls themself a Christian must be like those Nuns she mentioned who used guilt and threat to get people to do things. I love it how people writing about how something is so one sided on an issue take the very same position themselves.
But hey... this is treading dangerous close to Flameboard territory. I'll be done.
So I should not mention the christian group that just forced Target (via threatened boycott) to add the word "Christmas" all over their stores because "happy holidays" just was not good enough for them?
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
Those people just need to get lives and start worrying about something that matters. And put quotes around "christian" when you use it to describe them, please I don't remember Jesus ever boycotting any stores (or celebrating his birthday for that matter).
"So I should not mention the christian group that just forced Target (via threatened boycott) to add the word 'Christmas' all over their stores because 'happy holidays' just was not good enough for them?"
Oh, I doubt the threat was even required. After all, we're talking about the same store that had to come up with such an obviously bullshit excuse for letting their pharmacies deny people their prescriptions. Besides, no-one with a functioning intelligence really believes these people could create an effective boycott over this issue.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
.![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
