Oh- and Aslan- couldn't have picked a better voice. My favorite actor ever.
You have no clue how happy I'm feeling right now.
Posted by tern (Member # 7429) on :
It was glorious and inspiring. Well done!
Posted by dh (Member # 6929) on :
*going to see it tomorrow*
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
I thought it was very good. I'm glad CGI has gotten good enough that we weren't forced to endure actors in animal suits or semi-expressive animatronic puppets.
That said, I thought they could have done a slightly better job with the CGI. Sometimes it didn't feel like the beavers, or Aslan were actually interacting with their environment. But that was minor.
Posted by libertygirl (Member # 8761) on :
Exactly what I expected. Very very pleased. The only thing is that it could have been much better if it had been more intense. The whole lack of blood thing got a bit goofy at times. But I understand them wanting to keep it PG. So I will say it is one of the best PG movies I've seen in a long time, if not ever. Btw, did anyone else see the Pirates of the Carribean trailer? Maybe I'm a bit late on that, but woohoo!
Posted by Dr Strangelove (Member # 8331) on :
Exactly what I say, libertygirl. Oh wait, no, I did say that! (That's my sister ... she didn't log off so I posted before I noticed it was her. SHE hasn't seen the movie. sucker!)
Posted by Evie3217 (Member # 5426) on :
It was absolutely amazing. It was one of those movies where I just couldn't help smiling through the whole thing!
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
:half-sheilds eyes:
I will be seeing it sometime after the 14th when some family members come into town that we will see it with. I wanna see it!
:pout:
Posted by kojabu (Member # 8042) on :
Does anyone who has seen the version they made back in the 80's think that the White Witch was better in that version than this one? Because I definately think she was better in that version.
And I'm quite psyched for the PotC movie!
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
If you mean the nostril-flaring lady from the BBC productions...no. No, do not think that actress was better.
Tilda Swinton's icy-cool Jadis struck me as being far superior, but then again I found pretty much all the BBC Narnia to be underwhelming.
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
underwhelming, yet I watched them anyway. I especially liked the bit in Voyage of the Dawn Treader where Caspian goes, "You all have your freedom!" and the slaves go completely Monty Python with their cheers of thanks. Posted by kojabu (Member # 8042) on :
If the BBC ones were the ones that were on NJN, then I guess yes those are the ones I'm talking about. I had no idea they made the rest of them; the only ones I knew about were The Lion... and The Silver Chair.
Regardless, I wasn't very impressed by the White Witch of the one that just came out. She didn't seem very mean or full of doom to me.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
It's all in the eyes, kojabu. Ya gotta watch the eyes.
I really like Tilda Swinton as an actress and thought she was well cast as the witch.
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
Even if she is named after a diacritical mark. Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Saw it, enjoyed it a great deal. My only complaints was a bit of trouble with the CGI-very, very minor, but since there's so much of it, it's more noticeable. Didn't detract from my enjoyment at all really, though.
My other complaint is that we didn't really get to see the Pevensies distinguished from one another as well as I would've liked. Susan was done properly with her trying to be grown up and smart all the time. Edmund's betrayl was handled well. But there could've been more showing of Peter's bravery and magnificence, and Lucy's compassion and faith. And Edmund's intelligence, and later wisdom.
But I think they were true enough to the story, and I was very pleased with the film.
Posted by Hyperfried (Member # 7892) on :
I'll admit... I didn't love it. Just saw it last night. The plot was all right to good, and Aslan was really good. But at times, it just made no sense.
Kids: "We're in Narnia!" Beaver: "You're the kings and queens of Narnia." Peter: "I don't believe in the prophecy." Lucy: "I do." Edmund: "I like Turkish Delight." *Snow queen reveals herself as BAD, and does NOT give Edmund Turkish delight.* Kids: "You're right. I now believe in the prophecy. Let's go kill the snow queen and save Narnia and become the kings and queens and save Aslan." *Narnia is saved*
Just... didn't love it. Oh, and the evil creatures were badly done. 'Cept the minotaur.
Posted by kojabu (Member # 8042) on :
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: It's all in the eyes, kojabu. Ya gotta watch the eyes.
I really like Tilda Swinton as an actress and thought she was well cast as the witch.
Oh I was watching the eyes, but the rest of her didn't fit the eyes.
At one point I swear I saw her natural eye color though.
Posted by Shanna (Member # 7900) on :
I saw it last night. I've never read the books.
I agree that the plot was really fast and way too bouncy. And I could've done with some more character development. It started off SO good and I was really excited and sure I was gonna love it, but I just didn't. Its good, yes, but not great.
And then I couldn't get the words "Christian allegory" out of my head. I must say that I was surprised how literal it is. The entire "crucifixion" and resurrection was way to precise for my taste. And the Witch was wearing that one black wing on her dress like a fallen angel. Yeah, just too much for me. I did like the debate over Edmund's blood when the Witch says something like "Traitors belong to me." Very thoughtful.
What was up with the end? They grew up and then came out of the wardrobe in their children bodies. Am I the only one creeped out by that?!
Posted by kojabu (Member # 8042) on :
Time doesn't pass in real life the way it does in Narnia. You go in and come out at the same moment in time.
Posted by dh (Member # 6929) on :
Okay. I'm going this evening, at 7:10 at the Coliseum on Carling Avenue. My mom is coming, my brother and sister (with her boyfriend), my aunt, three of my cousins and one of their friends. I can't wait.
Posted by Shanna (Member # 7900) on :
I understand that kojabu, but aren't they still like twenty-somethings in 12 year-old bodies now??
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Even if she is named after a diacritical mark.
That'd be Tilde, not Tilda Posted by kojabu (Member # 8042) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shanna: I understand that kojabu, but aren't they still like twenty-somethings in 12 year-old bodies now??
I guess so, but not in real world time. I guess they have Narnia ages and our world ages, so they experience stuff twice.
Anyone remember if, when they go back later on, they go back to the age they were when they left or if they go back at the age they are in our world?
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
According to C.S. Lewis in the later books, once the Pevensies keft Narnia their adult Narnian lives became hazy. Hard to remember in precise detail. The knowledge was still there, but it was hard to access in the ordinary, earthly world.
But once back in Narnia, the memories (and skills) begin to return.
Narnia isn't just another world, it's another universe...it has an effect of making humans from our world much "more" than they are here.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Well, if you read the Magician's Nephew, it is just another world, but more like another world in another dimension where time has little relation to the time in other worlds.
I saw it today, but I'll comment on it later, I have to get to work.
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
"Just another world" where the stars are actually silvery-haired people with magnificent singing voices, the planet actually _is_ flat, and other things that indicate a somewhat different set of physical laws besides the time thing. Posted by tern (Member # 7429) on :
Shanna, they actually removed much of the Christian allegory from Narnia.
Posted by kojabu (Member # 8042) on :
And yet it was still blatantly obvious.
Posted by Narnia (Member # 1071) on :
The books are Christian allegories. Therefore, it should be blatantly obvious in the movie. I agree with tern that they 'deep magicked' a lot of the allegory away and that was ok with me. I got the feeling that they tried to leave some symbolism there for folks who would see that and that they took some of it out for folks that wouldn't.
It kind of bums me out when people act like the allegory showing up in the movie is a negative thing.
Posted by kojabu (Member # 8042) on :
I know that and, having read the books, I was expecting that. I was only replying to tern's comment that though they removed much of the Christian allegory, it was still really obvious. It was part of the book, therefore it should have been in the movie. It's not like you can really take the whole Stone Table scene out of the movie.
Posted by akhockey (Member # 8394) on :
I don't understand how you can have a problem with the allegory. It's like seeing The Passion and not liking it because it had too much to do with Jesus. That's what the book IS. It wouldn't be The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe if it wasn't written that way.
Posted by kojabu (Member # 8042) on :
See my post right above yours.
Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
A couple quotes I think apply to the discussion:
quote:Originally said by C.S. Lewis: If Aslan represented the immaterial Deity in the same way in which Giant Despair represents despair, he would be an allegorical figure. In reality however he is an invention giving an imaginary answer to the question, 'What might Christ become like, if there really were a world like Narnia and He chose to be incarnate and die and rise again in that world as He actually has done in ours?' This is not allegory at all.
and
quote:Originally said by C.S. Lewis: Some people seem to think that I began by asking myself how I could say something about Christianity to children; then fixed on the fairy tale as an instrument, then collected information about child psychology and decided what age group I'd write for; then drew up a list of basic Christian truths and hammered out 'allegories' to embody them. This is all pure moonshine. I couldn't write in that way. It all began with images; a faun carrying an umbrella, a queen on a sledge, a magnificent lion. At first there wasn't anything Christian about them; that element pushed itself in of its own accord.
Posted by sweetbaboo (Member # 8845) on :
Interesting quotes RRR, I really just love the the way that C.S. Lewis can say things so clearly.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Just saw it. SO COOL.
And Mr. Tumnus was ADORABLE. He was absolutely my favorite. I just wanted to "Awwwwww!" at every scene he was in.
-pH
Posted by Narnia (Member # 1071) on :
I know Pearce, he really was perfect. I loved how he was able to show how attached he got to Lucy. What a sweetie! Posted by kojabu (Member # 8042) on :
Mr. Tumnus totally reminded me of this guy Jordan I know. I couldn't figure out where I thought I knew him from and then it hit me. He was such a great character.
Posted by ReikoDemosthenes (Member # 6218) on :
Oh my...wow...just...wow...I am SO in love with this film!
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
I loved the film. I was so glad to see such realistic animals.
I really, really wish they'd left the witch's speech to Aslan on the Stone Table alone. And the conversation with Aslan regarding Edmund.
Other than that, it was great. I was happy they included the bit with the bomber planes, because it would be so much less obvious what was going on if they hadn't.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
There's stuff I loved, and a few things I didn't care for as much.
I think Aslan should have been larger. The lion in the Queen's courtyard was supposed to be huge, and he was supposed to be smaller than Aslan. Thus I'd think Aslan would be much larger than he was.
I really liked the Griffins and what I'm assuming was a Phoenix during the battle.
Most of what bothered me was with Aslan and The White Witch. And a certain sense of something being missing, excitement or something. I can't put my finger on it, maybe after I sleep on it I'll know.
Posted by tern (Member # 7429) on :
I was a little underwhelmed by Aslan. Sure, he was certainly lionesque, but he wasn't nearly as impressive I imagined he should be. But that's a small quibble in a good movie.
Posted by akhockey (Member # 8394) on :
Yeah I definitely agree about Aslan. I kind of expected him to be the end-all guy in the film. He just seemed too normal. I also wanted his roars to be devastatingly loud, rather than just a normal lions roar. Kind of how Treebeard's cry was in Twin Towers, only deeper, louder, and scarier.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
That was a cool movie. It was SOOOOOO COOL! And the POLAR BEARS! AWESOME!!!! Plus I thought it was waaaaaaaaay better than HP4 in my opinion. The battle scene was great, but, it is not exactly something new, but there are parts of it that were a few parts that were a bit..... but not too many.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
One of the best adaptations I've seen to date, and anyone that knows me knows I am a huge stickler about this sort of thing (hence my unending hatred of the LotR trilogy movies and, more recently, the Aeon Flux movie).
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
Many people have mentioned that they were bothered about the Deep Magic. As a Mormon, the concept actually appealed to me rather than being a problem. I also loved the Magicians nephew...it explained some of my 'heretical' views to my wife better than I could have.
Posted by Vid (Member # 7172) on :
But that's just the thing... "Deep Magic from the dawn of time" is just the terminology used to describe the natural laws set at creation - not gravity and laws of nature, but that sin separates us completely from God. Sin results in death. The words "Deep Magic" fit the fantasy setting that the story was placed in. Likewise, "Deeper Magic from before the dawn of time" refers to the fact that, ultimately, nothing conquers God.
It's just terminology, not witchcraft Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:But that's just the thing... "Deep Magic from the dawn of time" is just the terminology used to describe the natural laws set at creation - not gravity and laws of nature, but that sin separates us completely from God. Sin results in death. The words "Deep Magic" fit the fantasy setting that the story was placed in. Likewise, "Deeper Magic from before the dawn of time" refers to the fact that, ultimately, nothing conquers God.
Well, no wonder I didn't get the allegory. I don't believe that God does not follow natural laws.
Posted by Vid (Member # 7172) on :
Natural laws was poor wording. I'm talking about that God cannot go against his own nature. He just can't. And since sin is anything that is against God, God cannot sin and God cannot tolerate sin. So the laws regarding sin and His nature, that have been in place since creation, require that sin results in death.
But since God is God, he can still give us a way out, since His power is outside of time (or before the dawn of time ), which is allowing a sacrifice to atone for the sins.
The moral of the story? Never eat turkish delight.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:So the laws regarding sin and His nature, that have been in place since creation, require that sin results in death.
But since God is God, he can still give us a way out, since His power is outside of time (or before the dawn of time:) ), which is allowing a sacrifice to atone for the sins.
That's what I meant that I do not believe.
The sin and the atonement are part of the same law, not that sin is a law which is immutable except by God, who can do what he wants. In other words, I disagree with Lewis theologically. I'm not terribly distressed about it.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Well, no wonder I didn't get the allegory. I don't believe that God does not follow natural laws.
Well, in the book/movie, that Aslan DID have to follow the Deeper Magic--so that should fit with your statement.
Edit: Assuming the reverse of your statement is true: That you do believe God does follow natural laws.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:The moral of the story? Never eat turkish delight.
Like I needed a 200 page book to tell me that. That stuff is yucky.
Posted by Vid (Member # 7172) on :
Oh, I see what you're saying, katharina I disagree, but sometimes that happens. *shrug*
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
I have to say that I enjoyed the movie. I did. I liked it. Enough to see it twice.
There are very few movies that I am willing to go see if I've already read the books, for obvious reasons. Too often the movies don't even attempt to stay faithful to the books. The few movies that I've paid money to see in theatres based on books are: Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings and Narnia.
SPOILER WARNING!
The movie was very good. It stayed pretty faithful to the book (although there were some glaring changes that I will never learn to like, in particular the fact that the boys WERE NOT told that Aslan was dead in the book, they went in to the battle unsure where Aslan or their sisters were), and it was well acted. I did miss hearing of Aslan's great father, The Emperor Over the Sea but that was minor.
I was disappointed with the CG work, more than once (in fact quite often) it was glaring that the animals (and Aslan especially) were CGI characters, not because the children and other actors didn't act well for Aslan, he just LOOKED CG. Such is life.
The beginning of the battle looked strikingly familiar (see Return of the King when Gandalf goes out with Pippin to protect the army of Gondor from the Nazgul) but it worked.
I do wonder if CS Lewis would have liked this film version. He once said that he never wanted to see the book turned into a live action film (he did consider an animated film) but that was long before advances in CGI would allow for characters that were beliveable.
I would see it again, and I will buy the movie when it is out on DVD.
Posted by Nikisknight (Member # 8918) on :
spoilers...
I REALLY liked it as well. The battle scene was great... maybe I'm a big kid, but seeing the Centaur guy dual-weilding the swords, then lose those and take out one big two-hander... and the phoenix... and the WW parrying with one sword, the stoning some poor beast with the staff... and the cheatahs running out ahead of the centaurs...
One down side, upon reflection, was the way everyone was sort of magiced better after the battle by the potion. took away from the sacrifice of the creatures.
The cristian refelections are obvious, when they are there, but don't dominate the screen.
The intro scence of the battle of Britin was great, since I doubt kids these days know a bit about it.
Posted by Dante (Member # 1106) on :
Just got back from the movie.
Nice little flick.
And the White Witch was freakin' HOT.
Posted by Sm34rZ (Member # 8609) on :
Ewwww. No she was not! Her eyes were soooo freaky!
Posted by jennabean (Member # 8590) on :
I LOveedd the White Witch! The pictures in the little Narnia books I have make her look so cute. But I was FREAKED OUT when I saw her in the movie! So good.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Yeah, she was hot. She looked a bit like my former psychologist and like a valkari. Freaking cool! All that glaring. And the way she used swords and stuff was awesome too.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
She has a third nipple.
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nikisknight: spoilers...
I REALLY liked it as well. The battle scene was great... maybe I'm a big kid, but seeing the Centaur guy dual-weilding the swords, then lose those and take out one big two-hander... and the phoenix... and the WW parrying with one sword, the stoning some poor beast with the staff... and the cheatahs running out ahead of the centaurs...
One down side, upon reflection, was the way everyone was sort of magiced better after the battle by the potion. took away from the sacrifice of the creatures.
The cristian refelections are obvious, when they are there, but don't dominate the screen.
The intro scence of the battle of Britin was great, since I doubt kids these days know a bit about it.
Actually, the idea that Lucy was able to heal many people who were injured is straight out of the books. She couldn't cure any who were dead, but, in the books she cured anyone who was injured with her potion. That was actually one of the reasons Father Christmas gave it to her in the books, I'd have to double check but I believe that he tells her he doesn't want her fighting because there will be much work for her after the battle.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
I just saw the movie a couple days ago, and I liked it rather well, for a kid's story. I actually thought Aslan was one of the best CG characers I've ever seen. After 30 seconds I completely forgot he was graphicked at all. And that had to be the most unique battle sequence I'd ever seen. seeing a charge with such a multitude of creatures on both sides more then made up for the lack of blood.
My major beef with the movie though, was edmund. I saw him do intensely stupid things over and over, and then at the end he was named the wise? I read narnia over 15 years ago, so I'd forgotten nearly all of it, but it seems like the movie did a particularly poor job of justifying that one.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
I just saw the movie a couple days ago, and I liked it rather well, for a kid's story. I actually thought Aslan was one of the best CG characers I've ever seen. After 30 seconds I completely forgot he was graphicked at all. And that had to be the most unique battle sequence I'd ever seen. seeing a charge with such a multitude of creatures on both sides more then made up for the lack of blood.
My major beef with the movie though, was edmund. I saw him do intensely stupid things over and over, and then at the end he was named the wise? I read narnia over 15 years ago, so I'd forgotten nearly all of it, but it seems like the movie did a particularly poor job of justifying that one. A friend of mine told me the movie was a fairly literal translation as far as book->movie transitions go, but did the book also have this type of shortcoming? Or is it something remedied later in the series? Someone please help me out here.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I think the idea was that he learned wisdom the hard way. I agree that the movie could have done a better job of showing that.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I just saw the movie. I liked it. I thought the acting was excellent, but I thought it did seem rushed. The lack of blood and pain and misery in the war scenes bugged me a bit. If, as one person suggested, that was done to retain the PG rating, I just have another confirmation that the ratings system needs to go away. I think that the movie would have been better if there would have been more of a mix of creatures on both sides, instead of the blatantly evil creatures on one side and the blatantly good critters on the other. It was basically a nice children's movie.
I seriously doubt it's going to be a big draw to Christianity as I think I remember some articles saying some people hoped it would be.
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
Haven't seen it yet , but as far as "Edmund the Wise" goes: in the book he did all those stupid things and (presumably) learned a lot from them; it notes how much he changed after those experiences. He ruled for years & years in Narnia before coming back to "our side", and he became known by his subjects as Edmund the Wise as he got older and became a really wise King. I don't think he was named "Edmund the Wise" immediately upon being crowned.
Posted by Uprooted (Member # 8353) on :
I saw it tonight and loved it; I definitely preferred the movie to the book--then read OSC's review and was tickled that he had the same assessment, and basically the same reasons for feeling that way.
I, too, read the book as an adult (I've only read Lion, Witch, and Wardrobe and Magician's Nephew). While I enjoyed them, I didn't love them (sorry for the heresy to all the Narnia devotees). But I did love the movie. I thought the casting was amazing. And I just adored Tumnus. I'll be buying this to add to my small DVD collection.
One part I would have liked to see in the movie, though, was Aslan's "conversation" with Edmund, when at first he tries to justify his actions and is then forced to be honest about his motivations. But that's just me; seeing the scene take place off at a distance was also very effective and got the point across.
Posted by Uprooted (Member # 8353) on :
Oh yeah--so what is Turkish Delight, anyway? Looks yukky.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
He was bound by it, but he CHOSE to offer himself, he was not forced to do so.
I think the "deeper magic" was meant to be the same set of rules about accepting God and agreeing to live by his rules as we know as Christians here on Earth......adapted for a fantasy setting, of course.
And that Aslan knew that as long as he followed his fathers will in such things, evil could not defeat him, or his father's plan for creation.
Posted by Ginol_Enam (Member # 7070) on :
quote:Originally posted by Uprooted: Oh yeah--so what is Turkish Delight, anyway? Looks yukky.
I thought it was a great movie. I saw it last night but I have never read the book. Well worth the 5 dollar matinee price
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
I'm pretty sure Edmund was crowned "The Just" in that scene...as Susan was "The Gentle," Lucy "the Valiant," and Peter "The Magnificent"
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
I find it funny that the most common complaint here is over the CGI characters. Has anyone actually seen any better? I was amazed at Aslan's ability to speak without merely seeming to mouth the words. Pretty good for a lion's mouth.
It's been a long time since I read the book. It didn't turn me on, so it's the only Narnia book I've read. My wife and sister in law didn't understand why my son and I kept commenting on the Christian allegory stuff. To me it was pervasive - daughter of Eve and all that.
I was very disappointed with the children's acting. Too often I could hear the director saying: "Now, turn the corners of your mouth up so that people will see that you're smiling because you understand." It was that transparent.
And I'll add to what's been said about Edmund: the movie made no attempt to explain why he made such stupid decisions. The queen was too cruel too early, when she should have kept enticing him, or there needed to be other justification for his behavior.
Peter needed to have some great strategy and leadership before the battle. I kept getting the sense that the battle was lost, simply because the actor never conveyed that he had any idea what he needed to do. The Griffins and the Pheonix seemed to happen in spite of him, rather than at his command. It could have worked if the indecision early in the movie had been contrasted with leadership later on in the movie. Perhaps some time passing would have helped in that regard. Maybe Peter should have grown a beard during the time he and Edmund were training for battle. I don't know how that would square with the book, though.
I did like the way the Queen fought. My son says Gandalf should have fought like that, as a wizard, not like a warrior. I also like her eyes, and her acting, in general.
Posted by plaid (Member # 2393) on :
I'd like to see the animated version again, the one from ~'79, I saw it when I was a kid, and from what I remember of it, I liked the pacing aspect of the animated movie better -- it had a better sense of time passing as it did in the book. This new one definitely seemed rushed. (Hmm, I had a similar problem with the LotR movies.)
Posted by Fyfe (Member # 937) on :
I wasn't wild about the movie--I liked it in spots, and in other spots it was underwhelming, and I can't figure out why. If I buy it on DVD, it'll be for Mr. Tumnus, who was fantastic, and the White Witch, who was scary as hell and I love Tilda Swinton even though she's not beautiful enough to be Jadis.
It just lacked something. Some key thing appeared to be missing.
Jen
P.S. So the White Witch turns a butterfly to stone as she declares her resolution to go to war, and that's supposed to be threatening? As my boyfriend said, it's sort of the equivalent of breaking a stick over your leg to demonstrate that you mean business.
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
I saw it yesterday and I hate to say I didn't like it. The beginning was very good. The rest...blah. I kinda felt like the screenwriter didn't really get the soul of the book and that overall, the movie's main purpoase was to capitalize on the LOTR's popularity. The battle scene was way, way too long and overemphasized. It didn't actually mean anything really, since the real gist of the story is about betrayal and redemption. While those elements remained in the story, they were almost side subplots to support the battle. Which was meaningless.
And while the children were very cute, and Lucy in particular adorable, the weight of the movie was too heavy for them. I was never for one moment convinced they were broken up by Aslan's slaying.
In the end, I thought the movie much too long. It was visually lovely, but seemed confused, like it didn't really know what it was about.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
I loved it.
Also, I have a slightly embarrasing crush on Peter now.
I think it was the sword and the shield that did it.
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
Oops, Leonide, you're right. I wrote that post before I saw the movie. But I do think they came to be called those names after years of growing and ruling, and not at their crowning. (In the book.)
I really enjoyed the movie, but it wasn't as magical as the book, to me. One thing I was disappointed in was the witch's reaction to Aslan: she asks, "How will I know your word will be kept?" and he responds with a deafening roar. In the book she opened her mouth wide, picked up her skirts and fled. In the movie, she sat down. Big deal. It totally didn't show Aslan's superior strength and her fear of him, which was why it was such a big deal to her to kill him, after all.
Tumnus was great, and I LOVED all the CG animation. I thought the talking animals looked like talking animals. I thought Aslan looked fantastic. I think the only reason he didn't seem as awe-inspiring as in the book was because the children didn't react as awed. Respectful, yes, but not overwhelmed and hopeful and more than a little afraid. A better reaction from them would have changed the way we saw Aslan, I think.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Junebug, Super-K, and I loved the film.
It's interesting that a couple people have complained about the 'unreality' of the battle-- I thought they could have toned it down MUCH more. (The rhino gets hamstrung, the unicorn too, and at least two centaurs got their legs chopped off.)
The scene that was missing that absolutely SHOULD have been there was the scene where Beaver explains Aslan to the children. It was just a name in the movie, until they met him. But in the book, they knew (and the reader, too) that Aslan was good and great just by hearing his name.
I hated Tumnus' ears. Straight out of Shrek.
The other thing that was distracting was the White Witch's dress. It looked like the bodice was made out of concrete.
Overall, though, I was very pleased with the movie. I didn't have issues with the children's acting, or the CGI. Or the plot. It will probably make it into our small DVD collection. . .
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
quote:The scene that was missing that absolutely SHOULD have been there was the scene where Beaver explains Aslan to the children. It was just a name in the movie, until they met him. But in the book, they knew (and the reader, too) that Aslan was good and great just by hearing his name.
YES. And it explains that Aslan is a Lion, which is why Edmund is all happy to see a stone Lion in the witch's castle (he thinks it's Aslan) and why he draws a mustache on it. Otherwise that's just out of place.
As it was, the children presumably didn't know that Aslan WAS a lion until they saw him, which would've been fine if they had had any reaction to that! But no. Just knelt and asked for help. Should've left the explanation in.
I loved the faun, though. And the film, overall. Especially the additions in the beginning. Why is it so much easier to pick apart the things I didn't like than the things I did?
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
, but as far as "Edmund the Wise" goes: in the book he did all those stupid things and (presumably) learned a lot from them; it notes how much he changed after those experiences. He ruled for years & years in Narnia before coming back to "our side", and he became known by his subjects as Edmund the Wise as he got older and became a really wise King. I don't think he was named "Edmund the Wise" immediately upon being crowned.