posted
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.
Posts: 1214 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 105 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 308 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1214 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1522 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3149 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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
Posts: 473 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm pretty sure Edmund was crowned "The Just" in that scene...as Susan was "The Gentle," Lucy "the Valiant," and Peter "The Magnificent"
Posts: 3516 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.)
Posts: 2911 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 910 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1522 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
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. . .
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
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? Posts: 1522 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I disagree, but sometimes that happens. *shrug*
![[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.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
