My Narnia Review!
Warning! This will spoil some of the movie if you havent seen it yet.
Wow, this movie was awesome. It had everything I could ask for in a movie about adventures in a wardrobe. I had some comments about it, mostly positive of course, but overall I think the director, Andrew Adamson (also directed Shrek) did an excellent job of interpreting the beloved children’s story into a movie.
Now I know most of you will dive right into your comparisons such as Aslan and Jesus. Good vs. Evil, Dreadlocks vs. Manes, and the like. There is one comparison that I don’t think anybody will go into details about though. That of course is beautiful vs. ugly. This difference is so clear it was the first thing I noticed. All the bad guys are ugly, dirty, hairy and don’t speak proper English. While on the other hand, all the good guys are beautiful and graceful, charming and have British accents for some reason. That’s a pretty clear cut way to figure out what team you’re on. If your ugly and have questionable hygiene problems, your evil. If you an Abercrombie model and you resemble Jonathan Taylor Thomas in any way, you’re a good guy. That’s probably why there were so many more bad guys than good guys. The good team was just too picky when it came to taking sides. Just an observation though.
Now here are some things I liked about the movie:
1. No matter how small and worthless you are, you can still fight in a world war. Take Susan for example, the most useless appendage in the whole movie. The only thing she did that was even somewhat productive was shoot one single arrow into a bad guy, and now she’s a war hero. Think about it, Lucy starts the adventure, Edmund introduces pandemonium and screws it up for everybody, and Peter resolves it. What does Susan do except complain about going home? She is totally worthless and yet she still gets equal treatment along with Peter. For shame….
2. These kids are only assumed to be the right people that everyone is looking for. I guess the prophecy said “any 4 kids will do” because that’s exactly what Narnia got. Just four ordinary British kids who like to eat scones and play croquet, just like all the other normal children. It reminds me of a Simpson’s Halloween episode where Ned Flanders is the unquestioned lord of the universe. Its like, the kids are seen, assumed to be the right ones and forced to fight in a battle they have nothing to do with. These kids don't even want to do all this stuff, it is thrust upon them by a talking Lion. It’s too bad they didn’t get anybody else because I’m telling you, any other kid would have at least tried not to hold that sword like a girl, sorta the way Peter did. It’s like “C-mon peter it’s a dog. Just take a swing at it or something” Instead he comes up with his brilliant plan to stab…..THE ICE!!! I don’t know what made him think this was the best plan of action but whatever……
3. I like the way Lucy has the amazing ability to cry without shedding any tears. Now that’s talent. How come they didn’t get Dakota Fanning on this one? Oh that’s right. She’s not British. Too bad.
4. The part where Aslan tackles the queen and eats her face. Just awesome.
Now some things I didn’t like about the movie.
1. No blood. If you’re in a swordfight or battle for at least a half hour like Peter was, chances are your sword might have some blood on it. His did not, which leads me to the conclusion that he really didn’t help at all during the final battle. He just rode around hitting air and metal until he was told to retreat. Que Lastima…..
2. No decapitations. Now I don’t expect total Braveheart stuff here, but logic leads me to believe that if your running at something at 25 miles per hour on a horse, and you swing your sword at something (or someone) running at you at 20-25 miles per hour, I don’t care what you say, something is coming off.
3. Santa Claus. Ummmmmmm…….. what?
4. The fact that the River has “been frozen solid for a hundred years.” And yet the kids don’t so much as quiver when they are swept downstream. Those coats must be super-duper insulated.
Well That’s my review on the movie for now. I might add some more later. Yea I know, its not much, but the only reason I’m not writing more is because I’m really tired and most of the movie is starting to fade with my consciousness. I hope to hear good stuff.
~Ian
8 Comments:
First of all, the reason that they all have british accents is the same reason that a lot of the dialogue in the book is wriiten in a british manner. That is because C.S. Lewis was British and that the setting of the book and the movie was in England. Naturally movies set in the US have some form of American accents and I'm sure the Brits don't wonder why.
Secondly, humans are extremely rare in Narnia. So obviously when you see children for the first time in 100 years, you're going to know that they are the one's in the prophecy. Especially since Aslan was back.
Third, it seems like most of the review was things that wrong with the movie, hence I don't understand the line that reads, "Now some things I didn't like about the movie"
Fourth,One of the reasons this movie was enjoyable was because of the fact that there was no blood and guts in it. Why do you think it was only rated PG? Besides you have to remember that this is based on a series of children's books. It's not Lord of the Rings.
I hope this isn't too brutal.
Ian, you are the funniest person I know.
Ian have you read the books? Well, I thought it was a really awesome movie. Not half as good as the books though. Me and my mom read the books ounce and now I am reading them again. Do you think the Harry Potter books are good? Maybe I will start reading those.
Ian have you read the books? Well, I thought it was a really awesome movie. Not half as good as the books though. Me and my mom read the books ounce and now I am reading them again. Do you think the Harry Potter books are good? Maybe I will start reading those.
Oops. I accidently did my comment twice. I don't know how that happened.
Anonymous, (who I suspect is my daughter Madeline) it's obvious young Ian did not read the books or he'd have known the scene with Santa Claus, (or Father Christmas) is indeed in the books. BTW, didn't the stuffed animal look funky in his sack? Like something you'd win at the fair. EW.
I for one, did not love the movie, didn't hate it, but thought it was pretty poorly done.
It's impossible not to compare it with LOTR, because the authors were contemporaries, friends, wrote fantasy with Christian overtones, English, etc. I was so hoping for a movie of that caliber and was sorely disappointed. I admit, I'm extremely attatched to the books, and if I hadn't been, I probably would've thought, "Cute movie.", but, to see a literary treasure like LWW adapted in, as Claire said, such a "hastily-made way" broke my heart.
I came home and watched The Two Towers, (my least favorite of the trilogy) to see what the difference was. Do you know Jackson spent 10 full minutes showing Legolas, Glimli and Aragorn running in pursuit of the captured hobbits? He wasn't afraid to take time to show the comraderie, loyalty, and bravery of that fellowship. It also brought a reality to the idea that Middle Earth exists, with terrain, sweeping views, etc. This is just one small scene in hundreds that establish character and depth to the story.
LWW felt hurried and thrown together to me because the most important moments, (when Lucy walks through the wardrobe, the fall of Edmund, Aslan's introduction) felt rushed, lacked wonder or awe.
Elements in scenes that make the books so memorable aren't even addressed or interpreted, (in the book, for example, when Edmund eats Turkish Delight, it's incredibly seductive, and is a huge part of him finally turning into a monster. The witch uses it to decieve him. It's a perfect picture of sin. After he eats, he feels sick, yet wants more, and it's all he can think about. In the movie, it just looks like a kid gobbling candy.) I also felt no repoir of Aslan with the Narnians. I thought his goodness should have been more established. It also needed a better score. The movie is very visual, and better music would've built tension, excitement and joy.
The professor looked like he was wearing a "Professor" costume, too. What a blah character. He and Miss McReady were total stereo-types.
It's funny, I knew I was in trouble in the train scene, when the title came on. It was very reminiscent of The Apple Dumpling Gang.
The evil castle seemed small and unimaginative.
The kids fighting about whether or not to stay became tiresome. It's not in the book, and served no purpose.
Good things?
The opening scene in England with the planes was awesome. Too bad it started going downhill after that.
Mr. Tumnus was excellent.
The battle scene was pretty cool. The two swords was fun.
I really liked how the Stone Table was handled. To only show Aslan's eyes was sensitive and beautiful and kept the PG rating. The characters there were imaginative and creepy, too. But what the heck was the black thing on the Witch's shoulder? How distracting.
The last and best good thing I can think of, is perhaps people will read the book, which is one of my favorites in all my life.
Good review, though, Ian, even though I don't agree. (But, what do I expect of a guy who thought Run, Lola, Run was cute, and something Ros might want to see? You're a great writer no matter what your opinion.) Also, great comments, anonymous!
Michele said "It's impossible not to compare it with LOTR, because the authors were contemporaries, friends, wrote fantasy with Christian overtones, English, etc. I was so hoping for a movie of that caliber and was sorely disappointed."
I notice that the reasons you listed are reason to compare the books; not the movies.
Peter Jackson and the director of Narnia were not friends in school or wrote novels of similar genre--they are not even from the same part of the world--Jackson being from Australia and this other guy being from the States.
So you can compare books or stories by that reasoning--but not movies. Perhaps I should do a post on this subject.
To also go on to say that Jackson spent 10 minutes showing the three friends running in Two Towers is exactly my point about books translating to movies. Peter Jackson took Tolkiens AMPLE descriptions and took almost a comparitive narration when doing the film--did you know that in The Lion the Witch and The Wardrobe, it took less than half a page for Lewis to discuss the battle?
--not much to work with as far as details.
Jackson had a lot to work with, so it should be paid attention to.
anyways, I'm thinking of doing a post but you're probably exasperated with the subject.
Ian--good review; very fun to read. Sorry to hijack your comments with an address to michele but I couldn't help it.
Ian, you need to write more often. You haven't graced us with your thoughts since October. Can't you see how much we enjoy your stuff? Give us more.
Thanx...sue
Post a Comment
<< Home