PDA

View Full Version : Review: The Lion, the Witch and teh Wardrobe



Hlokk
13-12-2005, 22:31
Right, I finished seeing the film literally 15 minutes ago, so its fairly fresh in my mind.

First off, a plot summary (I'll avoid copious amounts of spoilers) . Its WWII, bombs are dropping and the kids get shipped off to live with some mad professor who has a nazi-esque house keeper. One day they play hide and seek, and Lucy finds the wardrobe in a spare room. She goes in and walks through to Narnia, where she ecounters freakish goat mutant Mr Tundmas, who takes her for tea.

Next trip through the wardrobe features Edmund and Lucy, third and final features the lot of them after a game of cricket and a suit of armour (You have to watch the film)

The Cast

The main focus of the film was the 4 kids, who I have to say, to a person, completely failed to deliver a convincing performance.

Peter: Think Prince Harry from the UK. Gets given a sword, yet does nothing except point it for the whole film. (Seriously, every time he faces an enemy, he points the thing at them like he's dirty harry)

Edmund: Little bitch. Speaks with a whiney little voice and does nothing at all.

Susan: Probably the best of the bunch, and thats not saying much. Shouts and raises her voice for no reason at all. Tries to act as an up-coming matriarchial figure with doubt working its way in, but ends up coming across as a very tempermental young woman.

Lucy: The actress for this was only 5, but for god's sake, she was shocking. A lot of gasping, nervous glancing and sounding like every stage direction starts with "Suddenly..."

THe Ice Queen: Is teh uber-minger. She isnt fit at all, which was a bit gutting. She's quite a good actress though, and her shouting combined with hunnytones shows how a split personality should be done

The beavers: Right, a cockney beaver. The film was worth the entrance fee for that alone. He provides the comic relief in the film, and is fantastic.

Mr Tundmas: My intial reaction was, "where is my boltpistol?" Character is well played, however, some elements had me thinking slightly strange thoughts, especially how he holds Lucy's hand at the end with a glint in his eye. :eyebrows:

Good points

CGI: The level of CGI in this film is on par with Kong and LotR. Centaurs and such move realistically (IE: Not like those crappy things in Herculies). Some of the fights are, well, awesome. Expecially Aslan's general, who's a centaur who fights with 2 swords AND a great weapon!!! Awesomly animated.

Edmund getting bitch slapped: Basically, after you've watched the film for the first 45 minutes, you'll understand why this is a good thing.

Sinister Dwarf: The snow queens chariot driver is an absolute nutcase.

Humourous elements: Drama and humour is well balanced, with the cockney beaver and philip the horse providing welcome relief from the more serious stuff

Bad points:

CGI: I know I said its a good point, and whats there is good, its just that there isnt actually much of it there. 3 seconds of fight, switch to close up of someones face for 3 seconds, then 3 more seconds of fighting, followed by another facial closeup.

The end fight: lasts all of 10 minutes, of which 2 minutes is actuall fighting, of which 1 minute is of facial closeups.

Aslan: Aslan is a triple-hard nutcase. Obviously he's not as hard as Mr T or Abaddon, but you'd have expected him to get stuck in to the fighting, even if its just knocking enemies to the side.

Peter: Fight Scene 1, points sword and doesnt do anything. Fight Scene 2, points sword and doesnt do anything. Scene where he meets Aslan, draws sword and sounds camp. Fight scene 3: stands there with sword in hand while others do fighting.

Overall verdict

To be honest, Im disapointed. I appreciate that the film is aimed at kids, but still, it was a bit naff in places. The audience was in hysterics when they should have been upset or on the edge of their seats etc.

I'll give this 2 and 1/2 Wibbles out of 5

:eek: :eek: :eyebrows:

The pestilent 1
13-12-2005, 22:35
Aslan: Aslan is a triple-hard nutcase. Obviously he's not as hard as Mr T or Abaddon, but you'd have expected him to get stuck in to the fighting, even if its just knocking enemies to the side.

Well, considering he's God, i think he might be just a wee bit harder than Mr T and certainly harder than Abaddon.
:p

Loved the film myself, but them im used to the writing styles of C.S. Lewis.
Still, The Last Battle is, and shall always remain, my favourite of the Chronicles.

Rykion
14-12-2005, 00:19
I loved the movie. It wasn't perfect, but no movie I've seen has been. The kids weren't great actors, but they were generally good enough. I've seen better child actors, but I've more often seen movies completely ruined by child actors. That wasn't the case here. Peter definitely got involved in fighting during the big battle, so you must have seen a cut version of the movie Hlokk. The audience I saw it with seemed to enjoy it, and were never in "hysterics" that I noticed.

New Cult King
14-12-2005, 00:52
I loved the movie. It wasn't perfect, but no movie I've seen has been.

Then you obviously haven't seen Saw II ;)

I have yet to see this Narnia film - I'm not even sure if it's been released in Oz yet, but I will go see it, probably with my 12 year old sister...

thunderwolf
14-12-2005, 01:24
I personally thought it was amazing, and loved the battle at the end, but then again, I tend to get really caught up in films I'm watching. Spent most of the way home (well, to the pub at least) trying to decide what rules I could proxy to recreate the war on the tabletop.

The kiddies were an awful lot better than they could have been- ever seen The Phantom Menace? :eek:

Tom
14-12-2005, 01:35
Lance Formation and the hardest centaur this side of anywhere. I'd go 4/5 with a point dropped for taking too long to get into itself.

And Griffons in bombing squadrons. Wonder if that's because of the kids' experience of the Blitz?


Female beaver=Dawn French?

EDIT: Upon inspection of IMDB, none of the actual actors turned up. Voice talent:
Liam Neeson .... Aslan (voice)
Ray Winstone .... Mr. Beaver (voice)
Dawn French .... Mrs. Beaver (voice)
Rupert Everett .... Fox (voice)

Kittah
14-12-2005, 01:49
Then you obviously haven't seen Saw II ;)

I preferred the first :p


As for Narnia, I thought it was excellent. Comparing it with LotR and Harry Potter (the obvious comparisons, less so LotR but particularly Harry Potter) I thought it came off a lot better than either. I thought the pace was a bout right, whereas Harry Potter and LotR were both plain boring for half the movie. I thought the acting wasn't top notch, particularly Peter who came off like a complete and utter pussy. That said I agree Susan was probably the best of the bunch, and to be honest I don't think I can really fault her performance too much. That and she's not too bad looking :p

Kensai X
14-12-2005, 02:35
Meh the only thing I don't like about the whole concept of the Narnia books is the fact that they're so obvisiously filled with pro-christian subliminals that's being used as propaganda in the area I live in. A church is is standing at the entrance to the movie theater handing out pamphlets with the all the concivable ways of referencing the book and the movie to christianity that it really rather ruins the whole fact that it's children's book and it's being used in the wrong ways.

Afterall in the books the referances are in their so that adults can get something out of the book, not so that kids can learn the "good and wholesome" values of the christian church. I mean if taken the wrong the way this could cause more problems between Christian and Islamic and the futrue years if their using the Chronicles of Narnia as a recruiting ad, because in book "A southern nation who wears turbans and doesn't believe in Aslan, puts faith in Allah, and vicisouly kills members of the kids kingdom. Then these people are latter on slaughtered in the Last Battle and don't have an oppurtunity to go to the Re-born Narnia (heaven) because they didn't put faith in Aslan...

So while I like the books from the fantasy standpoint I'm personally disgusted at how their being used as propaganda by certain sections of the Christian church...

/rant over...

Strikerkc
14-12-2005, 02:46
So while I like the books from the fantasy standpoint I'm personally disgusted at how their being used as propaganda by certain sections of the Christian church...


Well it's certainly not the book's fault, don't be bitter at producers, be bitter at thchurch group.

And if a person needs a guide on how to compare it to christianity, then they've experienced a labotemy:p.

Any how, I just saw it tonight myself. I quite enjoyed it, and while I think the acting on the part of the kids was sub par, everyone else was absolutly spot on.

I also quite liked the line backer rhino for the Centaur General, very fun indeed. :cool:


That and she's not too bad looking :p

Probably something to do with the fact she's the only female in the move that isn't 5 years old or has fur ;).

Kittah
14-12-2005, 08:52
Probably something to do with the fact she's the only female in the move that isn't 5 years old or has fur ;).

You raise a potentially valid point... though there's nothing wrong with furries if it really rocks your boat (not that they rock mine :eek: )

Lord Lucifer
14-12-2005, 09:27
Probably something to do with the fact she's the only female in the move that isn't 5 years old or has fur ;).
Mrs Beaver was teh hawt! :p


I quite enjoyed the movie, pretty good film... and seeing all the Griffons and Minotaurs and Giants and Centaurs etc. in a mass scrum was nearly worth the price of admission (stupid expensive cinemas)

Insane Alex
14-12-2005, 10:17
Personally... if it's done better than the other one I'll be happy.

Apple Dave
14-12-2005, 11:20
I faked having a student card so i could get in cheap (4 something instead of 5.60 OMFG!)

Im glad i went to see it, i was laughing for most of it, CGI IMO was pretty good.
I hate going to the cinema and then have other strangers saying to you on the way out "Oooh your that boy who laughed when Aslan got stabbed aren't you, you evil child" or the more usual "Its not as good as i thought it would be" and tehn they rant about the actors and other stuff i dont really care about.

Personally i loved the film, the christian message didn't jump out and hit me in the face so im still wondering what it was. Strikerkc also makes a good point about the actress who played Susan being good looking. I thought that aswell, but maybe its just because chicks with bows are teh hawtest.

And you cant forget the classic humour of:
"He's a beaver, he shouldn't be saying anything"

Jaq Draco
14-12-2005, 11:44
I faked having a student card so i could get in cheap (4 something instead of 5.60 OMFG!)



I just finished my shift tonight on ticketbox, had someone do the exact same thing
i honestly cant be arsed getting up someone and making them pay me 13$ AUS for a ticket instead of 9$AUS (student fare)

Xisor
14-12-2005, 15:05
I saw it on Saturday with a big group of friends, and I must confess: It was pretty damn good!

As much as I wanted to punch Ed through most of the film, I can't help but suppose that's what your supposed to think.

CGI was damn cool, though it felt odd watching Mr Tumnus move about...

Good comedy value, good drama, the whole thing was better than Goblet of Fire, especially the music IMO(which was dire in Gob), which is saying something as I'm not sure whether I thought they could have done better with the music for it, or if it was sufficiently different enough from the 'archetype'(ie not a LotR ripoff). Probably just good it was the latter.

Child Actors: I thought they did their parts fine, generally. Not the most amasing in the world, but certainly nowhere near the worst.

The most revealing thing about the entire film was this:

Minotaurs go Moooo!

I'd never realised that(them being hal-bovine and all), but it really came as a shock.

Peter's General and that Rhino were pretty kick ass!

Xisor

plasmadaemon
14-12-2005, 15:20
You people don't understand what's it like watching the film in a finchley cinema:

"We're not heroes! We're from Finchley!"

The whole cinema laughed their arses off for like, 10 minutes.

tzeentchgiant
14-12-2005, 15:25
I haven't yet seen it, it appears that I'm doing this to myself, as I haven't seen HP either (Kong I'm first in line for though).

I don't know if I will see it, usually before seeing a film based on a book, I read the book first, then see the film, just so I know what could have been better (although I accept they are very separate things), I don't think I can be bothered reading all the Narnia books again, maybe when I have kids :).

I might see it, I might not, too many mixed reviews have made me really think "meh" at the whole film scene :(.

TG

Xisor
14-12-2005, 15:30
@TG: Surely it's better to see it anyway rather than be emo about it? :p Seriously, Minotaur's go moo, and it's pretty amusing.

Who's giving it mixed reviews?

tzeentchgiant
14-12-2005, 15:36
A lot of paper and website reviews have been very mixed in their praise of it.

I'm not being emo, I just don't want to waste my time and money, it's too close to christmas for me to even buy glue, I have enough money left over from presents to go to the cinema once, and get a meal after, or twice, and starve, it's not emo- it's economics, pure cold, solid dead economics :(, couple that with hunger, and you get the sort of mix that can start a war :p.

At the moment I want Kong and a burger, would you deny me that? :p

TG

Xisor
14-12-2005, 15:39
Try some fast food place, I'm sure somewhere'll be doing a Kong-Burger.

Alternatively, try'n find someone who has a pirated copy of it. Much cheaper if you just borrow it. Then again, it's a good cinema experience, well worth it.

Xisor

WLBjork
14-12-2005, 21:21
Narnia isn't totally Christian-based fantasy.

Bear in mind, magic tends to be frowned on in Christianity.

I think the most important statement is made towards the end of the Last Battle.

Aslan says something on the lines of "No one can do an evil deed in my name, but it is claimed by Tash. Likewise, a good deed in Tash's name is claimed by me".

In other words, salvation is by deeds and not by worship.

Also, there seems to be a great importance placed on the East, rather like how Muslims pray facing Mecca.

Rykion
14-12-2005, 22:18
Aslan says something on the lines of "No one can do an evil deed in my name, but it is claimed by Tash. Likewise, a good deed in Tash's name is claimed by me".

In other words, salvation is by deeds and not by worship.
An interesting interpretation, but it would make Aslan's sacrifice in "The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe" totally pointless. He broke the old magic that determined the fate of beings on deeds alone.

Your quote is basically saying that evil done in the name of God is still evil, and that good done in the name of the devil is still good. The claim is on the deed, not the person/being. It really doesn't seem to have any relevance on the determination of salvation.

Hlokk
15-12-2005, 00:03
it's too close to christmas for me to even buy glue, TG
Mate, I've got piles of superglue if you want me to mail some up to you

NakedFisherman
15-12-2005, 01:03
How can people like this movie?

Goofy acting, bad costumes, lame dialogue, plot holes everywhere, and nauseatingly childish pretty much makes this movie a crap-fest suitable for people who haven't seen movies properly done before.

Kittah
15-12-2005, 01:14
How can people like this movie?

Goofy acting, bad costumes, lame dialogue, plot holes everywhere, and nauseatingly childish pretty much makes this movie a crap-fest suitable for people who haven't seen movies properly done before.

You seem to lack a certain suspension of disbelief. I guess that must ruin movies for you all the time :rolleyes:

NakedFisherman
15-12-2005, 03:56
You seem to lack a certain suspension of disbelief. I guess that must ruin movies for you all the time :rolleyes:

Yeah, I can't believe a kid goes from 'stick sword out' to 'fight with evil queen almost flawlessly' in what's essentially 30 minutes.

Then the whole 'deep magic' thing. So corny. 'Dur, this super old sorceror woman read the deep magic wrong and nobody informed her she's a *****. Now I'm back alive.' Shut up lion. Where's the beaver? At least he's funny. You're just lame.

Acting, dialogue, pacing, effects, costumes, and the like don't have anything to do with suspension of disbelief.

The Phoenix
15-12-2005, 04:34
Then the whole 'deep magic' thing. So corny. 'Dur, this super old sorceror woman read the deep magic wrong and nobody informed her she's a *****. Now I'm back alive.' Shut up lion. Where's the beaver? At least he's funny. You're just lame.In all fairness, the Chronicles of Narnia were written after the Hobbit, but before The Lord of the Rings (many people feel that the birth of modern fantasy happened in there somewhere). So he was in pretty much uncharted territory. Hard to be corny when there's no point of refference...

-Phoenix

NakedFisherman
15-12-2005, 05:49
Hard to be corny when there's no point of refference...

I somewhat understand your point, but the monologue by Simba was corny. Well, the idea of him coming back to life because of a misinterpretation is still corny, but the monologue didn't help the situation.

Kittah
15-12-2005, 06:13
Acting, dialogue, pacing, effects, costumes, and the like don't have anything to do with suspension of disbelief.

I thought the pacing, effects and costuming were very well done. For someone who hasn't read the book the story was easy to follow and I never found it as godawfully boring as I found parts of Harry Potter and LotR. As for the acting, what more could you want? The acting was much better than Harry Potter and when you're dealing with child actors you can't expect great things. As for the dialogue, I assume they were staying true to the books, which were written in a time when things were cornier because people were "nicer". It was a movie targetted at children. It seems to me that you're looking at it from the perspective that it's meant to be a serious, adult film.

tzeentchgiant
15-12-2005, 14:49
Xisor: See what I mean about mixed reviews :rolleyes: :p.

Hlokk, thanks, but it's I'm ok for now, I'm putting the hobby on hiatus anyways, just got to finish off a lot of physics stuff, and even more maths before the end of term, couple that with millions of visits to relatives, I'm a biut stuck for time.

Unfortunately I therefore don't have time for modelling :(.

Thanks anyway

TG

Adept
15-12-2005, 15:13
whereas Harry Potter and LotR were both plain boring for half the movie.

*Punches Kittah in the vagina*

With that out of the way...

I'm looking forward to seeing this. I enjoyed the both the series and the books series immensely as a child, and the previews have been most promising. Now I just have to wait and see if my favourite film critics give it low or middling ratings (stay away from anything a self righteous arthouse critic gives five stars) and, oh who am I kidding. I get free tickets. I'm going to see it regardless.

Kohhna
15-12-2005, 16:45
It was a movie targetted at children. It seems to me that you're looking at it from the perspective that it's meant to be a serious, adult film.
Just because a film is for children doesn't mean it's OK for it to be a bit crap as long as the litt'lins' don't notice.

Hlokk
15-12-2005, 17:50
Just because a film is for children doesn't mean it's OK for it to be a bit crap as long as the litt'lins' don't notice.
Agreed.

This film did have some good points, but a lot of it was, frankly, ****. Especially most scenes with Edwin in them.

Rik Valdis
15-12-2005, 18:38
Edmund, I think you find Hlokk.

I really enjoyed the film actually, I dont like to over analyse films but I would be veryhappy to go and see it again. However it wasnt a patch on the old series and it has been completely overshadowed by the fact that this (http://www.play.com/play247.asp?pa=srmr&page=title&r=R2&title=718816) arrived today :) When i was growing up I used to love the video we had of the old LW&W and Pronce Caspian but they died a long time ago and I cant wait to see them again. The film cannot compare to the genius that is this series, I was really disappointed to see how small the beavers were in the film :(

redemptionist15
15-12-2005, 18:52
it's too close to christmas for me to even buy glue, TG

Are you addicted to sniffing glue? Is that the real reason you're not watching the film? :p

Im definitely looking forward to watching this. Loved the book as a kid.

Hlokk
15-12-2005, 19:23
Edward, I think you find Hlokk(
Meh, even so, him getting bitchslapped was the best part of the whole film

The pestilent 1
15-12-2005, 20:34
Edward, I think you find Hlokk.


Edmund i think you'll find :p

Peter.
Susan.
Edmund.
Lucy.
(in order of age)

Hlokk
15-12-2005, 20:46
Edmund i think you'll find :p

Peter.
Susan.
Edmund.
Lucy.
(in order of age)
Look, can we just call him Ed?

The pestilent 1
15-12-2005, 20:54
Look, can we just call him Ed?

How about; "that pretentous little ****** that noone likes"?
Shame susan was Judas though, she could have been nice in a few years for the last battle. ;)

Hlokk
15-12-2005, 21:52
Shame susan was Judas though,
Wha? why was she judas?

The pestilent 1
15-12-2005, 21:58
She "Betrays" Aslan and is thus not alowed into "true" Narnia (read; Judas betrays Jesus and is denied entry to heaven)
Another of those lovely religous comparisons. :p
Though she makes no betrayal until The Final Battle, at which point she is only mentioned in passing anyway.

Hlokk
15-12-2005, 22:08
She "Betrays" Aslan and is thus not alowed into "true" Narnia (read; Judas betrays Jesus and is denied entry to heaven)
Another of those lovely religous comparisons. :p
Though she makes no betrayal until The Final Battle, at which point she is only mentioned in passing anyway.

I missed that, how does she betray him?

The pestilent 1
15-12-2005, 22:12
Errr, some crap about going to makeup and pretening Narnia was just a silly game they played.
Course you dont hear about this in The Lion, The Witch And The Wardrobe, doesnt happen until The Last Battle.
(The kids being grown up by this point, Lucy is in her late teens i think)

Rik Valdis
15-12-2005, 23:33
Edmund i think you'll find :p

Peter.
Susan.
Edmund.
Lucy.
(in order of age)

Gah I cant believe I did that! I was honestly thinking Edmund, dunno why I typed Edward. Bloody hell I'm stupid, that'll teach me to be cocky!

Rykion
15-12-2005, 23:38
I somewhat understand your point, but the monologue by Simba was corny. Well, the idea of him coming back to life because of a misinterpretation is still corny, but the monologue didn't help the situation.
The witch didn't understand the entirety of the Deep Magic. Aslan being the son of God and there when the magic was made knew the effect it would have. Aslan was already immortal so he really didn't need the come back to life clause at all.

NakedFisherman
16-12-2005, 14:32
Aslan being the son of God and there when the magic was made knew the effect it would have. Aslan was already immortal so he really didn't need the come back to life clause at all.

Glad that was explained in the movie.

Insane Alex
16-12-2005, 14:33
Fisherman, you don't have to be so negative about that which is essentially a children's movie, and if not, made for fans of the book.

The pestilent 1
16-12-2005, 14:35
I'm a fan of the Book, i loved it.

The kids in the cinema; They loved it.

The people i was with, having not read the book.
Well, one liked it, the other is interested in the books now, and the other was scared.

I'd say that makes it an enjoyable film.

NakedFisherman
16-12-2005, 14:35
Fisherman, you don't have to be so negative about that which is essentially a children's movie, and if not, made for fans of the book.

Why not?

"Aim low and hit the mark" isn't an excuse for that crapfest that was Narnia.

Insane Alex
16-12-2005, 14:38
Making it a children's movie wasn't aiming low, seeing as though they were primarily children's books, too.

Strikerkc
16-12-2005, 15:17
"Aim low and hit the mark" isn't an excuse for that crapfest that was Narnia.

Aiming for their target viewers is not aiming low. The books them selves where actualy quite simply writen. Their purpose was less to be some masterfull collection of words, but meerly to tell a story. They did that, the movie did that, mission acomplished. ;)

Rykion
16-12-2005, 17:01
Glad that was explained in the movie.
I think they were trying to tone down some of the Christian elements from the book, so they left out explanation of some of Alsan's nature. It is also only one book in a series that each build up a total understanding of Narnia. There are meant to be things left as questions until answered by later books. It's too bad you didn't like the movie, but not everyone enjoys the same things.

Hlokk
16-12-2005, 18:26
"Aim low and hit the mark" isn't an excuse for that crapfest that was Narnia.

again, agreed. Just because your target audience is kids doesnt mean your film has to be rubbish.

I mean, they could have put a bit more character development into Aslan. You and I know who he is, but a lot of the people watching the flim will be saying "A talking Lion, holy ****" and the impact will be lost. I mean, based on his portrayal in the Film, what really seperates him from other talking animals like Skippy or the goat from Shrek?

Same with the deep magic. Why the hell was this not elaborated on a bit?

Xhalax
17-12-2005, 17:39
Myself....being the illiterate scum I am, only have the BBC TV version to compare the film to....which was in my opinion a vast improvement.

I went to go see Narnia for an afternoon's worth of entertainment, which was what I got so I thought it was money well spent. Yes if I really wanted to, I could have pulled the film to tiny pieces, but I didn't. As I said, I went to see it coz I wanted to and I did. Even with the tons of ickle kiddie vinkles in the cinema, I enjoyed the film.

And the CGI was amazing.

I guess I should get around to reading the books now....coz they're nearly always about 100 times better than the books.

Commissar von Toussaint
19-12-2005, 00:02
I've watched this excellent bit of cinema twice, and enjoyed it immensely.

In fact, I'm hard-pressed to think of a film I've seen in the last five years that I liked more.

Is it a children's movie?

Yep.

If you hate children's movies, you will hate this movie. That's really all there is to it. Expecting to be some high-brow art flick or a blood- and angst-drenched adolescent thriller is pretty stupid.

That being said, I found the film had better act, plot development and was far more interesting than most "adult" films I've seen over the past year.

That's why I don't think there's any point in refuting the bad reviews it's gotten. I've generally found that when people hate something I enjoy, I will tend to hate the things they enjoy.

Yorkiebar
24-12-2005, 20:56
I just saw it for the first time and enjoyed it immensely. I'll definitely watch the sequels. I hated the books, the idea of talking animals and creatures such as fawns and centaurs really doesn't do anything for me, but worked well in the film.

EDIT:
I guess I should get around to reading the books now....coz they're nearly always about 100 times better than the books.Um, what?

Hlokk
24-12-2005, 22:27
I just saw it for the first time and enjoyed it immensely. I'll definitely watch the sequels.
Are their any sequels planned? I wouldnt mind watching Voyage of the Dawn Treader, but some of them wouldnt lend themselves to flims very well.

Also, as the kids are well old by the time they leave narnia, do they go back in as kids or as adults?

Nazerth
24-12-2005, 22:43
I went to see the movie last night, and I was impressed and entertained by it. Weta Workshop really did a very good job of bringing the many different species of Narnians to life for the film, plus the CG effects were very well done and were near-seamless most of the time (this coming from an animator in training :p).

Overall, I really liked the film, and to be honest, wouldn't mind seeing it a second time. Would definatly go to see the other stories if they are adapted for the cinema.

bluetablepainting
25-12-2005, 01:11
The family and I went to see this movie today. I'm no expert on any of this. I just know what I like and what I think. So here are my two imperial pesos for what it's worth:

I got the books as a present on my 5th Christmas (1974). I wasn't old enough to read, but my father read the series to us, a little bit every night. So, I have very fond memories of the books. I think I've read the series something like four times. My favourite is Voyage of the Dawn Treader.

I thought the movie was done faithfully to the essence of the books. Anyone who wants to get a look into C.S. Lewis's perspective on Christianity, I would recommend Mere Christianity (also worth reading multiple times). I think that will increase the enjoyment of the books, and probably the movies, too.

I liked the music. It captured the feel of the books-- the transportation to a magical land; not one steeped in violence to grasp the attention of the reader, but of enchanted things to grasp the mind of the young reader/viewer, and deeper things in symbolic form to grasp the mind of the older reader.

When Lucy comes back from the wardrobe the first time and no one believes her establishes a central reality of the books-- if you haven't been to Narnia then no amount of explanation will help you believe, but if you have then no explanation is needed. Lewis wrote a lot of apologetics and I think that shows in their conversation with the professor about why they should believe Lucy.

I noticed the collection for sale at Costco the other day. The order of the books has been changed. I think the original order was by date of publish, and the new set is in chronological order (of events in the book).

I plan on buying the movie. Even if you got rid of the "deeper meaning" it would still be an enchanting tale for young people.

Shawn G.

Yorkiebar
25-12-2005, 12:07
Are their any sequels planned? I wouldnt mind watching Voyage of the Dawn Treader, but some of them wouldnt lend themselves to flims very well.

Also, as the kids are well old by the time they leave narnia, do they go back in as kids or as adults?They go back into the wardrobe from Narnia as adults but fall out of it into our world as kids.

Frodo34x
25-12-2005, 13:18
I personally thought it was amazing, and loved the battle at the end, but then again, I tend to get really caught up in films I'm watching. Spent most of the way home (well, to the pub at least) trying to decide what rules I could proxy to recreate the war on the tabletop.Same here :eek:

I thought it was a great film, i really loved the two generals, and the ice queen's stick of death.

Aside from the fight scene, the film was alright, especially the "If you think I'm gonna sniff it, you've got another thing coming mate"

Cypher
26-12-2005, 14:26
It only just got released here in Oz.

To be honest, I pretty much agree with Hlokk's review. It started off nicely, but about half way through I realised I was bored out of my mind. Basically where this film failed was that it was written and directed by someone completely out of his depth: every scene was done in the easiest and safest manner possible, and the script was the most literal translation of the book possible. A good example is how we're supposed to get involved in the sacrifice of Aslan when he's had all of ten minutes screen time at this point. And then five minutes later he's back at it again :wtf:

Im sure the pre-teen audience will love it, but I thought this was a pretty poor film.

Inquisitor Maul
26-12-2005, 14:57
I loved the opening shots. All those german bombers flying over London with flak exploding all over the heaven gave me a hardon :D

Satan
26-12-2005, 15:04
Maul, that's just scary.

I thought it was great. It's porbably intended for a younger audience, but even so I enjoyed it very much.

Inquisitor Maul
26-12-2005, 15:08
Maul, that's just scary.

I thought it was great. It's porbably intended for a younger audience, but even so I enjoyed it very much.

I know I overdid it a bit, but I just loved it. :p

Karhedron
26-12-2005, 20:45
I am 28 and thoroughly enjoyed the film. I have no idea what a particular person expects when they go and see a film. All I ask is to leave reality at the door and enjoy a couple of hours of good story telling. The film entertained me and thus I think it was a good film.

If you enjoy a film then no further explanation is needed. If you just didn't enjoy it then no amount of explanation will make you think it was any good.

Merry Christmas! :)

Arnizipal
27-12-2005, 22:07
It only just got released here in Oz.

To be honest, I pretty much agree with Hlokk's review. It started off nicely, but about half way through I realised I was bored out of my mind. Basically where this film failed was that it was written and directed by someone completely out of his depth: every scene was done in the easiest and safest manner possible, and the script was the most literal translation of the book possible. A good example is how we're supposed to get involved in the sacrifice of Aslan when he's had all of ten minutes screen time at this point. And then five minutes later he's back at it again :wtf:

Im sure the pre-teen audience will love it, but I thought this was a pretty poor film.
I've just come back from seeing it and this is pretty much my impression as well. It looked nice, but it was rather empty storywise.

Why did the children become kings/qeens in the end? It's not like they did anything the animals/fauns/centaurs couldn't have done by themselves.

I haven't read the books so I may have missed lots of stuff and this is of course a fantasy film, but some things made little sense to me.

Maybe I'm just too old for this film...?

Wiseman
29-12-2005, 10:29
i loved the movies im gonna pick up the books tomorrow, give me something to read onm the plane trip

Xander-K
29-12-2005, 12:08
I think Edmund kicked ass! he was the only one brave enough to go off on his own, and do his own thing. It would have been awesome if he was made an evil prince, but alas the queen of narnia was a fool.

As for the complaints of the original poster, what did you expect the kids to act like? they are supposed to be emotionally retarded and neurotic that is how they were in the books that is how they always will be.

The Ice Queen well they could have picked someone better looking, but to be fair, I can't think of any actress who could have done the evil queen role any better.

Susan was your favourite?? thats weird, all she did was nitpick most of the film or be pessimistic and tell them all to go home.

Anyway the point is, this is supposed to be a kids film you were probably expecting too much maturity from it.

Remember, if its not an 18 it will more than likely be very very silly (with modern hollywood style films anyway).

m1s1n
29-12-2005, 17:41
I saw this movie on Christmas night. I find out to be really hollow--much like "King Kong". There was nothing particularly spectacular about it aside from a high production value. It seems that the best parts of the movie was when some type of battle was going on--either the bombers at the start (which, interestingly enough are alluded to when the Griffons perform the air raid), or the LoTR-esque battle at the end.

All of the characters were underdeveloped and generally unmotivated, which I found to be a huge hangup. How am I supposed to care if characters do things seemingly at random?

What the film needed was a faster pace to accomidate its lack of substance, however this is not the case. Instead we are forced to trudge through a magical world where nothing happens (much like LoTR).

This film would easily have been better in more apt hands, and if it had been released prior to LoTR--which managed to set a standard for Epic Walking Pictures.

C. Langana
29-12-2005, 17:47
I loved the opening shots. All those german bombers flying over London with flak exploding all over the heaven gave me a hardon :D
My mind departed there, I then spent the next two hours imagining how I'd make a 'Castle Wolfenstein' film.
Seriously though, not a bad romp, I found the religious aspect a little hard to swallow I really can't understand it but I felt films should be secular.
I have no idea why, still, Santa never gave me a sword.

Xander-K
29-12-2005, 18:10
All of the characters were underdeveloped and generally unmotivated, which I found to be a huge hangup. How am I supposed to care if characters do things seemingly at random?

how is it at random? they lost the brother, so took steps to get him back, then they decided to help azlan and co. since he had helped them get there brother back. I don't see how that is random.

2_heads_talking
29-12-2005, 21:26
I saw the film on Christmas Eve, and the only gripe I had was of a little kid several rows behind to kept asking if Aslan was a lion.

I sat down to the movie having never read the books, and I feel I would now like to. The kids I thought gave great performances, Lucy was wide-eyed and naive enough (in her quick befriending of a stranger - simply indicates the way the world was back then), while Edmund was truly a dislikable character.

Peter was also uite good as he did what he was meant to; show a boy who was totally out of his depth. Agreeing to be 'dad' to the rest of his siblings was bad enough, but to be a king? To lead an army? I did notice he received no training on how to handle his sword at any point, but come on; we might laugh and go 'look at the Dirty Harry wannabe', but if you were to play the characters would you not try to play it like someone who'd NEVER had to wield a sword before. Keeping distance between himself and the enemy though fear and a sword's length; there's nothing wrong with that.

The animals were great; Aslan was suitably mysterious and had a sense of awe around him, I'm curious though as to what Lewis does with him in the novel to make him mean more to the reader?

Oh, and the charging Centaurs and such; it made me want to collect a Beasts of Chaos army right there and then! :D Probably not happen though, with crippled finances and all....

So there you go; no in-depth discussions of the directing, or anything like that. I saw it with no pre-judgements in my head (wish I could say the same for the LoTR trilogy) and enjoyed it. What's more, my girlfriend loved it.

My 2 cents.

Xander-K
29-12-2005, 21:37
I did notice he received no training on how to handle his sword at any point, but come on; we might laugh and go 'look at the Dirty Harry wannabe', but if you were to play the characters would you not try to play it like someone who'd NEVER had to wield a sword before. Keeping distance between himself and the enemy though fear and a sword's length; there's nothing wrong with that.

haha yea there is a funny thing about that though, he suddenly becomes a fighting genius in the battle able to deflect blows from 8 foot minotaurs and such (oh the strength of a child).

m1s1n
29-12-2005, 21:47
haha yea there is a funny thing about that though, he suddenly becomes a fighting genius in the battle able to deflect blows from 8 foot minotaurs and such (oh the strength of a child).

I think this is a great example of the random, unmotivated events in the film.

Another example is the forces of evil. Instead of justifying their motivations we simply have to accept the fact that they are "evil" and will do the "evil" thing. The characters never go beyond fantasy atmosphere stereotypes. Maybe if the film explained that the characters had something to lose (or gain) it would have made far more sense. However, all we are left with is generic dichotomies set in play. It becomes so symbollically circular that it hurts. Evil characters do evil because they are evil, good characters do the right thing because they are good.

Xander-K
29-12-2005, 23:23
The characters never go beyond fantasy atmosphere stereotypes. Maybe if the film explained that the characters had something to lose (or gain) it would have made far more sense. However, all we are left with is generic dichotomies set in play. It becomes so symbollically circular that it hurts. Evil characters do evil because they are evil, good characters do the right thing because they are good.
Ah I am with you on this one now, yes. In the original chronicles of Narnia series (which is truly brilliant) they did explain all the motivations between the wars in a lot more depth, and the buildup was several hours of programmes.

Hlokk
29-12-2005, 23:56
I think this is a great example of the random, unmotivated events in the film.

THANK YOU

At least someone agrees with me about how things seem random. The film is what you'd get if you crossed WHFB with Dude, where's my car? A seemingly random series of events and underdeveloped characters bodged together.

Now while this isnt a reflection on the book, it is a reflection on the flim. Its like the directors taken the film and spilt a vat of Toppex across the pages. While lucy might have been a wide eyed little girl, Peter's acting was absolutely inexcusable. When you have people of a similar age putting out performances like those in Harry Potter, pointing a sword in Dirty Harry style really doesnt cut it, nor does speaking with the worlds campest voice when wanting to see the king. Peter goes from little schoolboy to being the rival of any WHFB character :wtf:

This film suffered from a lack of character development. We're told that the ice queen is evil, but why is she? Is she on the menopause? Is she really Roy Keane in disguise? We never find out. Aslan might be a triple hard nutcase (But not as hard as Mr T), but what exactly is he? Is he the king of the animals, a force of nature or what? And with the deep magic? WTF is that about? great if you've read the books, but if you havnt, you basically told "Well, this talking lion can read stuff better than a witch, so she's boned" :rolleyes:

THe film also suffered from a lack of plot direction in the first hour or so. If they'd extended the film by 15 minutes, used a decent bit of editing and expnded on the characters, it might not have been so bad. One other thing that annoyed me was the cost of the fight scene. $100million US, and for what? 3 second scenes and then a close up on peter looking like he's got a fishhook stuck in his eyebrow.

I have seen this film at least twice since I posted this review, and I have not changed my mind, if anything, I think even less of the film than I did at the beginning.

Adept
30-12-2005, 10:53
Santa never gave me a sword.

When I saw that, I immediately thought of the Hogfather.

Death, as the Hogfather, gives little timmy a sword. Timmy's mother complains.

"You can't give him that!"

"WHY NOT?" says Death. "IT'S EDUCATIONAL."

"But he might cut himself!"

"THAT WOULD BE AN IMPORTANT LESSON."

C. Langana
30-12-2005, 17:27
Adept: I'd completely forgotten about that bit, amazing! Well it got a chuckle from me.

Xander-K
31-12-2005, 13:01
the best part was where they shot the dwarf at the end! me an my mate were laughing for a good 5 mins (no one else was of course).

NakedFisherman
31-12-2005, 22:08
I was laughing pretty hard at how goofy that looked. Even yelled out "Holy *****, did you see that dwarf die?"

Moi Dix Mois
01-01-2006, 11:49
I read the book as a child, I got arm twisted into going to see this with friends. I hated it, it looks so cheap and ****, the dialogue is the worst, and there's no excuse for that.
What gets me most is that the LoTR forum I visit is now full of LoTR Vs Narnia threads and 13year olds wetting themselves about how cool it is. I want to burn their eyes out with a blow-torch.

Worst movie ever.

Inquisitor Engel
01-01-2006, 20:33
I want to burn their eyes out with a blow-torch.

How do you really feel? :eyebrows:

Those same kids who won't listen to your criticisms of it are on the same level as you if you can't see the positive points of it.

Moi Dix Mois
01-01-2006, 21:56
How do you really feel? :eyebrows:

Those same kids who won't listen to your criticisms of it are on the same level as you if you can't see the positive points of it.

Oh I could see the positive points if there were any.
And what was going on with the white witch? She had none of the nastiness from the book.
I will concede one thing only - Aslan was quite impressively animated, apart from that it was complete dross. It was the cheapness of it that really got me. Everything looked like it was knocked up in five minutes or bought from 'PoundSaver'.
I don't want those kids to listen to me, they can love it all the want. I jsut want them to stop making a dozen LoTRs vs Narnia threads every. Single. Day.

Inquisitor Engel
01-01-2006, 22:29
I will concede one thing only - Aslan was quite impressively animated,

It does make me wonder how long until the Discovery Channel does entirely CG safaris... Aslan as a lion look equally as real as Kong did, and that's impressive. I used to say that hair and skin was what CG animators needed to get down, now it's just skin...

Anyway - I finally found out where I know Mr. Tumnus is from, James McAvoy was Leo Atreides II in Children of Dune and Miller in Bands of Brothers. He's a good actor, and I do think he did well.

Plus, Liam Neeson can do no wrong in any role. Ever. Remarkable voice acting.

That said, LOTR wins, hands down, always, forever.

starlight
01-01-2006, 22:31
Saw it, liked it. Haven't read the book in *many* years (before most of you were born) but it was a good movie.

However, just like with LotR, it's *NOT THE BOOK*:rolleyes:.

:p

It is a good retelling of the *story* and I look forward to the rest of the series. I assume that the characters will continue to evolve and develop just like they have done in the Harry Potter series.

Now who's up for - *Who'd hotter Hermione Granger (Emma Watson) or Susan Pevensie (Anna Popplewell)?*

This debate will be closed to anyone who would go to jail for taking part.:p

m1s1n
01-01-2006, 22:40
@starlight: Oh you crazy kids and your underage fantasies.

Anyway, I think you bring up a great point--no matter what you do an adaptation is always an interpretation. Since you are changing mediums from an imaginary medium to a visual medium you lose some of the imaginary effect. However, it helps if the characters and the story is better developed during that transition.

Nazguire
02-01-2006, 02:16
Saw it, liked it. Haven't read the book in *many* years (before most of you were born) but it was a good movie.

However, just like with LotR, it's *NOT THE BOOK*:rolleyes:.

:p

It is a good retelling of the *story* and I look forward to the rest of the series. I assume that the characters will continue to evolve and develop just like they have done in the Harry Potter series.

Now who's up for - *Who'd hotter Hermione Granger (Emma Watson) or Susan Pevensie (Anna Popplewell)?*

This debate will be closed to anyone who would go to jail for taking part.:p

Emma Watson,what's that? I can't go to jail because I'm still 17...

Ha :P :D

Inquisitor Engel
02-01-2006, 02:37
Anna Popplewell has a career ahead of her playing the younger version of Renee Zellweger. :p

Seriously, look at them.

Xisor
02-01-2006, 02:38
What about 'Big Suz' Susan? She's acceptable by most laws.

Xisor

Nineswords
02-01-2006, 10:43
The White Witch and her Dwarf did it for me, the rest of the movie was ok. The armies were a little meagre, and Edmund, well...

Adept
02-01-2006, 11:19
I used to say that hair and skin was what CG animators needed to get down, now it's just skin...

While it looked good, it still looked noticeably fake in a good portion of his scenes. The light just doesn't interact with it quite right, and a part of my mind notices that and sort of pulls me out of that suspension of dis-belief, and as a result damages my viewing experience more than it should.

In fact, I think I enjoyed the stage version more than the movie one.

Not to say it was a bad movie, just that it wasn't a great movie.