Well, it took us a while to finally go see it, but it was well worth the wait. Do Not wait for this movie to come to DVD, go see it on the big screen....NOW!
It's been years since I read the book (unlike Tolkien who I revisit every few years), but Daughter #1 had it pretty fresh in her mind (she received the set for Xmas two years back). For the Mrs. and daughter #2 it was a door being opened (pun intended). The cast is excellent, but the children are spectacular. I cannot imagine any better casting for this movie. These four kids jump right into your heart before the movie is one third over (something it took two Harry Potter movies for those kids to do). In the BBC TV movies, I thought Edmund was a tad whiney, here they get just the right mix of misguided/misled with some teen angst thrown in, and you feel he is fully redeemed before the end to prove Aslan's sacrifice was warranted.
When I first read this book (twenty something years ago), I did not pick up on the religious symbolism of Aslan to Christ. Here it seemed massively obvious and done exceedingly well. From the torture of Aslan, to the "two women" staying with Aslan through the night, to the stone table shattering before he is resurrected (It was the one portion daughter #1 covered her eyes for, though she still cried just listening to it, she was joyously uplifted when he came back).
Of course the comparisons stop there as Aslan does kill (in a most lion like manner) before the movie is over. Both the Mrs. and I were convinced that the Ice Queen was the Borg Queen until we got home to research it (though they do resemble each other even without makeup). She's so good at the role, that people actually cheered when she is attacked (see above) at the end. We all talked endlessly after the movie for well over two hours of the details we enjoyed (a record even for us). It's ironic that Lewis passed on a Disney animated version decades ago, he felt that animation could not properly portray Aslan (especially Disney animation), yet that same company has done such an incredible job in live action. Rather than go into the effects, I'll just say that they are so good as to not realize they are there (which is I think, the highest compliment that can be paid). There is only one shot in the move where I was certainly aware I was looking at an effect....and it was a very old one....a glass matte shot of the Queen's palace in daytime (the previous evening shot was completely convincing). I actually like glass matte shots, because they have (over the years) spawned more atmosphere than many other details of a show or movie (i.e. Star Trek, Dr. Who, Star Wars, you name it).
Over all I have to say, that I enjoyed Chronicles of Narnia more than (irk....emm....err...must.....say....it.....) any of the Lord of the Ring Movies.
Andrew Adamson and Disney have inspired more wonder with standard mythical creatures in one movie than Peter Jackson did in three with Tolkien's menagerie. I still believe LOTR is an outstanding achievement (one for which I don't think this movie could have been made without), but for any of them, I didn't want to go right back and see it again as with The Chronicles of Narnia.
I didn't do a Goblet of Fire wrap up, though I'd like to touch on it now. We really enjoyed it....except for Dumbledore. Warner Brothers should RUN (not walk) to the dustbin and drop the Namby-Pamby nervous twitching and shaking "Harry did you do it?" Michael Gambon directly into it. They were robbed! He was O.K. in Azkaban, as he had the proper amount of control....but he is obviously trying to "make the role his", and failing miserably in Goblet of Fire.
Newsflash to Warner Brothers: Fire Gambon, then pay what ever it costs and hire James Cosmo (Father Christmas from Chronicles of Narnia) to be Dumbledore.
4 comments:
My seven year old was making fun of Gambon on the way out of the theater, he way, waaaaaay overacted in the scenes following the Goblet's choice...it's kind of a joke around our house now, if you want to make a big deal out of something, we all slip into our Gambon Dumbledore act. Except for Gambon, we liked GOF better than Azkaban, the dating stuff was even more funny than in the book.
I'm sure that Lewis would have approved of the allegory being overdone in your opinion ;) . Even my Mrs. (who did not know it was coming) loved that part and aspect of it.
Given the BBC TV Queen (who did grate on my nerves a bit), I greatly prefer the portrayal in this movie.
But c'mon....The Father Christmas roll SCREAMED Dumbledore to me. I prefered Harris in the first movie (he was obviously ailing in the second), but I think James Cosmo nailed the kind of portrayal Warner Brothers needs in that role. Gambon does not come across as confident enough in the roll for me.
I liked Narnia a lot, but I don't think it came close to lord of the rings. I wouldn't say that everything about the LotR trilogy was better than Narnia (LotR certainly had its weaker parts) but I could (and have) watched the rings films many many times. I couldn't see myself sitting through this too often. Considering the simplicity of the plot, it probably could have been a half hour shorter, too.
As for Dumbledore, I liked Gambon better than Harris, but I agree that Gambon didn't do a very good job this time around. My complaint about Harris was that he never quite got the friendly and funny side of dumbledore. It seems Gambon is now having trouble with the "most powerful and confident" quality that Dumbledore has in the book.
Overall, I agree with Doog on the quality of GoF, I liked it a lot and almost as good as PoA.
Maybe It's a family thing....I do seem to enjoy movies we can all watch together more....something we can't yet do with LOTR. My Mrs. fell asleep on three attempts to watch the extended edition of ROTK after the kids were in bed. Daughter #1 watched the release version and enjoyed it, but also fell asleep watching the extended version (daughter #2 is just too young for LOTR). I still feel that Narnia held more of my rapt attention and gave me more of a sense of wonder in it's short span than any two of LOTR movies did. I can say the same of the Potter movies (they inspired more wonder than LOTR). One "effect" Narnia had miles over the first HP film is the Centaurs, MAN...they were perfect.
It's one thing to create a magical world on film that has never been captured as such before, but it's an incredible acheivement to create so much wonder in a fantasy world that uses icons of mythology we've seen in film again and again (though not all together in Narnia).
LOTR were movies I was waiting and hoping for....for over 25 years. I enjoyed them, but not as much as a movie I didn't expect (until I saw the trailer a year ago) that surprised and delighted me as much as Narnia. Being that it was Disney, I was actually expecting it to (at least in some way) suck. I'm glad it didn't.
As far as the plot being simpler, on the book level, I would agree with you. Lewis and Tolkien are worlds apart (pun?) in writing style...but both stories still come down to good vs. evil. Big Screen Entertainment-wise as a Family We enjoyed Narnia more.
Point taken on the family thing. I'd agree on that one 100%.
Post a Comment