The Chronicles of Narnia

[Whistler]

Strange the way theaters are showing so many different movies with this title. I wish we could all see the same one, at least!

[JewelSong]

I must admit I did not read the books as a kid and Lewis is not my cup of tea.

And we had Santa but no Easter bunny? Whats up with that? He would have fit right in with the talking beavers. The last time I saw a talking beaver on screen was in the film CHATTERBOX.

Some of the landscape was gorgeous and the Queen was well played. But contrast that with the weak sets and poor masks of so many creatures that it was inconsistent at best.

Well, you know, if you didn't read or like the books and you don't care for CS Lewis to begin with, then I hardly think you will like a movie based on his story....which you don't like to begin with.

There were talking Beavers in the book; of course there will be talking Beavers (and other beasts) in the movie. I don't understand why that should be an issue.

And Father Christmas (not "Santa") was portrayed as the Old English character; far different than the jovial Santa Claus we know in the States. Christmas as a festival is celebrated (or was celebrated) a bit differently in England. And to imply that Lewis copied Tolkien's Lothlórien scene is kind of silly - they were friends and discussed each other's works all the time.

To be honest, I found your "review" a bit mean-spirited. It's one thing to not care for an author or a movie; it's another thing to ridicule and trash something that was obviously made with care and which many other people love.

[Whistler]

I'm guessing this review was the result of too much eggnog.

[vison]

My grandsons went to see this movie today with their auntie. Oz, who is 8 1/2, raved about the battle and the lion helping to beat the bad guys. Tay, who is just 11, said, "It was okay, but I liked the book better". He hated the Lemony Snicket movie. I think he's like his grandma, I usually like the book better. I remember all the praise of the LOTR movies and my reaction was the same as Whistler's above!

This movie seems to be either loved or not loved, strong reactions either way. I daresay I won't see it in the theatre and will therefore not see it as it should be seen. DVD's are nice, but the TV set is no substitute for the big screen.

[sauronsfinger]

Jewelsong
allow me to clarify a few things regarding NARNIA.
As a kid, I did not read the books. In many reviews I have read it seems that this is rather important in ones appreciation of the film. Childhood readers hold a special place for the books and are already far down the path to liking the film. I did not have that advantage.

Secondly, I did attempt to read the books sometime in my 20's after I discovered LOTR. I wanted to read everything that could be like LOTR. Of course, I was setting myself up for a huge letdown and not being fair to Lewis. I read a little bit of the first book and went no further because it was not LOTR 2.

I did realize the difference between Santa Claus and Father Christmas -- but it seemed like the difference is small and insignificant. To me at least, it seemed like very derivative of Lothlórien gift giving.

When I pay good money to see a film, I do want to like what I am paying for. I went in hoping to like it. I almost dozed off twice but fought that. I really wanted to cry at some emotional points but that never happened. The obnoxious,self centered little twit that was the younger boy really rubbed me the wrong way.

Films made for older kids are no problem for me as one of my favorite films of all time is WIZARD OF OZ and I love WONKA, ALICE IN WONDERLAND and many other films like that.

People complain about the CGI Aslan - but I felt he was beautiful -- but without any heart of emotion or anything to get me to care about him. When PJ did LOTR, the carefully stacked the characters in crowds so that the best and most detailed creatures were nearer to the camera and the more Halloween mask types in the distance. In the battle scenes and crowd scenes there were just too many Halloween mask baddies too close to the camera.

[yovargas]

To me at least, it seemed like very derivative of Lothlórien gift giving.

I assumed it was a coincidence, but while watching it I totally thought that the framing and style and ambience of the scene felt exactly like the gift-giving scene. It wasn't that both stories have gift-giving scenes, it was that they were shot exactly the same way. (But more annoying to me was Santa giving little children deadly weapons so that they may slaughter their enemies - not exactly a Christmas-spirit sorta thing to do. Felt contrived to the extreme).

It's one thing to not care for an author or a movie; it's another thing to ridicule and trash something that was obviously made with care and which many other people love.

Are you saying that if I think a movie sucked, I shouldn't voice my opinion?

[Queen_Beruthiel]

This is not a readers-loved-it/non-readers-don't situation.

I've love the books since I was eleven, and I was underwhelmed by the film.

I'm glad others enjoyed it but I found it uninspired.

[Whistler]

I saw it again last night and was even more impressed the second time.

[JewelSong]

It's one thing to not care for an author or a movie; it's another thing to ridicule and trash something that was obviously made with care and which many other people love.

Are you saying that if I think a movie sucked, I shouldn't voice my opinion?

Not at all. But it seems silly to disparage the movie about things that were in the original story. I mean, to make fun of the talking Beavers and Father Christmas being there as part of your movie critique - when both were an integral part of the orginal book - it doesn't seem quite fair as a movie "review" as it were.

Now, if you thought the Beavers were poorly portrayed (compared to the book) or you didn't like them to begin with - that's another story. But sauronsfinger seemed to be basically ridiculing the entire concept as part of his overall review of the movie. Since the Beavers were in the story from the get-go, it seemed an unfair "review."

Am I making any sense here? (I have only had 2 cups of coffee and the post-Christmas stupification is still in effect!)

[sauronsfinger]

I simply reviewed what I saw on screen. I already said I had NOT read the books. I reviewed a movie. These latest comments by Jewelsong only confirm for me the idea that if you read the books as a child, the movie probably is much dearer to your heart. I do realize that is not a hard and fast rule.

For the record, I have nothing against talking animals.

Mr. Ed holds a fond place in my heart .............. Oh Willllllbbbbbburrrr.

[JewelSong]

I simply reviewed what I saw on screen. I already said I had NOT read the books. I reviewed a movie.

Well, I misunderstood you, then. I did see that you had not read the books as a child, but I thought you had at least read the first one later on.

It seems that you basically didn't like the story itself....because the movie was a pretty fair rendering of the story-line, with very little changed or left out. I do not think you have to have read the books to enjoy the movie. But if the basic story leaves you cold, or you think certain key elements of the story are ridiculous (talking Beavers, Father Christmas) then no film treatment of it is going to please you.

Your review seemed to be saying "What a ridiculous story! Talking Beavers - how stupid! Father Christmas - how lame! What a prat Edmond is - why didn't they kill him!" And you seemed to be saying that these things (among others) made the movie bad. But this was the story CS Lewis told. The movie-makers put the story on the screen.

So maybe your real beef is with CS Lewis - since you already stated that he wasn't your cup of tea?

All that being said, I really do not think that the movie is "on the level of the DINOTOPIA TV series." I thought the overall cinematography and special effects were excellent. On the other hand, I did not ever think that "Narnia" should be compared with LOTR. They are really different genres.

[sauronsfinger]

jewelsong
I was in my 20's before I first read LOTR. I then wanted to read everything I could find like that --- only to find out that there was nothing quite like it. I tried the first book in the Narnia series , read a small amount, and put it aside never to return to it.

For what it is worth --- when I read THE HOBBIT , I also thought the talking animals at Beorn's home were stupid beyond belief and I still do. If they ever do get around to filming that book, I dearly hope walking and talking dogs serving platters of food do not make the cut.

Lewis has every right to write any story he wants and populate it with whatever and whoever he desires. It just left me cold. I can appreciate that the filmmakers did a good job in staying faithful to the book. But sometimes, changes make it even better.

Did you ever read the novel of FOREST GUMP? Dreadul dreck. How they made that into a first rate movie is an act of pure magic. What works on the page is not always what works on the screen and vice versa.

[JewelSong]

Sounds like the changes to Narnia would have had to skew the story beyond recognition in order for you to like it, sauronsfinger!

But people like different things. That's what makes the world go 'round.

[yovargas]

Talking Beavers - how stupid! Father Christmas - how lame! What a prat Edmond is - why didn't they kill him!" And you seemed to be saying that these things (among others) made the movie bad. But this was the story CS Lewis told.

I disagree. I never read the book and yes, I thought the beavers were annoying after about two minuts and I thought Father Christmas came off very lame. But that's not Lewis' fault as I'm quite certain that there would have been ways to portray both those elements in a way that was fun and interesting to book fans and non-fans alike.

And sf is right, just cuz it works in the book doesn't mean it'll work on film. There's a reason Tom Bom ain't in the LOTR movies and if PJ had chosen to leave him in, it wouldn't have been Tolkien's fault if he looked ridiculous.

[JewelSong]

I don't know how the film could have been made without the Beavers - unlike Tom Bom, they were an integral part of the story, not a detour. The book is MUCH shorter than LOTR, remember and there's less that could be left out or changed.

I suppose Father Christmas could have been left out, but I liked how they portrayed him...and since one of the things about Narnia under the White Witch was that it was "always Winter and never Christmas" I think they had to leave him in.

I thought the Beavers were excellent; one of my favorite parts of the movie.

[Teremia]

But shouldn't Father Christmas have remembered the presents for Mr. and Mrs. Beaver? They were being very good beavers, after all.

[JewelSong]

I noticed that, too! Doesn't she get a new sewing machine in the books?

[WampusCat]

In the book, Father Christmas finished the work on Mr. Beaver's dam and left a brand new sewing machine for Mrs. Beaver.

[sauronsfinger]

Oh my gawd!!! Leaving a sewing machine for the Beavers!!!!

And I thought they blew the movie. Silly me.

One other thing I have to confess. I taught junior high school for ten years. Most kids - nearly all kids - between the ages of 11 and 14 could not wipe their noses to save their lives. They cannot get in homework, they cannot even line up properly for lunch without hours and days of work. They are geeky and completely lack self confidence.

I despise films which take these kids and have them save the world. Middle-earth is far more realistic than those scenarios.

When I saw HOME ALONE, I was cheering for the two burglars to break in and abduct the little twit.

But thats just me.

[Pearly Di]

What was wrong with Father Christmas????

I thought his portrayal was delightful. And at least he wasn't all decked out in a scarlet coat ...!

I thought the Talking Animals were very well done ...

But that's just me.