 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
67.173.212.229
... from a film critic whose opinion I always respect! ;^)The Chronic Ills of NARNIA
I'm trying my best not to be judgmental of anyone else's tastes or opinions, but my wife and I saw this film yesterday and weren't impressed. In fact, we both found The Chronicles of Narnia terrible, easily the worst fantasy film we've ever seen! At the other end of the spectrum the benchmark would be the Harry Potter series and the epic or timeless fantasy of Lord of The Rings trilogy, but there are other classics of the genre including Ridley Scott's Director's Cut of Legend and even going back to Fritz Lang's silent Die Nibelungen (Siegfried & Kriemhild's Revenge). CS Lewis's Chronicle of Narnia novels may be of that calibre as source material, but this film did NOT do the author justice.
Without giving away any integral plot spoilers I'll just comment that the first 30 minutes of this film were excellent. The opening WWII bombing scenes and movement of the children to the country are extremely well done, historically accurate and it sets the story up effectively. The first wardobe excursion conveys the sense of wonder as seen through a child's eye quite well; up until this point the story is quite gripping. Where the wheels start coming off is from the second wardrobe excursion onward, with the chidren rapidly accepting the bizarre world they've been thrown into and the cliche` dialogue/behavior of the talking animals.
To describe this film as "boring" doesn't do justice to the word boring. The only creative purgoritive which comes to mind is "Disneyfied" which, as an invented word, entered common usage long ago as a peddling of childish cinematic hokum. In fairness, this only describes the weakest offerings from Disney Studios over the past 30 or 40 years; Pixar Studios and Jerry Bruckheimer collaborations such as Pirates of The Caribbean aren't under Disney Studio's direct control and would not apply here, of course.
In The Chronicles of Narnia we have violently prosecuted battles with no gore, an evil Queen witch who telegraphs her every move and whose "cool" surroundings are so ugly and unpleasant that it's hard to imagine anyone being in awe much less following her, claustrophobic vistas that somehow manage to reduce whatever epic vision this fantasy land promises to the feeling of a back lot, characters with an obvious history tossed into the story with little background and no means of generating audience empathy, kids with no experience turned overnight into efficient warriors without explanation, a theoretically regal talking lion with a CGI personality and "focus" problems, etc., etc., etc.; all very unchallenging stuff for kids, much less adults.
As I see it, the only Narnia character worthy of empathy or interest in this hackneyed tale is Faun, portrayed by an actor who brings something more to the part than a dry cardboard 2D performance with strained CGI razzle-dazzle. In retrospect, this smarmy, watered down, Disneyfied piece of fantasy-fluff reminded me of another wasted opportunity, like so many Disney films of late. Who can forget, for instance, the promise of Disney's film Dinosaur, where the dinosaurs shown in the trailer didn't speak! Obviously the marketing folks knew something that the film-makers did NOT.
Apparently I've expected too much from Disney these days, like films that have a sense of wonder that can be appreciated by children and adults alike. In the final analysis I guess what disgusts me most about Narnia is that Disney isn't just pandering to the very youngest at the expense of a wider audience, but by hyping this film to church groups based upon the author's reputation it's an obvious attempt at exploitive marketing to diffuse any controversy that might arise over the film's fantasy subject matter.
The bottom line: I know that some folks may be displeased by my comments and differ strongly with my impressions; I'm truly sorry about that. It isn't my desire to offend anyone's sensitivities or gore anyone's sacred cow ...or lion for that matter! It's just that this film with it's heavy handed symbolism, cheesy effects, poor pacing and uninspired acting fell far short of our expectations. If this is what the current trend toward epic fantasy is coming to in Hollywood then I think it may be safe to say, albeit sadly, that the trend may be over. Peter Jackson has nothing to fear and Roger Corman parodies are probably in the pipe.
Reviewed by R. Cat Conrad
Enjoy,
AuPh :o)
Follow Ups:
The film adaptation followed the book pretty well if only because there was not a whole lot of material to work with. I agree the first 30 minutes were pretty decent. After that, it went down hill. I thought there could have been more character development. [And no chance to develop realistic battle sequences without jeopardizing the "G" rating.]I was not impressed with either the book or the movie. Harry Potter was more entertaining, but that's not saying a whole lot.
I also don't understand the "encouragement" to see this movie by devote Christians. The connection I saw was tenuous at best and I vaguely recall C.S. Lewis had no intention to introduce parallels between Christianity and the Narnia chronicles. The Chronicles are a fantasy story and nothing more; a true Christian Fundamentalists would have scoffed at the idea this was a "Christian" movie.
s
"Where the wheels start coming off is from the second wardrobe excursion onward, with the chidren rapidly accepting the bizarre world they've been thrown into and the cliche` dialogue/behavior of the talking animals."An odd critique from someone who rates "Harry Potter" at the top of his list?
> > > "...talking animals." < < <If you really think about it, Harry Potter doesn't have a lot of talking animals, especially natural world animals like beavers. Talking beavers aren't an unheard of phenomenon mind you ...ummm, but maybe we shouldn't go there since we're discussing a "G" rated flick! ;^)
> > > "An odd critique from someone who rates "Harry Potter" at the top of his list?" < < <
BTW, I didn't place Harry Potter at the top of the list, that honor goes to Peter Jackson's LoTR trilogy. However, the kids in Harry Potter are far more interesting, more cleverly drawn and make more sense given their fantasy world.
In short, I saw nothing in Narnia that would make me want to go back and read the author's work.
AuPh
To compare the " Ring " to " LoTR " is to give this trilogy a legitimation that it just do not deserve.
Doing that won´t help you, it will go in the next generations as the " big kaka " of the century.
Loud and empty.
As for the benchmark " Potter ", Ah-ha!
Narnia must be a good film!
> > > 'To compare the " Ring " to " LoTR " is to give this trilogy a legitimation that it just do not deserve.' < < <The " Ring " ...? I have no idea what you're driving at here; I made no such comparison. You really need to apply some superglue on your broken english; when the only folks to whom it makes sense without subtitles are Victor and Clark you're playing to a very small house indeed! ;^)
AuPh
a
It was "...and the epic or timeless fantasy of Lord of The Rings trilogy." - Reread my post.These ARE benchmarks of the film fantasy and contemporary fantasy literature; LoTR is more traditional epic fantasy with universal themes in a well told tale while Harry Potter is grounded in the real "muggle" (mundane) world and linked to an alternative fantasy universe.
Of course you have the right to differ if your opinions are informed by anything, but at least base your criticisms on something besides "Me too!"
AuPh
a
;^)
A jerk, are you not!Ha-ha...
Those who lay rotten eggs in someone else's nest shouldn't be surprised or upset when their roost gets fouled.BTW, that closet of your's is getting filled up over on the Outside board. It's beginning to look like the statesroom scene from A Night at The Opera with you, Victor, Clark's Johnsen, Pathetic to Groundless, and dennzio occupying a phone booth sized closet! Even though it's becoming a Who's Who of the usual wingnut suspects, your Call Box isn't a Tardis, so the mental image isn't very pretty! ;^D
AuPh
nt
;^)
...looks like he just left his trailer park on his way to buy some more Bud, between the first and second parts of LOTR.All you need to do is dress smartly, take a bath and watch a couple of good movies, then you will have your chance too.
Well... you would also have to watch your dirty tongue!
> > > "... between the first and second parts of LOTR." < < <How is that misimpression different than the one of folks who try to look like faux Napoleons caught up in a more modern battle of the bulge, with their supply lines overextended after too much War and Pizza! ;^)
> > > "Well... you would also have to watch your dirty tongue!" < < <
My tongue probably isn't as long as your's & Gene Simmons, so I can't really watch it, but I'll wager that it's a heck of a lot cleaner when you start counting up "kaka" usage. ;^D
AuPh
...
Ol' Vic could probably make a sailor blush! ;^)AuPh
have to attend an adult film.
May I suggest Syriana?
I don't think you meant THAT adult film...
;^)
:o)
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
