Posted: 12/11/2005 3:56:07 PM EDT
|
I just reread the first couple of books, and due to their length thought "This will be fairly easy to adapt." Indeed they were. Though the screen characters are slightly more comical than I would have liked in some cases, the overall flick was good. ______________________ Spoiler warning (minor) ______________________ Aslan was smaller than I got the impression of him. Peter and Edmund's relationship was a bit overdone IMO. |
|
Ever see the BBC version from about 20 years ago? British acting mixed with cartoon mixed graphics. Train wreck of galactic porportions. Battles consisted of plastic swords with about 15 actors. Watching it was like watching a train wreck, in slow-mo. I'm looking forward to going to see this one though. We almost went out last night but we missed the last showing. -Steve |
|
Good flick, it's aimed at a relatively young audience. It is meant to be scary but not so terrifying as to induce nightmares and trauma in young children. In this regard, it is very different than, say, Peter Jackson's "Lord Of The Rings". Anyone heard any news about Jackson doing "The Hobbit" now that "King Kong" is in the can? |
|
I went and saw it on Monday. I thought the movie as a whole was very well done, and will probably get it on DVD when it comes out. The CGI was outstanding. The young girl who played Lucy was amazingly good. The girl playing Susand did a decent job, as did the boy playing Edmund. The guy who played Peter, in my opinion, sucked. I think his acting needed a lot of work, but the screenwriters deserved a bit of the blame for that also. While the movie was made for a younger audience, I think they really did his character injustice. The film definately could have used another 30 minutes of developing Peter (Who's supposed to be the wisest and bravest...and comes off as a real twit). Azlan was very well done, as was the White Witch. With the shabbiness of Peter, poor screenwriting adaptation, and some of the worst swordplay I've seen in a battle scene, I've got to lower the score a bit - with Lucy, CGI, White Witch, and Tumnis the Faun bringing it up a notch. 7 out of 10 ETA: The beavers were cool too. |
|
We have gone to one movie a year for the last four years. the rest of thime we get them from the library. This was worth it, just ask my kids 11, 8, 6 yrs old. They loved it. wanted to know when they could see it again, another wanted to buy it. That who it was made for, not some old guy. They loved it, I loved it! |
The only other place I'd seen her was when she played Gabriel in Constantine. I think that is why she really gave me a really evil vibe. |
|
I didn't like it that much. I enjoyed the cartoon version much better, but my memory may be flawed, I haven't seen it since I was a kid. About five years ago I was talking to ppl about scary movies and I mentioned Watership Down as being the scariest movie ever. I re-watched it and wondered why I had been avoiding it all these years. But when I was little... the nightmares about bloody bunnies lasted for YEARS. Slightly skewed memories... |
|
I went and saw this over the weekend, good movie, but here's some free advice. If you're not bringing kids and want to keep your sanity, DO NOT GO TO AN AFTERNOON SHOWING. Way too many kids. And I don't mean 7-8 year olds. Parents were bringing kids under 2, and there was one that look no older than 6 months that kept crying. I made it through about 40 mins before I got up and walked out and got a pass to come back at a later time, which I did later that night. Movie theaters should think about having a NO CHILDREN showing. |
|
Saw the movie last Friday and absolutely loved it. It is so full of Christian allegory I don't know where to start: the Devil and temptation, repentence and forgiveness, atonement, resurrection, captive souls set free, etc. I found the witch to be terrifying. It was her subtlety in the early parts of the movie that make her so scary to me. Reminds me of how often I sell myself short for some trivial pleasure. Wonderful movie. |
|
I really liked it, but it is an adaptation. There were things in it that were not in the book, and things in the book not in the movie. A couple of Narnia blunders, that only real Narnians would notice. Like riding a talking horse, but overall it was okay. I like the actors, but didn't like the arguing between Susan and Peter. Its not in the book, and her character in the movie comes off way to snotty. Close enough for Hollywood though. I'd see it again, and I'm sure I'll get the DVD. Rumor has the second movie out in December 2007. |
Susan did come accross a little too argumentative in the movie. |
I've read them all multiple times. You don't ride a talking horse except in times of great need, and then only with permission. In "A Horse and His Boy" Shasta rides the horse, but it was because he had been gone from Narnia so long he forgot what it was like. The girls horse allows her to ride it, but only because of the great need, and no one knows either horse talks..... except the riders of course. In "The Final Battle" they are shocked to see the invaders using talking horses for labor, since that just isn't done. |
Exactly. 
|
|
A few observations about the movie, in case anyone missed em (warning: potential spoilers): Aslan = Christ Edmond = humanity Queen/Witch = satan Edmond being a traitor = humanity being a sinner Witch demanding traitor's blood = the wages of sin is death Aslan taking Edmond's place on the 'stone' = Christ taking humanity's place on the cross Edmond lived because of Aslan = people can live because of Christ, if they believe There are many more symbolisms; but these are the important ones BTW, GREAT movie |