(2008) ***
As a devoted reader of the series of books on which the Narnia films are based, I really wanted to like this movie. I enjoyed the "The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe," in which the charm, plot, dialogue, and overall atmosphere of the first book were nicely translated to the big screen. In his second venture, the director (Andrew Adamson) apparently thought he could improve on C.S. Lewis. Sigh. The acting talent was there, the big-budget CGI, the visuals; however, the core themes of the book were neglected in favor of splashier action/war sequences that either didn't appear in the book or appeared in vestigial form. Because the underlying themes were underdeveloped, the action scenes lacked emotional weight. This film has been called an attempt to do "LOTR lite" and unfortunately it has that flavor. Even my age-inappropriate crush on William Moseley added insufficient interest. At one point in the movie I had my head propped sideways into my hand, rarely a good sign. Thankfully, Michael Apted is directing "Voyage of the Dawn Treader," so stay tuned for my 2010 review.
10 comments:
I never read this book - only "The Lion, etc."
I clearly remember the first time they made a movie from a book I had read - it was "Mrs. Frisby and the Rats of Nimh." GREAT book, then they made the movie and I was all excited to see it. Octo and I went to see it with our Mom, and they had changed a bunch of integral stuff! Bummer.
And so, DCD learned a lesson that day...Hollywood sucks, books are cool.
Sorry to hear this. I enjoyed the first movie, and was looking forward to the next. I am with DCD though, only read the 1st book as far as I remember. I think I started the second as a kid, was so distressed that the Narnia world was so changed, that I gave up on it.
AC, no such thing as age-innappropriate crushes...we're all still young, and if Larry King can do it...
dcd, i'm usually with you on the books>movies thing, but LOTR had let me hope again.
miko, see it anyway, and let us know what you think. some of the critics felt this was a stronger movie than the first, and if you haven't read the book on which its based you'll probably enjoy this one too. and thanks for your defense of my hollywood crushes. though i think i'm the oldest horrorthonner, i'm not quite as old as larry king.
No one on Earth is as old as Larry King.
I remember this being one of the weaker books in the series. I think I only read it 2-3 times, unlike TLW&W, Horse and His Boy, and Silver Chair. This one had some major slow spots, IIR.
As for books to movies, it probably the case that more often movies are better works of art than the books they were based on, but that's only because so many good movies have been inspired by crappy novels that noone's ever heard of. I think it allows the screenwriter/director freedom to do what they want, whereas with famous stuff, directors feel like they're just supposed to transcribe the book onto film. Bad idea, usually.
the narnia book i've read the least is "the last battle." never really dug it. next time i read my way through the series i'll have to figure out whether "the last battle" is less good or if i'm just sad aboout the series ending (and the way it ends).
I read the Narnia books as a kid, again in the 90's, and the first four just a year or two ago. All those reads left me with the same opinion that Prince Caspian kinda sucks. It seems organic to revisit the place and have the Golden Age fallen to ruin, but neither Dawn Treader or Silver Chair do that and they're way, way more fun.
Also, PC's got that weird hippie parade at the end, where Aslan leads a bunch of wood critters and minstrels around town and everything goes crazy -- including an incident in which an old man is beating a kid with a switch in his front yard and when the parade comes by he winds up turning into a tree. I mean, overturning a regime with a destructive philosophy is one thing, but that's of a harsh violation of due process to inflict on a citizen.
That's an interesting tack to take, Landshark, I would think the prevailing opinion is that the movies are usually the disappointing piece of art, but then again in that case you are talking about the famous ones.
I met a guy once who said he always saw the movie before reading the book, because the reverse would result in disappointment. While I can believe in that math, I think it would totally suck to ruin the ends of all the books you want to read.
A book adaptation is a complicated thing to do right. Just as transcribing a book can suck, there's also that irritating meddling attitude of "well this is the movie, so we have to make it different" Underlying that attitude is an assumption that the movie will become, by default, the definitive version of the story. (The Joker having killed Bruce Wayne's parents comes to mind.)
Then you get breaths of fresh air like the X-Men flicks or Lord of the Rings. Movies that really get the source material and simply put it on the screen with a seeming "duh." Or course, the LOTR movies have differences from their sources, but the spirit of the thing is wholly intact. (As are a lot of details, you only need to see Gandalf walk through Bilbo's round, green door to see that.)
Anyway, it's a tricky wicket.
Agreed on the trickiness. I just finished the whole Harry Potter series again last night. God, I love those books!!
We've seen the mixed success those movies have had as far as trying to keep to the books. I am curious to see how they handle the last four.
Your comments are right on the money. Action lacked any emotional tie in as the characters and story were very underdeveloped. A very sophmore effort.
Yeah, octo. I'm thinking more along the types of movies based on books that we didn't know were books until the movies made them famous.
Alexander Payne is known for this, and from my attempt at reading Sideways, I think it's deserved. What a crappy novel.
I think a lot of the old noir and western classics are based on cheap pulpy novels, and yet become complex works when in the hands of Hitchcock, Ford, Lang, etc.
Post a Comment