Cam's in-depth review of Chronicles of Narnia

[jester]

Well, I cannot possibly see this without having consulted with this ongoing series first. So please:

[CamDawg]

Sorry, I'm waiting until I re-read the books first. I just started on the Magician's Nephew last night, so bear with me.

[icelus]

I really must be the last person around to have never read any of these books.

[Lord Ernie]

Surprisingly enough, I have. I've even read the first one, thought it was pretty crappy... very much a children's book, actually. And from what I've seen in the movie trailers, the movie's got very little to do with the books, anyway (though they did borrow the rather lame title).

[Evaine Dian]

There's a short scene in the beginning and a longer sequence in the middle which are different from the book, but I wouldn't say that "the movie's got very little to do with the books".

[NiGHTMARE]

Forget Narnia, it's the in-depth review of Kong I'm most interested in .

[CamDawg]

Forget Narnia, it's the in-depth review of Kong I'm most interested in .

I can offer one from watching the commercials:

 

"Sucks and blows."

 

Seriously. Someone thought Jack Black can act? Kong lives in Jurassic Park?

[Tameon the Dragoon]

"Sucks and blows."

 

Seriously. Someone thought Jack Black can act? Kong lives in Jurassic Park?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Jack Black is my hero. He rocks my socks! Besides, it was always established Kong chilled with dinosaurs back in Kong-land.

[NiGHTMARE]

Yeah, there were dinosaurs in the 1933 original; it was the 1976 version which messed around with the formula by only having a giant snake. From what I hear, Peter Jackson's version is more faithful to the original than the seventies version in quite a few other ways, too.

[Andyr]

I like Jack Black; he's good for funny arsehole roles.

[Drew]

I really must be the last person around to have never read any of these books.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No, you aren't. I started reading the first one, but never finished due to the fact that it sucked. More than The Lord of the Rings did.

 

EDIT: quoted the wrong thing.

[jester]

I think I remember an animated version of the story which was very gripping at the time. So my hopes are still high for this film.

[Bri]

They are quite correct Cam, the original King Kong version did have dinosaurs...and I loved it. Yes, the effects are quite hokey by today's standards, but I still enjoyed them. The one scene where Kong bend's the dino's head so far back that it breaks, and blood wells up...well, it is enough I vividly remember it.

 

I don't know how the movie will be, but I admit the previews actually did whet my appetite...and I really hate Jack Black.

 

As for the Narnia movie, I liked it as well. Of course, you first have to be a fan of the books. The movie was fairly faithful to the book, and in my opinion, actually portrayed the characters better.

 

One thing a person does have to bear in mind is that the Chronicles of Narnia were written with children in mind, so that will definitely influence one's thinking. And given that Lewis himself admitted he tried to write Chronicles as an allegory for Christianity, it definitely can come off as preachy.

 

...and yet, it was the mythological touches that got me hooked into the series (and later AD&D). (The cartoon Jester mentioned also helped ).

 

Funny thing is, Lewis definitely didn't want to see a live-action movie version of Chronicles. One of the reasons was that the animals wouldn't be 'real'. It was alright in a cartoon (or on radio...and yes, there had been a BBC version of Chronicles done on-air way back when), but he drew the line at a live action version. (The later one done with puppets and whatnot was done with permission of the estate since Lewis had died in the 60's...and would have probably refused it).

 

If anyone hated the Narnia series, then I emphatically recommend staying away from Lewis' sci-fi series (Out of the Silent Planet, Perelandra, and That Hideous Strength). They are horrible allegory, and even worse science-fiction.

[Domi]

I really must be the last person around to have never read any of these books.

 

Heh, I am another person who did not, and I don't think I will untill I have children myself (same as Harry Potter). The movie from the previews looked so childish... A talking lion, ye gods.

[neriana]

I really must be the last person around to have never read any of these books.

 

Heh, I am another person who did not, and I don't think I will untill I have children myself (same as Harry Potter). The movie from the previews looked so childish... A talking lion, ye gods.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I must strenuously disagree with the idea that a talking animal (Aslan's not really an animal, but anyway) in a fantasy world is "childish". Just because Disney does it, doesn't make the notion a childish one. Animals communicating in some form of language with humans is the basis of a ton of mythology throughout the world.

 

I also have to take issue with the idea that something made for children must necessarily hold less value than something made for adults. Alice in Wonderland, The Wizard of Oz, and The Chronicles of Narnia, among many, many others, are great classics. (It's too early to say with Harry Potter.) Their use of language, the issues they deal with, and the sheer storytelling abilities of their authors puts them far above most "adult" books. They are rich and rewarding for anyone with the courage to enter into that imaginative realm. So, while it is certainly legitimate to discuss flaws in the works, as works, it is not legitimate to dismiss them merely because they were written for children.