Jump to content
jester

Cam's in-depth review of Chronicles of Narnia

Recommended Posts

I don't dismiss their value for the entire audience. But I am not sure I would want to read/watch things that I hope to go through with a child in the next 10 years anyway, and if what I heard about children is true, well... repeatedly. :)

Share this post


Link to post

I remember quite liking Chronicles of Narnia when I originally read them. I don't remember any battle scenes as I saw in the movie preview, (I seem to remember the battles happening in the following books) but it's been an awfully long time since I read the Chronicles. I'll have to wait a bit to see Narnia and Kong, as I think they're only just about to come out here in Oz.

Edited by BigRob

Share this post


Link to post

I just saw Narnia today and I really enjoyed it. It does seem to hold fairly true to the book. And I don't think it plays just to children. although my husband didn't enjoy it much (not much of a fantasy fan).

Share this post


Link to post

King Kong: I loved it. For those who are concerned, Jack Black is ok - slightly manic and eye-twitchy, but I put that down to the character he portrayed. The dinosaurs were fantastic (go the tiny T Rex arms!). My advice is to find yourself an 11 year old boy to sit near because listening to him exclaim in awe at the dinosaurs is very fun.

 

Chronicles of Narnia (the books): ARGHHHHHHHHH, Domi you have to read them! The talking lion is magnificent rather than childish - though I'm leery of watching the movie because I'm not sure they chose the best actor for Aslan's voice. With the 'going through the books with the kids' factor, the Narnia books don't tend to be a bedtime reading experience due to the heavy subject matter.

 

Also, you should always begin with number 2 - The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe (as the movies have correctly done). Once you're suckered in, then you can begin with the rest of them. As long as you're not expecting Harry Potter and don't mind snotty little kids (eg "You horrid beast!"), you will have a chance at enjoying them. :O The Voyage of the Dawn Treader and The Silver Chair are great - and don't even try to read The Last Battle until you've read the others.

 

And Lord Ernie, what was wrong with the Magician's Nephew? It was a dem fine book, a dem fine one! :D

Edited by cliffette

Share this post


Link to post

I agree with Cliffette. Though in King Kong, I thought the creepy leeches and other invertebrates were cooler than the dinosaurs.

Share this post


Link to post

Ditto. I thought the movie was fantastic. Jack Black got off to a bad start, but steadily improved as the movie progressed. To his credit, he played the role well enough that I really did despise the character by the end of the movie (as expected). The adults in the theater were the worst when it came to the bugs. There was one guy screaming and carrying on something terrible; it was hilarious.

 

The Chronicles of Narnia was OK, but I didn't really find anything exceptional in the movie. The acting was decent, but there aren't going to be any Oscar picks from the film. Aslan looked like a stuffed animal throughout the entire movie (actually, I thought most of the vaunted special effects were fairly bland). Brokeback Mountain was really good, although slow in a couple of places. It really was an exceptional screenplay, however. Capote was good, but I can't really stand Philip Seymour Hoffman. Syriana was decent, but a little manic (seriously, they may as well have titled it Traffic 2). Memoirs of a Geisha was good (I love Michelle Yeoh), but some might be disappointed that not everybody is actually Japanese. Walk the Line was decent, but I'm not a huge fan of non-fiction works. Jarhead wasn't that good.

 

We were going to sneak into Harry Potter (after seeing King Kong), but everyone's butt hurt and we were too tired (nobody really wanted to see it, me least of all). I eventually want to check out Wolf Creek (I laugh every time I see the preview for some reason), but I doubt I'll pay $8 to see it in the theater.

Share this post


Link to post

The words "Wolf Creek" have been mentioned. Ok, onto the soap box...

 

I would strongly advise against seeing it. It is grim, sadistic crap that happens to have been filmed beautifully. It's a slasher flick that is not enjoyable, completely tasteless and marketed in a horribly cynical and exploitative way. Like hell it's "Based on true events".

 

Here is a quote that encapsulates how I feel about this film:

"the film feels like an unseemly attempt to wring a new horror franchise out of somebody else's dead children."

 

And here's another one:

"While the movie is certainly unsettling, and even repulsive in parts, it's not actually frightening; graphic depictions of mindless cruelty are more revolting than scary."

 

Another word to describe how I feel about this film: Vomitous.

Share this post


Link to post
It's a slasher flick that is not enjoyable, completely tasteless and marketed in a horribly cynical and exploitative way. Like hell it's "Based on true events".
Is this from having seen the movie, or is there something else going on here?

Share this post


Link to post

It is from having seen the movie and I regret spending money on seeing it because it wasn't enjoyable at all.

 

My problem was mainly with the marketing - logically, most of the movie could not have been based on true events, seeing as most of main characters don't survive to say what happened to them. Thus it does seem to be exploiting the stories of people who really have died (Ivan Milat's victims, Peter Falconio), possibly in horrible ways.

 

If they'd marketed the movie as a plain old fictional slasher film, then I wouldn't have nearly so much of a problem with it. As it is, the movie tries to gain class by acting like a serious film dealing with real people when it is just an excuse for made-up sadism.

 

Having said that, my sister and ex-housemate thought it was really good. The friends I watched it with all felt sick afterwards and one had to leave the theatre. I'm not sure which reaction you'll have, seeing as you laughed during the trailers, but surely that's better than feeling the urge to throw up...

Share this post


Link to post
Chronicles of Narnia (the books): ARGHHHHHHHHH, Domi you have to read them! The talking lion is magnificent rather than childish - though I'm leery of watching the movie because I'm not sure they chose the best actor for Aslan's voice. With the 'going through the books with the kids' factor, the Narnia books don't tend to be a bedtime reading experience due to the heavy subject matter.

 

My poor imaginary kid is likely to go directly from Hobbit to Asterix to A Game of Thrones, seeing how I have no idea what the English children books are, and how s/he is likely won't understand Pushkin, Yershov and Bajov! :O So, Narnia or Harry won't be that bad in comparison.

Edited by Domi

Share this post


Link to post
I have no idea what the English children books are,

Anything by Roald Dahl should be required reading for all English speaking children.

Share this post


Link to post

Well, i could tolerate, or even enjoy, the Harry Potter books, but Narnia was a bit too girlish for me :O

I read only one, the Lion/Witch/Wardrobe one, but i cannot imagine myself reading more.

Share this post


Link to post
I have no idea what the English children books are,

Anything by Roald Dahl should be required reading for all English speaking children.

Even though it would create a swarm of psychopats :O

Any book I read from him had a strong touch of thinly veiled pervertion.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...