The Chronicles of Narnia

Rich Lee said:
yeah i want to see this...

pirates 2 teaser is supposed to be in front of it? did you see it? how'd it look?
Click to expand...

That's the one thing I was REALLY upset about. It was on there for the prescreening, and looked amazing. Then I was telling the people I went to the midnight showing with about it. We got all psyched to see it again, and they cut it. Went straight from the THX certified logo to the Cars trailer. Grr.
 
Ok...heres what i thought...

I"d have to give it an "ok-ish" rating. It just was nothing special. I have not read the books and maybe thats why i didnt like it but it was boring as heck. I can take a slower movie too....this one was just dull.

The biggest thing i was suprised about were some of the technical problems it had. The worst was just plain bad keying. There are two particular scenes (one when the children are standing on the archway spanning between a mountain area...and another right when they get out of the river) where its just laughably bad. Its almost as bad as rear screen projection. I just wanted to shout out "GREENSCREEN HOLY ****!". I figured the folks at Weta would not get that wrong...and perhaps they are somehow not to blame...but its just awful.

Another thing i was dissappointed in was that Aslan was not nearly as real as i expected. It was fine when he was away from the camera and just walking around...but whenever it was on his face....it was just NOT....RIGHT. King kong...from previews looks much, much better...and i would even call Gollum better.

The action was no good because they had to stick with the PG rating....which i understand is necessary because of the audience...but it hindered the movie.

The whole thing had no rythym or flow to it. Zero pacing.

I thought they could have done more if they had made things a little more magical....and mystical. The white witch would have been scarier for me...if she didnt look like just a person in a costume. If she could have had some kind of edge to her....its hard to explain. The best example i can give is this. When her sleigh is traveling away though the woods...it moves like a prop sleigh...on a fake snow set....kind of unstable and rickedy...not gliding in any way. THIS IS FANTASY HERE! If i'm watching the sleigh of the ****ing white ***** witch, i'd better be quaking in my boots marveling at the grand and haunting way it glides effortlessly away. I could be crazy i guess....but i'd amagine a genious such as peter jackson doing things differently. Its just too based in reality...and everything that is a set...feels like one.

The music sucked hardcore. Its just way too contemporary...and NOT/GOOD. I think i heard it was that evenescence singer, who provided much of the vocals...if not all....which i dont happen to be a fan of. ONce in a great while it was ok....but for the most part....****

The things i liked were...the opening...with the war raid. That was pretty cool...reminiscent of the second episode of Band of Brothers. The proffessor was also good. The whole christian plot to it is pretty obvious...which is not a bad thing...and i guess they handled that well.

Overall...i was dissappointed. I thought the director would have done a better job. I really enjoyed shrek...and shrek 2 was pretty good as well. From watching this you can really get the sense of what a difference it makes who directs something. It was WETA workshop....for both Peter Jackson...and now Andrew Adamson...and only one made what they did great.

Ok...well that was my take, not that it counts for anything!! haha. Sorry if it upsets anyone.


(oh...the pirates trailer kicked ass though...really, that looks amazing!)
 
Who am I criticize anything of this magnitude? But sadly to say I mostly agree with Weston. Still I hope everyone goes to see the movie even though it is really a movie for children. However, I have to admit that I jumped in all the right places, laughed and even got teary eyed every now and then. So in that sense, the director did a good job.

I actually had just the opposite experience regarding the lion. The close ups of the lion seemed quite good but the long shots looked rather cartoonish to me. I think the movie is worth seeing for that reason. I would like to hear what others think.

I was particulary troubled by the lack of the depth in the screenplay. My very first attempt at any production (back in 1975) was The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe. I believe our script was much better. I will have to pull it out of the dusty old boxes from the storage shed and read it.

CS Lewis' understanding of the battle between good and evil was quite insightful. It was not simple but he made you think until you got the point. It takes the shedding of righteous blood to overcome evil. This movie took away every drop of blood that would even suggest that evil does really damage people. I rehtorically complained to my wife on the way home from the theaters "Don't they (the producers) know that kids are going to read the book?"

The main character in the book version of the story, the who goes through the biggest change, is Edmund. Maybe he does have the biggest character arch in the movie too but the depth and meaning of his change is lost.

I am a bit surprised that with all the screen time available (when nothing was happening) that more time was not used to develop the characters to at least give the audience a chance to care about what happens to the children. It is my guess that there was such pressure from the executives or whoever to keep this movie PG, the guts were ripped out of the story.

I did enjoy the sword fight between the Witch and Peter.

I hope tons of people go to see the movie simply to get enough money back to make more of the CS Lewis books. Shame on Disney for trying to make it into a Tame movie. After all Aslan is not a tame lion but he is a good one.

Craig
 
I think weta was only involved with the actually physical materials used in the film, weapons, costumes, props, etc...and then a crap load of other vfx studios (rhythm and hues was one) did the actual vfx..
 
ckalan1 said:
I hope tons of people go to see the movie simply to get enough money back to make more of the CS Lewis books. Shame on Disney for trying to make it into a Tame movie. After all Aslan is not a tame lion but he is a good one.

Craig
Click to expand...
I would like it to be successful enough for them to make a sequel or sequels. It deserves another chance.
 
I just saw it, and I must say I really enjoyed it! I thought they were very true to the book, and I was a huge fan of the book series growing up. (Read through them at least 6 times). I thought the VFX were really good too! I did notice a few "obvious green screen" shots, but I also noticed some in SW:EPIII. It didn't take away from the film for me. I really thought the animals were well done. Not too real to be freaky, but real enough to believe. The battle was a bit tame, and I wouldn't have minded seeing a little blood, but again, I forgave this detail in judging the whole picture. The performances were good all around. Tilda Swinton's portrayal of the Witch was brilliant. I really hope they adapt the rest of the series. I look forward to it. Go see this movie. It's great.
 
I really enjoyed the movie. I thought parts of it were breathtaking and just amazing visually. Yeah there were a few off shots here and there, but when it comes to effects, its pretty hard these days not to find a few shots here and there that look off no matter the budget or EFX co. used.

They stayed very close to the book and expanded parts of it, which was very smart IMO.

I thought the acting overall was really good, especially from the kids.

I liked Aslan a lot. I thought he looked good. Yeah, I knew he wasn't a real lion, but so freaking what? Real lions don't talk anyway!

Anyway, I liked it and thought it set itself apart in a post-LOTR world.

It's worth seeing on the big screen.
 
We saw the Pirates 2 trailer and it basically looked like the first movie all over again. Looked ok. I'm curious to see more footage of it and something that shows a bit more of the plot/story. It didn't suck me in or make me want to see it now, but since I thought the first one was pretty good, it made me curious to see more.
 
I already wasted 3 hrs of my life on this movie, might as well waste a few more minutes.
The movie hardly kept my interest, it was pretty boring...I thought the acting by all four kids was really, really noticably weak. Visual effects were SO-SO w/ the exception of the end battle scene, that was pretty cool. I never saw Lord of the Rings, but my friend said it's like a bad rendition of that. Oh well, you win some, you lose alot.
 
Slimothy said:
I already wasted 3 hrs of my life on this movie, might as well waste a few more minutes.
The movie hardly kept my interest, it was pretty boring...I thought the acting by all four kids was really, really noticably weak. Visual effects were SO-SO w/ the exception of the end battle scene, that was pretty cool. I never saw Lord of the Rings, but my friend said it's like a bad rendition of that. Oh well, you win some, you lose alot.
Click to expand...

You've never seen Lord of the Rings?!?! Do you live under a rock?

I have friends that could give a **** about filmmaking/fastasy epics/movies...and have seen lord of the rings, and mostly liked it. Fellowship and Two Towers are on TNT all the time now.

I haven't seen Kong yet, but I've mostly heard good things about it...with the occasinal "this movie sucks comments"



what the heck... poo poo? How do I get a point across with poo poo?
 
Bsmith said:
You've never seen Lord of the Rings?!?! Do you live under a rock?

I have friends that could give a poo poo about filmmaking/fastasy epics/movies...and have seen lord of the rings, and mostly liked it. Fellowship and Two Towers are on TNT all the time now.

I haven't seen Kong yet, but I've mostly heard good things about it...with the occasinal "this movie sucks comments"



what the heck... poo poo? How do I get a point across with poo poo?
Click to expand...
I've really wanted to see it, but just haven't had the chance as I want to sit down and watch them all at once. A LOTR Marathon. Unfortunately I'll be much older when the series is done. Soon I will do it though.
 
I have to say I really liked this movie. I grew up on the books and am just glad that a decent version of the story could be made into a film. The only thing I wondered when I left the theater was what did all of the estimated $180 million budget go to. They made two LOTR movies for that amount of money! The special effects weren't nearly as impressive and it was made up of a fairly unknown cast (except for Tilda Swinton and Liam Neeson). I guess I'm just ranting because films are becoming insanely expensive (King Kong $207 million, Superman Returns $250 million).
 
I saw this last night for the first time. I hadn't read the books since I was a child and all of the Christian undertones really made me walking in with a sour taste in my mouth. I know that is CS Lewis, but still, I had my guard immediately up as soon as I walked in.

MOVIE FAN PERSPECTIVE: This was a good film. I actually loved the children actors and thought they did an amazing job of conveying emotion and drawing me deeper into the story. The VFX were well done and help craft an amazing world of fantasty and awe. Overall it was a great story, and I loved the Edmond characters arch (selfish, betrayl, and ultimately redemption). It was a very enjoyable film, albeit, toned and scaled down for the child audience they are appealing to.

FILMMAKER POINT OF VIEW: The VFX shots are easy to pick out. During the fight scene I bet the person sitting next to me that no shot would last longer than 3 seconds, I won the bet. The editing is choppy and very new age. The CG of the lion is great and really captures his magnificence. Sound in general was spot on, exactly what you expect from Disney. Soundtrack, well, they're talking out of both sides of their mouth 'it is not a Christian movie' 'it is a Christian tale', so you feel like you're listening to new age Christian music. Certain shots are green screened so poorly you wonder if they took the previs work and threw that in the final product. Story arch, while it does lag at certain points, it has a smooth flow that makes the movie all the more enjoyable. Acting, from the witch to the children, this movie is perfectly cast. There is no one that comes to mind who I would replace in any of the roles (except for James Earl Jones as the lion, because James Earl Jones is bad asssssss).

Final Impression: Good film, recommended. The biggest problem is if I had kids I think it is too violent for them, yet they toned down the violence so it is not really enjoyable for adults who want blood and carnage (like myself). So it is this weird line where it is too timid for me and too much for children, good job Walt & Co.

I liked it though.
 
TheYankee said:
...The editing is choppy and very new age...
Click to expand...


ok, I'm intrigued, what is "new age" editing?


**by the way, I saw the film with the kids this weekend on a huge screen and all in all I liked it, but as I hadn't read the books I couldn't be sure about the way the book handled turning those kids into swordsman, that was the only think that really stuck in my head as annoying, those two boys swinging swords like warriors after a few minutes of practice?
 
Weston said:
No offense but....I think i've seen more violent spongebob cartoons.
Click to expand...

I saw it with a group of friends, all in their late 20's and early 30's. Maybe we are all jaded or over protective of the children that none of us have, but we all thought it was too violent for children. I thought that level of 'combat' and death deserved a PG13.

I don't have kids though, so this is just my opinion.
 
Shawn Murphy said:
ok, I'm intrigued, what is "new age" editing?
Click to expand...

Well this might be me, but I think you can see a certain division in films from an editing stand point beginning in the mid 80's. Prior to that you have a lot of films with these long shots. As we move further into the 80's and to today you get more into the quick cuts, point of view, and adding cuts to keep your audiences attention rather than allowing the material to do it for you.

Wait: I acknowledge, there are exceptions to my thesis.

Chronicles of Narnia really seemed cooked up for this MTV generation of shots lasting no longer than 3 seconds. Maybe it is because I am a huge fan of 60's and 70's films where you allowed the characters that the actors create to bring you deeper into the story rather than the visual style, but there was something that just shouted very loudly, wow, we're going to go for 60 shots in a minute.

Once again, this is my opinion based upon my personal likes and dislikes in films I watch. If you agree, great, if you don't, hey, opinions are like assholes, we all got them...
 
Just my termonlogy for it. In my college film classes my professor called it 'Top Gun Editing' as he was a true believer that Tom Cruise personally ushered in the death of great film work (I wonder what he would say to roles like Magnolia, Minority Report, and Jerry Maguire?).

Sorry, I should have been more specific in my initial review, but all that Enya music drifting through the crystals at my desk distracted me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top