(no subject)
Dec. 8th, 2005 06:27 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
the_elyanAs I've probably mentioned previously, one of the few advantages of being unemployed is the ability to go see movies during the day.
Thus it was that today I went to the first screening on the first day of release of the new Narnia film.
It's rather dangerous for me to say too much about the movie, because I haven't read The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe for at least ten years, and have never read any of the other Narnia books, so I have very little background to judge the film by.
On the whole it was a most enjoyable experience, but my gob remained unsmacked, probably because I've been spoiled by watching the Lord of the Rings films at least half a dozen times apiece. Thus while this film is visually impressive, it's no more visually impressive than the LotR films, so there isn't the same sense of a quantum leap forwards. And I must admit that, just once or twice, the blue-screening is a little obvious (this is probably true in the LotR films too, but I didn't seem to notice it so much). The only major thing done in this one over and above the LotR effects is the talking animals, and I have a slightly ambivalent attitude toward such things in any case - the anthropomorphism (?) of animals always makes me faintly uneasy, even in such an obviously fantastic setting.
The story is exactly as I remember it from my dim recollections of the book. In fact, if anything, there is the opposite problem to the last HP film, for instance - LW&W is a short book, so mapped onto a 135-minute film, there is the odd moment where a little voice is shouting "Get on with it!" - not enough to spiil the thing significantly, however.
The performances are generally good, if cast a little too obviously to type - Ray Winstone gives it his new second-string as bluff, funny Cockney (a psychopathic Mr Beaver with multiple personality disorders might have been more interesting, come to think), Dawn French is rather oo-arr, and Liam Neeson is all quiet, understated dignity as Aslan (talk about playing God...).
The children are generally excellent, especially (as often seems to be the case) the youngest one, whose wide-eyed wonder is very believable. Any weaknesses in the children's performances really spring from the original characters (and again,. I apologise to anyone who knows the books better than I) - it seemed to me that Lewis didn't quite have the measure of children, and that consequently some of the dialogue feels a little stilted, its desire to explain the characters a little too obvious ("You think you're Father, Peter, and you're not!" - subtle as a dropped brick)
If the above asounds like I didn't like the film, it should eb realised that I'm thinking in a French Oral style - ie starting from perfect, and deducting marks. It remains a very enjoyable film, by and large, and the best bits are very good indeed. Just not maybe the zenith of the film-making art - but at least it will wash away the memory of the atrocious animated version (if you remember it as actually being opretty good, I recommend sitting down and watching it again) forever...
I saw the film in a cinema that seated 500-odd, and had about nine people in it. This suited me perfectly - apart from obviously communal film experiences (Monty Python films, the Blues Brothers etc), generally the emptier the cinema is, the happier I am. I know for some people there is a communal aspect to the whole thing, the feeling of being part of a crowd being moved together by the same tides, but for me, the aim is to get inot the film itself, and the reactions around me are a distraction from them - in a perfect film experience for me is where I am no longer aware of where I am, or with whom...
Thus it was that today I went to the first screening on the first day of release of the new Narnia film.
It's rather dangerous for me to say too much about the movie, because I haven't read The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe for at least ten years, and have never read any of the other Narnia books, so I have very little background to judge the film by.
On the whole it was a most enjoyable experience, but my gob remained unsmacked, probably because I've been spoiled by watching the Lord of the Rings films at least half a dozen times apiece. Thus while this film is visually impressive, it's no more visually impressive than the LotR films, so there isn't the same sense of a quantum leap forwards. And I must admit that, just once or twice, the blue-screening is a little obvious (this is probably true in the LotR films too, but I didn't seem to notice it so much). The only major thing done in this one over and above the LotR effects is the talking animals, and I have a slightly ambivalent attitude toward such things in any case - the anthropomorphism (?) of animals always makes me faintly uneasy, even in such an obviously fantastic setting.
The story is exactly as I remember it from my dim recollections of the book. In fact, if anything, there is the opposite problem to the last HP film, for instance - LW&W is a short book, so mapped onto a 135-minute film, there is the odd moment where a little voice is shouting "Get on with it!" - not enough to spiil the thing significantly, however.
The performances are generally good, if cast a little too obviously to type - Ray Winstone gives it his new second-string as bluff, funny Cockney (a psychopathic Mr Beaver with multiple personality disorders might have been more interesting, come to think), Dawn French is rather oo-arr, and Liam Neeson is all quiet, understated dignity as Aslan (talk about playing God...).
The children are generally excellent, especially (as often seems to be the case) the youngest one, whose wide-eyed wonder is very believable. Any weaknesses in the children's performances really spring from the original characters (and again,. I apologise to anyone who knows the books better than I) - it seemed to me that Lewis didn't quite have the measure of children, and that consequently some of the dialogue feels a little stilted, its desire to explain the characters a little too obvious ("You think you're Father, Peter, and you're not!" - subtle as a dropped brick)
If the above asounds like I didn't like the film, it should eb realised that I'm thinking in a French Oral style - ie starting from perfect, and deducting marks. It remains a very enjoyable film, by and large, and the best bits are very good indeed. Just not maybe the zenith of the film-making art - but at least it will wash away the memory of the atrocious animated version (if you remember it as actually being opretty good, I recommend sitting down and watching it again) forever...
I saw the film in a cinema that seated 500-odd, and had about nine people in it. This suited me perfectly - apart from obviously communal film experiences (Monty Python films, the Blues Brothers etc), generally the emptier the cinema is, the happier I am. I know for some people there is a communal aspect to the whole thing, the feeling of being part of a crowd being moved together by the same tides, but for me, the aim is to get inot the film itself, and the reactions around me are a distraction from them - in a perfect film experience for me is where I am no longer aware of where I am, or with whom...
