Harry Potter & Narnia
The Christmas spirit is completely eluding my family this year. We don't even have a tree or any decorations or anything, and probably won't have. I still really enjoy seeing lots of other people's windows all lit up though, even if we don't make the effort ourselves.
I've got back into reading BtVS and ANGEL novels lately. I find the ANGEL novels to be very consistent in having well written and interesting stories, and the characterisation is usually spot-on. The BtVS ones are less consistent, but some authors create some awesome stories. I was pleased to realise that there was an early BtVS novel by Christopher Golden that I haven't yet read (Sins Of The Father), so I'm looking forward to making a start on that. I've mentioned this elsewhere, but I'm really surprised by how few people who watch the shows also read the novels. Especially now with the shows off air, I'd really have thought that lots of fans would have started to discover the novels to get their Buffyverse fix, but it really doesn't seem so. One problem with them is their lack of being canonical, and I know that shouldn't effect my enjoyment of them at all, but I can't help but be bothered that none of the things I'm reading about ever got acknowledged on the show, and sometimes eventually get contradicted. I've heard that Star Wars novels are all canonical and that George Lucas has to give approval to each one. It's a shame the same thing never happened with Joss' works, so that the books would be a true companion to the show rather than stories that exist to some extent outside of it. Still, the majority of them are well worth reading, I've found.
I saw Harry Potter And The Goblet Of Fire last week (weeks after everyone else saw it, I know), and found it to be by far the best Harry Potter movie ever. I enjoyed the first one a lot, and found the second one to be a step down, but then that is exactly how I found the first two books as well. The third book was miles and miles ahead of the first two, and yet the movie felt off to me and I didn't enjoy it as much as I had the first.
This one really worked for me though. I was so worried given that it was the same length as the previous movies, and yet the book was twice as long, that the massive cuts that would have to be made would have gutted the story entirely and left it barely comprehensible, but I think they did a remarkable job to cut things in a way to make the movie really work, flow well, and still cover the main and best parts of the book. Of course, a lot of things I had liked in the book had to be cut, but then I can still re-read the book whenever I want. The movies have a different job to do than the books, and I thought this was close to the very best they could do with the movie.
The only down side for me was some of the acting, but that's sort of inevitable, since when casting 11 year olds you can never tell if they are going to become good actors or not. The Phelps brothers and Rupert Grint were the worst offenders in my opinion, though it could just be my dislike of Ron's character that is clouding my opinions in Grint's case. And though I really like Emma Watson, she does seem to be trying too hard and so often ends up over-emphasising, well, the vast majority of her lines. It worked fine in the first couple of movies, because Years 7 and 8 pupils do often talk like that, but by the time people reach Year 10 they have stopped it. I think they really struck it gold with Daniel Radcliffe though, who has turned into a very good actor, and really does an amazing job carrying an entire movie on his shoulders and keeping his performances credible. The one other thing that doesn't quite work for me is Michael Gambon's Dumbledore. I can't complain too much because it can't be easy taking the place of a beloved actor who passed away, and had really made the role his own, but Gambon's Dumbledore so often sounds so harsh in comparison, and I find it quite jarring.
Those problems were not enough to drag the movie down much though. It'll probably end up being one of my top 20 movies of the year, and I definitely think it's the best Potter movie ever. I'll eagerly await the next movie, even knowing that they'll have to cut even more of that. Order Of The Phoenix is also my favourite of the books so far (though I know a lot of people consider it their least favourite, and even Rowling thinks it's too long, but I disagree with all of them :D), so I'll be even more eager to see it done well. I'll be confident if Mike Newell directs it though, after the excellent job he did with this movie.
I also saw The Chronicles Of Narnia: The Lion, The Witch And The Wardrobr, and found that to also be an excellent adaptation of the book. The friends who I saw the movie with were making fun of it from start to finish and didn't enjoy it even a little bit, and I guess the story (both the book and the movie) is a little simplistic, but I still think it's a lot of fun and don't really see why my friends disliked it as much as they did. Again, the child acting wasn't perfect (but unless there are four Dakota Fannings in the world, including two male ones, it's never going to be), though I really liked Anna Popplewell as Susan. The biggest problem was that Lucy's character is so young that any dialogue she has is going to seem incredibly simplistic, and I guess that can get a little tiresome after a while.
Still, the books is such a great work of imagination, and the movie was so completely faithful to it, that it's kind of hard not to like. The voice work was all really good, and stopped the talking animals from seeming in any way cheesy or silly. C.S. Lewis had said that he never wanted to see the Narnia books turned into movies or TV shows, but that was before all the recent technological advancements. I think he would have been very happy with how the movie turned out, and how Aslan came across. He was sufficiently powerful as a visual image, and Liam Neeson gave him the sort of authority and majesty that he has in the books. Best of all for me was Tilda Swinton as the White Witch. She played the role to perfection, bringing true coldness to the role during the majority of the movie, but also being completely vicious and evil during the battle scenes especially.
Overall I thought it was just a really good movie, and a really good adaptation of a book that a lot of people hold dear. The hype was out of control of course, though anything politically/religiously motivated is going to be like that. I wasn't even going to mention those elements, because I think the books and the movie work whether you're religious or not - you can take from the story what you want to take from it. Even if all the "the movie is propaganda" arguments are true, it doesn't really matter, since propaganda can still be art in my opinion, and in any case, I don't think this movie is like that at all. The themes are noticeable of course, especially if you are aware of them already, but it's nowhere near so obvious that it can't be appreciated as a story in its own right. It certainly didn't hamper my enjoyment of the movie at all.
I don't have as much to say about it as many do, and I didn't love it like many do, because I have no real emotional connection to the story. I didn't read the book until I was 20, so I never gave a single thought to Narnia as a child, I never grew up imagining it, so the movie simply had no way of working for me in the way it works for so many others. I enjoyed it a lot, but I don't really *care* about it, which is a shame I think, since it's so imaginative that it would be a really great think for a child to grow up imagining. In that way I'd put it around the same level with Charlie And The Chocolate Factory - a wonderfully created movie, that looks and sounds amazing, but which it isn't possible to *truly* appreciate unless you have some pre-existing connection to the stories that date back to your childhood.
Ok, this entry is getting long so I'll end it here. Except to mention that I really love Madonna's new song. The best she's released since probably her Ray Of Light days in my opinion. I guess it's impossible to go wrong when you use that awesome Abba sample, but still, she makes great use of it. I'm really looking forward to hearing her album now.
I've got back into reading BtVS and ANGEL novels lately. I find the ANGEL novels to be very consistent in having well written and interesting stories, and the characterisation is usually spot-on. The BtVS ones are less consistent, but some authors create some awesome stories. I was pleased to realise that there was an early BtVS novel by Christopher Golden that I haven't yet read (Sins Of The Father), so I'm looking forward to making a start on that. I've mentioned this elsewhere, but I'm really surprised by how few people who watch the shows also read the novels. Especially now with the shows off air, I'd really have thought that lots of fans would have started to discover the novels to get their Buffyverse fix, but it really doesn't seem so. One problem with them is their lack of being canonical, and I know that shouldn't effect my enjoyment of them at all, but I can't help but be bothered that none of the things I'm reading about ever got acknowledged on the show, and sometimes eventually get contradicted. I've heard that Star Wars novels are all canonical and that George Lucas has to give approval to each one. It's a shame the same thing never happened with Joss' works, so that the books would be a true companion to the show rather than stories that exist to some extent outside of it. Still, the majority of them are well worth reading, I've found.
I saw Harry Potter And The Goblet Of Fire last week (weeks after everyone else saw it, I know), and found it to be by far the best Harry Potter movie ever. I enjoyed the first one a lot, and found the second one to be a step down, but then that is exactly how I found the first two books as well. The third book was miles and miles ahead of the first two, and yet the movie felt off to me and I didn't enjoy it as much as I had the first.
This one really worked for me though. I was so worried given that it was the same length as the previous movies, and yet the book was twice as long, that the massive cuts that would have to be made would have gutted the story entirely and left it barely comprehensible, but I think they did a remarkable job to cut things in a way to make the movie really work, flow well, and still cover the main and best parts of the book. Of course, a lot of things I had liked in the book had to be cut, but then I can still re-read the book whenever I want. The movies have a different job to do than the books, and I thought this was close to the very best they could do with the movie.
The only down side for me was some of the acting, but that's sort of inevitable, since when casting 11 year olds you can never tell if they are going to become good actors or not. The Phelps brothers and Rupert Grint were the worst offenders in my opinion, though it could just be my dislike of Ron's character that is clouding my opinions in Grint's case. And though I really like Emma Watson, she does seem to be trying too hard and so often ends up over-emphasising, well, the vast majority of her lines. It worked fine in the first couple of movies, because Years 7 and 8 pupils do often talk like that, but by the time people reach Year 10 they have stopped it. I think they really struck it gold with Daniel Radcliffe though, who has turned into a very good actor, and really does an amazing job carrying an entire movie on his shoulders and keeping his performances credible. The one other thing that doesn't quite work for me is Michael Gambon's Dumbledore. I can't complain too much because it can't be easy taking the place of a beloved actor who passed away, and had really made the role his own, but Gambon's Dumbledore so often sounds so harsh in comparison, and I find it quite jarring.
Those problems were not enough to drag the movie down much though. It'll probably end up being one of my top 20 movies of the year, and I definitely think it's the best Potter movie ever. I'll eagerly await the next movie, even knowing that they'll have to cut even more of that. Order Of The Phoenix is also my favourite of the books so far (though I know a lot of people consider it their least favourite, and even Rowling thinks it's too long, but I disagree with all of them :D), so I'll be even more eager to see it done well. I'll be confident if Mike Newell directs it though, after the excellent job he did with this movie.
I also saw The Chronicles Of Narnia: The Lion, The Witch And The Wardrobr, and found that to also be an excellent adaptation of the book. The friends who I saw the movie with were making fun of it from start to finish and didn't enjoy it even a little bit, and I guess the story (both the book and the movie) is a little simplistic, but I still think it's a lot of fun and don't really see why my friends disliked it as much as they did. Again, the child acting wasn't perfect (but unless there are four Dakota Fannings in the world, including two male ones, it's never going to be), though I really liked Anna Popplewell as Susan. The biggest problem was that Lucy's character is so young that any dialogue she has is going to seem incredibly simplistic, and I guess that can get a little tiresome after a while.
Still, the books is such a great work of imagination, and the movie was so completely faithful to it, that it's kind of hard not to like. The voice work was all really good, and stopped the talking animals from seeming in any way cheesy or silly. C.S. Lewis had said that he never wanted to see the Narnia books turned into movies or TV shows, but that was before all the recent technological advancements. I think he would have been very happy with how the movie turned out, and how Aslan came across. He was sufficiently powerful as a visual image, and Liam Neeson gave him the sort of authority and majesty that he has in the books. Best of all for me was Tilda Swinton as the White Witch. She played the role to perfection, bringing true coldness to the role during the majority of the movie, but also being completely vicious and evil during the battle scenes especially.
Overall I thought it was just a really good movie, and a really good adaptation of a book that a lot of people hold dear. The hype was out of control of course, though anything politically/religiously motivated is going to be like that. I wasn't even going to mention those elements, because I think the books and the movie work whether you're religious or not - you can take from the story what you want to take from it. Even if all the "the movie is propaganda" arguments are true, it doesn't really matter, since propaganda can still be art in my opinion, and in any case, I don't think this movie is like that at all. The themes are noticeable of course, especially if you are aware of them already, but it's nowhere near so obvious that it can't be appreciated as a story in its own right. It certainly didn't hamper my enjoyment of the movie at all.
I don't have as much to say about it as many do, and I didn't love it like many do, because I have no real emotional connection to the story. I didn't read the book until I was 20, so I never gave a single thought to Narnia as a child, I never grew up imagining it, so the movie simply had no way of working for me in the way it works for so many others. I enjoyed it a lot, but I don't really *care* about it, which is a shame I think, since it's so imaginative that it would be a really great think for a child to grow up imagining. In that way I'd put it around the same level with Charlie And The Chocolate Factory - a wonderfully created movie, that looks and sounds amazing, but which it isn't possible to *truly* appreciate unless you have some pre-existing connection to the stories that date back to your childhood.
Ok, this entry is getting long so I'll end it here. Except to mention that I really love Madonna's new song. The best she's released since probably her Ray Of Light days in my opinion. I guess it's impossible to go wrong when you use that awesome Abba sample, but still, she makes great use of it. I'm really looking forward to hearing her album now.