Narnia
Narnia has restored my faith in movies again.
When transferring a successful book to the big screen, a lot of directors/writers forget a crucial fact: the book is good. people like the book. You wouldn't make this movie if people hadn't liked the book. Why take the artistic freedom to create something that wasn't in the book while leaving so much of the actual events out?
My main criticism about Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings was exactly this -- a whole lot that didn't get it on one hand and making up sequences and story lines on the other (Elves in Helm's Deep? Aragorn taking a swim on route? the list goes on and on). However, Jackson was able to preserve what is known as the illusive "spirit of the books", and with breathtaking art and imagination, he brought Middle Earth to life. This, in oppose to Newell's Harry Potter, on which I commented a few posts back.
Andrew Adamson, the director and co writer for Narnia: the movie, managed to do both things, and do it beautifully. He stayed loyal to the book with very little additions, and even in these additions he made sure it kept the spirit of the book. The Narnia on-screen looked exactly, to the letter, like it is described in C.S. Lewis' books. The scenery, the art, the customs, the special effects, the CGI -- everything -- brings Narnia to life.
Casting is right on the money. There is a pretty big chance, that when casting to the parts of the children (especially for the part of Lucy) to be stuck with annoying kids that make you wish you can slap them silly. As I said - casting here nailed it. I cannot find anything bad to say about any of the actors - they all played superbly.
Cutting and directing are exemplary. The use of the sound track, the editing of the battle sequence, the transitions between sequences are all something that can be used for teaching.
When I go out to see a movie that is based on a book I loved - I expect to see whatever it was I imagined right there on the big screen. Adamson did a spectacular job doing just this. Some people, I suspect, will grunt something about this movie being for children - and to them I will say three things, and three things alone: (1) This is based on a children's book. (2) It is the best adaptation from books to cinema I can think of and (3) you don't know shit about shit. Shut up!
God! I can live with people disagreeing with me whether a movie is good or not, but complaining that Narnia is made for children, is like complaining Harry Potter features magic. What did you expect for goodness sake? That the part of Peter is played by a 30 something black man, that falls in love with Susan? That we will reveal that Jadis used to be an abused child? What kind of an "adult" theme do you want to put in this movie? I know! the movie don't have a love scene -- so why not stir things up with some hot bestiality scene featuring two under aged girls! There is no way, no way at all to make this movie better than it already is. You want a different story? GO SEE A DIFFERENT MOVIE!
When transferring a successful book to the big screen, a lot of directors/writers forget a crucial fact: the book is good. people like the book. You wouldn't make this movie if people hadn't liked the book. Why take the artistic freedom to create something that wasn't in the book while leaving so much of the actual events out?
My main criticism about Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings was exactly this -- a whole lot that didn't get it on one hand and making up sequences and story lines on the other (Elves in Helm's Deep? Aragorn taking a swim on route? the list goes on and on). However, Jackson was able to preserve what is known as the illusive "spirit of the books", and with breathtaking art and imagination, he brought Middle Earth to life. This, in oppose to Newell's Harry Potter, on which I commented a few posts back.
Andrew Adamson, the director and co writer for Narnia: the movie, managed to do both things, and do it beautifully. He stayed loyal to the book with very little additions, and even in these additions he made sure it kept the spirit of the book. The Narnia on-screen looked exactly, to the letter, like it is described in C.S. Lewis' books. The scenery, the art, the customs, the special effects, the CGI -- everything -- brings Narnia to life.
Casting is right on the money. There is a pretty big chance, that when casting to the parts of the children (especially for the part of Lucy) to be stuck with annoying kids that make you wish you can slap them silly. As I said - casting here nailed it. I cannot find anything bad to say about any of the actors - they all played superbly.
Cutting and directing are exemplary. The use of the sound track, the editing of the battle sequence, the transitions between sequences are all something that can be used for teaching.
When I go out to see a movie that is based on a book I loved - I expect to see whatever it was I imagined right there on the big screen. Adamson did a spectacular job doing just this. Some people, I suspect, will grunt something about this movie being for children - and to them I will say three things, and three things alone: (1) This is based on a children's book. (2) It is the best adaptation from books to cinema I can think of and (3) you don't know shit about shit. Shut up!
God! I can live with people disagreeing with me whether a movie is good or not, but complaining that Narnia is made for children, is like complaining Harry Potter features magic. What did you expect for goodness sake? That the part of Peter is played by a 30 something black man, that falls in love with Susan? That we will reveal that Jadis used to be an abused child? What kind of an "adult" theme do you want to put in this movie? I know! the movie don't have a love scene -- so why not stir things up with some hot bestiality scene featuring two under aged girls! There is no way, no way at all to make this movie better than it already is. You want a different story? GO SEE A DIFFERENT MOVIE!