Books, movies, and movies made from books.
In addition to some of the usual Christmas fare, I saw three movies over the weekend.
Ishq can be reviewed quite quickly: a near-fatal stabbing, two rape attempts (one serious, one "for show"), deportation, crooked cops, and two suicide attempts. Bollywood certainly has some... interesting... standards for romantic comedies.
The two I really want to talk about are Pride & Prejudice and The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe. Both are based on time-tested books, both are remakes of beloved earlier versions, both take liberties with the plot, both have some odd directorial choices.
And both kick ass.
I'm a heretic. I don't think the Colin Firth P&P was the greatest thing ever filmed, so I went into the new one with an open mind. In some ways this is a superior version. In the BBC/A&E Firth one, everyone was just too pretty. Here you could see the class differences and the lifestyle differences. Matthew MacFayden and Keira Knightley were the perfect embodiments of the characters. He projected shy-bluffing-with-pride perfectly. She is frankly not all that pretty - but she does have fine eyes and a vivaciousness that brought plain, lively Liza to life. And Judi Dench is ever a force to be reckoned with.
I will forgive - heck, I adored - two of the departures from the book: Bingley's scene practicing the proposal and that added American ending. But I didn't like the long sweeping art shots nor the departures from the text that seemed to be made just because the director could get away with it. Collapsing much of the action into the Netherfield ball made sense to pull the plots along, but why have a marble bust instead of a miniature? Why have the first proposal out in the rain after that pointless drawingroom scene (and why have MacFayden play those particular scenes as if he was Heathcliffe and not Mr. Darcy? Austen is quite clear on how that scene was supposed to go.) And those "Austen for Dummies" moments when the characters spelled out their motivations in plain English on the assumption that we didn't know what was going on were annoying in the extreme.
But on the whole - B+. It would have been an A if there had been fewer art shots and more parts of the book in the final version.
As for Narnia... it's better than I ever imagined as a child, and on the whole very faithful to the book. Which means it inherits quite a few flaws, because frankly? As literature, the Narnia books SUCK. And I say this as someone who's adored them from childhood. (Aslan's right - when you're too old you get kicked out because by then you can see all the flaws.)
The problem with adapting Narnia is that you're taking a book with a very patronizing tone, a slow and simplistic plot, next to no description, and some major special effects that have to be done perfectly or there's simply no point in doing the project at all. So I think on the whole the directorial choices were excellent. Without adding stupid subplots for the sake of subplots or significantly changing the story, Adamson (how appropriate a name!) kept major characters from being dropped halfway through the book, upped the action, and added not only personality to the children's characters, but some background as well. In the book, the Blitz gets one line. In the movie, we get to see not only the danger but the stresses that the war was putting on the family. I love that Peter says things like "we were sent to get away from the war" and "Edmund, take the girls back so they'll be safe" - sensible and realistic ideas that never crossed their little imperial heads in the book.
Much of Narnia is left to the reader's imagination - the battle is told mostly in past tense as Lucy heals people, and the coronation gets half a sentence - that it is quite an accomplishment for Adamson to make those scenes so immediate and so beautiful and so fitting.
And the special effects were glorious! The phoenix and the centaurs put Harry Potter to shame. Aslan was as magnificent as anyone could dream (and Liam Neeson was the PERFECT voice!) Jadis was suitably inhuman and regal. And it is seven kinds of wrong how hot I got for James McAvoy's darlingly bashful Mr. Tumnus.
Frankly, my only complaints are tiny ones. With all the fantastic effects, why did all the faun and centaur ears have to be so obviously rubber, and lifeless rubber at that? Give 'em a little animation! And the stiff, swollen, no-neck dresses they put on Jadis made no sense to me at all.
But such tiny, tiny nitpicks. LWW kicked booty at the box office, and I hope to hear that Prince Caspian has been green-lighted. Quick, while these kids are still young enough to reprise their roles!
Ishq can be reviewed quite quickly: a near-fatal stabbing, two rape attempts (one serious, one "for show"), deportation, crooked cops, and two suicide attempts. Bollywood certainly has some... interesting... standards for romantic comedies.
The two I really want to talk about are Pride & Prejudice and The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe. Both are based on time-tested books, both are remakes of beloved earlier versions, both take liberties with the plot, both have some odd directorial choices.
And both kick ass.
I'm a heretic. I don't think the Colin Firth P&P was the greatest thing ever filmed, so I went into the new one with an open mind. In some ways this is a superior version. In the BBC/A&E Firth one, everyone was just too pretty. Here you could see the class differences and the lifestyle differences. Matthew MacFayden and Keira Knightley were the perfect embodiments of the characters. He projected shy-bluffing-with-pride perfectly. She is frankly not all that pretty - but she does have fine eyes and a vivaciousness that brought plain, lively Liza to life. And Judi Dench is ever a force to be reckoned with.
I will forgive - heck, I adored - two of the departures from the book: Bingley's scene practicing the proposal and that added American ending. But I didn't like the long sweeping art shots nor the departures from the text that seemed to be made just because the director could get away with it. Collapsing much of the action into the Netherfield ball made sense to pull the plots along, but why have a marble bust instead of a miniature? Why have the first proposal out in the rain after that pointless drawingroom scene (and why have MacFayden play those particular scenes as if he was Heathcliffe and not Mr. Darcy? Austen is quite clear on how that scene was supposed to go.) And those "Austen for Dummies" moments when the characters spelled out their motivations in plain English on the assumption that we didn't know what was going on were annoying in the extreme.
But on the whole - B+. It would have been an A if there had been fewer art shots and more parts of the book in the final version.
As for Narnia... it's better than I ever imagined as a child, and on the whole very faithful to the book. Which means it inherits quite a few flaws, because frankly? As literature, the Narnia books SUCK. And I say this as someone who's adored them from childhood. (Aslan's right - when you're too old you get kicked out because by then you can see all the flaws.)
The problem with adapting Narnia is that you're taking a book with a very patronizing tone, a slow and simplistic plot, next to no description, and some major special effects that have to be done perfectly or there's simply no point in doing the project at all. So I think on the whole the directorial choices were excellent. Without adding stupid subplots for the sake of subplots or significantly changing the story, Adamson (how appropriate a name!) kept major characters from being dropped halfway through the book, upped the action, and added not only personality to the children's characters, but some background as well. In the book, the Blitz gets one line. In the movie, we get to see not only the danger but the stresses that the war was putting on the family. I love that Peter says things like "we were sent to get away from the war" and "Edmund, take the girls back so they'll be safe" - sensible and realistic ideas that never crossed their little imperial heads in the book.
Much of Narnia is left to the reader's imagination - the battle is told mostly in past tense as Lucy heals people, and the coronation gets half a sentence - that it is quite an accomplishment for Adamson to make those scenes so immediate and so beautiful and so fitting.
And the special effects were glorious! The phoenix and the centaurs put Harry Potter to shame. Aslan was as magnificent as anyone could dream (and Liam Neeson was the PERFECT voice!) Jadis was suitably inhuman and regal. And it is seven kinds of wrong how hot I got for James McAvoy's darlingly bashful Mr. Tumnus.
Frankly, my only complaints are tiny ones. With all the fantastic effects, why did all the faun and centaur ears have to be so obviously rubber, and lifeless rubber at that? Give 'em a little animation! And the stiff, swollen, no-neck dresses they put on Jadis made no sense to me at all.
But such tiny, tiny nitpicks. LWW kicked booty at the box office, and I hope to hear that Prince Caspian has been green-lighted. Quick, while these kids are still young enough to reprise their roles!