The Lion, the Witch & the Wardrobe - the movie

[Jennpurr]

Xita, I find it incredibly amusing that you named your board after a story that you don't particularily care for. Regardless of who helped fund the movie I didn't find any homophobic undertones whatsoever. So it doesn't really matter to me who funded it. Let them spend their money.

Murder, forcing creatures into submission against their will, and turning others into stone sound like admirable qualities that I too would someday like to posess. I have to admit Tilda Swinton really did do a good job as the witch. I can't think of anyone better to have played the role. My only regret is that Richard Harris was not able to play the lion. But still, what a pretty kitty!

[Emms]

I saw Narnia earlier this week. I liked it...but I liked the original movie better. The story-line in the original was better, I thought. Graphics aren't everything right?

xoxo
Emms

[WebWarlock]

Xita, I find it incredibly amusing that you named your board after a story that you don't particularily care for.

Well there are few things to consider.
- The movie is not the book, nor is it the old BBC series.
- The board also almost had another name.

Warlock

[Hemiola]

Having finally found time to see it last night, herewith follows my two cents:

1. I must add my praise for the casting. The children looked and acted like real children, and not "movie kids" if you take my meaning. And of course Tilda Swinton was both regal and frightening, while Liam Neeson was perfectly believable as the voice of Aslan.

2. Unlike some previous posters, I found the spfx to be "state-of-the-art"--perhaps my standards are lower . The lion was certainly more convincing than the "pantomime lion" used in the BBC adaptation, and I found the beavers to be quite realistic (we have them here in New York State, so I'm in a position to know ). In fact, the only character who came off as a little "cartoonish" was the Professor.

3. Regardless of who may have contributed funds to the film, there was certainly nothing in it that could be construed as heavy-handed preaching or moralizing. Indeed, it could be appreciated purely on the level of an adventure story in a fantastic land (a device used by many science fiction and fantasy stories--cf. "Through The Looking Glass" ). As proof of how effectively this works, a little girl in back of me burst into tears during the Stone Table Sacrificial scene--and I doubt she was old enough to have read the book or understood any of the story's Christian symbolism.

4. Very realistic depiction of England during WWII, IMHO. I think that "newness" of things in Narnia (mentioned by a previous poster) was simply to contrast with the very drab living conditions in England at that time.

5 Very cute putting a surprise "extra" scene in the middle of the credits

On the whole, first class film-making .

[Candleshoe]

I finally got to see this at the weekend. I liked it, despite myself! I mean that I was expecting to be preached at or patronised, and neither of these happened for me. It was a bit long, and the "green-screen" stuff was a bit of a disappointment, but overall I liked it.

I hope that the "christian homophobes" (and I hope we aren't going to argue about those two words meaning the same thing, because I don't think they do) who apparently funded this understood the irony of their cash going to produce a film about acceptance and forgiveness.....but I suspect that passed them by.

And is it bad that I kinda liked Susan? I'm hoping it's just because I identify with her, and not because I fancy her....