Leanna, Peter and I went to see “The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe” last night at the midnight premier. The theater itself was entertaining, as we got there two and a half hours early and so were pretty near the front of the line. The people in front of us were somewhat nutty, which made for some amusing waiting. At one point, they started asking when they would get their free t-shirts. Now, Leanna, Peter and I were all (nerdily) wearing our free Narnia t-shirts we got from working at Creation West promoting the movie. But then people around us started saying that there was a sign downstairs saying that the first 150 people to show for the Narnia movie would get a free t-shirt. I love free t-shirts.
There was some confusion among the staff, so one of them went to investigate. He came back a few minutes later and confirmed that there would be t-shirts. Most of the people in line cheered. It cracks me up how prone large, crazy groups are to cheering. A few minutes later, a guy in a suit (presumably a manager?) showed up with a box of t-shirts. Everyone got excited about that and the fact that he announced they’d be letting us go into the theater to wait (this is a brand new theater, maybe a month or two open, with great seating). The only caveat about the t-shirts… they were all extra-large. Many people felt compelled to change into them right then and there, and it was very amusing to see the tiny teenage girls surrounded by this hilarious sea of jersey fabric.
Then we waited for a long time. The antics of the crazy people around us made it less tedious, plus I’d brought some cross stitch to work on. When the movie actually did start, I didn’t quite realize it, until I finally noticed the characters. The movie starts with kind of a preface to what’s in the book, where we see the Pevensies in London during an air raid. I thought this was a great addition, because, while Lewis’s original audience had lived through the war, most of us now don’t necessarily even notice this context, and it kind of changes how we see the characters. They did a good job of foreshadowing Edmund’s behavior, and helping us understand how the relationships between the children shape the events later in the movie.
I did have some gripes with the movie, though. Probably a lot of this was just going in with really high expectations. There were two main things: first, the movie deviated from the book a fair amount, and while it didn’t change the tone of the story (or the outcome), I objected to it just because it seemed unnecessary. In retrospect, I think maybe the writers thought there wasn’t enough action in the book, which might be true for a movie. Lewis did tend to spend a lot of time with the introspectives, while he gave the “great battle” all of a page and a half, if I remember correctly. I’m not doing spoilers here (because you should definitely see the movie, whether or not you’ve read the book), but the movie had several changes which added more action but didn’t really add to the story.
They also took out my very favorite bit of dialogue (talking about Aslan, the lion-King):
“Ooh!” said Susan, “I’d thought he was a man. Is he—quite safe? I shall feel rather nervous about meeting a lion.”
“That you will, dearie, and no mistake,” said Mrs. Beaver; “if there’s anyone who can appear before Aslan without their knees knocking, they’re either braver than most or else just silly.”
“Then he isn’t safe?” said Lucy.
“Safe?” said Mr. Beaver; “don’t you hear what Mrs. Beaver tells you? Who said anything about safe? ‘Course he isn’t safe. But he’s good. He’s the King, I tell you.”
There was a bit of gratuitious political correctness in one change… Father Christmas gives Lucy a dagger as one of her Christmas gifts, but tells her that he does not intend her to fight in the battle. In the book, his explanation is “…battles are ugly when women fight.” In the movie, this is reduced to “Battles are ugly.” I understand that they’re probably just trying to keep from offending female soldiers and those who love them, but this change actually causes the scene to stop making sense. Without the distinction of “when women fight,” it doesn’t make sense for him to tell one child to fight and two to stay out of it.
The second thing that disappointed me was that the animal animation wasn’t quite what I expected. There were points, particularly with the wolves, that it just looked animated. Now, I know perfection is a lot to ask and that as good as the technology is, it’s not there yet. But I was just (unrealistically) hoping for more realistic movement. However, the one other review I’ve seen this morning said “the special effects set a new standard for Hollywood”—apparently not everyone felt like I did about this, so take it with a grain of salt.
Those are my primary complaints, but that said, I think the movie was excellent. It conveyed very well the sacrifice that is the message of Christianity, and the pacing worked nicely to emphasize the important parts. They took on the huge challenge of talking animals and mostly pulled it off. But of course, the real strength of the movie is the story. It’s worth seeing just to hear (and see) the story again. I have high hopes that this movie will help Christ’s sacrifice hit home for lots of people.
Final rating: 9/10
thanks for the review (of the movie and the quirky people). i heard an interesting story on the changing of the line regarding women fighting in battle at npr (i think this story). it is too bad they didn’t do it more gracefully.
i too liked the conversation about Aslan being “safe” though i haven’t read the book in probably 8 years or more that was one of the conversations i remember best (as well as the mysterious, to me, turkish delight).
Thanks for the link; that was an interesting piece (although they claimed “women fighting” line was one of Aslan’s… where was the fact checker?
).
In the film, it was interesting to see the turkish delight, just because I had only vague notions of what it might be… I knew it was sweet from the book but that was about it. Now that I’ve seen it (and had a look at some turkish delight recipes), it sort of looks like something I’ve had, though I can’t figure out where or even necessarily what. Might have to whip some up in celebration of the movie.
I saw the movie this weekend. I liked it too. I was a bit disapointed in a couple of parts that they didn’t stick to the book a bit closer but wasn’t surprised. One bit of animal animation I thought had been changed was that when the beavers were walking (long distance) they were on their back feet. I don’t see why they did that. It’s still and animal why not make it walk normally.
I had started reading the book again a while back but never finished it. After I saw the movie I read more (still have a chapter left) and came to realize in the book Aslan claps his paws together more than once but don’t remember seeing that in the movie – I think that was smart.
I definately want to watch this movie again.
Note on the turkish delight – I had no clue what it was either – seeing it in the movie made me think of Applets and Cotlets
hello. i’ve seen this movie twice now and definitely wouldn’t mind seeing it again. i was just browsing the web and came across this review, and although i haven’t read the book in ages, i still remember very much enjoying it, as i have with the movie. i thought the actors that played each character suited his or her role perfectly, and i was quite impressed by the movie in its entirety. i never thought anyone would make a film based off of this book or the other ones in the series, but now, i’m glad that they have.
Janell: It’s made clear that talking animals walk on hind legs, and going back to all fours is a sign of savagery among the Narnians. (I believe this was mentioned in the Horse and his Boy.)
Nice CSS!