Post by Timid Wily Lava Child on Dec 7, 2005 17:40:49 GMT -5
Hi!
Mike made me post this. I composed this for some friends who were discussing the film's musical score (a few paragraphs down is where I actually started originally), and wound up making a review. I rearranged it a little, so it won't seem like part of a conversation, most of which has been missed.
________________________
The movie, for me, gets 3 out of 5 stars. It's fine. It's just fine. As a non-fan of the book, because of what I perceived as lackluster characterizations, I was very pleased that the actors have filled these people with humanity where it was previously lacking. The youngest girl, Lucy, starts off the film like she's just going to be a fragile object to be protected and drug along by her siblings, but once she steps through the wardrobe, she blossoms immediately. She has a boatload of personality. The actor playing the youngest boy, Edmund, does a nice job with a character who in the book only comes off as your basic brat. He brings to the character what Daniel Radcliffe brought to Harry in the third Potter film - a sense that the bitterness is born of, if not justified by, some real pain and frustration. He doesn't say it - it's just there. Oldest brother Peter is humbly uncertain, but willing, and not much more, but most of the time that's what he's needed to be. It's organic to what's happening, so it works. Susan, the older girl, is basically just disapproving, and gives the kind of performance I feared all might, but in the company of the others, she manages to fit in.
Tilda Swinton, whose consistency in playing Strong Women I find myself tiring of, reminded me why I still keep watching her do it - because she is very, very good. She imbues the witch with real presence, and not just fearsome ominousness, the only quality for which so many other actors strive when giving a villainous performance. She is cunning, and lets you see the wheels quickly spinning in her head. She entices Edmund quite well, blending complimentary offers with her bad temper in a realistic way. I've not seen a version of this where once she started shouting at him, I didn't wonder why Edmund didn't toss the Turkish Delight at her and hop off the sled. Also, while most supreme villains on the battlefield merely order fiercer and fiercer foes about, or have some magic super-weapon to use, Tilda's witch is believable as a fighter to be avoided.
In the second American trailer, we get to see glimpses of a lot of Babe-like talking animals, and none of it looked good to me. I'm not sure why that is (and it still is), but in the film, they're all fine. Liam Neeson does the Lion's voice like Qui-Gon from Star Wars. It works well enough. James McAvoy makes Mr. Tumnus a real character rather than just a cute, hopping thing that plays the flute and would entice a little girl only because he is like a stuffed animal that has come to life. There is a lot going on behind his empathetic eyes.
The gospel allegory is quite present, as it should be. It's organic enough to the tale being told that non-Christians shouldn't react as if being prosteletized to, unless they're the type who just seek out every opportunity to say that. It doesn't feel like it's the main reason the film got made, as most Christian productions tend to do. Still, it will work well for Christians because its illustrations lie not only in the broad plot, but also in moments and lines, in details that it nails. One very nice such scene has Swinton's character facing off the lion over a matter of law. That scene was rivetting for me *as* a Christian; not because of its drama within the story, but because it got so much right.
Why just three stars then? Because it's kind of a ho-hum story, I guess. It's a small story painted in the colors of grandeur. Mind you - I like that, because why not do big what you can do big? But it remains a tale of four kids who travel through one obstacle, rest, and then fight in one battle. The battle seems perfunctory, almost expected, as if it's the calendar day for it, not climactic (even though it does result in a change). Now along the way in this mini-adventure, interesting things happen, some very interesting, but they don't so much build the story as happen around it, or within it. It feels like a big day, not a big event - but it feels also like it thinks it's a big event. While overall the film does not evoke the Lord of the Rings movies as much as its commercials do, The Big Battle smacks of its predecessors. In some ways this is unavoidable - you would have to deliberately film it awkwardly to avoid that, but on occasion it quotes shots, and that is distracting.
* * SPOILER (sort of) ALERT * *
Also - older Peter's turning point as a character involves his slaying of a wolf which is threatening his sisters. In the book he kills the wolf with a sword. In the movie, it jumps at him and falls on a sword he happens to have out. Then he is knighted. It's not quite walkie-talkies for guns, but it is an unnecessary nod to pacifism, something C.S. Lewis spoke out against, and a needless whitewashing of a children's movie. It makes little sense in the film.
* * END SPOILER * *
The entire musical score sounds distinctly modern, in that it tends to be sparse rather than lavish, in a Celtic/New Age sort of way. It often sounds like Clannad is about to break in. I don't have rules about fantasy and so forth such that I would say that grand, lavish music is required for these sorts of films, but such music definitely *feels* more right to me. I prefer Goldsmith to Tangerine Dream for Legend, and don't care for the Alan Parsons stuff in Ladyhawke (though strangely, I have no problem with the mix of Queen and Howard Blake for Flash Gordon - that stuff works better than anything else in the movie). But this is Relaxation CD stuff, and it speaks that aloud when it comes in. I often felt like I was walking past a kiosk at a department store, one with buttons picturing mountains and flowers - press one and hear the lulling, comtemporary studio music. Also, the score knows more about the story than it should. My taste is for scores which reflect the emotions of the characters in the moment, or the tone of a room, not scores which warn us of what's coming up. It's a little too anticipatory.
That said, I still liked the movie. I didn't like it in such a way as to encourage me to make a point of recommending it to others, but I would definitely recommend it over not doing so, should the question arise. If it helps, I'll rank it with our most recent fantasy series entries:
Return of the King *
Fellowship of the Ring *
The Two Towers *
Harry Potter and the Prizoner of Azkaban (#3)
Harry Pottter and the Goblet of Fire (#4)
The Chronicles of Narnia: the Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe
Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (#1)
Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (#2)
* Extended (definitive) versions (this is especially important for Two Towers to be where it is)
Of those listed, I only actively dislike the bottom Potter film, and slightly the one above it. I would actively recommend the five above Narnia. Narnia is the lowest above the good line, but it is solidly there. Perhaps it will grow in my estimation as the films progress.
David
Mike made me post this. I composed this for some friends who were discussing the film's musical score (a few paragraphs down is where I actually started originally), and wound up making a review. I rearranged it a little, so it won't seem like part of a conversation, most of which has been missed.
________________________
The movie, for me, gets 3 out of 5 stars. It's fine. It's just fine. As a non-fan of the book, because of what I perceived as lackluster characterizations, I was very pleased that the actors have filled these people with humanity where it was previously lacking. The youngest girl, Lucy, starts off the film like she's just going to be a fragile object to be protected and drug along by her siblings, but once she steps through the wardrobe, she blossoms immediately. She has a boatload of personality. The actor playing the youngest boy, Edmund, does a nice job with a character who in the book only comes off as your basic brat. He brings to the character what Daniel Radcliffe brought to Harry in the third Potter film - a sense that the bitterness is born of, if not justified by, some real pain and frustration. He doesn't say it - it's just there. Oldest brother Peter is humbly uncertain, but willing, and not much more, but most of the time that's what he's needed to be. It's organic to what's happening, so it works. Susan, the older girl, is basically just disapproving, and gives the kind of performance I feared all might, but in the company of the others, she manages to fit in.
Tilda Swinton, whose consistency in playing Strong Women I find myself tiring of, reminded me why I still keep watching her do it - because she is very, very good. She imbues the witch with real presence, and not just fearsome ominousness, the only quality for which so many other actors strive when giving a villainous performance. She is cunning, and lets you see the wheels quickly spinning in her head. She entices Edmund quite well, blending complimentary offers with her bad temper in a realistic way. I've not seen a version of this where once she started shouting at him, I didn't wonder why Edmund didn't toss the Turkish Delight at her and hop off the sled. Also, while most supreme villains on the battlefield merely order fiercer and fiercer foes about, or have some magic super-weapon to use, Tilda's witch is believable as a fighter to be avoided.
In the second American trailer, we get to see glimpses of a lot of Babe-like talking animals, and none of it looked good to me. I'm not sure why that is (and it still is), but in the film, they're all fine. Liam Neeson does the Lion's voice like Qui-Gon from Star Wars. It works well enough. James McAvoy makes Mr. Tumnus a real character rather than just a cute, hopping thing that plays the flute and would entice a little girl only because he is like a stuffed animal that has come to life. There is a lot going on behind his empathetic eyes.
The gospel allegory is quite present, as it should be. It's organic enough to the tale being told that non-Christians shouldn't react as if being prosteletized to, unless they're the type who just seek out every opportunity to say that. It doesn't feel like it's the main reason the film got made, as most Christian productions tend to do. Still, it will work well for Christians because its illustrations lie not only in the broad plot, but also in moments and lines, in details that it nails. One very nice such scene has Swinton's character facing off the lion over a matter of law. That scene was rivetting for me *as* a Christian; not because of its drama within the story, but because it got so much right.
Why just three stars then? Because it's kind of a ho-hum story, I guess. It's a small story painted in the colors of grandeur. Mind you - I like that, because why not do big what you can do big? But it remains a tale of four kids who travel through one obstacle, rest, and then fight in one battle. The battle seems perfunctory, almost expected, as if it's the calendar day for it, not climactic (even though it does result in a change). Now along the way in this mini-adventure, interesting things happen, some very interesting, but they don't so much build the story as happen around it, or within it. It feels like a big day, not a big event - but it feels also like it thinks it's a big event. While overall the film does not evoke the Lord of the Rings movies as much as its commercials do, The Big Battle smacks of its predecessors. In some ways this is unavoidable - you would have to deliberately film it awkwardly to avoid that, but on occasion it quotes shots, and that is distracting.
* * SPOILER (sort of) ALERT * *
Also - older Peter's turning point as a character involves his slaying of a wolf which is threatening his sisters. In the book he kills the wolf with a sword. In the movie, it jumps at him and falls on a sword he happens to have out. Then he is knighted. It's not quite walkie-talkies for guns, but it is an unnecessary nod to pacifism, something C.S. Lewis spoke out against, and a needless whitewashing of a children's movie. It makes little sense in the film.
* * END SPOILER * *
The entire musical score sounds distinctly modern, in that it tends to be sparse rather than lavish, in a Celtic/New Age sort of way. It often sounds like Clannad is about to break in. I don't have rules about fantasy and so forth such that I would say that grand, lavish music is required for these sorts of films, but such music definitely *feels* more right to me. I prefer Goldsmith to Tangerine Dream for Legend, and don't care for the Alan Parsons stuff in Ladyhawke (though strangely, I have no problem with the mix of Queen and Howard Blake for Flash Gordon - that stuff works better than anything else in the movie). But this is Relaxation CD stuff, and it speaks that aloud when it comes in. I often felt like I was walking past a kiosk at a department store, one with buttons picturing mountains and flowers - press one and hear the lulling, comtemporary studio music. Also, the score knows more about the story than it should. My taste is for scores which reflect the emotions of the characters in the moment, or the tone of a room, not scores which warn us of what's coming up. It's a little too anticipatory.
That said, I still liked the movie. I didn't like it in such a way as to encourage me to make a point of recommending it to others, but I would definitely recommend it over not doing so, should the question arise. If it helps, I'll rank it with our most recent fantasy series entries:
Return of the King *
Fellowship of the Ring *
The Two Towers *
Harry Potter and the Prizoner of Azkaban (#3)
Harry Pottter and the Goblet of Fire (#4)
The Chronicles of Narnia: the Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe
Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (#1)
Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (#2)
* Extended (definitive) versions (this is especially important for Two Towers to be where it is)
Of those listed, I only actively dislike the bottom Potter film, and slightly the one above it. I would actively recommend the five above Narnia. Narnia is the lowest above the good line, but it is solidly there. Perhaps it will grow in my estimation as the films progress.
David