This film would be far more enjoyable for someone who has never read C.S. Lewis' Narnian novels, but was enjoyable nonetheless. Technically, the film was well-done and the effects were enhanced by its 3D presentation. It is thus far the shortest of the three films released to date, coming in at under two hours, and it might have benefited by an extra 30 minutes to allow for more plot exposition. But no one asked me my opinion when they were filming it...
There are differences with the book, mostly having to do with merging two or more scenes from the book into one scene in the film. The scene involving the arrangement of the seven swords was an invention, but did not do that much damage to the overall message (unless you are a purist).
This episode is the last in which the Pevensie children play major roles, but the addition of Will Poulter as Eustace Scrubb was a brilliant move. Poulter played Eustace jut as I imagined him to be as I read the book. If the Silver Chair and The Last Battle are filmed, his will be a performance to look forward to.
For me, the final scene in the book where Aslan speaks to Edmund and Lucy, explaining to them how they will encounter Aslan in their own world, is the key to the entire book. I am pleased that this film preserved that scene nearly word for word.
Is this film worth seeing? All-in-all, I would say yes. Hopefully it will inspire a new generation of readers to delve into The Chronicles of Narnia, and experience the joy of Lewis' allegorical presentation of the Christian message.
Showing posts with label film reviews. Show all posts
Showing posts with label film reviews. Show all posts
Wednesday, January 05, 2011
Friday, November 23, 2007
A review of the Beowulf Movie
We went to see Beowulf at one of our local theaters, and I can take a certain amount of pride in knowing that all three of us had already read the Beowulf epic in the Seamus Heaney translation. That having been noted, it really didn't help us much in viewing the movie, which used the familiar names but departed at many points from the original. Other than that is was a nice bit of escapism and the effects were awesome.
This was not a live-action film, but it would be inaccurate to refer to it simply as a cartoon. The animation and effects were of a quality that made one forget that this really wasn't actors on a sound stage. In addition, the digital rendering of the scenes made it possible to show angles and points of view that would be difficult, if not impossible for conventional cinematography. Imagine a spear being thrust toward you until all you see is the spearhead, and then the "camera" changes its point of view so you see the guard holding the spear, and the point just about touching Beowulf's eyes.
The film is violent and has a lot of gory images, and for this reason alone, you might want to get a babysitter for the youngsters. The sexuality is mostly innuendo, and involves anatomically correct outlines (for a Barbie doll), and about as much detail as a Barbie doll. Beowulf fights Grendel in the nude, and there always seems to be a strategically-placed plant or other object that keeps the visual effects in the PG-13 range. This is definitely not a family flick, but neither is it pornography.
On to the substance of the film. We all know that Grendel is Beowulf's first opponent. Grendel has a face only a mother could love, and oddly enough, that is a plot point in both the Old English epic and the 2007 film. How the two are connected are very different in the epic and the film. In the film the fight with the dragon is connected with the first two fights with Grendel and his mother -- a connection that is NOT made in the epic.
The film portrays Beowulf as a flawed character who ultimately redeems himself in the end. The Old English epic isn't much for character development. Beowulf is the hero, and that's all we need to know. In the film, Beowulf, having bested Grendel in a fair fight, felt the need to embellish the tale of his encounter with Grendel's mother. The lie he tells is actually closer to the original epic, than the "reality" of the film's depiction.
The ending is fairly satisfying, once you rid yourself of the expectation of conformity with the original epic, and overall, the film does a good job with internal consistency.
The Beowulf epic has many Christian elements interspersed with the Norse pantheon and the idea that a lone hero acting solely from internal motivations can save himself and his comrades. Personally, I would not call Beowulf a "Christian Epic", but I would recognize that it takes place in a milieu that is rapidly becoming Christian, and there are allusions to Christianity and Scripture in the original epic.
The film seemed to me to present a caricature of Christianity that, when juxtaposed with the heroic Danes and Geats, leaves the impression that things would be been far better without the Christians. Since the film writers chose to add specific events that were not a part of the original, I have to suspect that this was just a bit gratuitous.
I recommend this film highly for the effects and not so highly for the adaptation of the original source.
This was not a live-action film, but it would be inaccurate to refer to it simply as a cartoon. The animation and effects were of a quality that made one forget that this really wasn't actors on a sound stage. In addition, the digital rendering of the scenes made it possible to show angles and points of view that would be difficult, if not impossible for conventional cinematography. Imagine a spear being thrust toward you until all you see is the spearhead, and then the "camera" changes its point of view so you see the guard holding the spear, and the point just about touching Beowulf's eyes.
The film is violent and has a lot of gory images, and for this reason alone, you might want to get a babysitter for the youngsters. The sexuality is mostly innuendo, and involves anatomically correct outlines (for a Barbie doll), and about as much detail as a Barbie doll. Beowulf fights Grendel in the nude, and there always seems to be a strategically-placed plant or other object that keeps the visual effects in the PG-13 range. This is definitely not a family flick, but neither is it pornography.
On to the substance of the film. We all know that Grendel is Beowulf's first opponent. Grendel has a face only a mother could love, and oddly enough, that is a plot point in both the Old English epic and the 2007 film. How the two are connected are very different in the epic and the film. In the film the fight with the dragon is connected with the first two fights with Grendel and his mother -- a connection that is NOT made in the epic.
The film portrays Beowulf as a flawed character who ultimately redeems himself in the end. The Old English epic isn't much for character development. Beowulf is the hero, and that's all we need to know. In the film, Beowulf, having bested Grendel in a fair fight, felt the need to embellish the tale of his encounter with Grendel's mother. The lie he tells is actually closer to the original epic, than the "reality" of the film's depiction.
The ending is fairly satisfying, once you rid yourself of the expectation of conformity with the original epic, and overall, the film does a good job with internal consistency.
The Beowulf epic has many Christian elements interspersed with the Norse pantheon and the idea that a lone hero acting solely from internal motivations can save himself and his comrades. Personally, I would not call Beowulf a "Christian Epic", but I would recognize that it takes place in a milieu that is rapidly becoming Christian, and there are allusions to Christianity and Scripture in the original epic.
The film seemed to me to present a caricature of Christianity that, when juxtaposed with the heroic Danes and Geats, leaves the impression that things would be been far better without the Christians. Since the film writers chose to add specific events that were not a part of the original, I have to suspect that this was just a bit gratuitous.
I recommend this film highly for the effects and not so highly for the adaptation of the original source.
Monday, March 12, 2007
Amazing Grace
My family and I went to see Amazing Grace in the theater Friday evening. As luck would have it, 300 was dominating the ticket lines, and we barely made it in time for the opening credits.
The story is told in a combination of the present (early 1800's, not today) and flashbacks, as we see how William Wilberforce changed from a young, reasonably well-off young man just starting out in Parliament, to an ardent abolitionist. Ioan Gruffudd plays Wilberforce sensitively, and we get a glimpse of the toll extracted on his mental and physical constitution as he brings his bill before Parliament year after year, only to have it voted down. Albert Finney appears as John Newton and presents a powerful image of a man who is haunted by "20,000 ghosts". His hymn, Amazing Grace, is a theme that runs through the film.
There is a bit of an anachronism with regard to the hymn -- The tune used in the film, New Britain, while familiar to most Christians today, was not written until 1831 -- well after the events depicted in the film.
Most reviews on Christian blogs have been pretty favorable, but some have criticized the film for giving short shrift to the evangelical faith that impelled Wilberforce to take on the slavery issue. This criticism also appeared in an article I linked to a few days ago, written from a Jewish perspective. After having seen the film, I have to respectfully disagree. The theme of Wilberforce's faith runs through the film, and while it is not a constant drumbeat, it is clearly portrayed.
Amazing Grace is a powerful film and I recommend it highly.
The story is told in a combination of the present (early 1800's, not today) and flashbacks, as we see how William Wilberforce changed from a young, reasonably well-off young man just starting out in Parliament, to an ardent abolitionist. Ioan Gruffudd plays Wilberforce sensitively, and we get a glimpse of the toll extracted on his mental and physical constitution as he brings his bill before Parliament year after year, only to have it voted down. Albert Finney appears as John Newton and presents a powerful image of a man who is haunted by "20,000 ghosts". His hymn, Amazing Grace, is a theme that runs through the film.
There is a bit of an anachronism with regard to the hymn -- The tune used in the film, New Britain, while familiar to most Christians today, was not written until 1831 -- well after the events depicted in the film.
Most reviews on Christian blogs have been pretty favorable, but some have criticized the film for giving short shrift to the evangelical faith that impelled Wilberforce to take on the slavery issue. This criticism also appeared in an article I linked to a few days ago, written from a Jewish perspective. After having seen the film, I have to respectfully disagree. The theme of Wilberforce's faith runs through the film, and while it is not a constant drumbeat, it is clearly portrayed.
Amazing Grace is a powerful film and I recommend it highly.
Monday, December 04, 2006
The Nativity Story
My family and I went out to see The Nativity Story yesterday afternoon (yes, the snowplows finally hit our street Sunday afternoon, and the cinder trucks laid down some grit for traction).
This film was well done and gave a sensitive portrayal of what Mary must have endured as a young woman who was found to be pregnant when customs did not permit sexual activity, as well as her submission to the Lord and her trust in God's providence.
Joseph is portrayed as a youngish man who feels hurt and betrayed by what (to his understanding) can only be unfaithfulness on his wife's part. He comes across, as Scripture relates, as a righteous man.
The dialog is a mixture of Scripture and educated guesses as to what else might have passed between Joseph, Mary, her parents, and the townspeople of Nazareth, Bethlehem, and Jerusalem. Where Scripture provides dialog, it is used pretty much as it appears in the Bible and where Scripture is silent, the film provides dialog that is well-delivered and makes perfect sense. Even the small amount of comic relief does not diminish the message being portrayed.
Much research seems to have gone into the making of this film, and ordinary details of life of 2,000 years ago are depicted with skill.
The last I saw on the Yahoo! Movies site, the critics gave it a C+ and the viewers gave it a B+. It may not be Oscar material, but I enjoyed it, and was moved by its portrayal of the familiar characters surrounding the birth of Jesus. It is definitely worth seeing.
This film was well done and gave a sensitive portrayal of what Mary must have endured as a young woman who was found to be pregnant when customs did not permit sexual activity, as well as her submission to the Lord and her trust in God's providence.
Joseph is portrayed as a youngish man who feels hurt and betrayed by what (to his understanding) can only be unfaithfulness on his wife's part. He comes across, as Scripture relates, as a righteous man.
The dialog is a mixture of Scripture and educated guesses as to what else might have passed between Joseph, Mary, her parents, and the townspeople of Nazareth, Bethlehem, and Jerusalem. Where Scripture provides dialog, it is used pretty much as it appears in the Bible and where Scripture is silent, the film provides dialog that is well-delivered and makes perfect sense. Even the small amount of comic relief does not diminish the message being portrayed.
Much research seems to have gone into the making of this film, and ordinary details of life of 2,000 years ago are depicted with skill.
The last I saw on the Yahoo! Movies site, the critics gave it a C+ and the viewers gave it a B+. It may not be Oscar material, but I enjoyed it, and was moved by its portrayal of the familiar characters surrounding the birth of Jesus. It is definitely worth seeing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)