Ain't It Cool News: The best in movie, TV, DVD, and comic book news.

Moriarty Wrestles With THE LION, THE WITCH, & THE WARDROBE!!

Just Noticed by TheRealMoriarty	Dec 8th, 2005 06:51:20 AM
Hey... where the fuck did the KONG background go?!
Oh shit no Kong!? by Bean_	Dec 8th, 2005 06:51:42 AM
I'm not reading.
Ah you didn't like it? by Bean_	Dec 8th, 2005 06:53:28 AM
That's too bad. I really loved the books, I hope I get something else out of it that you didn't.
Great Review Again Mori by IrishJoe	Dec 8th, 2005 06:56:29 AM
Good work again mate, well thought out concise and enjoyable to read, just wondering whats up with Mori at the mo? What you working on? And will we get to see Masters of horror on this side of the Atlantic
Black backgrounds by Pacino86845	Dec 8th, 2005 07:03:46 AM
My favorite black backgrounded site's been... grounded.
BTW, really nice review Mori by Pacino86845	Dec 8th, 2005 07:07:53 AM
I didn't read it as thoroughly as I normally read your reviews, namely because I wanted to avoid spoilers. Although the trailer certainly made this film appear as though it's rife with lush visuals, what you said about the effects work being divided may give it that varied quality upon first glance, but at the detriment of smooth and unified effects when the film plays out. Though it may not feel as magical as some of the more successful fantasy films, I still think Narnia can provide a nice diversion during the holiday season!
Nice a review paisan, eh? by DinoDeLaurentiis	Dec 8th, 2005 07:09:07 AM
I think a now we can a understand a you comments onna the Massawyrm's review with a the little more perspective, no?
Jonathan Ross didn't like it by John-Locke	Dec 8th, 2005 07:09:30 AM
He prefered March of the Penguins & he didn't like that much either. All does not look well for Narnia. Drewp whats going on with you know where?
I need a my bran muffin! by DinoDeLaurentiis	Dec 8th, 2005 07:10:55 AM
I donna get a my favorite black background site either, eh Pacino? Holy crappa it's a like a when I donna get a my daily bran a muffin, no? I gonna to be alla cranky today goddamn it...
No Kong background? Is this some kind of hint that Harry didn by jrbarker	Dec 8th, 2005 07:10:57 AM
hmmm....
Hey Moriarty... by TempusFugitive	Dec 8th, 2005 07:13:05 AM
Did you read any of the Narnia books? Because for what it's worth, Lucy and Edmund definitely become the focus in subsequent "chapters". In fact, if my memory of the books from 25 years ago doen't fail me, Susan as a character explicitly "grows up" and loses her wonder... and her interest in Narnia altogether. In any case, I think saying that the film will do well with "families" is probably a good thing, as that is what it should be geared towards. This isn't really a geek/genre property like LOTR, or even Harry Potter. I'll be seeing it just for the personal flashbacks.
JL and Dino by Pacino86845	Dec 8th, 2005 07:13:17 AM
866 is still up... we can congregate there in this time of crisis. Now I know how Burl felt during the hurricanes.
jrbarker by DinoDeLaurentiis	Dec 8th, 2005 07:13:30 AM
You think Harry donna like a the Kong? BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHA!!! That's a the good one paisan, good one... Inna your dreams, you goddamn putz!
I see the Kong background by Pacino86845	Dec 8th, 2005 07:15:59 AM
THIS site appears to be perfectly operational... on the other hand, I'm going through withdrawl symptoms... I spotted DogLips in the BNAT thread. We're all divided now! so sad sniff
Pacino by DinoDeLaurentiis	Dec 8th, 2005 07:17:55 AM
866 is a the good idea, eh? Let's a not a threadjack poor Mori after he did such a the nice a review... WE SHALL OVERCOME!!
I always look forward to a Moriarty review by dastickboy	Dec 8th, 2005 07:21:12 AM
Mori tells it like it is, and I don't normally disagree. I'd be interested to know how much of the Jesus interpretation he took in with him tho, I'm going into this with an affection for the original children's story, so I guess I'm chasing the childhood high Mori wrote about. I'd have loved to have seen the Magician's Nephew turned into a movie though, that would have surpassed Charlie and the Chocolate Factory as THE kiddie-trip movie.
About the allegory... by MemBirdman	Dec 8th, 2005 07:21:35 AM
I'm not about to deny the allegory, because it's definitely there. But it seems that you think that the story is encapsulated in one movie. And that does a disservice to you, because it's not the Book of Narnia. It's one book in the Chronicles of Narnia, and you got an incomplete vision of the story. The movie doesn't work for you, and that's fine. But you are also determining that the allegory was also encapsulated in one movie, which is not the intent and you should be told such. You haven't gotten the whole story.
Christian allegory a bad thing? by Damer1	Dec 8th, 2005 07:25:05 AM
Do you just mean as it's portrayed here or just in general?
But... that's Lewis's ending! by Grey_Bard	Dec 8th, 2005 07:42:44 AM
I know it kind of stinks, but that was the way it ended in the book. What was the studio supposed to do?
What they should have done... by pdiddy	Dec 8th, 2005 07:43:51 AM
Is have Deniro come out of the dressing room and go on stage in brilliant technicolor so we could all see in living color how his life turned out. Or when Randall and Dante came to an understanding in Clerks, the shutters should have magically flown up and revealed the bright new shiny day in glorious technicolor. How about, Dorothy came back from OZ to the real world, which is undeniably shittier, and even though it was still in black and white, which was her reality, she appreciated all of the people that she'd missed all the same. Can't wait to read the review one day where Harry writes that the Wizard of Oz could have been redeemed as a film if only they'd put a couple of werewolves in it. Ridiculous.
Nice review, glad you used some restraint and didn't use thi by minderbinder	Dec 8th, 2005 07:55:44 AM
Hopefully the movie will work on its own...I do agree that some of the later books are better. Caspian is kinda lame, but Dawn Treader will make an amazing movie.
The ending by Smerph	Dec 8th, 2005 07:57:31 AM
WTF is wrong with the ending? It makes perfect sense since these characters eventually return to Narnia. And their childhoods aren't exactly unhappy.
The background by chrth	Dec 8th, 2005 07:59:49 AM
Who wants to bet Harry is getting one made from the current Kong film to put back there?
Re: Smerph by MemBirdman	Dec 8th, 2005 08:00:20 AM
I agree with you, but Mori is looking at the situation as a stand-alone movie, so he wouldn't consider that they come back. As an aside, I do find it interesting that with LOTR, it was a given that there was more to the story, but the same has not been conceeded to Narnia.
As this series goes on..... by emeraldboy	Dec 8th, 2005 08:03:17 AM
it gets hareder and more complex aas lewis meshed together the themes of the Monarchy and religion. Hollywood will maybe dumb down this series of younger kids and thus alieniating its adult audience. I read the lion the witch and the wardrobe once as a child, saw the awful series the bbc with its stage school children. Will read the reviews tomorrrow but will possibly go to see this anway as it looks spectcular. Reviews in the brit media have all been fairly tepid and wozzy tore film limb from limb on monday night. I will go and see this for myself and get back to yall
nice review by vicious_bastard	Dec 8th, 2005 08:04:25 AM
But more importantly, what am I meant to do at work all day? WORK? No way.
as a child by emeraldboy	Dec 8th, 2005 08:06:57 AM
I wasnt aware until I was much older about the christian allegory untill I learned as a teenager what aslan meant.
Liam Neeson was a baaaaaaaad choice by MemBirdman	Dec 8th, 2005 08:10:26 AM
Like Mori said, he's done this role too many times. I personally wanted Jason Isaacs to do Aslan. He could've given Aslan that little edge in his voice that intimates he's not a tame lion, which is I think where Neeson is going to fail.
Off-topic but hey... by Drexl	Dec 8th, 2005 08:12:18 AM
what the hell is going on here? Where are Harry's and Moriarty's Potter and Kong reviews? At least Moriarty says he'll have it posted pretty soon but somehow I'm getting a bad vibe from him regarding Kong. Same with Harry. Something tells me them holding back means it didn't meet their expectations. Doesn't mean shit though. I'm not on the same page as Moriarty is this year. I used to think his reviews were basically always on the money but lately that hasn't happened... to me at least. Still the best written reviews on this site though and always a pleasure to read well-written opinions, as opposed to the usual Talkback-bashing. I still gotta read Narnia (it opens here in Belgium a week after Kong which might give it a certain anti-climactic feel) but it seems I won't have the time. I'll try though. Something tells me I won't get 'round to reading it once I've seen the first film, even though I think I'll enjoy it a lot. It strikes me as odd that virtually every reviewer says the Christian stuff is not as prominent as many would like it to be (or think it is) which is a good sign. Moriarty denies that however and says it does become Passion-esque. However, I did get a sense that he just didn't connect with the material, which can happen sometimes. Doesn't mean he won't if they continue to make these Narnia flicks. The first two Harry Potters were fun but didn't win me over until Prisoner of Azkaban did and made me a bonafide fan overnight (that's ironic because many Potter purists don't seem to like this third movie as it drifts away from the book). And as far as Kong goes; Total Film, Empire and numerous others didn't let me down, let's hope Harry, Quint and Moriarty (the guys I've been reading since I got hooked up on the 'net) drown in geeky appreciation as well for the big ape.
im suprised they didnt go for james Earl Jones by flamingrunt	Dec 8th, 2005 08:22:19 AM
is hollywood that struck for imagination that every wise master or mentor role has to be given to the same 2 or 3 actors?
hmmmmm..... by occams_razor	Dec 8th, 2005 08:30:44 AM
Yeah, the more I read about this movie, the less I care to see it. I won't begrudge anyone their childhood nostalgia but I think I'll just wait for one of my friends to rent the dvd. I'd like to think eventually there will be a movie that will make me go back to the theater. Oh well, back to work.
Great review. Sad to hear it doesn't work very well in a fil by JasonPratt	Dec 8th, 2005 08:34:51 AM
As much as I appreciate Lewis' work, and as much as I admit having some fanboy "COOL!" reaction to the notion of it being translated to a bigscreen adaptation; I've been dubiously expecting the film to turn out much like what Moriarty describes. Lewis never intended to write the story as a LotR-scale work (or even HP-scale), so it seems sort of counterproductive (even if respectful) to try to translate it to the big-screen that way. Unless effort was going to be made to make the story seriously more resonant (more in line with what Lewis himself might have done, _had_ he seriously been trying to write that kind of work). Sadly, the movie was probably an exercise in capitalizing on a property from the getgo. (Granted, it could be lots lots worse--it might have used the Los Angeles modern update semi-spoof script that was floating around a few years ago, for instance. But "it could have been lots lots worse" isn't exactly "great", is it? {s}) **** I would like to think I'll have a better response to the film after seeing it myself this weekend; but I'm somewhat doubtful I will.
maybe Masswyrm should crash mori's review talkback by Peven	Dec 8th, 2005 08:40:25 AM
am i the only one who reads the glaring contradiction in Mory's review? he starts out by saying fantasy movies are personal in their effect and importance to people, giving examples of some of his, then, climbs up on his snobbass high horse and tells us all why Narnia isn't good. not just that it wasn't his style, or flavor, that it simply didn't find that personal spot in his heart, no, he has to portray it as a movie only children, or simple-minded adults, would like. the whole preamble to his review apparantly doesn't really mean shit. what a fucking weasle. a self-important joke of a weasle. his is the only review complaining about any of the religious allaegory too, and to the contrary, when reviewers are mentioning it they are referring to it as understated and subtle. somehow Mory is seeing no one else is, my, how insightful and edgy he must be, in his own mind. see, he sees himself as the "high brow" arm of aicn, the one who really appreciates film, not just genre films like the rest of the loser aicn bunch, right Mory? i mean, did anyone else notice him trying to explain how the Wizard of oz was made the wrong way?? next review he'll tell us all how Gone With the Wind would have been better if he had directed it too. wait a second, i just noticed FX channel is playing Daredevil, quick, someone get Mory a box of tissues, we all know how that deeply moving film makes Mory bawl. now THERES a film, eh Mory?
Saw it last night.... by Russman	Dec 8th, 2005 08:50:35 AM
never heard of the books, went into it blind. It's entertaining, imaginative and is a full length movie, but I found my self asking "why is this (event) happening" and then wondering why these kids weren't asking the same question. I think I'm to old to really be in love wih it, however I think younger kids and people who've read the book will love it. And since it's for kids, the "violence" happens off camera or is somewhat cartoonish so your bloodlust won't be quenched. My only two real nit picking problem with it was: One - the lack of exposition which was probably cut due to time. Two - the blank expressions on the kids (I know it's hard to get kids to act, but at one point the little girl was smiling when she should've been horrified).
I like the Wizard of Oz bit by Darth Busey	Dec 8th, 2005 08:52:49 AM
About time we start ripping on some American classics! Please deconstruct the shitty narrative of Citizen Kane next.
So Jonathan Woss didn't like it.... by Dolph	Dec 8th, 2005 08:54:45 AM
...who the fcuk cares??! He's a dire film critic!! I only watch the programme for the features and footage, and zone out when he does his bit to camera...it's excrutiating! Of note, he called Batman Forever "One Of The Greatest Movies Ever Made". That Film job should have been Kermode's.
"Harry hated King Kong"? Give me a break, as if anyone actually by JackPumpkinhead	Dec 8th, 2005 09:05:35 AM
Even if something strange happened and Harry hated Kong to the point of feeling an urge to cut Jackson's throat, he would have convinced himself to love it 30 seconds later. The power of autosuggestion does wonders and it's enough to browse the site for two minutes to predict Harry's reaction to the film. Anyway, you'll get your Kong review from Harry, I'm sure - it's just that right now he's most likely too busy writing down 200 synonyms for "wonderful", for use in the review. >:) The background will be replaced by a still from a remake, I'll bet. And Harry will mention something like "I know it's blasphemy, but I actually like parts of Peter's version more than the original" - you'll see. B^)
But batman forever is one of the greatest movies ever made by flamingrunt	Dec 8th, 2005 09:09:22 AM
And Jonathon and Paul Ross are the worlds best movie reviewers.
I like Jonathon Ross and his reviews. by Muffin_Muncher	Dec 8th, 2005 09:10:20 AM
He comes across as a genuine film geek unlike those snobby critics of Newsnight etc. (apart from Mark Kermode).
Why the hell does a "Jonathan Ross" appear in every Narnia talkb by JackPumpkinhead	Dec 8th, 2005 09:13:48 AM
What the hell is "Jonathan Ross"? What or who? A magazine? A person? A conglomerate? Some meaningless name is flying around as if someone actually cared what it refers to. How about saying what "Barney Beagle" or "Michael Hunt" thought of Narnia? It would probably be more meaningful than saying what "Jonathan Ross" thought/released on its subject. (Don't bother telling who or what "Ross" is, I don't care or want to know)
I like Ross... by Dolph	Dec 8th, 2005 09:19:21 AM
...on his chat show. I just can't stand to listen to him talk to me about Film, when he's so often off the mark and makes statements like "I missed the songs" when talking about Polanski's "Oliver Twist". Agreed with the Newsnight Review sect though...I would have loved to have seen what Kermode would have done with the "Film" show after Norman's departure. However, I guess I should be glad we didn't get Johnny Vaughn, who was also mooted for the position. Hilarious he is, a film reviewer he 'aint. Mind you - that's how I feel about Jonathan Ross...
Assignment: write a short story describing Harry's and Moria by JackPumpkinhead	Dec 8th, 2005 09:20:04 AM
"THE CHRONICLES OF NARNIA beats KING KONG at the box office". Disallowed themes include: "Harry falls dead", "Moriarty's scream breaks Harry's glasses"; all narrative styles allowed.
johnny vaughn is a gentleman by vicious_bastard	Dec 8th, 2005 09:22:09 AM

Great Review Mori... by mistrmindqed	Dec 8th, 2005 09:23:00 AM
It would be a good review if you did things like spellcheck and grammer check. "She
Figures by AlgertMopper	Dec 8th, 2005 09:23:49 AM
The bigwigs of this site were scared Narnia would cut into Kongs glory so they do a smear campaign against it. Isn't the first time they've done this, won't be the last
"THE CWONICLES OF NARNIA beats KING KONG at the box office..." by Dolph	Dec 8th, 2005 09:28:37 AM
Reports Jonathan Ross in his saggy-jowled verbiage...
Potter is ten times better than Narnia and the adventures get be by Saluki	Dec 8th, 2005 09:39:11 AM
Heh, just a jab at a message above with that title. I actually only think the Potter books are THREE times better than Narnia! Haha! I'll likely skip this flick. The effects are a little too cartoony for my tastes, and this review is likely dead on. Not interested in paying $20.00 to go see a big 'whatever'. Sorry guys.
Potter better than Narnia? by Smerph	Dec 8th, 2005 10:01:53 AM
Nah, don't talk rubbish. Would appreciate Potter if it didn't consist of the exact same plot points in all six books. (Harry returns to Hogwarts, something weird starts happening, Harry finds out Voldemort is plotting to return (again)...Yawn. If HP is still regarded as a classic of literature rather than a short-lived fad in fifty years time, I'll eat my words. Anyway, this is all academic. This is a film website and we should be comparing films. As lame as TLTWATW may be, I'm sure that, if further chronicles are made, they wont merge into one.
Nice review, Mori by Right Bastard	Dec 8th, 2005 10:07:00 AM
Great review. I trust you and the CHUD guy. You both have said that the movie is a miss, for different and well thought out reasons. I might have to wait for DVD for this one. Thanks for saving me some cash!
Mori = the only REAL reviewer on this site by performingmonkey	Dec 8th, 2005 10:08:26 AM
I find myself only trusting Moriarty's reviews. He has a tendancy to be realistic and doesn't gush (I'm sure this word will be the definition of Harry's Kong review!). I'm not saying that Harry and the others don't know what they're talking about, but sometimes the fanboy gets in the way of the review, if you know what I mean. And those of you whining about Jonathon Ross, he USUALLY gets it right, and he has a good overall picture through taking his kids to many of the movies he reviews. He was disappointed with Narnia, said that it lacked heart and purpose, and that the effects were jarring (cutting from excellent CG one second to shitty LOTR-reject masks the next). He said that while everyone will see it, due to the marketing being plastered just about everywhere, no-one will want to see it again. This is kind of the same thing that Mori said. I think this movie was too much for Adamson to handle as his first live-action flick. Just because he can handle Shrek and make a mediocre sequel - and is from New Zealand - doesn't mean he should have been given one of the most important adaptations ever. Of course, you could have said the same about Peter Jackson with LOTR in 1999. It's a shame that Peter couldn't have directed this also! Maybe he'd helm one of the sequels (they are inevitable).
missing background by skynetbauxi	Dec 8th, 2005 10:13:55 AM
my guess is that Harry has a new favorite movie (albeit the title stayed the same) and the site will soon look something like this: http://www.avi-film.com/aicn/a intitcool.htm
RE: "christian allegory a bad thing?" by Right Bastard	Dec 8th, 2005 10:14:16 AM
I am an athiest, but never mind christian allegory in film. I think my only problem with it would be if people misinterpret what Lewis was trying to do with these books. This is not a problem with Christians. I think it's a problem in general, with people not engaging their entertainment. (though, the problem with christians that i do have is many who don't even understand their own religion; but that's another story...)
Liam Neeson is ALWAYS dull. by Mr. Waturi	Dec 8th, 2005 10:14:26 AM
He was dull in Batman, he was dull in the Star Wars movie, he was dull in Kingdom of Heaven. Why he keeps getting work is beyond me.
back by skynetbauxi	Dec 8th, 2005 10:17:36 AM
whaddayasay, the background's back
RE:"Liam Neeson is ALWAYS dull. " by Right Bastard	Dec 8th, 2005 10:18:34 AM
He has high points, like "Darkman", "The Mission", "Rob Roy", etc. I do think he phones it in when he does the "money" pics. lol
smear campaign? by minderbinder	Dec 8th, 2005 10:40:04 AM
The last review they polsted was positive, this one is negative, but pretty mildly so. They're going pretty easy on this one so far.
Right Bastard by Ribbons	Dec 8th, 2005 10:49:20 AM
"Take the fucking bear!"
"The Wizard of Oz" sucked. by Psalmolive	Dec 8th, 2005 10:49:39 AM
Why people like this absolute cinematic failure of imagination is absolutely confounding to me. Even when I was a child I couldn't stand it. Yet people believe its the greatest family film of all time. What a bunch of propaganda- almost like you can't be a human being unless you like "The Wizard of Oz"- it's more than just rule, it's a LAW.
The books put me to sleep by Bob of the Shire	Dec 8th, 2005 10:51:05 AM
Boring and unimaginative, in my opinion. Lewis did much better work in his time, Narnia is like a collage of pre-existing myths and ideas he took and pasted together for the Christian crowd. Count me out of the film as well.
C'mon Guys! by cerebulon	Dec 8th, 2005 11:06:21 AM
Moriarty says in the beginning of his review that he didn't like the Neverending Story. The Neverending story was one movie that just didn't grab him on that illusive emotional level. Well, I am of the sort that "swears by it." I love that movie to death and can quote most of it verbatim. I still have high hopes for Narnia - I think it's going to rock my socks. As for the ending - as in the books - the kids after growing up in Narnia as the rulers, go back to the wardrobe and are turned back into children. No, it did not negate what they had just done. No, they were not day-dreaming. The rest of the series deals with what is going on about this. In the books, the "children" retained all of the wisdom and information they received in Narnia. They really weren't children anymore - they were adults in the bodies of children. Very weird. As for the Christian subtext.... if you look for something - you're going to find it. I could find Christian subtext in Independance Day or Godzilla. I'm not going to, but I'm sure I could. On another note - what is the problem with Christian subtext anyway? This country is 80% Christian at last count. I am a Christian. We have to tolerate immoral, anti-religious crap all day long and have done so for years. It seems that a few Christian movies come out and everyone freaks out. I hope there are more Christian movies on the horizon: Anne Rice's Childhood of Christ stories, maybe a retelling of the arc or the 10 Commandments, maybe "3 Days in Hell : Vengance of the Christ" about Jesus kicking demon butt in hell with great one-liners! Yeah - I'd see that! Jesus rocks.
Neverending Story? by Holly_Wight	Dec 8th, 2005 11:13:25 AM
By the middle of that flick I was looking for ways to kill myself to alleviate the boredom, and I was ready to kill the fucking kid for interrupting the flow whenever the story DID get moderately interesting. I HATE the Neverending Story. It's certainly no "Dark Crystal" or "Labyrinth."
Nice post Jack Pumpkinhead - we need more people who reinforce t by half vader	Dec 8th, 2005 11:14:55 AM
God forbid someone is discussed not from our glorious backyard. Great redundant post - if you just trashed the guy that'd be one thing, but the "Who is he"/"Don't tell me" just made me laugh.
Good Review ... Albeit With the Usual AICN Biases by SamuelLappDance	Dec 8th, 2005 11:15:46 AM
Moriarty, I agree that you do write the best reviews on here. And there is something to be said for a guy who thinks he could have done "The Wizard of Oz" better (assuming you would have nailed everything else that was grand and amazing before the "botched" ending). But I saw "Narnia" at a radio preview screening the other night and thought it was simply fantastic! A truly wonderful storybook journey that captivated me from start to finish. I wish you and the other AICN reviewers would be as critical of Peter Jackson's work as you are of movies like this and "Star Wars." Your complaint of the frozen reinforcements resuscitated to turn the tide of the battle with the White Witch was laughable when considering the sudden ghost army that Aragorn was able to summon. Deus ex machina, anyone? As for Neeson, I found him much more compelling as the Lion than in the recent Batman flick, another movie that got a largely free pass here. But agreed, this guy has to STOP playing mentors. I'm not saying he should make another flick where he shags dudes a la "Kinsey." But, jeez, how about a detective flick or a romantic comedy. He was great in "Love Actually" as the widowed dad who tries to help his son win over his school crush.
Wizard of Oz was a FAILURE with the American public... by half vader	Dec 8th, 2005 11:23:57 AM
...when it came out, and only started to even make money when shown in syndication on TV. But then, revisionist history is a popular U.S. pasttime, so of course this movie is seen as 'untouchable'. After all, we've got to wave SOMETHING around as the greatest family classic movie ever, and God forbid it should be one of the plethora of British stories! As for Jack Pumpkinhead, I forgot 'arrogant'.
Return to Oz by occams_razor	Dec 8th, 2005 11:39:08 AM
I don't like the Wizard of Oz. It creeped me out as a kid. I liked the Wiz better. But, Wizard of Oz gave us Return to Oz which gave us the lunch pail tree. To this day, I still think about how awesome it would be to have a lunch pail tree.
you bastard, how could you not like this movie by Rupee88	Dec 8th, 2005 11:40:18 AM
This was my favorite book as a child...I'll never visit this site again!!.....just kidding, but that seems like what you fear with such an apologetic review. If Narnia sucks balls, just say it...don't be so gentle.
Seems like Mori's problems are with the book, not the movie by oisin5199	Dec 8th, 2005 11:42:49 AM
As many people have said, if you're looking for LOTR depth (like the Gandalf comparison), you're not going to find it. This is a children's story written over half a century ago, plain and simple. Of course there's a deus ex machina! What do you expect, Aslan to stay dead and the children to grow up depressed and suicidal? It's a fairy story. Of course there's a reset at the end, as if it were all 'just a dream.' That's what nostalgic childhood is supposed to be: a grand adventure that seems like a dream. If these kinds of things are not your thing, then don't bother. But at least take your kids. They'll probably love it. Unless they've become entirely jaded by too much Star Wars and Harry Potter.
Too bad about Return to Oz... by half vader	Dec 8th, 2005 11:48:14 AM
That film could have been so great. Too bad about the pacing and some of the worst lighting in cinema history, the crime of which is that the production design was so great. Oh well. I still like it. As for my rant above, I'm only complaining about the revisionist history thing. I liked the film. It's just not all that and a bag of chips. ______Of course it does have flying monkeys. Who else has flying monkeys? Of course, Gone with the Wind is defended the same way as Oz, and it's a fucking overblown soap opera. We need some perspective.
I don't care what the public thinks, The Wizard of Oz needs by Terry_1978	Dec 8th, 2005 11:53:27 AM
Mostly because Frank Baum's book was butchered in the 1939 version, regardless of how much it's a staple of Americana. I read that thing as a kid, and I looked at the movie, and swear that was the first time ever I loved a book more than the movie.
A local reviewer's take on the Wizard of Oz by cyberskunk	Dec 8th, 2005 12:03:45 PM
http://tinyurl.com/955ag
must be seen to be believed by stvnhthr	Dec 8th, 2005 12:07:43 PM
You got to remember Moriarty hates anything with even a tinge of Christianity about it. He isn't going to be the best judge of a film with an extended Christian metaphor.
Wait a minute.... by KurosawaDisciple	Dec 8th, 2005 12:08:12 PM
....the "Wizard of Oz" is a "absolute cinematic failure of imagination"??? Man...the morons are out in full force on AICN today...
Quit Lecturing Us by RetroActive	Dec 8th, 2005 12:26:38 PM
I enjoy Moriarty's reviews...but the whole, "let me tell you what film is all about" b.s. irks me. Just get to the point. I can appreciate feelings of wanting something more, but let's not forget...it's a kid's story and a kid's movie. Everything doesn't have to be a Romero bloodfest. It's supposed to be mildly lighthearted. Anyway...looking forward to it.
Spot on by The Cine-eater	Dec 8th, 2005 12:35:42 PM
Mori nice review saw this last night and I totally agree looks very pretty but no substance, older kids can't act and Aslan looks very good but theres nothing to the character and the White Witch is not scary or menacing in the slightest.
Nice one Mori by CrimsonGhost	Dec 8th, 2005 12:51:50 PM
Once again, you show the kids how it's done. Great review. I'll still see it and all, but with lower expectations. And when that happens, I usually enjoy myself more. Case in point - Chronicles of Riddick. Expected it to be dreck, ended up enjoying the ride. Cheers!!
Jesus and the movies by knossis	Dec 8th, 2005 12:53:37 PM
Given that several movies in recent years have used the Jesus story for inspiration, Mori's comments about Jesus overtones in Narnia strike me as silly. It's seems biased to single out Narnia and call it The Passion of the Lion King. The Matrix was filled with Jesus stuff did you say anything about that. Neo was Jesus, Morpheus was John the Baptist,Trinity was Mary Magdalyne and the Guy who betrayed them to go back into the Matrix was Judus. Even the character of Superman borrows much from the Jesus Myth.(Strange visitor from another Universe come to earth gifted with miracle working powers)Marlon Brandon even states in the Narration from the Superman Movies," I send them you, my only son." Sound familiar... The Jesus myth has served as source material for all thousands of books and a great many movies over the years. There is nothing wrong with that because it's a very powerful story about sacrifice, redemption, forgiveness, heroism and Love. It's resonates with us because all these things are very close to are hearts. We also have to remember that even the Jesus story isn't the original, it's just a reworking of an ancient Greek myth of a dying and reborn godman. The Greek myth was a reworking of the same tale told from an Egyptian point of view. C.S.Lewis was a Christian who wrote stories for adults and children, so its a given that his writings may have Christian themes. It doesn't make sense to go to a movie based off of his writings and not expect to see the Jesus stuff. And who else was the Lion supposed to represent other than Jesus. Jesus is described as the Lion of Israel,so that's a given. Mori, the Jesus stuff is all around you, you just have to look clearly to see them all. Don't just single out a movie that you already know will have Christian overtones and bash it because of it. Bash fairly.
Moriarty, you've outdone yourself. by devil0509	Dec 8th, 2005 12:53:48 PM
I know it's your job to critique, and no work of art is above critique, but in one paragraph you managed to blast as fundamentally flawed both a classic movie (The Wizard of Oz) and a classic novel (The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe). It's really too bad the makers of the movie and C.S. Lewis didn't have you around to keep them from making such tremendous blunders in the endings of their works. I mean, that movie and that book could have been CLASSICS if they just hadn't fucked up the endings so royally as you pointed out. What a waste.
Just because a movie or book is "classic" doesn't mean it ca by minderbinder	Dec 8th, 2005 01:12:37 PM
The narnia books definitely ARE classics, but there certainly are flaws to them. I don't know that I'd agree that the "reset" ending of this first one is a flaw, but it's always struck me a s a bit of a downer ending. I don't know how the movie handles it - I don't think there's any problem with the "reset", the film should just acknowledge that YEARS of experience in these kids lives is suddenly wiped away, there should be some acknowledgement of what a big deal that is and not be to casual about it.
Yes, but the 1939 Wizard of Oz and TLTW&TW book ARE flawed! by performingmonkey	Dec 8th, 2005 01:27:10 PM
I don't care for anyone who has the opinion that The Wizard of Oz is the greatest movie ever and has no flaws. Fuck you and the...lion you rode in on. And C.S. Lewis's book may be beloved, but it only gets you when you're around 8 years old. Reading it now and it's numb. The other Narnia books are written better, but it's The Lion... that's the most famous for whatever reason. The plot of the book is crazy and thin as fuck. The same goes for the original Wonderful Wizard of Oz book. Reading it is like a mindfuck because you can't believe that something like this was made into what became the 1939 musical that is inbred into people at birth. I say we need some new Oz series adaptations (disregard the Muppet Wizard of Oz with Ashanti...). I was reading the book and thinking how cool a movie could be, with various set pieces amped up to the max and some nods to the 1939 movie. Get some hack director like Abrams, Singer, Sommers or Ratner, hire Stiller/Wilson to play the Scarecrow and Tin Woodman, Barbara Streisand to play Aunt Em, Al Pacino as Uncle Henry, Jennifer Lopez as the Wicked Witch of the East (the one who gets crushed by a house), Jim Carrey as the Cowardly Lion, Dakota Fanning as Dorothy, Cruise as Oz, Paris Hilton as Toto. Get Universal to supply a $200 million budget, and there you have it, the perfect Wizard of Oz movie.
The problem is... by wackynephews	Dec 8th, 2005 01:55:04 PM
...that the movie isn't epically scaled...like Lord of the Rings or Braveheart but with children. Jesus, Mori, it's nice to know the man capable of writing a turd like "Pavlov's Dogs" is capableof writing a better ending to one of the classic movies of all times. Maybe you could have done something about the endings of "Casablanca" and "The Dirty Dozen" cause they sure sucked. What a prat!
there is a subject is think should widely be discussed by white owl	Dec 8th, 2005 02:03:17 PM
that is it is already 1/3 into December and how many movies thus far released will actually garner interest in the Academy? All Oscar-hating aside, let's be realistic. Does anyone think 'KONG' has a chance? Or Munich? This is a year of almost-were's and coulda-been's like Walk The Line, Crash, Geisha-movie etc. Does anyone have thoughts on this?
Having not see Kong I can't really say, by FrodosBlueBalls	Dec 8th, 2005 02:16:51 PM
Jurassic Park was a fantastic movie that got fantastic reviews, but movies in the JP and KK genre have a tough time being nominated, let alone winning. ROTK was a rarity and I don't think that Academy is gonna give PJ a nomination so quick for a re-make. (gotta love all the acronyms)
Still think it's a difference in expectations based on more by oisin5199	Dec 8th, 2005 02:19:43 PM
Authors of fairy stories (or just cultural folk tales and legends)and children's stories had very different intentions than the modern psychological novel. It's like comparing the presentational acting style of 17th century acting to the 'psychological realism' of the 19th and 20th (like in 'Stage Beauty'). Baum and Lewis wrote children's stories that were meant to be like folktales and were not meant to have psychological depth. For the Trekkers (ies) out there, the whole reset button was done on Inner Light, where Picard lived out a lifetime in a short matter of time (or more recently the 4400 did the same thing). The writers on TNG wanted to explore (albeit briefly) the after effects of such an experience, but Lewis simply wasn't interested. I think in the books we get a bit of a sadder but wiser angle (especially in the 3rd book when Susan and Peter are too old to go to Narnia), but this is mostly about overall theme, not character. Let's face it, even Tolkien's novels did not necessarily have psychological depth (Tolkien was a great storyteller and mythologist, but a terrible writer), but there was enough space in the narrative that when Jackson and crew added those elements, they worked. And LOTR's a fairly dark story to begin with. I just don't think judging Narnia by LOTR's standards is fair to either one. Can't wait to see this.
The LOTR trilogy, in my opinion, sucked (unlike other talkbacker by Psalmolive	Dec 8th, 2005 02:23:36 PM
I made that mistake with the "Wizard of Oz" post. That's why everyone hates everyone on these boards, they post their opinions as "facts". Anyway, I hated the LOTR trilogy, it was bloated, overlong, it had a simplistic notion that didn't have enough fuel to drive it for one movie, let alone three movies and it had one-dimensional characters. There was nothing invigorating about that cinema, no reinvention, nothing. If only someone like Leni Riefenstahl or Sergei Eistenstein could have directed LOTR, then there would have been something interesting formatively about the entire trilogy.
Just a few things... by Childe Roland	Dec 8th, 2005 02:24:41 PM
...to straighten out here. First, MemBirdman: I think the reason the Lord of the Rings movies were understood to be smaller parts of a cinematic whole is that all three films were shot at once and release dates were announced for all three when the first one came out. Simply because a story used as the basis for a film is one in a series of books or stories has not, historically, been an absolute guarantee that all the stories in the series would be released as films. Look at Interview with the Vamprie. Second, mistrminqed: you might look less the tool in taking Mori to task on his written language skills if you weren't so concerned with running a "grammer" check. Last I read, Grammer was in X3. There's a talkback for that trailer a few lines down on the main page. Perhaps you could look there and put you burning obsession with all things Frasier to bed for a bit? Third, oisin5199: The only problems Mori seemed to have with the book were its handling of Susan and its ending...and he said as much. His problems with the film seemed to have more to do with the inconsistency of special effects and acting ability among the non-CGI characters not doing a good enough job of creating a totally immersive fantasy and drawing the viewer into it, respectively. Perfectly valid criticisms, if you ask me. Fourth, stvnthr: Are you suggesting that one needs to be a Christian or to completely approve of all things related to Christian doctrine to appreciate Lewis' stories? If so, I call bullshit. You don't even need to be a Christian to appreciate the entertainment value of the New Testament, which also contains some very engaging-yet-simplistic children's stories. But the movies that my imagination has made in my head about Bible stories have almost always been better than the ones that Hollywood put out. If I like the book but don't like the movie, isn't it more likely that whoever translated the story to film dropped the ball? I want this to be good as much as the next guy, but if Disney mucked it up there isn't much I can do about that. As it stands, nothing I've seen in the commercials, trailers or previews has really tugged at my "must go see it" strings. The effects look rather shoddy. I'll definitely give it a rental, though.
The books, and movie magic... by BDT	Dec 8th, 2005 02:50:34 PM
Reading this review sort of reminded me of the weak spots for me in the books. I remember that all the parts in between Lucy, Edmund, the White Witch, Mr. Tumnus and The Beavers, were just kind of 'fillers". I was a young teen when I first read them, and thought the older siblings just seemed kind of bossy and blah while the younger ones were involved in true moral decision making, imagination, adventure. I disliked the battle scenes when I read the book too, they seemed to take the story line out of the fantasy. The battle takes place after the climax of the book, and makes a moral statement about war that I found uncomfortable, embuing it with nobility and "religious" zeal. The drama of the book came from the choices the children made and what they learned through those choices. As a movie, what I saw at Fantastic Fest of the work of KNB and the designs of Weta in terms of practical effects was awesome and I knew I was going to feel at least slightly disappointed by the CGI stuff by comparison. Nonetheless, I think I will enjoy this movie because of what I liked in the book and I loved what I saw at Fantastic Fest.
WILLOW!!! by Orionsangels	Dec 8th, 2005 02:55:41 PM
I don't even like Willow. I just said it, because someone was going to sooner or later
kong background is up! by drewATX	Dec 8th, 2005 02:58:19 PM
the original that has always been on this site that was the inspirado for the kong cock skit on SNL. Don't know whats wrong with yall. Look to the right Its there!
Almost all of the Christian themes and ideas in the Narnia books by TonyWilson	Dec 8th, 2005 02:58:26 PM
Forgiveness, redemption, honour and doing the right what's right. What's wrong with kids absorbing those ideas? I was raised by atheist parents and they gave me the Narnia books to read, we had the books read to us in school. The are fantastically imaginitive educational books for children. I'm agnostic now and no kid ever converted to christianity because of The Lion The Witch and The Wardrone. The only tiny bit of the books I could say was an unhealthy message was the bit in the Last Battle about Susan and wearing make up and all that stupid business. But seriously, not liking the film because of it's particular subtext is silly and a good way to get cheap shots at the christain fundametalist right. Why give them such emotive and just plain daft ammo? it's like the whole "Happy Holidays" debalce he ACLU look fucking stupid and EVERYONE knows it.
Eberts review of Narnia reads like, unlike Toiken, Unlike lord o by Orionsangels	Dec 8th, 2005 03:00:22 PM

Read Mori's review again, and have to disagree with you CR by oisin5199	Dec 8th, 2005 03:08:23 PM
Besides one short paragraph on the digital stuff in relation to Aslan and Neeson's performance, his primary criticisms were 1)he thought Edmund and Lucy were more interesting than Susan and Peter, but then says Susan 'was written that way'. Lewis's Susan and Peter were intentionally underdeveloped as another poster stated, since Lewis valorized younger children over older (though Peter is 'in charge' and spurs the action, it's Lucy and Edmund who have the real struggles). 2) the reset button at the end, which was exactly as Lewis intended. So I maintain the major criticisms were more about the book then the movie. Of course, he's seen it and I haven't, so I'm just speculating.
Mory didn't like Rocky because of the ending too by Peven	Dec 8th, 2005 03:20:32 PM
lets see, if we Moriaritized the endings of films to leave the audience with a better, more feel-good, feeling when they walk out of a movie..........Obi Wan could sneak on to the Millenium Falcon and the audience could feel good about him not getting lightsabered by Darth Vader, Rhett could decide to give it another try with Scarlett, Dustin Hoffman would keep the diamonds instead of letting them all go down into the drain at the end of Marathon Man, and Charlton Heston would find a spaceship to take him home instead of a crumbling Statue of Liberty at the end of Planet of the Apes. wouldn't Mory-like audiences have much more happy happy joy joy feelings if they could watch these versions?
Mori's dissatisfaction with the ending... by capt jack aubrey	Dec 8th, 2005 03:51:04 PM
Without having seen the film yet (and having read the books decades ago), my sense of what Moriarty was bothered by wasn't the downer ending, but that a) the characters and the film didn't really deal with it emotionally and b) that the way it was presented trivialized the whole fantastic adventure. I got no sense that Mori WANTED a happier ending, only that he was dissatisfied with how this film handled its emotionally complex ending. But hey, that's just what I think Mori was trying to say -- I haven't seen the film and I'm not in Moriarty's head. MORI said:
Or perhaps Mori doesn't like the Narnia ending or the Oz end by FluffyUnbound	Dec 8th, 2005 04:02:45 PM
...he can't believe the protagonists would actually want to go home. Fantasies are fundamentally escape vehicles; people like them because they like to imagine themselves IN them, instead of in the disappointing, boring, un-fantastic real world. This means that stories that end with characters happily going home and re-embracing their real lives will seem a little "off" to someone who really buys in to the fantasy world. You can picture them asking "What kind of idiots leave a magical world where they are the rulers so they can come back and be clerks and housewifes in mundane England?" And that isn't necessarily a bad question to ask. Structurally it's because the end of the story represents the end of "storytime" as well, but that makes more sense technically than thematically.
Sorry, houseWIVES. by FluffyUnbound	Dec 8th, 2005 04:04:47 PM
EOP.
The books ARE too easy by zekmoe	Dec 8th, 2005 04:15:47 PM
From someone who's read them as a 10 year old, a 16 year old and a 41 year old, the value of these books changed. They are not as deep as I remembered, begin and end abrupty with little or no character development. Today, such simple stories wouldn't stand a chance against Harry Potter etc... They're just not as good. But as a kid, when I first encountered them, they left a permanent memory of wonder and joy etched in my mind. They are first and formost, kids books. Not young at heart books. For young, early readers graduating from simple 16 pagers and moving into novel formats.
Well stated, zekmoe. by Childe Roland	Dec 8th, 2005 04:36:13 PM
As someone who read the Narnia books in the first and second grades, then again after graduating to The Hobbit and Tolkein's trilogy, I can honestly say they don't have a lot of adult re-readability for me. Which is a shame, considering the unifying message (at least once you get past the heavy-handed Christian allegory) of Lewis' stories seemed to be the enduring power of innocence and importance of maintaining a childlike sense of wonder. I can recapture that sense of wonder when I go back and re-read the Hobbit. The book pulls me right in, even without the convenient device of a completely relatable human character from "my" world. The Narnia books just don't quite manage that total immersion anymore. In fact, I'd argue that Where the Wild Things Are does a better job of creating a cohesive and absorbing mythology in a much shorter span of pages. But these are criticisms of the books, not the movie...which I still believe is what Mori had a problem with. If anything, the movie presented an opportunity to make up for the book's shortcomings by creating visually what Lewis' work can't quite evoke on its own...at least for older audiences. If Mori's assessment is accurate, Disney missed that opportunity and mishandled yet another of my fantasy faves from my youth (anyone else remember The Black Cauldron?).
Aubrey and Fluffy seem to get mori's complaint abut the endi by minderbinder	Dec 8th, 2005 04:42:29 PM
From what he writes, the problem isn't that they return to england, it's that such a huge shift in their lives causes them to barely react. Don't forget, in these books, when the kids are told they'll never return to Narnia, it's a huge blow for them. If the movie misses that, that IS a pretty big cop out.
by drjones	Dec 8th, 2005 04:44:28 PM
the neverending story is to some extent a real slap in the face. i'm always propagating the "you shall not compare a book with its film version" maxime. but the neverending story just gives away so much of michael endes book's original atmosphere, intimacy and natural magic, sensibility and sense. it is really disappointing. its wood turned into plastic. i can only recommend to everyone reading the classics MOMO, JIM KNOPF aaand THE NEVERENDING STORY. but the NARNIA books rock as well. dunno if i am gonna pay for it. there's so much to see in december (in germany).
So when do we get the Dark Is Rising movies? by minderbinder	Dec 8th, 2005 04:51:28 PM
Great stuff, I'd be more excited about those than the Narnia films.
well, the kid in Time Bandits hardly acted "appropriatly" by Peven	Dec 8th, 2005 04:53:05 PM
when all sorts of outragious fantastical things happened with him, but apparantly it didn't keep Moriarity from enjoying that movie. see, what irritates me is the inconsistencies in his reason for criticizing movies. he'll point out something as a flaw in one movie, that is just as prevelant in another movie he likes. he actually started out on the right foot in his review here, talking about how the reasons for liking a movie are personal. fact is, Time Bandits is one of my favorites from when i was a kid too, but i could tear it apart if i wanted to be Mory-like about it. just be honest about being subjective in giving a good or poor review, thats all. Mory's little anti-christian-allegory thing really is laughable too, as pointed out earlier here. ironic and laughable. i bet if he listed his top 10 films most of them would have themes that could be attributed to religion somehow. after all, movies explore right and wrong, the meaning of life, and all that good stuff, and the origins to the concept of right and wrong and all that stuff are....? religion. it sure as hell wasn't some athiest tribesman who arrived at the concept of right and wrong 10,000 yrs ago, and then started coming up with stories about it. then, there were the greeks, who are credited with the foundations of theatre, and religion/morality was an integral part of their storytelling. they used plays as a way to explain the whys and wherefores of morals and values and laws. now, aren't movies just a form of modern storyteling? and so if some contain themes that are religiously analogous should it be any surprise? should it be anything to criticize?
So "good vs evil" is just as christian as "I died for your sins by minderbinder	Dec 8th, 2005 04:58:06 PM
I don't buy that. There's no question that there are elements in Narnia that are overtly and blatantly Christian. If he didn't like them, isn't he entitled to his opinion? There's nothing ironic or laughable about that at all.
The Dark is Rising by Peven	Dec 8th, 2005 05:03:42 PM
great set of books. read earlier this fall about the deal to hire screenwiter to adapt for film, and i worry they will get hacked, just like Disney hacked The Black Cauldron up beyond recognition years ago. Under Sea and Over Stone, the first in the Rising series, if memory serves me, is a good read, but not sure if there is enough action for a mobie, so i fear they will try to condense two or more of the books together, and end up with something that doesn't really represent the original story very accurately. i mean, Will(the main protaganist of the series) doesn't even enter the story until the second book, The Dark is Rising, i think it is. now, if they skip the first book and start out with the second, they will have an awful mess when they get to the third book, since several very important, integral characters are introduced and developed in Under Sea, Over Stone. i'll be crossing my fingers they do it justice.
it isn't just a comparison of good vs evil versus "i died fo by Peven	Dec 8th, 2005 05:08:33 PM
its a matter of using a religious theme/allegory. now, if he wants to pick and choose which religion he thinks have valid themes to use, he ends up being just another religious bigot himself.
Dude... Peven... by TheRealMoriarty	Dec 8th, 2005 05:10:37 PM
... relax. I'm not saying Christian allegory is a bad thing. I'm saying OBVIOUS allegory of any type is annoying. When I'm watching something, and the allegory outweighs the actual story I'm watching, it takes me out of the film. When NARNIA gets to Aslan's sacrifice, it becomes so thuddingly obvious that it stops the film cold. I have nothing against people of any faith, so stop trying to make it about that.
One thing to point out - the Narnia films (and the Dark is Risin by minderbinder	Dec 8th, 2005 05:29:47 PM
...but they're principally controlled by Walden Media. And as for allegory, I agree with Mori. It's not bad to do it, it's not bad to use any particular one. But HOW it's used is perfectly valid grounds for criticism. You're bordering on reverse bigotry with your comments - it's like when Passion came out and some branded people who didn't like the movie "anti-christian". The movie doesn't get a free pass just becuase it has religious content.
"the movie wears its Christian allegory on its sleeve" by Purple Toupee	Dec 8th, 2005 05:33:08 PM
Moriarty, do you have a problem with religious allegory in general, or specifically with Christianity? Should we be annoyed at all movies with religious undertones? If so, then boycott all movies dealing with Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Taoism, etc. Don't see "Monsoon Wedding". Stay away from "Osama." Don't like Christian allegory? Then burn your copies of Lord of the Rings and Star Wars. Harry Potter, for that matter. If you don't want to see religious allegory, Moriarty, then you shouldn't be reviewing ANYTHING based on C.S. Lewis's work, and don't look at anything his drinking buddies wrote (namely Lewis Carrol and J.R.R. Tolkien).
one more thing, Moriarty......... by Purple Toupee	Dec 8th, 2005 05:34:32 PM
Messianic themes are hardly exclusive to Christianity.......
OK..... by Purple Toupee	Dec 8th, 2005 05:36:57 PM
Moriarty, I just saw your post responding to Peven. However, you specifically said "Christian allegory" in your review. You must be accountable for what you say.
Did you guys even read the review? by minderbinder	Dec 8th, 2005 05:43:11 PM
I guess you missed the part where he said he wouldn't mind the allegory...except that the character of aslan didn't hold any interest for him. So it begins...anyone who doesn't like the film is automatically labled a religion hater? And to compare SW with Narnia is ridiculous, there's a vast difference between using general archetypes found in all literature and using allegory that's overtly specific to certian religious stories.
Mory, why is it that you seem to be the one reviewer.. by Peven	Dec 8th, 2005 05:45:22 PM
..who seems to think that the allegory is so obvious and clucky in the movie? thats a fair question, isn't it? again and again i keep seeing the allegory referred to in reviews, but referred to as being secondary, underlying, subtle, and not taking away from the story itself. only you have complained about it as being a negative. are all the other reviewers simply too dense to see what you are seeing? seriously, its a glaring distinction between your review and others. now, if you wanted to make any statements about the kids' acting, or lack thereof, why not ask why? who is directing the movie? oh, a guy who is known for working with all cgi characters. aahhh, so maybe if you wanted to be insightful instead of simply critical you might have wondered aloud that perhaps a director working with real live actors for the first time did not bring out the best performances he could have from young, inexperienced actors, instead taking easy pot shots at the kids. something besides a simple laundry list of bits and pieces you didn't like about the movie. is that so much to ask?
Re: Minderbinder by Purple Toupee	Dec 8th, 2005 05:51:24 PM
1) "there's a vast difference between using general archetypes found in all literature and using allegory that's overtly specific to certian religious stories." Please see my second post. 2) No one has called anyone a "religion hater." I'm not religious myself. However, it appears that it is still PC to criticize Christianity, though a critical approach to any other religion is often considered "offensive." 3) Moriarty commented that he wouldn't have minded the allegory if not for the Aslan bit.....AFTER he'd already complained about the movie "wearing Christian allegory on its sleeve." Simply put, Moriarty has conveniently forgotten to hold himself accountable for his "passing comments," so to speak. This is now a published review--internet, yes, but published nonetheless. He can not take back the printed word.
Purple Toupee And My New Best Friend Peven by TheRealMoriarty	Dec 8th, 2005 05:59:14 PM
Yes, you're right. I did specifically say "Christian allegory" in my review. You know why? Because it's a Christian allegory in the movie. I would have said "Hindu allegory" if that's what it had been, but it wasn't. And Peven, it's obvious that you simply aren't going to accept that, to me, the allegory was distracting and obvious. I can't tell you why other reviewers say what they say because I am not them. I didn't call any other reviewer dense, and if it didn't bother them, then yay. And ultimately, I don't care "why" a performance doesn't work. Either it does or doesn't. I think Adamson makes very broad, bland films and said so. Beyond that, I don't think I need to microanalyze his skill set to say that the film, overall, did not work for me.
Saw the film a couple hours ago and the word "Toothless" kept cr by Flipao	Dec 8th, 2005 06:00:47 PM
And I told myself it was just a kid's film... I felt just as bored in Aslan's sacrifice (hey, look, the CG Lion's kicking it!), the lack of scope is problematic (it takes the Lion like 5 minutes to go from on side of the world to the other, and back, after showing off his Halitosis to half an army, I was laughing my ass off during that scene... man that was some breath!. Anyway, love the imagery during the battle sequences... and Tilda Swindon was badass! And ffs, enough with a kid who can barely lift a sword swatting away Minotaurs 10 time his size... I was like eeew... :\|
Book into movie by Nairb The Movie	Dec 8th, 2005 06:02:31 PM
It seems everything Moriart didn't like about the movie is usually the things people didn't like about the book. It sounds like a pretty sound adaption then. MO did you ever read the book?
Great Review...and TALKING ANIMALS by Cat_Corporation	Dec 8th, 2005 06:03:24 PM
I enjoyed the Narnia books as a kid, but I've not been looking forward to the film as such. As an adult, I've developed a weirdness with talking animals. They're just.........shit. I have yet to see a film that has made me believe an animal can talk - live action, I mean - cartoons are OK. I just can't do it! PS. Great review, King Moriarty. You were spot on with the fantasy stuff at the beginning - I have a certain penchant for Willow; even as a discerning adult fan of quality film, I still just love it; despite Kilmer's fright-wig.
RE: Moriarty by Purple Toupee	Dec 8th, 2005 06:04:13 PM
OK, I accept your explanation. However, as one familiar with the nuances of writing, you should be aware of how your word choices affect the TONE of your article. If you are unaware of that, then you may have simply made a mistake.
"it appears that it is still PC to criticize Christianity" by minderbinder	Dec 8th, 2005 06:06:21 PM
Wow, you loves the straw man. This review didn't criticize Christianity. Messianic themes are not exclusive to Christianity, true. But these stories have tons of details that absolutely are. Again, I think it's ridiculous to lump in Narnia with Star Wars.
Or maybe you're just over sensitive to the use of the word " by Flipao	Dec 8th, 2005 06:06:58 PM
It's all about perception dude, don't shoot the messenger.
read carefully by Purple Toupee	Dec 8th, 2005 06:12:35 PM
I wasn't responding to the review, Minderbinder. I was responding to your "religion haters" comment.
Jonathan Ross... by Alonzo Mosely	Dec 8th, 2005 06:30:50 PM
It amuses me no end that he keeps getting brought up as a serious critic. Now I have been gone from the UK for 10 years, so I have no idea what he is doing or what he even looks like now, to me, he will always be the Rob Newman impression of him from the The Mary Whitehouse Experience... A flibbidly flibbidly flob... A-ha...
still sounds like a great flick by stvnhthr	Dec 8th, 2005 06:36:58 PM
Only problem Moriarty is we still have your Passion of the Christ review to refer back to to see just how deeply your anti-Christian views go. Too bad, you're probably my favorite reviewer on AICN, I've just learned to take all your religous views with a grain of salt.
I'll be avoid this one by Rindain	Dec 8th, 2005 06:37:52 PM
I don't like films that preach to me, or, even worse, try to convert me to Christianity. Hopefully this franchise will end with this film.
Minderbinder, the children aren't told they can't return by oisin5199	Dec 8th, 2005 06:42:13 PM
This does NOT happen in the first book. At the end of the first book, the Professor tells them that they can't get back to Narnia via the wardrobe. He says "It'll happen when you're not looking for it." They do go back in the next book, and in the 3rd, only Edmund and Lucy can go back and it's the last time for them because they're getting too old.
Best in-house review I've ever read on this site - woo! by scrumdiddly	Dec 8th, 2005 06:59:34 PM
"Passion of the Lion King" Heh... I'm sure I'll agree with every complaint Moriarty had.
oisin, you're referring to this as the first book, right? by scrumdiddly	Dec 8th, 2005 07:07:08 PM
Damn, it's been so long since I read any of these...I can't even remember why Edmund and Lucy went back.
gee thanks Mory, a new friend is all i need by Peven	Dec 8th, 2005 07:09:41 PM
though i sense a tinge of sarcasm there. credit to you for at least giving a token response to my questions. if you simply don't care for the movie, if it just didn't "do it" for you, fair enough. i haven't read the books myself, but a couple of my kids have and they are pretty excited to see the movie and bottom line is, they are the real target audience of the movie. so if they like it thats all it needs to do to be succesful imo. and yes, i will bring up your Daredevil review many more times so get used to it, lol. damn, the only comic i ever collected, had all sorts of high hopes for the movie, and then you review it like its the "raging bull" of comic book movies. what a letdown when i went to see it.
oh yeah, and the ending of Time Bandits... by Peven	Dec 8th, 2005 07:49:17 PM
..isn't exactly explanatory, satisfying, or well acted either, but that doesn't keep you from enjoying, does it? like i said before, one of my favorites from when i was young, but come on, that kid couldn't act his way out of a wet paper bag and Connery hardly looks like he is trying to act at all. and the ending was exactly the way you make Narnia's ending sound. i mean, the kid's parents are dead/burned/missing and he reacts more like his dog is missing? and was his whole journey real or a dream? and what is Connery doing as a fireman? and what about that piece of concentrated evil that God's little people failed to pick up? see, i think one of the reasons you like Time Bandits so much is that it is making fun of religion, the concept of a God, and thats why you give it a free pass on things you call out Narnia for. we all have our own buttons that get pushed, after all.
Peven by Ribbons	Dec 8th, 2005 08:06:25 PM
Let me direct you to Athony Lane of "The New Yorker"'s review of Narnia: http://tinyurl.com/ctn8d. I don't know why you're putting Moriarty's religious tolerance on trial but, for what it's worth, he basically says the same thing: ************** "As every parent knows," he says, "there is a large Christian allegory, sitting bang in the middle of Lewis
at least that reviewer explained himself by Peven	Dec 8th, 2005 08:13:36 PM
and if someone doesn't like allegorical movies thats completely their perogative too, no right or wrong, just a matter of taste.
Peven by TheRealMoriarty	Dec 8th, 2005 08:53:28 PM
You know nothing about me or my opinions of God. You're like the people who try to call me out about my political beliefs. I've been called both right-wing and hyper-liberal here. I review movies, not belief systems. Get over yourself.
"the return to Kansas should have been in glorious Technicolor t by seppukudkurosawa	Dec 8th, 2005 09:11:55 PM
Have you ever actually been to Kansas? You could have just gotten hitched to the most beautiful woman in the world, won the lottery three times and discovered the cure to homosexuality, I mean AIDS, and Kansas would still remain black and white.
my thoughts on narnia by slappy jones	Dec 8th, 2005 09:37:09 PM
I found incredibly average. The scope feels small...even when they show a huge vista or landscape it feels small. and it bugged me that no matter where they were in the land of narnia it always felt like they are all living within a 5 mile radius of each other. it is very hard to become involved with anyone...to care about anyone in the film. thats how i found it anyway...i didn't care about anyone. SPOILER WARNING i wanted to feel sad when aslan goes off to the white witch but i didn't. i had no connection to him....and then when he returns he just pops up from behind a rock...there is no triumph...no wow factor. he just pops up.....Ano one seems surprised or in awe...it is done matter of factly and i don't know if thats how it is in the books but in a film that moment should be spine tingling and it isn't...it just happens. everything just happens. and when santa happens it is at its worst.dreadful moment. anyway....it isn't a bad film but it falls far short of greatness. and yes i am a jackson fan but it really comes across as LOTR younger poorer brother. as i said extremely average. thats how I felt anyway.....i think adamson played way way to safe. oh and the music ... what the?? weird choices there too....
Didn't the children come back from Narnia accidentally? by Lutz	Dec 8th, 2005 09:47:18 PM
While on a hunt for the legendary White Stag or something? Its been at least fifteen years since I read the book but I think thats the way it was. I thought it was meant to suggest that the children played their part in Narnia and then when that was over they were taken away. From memory the Beavers talked about a legend about the sons of Adam and daughters of Eve ending the White Witch's reign and then ruling for so and so many years?
Ribbons "Take the fucking bear" by Right Bastard	Dec 8th, 2005 11:44:15 PM
ROTFL sorry, it took me a while to get back to that.
seppukudkurosawa by RetroActive	Dec 8th, 2005 11:56:58 PM
Re: Your comment on AIDS being the cure for homosexualtiy... Did you know that Africa is the leading contractor of HIV/AIDS in the world? Did you also know that men, women, and children are diagnosed every day...and I can assure you that the newborns are unaware of the sexual tendencies which have nothing to do with your silly prejudiced statement? What I can tell you is that in a scientific study, when heterosexual male control groups were individually shown a homosexual sex tape, the only ones who were aroused by the tape were those who claimed open intolerance to homosexuality. So that little finger your pointing at others? Remember that you've got three pointing back at yourself. Now get back in the closet where you belong. And open your eyes, pigeon! Life will be a lot more pleasant if you learn that there are more flavors than vanilla in the universe. G'night all.
RetroActive by seppukudkurosawa	Dec 9th, 2005 12:11:41 AM
I couldn't agree with you more- not one thing in your post I disagree with. The cure homosexuality comment was more of a pastiche on some dunderheaded comments I've read on these talkbacks over the years (check out the talkback to Harry's rent review). And as some of you might know, I have a transexual auncle, who's dragged me to a few of her Claire Projects (meetings chock-full of be-breasted men), so I'm clued up to to this sub-world beneath the cracks. The worst, most distasteful thing about AIDS to me is how the pharmaceutical companies treat it like a commodity- they refuse to give treatment to Africa because they don't think it's likely they'll get any money back from them. Sick if you ask me. And the thing is, these companies are government-sanctioned, so in a way it's the American, British, French governments who are partly depriving this African AIDS relief. So...you're forgiven for not catching the joke.
And that wasn't meant to read as if AIDS was the cure to hom by seppukudkurosawa	Dec 9th, 2005 12:12:57 AM
that would be a joke too far.
The Christian allegory... by CerebralAssassin	Dec 9th, 2005 12:47:59 AM
...is subdued in the film. Drew needs to get that chip off his shoulder.
i agree...i didn't find the christian allegory to in your fa by slappy jones	Dec 9th, 2005 03:03:29 AM
i highly doubt this film will inspire any kid who sees this to ask their mom to buy them a bible on the way home! it is definitely there but i was expecting worse....(or better if you are a christian)
"religion hater" by minderbinder	Dec 9th, 2005 06:46:26 AM
I guess you missed it? Mori HAS been called a religion hater on this thread, specifically "anti-christian" and even a bigot. I'm going tonight, very curious how subtle/overt the religious elements are.
Guys, guys, there's enough anti-Christianit/anti-Lewis scree by JasonPratt	Dec 9th, 2005 07:48:01 AM
Lewis included the character, and a key distinctive action, of Christ as part of his _story_; Moriarty is totally within his rights to render an opinion about how well the inclusion works (or not) as a story factor (including, though not limited, to how the filmmakers present that element.) It _is_ possible to do that in a fair manner, without necessarily salting the Pepsi by importing and imposing one's own biases (pro or con to any degree). Lewis himself routinely did it. ****** There are few people on the planet more doctrinaire than I am, and I have no problem at all with Mori's review--I thought it was entirely appropriate and measured. (Granted, I hope I appreciate it as a film and story-experience more than he did, but if I don't it'll be for much the same reasons, I expect.)
His Dark Materials are brilliant books though by Cameron1	Dec 9th, 2005 08:16:27 AM
Kids should be reading both sets of novels.
There's a problem with the theory that disliking this film m by FluffyUnbound	Dec 9th, 2005 08:18:59 AM
Here's what it is: I am a religion hater. I openly and freely admit that I hold the world's religions in contempt. But that doesn't mean that I automatically dislike religious art - including books and films with religious themes. I like BEN HUR because it's a great film - and you know something? The scene with the unseen Christ giving water to Charlton Heston works as a scene, as "art", whether Jesus was the son of God or not. It is perfectly possible to despise Christianity, but also to really like your CD of Orthodox chanting choir music. It is perfectly possible to despise Christianity, but to think "Quo Vadis" is a great novel. The art and the object of that art are separate. So don't immediately assume that anyone who dislikes Narnia, or who thinks its allegory is ineffective, is doing so because they can't tolerate any art with Christian themes or subjects. Maybe they just don't like BAD art.
Ebert says about the effects... by wato	Dec 9th, 2005 08:24:13 AM
The effects in this movie are so skillful that the animals look about as real as any of the other characters, and the critic Emanuel Levy explains the secret: "Aslan speaks in a natural, organic manner (which meant mapping the movement of his speech unto the whole musculature of the animal, not just his mouth)." Aslan is neither as frankly animated as the Lion King or as real as the cheetah in "Duma," but halfway in between, as if an animal were inhabited by an archbishop.
Mori didn't hate on Christianity... by MemBirdman	Dec 9th, 2005 09:32:26 AM
What I took issue with is that he is reviewing two different things. First, he reviews the movie, which is fine. But then, he reviews his assessment of the Christian allegory. And it's fine that he makes a decision one way or the other in that regard. But I do think it's not right that both reviews are lumped together as though they are one and the same. The story was complete in one book; the allegory is incomplete in one book, but is held in seven books in its entirety. And his review of the allegory needed to be called out as being incomplete.
Wow, a bunch of reactionary views on RELIGION. by Saluki	Dec 9th, 2005 09:36:14 AM
Color me surprised! I love how Christians are trying to get up in arms about this flick, like they did with The Passion. It reeks of Disney exploiting what they think is a new movie base. Yeah, right. As a Christian, I'll stick with the actual Holy Bible for my Christ reading. Thanks Disney, but no thanks.
Jonathan 'Fucking' Ross by TheLastAngryMan	Dec 9th, 2005 10:24:40 AM
Just to let our American friends in on the joke, Jonathan Ross is the presenter of the bbc's flagship film review show 'Film 2006'. Aside from the fact that this bloke can talk properly (a problem with many bbc 'stars'), he is without a doubt the biggest cock ever to grace the tv. Just be thankfull you dont have to watch (or listen) to this moron in the USA.
WOW by Halloween68	Dec 9th, 2005 11:30:31 AM
Moriarity, you are a downer. Dissing WIZARD OF OZ and one of the earliest, most magical children's stories ever written. For me, I didn't grow up on Seuss, Oz, Alice or Winnie the Pooh. All of my fondest early childhood memories, reading-wise, came from Mr. C.S. Lewis. I don't know, maybe it will seem kinda silly to someone who was never familiar with it as a child. I guess, same can be said for any of the other previously mentioned above. Lewis's stories captured the imagination of children all across the world. They dealt with things important to children and things familiar to children. In the back of it all are the same moral lessons we are all familiar with. You just have to know where to look to find it. As adults, you won't know your way around Narnia unless you've been there before as a child. Have you ever read any of the books, Moriarity? It seems to me you are always looking for things "you" think should be there and aren't, and in the process you overlook the things that are there and that are priceless to the millions of people who were there before you. If you are looking for David Cronenburg and J.D. Salinger in Narnia you're not going to find them. If you are looking for your childhood in Narnia... Who knows, try on a fur coat and follow the smell of turkish delight. And as with the books, contrary to popular belief, the Christian undertones does't overpower the story. It's there if you want to find it, it's not there is don't.
Since when are Movie tickets $20!? by Spice-Orange	Dec 9th, 2005 11:35:25 AM
where do you live?! holy kong. just say you're a student, you get day-prices to night shows and they never check for an ID.
People, people... by morGoth	Dec 9th, 2005 11:56:42 AM
...Mori is aggravated by the OBVIOUS allegory. That's the same reason Tolkien, a friend of Lewis, didn't like it either. I liked the Narnia books but it does seem, even for allegory, to be rather ham-fisted (oh shut up you perves!). Anyhoo, I'm going to go see this ternite and am as almost as excited as I am about Kong. Whoo hoo...pass me another beer brain! Oh yeah, very nice write up there Mori.
THAT'S WHAT DICTIONARIES ARE FOR! by tucson	Dec 9th, 2005 12:25:33 PM
JHC on a crutch...every freakin' critic on this site who's reviewed this movie can't farkin' spell FAUN...that's what Mr. Tumnus is. Bambi is a FAWN! Then again, if Tumnus were referred to as a satyr, you jokers would probably spell it satire. Sheesh.
saw it last night.. by the M'hael	Dec 9th, 2005 12:35:56 PM
...and pretty much aggree with everything mori said.
My Sweet Lord by Crash Crator	Dec 9th, 2005 01:41:51 PM
*****Moriarty has problems with religion and God. Absolute morality and themes of righteousness collide into the degenerate lifestyles of the site
What Moriarty? No love for Willow? Best include that with your by R.C. the "Wise"	Dec 9th, 2005 01:51:54 PM

Neverending Story? by quadrupletree	Dec 9th, 2005 02:07:33 PM
Really? There are people out there that would place that in the same category as those other films? BAH HA HA HA! Anyway, I think it will be interesting if it's the Narnia series that turn out to be "unfilmable" since that's what people always said about LOTR until Peter Jackson came along. Personally, even though I love these books, I've always said that about the Narnia series. I never had high hopes for this movie because of the "unfilmable" nature of the source material, but I'll still go see it just because I love the book.
Yeah, isn't Neverending Story kind of at the KRULL level of by FluffyUnbound	Dec 9th, 2005 02:15:38 PM
Or maybe even a little below that? I always thought Neverending Story was just a smidgen above the Care Bears movie.
by oisin5199	Dec 9th, 2005 02:36:42 PM

Some gems from Ebert's review: discuss by oisin5199	Dec 9th, 2005 02:39:03 PM
"That's the charm of the Narnia stories: They contain magic and myth, but their mysteries are resolved not by the kinds of rabbits that Tolkien pulls out of his hat, but by the determination and resolve of the Pevensie kids -- who have a good deal of help, to be sure, from Aslan the Lion." and "it's remarkable, isn't it, that the Brits have produced Narnia, the Ring, Hogwarts, Gormenghast, James Bond, Alice and Pooh, and what have we produced for them in return?" Interesting question: what's classic American fantasy? Oz?
Important questions by Ross Borowicki	Dec 9th, 2005 02:49:01 PM
The Secret of Nihm was an amazing fantasy movie about rats who outsmarted man. And who says Krull was no good? That throwing star thingy was cool. Do you think Aslan versus the Emporer versus Sauron in a triple threat grudge match would be cool? Who would win?
ITS ONLY THE FIRST MOVIE OF MANY.. by coldreboot	Dec 9th, 2005 03:15:36 PM
The best is yet to come. Dawn Treader is easily the best in the series (and is next I believe), and it should be welcomed a little more, instead of uneducated idiots saying 'It's just copying LOTR!!' It's a fantasy movie at sea, and we haven't had one of those yet since Sinbad and the Eye of the Tiger, surley? Silver Chair is also a great book. Both of these stories certainly have their dark moments. Which reminds me........ NEIL GAIMAN TO DIRECT VOYAGE OF THE DAWN TREADER!!
Kong is too long by holidill	Dec 9th, 2005 04:46:02 PM
I saw this at a sneak preview last night. The actors are good, Kong is fantastic, but at 3hours 8 minutes, the film is way too long. Plus there are huge plot holes in the movie.a subplot that goes nowhere, and a skull island scene i soon was wishing was over when they kept repeating themselves. Giant Bugs, now more Giant Bugs, now more giant bugs, giant bats, raptors, brontosaurus it's Jurrasic Park.
That was the part of Ebert's review that reminded me that Ro by FluffyUnbound	Dec 9th, 2005 05:35:03 PM
"Their mysteries are resolved not by the kinds of rabbits that Tolkien pulls out of his hat, but by the determination and resolve of the Pevensie kids..." I sometimes wonder if Ebert actually WATCHED the movies [or read the books as he claims] or if he secretly spent that time watching "Big Titty Black Girls VII" or something. LOTR is about the determination and resolve of a couple of hobbits, Roger. Oh, and if first Frodo and then Sam don't make separate decisions to show pity on Gollum, the quest fails. So determination, resolve, and ordinary pity do the trick in LOTR. Not rabbits pulled out of hats. I don't think Ebert will ever get over the fact that people liked FOTR, and didn't immediately fall in lockstep behind him to declare Harry Potter I "the new Wizard of Oz". As a result, he has to run down LOTR whenever he can, including in a Narnia review. Much like Ringbearer, he just can't let that LOTR battle go. If there's anyone whose Kong review I won't trust, it's his, since it doesn't look like Gleiberman is getting a shot at writing a review.
oisin5199, in response to Ebert...The American cinema (TV & writ by Negative Man	Dec 9th, 2005 06:27:58 PM
Conan, Tarzan, Cthulhu, King Kong, Mickey Mouse, Bugs Bunny, The Shadow, Doc Savage, The Stainless Steel Rat (C'mon Hollywood! This screams franchise!), The Twilight Zone, the Cyberpunk genre...the list goes on. Ebert is talking out his bung-holio on this one. The Brits base their fantasy on the myths of their past/present and the Americans do the same. But we have to keep in mind that America is a far younger country than the England. Future fantasy is more an American dominated genre (Star Trek and the such, though science fiction is pretty global in general). His question was made to make him sound smart, but we all know he's just a tired, tired man clinging on to the shirt tails of his glory days.
I think Ebert's point was about fantasy literature, not nece by oisin5199	Dec 9th, 2005 06:42:17 PM
Neg Man, I don't think any of things you listed compares to Ebert's list as far as literature goes. Ebert's list consisted of works that were literature first and then adapted to films. I'd add Pan (and Lloyd Alexander's Taran books)to the list. Oz is American as well as LeGuin's work (though there's yet to be a decent adaptation as last year's Earthsea proved. Perhaps the original Lathe of Heaven). Perhaps there's others. Perhaps America is better at science fiction lit than fantasy. Point taken about myths of the future.
American sci-fi vs. Brit fantasy by FluffyUnbound	Dec 9th, 2005 08:08:07 PM
Fantasy writing has a pastoralist / medievalist streak a mile wide running down its back - and the US has no medieval history. That's the basic difference between fantasy and sci-fi, really; the fantasy reader and the sci-fi reader both find the present unsatisfactory, but the fantasy reader looks back to a lost past, and the sci-fi reader looks forward to an unknown future. It's easier to look back when you inhabit a landscape littered with old castles and Roman roads. [This neat division becomes a little more cloudy when you factor in dystopic sci-fi, which doesn't look forward to anything hopeful; one could say, though, that dystopic sci-fi finds the present unsatisfactory, and punishes the present by subjecting it to the horrible judgment of turning it into a dystopia - it still looks forward, but with bitterness instead of hope.]
oisin5199, but really... by Negative Man	Dec 9th, 2005 08:25:33 PM
What Ebert mentions is what I think can be considered 'mythic' stories. Save for Bond. When you get down to brass tacks, pop culture becomes myth. Take the Arthurian legends, for example. It was a simple folk tale told around the fire pits about a boy who would be king. Merlin, Tristan, Lancelot and the rest were added as their stories became popular. Hence, King Arthur was once pop culture, but as time went on the story became myth. American Westerns are the closest to that course of thinking at this point. Lovecraft's work is commonly referred to as the 'Cthulhu Mythos' as well. Like I said, it all depends on time. But on the scale of what Ebert mentioned, Bond is certainly pop culture at this point. The other works Ebert spoke of are of 'mythic' proportions story wise, but are still fantasy pop culture. I dare say Superman and Metropolis are equally, if not more so, well known as much as Harry Potter and Hogswarts. Heck, what he named is pretty much fantasy pop culture he calls classic. I can say with confidence that all of what I mentioned can be considered
RE: American sci-fi vs. Brit fantasy by Negative Man	Dec 9th, 2005 08:47:04 PM
You make some good points about the readers, but then what dictates fantasy or science fiction in the end storywise? Swords over space ships, I guess. Both are certainly fantasy, it's just the particulars of setting in the end. My argument is made on the point of view that both are, in the end, fantasy. Though there is a lot of science fiction that deals with the past as well. Harry Harrison's Alternate History and his Stars and Stripes Series of novels, for example. Harry Turtledove's work as well. So the lines become even more blurred in the end with sience fiction/fantasy. Great reads if you haven't read them.
Wait...wait...waitwaitwaitwait!! ! by Negative Man	Dec 9th, 2005 08:52:56 PM
Are we actually having an intelligent debate on an AICN TB without resorting to throwing profanities at each other or bringing up religious, political or racial slurs?!!! Hmmm...either I've stepped into an alternate reality or we need to form a club...
What some peoplle find uncomfortable about movies with themes li by DoctorWho?	Dec 9th, 2005 09:05:27 PM
...evil does not just simply walk off stage left. It has to be opposed.Evil acts, intentions, forces etc...will not stop but

Talkbacks

Moriarty Wrestles With THE LION, THE WITCH, & THE WARDROBE!!