|
This holiday season has certainly turned into a happy one for movie theaters, with great crowds showing up for two highly anticipated movie releases in December. The big screen adaptation of C.S. Lewis' "The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe" hit theaters with an opening weekend take that was second only in December releases to "The Return of the King". Peter Jackson's remake of "King Kong" swept up behind the Narnia movie with impressive sales of its own.
Let me start out by saying that "The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe" is probably the best adaptation of a book to a movie that I have ever seen. It helped, I'm sure, that C.S. Lewis' book was not nearly as expansive as his good friend J.R.R. Tolkien's had been, but that does not always matter to Hollywood. For this adaptation, though, Lewis' stepson was on hand to watch over the production and be sure that it remained faithful to the original manuscript. They did an exceptional job at that, as I could not think of any part of the book that had been cut out to make the story fit the screen. Some parts were abbreviated, such as when Aslan goes to the White Witch's castle and revives the creatures she has turned into sculptures, but the scene is still in the picture.
This is, of course, a two-edged sword. C.S. Lewis described the Chronicles of Narnia as a "supposal", rather than a pure allegory. His rationale was that his story was a "suppose there were another universe, different from our own, and suppose that universe needed spiritual redemption, how might we suppose the story could progress?" Narnia is not a pure allegory, as elements of Lewis' story diverge from the Christian Biblical account; however, the elements of substitutionary atonement, sin, and redemption are clearly represented in both the book and the movie. Those who are sensitive to religious discussions will note these easily, whether they are delighted by them or offended.
It does bear mentioning, though, that those who are not sensitive to such issues will not "miss anything" in the movie. The story is neat, self-contained fantasy, and for those who do not consider religion much different than fantasy, they can just as easily overlook the supposals and allegories.
As to the film itself, Walden Media, backed by Disney's Buena Vista Pictures, did an incredible job of bringing the land of Narnia to life. The effects on the creatures are some of the best I've seen to date and the settings wonderful.
Georgie Henley steals the show as Lucy Pevensie, the youngest of the four children magically transported to Narnia. Some of her expressions on the screen are less acting than real reaction, as reports are that the producers would not let her see many of the sets until it was time to film, and then they would bring her onto the set blindfolded so they could catch that first look of wonder in her eyes. It works; Henley's portrayal of Lucy conveys the childlike fascination with this new world, and it's difficult to not get carried along with her.
Tilda Swinton is cast as Jadis, the White Witch who has ensorcelled the land of Narnia for 100 years, making it always winter but never Christmas. Some of the people I've discussed the film with did not care for Swinton as Jadis, but in my opinion she did a decent job of balancing the entrancing aspects of the character with the menacing. It's easy to believe her character is as cold as she has made the world around her, and her determined look through the final battle conveys the malice Lewis wrote into the character.
One comment I've heard from several sources is that James McAvoy's performance as Mr. Tumnus the Faun comes across almost as a pedophile. Perhaps it is our current environment where such news is all too common, but when he invites young Lucy to accompany him back to his home for tea, you can almost hear the stereotype "Candy, little girl?" following along. I've heard more than one person state that they were "creeped out" by McAvoy's performance.
If you appreciate well-done fantasy on the Big Screen, and do not find the religious parallels offensive, you owe it to yourself to enjoy this film in the theater. It will definitely be one that I buy on DVD, but it comes to life on the large screen. We'll be seeing it again in the theater for certain.
Likewise impressive on the big screen is Peter Jackson's remake of the classic "King Kong". One might expect very little, considering this is the second remake of the old black-and-white classic from 1933, and the 1976 version failed to generate much enthusiasm from either critics or audiences. Surprisingly, Peter Jackson's interpretation of the original story is very well done and succeeds admirably.
Unlike the 1976 remake, which updated the story into the contemporary culture of the time, Jackson leaves his version of the story set in the 1930s, following the same scenario used in the original. Jack Black and Naomi Watts take over the roles of Carl Denham, the somewhat shady film producer, and Ann Darrow, the young starlet he recruits to star in his troubled movie. While Jack Black has typically performed mostly comedic roles, he handled Carl Denham very well. Black's Denham is part visionary, part con-man, and all opportunistic showman. I found myself both loving and hating the character, and despite the flaws Denham openly possesses, Black incites empathy for the greasy producer.
Andy Serkis, who catapulted to fame performing the voice and motions for the CGI Gollum in Jackson's Lord of the Rings films, continues his work with Jackson as both the human character "Lumpy" and reprising his work for the CGI capture as Kong. It's obvious from the film that Serkis and the production company spent ample time studying the movement and behaviors of real mountain gorillas; in some scenes we wondered if Kong was still CGI or whether they had superimposed a real gorilla onto the background. This not only adds a credibility to the story, it also adds some unexpected humor when Kong acts the way real gorillas do under various circumstances, such as when he throws a fit because Ann Darrow isn't doing what he wants her to, or when he is examining the corpse of a tyrannosaur he has just killed.
Adding to the period feel of the movie is the color palette Jackson employs in the film. The colors are muted, much in the way that many of the early color movies looked. The drab colors especially add to the prevailing mood around Depression-era New York City, where the story both opens and concludes.
In Kong, as in Narnia, the creature effects are well done. The dinosaurs look real and move as one might expect real creatures would move. The giant bugs encountered on Skull Island were almost more than my arachnaphobia could handle, and several times my wife pulled her hand away from mine lest I might squeeze overly tight in a moment of phobic surprise.
Yeah, the bugs creeped me out. It's silly, I know, but then again, phobias aren't rational. I can admit all I want that it's silly to react to bugs that way, but that doesn't make the reactions go away. If you feel similarly, expect some uncomfortable moments during this movie.
Jackson's King Kong clocks in at just over 3 hours. Some have commented that he could have cut a half hour from the movie, but myself, at no time did I find that I thought the plot was dragging. The story kept my attention, and I didn't feel any particular desire to "get it over with". Granted, if I'd drank a large soda before the movie, I might have felt different when the nature call started in the middle of some great action scene.
Peter Jackson had secured himself a position in film history with his Lord of the Rings movies. Many thought he was crazy to turn to King Kong following those, but his talent has once again quieted the skeptics. This is another movie that almost demands to be seen in the theater, with the huge screen and a great sound system to immerse you in the environment Jackson has created. If you wait to see it on DVD, you're going to miss much of the experience.
One can only wonder what Jackson is going to do next.
|