| The Glade 4.0 https://gladerebooted.net/ |
|
| The Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader https://gladerebooted.net/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=5158 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | FarSky [ Thu Jan 06, 2011 12:31 am ] |
| Post subject: | The Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader |
THE CHRONICLES OF NARNIA: THE VOYAGE OF THE DAWN TREADER dir. Michael Apted In the immortal words of Col. Kurtz, "The horror...the horror." Marlon Brando wasn't speaking of this film, of course, but rather the horrors of the Vietnam War. The sentiment remains applicable. When I write reviews, I do try to give at least a modicum of context, be it a history of the film itself, predecessors to its place in cinema history, or my general feelings on the type of film. In this case, I've just referenced Francis Ford Coppola's classic take on Joseph Conrad's "Heart of Darkness," APOCALYPSE NOW. What does that have to do with DAWN TREADER? Nothing, and I couldn't be happier. Why? Because it's distracted my mind with thoughts of a far, far better film. Allow me my few moments of happiness before I have to rifle through the dark filing cabinet of my mind to marshal my thoughts on this atrocity. -- Back. My brief respite will hopefully sustain me through the rest of this review. I make no promises that I'll not have to stop for another booster shot of happy thoughts. What went so wrong here, you may ask? We'll start with the history of this franchise. I do not have the highest opinion of this series. We started out with the most famous of C. S. Lewis' Narnia cycle, THE LION, THE WITCH, AND THE WARDROBE. I don't know...perhaps if we hadn't been in the middle of such a fantasy film renaissance, I would have found it more palatable. Instead, coming on the heels of Peter Jackson's generation-defining LORD OF THE RINGS trilogy, and the high class and quality of the HARRY POTTER franchise, that weak take on a book series that didn't thrill me as a child struck me as a cheap, childish appetizer compared to the magnificent feasts audiences had already been served, their stories facile, their acting (aside from a typically great Tilda Swinton) either poor or phoned-in (Paging Mr. Neeson, your paycheck is waiting for you). SHREK co-director Andrew Adamson was the helmer of both WARDROBE and CASPIAN, and I had hoped those film's failings were due perhaps to his inexperience as a director of live-action. The first film of course wore its Christian allegory on its sleeve (Lewis, for all his writings, never managed to find the definition of "subtle"), and it found favor with the churchgoing crowd, whose turnout afforded it a huge box office windfall. The second film was more of a straight actioner (in the vein of STAR WARS EPISODE I, which is to say the supposed action was mired in a swamp of facile and achingly dull political machinations), and didn't find purchase with the same demographic, and box office returns were disappointingly low. Disney, who had financed the films, saw the writing on the wall, and dropped the series. That should have been the end of it. Until 20th Century Fox stepped in. Now, let's remember: Fox doesn't have the best track record with adapting beloved fantasy series into films (a moment of silence for the tragedies that were THE DARK IS RISING and EREGON, please). Hiring Michael Apted as the director seemed to be bucking the trend of shoveling out crap. Apted isn't really known as an action, fantasy, or epic film director, but he showed promise with the last Pierce Brosnan/James Bond film, THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH (I'll not blame him for Denise Richards'...nuclear physicist...sigh). Still, director in place, 20th Century Fox and Walden Media cobbled together another NARNIA adventure, and the results were predictably terrible. Honestly, I wish I hadn't expected a poor film going in. Because this film not only met but EXCEEDED my expectations of terrible, and it's not because I was pre-judging it. It's because IT WAS THAT BAD. The plot is nonsensical, randomly shunting characters from one loosely-connected vignette to the next, with hokey dialogue and dire predictions of EEEEEVIL standing in for actual menace or intrigue. It's a shaggy dog road trip story, waterlogged on a boat, and I found myself half an hour in, wishing desperately that the characters would all get scurvy and die. The plot's so thinly-sketched that I may as well not even try to recount it here, but it has something to do with two of the kids from previous films being once again pulled into Narnia at absolute random, with no thematic or plot reason for any of the nonsense in the first place. Once there, our cast is rounded out with their exceptionally annoying cousin, and despite no one knowing quite what's going on, they stumble upon the titular character of the second film, Prince Caspian, and join him on his completely random quest to recover seven old friends of his long-dead father who disappeared for some reason, and no one knows why. So they fight an island made of evil. Good wins, evil is defeated, the end. Please, let it be THE END. Listen: I love fantasy. I love science fiction, I love horror, I love all of the outré genres, the fantastic, the unreal. It fascinates me, and I love wrapping myself in the trappings of the genre like a favored blanket, letting their comforting warmth wash over me in waves of escapism and nostalgia. But this half-assed bunch of hokum had ME rolling my eyes, with the stilted dialogue and the hastily-sketched characters and the nonsensical plot and the ARGH it's too much. The icing on this crap cake was the ham-handed, in-no-uncertain-terms Christian allegory with which the film beat the audience over the head with all the grace, power, and strength of an industrial-size sledgehammer. Yes, the evil was SIN. And Aslan is JESUS. Who exists as a lion in an alternate universe or something, apparently. Who pulls children into this alternate universe at random for...no apparent reason whatsoever (the film explicitly states that it's "to know Him (Aslan i.e. Jesus, in case you didn't already pick up on that) better," but if that's the case, why just these four kids? What's the thematic point of this? Why were the elder kids now judged worthy of not having watery allegory poured down their throats again? What did these kids learn at the end of this film that made them better people? ARGH again. I cannot even BEGIN to catalogue the problems with this series, from either the internal "logic" of the series or the external logic of the human brain. Doing so only hurts my head. Remember how I said the second film in the series lacked the ham-fisted Christian allegory of the first? Well, 20th Century Fox apparently recognized the church-going demographic was what made the first film such a success, and had them ramp up the religious content from "allegory" to "explicit yelling at the audience and rubbing its nose in it like it's a puppy who peed on the carpet." This sentiment struck me as wholly insincere, a manufactured "message" shoehorned in by a film studio who wanted nothing more than to reap the box office rewards of the first film which felt, though unsubtle, genuine in its intentions. I've seen films more poorly shot, more poorly acted, more poorly assembled. But this boring, useless, preachy slog with no purpose or point had me at the absolute end of my rope. Rare is it that I sit in a darkened theater constantly looking at my watch, biding my time, aching for the dross on the screen to end so that I simply don't have to endure it anymore. But that's exactly what happened with this film. Before anyone jumps on the obvious point of attack, let me say in no uncertain terms that I am Christian. But (and this is an exceptionally important point) just because a the message of a particular film/book/song/etc. is Christian DOESN'T MAKE THE WORK INHERENTLY GOOD. Nor does criticism of the work in some way equal an anti-Christian sentiment. I often feel that works perceived as "Christian" get a free pass on quality because of their message, but quality doesn't work like that. Lowering one's standards results only in mediocre pablum like this continuing to be passed off for media conglomerates to make a quick, insincere buck. Do me a favor. If you've enjoyed these films, fine. I whole-heartedly disagree, but I'm certainly not going to tell you you're wrong for enjoying them. But I beg of you: Don't shut off the critical area of your brain just because something agrees with your worldview. Doing so is a disservice not only to yourself, but everyone else like you who has to suffer through trash like this. |
|
| Author: | Lonedar [ Thu Jan 06, 2011 2:49 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
My Father of Three Younglings Bulletized Review: - The eye candy held the attention of all three of my kids for most of the movie. That is saying alot for a three and five year old. - That's pretty much all the good - I just finished reading the book to my seven year old son (and more or less to my five year old)...actually finished the last two chapters of the book after we watched the movie. Jacob gave the seven year old equivalent of WTF?!??!! with respect to the story changes. Especially the whole unnecessary magic sword thing and the green mist thing and even the island of darkness as the source of evil thing. - Is the drive of the human spirit, that which drove the explorers of the 1600s and 1700s and Manifest Destiny, dead? Can't a band of too clean adventurers adventure and all that without some stupid concocted EVILLLLL to move them along? - In contrast to the illustrious Mr. Skee, I felt the Christian allegory was toned down from the novel and even somewhat undermined by the EVILLLL plot. Granted it was still there and obvious, but not nearly as strong as I would think Mr. Lewis would have liked. - They axed the lamb (see above) - They axed Caspian's tantrum (useful message on the responsibilities of leadership) - They couldn't even CGI the dragon's gimp arm correctly. - Oh yeah, and who among you, at the proper time, didn't think "Stay Pufft Marshmallow Man ?" |
|
| Author: | Kaffis Mark V [ Thu Jan 06, 2011 8:22 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: |
Lonedar wrote: - Is the drive of the human spirit, that which drove the explorers of the 1600s and 1700s and Manifest Destiny, dead? Can't a band of too clean adventurers adventure and all that without some stupid concocted EVILLLLL to move them along? Haven't seen the movie, but wanted to comment on this bit, since it extends beyond the movie itself. Yes. Has been since the 70's. Hell, maybe earlier; we put a man on the moon because the Commies were gonna try to do it first. |
|
| Author: | Kirra [ Thu Jan 06, 2011 8:28 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
We need the Kaffis review now. I enjoyed the commentary and review from Farsky! I went to see this and didn't think it was that great....just a way to pass the time. I expected more entertainment. |
|
| Author: | Screeling [ Thu Jan 06, 2011 8:35 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: The Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader |
FarSky wrote: In the immortal words of Col. Kurtz, "The horror...the horror." Marlon Brando wasn't speaking of this film, of course, but rather the horrors of the Vietnam War. I disagree with this and could not read further. |
|
| Author: | Raell [ Thu Jan 06, 2011 8:38 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Quote: I found myself half an hour in, wishing desperately that the characters would all get scurvy and die. Two things. First, this is the best line ever. Second, this is pretty much how I felt about the third PoTC movie. |
|
| Author: | Talya [ Thu Jan 06, 2011 9:51 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: |
Raell wrote: Quote: I found myself half an hour in, wishing desperately that the characters would all get scurvy and die. Two things. First, this is the best line ever. Second, this is pretty much how I felt about the third PoTC movie. Really? I felt the third PotC was pretty darn good. It's the second that was missing something. In fact, I'll pinpoint what the second was missing: Geoffrey Rush. All you needed to keep it entertaining was having Depp and Rush together. (As for Narnia, they have all sucked terribly, even the first one was pathetic.) |
|
| Author: | FarSky [ Thu Jan 06, 2011 10:55 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: |
Lonedar wrote: - Oh yeah, and who among you, at the proper time, didn't think "Stay Pufft Marshmallow Man ?" THANK YOU. Glad I wasn't the only one. |
|
| Author: | Numbuk [ Fri Jan 07, 2011 12:42 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: The Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader |
I recall Dawn Treader being one of my favorites of all the Narnia books. Sad to hear the movie isn't living up to it. |
|
| Author: | Raltar [ Fri Jan 07, 2011 2:15 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
I still haven't seen any of these movies. |
|
| Author: | FarSky [ Fri Jan 07, 2011 7:48 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
You're missing nothing. |
|
| Author: | Hopwin [ Fri Jan 07, 2011 9:53 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: The Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader |
Numbuk wrote: I recall Dawn Treader being one of my favorites of all the Narnia books. Sad to hear the movie isn't living up to it. This, the first two movies were so soul-blightingly bad that I don't think I could stomach what they've done to the Dawntreader 
|
|
| Author: | Arathain Kelvar [ Fri Jan 07, 2011 12:48 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
DT was a moshposh of a book. It was, Hey, let's check out this island!. Could have been a bunch of short stories. Book #6 was by far my favorite. |
|
| Author: | Numbuk [ Fri Jan 07, 2011 4:25 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: The Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader |
DT was a serial adventure, exploring the unknown. Not unlike Star Trek: The Next Generation where it had practically no plot and was just a bunch of stand-alone adventures... exploring the unknown. |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group https://www.phpbb.com/ |
|