Wardrobians report on PC--Warning! Spoilers allowed!

[Larry W.]

[LordRhoop]

to be honest, I am 27 years old and I not only read these books yearly as a child, I recently re-read them to experience them through the eyes of many more years of experience and living ( I strongly suggest this by the way, incredible!)

The thing is, no matter how many times I've read PC, nor how recently, when I saw Peter decapitate someone, my immediate thought was that I did not recall that happening in the book. It clearly did, but regardless of my age, I apparently always glossed it over when reading it and never really let myself visualize it happening. I too was deeply upset by the imagery.

Though I find it difficult to not latch onto ANY tiny bit left in from the actual book, I do have to question the need to leave that in while taking out so many vital elements.

[Stanley Anderson]

[Kanakaberaka]

Pirates and Ninjas and Mockingbirds, oh my!

[repectabiggle]

[Dan65802]

I need a spew emoticon.

Respectabiggle, many people complained against Harry Potter. I read it for myself to draw my own conclusions.

I will buy you a copy of To Kill a Mockingbird if you will read it. It is one of the finest pieces of literature this country has produced. It is not anti-South. You might say it is anti-bigotry, but definitely not anti-South (Was there ever a greater Southern gentleman than Atticus Finch?).

- Dan -

[Larry W.]

I liked the book To Kill a Mockingbird when I read it many years ago, although being a birder I was never too crazy about the title. (Of course the book doesn't have much to do with birds in spite of the title) I'm from Michigan, not anti-South but a northerner. I think the book will be remembered as a study of the evils of racial prejudice, along with other great ones like the play A Raisin in the Sun and the autobiographical story Black Like Me. Being white, I always wondered what it was like being black in a society in which the odds were against you. The books, which were written in the 1960's, give you a pretty good picture. They are anti-prejudice and opposed to much of what the Confederacy of the Civil War represented, but in their perspective they are not against the South.

Larry W.

[repectabiggle]

[Zattara]

[glumPuddle]

[Larry W.]

Showing the battles from a distance instead of having many graphic close ups is a way having a minimum amount of graphic violence. It does have more violence than the first film. The story has longer battle scenes, but I think the photographers could have done the scenes much the same way as in the first film. I saw the film only once and didn't like it enough to spend money to see it again. So I don't remember all the details. But it did seem that there was much more emphasis on the battle scenes than including other parts of the book such as where Aslan convinces Trumpkin to believe in lions (he carries the dwarf in his mouth). Unfortunately, it's the battle scenes and the technology used to create them-- not accuracy to lines of the book-- that sells tickets. Apparently, that's what people what people want to spend their money to see-- even if it's at the expense of leaving out some significant parts of the book.

I liked the actors, but I thought the one playing Caspian didn't put much personality into the role. I thought they could have been given a better script (one closer to Lewis' book). Overall, I didn't care for this movie very much, and I wouldn't buy it for my collection. If you want to buy the movie for your own collection, is it because you want to watch the battle scenes over again or do you want to own a faithful recreation of the book?

Larry W.

[Dan65802]

[glumPuddle]

[Larry W.]

It did seem the battles were emphasized more than accuracy to the story. They weren't excessively violent (I don't recall many of the details of the scenes), but they seemed longer than those in the book. In the clip it looked like Susan and Lucy were fighting along side the Narnians, which was something I don't remember was in the book. Except for Jill in The Last Battle and the White Witch Lewis usually avoided having women in combat roles. Didn't all the battles take place outside instead of in a castle? The "Castle Raid" was Adamson's not Lewis-- adding the scene not in the book was for entertainment purposes and, of course, to sell tickets. The book wasn't so much about the battles as righting the wrongs committed by Miraz. Miraz was nasty enough and they did seem to get his character right. What I didn't like is that they didn't get the dialogue right even in some the battle scenes. In the book the two men that recommend that Miraz not accept Peter's battle challenge because of his age. That was in the movie, but I don't remember that they told Miraz that he must die for humiliating him. It was another important line that Adamson omitted, an artistic license that he also took in making the other film. I think the Focus on the Family radio version was more accurate for preserving lines from the book and completeness of the story than either this film or the BBC version.

Larry W.

[Messenger_of_Eden]