Although we have Netflicks, Kalila’s aunt was nice enough to give a gift card for Blockbuster. So, we got Revenge of the Sith (since Kalila had not seen it), and Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. I had prejudices against Charlie and the Chocolate Factory since the previews were all lame, and they make Willie Wonka out to be…oh, what’s the word…lame. The first 30 minutes weren’t bad, it was just when they went to the Factory that it took a turn for the worst. I’m sorry we wasted our time with such an awful rendition of a perfectly good movie. Gene Wilder was impossible to top. I really don’t know what Tim Burton was thinking. I understand this was not supposed to be a remake, but a different interpretation of the book. But if Roald Dahl helped work on the original, why would you even try?

With regards to Revenge of the Sith, is it possible for Hayden Christiansen to act worse? His performance was deplorable. Natalie Portman wasn’t much better. This film had great effects, generally, but was riddled with bad acting, probably as result of a bad story line. The problem for us is that both Star Wars and the Chocolate Factory are movies that you have to see, even though they are a waste of time and money.

In response to those who have not liked what I’ve had to say about Narnia, let me assure you that I did have disclaimers and I have started reading/listening to The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe. The book is better than the movies portray. Since last week I have also talked quite a bit to friends about the film and books. It is funny how quickly people jump to defend Narnia (no offense to Jason, Peggy, or Daniel for their comments). Here are some common remarks I have heard, including those responding to last post:

It is for kids, thus it is simpler and leaves much to wonder.

I know it is for kids, but there are many other movies/stories that are for kids that have more coherency and are entertaining for adults. For example, Willie Wonka and the Chocoate Factory, Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, and ET to name a few.

You cannot compare Lord of the Rings with Narnia, they are different genres and written for different audiences.

I do believe this to be incorrect. Although Lewis was more prone to allegory, both Narnia and LOTR are in the fantasy (fairie) story genre and were initially intended for children. I have found nothing in Tolkien biographies that have indicated LOTR was intended for adults. I would also consider Harry Potter in the same genre. Both Tolkien and Lewis were literature professors and had overlap in genre when writing their classics.

The winter ending in the movie before the children “accomplish” any thing signals an inauguration of her demise, much like the inaugurated kingdom of God.

This seems to make sense when thought of in these terms, especially as the “prophecy” about the children is being fulfilled in that they are there.

The fact that this is a series of movies that will be released for the next few years means that they will get better.

I agree with this. As the budget is maintained, as they get feedback, and as they learn how to adapt the book after the first one, one would think they would only get better.

More to come as I read the books.