Always winter, but never Christmas
Dec. 16th, 2005 12:17 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
vovatI recently put in an order at Amazon, and they told me, "Please note that your items will take an additional 3-5 days to ship." Never mind that all of the items are supposed to ship within 24 hours. So where do the additional days come from? I understand that, during the holiday season, the actual shipping is going to be slower. But all Amazon has to do is put stuff in a box and send it out. There's no reason why there would be such a delay on that, yet there usually is. I think it's just an excuse for them to be lazy.
The good news is that![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
bethje and I finally got to see The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe today. I have to say that it was better than I thought it would be (and I wasn't expecting it to be bad). It was quite faithful to the book, and I think Narnia came across as pretty real. The first thing that really impressed me was Mr. Tumnus' cave. The visuals were really quite impressive. The centaurs, for instance, were much better than the ones from the first Harry Potter movie. (I have to wonder if they're going to keep the bit from Order of the Phoenix about Firenze teaching Divination in the fifth movie. I think it would be unlikely that Lavender Brown and Parvati Patil would find the film representation of him to be cute.) I mean, it HAS been a few years since that movie, and special effects technology has improved, but I get the feeling that the Narnia designers had more idea what a centaur was supposed to look like (or at least what I think a centaur looks like). The computer-animated creatures came across as pretty realistic, rather than fake-looking computer graphics interacting with real actors. And Aslan looked like a real lion, but also a likeable character. I also liked the Beavers' domestic squabbling, which I think made them buyable as characters, and as a couple. Really, I can't think of anything particularly weak about the film. I might have liked to have seen more of Aslan's restoration of the statues, especially the giant Rumblebuffin, whom I remember pretty well from both the book and a television adaptation of The Lion that I saw on PBS years ago. I did think it was amusing that the lion Edmund drew on still had the drawing on him when he was restored to his flesh-and-blood self. I'd definitely recommend the movie, especially to fans of the book.
What wasn't so cool were the previews that we saw before the movie. Hey, look, more computer-animated movies with animals voiced by celebrities. Wow, another inspirational story about a sports team that overcomes the odds to win the big game. Also not cool was the fish I had at Applebee's afterwards. I used to like the fish there, so I guess they must have changed it or something. Beth suspects they might have started buying cheaper fish.
The good news is that
bethje and I finally got to see The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe today. I have to say that it was better than I thought it would be (and I wasn't expecting it to be bad). It was quite faithful to the book, and I think Narnia came across as pretty real. The first thing that really impressed me was Mr. Tumnus' cave. The visuals were really quite impressive. The centaurs, for instance, were much better than the ones from the first Harry Potter movie. (I have to wonder if they're going to keep the bit from Order of the Phoenix about Firenze teaching Divination in the fifth movie. I think it would be unlikely that Lavender Brown and Parvati Patil would find the film representation of him to be cute.) I mean, it HAS been a few years since that movie, and special effects technology has improved, but I get the feeling that the Narnia designers had more idea what a centaur was supposed to look like (or at least what I think a centaur looks like). The computer-animated creatures came across as pretty realistic, rather than fake-looking computer graphics interacting with real actors. And Aslan looked like a real lion, but also a likeable character. I also liked the Beavers' domestic squabbling, which I think made them buyable as characters, and as a couple. Really, I can't think of anything particularly weak about the film. I might have liked to have seen more of Aslan's restoration of the statues, especially the giant Rumblebuffin, whom I remember pretty well from both the book and a television adaptation of The Lion that I saw on PBS years ago. I did think it was amusing that the lion Edmund drew on still had the drawing on him when he was restored to his flesh-and-blood self. I'd definitely recommend the movie, especially to fans of the book.What wasn't so cool were the previews that we saw before the movie. Hey, look, more computer-animated movies with animals voiced by celebrities. Wow, another inspirational story about a sports team that overcomes the odds to win the big game. Also not cool was the fish I had at Applebee's afterwards. I used to like the fish there, so I guess they must have changed it or something. Beth suspects they might have started buying cheaper fish.
