HOLIDAY MOVIES 2005

The summer blockbuster season is so over, with ever increasing regularity, the big summer movies fail to deliver and instead we wait until Christmas for the big movies, ones that have us enthralled, or held in awe, and deliver on a complete spectacle. It was really the Lord of the Rings trilogy that established this precedent, by choosing the same period in December to release three, high profile movies, three years in a row, each of which delivered big time. It created a yearly event that even put the Star Wars movies to shame. 2005 is no different,with three big movies being released. We've had Peter Jackson's King Kong staking his claim to the December period, as he probably thinks it's his slot by now, we've also had Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire and potentially the most challenging movie, The Lion The Witch And The Wardrobe.

Harry Potter And The Goblet Of Fire

The Goblet of Fire had a lot to live up to as not only has each Harry Potter book been better than the previous book, up to and including the fourth novel, each of the movies has been better than the previous one as well. Not only that, but it's safe to say that The Goblet of Fire is currently the best book of the series, representing a culmination of books one to three and delivering a very effective Empire Strikes Back style story that sets the landscape for the final three books. The book's also a long one, and epic in scope, so it was always going to be a complicated film to deliver on in terms of structure, and also in terms of the dramatic story for the young actors.

Three things immediately hit you when you start watching The Goblet of Fire, the movie feels totally different to the others, as it has much more pace, and is certainly more epic. The movie establishes the opening scene with Voldemort, and quickly moves on to the Quidditch World Cup, and the appearance of the Death Eaters, without stopping to have lazy scenes of Weasley family humour, while skilfully introducing Cedric Diggory along the way. Everything is also big in scope, the Quidditch World Cup playing out on a scale that just has you sitting back in awe, pulling you into this larger than life world that these young characters are involved in. The whole movie is large scale, which reflects the bigger world, and much more dangerous world they are entering. The scale of the movie is so different, you feel like the first two movies are expensive BBC productions, rather than Hollywood event movies.

The central set-up of the story is obviously the Tri-Wizard's Championship which is hosted at Hogwarts. This major event brings extra characters into the mix and sets the scene for a grand, romantic adventure with a dark conclusion. That is one of the essential differences between The Goblet of Fire and the previous movies (and the same is true of the books), it has romance and it has adventure. Indeed, the scenes from the Triwizard's Championship, and the Ball held for the students are the centre of the movie and are actually so good they reduce the power of the final scene, which finally has Voldemort return. This is not because the Voldemort scene fails to deliver, it does, and Ralph Fiennes is excellent, and will hopefully continue to play the part, but because the other pivotal scenes are very good.

One of the fascinating elements of the Harry Potter novels is how the characters age year by year in the books, as a result the stories have got more adult with each passing novel, both in terms of the enemies they face, and the life issues the protagonists have to deal with. The excellent thing about the movies is that this is mirrored with the actors, as they age with each movie, they also become more capable and are growing into the roles just as the stories get more adult and the dramatic intensity kicks in. While some people may complain the actors are 'getting too old', I think this is a conceit we can live with quite easily when compared to the fact having the same actors just feels right, and they're doing a damn fine job. In the early movies, the weakest actor was Daniel Radcliffe, as Harry Potter, and the true star of the show in terms of acting was clearly Emma Watson, as Hermoine Granger, with Rupert Grint providing solid humour. A lot of the problems with Daniel Radcliffe was due to his age, and also due to the fact, in the early movies, he was the fish out of water character who had to react to everything with wonder. Now, with added maturity, he is the true hero of the story, and the strongest actors dramatically are clearly Daniel Radcliffe and Emma Watson, with Rupert Grint providing weak comedic input, in a much more serious story. In fact, having seen TV shows regarding the making of The Goblet of Fire, it's safe to say Daniel Radcliffe put in a very dedicated performance, involving weeks acting underwater. I want to see these actors make it to the end, and hopefully they will.

So, how does The Goblet of Fire position the final three movies, though obviously the last book has not been released yet? I can think it positions the next books perfectly. What was interesting about the movie is small scenes were inserted into the movie purely for the benefit of the next one. As an example, Harry has one conversation with Sirius via the fire in the common room, it could have been quite easily removed, but it serves to remind the audience of Sirius, and his relationship with Harry as this is critical in the next movie. They also give Neville Longbottom a bit more screen time, altering scenes slightly to make him a slightly stronger protagonist without altering his character, this also seems to have been done for the benefit of future movies. More importantly, The Goblet of Fire seriously increased the stakes, creating an epic movie to rival the grandeur of Star Wars, Lord of the Rings and other mythical tapestries, and this bodes well for the final three. Finally, I believe books five and six make better movies than books. A lot of material exists in both these books that is largely superfluous, but at their core is an exciting story, full of great visuals that will make great 120 minute movies. I came out of The Goblet of Fire already thinking of how great book five will be, with the students of Harry's year rising to the challenge and taking the fight to the enemy out of desperation. Great scenes, that should be very hard to screw up. Hopefully.

The strength of The Goblet of Fire is felt, you come out of the cinema not discussing the differences with the book, or how well it told a story you were already familiar with, but you come out having experienced an epic movie, that had romance, heroism, darkness and interesting characters. And you wanted more. I've never felt the need to buy the Harry Potter movies on DVD as I didn't feel they had repeat watching potential, but I'd watch The Goblet of Fire repeatedly without a second thought.

The Lion, The Witch, And The Wardrobe

The Lion, The Witch And The Wardrobe is a children's book about a magical land, populated by fauns and animals that talk, and has four children as the main characters, along with a talking lion. It's a fairy tale, pure and simple. It's safe to say The Lion, The Witch And The Wardrobe had a high chance of failure. Despite all this, the movie manages to make these elements its strength, rather than a weakness.

The acting in the movie is really good, especially when you consider the age of the cast, and the fact 90% of them are special effects. The special mentions begin with Georgie Henley who plays Lucy, as she is fantastic. She manages to bring you into the world of Narnia and you can feel the childhood wonder and excitement as she experiences the land, along with her youthful exuberance. The scene in which she wanders through the snow covered forest of Narnia for the first time and bumps into Mr Tumnus is one of the best in the movie, as is the resulting scene in the faun's home (and James McAvoy does a great job as well), as they capture the fairy tale quality perfectly. The other three young actors do a good job as well, but Georgie Henley certainly stands out from the crowd.

One of the key points that The Lion, The Witch And The Wardrobe exemplifies, is we are living in an age in which technology has progressed to the point that it merges seamlessly with film and can create some truly astounding experiences. You only have to go back about 5 years and this film would not have been possible, never mind being the completely believable experience it is. In the seventies they said you'd believe a man could fly, in the decade following the new millennium you'll have dramatic characters that are talking wolves, beavers and lions and you'll totally accept them. You will see a man walking, despite having the legs of a goat, and it will look totally normal. On this level alone, the movie was an amazing achievement. Look at the dramatic scene at the waterfall? Peter has to face off against the head of the secret police, a talking wolf, and it works brilliantly, and is no less powerful for the animal being involved.

The big pay off is obviously the final battle between good and evil, and I think it delivers. Since watching it a few people have pointed out how they couldn't accept it due to the lack of blood, but I didn't notice this at all while the movie was playing, and to be honest it doesn't change my view of the movie. It was a battle of fairy tale creatures, and brutal in its own way. It was full of epic imagery: the Minotaur general of the White Witch wading through the battlefield; Peter's centaur lieutenant charging the masses with both swords cutting through the enemy; the White Witch swinging her sword and wand, freezing people as she advances; it was rousing stuff. I have to admit, I was swept along by it, and I was really rooting for Edmund when he decided to make a run at the White Witch in order to destroy her wand.

One element they could have spent more time on, or dealt with slightly differently, was Aslan. While Aslan was realised perfectly in the movie (again, you will believe a talking lion can walk between two young actors), and acted in a professional manner by Liam Neeson, the position of Aslan in the story was never really fully explained. All the movie really imparted was him being the true king of Narnia, and an opposing force to the White Witch, and that he had been away from Narnia for a while. In truth, Aslan is a Christ-like figure, who is even sacrificed for the sins of another (Edmund) and who then rises again to help save the day. I don't think the movie should have gotten preachy, but a deft line here or there might have helped enforce the mythical status of Aslan in the story. The White Witch, Aslan and how they related to each other could have had a bit more dramatic weight. Still, the death of Aslan was very well done, and hit the emotions perfectly, despite the character being a computer graphic.

The truly outstanding part of The Lion, The Witch And The Wardrobe is that it isn't some sort of twist on the story, or some sort of re-telling imaging the tale for a modern, jaded audience. The movie wears its fairy tale, childhood fantasy status up there on the screen for all to see and it works. It fails the odd time, such as when Santa returns to Narnia, which fell a bit flat, but that's the only weak moment in the fairy tale gloss. In this regard, I think Andrew Adamson was a perfect choice for director, as the only other movies he's directed are the animated movies Shrek and Shrek 2, they are also perfect examples of a fairy tale sensibility working perfectly for dramatic storytelling.

It's interesting to note the comparisons between The Lion, The Witch And The Wardrobe and The Lord of the Rings, as the authors of both novels were contemporaries. In both stories, we are taken to a fantastical land dealing with the issues of war, born out of a need to deal with the issues of war in the real-world, the horrors of it and the need to stand up and be counted. In both stories we have a gift giving scene, imparting gifts that are important to the success of the heroes later in the tale. We even have some similar imagery in the movies, such as when the White Witch's army comes over the hill, the Minotaur General steps up onto a rocky outcrop, raises his weapon and cries out as the army walks past him (which mirrors a similar scene in The Two Towers). This is not a negative comment though, but more a recognition that the movies deal with some similar issues, due to the authors sharing similar concerns about a more perfect world, war and the people who stand up to fight them (and religion in CS Lewis's case).

The Lion, The Witch And The Wardrobe isn't a good movie, it's a magical movie, completely absorbing and binding you completely in its spell. It may be a story about children fighting an epic battle. It may feature a cast of thousands, all of whom are talking animals or mythical creatures of one type or another. It may be a fairy tale. The thing is, it makes these elements strengths rather than disasters. It's a fairy tale writ large for the big screen, with a captivating story, a captivating cast and excellent delivery. It is very good, and it's enthralling.

Ideally, it will make enough money to guarantee that more of the novels are adapted for the cinema, and ideally Adam Adamson will direct a few.

King Kong

While The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe has everything stacked against it in terms of success, for me, King Kong had everything going for it. This was a chance for a good writing team, a skilled director and modern technology to combine to create a rollicking good 1930's action romance and, in part, tragedy as man sets out to destroy everything it can for the sake of entertainment. How could it fail? A giant gorilla, dinosaurs, hordes of natives and a final scene involving a battle on the Empire State Building between a 25-foot ape and bi-planes?

Well, they managed it, King Kong is just one mixed up mess.

The first problem with the movie is it's three hours long. I can't help but think Peter Jackson, having pulled off three 150+ minute movies in the form of the Lord of the Rings trilogy is under the belief all movies can be this long. King Kong is way too long. It feels too long because, the emotional narrative between Kong and Ann Darrow aside, there is nothing else for the audience to latch on to. All the characters are cyphers, have individual stories that are almost non-existent, or aren't really that interesting and as such the audience has nothing to connect with. The story is essentially quite simple, and taking three hours to tell it makes the movie feel very slow until the characters get to the island, but once there, other problems arise.

The problem with the sequences on the island is the whole island section is over done. The result is you just become fatigued, and if you combine this with the only character that draws you in being Ann Darrow and the gorilla, you soon find yourself not caring. The other problem is, they've gone so far over the top, even I, someone totally accepting of fantasy movies, found myself disconnecting from events. The whole Brontosaur stampede sequence is not only ridiculous, it even looks completely fake with, at times, characters looking like they are running comedy style in front of a blue screen. Not only that, this scene represents one jeopardy scene after another with nothing in between for that group of characters, to the point they lose their impact.

To be honest, even the scenes with the noble Kong suffer from this fatigue effect. The 'money shot' when Kong faces off against the Tyrannosaur to save Ann? The iconic image we see in the trailer, when he roars in challenge, and Ann backs up under his protection, only for the two animals to charge at each other? They don't tell you that this is not one fierce fight between the noble warrior and a rampaging beast, but Kong facing off against three Tyrannosaurs on land, through an overly long vine sequence, only to finally battle the last remaining Tyrannosaur in the scene from the trailer, but by then you don't really care, any feeling you did have has been drained out of you. It's like because technology allowed them to, they did, and they even managed to push the technology so far some of it looked bad. It's safe to say, simpler would have been stronger.

The singular success of the movie is undoubtedly Kong himself, as you accept him completely as a living and breathing gorilla. Not only that, while the fact he's 25-foot tall is obviously a fantastical element, he comes across as a very real gorilla despite his massive size. He is scary, fierce and noble because they've kept him as realistic as possible. You can see an emotion in his eyes, and a form of intelligence, just like you can in his real counterparts. He is fascinating to watch, both in terms of his characterisation, and when on rampaging duty. The testament to the strength of the Kong character is he's the only one you ever feel any connection with, and the only one that generates an emotional response. When Kong and Ann begin to form an emotional connection it's enthralling, when he fights the Tyrannosaurs you are rooting for him, when Kong and Ann share a moment watching the sun go down it is fascinating, and when he climbs the Empire State Building to re-live that moment even though you know, and you suspect he does, it will be his final stand, it is sad.

In keeping with the success that is Kong himself, the one saving grace of the movies, and the only character dynamic worth the paper it's written on, is the relationship between Kong and Ann Darrow. There is a whole love story going on between Ann and Jack Driscoll, but to be honest that's a pretty vapid affair compared to the emotional narrative that takes place between beauty and the beast. In fact, the Ann and Jack relationship is only interesting insomuch as it contrasts with the connection between Ann and Kong, the theme being how connections can be formed, or not, even when things are un-said. The strength of the scenes featuring Ann and Kong come from the fact you truly believe that a connection is being made with a real gorilla, albeit one 25-foot tall. You also feel that Kong is a lonely creature, King of all he surveys, but ultimately alone, and Ann becomes the one connection the aged, haggard warrior holds onto. It is a romance that leads to an emotional connection, and despite it's strangeness, quite an effective one.

The overall feeling you get with King Kong is confused self-indulgence. The movie tries to set-up a number of themes and character connections all of which fail, or seem to just get strangely dropped. We have the whole beauty and the beast thing which seems to be focused on in the latter half of the movie. The comparisons being made between the unfolding story and the novel A Heart of Darkness that one of the crew is reading. The emotional connections made between Ann, Kong and Jack Driscoll, both of which have element of falling in love via what is not said. The trouble is they all don't get into any sense of a whole and as such a binding theme around the shallow characters and over-cooked heroics isn't really forthcoming. You can't but feel the movie was supposed to have some higher theme though, but they couldn't decide on what that should be.

King Kong just leaves you fatigued and indifferent, the action scenes are just too frequent and too over the top to provide any sense of a visceral, heroic response, the characters aren't interesting, and the a lot of scenes are just too laboured, and it's too long. At the end of the day, you just get a sense Peter Jackson cared too much and lost a bit of perspective on his pet project.

The Winner Is?

The answer to that question was always going to come down to how good either King Kong or The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe was. Harry Potter and the The Goblet of Fire had an inevitability about it, it was always going to be at least as good as the other movies, and stood a high chance of being the best. It delivered, it was the best so far and is just a good movie. What has surprised me is how bad King Kong really was. In my mind it really was a hard movie to screw up, and they managed it. Kong should have been written as a doomed romance, forming a romantic triangle between Ann, Kong and a heroic figure (instead of Jack Driscoll, put in a White Hunter who captures Kong), the relationship with Kong ending when he dies, and thus bringing about the end of Ann's relationship with the hero figure as he captured Kong, thus fitting into the theme of Ann's romances (among other things) always failing, as well as keeping a melancholy ending. It would have also been a much simpler story, formed around three strong characters.

The surprising result then is that The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe is the best holiday movie, because it had original and fascinating source material and it managed to put that up on the screen in a fascinating way. It was enthralling, beautiful, heroic and suitably fairytale all at once.

Ian O'Rourke, as well as being the man behind Fandomlife.net, is also a fan of anything that engages his imagination, be it a book, comic, TV show, theme park, an IT Project or business change.