It’s tough to have to trash a film that so many people were hoping would be really good. I counted myself among that group, despite the fact that my familiarity to the story came primarily through other lacking adaptations, including the cartoon and the BBC version with old actors in animal suits. I have never really been a die-hard Narnia fan, although I understand and sympathize with those who are. C.S. Lewis’ magical kingdom ruled by the benevolent lion Aslan and threatened by the diabolical White Witch has entranced and enchanted readers both young and old for over half a century. That said, the fact that every attempted film adaptation, including this one, has failed, leads me to believe that perhaps this is one of those stories better left to the printed page. The failure in this case, I believe, can be traced to the director, and his apparent slavish devotion to the source material. Judging by the way the Disney marketing department is packaging this as the next “Lord of the Rings” (right down to trotting out the gratingly familiar voice of LOTR effects man Richard Taylor in EPK material to explain how much detail and effort went into crafting the imaginary world) one might think that the screenwriters of “The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe” applied the same balance of care and liberties taken with the source material in finding the ideal way to bring it to the big screen that Peter Jackson and company did. Unfortunately, that is not the case, as slow pacing, under-developed characters, and obvious special effects make this two hour and fifteen minute “epic” feel much longer than even Jackson’s longest LOTR extended edition film.
It all begins amid the chaos of WWII London. Bombs are falling like rain, and bombers fill the sky like ominous black birds or war. Four young children, Peter, Edmund, Susan and Lucy, ranging in age from their early teens to about six years old, are hastily put on a train headed out of town, and sent to live with a weird professor in his dark and fancy mansion. All this happens in the first few minutes with no real regard to who these kids are as people, and why we should care to watch their journey. The whirlwind of it all will probably disorient most kids in the audience, as the war is never explained, but rather left as a potentially abstract and arbitrary threatening occurrence, coupled with the whisking away of these poor innocent children to another unexplained, weird place. “Lemony Snicket” will probably be the first thing that comes to mind for many such kids, but they’d be wrong in that assumption, as the old professor is actually a good eccentric, encouraging the children in their play and flights of fancy.
While playing hide and seek, the youngest girl Lucy hides in an old wardrobe which turns out to be a gateway to the magical world of Narnia. After a few scenes of her siblings doubting her, and traveling back and fourth, all four eventually make the trip. Narnia is a beautiful but cold and lonely land, where we are told it is always winter but never Christmas. All manner of creatures both real and mythical populate Narnia, and all are overjoyed at the prophesied arrival of actual flesh and blood human beings, foretold to be the destroyers of the evil White Witch and her 100 year reign of perpetual snow and ice. The Witch’s (Tilda Swinton) scheme to thwart the prophesy by tempting one of the children into betraying the others muddies things up a bit, but for the most part, this is a good old fashioned battle of good versus evil, with the heroes rising up to the occasion.
The cinematic problems in this are many, as no time is spent to develop the children as characters early on - an indulgence “Zathura” allowed itself, resulting in much greater payoffs in its fantasy journey. Yes, the kids all wind up in Narnia, but there is never any indication that maybe they want to go somewhere else, away from their stasis of existence, ala an “Over the Rainbow” or Luke Skywalker twin suns moment. Consequently, we feel no urgency in their fulfilling their prophecy or getting home. After all, all the good talking animals and creatures of Narnia don’t seem too terribly down about the 100-year reign of evil, and are never in any kind of real hurry to do anything. That’s not to say the friendly Mr. & Mrs. Beaver (the most likable of all the talking animals) don’t get excited at the prospect of the land’s salvation upon the children’s prophesied arrival, but let’s just say the intensity level of their joy never goes beyond that of what one would expect from an intellectual English professor, one of whom just so happens to be their real life creator.
It is the exploitation of that said creator, a known Christian apologist and author, among the American Christian culture that has been another small fly in the ointment. Served up to unwitting congregations by the very publicity house that so effectively fed them “The Passion of the Christ”, thus making it a massive hit, screenings are once again being bought out wholesale by people of faith. These people likely will not be disappointed with the handling of the Christian allegory synonymous with the tale, and they may even go for flawed integration of CGI creatures and human actors (check out the wacky eye-line issues when Peter has his talk with Aslan) if they’re the type who don’t see many movies. But I can’t imagine anyone being significantly moved or entertained by this, something this crowd will rightfully claim that this material deserves and demands. Methinks that Disney may’ve just burned the bridge to the elusive middle-America church market on only the second time out. Next time a studio dangles a film in front of them, I doubt they’ll be quite so quick to buy out screenings sight-unseen.
Director Andrew Adamson, previously known for his co-direction on the significantly more entertaining animated “Shrek” films, reveals here through his flawed sense of pacing that perhaps the deliberation that occurred among the multiple directors of the ogre movies was sorely lacking here. While I’m sure the investors in this venture were excited at the notion of an ace animator directing, no doubt due to his ability to bring all those wonderful creatures to 3-D life, this proves to be yet another example of why effects guys (for all intents and purposes, that’s what I’ll call him) shouldn’t direct. Granted, this is not nearly a misfire on the level of “Spawn”, but the ability to create semi-realistic talking animals does not a director make.
And another thing – the animation isn’t anything all that great, in comparison to what we’ve seen elsewhere. Sure, the Beavers are fun, and Aslan (well voiced by Liam Neeson) looks properly regal, but even if a CGI animal is 85% impressive - which these are – it’s that other 15% that makes all the difference. Check out a sequence with the bad guy henchmen, a pack of nasty wolves, for example. The wolves are sent on their mission by the White Witch, and as they speak, accepting the order, and leave, they are the kind of just-too-slick-for-reality CGI wolves that we’d expect from a movie ten years ago or so (say, “Jumanji”). Cut to them running sloppily through the woods, sliding in the snow, making inexact movements – obviously real wolves. Finally, they stop and the lead wolf says something. The shift back to digital wolves is almost whiplash-jarring. The movie “Babe” had much better talking animal effects than this, and it was over ten years ago. Of course, it also used a lot of really great puppets and more real animals, utilizing considerably less CGI. I was recently told that Lewis himself supposedly once wrote that the only way, in his opinion to properly bring Narnia to life, would be as a high-end Disney animated feature, (in his day meaning traditional cell animation) and nothing less. Integrating real actors along side fake animals and creatures would simply be too much of a strain on the audiences willing suspension of disbelief in the case of this tale. I think he’s absolutely essentially right. Unfortunately, with the era of cell animation pronounced officially dead by the very studio that ultimately ushered this adaptation to the screen, I doubt we’ll ever see such a properly realized effort any time soon.
If you’re unfamiliar with “The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe”, I suggest picking up the book before taking in this film. If it’s another “Lord of the Rings” film experience you’re hoping for, get out your DVDs. If it’s a Christian allegory you’re after, again, try the book, or any number of other, better-crafted good versus evil/chosen one tales. If you want to see an epic battle realized on screen, try “Braveheart” or even “Aleksandr Nevskiy”. In this film, the intensity of the final battle doesn’t coincide with the kid-friendly tone of the rest of the story, and when the two armies finally charge into battle against one another, it’s almost comedic how long it takes for them to finally collide: One side charges – “Yawww!!!”, then the other side charges – “Arrrggghhh!” Close-up of one of the kids, close-up of a bad guy. Close-up of another kid, close-up of another bad guy. Another wide shot – they’re closer! – close-up of a talking animal charging. Close-up of a bad guy animal, close-up of Peter leading the charge. Close-up of Mr. Beaver charging, close-up of a wolf, another wide shot – a little closer…. MY GOSH, WILL THEY JUST COLLIDE ALREADY?!? You could almost go out for popcorn and not miss any action. But collide they do, and the battle does have a few impressive moments, even if, like most of the film, it doesn’t offer anything stunningly visually new, which wouldn’t be that big of a problem, except that it seems like it should. This film doesn’t completely stink, but at it’s best, it’s about as good as the first “Harry Potter” movie. At its worst, it’s unbearably dull, weird, and long-winded. Sadly, this is not the movie that C.S. Lewis’ “The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe” deserves.
- Jim Tudor
That damn trailer for this film was in front of every movie I went to in the last few months. Kind of drove me crazy, especially because I knew people are going to love this, even though the movie will probably be quite bad. And now it seems I was right.
Did we see the same movie?? I thought it was great!
Sigh. Screen's not so big on it, either.
Todd, you're making me cry. Stop it.
Although, I do find it interesting that every negative review I've seen tends to compare LWW to LOTR, while most positives try to avoid that comparison. Though I haven't seen the movie yet, I tend to agree with that method, because it is it's own movie. Of course it's inevitable, but regarding the merits or lack of, I think reviews should be confined to the quality of the movie itself rather than how it stands up to the most epic filmmaking of our time. Just seems a bit unfair to me. I mean, Narnia is its own series, its own world. It's not supposed to be regarded at LOTR-lite, only as itself.
I guess I'll see if I agree with this review tonight. I'm kind of worried, because there are some valid points, but I reserve my judgment until then.
I liked it. I admit, it was slow for me to near the beginning. Maybe because I'm familiar with the story and why they were sent off to the Professor's house, I didn't have the same sense of 'why do I care again??' when it came to those children. And there are some places where yes, the CG is noticeable, but I didn't expect that part to be completely flawless. I am impressed considering the amount of CG work they had to do.
If the movie is as long and drawn out as that review, I suppose I would be bored to tears.
i haven't seen it yet and a part of me is terrified of doing so. absoloutley nothing will compare to the wonderful, nostalgic feeling of turning the pages of that wonderful book seeing an intricate illustration by Pauline Baynes and seeping in Lewis' simple yet strangley deep text. i've never really been a fan of special effects films, they throw you into this state of mind where it feels like your being forced to see how "amazing!" or "stupendous!" it is. its ridiculous, just give us the damn story. look at "The Wizard of Oz." the special effects are very theatrical, hung on strings really, but they look wonderful and the whole thing is so enchanting because of its great story. i feel like this is the thing hollywood has sadly forgotten.
-----
Well, I am British and having just seen it the other day, my most immediate impression was how cheap and shoddily-made it was considering how hyped it had been in the run up. Sorry, it just didnt do it for me at all. Regardless of the quality of its literary origins (and I do have my own nostalgic recollections of reading CS Lewis before my age hit double figures) this was simply bad filmmaking.
I appreciate the alternate point of view, especially since so many people I know ended up loving the film. I'm really glad that everyone who liked it liked it so much. But I still stand by my review, not being British nor having any particularly fond memories of the book. (My preference in youth-wisked-to-a-magical-world tales has always been "The Wizard of Oz".) Being British shouldn't be a pre-requisite in really "getting" this film. Obviously its not, since as I said, lots of American folks I know love it. (Although they're not the type of people I necessarily look to for their taste in cinema, but I'm sure Disney is happy to take their ticket money all the same.) I'm honestly glad you liked the film, Mathew, as you're review joins the other film-savvy reviews which are surprisingly quite many in number. But as I said, I found it sadly lacking. You may notice it's not on my Bottom 10 list - it's not that bad - but on the whole, I agree with Jasper on this front.
Very much appreciated your comment about Narnia's rootes in wartime Britain -- indeed, that was the thing that troubled me about the animated feature "Valiant", also about the blitzkrieg; you have to know something about the history to see the film as more than just lightweight. That genuine threat of invasion of the Homeland has simply ever been experienced for America. For Narnia, I'm very glad Adamson decided to add those opening scenes that weren't in the book.
Just got back from seeing NARNIA at the Local AMC (to a full house screening, with amazingly no 'annoying film patrons'!).
I found it to be mind-numblingly pedestrian. The war-time Britain material comprises of about 6 minutes of screentime and is dropped. In fact, the film is undoubtedly made for children, but leaves little for the adults to chew on. Every plot point (and I haven't read the book so all the material was new to me) was telegraphed so obviously (again, I'm not forgetting this is a kids movie) But what perhaps annoyed me most is that that the move wants to act all mean and scary-like, but then pulls the punches. Why have a line like 'Clean your Sword and rise' (I'm quoting from memory, so forgive me if I'm wrong.) when there is never so much as a drop of blood ever shown. Perhaps there have just been too many epic films made recently and the producers of Narnia wanted to keep it short, but the character arcs are so rushed they lose all impact. There just isn't enough time spent on anything to allow it to 'breathe'. Sending the children in to combat is just ridiculous (yes, I know, talking animals...suspension of disbelief), What did the children actually do, other than act as inspiration to the rest of the narnia folk...isn't Aslan enough? These were the things that floated through my mind.
Oh yea, why make Peter the leader if he is just going to surrender the High Ground in favour of a dramatic charge? But the movie had long lost me with the sloppy production design of the fairy tale prince and princess look with was like classic Disney crossed with cheap Renaissance Festival.
My expectations going into this film were low, but it failed to meet even that.
Forgive the late night ranting, If I was 12 (admittedly the movies target audience) this movie would probably have been great. But I think the movie is more or less worthless for adult viewers.
hehe, i liked the SNL rap video better
I had read all the harsh reviews as I sat down with my family to watch Narnia and to my surprise I liked it a lot. It really felt like old time matinees I used to watch as a child.
I can't really put my finger on what made me like it but I know that it would surely have been a completely different film if they had made it more "realistic" with character development, story rewriting etc. I think the simplicity of the story appealed to me.
When I first heard of the movie the connection to WETA made me cautious. But when I saw the finished result it was not anything close to Lord of the rings and that was a good thing. I was afraid I would compare it to THE fantasy trilogy of a lifetime but instead it appealed to my inner child.
It was a simple movie that I enjoyed just as I enjoyed The wizard of oz as a kid going to the matinee.
i liked the movie it talking about god. thats the only movie i liked except passion if christ.i need 2 no where can i get all books because if the books are the same as the book then i will enjoy the book as much as i loved the movie.
There is a wonderful review of Narnia by Andrew Rilestone <a>here</a>. It's very long, but wondefully pedantic.
Just watched the Chronicles of Narnia movie. Critics? Well... hmm... How can I say it. I have the impression Disney is making the same movies for the last few years.
N.B. I am not discussing the animation movies here. Those are Really the same. Every frame. The style, the ideas... taking a deep breath... and they keep on rerere(re)leasing their old successes (Cinderella especially, I think)... There were some good ones I admit... BUT that was when they were working with Pixar and I think Pixar was the only reason!
So, they are doing movies for the family. And they think that means movies that make everyone happy. Rule N°4 from the Reality: "It is impossible to make everyone happy, so keep your forces for something meaningful". Result of non respecting Rule N°4: "You make everyone angry (and that is absolutely possible)."
Now, about Narnia's Chronicles, a new term came to my mind: flatfilm (in Bulgaria we have a very good word for this: "boza", but it's difficult to translate). That means you can watch it (i.e. watchable), but you're kind of sliding on it, without feeling anything. The scenes were toooo long, there wasn't a scenario, they really used the book, Tilda Swinton (White witch) was more witch than white, more of a barbarian than a queen, and the whole flavoured with... what? special effects (quite good in fact)!, called "the magic of Narnia" by Disney. You know I'll stop here. Criticising is like hitting: there must be something to hit on.
P.S. Try to visit Disney's site, it's hideous (i.e. "so extremely ugly as to be terrifying"), especially the graphics and the sound.
Only something so right would result in such a didactic(?) effect on those who experienced it. The last time people witnessed this message, it walked on the earth out of love for humanity.
To this day, people are either for or against acceptance of this fact, with those against trying to make everyone else settle for indifference instead of utter(ed) reality. That end-game includes attacking or dismissing the periphery for fear of the center itself--pure cowardace! ("Here, kitty," indeed!!) Case in point: Edmund's betrayal glorifies rather than detracts from Aslan's commitment to Narnia. Apply that to our lives to find Lewis' message that no cast, director, producer or distributor could dilute. I LOVED THIS FILM and that "certain something indescrible" about it is TRUTH. Not many films from any source touch on that these days.
-----