I finally had the opportunity to see The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe today. As a fan of the C.S. Lewis series I had the fear that the movie wouldn't be faithful to the book, but I heard that Doug Gresham, Lewis' stepson, was an executive producer. Another fear would be that the story would get lost within all of the special effects. Some movies make up for weak stories or overwhelm the story with special effects (see Revenge of the Sith for a classic example). Even another fear would be that a movie that has kids in it would be too cute and couldn't be taken seriously.
Fortunately, all my fears were unwarranted. Yes, special effects are essential to the movie, but they are mostly used for bringing all the Narnia characters to life. This movie really shouldn't even be made without all the effects or else it would just look silly. The kids are charming and the Lucy character is cute, but it balances out well.
One weakness of the movie, if a viewer hasn't read the book, is that Aslan is a bit mysterious and his character isn’t developed enough. If the viewer has read the book then they'd understand the affection for Aslan, but the movie doesn't develop it very well. So, if you haven't read the book, read it first, then see the movie.
A quick warning for parents with young kids; the movie is rated PG, but is a bit intense. My 7 year old was crawling all over my lap, but he did like it.
All in all, a pretty darn good movie and I hope the same team decides to attack the rest of The Chronicles. Don't wait for the DVD to come out, as this one is definitely worthy of even a full price admission.
.jpg?t=20130517094513)
Article comments
1 - Scott Butki
Hmm, I was waiting for you to get the meat of the review instead of responding to just your concerns but you never really got there.
I was underwhelmed by the movie.
2 - Nik
I liked it, but didn't love it. I agree about the comments on Aslan, they didn't develop his character enough, and the transition of the kids for the last act was kind of abrupt.
3 - JR
Narnia was a great movie, however, I must agree that character development was poor. I haven't read the book so it was hard for me to grasp the immediate affection that the children had for Aslan. It was like the had an immediate trust upon him and it felt like that they have known each other forever. The 2hour time frame was a bit short to portray an epic of this magnitude.
4 - John
I went and saw the movie last night, the day after reading the book. I give it a 3/10. I was disappointed with many parts and it is unfortunate that Disney got to produced it.
I hate when they deliberately change the story so they can call it 'their' version. The work did not need change, it needed someone to accurately potray the book into a film. I dont mind them adding to a work to set the scene and depth in a film, but many times there was change for no reason than to chop a few seconds here or there, or do it different so they can claim credit themselves.
I thought the film was pathetic in that they rendered men onto female horse bodys and such, and Aslan was no lion at all. This is not a crude comment, and granted it is a childrens movie, but it does show the attention to detail given, or lack thereof. LOTR on the other hand was absolutely accurate in the anatomy of all it creatures in every possible detail, just as if it were truely real, because the producer loved the books and attention to detail was paramount
Many of the shots avoided complexity, such as when we see the faun, almost every shot shows the upper half of the body or the lower half. Very rarely do you see the whole faun, and when you do its is for a very short time, or in an inconspicouos way. Same with the reindeer, both with the witch and father christmas. You hardly get to see them at all. Its true about the blue screen comment above, some of the photograph backdrops and chroma key work was so bad it threw you completely out of the movie and back to reality
The shooting of Aslan was pathertic, he constantly changed size in every shot from a huge cat on the hillside, to a much smaller cat on the stone table. The aesthetic animation of his face and proportions of his body could have been much better. From the rear his hindquarters are very scrawny, from the side, over massive and solid. The same with the wolves too. This is a CG problem and should have been fixed and rerendered.
Also Disney left out almost every cruel part of the book. Of course they did not wish to tarnish their magic by upsetting young children, and the scenes would have been expensive to render. The torment of Aslan was not depicted - where did we see the cords cutting his skin, the blood and bruises, where on his face is the intense pain, the excruciating fear. Sorry but this part was way too clean
The better done parts of the film were the battle scenes, although I think its fair to say these were the parts they had rendered in New Zealand, using WETA, the same ppl who did LOTR.
All up as a childrens movie it is OK. To me it felt too low budget and skimpy, and that disney for that matter had profit before their heart in producing it
My 2c
5 - Rob
I've loved the Narnia books since I was a child and have read them many times. Even as an adult, the books are evocative and create a magic world.
I did not like the movie. None of the characters were nearly as interesting as they were in the books. The beavers were hokey, the faun unnervingly like a hippie undergraduate, the wolves chliched.
And the children were flat. In the books, the children have real personalities. In the movie, each child is a cliche. The acting was wooden and over directed. These weren't real children, they were puppets.