The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe

If I didn’t know that Andrew Adamson had not directed both Shrek films, I would consider him an ordinary Disney man who edits films about animals, talking cars, and dreaming children on an assembly line. His direction is the greatest routine, and in The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, the routine is ice-cold, withdrawn, scenic, without any hint of mysticism, mystery or atmosphere. Narnia is simply a snowy space behind a magic closet - a space where ungainly fairy-tale creatures live, a space that is controlled without any motivation or inner logic. None of this fit into the film. Actually ... it would be alright if it was clear from the film that it was a fairy-tale spectacle, but attempts at battle epics ala The Lord of the Rings (and the constant literal quotes of some shots) lead me to conclude that The Chronicles of Narnia is kind of a pig-dog. As a fairy tale it has no magic and charm, and as a fantasy epic it is terribly naive, shallow and lacks any mythology. Compared to Jackson's Middle Earth, the interpretation of the fantastic land of C. S. Lewis is tame, flat, two-dimensional. The kid actors unnecessarily overact, their characters in no way captivate the viewer, and paradoxically, the whole story is carried by computer creatures headed the truly excellent lion Aslan. As the embodiment of ice evil, Tilda Swinton resembles more than anything a shady clone of the vampire brothers from The Matrix Reloaded, and even her minions do not have the proper energy to bring a spark of drama to the trivial scheme of the story. Even so, The Chronicles of Narnia is watchable thanks to the dry digital effects; however, one feels no wonder when watching it, and that bothers me a lot when watching the fantasy genre. [50%] (30/10/2006)

For children under 12 years old, this is a wonderful spectacle. I am not going to deny that I enjoyed it immensely when I was quite young, and I daresay it even trumped Lord of the Rings for me – however, times change, and so do opinions. Today I would say it is just another cult movie alongside Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter, but this time aimed at younger children. Adults will be a bit hesitant, teenagers will probably be rather disappointed. Why? The first stumbling block is the four child actors, the only one I liked was Anna Popplewell as Susan. The other three are just as demented as the families in The Simpsons, or even Family Guy. Skandar Keynes as Edmund is grumpy, obnoxious, and unlikable from the get-go, William Moseley comes across as a serious and wannabe classic-positive-character-with-whom-it-is-easy-to-identify-with type, and Georgie Henley, who is a slowly rising star in the US, and even compared to AnnaSophia Robb and Dakota Fanning, is lovely, but only when she has to be. Otherwise, she is so big-headed, pouty, and smug it is horrible to watch. On the other hand, Tilda Swinton is excellent and gives off a wonderfully icy impression, the digital treatment of Aslan and the magical creatures is breathtaking. The plot is, however, mediocre. All in all: this is an excellent movie for kids under twelve, and an average movie for most adults, the dissatisfied ones may mostly be teenagers or some adults or older people. Andrew Adamson should go back to Shrek. P.S In addition to all of that, another thing: Gregson-Williams' soundtrack is absolutely amazing (especially “The Battle”). (17/06/2008)

No grateful spectacle from successful morning teenage fantasy, on the contrary. Missing the last 20 minutes would be the prototype of a truly unpleasant film for me. The children argue the whole time except for the ending, and their actors (possibly except for Lucy) are incredibly annoying. In combination with eye-catching tricks, lecturing Aslan, and not-so-likeable supporting characters, it's truly a big defeat. (05/03/2006)

If I were a little kid, I'd probably be in seventh heaven from all those talking beavers, wolves, centaurs, eagles and other creatures, but as an adult, I was presented with something that was almost unbearable, especially in the second half. At the beginning, when the kids are getting acquainted with Narnia, it's a pretty brisk show, with beautiful winter scenery and sets that Weta did a really good job of producing. But from the encounter with Aslan in the second half comes the unbearable ubiquitous pathos, with fervent glances and profound proclamations, all meant to be deadly serious and without an ounce of levity, as if there was no place for humour in a story with Christian symbolism, which is not as readable for young children and may be completely irrelevant to them. A deeply religious man, Lewis projected the person of Jesus into his book through Aslan, with his sacrifice and resurrection, which he did for an unnamed Christian ecumenical nonprofit publisher whose enthusiastic promotional flyer for the film I got my hands on. It may be the film's essential centerpiece, but the average viewer sees it differently and is more interested in the fact that the CGI characters are legibly digital and have unnaturally jerky movements, and the level of the visual effects in general varies considerably, something surprising for a film with such a budget. The film is presented in such an uninteresting way, I'm sorry, but I don't see it as more than 2*. (10/03/2006)

After Renata Fučíková's illustrations and the BBC adaptation of the first four books, I got a Narnia I’d never even hoped for. I saw it on the big screen 4 times, countless times on DVD, and it was revived regularly and never forgotten. I'm happy and crossing my fingers that all seven adaptations will finally be made. Maybe on Netflix, and hopefully for the fifth time, a complete set. (03/02/2009)