|
Directed by: Andrew Adamson Starring: Georgie Henley, Tilda Swinton... I'd read the books when I was younger but remembered nothing more than the premise when I was going into the movie. I expected something fairly kid-oriented, but was expecting a production with the quality and scale of LOTR. Unfortunately, the main problem I have with Narnia is that it never really feels like an epic movie event. The CGI is distractingly bad at times, and is overused, especially with the animal characters who could've received some animatronics/puppetry treatment. Although I expected a movie that would be largely kid-safe, I hoped Narnia would be a bit more grown-up than it is. What humor there is in Narnia fell flat for both young and old in the audience I saw it with. It makes little attempt at the successful "dual" entertainment of something like Shrek, and you never go too long without being reminded that this is a movie aimed at young people. The minor characters, mostly animals or animal-hybrids, are instantly forgettable and look sloppily inserted into the scenery. The "wow" that can happen during something like LOTR is zapped away here because the instant anything fantastical is happening, you're also reminded that it's just CGI pasted on top of the background. At times the movie's effects compare to the quality of a computer game cutscene, though they're usually better (but not much). A rather complicated story is told quite well in the 2hr20min runtime, thankfully. It is not needlessly complicated and only drags for a little while in the middle. The kids, and supporting cast are all well acted and deserve high marks. It's partly my fault for hoping this movie would be a less violent and less complicated LOTR. It tries, but it's clear the budget and skills of the people involved are not equal to the standard of "grown up" fantasy movies. I'm sure it's a good movie for kids, but I think you might be disappointed if you're a bit older. I was occasionally bored, occasionally entertained, but usually just felt like the movie wasn't trying hard enough. RATING: 2.5 PROS: Main cast is excellent, the movie is just the right length CONS: CGI, minor characters, too nice ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: http://imdb.com/title/tt0363771
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2005 01:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 23:50 |
|
|
Absolutely no complaints. Harry Potter loving wishes it was this good. There were several hundred points throughout the movie where I was thinking "oh man they could screw this up horribly and make it so lame", and every single time they did it in a really fantastic way. Special mention to the final sword battle - that would have been easy to screw up and instead it was really good. The only possibly negative thing I could say is that there were certain characters/scenes that I have built up an emotional attachment to because of how they were handled in the miniseries which I watched so much in my youth. On two particular instances, I felt that the film didn't give them the attention they deserved. I am referring to the Professor (you get to know him much better in the miniseries) and the fight between Morgrim and Peter (which is far, far too short in the movie). Both of those are little personal bits that I would have liked to have seen though, so they're not real criticisms. Regarding the CGI animals, yes there are a few shots/scenes where they look jarringly fake, but there are far more times where they work seamlessly. As for the middle ground (shots that so very nearly ALMOST work but not quite), I don't see this as being a negative point for the film. There aren't enough of them to add up, it never really pulls you away from the film, and finally: it's simply "the best that can be done". Special effects will always have its limitations, so stop your drat whining. Stop watching the reflection mapping on the sweat bead that hangs from Mr Beaver's nose and watch the loving film, you picky, picky bastard. On that subject, the beavers could not have been better in any respect. Animation, characterisation, everything. Brilliant. Fantastic film. I hope it makes more kids go read the books. 5.0 TCC: Dude, you gotta play miniature golf.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2005 15:57
|
|
|
A wonderful film, reminding me why I actually go to the movies -- it's for films like these. I echo the sentiment that Harry Potter wishes it could be this good. While Harry Potter as a film is mere event coverage, and the books are entertaining, they're simple. "Narnia" is deep and thought-provoking without being too heavy. This movie actually has characters. They are people the audience cares about, they're likable, and you forget you're watching a film and not actually involved somehow. This is the difference between hack writing and literature. The CG does run the gamut. It doesn't affect my rating, but it goes from masterfully done (Mr. Tomnus' lower half was seamless) to distracting, particularly in some of the battle scenes. The voice acting was very, very well done. If there ever was a question that this is Christian allegory, there shouldn't be anymore. The movie comes dangerously close to beating you over the head with it, but doesn't cross that line. In fact, I hope that it persuades other Christians to look at the religion more deeply. The movie is exciting and entertaining for kids, is thought-provoking and intelligent for adults, and offers humor and emotional involvement for all audiences. And it's the first film I've attended in many, many years where the audience clapped at the end.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2005 23:05
|
|
|
I have to disagree with the reviews here, especially about the Potter reference. While Potter doesn't attempt to go into philosophical issues (at least not yet as far as the movies go), it is a well defined fantasy world, and the movies do it justice without skimping on the details and little touches that really pull you into a story. The Potter movies are mainly about issues that everybody deals with growing up (except for evil wizards,) that that's something all ages can relate to, young and old. Narnia, however, is purely a children's movie. That's it. I find it hard to believe that any adult could enjoy this, sans nostalgia (and having never read the books, I have none.) The characters are flat as paper, and you couldn't give a poo poo about them from just the movie alone. We have the typical reluctant hero, the turned villain, the naive child, and the smartass girl who doesn't do anything. The movie focuses on these characters, but their actions are so archetypical that you never get a sense of identity for any of them. And because the movie focuses so much on these stale characters, it hardly ever sets the scene. It's hard to get feel for the world of Narnia except in the big battle at the end. However, since that happens in a non-descript field, it's not very effective. And on the subject of philosophy, I didn't really find anything in Narnia very though provoking. There is a "Deep Magic", which is an allusion to God. But it's never really discussed, except for it being "good." It's mentioned a lot but never becomes the focal point of any provoking scenes. Overall the acting is solid, except for the little girl, who the movie focuses on way too much unfortunately. The voice acting for the animals is well done too, no complaints here. In the end, this movie seems like a watered down hack attempt at a mini-LotR. I'd recommend seeing it only if you're taking your kids/date, or if you have fond memories of the books.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2005 05:48
|
|
|
The acting is horrific, if it weren't for Tilda Swinton's excellent performance as the White Witch, this would probably be the worst high profile film of 2005. Awful pacing, awful CGI and an awful script conspire to ruin any immersion, so you'd do better do read the book. I think it's Disney's cynical way of cashing in on Lord of the Rings' success. Children do love it though so i've voted 2.5/5. I usually love children's films but Narnia was just shoddy 
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2005 03:10
|
|
|
I'm no good at writing reviews, but I have to vote negatively on this one. The movie had me laughing at it, not with it. Even for a family movie, it was way too cheesy. The fond memories I have of the book are now blocked out by this crap. As mentioned before, the CGI is pretty bad, it was both fast paced and seemingly too long, and I didn't particularly like any of the kids. 1.5
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2005 21:25
|
|
|
It was too simple. Yeah it was based off a kiddie book, but so was LOTR. For what it was it was good, what it was is a simple, one dimensional, CGI-Filled, Big Budget Jesus-with-a-new-skin story. Anybody under 7 would enjoy it, other than that it feels almost patronising. 2\5
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2005 15:57
|
|
|
Chronicles of Narnia=New Testament with talking animals. 1/5 and that's being generous.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2005 05:45
|
|
|
My main complaint with this movie is the same as the OP's. It doesn't feel epic enough. They arrive and then are told they have to fight against the White Witch. It doesn't build up to the final battle at all really. It's like they arrived just in time for it to happen. Many of the characters are just annoying, seeing the beavers in armour was a huge cringe moment. The White Witch's chariot was towed by polar bears. They had giant birds dropping stones like bombers. That was the point where I started laughing for about 10 minutes straight. Seeing rhinos and leopards charging across a battlefield was too much. I was hoping for another LOTR but it just failed to capture my imagination at all. 1/5
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2005 09:22
|
|
|
Adult non Christian chiming in with a "hey, what the hell are you guys talking about, this movie was awesome" review. Firstly, I'm sort of baffled by the cries of "crappy CG" in this one. I thought Aslan was incredibly realistic, and the renderings of the other creatures were amazing. I thought the griffins were especially well done. The battle scene was crisp and clear, and very exciting to watch. It was especially coolto see the White Witch kicking rear end in her chariot drawn by polar bears. I was actually impressed that the director made the pace of the movie very deliberate-- just like the book. Part of my fear was that explosions and extra battles and things would be shoved in to make the movie more marketable. What little they did to alter the novel aided very well in the pacing of the story and dramatic tension. C.S Lewis wrote the books for kids and the "fairy tale" prose used in the novel is translated 1:1 on screen. Lewis never meant Narnia as sprawling an epic as LOTR (I mean, Tolkien invented a language for his universe), and it really shouldn't be judged against on that measure alone. I saw a movie with real emotion and great eye candy that didn't water down any of Lewis' themes. It was a very faithful adaptation that worked as an immensely entertaining and moving film. 5/5 Life is Eat and Die fucked around with this message at 10:17 on Dec 31, 2005 |
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2005 09:54
|
|
|
While admittedly the CG was slightly lacking, part of me felt like this was my answer to the heavily cg LOTR pangs I've been having. I enjoyed it greatly. There were a few bothersome things, however: the lack of blood and the weak charecter development. I felt I knew Mr. and Mrs. Beaver better than Aslan. This isn't a "yay let's market the poo poo out of this" type movie, this is a movie that perhaps people might learn something from- whether it is the Christian undertones or just the general idea of forgiveness. I would certainly not go so far as to say that it's the bible on screen or anything. A great story with a great movie to now accompany it. 4.5/5
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2006 06:32
|
|
|
First of all, this is a three hour and twenty minute film cut down by an hour. There are enormous holes in the character development that we're supposed to fill in with our imaginations, they spend all but ten minutes with the central character of the film and we never really get to know the protagonists of the story. For a person like me who is not familiar with the books, the film just felt dead inside, completely flat. People just did things for no reason, things just happened. Peter asks a centaur on the battlefield "will you be with me to the death?", but they have never talked to each other before. This movie had an insane budget but the effects look like absolute poo poo. On one hand, the White Witch's creatures have the most obvious rubber masks I've seen in a high-budget film for a long time and on the other, Aslan's troops are rendered with offensively bad CGI for the millions spent on them. Chronicles of Narnia cost $180,000,000 to make. What it has to show for this is a 20-minute battlescene, completely unimpressive CGI animals and forty minutes of character development missing. The few attempts there are to spice up the movie with innocuous humour fall flat, and the grave seriousness of the ham-fisted allegory made me feel physically ill. That many people are seriously considering this to be equal to the Lord of the Rings trilogy is ridiculous; it does not even deserve to be mentioned in the same sentence. LotR had love and skill invested in it, Narnia just had tons of money. Tilda Swinton was good, the rest was absolute trash. 1/5
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2006 19:51
|
|
|
Harp Heaven posted:First of all, this is a three hour and twenty minute film cut down by an hour. During several parts of the movie (especially the buildup to the battle) I found myself looking at my watch and wishing they'd get a move on already. The pacing is seriously off, and there are several events that felt like the director was told he had to include them in the movie, but then they never went anywhere. The professor character seemed so stunted in his character development or explanation of motives that they would have done better leaving the poor guy out altogether. The acting, other than Tilda Swinton's, was unimpressive. I thought the guy who played the faun did the worst job - I didn't read the books, but I doubt he was supposed to be the creepy pedophile type. The rest is standard Disney kitsch with a religious veneer and poor CGI. 1.5/5
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2006 21:28
|
|
|
Chronicles of Narnia is a much less interesting throwback to LotR for little kids. There wasn't enough character development for me to think anything of the little brother other than, "What a little bastard!" More goes on with the kids, and every other main character, than the presentation can effectively handle. I didn't give a drat about any of em' and frankly David Lo Pan coming out of no where and fighting The Witch while in the background Vin Diesel uses smaller, lesser fighters as clubs for no reason other than to hit people, would've been far more amusing. All in all the main failing seems to have been playing up the epic quality to the detriment of the whole. It would've worked out better as a large scale fantasy flick that happened to grow to epic scale. Tani - "I thought the guy who played the faun did the worst job - I didn't read the books, but I doubt he was supposed to be the creepy pedophile type." I wanted to second this, it's a solid example of character issues. Radd McCool fucked around with this message at 19:13 on Jan 4, 2006 |
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2006 17:17
|
|
|
I'm going to echo the complaints on this. It never truly felt epic. It didn't feel loved. LWaW felt like somebody who didn't understand why LotR was successful decided to cram a bunch of money into a project. I didn't feel any connection to the characters. Why was Aslan so great? Why was he a good king? Why should I care about all these fauns and centaurs and hate the minotaurs and cyclopses? Because they're "bad"? I definately agree with it needing at least 40 minutes extra and still dragging in places. Hopefully a director's cut will come out to remedy all the problems.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2006 22:46
|
|
|
A glossy, simplified version of the LOTR trilogy. The child actors are all a bit wooden, but nothing that will make you cringe or grate your teeth throughout the entire movie. The story as presented in the film is not very complex and the viewer is left with little to go on with respect to how they should feel about their surroundings or the characters that inhabit it. The battle scenes were decent, but nothing remarkable that you haven't seen elsewhere in lower budget films. The cinematography and scenery are enjoyable enough. 2.0/5
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2006 06:09
|
|
|
Dragged on for a long time. Not epic at all. SANTA CLAUSE GIVES THEM WEAPONS. Unimpressive CGI. "epic" battle was really short and not enjoyable to watch. I literally laughed at the movie a number of times. The only saving graces of this film is the witch whom i thought did as good of a job anyone could in the part. Her costume and hair was also well done. The rest of the movie in my opinion was abysmal. 1.5/5
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2006 13:31
|
|
|
It died for me when the kid walks into the snowy wasteland, puts her bare hand on a METAL lamp-post, and doesn't even shiver. I mean, is eternal winter such a bad thing if the snow is warm enough for you to stroll about in a thin dress without looking remotely chilly? and  the ice-surfing scene...I liked the way they turned the story of the kids into one of a damaged family finding each other again, but that was about it. And I thought the paedo-faun thing worked very well. Both the faun and the Witch start the book/film luring children back to their homes with sweeties for evil purposes, and yes, it is creepy, and I'm not sure it could be made non-creepy. (Not as bad as poor bloody Edmund getting hit with all the guilt of Aslan's death, as if he'd ever asked for the blood sacrifice, or done more than take the mindfuck turkish delight. I never realised how sick and unfair that was till now.) 2/5
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2006 18:03
|
|
|
I hated it and walked out. A middle school play with a $180 Million budget. I'm confident that this movie will be forgotten in time. 0.5/5
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2006 01:14
|
|
|
OJ.SImpson posted:Dragged on for a long time. I don't think I can do anything to take away from this perfect post. Describes it to a tee. 2/5
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2006 08:00
|
|
|
I will echo a lot of the complaints about the movie here. I never read the book but I got the feeling that the movie was made with people who had already read the book in mind, with no consideration for people who hadn't read it at all. I cared nothing for the characters, the development was extremely lacking. I didn't understand the significance of Santa in Narnia. Why, in a fantasy world, did they have Christmas... or not have it for 100 years? What exactly is Deep Magic and Deeper Magic? The movie made no attempt to explain anything other than these creatures are bad and these ones over here are good. Like I said, the movie was made for people who read the book already. Everyone else was hosed. The White Witch looked awesome with the lion's main around her neck though. 2/5
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2006 00:07
|
|
|
This movie was never engaging, and as it has been mentioned a million times already, the special effects were awful. Despite the fact that the majority of the movie takes place outside, you can tell that the children who starred never shot a scene outside. When the two girls were riding the lion, their hair barely moved and the lighting on their face remained constant. It's like they didn't even try to make it look like it wasn't green screened. My main problem with this movie can be summed up by this; why are polar bears bad and rhino's good? Everything just seemed so arbitrary and absolutely nothing was explained. Why were the bad guys bad and the good guys good? The story was just very childish and underdeveloped. On the plus side, the kids were decent actors and I liked the witch. The music was also good, although at times it seemed like I was listening to Pure Moods. 2/5
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2006 08:59
|
|
|
There's Christian Allegory and then there's this movie. I simply couldn't stomach it past the pivotal scene. Yes, I understand that C.S. Lewis was a Christian and that this is a christian movie, but it was so clumsily done and so incessant that I couldn't separate that from the rest of the movie. The "son of adam and daughter of eve" bits, the obvious Christ references, the God vs Satan dynamic, the stop being smart and just have faith theme running through it... it all adds up to far too much. At least with passion of the christ, it was so blatant that I knew to avoid it. I wish, in this case, I had known that this was going to be a version of "The bible comes alive! With cute animals that talk!" so I could steer clear. 1/5.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2006 02:34
|
|
|
The pictures were pretty, and that's worth something. Oddly I felt the acting of the female characters (Susan, Lucy and the Ice Queen) was way better than the male characters, who where either overacting (Edmund) or underacting (Peter). Still I'm a sucker for fantasy and I could handle that, if the story weren't so terrible. The director stayed close enough to the book, but then I never liked the book much either; I'm afraid C.S. Lewis simply isn't an author that's very worthwhile. The whole story is a blatant allegory, the characters are simplistic and undergo no development, and the context of the world is disjointed. The appearance of Santa Claus just seals the deal. 2.5/5
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2006 04:32
|
|
|
I have always loved the chronicles of narnia books, and still do. Unfortunately, I do not love this ham-fisted-to-satisfy-xtians generic-as-gently caress-fantasy film adaption of it. Still, it has its moments. Worth seeing if you can stomach the less-than-subtle treatment of the CHRISTIAN ALLEGORY that will be pounded into your skull throughout. 3/5
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2006 08:00
|
|
|
This movie failed for me because it did not convince me that the four kids loved (or even liked) Narnia enough to want to fight to save it. This basic shortcoming cascaded into scene after scene of empty epic moments. The only good thing about this movie is the White Witch. Swinton played the part magnificently and I found myself looking forward to the next scene with her. Oh, and while there might be some Christian allegory in the story, the film's not going to convert you. No need to be afraid of that. Be afraid of an over-paced, poorly acted (except for the White Witch!) faux-epic. 2/5
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2006 05:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 23:50 |
|
|
As a child, the animated movie enthralled me and, I'm afraid, set the standard (in my mind) for any future adaptations. I'll set aside the books since it was so long ago that I read them that all I can really recall is that I enjoyed them. My main complaints are:
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2006 03:24
|
|
