The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe [Archive]

The Other

12-09-2005, 12:53 AM

The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe (2005)

http://movies.go.com/i/movies/612181/gallery/narnia_2.jpg

Starring: Tilda Swinton, James McAvoy, James Cosmo, Jim Broadbent, Elizabeth Hawthorne

Directed by: Andrew Adamson

Produced by: Perry Moore, Philip Steuer, Andrew Adamson

Genres: Action/Adventure, Science Fiction/Fantasy and Adaptation

Running Time: 2 hrs. 12 min.

Release Date: December 9th, 2005 (wide)

MPAA Rating: PG for battle sequences and frightening moments.

Distributors: Buena Vista Pictures Distribution

http://movies.go.com/i/movies/612181/gallery/narnia_22.jpg

Plot Summary: Follows the exploits of the four Pevensie siblings--Lucy, Edmund, Susan and Peter--in World War II England who enter the world of Narnia through a magical wardrobe while playing a game of 'hide and seek' in the rural country home of an elderly professor. Once there, the children discover a charming, peaceful land inhabited by talking beasts, dwarfs, fauns, centaurs, and giants that has become a world cursed to eternal winter by the evil White Witch, Jadis. Under the guidance of a noble and mystical ruler, the lion Aslan, the children fight to overcome the White Witch's powerful hold over Narnia in a spectacular, climactic battle that will free Narnia from Jadis' icy spell forever.

http://movies.go.com/i/movies/612181/gallery/narnia_20.jpg

The Other

12-09-2005, 01:10 AM

Nobody made a thread for this yet and it opens tomorrow.

So discuss!

Lazy Boy

12-09-2005, 01:28 AM

"Thus far, a rather uninspiring thing..." - Zazu, The Lion King.

I don't really think this looks all the great, if anybody cares for my honest opinion. The CGI looks like a bad, straight-to-TBN effort.

The casting of Tilda Swinton is the only salvagable hope for this picture.

Rated R

12-09-2005, 02:02 AM

I loved the books as a kid and when I caught glimpse of the trailer first time it sent shivers up my spine. I doubt it will be as good as the BBC series but it should be decent enough. Ah well, I'll know on Sunday as it is in my double feature day with Syriana.

TylerDurden182

12-09-2005, 03:50 AM

Doesn't look that great. I agree that the CGI looks a little iffy.

Fisting Ackbar

12-09-2005, 04:17 AM

Having not read the books, I don't share the same excitement as those who may be familiar with C.S. Lewis's world.

I still plan to see it though, so I'm hoping for the best.

Hannibal21

12-09-2005, 04:20 AM

My most anticipated movie of the year, along with 'King Kong'. Can't fucking wait to see it, especially having LOVED the books when I was a kid.

I'm hoping for the best.

12-09-2005, 08:02 AM

I saw Narnia yesterday, and my first thought was "Adamson - stick to Shrek".

I think the first part of the film was handled really well, very authentic. The moment Lucy goes through the wardrobe was really well done, but after that it just fell flat. It was inconsistent in quality, and I don't just mean the CGI.

I actually thought the CGI was pretty pathetic throughout. When you've seen battles done so great in films like Lord Of The Rings, you really have to up your game a bit, but Narnia did nothing of the sort. There wasn't a moment that went by where I wasn't rolling my eyes or laughing at what was meant to be a 'serious' moment.

Another nail in the coffin of fantasy as far as I'm concerned. Narnia makes you realise, in comparison, how talented Peter Jackson is for creating a world that didn't feel camp or artificial. Adamson has created a film that looks like it had a television budget, and I'm not even joking when I say that.

What's most important is that kids seemed to enjoy it. Talking animals, magical landscapes and very little actual violence. Perfect for kids. Very little for adults.

Sigur509

12-09-2005, 08:30 AM

I'll be seeing this in about 12 hours.

Looks to be excellent.

LegionX

12-09-2005, 11:30 AM

**POSSIBLE SPOILERS**

I have to admit that seeing this over Syriana was a dissapointment for me anyways. i like high powered political films, but something was telling me to check out Narnia. SO we decided to start up both film and whoever wanted to watch syriana could and whoever wanted to watch Narnia could. I remember very vaguly about reading the book in elementary school , so I decided to watch Narnia. The beginning started off good. It built it up in a clever way. The CDI animation was not all that it is hyped up to be. I have seen better CGI work on the trailer for King Kong than I saw in the entire film of Narnia. Narnia had a great story. The acting was good. I have to admit I loved the beavers! i mean come on who didn't? The film follows four siblings as they embark on an adventure to find their brother Edmond and put an end to the evil white witch of Narnia by crowning the 2 kings and 2 queens of Narnia, as told by the prophecy of Narnia! I thought they had the perfect actress to play the White Witch. I mean look.... she looks good as her..
http://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/walt_disney/the_chronicles_of_narnia__the_lion_the_witch_and_t he_wardrobe/tilda_swinton/narnia1.jpg
Aside from that, this movie's only lack wsa the High power entertainment that I got from the preview. I felt they could have done so much more with the battle scene. There was no blood at all in this movie, which would have been nice to see. And trust me when I say no blood....I mean absolutly no blood! well maybe a scratch on the forehead. It was a good entertaining movie. One that the kids will love but for the adults who grew up remembering the books. It will be an ok/decent movie. This film was definelty made to the benefit of kids comeing to see it.

7.5/10

TrippingBalls

12-09-2005, 12:22 PM

Looks pretty lame to me. Like a Harry Potter version of Lord of the Rings.

FrankBoothe

12-09-2005, 12:30 PM

It went on release here today so I went along to see it, and I must say I quite enjoyed it (except for all the fuckin kids running around inside). I've never read the book(s), so didn't know what to expect from it. I thought it would be a cheesy Disney typical kiddie bollocks flick, but I found myself getting into it. The acting was fairly solid from the young cast, except for the older sister. The cgi wasn't the best I've ever seen, but it was far from being shite. The Christian analogy made for a good story, although the 'twist', for want of a better word, could be seen coming from miles off. A nice appetiser for King Kong next week.
7.5/10

therealjohng

12-09-2005, 02:03 PM

Saw this yesterday. I read the books. Wan't really looking foward to this but I have to admit that it was pretty damn good.

johnny_betts

12-09-2005, 03:17 PM

Easily one of my four favorite movies of the year (Sith, Batman Begins, and Cinderella Man being the other three). I was surprised at how well the CGI was done - especially how life-like Aslan is.

I prefer this over both Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings. Lewis is a better storyteller than Rowlings and Tolkien, knowing best when to be specific and when to leave something to the reader's imagination.

chinton

12-09-2005, 05:08 PM

Never liked the boks but willing to give the movie a try

jolanar

12-09-2005, 05:11 PM

This is completely sold out tonight at my theatre!!! I can't believe it!! I didn't know it was going to be that big of a deal.

Guess I'll have to wait until Saturday to see it.

Mentiroso

12-09-2005, 06:05 PM

I never read the books so everything was new to me. One of the best movies I have seen in a very long time. Even the child actors were great. I do not know how anyone could not like this one. CGI was great. Not cartoony looking at all. Asland was about as real as you could possibly want without having a real talking lion on stage with the child actors.

10/10

I enjoyed it more than any of the LOTR series. I really loved those three movies too. Even better that Harry Potter GOF and that was my favorite of that series. I am not going to do a review. Just go see this movie!

Sigur509

12-10-2005, 02:36 AM

Much better than I thought it would be.

9/10

But better than Lord of the Rings?

*Gasp*

Digifruitella

12-10-2005, 03:23 AM

Originally posted by LegionX
There was no blood at all in this movie

Duuuude, this is a children's book, for the children, not adults. What did you expect when you walked in? LOTR?

AstralPlane

12-10-2005, 04:04 AM

WOW
the movie was an amazing ride...
I am on the other side for CGI, I thought it was actually quite flawless; much better than I had expected... I do agree that the trailer looked a bit weak, but seeing it on BIG screen was pure eye candy

any comparaisons to Harry Potter are ridiculous; the latest Harry Potter bored me to DEATH, while The Lion, the Witch and The Wardraobe, kept me very excited the whole way through, and it felt like it actually had an ending.

Comparaisons to LOTR are difficult, alot of my friends thought it was better (and they loved LOTR), but I'm on the fence as a hardcore LOTR lover. I guess I have concluded that they are different types of movies, Narnia being much more colrful and vibrant and hopeful, while LOTR is more in your face, giving you times of gloom
Narnia holds advantages in that it was fast paced the whole way through and seeing that it's not a trilogy, it had a conclusion on its own (the other Lewis novels are seperate stories rather than continuous ones)

** and please, Syrian was just ok...I was the guy who submitted the early screening review, Narnia was much more entertaining**

AstralPlane

12-10-2005, 04:09 AM

..and yes
one of the best movies this year by far

it gave me the tinglies like Batman Begins :D
and the fun entertainment value that Serenity gave to a Sci-fi geek

Lost in Space

12-10-2005, 10:13 AM

Well i saw it yesterday

may main critique would be the CG it was truely pethetic. With the standard set by Peter Jackson in LOTR you have to either meet it or go beyond and Narnia did neither. Do not get me wrong on a simple plot basis this movie was sepctacular but the CG mad ME cringe
but idk go check it out

chinton

12-10-2005, 11:58 AM

Just as dissapointing as Harry Potter. I mean there were some great sequences and the special effects were well done but for the most part it was just dull but then again I didnt really care for the books. For all the battle and what not going there was a surprisng lack of urgency. Everything just seemed very bored. Also the performances were all over the place. Tilda Swinton and the girl who played Lucy were good but the other three kids were non-entites. Also having already seen King Kong I dont know this just kind of paled as far as escapist entertianment goes.Oh well Ill see Syriana tongiht so Im happy.

6/10

Joshmo

12-10-2005, 02:13 PM

WOW! Absolutley fantastic moviemaking!

Not as deep as LOTR and it shouldnt be. LOTR took Tolkein 14 years to finally complete and included its own language. I find C.S Lewis much more aproachable than Tolkien (and more deeper than Rowling). I love LOTR and like Harry Potter, but Narnia is greater than HP in my opinion.

Great flick, gotta been seen on the big screen for sure! And I aint lookin to flame, but when I read stuff like "pathetic CgI" I gotta laugh. This was great cgi and blended well with the live action.

dannywalker17

12-10-2005, 10:00 PM

I gotta agree with you Joshmo. Narnia was an amazing film. Not as good as LOTR but thats okay because the books aren't as good either. Tolkien's fantasy is very complex in theme, plot, and imagery. Lewis' fantasy is more accessable seeing as it is children's fantasy, but the stories are still timeless. And while I like Harry Potter (at least 3 and 4) for entertainment value, it pales in comparison to Narnia as far as storytelling, depth, and emotion goes.

And the CGI was one of the best things about Narnia. If there's anything to be complained about SFX-wise, it's the blue screen. In some places it was obvious that it had been used, but even Jackson had that problem in Two Towers. Narnia is actually harder to pull off, because you have talking animals. In LOTR, with the exception of Gollum, all the creatures that had to talk were "humanoid" in shape, so they could be played by actors in costume. I was very impressed with how realistic the talking animals were, the beavers, the fox, and Aslan... all amazingly and vividly depicted.

We've seen so many huge battle scenes lately, and living up to the example of Peter Jackson's battle scenes is hard. The final battle in TLTWATW didn't quite blow me away, but if didn't feel like I had seen it all before. The eagles dropping the rocks on the White Witch's hoards gave me chills--the kind I got the first time I saw the prologue of Fellowship of the Ring. I feel like Adamson did enough of it differently ot satisfy me.

The acting was superb as well. They did a very good job with all the casting. Tilda Swinton was chilling as the White Witch and James McAvoy was a perfect Tumnus. And the children are much better than the Harry Potter cast was in their first couple films. Lucy and Peter especially did excellent jobs. And like most have agreed, Narnia visually is a spectacle to behold.

It couldn't have been done much better.

The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe - 10/10

http://www.joblo.com/big-movie-images/picnarnia3.jpg

blankpage

12-11-2005, 12:39 AM

I've never read the books. So, when I first saw the intial trailers, I was thinking "Ok, moving on!". But, as of late, my interest has peaked. After reading an article on it in the paper this morning, I was gonna go check it out, but opted to see Potter instead. I'm gonna try and make it out to this flick soon. Looking forward to hopefully a great film.

Lazy Boy

12-11-2005, 01:03 AM

7/10

The worst things about this are the special effects and the "acting" by Peter, but Georgie Henley is a delight as Lucy, and Tilda Swinton...absolutely fan-fucking-tastic as the unremittingly evil Jadis. A compacted version of C.S. Lewis' book (unread by me), this feels like a low rent LOTR, but it has its charms, and the epic battle sequence is quite thrilling.

Criminal Rock

12-11-2005, 02:21 AM

I was very much disappointed by this movie… I will say though, if the remainder of the movie preserved the same pacing as the first ten minutes, it could have been a lot better. The acting was mediocre if not below par. As was the writing. I enjoyed PARTS of CERTAIN scenes, a here and there type deal, but nothing spectacular enough to make a big deal out of. Directing and cinematography wise, wasn’t all that great… in truth, it was pretty awful to say the least.

While I was expecting an LOTR Jr., all I got was a Harry Potter wannabe.

5/10

jolanar

12-11-2005, 04:28 PM

Chronicles of Narnia

I was thoroughly disapointed in this movie. I just can't believe people are giving this movie 10/10. So many scenes with terrible acting, characters that are extremely annoying and the witch... with no witchly powers. Every 'shocking' or 'surprising' plot point in this movie is totally predictable. The only entertaining parts of the movie was the first 30 minutes and the last 30 minutes. The entire middle was deathly boring...

4/10

the_sneaker

12-11-2005, 04:47 PM

The Chronichles of Narnia was a story I have been aware of my entire life; my brother loved it as a child. I never read it, though I think I might have liked it.

So, that being said, I went into the movie last night with no hopeful expectations, but also no doubts either. I was completely neutral. Everyone I had talked to about it (fans of the book or not) said it was great.

The first half of the film was fairly decent. It set up the story in a smooth fashion and didn't add extra junk that just didn't need to be there. However, the last half (which should've been the best) was laughable at best. I'm not talking about the animal CGI; that was about the best damn CGI I have seen in a film since The Lord of the Rings series. What I am talking about is the story seemed to just fall to pieces. These are four children who have never had any type of combat training and after one tiny scene of them practicing, suddenly they can wield weapons like they had been doing it their entire lives, and even on their first try, they shoot bullseyes. I mean, it was practically ridiculous.

Also, the film had a Return of the King like ending...meaning, it just would not end. Hell, even 30 seconds after the credts started rolling, more junk popped back up and the story continued.

Overall, I'd say it was a great effort. The filmmakers obviously wanted to make this an epic film, but the story just fell to pieces by the time Edmund got captured by the White Witch and after that I just wanted it to be over.

6/10

KcMsterpce

12-11-2005, 05:10 PM

I didn't like it that much: (www.kcmsterpce.com/reviews/lionwitch.html)

I haven't read the books, so this isn't going to be a bias against what was in my imagination. I DID watch the old BBC series of the 80's, and it could only be better than that pile of shite, right? RIGHT?!

Wrong. With a bigger budget in the range of $180 million (holy shit! - bad pun), they should be ashamed of the blatantly shoddy special effects. Having the kids standing in front of completely obvious blue/greenscreens through nearly every single scene detracts from the wannabe epic feel of the story. It was quite the imaginative deflator. That could have been less of a distraction if the creatures in the world of Narnia were convincing enough. But no, they look like shit as well. They are competently designed CGI animals... competent if it was designed for a weekly series release on a new episode of Hercules! I mean seriously, what the fuck was going on here? Even more pathetic was when they tried to incorporate a few seconds here and there of real life wolves... I wasn't jarred enough by the CGI dogs, but instead I had to be shown the REAL THING to remind me that not only are these dogs not real, but THIS is what a real dog is supposed to look like, and you're welcome for being completely blown out of the moment by horrid effects sequencing! Dumbasses! To add insult to injury, the day for night shots (filming in the day, and then changing it to look like night later) are an eyesore, and I couldn't see much of what was onscreen. Boo! Boo! Boo!

Let's put the bad special effects aside and concentrate more on the story itself, and the acting as a whole. On the kids' part, they were alright. That's great, considering they need to do at least OK to make the movie watchable. In fact, everyone was decent for what they had to do. It was awkward having Liam Neeson as the voice of Aslan, because his voice is so recognizable that I couldn't see a lion, I just heard Neeson.
The story itself is a lot more simple than what I remembered as an eight year old first watching the series. It actually isn't even solid enough to play the Epic Motion Picture card that this movie was trying so hard to be. Everyone knows it's a metaphor for the Bible, but Jesus, man (going to Hell for that pun), it could still be more exciting than this lackluster affair! There is a final battle sequence that cried for something more exciting, such as say, Lord of the Rings, but fails miserably. Continuity is nonexistent in the final battle. There were a few large giants that were walking to the startup line, and afterwards I don't recall seeing them in the actual battle. To top it off, there's this young boy Peter who is to lead the troops to battle, and joins the battle himself, and fights one on one with the White Witch. I won't mention how shitty the swordfight is, but I will say how unbelieveable the idea of a young boy who's never touched a sword in his life would last more than a minute in his first battle, with no training. I was laughing the whole time, because it was just plain ridiculous!
The funniest bit of the movie was when a dwarf is about to kill someone, and the older sister shoots her one and only arrow during the whole battle straight to the heart, and the dwarf says "OOF!" HAHAHAHA funniest moment of the whole movie!
Something else that was stupid... Santa Clause. There's been no Christmas in Narnia for a hundred years, but it's always winter. The reason? The White Witch. I don't get this concept. Why does Santa stroll around Narnia in his sleigh with a big bag of presents, even if it's a hundred years without giving any? Oh yeah, so the kids can get special items, such as a bow and arrow, sword and shield, healing potion (never mind being worried about those injured in battle now), akin to imitations of Galadriel in - once again - J.R.R. Tolkien's far superior series.

Even though this movie looks like shit, has a weak storyline, and wasn't all that good, it managed to be WATCHABLE. It was also slightly entertaining, but often for the wrong reasons. I wasn't bored, and that's a very good thing. I say that if you're ten years old, this would be an excellent movie. However, I'm not ten, and it didn't manage to capture my imagination enough to make me feel like I was ten years old again in a way that other movies this year have been able to do. If you're seeing this with your kids, it's safe enough, and they'll love it. Otherwise, I don't recommend this.

GRADE: D+

NightStalkerGtx

12-11-2005, 05:54 PM

Looks horrible, Sounds Horrible was thinking of renting this when it came out on dvd, but i guess i'll just wait for it on hbo/cinemax/starz/showtime whatever you get the piont

dman476

12-11-2005, 07:57 PM

Nothing special, 6/10

Jimbo513

12-11-2005, 08:29 PM

This movie was great. I don't feel like detailing everything I liked about it, but I will point out afew things about some of the dislikes of others.

The CGI

I thought it was great. I don't know what movie the CGI bashers were watching, but the movie I saw the CGI worked well. True the animals didn't look 100% real, but how real can a talking animal look? The CGI was more than adequate to tell the story.

Someone mentioned the fact that the kids had no combat training yet could fight.

Big deal. OK so the kids could magically wield swords and shoot bows like a pro. This doesn't bother me. Is that more unbelievable than talking animals and mythical beasts?

The story

I thought it was great. The middle part didn't seem boring or pedictable to me at all. This isn't Lord of the Rings. Narnia is laot more of a light hearted children's tale.

Have we forgotten what it is to just sit back and enjoy a fantasy movie without pointing out the CGI?

I enjoyed it.

7/10

ruffbuffy

12-11-2005, 09:05 PM

I'm sorry, but Narnia sucked.

The film was very boring, long darwn out and tedious, the christian allegory was pointless (other than to preach via a jesus lion), the use of a bible verse was a cop out, and the film was far from epic.

I think people just wanted another LOTR and bought a ticket and were dissapointed, but it will be gone and forgotten when kong comes out next week.

Thrizzle

12-11-2005, 10:08 PM

I'm not sure why people are making such a big deal out of certain parts of the movie that they find 'unbelievable'. Its a fantasy movie......she could shoot the bow well because its a magic bow that "does not miss easily", Peter is a good fighter because he's Peter the great, ruler of narnia as told by the prophecy, etc etc.

8/10, because i thought the CGI looked just fine.

Servo

12-11-2005, 10:41 PM

I'm surprised at how much people are liking Narnia. I loved it, but I'm still surprised by the acclaim it's getting. I thought Narnia would be out of place, especially in this day of age - an age of cynicism and a desire for more realism. Narnia is filled with Christian allegories, delivering messages of hope, forgiveness, redemption, humility...usually when this message is presented in such an optimistic story it's pretty much frowned upon by modern audiences.

I was surprised by the CGI (And actually thought it was better than LOTR), especially when it came to talking animals - I thought it was going to be horrible, but I was surprised at how much it actually worked. P.S. griffins and mentaurs(sp?) are fucking awesome.

I enjoyed Tilda Swinton scaring the shit out of me. The score was probably one of the best things to come out of this film - it gave me chills all throughout.

All-in-all, a great movie. Though I'm positive King Kong will do a whole lot better, and I can't wait to see it.

dannywalker17

12-11-2005, 11:24 PM

As was the case with a lot of the complaints about LOTR, many of the problems people seem to be having are things from the book.

The book is Christian allegory, so if you don't like it then sorry, because it would be pointless to make the movie without it. And the end is pretty much identical from the book. And the children being able to wield weapons--all from the book. Perhaps there was a reason these kids were the ones who came to Narnia and fulfilled the prophecy. Perhaps some deeper magic allowed the kids to fight like they did.

The pacing pretty much matches the book. In fact, the faster paced beginning is about the only thing not in the book. That and the big batte sequence at the end, which is expanded considerably.

The Father Christmas scene is right out of the book too. I'm sorry if it reminded you of the Galadriel gift-giving scene. Maybe Tolkien and Lewis worked on that idea together.

And the acting was fine as far as I was concerned. Georgie Henley was definitely the standout of the four children, but none of them were bad.

Everyone's entitled to their opinion. Just wanted to defend mine.

dman476

12-11-2005, 11:26 PM

Did anyone else find it odd that Santa Clause just randomly appears?
I mean they couldn't find a better way for the children to get their magical fighting tools?

Still find this film to be better than the Potter movies.

And, my question
Did they leave out this plot where the professor gets transported into Narnia and the kids go to find him with these rings?

It just seemed as that was in the book but I'm not sure.

dannywalker17

12-11-2005, 11:42 PM

Originally posted by dman476
Did anyone else find it odd that Santa Clause just randomly appears?
I mean they couldn't find a better way for the children to get their magical fighting tools?

Still find this film to be better than the Potter movies.

And, my question
Did they leave out this plot where the professor gets transported into Narnia and the kids go to find him with these rings?

It just seemed as that was in the book but I'm not sure.

Father Christmas is in the book just as he appears in the movie.

What your thinking of on the professor is the story in The Magician's Nephew, which... BOOK SPOILERS

comes before TLTWATW chronologically but was published after. It tells how a boy named Digory (the professor from Wardrobe) and his friend Polly discover these magical rings that take them to this forest which contains many pools, each leading to another world. They encounter Jadis, who is queen of Charn, a world that is about to die. They accidentally let her out of Charn and she winds up eventually in Narnia, which is just being created by Aslan, and I won't say any more but that is what you are thinking of.

END SPOILERS

If anyone was disappointed thinking that the fantasy in this movie was too simple of not as interesting and complex as LOTR, it does get much more complex as you get into the next few books.

jolanar

12-12-2005, 01:48 AM

Originally posted by dman476
Did anyone else find it odd that Santa Clause just randomly appears?
I mean they couldn't find a better way for the children to get their magical fighting tools?

I couldn't help but laugh out loud at that point in the movie because that part was so random, awkward, and just out of place in the movie.

Criminal Rock

12-12-2005, 02:05 AM

Holy shit! The witch! The witch is here to kill us all!

http://www.orca.mila.edu.pl/~p_grzegorzewski/pix/santa-junk.jpg

*GASP* SANTA!!! Oh precious Santa! You bring is swords and knives! We love you!

I found this scene pleasurable in my pants.

Joshmo

12-12-2005, 07:30 PM

Originally posted by dannywalker17
As was the case with a lot of the complaints about LOTR, many of the problems people seem to be having are things from the book.

The book is Christian allegory, so if you don't like it then sorry, because it would be pointless to make the movie without it. And the end is pretty much identical from the book. And the children being able to wield weapons--all from the book. Perhaps there was a reason these kids were the ones who came to Narnia and fulfilled the prophecy. Perhaps some deeper magic allowed the kids to fight like they did.

The pacing pretty much matches the book. In fact, the faster paced beginning is about the only thing not in the book. That and the big batte sequence at the end, which is expanded considerably.

The Father Christmas scene is right out of the book too. I'm sorry if it reminded you of the Galadriel gift-giving scene. Maybe Tolkien and Lewis worked on that idea together.

And the acting was fine as far as I was concerned. Georgie Henley was definitely the standout of the four children, but none of them were bad.

Everyone's entitled to their opinion. Just wanted to defend mine.

A very well defended opinion which has much merit in truth. I support your explanation 100% :)

ruffbuffy

12-12-2005, 11:26 PM

I realize that the allegory is probably important to the novel, but the idea of preaching christianity to children in a movie has much more power and danger associated with it (I mean, Aslan's line "It is finished" comes from Jesus' final moment on the cross) - isn't really for kids is it?

Seems like another way of preaching religion to kids and a wider audience?

dannywalker17

12-12-2005, 11:57 PM

There is nothing in the movie that children will recognize as Christianity. The ones that are already Christians may pick up on the basic resurrection metaphor, but that's about it.

I never heard the line "it is finished", so I don't know where you got that.

Ultimately, every parent has the choice to take their kids or not, and I think most people are well aware of the Christian influence on the story.

And thanks for the backup Joshmo.

ruffbuffy

12-13-2005, 12:43 AM

Um, at the end of the final battle, everything stops and Aslan says with great importance "It is finished," kind of hard to miss actually, which happen to be Jesus' last words.

I don't understand the significance of including christian elements other than to make a religious film (and preach that religion, otherwise why else would you incude it?).

dannywalker17

12-13-2005, 02:09 AM

Because that is the story. If you took out anything that anybody would consder religious then there's nothing left. And even if you just removed the death and resurrection, the fans would cry foul, and rightfully so. It would be utterly pointless to make the film that way.

The it is finished line is not a big deal because he doesn't say it in the context of his death, which would make it a very blatant Biblical reference. He says it the context of the end of the battle and that could be a line at the end of a battle in any epic film.

Get over it. Like I said, if you don't like religious themes then you don't have to see it.

Criminal Rock

12-13-2005, 02:44 AM

Originally posted by ruffbuffy
Um, at the end of the final battle, everything stops and Aslan says with great importance "It is finished," kind of hard to miss actually, which happen to be Jesus' last words.

I don't understand the significance of including christian elements other than to make a religious film (and preach that religion, otherwise why else would you incude it?).

Why do you even care? It's not like it's a secret or anything, Lewis has openly expressed the basis of his novels. It's not dangerous for children, or their parents by any means. Please.

Here's a quote from Lewis:

Some people seem to think that I began by asking myself how I could say something about Christianity to children; then fixed on the fairy tale as an instrument, then collected information about child psychology and decided what age group I'd write for; then drew up a list of basic Christian truths and hammered out 'allegories' to embody them. This is all pure moonshine. I couldn't write in that way. It all began with images; a faun carrying an umbrella, a queen on a sledge, a magnificent lion. At first there wasn't anything Christian about them; that element pushed itself in of its own accord.

If Aslan represented the immaterial Deity in the same way in which Giant Despair represents despair, he would be an allegorical figure. In reality however he is an invention giving an imaginary answer to the question, 'What might Christ become like, if there really were a world like Narnia and He chose to be incarnate and die and rise again in that world as He actually has done in ours?' This is not allegory at all.

JCPhoenix

12-13-2005, 03:19 AM

I'll post longer thoughts later probably but I found the film overall a little underwhelming but not bad.

I found the first half moved a little slowly but it was still pretty good. I think they may have followed the book too exactly though. It felt really weird but I haven't read the books in several years and I could pretty much remember every line a character was about to say next...

The performances were good all around, very glad they found good child actors for the roles.

I can't quite put my finger on it but I think the pacing of the film was really really off and all over the place. It sort of tries to build to the battle but we never really get that excitement in between and I didn't really feel the tension all that much when Jadis came into Aslan's camp.

And finally, the battle scenes at the end had some good parts and bad. Overall I'd say it wasn't as sweeping as it needed to be and the whole production almost felt - I don't know how to explain it but "jokey". Certainly the animals came away feeling more "serious" in my head - tho now that I think of it, I dunno what I was expecting but I think the CGI could've been better still and there needed to be more gravity injected into the proceedings. Even the Aslan dying/resurrection thing and Edward's wounding just sort of came and went like that. I just wasn't as invested in Aslan's death (partly because I knew he was coming back to life :p from the book) and everything felt a little...half-assed to me. Like I said, I dunno how to explain it, it wasn't like they didn't put a lot of effort into the production. But in all honesty, a lot of the latter half of the film almost had that Shrek quality to it a little (the director of this being the director of Shrek).

Speaking of which - cinematography in first half - beautifully done. Second half, ick. Hated the look of the grass and the camps and everything around them for the second half after they get out of the snow. It was lit in such a way it just highlighted the fakeness of the whole thing and I think that was one of the things that made me not be able to take this entirely seriously.

I know I know, the book is all childlike and wonderful but the movie needed more emotion and a more epic scale - the end battle definitely needed a boost.

I'm still debating between a 6 and a 7...I actually quite enjoyed most of the first half even though it is slower and the second half was still somewhat enjoyable but I'm just awaiting the next installment as this is my least favorite book in the series.

dannywalker17

12-15-2005, 11:02 PM

The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe[/b] is ranked #13 of all time on Yahoo Movies. Obviously it's your more everyday kind of people whereas IMDb is mostly movie geeks, but still a good sign for the word of mouth. Here's Yahoo's list:

1. Return of the King (A-)
2. The Shawshank Redemption (A-)
3. The Godfather (A-)
4. Star Wars (A-)
5. The Godfather Part II (A-)
6. Raiders of the Lost Ark (A-)
7. King Kong (2005) (A-)
8. Schindler's List (A-)
9. The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (A-)
10. Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl (A-)
11. The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (A-)
12. The Empire Strikes Back (A-)
13. The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe (B+)
14. Return of the Jedi (B+)
15. The Incredibles (B+)
16. Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (B+)
17. The Usual Suspects (B+)
18. Casablanca (B+)
19. Saving Private Ryan (B+)
20. Finding Nemo (B+)

King Kong only has 4,000 votes. Narnia has 21,000. Shawshank has 25,000. ROTK has 131,000.

AstralPlane

12-19-2005, 04:28 AM

I'm surprised there's not even an A
highest being A-? i think most fans are just generally over critical lol

dannywalker17

12-19-2005, 08:51 PM

Originally posted by AstralPlane
I'm surprised there's not even an A
highest being A-? i think most fans are just generally over critical lol

But those are averages, so it would be pretty hard to average an A+. It would mean pretty much everyone gave it an A+.

Sigur509

12-19-2005, 10:21 PM

Just got back from seeing it a second, and it still keeps the 9/10 rating from before. What a great film.

dannywalker17

12-20-2005, 04:18 PM

Yeah I'm hoping to see it again in the next few days. I saw King Kong and it just isn't as good as everyone is saying, IMO.

And Narnia continues to hold up well against Kong. I think both movies will have good legs. Yesterday Kong made $5 million and Narina made $4 million.

Badbird

12-22-2005, 09:55 PM

All I can say is... just... wow.

I haven't been knocked out by a movie like this in a long time. This easily vaults to the top spot of 2005 for me. This was everything I hoped it could be and then some. Everything, and I mean everything, was perfect in this movie.

I saw the animated movie when I was a kid and didn't like it all that much (because, quite frankly, that version sucked), but I was intrigued by the story. Then I read the book for the first time a few years ago for college and thought it was pretty darn cool. This was right before the first Harry Potter and LOTR movies were to be released, and I thought to myself "If these movies are hits, someone will tap into another big classic fantasy, maybe even this." I thought The Lion, the Witch & the Wardrobe could make for a very visually stunning movie, and even played it out in my head as I invisioned it. The only flaw in the book was that the characters were extremely underdeveloped and there was virtually no final battle in the book, save for a couple pages.

The movie is even better than I could have ever imagined and all the books flaws are fixed. The four children were fleshed out. The action was expanded. And the final battle was a sight to behold.

On top of that, the actors were top notch, including Tilda Swinton, all the animal voices, and especially the young girl who played Lucy. She was nothing short of stunning.

The movie was beautifully filmed so that it can't in any way shape or form be mistaken for the other dreary, dark and dirty "Big Epic Battle" movies of recent years, be it LOTR, Gladiator, King Arthur, Troy, etc. Narnia deffinitely had a look, tone, and feel all its own.

The build up to the film's massive climax was so well orchestrated that by the time Aslan was revieled late in the movie, it was genuinely moving. I got goosebumps. Later I was nearly moved to tears in a certain key moment of the story - that's how powerful this movie was.

And the final battle? The best "big battle." Period. It was on a completely different plane than the LOTR movies for me. One of my biggest complaints about the LOTR movies was that they felt very plodding - like they were just going through the motions in a very mechanical, emotionless journey towards an inevitable outcome. In LOTR, everything was gray on top of gray on top of gray. Grimey, muddy, cold, and under a perpetually overcast sky.

But Narnia was set in bright, broad daylight, with battle fields of collorful figures and dozens and dozens of different creatures battling each other. It was a breath of life into a flacid genre.

And now for the crittics:

The Jesus Analogy - yes, yes, yes. It's a parable of the Bible, Jesus, blah, blah, blah. But you probably wouldn't have even known that had it not been beaten to death by the media leading up to the movie. Seriously - I'm an atheist and that doesn't bother me. This is a fantasy movie. It's not "preaching" anything. That's a ridiculous notion. Neo in The Matrix was a Jesus parable as well, I don't remember anyone complaining about that.

As for "It is finished" coming right out of the Bible - was that right after the part were Jesus and his army of mythical creatures laid waste to Satan's evil empire? I'm just wondering, cause I've never read the Bible. Come on, give me a break.

And the "Special Effects were terrible" crowd - are you insane? This is even more ridiculous than the Jesus/Aslan crittics. So the FX didn't look photorealistic 100% of the time. You know what? No movie ever does. I thought all of the LOTR movies were saturated with that "CGI shine," but as much as I didn't care for those movies - THAT was the one thing I wouldn't complain about.

Visual effects, especially digital effects, will always look a little off. But are they bad? God no. If you want to see bad CGI, check out crap from the late 90s like Spawn, Lost in Space, or Mortal Kombat Anihilation.

To me, pretty much since around 1999 or so, all of these big, big budget special effects movies have looked good or great. We know what's real and what's not real. So even if the digital effects could look perfect, we would know they were fake anyway, so what difference does it make.

This is also giving the impression that there was a time when FX were perfect. Uh, no. Since the dawn of special visual effects, we've been able to spot flaws. I remember when I saw Temple of Doom at the theater and immediatly knew the part at the end when their on the cliff face that something wasn't right. It was an obvious effects shot, but I didn't care because I was enjoying the movie.

And finaly to the LOTR lovers - get over it. Yeah, Narnia is a fantasy movie with a big battle, blah, blah, blah. Narnia is a lighter version/rip off of LOTR. Whatever. I've already pointed out how these movies vastly differ in the visual department (With Narnia being the far superior of the two). Every single complaint I've read about Narnia could have easily been said word for word about the LOTR movies. But I can't help but wonder if this movie had come out first and LOTR second, if people wouldn't be saying the same thing. "Oh, LOTR is only a darker version of Narnia."

So there you go. As for my review? It is finished.

dannywalker17

12-22-2005, 10:41 PM

Glad you liked it so much Badbird... and nice touch at the end there.:D

I totally agree with you on the SFX issue. Especially the CGI is wonderful. The only problem I had was with some very noticable green-screen in a couple scenes, but King Kong had more problems with that and even Two Towers had that flaw. And the Aslan CGI was incredible--every bit as good as Gollum or Kong.

king_verhoeven

12-23-2005, 10:27 AM

Gave this movie a spin last night and it wasn't bad. It was pretty good actually.

I've read the books last year and I think they did a pretty good job. I liked the books, thought that they were entertaining but obviously books for children. That adults enjoy them also is great but that wasn't the purpose, me thinks.

I guess the same holds true for the movie, it's a movie for children in the first place although the marketing/trailers/tv spots wanted to make you think other wise. Maybe the makers wanted to please both groups, I think so, and that's were the biggest problems of this movie lay.

I really enjoyed the movie until the halfway point. The first part feels the most like a children's movie and when it does so, it's at is best. However, when it becomes clear that the children have to take part in the war against the white whitch, the movie doesn't get better. This is because we have to believe in Aslan and that's were the makers have made their biggest mistake. They introduce Aslan but that's it, why he is so great, wonderful blabla becomes never clear. Also the whole mythology of the Narnia-world and the prophecy and the power of the Whitch is taken for granted. Maybe, because the film is for kids they didn't wanted to deeping Aslan's character and the whole Narnia-world but for me it never gave me reason too fully involve with the characters on screen. Also having such a huge scale battle on screen but showing no violence and blood etc on the screen doesn't help the believability. So if this movie was a half hour to an hour longer, were they explain the world of Narnia more and giving much more needed depth to Aslan's character, plus add in some real violence this movie would have been great. But that's me wanting a movie more suited too adults. However this is a children's flick and as such it was good, not great since I'm not a kid anymore I'll leave that too the kids to judge.

As for the characters, the children were good. I especially liked Lucy and Edmund. The two oldest were a bit annoying but I guess that's their purpose. I found Mr.Tumnus a bit creepy and not very likeable. But what a great job they did on the beavers, great CGI and I absolutely loved them. Aslan was not very well handled but Neeson did a good job. I thougth I would be annoyed by hearing Qui-Gon speak but I luckely wasn't. As for the White Whitch, I didn't found her to be very Whitch-like (as in very scary, creepy), but maybe she was to the children. I for one found the whitch in Disney's Cinderella (or was it that other flick??) far more creepy but maybe that's because I was a child back when I saw that movie.

As for the CGI/Effects-work, they did a great job!! As mentioned above it wasn't always 100% but at least not below 95%. Some times I saw a actual real lion walking besides the children, even if I knew it wasn't true.

So, all in all, I enjoyed this flick but with some reservations. I think it would have been better if they made this flick animation instead of live-action since it is a kids movie, no one would bitch about the CGI isn't real and shit (if you fing the CGI-work in this movie not real you'll never ever will find it real) and it would have saved them a lot of money. I guess Disney wanted to draw adults as well as children and that's why they choose the live-action route but it didn't made the movie any better

8/10 -out-

Sigur509

12-24-2005, 12:51 PM

I am going again tomorrow to see it. If it still holds up, it could be between Sin City and Kong for best movie of 2005, that I've seen, of couse.

bigred760

12-27-2005, 11:12 AM

My review of The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch, & the Wardrobe:

This being one of my favorite books when I was but a wee lad, I knew I had to check this out when I heard about it. It wasn't for all the Christian undertones or anything like that, but just because I remembered it as a pretty cool adventure story that had me reading the book (actually, most of the books really) several times.

Going into the theater, I realized I didn't remember THAT much about the book. Knew the jist of it and all, but few details. I gotta say I was a little underwhelmed by the movie. Not to say that it was bad, but nothing jumped out at me that much. I was never bored and the action scene was kinda cool, but nothing spectacular. I guess I got too overwhelmed by all of the Lord of the Rings movies, that this one left wanting a bit more.

But from what I remember, the movie is very faithful to the book. And like the book, the movie is pretty much targeted towards children. The violence is limited, the deaths take place offscreen, and the villains are toned down a lot. I don't see how children will be able to translate all the religious undertones; I think kids will be overtaken by all the special effects, talking animals, and other cool characters. The acting wasn't spectacular, but hey - most of it was CG characters and the four kids - who haven't done that much acting, if it all. The only standout was definitely Tilda Swinton as the White Witch - great casting there.

Overall, definitely more of a kids' movie than a teen or adult movie. This is a much-scaled down version of the Lord of the Rings movies. It's a good movie, but not great.

7/10

JoeCool

12-29-2005, 04:54 PM

one of the best movies ive seen all year

i loved it

Doug

12-30-2005, 07:30 AM

- This movie rocked!! ....... a centaur dude with pedophile tendencies who lures young girls to his house with offers of toast (and in a twist of genious the director replaced the all too common rape drug GHB with a magical flute that puts Mr Tumnus's prey to sleep), talking beavers that look uber cool wearing full chainmail, Santa in a small part playing an arms dealer, a sadistical East Indian dwarf, talking animals are ALWAYS funny, ritual sacrifices ....... Holy Sh*t, the guy who directed this is one twisted dude. Whatever he's on I want some!!, straight up freak.

bigred760

12-30-2005, 07:54 AM

Originally posted by Doug
- This movie rocked!! ....... a centaur dude with pedophile tendencies who lures young girls to his house with offers of toast (and in a twist of genious the director replaced the all too common rape drug GHB with a magical flute that puts Mr Tumnus's prey to sleep), talking beavers that look uber cool wearing full chainmail, Santa in a small part playing an arms dealer, a sadistical East Indian dwarf, talking animals are ALWAYS funny, ritual sacrifices ....... Holy Sh*t, the guy who directed this is one twisted dude. Whatever he's on I want some!!, straight up freak.

That's freakin' hilarious!! True - but definitely hilarious. I wouldn't go blaming the director though, all that stuff's in the book too.

Lynn7

12-31-2005, 11:23 PM

I saw this and I thought it was very good. I was expecting to not like the kids (from other's people's postings) but I liked all of them. I expected to think the Santa was stupid but he was just as believable as the other characters in Narnia, IMO. I thought the witch was brilliantly played! I can't believe that was Jim Broadbent playing the professor-unrecognizable.

A few complaints- I think the movie should've been tightened up a bit- some shots were way too long! And Aslan should've been more developed than he was so there could have been more feeling about what happens to him- I felt like I hardly knew him. I never read the book but I did love the movie- are there more stories coming?

dannywalker17

01-01-2006, 06:46 PM

Originally posted by Lynn7
I never read the book but I did love the movie- are there more stories coming?

There are seven books, and Walden plans to adapt them all. Box office numbers should make that a definite now.

Snowboy

01-04-2006, 08:50 AM

I've been reading other people's thoughts of Narnia here, and I can honestly understand some of the nitpicking. But for me, I personally quite enjoyed this film, especially considering I haven't read the books since like.....5th grade. There was a certain charm about it that just won me over. Made me feel like a kid again, to be honest.

Georgie Henley as Lucy was definitely an inspired casting choice. She was way too precious, and could definitely give Dakota Fanning a run for her money. The other children were also solid, if a bit underdeveloped. Tilda Swinton (actually, her character Jadis) is the epitome of evil. I relished every moment she was onscreen, and actually got quite freaked out by her many times. She seemed to be channeling a little bit of Satan.:D I don't know if anyone else noticed, but this movie boasts some really great music by Harry Gregson-Williams. I'm actually listening to it as I type.

I'll probably end up watching this film again. Can't wait to see what Adamson does with the rest of the series.