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



## Teresa Edgerton (Dec 10, 2005)

This is my first review on this site, but emboldened by the fact that no one has slipped their Narnia review in ahead of me I will proceed.


First of all, I should probably say that I was looking forward to this film more and more obsessively as the release date drew near, which on the one hand made me just the sort of viewer the film was meant to appeal to, and on the other made for astronomical expectations, sure to be disappointed.

For anyone expecting the same sort of breathless action and frequent violence that marked LOTR on the screen -- this is not the movie for you.  This is most definitely a family film (although there are some moments during the scenes at the Stone Table that might be a bit intense for very young  children).  The main characters are children.  There are some stirring battle sequences but no visible blood.  The story is simpler and the moral issues even more obvious here than they are in Tolkien's writing.  There is that pesky underpinning of religious symbolism.  And yes, a certain gentleman associated with the North Pole does make a somewhat unlikely appearance.  (But he was in the book too, and let there be no doubt at all that he _is_ the genuine article -- Father Christmas and no mistake, not some glitzy Hollywood version of Santa Claus.)

When I first left the theater, it was with the impression that there was nothing I would have changed, except for the very small matter of the White Witch's hair color.  Thinking about it afterward, it has occurred to me that there are a few other things that I wish had been done differently.  But this is in contrast to LOTR, which as much as I loved those films (and my passion for those is virtually unhealthy), there were many, many things that I, personally, would have changed if Peter Jackson had possessed the great wisdom to run them past me before committing them to film.

For those of you who are unfamiliar with the book by C. S. Lewis, the story is this:

The four Pevensie siblings (teenagers Peter and Susan, preteen Edmund, and moppet Lucy) are sent away from London, as part of that great exodus of children into the countryside during the Blitz.  They find themselves exiled to the vast and gloomy manor house of the eccentric and reclusive Professor Kirke.  As the Professor seems to devote most of his time and energies to that same matter of being quirky and reclusive, they are consigned to the tender mercies of his glacial housekeeper, Mrs. MacCreedy.

During a game of hide-and-seek, Lucy discovers the wardrobe, a large and ornate affair which (to those in the know) fairly exudes magical possibilities.  She decides to hide inside, pushes through row upon row of hanging fur coats -- and emerges, unexpectedly, outdoors, in a snowy woodland, in the otherwordly realm of Narnia.

Unfortunately, as Lucy soon learns from a passing faun, Mr. Tumnus, Narnia is in the toils of a century-long winter induced by the fearsome White Witch, who makes it always winter but never Christmas.  When Lucy returns, via the wardrobe, to her own world and time, she has to contend with the (hardly unexpected) disbelief of our older sister and brothers. 

Eventually, of course, all four children end up in Narnia, where Edmund, the rebellious and troubled member of the family, falls to the seductions of the White Witch (she tempts him with magically created Turkish Delight), while stalwart Peter, motherly Susan, and plucky little Lucy join forces with the talking animals of Narnia, and go off in search of Aslan, the "the true King of Narnia," in the hope that he will help them to rescue their brother.  Aslan  turns out to be a magnificent and noble lion (voiced by Liam Neeson), and from the reactions of the children alone when they finally meet him, even the dimmest member of the audience ought to be able to surmise that he is also a great deal more than he appears.

That is the set-up and the first part of the story -- but how, you may be asking, does it all _work_ as a movie?

Going by the reactions of a theater crammed full of parochial-school children (believe me, it was no part of my plan to see the movie under those conditions) it's a movie bound to appeal to kids between the ages of 8-12.  Going by my own reaction, and that of my husband, there is plenty of appeal for older viewers as well.

Child-actors, of course, are always a risky proposition, and relatively inexperienced unknowns play the Pevensie children.  But the two oldest were fine in their roles, and the two youngest, Skander Keynes as Edmund, and Georgie Henley as Lucy, were even better.  Although it should perhaps be said that in the case of Miss Henley, it wouldn't have much mattered whether she could act or not, she was that adorable.  She's not a conventionally pretty child, and if it were not for her luminous little personality some might even think her plain, but she projects a charm and presence that are absolutely winning.  Her scenes with the goat-footed Mr. Tumnus (a perfectly cast James McAvoy), were particularly enchanting.

Tilda Swinton made a chillingly effective Jadis, the White Witch.  Some of the voice actors behind the talking animals were exactly right -- a few ... well, their characters would have to come under the heading of things that I, in my incomparable wisdom, would have done differently.  This was undoubtedly a matter of how they were directed to interpret the characters, however, and no reflection on the actual performers.

The sets, the costumes, everything that comprehends the overall look of the movie -- absolutely stunning.  The special effects ranged from good to excellent (in the latter category I have to mention Mr. Tumnus again).  I especially loved a scene where the children walked into the Narnian encampment and passed amidst the gorgeous pavilions and all the strange and wonderful creatures.  I could go on and on about the things that made a big visual impression.  The battle scenes, though bloodless, were exciting, and in places thrilling.  (The White Witch came across as a particularly formidable fighter-- do not trifle with this woman.)

I give the movie a big thumbs up, but if you go be prepared to leave your cynicism behind -- it will only hamper your enjoyment.


----------



## kyektulu (Dec 10, 2005)

*I saw this film last night on its second day of its release.
I have to admit I was a bit tentative about seeing it when I first heard it was being released as it seems very few 'new' films are coming out these days, why bother thinking up a movie plot when you can redo a film...

It was very much like the origional however I did enjoy the film.

It is basicly the exactly the same with better graphics, but still I wouldnt count seeing it as time wasted.*


----------



## Teresa Edgerton (Dec 10, 2005)

Did you see the animated version before, kyektulu, or the BBC live-action series?

As a counter-balance to my review, here's a really snarky one at boxofficemojo:

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/reviews/?id=1958

It looks to me like this fellow really, really, _really_ didn't approve of the religious background of the story -- and had made up his mind to dislike it in advance.

I have to admit that there are a lot of Christian fundamentalists who scare the bejabbers out of me, but fundamentalists of all sorts can be scary, and I really wouldn't like to inhabit this man's mental universe.  He seems to think that ideas like courage and unselfishness are neurotic and dangerous.


----------



## kyektulu (Dec 10, 2005)

*I have seen the origonal movie of The lion, the witch and the wardrobe and the animated version.
I read the article you posted and it does sound like the guy isnt a big fan of the film, however I am not a christian myself yet I can see the basic morals of the story are good ones. 
This is far better than most of the diatribe children are watching everyday.
There are alot of fanatics in every religion, I know quite a few devout christians and they are not at all like this man.
If he thinks such endearing qualitys are wrong then he is a very twisted individual.
*


----------



## GOLLUM (Dec 10, 2005)

Kelpie said:
			
		

> I have to admit that there are a lot of Christian fundamentalists who scare the bejabbers out of me, but fundamentalists of all sorts can be scary, and I really wouldn't like to inhabit this man's mental universe. He seems to think that ideas like courage and unselfishness are neurotic and dangerous.


Well that's nothing new Kelpie, plenty of people in this country which their own set of religiuos hangups and insecurities about the film as well as in the UK as noted on BBC World...

Reminds me a lot of the controversey that surrounded Enid Blyton's wonderful Noddy books actually......

I'm yet to see the film but look forward to checking it out before the New Year.


----------



## Alia (Dec 11, 2005)

> When I first left the theater, it was with the impression that there was nothing I would have changed, except for the very small matter of the White Witch's hair color.


 I had an opportunity to watch it this afternoon with my daughter.  It was  indeed a very impressive movie, very very close to the book.  Even more so than LOTR, which was the only movie until now that was close to the books.  

All the children actors were awesome, especially the one who played Lucy.  It's an incredible movie, very well done. The animals were awesome, especially the beavers.

I highly recommend this movie, and as Kelpie says, there are some intense parts in this movie that might and could scare young children. It's worth the time and money to see in the theaters!


----------



## Teresa Edgerton (Dec 16, 2005)

Alia said:
			
		

> there are some intense parts in this movie that might and could scare young children



Which reminds me of something I meant to put into my review.  I found a certain series of events far more upsetting than I expected.  Of course I am a notorious wuss, but after reading the story so many times you would think I'd have been somewhat anesthetized.  This was not the case, however.  I actually felt a little sick at one point.


----------



## HieroGlyph (Jan 19, 2006)

Exellent review, Kelpie. I'm very much in agreement. I went to see this movie on the big screen last night with a 7 year old niece. I'm maybe over-protective of her, but she was fine. I asked her 3 times during the whole movie if she was 'OK'. And the one part that made _me_ jump was the grey wolf leaping out from the foot of a grey statue, so apart from that moment there was nothing that frightened her (that I can speak of). She enjoyed it. I enjoyed it. If you can strip away your biases and expectations its a grand visual spectacle and at times quite poignant. If youre a stead adult and no Christian, I doubt you'll find it enjoyable.
Very 'Walt Disney'! (How come they have all these 'rights'?)


			
				Kelpie said:
			
		

> ...and let there be no doubt at all that he _is_ the genuine article -- Father Christmas...


Good story, good visuals, good acting!
Fun.
I shall leave it at that 
HG


----------



## cornelius (Jan 19, 2006)

HieroGlyph said:
			
		

> Good story, good visuals, good acting!
> 
> HG


 
you're right about that, though the warbuff in me needed better combattactics... and a bit more of fighting feeling ( imo, the preparation to the war are a bit too neutral). well that's what you get with disney, I guess. I enjoyed  the movie, but I enjoyed LOTR more.


----------



## Teresa Edgerton (Jan 19, 2006)

Disney distributed the movie, they didn't make it, so they deserve neither blame nor credit for how it turned out.


----------



## chrispenycate (Jan 19, 2006)

I went to see it yesterday evening, and our little group practically had the cinema to ourselves - late showing, english version with subtitles, not much hope of kids. Enjoyed it intensely, even while collecting my standard collection of quibbles - lip sync problems, errors of surround sound mix which were accentuated by the small size of the cinema, and the fact that, despite the fact that practically everyone splices films into continuous loops nowadays, they'd left the reel changing dots on this copy, which jerked my projectionist's reflexes many times during the showing, i.e. nothing which would disturb an average viewer, let alone a young one. Something I did miss from the book was the fact that the children learnt in the beavers lodge  that Aslan was a lion, which meant they were preprepared, whereas in the film, they weren't, but didn't even seem surprised.
The special effects were superb in general, even if my eyes rejected the aerodynamics of the griffins (you can see when something can fly, even without analysing it, though bless me if I can work out how to design an aerodynamic griffin)
Since our party contained someone at film school and a visual effects specialist, as well as me to knock holes in the sound (and the adaptation), the fact that everyone came out happy and complementary was a very good sign - we weren't an audience I'd wish on any cineast.


----------



## HieroGlyph (Jan 19, 2006)

chrispenycate said:
			
		

> ...english version with subtitles, not much hope of kids. Enjoyed it intensely, even while collecting my standard collection of quibbles - lip sync problems, errors of surround sound mix ...


 
lol

Sounds like you were in a rather agreeable mood at any rate 

And was that "hope OF kids" or "hope FOR kids", heh? From whats been said most children seem to have kept quiet for this one... So they wouldnt have harmed your viewing xp in any way.

Also, I of a mind to think you, too, are from Austrialia, like unto so many others upon these forums! You seem to have described going to the flicks in the outback somewhere


----------



## chrispenycate (Jan 19, 2006)

HieroGlyph said:
			
		

> lol
> 
> Sounds like you were in a rather agreeable mood at any rate
> 
> ...


Would they subtitle films in australia? (Yes I know they subtitle eastenders for the states) No, it was subtitled in german and french, for Switzerland. And it really was hope of kids - I meant  the cinema owners, but it holds for me, too- love kids, and don't have any objection to sharing a theater with them - it's just unfortunate that if I borrow one here, I'm forced to see the dubbed version of films. 
Yes, I analyse and criticise - that's just me. And being with a kid who isn't like that dilutes it a llittle bit, while going in with a load of other cinema professionals tends to intensify it.


----------



## Sim (Jan 19, 2006)

I will be going to see this weekend and are looking forward to it.


----------



## HieroGlyph (Jan 19, 2006)

chrispenycate said:
			
		

> ...Would they subtitle films in australia?..


 
Am I safe to give an answer?

I ...er ... wouldnt know  

Dubbing the voices, though,  , that wouldnt be too good, no matter _where_ you saw the film. Americans do spoil us all rotten, I suppose. I aught to be grateful that they share my language  

argh...

(But I agree with Alexander Pope, I do, patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel...)


----------



## Teresa Edgerton (Jan 20, 2006)

I'm predicting that you will like the movie, Simone.


----------



## Sim (Jan 20, 2006)

Yeah I reckon I will too. I am a kid at heart


----------



## Gwydion (Jan 20, 2006)

the guy on box office mojo is a jerk. clearly is an anti christian and anti family. Narnia is a great movie, and streeses all its values perfectly. A+


----------



## steve12553 (Feb 9, 2006)

Gwydion said:
			
		

> the guy on box office mojo is a jerk. clearly is an anti christian and anti family. Narnia is a great movie, and streeses all its values perfectly. A+


 
That said, I would have to question the morals of that reviewer. If I'm not mistaken, there was no mention of the Christian God, Jesus Christ, disiples, crosses or anything else overtly Christian. The allusions are not running rampant on the surface of the film and it's not really too preachy. Many film are about "good" versus "evil" are they all Christian films? Are Stephen King books and films Christian films? They're about good vs.evil. (Mostly). Our freindly reviewer read into the movie what it would probably  take the whole series of books to read out. Authors make very well be defined by their belief (religious, moral, or otherwise), but unless the works become too preachy I don't see a problem with this. Most people like a happy ending once in a while, don't they?


----------



## Gwydion (Feb 11, 2006)

still, i didnt like the review fellow hoosier.


----------

