Movie Review: Chronicles of Narnia: the Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe (2005)
Directed by: Andrew Adamson

There is a sad trend in American cinema this years to replicate the success of other films, turning them sideways and releasing them as a new film, hoping audiences either won’t notice, or won’t mind.

As in another review I just wrote about Johnny Cash’s biopic Walk the Line, where I drew comparisons between the similarities in the films about Cash and Ray Charles (Ray.)
So with the first Chronicle film being made yet again into a film adaptation, it follows (unfortunately) in the footsteps of another mid-twentieth century literary work whose films have recently revolutionized modern cinema.
I speak, of course, of the Lord of the Rings trilogy. The works of C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien bear a startling similarity to each other. Both authors knew each other as men living in England during WW II, and both lamented the lack of books that dealt with the sort of fantastic subjects both men enjoyed. It was with this mission in mind both men set out to write their own vision of a mythical world inhabited by dwarves, fawns, centaurs and elves. Years later, the authors had completed their most memorable works; Tolkien the Lord of the Rings and Lewis with the Chronicles of Narnia.

So is it misfortune or logic that would dictate that on the heels of one successful film adaptation, another be gotten underway? The possibilities for comparison are endless and inevitable.

I read one review of this film which referred to this Narnia film as “Lord of the Rings Jr.”
and I feel that I must agree with him. And not always in all the good connotations.

The film begins with a verbatim recollection of how Peter, Susan, Edmund and Lucy came to be in the home of the Professor, hurrying us through a German bombing of London, a quick train ride to the Northern countryside and then to the mansion of the Professor, where they are told that they are never, ever to disturb the professor. All of this is done to set the stage as quickly as possible so that the children may begin their game of hide-and-seek which leads young Lucy to a spare room where an immense wardrobe invites her as a promising hiding place.
The story is quite well known; how Lucy accidentally finds herself in the magical world of Narnia, befriends the fawn Tumles and how the four siblings’ adventure begins and culminates in the battle for Narnia with the lion Aslan against the White Witch and her evil armies.

Since the story to this novel is perhaps the most well-known of any of the Narnia books, it would seem imperative that tremendous care was taken in telling the story precisely, accurately, and beautifully, just as was Peter Jackson’s concern in making the Lord of the Rings trilogy.
Sadly, unlike Lord of the Rings, it would seem that not nearly enough concern was placed in the quality of production with this Narnia film.
Following in the shadow of this epic trilogy, it becomes terribly important that Narnia can clearly establish its own identity and yet display the same level of convincing detail that creates another world for its viewers.
Even though Jackson’s WETA Workshop was brought on board to do all of the special effects, computer animations and weapons and armor, it seemed to lack the same finish and luster that the Lord of the Rings became known for.
The mythical creatures in this film (centaurs, minotaurs, fawns and cyclops) do not pop off the screen or interact with other elements of the film in the same way that Gollum was so carefully engineered to do.
The scenery and landscape of Narnia fail to impress. One never really gets the sense that Narnia is an expansive land. Scenes are always shot in frames which continually contain trees, rocks or walls which give the audience a feeling of containment, but we are never let outside to marvel at the sheer majesty of Narnia’s beauty. In the back of my mind, I had to wonder how large this spot of land they were all fighting over, and if it would eventually be worth it.

Perhaps my greatest complaint about this film has to do with a fear that was instilled when I first started to see previews for this film. It has been rated PG for the violence and tense situations involving the White Witch, but I was always hesitant about the choices made by the filmmakers to make a film that was unquestionably PG. There is a certain amount of realism and believability which can only come with appealing to a broader audience than a PG film will attract.
The Lord of the Rings films understood this, and made no qualm about creating disgusting creatures, covered in blood and ooze, intense and realistic battle sequences. All of this builds a more heroic and noble struggle for our heroes to engage in.

The Chronicle, on the other hand, feels saddeningly light-weight by comparison. Sort of the Ring’s Diet Coke relative.

Perhaps the greatest tragedy of this film is how I didn’t care at all about the characters in this film. The power and strength of the story depends upon the relationship of the siblings with each other, and of the children’s willingness to help the creatures there because of their love for the lion Aslan.
Of course the metaphorical meaning behind the Chronicles is loudly declared, but the effectiveness of the story depends not only on the characters’ relationship with Aslan, but also with the reader’s. Or in this case, the audience.
Simply put, I didn’t care at all for Aslan. I didn’t care for his struggle (which wasn’t made clear) I never got a sense of his strength, or the significance of his sacrificial death, which is really the true emotional core of the whole book. To gloss over that emotional meaning in the film does the story a horrible disservice from which the film does not recover.
My sisters came out of the film more impressed with the White Witch than with Aslan, much to the chagrin of my father. But I completely understand why! The film spent more time with the Witch, exploring her environment and character than it did with Aslan. We were simply expected to trust the lion, and know that he was the one we should trust, without really giving us any reason.
(On a personal note, casting Liam Neeson as Aslan wasn’t any help either. Not only was I spending time trying to identify the voice artist, but I just don’t care for Liam Neeson that much. He is the same character in every film he has appeared in, particularly during the last year.)

Even the colors used in Narnia, (which are in stark contrast to the real-life colors the director uses to show 1940’s England) are almost cartoonish in their effect.
The reds on Peter and Edmund’s battle tunics are bright and never dirty or dull throughout the whole battle. The grass is a chipper green, and never mattes down, muddies or gets torn up underneath the hooves and footsteps of battle. Armor gleams throughout the entire melee, and hair and makeup remain in perfect condition despite the struggle.
In short, the whole effect of this film is a very child-like naïve point of view of the character’s struggle.

But what is the film’s audience? If its intended for children, then the effect would be complete, and you wouldn’t be getting good reviews from mature audiences anyway. But the film has been getting great reviews, and it is intended for all audiences. And it is because of these reasons why I hold this film and its filmmakers to a higher level of expectation.
If it was felt and agreed that the stories of Narnia were less regarded or any less-loved by millions all over the world, the expectations for a film such as this would be a lot less, but the truth of the matter remains, these films deserve the same level of attention and care as the Lord of the Rings books, and it’s treatment I don’t feel the film received.

Rather, what I believed has happened (and we see it in Peter Jackson’s newest film King Kong as well) is that a sort of formula has been established by the Lord of the Rings in both technical and creative aspects, and (just as Pixar pioneered computer-generated animated films which are now copied and ripped on to the point where there is nothing left but foolish plot lines, foolish characters and poor animation) we now will see the windfall of such a film project as their styles and techniques are duplicated again and again in hopes of recreating the same magic.
But without the same vision for the characters and the story, nothing will be made but second-grade film which has only the faintest whiff of the magic which made its predecessor so great.

I’d give this film three out of five, just for the sheer entertainment value of it. Easily could’ve been five, if only the right people were given a chance at the project.

T.