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

The perfect Christmas movie

[evawatches · 8/10 · 29 November 2005]

To sum things up: I loved this movie.

I had been waiting for it ever since it was announced, so of course I couldn't pass up the chance to see a press preview this morning. And, while there were some definite weaknesses (mostly in the quality of the animations), overall I was completely convinced. Naturally it did not coincide 100% with my own vision of Narnia visually, but emotionally it rang absolutely true, choking me up several times and really touching me. I walked out of the theatre with a warm, contented feeling - just like I feel every time I read C.S. Lewis' book!

The stand-out performance was definitely Tilda Swinton's as the White Witch, but I liked all actors/voices, from cute little Lucy (newcomer Georgie Henley) to majestic Aslan (Liam Neeson). I thought the children did a great job, considering their relative inexperience and the amount of blue screen work involved.

Tip: Stay seated through the actor credits - afterwards there's another small scene.

Visually a feast to the eyes, but sometimes the story is unengaging.

[TheLittleSongbird · 7/10 · 9 June 2009]

I thought this a very well done film indeed. I will say the film looks just splendid, especially the scenes in Narnia, with beautiful snowy sets (some looked as though it had come from the LOTR trilogy). However, some of the scenes looked as though they had been computerised, such as the scene with the children and beavers running across the ice. There were also some attempts to put some humour into the story like the professor's line "ah yes, the weeping one" in reference to Lucy and the beavers especially, but because the director had taken liberties to make the story darker, the humour didn't quite work. However there are a number of positives, like the spirited performances of the children, Georgie Henley especially, better than Sophie Wilcox's rather goofy portrayal in the 1988 series. James McAvoy is charming as Mr. Tumnus, and Liam Neeson was majestic as Aslan. But the acting honours go to Tilda Swinton as the White Witch, even with her calmness she dominates the screen, in a sometimes chilling portrayal as the character. The film was fairly faithful to the book, but the added scenes and dialogue failed to engage as much. All, a flawed but enjoyable film. 7/10 Bethany Cox

A Magical Journey Through Narnia...

[stiva · 8/10 · 31 December 2008]

A wonderful movie. The characters are beautifully made from a well chosen characters. The CGI and special effects are top notch. The centaurs, beavers, trees, tigers, bears, fox, all are taking. Oh! yeah, they are talking. The creators have done an excellent job in bringing out the emotions, the lip sync, and the body language of various animal, very well. The White Witch was scary as hell. The final battle sequence was spectacular. I was amazed with the battle sequence.

Aslan's character was the best. I love the way the Lion talks, walks and emotes. It's simply amazing.

Amazing direction. Amazing music. Excellent make-up. Amazing editing work. A very good adoption of the Narnia series. Very funny movie too. Worth watching.

Amazing fantasy, breathtaking adventures and overwhelming battles

[ma-cortes · 7/10 · 11 December 2007]

This enjoyable story produced by Walt Disney Pictures is based on C.S Lewis books. It begins during German air raids over London in WWII. The Pevensie four children(Henley,Keynes,Moseley and Poppewell) are sent to live at the country house of eccentric teacher Kike(Jim Broadvent). Meantime they're playing hide and seek, Lucy encounters a strange wardrobe that lead the snowy land of Narnia . There, she finds a sympathetic but coward faun(James McAvoy). Later she returns at home and the others don't believe her at first, but soon are convinced. Then, all of them go throughout the fantastic world with fauns and centaurs and where animals speaking, a beaver( voice by Ray Winstone), fox(voice by Rupert Everett) and furthermore the Father Christmas(James Cosmo). This magic land with perpetual winter is ruled by the nasty White Witch(Tilda Swinton). But the children are the chosen ones, according an ancient prophecy, and they team up with Aslem, the mighty Lion and real king of Narnia , fighting to defeat the evil witch in an epic finale battle.

The pic is a magic story with rip-snorting adventures, exciting fantasy, sensational scenarios and good feeling. Plenty of action and emotion and with an incredible battle scenes similar to ¨Lord of the Rings¨. Provide enough amusement to keep the chat rooms humming until the epic ending comes out. In spite of overlong runtime and the difficult of adapting, the film still managing to keep a quick enough pace for those unfamiliar with the lengthy literary and highly detailed work by C. S. Lewis. This two and a half hour movie stays closer to the original work than any of the former efforts, mostly animated. The film displays a colorful and evocative cinematography by Donald McAlpine. Musical score fitting perfectly to the action-adventure by Harry Gregson-Williams. The motion picture is marvellously directed by Andrew Adamson, he's the director,producer, writer of ¨Shrek¨ trilogy. Rating : Above average and worthwhile seeing . It's a very likable adventure-fantasy and enormously appealing for kids, adolescents and all family.

excellent filmization of CS Lewis's novel

[long-ford · 9 January 2009]

The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe is an extremely enjoyable filmization of CS Lewis's magical childhood epic. The story expertly weaves in childhood themes with a modern day Christian plot line (including a slightly grisly 'crucifiction' scene) to create an enchanting motion picture. Tilda Swinton is superb as the sinister White Witch. The children are average though young Georgie Henly stands out. The Special effects are more than adequate, with a specially impressive rendering of Aslan. The film moves slowly initially and its epic nature become apparent only towards the end with a vicious (but bloodless) final battle. All told, a pleasant surprise indeed!

Overall 8/10

Talking Beavers, Lions, Satyrs, and Precocious British Children, Oh My!

[WriterDave · 7/10 · 10 May 2006]

Adam Adamson's film adaptation of C. S. Lewis' first entry in his classic Narnia Series starts off awkwardly like a combination of the "Wizard of Oz" and "Lord of the Rings." The filmmakers spend too much time early on trying to be cute and Disney-fy the product while clumsily presenting scenes composed of live-action actors and not-so-great computer effects. The result, not surprisingly is like an animated film with some flesh-and-blood actors spliced in. However, once you get used to the film stylistically, all is mostly forgiven.

The filmmakers finally find solid ground when they really start to dig deeply into the story and reveal the blending of nature-based neo-paganism with medieval Christian mythology and wrap it up nicely into a children's fairytale. It's when you start to realize the white witch (played effectively by the always somewhat creepy Tilda Swinton) represents the old pre-Abraham polytheism demanding animal and human sacrifice for appeasing the pantheon of gods/goddesses and the lion king, Aslan, represents the Christian view of one self-sacrificing god that you remember the brilliance of Lewis' source material. And while it isn't terribly well executed, the epic "Battle-Beast" style showdown at the end is pretty entertaining from a visual and imaginative standpoint.

Too little magic, too much epic

[susannah-16 · 6/10 · 8 December 2005]

I saw this with 6 eight year old boys, which may have influenced my opinions somewhat, but they were not gripped by this. Firstly though, there is a lot right with this movie. The special effects are stunning. How they got Susan and Lucy to walk through the forest with Aslan I will never know - the problem was I found myself trying to work that out, rather than gripped by the narrative. The kids are great. Georgie as Lucy is particularly good I think - very Lucyish and Skander manages to make Edmund less of a prig and more angry and at odds with the world. THere are epic scenes (the boys all said they liked the battle scene yet, and acted some of it out in the pizza restaurant afterwards), and swooping vistas and vast tracking shots and rousing music. Its just that I had never really thought of Narnia like that. In becoming epic, they have lost two things - the magic and the playfulness. Lets take the magic first. A tiny point, but the snow didn't sparkle. You know how snow glistens and glints ? Well not in this Narnia it didn't. It wasn't a magical place to wander into - it was all too big for a start - massive walls of rock and huge mountains. Not strange enough a landscape (and it looked VERY like some of the landscapes in Lord of the Rings) - not intimate enough.

And the playfulness ? This Narnia isn't a fun place to be. We lose some of the fun of the Beavers and their house. THey cut some of the scenes which would have lightened up the narrative (like when Aslan comes to life, in the book he runs around and plays tag, and they all end up in a heap laughing and excited and HAVING FUN. In the film, he gives a roar and they are off to the next scene. In the book when they rescue Mr Tumnus they dance around for joy - in the film there are tears and hugs). Now, I can see how a country under the spell of a white witch for 100 years may not be a lot of fun, but its a long movie to sit through without some lightness. Even the crowning scene at the end is too uninvolved and not fun enough - where was the personal, the relationships ? It looked like a really dull party to me. There is also a very curious new scene, which doesn't seem to add much - involving them getting stuck on an ice floe as the snow melts. This takes up quite a bit of time for no apparent reason - I couldn't see how it added to the narrative, and again - the ice in the waterfall is grey, not sparkly and glittering.

SO to sum up - good acting, interesting story - which took itself all a bit too seriously, and missed the point. Its a kids movie which has forgotten what its like to be a kid.

A Classic for all Time

[arabianardour · 10/10 · 23 December 2005]

The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe should go down in the history books right up there with the likes of Lord of the Rings. I went to see it expecting a very good movie. I came out stunned by the magnitude of the picture. Everything about it is so well done, the casting, the scenery, the score. Lord of the Rings is the only thing I can think of to compare it to. I experienced the same overwhelming sense of awe watching both of these phenomenal pictures. The CG images are very good, though not quite as startlingly realistic as those in LOTR. I cannot find fault with the casting in any way.

Though the voice of Liam Neeson is not as I would have imagined a lion's at first, it is smooth, confident, and effective. Aslan is given the presence so essential to the heart of the story. I must comment on the performance of James McAvoy as Mr. Tumnus, which I believe was the best in the film. Lucy was adorable, and surprisingly convincing, and Peter was given a very firm performance. I was a little nervous about how Edmund would turn out, but I needn't have worried; those large, startlingly dark eyes are perfect for the change from traitor to hero.

I commend the directors of the movie on their strict adherence to the book. Narnia isn't just "based" on the book. It IS the book. The scope, depth, and wonder of Lewis's world have been captured in a timeless manner that should be cherished for all ages. This is a movie for everyone, at a level for children to understand, yet with a fast plot and exciting battle sequences that will keep anyone interested. The last battle scene especially is as touching as any I have ever seen, including those in LOTR, putting tears in my eyes even while my heart soared. Go see Narnia for an exciting, well-done film, and a timeless message that our world so desperately needs.

Ten stars!!

Should have done Magicians Nephew first

[Edu-16 · 7/10 · 11 December 2005]

This review courtesy of someone who grew up in a house called 'Narnia' (replete with lamp-post in garden)- and as an adult who now owns a boat called 'Dawn Treader'. I guess I'm a bit of a Narnia nut in the same way that King Kong is a bit of a monkey. I read the Chronicles many many times as a child and I've recently had the pleasure of reading them all over again - to my own children.

All of which means (a) I'm not very objective about the film - and (b) I had some major 'views' about how things ought to be done prior to the screening.

For those out there with similar Narnia heritage I think you will be pleasantly surprised. I personally enjoyed the effort a lot - and on only a very few occasions did I sniff disapprovingly into my popcorn. The kids (9 & 7 respectively and with a mere single reading under the belts!) loved every minute of it.

The good things. Lucy ( in looks a sort of mini Ann Widdecombe for all you UK politicos out there) was very good. Think the director must take a lot of credit for her performance. If Lucy had been bad, then this venture would have failed. Thankfully she shines. The others children I thought were a little ho-hum with Peter being the weakest.

Tumnus was excellent - although our more cynical time applies some rather uncomfortable sinister overtones to the scenes with Lucy.

Yes the Beavers were fun - as was the fox. Could have done with more explanation about the whole 'animals' talking thing though. It's remarked on rather too briefly I thought. (One of many problems with doing this book first instead of The Magicians Nephew - which explains the genesis of Narnia, how the animals start speaking and where the white witch comes from etc.) The White witch? - pretty good I thought, although maybe a little one dimensional. However I didn't like her 'home' which I felt as others have noted derivative and out of place in look and architecture to the rest of Narnia.

Aslan - bang on. There is nothing CGI cant do now. (My brother and nephew wanted Aslan to be larger relative to other animals. My recollection of the book suggested he changed size to fit the occasion - so I had no problems myself) The stone table scene. Excellent and very true to the book.

Now for those elements that were for me less good.

The wood. Maybe I have the drawings from the books too much in mind - but for me the wood should have been darker, more canopied and claustrophobic. More like being in a wardrobe in fact. And I never felt a sense of size about the wood, or indeed the rest of Narnia. I felt the camera stayed too close the action - and we needed some longer shots. Especially felt in the first meeting with Tumnus - which in other regards was very nearly magical.

The battle at the end. Okay so the charge of the Riders of Rohan is perhaps the most impressive film image of our generation - but it's not really what Narnia is about. I craved for something a little smaller in scale - a little more personal and intimate.

The waterfall/ ice flow scene. Utter nonsense and superfluous to a story that hardly lacks for dramatic drive. Why he didn't just follow the story as written Ill never understand. The wolves weren't sinister enough in looks either - although I have to admit the 'Jaws' moment with Edmund was suitably scary.

The game of cricket and broken window episode. Again - the story as written with the escape from the visitors party and Mrs McCready was subtler and more interesting.

Okay - enough gripes. By and large I did enjoy the film and I look forward to the next. I have concerns that as a book Prince Caspian (which I always felt was the weakest) may not support a very interesting movie. I hope that there is commitment to do all of the rest - or at least as far as Dawn Treader - which I think will make a fantastic vehicle for a film....

Narnia thaws out frozen New Yorkers

[bertsaraco · 10/10 · 4 December 2005]

The audience at this afternoon's preview screening of The Lion, The Witch & The Wardrobe, at New York's AMC 25 theater in Times Square, broke out in spontaneous applause at least three or four times. It seems that director Andrew Adamson has brought a thaw to normally-jaded New Yorkers as well as to the 100-year winter of Narnia. The movie pulls the viewer into the story right from the opening scenes of war-ravaged England, where siblings Lucy, Susan, Peter and Edmund (wonderful performances by all) are sent from their homes to the relative safety of 'the professor's' country estate where, during a game of hide-and-go-seek, young Lucy hides in the wardrobe only to discover the passage to the land of Narnia. From this point, the multi-layered story of betrayal, courage, sacrifice, redemption and hope unfolds into a briskly paced 2 hour and ten minute adventure that leaves the viewer emotionally charged and thoroughly entertained.

The musical score is appropriately stirring and moody. The computer generated creatures are sophisticated to the point where the technology disappears and you begin to accept the performance, and not the special effect! This brings us to Aslan - if the talking lion didn't work, the movie would fold in on itself and go away. Aslan works,however, and works very well. Voiced by Liam Neeson, Alsan is both believable as a 'literal' lion and as Aslan, talking lion, King of Narnia. Aslan's face is expressive and noble, and Neeson's voice acting has strength and dignity.

This film succeeds on so many levels, it would be possible to discuss it in many different veins: the direction, the story's surface-level themes, the theological possibilities, the drama, the fantasy, the adventure.... Yes - it's an action film, a dramatic film, a fantasy, a somewhat-dark (yet hopeful) fairy-tale. It has humorous moments and frightening moments, like most truly great 'family' films always seem to have.

The bottom line is, this is a film that will leave you the better for having seen it. There's much to reflect on and much to simply enjoy - there's certainly enough to keep you thinking for a while, and that's always a good thing. Aslan, indeed, is on the move!

Heartless Adaptation

[Rathko · 6/10 · 12 December 2005]

A strangely disappointing experience given the quality credentials of just about all involved.

The relative inexperience of the writers is clearly evident. Whether seen as a metaphor for a world without God (hell), or the Nazi regime, the cultural and social landscape of Narnia is ripe with potential, none of which is realized here. The White Witch's regime is not explored, we are not told who she is, where she came from, how or why she took over the world. She lacks any motivation or real emotional drive. Similarly, the children seem happy to throw themselves into a war without a second thought of home. Nothing in this story is ever explained, we are simply expected to accept it without question, which is a far more dictatorial representation of Christianity than Lewis ever intended. The plotting lacks energy and momentum, with no real sense of suspense. The characterization is weak and one-dimensional. But even more surprisingly from the creators of Shrek, is the complete lack of humor.

The acting is sound from all but the leads. The two older children struggle to bring the necessary range of emotion to their roles, with Moseley in particular presenting a decidedly weak interpretation of heroic kingliness. The two younger children luckily make up for their on screen siblings' shortcomings, with Henley bringing the wide-eyed innocence to Lucy that the role requires, and Keynes displaying a surprising amount of subtlety as the eternally wronged and resentful Edmund. McAvoy and Swinton are both excellent and at times are required to carry the movie alone.

The CGI is competent, but little more. It's always good to see Fauns and Centaurs running around, but it doesn't break any boundaries in terms of design or execution. There's none of the thrill of the vast armies of Middle Earth, or the attention to the minutiae of Narnia that is really necessary in realizing a new world from scratch.

Disney clearly hopes that this will bring them the rewards that 'Lord of the Rings' brought New Line Cinema and 'Harry Potter' is bringing to Warner Brothers. But 'The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe' lacks the emotional depth, epic range, creative inventiveness and dramatic urgency of the 'Rings' trilogy. Similarly, it has none of the humor, camaraderie, charisma or charm of 'Harry Potter'. Judging from the audience that I saw it with, it will be very popular, and a sequel is very probable, but unless Narnia finds some heart and soul, the complete cycle seems unlikely.

Splendid!

[lavatch · 9/10 · 29 December 2005]

With an appeal to both adults and children, the British author C. S. Lewis wrote seven books in his Chronicles of Narnia series. The stories are rich in mythology and religious symbolism, drawing upon archetypes from the Norse, Greco-Roman, Persian, medieval chivalric, and Judeo-Christian traditions.

Now comes this wonderful film of the first chronicle, "The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe." The beautiful cinematography and the terrific performances of the children make this film outstanding for family viewing. As integrated with the live actors, the colorful animal characters, especially the Lion (Jesus), reveal brilliant technical film-making as well.

Lewis's books are not overtly allegorical. Rather, the symbols and the messages are subtle. The four children in the story (Peter, Susan, Edmund, and Lucy) were inspired by the actual children evacuated from London during World War II, who spent time in Lewis's home. Lewis wanted his books to be enjoyed by young people who would later in their lives draw the spiritual meanings from the stories. In this area, the film is enormously faithful to the original book and would have made the author extremely proud.

A very faithful adaptation of the book, but I wasn't overly impressed

[MovieAddict2016 · 6/10 · 3 January 2006]

I left "Narnia" feeling kind of cold. I loved the books as a child, and most specifically "The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe," which I read numerous times when I was young...but no matter how faithful the adaptation is - story-wise - some elements don't fit into place.

I think it's one of those books that is better off left as a book. The themes and actions that take place in C.S. Lewis' Christian allegory do not translate well to the screen. I felt that something was off. The direction by Andrew Adamson ("Shrek") is commendable, but the second half of the movie is very bright, the animation throughout is quite poor (except for Aslan), and the final battle comes across as utterly silly.

Also, by squeezing the book into a two-hour movie whilst still retaining the essence of the novel, Adamson's film lacks cohesion. It all happens too fast. The characters are rather thin and I felt as if some scenes were handled poorly. For example, when Edmund first meets the White Witch -- if you were a young child who had just stumbled into a world inside a wardrobe, then told by a queen you were going to be the king, don't you think it'd be hard to conceal your excitement? Instead, Edmund returns into the real world, and the only hint we get that he's thinking about Narnia is when a very poor exposition scene occurs with Peter pointing out how Edmund is sulking about.

The course of action in the film is poorly developed as well. One minute they're reluctant to fight, the next minute they're armored up. The problem is that with a two-hour film like this, it's hard to develop the characters. In a novel, it's easier - the general narratives of novels make us feel more attached to the characters. WATCHING them is much different - and it's hard to take their decision to join Narnia's battle against the White Witch very seriously at all.

Also, maybe I was the only one who noticed that young Georgie Henley (who plays Lucy) was always smiling. Not just a happy smile, though. A wicked smile, like she's just played a trick on somebody and ready to savor the revenge. It's kind of creepy. When she cries at the end, it still looked like she was ready to stab someone in the back and break into a maniacal laugh.

Am I being harsh? Probably a bit too much, yes. It's just that coming from a child-at-heart who loved this particular book years ago, I feel the adaptation as a whole is simply mediocre. I felt disattached from the characters, I thought the animation was poor, some scenes were handled poorly, and the final battle was a joke.

Overall, it's worth seeing if you like the book(s). I was personally disappointed by the film, but it seems - judging from its IMDb rating - most people weren't.

Hopefully the sequel will be better.

I tried really hard to love this movie but it left me lukewarm

[annegirl8 · 4/10 · 16 December 2005]

Let me start by saying this, I am in no way attacking the story itself. I love these books and I think C.S. Lewis was an amazing writer.

I hate to say this because I really wanted to like this movie but I was somewhat disappointed. I have to very much agree with zach-74's review of the movie. I don't expect books to translate directly into movies. They are different mediums. But I thought this was a mediocre attempt. Without re-hashing zach-74's review which I think is right on, there were a couple missing elements that I wished they had put in. Where is the playfulness of Aslan? His playing with the children and also with the animals that he brings back to life gives him a wonderful quality that we don't get in the movie. Another element was the suffering that takes place on the walk to the Stone Table when Aslan is to be killed. Maybe this was getting to close to the underlying Christian element in the book (It is NOT an allegory; those who say it is need to look up the definition of allegory. It has strong Christian overtones but Aslan is not an allegory for Christ...Christ practiced nonviolence, something Aslan does not). At the end, I didn't feel that Aslan was really the amazing, wise, compassionate character that he is in the book. I also missed the humorous asides and narration that are present in the book. I don't know how that could be accomplished in a movie but I think it could have been attempted. There are other movies that have narrators.

As for the characters, I though the children were reasonably good but I was most disappointed in Liam Neeson as Aslan and Tilda Swinton as Jadis. I tried to be impressed by their performances but I was left lukewarm. Neeson didn't have quite the inflection that I would imagine for Aslan. I wanted to feel that I was hearing Aslan and instead I just felt like I was hearing Liam Neeson. Swinton looked good in the previews but in the movie she seemed...small...that's the best word I can think of. Jadis is supposed to be this extraordinarily tall, originally dark haired, magnetic figure. Instead she is just creepy and cruel...there's nothing that makes me understand why Edmund is so entranced with her. Those who have read the Magician's nephew know that there is a fascination with her...she exudes some quality that leads you to be enchanted with her until you discover the cruelty and hardness underneath the surface.

One more thing...for those who have not read the book, that whole bit at the end with them grown up is probably a bit confusing. I feel like movies should be able to stand alone...meaning a person doesn't have to read the book to understand what's going on in the movie. Unfortunately, as much as I wanted to say this movie was perfect, I found myself often having to turn to my memories of the book to fill in the blanks in the movie that didn't quite fulfill it's potential.

Mostly harmless

[jrepenning · 7/10 · 14 December 2005]

You really need a tally-sheet to review this movie; so many Great Expectations!

Truth to the original story: really close, 9 out of 10.

Let's start with: they did the right story first! The fad, lately, of numbering the books in historical order (starting with "The Magician's Nephew") is just inexplicable, must be due to someone who hasn't actually ready them. The stories don't even make sense in that order! That the movie crew began where Lewis did is a very great credit to them.

There were two things missing, though, that are actually quite important to the book: Edmund's inner dialog, and the rather parental voice of the narrator ("how silly it is to close yourself into a wardrobe", "that's the problem with magical food"). These really are missed; without them, the tale takes on a very different character, and perhaps even point.

There were three things added as well: a long preamble showing what Lewis' oh-so-brief "because of the bombing" really means, a substantial Peter-Jackson reference in the battle scene, and an Exciting Adventure Involving a Waterfall. These are a mixed bag: I think by now, over fifty years after WWII, most folks alive need a bit of explanation as to what "the bombing" really meant, and the work here is really, really good. The spectacular battle scene, though, does not so clearly carry its weight: as an attraction for the SFX fans, it's pretty lack-luster; as a fixture in the myth, it's a bit distracting from the important points (though they're all still there). And the bit with the waterfall ... what was that all about? Revolution in the writing squad? "We must put in one original idea of our own"?

Quality of the Effects: by modern standards, pretty mediocre, 5 of 10. But then again, even what is here begins to distract from the story as it is: it's not really an SFX vehicle, despite the talking animals.

Acting: there's a lot of debate about this, and I'm torn. Part of the debate though, I think, is from folks who haven't read all the books, and don't know how these children will age: some of what seems uncomfortable here is supposed to!

Character development: not too much, 4 of 10. Then again, that's the way of it with the books, too; some Narnians show more character development than the Pevensies.

Tagging up on all the key ideas, images, plot points, metaphors, characters, and other details: really, really good, 10 of 10 (except as noted above). But it did seem, occasionally, to be doing just that: "ok, now we have to have THIS happen, because it's in the book."

Completely Surprised: The best film I've seen so far this year!!

[SenorSpeilbergo · 11 December 2005]

Okay; to start off I grew up with "The Chronicles of Narnia" as a child, and was fascinated by the books and the few made-for-TV adaptation of it. But as I grew up, I completely forgot about them, and how good they were.

So I went and saw the movie tonight on a whim. I wasn't expecting anything great. The trailers made the film look like an over-bloated HP/LOTR knockoff. But what a surprise!!! This film brought back fond memories of my youth. It was nice to see that they didn't butcher the story and dumb the film down (although I think there were a few more action scenes in the film then there were in the book. Haven't read the book in a while, so I can't say for sure).

But what a faithful retailing, and a GREAT film in general. Everything about the film was just fascinating and beautifully captured on film! I can't see how anyone could dislike this movie (unless there the Grinch). And in my opinion; Narnia puts LOTR and HP to shame (oops. Maybe I shouldn't of said that? Lots of hate-mail.)

So yeah; there you have it: 10/10. Bravo to Andrew Adamson and his team.

P.S. What's with all this "Religious Propaganda" sh*t I see everywhere on these boards? I didn't even know that the Chronicles had anything to do with Religion in anyway shape or form, I just always found the story fascinating and well told. It's a great movie regardless of how you look at it.

weak in believability

[Aureias · 6/10 · 3 January 2006]

I went to see this movie expecting something relatively decent, something on the scale of LOTR's epic as some people have been making the comparison to. However, it was disappointing besides the visual eye candy.

Human characters particularly weak besides Swinton, I was rooting for the white witch the entire time. The kids themselves are irritating, lame, and whiny, besides maybe the smallest of the four. They're relatively one dimensional.

There's several points in the story in which believability is thrown out the window, given that it is a "children's fantasy," in which I'll allow some sort of leeway, but there HAS to be some sort of rational sequence of events that leads up to the acquiring a certain skill or a turn of events.

Strategy and stupidity of the armies is enormous, I refuse to believe that a white witch who has ruled over the world for the past 100 years is that bad of a tactician.

All in all, the CG animals, such as the talking beavers are the redeeming aspect the adaptation.

Probably entertaining for someone not as critical or for little kids.

Beautiful and faithful translation to film

[dstdiva · 7/10 · 9 December 2005]

This version of the first Narnia chronicle is visually beautiful and in most respects, faithful to the CS Lewis book. The story is set up well, and it moves without losing any of the crucial plot details in the book. The four Pevonsie children are well-acted and believable, and the housekeeper is properly frightening.

However, there are some problems with the film adaptation that are less noticeable in the book. First, the Narnia of the film is almost too beautiful, pristine and serene, without any note of harshness of the 100 year winter caused by the rule of the witch, or the sense that the landscape has been depopulated by war. The return of Azlan to fight the witch with his army is introduced without comment on where he--or they--have been all this time. Finally, and perhaps most seriously, the resurrection of Azlan, which Lewis intended as a parallel to Christ's resurrection, is the pivotal moment of the book, but is made unbelievable in the film. Maybe I'm splitting hairs here, by expecting anything to be "believable" in a world populated by talking beavers, foxes, badgers, not to mention centaurs and fauns, and where everyone has lived through a 100-year long winter yet still believes in the eminent return of their lion king, but I was disappointed by the way the death and resurrection scene was handled.

That said, the film does a satisfying job overall of conveying the fairy-tale escape to Narnia. The casting is superb, with Georgie Henley as Lucy giving the most outstanding performance. Take a kid if you must, but don't miss it.

Very good. Well cast

[bob9354 · 8/10 · 18 December 2005]

I very much enjoyed this movie. It helped that my 22 year old daughter saw it first. She's an avid C.S. Lewis fan and expressed disappointment that the magic of his writing wasn't captured by the film. So I was prepared to be disappointed, which for me is a good thing. I hate having movies over-hyped...it seems they never live up to it. I agree with my daughter by the way. It would be very difficult to capture Lewis' magic from any of his books. It would have to be done in the dialogue if anywhere. But, like Lord of the Rings, I was able to put my memory of the book aside and enjoy the movie for what it was. I would have liked to have seen the majesty and omniscience of Aslan better displayed. He almost seemed to be too much a creature and not who he really represented. I would also have liked to see more development of the relationships between the kids and Aslan as happened in the book. But all in all, very good. I'd give it an 8.8

One of the Best Movies I've Ever Seen

[Iron_Zorro · 7/10 · 9 December 2005]

When I walked into the theater, I was afraid they wouldn't follow the book at all. But as I watched it, I saw that they followed it page by page. I definitely suggest reading the book first though. There was actually one time where I yelled "Yes!". After Aslan roared after being brought back to life, it was great. The sets were beautiful, the actors were above average, and the only changes from the book were improvements. You think the kids are gonna be just some wooden child actor, but they were so believable. The animals were very realistic and the entire movie was just fantastic. I recommend this movie to everyone. Go see it now.

A Very Satisfying Realization of C.S. Lewis' Creation

[Nan17 · 9/10 · 29 November 2005]

What a fabulous movie! I just saw a screening of it (with a bunch of other actors and writers) and the whole place burst into applause at the end.

Tilda Swinton is amazing as the White Witch. Her cold, evil gaze could freeze anyone.

I loved the kids - especially the little Georgie Henley, who played Lucy. Liam Neeson as the voice of Aslan was suitably majestic and comforting and grand.

It was beautifully filmed, and I felt Narnia was perfectly realized.

Looking forward to the movies that will follow.

Narnia Is Your Heart

[ostadsiah · 6/10 · 12 May 2022]

This is what I understood from this movie and how I interpreted the metaphors.

Warning: Spoilers Ahead

First of all, Narnia is your heart. As in, each person's heart as an individual. And by heart I mean your spiritual side, whatever you call it.

At first, you're not even aware of your heart and spirit. (Before discovering Narnia) You, as an individual human being, have 4 aspects or characteristic traits: 1. Bravery and leadership (=Peter), 2. Wisdom and rationality (=Susan), 3. Ambition and egocentricity (=Edmund), 4. Kindness and innocence (=Lucy).

(Very much like the houses of Hogwarts) The first time Lucy discovers Narnia represents having a spiritual or religious experience and finding out about your heart. While other people or your other aspects try to deny it, because it's not logical and possible.

(Up to this point I thought the movie followed an existentialist view: because of the individualism and the idea of believing in the impossible for no reason. But then I found out about this:) The heart is taken over by evil (=white witch) and you need to take it back from her.

(Because there's no evil in existentialism, so I realized it's not the philosophical view of this movie) Aslan is God and he will help you take your heart back and be good, and he is the real and true king of hearts.

Ambition wants to go to the dark side to gain power if he's not controlled by your other aspects. At which point evil will kill him and destroy you and take over your heart forever.

But Aslan sacrifices himself for each individual heart, so that you will be saved and the heart can survive the attack of the evil forces.

(The writer has turned the story of "Jesus sacrificing himself for all of humanity to save everyone" which is a very collectivist idea, into "Aslan sacrificing himself for you to save your heart" which is an overwhelmingly individualist idea. Again, sounds a lot like existentialism.)

10 out of 10 stars.

[amanda01200 · 10/10 · 24 December 2005]

The Chrinicles of Narnia, the lion the witch and the wardrobe, is now my favorite movie! this movie was FANTASTIC! the actors are amazing and the movie is just so exactly like the book. If you read the book and are going to see the movie, you will not be disappointed. The movie was better than i expected actually. It's such an amazing and imaginative movie it's just enchanting. I wouldn't normally give any movie 10 stars, but i gave this one 10 stars out of 10. When i was watching the movie, and seeing all the sets and the props, i felt like i had already seen them before. Like they had taken them right out of my imagination when i was reading the book. I know not everyone will have this feeling, but i did, and it was magical. Even if you don't want to see this movie, go because it really is a spectacular and magical movie.

A bit dissapointing

[maylinnmisaki · 6/10 · 18 December 2020]

I give the movie a 6/10. I didn't really understand the plot to be honest, and everything went by a bit too quick for my liking. The acting was a little bit weird as well, I didn't get that emotional feel when I watched it. That scene where Edmund got stabbed was almost painful to watch. It was supposed to be sad but it wasn't, the wound was barely visible and it just didn't have that "panic" feel to it. I also feel like Aslan came back to life too quickly, and I didn't really understand why. I also feel like the fight was a bit too favored. Like if Peter didn't have that main character luck, he would've lost. I really disliked how fast the witch was defeated, it was disappointing. I wish we had more info on their parents and the "rules" of Narnia, maybe I missed it but I feel like we needed more information than that. I wish there was more backstory about the closet as well, there was too little info and things were going too fast in my opinion.

Narnia Fails To Uphold Responsibility To Book Fans

[zach-74 · 5/10 · 12 December 2005]

Adapting a book that so many audience members have read and cherish is surely a daunting task, but I believe it is also a great responsibility. Recently, Peter Jackson set the bar pretty high in this regard with the "Lord of the Rings" trilogy. Unfortunately, Adamson's "Narnia" wasn't quite up to snuff.

I count myself among those who cherish "The Chronicles of Narnia," having read them as a child and having re-read "The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe" in eager anticipation of the film. In my opinion, this film adaptation not only falls short, but does a disservice to the audience by cheating us of much of the impact and wonder of the original books.

Here are the general categories (including some specific examples) where I felt the film didn't deliver:

Screen Adaptation - Some important scenes that illustrated character dynamic were cut short making later behavior and motivation seem exaggerated or cliché. Example: The scene where Edmund meets Jadis was rushed and awkward. (It wasn't even demonstrated that the Turkish Delight was enchanted in order to manipulate Edmund - we were left to assume that his allegiance to Jadis was due solely to avarice!) Also, in the book, the mere mention of the name "Aslan" for the first time was an event that had an important impact on the children. In the movie this impact was all but lost, as these subtler points were sacrificed to save screen time for the type of gruesome battle scenes that you would expect from a "fantasy" movie but in this case didn't serve to advance the story. Another pulled punch: in the book, the scene with Father Christmas was a brilliant omen of the turning of the tides but here the scene seemed out of place and just downright weird. (They might as well have run into the Easter Bunny.)

A couple of outright inventions served only to distract us from the magic and mystery of the real story: The waterfall scene - who came up with that idea? The cricket ball through the window - not as effective as the original story.

Casting - The elder siblings were mediocre, and I can't tell if Tilda Swinton was just awfully directed or totally miscast. (In the book Jadis was a noble and grand enchantress, albeit with dastardly aims; in the movie she was shallow, petty and despicable.) Oh, and Liam Neeson as the voice of Aslan the Lion was not nearly powerful enough--this is one of the most important roles in the film. Was James Earl Jones not available?

Direction of Actors' Performances - This ties in with my comments about casting, above. Performances in individual scenes seemed disjointed from overall character motivations and some character interpretations (such as Jadis and Edmund) were shallow and unsympathetic. Where was the charisma that would have made Jadis's character believable, let alone have enabled her to amass an army of supporters?

Hair/Make-up - Jadis sports blonde distractingly annoying dreadlocks despite her otherwise un-Irie nature. The professor's hair and beard looked about as realistic as a department store Santa, and the main Centaur's make-up also stood out as distractingly awful.

Wardrobe - Jadis has one outfit in particular that looks like it came right off the runway of a bad 80's fashion show. Another includes an atrocious hat shaped like a giant icicle--Mr. Freeze from Batman & Robin would have had hearts in his eyes.

Special Effects - Overall special effects were not nearly as cleanly integrated as WETA's work on LOTR, and cohesion was lacking. For example, the cuts between live action and CGI wolves were painful at best. Also, the teeming masses of bad-guys all looked as though they could have been extras in the Orc armies of LOTR. Mr. Tumnus was an example of the fact that Jadis's supporters were comprised of otherwise beneficent creatures that she'd charmed, threatened and bullied into joining her. Here they were unimaginatively portrayed as one-dimensional twisted, evil fiends.

Cinematography - Boring; All the visual texture and lighting of a made-for-TV movie.

Due to my disappointment in Adamson's interpretation of this work, and in the execution of the movie that resulted, I rate this film a 5 out of 10. It is not completely devoid of entertainment value but fails to uphold the responsibility that a filmmaker shoulders when adapting so well-known and well-loved a story.