PriceyHoho's Official Review of 'Narnia'
As was covered in last week's article, my anticipation for The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe became a tad deflated after reading some of the various interviews with director Andrew Adamsom. However, last Saturday's trip to the theater came with rekindled excitement. So, with an outlook of positivity entering the screening, here is the PriceyHoho's official review (I feel safe voicing Chris's opinion, as ours were basically shared).
The Good
First off, I felt the creatures that Adamson created were excellent. The beavers provided a much needed comic relief, while the centaurs, minotaurs, cyclops, griffins, etc., brought with them a certain level of 'realistic fantasy' that was crucial for the film to reflect the magic that Lewis created in Chronicles.
Secondly, the White Witch was fantastic. Beautiful and charming, cruel and punishing, Adamson made an excellent choice in casting Tilda Swinton. Her old-world aristocratic appearence and speech added to her persona of an intelligent, strong leader rather than a cold, heartless brute. My personal standard of excellence for characters in film adaptations of classic books comes from the resemblance of the on-screen character to the character I had pictured in my mind when reading the book. The White Witch was just as I had imagined her, down to her hair, outfits, and weaponry.
Thirdly, Lucy was adorable. Georgie Henley did a wonderful job of creating a character that the audience felt emotionally attached to. How could they not? Her quaint British mannerisms and child-like honesty and integrity only gave more credence to her purity in spirit and undying faith.
Finally, the area I thought I would have criticized the most is the area I must rightfully praise: The allegory. I felt that film mirrored the book quite nicely. There were certain scenes that were added to help the pacing of the film (which were sorely needed - more on that later), but overall I felt the spiritual and religious themes were there for the taking. The most important and symbolic part of the book, Aslan's sacrifice, death, and resurrection, was represented fairly in the film, as was the idea of prophesy. Whether or not the characters themselves were created in such a way to present the allegory effectively is another story. But I never got the feeling that Adamson explicitly cut scenes or changed important parts of the book for some silly political agenda. No major complaints in the allegory department from me.
The Bad
The created world of Narnia was a disappointment. Outside of the Castle, I felt there was nothing spectacular or fantastic about the physical attributes of Narnia. It almost seemed like any of the landscapes could have been found in many parts of this country. For instance, there was no sign of dramatic mountains, huge waterfalls, colorful hillsides, strange towns, or gleaming lakes. Dramatic establishing shots sweeping over the land were non-existent. Narnia just didn't seem big enough. It was almost if Lucy had went from England to the foothills of Colorado or the forests of Northern California. Adamson underestimated the importance of transporting the audience to a truly magical and different world. This lack of creativity surprised me, frankly. After all, he created one of the most popular fantasy movies in history (Shrek).
One other area that Adamson and the production team overlooked was the importance of proper character development. Outside of the Lucy character, there wasn't one character I cheered for or against. There was nothing in the characters that created a climactic moment in the film, including the final battle scene. Susan was annoying at best, hardly the strong leader of the book. Peter responded to certain situations as brave, but I never got the feeling that he exhibited the characteristics of a king.
Speaking of kings, Aslan was anything but. His lack of ferocity and intensity made him not a sympathetic martyr, but a weak-willed lapcat. At no point was Aslan represented as a non-earthly (er..Narnian) being (aside from the cheesy ending). And Liam Neeson as the voice? Are you kidding? His sobering timbre almost put me to sleep at times. Aside from a failed use of a strong voice, another reason why Aslan looks kinda wimpish and mortal is that Adamson completely neglected the large section of the book where Aslan had intense dialogue with the four children. I can understand cutting out some of the more basic dialogue from the section (after all, it took up a whole chapter), but a little backstory on Aslan would have been brought the audience to a new understanding of who this character really is. Additionally, the lack of godly reverence given to him by his army in the war camp created an image of a loved general rather than a spiritual and worshipped being.
The Ugly
Only one aspect of this film was terrible: The pacing. I'll be honest - I was fairly bored for 3/4 of the 2 hour film. It's usually a bad sign if I'm feeling compelled to check the score of the Sixers' game periodically. There isn't one thing I can point to here - simply that at no point was there a discernible rise to climax followed by a satisfying ending. The beginning was slow, followed by a muddled middle (with interspersed semi-action scenes), followed by an intense but limited battle scene, and finished with a very shortish ending. He just tried to fit too much into a 2 hour film (the blame for this may lie in Disney's hands, as they have a fairly strict adherence to the 2-hour rule). I've said this before and I'll say it again, there is nothing wrong with a film of this genre to be over 3 hours long, especially considering the legions of the fans that know the books inside and out. Just ask Peter Jackson.
In Conclusion....
Upon exiting the theater, the words 'Monumental Disappointment' rattled around in my head. Certainly, The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe is not a terrible movie. It's not 2005's version of Gigli - not anywhere close. But, it's also not this year's Lord of the Rings or even in the same ballpark as Harry Potter, which leads to increased skepticism in the studio's ability to rebound and successfully create additional Narnia films. We'll find out - Prince Caspian is due out in 2007.
2.5 out of 5 stars
The Good
First off, I felt the creatures that Adamson created were excellent. The beavers provided a much needed comic relief, while the centaurs, minotaurs, cyclops, griffins, etc., brought with them a certain level of 'realistic fantasy' that was crucial for the film to reflect the magic that Lewis created in Chronicles.
Secondly, the White Witch was fantastic. Beautiful and charming, cruel and punishing, Adamson made an excellent choice in casting Tilda Swinton. Her old-world aristocratic appearence and speech added to her persona of an intelligent, strong leader rather than a cold, heartless brute. My personal standard of excellence for characters in film adaptations of classic books comes from the resemblance of the on-screen character to the character I had pictured in my mind when reading the book. The White Witch was just as I had imagined her, down to her hair, outfits, and weaponry.
Thirdly, Lucy was adorable. Georgie Henley did a wonderful job of creating a character that the audience felt emotionally attached to. How could they not? Her quaint British mannerisms and child-like honesty and integrity only gave more credence to her purity in spirit and undying faith.
Finally, the area I thought I would have criticized the most is the area I must rightfully praise: The allegory. I felt that film mirrored the book quite nicely. There were certain scenes that were added to help the pacing of the film (which were sorely needed - more on that later), but overall I felt the spiritual and religious themes were there for the taking. The most important and symbolic part of the book, Aslan's sacrifice, death, and resurrection, was represented fairly in the film, as was the idea of prophesy. Whether or not the characters themselves were created in such a way to present the allegory effectively is another story. But I never got the feeling that Adamson explicitly cut scenes or changed important parts of the book for some silly political agenda. No major complaints in the allegory department from me.
The Bad
The created world of Narnia was a disappointment. Outside of the Castle, I felt there was nothing spectacular or fantastic about the physical attributes of Narnia. It almost seemed like any of the landscapes could have been found in many parts of this country. For instance, there was no sign of dramatic mountains, huge waterfalls, colorful hillsides, strange towns, or gleaming lakes. Dramatic establishing shots sweeping over the land were non-existent. Narnia just didn't seem big enough. It was almost if Lucy had went from England to the foothills of Colorado or the forests of Northern California. Adamson underestimated the importance of transporting the audience to a truly magical and different world. This lack of creativity surprised me, frankly. After all, he created one of the most popular fantasy movies in history (Shrek).
One other area that Adamson and the production team overlooked was the importance of proper character development. Outside of the Lucy character, there wasn't one character I cheered for or against. There was nothing in the characters that created a climactic moment in the film, including the final battle scene. Susan was annoying at best, hardly the strong leader of the book. Peter responded to certain situations as brave, but I never got the feeling that he exhibited the characteristics of a king.
Speaking of kings, Aslan was anything but. His lack of ferocity and intensity made him not a sympathetic martyr, but a weak-willed lapcat. At no point was Aslan represented as a non-earthly (er..Narnian) being (aside from the cheesy ending). And Liam Neeson as the voice? Are you kidding? His sobering timbre almost put me to sleep at times. Aside from a failed use of a strong voice, another reason why Aslan looks kinda wimpish and mortal is that Adamson completely neglected the large section of the book where Aslan had intense dialogue with the four children. I can understand cutting out some of the more basic dialogue from the section (after all, it took up a whole chapter), but a little backstory on Aslan would have been brought the audience to a new understanding of who this character really is. Additionally, the lack of godly reverence given to him by his army in the war camp created an image of a loved general rather than a spiritual and worshipped being.
The Ugly
Only one aspect of this film was terrible: The pacing. I'll be honest - I was fairly bored for 3/4 of the 2 hour film. It's usually a bad sign if I'm feeling compelled to check the score of the Sixers' game periodically. There isn't one thing I can point to here - simply that at no point was there a discernible rise to climax followed by a satisfying ending. The beginning was slow, followed by a muddled middle (with interspersed semi-action scenes), followed by an intense but limited battle scene, and finished with a very shortish ending. He just tried to fit too much into a 2 hour film (the blame for this may lie in Disney's hands, as they have a fairly strict adherence to the 2-hour rule). I've said this before and I'll say it again, there is nothing wrong with a film of this genre to be over 3 hours long, especially considering the legions of the fans that know the books inside and out. Just ask Peter Jackson.
In Conclusion....
Upon exiting the theater, the words 'Monumental Disappointment' rattled around in my head. Certainly, The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe is not a terrible movie. It's not 2005's version of Gigli - not anywhere close. But, it's also not this year's Lord of the Rings or even in the same ballpark as Harry Potter, which leads to increased skepticism in the studio's ability to rebound and successfully create additional Narnia films. We'll find out - Prince Caspian is due out in 2007.
2.5 out of 5 stars
posted by JP at 2:37 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home