It’s tough to have to trash a film that so many people were hoping would be really good. I counted myself among that group, despite the fact that my familiarity to the story came primarily through other lacking adaptations, including the cartoon and the BBC version with old actors in animal suits. I have never really been a die-hard Narnia fan, although I understand and sympathize with those who are. C.S. Lewis’ magical kingdom ruled by the benevolent lion Aslan and threatened by the diabolical White Witch has entranced and enchanted readers both young and old for over half a century. That said, the fact that every attempted film adaptation, including this one, has failed, leads me to believe that perhaps this is one of those stories better left to the printed page. The failure in this case, I believe, can be traced to the director, and his apparent slavish devotion to the source material. Judging by the way the Disney marketing department is packaging this as the next “Lord of the Rings” (right down to trotting out the gratingly familiar voice of LOTR effects man Richard Taylor in EPK material to explain how much detail and effort went into crafting the imaginary world) one might think that the screenwriters of “The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe” applied the same balance of care and liberties taken with the source material in finding the ideal way to bring it to the big screen that Peter Jackson and company did. Unfortunately, that is not the case, as slow pacing, under-developed characters, and obvious special effects make this two hour and fifteen minute “epic” feel much longer than even Jackson’s longest LOTR extended edition film.
It all begins amid the chaos of WWII London. Bombs are falling like rain, and bombers fill the sky like ominous black birds or war. Four young children, Peter, Edmund, Susan and Lucy, ranging in age from their early teens to about six years old, are hastily put on a train headed out of town, and sent to live with a weird professor in his dark and fancy mansion. All this happens in the first few minutes with no real regard to who these kids are as people, and why we should care to watch their journey. The whirlwind of it all will probably disorient most kids in the audience, as the war is never explained, but rather left as a potentially abstract and arbitrary threatening occurrence, coupled with the whisking away of these poor innocent children to another unexplained, weird place. “Lemony Snicket” will probably be the first thing that comes to mind for many such kids, but they’d be wrong in that assumption, as the old professor is actually a good eccentric, encouraging the children in their play and flights of fancy.
While playing hide and seek, the youngest girl Lucy hides in an old wardrobe which turns out to be a gateway to the magical world of Narnia. After a few scenes of her siblings doubting her, and traveling back and fourth, all four eventually make the trip. Narnia is a beautiful but cold and lonely land, where we are told it is always winter but never Christmas. All manner of creatures both real and mythical populate Narnia, and all are overjoyed at the prophesied arrival of actual flesh and blood human beings, foretold to be the destroyers of the evil White Witch and her 100 year reign of perpetual snow and ice. The Witch’s (Tilda Swinton) scheme to thwart the prophesy by tempting one of the children into betraying the others muddies things up a bit, but for the most part, this is a good old fashioned battle of good versus evil, with the heroes rising up to the occasion.
The cinematic problems in this are many, as no time is spent to develop the children as characters early on - an indulgence “Zathura” allowed itself, resulting in much greater payoffs in its fantasy journey. Yes, the kids all wind up in Narnia, but there is never any indication that maybe they want to go somewhere else, away from their stasis of existence, ala an “Over the Rainbow” or Luke Skywalker twin suns moment. Consequently, we feel no urgency in their fulfilling their prophecy or getting home. After all, all the good talking animals and creatures of Narnia don’t seem too terribly down about the 100-year reign of evil, and are never in any kind of real hurry to do anything. That’s not to say the friendly Mr. & Mrs. Beaver (the most likable of all the talking animals) don’t get excited at the prospect of the land’s salvation upon the children’s prophesied arrival, but let’s just say the intensity level of their joy never goes beyond that of what one would expect from an intellectual English professor, one of whom just so happens to be their real life creator.
It is the exploitation of that said creator, a known Christian apologist and author, among the American Christian culture that has been another small fly in the ointment. Served up to unwitting congregations by the very publicity house that so effectively fed them “The Passion of the Christ”, thus making it a massive hit, screenings are once again being bought out wholesale by people of faith. These people likely will not be disappointed with the handling of the Christian allegory synonymous with the tale, and they may even go for flawed integration of CGI creatures and human actors (check out the wacky eye-line issues when Peter has his talk with Aslan) if they’re the type who don’t see many movies. But I can’t imagine anyone being significantly moved or entertained by this, something this crowd will rightfully claim that this material deserves and demands. Methinks that Disney may’ve just burned the bridge to the elusive middle-America church market on only the second time out. Next time a studio dangles a film in front of them, I doubt they’ll be quite so quick to buy out screenings sight-unseen.
Director Andrew Adamson, previously known for his co-direction on the significantly more entertaining animated “Shrek” films, reveals here through his flawed sense of pacing that perhaps the deliberation that occurred among the multiple directors of the ogre movies was sorely lacking here. While I’m sure the investors in this venture were excited at the notion of an ace animator directing, no doubt due to his ability to bring all those wonderful creatures to 3-D life, this proves to be yet another example of why effects guys (for all intents and purposes, that’s what I’ll call him) shouldn’t direct. Granted, this is not nearly a misfire on the level of “Spawn”, but the ability to create semi-realistic talking animals does not a director make.
And another thing – the animation isn’t anything all that great, in comparison to what we’ve seen elsewhere. Sure, the Beavers are fun, and Aslan (well voiced by Liam Neeson) looks properly regal, but even if a CGI animal is 85% impressive - which these are – it’s that other 15% that makes all the difference. Check out a sequence with the bad guy henchmen, a pack of nasty wolves, for example. The wolves are sent on their mission by the White Witch, and as they speak, accepting the order, and leave, they are the kind of just-too-slick-for-reality CGI wolves that we’d expect from a movie ten years ago or so (say, “Jumanji”). Cut to them running sloppily through the woods, sliding in the snow, making inexact movements – obviously real wolves. Finally, they stop and the lead wolf says something. The shift back to digital wolves is almost whiplash-jarring. The movie “Babe” had much better talking animal effects than this, and it was over ten years ago. Of course, it also used a lot of really great puppets and more real animals, utilizing considerably less CGI. I was recently told that Lewis himself supposedly once wrote that the only way, in his opinion to properly bring Narnia to life, would be as a high-end Disney animated feature, (in his day meaning traditional cell animation) and nothing less. Integrating real actors along side fake animals and creatures would simply be too much of a strain on the audiences willing suspension of disbelief in the case of this tale. I think he’s absolutely essentially right. Unfortunately, with the era of cell animation pronounced officially dead by the very studio that ultimately ushered this adaptation to the screen, I doubt we’ll ever see such a properly realized effort any time soon.
If you’re unfamiliar with “The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe”, I suggest picking up the book before taking in this film. If it’s another “Lord of the Rings” film experience you’re hoping for, get out your DVDs. If it’s a Christian allegory you’re after, again, try the book, or any number of other, better-crafted good versus evil/chosen one tales. If you want to see an epic battle realized on screen, try “Braveheart” or even “Aleksandr Nevskiy”. In this film, the intensity of the final battle doesn’t coincide with the kid-friendly tone of the rest of the story, and when the two armies finally charge into battle against one another, it’s almost comedic how long it takes for them to finally collide: One side charges – “Yawww!!!”, then the other side charges – “Arrrggghhh!” Close-up of one of the kids, close-up of a bad guy. Close-up of another kid, close-up of another bad guy. Another wide shot – they’re closer! – close-up of a talking animal charging. Close-up of a bad guy animal, close-up of Peter leading the charge. Close-up of Mr. Beaver charging, close-up of a wolf, another wide shot – a little closer…. MY GOSH, WILL THEY JUST COLLIDE ALREADY?!? You could almost go out for popcorn and not miss any action. But collide they do, and the battle does have a few impressive moments, even if, like most of the film, it doesn’t offer anything stunningly visually new, which wouldn’t be that big of a problem, except that it seems like it should. This film doesn’t completely stink, but at it’s best, it’s about as good as the first “Harry Potter” movie. At its worst, it’s unbearably dull, weird, and long-winded. Sadly, this is not the movie that C.S. Lewis’ “The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe” deserves.
- Jim Tudor