Brooke and I got to go see “The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe” last night (finally). We took it upon ourselves to read the book last week in preparation; it took a good 1.5 hrs to read the entire book by C.S. Lewis. The movie, you may notice, is 2 hrs and 20 min long. Most of that extra time, it seems, come from a). sweeping landscape scenes of Narnia (which, I’m sure, many fans of the book have been waiting to see on the big screen for a long time, much like “LotR”), and b). the climactic battle scene at the end that took up something like 7 pages in the book (i.e. 5 min of reading). Both of these extensions were pretty well-warranted and generally added to the effect of the movie.
The movie was decently acted, although it took me awhile to get used to the kids playing the main characters and, generally, I thought they could have been a bit better…yet weren’t too terrible for no-name actors from Britain (well, “no-name” to us in the U.S.A…). The effects, while impressive, definitely had a few moments where there was some obvious computer animation going on. In “LotR,” we were seeing beasts and creatures that no one had seen before, so you could get away with some obvious computer animation here and there…but in “Narnia,” I know what a lion, cheetah, rhino, etc. looks like…and, for the most part, they were all done really well. There were a few scenes, however, where the children were walking or talking with Aslan (the lion) and, well, it looked like a kid in front of a green screen with a fake-looking lion next to him/her. I mean, granted, making a computer-generated lion look real is hard, and to their credit, the film-makers did a good job, but I think it could have been better…or not placed characters together in certain shots as they did…who knows… And, I dunno, but Liam Neeson’s voice as Aslan somehow didn’t seem to fit…wasn’t quite deep enough…on the other hand, I’ve never heard a lion talk, so what do I know?
Now, I also had some people tell me how accurate the movie was…saying it was really close to the book… Well, to an extent, I guess it is…but Brooke and I, both having read the book last week, noticed more than a few points where the movie diverged from the book. For example, to our knowledge, there’s no Mr. Fox in the book (certainly not an important character, as in the movie). Also, the kids/Beavers weren’t chased like the wolves like that from the Beaver’s house, etc…let alone the whole frozen river shenanigans… I’m just saying that the movie was 2.25 hrs long and had a few things added that weren’t really important to the story (otherwise, C.S. Lewis would have written it that way)…so why add them in there? On the other hand, C.S. Lewis’ purpose for writing the book was quite a bit different than the film company’s purpose for filming it…sadly…
Many people/critics were comparing this movie to “Lord of the Rings” since it contains an element of fantasy, has a huge computer-generated battle scene, etc. In my opinion, “LotR” is still the better movie and is more impressive, but mainly because it’s over 12 hours long and took a lot more to get it done…with crazy effects that paved the way for movies like “Narnia” to be made in the first place. I guess if you want to experience a shorter version of “LotR,” I guess “Narnia” is a good substitute…but the story, acting and effects (overall) are better in “LotR”…
So yeah, overall, it was a great movie and certainly worth seeing. The battle scene at the end was very impressive and fun to watch and the effects, generally, were pretty cool. The movie was a tad long and had some stuff added that really didn’t need to be in there, but they didn’t make sweeping changes to the book (like having Aslan be a genetically-engineered super lion…), so that’s always good. I think that “King Kong” was still a better movie, as far as this season’s blockbusters go, but then again, it’s about 1 hour longer than “Narnia”…so you have to be willing to sit there… In summary, it’s a good movie, even if you’ve read the book, or maybe even if you haven’t.