This is topic The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe (2005) in forum Film Handlers' Movie Reviews at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=001042

---

Posted by Matt Fields (Member # 3211) on 12-10-2005, 09:04 AM:
 
I am a fan of the Narnia books and thought they did a good job of adapting it to the big screen.

The special effects were good, and the kids pulled off their roles. The only thing that bothered me was that every time Aslan spoke, I thought "that's Liam Neesom"! Maybe an unknown voice would have been better.

The Christian elements were there, but below the surface, as in the books.

3.356478675 out of four stars.
 

---

Posted by Jason M Miller (Member # 2597) on 12-11-2005, 09:20 AM:
 
I also am a big fan of the books, and I again also thought they did a Great job of adapting the books to the big screen.

I give it 4 out of 5 stars, It is missing one star because they strayed from the book in some parts.
 

---

Posted by Brian Michael Weidemann (Member # 2243) on 12-11-2005, 08:40 PM:
 
I read the book years ago as a kid, and I was really anticipating this movie. I bought a nice hardcover edition of the entire Chronicles a couple months back so I could re-read it (and then the rest, too) before the movie, and look forward to it even more.

The movie has now come out and I've seen a minute here and a couple minutes there and my reaction, ironically, is "I don't want to see this thing, I just READ it! And it looks like a straight adaptation, so I'd probably be bored by it."

I'll probably see it in full in a few weeks, especially after the crowds die down.
 

---

Posted by Greg Mueller (Member # 17) on 12-12-2005, 12:15 AM:
 
I liked it.
Obviously Disney-esque, but that's to be expected. Amazing CGI work, specially on the lion. While watching this movie I thought about how maddening it would be to work with children in a film. Also I'll never go to a film opening week, again. The place was packed with children (of course) and parents to stupid to take their "too young to know what a movie is, 5 second attention span" kids out when they start screaming. Then there was the moron who had to "impress" everyone with his knowledge of what was going to happen next.
I think next time, I'll wait until just before the film leaves, to go see it
 

---

Posted by Matt Barth (Member # 3429) on 12-14-2005, 10:08 PM:
 
I greatly enjoyed it, CS Lewis was a huge part of my childhood and I honestly got choked up when the opening title hit. It pleased this fan!

---Matt
 

---

Posted by Eric Hooper (Member # 1730) on 12-15-2005, 06:43 PM:
 
Loved it.

A
 

---

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 12-18-2005, 09:47 AM:
 
Very good movie. I read the book as a kid but haven't really paid attention to the story in years.

This movie was very well done with excellent effects. The first half could have been paced a little quicker but once it got going it was very entertaining. I thought the child actors did a great job.

Saw it in 2K DLP. Looked very good. You can see my technical comments in the Film Handlers Forum.

3.5 out of 5 stars
 

---

Posted by Sam Graham (Member # 2889) on 12-18-2005, 04:14 PM:
 
CINEMA: Century 20 at Jordan Creek, West Des Moines, IA
AUDITORIUM: 8
PRESENTATION: Dolby Digital/THX
PRESENTATION PROBLEMS: None
RATING: Three and one half stars (out of four)

WARNING: Lions, witches, and spoilers! Oh my!

Our story begins in a crappy little house with a war surrounding it. Mom decides to ship the kids off to a completely unknown place so they'll be safer. Right.

The kids include a teenage boy who nobody listens to, a teenage girl who isn't exactly the brightest spot on the horizon but likes to act like she is, a little boy who is so arrogant in his stupidity and selfishness that I still long for his death, and a little girl who looks more like Drew Barrymore than Drew Barrymore did in E.T.

The kids find themselves living in what looks like Roosevelt High School up the street from me. Their host is a mysterious professor who seems to keep to himself, and a bossy housekeeper. The setup is as formula as it gets.

Lucy (Uber Drew Barrymore) gets the others to play hide-and-seek. She finds a wardrobe cabinet to hide in. The wardrobe turns out to be a portal to Narnia, a world full of talking animals and the children of women who do those animal sex movies.

From there, it's your garden variety "Prophecy, king, and country" adventure. There's a lion, a witch, a war, and...Holy crap! Some kid in this auditorium needs a diaper change.

I'm not usually a fan of these things...I walked out of the second "Lord of the Rings" movie and didn't go to the others at all...but I liked this one a lot.
 

---

Posted by Matt Fields (Member # 3211) on 12-18-2005, 10:18 PM:
 

quote: Sam Graham

---

Our story begins in a crappy little house with a war surrounding it. Mom decides to ship the kids off to a completely unknown place so they'll be safer. Right.

---

C.S. Lewis did actually have children stay at his country home during the war. They were one of the inspirations for the books.
 

---

Posted by Mathew Molloy (Member # 666) on 12-21-2005, 05:06 AM:
 
:SPOILERS:

Oh Puhlease. As a recent fan of Lord Of The Rings, I really expected to like this film too - I even have the poster up in my office but I felt this was mediocre at best. Of the half-dozen or so new films I've seen this year I'd say this is slightly better than Charlie & The Chocolate Factory - and only because it starred animals.

I had a pocket full of kleenex going into this one - I cry profusely watching Animal Planet, people who accomplish heroic deeds, etc. Nope, nada, not a tear - in fact this film elicited not a hint of emotion on my part.

The only two humans I found interesting were the little girl and Jim Broadbent's character. The witch was allright but lacked that je ne sais quois. I kept wishing the hooved guy would put a shirt on so I could stop staring at his nipples.

The editor could learn a thing or two from Kubrick and do us all a favor by holding a shot for more than two seconds. And what was with the horrible lack of continuity? Shot a: snow on little girl's hair. Shot b: no snow on little girl's hair. Shot c: Lots of snow on little girl's hair. Shot d: no snow on little girl's hair. shot e: some snow on little girl's hair. Same for the bit with the annoying boy eating the queen's sweets and how much he had in his hand.

Most of the effects were great but there were a few that were just plain bad but honestly, apart from the little girl, the kids were so unlikeable I just didn't care. Some of the non-human characters were interesting but character development was lacking and again, whatever.

Oh and really, shouldn't there have been some more prep in regards to King Snottie's leadership abilities and perhaps some fight training before leading an entire army into battle? Oh I guess I should have assumed that happened 'off-screen' especially judging by his swordsmanship Oh and when the little girl gets lost in the river why are the kids looking and yelling upstream?

Then there's the scene on the ice and they're surrounded by wolves and the older sister tries to stop everything with something like "Let's turn around and go home." Honey, you're surrounded by wolves who want to take you out. You're not going home just yet, if ever. SPOILER: The resurrection left me smirking - "How Convenient!" Like everything else in this film, I think that could have been handled better. (And how would Miss Know-it-all know whether the potion would work on the lion or not? Heck, when she got the bow and arrow I thought, "Cool, a female Legolas." but she only used it once. No, not to kill the queen- when she had a perfect opportunity! but just one elf-thing.)

Again, the little girl redeemed herself at the end by not only healing the one she loved (like that wasn't obviously going to happen) but then to set forth in healing others wounded in battle. She rocks!

I kept telling myself "They're trying to be faithful to the books" which I have not read so I can only assume the far-fetched-ness of some of the scenes were just because they didn't translate well from paper to screen.

As I started out by stating I'm a fan of the Lord Of The Rings trilogy I have to acknowledge bad bits of continuity, some poor effects shots, etc. but at least there was character development and most, if not all of the characters had personality in those films.

Perhaps a 4 1/2 hour director's cut will come out and appease me. I wouldn't care about the continuity errors or any of the other little things that bugged me. Just give me a reason to care about the characters!!!

Century 13 @ Del Monte Shopping Center/Monterey PRESENTATION: Ok. Mid-size room. The work light was on prior to the trailers starting. There were light to dark horizontal base scratches in the middle of the print throughout. Quality of light was even and just about bright enough. Also an annoying ray of light on screen emanating through a window in the door to the theatre from a hallway postercase. Some obvious splices. Pops between trailers. Century logo scratched and dirty. Sound was very good and the theatre was comfortable and almost completely clean. One guy at concessions was very helpful but the guy handling the money couldn't care less about his job.
 

---

Posted by Brian Michael Weidemann (Member # 2243) on 12-21-2005, 05:37 AM:
 
Agreed ... That's one thing that bugged me about the battles in the books. It's like, hey, okay, let's have a battle now. Why? Because these kinds of stories have battles.
 

---

Posted by Brad Allen (Member # 470) on 01-01-2006, 01:24 PM:
 
Theatre-Stadium 16 (Kerasotes) Evansville, In.
Auditorium 13
Showtime 3:15p on the 30th
Sound-Dolby D Equiped, but....

As usual Kerasotes presentation sucked pond water. They don't seem to train their film threaders what the focus knob does. But then again, the film threaders just poke the start button without looking out the port to check the pic and walk off.

Played in analog entire print. Analog that needed a serious A-chain perfomed on, muffled sound.

Aperature plate was not seated properly. Aperature plate was dirty.

Typical Kerasotes splicing job, "They'll never miss these frames".

The Preshow "advertainment" was scratched all to hell.

Movie-Was 20 minutes too long. Enough with the epic battle scenes already. Been there done that too many times. Some CGI effects looked really crappy, or maybe it was the out of focus picture?

Editing was odd at times, directing was painful in some spots.

Anyway, 2 out of 5 for the film. -1 out 5 for presentation.

I enjoyed the stupid mother behind me with the child that insisted on playing with a straw in a drink, so I regularly had rain drops falling on my head.
 

---

Posted by Greg Anderson (Member # 235) on 01-02-2006, 08:35 AM:
 
My first experience with digital projection at a commercial theatre (Jordan Commons Megaplex in Sandy, Utah). Honestly, when those trailers started rolling I had to look behind me to confirm that, in fact, I wasn't really watching film. I never expected a digital presentation to look this good. My only complaint was that the picture looked ever-so-slightly not bright enough. But the only place where digital artifacts took their toll was the closing credits, which didn't "roll" smoothly enough. Otherwise, NO dust, NO scratches, NO splices, NO pops, NO dip to analog sound. Very nice.

I'm aware that Tolkien didn't want people to read metaphors into his stories. He didn't want you to think he was writing about any real-life religion or historical events or people. Meanwhile, C.S. Lewis wanted you to know his stories represented Christian ideas, teachings and events. I admit I haven't read the books but I felt like, in the movie version, the religious material was awkwardly handled. For example...

[Spoilers Ahead]

...if these kids are easily regarded as "sons of Adam" or "daughters of Eve" by the non-human characters, what else do the animals know about the Bible? Nothing they want to talk about, I guess. Or do the filmmakers want us to believe that Adam and Eve were fantasy characters too who only lived in Narnia? (Interesting that the movie director's name is Adamson. Hmmmm.) Obviously, the lion is a Christ figure... but we never hear one word of his conversation with the younger brother, which I can only assume was a confession/forgiveness deal of some sort. I say you should either throw the doctrine at the audience or delete the scene.

I went with my business partner's family. We asked his kids if they liked the non-traditional portrayal of Saint Nicholas in this movie. The 11-year-old smirked as he said that he really likes a Santa Claus who hands out weapons!

[End spoilers]

One more note: Liam Neeson has one of the best voices ever! It's gentle, powerful, rich and smooth all at the same time. It's also, as was stated before, so distinctly Liam Neeson that it's weird to hear it from something else's mouth.

[ 01-02-2006, 03:40 PM: Message edited by: Greg Anderson ]
 

---

Posted by Matt Fields (Member # 3211) on 01-02-2006, 09:50 AM:
 
Greg-

I'm not a religious or Narnia expert, but I have read the books, so I will give this a shot...

It is my opinion that Aslan is supposed not only to be a Christ figure, but is intended by Lewis to be Christ himself. He tells the Children in one of the books that the reason they have been allowed to visit Narnia is so that they can get to know him better in thier own world. Aslan takes on different forms in the different worlds he has created, Earth and Narnia being but two.

Therefore, Aslan could have easily told the Narnians about Adam and Eve without telling them the rest of the Bible.

The conversation between Aslan and Edmund is not in the book either. The book simply says that after that conversation, Edmund quit being an idiot.
 

---

Posted by Jeremy Jorgenson (Member # 2989) on 01-02-2006, 02:33 PM:
 
Like Matt prefaced his comment, I too am not an expert ...

Adam & Eve were not in Narnia, that's the point. No humans are from Narnia & the prophecy said that when two sons of Adam and two daughters of Eve ... blah blah. The animals calling them "sons of Adam" or "daughters of Eve" was equivalent to them saying "human" or "Earthling". The animals didn't know who Adam is from ... er ... Adam, it's just the way they knew how to describe humans.

Incidentally, the White Witch is not human, but she isn't from Narnia either. (not that anyone was saying she was human on this thread ... but ...)
 

---

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 01-15-2006, 12:03 AM:
 
Better Late Than Never...

Today, 7:00PM, Regal Valley River Cinema World 8 in Eugene, House #8, SR•D that dropped out for a few seconds a few times (for no visible reason) but luckily the analog sound is very good and I bet nobody noticed but me. About 40 in attendance. The print looked like brand new and the image was sharp, bright, and rock-steady. After all the reports here about how film is so badly mishandled by some theaters, I feel lucky to be able to go to a movie 5 weeks into its release and have it still looking like it's never been played.

I'm glad I finally caught up with this. Great movie, liked it a lot. The special effects are mostly pretty amazing. Interesting subtexts to the story (I've never read the book, or is it books). Didn't recognize Liam Neeson's voice until the credits rolled, then slapped myself on the forehead.

I give this 4 stars out of 5. Highly recommended to see in a good theater.
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 01-15-2006, 12:50 PM:
 

quote: Greg Anderson

---

Otherwise, NO dust, NO scratches, NO splices, NO pops, NO dip to analog sound. Very nice.

---

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen

---

Thats nice, except the image was not near the resolution of the projected scope image from its 35mm counterpart....definate proof that at least some of us will accept less than the best available.

---