Beautiful to look at, but not great

Rating: 3/10 (2 January 2006)

First off, a little background: I am an avid reader, lover of good stories and films (classic and new). I adore the LotR books and films, and I love the HP books and the last two HP films. Therefore, I came into Narnia really hoping to love it, predisposed to love it. Boy, was I disappointed!
Spoilers>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I haven't read the Narnia books. All I know of them is that they are supposedly Christian metaphor. Though I am an atheist, I adored LotR, which comes from a similar background. My mother, a devout Christian, watched Narnia with me.
The film is beautiful to look at, with amazing winter settings, and wonderfully rendered characters. Aslan is magnificent. In addition to being visually stunning, the cast is great. James McAvoy is a darling Tumnus, Ray Winstone is a hilarious Beaver, Tilda is a ferocious witch, and Liam Neeson is regal as Aslan. Of the children, only Lucy and Edmund were truly interesting (the other two weren't explored enough- I mean, Peter is supposed to be this compelling King in the Making, but the film never justifies this). Narnia looks like a perfectly real world, and it would be easy to lose yourself in it if it weren't for the plot clichés.
Now the bad: As previously stated, the other two children weren't really explored. Susan's only purpose in life is to stand beside her more interesting siblings. Peter is destined for greatness, but all he really does is rally the armies to battle (though I will admit he had a great moment with the witch at the end). Lucy is a lovely picture of faith and love. These three children have only a little depth: they do not want to do battle, but they are unquestionably good. The only truly interesting one is Edmund, who betrays his family because of his inferiority complex. Since I haven't read the books, I don't know if this lack of depth is due to the source material or the director. One of the complaints that Christian groups have against Harry Potter is that he is a rule breaker and occasional liar with questionable ethics; this is precisely what makes him interesting- his faults!! Every great literary character- from Scarlett O'Hara to Bruce Wayne- is flawed, but these children (Edmund excepted) are perfect.
People in Narnia keep dying left and right, but getting magically resurrected. Now, being a fantasy fan, I am used to magical resurrections, usually involving a very powerful magical character, like Gandalf, Voldemort, even Buffy (twice, no less). Therefore, it is easy to accept Aslan's return, but it is really tedious when EVERYONE is resurrected. Only bad guys stay dead. If there is no death, then there is no peril, and therefore there is no drama.
Finally, the film moves very quickly from one thing to the next. One second, the children are discovering the magic of talking beavers, the next second, they are throwing themselves off a cliff to escape the witch while struggling with a prophecy that declares them to be royalty. Narnia is great and it is beautiful, full of interesting characters- why don't we linger with them for a little while. When the big battle (which is not really big) begins, we cheer the good guys because that is what we're supposed to do, but we really don't care about them. We love the children because we've followed them, but can we really say we care about anyone in their army? In LotR, we cared about secondary characters, like Theoden or Treebeard, because we were allowed time to grow to care for them. In essence, this film's greatest problem was its brevity. ain't it cool news (website) said it best: that extra hour is the difference between a film like this and a film like LotR.
Was the film awful? No. Is is preachy? Almost annoyingly so; my mother hated it (and she's a Christian). I would take young children to see it, but I would not pay to see again myself. If it's adventure you want, hop over to King Kong, or better yet, watch Harry Potter before it leaves theaters.