Where to start?

Rating: 5/10 (10 December 2005)

This movie is probably better suited for someone who did not see the original TV series or read the books, or someone who is simply far younger than myself.
Right from the start, the young actors playing the leading roles (maybe with the exception of the youngest one), seem stringent in their performances and are unable to deliver the dialog in anything close to a believable manner. It all really feels like you're watching an elementary school play that happens to be better than the average school play, but it just doesn't cut for a film. In the case of "Peter" and "Susan", I believe it's a downright case of bad casting. There are plenty of kids out there that can act better, and certainly fit these roles better in terms of looks and demeanor. The fact that the whole movie theater broke into laughter when "older Peter" showed up at the end of the film looking like Ted McGinley in the 80s, may give you an idea of casting problems.
Then there is the director. Where to start? First of all; he doesn't take his time. He just doesn't let the story develop in a natural pace throughout the piece. He lets it breathe for a good half-hour to forty five minutes, and from there it's a race to the end. The characters develop skills and attitudes at such an incredible pace that the story implodes on itself. You're left with questions and confusion. You never see "Peter" grow to the task of becoming a king. It is mentioned to him at one point, and suddenly he is a king and a warrior!? And by this point you are bombarded with over-sentimental moments when you in fact have not been able to develop any kind of feel for the characters. The director, whoever he is, has a couple of things to learn about story-telling.
And of course there are the endless effects and CGI created characters. And I have to say I'm impressed by some of the characters. I only wish there was a little more time spent of attention to detail. There's a ridiculous amount of shots of the characters talking in front of a green-screen (with some grand landscape inserted), and it just doesn't look convincing at all. Why haven't directors figured this out yet. DON'T shoot close-ups on a green-screen with a landscape backing. And while I'm at it, what is with these constant close-ups and generally awkward shooting. Use your close-ups sparsely! And where is the darkness? Where is the fright and contrast between good and evil? Where is the excitement? And where is the enchantment that the book and the TV series leaves you with? God help us if Shrek-man is to direct the follow-up....
I could go on for hours, but let me summarize: For the greater second half of this movie I had one thought in my head: Why didn't Peter Jackson direct this? He would have made it what it should have been. It's a fantastic story that I have a great deal of affection for and Jackson should have been the one to tell it.