B-movie with a nice story ruined by incompetent directing, acting

Rating: 3/10 (12 December 2005)

I don't really know what is more shocking for me: To see so many reviews here rating NARNIA 10 that I just can't resist to think that the studio/producer invested a considerable amount of money to write fake comments - or how it could happen that a major Hollywood studio proves itself again to be too amateurish to produce a decent movie with a solid story, fair acting, and competent directing.
Don't let many of this reviews here fool you: Narnia is dilettantish to the max. By no means it can compete with HARRY POTTER or the LORD OF THE RINGS - and I am not complaining about the shallow story. It is incredible bad directing (just one example: The two girls get ambushed by wolves. You'll see the wolf two meters away from them. Next scene: Both girls sit screaming on top of a tree. Question: HOW DID THEY GET THERE WITHOUT BEING SHREDDED TO UGLY PIECES IN THE FIRST PLACE?), it is bad acting, TV-budget special effects, but even worse: a simple, boring, predictable story. The only thing NOT predictable is the hair-rising illogicalness of, well, pretty much everything. How come the "good" warriors trust a boy with NO military skills AT ALL to lead them into battle? O god, the flaws of this movie are so countless, it makes movies like DUNGEONS & DRAGONS a Shakespearean masterpiece.
If you want to see a very, very simple fairy tale story suitable for your eight year old kids, go and watch it. If you don't like to get insulted by bad film-making - avoid it.
I can only shake my head. What a bad movie!