"King of the jungle" taken one step too far

Rating: 8/10 (30 March 2009)

I remember being hugely disappointed the first time I saw the first installment in what is shaping up to be the massive adaptation of the Chronicles of Narnia novels into movies. In sheer numbers, this collection will be second only to the making of all of the Harry Potter movies which, if I may say, seems to be getting more and more like pulling teeth with each successive movie. That depends, of course, on whether or not they make it through the whole series, which is debatable. This is not, as you know, the first time the Chronicles have been attempted. The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe is the most famous of C.S. Lewis' classic collection of seven novels, which is part of the reason that expectation was so high in anticipation of its release.
I read the books several times when I was a kid, although I haven't read any of them for probably almost ten years. Nevertheless, I hold the stories themselves in high regard and so I also had high expectations of the movie. When it was first released I was unimpressed. I don't remember exactly what I said about the movie back then, but I'm pretty sure that some strong words, like "sucked," were thrown around.
I watched the movie again the other day and, while I can see what I didn't like the first time, I think I was a little harsh in my initial opinion of the movie. For starters, it is a brilliantly visionary and faithful re-creation of the book for almost the entire first hour, and doesn't get genuinely cheesy until the talking wolves show up and the movie forgets that it's not supposed to take itself so seriously. The Christian undertones are slightly heavy-handed (note: when I say "slightly" I really mean "extremely"), although this is not exactly much of an aberration from the novel, which in many ways made real efforts to rival the Holy Bible in its direct, straight-forward Christian message.
You know how those educational videos that they show us in school, whether you're in school now or you were in school 20 years ago, all look like they were made in the early 1970's by people being paid in bad polyester suit patches? Or how those videos that they show in driver's training look like they haven't been updated since the conversion from BETA to VHS? Most outwardly religious movies suffer from the same fate. Consider, for example, the hilariously bad 2002 film Time Changer. Remember that thing? Ouch!!
At any rate, those familiar with the numerous past adaptations of the story will find the whole ordeal a little redundant, but the rest of us (and that's most of us) will most likely be looking at this adaptation with fairly fresh eyes. It's a major motion picture, instead of the radio plays and animated or television features that preceded it, and is packed with brilliant performances and impressive special effects, although I would be lying if I said that there were no bad effects and no bad performances in it.
The story involves a group of young children sent off to live in the country while World War II raged outside their home, and they find themselves stuck living in an environment very unfriendly to children. While playing hide-and-seek, little Lucy hides in an old wardrobe and discovers a portal to a world called Narnia, where humans are a myth. Before long, they all find themselves in Narnia trapped by their own consciences into staying and battling the evil White Witch to protect the inhabitants of Narnia from her vicious wrath.
The film, like the books, is aimed at a young adult audience, as it should be. The books are meant for exactly the same age of children as the movie is, which speaks well for the success of this adaptation of Lewis' story. The roles of the children are cast with uniform perfection, and Tilda Swinton is outstandingly ruthless White Witch. As an aside, this is how the Terminatrix in Terminator 3 should have behaved.
Strangely, the only performance in the movie that is really distracting and out of place is Liam Neeson as Aslan, theumlion king. The animation of the lion is a distraction in itself, but Neeson's soft spoken voicing of the squinty-eyed beast, who always looks like he's about to fall asleep or has hair spray in his eyes, doesn't mix well for what is supposed to be the long-loved and lost King of Narnia. It's easy to see why he's loved, but there is no air of real respect or authority about him.
James MacEvoy, by the way, gives one of the best performances in the movie as Mr. Tumnus, the half-man/half-fawn that Lucy meets as soon as she first enters into Narnia. This is a tremendously talented actor, and even after a string of consistently brilliant performances in outstanding films, I don't think he's getting the recognition that he deserves. Lucy and Edmund are the other critical characters in the story whose casting could have single- handedly made or broken the movie, and both are flawless.
There are times when the effects are unimpressive and even downright bad (some of the evil Witches evil henchmen are of the old, cartoon-like CGI variety) and it's interesting to consider that Tumnus's initial betrayal of Lucy is exactly the same betrayal committed by Hoggle against Sarah in Labyrinth, although I guess it's not exactly a rip-off. I don't feel like researching it at the moment but I'm willing to bet that this story was written before Labyrinth