
Matt Holmes
Thank the heavens & keep the faith! Ray’s first theatrical review since August & he’s getting all RELIGULOUS!
3
Directed by: Andrew Adamson
Written by: Andrew Adamson, Christopher Markus, Stephen McFeely
Based on the classic childrens series books written by C.S. Lewis
Starring: Ben Barnes, Georgie Henley, Skandar Keynes, William Moseley, Anna Popplewell, Sergio Castellitto, Peter Dinklage, Warwick Davis, Vincent Grass, Pierfrancesco Favino, Cornell John, Damián Alcázar, Alicia Borrachero, Simón Andreu, Predrag Bjelac, David Bowles, Juan Diego Montoya Garcia, Liam Neeson (voice), Ken Stott (voice), Eddie Izzard (voice)
Distributed by Walt Disney Pictures & Walden Media
Film will be released in the U.S on 16th May 2008 and 26th June 2008 in the U.K.
Review by Ray DeRousse





I have read the entire seven-volume Narnia series twice in my life. From the vantage point of an adult with a decent background in the C.S. Lewis allegorical fable, I view the series as a low-rent Lord Of The Rings. What it lacks in narrative heft is made up in fanciful visions and philosophical musings.
Of the books, only THE LION, THE WITCH, AND THE WARDROBE cries out for cinematic adaptation; the others are a little bit silly and meandering. In 2005, Disney and Walden Media managed to give that book a fairly effective big screen treatment under the direction of first-time helmer ANDREW ADAMSON. The film, though wildly successful, suffered a fair amount of criticism for being too shiny and childish, especially compared to PETER JACKSON’S epic version of LOTR just a few years prior.
Adamson and the original cast have now reunited to continue the Narnian adventures with PRINCE CASPIAN, the second book in the series (though third chronologically). The new film shows that Adamson and company have been paying attention to their critics, although this does not necessarily make a better film.
The Pevensie kids - Peter (WILLIAM MOSELEY), Susan (ANNA POPPLEWELL), Edmund (SKANDAR KEYNES), and little Lucy (GEORGIE HENLEY) - are called back to Narnia by young Prince Caspian in order to aid the Narnians in reclaiming their land from the wicked Telmarines, led by ruthless King Mraz (SERGIO CASTELLITTO). Soon, war on a grand scale erupts in Narnia, which culminates in the return of Aslan himself.
Despite the PG rating (in the States), this film contains a tremendous amount of brutal violence. Heads are removed from their bodies, countless numbers are slashed with swords, and Susan seems to have remembered how to use her bow and arrow quite effectively. Almost all of the violence is bloodless, which only makes it weirder. I really have my doubts that the audience for this film - the religiously inclined - will enjoy the copious amounts of killing on display here. I would feel uncomfortable bringing a young child to this thing … so you can imagine what a person with actual parenting skills might think.
The brutality of the film fails to override the mistakes repeated from the first film. Those who complained about the bland lead actors and shiny, grime-free battles in TLTWATW will have another field day here. Moseley once again makes a stiff and uncomfortable King Peter, and he is not helped by the script’s poor depiction of his character. Popplewell fares much better as Susan, although she is still far too bland to make much of an impression. The best thing about the first film was Henley’s exuberant portrayal of Lucy, and she again provides this film with a large portion of its heart. Several side characters shine as well, such as EDDIE IZZARD’S swashbuckling mouse Reepicheep, and WARWICK DAVIS in a nice turn as the disgruntled dwarf Nikabrik. Overall, though, the script undermines much character work.
The battles in the film, full of charges and screams, seem to lack urgency or dramatic power; one strategic move late in the battle should have been a powerful moment, but was completely deflated by the presentation. Only one moment attains any weight, when, during a failed raid on a castle, several Narnian warriors are left behind to be shot to death with arrows. However, many of the battle sequences seem airless and inconsequential.
Aslan’s appearance at the climax, which is meant to arouse feelings of wonder and awe, only confuse and anger. The character, we are told, abandoned Narnia for a thousand years and allowed her residents to fall to the sword. He then returns at the end of the battle after saying several cryptic messages to Lucy, but only after many thousands more have died in battle. Then, he growls once, and a giant water sprite appears out of nowhere and ends the battle decisively. Is this lion god supposed to be someone worthy of honor and respect? In the film, he is treated like an object of worship, despite doing absolutely nothing to earn such adoration. The Aslan of the books never seemed quite this superfluous and transparent.
Overall, the film has nice moments of comedy and action, and, like the first film, has some amazing visual effects. However, like the first film, the bland performances and mechanical direction lack the inspiration to let this film soar. Another missed chance at greatness.
‘low-rent Lord of The Rings’? The Chronicles of Narnia are great children’s novels. I in particular have fond memories A Horse and His Boy, and Voyage of the Dawn Treader.
Comment by Paul | May 16, 2008
@ Paul - Look, as I said I read the novels twice, so obviously I like them. However, thematically and narratively they are inferior to LOTR. Even some of the stuff on Christianity - the heart of the series - is a little jumbled in places.
Comment by Ray | May 16, 2008
Aren’t you both missing the point a little. LOTR is aimed at adults, Chronicles of Narnia at children: how is the comparison relevant?
I could even take that further: one is a critique of dictatorships in 20th century Europe, the other an advocation of the discovery of Christianity. Why compare a history class on acid to a church sermon performed by an amateur dramatics society?
It’s like calling your local youth centre a ‘low rent coke-fuelled underground punk club’.
Comment by Michael Edwards | May 17, 2008
While I accept that this movie is aimed at Children and not the mature audience that LOTR was directed at, I am sorry but the first film was an example, in my view of really poor film making. Too many scenes were rushed or cut, and others that didn’t really need to be there at all were over long and boring. The acting was mixed, but everyone I saw it with were all in agreement that the animated version was actually better than the live feature. I had high hopes for the second film, but it sounds as if many lessons have not been learned. A large budget and good f/x do not for a good battle make. Listen to the score of the first film and listen to the musical score of the animated version and you tell me which is better and more memorable? Even the dialogue in the cartoon is better than that in the live feature.
The comparison to LOTR is totally relevant as both are fantasy movies with sweeping stories and a plethora of characters and while Narnia has a more child like slant and innocence, as films the two are comparable on a number of other levels. Pace and direction are something found severely wanting in the first movie, the choices of what to include and what to cut from the book were poorly made, the ending of the movie is rushed and lacks weight with the role of the professeur being reduced to almost a background ornament. While deeper comparisons can be made about the stories inspirations and intentions, what is important is how the film works as cinematic entertainment and if it holds well as a story, is well directed and captures the flavour of the books without being too unfaithful. While, so far, Narnia suceeds to some degree on the last point, I have to say I think it fails fairly miserably on all the other qualities. I would also agree that Aslan comes across and some kind of patronising leader of a reality show than he does as the warm, fatherly entity he is in the books. Sorry, must try harder.
Comment by Lance | May 18, 2008
I loved both the movies, but you guys are right. The 7 books of ‘THE CHRONICLES OF NARNIA’ were the story of Christianity. The movies were great but they got reid of all the religois things. Not so much in LWW but in PC they completly mixed it. They turned it into a ‘action/love story’ almost. The movie (in a very, very, very short reveiw of the basics) is about a young prince who’s uncle is not treating the creatures of the land fairly and the young prince runs away and calls for help and while ‘restoring’ the land falls in love. There is no romance in the book. I’m not saying the movie was bad! I love all 7 books and both movies that have come out so far, and I would be very disopointed if VDT turns out to be the last movie they make based on these books! I hope they will eventully get around to making them all. The movies actully aren’t that violant, as some people say. Another thing is lots of people are saying that the Narnia books are directed at little kids. Those are some of my favorite books, and to tell the truth they are directed at everyone, just because they tend to be fantesy doesn’t mean only 10 year olds should read them! I recomend them to EVERYONE, not just kids! Christianity isn’t just for kids, but all ages, everyone. I think that C. S. Lewis told the story in a great way! The way he discribes the Lord as a ‘great magestic, loving lion’ is fantastic. Once again I recomend the books AND the movies to EVERYONE!
Comment by Katie | July 26, 2008