So I saw the first Narnia film last night...

[Woodchuck2000]

...and to be honest I thought it was an utter let-down. Now I have to confess that when I was about four, one of my favourite films (watched many many times) was the 1979 cartoon version, and that was always going to shape my opinion of the new one somewhat.

Going off on a tangent somewhat, the thing I really loved about the Lord of the Rings films was that it felt like a group of enthusiasts who loved the book dearly had gotten together and decided to completely re-invent the story for the big screen. It was full of incredible and innovative effects and amazing attention to detail and used that to convey a real love for the book to the audience.

Narnia felt, by contrast, like a group of hollywood executives had met and decided to make money. Right from the start, there never seemed to be any affection for the book on the part of the production team. I'm not quite sure how to pinpoint what made me feel that, but that was the impression I got. Then, it seemed like <every> shot in the film was plagarised. The framing of the scenes was, in most cases, a direct rip off of the 1979 cartoon version or of the BBC version of the early 90s. Where it deviated, it stole shots almost exactly from LOTR, Harry Potter, or The Matrix in that order of frequency. Many of the battle scenes or sweeping panoramas were exact copies of LOTR shots, but done by a vastly inferior team. There was some truly appalling green-screen work and some of the worst compositing I've ever seen on screen.

In summary, it felt like a combination of the two previous screen versions, mixed with trendy shots from other contemporary films, but done by a team so lacking in artistic flair or technical expertise that it felt only like a poor rip-off. Everything else not yet mentioned was mediocre at best, and on the whole I left the movie feeling utterly disappointed.

[mr_anderson187]

im lucky to have never read the book or sen any adaptation of it via cartoon or otherwise, so im going to see it tonight with high hopes, the trailor looked awesome! but not much tbh can compare with the LOTR's battle sequences now can it?

[DavidM]

The books are great, and fortunately CS Lewis didnt go into detail with battles, so it does give the film makers a bit of scope ...

[kalniel]

Then, it seemed like <every> shot in the film was plagarised.
..
Where it deviated, it stole shots almost exactly from LOTR

Not all that surprising - John Howe was a conceptual designer for both.

Many of the battle scenes or sweeping panoramas were exact copies of LOTR shots, but done by a vastly inferior team. There was some truly appalling green-screen work and some of the worst compositing I've ever seen on screen.

Interesting, as I thought it was the same team that did both, WETA.

Yet to see the film, but very much looking forward to it.

[Stewart]

Wossy alsosaid it was very poor on Film 2005. Shame really, as most of the other fantasy classics from film or books that have been updated recently (Lord of the Rings, King Kong) have been brilliant.

Seems Narnia is missing one thing those films had - Peter Jackson.

[Flibb]

I would think that Narnia is more aimed at children than LOTRs, could be wrong though.

[Woodchuck2000]

I would think that Narnia is more aimed at children than LOTRs, could be wrong though.

True, but that doesn't dispell the feeling that it was created to make money rather than out of love for the books...

It was indeed done by WETA and John Howe but that doesn't excuse the blatant and continual plagarism. I'm also guessing that lower budgets and poor direction are responsible for the appalling quality of some of the effects. It should, and indeed could, have been so much more in all respects. And on a similar note, it's a great shame that they couldn't convince Howard Shore to do the music as the quality of the composition pales in comparison with LOTR's.

[Stewart]

I would think that Narnia is more aimed at children than LOTRs, could be wrong though.

Doesn't make any difference though - its still a poor film from what I've seen and read; kids film or not.

And fantasy is what you make of it; I'm sure with the right Director it could have been made into a great film whilst still appealing to a young audience.

[Mike Fishcake]

True, but that doesn't dispell the feeling that it was created to make money rather than out of love for the books...

Welcome to Hollywood. :-/

[saucy_mish]

awh, i really wanted to see it. but it means sitting through hours of **** then i dont think ill bother lol ...

[Dark Horse]

I thought it was quite good. It certainly wasn't a masterpiece or epic but it was enjoyable and easy to watch. I liked it for what it was not what I wanted it to be. So I give it the thumbs up.

Its a bit like Van Helsing - Poor film but very entertaining

[magemanda]

I would also give it a thumbs up in general. Yes, some of the green screen work was extremely poor, but many of the CG effects were superb. Where this film succeeded or failed was people investing in Aslan as a character and they did extremely well with that.

The children were a mixed bag, as I read in reviews. The younger two were very good.

The score was okay - a little intrusive in times, but generally okay.

What I would say that gives this film a thumbs up from me is that it must be *the* most faithful adaptation of a book I have *ever* seen. In that respect, it was like seeing what I had imagined as I read the book. Maybe this is what is at fault? Maybe CS Lewis' books do not provide enough plot to sustain a full-length movie?

Anyway, watched it, will probably buy the DVD, and still waiting at feverpitch for Kong....

[5lab]

i saw it, and i thought the ice queen was very very good.. she has a.. manor about her.. kinda a bit freaky, like she was a bit disturbed.. came off very well, imo..

[shiato storm]

its a disney made movie isn't it? I suspect if it were released at any other time of year it wouldn't do as well...

[Woodchuck2000]

I would also give it a thumbs up in general. Yes, some of the green screen work was extremely poor, but many of the CG effects were superb. Where this film succeeded or failed was people investing in Aslan as a character and they did extremely well with that.

The children were a mixed bag, as I read in reviews. The younger two were very good.

The score was okay - a little intrusive in times, but generally okay.

What I would say that gives this film a thumbs up from me is that it must be *the* most faithful adaptation of a book I have *ever* seen. In that respect, it was like seeing what I had imagined as I read the book. Maybe this is what is at fault? Maybe CS Lewis' books do not provide enough plot to sustain a full-length movie?

Anyway, watched it, will probably buy the DVD, and still waiting at feverpitch for Kong....

That's interesting - I'd say that (especially in terms of characterisation) either the BBC version or the 1979 cartoon version are more faithful. In fact, the only bits that the new film has that the older versions didn't are deviations from the book! The problem in my opinion with the acting is that the kids never seemed believably 1940s. There was too much sarcasm and backchat...

I thought the casting left a lot to be desired - I would have cast Jim Broadbent as Mr. Tumnus - I've always seen him as more middle-aged and jolly than his portrayal in the Disney version... I also thought that the White Witch was distinctly lacking. IMHO she either needs to be young, stunning, and utterly cold or old, wizzened and just pure evil. She seemed overly human at times and the costume changes didn't work. I loved Kiran Shah as Ginarrbrik, although ironically enough his most recent outings were in LOTR and Harry Potter!

[Tiberius]

I agree that the storyline needed a bit more re-touching, but I think given the circumstances the battle scenes were ace!

Could of been longer though.