Narnian tarinat: Velho ja Leijona

For adult viewers, this bit of Disney brainwashing is almost indigestible. It conceptually rips of The Lord of the Rings in numerous scenes (mainly through identical camera runs). It’s actually The Lord of the Rings for the youngest children, who can be made happy just by showing them colorful characters running around in a meadow. You won’t find even a nod to adults here. (12.12.2005)

If I were a little kid, I'd probably be in seventh heaven from all those talking beavers, wolves, centaurs, eagles and other creatures, but as an adult, I was presented with something that was almost unbearable, especially in the second half. At the beginning, when the kids are getting acquainted with Narnia, it's a pretty brisk show, with beautiful winter scenery and sets that Weta did a really good job of producing. But from the encounter with Aslan in the second half comes the unbearable ubiquitous pathos, with fervent glances and profound proclamations, all meant to be deadly serious and without an ounce of levity, as if there was no place for humour in a story with Christian symbolism, which is not as readable for young children and may be completely irrelevant to them. A deeply religious man, Lewis projected the person of Jesus into his book through Aslan, with his sacrifice and resurrection, which he did for an unnamed Christian ecumenical nonprofit publisher whose enthusiastic promotional flyer for the film I got my hands on. It may be the film's essential centerpiece, but the average viewer sees it differently and is more interested in the fact that the CGI characters are legibly digital and have unnaturally jerky movements, and the level of the visual effects in general varies considerably, something surprising for a film with such a budget. The film is presented in such an uninteresting way, I'm sorry, but I don't see it as more than 2*. (11.03.2006)

The film’s reputation of being a mix of Harry Potter and The Lord of the Rings is absolutely nonsensical. The target child audience combined with a properly functioning fantasy world only works in terms of very broad themes. Andrew Adamson may be able to sit in front of a computer and work with his team to create the animated adventures of an ogre, but he hasn't managed to lay the groundwork for a new fantasy saga. Adamson relies solely on the visuals (which in many cases are quite shoddy) and completely disregards any kind of lifespan of Narnia as a world that is meant to keep the viewer hooked. The director tries to compensate the very lengthy first half with a more action-packed second half, but any drive is wasted thanks to the lack of heroism of the child characters, who become the saviors of Narnia more or less thanks to a few cuts between some sloppy dialogue. Adamson also lacks an eye for detail - how I wished that when Peter first drew his sword, the camera had slowly taken in its shining metal in all its glory. The cameraman was completely incomprehensibly restrained, which makes the magnificence of the final battle completely disappear and the film as a whole is a disproportionately long fairy tale, one that I would enjoy only after blowing out the eighth candle on my cake. (03.04.2006)

If I didn’t know that Andrew Adamson had not directed both Shrek films, I would consider him an ordinary Disney man who edits films about animals, talking cars, and dreaming children on an assembly line. His direction is the greatest routine, and in The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, the routine is ice-cold, withdrawn, scenic, without any hint of mysticism, mystery or atmosphere. Narnia is simply a snowy space behind a magic closet - a space where ungainly fairy-tale creatures live, a space that is controlled without any motivation or inner logic. None of this fit into the film. Actually ... it would be alright if it was clear from the film that it was a fairy-tale spectacle, but attempts at battle epics ala The Lord of the Rings (and the constant literal quotes of some shots) lead me to conclude that The Chronicles of Narnia is kind of a pig-dog. As a fairy tale it has no magic and charm, and as a fantasy epic it is terribly naive, shallow and lacks any mythology. Compared to Jackson's Middle Earth, the interpretation of the fantastic land of C. S. Lewis is tame, flat, two-dimensional. The kid actors unnecessarily overact, their characters in no way captivate the viewer, and paradoxically, the whole story is carried by computer creatures headed the truly excellent lion Aslan. As the embodiment of ice evil, Tilda Swinton resembles more than anything a shady clone of the vampire brothers from The Matrix Reloaded, and even her minions do not have the proper energy to bring a spark of drama to the trivial scheme of the story. Even so, The Chronicles of Narnia is watchable thanks to the dry digital effects; however, one feels no wonder when watching it, and that bothers me a lot when watching the fantasy genre. [50%] (30.10.2006)

Aslan, a witch, a bunch of rascals, some animals, and Santa Claus dealing out weapons... The old TV series adaptation is much better. Unfortunately, this is well-made only in technical terms (but not excellent), without a hint of ideas or invention. It’s boring, and if it weren't for the soundtrack and Tilda Swinton, it would be hard to watch to the end. The naivety of the story can hardly be blamed on the filmmakers, because it is already present to a much greater extent in the original book. But they can be reproached for the casting of the child actors. The children are absolutely unbearable, and some of them (or all?) you truly want to kill. The whole thing looks like perfectly standard consumerist and harmless family-friendly (in the bad sense of the term) Hallmark entertainment. (29.10.2006)

No grateful spectacle from successful morning teenage fantasy, on the contrary. Missing the last 20 minutes would be the prototype of a truly unpleasant film for me. The children argue the whole time except for the ending, and their actors (possibly except for Lucy) are incredibly annoying. In combination with eye-catching tricks, lecturing Aslan, and not-so-likeable supporting characters, it's truly a big defeat. (05.03.2006)

After Renata Fučíková's illustrations and the BBC adaptation of the first four books, I got a Narnia I’d never even hoped for. I saw it on the big screen 4 times, countless times on DVD, and it was revived regularly and never forgotten. I'm happy and crossing my fingers that all seven adaptations will finally be made. Maybe on Netflix, and hopefully for the fifth time, a complete set. (03.02.2009)

An awkward and boring mix of Lord of the Rings (camera swoops, the battle cries, slow-motion shots) and Harry Potter (colorful production design and Victorian-style sets), but boring plot-wise and technically very clunky. The final battle is okay, but the lack of blood and excessive visual effects bring down the overall effectiveness to average. The young actors are surprisingly unlikeable and not very equipped in terms of acting, which could still be bearable if they had anything to work with; the dismal script doesn't give them much space. Beautiful production design and artistic style are not everything, and the film starts to become boring after a while, that is if you are older than twelve. (12.05.2006)

This is a spectacle that will surely delight all younger audiences with its beautiful effects, impressive production design and of course a lot of cute talking animals, but their dads and moms will probably have their eyelids droop a bit while watching it. (16.07.2011)

For children under 12 years old, this is a wonderful spectacle. I am not going to deny that I enjoyed it immensely when I was quite young, and I daresay it even trumped Lord of the Rings for me – however, times change, and so do opinions. Today I would say it is just another cult movie alongside Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter, but this time aimed at younger children. Adults will be a bit hesitant, teenagers will probably be rather disappointed. Why? The first stumbling block is the four child actors, the only one I liked was Anna Popplewell as Susan. The other three are just as demented as the families in The Simpsons, or even Family Guy. Skandar Keynes as Edmund is grumpy, obnoxious, and unlikable from the get-go, William Moseley comes across as a serious and wannabe classic-positive-character-with-whom-it-is-easy-to-identify-with type, and Georgie Henley, who is a slowly rising star in the US, and even compared to AnnaSophia Robb and Dakota Fanning, is lovely, but only when she has to be. Otherwise, she is so big-headed, pouty, and smug it is horrible to watch. On the other hand, Tilda Swinton is excellent and gives off a wonderfully icy impression, the digital treatment of Aslan and the magical creatures is breathtaking. The plot is, however, mediocre. All in all: this is an excellent movie for kids under twelve, and an average movie for most adults, the dissatisfied ones may mostly be teenagers or some adults or older people. Andrew Adamson should go back to Shrek. P.S In addition to all of that, another thing: Gregson-Williams' soundtrack is absolutely amazing (especially “The Battle”). (17.06.2008)

I can't help it, but the first part never impressed me. The only thing I truly appreciate about it are the tricks, both classic and digital. They simply look amazing. However, the story didn't engage me, nor did the characters, except maybe Aslan. I'm surprised that the series is still continuing and more parts are expected. (14.03.2015)

The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe really isn't a quality film, and for several reasons. First of all, I should mention that I'm not enamored of the book and so I'm only rating the "pure" film. I am reviewing this after a second viewing, having first had the privilege of seeing this work sometime in 2006, at the age of seventeen. In terms of cinematic presentation, Narnia is definitely not a visually stunning fairy tale/fantasy fictional world, but rather a kind of barbaric digital hell. Which, given its budget of USD 180 million is really reprehensible, and apart from the truly imperfect CGI animals, the real eyesore are the frequent run-of-the-mill landscape shots, which could probably have been created better in Photoshop. Unfortunately, the hell doesn’t end with this digital mess, as the central trio is ill-fitting, weak, and the pointed demonstration of a sibling relationship is at some points even tragicomic. The final "battle" is a mere coronation of drowned potential and an unattractive display of the most authentic filmmaking dilettantism. I had great difficulty finishing it, which only ever happens to me once every 3 years. And I’ll allow myself one more comment: is there really anyone out there who thinks the music for this film was good, let alone the main asset of the whole film? The only positive aspect is Liam Neeson :-) (21.04.2017)