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 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the greatest routine, and in The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, the routine is ice-cold, withdrawn, scenic, without any hint of mysticism, mystery or atmosphere.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)

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)