Furniture of Adventure
Directed by: Andrew Adamson.
Cast: Tilda Swinton, Liam Neeson, Ray Winstone, William Moseley, Georgie Henley, Skandar Keynes, Anna Popplewell.
Released by: Disney.
Release date: 8th December, 2005.
Running time: 140 minutes.
Let me just get one thing out of the way. The Christian overtones of this film will make Bible bashers everywhere weep with joy. Make no mistake, you are going to be smacked full in the face with a blatant Jesus allegory. As a born Protestant and practising Drunkard, this doesn't really bother me, but then again I think this story should have been about little Iraqi kids hiding in a wadi from American 'precision' bombing and finding a doorway to another world. Still, there's a reason I don't work in films, and I think we've just heard it.
The film looks like it's had plenty spent on it. There's the usual obsessive use of CGI, which is of good quality but tends to be quite intrusive, making suspension of disbelief (which is integral to any work of fiction) difficult. Too many times, you'll find yourself examining the CGI instead of watching the film. Some of the backgrounds are shockingly bad, for instance. If they're not cardboard, they fucking well should be. You think backgrounds on static shots are easy to do? Disney says different, bitch! On the whole it's presented on a smaller scale than a certain other fantasy epic (which will remain unnamed, I promise). In some scenes it's a bit odd, as if the director is scared to pull back and show everything. I suppose this could be explained away as lack of funds, but somehow I doubt it. The creature effects are very good, though. They seem to have realised it can't all be done by CGI without looking shit, which is a plus. Some of the props and environments look disturbingly cheap, but overall it's a good-looking film.
The action suffers from being too kiddyfied. There is absolutely no blood, and the violence in some cases has been so toned down it just looks stupid. There are some good moments, but on the whole it just looks silly. Opponents are stabbed, bitten, clawed and shot but there's nary a drop of claret to be seen. Another point is that if you're going to have children beating minotaurs that are seven feet tall, the children should look like they can fight and handle their weapons skilfully. Peter in particular seems to have no idea what a shield is for (ignoring the fact that a blow from something three times his size would splatter him over the scenery even if he blocked it). Presumably having 'sharp end toward enemy' engraved on his sword distracted him. If you look at the first film in that unnamed fantasy trilogy, it got the same certificate, a PG. But the action was a lot better. I don't know if Disney or the director are to blame, Adamson's only work before this is Shrek and Shrek 2, but either way, the fights would have been a lot better with just a pinch more realism. I'm not asking for spurting gore, just a little more focus and grit.
It's a good if uneven film, which doesn't stand up well against previous unnamed fantasy epics. Although a fairly faithful adaptation, I think Disney stuck too close to the source material, refusing to alter the lesser aspects for fear of rousing anger from Lewis fans and Christian fundamentalists alike, as well as keeping it a little too childish. Lewis' work was never very dark to begin with, and they appear to have leeched out what there was anyway. Character transformations are rapid, except in the case of Edmund, a horrible little turd of a boy who should be given a thick ear and told to fuck off instead of all this Christian forgiveness shite. Some of the plot reeks of deus ex machina, and comes across as totally false and far too convenient. The shocking lack of development in the relationships between the children and the creatures of Narnia is a glaring error that should have been rectified.
The film is worth seeing if that unnamed fantasy trilogy was too mature for you, or if you're a fan of Lewis' books. There's never any doubt that good will triumph, unless you're four years old, retarded, or both. I'm just glad Disney didn't bugger it up completely. With a better director and a scriptwriter who would recognise a cliche if one fell on him from a great height, I have no doubt the sequels will be much improved.
Six resurrections out of ten.