PDA

View Full Version : Roger Ebert's Review of "The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe"


Tages
12-08-2005, 02:23 AM
Interesting (http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051207/REVIEWS/51203001).

(And before we begin, yes, we all know that Ebert's a moron for giving a movie you loved a bad review. Wah wah, boo hoo.)

The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe


BY ROGER EBERT / December 8, 2005

C. S. Lewis, who wrote the Narnia books, and J.R.R. Tolkien, who wrote the Ring trilogy, were friends who taught at Oxford at the same time, were pipe smokers, drank in the same pub, took Christianity seriously and hated each other's fantasy worlds. Well, no wonder. When you've created your own universe, how do you feel when, in the words of a poem by e.e. cummings: "Listen: there's a hell/of a good universe next door; let's go."

Tolkien's universe was in unspecified Middle Earth, but Lewis' really was next door. In the opening scenes of "The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe," two brothers and two sisters from the Pevensie family are evacuated from London and sent to live in a vast country house where they will be safe from the nightly Nazi air raids. Playing hide-and-seek, Lucy, the youngest, ventures into a wardrobe that opens directly onto a snowy landscape where before long Mr. Tumnus is explaining to her that he is a faun.

Fauns, like leprechauns, are creatures in the public domain, unlike Hobbits, who are under copyright. There are mythological creatures in Narnia, but most of the speaking roles go to humans like the White Witch (if indeed she is human) and animals who would be right at home in the zoo (if indeed they are animals). The kids are from a tradition which requires that British children be polite and well-spoken, no doubt because Lewis preferred them that way. What is remarkable is that this bookish bachelor who did not marry until he was nearly 60 would create four children so filled with life and pluck.

That's the charm of the Narnia stories: They contain magic and myth, but their mysteries are resolved not by the kinds of rabbits that Tolkien pulls out of his hat, but by the determination and resolve of the Pevensie kids -- who have a good deal of help, to be sure, from Aslan the Lion. For those who read the Lewis books as a Christian parable, Aslan fills the role of Christ because he is resurrected from the dead. I don't know if that makes the White Witch into Satan, but Tilda Swinton plays the role as if she has not ruled out the possibility.

The adventures that Lucy has in Narnia, at first by herself, then with her brother Edmund and finally with the older Peter and Susan, are the sorts of things that might happen in any British forest, always assuming fauns, lions and witches can be found there, as I am sure they can. Only toward the end of this film do the special effects ramp up into spectacular extravaganzas that might have caused Lewis to snap his pipe stem.

It is the witch who has kept Narnia in frigid cold for a century, no doubt because she is descended from Aberdeen landladies. Under the rules, Tumnus (James McAvoy) is supposed to deliver Lucy (Georgie Henley) to the witch forthwith, but fauns are not heavy hitters, and he takes mercy. Lucy returns to the country house and pops out of the wardrobe, where no time at all has passed and no one will believe her story. It is only after Edmund (Skandar Keynes) follows her into the wardrobe that evening that her breathless reports are taken seriously. Edmund is gob-smacked by the White Witch, who proposes to make him a prince.

Peter (William Moseley) and Susan (Anna Popplewell) believe Lucy and Edmund, and soon all four children are back in Narnia. They meet the first of the movie's CGI-generated characters, Mr. and Mrs. Beaver (voices by Ray Winstone and Dawn French), who invite them into their home, which is delightfully cozy for being made of largish sticks. The Beavers explain the Narnian situation to them, just before an attack by computerized wolves whose dripping fangs reach hungrily through the twigs.

Edmund by now has gone off on his own and gotten himself taken hostage, and the Beavers hold out hope that perhaps the legendary Aslan (voice by Liam Neeson) can save him. This involves Aslan dying for Edmund's sins, much as Christ died for ours. Aslan's eventual resurrection leads into an apocalyptic climax that may be inspired by Revelation. Since there are six more books in the Narnia chronicles, however, we reach the end of the movie while still far from the Last Days.

These events, fantastical as they sound, take place on a more human, or at least more earthly, scale than those in "Lord of the Rings." The personalities and character traits of the children have something to do with the outcome, which is not being decided by wizards on another level of reality but will be duked out right here in Narnia. That the battle owes something to Lewis' thoughts about the first two world wars is likely, although nothing in Narnia is as horrible as the trench warfare of the first or the Nazis of the second.

The film has been directed by Andrew Adamson, who directed both of the "Shrek" movies and supervised the special effects on both of Joel Schumacher's "Batman" movies. He knows his way around both comedy and action, and here combines them in a way that makes Narnia a charming place with fearsome interludes. We suspect that the Beavers are living on temporary reprieve and that wolves have dined on their relatives, but this is not the kind of movie where you bring up things like that.

C.S. Lewis famously said he never wanted the Narnia books to be filmed because he feared the animals would "turn into buffoonery or nightmare." But he said that in 1959, when he might have been thinking of a man wearing a lion suit, or puppets.

The effects in this movie are so skillful that the animals look about as real as any of the other characters, and the critic Emanuel Levy explains the secret: "Aslan speaks in a natural, organic manner (which meant mapping the movement of his speech unto the whole musculature of the animal, not just his mouth)." Aslan is neither as frankly animated as the Lion King or as real as the cheetah in "Duma," but halfway in between, as if an animal were inhabited by an archbishop.

This is a film situated precisely on the dividing line between traditional family entertainment and the newer action-oriented family films. It is charming and scary in about equal measure, and confident for the first two acts that it can be wonderful without having to hammer us into enjoying it, or else. Then it starts hammering. Some of the scenes toward the end push the edge of the PG envelope, and like the "Harry Potter" series, the Narnia stories may eventually tilt over into R. But it's remarkable, isn't it, that the Brits have produced Narnia, the Ring, Hogwarts, Gormenghast, James Bond, Alice and Pooh, and what have we produced for them in return? I was going to say "the cuckoo clock," but for that you would require a three-way Google of Italy, Switzerland and Harry Lime.

cactusmaac
12-08-2005, 03:44 AM
Some of the scenes toward the end push the edge of the PG envelope, and like the "Harry Potter" series, the Narnia stories may eventually tilt over into R. But it's remarkable, isn't it, that the Brits have produced Narnia, the Ring, Hogwarts, Gormenghast, James Bond, Alice and Pooh, and what have we produced for them in return?

Star Wars..

Tages
12-08-2005, 03:47 AM
Star Wars..
Point taken.

Dr. Banner
12-08-2005, 07:02 AM
Point taken.

Ironically, the first film being made in England, with the majority of the cast being from there (Guinness, Daniels, Baker, Mayhew, Prowse, Cushing...), along with much of the production crew.

Cyke
12-08-2005, 07:21 AM
Three out of four stars. For him it's just half a star behind most Harry Potter flicks. He's essentially putting Narnia up there with X2 and the LoTR movies.

cactusmaac
12-08-2005, 07:46 AM
I'd also add Superman, Batman, Spidey etc.

Joe Rice
12-08-2005, 07:52 AM
Star Wars..

Do you want them to bomb us or something?

Cyke
12-08-2005, 08:16 AM
I'd also add Superman, Batman, Spidey etc.

IIRC he gave:
Superman I, II, Spidey II, Batman Begins: Four stars
Mask of the Phantasm: Three stars
Spidey I and all other Bat-flicks: Two and a half or below

Frankly, I got all giddy when I found out that he ranked the TAS movie over the pre-Begins movies. That just shows the power of Dini and company.

cactusmaac
12-08-2005, 08:48 AM
Ebert's generally OK.

Most times he gives a positive review to a movie I like (such as Dark City), he tends to appreciate the same things I do.

Some of his stuff makes me roll his eyes, like when he gave good notices to The Cell and lambasted War of the Worlds because tripod alien machines were too impractical.

borateen
12-08-2005, 10:44 AM
(And before we begin, yes, we all know that Ebert's a moron for giving a movie you loved a bad review. Wah wah, boo hoo.)

This statement confuses me. Maybe I'm the moron here, but that didn't sound like a bad review.

yeoman
12-08-2005, 10:52 AM
(And before we begin, yes, we all know that Ebert's a moron for giving a movie you loved a bad review. Wah wah, boo hoo.)


Actually, I don't consider him a moron. Never have. I just don't trust his reviews as I find that many of the movies I found fun, but not necessarily excellent movies, he gave bad reviews to.

yeoman
12-08-2005, 11:00 AM
Frankly, I got all giddy when I found out that he ranked the TAS movie over the pre-Begins movies. That just shows the power of Dini and company.

Eh. Ebert's definately a closet Anime fan. Or at least he was back when I was following the reviews he did do on the topics.

Cyke
12-08-2005, 01:08 PM
Eh. Ebert's definately a closet Anime fan. Or at least he was back when I was following the reviews he did do on the topics.

Far from closeted. He's an admitted otaku, possibly the world's most famous. He done articles on Akira and Grave of the Fireflies for his Greatest Movies column, with Spirited Away not far behind. He was also the one spearheading the campaign to have Princess Mononoke qualify for oscar nomination a few years ago.

yeoman
12-08-2005, 01:27 PM
Far from closeted. He's an admitted otaku, possibly the world's most famous. He done articles on Akira and Grave of the Fireflies for his Greatest Movies column, with Spirited Away not far behind. He was also the one spearheading the campaign to have Princess Mononoke qualify for oscar nomination a few years ago.

Yeah, but he always approaches it with a cinematic and serious eye, when seething beneath that is a man who yearns to discuss which girl Tenchi should end up with and the bizarreness of Excell Saga.

It's like all those people that read Sandman and told people they don't really read comic books.

Or maybe not.

Donald Stone
12-08-2005, 05:28 PM
Actually, I don't consider him a moron. Never have. I just don't trust his reviews as I find that many of the movies I found fun, but not necessarily excellent movies, he gave bad reviews to.
I like Eberts reviews simply because most of the time he'll tell you why he liked or didn't like a movie, and with that I can tell if i'll like it. Most of the time i agree with him, but not always.

Still, very looking forward to this one. And to think, I just read the book last week.:)

Looks to be an awesome 2 weeks, first Narnia, then next week Kong.

Tages
12-09-2005, 11:48 AM
This statement confuses me. Maybe I'm the moron here, but that didn't sound like a bad review.
No, I meant that as a response to people who say that. Largely because of a statement someone made on the Rumbles board that Ebert didn't like the first "X-Men" and thus was stupid because the poster didn't agree with him.

Jared
12-09-2005, 12:38 PM
No, I meant that as a response to people who say that. Largely because of a statement someone made on the Rumbles board that Ebert didn't like the first "X-Men" and thus was stupid because the poster didn't agree with him.

And here I thought it was a just a more general discliamer, since any time someone brings up a famous reviewer, someone is bound to hate them based on some past reviews.

BTW, Ebert's review of the first Spider-Man was absurd! He complained that Spidey didn't look like he had weight. Yet he raved about Crouching Tiger's floating, where it was obvious when the characters were being pulled by wires! That fat dirty sonuva... :)

Cyke
12-09-2005, 12:44 PM
And here I thought it was a just a more general discliamer, since any time someone brings up a famous reviewer, someone is bound to hate them based on some past reviews.

BTW, Ebert's review of the first Spider-Man was absurd! He complained that Spidey didn't look like he had weight. Yet he raved about Crouching Tiger's floating, where it was obvious when the characters were being pulled by wires! That fat dirty sonuva... :)

Upon rereading the review, I get the impression that Ebert was talking more about the use of CGI, especially when Peter's just Peter and not Spidey, in the use of acrobatics, and that the CGI made Spider-Man look less than believable (as opposed to CTHD, as Asia's been using wirework for decades now, and have perfected the system pretty much). It doesn't sound like he's convinced. But then in his review for Spidey II, I think he says the CGI was cleaned up considerably there and looked much more impressive the second time around.

I think the closest comparison there would be something like Christopher Reeve in the first Superman. Obviously you knew there were wires, but visually on screen, Superman looked like he was legitimately flying because there was weight in the character's appearance, as opposed to CGI or extremely heavy use of green screen. I think for Ebert, Spidey I's effects would've worked better if there were more wires than CGI.