Related articles and links |  1 of 5

Over the last few weeks, The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe stirred up more hype and suspicion about Christianity's uncomfortable relationship with Hollywood than any film since Mel Gibson's The Passion of The Christ almost two years ago. And, like Peter Jackson's adaptations of J.R.R. Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings trilogy, Narnia has raised concerns amongst fans of the book as to whether this would be a faithful adaptation. Thus, it's no surprise that both of these previous projects are being referenced in the reviews of director Andrew Adamson's film.

But is it a good film? Do Adamson's revisions to Lewis's story really matter? Is the film spectacular and groundbreaking, or merely workmanlike? Does the film speak to newcomers as powerfully as it does to those who already know the story? Is it overbearingly "Christian"?

Reviews in the mainstream or religious press are yielding many and varied opinions.

Made under the watchful eye of Lewis's stepson Douglas Gresham, Adamson's movie is an enjoyable, symphonic, and delightful fantasy. Few disagree with that. It's a kaleidoscopic vision of fanciful and colorful creatures, fantastic landscapes, and laugh-out-loud surprises. Almost all critics are praising the performances of the actors, especially Georgie Henley, who fills young Lucy with tangible awe and wonder.

But when it comes to whether or not the film is a sufficient reflection of Lewis's beloved book, that's where critics differ.

"Everything is just as you imagined it, only better," raves Adam Tillman-Young (Relevant). "Old fans and newcomers alike are certain to be satisfied…"

Certain to be satisfied? Almost all of the other film reviewers in Christian publications are, to some extent, dissatisfied. They find plenty to praise, but a good deal that is lacking.

My review is at Christianity Today Movies, and an expanded version has been published at Looking Closer.

Steven D. Greydanus (Decent Films) says, "Adamson's film … is neither as daring nor as visionary as Jackson's or Gibson's films. Nor is the screenplay … as faithful to the source material as the Harry Potter films (at least before the books broke 500 pages). Nevertheless, the film brings Lewis's story to life with sufficient fidelity and movie magic to make it one of the best and brightest family films in some time."

He adds, "The film follows the basic plot and structure of the book, and its most important themes—guilt and expiation, sacrifice and redemption, death and resurrection, the triumph of good over evil—are preserved. Yet widespread reports of the film's 'slavish' or 'religious' fidelity to the book are just flat wrong. … The facts speak for themselves, and the truth is that the filmmakers have taken significant liberties—some good, some bad, some indifferent."

He goes on to spell out just how far the film strays from the book.

Similarly, Peter T. Chattaway (Canadian Christianity) chronicles the film's missteps. "Alas, fairy tales are not what they once were, and the newest dramatization of Lewis's story … reflects the ambivalence of our age. It also reflects the perceived need for 'realism' in film, a 'realism' that is more about emphasizing human flaws and epic battles than about recognizing true strength of character."

Chattaway continues, "Granted, it is no crime if a movie makes changes to the story on which it was based—and not all the changes here are for the worse. But Christians have a special attachment to the Narnia stories; Aslan not only represents Christ, he is Christ in Narnian form, and much has been made of the book's apologetic and evangelistic potential and, therefore, of the film's as well. But it is precisely on those points that the film is weakest."

next page... |  1 of 5

share this page

December (Web-only) 2005, Vol. 49