The December 2005 release of the "first" book in the Chronicles of Narnia series is an exciting moment for childhood fans of the great Christian epic written by C. S. Lewis. The film has some wonderful moments, dramatic tension, some terrific actors, and a lot of beautiful shots of the Polynesian paradise where it was filmed. Lucy is loveable, and you'll see an outstanding Father Christmas. If you grew up, as I did, reading and re-reading the Narnia books, the Lord of the Rings books, and the Once and Future King, the Wizard of Earthsea, and their sequels, then you will be disappointed in terms of filmic representation, as compared to the masterpiece Lord of the Rings films. Nonetheless, it is well worth watching, and every ticket purchase supports further dramatizations from the cycle; Prince Caspian, the 2nd book by C. S. Lewis, is already targeted for a 2007 release.

My review engages the sheer Charm of the film, its intense Drama, the Christian message, Moments to Watch, Castle Cair Paravel, War and Peace, and, for Lord of the Rings fans, the Weta work.

This film would be impossible without its predecessor, the BBC Chronicle of Narnia, a relatively low-budget production (from 1988) that had British problems: the lion Aslan is too reserved, the plot is presented in a stiff and soulless manner, the physical spaces are too cramped and under-budgeted, and the fighting is too slow and stylized. The 2005 production from Walden Media corrects for most of this. The feel of the new film is creative, suspenseful, flexible, and vast, and the acting is wonderful. The interiors (the professor's estate, the faun's cottage, the castle at Cair Paravel), as well as the exteriors, are breathtakingly beautiful. The fighting scenes have gone right to the source: the Weta workshop, a once small New Zealand special effects company that landed the contract for the Lord of the Rings. The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe uses the hand-to-hand combat software conceived for the Lord of the Rings. The vision of Walden Media was to take the BBC film and make it kick butt. In this it succeeds.

The drama of this film comes from its tension-filled moments. An add-on prologue enacts the World War II bombing of London, including the Pevensie home. The first encounter with wolves succeeds in portraying wolves as extremely dangerous predators. A bizarre and gratuitous add-on scene (I think—I don't remember it from the book) involves a frozen waterfall and a dip into icy water. Even if it's not C. S. Lewis, it is thrilling cinema. The stone table scene, the key scene of the novel, is pure cinema, Hollywood-style: dangerous, entrancing, and protracted. Finally, the deathly assault of the White Witch by Aslan is great drama, though it isn't C. S. Lewis, and it is theologically problematical. (Aslan is an allegory of God and Christ.) If you love drama, watch for the drama of great moments in this film. The overall dramatic shape is not interesting, accurate, or even entirely successful, but the film takes you to individual scenes and really delivers.

Castle Cair Paravel, which wraps up the film, is a surprising success at the film's end. Not only is the castle complex an astounding outlay along a cliff, not only is the interior vast, spectacular, and regal, not only is the coronation authoritative and believable, but the film even succeeds, as does the book, in presenting four children as convincing kings and queens over an adult citizenry.

The Christianity will divide us. This 2005 film release is NOT C. S. Lewis's book, nor the teachings of Christ as we see them laid out in the gospels or the Pauline epistles, nor is it anything else that I would call the essence of Christianity. C. S. Lewis took the complexity of the Christian God, His love, His anger, His incarnation, His teachings, and His requirements of humankind, and put them into a great, complex, loving and fiercesom lion. The good creatures of Narnia basically love Aslan, the bad creatures basically fear Him. That is the clear message of C. S. Lewis, absent from this film. So where is the Christianity? Well, this film does present the sacrifice of Aslan, who pays for Edmund's sins with His own blood. But beyond that presentation, and a sort of charismatic aura, Aslan is not Christ. This film Aslan is a commander-in-chief and a combattant. In the C. S. Lewis book by contrast, Aslan is Christ, loving and complicated – the allegory succeeds. For Christian fans of the book, there is no more important issue. What the film does instead is in the right-wing spirit of, say Mussolini, or other militant right-wing leaders who might come to mind for us in 2005. This film is a psychological displacement. The Christianity of this film is not love- or Christ-driven. Instead, Christian commitment is presented as glorification in battle. To fight is to be a Christian. The film is replete with old cliches of the sun glistening on swords, and a manhood that never reaches fullness until a man kills a foe in battle. I'm not exactly a pacifist; some wars must be. But this film is committed to war and its blisses (male comradery, victory, ethical idealism, a commander-in-chief to idolize), and, like many who call themselves "Christians," bears little resemblence to Christianity. I don't think the more war-realistic prologue succeeds in unraveling the deification of battle that centers this film. Asking people if they like the Christian message of the film is a good litmus test of Christians: the true Christians will be disappointed—but we still enjoy a good, action-packed narrative!!

In the C. S. Lewis series, the central war is reserved for the last book, titled The Final Battle. The narrative center of the first book is Aslan's sacrifice on the Stone Table, not the battle scene. Admittedly, I loved the film battle in that it revives the work of the Weta workshop, and is basically like watching a new scene from the Lord of the Rings. Which brings us to the crux of this production. It is not a genius production, like Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings. It is a borrower, a film that samples from elsewhere. When the beavers and children hide fom Father Christmas, the scene is borrowed from the Fellowship of the Ring, and is a pale copy. (Oh, and I love the Santa Claus actor, James Cosmo, and his sleigh and reindeer. But a leather coat for Santa? With beribboned Italianate Renaissance sleeves? I like Christmas culture too much to be as open-minded as that. With a velvet coat and hat though, this would have been *the perfect* Santa Claus.) Another borrowing: the animal cinemetronics and voices are *so* Disney a la Madagascar or the Little Mermaid, that they are cartoonish. Thank goodness they don't burst out into broadway revival songs. But they gesture in the Disney-animatronics direction, and the animal voices are replete with sound effects like echo and reverb.

The film is battle-centered for one simple and unfortunate reason. This film takes its dramatic shape not from the book, but rather from the 1988 film. This film follows the pacing of earlier film step for step. It moves at the same speed, makes the same mis-steps, and hurries through or protracts the same scenes. There is no originality in dramatic pacing. If they had just followed the book, rather than an earlier film, the narrative shape would have been far superior. As a remake, it is intensely lazy in this aspect, and the film suffers dearly for it.

I, too, have read enthisiastic "Christian" reviews of this film that tell me that the film follows the book closely, and is beautifully Christian. I wish that either statement were true.

The screenplay language is all new (not C.S. Lewis). I do not mind that, because I don't think C. S. Lewis is strong on the craft of writing, unlike Tolkein, a phenomenal talent.I think the film screenplay is a strongpoint, and I love the Mr. Tumnus and Lucy encounters. I also love Susan, Peter and Edmund, Mrs. Macready, the beavers, the wolves and the witch, especially in battle. It's a great film, really great, but don't let it spoil the book for you.