Why do you hate Christianity? Go write for the Guardian, you commie.

I just returned tonight from seeing the movie. I'm surprised at your underwhelment.

I enjoyed it immensely. And thought it was a superb film. I'll probably see it again, this time with loved ones.

I agree with you Josh that Lord of the the Ring etc. has more for adults. I wonder if this isn't at least in part because there are no adult human characters except the witch in Chronicles. I also think that the Christian responce to the movie is strongly influenced by the fact that it wasn't sanitized of Christian symbolism.

Well, if you "sanitize" the Christian symbolism out of any of the Narnia chronicles, the whole thing falls apart. The stories were intended as Christian allegory - a 1961 letter from Lewis to a fan is very clear about the connection. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1903338,00.html

The real question is, so what if it was intended as allegory? Good grief! This isn't the Soviet Union where all expressions of religion are punished with trips to the gulag!

For another link supporting the Christian connections to Narnia, see:
http://cslewis.drzeus.net/papers/apostle.html

The stories were intended as Christian allegory. . .

Actually they were not "intended" as allegory. As he wrote in Of Other Worlds: "Some people seem to think that I began by asking myself how I could say something about Christianity to children; then fixed on the fairy tale as an instrument, then collected information about child psychology and decided what age group I'd write for; then drew up a list of basic Christian truths and hammered out 'allegories' to embody them. This is all pure moonshine. I couldn't write in that way. It all began with images; a faun carrying an umbrella, a queen on a sledge, a magnificent lion. At first there wasn't anything Christian about them; that element pushed itself in of its own accord."

In fact, Lewis was an expert on the subject of allegory and he maintained that the books were not allegory. Instead he preferred to call the Christian aspects of them "suppositional": ""If Aslan represented the immaterial Deity in the same way in which Giant Despair represents despair, he would be an allegorical figure. In reality however he is an invention giving an imaginary answer to the question, 'What might Christ become like, if there really were a world like Narnia and He chose to be incarnate and die and rise again in that world as He actually has done in ours?' This is not allegory at all."

OK, so my comment should have said, "The real question is, so what if it was intended as SUPPOSAL? Good grief! This isn't the Soviet Union where all expressions of religion are punished with trips to the gulag!" and yours should have said "It is no secret that Lewis weaved Christian SYMBOLISM into the tale and one has to wonder if this fuels some of the movie's gushing reviews."

Ah, I just now caught that I mdae the mistake of calling it "allegory" as well. Mea culpa.

You've been blogged ... in fact you've been quoted

http://www.blogs4god.com/node/920

I, too, am surprised at Josh's underwhelmment. It is definitely a film intended for children--just as the books were. The LotR books were written in a slightly more mature vein than the Chronicles of Narnia, and I think the respective film adaptations widened the difference. Nevertheless, I found it thoroughly enjoyable.

I'm particularly surprised that Josh found the humor and dialogue "blatantly forced and contrived." It seemed to me that nearly all the dialogue came directly out of the book (which I read last month). Is this an indictment of the acting, then?

Perhaps the fact that CON seems geared more toward the younger crowd influenced his perception of it (not the book necessarily, but certainly the movie). Part of the problem with comparing LOTR and CON is that they cannot really be compared. Two different style s of writing/presentation with probably two different types of audiences in mind. The approaches are simply too different to make a good comparison.

Is this an indictment of the acting, then?

Yes, it's primarily an indictment of the acting. It is a good children's movie in my opinion, but not more. The books, however, were also intended for children but I think they can be enjoyed by all ages.

good post Josh...I was disappointed in the movie, mainly because it fell way short of the imagination that I have conjured up over 20 years of reading the books....so I guess I would say it was a decent, and good movie, but not in comparison to the books themselves....that's hard for me to say, because I so wanted it to be a really, really great movie.

I thought this movie was fantastic. It keeps your attention through out the whole movie. You find your self hanging onto every scene. The color and effects were fabulous. A must see movie. I loved it!!!

All things religious aside, I thought this movie was far from excellent. If you are a fan of serious Medieval/Fantasy movies, don't bother with this one. But, if you are like my father, and grew up with the series, you may want to check it out. My complaint above all else, was the lack of character developement amongst any of the characters, especially the Lion. I felt very detached towards what was happening in the movie as a person who never read the books themself. If you have never read the books, then you will more than likely feel the same. Secondly, the acting was not the greatest. In multiple important scenes, I felt as if the actor/actress wasn't portraying the emotion that they should have been. In the scene where the Lion kills the Witch, the Witch showed no fear or emotion at all. Also, the children had multiples scenes where the emotions seemed almost melodramatic. The one thing that I would give this movie is the fact that Disney must have put some SERIOUS money towards the CG. The animation was absolutely amazing. Disney outdid Peter Jackson's rendition of King Kong in this department. Overall I gave this film 2/5 stars in a personal rating.