There is a tendency within Christian circles to disrespect Walden Media’s first C.S. Lewis adaptation, and with the second one coming up fast, I thought it might be useful to scribble down a few ideas before the reviews come cascading in.

First of all, let me say that an astute piece of Lewis scholarship has forced me to reassess my view of Lewis’s books, which I enjoyed as a grade-schooler but never recognized as the product of a great intellect. Thanks to Michael Ward’s erudition, I am now beginning to appreciate them as works of profound subtlety and ambition.

While the two Narnia movies don’t even begin to address the complexity of the books, I still find them underrated, and believe they compare favorably with the Lord of the Rings movies and the Harry Potter movies, to name a few comparable examples.

I think far too much is demanded of them, especially among Lewis fans (of which there are legion) where an earnest love for the books and their theological underpinnings puts unreasonably high expectations on what are essentially intended as “light entertainments.”

Perhaps the most unfortunate thing about the Narnia films is their awkward placement in film history. Had they been released eight years ago, they would no doubt have been hailed as classics. But Peter Jackson’s trilogy, so accomplished as they were, spoiled us all. They appropriated all the good lines, laid claim to the grammar of “epic” moviemaking, and basically inspired enough movie-envy to last for decades.

It’s true to a certain extent that the Narnia movies themselves are guilty of Rings-envy (so many shots scream déjà vu), but from a structural perspective, their chances for success have always been better. Each one can be isolated as its own complete story, rather than an installment in a continuing serial. Each has a clearly defined beginning, middle, and end. This does wonders for the storytelling and helps bring about an aura of consummation at the conclusion of each film, as opposed to that exasperating, “See you next year, folks!” exit employed in Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, et al.

Now, I love The Fellowship of the Ring and found it an instant classic and all that, but my opinion of the trilogy as a whole dropped considerably after watching them back-to-back-to-back, marathon-style, a couple of years ago. For me, this ill-advised spree emphasized the thudding repetitions inherent in the story and called attention to Jackson’s limitations as a filmmaker. Primarily his narrow emotional range. What remains so impressive about the Rings films is its staggering meticulousness in every aspect of production, which has an utterly transporting effect almost unique in the history of cinema.

I think the Harry Potter films are pretty entertaining, too, but in my opinion only The Prisoner of Azkaban can be considered a work of independent imagination. That is, it’s the only film that suggests a creative force other than that of J.K. Rowling. I’m told by fans of the books that Cuaron’s film contains several glaring omissions, but these are no doubt justified since they contribute to a more streamlined narrative. When forced to choose between a good adaptation and a good movie, I’ll always choose the latter.

As for the various infidelities to Lewis’s books, the skepticism found among faith-based communities is well grounded and well argued. In fact, it’s a pleasure to see so many people standing up for Lewis and demanding more from Walden. On the other hand, I think there is such a thing as too much scrutiny, and it often kills good film criticism…

…which is what I hope won’t happen when I review The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian next week.