The script spends so much time focusing on light layers and exposition surrounding plot that the core of this narrative ironically becomes unfocused, resulting in long lapses in momentum that aren't quite as severe as they were in the predecessor, but still stand as a serious issue. This subject matter is a little more layered than the story concept of "The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe", but the runtime of exactly two-and-a-half hours is still questionable, as writers Andrew Adamson's, Christopher Markus' and Stephen McFeely's storytelling finds itself dragged out, not so much by excess filler, but by excess material that bloats the film with a few too many layers, which gradually become convoluted and, even worse, aimless. Now, when I say that this film is kind of watered down, I don't necessarily mean that Disney sanitizes this approach to potentially meaty subject matter, like it did with "The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe", as there's a lot more distinct maturity to storytelling here, it's just that this story concept isn't quite juicy enough for you to ignore elements that you may recognize from more refreshing and better high fantasy epics, at least when juice goes gradually thinned out as things meander along. I joke about this film ripping of, like, "The Lord of the Rings" or something, but this high fantasy epic really does take from a lot of sources that follow subject matter of this nature, at least by now, for what may have been refreshing material in 1951 feels worn down now that it's being interpreted while we're still coming down off of stuff like "The Lord of the Rings", whose standards it still can't quite achieve. Come to think of it, "The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe" was kind of kiddy, too, but by this film, you better believe that the gauntlet is down, which would be awesome and all if this effort, as rewarding as it is, didn't have enough things to slip on. relative fame (Oh, how many kids care who makes films like these anyways?) were the first two, decidedly non-epic "Shrek" films, yet now that he's done with all of that kiddy junk, he can get down to some hardcore fantasy, or at least fantasy that is about as hardcore as Disney will allow it to be.
I reckon New Zealanders just know how to work with high fantasy, as Adamson's real claim to. They spent a lot of money on this "Lord of the Rings" rip-off, and Adamson is going to get you to enjoy it, because you know that a Kiwi knows how to work a high fantasy epic.
Well, that ostensibly holds Aslan back for such a long time, as well as Andrew Adamson's wanting to keep up as much of the action and adventure as he possibly can.
You know, a lot of people complain about that, but I can kind of understand, because Liam Neeson hails from that part of Ireland that hasn't been liberated from the UK yet, so it figures that his character would take his sweet time before preventing soldiers who are as English as one can get from getting killed. I'd imagine those who remember the last film are a little confused about my referring to only one leader, but don't worry, people, as I'm not talking about the four kids as the returning leaders, but rather, Aslan, because he doesn't really do much of anything until the last minute. Bush, in that it's about a powerful leader going missing long enough for followers' faith to go shaken, only to return to find that the Mexicans have taken over (Well, the Latin-esque culture presented in this film is a little more Spanish, but hey, this world doesn't exist, so what does it matter?).
Robert Cargill as I am of the other critics, but I loved how he described this as something like a film about George W.