Ranking the Live-Action Disney Remakes

I’m going to start this post off with a quick disclaimer. If you’re someone who is by no means a fan of Disney’s recent trend of producing live-action remakes of their animated classics, you’re not going to get much out of this post since it will be a generally positive take on these films. Yes, since 2010, Disney’s live-action output has primarily been focused on live-action re-imaginings of some of their most iconic animated films. However, while these films have been quite successful at the box-office, they’ve been far more polarizing in terms of their overall reception. While general audiences seem to be fairly receptive towards these new spins on Disney classics, there are a sizable number of folks who have been highly critical of this trend for the exact same reason that folks would take issue with any remake in general. Why would anyone even bother remaking something that’s been regarded by many as an undisputed classic? And yet, as someone who recognizes that the original animated films will always be there regardless of how these new films turn out (which is why I’m thankful for the advent of Disney+, which prominently features both incarnations of the films that have recently gotten the live-action treatment), these recent remakes have never bothered me in the slightest. In fact, I’ve recently started to detest the use of the adjective ‘unnecessary’ when it comes to reviews because I feel that it’s become one of the most overused words in critical vernacular, especially since you could easily apply it to any film that comes out and not just the ones that are remakes/sequels/reboots. In other words, while many of these films are re-imagining some of my favorite Disney films of all-time, I try not to let my affinity for the originals overly cloud my judgment towards the remakes because I personally feel that doing so would be largely unfair to them. And so, with that in mind and in honor of the latest Disney remake Mulan’s impending ‘Premier Access’ release on Disney+, today I’m ranking these live-action remakes from ‘least favorite’ to ‘favorite’. While their placement on this list will primarily stem from overall preference, I will also factor in their efforts to present a new spin on their classic stories.

Before we begin, though, I just need to lay out the ground rules for this list. For starters, I won’t be including the two sequels that were spawned from these recent remakes, 2016’s Alice Through the Looking Glass and 2019’s Maleficent: Mistress of Evil. The reason for this is quite simple; from a subjective standpoint, they’re not ‘remakes’ anymore. Instead, they’re just ‘sequels’ to the remakes. However, I will briefly address them when I go over their predecessors. Also, for this list, I’m only going to be focusing on the remakes that have been released since 2010 since this is when this current trend first began to take shape. Because of this, there are two films from the ’90s that won’t be appearing on this list even though they are technically the first big Disney remakes. The first is the original live-action remake of The Jungle Book (that’s right, Jon Favreau’s version wasn’t the first time that a live-action adaptation of Disney’s Jungle Book was made) which was directed by Stephen Sommers and released in 1994. Admittedly, I haven’t seen it at the time that I’m writing this, but I’ll probably do some kind of post on both it and a different Disney-produced Jungle Book film from the ’90s, 1998’s The Jungle Book: Mowgli’s Story, in the future, perhaps when the sequel to Favreau’s Jungle Book comes out. The other big remake that won’t be included here is the 1996 adaptation of 101 Dalmatians, but again, that’s because I’m saving my thoughts on that film and its 2000 sequel, 102 Dalmatians, for a different occasion; in this case, the upcoming spin-off Cruella that will hit theaters next May. Lastly, while it does technically count as a ‘live-action remake’ and can genuinely be considered as a part of this recent subgenre, I’m also not going to include the 2016 remake of Pete’s Dragon since it’s a remake of a live-action film rather than an animated one. Yes, for this list, I’m mainly focusing on the live-action remakes of animated Disney films, and while two of them are technically more like ‘sequels’ than ‘remakes’, I believe that they still count here given that they are primarily based on their animated counterparts. And so, without further ado, I present my current rankings of the live-action Disney remakes that have been released since 2010.   

10. ALICE IN WONDERLAND

We start things off with the first big live-action reimagining of a Disney classic from this modern era, Tim Burton’s Alice in Wonderland. This is the first of the two films that I mentioned earlier that are more like ‘sequels’ rather than ‘remakes’ as it follows a teenaged Alice returning to the world of Wonderland (referred to in-universe as ‘Underland’). Like the original animated film, Burton ultimately went with a combination of elements from both the original Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland novel and its sequel, Through the Looking Glass, rather than just being a direct adaptation of the source material. And right off the bat, the best thing that I can say about this film is that it’s another prime example of why Burton is one of the greatest visual directors in the industry. While the film’s visuals do feel a bit excessive at times due to the scenes in Underland being almost entirely green-screen based, they’re still very much the best part of the film as they wonderfully capture the eccentric nature of the Wonderland setting through the equally eccentric style of Tim Burton. Because of this, it’s easy to see why this film won Oscars for both its production and costume design and how its production designer would go on to direct his own live-action Disney remake a few years later. That said, though, there are a few instances where Burton’s style arguably goes a bit too far for a film that’s primarily geared towards younger audiences. In other words, moments where creatures get their eyes poked out and a scene where Alice crosses a moat filled with the heads of the Queen of Hearts’ victims do make you wonder how the film was able to get away with its PG rating. But despite this and an often-uneven plot (which, yes, is saying something for an Alice in Wonderland film), the film still manages to be another solid outing from Burton, especially thanks to its cast. Helena Bonham Carter is an absolute standout as the figuratively and literally big-headed tyrant the Red Queen and the film sports an impressively stacked voice cast with big names like Stephen Fry and Alan Rickman.

Thus, while it wasn’t exactly a runaway hit with critics, Tim Burton’s Alice in Wonderland was a smash hit financially as it managed to gross over $1 billion worldwide. This has mainly been attributed to the general lack of competition that it faced upon its release in the Spring of 2010 and the boost that came from 3-D ticket sales since this was right when the 3-D format was experiencing its peak resurgence. Because of this, a sequel was eventually made in 2016, Alice Through the Looking Glass, under the direction of James Bobin, who was fresh off the 2011 Muppets film and its 2014 sequel, Muppets Most Wanted (Burton was still heavily involved as a producer). Like its predecessor, though, it didn’t do too well with critics, and unlike its predecessor, it was a rather notorious underperformer at the box-office. But while we’re not going to spend too much time comparing these two films, I will say that there are two things that the sequel does better than the original. First off, it boasts a brighter visual style that is still a lot of CGI overload, to be fair, but is all-around more pleasant to look at. It also means that there aren’t really any moments that push its PG rating like Burton’s film did. The other key advantage is that since the first film was primarily focused on Alice finding the confidence to help her Underland friends stop the Red Queen, she is a far more confident lead in Through the Looking Glass, which is well-reflected by Mia Wasikowska’s excellent performance in the role. And so, with all this in mind, while the live-action Alice in Wonderland films are far from being my favorites when it comes to Disney’s recent live-action output, I don’t necessarily ‘dislike’ them, either. They may be far from perfect, but as much as they do have their incredibly vocal critics (especially those who love taking these films to task for not being the most faithful adaptations of their source material), there’s no denying that they also have their fair share of fans.    

9. LADY AND THE TRAMP

The most recent film on our list, Lady and the Tramp was one of the many exclusive titles that debuted on Disney+ the day of its launch, and I won’t lie, it was, in fact, the first ‘Disney+ Original’ that I watched. While most of the attention that day was directed towards the pilot episode of The Mandalorian, I was genuinely looking forward to the live-action remake of one of Disney Animation’s most underrated projects. To be clear, I’m not saying that the original Lady and the Tramp is a forgotten entry in the Disney canon, but you could also argue that it often gets overshadowed by the other Disney films of the decade such as Cinderella, Alice in Wonderland, and Peter Pan. Nevertheless, it’s a charming love story that was nicely translated into a live-action film by director Charlie Bean. Now admittedly, there aren’t many deviations from the original film, with the biggest changes consisting of minor things such as giving the dog-catcher a more prominent villain role and changing the song sung by Aunt Sarah’s pair of troublemaking cats in light of the original’s often-accused case of racist stereotyping. But even though this does make this version of Lady and the Tramp one of the more straight-forward installments of the recent Disney remakes, that’s not such a bad thing in this instance. Whereas almost all the other remakes are big-budget, CGI-heavy flicks, the Lady and the Tramp remake is refreshingly simple in its approach since the original film was more of a light-hearted romp with the period setting of a classic 1900’s Midwestern town. It also helps that the filmmakers utilized actual dogs to help bring the characters to life even though it goes without saying that CGI was used for the process of making them talk. All in all, this is just an incredibly cute and harmless film that does a nice job in recapturing the charm of its source material’s timeless romance.   

8. DUMBO

In 2019, Tim Burton took on his second major live-action Disney remake with Dumbo. Admittedly, the story of a lovable circus elephant who uses his big ears to fly may have seemed like an odd choice for Burton to direct, but at the same time, it did fit his usual M.O. of stories about misfit characters. Thus, while Burton’s Dumbo doesn’t feature his traditional gothic style, its visuals are still very much on point throughout as they do a wonderful job of capturing the bright and majestic visual aesthetic of the circuses of yesteryear. The film also has the benefit of having greater opportunities for new material when compared to some of the other remakes on this list since the original Dumbo is one of Disney’s more simpler-plotted affairs, especially due to its short 64-minute runtime. As such, all the key moments from the original such as Dumbo’s mother being put into captivity after causing a ruckus and the moment where Dumbo first publicly showcases his flying ability during a clown act are covered in just the first forty minutes. After that, a new subplot occurs when a greedy theme park entrepreneur purchases Dumbo for use in his circus while the members of Dumbo’s original circus troupe work to free his mom from her captivity at the entrepreneur’s amusement park. The remake also focuses more on the story’s human characters, namely WWI veteran Holt Farrier and his two kids Milly and Joe, who take the place of Timothy Q. Mouse from the original as Dumbo’s primary allies since this film doesn’t feature any talking animals. However, the new material that’s added in ends up feeling just as simplistic as the original film’s plot which, to be fair, was reportedly the point according to screenwriter Ehren Kruger. Ultimately, though, Dumbo still works quite well as a good-natured family film with a solid cast headlined by Burton regulars such as Michael Keaton and Danny DeVito and some fun nods to the original, including the infamous pink elephants.

7. MALEFICENT

Since Tim Burton’s Alice in Wonderland is technically more of a sequel than a remake, one could argue that 2014’s Maleficent is where this current crop of live-action Disney remakes truly got started. Under the direction of Alice in Wonderland’s production designer Robert Stromberg, the film serves as a live-action reimagining of Disney Animation’s 1959 outing Sleeping Beauty that, as the title suggests, mainly focuses on the story’s iconic villainess, Maleficent. However, instead of just having her be the main antagonist, the film turns her into more of an anti-hero whose actions against Princess Aurora and her family were the result of her getting revenge against Aurora’s father, her former love interest, for stealing her fairy wings. And while she does curse Aurora to fall into an eternal slumber on her 16^th birthday, she ends up developing a motherly connection to her to the point where she’s ultimately the one who saves her from the curse. As you might have guessed, those who prefer Maleficent’s traditionally villainous persona weren’t too pleased with this interpretation of the character, but overall, I think that it’s a uniquely fascinating take on Maleficent and the mother-daughter relationship that forms between her and Aurora is genuinely sweet. But, of course, the biggest highlight of the film is Angelina Jolie in the title role as she perfectly encapsulates the look and persona of the ‘Mistress of All Evil’… even if that designation doesn’t necessarily apply to this version of the character. Thus, Maleficent turned out to be a big hit with audiences upon its release in the summer of 2014, ultimately grossing over $758 million worldwide. This effectively paved the way for a sequel in 2019, Maleficent: Mistress of Evil, which was generally on par with its predecessor in terms of quality while also expanding upon its fantasy world, namely by introducing more members of Maleficent’s race, the Dark Feys. Really, the only major disappointment with the sequel was that there were fewer scenes between Maleficent and Aurora. Nevertheless, the Maleficent films are a solid duology of fantasy flicks that pride themselves on being female-driven stories.

6. THE LION KING

Now I’ll be the first to admit that Jon Favreau’s CGI-based remake of The Lion King (which admittedly makes this one a bit questionable to include on this list since it’s not really live-action but arguably still counts based on its status as a remake) is quite arguably the most straight-forward remake of this bunch when it comes to retelling the original film’s story. Apart from some minor additions like an earlier introduction for adult Nala and a rivalry between her and Shenzi the hyena, this is the exact same story as the 1994 film with the exact same story beats. In other words, the biggest difference between the two films is that Favreau’s version is CGI whereas the original was traditionally animated. But while this has made the new Lion King one of the most controversial installments yet of the recent Disney remakes, I’d argue that it still manages to be a solid enough film. Like Favreau’s other big remake, The Jungle Book, much of this is due to the utterly impressive visual effects that do such an incredible job in maintaining their photorealistic nature. And while this does mean that the film lacks the more extravagant moments of the original (i.e. there’s no scene of Timon distracting hyenas by donning a grass skirt and dancing the hula (although there is a brilliant substitute bit for that part)), the attention to detail is truly spot on. Plus, I’d argue that the film still manages to hit the right emotional beats from Mufasa’s death to the moment where Simba speaks with the spirit of his father. And so, if anything, I’d say that at the very least, the new Lion King succeeds as a demonstration of how far CGI has truly come in the past few years. Obviously, I’m not saying that it’s ‘better’ than the 1994 film, but with phenomenal visuals and a great voice cast that includes the likes of Donald Glover, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Billy Eichner, Seth Rogen, and the Queen Bey herself, Beyonce, it’s also quite far from being completely worthless. And yes, this is all coming from someone who lists the original Lion King as his favorite Disney animated film of all-time, but as I’ve made it clear already, just because it’s my favorite doesn’t mean that I was going to hold that against this new film. Still, I will admit that the fact that it is largely note-for-note the same as its traditionally animated counterpart does keep me from putting it any higher on this list.

5. CHRISTOPHER ROBIN

Christopher Robin is the other film on this list that’s more of a sequel rather than a remake as it revolves around a grown-up Christopher Robin being reunited with Winnie the Pooh and the rest of the Hundred Acre Wood gang. But, of course, it still counts on this list since it utilizes much of the iconography from Disney’s interpretation of Winnie the Pooh, and since Winnie the Pooh was such a significant part of my childhood, this was easily one of my most anticipated films of 2018. At the end of the day, I’m happy to report that it did not disappoint. Christopher Robin is an incredibly poignant story about the tragedy that is the loss of childhood innocence through the harsh but sadly natural process of growing up. But while this ordeal ends up being an incredibly rough one for Christopher Robin (e.g. losing his father at a young age, enduring the horrors of World War II, etc.), it is what also makes his eventual reconciliation with his friends and family incredibly cathartic. Ewan McGregor does a fantastic job in the title role and when it comes to his Hundred Acre Wood friends, it was only appropriate that they bring back Jim Cummings, the voice of Pooh and Tigger for many a generation (mine included), for his iconic roles. Now admittedly, many have noted that Christopher Robin sports a rather bleak tone, which is true if focusing solely on the first half of the film before Christopher Robin regains his childhood innocence. After that, the film takes on a more light-hearted tone and the scenes where Pooh and company get into all sorts of adventures in London are purely delightful. And really, that perfectly sums up the film in general. It’s a truly delightful family flick that’s fully bolstered by the ever-enduring charm of its timeless characters to be another great Winnie the Pooh story.  

4. ALADDIN

As I’ve mentioned plenty of times before, director Guy Ritchie’s live-action remake of Aladdin ended up being quite a noteworthy success story even though, before its release, it was quite possibly the most scrutinized installment yet of these equally scrutinized remakes. Simply put, it was almost as if this film could never catch a break as it caught flak for various reasons ranging from certain casting choices to the infamous first reveal of Will Smith’s Genie in his traditional blue form. But when it finally came out, it managed to earn over $1 billion worldwide while also doing decently enough with critics, many of whom felt that it turned out to be much better than they initially anticipated. And if you ask me, that means that this film deserves a lot of credit for managing to avoid being the disaster that many predicted it would be. Now as far as being a remake of its animated counterpart, Aladdin is in the same boat as Lady and the Tramp and The Lion King by not making a lot of radical changes to the original story of a good-natured thief who tries to woo the Princess of Agrabah with the help of a wisecracking Genie. Despite this, however, one great change that it does make is letting Princess Jasmine play a far more proactive role in the story. With no disrespect to her animated counterpart, this is the best incarnation of the character to date, especially thanks to Naomi Scott doing a phenomenal job in the role. Meanwhile, Mena Massoud shines in what is surely going to be his breakout role as Aladdin while Will Smith, despite all the pressure that stemmed from having to follow in the footsteps of Robin Williams’ iconic rendition of the Genie in the original animated film, successfully delivers his own, unique take on the character. Ultimately, the only thing that holds this film back is its mediocre interpretation of Jafar, which is primarily due to this version’s more grounded take on the character. But at the end of the day, the live-action Aladdin ends up being a lot of fun, and while it may have seemed like a weird choice to have it done by a director who’s known more for making gritty crime dramas, Guy Ritchie does a highly respectable job when it comes to maintaining the original’s great atmosphere and unforgettable musical numbers.  

3. THE JUNGLE BOOK

Out of all these films, Jon Favreau’s The Jungle Book is arguably the best example of a live-action Disney remake that isn’t fully tied to its animated counterpart. While it’s still very much the story of a young boy named Mowgli who is raised by wolves in the jungles of India and pursued by the sinister tiger Shere Kahn, it’s ultimately a combination of the 1967 animated film and Rudyard Kipling’s original novel. In other words, it only features three of the songs from the animated film (“Bare Necessities”, “I Wanna Be Like You”, and “Trust in Me”) and places greater emphasis on the dramatic parts of the story such as Mowgli’s history with Shere Kahn, who killed his human father, and the dangerous power of ‘Man’s Red Flower’, fire. Favreau does an excellent job of balancing these two aspects of the story, resulting in some excellent emotional moments (e.g. when Mowgli first leaves for the man-village and says goodbye to his adoptive wolf mother Raksha) while also featuring plenty of great homages to the original. But, of course, the most notable aspect of this film is its extensive use of CGI to bring both its animals and its jungle landscapes to life. And because Favreau’s VFX team did such an outstanding job with the visuals (which ended up netting them the Oscar that year for Best Visual Effects), sometimes it’s easy to forget that Neel Sethi, who plays Mowgli, is literally the only ‘real’ thing on-screen 95% of the time. All this and a top-notch voice cast that includes big names like Bill Murray, Ben Kingsley, Idris Elba, and Lupita Nyong’o helps make this adaptation of Rudyard Kipling’s classic story a full-blown visual masterpiece. And as I noted back in the intro, Favreau and screenwriter Justin Marks are currently prepping a sequel that, according to Marks, could potentially incorporate some of the unused elements from the animated film’s original screenplay by Bill Peet that was ultimately rejected by Walt Disney himself for being too dark.

2. CINDERELLA

No matter how much these live-action Disney remakes get ragged on by their biggest critics, there will always be the select few that were genuinely well-received, and the one that started it all for this group was Kenneth Branagh’s 2015 remake of Cinderella. Unlike both Alice in Wonderland and Maleficent, which received mixed reviews upon their release, Cinderella fared quite well with critics and became the first of these remakes to secure a ‘Fresh’ rating on Rotten Tomatoes. And just like Christopher Robin, this was another one of my most anticipated films back when it was coming out due to the original Cinderella being one of my all-time favorite Disney films growing up. All in all, Branagh’s remake does a wonderful job of bringing this classic story to life. Sure, it’s another case where the remake is predominately faithful to its animated counterpart without many significant changes, but in this instance, the changes that it does make are some of the best to come from any of these recent remakes. Easily the best example of this is how it expands upon the relationship between Cinderella and Prince Charming, namely by having them meet before the ball, which also allows the latter to be a more fleshed-out character compared to his animated counterpart. And while Cinderella continues to get a lot of flak nowadays for allegedly being ‘too passive’ of a protagonist, I still stand by what I’ve been saying these past few years in that her unshakably optimistic nature in the face of all the crap she’s put through makes her a far better heroine than she’s often given credit for. Sure enough, this is well-reflected in the live-action remake, especially thanks to Lily James’ outstanding turn in the role. The same goes for Richard Madden as the superior version of Prince Charming, Cate Blanchett as the unforgettably sinister Lady Tremaine, and Helena Bonham Carter in a scene-stealing turn as Cinderella’s Fairy Godmother. And so, with a phenomenal cast, gorgeous production design, and all-around excellent direction from Kenneth Branagh, the live-action Cinderella is one of the most uplifting films to have come out in recent years.

1. BEAUTY AND THE BEAST

To be perfectly blunt, folks, I have the feeling that this film’s placement at the top spot on this list is going to garner some controversy given its usual reception. Let me put it this way; when it first came out, it did relatively well with critics. It currently boasts a 71% rating on Rotten Tomatoes, which is a decently solid score for a film to have on that site, and it also grossed over $1 billion worldwide, effectively making it the second-highest-grossing film of 2017 behind only Star Wars: The Last Jedi. In other words, it was, at the very least, clearly a big hit with audiences. However, I think it’s safe to say that this was the film that fully intensified the utter contempt that the ‘Disney remake’ critics have towards this trend, especially due to the legendary reputation of the film that this remake was adapted from. Before 2017, all the live-action Disney remakes were based on older animated films such as Alice in Wonderland and Cinderella. As such, one could argue that the overall expectations for them weren’t as intense given how long it has been since their releases. Beauty and the Beast, on the other hand, was the most recent Disney animated feature to get the live-action treatment at that point and it also happens to be one of the studio’s most beloved outings. It is, after all, the first animated film that was ever nominated for Best Picture at the Oscars, a distinction that only two other films have achieved since then. As such, this remake clearly faced stricter expectations because of how much the original has meant to my generation, and the same can also be said for the remakes of Aladdin and The Lion King that would come out later and would end up garnering far more polarizing reactions from critics. Thus, despite what I just said about the film maintaining a solid rating on Rotten Tomatoes, I wouldn’t be surprised if many of those who gave it a ‘Fresh’ review aren’t as positive about it nowadays. And yet, I’m not afraid to admit that I still love this film.

Yes, this is yet another instance of a remake that doesn’t make a lot of changes to the original’s story, but overall, I was genuinely fine with the updates that they did make. This includes, among other things, Belle being an inventor just like her father (played excellently by Kevin Kline in a uniquely more subdued take on ‘crazy old Maurice’) and her discovery as to why he has been overly protective of her all these years after her mom died from the Plague. I also loved all the new songs that were made for this remake, especially the Beast’s new solo, ‘Evermore’. And while I’m well aware that much of the criticisms towards this film have been directed towards Emma Watson in the lead role of Belle, namely due to her singing, I still think that she does a fantastic job in the role if we’re talking about all the other things that have made Belle one of the most popular Disney princesses. She’s then backed by a phenomenal supporting cast that includes Dan Stevens as the Beast, Luke Evans and Josh Gad as the scene-stealing duo of Gaston and LeFou (so much so that they’re going to get their own Disney+ series) and the likes of Ewan McGregor, Emma Thompson, and Ian McKellen as the Beast’s servants. In short, I will fully admit that there’s probably quite a bit of bias behind my decision to place this film at the #1 spot on this list. I saw it twice in theaters, with the first time being in IMAX at the film’s ‘Fan Event’ screening on my birthday. I also bought the soundtrack on iTunes not long afterward and loved the film so much that my mom asked one of her co-workers to pick it up on Blu-Ray and ship it to us so we could get the special Best Buy Steelbook*. In other words, I know that I’m probably in the minority when it comes to liking this film, which has certainly faced tons of scrutiny over the ‘necessity’ of its existence and has often been negatively compared to its animated counterpart. And yet, as this entire list has hopefully established by now, I don’t really care about any of that stuff, even if this is another case like The Lion King since the original Beauty and the Beast is one of my Top 5 favorite Disney films. Ultimately, though, that doesn’t prevent the live-action Beauty and the Beast from legitimately being one of my favorite films of the 2010s.

*(By the time that I was fully intent on getting the Steelbook, it wasn’t available at any of the Best Buy stores that were near our home in Rhode Island, hence why we needed to have my mom’s co-worker pick it up for us in Wisconsin where he’s from. As our way of saying thanks, we then proceeded to get him his own Steelbook copy of the film. In other words, as a friendly piece of advice for all you Blu-Ray enthusiasts out there, if you’re ever interested in getting a film’s Steelbook release, be sure to pre-order it in advance because it could very well go out of stock as soon as it hits the shelves, especially if it’s for a highly popular film like one of the MCU films or, say, a billion-dollar grossing remake of a Disney classic…)

And that concludes my rankings list of all the major live-action Disney remakes that have been released since 2010. Thanks for following along and be sure to be on the lookout for my review of the next big live-action Disney remake, Mulan, not too long after the film makes its Disney+ debut on September 4^th.

Jaws: Series Retrospective

While the coronavirus pandemic has forced us all to stay within the confines of our homes rather than being out and about, we are very much in the summer season, and with that in mind, I decided that today was the perfect time for a retrospective of a franchise that’s practically defined by the summer aesthetic. But, of course, what’s it mainly known for is its first installment, which is not only widely considered to be one of the greatest films ever made but was also the film that single-handedly launched the career of its director and revolutionized the concept of ‘summer blockbusters’. Yes, folks, today we’re talking about the Jaws franchise, which began in 1975 with the adaptation of the 1974 novel of the same name by Peter Benchley about a great white shark that terrorizes the summer town of Amity Island. While the film ended up enduring a notoriously troubled production due largely to problems surrounding its special effects, it promptly became a full-blown phenomenon. In doing so, it firmly established its director, a fellow by the name of Steven Spielberg, as one of the top filmmakers in the industry; a pedigree that persists to this very day. Jaws went on to inspire countless imitators while also spawning three follow-ups of its own. However, Spielberg had nothing to do with any of the sequels, which gradually fared worse with critics and audiences with each subsequent release. And while I’m well-aware of the situation that I’m about to get myself into when it comes to this franchise’s low points, I’m still very eager to tackle the film that helped paved the way for all the great blockbusters that have come out in the years since. Plus, the first film is celebrating its 45^th anniversary this year, and like I said before, even if the idea of going to the beach right now is about as scary as dealing with a man-eating shark, I figured that there’s no better time to do this. With that in mind, beware what may come from the ocean and prepare for the possibility that you’re “gonna need a bigger boat” as we look at the four films that make up the Jaws franchise.  

JAWS (1975)

At this point, what more is there to be said about Jaws? It’s a film that’s easily one of the most notable success stories in the history of film despite its production being a full-blown nightmare. Sure, it may have been riding on all the hype surrounding its source material, but what was originally meant to be a seemingly easy two-month shoot that began in the summer of 1974 ended up lasting all the way to October. This was largely due to the bold decision by Steven Spielberg (who was just a relative newcomer at the time) to shoot the film’s third act at sea instead of in a large water tank as is usually the case with films of this nature. Because of this, the filming of those scenes was often waylaid by various delays including bad weather and, most infamously, the consistent malfunctions of the film’s ambitious mechanical shark props. And yet, this is what ultimately gave Spielberg the inspiration that he needed to rework the film into the masterpiece that it is today. Instead of regularly showing the shark as he originally intended (which was obviously impossible at that point given all the technical problems), he decided to limit the shark’s time on-screen to make it more of an ominous threat. In doing so, this helped turn a standard B-movie type premise into something reminiscent of Alfred Hitchcock, which you can certainly see in the final film. Thanks in large part to the underwater sequences that are from the shark’s perspective, Jaws does a wonderful job of establishing its threatening presence without ever showing it. But, of course, this then results in one of the most iconic sequences in all of film when the shark emerges from the water while Chief Brody is throwing chum into the ocean, thus paving the way for the classic line, “You’re gonna need a bigger boat!”. So, at the very least, when the shark does appear on-screen, Spielberg and his team were able to use it as effectively as they could despite all the issues that it caused for them during the shoot.

But, of course, the other key thing that makes Jaws such a masterpiece is how it’s very much a character-driven story, and it’s all thanks to the outstanding lead trio of Roy Scheider, Richard Dreyfuss, and Robert Shaw. As Chief Martin Brody, Scheider brings much of the film’s emotional heft as the reluctant hero looking to protect the people of Amity Island. As oceanographer Matt Hooper, Richard Dreyfuss provides a lot of the film’s best humorous moments while still crafting an excellent rapport with his co-stars. And as the grizzled shark hunter Quint, Robert Shaw brings nothing but pure gravitas to the role, especially in the scene where Quint reveals the harrowing story of how he was one of the few survivors of the ill-fated USS Indianapolis. These three are also backed by excellent supporting players like Lorraine Gary as Brody’s supportive wife Ellen and Murray Hamilton as the conniving Mayor of Amity Island, Larry Vaughn, who prevents Brody from closing the beaches due to how it’d affect the town financially (which, yes, is a situation that’s quite ironic nowadays…). But perhaps the most interesting thing to note here is that the biggest deviation that the film makes from the book is that the main characters are far more likable than they were in the novel, resulting in one of the rare cases where a book-to-film adaptation does manage to improve upon its source material. And sure enough, it’s one of the many reasons why Jaws is the undisputed cinematic classic that it is. While I’m slightly embarrassed to admit that my most recent viewing of the film was the first time that I’d ever seen it in full (Oh, don’t look at me like that. We all have those films that we haven’t gotten around to seeing yet…), it’s easy to understand why its legendary reputation has endured to this day. Thanks to the phenomenal direction from Steven Spielberg and an outstanding cast, Jaws managed to overcome one of the most notorious productions in film history (one that, let’s face it, would’ve been mercilessly scrutinized in today’s internet age) to become a landmark outing that forever changed the art of filmmaking as we know it.

Rating: 5/5!

JAWS 2 (1978)

Bolstered by the immense success of Jaws, Universal immediately set their sights on a follow-up. The only problem, though, was that Steven Spielberg wanted nothing to do with it, citing all the problems that he faced while making the first film while also going on record stating that he thought that a sequel was a terrible idea. So instead, the studio tapped director John D. Hancock, who was fresh off the 1973 sports drama Bang the Drum Slowly, to direct Jaws 2. However, just one month into the production, Hancock ended up getting fired from his position due to a combination of the studio’s disapproval of the darker tone that he was going with and his general inexperience when it came to directing action. It even got to the point where Spielberg was finally open to the idea of returning to direct, although that outcome never came to pass due to his commitments to Close Encounters of the Third Kind. Thus, a new director was finally found in Jeannot Szwarc, who would go on to direct a few notable cult classics such as 1980’s Somewhere in Time and 1985’s Santa Claus: The Movie. Unfortunately, that didn’t put an end to the production’s various problems. Aside from the continued issues that stemmed from shooting on the open water (albeit in the Gulf of Mexico this time around rather than Martha’s Vineyard, which was thankfully still used as the setting for the town of Amity Island), much of the production was dominated by the tense relationship between Szwarc and Roy Scheider. Just like Spielberg, Scheider wasn’t keen on a sequel and the only reason why he ended up doing it was to opt out of a contract that he had with the studio after he had backed out of the lead role in The Deer Hunter due to creative differences. Throughout the production, Scheider consistently clashed with Szwarc, primarily due to the latter’s tendency to focus his attention more towards technical matters rather than his actors. In fact, it even got physical between the two at one point when the producers attempted to deal with their feud. And yet, despite all this and the obvious burden of having to follow an all-time classic, Jaws 2 still manages to be a decent enough sequel.

At the end of the day, the worst thing that I can say about this film is that it’s the very definition of a ‘by-the-numbers’ follow-up. It does its job of continuing the story as primarily seen through the eyes of Chief Brody, who once again finds himself dealing with a ferocious shark that threatens the people of Amity Island despite facing opposition from those who don’t believe him. It also fulfills the sequel requirement of boasting larger set-pieces that result in more screen time for the shark while simultaneously raising its narrative stakes, namely by having Brody’s sons Michael and Sean trapped at sea when the shark attacks the group that they’re hanging out with. Despite this, however, much of the film ends up feeling rather flat, especially when it comes to the story. Part of this is due to the considerable amount of time spent with Mike Brody’s friends in the second half of the film, who are largely one-note and almost completely indistinguishable from each other. But at the very least, the film isn’t a chore to sit through and has some solid shark sequences even if some of them could’ve benefitted from some better editing. And despite the whole thing about him not really wanting to be there, Roy Scheider is still great in the role of Chief Brody and is once again backed by Lorraine Gary as Ellen and Murray Hamilton as Mayor Vaughn (no Richard Dreyfuss, though, due to the lack of involvement from Spielberg). This is what largely makes Jaws 2 a generally okay albeit mostly forgettable sequel. It isn’t really anything special and is obviously not as good as its predecessor, but to its credit, it’s still competently made. I mean, let’s be honest, folks… it goes without saying that this is the best that we’re going to get out of the Jaws sequels. From this point onward, it’s all downhill from here…

Rating: 3/5

JAWS 3-D (1983)

Following in the footsteps of other horror threequels such as Friday the 13^th: Part III and Amityville III, it was decided to have the third Jaws film be shot in 3-D. This was during a time where the 3-D format was experiencing a major resurgence about three decades after its previous peak in the 50’s and another three decades before it became popular once again in the early 2010’s. However, like those other 80’s horror films, most of Jaws 3-D’s initial home releases didn’t offer the option to view it in its intended format, and while the 3-D version is more common nowadays thanks to its most recent Blu-Ray release, I wouldn’t be surprised if most people have only seen the 2-D version (myself included). Because of this, we’re left with a film that’s full of blatant attempts to have things jump out at the camera for the 3-D effect. But while this does technically mean that there was more effort in making this a 3-D film compared to films that just get post-converted into 3-D, shots like this end up looking incredibly awkward when viewed solely in 2-D. It also doesn’t help that the film’s weak effects aren’t just limited to the 3-D as it also suffers from some laughably bad green-screen effects and an all-around blurry film quality that was, apparently, a result of it being turned into a 2-D release. And as for the film itself, it’s just another generic shark attack flick with a dull story and one-note characters, even if it does notably switch up the setting from Amity Island to SeaWorld in Orlando, Florida. Thus, while it does have the distinction of being directed by the original film’s production designer, Joe Alves, that doesn’t keep Jaws 3-D from being the mediocre B-film that the original Jaws managed to avoid being thanks to the efforts of Steven Spielberg and company. If anything, I’ll give it credit for the amusingly hokey vibe that it always gives off, but it probably would’ve been a more interesting and all-around better film had it gone with its original plan of being a comedic spoof titled Jaws 3, People 0 and co-written by John Hughes (yes, that nearly happened…).  

Rating: 2/5

JAWS: THE REVENGE (1987)

And finally, we come to Jaws: The Revenge, which opted to ignore the events of Jaws 3-D in favor of returning to the idea of focusing solely on the Brody family whereas Jaws 3-D wasn’t even originally meant to feature Michael and Sean Brody. This time, however, it’s primarily centered on Ellen Brody (with Chief Martin Brody established as having died in-between films) as she and Michael find themselves dealing with another shark when it appears in the Bahamas while Ellen is visiting Michael’s family. And if that wasn’t enough, they have quite a bit of history with this shark since it was the one that killed Sean, hence the film’s infamous tagline, “This time it’s personal”. But, of course, as I’m sure many of you already know, Jaws: The Revenge was nothing short of a disaster upon its release and is widely considered to be one of the worst films of all time… and yeah, it’s easy to see why. Specifically, this film suffers from an utterly incomprehensible story that’s chock-full of bizarre logic gaps and undercooked ideas, namely through the implication that Ellen has a psychological connection to this shark and that it purposefully followed her and her family to the Bahamas. Pair that with the worst shark sequences in the history of the franchise and mediocre direction that reflects poorly on everyone in the cast (including the returning Lorraine Gary and newcomer Michael Caine) and you have a film that, for much of its runtime, doesn’t really feel like a Jaws film at all. In short, Jaws: The Revenge still stands as the prime example of when a film franchise truly hits rock bottom and can best be summed up by a quote from Marty McFly in the Spielberg-produced Back to the Future Part II when he comes across a virtual shark hologram promoting the fictional Jaws 19 in 2015.

Rating: 1/5

And that concludes this retrospective on the Jaws franchise. Sure, it didn’t exactly end on a great note thanks to the one-two punch of Jaws 3-D and Jaws: The Revenge, but in the oft chance I haven’t said it already on this site, one of the most entertaining aspects of doing retrospectives like this is getting to see how franchises play out for better or worse. And at the end of the day, the original Jaws will continue to serve as one of the most quintessential films of all time regardless of the steadily declining quality of its sequels.

The Chronicles of Narnia: Series Retrospective

When it comes to classic fantasy franchises that are based on a best-selling book series, there have been plenty that have left a considerable mark on both the literary and cinematic landscape such as Harry Potter, The Lord of the Rings, and Game of Thrones (even if that one was only on TV rather than film) just to name a few. However, there’s one notable book-to-film franchise that may not have had the same kind of critical acclaim as the others but was nevertheless a big deal when it first came out. The first installment of the film series is also notably celebrating its 15^th anniversary this year, so I figured that it would be the perfect time to delve into the franchise that is The Chronicles of Narnia. A bona fide staple of children’s literature, The Chronicles of Narnia got its start in 1950 with the publication of The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe by author C.S. Lewis. Like his good friend J.R.R. Tolkien (AKA the author of The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings), Lewis was a World War I veteran turned author who was a member of the English faculty at Oxford University and was best known for his work in fantasy. His most famous work was, of course, The Chronicles of Narnia, with seven mainline installments published from 1950 to 1956. Nowadays, it’s one of the best-selling book series of all-time with over 120 million copies sold worldwide. It’s also seen its fair share of adaptations over the years. There was a 1967 serial of the first book that, unfortunately, is predominately lost at the moment, an animated made-for-TV adaptation in 1979 that was notably directed by Peanuts director Bill Melendez, and an eighteen-episode TV series based on the first four books and produced by the BBC from 1988 to 1990. But for the purpose of today’s retrospective, we’ll be focusing solely on the trilogy of films that were produced by Disney (and Fox… more on that later…) in the mid-2000’s.

In a time where many of the attempts at producing a film franchise based on a popular book series struggled to match the success of the Harry Potter franchise, The Chronicles of Narnia was quite arguably one of the most successful ventures of this cinematic trend. In total, these three films managed to gross over $1.5 billion worldwide and, apart from the third installment, fared generally well with critics. However, just like many of its non-Harry Potter peers, this still ended up being a case where, despite its success, the franchise was unable to do a complete adaptation of its source material. Only three films managed to come out of this incarnation of the franchise before the film rights deal between its production company, Walden Media, and C.S. Lewis’ estate expired in 2011. And while plans for a potential ‘reboot’ via a new production company, The Mark Gordon Company, were initiated in 2013 with an adaptation of The Silver Chair under the direction of Joe Johnston, a different take on the series was announced in 2018 in the form of a deal between Lewis’ estate and Netflix. Under the supervision of Matthew Aldrich (one of the co-writers of Disney/Pixar’s 2017 masterpiece Coco), this new take on the franchise will reportedly consist of a combination of both films and TV shows. And while there hasn’t really been any further details about it since then, I’m betting that this will probably turn out a lot like another big Netflix-produced literary adaptation, A Series of Unfortunate Events, and give Narnia fans the best live-action interpretation yet of their beloved franchise. But until then, it’s time for us to get incredibly nostalgic as we look back at the last major attempt at bringing C.S. Lewis’ fantastical world to life. And so, without further ado, prepare to journey into Narnia as we look at the Disney/Fox-produced Chronicles of Narnia film series.

(Before we begin, though, I should probably address the ‘elephant in the room’ that is the Narnia series’ religious subtext. This was, after all, a recurring element of C.S. Lewis’ work as he was also well-known for writing several Christian apologist novels. However, for the purpose of today’s retrospective, this aspect of the series will not be addressed in any particular manner. While this is mainly because I’m not even remotely well-versed on this topic in the first place, I also feel that bringing this sort of subject matter up could potentially turn this whole post into a much different kind of discussion.)    

THE CHRONICLES OF NARNIA: THE LION, THE WITCH AND THE WARDROBE (2005)

While it’s easy to just write it off as Disney’s attempt at replicating the massive success of the Lord of the Rings franchise, the first Chronicles of Narnia film was very much a big deal when it first came out. Speaking from experience as part of the generation that grew up with this franchise (if I’m right, this was the film that served as my family’s annual New Year’s Eve trip to the theater), this film was backed by a considerably large marketing campaign. And overall, it certainly benefitted from all that hype in the long run as it managed to become the third highest-grossing film of the year behind only Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire and Revenge of the Sith. All in all, not a bad turnout for a film that served as the live-action directorial debut of Andrew Adamson, who had only helmed a few animated films at that point (granted, those films were the hugely successful Shrek and Shrek 2, but this was still at a time before other animation directors like Brad Bird and Andrew Stanton made the transition as well). It was also notably the feature-length screenwriting debuts of Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely who, of course, would then go on to pen several key installments of a little franchise known as the Marvel Cinematic Universe. And while it may have been several years before the duo would give us the likes of Captain America: Civil War and Avengers: Endgame, this film still serves as a great example of how they’ve been able to deliver on ambitiously epic narratives. While I’ll admit that it’s been a while since I’ve read the book, it seems like the film did a solid job of adapting its source material as it properly maintains all its key moments without making a lot of significant deviations from the story to the point where it’d become a case of an ‘in name only’ adaptation. At the same time, though, the changes that it does make still feel appropriate enough in context, namely by alleviating some of the more ‘dated’ aspects of the novel (e.g. giving Susan and Lucy Pevensie larger roles in the finale rather than having them sit out on all the action).

As for the rest of the film, I’d describe it in the same way that one would describe the Lord of the Rings trilogy. Thanks to Adamson’s solid direction, the film does a wonderful job of exploring its fantastical world through the eyes of its relatable group of protagonists. The world of Narnia is brilliantly brought to life through an excellent combination of solid CGI, top-notch production design, and gorgeous cinematography to the point where the filmmakers even utilized the same breathtaking landscapes of New Zealand that heavily defined the Lord of the Rings trilogy. And just like the Lord of the Rings trilogy, this film also sports a solid cast. The lead quartet of William Moseley (Peter), Anna Popplewell (Susan), Skandar Keynes (Edmund), and Georgie Henley (Lucy) more than hold their own as the Pevensie children, but where this film’s ensemble really shines is with its supporting cast. There’s Tilda Swinton as the sinister White Witch, James McAvoy as Lucy’s friend Mr. Tumnus the faun, and Liam Neeson as the voice of Narnia’s greatest protector, Aslan the lion… and yes, that’s just to name a few. Because of all this, The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe still stands as one of the best book-to-film adaptations of its time. At the risk of overly comparing it to its competition, it’s a unique mix of the whimsical atmosphere of the Harry Potter series and the epic scale of the Lord of the Rings trilogy. Plus, regardless of its status as Disney’s attempt of capitalizing on the success of Lord of the Rings (not to mention the eventual fate of the franchise itself), the genuine faithfulness to its source material ultimately shows that this adaptation was given the respect that it deserves. And really, what better property to attempt to be the next Lord of the Rings than the series that was written by the author who arguably had the closest working relationship with J.R.R. Tolkien?

Rating: 4.5/5

THE CHRONICLES OF NARNIA: PRINCE CASPIAN (2008)

With one successful installment under its belt, the stage was set for the second Chronicles of Narnia film in 2008, which adapted the series’ second novel, 1951’s Prince Caspian… which, in some circles, is the fourth installment of the series. Yeah, if you’ll allow me to go on a brief tangent for a moment, The Chronicles of Narnia has been the source of a rather unique debate over the preferred order of its 7 installments. When Lewis first published the books in the 50’s, they weren’t specifically numbered as he wasn’t initially planning on doing any follow-ups to the first book. Thus, the series’ initial order was simply the chronological order of each book’s release; The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, Prince Caspian, the Voyage of the Dawn Treader, The Silver Chair, The Horse and His Boy, The Magician’s Nephew, and The Last Battle. However, they aren’t completely in order when it comes to the over-arching story since The Horse and His Boy takes place in-between the first two books while Magician’s Nephew serves as a prequel to the entire franchise since it delves into the origins of Narnia. Starting in 1994, however, when HarperCollins acquired the publication rights to the franchise, the books were arranged in order of the overall narrative. Supposedly, this is the order that C.S. Lewis himself preferred as evident from a letter that he wrote to a young fan who was arguing with his mother over the order that they should be read. However, it is worth noting that, in that same letter, he also stated that he felt that it ultimately didn’t matter which way the books were read. Nevertheless, the box set that I got for Christmas in 2006 in the wake of the first film’s release was ordered by the in-universe chronology… which I’ll admit made things a little confusing when I was younger since the film series opted to go for Lewis’ original order of publication, which wasn’t exactly something that I was fully aware of back then. Nowadays, though, I’d say that I’m primarily in favor of the series’ publication order, which was the appropriate route for the films to go since it helps them avoid the problem of the lead actors outgrowing their roles.

Anyway, the core cast and crew of the first film (save for a different cinematographer) returned for the sequel which, upon its release, got a lot of attention for being a much darker film in terms of its tone. Much of this is due to the Pevensies learning that, while it’s been a year since they last traveled to Narnia, over 1,300 years have passed within Narnia itself. Thus, apart from Aslan (who doesn’t properly show up until the end of the film), all their old friends are gone and much of Narnia has been taken over by a race of humans known as the Telmarines. With the kingdom now under the control of the sinister King Miraz, the Pevensies team up with Miraz’s nephew, the titular Prince Caspian, to save Narnia from this new threat. But while this darker tone proved to be a source of contention amongst critics, I’d say that the film handles this transition rather well. Sure, the greater emphasis on human antagonists does sort of make this story feel more like Game of Thrones than Chronicles of Narnia (and no, I’m not just saying that because Tyrion Lannister himself, Peter Dinklage, is in this film as Trumpkin, one of the Pevensies’ new allies), but overall, the film doesn’t stray too far from the franchise’s light-hearted roots. As dark as it does get at times, it still manages to feel like a natural follow-up to its predecessor that both appropriately raises the stakes from a story perspective and furthers the character development of the main protagonists. And while this installment does deviate further from its source material than the first film did, it only really comes in the form of an additional action sequence where the heroes try to raid Miraz’s castle and a potential romance between Susan and Caspian that’s another instance of the filmmakers’ efforts to give her a larger role in the story. Thus, under the once again solid direction of Andrew Adamson, The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian is another top-notch (and arguably a bit underrated) outing for this franchise. Looking back at it now with the benefit of hindsight, Adamson and his team deserve a lot of credit for daring to take this sequel in a darker direction, especially since we’re talking about a franchise that was still under the Disney banner at the time (though, of course, that was about to change…)

Rating: 4.5/5

THE CHRONICLES OF NARNIA: THE VOYAGE OF THE DAWN TREADER (2010)

For the third installment of the Chronicles of Narnia series, which adapted 1952’s The Voyage of the Dawn Treader, there was quite a bit of creative shake-up behind the scenes that primarily stemmed from a change in distributor. While Prince Caspian did solidly enough at the box-office, it was still seen as a commercial underperformer partially due to it being released in May instead of December, where it faced competition from the likes of Iron Man and Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. It ultimately managed to gross nearly $420 million worldwide, but while this was enough for it to finish in the Top 10 that year, it was still far from the $745 million total that its predecessor achieved. Also, it probably didn’t help that the film sported a far bigger budget at around $225 million. Thus, Disney and Walden Media ended up in a dispute over the third film’s budget, with the former wanting to keep it at $100 million for fear of it going over-budget during filming while the latter requested $140 million, which Disney would’ve only had to provide half of. Ultimately, though, Disney decided to relinquish its ownership of the series, which then resulted in the film rights being picked up by 20^th Century Fox. However, it would end up being the only Narnia film that Fox produced after Walden Media’s deal with C.S. Lewis’ estate officially expired the following year. But, of course, to make this whole situation even more ironic, Disney’s purchase of 20^th Century Fox in 2019 effectively makes The Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader a Disney film after all. This film also notably saw a change in director, although Andrew Adamson did stay on as a producer. Instead, directorial duties went to Michael Apted, a longtime veteran of the film industry whose filmography includes the Loretta Lynn biopic Coal Miner’s Daughter and Pierce Brosnan’s third official outing as James Bond, 1999’s The World is Not Enough.

Overall, Apted does a solid job following in Adamson’s footsteps, thus preventing any major inconsistencies in the franchise’s overall direction. In other words, Apted properly maintains the whimsical nature of the series in an installment that is certainly not as dark and serious as its immediate predecessor. In fact, Voyage of the Dawn Treader is even more light-hearted than The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe due to its more adventure-oriented premise that doesn’t boast a single large-scale battle. And yet, despite what I said before about how I was fine with how Prince Caspian took the series in a more mature direction, I also feel that this series works just as well as a light-hearted fantasy adventure as it does as a Lord of the Rings-scale epic. In fact, I even understand why some felt that Prince Caspian’s tonal shift resulted in it lacking some of the series’ charm and how this film brought much of that back. Sure, this installment is admittedly a lot more reliant on CGI than either of its predecessors, but overall, it still does a wonderful job of maintaining the series’ knack for incredibly delightful production design. And while this is ultimately the most blatant case of Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely having to stray from the source material to adapt this installment to film, it ultimately feels appropriate in this case given the episodic nature of the book. In fact, the film even manages to get by with a shorter runtime of under two hours whereas the first two films were both two and a half hours long. And so, with all this in mind, I must say that I’m wholly impressed with how much I liked Voyage of the Dawn Treader since, full disclosure, this was the only installment of the Chronicles of Narnia series that I didn’t see in theaters since this was at a point where I admittedly didn’t go to see as many family films as I used to when I was younger. But while I may not have the same history with this film that I have with the other two Narnia films, Voyage of the Dawn Treader is a pleasantly easygoing and predominately uncynical follow-up that continues to thoroughly maintain the best parts of this franchise. And while it’s sad that this was ultimately as far as the film series got when it came to adapting the series, the way in which it ends does inadvertently manage to deliver a fitting send-off for this interpretation of the series since the book was the last main installment to focus specifically on the Pevensie children.

Rating: 4/5

And that concludes this retrospective on the Chronicles of Narnia film series. As always, thanks for following along and be sure to sound off in the comments below with your own memories of this ambitious epic of a franchise.