Salubfoto
It's an amazing and heartbreaking story.
Erica Derrick
By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.
Tymon Sutton
The acting is good, and the firecracker script has some excellent ideas.
WakenPayne
I revisited yet another adaptation of Narnia that I watched as a kid and back then I actually loved it, I mean when I saw the remake by Disney, while I also liked that I thought "What? They already have this!" but... Not to hate on this movie but looking back, I prefer the Disney version.The plot, 4 children are taken into the country in World War 2 away from London, there they go to the house of a professor and when one thing leads to another the youngest, Lucy finds a magical world inside a wardrobe but the magical world is under the tyranny of a Witch that has made the world always freezing with snow and no matter how much time is spent there, only a few seconds will go past. Once she tells them all about this they don't believe her but soon they find it under other circumstances and must rise up against the White Witch.Okay my problems, for one Barbara Kellerman. In the Silver Chair I thought she was bad but passable but HERE... Every note she hits is loud and over the top evil. She's supposed to talk Edmund into betraying his family by getting him to prefer her with sweets and offering him the position of the royal heir but when she shouts, erratically gasps and acts completely insane - the scene comes off as hilarious the first time you're watching it.What else? As I may have already brought up the effects don't really hold up, stuff like the Beavers and when there are other people pretending to be animals (except Aslan, that effect does hold up even if they make no effort to lip synch it) it really shows the limitations they had and how it doesn't really work. Because when I think Beavers I think 6 foot tall people wearing obvious prosthetics and clearly rubber gloves. That and being that around about half of it is set in woods I think the sets, while they're okay I don't buy they're in a fantasy world after the woods. With that said some do stand out as being good like the Witch's castle, Tumnus' house and the beaver's hut. Mainly my problems are stuff like Care Paravel (I haven't read the books so I don't know if I spelled that right, if I read the books and it's wrong then it will change).Now onto what I liked. I enjoyed the story, even in some areas improving on the Disney version such as playing out Aslan's sacrifice as a complete gamble, even talking out battle plans with Peter to give them the best chance of winning, and as I said for the budget, Aslan looks pretty damn good and I don't have a problem with the actors all that much, aside from the one I mentioned But easily my favourite performance in the thing goes to The Professor. I want to know his story, he clearly knows about Narnia in this version in the sense of convincing the other kids that Lucy is telling the truth and saying he was once a King there as well, I wish he had more screen time as well. I also liked the 2D animation. It gives it it's own style that I think existed before the days of CGI.So in terms of watching it... I'd say it has more then it's fair share of problems but I'd say it can be worth it. As I said I do like the story and while I may be seen as unfair to the effects and sets I acknowledge there are some that are really good. I'd say it is worth it to fans of the source material and as a kid this was harmless. So I'd say while I didn't really like it, I can see why some people do.
jenkinsr628
This version of the chronicles of Narnia was a TV series that was produced by the BBC and aired on television around Christmas 1988. It was directed by Marilyn Fox and produced by Paul Stone.Although the effects are not as good as they look considering most of the special effects were made from animation, there are times where the children fly which was most impressing at the time especially for BBc productions. Although this version was classed as a series it was later put together to be known as a 2 hour long film and was put onto video cassette classed as a film, however later DVD releases of the production were separated back out as as a TV series and the DVD contained it all but in episodes as a series. It won the BAFTA Award for "Best Video Lighting" in 1988. In the snow scenes the children were so cold that even the boys wore tights under their sorts and socks and they wore hot water bottles and teabags apparently?The witches costume was made from pure nylon and on a TV breakfast show Barbara Kellerman who played the witch actually said that the beautiful coat she wore was actually made from pure nylon and that she was absolutely freezing during her performance, but she still managed to uphold a fantastic performance as the wicked white witch.After the lion ,the witch and the wardrobe BBC released from 1989-1990 the next narnia stories including prince Caspian,the voyage of the dawn treader and the silver chair.Actors and acteress' who appeared in more than one narnia were mainly Ronald Pickup who played the voice of Aslan in all 4, Ailsa Berk and William Todd Jones who play in all 4 the body of Aslan and Barbara Kellerman who played the white witch,the hag in prince Caspian and the lady of the green kirtle in the silver chair.Although there has been many video releases of this version classed as a film , this version of the lion,the witch and the wardrobe will always be a TV series by BBC television!!
jmoney1863
The BBC version done in 1988 which I remember watching as a child on PBS. This version was done in the days before the CGI computers and when you had to use live actions and costumed characters to do this version. There is more in the 171 minutes and more dialoge than in the newer versions. There were three of these done including Prince Caspian and The Silver Chair. I view these versions as closer to a stage play and nearer to the book than other versions. I like what has been done with CGI, but they are too short and leave out important items for those of us who have read the books. If you get a chance to see this version it is worth checking out. Thank you.
brodyboys
I saw this movie when I was in 4th grade. For a 1988 movie, it's more like a 1970 movie, like a "Monty Python and the Holy Grail" type of quality. (MPATHG was GOOD though.) Heres why I was so disappointed in this movie: Our class had just read the book, and was incredibly excited to see what the movie would be like. I expected a movie that really showed the book at its best. What we got was a movie that was not only stupid, but had horrible acting and visuals, and I knew it was an old movie! Before I saw this IMDb page, I thought the movie was made in 1970! The acting was horrible, especially by the character who played Lucy. Not only was she not right for the part, she was WAY too old to be placed as the youngest kid. Almost all of the acting in this sucked, and I expected at least decent acting.The visuals were what I thought were 1970 material, in fact, I don't recall those classic fight "Red Shade" parts in any 1970 movie I have ever seen. I understand it was 1988, but the Lion could have been a BIT better when it came to quality. all the animal parts were poorly done. Most of the scenes looked incredibly poor, like sets even I could make out of household stuff in my house. And Mr and Mrs beaver....taller than a human? Not even close to the pictures in the book.Now you may ask "Why does it get a 3 then?" well, I'll tell you....COMEDY! This movie was so stupid, there are jokes that I have remembered for years. I am in 8th grade now, and me and my friends still mock the classic "Mr. Tumnus, Mr. Tumnus!" line, and the especially mocked Mr. Beaver impression. I give it a 3 for comical purposes.
