TrueJoshNight Truly Dreadful Film

MusicChat It's complicated... I really like the directing, acting and writing but, there are issues with the way it's shot that I just can't deny. As much as I love the storytelling and the fantastic performance but, there are also certain scenes that didn't need to exist.

Casey Duggan It’s sentimental, ridiculously long and only occasionally funny

Roxie The thing I enjoyed most about the film is the fact that it doesn't shy away from being a super-sized-cliche;

Rainey Dawn I was 7 when this film came on television so I was able to watch it when it first aired. I recall falling deeply in love with this fantasy story as a child and was given the entire 7 book collection as a gift. Needless to say, I read the entire collection because of my love for this made-for-TV Movie. I do not personally have the books but the are still in the family.This old TV film is a good watch but I will admit that it is not perfect yet it is a good classic TV film for kids and adults alike.If you liked the older animated dramas like "The Hobbit (TV Movie 1977)", "The Black Cauldron", "The Secret of NIMH" or "The Last Unicorn" then you might like this TV movie classic The Lion, the Witch & the Wardrobe (1979).9/10

emasterslake I love the book so much I watch this movie afterwords. Almost has the same flow as the book, except with some slight changes that made it inferior towards the book.The adoptions made after this one were actually better to watch. Cause the successors were much more faithful to the original story.Not saying that this one was terrible, it just felt like seeing an altered version of the book in animated form. And the story was so perfect that leaving out some of the key points wouldn't do justice to die hard Narnia fans like me. The animation shows it's age, and can tell it was low budget. If an animated version of the book were made today it would look a little smoother. I love 2-D animation as well as live action for when it comes to book adoptions.If you're a fan of the book, you might check this movie out. Except don't expect it to be a magnificent as it's successors.

clck2001 This one is even superior to the 1988 BBC TV presentation, which was dull in story, shoddy in effects, less-than-mediocre casting, and horrible action. But I do wish the animation was better. However, the animators did do good on the expressions of the characters. Just as with the 2005 version, everything was as I had imagined, it's just that this was an animated feature, and that was a live action feature. That is the only difference. Some people might wonder why the only thing I dislike about it is the animation, and say that I should have given it a higher rating, since that was the only thing wrong with it. WRONG! With animated films, it is always very complicated to try to understand how to write a review on them. The animation in movies that are animated all the way through should at least mean something when you review them. With movies that are animated at only some parts, this opinion should not be used as much, because, more than likely, there is more live-action in the movie than there is animation.

Dengar To the reviewer who argued that this animated feature does not capture the essence of the novel, I must say I am astounded at such a claim. I must say I have never seen a better translation of spirit from page to screen, and it is a shame this film was not theatrically released, and more well-known. When I saw the BBC production, I was horrified. Not because of the production value (I rather prefer lower-budget, more theatrical presentations), but due to the poor and often outright terrible acting, as well as the very bad choices in handling the material.Case in point was the six-foot tall man, and five-foot tall woman, in beaver costumes with the faces cut out! Why not be more realistic by having actual beavers in the shots? I am not saying they should have pulled a "Mr. Ed" and inserted footage of animals eating, with looped dialogue, but just to show the real animals, and have their voices spoken almost by telepathy would be much preferred, if not more faithful to the novel's depictions. I must say as it was, I could not help but be half-disgusted, half rolling in the floor laughing at that choice of production design.Also, why did the filmmakers go out on a limb to invent new scenes for the film that were not in the novel? Those additions only served to water down the source material, and give it a plodding, dull feeling. Did the screenwriter really feel it necessary to take an hour-and-a-half long story, and double it to three hours running length? That must have been a mandate from the BBC, just so they could use up an extra hour-and-a-half worth of airtime they know would be heavily watched. And as for the lack of Christian allegory the other reviewer mentioned, I must say again I am shocked. In my opinion the BBC version was the one that glossed over this aspect, while the animated one almost hits you over the head with it. Not that I am complaining, because I find this particular allegory the best ever produced in a narrative form, excepting maybe The Green Mile, but I am just arguing that due to the inflections of speech, compositions of shots, et cetera, this animated film definitely delivered allegorically. Even at the age of 10 when I first viewed this, I could not miss this point. I hope that everyone looking to give this story a try in screen form will look to the animated version first and foremost. The BBC versions are a curiosity at best. Now, if only the 1960's television version would surface somewhere...