Cubussoli Very very predictable, including the post credit scene !!!

Nayan Gough A great movie, one of the best of this year. There was a bit of confusion at one point in the plot, but nothing serious.

Deanna There are moments in this movie where the great movie it could've been peek out... They're fleeting, here, but they're worth savoring, and they happen often enough to make it worth your while.

Rexanne It’s sentimental, ridiculously long and only occasionally funny

Bonnie O'Connor The Silver Chair is one of my favorite stories of the Narnia series. The messages are powerful, the adventures are intense, and the ending bitter-sweet (and desirable). Mostly it's about Jill and Eustace being called out of their world, and with the help of a marshwiggle called Puddleglum, they go to find a lost Narnian prince who is being held captive by the Lady of the Green Kirtle (also known as the Queen of the Underland). Along the way they encounter giants, unfriendly weathers, and underground creatures. The plot sounds great, but the movie couldn't quite live up to the intenseness of the story. I don't blame the directors or writers, especially since there was not much CGI back then, so everyone had to dress in animal costumes, use a robotic lion for Aslan, and the special effects for the giants vs the main characters was not the best. The robotic Aslan looked very very awkward. Whenever it talked its jaw would drop at the wrong times, it barely ever sat or lay down, and the character (compared to the first movie) always seemed angry. Sure he's considered to not be a tame lion, but he wasn't always angry, but neither was he always pleased with everything. Maybe I'm just being picky, but I feel more of his anger than kindness or compassion.The only other thing that bothers me is the cheesy acting. I would have to say that Puddleglum and Prince Rillian are the only characters I enjoy who aren't over acting, but the rest of the actors make no sense in their acting. Take for example at the beginning when the bullies are "picking' on Jill, all they're doing is cornering her and yelling her last name, "Pole! Pole! Pole!" What are they making fun of? Are they making fun of her name being the same as a telephone pole? And when they're chasing her, what's the purpose? Do they just want to continue shouting Pole at her? That's one of many parts that always confused me. But the only overacting to rival all of them is the Lady of the Green Kirtle herself. It's Barbara Kellerman; and we've already seen her as the overacting White Witch and the Hag from the previous films, so she's pretty much not playing a different role. I would have liked it better if the directors got someone else for the part, but I guess there was a low budget, so I'll let that pass. However, what I won't let pass is that she's way over the top in her acting and being over dramatic. It almost felt as if she thought that the only way anybody would get the idea of how evil her character was, was for her to go over the top in her monologues, screaming, run around a lot, and change her voice around from deep and angry to sweet and soft. True that's what she does in the book, but she had a way of containing her wrath by being calm and cool until she couldn't at the very end. In the movie she goes in and out of frustration and sweetness making me confused.I occasionally watch it, but I still think that it's a bit cheesy and could have been better improved (at least in the acting if not in the special effects).

Fanny Love When I was growing up in rural Texas, The Silver Chair was the first book I ever read at the age of 7. It is a beautiful story in so many ways. It has a special place in my heart and I've re-read it continuously throughout the years, and now I'm a full-grown woman and I still like to dip in.I'm not going to write too in-depth a review only to say this BBC Network version of The Silver Chair is frankly awful. As I've read the book so many times I know the storyline inside out, but if I was watching this film for the very first time, with no knowledge of the storyline or the characters, the film version would be virtually unfathomable.The acting, particularly that of Camilla Power (Jill Pole) and David Thwaites (Eustace Scrubb) was awful: very wooden, very over-the-top and completely unconvincing.The voices used for the owls and the owl costumes looked like someone had gone to the nearest thrift/charity shop and bought a jumble of clothes, and the voices sounded like Cockney accents or at best ordinary English accents with no attempt to sound owlish or Narnian (whatever that is).I suppose the standout performance was that of Puddleglum (played by Tom Baker, formerly Dr Who). Puddleglum is one of the most interesting and odd characters, for he is a Marshwiggle, lives in a wigwam on an island in the marshes surrounded by rivers and other remote wigwams, he eats thick, black eel stew and smokes strange black tobacco in a long pipe, has webbed feet and a green tinge to his hands and face. But he is a sage character and the children's protector.The special effects are particularly bad too: take the moment when the gate at Experiment House is opened and does not reveal bare moorland as they expected by a portal into another world. When the children go through the door, it looks like a cheap bit of film-splicing has taken place; there's certainly no feeling of visual magic despite the fact that something magical is supposedly happening. The part where both Jill and Eustace are blown by Aslan into Narnia look awful and very poorly produced; same for when they are climbing up the Giant's bridge over the chasm.The bullying scenes at the beginning just seem very odd too. The bullies just shouting "Pole! Pole! Pole!" and nothing else; there's no obvious reason given for the bullying, or why Eustace too is hiding in the glasshouse. At this early stage, the dialogue moves too quickly attempting to follow the narrative in the book but not enough is explained which would confuse the first-time viewer. The film attempts to follow the book verbatim at some points, whilst at others it takes extraordinary leaps and misses large portions, resulting in a fragmented mish-mash which actually does not make sense (unless you have read the book many times, as I have).The characterisation of both Jill and Eustace is very poor too: they bawl at each other, in the heat of rage, and then seconds later are completely different in mood and character. They're very trite characters, selfish and given to tantrums and over-the-top exclamations ("That's the most DEEELLLLICCCIIIOOOUUUUSSSSS stew I've ever eaten" and "It's the purest water I've ever tasted" and "Oh dry up will you".) This does not follow through well. They're not really likable characters, coming across as spoilt brats and both actor's verbal delivery is jarring, what's spoken is over-the-top and wholly unrealistic. They sound like young children trying to play well-informed, worldly-wise, educated adults. I suppose they were fairly young when they acted in this. But the effect just spoils the whole thing.The film locations - Haddon Hall, Derbyshire and the Peak District, England - are beautiful and look good on screen, although again, continuity is bad: when they embark on their journey from the Marshwiggle's wigwam Puddleglum mentions something about the start of winter fast approaching, but we shortly see the trio crossing a bleak moorland in the blaze of summer (you can see the heat haze on film). Twenty minutes or so later, when Jill falls into the giant letter E of the inscription UNDER ME, it's snowing.I've seen a lot of BBC productions and they're usually highly polished and exceptional pieces of work. This is just so bad in many ways and it's a shame that it's currently the only film version of such a great book. At a running time of almost 2 hours 40 mins, even for an ardent fan of the book such as myself, it is a trial to sit through the whole thing.

Dr Jacques COULARDEAU This collection gives us the complete set of the BCC adaptations of the Narnia novels by C.S. Lewis in three miniseries of six episodes each, plus some extras. The first is "The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe" (1988) about the city Wardrobe in the country Spare Room. The second (1989) brings together "Prince Caspian" (two episodes) and "The Voyage of the Dawn Treader" (four episodes). The third concerns "The Silver Chair" (1990).The first adaptation sets the tone and the main characters. The tone is that of the novel and it is done for children. It sounds slightly naïve at times because the storyteller is no longer constantly present and is not C.S. Lewis at all when there is a voice over. The regular "we" or "this world" or even the "lions of Trafalgar Square", meaning the real world, addressing the children's audience from an external adult point of view, reminding us of the fact that this is all a story, disappear and I think it is a loss.The second adaptation makes two full novels into one story with a shift from the first one to the second that is at least abrupt and the packing up of the two in six episodes makes psychological details and descriptive details scanty. The story becomes a story line more than a fully developed story. The dragon though is a good nice creation, and that was necessary since it was an essential element and it had to fly properly, which is not the case with other flying animals, particularly Aslan. They are mostly simple and stiff. It keeps the story of the Dawn Treader the way it is in the novel and the end is the real end including the final pilgrimage of the mouse Reepicheep and the return of the children. It is a lot more respectful of the spirit of the story than the ending of the recent long feature that can be seen in cinemas.The last adaptation gives details and the witch is a marvel though her becoming a serpent and being killed is less impressive since no green blood is shed and only Prince Rilian takes part in that execution. Eustace and Puddleglum taking part is nice but in the novel. The escape from the underground city does not try to explain the even deeper world of fire and incandescence into which all the gnomic slaves of the witch jump back happily. I miss the big celebration outside the hole from which they extract themselves, with fauns, dryads, satyrs and dwarfs all dancing together. But well at least they keep the details of King Caspian X's death and his resurrection in Aslan's country though they soften the harsh commentary of C.S. Lewis on the English school system and the incompetence of school principals and inspectors, or MPs.But these adaptations are interesting nevertheless. They insist on the fact these stories are not heroic fantasy but only children's literature. That is important because then the values that are presented in the films are pedagogical and not only entertaining. It is also important because it avoids, like the books, any subject that is not childlike or child-friendly. No love is wasted on anyone and even friendship is rather kept lily pure. No kissing, please, we're British.Ut also defends the basic humanistic values of the books in fair contrast with the the world at the time or the literature of Lewis's time. A fair and clear condemnation of slavery and the exploitation of animals. But since the novel "The Boy and His Horse" is not there the rejection of political totalitarianism is absent. The allusion to the usurping uncle in Prince Caspian is by far not enough. Lewis's books are deeply committed to a democratic system. The films are far from being as clear as that. Calormenes are absent for example.The films are also a lot less clear than the books that only people having some human blood can rule Narnia, including the White Witch of the first film who is a descendant of Adam, mixed with other bloods, including jinn blood from the sexual partner Adam had to procreate that line of descent. The absence of "The Boy and His Horse" also deprives us of the description of the four initial human kings and queens of Narnia, including Queen Suzan who is definitely not served very fairly.But for me the main absence is in fact "The Last Battle" because it reveals two essential things in these seven novels: the idea that all worlds have a beginning and an end, including Narnia, that this end can only come from both inner strife, invasion and political manipulation of the masses that are shown as basically easy to manipulate into divisions or obeying absurd commands. The masses make history but only when some individuals and foreign forces join their efforts to conquer the minds and imagination of these masses.This last novel was Lewis's testament and he showed in it that he did not really believe in democracy, i.e. the power of the people, for the people and by the people, because he did not trust any politicians but preferred an aristocratic monarchy in which kings and queens are of a different sort from the people and the masses. The main difference between Calormenes and Narnians is that The Calormene "master" (who is a Calormene by genetic birth) governs Calormenes as slaves, with a very narrow aristocracy, and the Narnian "king (genetically different from all Narnians by at least some human genes) grants them freedom and diversity.To avoid in anyway the bleak atmosphere of "The Lord of the Rings" or "The Time Machine" they produced a brave new world that lacked most of its pith and marrow. The series are interesting but only as entertainment for children and they lose the pedagogical dimension the books constantly keep.Dr Jacques COULARDEAU

Mr__Underhill I agree that this last in the series was an improvement over the others, though still a bit slow moving. I bought the DVD mainly because it had Tom Baker in it. He seems a bit uncomfortable in the role at first, but gradually sinks into it. The trouble is that Baker's version of "the Doctor" in Doctor Who was so upbeat that when attempting to play the glum Puddleglum, I actually caught him suppressing the big toothy smile that he is famous for. His frog-like frown worked very well, though it took him a while to integrate the glumness naturally into his speaking performance. There are actually two others that I think could play that role quite nicely. One is Ozzy Osbourne. The other is Joey Ramone of the Ramones(though he passed away a while back).I would also like to comment on one other note that others have ignored so far. While C.S. Lewis intended the books to have a Christian message, he at least had the decency to be subtler in execution so that more general audiences could enjoy the books. The BCC films, on the other hand are as subtle as a New Testament smacked across your forehead.Just out of curiosity I checked the original ending of Silver Chair against the film, and I was correct in my guess that the screenwriter had changed it. The book does NOT include Aslan's ending line from the film where he says that he also exists in the human world, but that the kids MUST learn his "other name."There wasn't a moment in the series where the screenwriter didn't go out of his way to remind adult viewers that this is about Jesus, and not magic as would be the case with a movie like Harry Potter or Willie Wonka and the Chocolate Factory. The nice thing about Lord of the Rings is that I could just sit back and enjoy it as a story without feeling preached at. Sometimes the Narnia books did that, but the BBC films boiled too much of it down to the preaching.