KnotStronger This is a must-see and one of the best documentaries - and films - of this year.

pointyfilippa The movie runs out of plot and jokes well before the end of a two-hour running time, long for a light comedy.

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

Taha Avalos The best films of this genre always show a path and provide a takeaway for being a better person.

nzswanny Although the special effects are a lot better in the new one, this one still succeeds in being the better film. Made on a small budget, this film/serial captures the tone and magnificence of the book perfectly, while the 2005 one, made on a much bigger budget, destroys the tone and magnificence of the book and instead focuses itself on being a blockbuster action movie with explosions every second. One big problem that changes the tone in the 2005 one is the soundtrack. Here, in this 1988 version, we get a magnificent, memorable soundtrack, composed by the great but unknown Geoffrey Burgon, who sadly passed away seven years ago. In the 2005 one, we get an unmemorable soundtrack that is over the top, clichéd, loud, blaring and annoying. They also overuse the soundtrack in the 2005 movie. There's basically a unmemorable, over the top, clichéd, loud, blaring, annoying song every two minutes in the 2005 one. This 1988 one, however, uses it's music carefully, not making the soundtrack over the top. You'll have to listen to it to understand, but it fits the tone perfectly, because it's wonderful and not clichéd, with a perfect volume.Another thing that this film is great at is pacing. The pacing was perfect, and so was the timing of the music. The music was played in the background at the right times, without making the scene over the top. There was also some character development in this version, believe it or not. The 2005 one, however, almost has close to none, and you don't really care for the characters because of it. In fact, I kind of wanted the White Witch to kill off the main characters in the 2005 one. In this version however, you'll see why the White Witch is so bad.I also love the subtle dark tone in this version. The other one tries to be dark, but fails miserably. You understand the pain and the suffering of the people in Narnia in this version, but in the 2005 version, the reason isn't cared about enough. Instead, the filmmakers of the 2005 one care about making big bucks at the box office by making ground breaking action scenes. Truth be told, the action scenes aren't very good in the 1988 one, but trust me, if you sit down and watch the 1988 one instead of complaining about the special effects and stuffing popcorn into your mouth, you'll love the film.Also, notice how this movie, the CHEAPER movie, feels more like an epic than the 2005 one does? IF you haven't seen this version yet, watch it, compare the two, and you'll see how by your own eyes. No explanation is needed for that once you see.Oh, and I LOVED the White Witch in this version! The 2005 one actually had a decent White Witch, but this one is by far, the best. So is the version of Lucy in this one, she is adorable, always smiles in this one and behaves exactly like the one in the book. The 2005 Lucy may as well be renamed, as her personality is completely different. I thought the actor for Lucy in the 2005 one wasn't too good at her job, either.To be honest, I liked the bad special effects in this version. It made a sort of tone to the movie that fitted the book that I can't describe. That may sound weird, but once you watch this, you should understand.Overall, if you prefer Michael Bay from Ingmar Bergman, go watch the 2005 one. If you prefer Ingmar Bergman, go watch this one. You will not regret it. I rate it a 9.9/10.

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.

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

adamaaronallen This BBC Production is one that i have truly fond memories of watching,when i was a child. It is still i believe to be the Best production of C S Lewis's book that exists today. (dare i say better than the new film ) This now classic version will still enchant young people and adults alike for many more years to come. Barbara Kellerman a fine actress.Plays the white witch just as i imagined her to be in the book.And i find the over all innocence of the film all the more endearing. The special effects are indeed special (considering the fact that this was a fairly low budget production) However there is nothing cheap about this production.All in all,this is a great series well worth the watch! The story is a moral and good one,that encourages friendship and loyalty. and is also one of those films that as one watches one is filed with excitement and the desire to go on a great adventure. And so to conclude,i would say this is a remarkable film. which still looks pretty good. if you are willing to over look the fact that the story comes before the special effects. I am sure it will continue to inspire many for years to come.