Kidskycom It's funny watching the elements come together in this complicated scam. On one hand, the set-up isn't quite as complex as it seems, but there's an easy sense of fun in every exchange.

Helloturia I have absolutely never seen anything like this movie before. You have to see this movie.

Humaira Grant It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.

Mischa Redfern I didn’t really have many expectations going into the movie (good or bad), but I actually really enjoyed it. I really liked the characters and the banter between them.

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.

de_niro_2001 C S Lewis died the day before the first ever episode of Dr Who was broadcast and like Dr Who this version of The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe has excellent production values but low budget special effects. I think the animatronic of Aslan must have absorbed quite a lot of the special effects budget. The two-dimensional animations of the various creatures contrasting with the three-dimensional Aslan mar the impact of an otherwise good production as do the rather humanoid beavers and wolves. But Barbara Kellerman is every bit as good as Tilda Swinton and the four child actors playing the Pevensie children are excellent. Thanks to the films of more recent years and a DVD promotion by the Daily Mail this BBC version of the second Narnia book will have gained a new following. It might lack the special effects and spectacular New Zealand locations of the 2005 film but I still recommend it highly.

freemantle_uk The Chronicles of Narnia has had an enduring nature, entertaining children and adults alike. There has been adaptations of it's most famous book, The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe, from a rubbish animated movie in the 70s to Disney's fine blockbuster effort. One of the best known version is the BBC version from the 80s.Told in six 30 minutes episodes, The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe tells the story of four children, brothers and sisters, Peter (Richard Dempsey), Susan (Sophie Cook), Edmund (Jonathan R. Scott) and Lucy (Sophie Wilcox), who have been evacuated to the countryside from wartime London. In the mansion of the professor where they are find a wardrobe which leads to a magical world, Narnia. But Narnia is under the tyrannical rule of the White Witch (Barbara Kellerman), keeping the land in a state of permanent winter. There is a prophecy that four humans would save Narnia, but Edmund is taken in by the White Witch's promises, and its up to Aslan (Ronald Pickup) to guide the children.A clear comparison is with the Disney version, and like say an adaption of play, where different people can make two very different versions of the same material. Whilst Disney and it's director Andrew Adamson had access to a multi-million dollar budget and made their version a large-scale epic, the BBC and Marilyn Fox had much less to work with. Because of this the BBC made a more low key version, and their version make the children younger, like in the book. The BBC does not flag up the action element, and tires to give a more low key tone. This version has the major religious films of betrayal and redemption, well handed by Fox. Edmund is shown to be more naive and lying to himself about his betrayal, then in the Disney version where he was the more angry younger brother. Fox has a different style to Adamson, and its shown with small things like Edmund debating his conscience, and Maugrim voice-over when the children read his notice. These difference don't make either version better or worse then the other.This version casted more nature looking children in the main roles. Peter and Edmund just looked like normal boys, Susan had a natural pretty look, whilst Lucy was shall we say, not the most photogenic child in the world. Sadly these child actors were lacking and were not that convicting, with Sophie Cook offering the best performance. The best actor in the TV serial was from Barbara Kellerman who just oozed evil in her show stealing performance as the White Witch.Because the BBC had a limited budget and it was filmed in the 80s, the special effects are awful. Their is a limited scale, and some thinks looked daft, like the Beaver costumes, and the usual of animation, with some silly designs, like some sort of winged four legged creature with a roster head. But the costume for Aslan did at least look better and more like a real lion.The BBC gives The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe a quaint claim and is worth watching for younger viewers, but don't expert an action packed adventure.

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.