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.

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.

The BBC adapted four of the Narnia books over the course of three epic-length miniseries. Each one got better than the previous installment. Here's the first in my three-part review of each: THE LION, THE WITCH, AND THE WARDROBE Definitely the weakest, despite easily being the one most regularly seen, due to the popularity of the book. Sadly, the superior Walden Media version has now made this one completely obsolete, except maybe for some nostalgia value.Okay, there're some good things: the musical score is very gentle and pretty, Ronald Pickup has a great presence as the voice of Aslan, and the series is very faithful to the book, bringing just about every single scene and line of dialogue to the screen. Each of these positive attributes carried over into the later BBC entries.The production value being what it is, you eventually forgive them the quality of the visual effects (most notably the fake-looking Aslan, the Beavers whose suits don't look anything like beavers, and the cartoon characters that populate Narnia with the rest of the gang).The series makes up for this with acting, and Edmund and Mr. Tumnus in particular are very good. In fact, I know a large number feel the original Edmund is superior to Skandar Keynes. But there're two clunkers. First is the White Witch; Barbara Kellerman does not how to do anything but overact, and every single line is screamed. "We shall sneak up suddenly and BUST UPON THEM!" Or how about: "Come to me, all EVIL!!!!" The campiness of that line's delivery should go down in history with "No wire hangers, ever!" from Mommie, Dearest.And then there's Lucy. Almost everyone I meet who brings up this version always says: "Remember the fat girl that played Lucy?" I think the problem with the actress isn't just that she's chubby and buck-toothed; she just has a bossy attitude that comes through in the character people don't like. And she's WAY too old for the role. Lucy's supposed to be like 8 or 9, and she looked 12.Finally, the entire series is extremely slow-paced. I realize most BBC productions tend to be this way so that they can be extremely faithful to the source material, but I think 3 hours is just a lot for a relatively short book. Many scenes drag.WEAKEST MOMENT: Each of the BBC entries has one scene that is laughably bad. In the case of LWW, it is when Giant Rumblebuffin is fighting against cartoon goblins, and simply shakes his hands in the air like some kind of fake karate chop. Oy vey! So I don't think there's much question that LWW is the weakest of the BBC series. Fortunately, they would improve, but as far as the story of LWW goes, I doubt I will ever watch this version again, as the new one has surpassed it in every single regard, except perhaps for Edmund.Feel free to contact me for further discussion on Narnia, and check out my reviews on the two other entries.

This is one of the finest children's shows I've seen (and wonderful for adults too). I felt as if I were part of this exquisite movie and when it was over, I was so immersed and hardly realized where I was. The children are perfect - Lucy especially. And the excellent diction of all the characters makes this British movie very clear and understandable by those of us in the US who don't appreciate the beauty of the language because we don't understand the words properly spoken. The show also gives a beautiful example for our children and grandchildren. They can see that the children in this movie are often tempted just as they are, and that they are imperfect. Yet they see that they are forgiven, still loved despite their mistakes. And they present a very close, caring family even though they have differences of opinion. This is part of what makes it so special. This movie, if we watch it with the children, is an opportunity to discuss values and goals we have for them and to bring out what C.S. Lewis has so cleverly done with the story. I can't say that there were no flaws at all, but I was very disappointed in the 2005 version after this one. That version made me feel as if I were outside of the story, looking at it as one might look at a piece of art. Here I was part of the story and I really want to share it with others. It's something to watch over and over and always see something more in it. The music, too, although sparingly used, fit the scenes so well. It was beautifully done. This is a definite 10, in my estimation.