The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe
The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe
| 03 November 1988 (USA)
The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe Trailers

Four kids travel to the magical land of Narnia where they must battle an evil queen with the direction of the Lion, Aslan.

Reviews
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.

... View More
pawleydeitra

This movie may have been true to the book,unfortunately that's the only thing it had going for it.The casting however was awful somehow the four young actors and actresses who were chosen to play the children were horribly miscast. The acting seemed a bit too forced at some points. Sophie Wilcox was unconvincing as Lucy(Lucy is not supposed to be ugly) Richard Dempsey who plays the oldest is shorter than Edmund. I know some people say'Oh she wasn't that bad" but in my opinion and a lot of other peoples she was awful. Though the 2005 didn't go entirely by the book,they managed to do a better job yes,they had a better budget,but the least BBC could have done was spend more time with the casting of the children because that just ruined the entire movie for me.

... View More
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.

... View More
annabaker13

Even though The 'so called' new - brilliant-wonderful-exciting film of the lion, the witch and the wardrobe has come out on DVD and has probably got quite a few votes and fans- I still say, the original will always be a winner- because for one most of the original stuck to the actual book, and didn't try to cheat. The witch in the new film is not angry enough as the other witch in the original. The wolfs didn't speak either in the original film as well. And I also don't think we wanted to see London being bombed down- as that didn't happen in the original. Also they used ordinary actors- not flashy ones who think they can out do the best, and the original film. I apologise to those who love the new film- i do love it its just that I wish they wouldn't try and out do the original- because that will be forgotten.

... View More