The criticisms of this BBC adaption, made as the first in what proved to be a set of four of C.S. Lewis' books are largely unfair. The budget was small - by American standards, at the time in the UK it was positively lavish - and the effect achieved given these constraints and the fact that the show is now almost 15 years old is pretty impressive. The adaption is an even-handed one, the leads are relatively engaging the animals don't look at all bad with Aslan clearly having the majority of the budget for the whole show lavished on him. Only those drunk on the slick fantasy effects of the 90's could complain. Above all Barbara Kellerman is the standout, however, as the White Witch, sending a chill into the hearts of even the most confident of seven year olds; as I was when this was first shown on British television. As far as I'm concerned the whole series was seminal. They don't make them like this anymore - though some would say thank goodness.

Narnia requires a big-budget adaption for the big screen. But until that comes along this is easily the best screen version of C.S. Lewis' best known story out there. And the music is absolutely fantastic.

I have just purchased this on DVD for my seven year old son, after I recalled watching it when it was first screened in the eighties, on the prime Sunday "teatime" spot on BBC1 in the UK. It is a typical BBC production, working with a limited budget, they manage to make a magical & intelligent interpretation of C.S. Lewis's work. The Children who play Peter, Susan, Edmund & Lucy do so with some style, Peter especially, playing his role as the older brother to perfection. Although the budget constraints do show, especially with the animation/live action mix, some of the costumes still look good even now, in this age where CGI enhancement is king. I would recommend this production to anyone, it is classic story-telling in the finest sense.

This is my absolute all time favourite film (ok- TV programme) to watch. I've bought it on DVD and as soon as I hear the opening anthem I'm taken back to being four again and sat right in front of the TV watching with excitement. Does this mean I love it so much because it's very good or just because of the nostalgia I feel? Does anyone else have TV programmes/ films that instantly take them back in time when they watch them? After I'd watched this on TV (or video I'm not sure) I remember going up to my bedroom, closing my eyes and putting my hand slowly towards the back of my wardrobe. No matter how many times I did it I'd always get to a point where I'd believe I'd got into Narnia!

This fable is wonderful. We have 4 young children: Peter(Richard Dempsey), Susan(Sophie Cook), Edmund(Jonathan R. Scott) and Lucy(Sophie Wilcox); taken from London in 1940 to avoid the onslaught of the German Luftwaffe. They arrive at an old manor house in the country where they meet a kindly old professor(Michael Aldridge). The boys aren't thrilled by the empty and damp house, but the youngest, Lucy, is enchanted. They decide to explore the grounds, but have to explore the house instead of the grounds, due to a rainstorm. Lucy discovers a large, decorative wardrobe which appears to be made out of oak or some other hardwood. She goes in and is transported to another world. A world of witches, nymphs, talking fawns and other wonders. She can't convince her brothers and sister, but eventually as they are trying to avoid the stern governess, Mrs. McCready(Maureen Morris), they follow Lucy into the world. Then the real adventure begins.

This fable is layered with metaphors and symbolism. C.S. Lewis became a dedicated Christian late in life and the symbolism in the story shows his faith, as well being a good story.

All of the young people and others portray their roles with gusto. A couple of the actors go over the top, but it adds to the story. But the one that caught my eye was young Sophie Wilcox who played Lucy. This child was so animated. The range of her emotions traveled from joy to sadness to anger and back again. Lucy was portrayed as an innocent defending her family and loyal to her friends. There was no guile in her. Then there was her brother, Jonathan R. Scott(Edmund), who betrayed the family to the "White Witch"(Barbara Kellerman), because of anger and greed. The love of his family and King Aslan(William Todd Jones) saves him.

The special affects were the affects that were popular during the late 80s. Not as spectacular as in the Harry Potter movies, but the engineering of Aslan as a large male lion was wonderful.

I'm 44 and I recommend this film to anyone who wishes to go back and relive some wonderful childhood moments.

Laura

I am frequently appalled by the denegration (from previous comments, one in particular not sure how many in total) of this series people inflict on it. It may have hand-drawn animations and really bad bluescreen composite effects and lack breathtaking special effects but thats how the 1980's were, they tried and I give them points for trying and it did seem spectacular in that era. Nowadays we have CGI SPX that kicks-ass but lets not denegrate a series because of the limitations of the period, lets appreciate it.

I remember watching this as a child and taping every single episode ofa the BBC (BBC rock for not putting advertisements in) and I was not dissapointed at all, I enjoyed this series. I still have the VHS tapes of them all and shall never record over them.

It is not to be taken too seriously, of course you can tell that some of the animals are played by people and the acting is a bit off but it is after all a children's program. Perhaps it was intentional to have the animals look so obviously like people, to symbolize the duality of men and beast, depends on your interpretation!.

This is a television series not a big budgeted movie, so considering all this, the production has done a great job in reviving the spirit of the book.

As always, movies can hardly replace the book but this one does an adequet job of it especially considering when it was made. Musical title score is above par, the sets constructed do the job and show great creativity, the great direction and crew production quality shows.

I hope they do put all of the Chronicals of Narnia TV series' on DVD (if they haven't already) to preserve its quality. I am sure there are plenty of fans out there who would buy it like me.

I do not want to go into the story (perhaps I should sometime), as with all my reviews I only comment on the impression left behind and production quality. I think children would find it most entertaining however if you do have the opportunity to watch this I suggest you do.

Final thoughts are is that it is a memorable series.

Being from America I remember this film when I was very young, honestly it was great for my young mind. Then after the movie I read all the books, great books if you haven't read them you should.

Now as a adult I see many people have never heard of the movie and when they see it they mock it, but to me its still great this is one of few movies that are remotely close to the book , I do suggest to everyone who loves the books they get this movie or rent it, give it a try. What will it hurt, not much I know. Just because its a old film doesn't mean it will suck , and just because it didn't have a big TV budget doesn't mean it will be bad.

Every child has a memory of a TV programme they watched when they were little and played it back for as long as they can remember and it always reminds them of the good times in their childhood. CS Lewis's Lion, Witch and the Wardrobe was one of them for me. I watched Rainbow, Simon and the Witch, T-Bag, Rod Hull and EMU along with Grottbags but Lion Witch and the wardrobe brings back the best.

I was never to much fussed or even liked Prince Caspian and The Silver Chair but this was a childhood masterpiece and also classic. The witch is still the most scariest thing I have ever witnessed, even in my adulthood the thought of her voice sends shivers down my spine. I always thought Aslan was a dark character as the Lion. The scene where it is night and he sends Lucy and Susan away and he lies onto the stone table awaiting the Witch to come and take his life in a bargain that she would release Edmund from her powers still keeps in my head as it was one of those famous scary scenes from kid programs.

I now have the box set of the entire films that were made and I have taken a liken to Prince Caspian but still no luck on The Silver Chair but with the movies coming along soon then I could be changed which will probably be the case as the whole thing is supposed to give Lord of the Rings a run for it's money which will be interesting to see.

Not matter how Good the new Lion, Witch and Wardrobe will be this is will always have a place in my heart for making my life as a child enjoyable one as it kept me excited every Sunday evening when they showed each episode on BBC One and I will always think of that Witch.

This series showed how a small and resourceful budget can produce the maximum feeling and atmosphere in this truly classic version. It remains, like the other dramatisations, faithful to the text, and although the special effects are cheap, remember they were state of the art in 1988 and the amazing acting from the children and Barbara Kellermann's stunningly sharp and real portrayal of the witch more than makes up for it. And by the way, unlike other reviews state, this was a series, not a movie, so isn't too long when you think about it. See it if you can, though! Truly classic version.

Disney's upcoming movie is certainly an exciting prospect; I know it will be excellent since WETA is involved. (They did all of the Lord of the Rings props and costumes and more.) Many of us who look forward to the 2005 film fondly remember growing up with the BBC "WonderWorks" version from 1988. The best way to watch this movie is: not after Lord of the Rings. I mean it. You are spoiling it for yourself if you go into it expecting too much.

The worst thing about this film is definitely the effects. Most of them you can move beyond if you try to have a pre-Toy-Story-revolutionized-world attitude. The worst thing for me was the green-screen flying sequence. Even with an open mind, that one's tough.

Aslan actually looks pretty lion-ey until he talks, then you have to try to concentrate anywhere but his mouth. Anyone remember "Wishbone," the PBS beagle-mutt who took us all on adventures in classic literature? His mouth didn't move at all, and by the third or fourth episode, you believed it without a problem. If you have patience, Aslan gets better as the movie progresses. He falls a little short of "majestic," but the Stone Table scene had me in tears even when I was past the cry-in-Free-Willy age. (The Beavers also take a little imagination -- but come on, it was 1988... how else do you do a Beaver who talks and acts?

Those few less-than-stellar aspects aside, this movie was fantastically done. The acting was definitely the strongest point. The Professor was hands-down the best character as far as performance goes, though he was in it little, but the others were all good too. Barbara Kellerman as the White Witch was excellent as well; I think that of all the comparisons between this film and the upcoming version, the White Witch will be the hardest for me to accept. I mean sure, they can beat the all technical stuff without any effort at all, but can the new White Witch be quite as regally evil? We'll see. The four children are very naturally good, they act just like four young British children who come upon such and adventure would act. (Which is a much bigger accomplishment than it sounds, and not all that common. Can anyone say nine-year-old Anakin Skywalker?)

Also, the script is taken from the book nearly verbatim, which gives is much credibility. Anyone who feels the need to improve upon C.S. Lewis loses a few points in my book.

Long story short, if you have the ability to forget you've seen computer-animated creatures interact flawlessly with live action, and you can use your imagination a little, then you will enjoy this beautifully crafted tale. Although, I do recommend trying to see it BEFORE you catch Disney's in December. :-D

For those of you who are interested in big budget films and/or today's standard of special effects, you will be very disappointed. Other than the low budget that was spent on this film, this is a wonderful adaption of C.S. Lewis's classic novel. The story takes us through the main plot of the book where Peter, Edmund, Susan, and Lucy are sent to a distant land to escape the danger and havoc of WW2. While living with an old professor they soon discover a wardrobe that takes them to the magical world of Narnia. There they face off against the White Witch with the help of different magical creatures and animal friends(and of course the king- Aslan). However repetitive this statement is, it is completely true, The movie takes you back to your childhood. This movie is full of substance and the great storyline will make you over look any faults in the special effects. Yet if somehow you are disappointed in the cinematography, just remember. This movie was made in the 80's!!!!!!!

So the BBC did not have a multi-million dollar budget. In fact, I doubt it even had a million dollars on its hands to make this movie. People who need an action scene to be entertained will not enjoy this movie. But any Narnia aficionado would be proud to call this 1988 edition of The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe the TRUE adaptation of Lewis' masterpiece as opposed to the cheesy & flashy one that was released in 2005.

C.S. Lewis was clearly a genius; the producer of the 1988 film obviously recognized this and chose to keep the script of the movie as faithful to the text itself as humanly possible. The producers of the 2005 movie, however, clearly thought that they could come up with something better than his words. Guess what? They were wrong.

The criticism of Sophie Wilcox that runs rampant on this site is vomit-inducing. Young Sophie portrayed the role of Lucy with poise and grace, and she delivered each line with the ability of an Academy Award winning actress. All of the comments about her buck teeth and weight are simply not necessary; Wilcox has overcome her awkward preadolescent years and emerged into a beautiful butterfly (check her resume and pictures on google).

While there may be some merit to the comments about the cartoon drawn animals and "subpar" acting of other members of the cast, I think it is the imperfections of the movie itself that make it so worth watching. For without the random yelping of Richard Dempsey (Peter) and awkward pauses between scenes, this movie would not provide the comedy or family fun that many seek when renting a film.

Overall, this movie deserves a 10 out of 10 for its genuine acting, great story, and comedic relief.

Wow what a great movie. Disney's upcoming movie is certainly an exciting prospect; I know it will be excellent since WETA is involved. (They did all of the Lord of the Rings props and costumes and more.) Many of us who look forward to the 2005 film fondly remember growing up with the BBC "WonderWorks" version from 1988. The best way to watch this movie is: not after Lord of the Rings. I mean it. You are spoiling it for yourself if you go into it expecting too much.

The worst thing about this film is definitely the effects. Most of them you can move beyond if you try to have a pre-Toy-Story-revolutionized-world attitude. The worst thing for me was the green-screen flying sequence. Even with an open mind, that one's tough.

Aslan actually looks pretty lion-ey until he talks, then you have to try to concentrate anywhere but his mouth. Anyone remember "Wishbone," the PBS beagle-mutt who took us all on adventures in classic literature? His mouth didn't move at all, and by the third or fourth episode, you believed it without a problem. If you have patience, Aslan gets better as the movie progresses. He falls a little short of "majestic," but the Stone Table scene had me in tears even when I was past the cry-in-Free-Willy age. (The Beavers also take a little imagination -- but come on, it was 1988... how else do you do a Beaver who talks and acts? Those few less-than-stellar aspects aside, this movie was fantastically done. The acting was definitely the strongest point. The Professor was hands-down the best character as far as performance goes, though he was in it little, but the others were all good too. Barbara Kellerman as the White Witch was excellent as well; I think that of all the comparisons between this film and the upcoming version, the White Witch will be the hardest for me to accept. I mean sure, they can beat the all technical stuff without any effort at all, but can the new White Witch be quite as regally evil? We'll see. The four children are very naturally good, they act just like four young British children who come upon such and adventure would act. (Which is a much bigger accomplishment than it sounds, and not all that common. Can anyone say nine-year-old Anakin Skywalker?) Also, the script is taken from the book nearly verbatim, which gives is much credibility. Anyone who feels the need to improve upon C.S. Lewis loses a few points in my book.

Long story short, if you have the ability to forget you've seen computer-animated creatures interact flawlessly with live action, and you can use your imagination a little, then you will enjoy this beautifully crafted tale. Although, I do recommend trying to see it BEFORE you catch Disney's in December.

I have the videos of the early Chronicles of Narnia movies and I love all of them. I only wish the rest of the Narnia books had been made into movies. I just saw the new 2005 Narnia movie and it's OK, but to me it's not as good as the '88-90 movies. The witch in the '88 movie is wonderful, very evil and scary, but yet beautiful at the same time. I love the way all the animals were done in the early movies. The costumes really showed a great deal of imagination and detail. I also like the way the early movies stayed so close to the original books. The choice of actors and actresses for the early movies were fantastic, they really did a great job.

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.

I've watched this a zillion times with my kids, and never tired of it. But I wonder now what it will seem like after having seen the big-budget 2005 Narnia. While my kids adored the modern version, I found it lacked the charm/continuity of this the 1988 BBC version. In the modern Narnia I hated the father Xmas scene, also the initial scene of Lucy and the fawn. By the way I'd never realised there were religious undertones to TLWATW, I still think you have to look really hard. I'm writing this without having read other recent comments so look forward to see how many of you preferred the old version.

Keep looking for Narnia!

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.

It is hard to express just how magical this series seemed when it first aired. It held the nation enthralled.

The animation and special effects that some reviewers have condemned as hokey really seemed utterly amazing to a me as a seven year old child. Part of that is obviously my naivety, although I was the target audience so it was fair for the BBC to assume that of the viewers. However special effects at the time were far less advanced and less common than now. The skeletons in Jason and the Argonauts don't rate by today's standards but were pretty amazing at the time and this should be viewed in a similar light.

I actually think this is more effective in capturing the spirit of Narnia as a fantasy land if you are prepared to enter into that spirit of fantasy than the more recent big budget film that attempts to leverage in a photo-realism that, I think, didn't quite come off.

I should also mention that the acting is really lovely across the board and the witch terrified a generation!

This was sort of the Doctor Who of its time: The whole family sat down together to watch it at teatime; We were wowed by the TV budget special effects; The BBC props department had one of its finest hours; and all the kids hid behind the sofa terrified of the witch!

THE LION, THE WITCH & THE WARDROBE, in my opinion, is an excellent film adaptation of C.S. Lewis' novel that was made for TV. One of the things I liked most about it was the setting, especially Narnia. If you ask me, it was touching when Lucy (Sophie Wilcox) visited Mr. Tumnus (Jeffrey Perry). If you want to know why, you'll have to see the movie. Also, I thought that everyone's performances were top-notch, the casting was terrific, and the scenery was beautiful. Before I wrap this up, I'd like to say that Marilyn Fox did a superb job. In conclusion, I highly recommend this excellent adaptation of C.S. Lewis' novel that was made for TV to all of you who have read it.

Ignoring the flashy, LOTR bandwagon version, I revisited this classic BBC series. Faithful to its source, this is a captivating mixture of live action, puppets & animation. The costumes for Maugrim (the wolf)and the kindly beavers are marvellous. As are the actors concerned. Aslan is an impressive looking puppet and far more appealing than he would be in CGI. Various mythological creatures are rendered in 2D. They're basic, but not bad. Remember, this program was on a low budget and the worth of a series (or film) isn't dependent on its SFX. It's more important to have talented actors and good story telling. Plus music. The marvellous score, mournful or triumphant, carries the heart of the adventure. The series does not alter the well loved novel or devalue its themes. Fans won't be disappointed. The White Witch is terrifying and the children are likable enough. Mr Tumnus walks off the page. The effects are simple, yet believable. Imagination is all you need. Just sit back and enjoy.

I've always loved the Chronicles of Narnia books by C.S. Lewis, and this movie of the Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe is an excellent make of the stories! Everything is magical and in porportion. Nothing too out of tune! Great family movie. 7.7 out of 10.

I have very fond memories of this adaption of C.S Lewis' masterpiece. I used to have the VHS which I viewed on many occasions and earlier this year I upgraded to the DVD.

The reason for my fondness for this version is that it retains the gentleness and the magic of the novel. Something that the 2005 Disney version lacks, they just turned into another Lord of the RIngs type Epic.

Everything about it is perfect, the soundtrack, story and everything else. I will say this though, if you watch things solely for the special effects you will probably be left with an empty feeling.

So if you are a lover of C.S Lewis's classic work choose this as it retains the essence of the novel.

Though the movie may have been "true" to Lewis's book (in that the script was basically word-for-word, verbatim), it failed to capture any of the grandeur that would otherwise be associated with an epic story like this. The mythical creatures (unicorns, centaurs, griffins, ghouls, ghosts) are *drawn* in, and as in the previous review, the green-screen flying sequence was very hard to swallow. I nearly laughed to death when I saw the humanoid beavers with their giant stiff suits and buck teeth; I nearly cried when I heard the wolf's "howl--" a man in a grey fuzzy suit basically shrieking as loudly and as girlishly as he possibly could.

All of the acting is tremendously forced, especially that of little Lucy Penvensie... I could only take so much indignation, desperation, and buck teeth in the (what felt like) fourteen hours of watching the movie. The actress who plays the White Witch, in all her histrionics, seems that she'd be more at home on stage, where a booming voice, spread arms, and a valiant effort at something Shakespearian would be more than welcome.

The sets feel claustrophobic, whether the scenes are taking place indoors or outdoors. Indoors, it's as if BBC could only afford to spend $100 on constructing a set, and so it is very small, and all the characters are constantly huddled together. The White Witch's castle is a run-down, rotting countryside English castle filled with Styrofoam statues and bad lighting. When the Penvensie children are wandering through the woods-- actually, *any* scene in the woods-- feels like they are simply wandering around in circles.

The only thing that looks decent in the film is Aslan, but you can bet that BBC probably blew the film's entire budget on building the mechanical feline. It looks great when it's standing still and before it starts speaking, but once it starts moving, you can't help but pity the poor man who has to be the rear-end in the lion suit.

Yes, if you are a hardcore Narnia fan, you may want to see this version, simply because it preserves every word that Lewis ever wrote-- but Lewis was certainly no screenwriter, and a lot of the dialogue feels chunky and awkward when on screen. During the scene in which the children are at the Beavers' and getting ready to flee from the wolves, Mrs. Beaver's incessant, "oh, just ONE more thing, dearies, and then we will be ready to go," punctuated by the children's simultaneous cries and sighs and moans of "NO, Mrs. Beaver, PLEASE!" -- a scene of comic relief, so incongruous (they are supposed to be FLEEING from imminent danger, not wondering about whether to pack the sewing machine or not), detracts from the drama that the scene might otherwise have. In fact, the whole movie is peppered with directing faux pas such as these.

I would recommend seeing the new Narnia (Disney 2005). The new movie, with updated effects, spectacular computer animation, great timing all around, and a gorgeous and scene- stealing White Witch (who plays her part with all the subtle evil of a seasoned politician, as opposed to a shrieking banshee) captures all of the grandeur and the magnificence of the world of Narnia without detracting the least bit from Lewis's original vision (I think). Lucy is a lot cuter (NO buck teeth, YAY!), as are the beavers (and realistically-sized), and bratty BBC Edmund has nothing on the divine, Desperately-Hungry-for-Acceptance-Insecure-and- Angsting-with-an-Inferiority-Complex Edmund that the new Disney version fronts.

Unless you're the type who enjoys wasting time by making fun of campy movies, I would not recommend this film to anyone.

The original stories are quaint enough. They are that sort of children's story that parents can read and see as cartoonishly simple and obvious, as if kids needed dumb things. In this case, that reduction and moralizing is engineered to appeal to parents by literally being a Christian "allegory." I'll set aside what it means to value allegory as if it were useful. You'll have to decide that for yourself.

I watched this in preparation for the December 2005 version that threatens to be big and star a favorite of mine, Tilda Swinton.

This version is perfectly apt. The story has that feel of naivety in it and the cheap production values of the fantasy in this version match that exactly. It looks as if it actually valued its obvious childishness, as if it were drawn by a child while being told by a child.

So you have the three simplicities aligned: the simple cosmology of a radically reduced religious vision, the childish, almost retarded simplicity of the allegory in the story, and the similarly overt cartoonishness of the production.

The star always has to be the queen. The good guys are too cosmic for theatrics, so the bad girl is the center. This one is suitably loud.

Ted's Evaluation -- 1 of 3: You can find something better to do with this part of your life.

I received the DVD set as a Christmas gift from my sister. Being a military wife with a husband who just deployed, I had a lot of time on my hands and just watched the entire series. While I feel the Disney movie strikes the iron much better for our times, this movie took me back to when I was a six year old watching the premier of the series on PBS.

The special effects are definitely low-budget. Without computer animation, it's laughable...but this is pretty bad even for the late 80s. The green screen flying makes you groan. Aslan is pretty decent looking, but just keep his mouth closed! And Mogram, a man in a wolf costume, is insulting. But I tell you, his howl terrified me as a child (I would have nightmares about that howl), so it still sends a chill up my spine.

I guess my main problem was the casting. All the reviews seem to comment on the acting as a good thing, but looking back, these four "children" are too friggin' old! Sophie Wilcox was 13 when she made this. When reading the books, Lucy is a child of maybe 5 or 6. It makes her character unbelievable when she is a preadolescent. And her buck teeth! (BTW, anyone ever notice that when Lucy first meets Tumnus, all he has to do is offer her food to get her to come with him? That girl needs some serious Weight Watchers) I digress, the movie and the whole series is a good adaptation of the novels for the times. Far better than the animated version (god save us all from ever seeing THAT on DVD). Hopefully it will inspire others like me to read the books and discover Lewis's metaphors and meanings behind his "fantasy" stories. These are, after all, Christian novels. I hope that the new movie will also encourage people to read the books.

On that note, I will say that at the end of Silver Chair, when Aslan mentions knowing him by "the other name" in our world, I still got tears in my eyes. Aslan was my childhood's Christ - I came to love God because of Aslan.

Sorry, didn't mean to get preachy, just wanted to say it's a good series, good for children, and a great walk down memory lane.

If you go to see a movie for its effects, don't bother with this one. The budget didn't extend to Babe-ish animal animations, and the costumes, models, and animation effects show that. However, the story is fantastic. It follows the books almost verbatim (I love BBC for this!). THe children were cast very well; with the exception of Lucy, they look like they're straight out of Pauline Baynes' illustrations and C.S. Lewis' imagination. And the girl who played Lucy was quite a good actor and made up admirably for the fact that she didn't look much like Lucy in the books. I *was* a wee bit irritated by the witch -- her overacting would have been a bit much even for the theater stage she apparently thought she was on. And I must confess that the Beavers' costumes made me laugh, and that BBC hadn't yet shed its customary "BBC look". But overall, this is a faithful retelling of the story that has charmed three generations of children and adults.