A Disappointing Continuation

Clever and entertaining enough to recommend even to members of the 1%

Just intense enough to provide a much-needed diversion, just lightweight enough to make you forget about it soon after it’s over. It’s not exactly “good,” per se, but it does what it sets out to do in terms of putting us on edge, which makes it … successful?

Through painfully honest and emotional moments, the movie becomes irresistibly relatable

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.

I must agree with all the past comments on how great this film is compared to the 2005 version. This film is full of magic, joy, hope, and just enough terror to make even me still a little scared. Unlike the 2005 version that felt me feeling as though I had missed out on the true magic of Narnia.The performances by all the children and the white witch are superb and perfectly catch the essence of the characters as described in the book by C.S.Lewis.It is clear that the special effects do not stand up to the CGI effects of today but I think even now children will be as enchanted by the story and amazing costumes as I was as a child.I still love watching this film and recently purchased it on DVD so I didn't have to swap the tapes half way through.This is a must buy for any children's film collection.

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.

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.