Executscan Expected more

Doomtomylo a film so unique, intoxicating and bizarre that it not only demands another viewing, but is also forgivable as a satirical comedy where the jokes eventually take the back seat.

Rio Hayward All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

Staci Frederick Blistering performances.

Dr Jacques COULARDEAU This collection gives us the complete set of the BCC adaptations of the Narnia novels by C.S. Lewis in three miniseries of six episodes each, plus some extras. The first is "The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe" (1988) about the city Wardrobe in the country Spare Room. The second (1989) brings together "Prince Caspian" (two episodes) and "The Voyage of the Dawn Treader" (four episodes). The third concerns "The Silver Chair" (1990).The first adaptation sets the tone and the main characters. The tone is that of the novel and it is done for children. It sounds slightly naïve at times because the storyteller is no longer constantly present and is not C.S. Lewis at all when there is a voice over. The regular "we" or "this world" or even the "lions of Trafalgar Square", meaning the real world, addressing the children's audience from an external adult point of view, reminding us of the fact that this is all a story, disappear and I think it is a loss.The second adaptation makes two full novels into one story with a shift from the first one to the second that is at least abrupt and the packing up of the two in six episodes makes psychological details and descriptive details scanty. The story becomes a story line more than a fully developed story. The dragon though is a good nice creation, and that was necessary since it was an essential element and it had to fly properly, which is not the case with other flying animals, particularly Aslan. They are mostly simple and stiff. It keeps the story of the Dawn Treader the way it is in the novel and the end is the real end including the final pilgrimage of the mouse Reepicheep and the return of the children. It is a lot more respectful of the spirit of the story than the ending of the recent long feature that can be seen in cinemas.The last adaptation gives details and the witch is a marvel though her becoming a serpent and being killed is less impressive since no green blood is shed and only Prince Rilian takes part in that execution. Eustace and Puddleglum taking part is nice but in the novel. The escape from the underground city does not try to explain the even deeper world of fire and incandescence into which all the gnomic slaves of the witch jump back happily. I miss the big celebration outside the hole from which they extract themselves, with fauns, dryads, satyrs and dwarfs all dancing together. But well at least they keep the details of King Caspian X's death and his resurrection in Aslan's country though they soften the harsh commentary of C.S. Lewis on the English school system and the incompetence of school principals and inspectors, or MPs.But these adaptations are interesting nevertheless. They insist on the fact these stories are not heroic fantasy but only children's literature. That is important because then the values that are presented in the films are pedagogical and not only entertaining. It is also important because it avoids, like the books, any subject that is not childlike or child-friendly. No love is wasted on anyone and even friendship is rather kept lily pure. No kissing, please, we're British.Ut also defends the basic humanistic values of the books in fair contrast with the the world at the time or the literature of Lewis's time. A fair and clear condemnation of slavery and the exploitation of animals. But since the novel "The Boy and His Horse" is not there the rejection of political totalitarianism is absent. The allusion to the usurping uncle in Prince Caspian is by far not enough. Lewis's books are deeply committed to a democratic system. The films are far from being as clear as that. Calormenes are absent for example.The films are also a lot less clear than the books that only people having some human blood can rule Narnia, including the White Witch of the first film who is a descendant of Adam, mixed with other bloods, including jinn blood from the sexual partner Adam had to procreate that line of descent. The absence of "The Boy and His Horse" also deprives us of the description of the four initial human kings and queens of Narnia, including Queen Suzan who is definitely not served very fairly.But for me the main absence is in fact "The Last Battle" because it reveals two essential things in these seven novels: the idea that all worlds have a beginning and an end, including Narnia, that this end can only come from both inner strife, invasion and political manipulation of the masses that are shown as basically easy to manipulate into divisions or obeying absurd commands. The masses make history but only when some individuals and foreign forces join their efforts to conquer the minds and imagination of these masses.This last novel was Lewis's testament and he showed in it that he did not really believe in democracy, i.e. the power of the people, for the people and by the people, because he did not trust any politicians but preferred an aristocratic monarchy in which kings and queens are of a different sort from the people and the masses. The main difference between Calormenes and Narnians is that The Calormene "master" (who is a Calormene by genetic birth) governs Calormenes as slaves, with a very narrow aristocracy, and the Narnian "king (genetically different from all Narnians by at least some human genes) grants them freedom and diversity.To avoid in anyway the bleak atmosphere of "The Lord of the Rings" or "The Time Machine" they produced a brave new world that lacked most of its pith and marrow. The series are interesting but only as entertainment for children and they lose the pedagogical dimension the books constantly keep.Dr Jacques COULARDEAU

Mark Glidden As far as adaptations of novels go, this is fairly good and very faithful to the source material.However, that's where anything good about this adaptation of "The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe" ends. The initial performances of the children are passable, as is Digory Kirke, but from the moment Lucy enters Narnia, the film goes downhill at break-neck speed. The effects, and I KNOW it was 1988, are absolutely dreadful. The fauns are clearly wearing some sort of furry pair of trousers, the woodland spirits look like (and probably are) people romping about in silk pajamas wearing face paint, in fact, all the mythological creatures look hacky and ridiculous. The Beavers are the worst of all. Rather than making ANY attempts to make the Beavers, key characters in the book, look convincing, the makers seemed to just shove the actors into fat suits, stick some brown fur, ears and tails on them and paint their faces with the most ludicrous make-up I've ever seen. Aslan is portrayed by an apparently robotic lion, which in all fairness looks brilliant, but when he "speaks" the sync is out and it just looks like a bad puppet.But one can look past the poor visuals and write them down to budgeting and whatnot. But the budget should have been enough to cast someone with decent acting skills, because by far the WORST thing about this adaptation is the woman portraying the White Witch. Her "acting" consists of the hammiest, most melodramatic gestures and screaming. Any screen time she has, which is a considerable amount, is cringe-worthy and unbearable. She pretty much ruins the film with her screeching and limb-flailing. In saying that however, none of the performances are noteworthy or even satisfactory. The children started off well, but one can only assume that they were soon bewildered by the stupidity of the effects and acting of the "Narnians" so they just gave up. The Beavers and Mr Tumnus are just awful, and in the ensemble scene towards the end (I will not call it a battle, as children running around with toy guns or wooden swords are more convincing warriors) is perhaps the most unintentionally hilarious piece of celluloid inexistence.I would only recommend this to die-hard C.S. Lewis and Narnia fans. But even they will be disappointed by the way a good adaptation is brought crashing down by the horrendous production values. For anyone else, steer clear of this and save yourself a couple of hours of agony.

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.

michael-turner13 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.