Der König von 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'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!

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

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.

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.