User reviews

I thought this a very well done film indeed. I will say the film looks just splendid, especially the scenes in Narnia, with beautiful snowy sets (some looked as though it had come from the LOTR trilogy). However, some of the scenes looked as though they had been computerised, such as the scene with the children and beavers running across the ice. There were also some attempts to put some humour into the story like the professor's line "ah yes, the weeping one" in reference to Lucy and the beavers especially, but because the director had taken liberties to make the story darker, the humour didn't quite work. However there are a number of positives, like the spirited performances of the children, Georgie Henley especially, better than Sophie Wilcox's rather goofy portrayal in the 1988 series. James McAvoy is charming as Mr. Tumnus, and Liam Neeson was majestic as Aslan. But the acting honours go to Tilda Swinton as the White Witch, even with her calmness she dominates the screen, in a sometimes chilling portrayal as the character. The film was fairly faithful to the book, but the added scenes and dialogue failed to engage as much. All, a flawed but enjoyable film. 7/10 Bethany Cox

To sum things up: I loved this movie.

I had been waiting for it ever since it was announced, so of course I couldn't pass up the chance to see a press preview this morning. And, while there were some definite weaknesses (mostly in the quality of the animations), overall I was completely convinced. Naturally it did not coincide 100% with my own vision of Narnia visually, but emotionally it rang absolutely true, choking me up several times and really touching me. I walked out of the theatre with a warm, contented feeling - just like I feel every time I read C.S. Lewis' book!

The stand-out performance was definitely Tilda Swinton's as the White Witch, but I liked all actors/voices, from cute little Lucy (newcomer Georgie Henley) to majestic Aslan (Liam Neeson). I thought the children did a great job, considering their relative inexperience and the amount of blue screen work involved.

Tip: Stay seated through the actor credits - afterwards there's another small scene.

A wonderful movie. The characters are beautifully made from a well chosen characters. The CGI and special effects are top notch. The centaurs, beavers, trees, tigers, bears, fox, all are taking. Oh! yeah, they are talking. The creators have done an excellent job in bringing out the emotions, the lip sync, and the body language of various animal, very well. The White Witch was scary as hell. The final battle sequence was spectacular. I was amazed with the battle sequence.

Aslan's character was the best. I love the way the Lion talks, walks and emotes. It's simply amazing.

Amazing direction. Amazing music. Excellent make-up. Amazing editing work. A very good adoption of the Narnia series. Very funny movie too. Worth watching.

This enjoyable story produced by Walt Disney Pictures is based on C.S Lewis books. It begins during German air raids over London in WWII. The Pevensie four children(Henley,Keynes,Moseley and Poppewell) are sent to live at the country house of eccentric teacher Kike(Jim Broadvent). Meantime they're playing hide and seek, Lucy encounters a strange wardrobe that lead the snowy land of Narnia . There, she finds a sympathetic but coward faun(James McAvoy). Later she returns at home and the others don't believe her at first, but soon are convinced. Then, all of them go throughout the fantastic world with fauns and centaurs and where animals speaking, a beaver( voice by Ray Winstone), fox(voice by Rupert Everett) and furthermore the Father Christmas(James Cosmo). This magic land with perpetual winter is ruled by the nasty White Witch(Tilda Swinton). But the children are the chosen ones, according an ancient prophecy, and they team up with Aslem, the mighty Lion and real king of Narnia , fighting to defeat the evil witch in an epic finale battle.

The pic is a magic story with rip-snorting adventures, exciting fantasy, sensational scenarios and good feeling. Plenty of action and emotion and with an incredible battle scenes similar to ¨Lord of the Rings¨. Provide enough amusement to keep the chat rooms humming until the epic ending comes out. In spite of overlong runtime and the difficult of adapting, the film still managing to keep a quick enough pace for those unfamiliar with the lengthy literary and highly detailed work by C. S. Lewis. This two and a half hour movie stays closer to the original work than any of the former efforts, mostly animated. The film displays a colorful and evocative cinematography by Donald McAlpine. Musical score fitting perfectly to the action-adventure by Harry Gregson-Williams. The motion picture is marvellously directed by Andrew Adamson, he's the director,producer, writer of ¨Shrek¨ trilogy. Rating : Above average and worthwhile seeing . It's a very likable adventure-fantasy and enormously appealing for kids, adolescents and all family.

The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe is an extremely enjoyable filmization of CS Lewis's magical childhood epic. The story expertly weaves in childhood themes with a modern day Christian plot line (including a slightly grisly 'crucifiction' scene) to create an enchanting motion picture. Tilda Swinton is superb as the sinister White Witch. The children are average though young Georgie Henly stands out. The Special effects are more than adequate, with a specially impressive rendering of Aslan. The film moves slowly initially and its epic nature become apparent only towards the end with a vicious (but bloodless) final battle. All told, a pleasant surprise indeed!

Overall 8/10

Adam Adamson's film adaptation of C. S. Lewis' first entry in his classic Narnia Series starts off awkwardly like a combination of the "Wizard of Oz" and "Lord of the Rings." The filmmakers spend too much time early on trying to be cute and Disney-fy the product while clumsily presenting scenes composed of live-action actors and not-so-great computer effects. The result, not surprisingly is like an animated film with some flesh-and-blood actors spliced in. However, once you get used to the film stylistically, all is mostly forgiven.

The filmmakers finally find solid ground when they really start to dig deeply into the story and reveal the blending of nature-based neo-paganism with medieval Christian mythology and wrap it up nicely into a children's fairytale. It's when you start to realize the white witch (played effectively by the always somewhat creepy Tilda Swinton) represents the old pre-Abraham polytheism demanding animal and human sacrifice for appeasing the pantheon of gods/goddesses and the lion king, Aslan, represents the Christian view of one self-sacrificing god that you remember the brilliance of Lewis' source material. And while it isn't terribly well executed, the epic "Battle-Beast" style showdown at the end is pretty entertaining from a visual and imaginative standpoint.

The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe should go down in the history books right up there with the likes of Lord of the Rings. I went to see it expecting a very good movie. I came out stunned by the magnitude of the picture. Everything about it is so well done, the casting, the scenery, the score. Lord of the Rings is the only thing I can think of to compare it to. I experienced the same overwhelming sense of awe watching both of these phenomenal pictures. The CG images are very good, though not quite as startlingly realistic as those in LOTR. I cannot find fault with the casting in any way.

Though the voice of Liam Neeson is not as I would have imagined a lion's at first, it is smooth, confident, and effective. Aslan is given the presence so essential to the heart of the story. I must comment on the performance of James McAvoy as Mr. Tumnus, which I believe was the best in the film. Lucy was adorable, and surprisingly convincing, and Peter was given a very firm performance. I was a little nervous about how Edmund would turn out, but I needn't have worried; those large, startlingly dark eyes are perfect for the change from traitor to hero.

I commend the directors of the movie on their strict adherence to the book. Narnia isn't just "based" on the book. It IS the book. The scope, depth, and wonder of Lewis's world have been captured in a timeless manner that should be cherished for all ages. This is a movie for everyone, at a level for children to understand, yet with a fast plot and exciting battle sequences that will keep anyone interested. The last battle scene especially is as touching as any I have ever seen, including those in LOTR, putting tears in my eyes even while my heart soared. Go see Narnia for an exciting, well-done film, and a timeless message that our world so desperately needs.

Ten stars!!

A strangely disappointing experience given the quality credentials of just about all involved.

The relative inexperience of the writers is clearly evident. Whether seen as a metaphor for a world without God (hell), or the Nazi regime, the cultural and social landscape of Narnia is ripe with potential, none of which is realized here. The White Witch's regime is not explored, we are not told who she is, where she came from, how or why she took over the world. She lacks any motivation or real emotional drive. Similarly, the children seem happy to throw themselves into a war without a second thought of home. Nothing in this story is ever explained, we are simply expected to accept it without question, which is a far more dictatorial representation of Christianity than Lewis ever intended. The plotting lacks energy and momentum, with no real sense of suspense. The characterization is weak and one-dimensional. But even more surprisingly from the creators of Shrek, is the complete lack of humor.

The acting is sound from all but the leads. The two older children struggle to bring the necessary range of emotion to their roles, with Moseley in particular presenting a decidedly weak interpretation of heroic kingliness. The two younger children luckily make up for their on screen siblings' shortcomings, with Henley bringing the wide-eyed innocence to Lucy that the role requires, and Keynes displaying a surprising amount of subtlety as the eternally wronged and resentful Edmund. McAvoy and Swinton are both excellent and at times are required to carry the movie alone.

The CGI is competent, but little more. It's always good to see Fauns and Centaurs running around, but it doesn't break any boundaries in terms of design or execution. There's none of the thrill of the vast armies of Middle Earth, or the attention to the minutiae of Narnia that is really necessary in realizing a new world from scratch.

Disney clearly hopes that this will bring them the rewards that 'Lord of the Rings' brought New Line Cinema and 'Harry Potter' is bringing to Warner Brothers. But 'The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe' lacks the emotional depth, epic range, creative inventiveness and dramatic urgency of the 'Rings' trilogy. Similarly, it has none of the humor, camaraderie, charisma or charm of 'Harry Potter'. Judging from the audience that I saw it with, it will be very popular, and a sequel is very probable, but unless Narnia finds some heart and soul, the complete cycle seems unlikely.

With an appeal to both adults and children, the British author C. S. Lewis wrote seven books in his Chronicles of Narnia series. The stories are rich in mythology and religious symbolism, drawing upon archetypes from the Norse, Greco-Roman, Persian, medieval chivalric, and Judeo-Christian traditions.

Now comes this wonderful film of the first chronicle, "The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe." The beautiful cinematography and the terrific performances of the children make this film outstanding for family viewing. As integrated with the live actors, the colorful animal characters, especially the Lion (Jesus), reveal brilliant technical film-making as well.

Lewis's books are not overtly allegorical. Rather, the symbols and the messages are subtle. The four children in the story (Peter, Susan, Edmund, and Lucy) were inspired by the actual children evacuated from London during World War II, who spent time in Lewis's home. Lewis wanted his books to be enjoyed by young people who would later in their lives draw the spiritual meanings from the stories. In this area, the film is enormously faithful to the original book and would have made the author extremely proud.

I left "Narnia" feeling kind of cold. I loved the books as a child, and most specifically "The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe," which I read numerous times when I was young...but no matter how faithful the adaptation is - story-wise - some elements don't fit into place.

I think it's one of those books that is better off left as a book. The themes and actions that take place in C.S. Lewis' Christian allegory do not translate well to the screen. I felt that something was off. The direction by Andrew Adamson ("Shrek") is commendable, but the second half of the movie is very bright, the animation throughout is quite poor (except for Aslan), and the final battle comes across as utterly silly.

Also, by squeezing the book into a two-hour movie whilst still retaining the essence of the novel, Adamson's film lacks cohesion. It all happens too fast. The characters are rather thin and I felt as if some scenes were handled poorly. For example, when Edmund first meets the White Witch -- if you were a young child who had just stumbled into a world inside a wardrobe, then told by a queen you were going to be the king, don't you think it'd be hard to conceal your excitement? Instead, Edmund returns into the real world, and the only hint we get that he's thinking about Narnia is when a very poor exposition scene occurs with Peter pointing out how Edmund is sulking about.

The course of action in the film is poorly developed as well. One minute they're reluctant to fight, the next minute they're armored up. The problem is that with a two-hour film like this, it's hard to develop the characters. In a novel, it's easier - the general narratives of novels make us feel more attached to the characters. WATCHING them is much different - and it's hard to take their decision to join Narnia's battle against the White Witch very seriously at all.

Also, maybe I was the only one who noticed that young Georgie Henley (who plays Lucy) was always smiling. Not just a happy smile, though. A wicked smile, like she's just played a trick on somebody and ready to savor the revenge. It's kind of creepy. When she cries at the end, it still looked like she was ready to stab someone in the back and break into a maniacal laugh.

Am I being harsh? Probably a bit too much, yes. It's just that coming from a child-at-heart who loved this particular book years ago, I feel the adaptation as a whole is simply mediocre. I felt disattached from the characters, I thought the animation was poor, some scenes were handled poorly, and the final battle was a joke.

Overall, it's worth seeing if you like the book(s). I was personally disappointed by the film, but it seems - judging from its IMDb rating - most people weren't.

Hopefully the sequel will be better.

One of the most anticipated films of the year is the adaption of the beloved book by C.S. Lewis "The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe". With a cinema filled of families and people of all ages (there were more adults than kids), I was very excited about enjoying a film that I had waited impatiently for weeks to see.

Just to get the negatives out of the way, Narnia is a bit slow. The first 40 minutes crawl by at a snails pace and the lead up to the meeting of Mr. Tumnus and Lucy is dragged out too much. But when all four kids get through the wardrobe, the story really gets to picked up by likable characters (the beavers come to mind) and tense scenes with the White Witch.

As for the positive notes, the scenery was top notch, with many people in the audience audibly playing "Where in the country was this scene filmed?" The animation and special effects are brilliant as well. Most notably, Aslan, the lion saviour, is wonderfully animated and incredibly realistic. At times, you could just as well be looking at a real lion. Other effects of centaurs, fauns, griffins, beavers, and bull-headed monsters are also top notch.

On an entirely different note, I really don't understand what all the fuss is about with the religious allegory. The symbolism is there for all to see including all the elements of sacrifice, and forgiveness, but it's not "in your face" or distracts you from the rest of the story. If you enter the cinema seeking an allegory on Somebody's sacrifice, you'll be content with what you see. And if you plan seeing this film just as a family friendly holiday movie, you'll be content too.

In all, Narnia deserves a worthy 7/10. It may be a bit slow out of the gate and outstay it's welcome length, but it's a worthy family film that enchants both young and old and transports you effectively into the land of Narnia.

It could be that Narnia has had to follow up two fantasy hits such as Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter, it could be that the book lacked in fire power, or it could be that the movie just wasn't done that well; but in any case Narnia fell short of expectations. Recently it seems to be en vogue to have children or teenagers playing the leads in fantasy movies (ala Frodo and Harry Potter), but what Narnia failed to do is make these children believable.

There was no transition from these kids' innocence and ignorance into courageous warriors and saviors. In Lord of the Rings, Frodo and Sam were never sure of themselves and they constantly exhibited inexperience throughout their goal to save middle earth. Harry Potter was always in need of help and he was not even the best magician in his class. But in the prophecy rich Narnia in which four humans were foretold to save the land, it seems all of the prognostication forced itself upon the somewhat unwilling heroes. First the siblings are bumbling around Narnia trying to stay alive as anyone would do in a foreign land, and then seemingly overnight the older brother is leading a major battle, the other brother is an integral part of that battle, while the two girls develop fearlessness of the foreign woods they are in.

The movie lacked intensity, there were never any white knuckle moments or hair raising events. The dialog was very generic and far from profound though one can infer that it was supposed to be, and the drama was mild even with the fate of an entire mythical land being in the hands of children. This was a kids movie dressed up as an adult one nothing more.

What a fabulous movie! I just saw a screening of it (with a bunch of other actors and writers) and the whole place burst into applause at the end.

Tilda Swinton is amazing as the White Witch. Her cold, evil gaze could freeze anyone.

I loved the kids - especially the little Georgie Henley, who played Lucy. Liam Neeson as the voice of Aslan was suitably majestic and comforting and grand.

It was beautifully filmed, and I felt Narnia was perfectly realized.

Looking forward to the movies that will follow.

This is one of seven books by CS Lewis on the fantasy world of Narnia. My earliest recall of the story was an animated cartoon, where 4 children chanced upon a wardrobe which transported them to a medieval-fantasy ice world ruled by an evil witch.

The introductory scene might confuse audiences that their watching Band of Brothers, though the German blitz over London is a sight to behold. Father Pevensie has gone off to fight in the war, and Mother Pevensie decided to pack the 4 Pevensie children, Peter, Susan, Edmund and Lucy, to the countryside to seek safe havens. They get to live with Professor Kirke (Jim Broadbent in an extremely underutilized role), and the youngest of them all, Lucy, discovers the Wardrobe in one of the mansion's rooms.

The children bicker a lot, and through their Narnia adventures, learn about the importance of family and cooperation. Disbelieving Lucy at first, the rest got introduced to the wardrobe soon enough, and thus begin their stay in Narnia only after an hour into the movie (Yes, it takes that long before something decent happens on screen). Put under an icy curse, Narnia awaits the arrival of 2 sons of Adam and 2 daughters of Eve to deliver it from the clutches of the evil White Witch (Tilda Swindon, perhaps the only human form in Narnia).

But first, the children have to learn to make sense of the gifts bestowed upon them by Father Christmas, as well as to seek out Aslan, the mystical (speaking) lion, voiced by the regal Liam Neeson, in yet another mentor-like role after this years Kingdom of Heaven and Batman Begins. Yes, he's a good choice, but used too often it becomes deja-vu.

The talking animals became the talk of the town amongst some critical circles, but I say, give it a break. There are talking lions, beavers, wolves, foxes, etc, whose lips move in sync with their impeccable English, that I'm sure will sell many merchandise, probably soft toys.

While the cinematography is beautiful, somehow, familiarity with the source material brought about a monotone feel to the narrative. You'd know what will happen next, and the way this movie is delivered, there isn't much of a crescendo or scenes to excite. Shrek director Andrew Adamson should have known better, but opted for the safe and boring route.

The acting by the animals surpassed their human counterparts. The four Pevensie children are excruciating painful to watch. Their acting's very contrived and forced, and I wonder if there could be other worthy contenders amongst those who auditioned. The pixel-creations of the animators gave the animals more range than the 4 kids. Tilda Swindon looked evil throughout, but that's about it. Somehow her androgynous role as Gabriel in Constantine was way better than her role here as the resident witch.

The highlight is probably the much talked about, effects laden war scene, but from scenes in the trailer, there isn't much else to add. Already spoilt by mega war scenes from the Lord of the Rings trilogy, Chronicles doesn't go one up against what audiences already experienced, safe to substitute Uruk-hais and various Orcs with animals and mythical creatures like the centaurs. Lacking intensity throughout the battle, I was taking stock of which animal was on whose side, like the polar bears and white tigers on the side of the White Witch, and the mass of centaurs on Aslan's.

Don't get me started on the religiousness and the classification that this film is "Passion of the Christ" for kids. If you subscribe to that, you'll believe anything. I think one must have read too much into the major sacrificial and resurrection scene. There is hardly any blood spilt, nor is there any major bloody torture scene to rival Mel Gibson's picture. Just because this scene is similar to Christ's resurrection, or the theme of the coming of the messiah(s), or the betrayal scene makes one label this movie as such, is stretching it a bit too far. It's a children's movie/story, for crying out loud, so just leave it as such.

Will this movie make money? Sure, on the fact that it's an event movie. Chronicles of Narnia built its hype, but didn't offer anything new in terms of special effects, and was weighted down by mediocre acting and a plain, bland narrative. Should there be another movie based on the books, let's hope it betters the first one.

I went to see this movie expecting something relatively decent, something on the scale of LOTR's epic as some people have been making the comparison to. However, it was disappointing besides the visual eye candy.

Human characters particularly weak besides Swinton, I was rooting for the white witch the entire time. The kids themselves are irritating, lame, and whiny, besides maybe the smallest of the four. They're relatively one dimensional.

There's several points in the story in which believability is thrown out the window, given that it is a "children's fantasy," in which I'll allow some sort of leeway, but there HAS to be some sort of rational sequence of events that leads up to the acquiring a certain skill or a turn of events.

Strategy and stupidity of the armies is enormous, I refuse to believe that a white witch who has ruled over the world for the past 100 years is that bad of a tactician.

All in all, the CG animals, such as the talking beavers are the redeeming aspect the adaptation.

Probably entertaining for someone not as critical or for little kids.

The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe was based off of an already popular and compelling story. Some people don't know that the Chronicles of Narnia is allegorical and The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe was based off the crucifixion. this only makes the story more realistic and fascinating as the Director (Andrew Adamson) takes C.S. Lewis's incredible world and adapts it to screen for all the world to see. the story focuses on four children who find their way into a magical world called Narnia where animals talk and thins like unicorns and nymphs and mermaids are real. it sounds simplistic but there is another twist to this world. eternal winter seems consume what was once a beautiful country. this winter is because of a witch (Tilda Swinton) who has Narnia under her rain. but when the Pevensies, Peter (William Mosely), Susan (Anna Popplewell), Edmund (Skandar Keynes), and Lucy (Georgie Henley) come to this world, they discover the truth about a lion called Aslan (Liam Neeson) who is the real King of Narnia. one might expect a silly story about kids who talk to animals and fairies and learn lessons and stuff like that, but the story is so much more intricate and spectacular. more than just a 'good story'. it's a one of a kind adventure. I give this movie ten.

I've been hearing a lot about this movie for quite some time, mostly surrounding the fact that it's supposed to be the "new" Lord of the Rings, or replace Harry Potter and give something back to people who remember Narnia more favorably than Hogwarts from their childhood readings. I've actually never read any of the books except for The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, so I was looking forward to seeing the film. Unfortunately, I was a bit disappointed.

The story itself was well-told, and it remained true to C.S. Lewis' writings. Unfortunately, the child-actors were a bit on the weak side and didn't really add to the drama and epic nature of the film. Also, the CGI work was very disappointing- I expected much more from such a high-budget movie. You could most definitely tell this movie was directed by the same guy who did Shrek, a lot of the animals and larger scenes of the encampment looked fake and cheap.

Everyone seems to be up in arms over the religious overtones/undertones (however you like to perceive it). I myself being a Christian didn't go to the movie looking for it, I just wanted to enjoy a good movie. However, the allegories are pretty hard to miss for any educated adult who has knowledge of Christianity. And yes, some pastor's have used that too their advantage, and rightly so - that's their job. But in all honesty, if you were looking for a strong film to formulate a message from, I'd go with something that had a better quality to it.

The movie is indeed a fun film, full of adventure and wonder. Not quite on the epic level of Lord of the Rings, so don't get your hopes up. For kids and teens, I think its an excellent movie that might inspire some kids to pick up the book when they get home. It's a good thing too, because I think the book captures the imagination much more than the movie did.

Adapting a book that so many audience members have read and cherish is surely a daunting task, but I believe it is also a great responsibility. Recently, Peter Jackson set the bar pretty high in this regard with the "Lord of the Rings" trilogy. Unfortunately, Adamson's "Narnia" wasn't quite up to snuff.

I count myself among those who cherish "The Chronicles of Narnia," having read them as a child and having re-read "The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe" in eager anticipation of the film. In my opinion, this film adaptation not only falls short, but does a disservice to the audience by cheating us of much of the impact and wonder of the original books.

Here are the general categories (including some specific examples) where I felt the film didn't deliver:

Screen Adaptation - Some important scenes that illustrated character dynamic were cut short making later behavior and motivation seem exaggerated or cliché. Example: The scene where Edmund meets Jadis was rushed and awkward. (It wasn't even demonstrated that the Turkish Delight was enchanted in order to manipulate Edmund - we were left to assume that his allegiance to Jadis was due solely to avarice!) Also, in the book, the mere mention of the name "Aslan" for the first time was an event that had an important impact on the children. In the movie this impact was all but lost, as these subtler points were sacrificed to save screen time for the type of gruesome battle scenes that you would expect from a "fantasy" movie but in this case didn't serve to advance the story. Another pulled punch: in the book, the scene with Father Christmas was a brilliant omen of the turning of the tides but here the scene seemed out of place and just downright weird. (They might as well have run into the Easter Bunny.)

A couple of outright inventions served only to distract us from the magic and mystery of the real story: The waterfall scene - who came up with that idea? The cricket ball through the window - not as effective as the original story.

Casting - The elder siblings were mediocre, and I can't tell if Tilda Swinton was just awfully directed or totally miscast. (In the book Jadis was a noble and grand enchantress, albeit with dastardly aims; in the movie she was shallow, petty and despicable.) Oh, and Liam Neeson as the voice of Aslan the Lion was not nearly powerful enough--this is one of the most important roles in the film. Was James Earl Jones not available?

Direction of Actors' Performances - This ties in with my comments about casting, above. Performances in individual scenes seemed disjointed from overall character motivations and some character interpretations (such as Jadis and Edmund) were shallow and unsympathetic. Where was the charisma that would have made Jadis's character believable, let alone have enabled her to amass an army of supporters?

Hair/Make-up - Jadis sports blonde distractingly annoying dreadlocks despite her otherwise un-Irie nature. The professor's hair and beard looked about as realistic as a department store Santa, and the main Centaur's make-up also stood out as distractingly awful.

Wardrobe - Jadis has one outfit in particular that looks like it came right off the runway of a bad 80's fashion show. Another includes an atrocious hat shaped like a giant icicle--Mr. Freeze from Batman & Robin would have had hearts in his eyes.

Special Effects - Overall special effects were not nearly as cleanly integrated as WETA's work on LOTR, and cohesion was lacking. For example, the cuts between live action and CGI wolves were painful at best. Also, the teeming masses of bad-guys all looked as though they could have been extras in the Orc armies of LOTR. Mr. Tumnus was an example of the fact that Jadis's supporters were comprised of otherwise beneficent creatures that she'd charmed, threatened and bullied into joining her. Here they were unimaginatively portrayed as one-dimensional twisted, evil fiends.

Cinematography - Boring; All the visual texture and lighting of a made-for-TV movie.

Due to my disappointment in Adamson's interpretation of this work, and in the execution of the movie that resulted, I rate this film a 5 out of 10. It is not completely devoid of entertainment value but fails to uphold the responsibility that a filmmaker shoulders when adapting so well-known and well-loved a story.