WakenPayne I haven't read any of the Narnia books so the only real thing I have to go on is the Disney movies. However, I did watch this because I did find the effects at times unintentionally hilarious but I decided to just watch this the whole way through because of a few reasons, one was that Tom Baker was in it and that I did like the story of the Disney movies so I'd just see right past the rather cheap creature effects (I have to specify creature effects because other things like the set design is actually quite good) and, the story isn't that bad.The story is that a bullied girl named Jill Pole meets up with the kid from The Voyage Of The Dawn Treader (I did have to fill in the blanks for that but aside from that, I think you can generally watch it without the others in mind and get the gist of it) and while running away from the bullies they manage to get themselves in Narnia There Jill is told by Aslan that they have to find Prince Caspian's son Rillian who had been seduced away from Narnia to god knows where by a woman at the same spot where a serpent killed his mother. They must follow four signs to free the prince but with the help of a half man half frog named Puddleglum (Tom Baker).I'll quickly go down what I didn't like. Well, the effects in places do look cheap, with the exception of Aslan and maybe the centaurs. I do feel that the villain of The Green Witch should have been played with a bit more subtlety because even at the beginning when she directs them to the Giant's City, it's clear that she has villainous intents - the same can be said for the Giants wanting to eat humans and Marsh-wiggles - I mean there I didn't work it out as fast as the Green Witch but about halfway through I thought "So they offer the kids all they could ever want from a nice bed to sleep on, all the toys they could want and more then enough FOOD" they even say to Jill when she asks to eat something from them that she's growing and needs to be fattened up.Aside from that I did like the basis of the story and while I did just criticize the acting before the main players actually do a decent enough job. The set design is really good and while some elements are worth criticizing the effort put into it is there. The only real complaint I have with the writing is that at the beginning of the movie with the bullies - all they do to Jill is just chant "POLE!" at her. I was bullied at school and I know that they would have probably done a bit more then just chant her last name over and over without anything else thrown in, I think that thy should have been more realistically written, but aside from that and parts of the acting and writing not being that subtle I don't think I have a single complaint with the story.I would say that while I haven't read the books, this is an okay watch and I will wait another year to see the remake in 2016 but even so this does have some good things going for it. It's a little hard to explain in the sense that it has it's own charm to it that while some may consider it slow paced I personally don't have that many complaints with the story or the acting from the main players.

Bonnie O'Connor The Silver Chair is one of my favorite stories of the Narnia series. The messages are powerful, the adventures are intense, and the ending bitter-sweet (and desirable). Mostly it's about Jill and Eustace being called out of their world, and with the help of a marshwiggle called Puddleglum, they go to find a lost Narnian prince who is being held captive by the Lady of the Green Kirtle (also known as the Queen of the Underland). Along the way they encounter giants, unfriendly weathers, and underground creatures. The plot sounds great, but the movie couldn't quite live up to the intenseness of the story. I don't blame the directors or writers, especially since there was not much CGI back then, so everyone had to dress in animal costumes, use a robotic lion for Aslan, and the special effects for the giants vs the main characters was not the best. The robotic Aslan looked very very awkward. Whenever it talked its jaw would drop at the wrong times, it barely ever sat or lay down, and the character (compared to the first movie) always seemed angry. Sure he's considered to not be a tame lion, but he wasn't always angry, but neither was he always pleased with everything. Maybe I'm just being picky, but I feel more of his anger than kindness or compassion.The only other thing that bothers me is the cheesy acting. I would have to say that Puddleglum and Prince Rillian are the only characters I enjoy who aren't over acting, but the rest of the actors make no sense in their acting. Take for example at the beginning when the bullies are "picking' on Jill, all they're doing is cornering her and yelling her last name, "Pole! Pole! Pole!" What are they making fun of? Are they making fun of her name being the same as a telephone pole? And when they're chasing her, what's the purpose? Do they just want to continue shouting Pole at her? That's one of many parts that always confused me. But the only overacting to rival all of them is the Lady of the Green Kirtle herself. It's Barbara Kellerman; and we've already seen her as the overacting White Witch and the Hag from the previous films, so she's pretty much not playing a different role. I would have liked it better if the directors got someone else for the part, but I guess there was a low budget, so I'll let that pass. However, what I won't let pass is that she's way over the top in her acting and being over dramatic. It almost felt as if she thought that the only way anybody would get the idea of how evil her character was, was for her to go over the top in her monologues, screaming, run around a lot, and change her voice around from deep and angry to sweet and soft. True that's what she does in the book, but she had a way of containing her wrath by being calm and cool until she couldn't at the very end. In the movie she goes in and out of frustration and sweetness making me confused.I occasionally watch it, but I still think that it's a bit cheesy and could have been better improved (at least in the acting if not in the special effects).

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

Clivecat Well done! Tom Baker was marvellous! Nick Brimble as "The Giant Porter" was great and I wished I could have seen more of him. This series does a great job of bringing some children's classic books to the small screen. Good acting and good special effects! For what seemed to be a small budget production, they've (BBC?) done a great job!