Even if you haven't read the book, or aren't familiar with C.S. Lewis, you'll enjoy this movie. A wonderful movie for older children, teens and adults. I think it might it be a bit too frightening for pre-school kids.

This film is loaded with Christian symbolism - Jesus, the devil, sin, redemption, sacrifice, death and resurrection - but is done with such a captivating story that non Christians will also enjoy the movie.

Our family saw it Saturday. It was a great movie. I thought it did justice to the books. I'm hoping they'll do subsequent movies from the series.

We saw it on Saturday as well - the theatre was sold out.

It was a great movie with incredible special effects. I loved it and the kids did as well. Highly recommended.

As a huge fan of the books, I must say I was expecting a bit more out of the movie. As is usually the case, the movie always seems like a "cliff notes" version of the book.

I guess I am just hopeful that it will carry enough audience to make more movies in the Naria series and I was hoping that a big hollywood production of the book would bring a similar interest that the Lord of the Rings films brought. I seriously doubt the current Naria movie is going to reach out to as wide an audience.

I still thoroughly enjoyed it of course because it is always fun to see mental images of my youth put to the big screen.

I would love to see the Christian genre build steam so hollywood can continue to produce films we will enjoy.

i saw it yesterday and enjoyed it.

As a huge fan of the books, I must say I was expecting a bit more out of the movie. As is usually the case, the movie always seems like a "cliff notes" version of the book.

I noticed maybe two minor things left out, and a few things were added, so I'm wondering how you found it to be the "Cliff Notes".


Narnia was an amazing film. Not as good as LOTR but thats okay because the books aren't as good either. Tolkien's fantasy is very complex in theme, plot, and imagery. Lewis' fantasy is more accessable seeing as it is children's fantasy, but the stories are still timeless. And while I like Harry Potter (at least 3 and 4) for entertainment value, it pales in comparison to Narnia as far as storytelling, depth, and emotion goes.

And the CGI was one of the best things about Narnia. If there's anything to be complained about SFX-wise, it's the blue screen. In some places it was obvious that it had been used, but even Jackson had that problem in Two Towers. Narnia is actually harder to pull off, because you have talking animals. In LOTR, with the exception of Gollum, all the creatures that had to talk were "humanoid" in shape, so they could be played by actors in costume. I was very impressed with how realistic the talking animals were, the beavers, the fox, and Aslan... all amazingly and vividly depicted.

We've seen so many huge battle scenes lately, and living up to the example of Peter Jackson's battle scenes is hard. The final battle in TLTWATW didn't quite blow me away, but if didn't feel like I had seen it all before. The eagles dropping the rocks on the White Witch's hoards gave me chills--the kind I got the first time I saw the prologue of Fellowship of the Ring. I feel like Adamson did enough of it differently ot satisfy me.

The acting was superb as well. They did a very good job with all the casting. Tilda Swinton was chilling as the White Witch and James McAvoy was a perfect Tumnus. And the children are much better than the Harry Potter cast was in their first couple films. Lucy and Peter especially did excellent jobs. And like most have agreed, Narnia visually is a spectacle to behold.

It couldn't have been done much better.

The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe - 10/10

I noticed maybe two minor things left out, and a few things were added, so I'm wondering how you found it to be the "Cliff Notes".
Surely I don't need to point out that it is an expressed opinion and the beauty of art is that it will be received differently by different people. It is not a criticism of the movie maker for I tend to see most books turned into movies suffering a similar limitation (at least IMHO).

Case in point (once again...in my extremly humble and personally expressed opinion) was the humiliation scene. In the book, this was one of the most heart wrenching sections which the movie did it's best to convey but as is usually the case, more development and description can be offered through written words. I would never suggest I could have done better in making a movie but it is still the feeling I am left with.

For me, this is a movie I have been waiting for since I was 12 years old. I was very disappointed by the attempts that have been made to put the books to movies thusfar and have been beyond excited that 180 million dollars was going to be spent to put one of my all time favorite books to the big screen.

I am happy you enjoyed the movie (as I did as well) and if you feel it was more than a "cliff notes" version of the book, I am happy you got so much out of it.

You certainly have a right to your opinion, I just wondered what you thought was missing specifically, but I see that it is not so much plot points you miss but the detail that the written word allows. Like you suggest, I would suppose this would hurt your ability to like any novel adaptation.

I went and saw it with my wife on New Year's Eve, and we were both very impressed with the movie. I very seldom read books, so I don't know how similar the movie was to the book. The movie was captivating, even to someone like me who can't sit still for two hours.

It was an excellent movie, and I would recommend it to everybody.