The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe (1979)

In the 1979 rendition of "The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe," details normally overlooked by today's movie makers are masterfully transfered to film. C. S. Lewis's intricate dialog is flawlessly adapted with wonderful voice actors and added to greatly by Michael J. Lewis's gorgeous score. At a time before computer effects, The music played a key role in making the story come to life. Unfortunately, the new live action version greatly suffered an unmemorable score. Another advantage of the 1979 is that it, unlike the Disney version isn't another horrible attempt to copy Peter Jackson's rendition of "The Lord of the Rings." This one follows the book, doesn't concede to today's tasteless standards, and has perfectly appropriate music.

This one is even superior to the 1988 BBC TV presentation, which was dull in story, shoddy in effects, less-than-mediocre casting, and horrible action. But I do wish the animation was better. However, the animators did do good on the expressions of the characters. Just as with the 2005 version, everything was as I had imagined, it's just that this was an animated feature, and that was a live action feature. That is the only difference. Some people might wonder why the only thing I dislike about it is the animation, and say that I should have given it a higher rating, since that was the only thing wrong with it. WRONG! With animated films, it is always very complicated to try to understand how to write a review on them. The animation in movies that are animated all the way through should at least mean something when you review them. With movies that are animated at only some parts, this opinion should not be used as much, because, more than likely, there is more live-action in the movie than there is animation.

To the reviewer who argued that this animated feature does not capture the essence of the novel, I must say I am astounded at such a claim. I must say I have never seen a better translation of spirit from page to screen, and it is a shame this film was not theatrically released, and more well-known. When I saw the BBC production, I was horrified. Not because of the production value (I rather prefer lower-budget, more theatrical presentations), but due to the poor and often outright terrible acting, as well as the very bad choices in handling the material.Case in point was the six-foot tall man, and five-foot tall woman, in beaver costumes with the faces cut out! Why not be more realistic by having actual beavers in the shots? I am not saying they should have pulled a "Mr. Ed" and inserted footage of animals eating, with looped dialogue, but just to show the real animals, and have their voices spoken almost by telepathy would be much preferred, if not more faithful to the novel's depictions. I must say as it was, I could not help but be half-disgusted, half rolling in the floor laughing at that choice of production design.Also, why did the filmmakers go out on a limb to invent new scenes for the film that were not in the novel? Those additions only served to water down the source material, and give it a plodding, dull feeling. Did the screenwriter really feel it necessary to take an hour-and-a-half long story, and double it to three hours running length? That must have been a mandate from the BBC, just so they could use up an extra hour-and-a-half worth of airtime they know would be heavily watched. And as for the lack of Christian allegory the other reviewer mentioned, I must say again I am shocked. In my opinion the BBC version was the one that glossed over this aspect, while the animated one almost hits you over the head with it. Not that I am complaining, because I find this particular allegory the best ever produced in a narrative form, excepting maybe The Green Mile, but I am just arguing that due to the inflections of speech, compositions of shots, et cetera, this animated film definitely delivered allegorically. Even at the age of 10 when I first viewed this, I could not miss this point. I hope that everyone looking to give this story a try in screen form will look to the animated version first and foremost. The BBC versions are a curiosity at best. Now, if only the 1960's television version would surface somewhere...

A highly entertaining and original animated film, far from the studio-streamlined products from Disney and the like. The images recall illustrations from 70´s picture books, with simple, exceptional design of characters and settings. I had the fortune to see it at an early age, and was sold on it for life. The music is perfect for the subject, engaging without being intrusive. Kids raised on animated TV-fodder definitely need to see something like this. /Richard Svensson