I loved the beginning of the film with the bombing raid – although not depicted in the book, I thought it added a bit to the film and was certainly poignant.

I just didn’t feel that the Disney film has as much of a soul as the BBC production and obviously the book. I think this was due to the bad computer generated visual effects – Aslan really left me cold. I thought he looked incredibly fake and his face looked too severe, like the bad uncle from the Lion King. Also, I didn’t like his voice – I loved the Aslan puppet from the BBC production I felt he looked and sounded much more real then.

Also, I don’t think it was made clear in the film, maybe I missed it, but I don’t think Aslan said the point about not knowing if the ancient magic would work – whether he would actually rise from the dead because it hasn’t been tested before. The film made it look like Aslan didn’t really care about Lucy and Susan’s distress at his death.

Also, I could have done without the ice floe scene, thought that went on too long.

And the wolves weren’t scary enough – in the books and BBC, the wolves are really evil – they don’t make wise cracks before they try to kill you.

But over all, I thought the film was very good – the acting was excellent – just so disappointing that Aslan wasn’t as good as the BBC version.

I hate when they deliberately change the story so they can call it ‘their’ version. The work did not need change, it needed someone to accurately potray the book into a film. I dont mind them adding to a work to set the scene and depth in a film, but many times there was change for no reason than to chop a few seconds here or there, or do it different so they can claim credit themselves.

I thought the film was pathetic in that they rendered men onto female horse bodys and such, and Aslan was no lion at all. This is not a crude comment, and granted it is a childrens movie, but it does show the attention to detail given, or lack thereof. LOTR on the other hand was absolutely accurate in the anatomy of all it creatures in every possible detail, just as if it were truely real, because the producer loved the books and attention to detail was paramount

Many of the shots avoided complexity, such as when we see the faun, almost every shot shows the upper half of the body or the lower half. Very rarely do you see the whole faun, and when you do its is for a very short time, or in an inconspicouos way. Same with the reindeer, both with the witch and father christmas. You hardly get to see them at all. Its true about the blue screen comment above, some of the photograph backdrops and chroma key work was so bad it threw you completely out of the movie and back to reality

The shooting of Aslan was pathertic, he constantly changed size in every shot from a huge cat on the hillside, to a much smaller cat on the stone table. The aesthetic animation of his face and proportions of his body could have been much better. From the rear his hindquarters are very scrawny, from the side, over massive and solid. The same with the wolves too. This is a CG problem and should have been fixed and rerendered.

Also Disney left out almost every cruel part of the book. Of course they did not wish to tarnish their magic by upsetting young children, and the scenes would have been expensive to render. The torment of Aslan was not depicted – where did we see the cords cutting his skin, the blood and bruises, where on his face is the intense pain, the excruciating fear. Sorry but this part was way too clean

The better done parts of the film were the battle scenes, although I think its fair to say these were the parts they had rendered in New Zealand, using WETA, the same ppl who did LOTR.

All up as a childrens movie it is OK. To me it felt too low budget and skimpy, and that disney for that matter had profit before their heart in producing it

My 2c

Cheers