I know this thread has cooled off recently, but I finally got the chance to see the film yesterday, and I wanted to throw in my two cents in case there's anyone still debating seeing it or not.
I loved it. I went in quite apprehensive, honestly. As I said before, I heard both good and bad about the film, and I really wanted to love it. I personally was blown away. It wasn't the same sort of jaw dropping awe I felt in LOTR, but it's a different movie. This is a children's movie in the same way that the book is a children's book. I don't know how much I want to get into it here on the boards, and by all means, if anyone has any questions for me, I'm happy to answer them.
I thought the acting, pacing, scoring, directing, writing--you name it--was spot on. I loved how they fleshed out the story, I found it completely believeable, and I intend to buy this one as soon as it comes out on DVD. I have to wonder if one reason that reviewers aren't liking it is that the film depends so much on a willing suspension of disbelief, more so than other films. If you're the type to roll your eyes when Santa appears in the film--or Father Christmas, rather--then this might not be the flick for you. Whether people like that scene or not, there's no getting around the fact that it was in the book. Yes. In CS Lewis's text, Santa does give the children weapons. Merry Christmas. If Snider wants to sputter about this, he should go to the source. As to the gripe about Aslan saying the Witch interpreted the deep magic incorrectly, I really think this is splitting hairs. Yes, the exact text was altered, and yes, it now says that the Witch interpreted the deeper magic incorrectly. As I recall, Aslan did say that there was a true interpreation, but I have to point out that doesn't matter. If he said it or not, we are shown that there was a true interpretation. The Table broke, Aslan was resurrected, end of story. If they had explained Aslan's reappearance by saying he was "only faking it," I could see cause to complain. But not for this.
Other defenses of the film:
In the chase scene with Santa's reindeer, they are only show in extreme close ups. I was paying close attention to this "mistake." The reindeer are covered in snow--that's why they're white. You can see the brown fur underneath if you look carefully. The snow melts because the power of the WW is lessening.
Lucy and Susan do shoo away the mice with their hands. You can see their hands flicker at the edges of the screen.
The tunnel from Beaver's to Badger's is tall for the animals, but it's also hardly spacious for the children. Adults would have a real hard time in it. From what I had read, I pictured it as being easy to run walking upright, but the children are hunching and struggling to move quickly. Didn't seem that bad to me.
I could go on, but I won't. Some things about this film are supposed to look goofy--in my opinion. Peter and Edmund in war, for one thing. They ought to look out of place. How could they look any differently? They're children.
Anyway. Enough. If you let yourself be swept away by this film, it will. Up till now, the best adaptation I had seen was that dopey cartoon, and of course this blows that out of the water. I hope this earns a bundle of moola, and they make all seven. If they're all as good as this one, I'll be jumping for joy.
But then again, I value certain things in a film: coherent plotting, believable characters and motivation, good dialogue, a smooth flow of ideas...to name a few. If you didn't like this film you obviously value other things. Where's the problem?
(wink wink)