I have to admit my own feelings about the movie are rather dimmer than most others's seem to be. I made out a list of things I liked and disliked for a list that I am on, but I won't duplicate that here.
The essence of my criticisms is in the characterizations. As has been pointed out by others in these forums, the film took a modern psychological line in developing the characterizations -- I think this is quite a mistake for Narnia. Doing so robbed LWW of the sort of faerie tale goodness that comes out in Lewis's writings (and perhaps even more so in MacDonald's fantasies).
Two characterizations that I really disliked -- probably more than any others -- were that of Peter, who was portrayed in an emasculated, unwilling hero fashion, and Professor Kirk, who was portrayed as an eccentric and silly old man. No doubt Lewis draws Prof. Kirk as somewhat eccentric, but certainly not silly. There is the weight of a divine logic to him in Lewis -- the same sort of the logic-of-mystery of which Lewis, himself, is such a great exemplar.
Aslan, too, is lacking. He is too small to send tremors through the earth. He seems more a noble beast, Lord of Narnia, and not Lord of Creation. He is regal, rather than divine. The scene with Aslan and the girls is an excellent emotional depiction of the passion of Christ in the garden and the via dolorosa. Aslan asking the girls to touch his mane is extremely powerful, and is the necessary requirement for our fully appreciating the also missing resurrection romp -- it's no surprise that with the former gone, we also miss the latter.
C.S. Lewis is famous -- in my mind, at least -- for surprising one's expectations: the logic of mystery is also the logic of paradox, as Chesterton so well demonstrated. Prof. Kirk's stating of the logic of Lucy's experience in Narnia is drained of impact and becomes little better than a merely childish or perhaps patronizing buttressing of Lucy's fancy -- the type of thing that happens when an adult encourages children to believe in faeries "for real" (or Santa Claus, for that matter, when devoid of the connection to St. Nicholas of Myra). Yes, in the movie Prof. Kirk really believes Lucy, but it plays as an oddity.
Another one of those upturning of expectations is after the battle when Lucy gives a drop of the healing liquid (miracle-working myrh, anyone?) to Edmund. She waits around to see if it will work, but Aslan tells her not to wait, that there are others dying. Lucy becomes cross and says, "Just a minute!" But Aslan drives home the need for her to trust him, and to get on with attending to the others. We want to side with Lucy... until we hear Aslan out, and then we realize, yes, we must have faith, and not only that, but these are the persons who will fill the 4 thrones of the kingdom, and they are duty and honor bound to serve the land above their own needs. This is completely lost in the movie, as the camera hovers over the sentimental moment between the children -- the movie follows our inclinations, and not the loftier ones of Lewis's more perfect Narnia.
The movie covers the actions of LWW, but replaces the Idea of it -- and it is the Idea that drives the actions. Because the Idea is missing, the action is diverted to something lesser, something merely entertaining in a slightly cheap way.
I'm rather rough on films, and no doubt many will think me overly critical. But I don't think that we should be judging Adamson's efforts in a separate category from Tarkovsky, Bergman, Bresson, Kurosawa, etc. I don't buy into the whole "pop art" vs. "high art" dichotomy.
Anyway, here's a review that I think is quite good. The reviewer covers many important things, while liking the movie a good deal better than I did. (I.e. don't ignore the review just because you think I'm a kill-joy. ;) )
