MovieChat Forums > The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe (1988) Discussion > I have never seen anything so hokey or c...

I have never seen anything so hokey or cheesy in ALL my life!

posted 17 years ago by delennwen
15 replies | jump to latest

How stupid looking is this! I mean, grown adults running around with their hands by their chests in those SILLY, RIDICULOUS beaver costumes--my husband and I were rolling on the floor. And the stupid cartoon hags and witches---whoooo, how scary! (NOT!)

And don't get me STARTED on the Queen, whose overacting was so awful it was just funny. At least Aslan looked relatively decent--I was so afraid they'd have someone in a lion suit similar to the beavers!--umm but he doesn't even OPEN HIS MOUTH when he talks!

The whole thing looked like a cheap and extremely tacky community theater play. I know a lot of people don't like the new movie version, but at least it LOOKED decent on screen!

CS LEWIS would be rolling in his grave if he saw this. Yes, it's a very faithful adaptation of his story, but it LOOKS just ridiculous. Certainly has NOT stood the test of time!

[–] gm_1863 16 years ago

It was made in the 80's you moron.

[–] BackToTheWoods 16 years ago

I rather like it. It's BBC, not Spielberg.

All the acting is very good, I think. Especially the professor, though he only has a minor role.

But...I have to agree with you on the little cartoony bits. Especially the Pegasus that comes flying down out of the sky. When I first watched that part I remember I had to go check to see if I had perhaps drunk the rest of my vodka and maybe forgotten about it. But no, it was still there.

[–] JonnysGal 16 years ago

This was made in the 80s and did not have the budget of blockbuster movie, for gods sake it was made by the BBC. Also, it was aimed towards families, particularly children. I remember when this first aired on the BBC back in 1988, i was 9 at the time and I thought it was just magical. Yes, the cartoons were a bit cheap but at least the animals like the beavers were played by actors and not CGI like in the movie. Even as a child I thought some of it was funny but in an enjoyable way, for instance, the witch was both hilarious and scary at the same time!

I have since bought the box set of the BBC series on dvd and can still enjoy it now and when I have children, I will let them watch this version as I felt it was more true to the book and the setting.

Overall, I think you were being quite critical of something which was enjoyed by millions when it first aired and since.

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] croydontemp 16 years ago

this series has dated horribly i have to admit with the cartoons, etc... but it was made in the 80s, and didnt you look beyond all this stuff and see how great the story is? I personally think this is better then the film, obviously not in terms of special effects, but i loved this as a kid and the film just wasnt as good.

[–] catrionalowe84 16 years ago

Well, I've not seen the film, but I LOVE this. Obviously now in the days of great movie special effects you can see that the cartoons etc are a bit rubbish, but personally I prefer seeing actual people playing animal characters than animated ones. I guess I can see why some of you think it's just dated now, but I still think it's magical.

Catriona x

"Inside of me, there's a thin person just screaming to get out."
"Just the one, dear?"

[–] hellsbells265 16 years ago

I think so too, the movie may be good with CGI and all that but it lost the magical feeling on the way

[–] halex12345 16 years ago

How old were you when you watched it, as I was about 6 and i loved it! I showed my six year old cousin both film and BBC series and she prefers the series as it makes more sense!
She doesnt care for the costumes, and neither did I, its more enjoyable and not jsut one big expensive fight (which was the whole story line to the film!)

[–] raggedtoothguppie 16 years ago

I love the costumes of the old version. If you watch the bloopers on the DVD, the beavers couldn't walk well in the suits and the snow so they kept falling over. As they couldn't get up by themselves, "Beaver Retrievers" were allocated to hoist them up each time they fell...it is HILARIOUS!

[–] we_are_nihilists 16 years ago

i have to agree with delennwen... this movie is awful. i've never witnessed anything so visually and technically miserable in my entire life. the acting was also just dreadful. and for those who say it was "a better adaptation of the book", which is always a good quality, but guess what? THIS IS A MOVIE. movies are supposed to be visually entertaining and interesting. and this movie fails at that. miserably. if you're going to make a movie of a book that requires serious and advanced visuals, have the decency to provide those seriously advanced visuals, or don't make the movie.

[–] Troll_Dahl 11 years ago

Maybe to modern tastes, this production would work better on the stage, especially if by "serious visuals" you mean ultra-photorealism.

This was a BBC television serial, not a "movie". At times, it's like the old Dr. Who series visually--primitive by today's standards. So what? What do you expect other than costumes and puppets for the time and venue? Moreover, I think the child actors are naturalistic and spirited, if imperfect.

If anyone from the adult cast is beyond reproach, it's Jeffrey Perry as Tummus and Michael Aldridge as the professor. Perry works very well with Sophie Wilcox's maligned Lucy. Watch their meeting scene. I also found the beaver actors delightful. I guess it's a matter of aesthetics and tastes. I'm gravitating more and more towards the theatre over film or telly because of the often bland, colorless ultra-realism and lack of flourish that seem to be in vogue for the latter.

[–] LadyMiraculous 11 years ago

Well, most television movies do often have cheap costumes and special effects (take the Halloweentown movies, for example). However, the acting could've used a lot more effort. Believe me, I watched this movie in my 4th grade class when I was 9 years old, and even we thought it was silly!

Let the storm rage on, the cold never bothered me anyway...
[Formerly CosmosX9]

[–] Troll_Dahl 11 years ago

I suppose there's a lot of innocence simplicity in these productions, which can come across as "silly". It may also depend upon when and where you were in the fourth grade. The final battle is a pretty good example of the production's limitations and weaker areas. As a little kid I didn't notice it as much, but it's low-fi for sure in places. Some of those costume creatures look kind of interesting, but when you just see them in a series of close-ups, not really performing any pertinent action (just sort of mugging), it can take away from the effect.

So I admit that I tend to look at these through a particular set of shades. I do think they have their virtues if you can see through some of the sillier, more mundane stuff.

Om Shanti

[–] LadyMiraculous 11 years ago

I guess you're right. I mean I liked some of the make-up costumes in this one, but most of them (especially The Beavers), looked far too ridiculous for me to take seriously. No offense.

Let the storm rage on, the cold never bothered me anyway...
[Formerly CosmosX9]

[–] Oddark123 10 years ago

Meh looks don't matter at all. i only watch things for the story it tells. I don't care if they spent millions of dollars or a shoestring budget, i don't go into films like some lifeless miser to pick a part things for not looking realistic. Seems petty and lame iMO.

I give shot on video cheap productions the same chances i give hollywood blockbusters and both sometimes work and sometimes don't. In this case both versions i have seen work just fine, this one just fullfills more to be in doing more of the scenes i wanted to see done on screen.

Gamefaqs has a far worse population than IMDB