Originally posted by: auraloffalwaffle
I think the disappointment I felt in the movie version was due to its lack of character. The makers were obviously falling over themselves to emulate The Lord Of The Rings.
What they should have realised is that CS Lewis' fantasy was a different beast to Tolkein's and merited a different approach.
The pointlessly OTT action scenes (particularly under the frozen waterfall) were so histrionic that it was almost funny. And the photography was all so bright and cheery, in that oh-so-Disney way, that it couldn't hope to match the brooding gloom of LOTR.

Interesting thoughts. I myself had to pull my foot out of my mouth after see the movie. I rather enjoyed it. I had thought that Disney would give a treatment that stripped it of its meaning (obviously the religious allegory, but also its paralles with childhood) that I was surprised how much got through. There were times when it looked like what it was, a series of sets in Hollywood, and had that stiffness that made Chris Columbus's Harry Potter films so cramped. It isn't as gloomy a tale as LOTR. Most of the film's issues, to me, stemmed for overreaching. Hopefully Adamson will improve his technique with the sequels. But it was infinitly more satisfying that I though that it would be.