Visually, it was gorgeous - the New Zealand mountains, the cgi, the lovely old house, the costuming.
The actiing was superb. Like many other people, I have to single out Georgie Henley (Lucy Pevensie), who was, well. Amazing. She was beautiful in a real little girl sort of way, and there was nothing cloying or false about her performance. Lucy is the heart of this story, and this ten year old could carry that burden.
This is someone we need to keep an eye on, I think.
But all four of the young actors were excellent - better, I have to say, than the kids of the Potter movies. And I do think Liam Neeson was a good choice as Aslan's voice - I liked the sense of strength and gentleness he projected, which fit my view of Aslan.
I'm not much for great battles, so I don't have much to say about that, although it was, again, striking.
As for the heart of the matter - a bit of history. I first encountered LWW as an animated special when I was about sixteen. I enjoyed it, but the Christological things felt rather anvilicious. I read the book soon afterwards, and devoured the rest of the series (in the proper order of publication, of course), but the first and the last books were clearly Christian in nature. As I was Jewish (albeit totally secular), it was somewhat off-putting. I t hink I liked the non-Pevensie books best for this reason.
jonbaker, on the other hand, first read the books at the age of eight. Moreover, he was attending an Orthodox Jewish Day School. Even now, he has to have what I consider anvils pointed out to him. To him, it was just a lovely, magical story. Still, he preferred the middle books because they were more fun.
And here I have to say - it's clear that Lewis wanted to write both a lovely, magical story and a Christian allegory, and there is nothing wrong with that. It can be read on both levels, and on other levels, and frankly, it works on both levels. So this is not a criticism. Also, I believe he was aiming at a younger age group than sixteen.
That said - I do believe those elements were either toned down or subverted slightly in the movie. For example, a big plot point is Christmas - "It's always Winter and never Christmas." For Lewis's intended audience, that's a calamity, of course. A hundred years with no Christmas presents? So the giving of the presents means that the long winter is no longer in stasis. Subtextually, of course, Christmas is the Winter Solistice, after which days grow longer and winter can end, so it makes sense that this is the turning point. This is, though, a pagan thing that goes along with the actual roots of Christmas. Beyond that is the symbolism of the Christian roots - it's when J's birth is celebrated, just as the Christmas in the book symbolizes the return of Aslan to Narnia. But this is far down in the sub-subtext.
(I also find it interesting that the gifts are not joy or peace, but weapons and symbols of war, with the only exception being the "comfort" of Lucy's potion. And even that is for the aftermath of war.)
Then we come to the sacrifice. I have something say about the reasoning for the sacrifice, but that'll be later.
In the book, the Stone Table was like a dining room table, with four legs and so on, but made of stone. In the movie, it was clearly an altar. And there are sarcens behind it, and the White Witch wields a blade that, according to Jonathan, was made of meteoric iron. In other words, it was a Druidic sacrifice. It felt like modern law taking over from ancient law, with the Christian subtext rather far down. I don't know if CS Lewis would have approved, but I find it interesting that they did that.
(And the husband who was so good at picking out pagan elements? Still couldn't see the Christian ones.)
The sacrifice itself - why? It was in place of Edmund the Betrayer, of course, but. Leaving out my own religious objections (you can't appoint an agent to do tshuva for you, and a child isn't subject to the law anyway) - Edmund didn't betray anyone. Oh, I know he informed the Witch about Tumnus. He most certainly did that. But I didn't see any malice in that particular thing. He had no idea that the Witch was evil - she was the pretty lady who said she was a Queen and who fed him sweeties at a time when sweeties weren't available. He mentioned his sister and that she'd met with the faun, not knowing he shouldn't do that. Would he have done so anyway? Possibly. We don't know.
And he did not behave well - lying about Narnia (which was a betrayal all by itself, but that wasn't what he would have been punished for) and running away from the Beavers - and only part of that could have been explained by the way his family treated him - but there was still no intent in his informing on Tumnus.
Surely he wouldn't be punished for saying something out of ignorance? But he was. (And if Aslan knew he'd rise again - he was humiliated (cutting off his mane=emasculation) and beaten and caused great pain, and all of these are a sacrifice by itself - it still sort of reduces it. Maybe. I don't know. I do see why that was necessary for Aslan's plan, though. Made the Witch confident enough to attack (with his mane, no less) and gave the Narnian troops something tangible to fight for.
Anyway, if it was betrayal, and Edmund was responsible, he *did* pay. He put himself in danger on the battlefield and lost blood to protect another being - disobeying orders again, but not for his own benefit. He did his atonement there, and for himself.
And as that was my only nit to pick - yes. Excellent movie and one I'm very glad I saw.