I agree with some of your quibbles - in the book the children were trying to stay out of the way of a house tour, not running from punishment. And Father Christmas - Lewis's fault - if you see him as Father Yule for a pagan winter celebration, it works better. The children do need to get their gifts from him, so you can't take him out.
The children, Tumnus and the witch were superb. Aslan as a CG character sort of insubstantial and waving in the wind - his dialog rather modern fuzzy. CG landscapes I didn't mind, but I want more of a real lion!
A lot of the dialog suffering from a modern breeziness and smart-aleckyness - even at the end when the children are grown kings and queens and in the book were talking in a very elevated and antique style.
Feminism has crept in - no more "Battles are ugly when women fight." As a child I would have been wholeheartedly in favor of the change, not sure now.
Christianity was not blatant - you could easily see this as one particular sacrifice for one unworthy person, not for a world of them.
I would have loved it if so much of the dialog hadn't grated on me. It didn't bother my children.
Mrs VS
And I don't think Peter would have been so reluctant to take on Narnia's battle - here's a fifteen year old boy in wartime Britain who's probably counting the hours until he's seventeen and can enlist.
Mrs VS
Aslan insubstantial? I thought he looked pretty solid--a real special fx triumph.
I agree that viewing Father Christmas as Father Yule makes it work better. But just thinking out loud here (so to speak), and this doesn't really pertain to the movie which had to follow Lewis' lead here, but i wonder if having had him (the Narnia version of Santa) associated with Spring instead of Winter would have worked better still. I mean, what with spring viewed as a time of rebirth and with him only able to return once the spell on winter was broken (which, incidentally, also led to the return of Azlan and thereby further signified a time of renewed life and hope) i just wonder if having him as the Father of Springtime and having him dressed, say, in green rather than red might have fit into the story a bit better. Also that way instead of talk in Narnia of Christmas, which raises all sorts of questions, they could have spoken reminiscently about Springfest or something similar.
Anyway...
The dialog didn't bother me. Perhaps in part because i found it charming once again to have a Disney movie filled with British accents. And perhaps too because i have developed, for some strange reason, a somewhat low expectation in recent years when it comes to dialog in movies. Also, while the children were indeed smart-alecky with one another, they were at least respectful towards adults and always remembered (as far as i can remember) to say Please and Thank You. Something which is getting more and more rare now a days.
By the way, at the end of the movie...what were the Kings and Queens of Narnia doing? Were they hunting? I was thinking that they were hunting a stag. Or at least that's what i seem to recall from the book (at that point in the movie i guess my attention sort of drifted for a moment because i didn't catch on to what they were up to). But that can't be right, can it? I mean not with all the animals of Narnia being sentient as far as i can tell. So i'm hoping some one can clear that up for me.
As per my post #20, I though Neeson was acceptable as Aslan, but I didn't think he was quite the perfect fit. This morning while walking my dogs, the thought struck me as to why...Neeson should have been held in reserve as he'd make a great Puddleglum in future movies...If you've ever seen Neeson's rural personage in "Next Of Kin", it serves as a great prototype (and he wouldn't have to force a southern accent as a Marsh-wiggle.)