The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe

Not rated yet!
Director
Andrew Adamson
Runtime
2 h 23 min
Release Date
7 December 2005
Genres
Adventure, Family, Fantasy
Overview
Siblings Lucy, Edmund, Susan and Peter step through a magical wardrobe and find the land of Narnia. There, the they discover a charming, once peaceful kingdom that has been plunged into eternal winter by the evil White Witch, Jadis. Aided by the wise and magnificent lion, Aslan, the children lead Narnia into a spectacular, climactic battle to be free of the Witch's glacial powers forever.
Staff ReviewsAround the Web ReviewsAudience Reviews

Check back soon when the reviews are out!

Or why not join our mailing list to stay up to date?

 

SIGN UP!

Box office recaps sent twice a month (maximum).

( ̄^ ̄)ゞ (☞゚ヮ゚)☞ No spam! ☜(゚ヮ゚☜)




 ✍🏻  > 🗡️   Want to join our team? Email us!  
Mark Steyn1
Fox News



(Reviewers' Site/Bio)

  • The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe...
    Adamson eschews the big look-isn't-it-magical gestures of the Potter/Tim Burton approach, but he manages to convey the sense of wonder a wartime evacuee might feel at such transportation. - The Spectator EDIT
    Read More | Posted Jan 24, 2018
    ...
    (Review Source)

VJ Morton1
Right Wing Film Geek



(Reviewers' Site/Bio)
  • NARNIA review

    NARNIA review

    NARNIA: THE LION, THE WITCH AND THE WARDROBE (Andrew Adamson, USA, 2005, 6)

    “I am saying that there is no teaching of knowledge, but only recollection.”
    – Socrates, in Plato’s dialogue Meno

    I made one Socratic discovery about myself when watching “Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe”: That C.S. Lewis’s book is probably (no … certainly) the novel that has produced the strongest imprint on my mind, the one that I know as if from recollection. I have seen multiple movie adaptations of objectively greater novels (“Pride & Prejudice,” obviously) and objectively greater plays (“Hamlet,” obviously). But never, before “Narnia,” had I had so much recollection of the original novel when watching a movie. Never had I said to myself so often “no, that’s not right,” or “that’s not what happened,” or “why did they cut that out?” The amazing thing is that I hadn’t read Lewis’s novel for at least 15 years, though I’d seen an animated TV version about a decade ago. I have seen movie adaptations of novels and plays I had read more recently (again, the latest “Pride & Prejudice”) … without having that sort of reaction.

    And yet, this is a very faithful adaptation. The plot points whiz by in the order and manner they should (the film is a short-feeling 140 minutes); the sibling rivalry that fuels much of the relationship between Peter, Susan, Edmund and Lucy is present, including the “reactionary sexism” in Lewis’s portrayal of boys and girls; the four siblings are as I had always mentally pictured them and they all give fine performances in the vein of “kids in a fantasy world”; there’s no “humanizing” or excuse-making for the White Witch this – evil looks and acts bad, first as temptation and carnal (Turkish) delights, then as the grotesqueries of the Witch’s army; the death and resurrection of Aslan are presented literally and objectively; a bunch of the Christ parallel details are there or added (“Behold the Great Lion”/”Ecce Homo”; “it is finished,” though not exactly at the right time; Susan and Lucy accompanying Aslan on the Via Dolorosa and weeping over his corpse like the Blessed Virgin Mary and Mary Magdelene).

    Like I said about “Pride and Prejudice” a couple of weeks ago, this is too good a story not to get an at-least-passable movie out of. In many ways, that’s all you can really ask for – gawd knows, there’d hardly be a point to a loose adaptation of this novel. But my recollection kept getting the better of me, even though I understand quite well that adapters can’t get everything on the screen. I still remember, like it was yesterday, being a 10-year-old boy at John Ogilvie Hall, looking forward to the last few minutes before all the breaks – for lunch, playtime and day’s end. Mrs. White would use those last few minutes to read to us (in that year, she went all the way through both LWW and Lewis’s “The Magician’s Nephew”).

    Even the smallest things, I noticed. Like how in the film we don’t find out until much later than we do in the book that the White Witch’s habit is to turn creatures into stone, until a new scene of Tumnus being thus “executed” in front of Edmund. But as a result, the filmgoer doesn’t get much of the eerieness of Edmund’s walk through the Witch’s “statuary,” or his taunting a lion that he wrongly thinks is Aslan.


    The cinematic high point for me is probably Tilda Swinton’s delightfully fruity performance as the White Witch, the evil Queen Jadis. She isn’t camping it up, exactly – the Witch is too cold and precise for that. With her frozen face and self-possessed body language, Swinton was born to play a character with ice running through her veins. In an opposite-of-Judi-Dench sort of way, Swinton also seems like a Satanic parody of royalty – close enough to the real thing to see the deformities. Yet she also recoils slightly, as if afraid of what Aslan can do, when confronting him with her demand for Edmund’s blood.

    As for the computer-generated effects, they are mixed in their specialness. On the upside, the animals look and act like animals. Aslan really is a lion saying his lines; the wolves leap like wolves. But on the down side, a scene of Susan and Lucy riding Aslan looks like bad back projection, like riding in a car in a ’40s movie.

    For the last couple of years, film critics have noted anti-Iraq-war subtexts in a variety of commercial films not explicitly about the war – for example George Romero’s “Land of the Dead” and Stephen Spielberg’s “War of the Worlds.” Here, for the first time that I recall, there are clear pro-war subtexts, none of them explicit carryovers from the Lewis book.

    For example, very early on, the Pevensie kids are at a London train station and there’s a quick shot of the adolescent Peter giving a longing look at Tommies going off to fight Hitler. This underlines what is only implicit in Lewis – Peter’s growing into manhood, as defined by his willingness and ability to use the sword that is a gift from Father Christmas. When Peter is first confronted by the White Witch’s wolves, Susan yells at him like a true isolationist: “this isn’t our war.” Later, she says “just because someone gave you a sword doesn’t make you a hero” and I was waiting for her to say “cuz A Hero Ain’t Nothin’ but a Sandwich,” in the fashionable lingo of today’s books. But guess whose actions, right at the end, save Peter from the coup de grace? This construction of adulthood as leaving behind childish things and taking up arms is also present in Edmund, who is portrayed as having the worst vice imaginable for a British child of that generation – disobedience. “Why don’t you just do as you’re told,” Peter several times says to Edmund, who is portrayed (much more here than in Lewis) as the rebel, maybe even the most autonomous. But by the end he’s saying “I’ve seen what the White Witch can do. We can’t leave these people behind.” And we get the added line of Tumnus saying he betrayed the tyrant for “a free Narnia,” just as he’s turned to stone.

    But there are several adaptation cuts which I just think were unnecessary or excessive. The changes in Edmund noted above made me regret even more the decision to basically delete the chapter where Lewis follows Edmund’s trip from the Beavers’ abode to the witch’s castle. There we get all of Edmund’s thoughts, including his decision to worship another god (“I expect that she is the rightful Queen really. Anyway, she’ll be better than that awful Aslan.”)

    For another, the carefully considered conversation Peter and Susan have with the professor, which takes up a whole chapter in Lewis, is compressed into an accidental exchange of four or five lines about whether to believe Edmund or Lucy. Thus, we lose all of Lewis’ defense of fantasy and his whole understanding of his enterprise in writing the Narnia chronicles. In addition, Lewis has a whole chapter called “Deep Magic from Before the Dawn of Time,” explaining Aslan’s resurrection. The film makes no allusion to this at all, instead Aslan telling Susan and Lucy that the White Witch just hadn’t figured out the deep magic, which she cited to make her claim on Edmund the traitor’s blood, necessitating Aslan’s sacrifice. This undermines the Old Covenant/Deep Magic – New Covenant/Deeper Magic parallels, which deepen the Aslan/Christ parallels. I’d like to think the adapters (unnecessarily but understandably) wanted to avoid any taint of pure supercessionism, which many Jews consider anti-Semitic. But I think that’s crediting them with more theological sophistication than they have, since Aslan’s rebuke of the White Witch – “I was there when [the Deep Magic] was written” (a direct allusion to the opening of St. John’s Gospel) – remains. So I rather suspect they just didn’t get what the Deeper Magic was a reference to.

    Probably the biggest disappointment for me was the role of Aslan. Nothing against Liam Neeson’s performance, which is quite good and quite “right-sounding.” But Aslan has little Providence here. There’s too little foreshadowing of him as the promised Messiah that half the Old Testament is about (and of course, no reference to the Father beyond the Sea). The Lockhornsesque marital quarrelling between Mr. and Mrs. Beaver (well-played though it was by Ray Winstone and Dawn French) dominates the kids’ time with them, so there’s little of their conversation about Aslan, and the Hope that He represented even before His coming. Mr. Beaver’s line “of course he isn’t safe. But he’s good” is absent (except for a reprise at the end, shorn of its Providential meaning). In the same way, the transition from winter to spring is way too sudden and too complete. It all makes Aslan appear a bit arbitrary. When he walks away at the end in an extreme long shot, it was all I could do not to yell at the screen: “Come back, Shane.”

    I got that kind of sense about too much in the film to give it an unqualified recommendation. The secular film-makers tried their darndest, and in good faith I think, to keep the allegory intact. Necessary to get those “Passion dollars.” But the effect is like listening to a singer who learned a song phonetically in a language he doesn’t speak. Or hearing, as a native speaker, someone who learned your language in a classroom. The “music” just isn’t there.

    Still, to overextend the metaphor, at least be grateful that Disney is singing from a Christian song sheet to the limits of its abilities. And isn’t rewriting the music.
    ———————————————
    Originally published at The Fact Is.

    Advertisement
    Advertisements
    Report this ad
    Report this ad

    Like this:

    Like Loading...

    Related

    A godless atonementIn "James Bowman"

    Andrew Johnston, 1968-2008In "Andrew Johnston"

    After years of refusalIn "Woody Allen"

    December 22, 2005 - Posted by | Uncategorized | , ,

    No comments yet.

    Leave a Reply Cancel reply

    Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

    You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

    You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

    You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

    You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

    Connecting to %s

    « Previous | Next »

    ...
    (Review Source)

John Hanlon2
John Hanlon Reviews



(Reviewers' Site/Bio)

  • 5 Great Faith-Based Movies from the last 15 years
    ...
    (Review Source)
  • 5 Must-See Faith-Based Films from the past 12 years
    (”The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe” is briefly mentioned in this.)
    Since the amazing success of The Passion of the Christ in 2004, order Hollywood has become more open to offering faith-based features. This weekend, physician for instance, ailment the sequel to the surprise commercial hit God’s Not Dead hits theaters nationwide. (Check...
    ...
    (Review Source)

Kelly Jane Torrance1
The Weekly Standard



(Reviewers' Site/Bio)

  • Fox saves 'Narnia' from Disney

    Twentieth Century Fox yesterday swooped in like a fantasy novel's knight in shining armor to save "The Chronicles of Narnia." Whether Fox can learn from Disney's mistakes and reinvigorate a family franchise that's at the very center of debates about commerce, culture and religion is something about which observers disagree. Published January 30, 2009

    ...
    (Review Source)

Plugged In1
Focus on the Family



(Reviewers' Site/Bio)

  • Eduardo Verástegui Talks About Faith, Little Boy and the Power of Media
    (”The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe” is briefly mentioned in this.)
    The New York Times ran “nearly 900 film reviews in 2013,” according to the Times itself. That’s not quite three films per day, but it’s getting close. With that huge number of motion pictures being made each year (and certainly the Times didn’t review every one), it might surprise you to know that Focus on the Family has gone out on a limb only a handful of times to give an endorsement. That’s not to say there haven’t been hundreds of family-friendly films we could have recommended. It’s just that, as a rule, we don’t. I could count on just my fingers how many times Focus has, via the radio broadcast, actually encouraged listeners to buy a movie ticket. The Passion of the Christ. The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe. Fireproof. To name a few of the few. But back in 2006 when the pro-life film Bella was releasing, Focus on the Family made one of those rare exceptions and rallied behind it (you can read our review here). Eduardo Verástegui, the movie’s co-producer and star told Plugged In back then that he knew his inspiring little flick was going to have its challenges at the box office. But Verástegui viewed the success of Bella differently than most people in the industry. “What I’d love to see happen with this film is to someday have this 12-year-old knock on my door and say that her mother was going to have an abortion. But she saw this film,” he said. “That would be my Oscar.” Now another Verástegui-produced film, Little Boy, is rolling out to theaters, officially opening nationwide tomorrow. I caught up with this actor/singer/producer to get the scoop, plus details on his personal life. First and foremost I wanted to know how he came to Christ. Verástegui explained how his father wanted him to become a lawyer, but he had a different dream in mind. So he set off from his small town of Xicotencati, Mexico, at age 18 to move to Mexico City in hopes of becoming a singer and actor. Things clicked and he started singing in a popular boy band called Kairo. About three-and-a-half years later he started acting in Mexican telenovelas. Then at age 28, with a film opportunity in the works, Verástegui moved to L.A. to immerse himself in the study of English. In the process of learning this new language, Verástegui’s teacher began to ask him questions that revolutionized his life. He thought it was all part of normal language lessons. She, on the other hand, wanted to plant spiritual seeds, asking such questions as, What is the purpose of life? Who is God in your life? Who do you die for? “Who do you live for?” “I was very empty,” explained Verástegui. “Something was missing in my life and I didn’t know what it was,” he told me. “God was part of my life, but not the center of my life. Because of her somehow, she opened my eyes.” Having seen Little Boy twice, my impression of the movie was that it was a good, family-friendly film, but not an explicitly Christian film like Courageous would be. I asked him about that, particularly since Little Boy’s been marketed heavily to the Christian community. “Well, you’re right,” Verástegui responded. “First of all this movie is a mainstream family-friendly movie for everyone. That’s pretty much our goal with our company. …Our hope as filmmakers is that when people leave the theater they will leave inspired to love more and judge less. …Hopefully people will leave full of not just popcorn and soda, but full of hope, love and faith.” I then inquired how Mark Burnett and Roma Downey (both of whom are listed as executive producers) got involved with Little Boy. Verástegui explained: “One day we were screening the movie and Mark Burnett came. He was invited by a friend. He saw the movie and he was very touched; he loved the movie. He said, ‘Eduardo, how can I help you? … I have no agenda other than I just saw the movie and I want to make sure that everybody sees this movie because this movie is designed to make this world a better place.’” Verástegui would naturally like for Little Boy to be a financial success. But he does his best to not think about such matters. Again, like Bella, his priorities are elsewhere. “[When] you start thinking [about the money], you don’t sleep especially when you’re close to the release. So, I let my other business partners deal with that while I’m promoting the movie.” In closing, I want to share a few thoughts that Verástegui had about the influence of today’s media. He often came across in our interview as someone who could be on the Plugged In team. Although media questions are common for me to ask, his thoughts about the power of entertainment came about as he shared his testimony, not from any inquiry on my part.  Here are three powerful nuggets from our chat: “…I was using my talents in a selfish way. I forgot that whatever project I was involved with, whether I liked it or not, would affect how people think, how they live, how they behave, especially in people who have this tendency to imitate what they see and feel on television.” “I believe that art has the power to heal and to bring people together.” “…at the same time I realized how much media influences how people think. That’s when I made a promise to my parents and I made a promise to God that I would never use my talents again to do anything that would offend my faith, my family or my Mexican culture.” ]]>
    ...
    (Review Source)

The Unz Review Staff1
Unz Review



(Reviewers' Site/Bio)

  • American Pravda: Holocaust Denial, by Ron Unz - The Unz Review
    (”The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe” is briefly mentioned in this.)

    Finally, in a short, posthumously published review of a book by French scholar Paul Rassiner, Barnes found his estimate of just 1 million to 1.5 million Jewish deaths quite convincing, but his tone suggested that he had never previously investigated the matter himself. ... In France, opposition to the film was so severe that La 25e Heure, the ...

    ...
    (Review Source)

PJ Media Staff1
PJ Media



(Reviewers' Site/Bio)

  • How Western Civilization Lost It at the Movies
    (”The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe” is briefly mentioned in this.)
    Ed Driscoll "Movies really have become awful, haven't they?" Ace writes. And who can argue with him?I don't mean politically; sure, there are a lot of liberal zingers put into movies for no very good reason, except to make the filmmakers think they've done something positive with the piece of shit project they're foisting on people.Hollywood has always made most movies for a juvenile crowd. A producer, I think his name was Zanuck, worked out the logic like this: Girls will see anything boys will see, but boys will not see most things girls will see. Younger kids will see anything that older kids will see, but older kids will not see things made for younger kids. Adults will see most things that older teenagers will see, but older teenagers will not necessarily see things that adults would see. Therefore, the correct money-making demographic to make a movie for is a 17 year old boy.Read the whole thing, and follow Ace's link to screenwriter Eric Heisserer, at the appropriately named industry blog The Bitter Script Reader.So is the real problem the declining intelligence and taste of the average 17-year-old male, or is it the declining intelligence and taste of Hollywood, or do the two -- along with the declining intelligence and taste of the American education system -- combine to form the complete Red Queen’s Race to the bottom? I'd blame the latter scenario, especially after contemplating what the average 17-year-old male likely dug when he went to the movies over the years:1950s: Alfred Hitchcock’s best decade, and loads of war movies, both pro and con (Strategic Air Command, The Bridge on the River Kwai, Paths of Glory, et al). 1960s: The birth of the James Bond movie franchise, plus big-budget middlebrow epics like Spartacus, Lawrence of Arabia, and Dr. Zhivago, plus the rise of the counter-culture, with Dr. Strangelove, Blowup, Bonnie & Clyde, 2001, and the Beatles’ movies.1970s: More Bond, rock movies (Woodstock, Gimme Shelter), B-movies/exploitation/violence galore (Easy Rider, Clockwork Orange, Dirty Mary Crazy Larry, Taxi Driver, Death Wish, Dirty Harry), the Godfather movies, and then the rise of Spielberg and Lucas, which led to…1980s: The Empire Strikes Back, ET, Jedi, Blade Runner, the Star Trek movies, Platoon, Wall Street, Full Metal Jacket, and the SNL movies (Stripes, Trading Places, Ghost Busters, et al). Plus plenty of horny teenager movies (Fast Times, Risky Business, etc.)1990s: T2, the Batman movies, and the omnipresent summer action movie with Arnold, Bruce, Tom, Harrison, et al. Plus the 1998 digital mind-f*** movies: The Matrix and Dark City. And Titanic,  which brilliantly combined the chick-flick with an ending filled with plenty of digital FX and carnage for the boys.2000s: Brit-lit such as the Lord of the Rings and Narnia, the horrible but exceedingly profitable Star Wars prequels, and wall-to-wall superheroes.2010s: Avatar and even more superheroes. Did I mention the superheroes?Sense a trend here? And don't forget -- a tiny percentage of the most aggressive of those moviegoers in the '70s and '80s are the ones who headed to Hollywood to write today's drek. Their idea of deep and complex middlebrow culture aren't the books that inspired Hollywood's golden age, but the actual movies themselves. Or as John Podhoretz wrote at NRO on the eve of 9/11, "A century dominated by movies has left the movies starved for inspiration."Even beyond that mammoth dumbing down of the average hit movie's writing when middlebrow culture was nuked and paved by the new left, after 9/11, the combination of PC and fear of failure completely numbed Hollywood, resulting in the Big Screen's current malaise. And oddly, television's renaissance, a topic that Mark Tapson discusses at Acculturated.com, in his review of television critic Alan Sepinwall's new book, The Revolution Was Televised: The Cops, Crooks, Slingers and Slayers Who Changed TV Drama Forever:In “an interesting role reversal” with the movie biz, the TV revolution gained momentum as “the 21st century slowly saw the extinction of the middle-class movie. If a film couldn’t either be made on the cheap or guarantee an opening weekend of $50 million or more, it was out.” That meant that studios began to depend heavily on big-spectacle blockbusters (something I touched on in the previous article in this series). “Movies went from something really interesting,” as The Sopranos creator David Chase put it, “to what we have now.”That left a growing void of more artistically and dramatically compelling fare–a void that television filled with Sepinwall’s list of the dozen American TV shows “that changed TV forever,” as his subtitle puts it: The Sopranos, Oz, The Wire, Deadwood, The Shield, Lost, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, 24, Battlestar Galactica, Friday Night Lights, and, of course, Mad Men and Breaking Bad.As an example of this revolutionary fare, Sepinwall points to the balls-out opening of Breaking Bad, in which former sitcom father Bryan Cranston’s character–a middle-aged, cancer-ridden chemistry teacher wearing saggy tighty-whities and a gas mask–careens down a desert highway in a mobile meth lab, a dying pair of drug dealers on the vehicle floor behind him. At the end of that jaw-dropping sequence, your inevitable two responses are “What the hell was that?” followed by “More, please. Now.”The revolution didn’t materialize ex nihilo: “The millennial wave of revolutionary dramas,” Sepinwall writes, “was built on the work put in by a group of other series” that paved the way: cop dramas like Hill Street Blues and NYPD Blue, the hospital dramas St. Elsewhere and ER, the sitcom Cheers, the “MTV cops” of Miami Vice, the hallucinatory Twin Peaks, The X-Files, and others.But hey, cheer up movie fans, because help is on the way. Who's up for Ridley Scott's production of Monopoly: The Motion Picture?!Or this: "What Hell Hath Disney-Lucasfilm Wrought? ‘Star Wars’ Meets ‘Extreme Makeover.'"Update: In addition to the dumbing down of American culture via PC, I should have mentioned how the need for a film to compete in a worldwide marketplace can also dumb down the writing. Tapson addressed this in his previous essay:As an example, [David Denby] notes that 2010’s Transformers: Dark of the Moon, which he calls “a thundering farrago of verbal and visual gibberish,” grossed $1 billion worldwide in a month: “Nothing is going to stop such success from laying waste to the movies as an art form.”It doesn’t help that international audiences now account for two-thirds of box office receipts. Denby feels that this makes studios gun-shy about making their movies about anything. “Aimed at Bangkok and Bangalore as much as at Bangor,” Denby writes, “our big movies have been defoliated of character, wit, psychology, local color.” He cites director Christopher Nolan’s Inception as an example of “a recent trend in which big movies have been progressively drained of meaning.”That essay/extended blog post by Tapson is also well worth your time. class="pages"> https://pjmedia.com/eddriscoll/2012/12/4/how-western-civilization-lost-it-at-the-movies/ ]]>
    ...
    (Review Source)

Crosswalk1
Cross Walk



(Reviewers' Site/Bio)

  • 10 Mainstream Films We'd Call 'Christian Movies’
    (”The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe” is briefly mentioned in this.)
    The phrase “Christian movie” has many definitions, but it typically involves a Christian filmmaker, a faith-based story and perhaps even a Christian film company and studio, too. But not all movies are so easily defined.
    ...
    (Review Source)

Want even more consensus?

Skip Rotten Tomatoes, they’re biased SJWs too afraid to criticize things like the Ghost Busters reboot. Avoid giving them ad revenue by using the minimalist alternative, Cinesift, for a quick aggregate:

 🗣️ Know of another conservative review that we’re missing?
Leave a link in the comments below or email us!  

What’d you think? Let us know with a video:

Record a webcam review!

Or anonymous text review:

Submit your review
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
Submit
     
Cancel

Create your own review

Average rating:  
 0 reviews
Overall Hollywood Bs Average rating:  
 
Anti-patriotism Average rating:  
 
Misandry Average rating:  
 
Affirmative action Average rating:  
 
LGBTQ rstuvwxyz Average rating:  
 
Anti-God Average rating:  
 

Buy on Amazon:
⚠️  Comment freely, but please respect our young users.
👍🏻 Non PC comments/memes/vids/links 
👎🏻  Curse words / NSFW media / JQ stuff
👌🏻 Visit our 18+  free speech forum to avoid censorship.
⚠️ Keep your kids’ websurfing safe! Read this.

Share this page:

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail