Add a Review

  • A_Bob18 May 2008
    Warning: Spoilers
    Last warning for spoilers:

    After falling in love with "The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe," I was expecting an amazing sequel from the same people. "Prince Caspian" was a disappointment, however.

    The changes made from the book were so many and extreme that Adamson (the director) completely altered the theme of the story. The character of Peter was so changed that one questions what exactly he learned from Narnia that he will not be allowed to return. From the fighting at the beginning of the film in England because he is upset about being young again to the power struggles with Caspian, his title of "The Magnificent" was sullied.

    Caspian fared no better. In making him an adult and Miraz the Lord Regent, they made a crown Prince not even knowledgeable about the fact that the throne is his and that no other Lords who are suspicious of Miraz ever talking to Caspian about his birthright. That is unrealistic. Even worse, they turned Caspian into a vengeful man who jeopardized a mission to attempt to avenge his father's death.

    What was worse, however, was that Adamson chose action and battle scenes to character development. There were so many characters introduced but none of them were rounded out. It felt as if the characters were background to the action. They did what they did because they were supposed to rather than any meaningful reason due to their personality.

    As a Narnia book series fan, this was a major disappointment. It really felt like Adamson redid a mediocre medieval war movie adding Narnian characters for effect.

    Bob
  • As a little girl, I adored the Chronicles of Narnia books, and I still do. I also liked the BBC adaptations, done in mini-series format, they weren't amazing, but they were enjoyable and stuck to the books' spirit. As far as these film versions go, I haven't yet seen Voyage of the Dawn Treader, but I enjoyed Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe. Prince Caspian was not a bad film, but it could have been better.

    Visually, the film is very well done. I loved the cinematography, while the scenery and costumes are gorgeous. The effects are also good, and Aslan still looks brilliant. The music is beautiful too, with lovely melodies. The end credits song was nice, but I think it should have stayed as an end credits song, it didn't seem right placing it in the final scene to me. The direction is decent too, while the battle sequences are riveting, and the film did begin well.

    As far as the acting goes, it wasn't bad but it wasn't amazing either. The best are Eddie Izzard who is spot on, Peter Dinklage who comes close to stealing the film with his eyes alone and Liam Neeson who lends his majestic voice to Aslan, and while her appearance is very brief Tilda Swinton is quite chilling. The four leads are good enough, and in Georgie Henley's case improved. Edmund also has potential. I had mixed feelings on Miraz though, more to how he was written than how he was acted. Sergio Castellitto does make an effort to make Miraz dark and charismatic for the villain of the piece, but the way Miraz is written and developed makes him come across as insipid. The weak link is Ben Barnes. He is handsome and has his moments, but he is rather bland on the whole.

    My real problems with Prince Caspian are in the storytelling and pace mainly. The story has a tendency to become too unengaging, the more involving scenes are well done but the slower scenes are close to ponderous. The pace is rather lethargic this time round, while I don't think the film really needed to be as long as it was and the characters come across as shallow. Also particularly with Caspian and Miraz, some of the dialogue is stilted.

    All in all, Prince Caspian is not a bad film, but it lacked something. I also forgot to say as an adaptation of the book it is not great, granted the book was not my favourite of the series but I felt sometimes there was a bit too much padding that could have been excised slightly. A disappointment, but on its own terms and for the visuals and music it is worth a look. 6/10 Bethany Cox
  • Warning: Spoilers
    I am a Narnia obsessed nerd, so of course I went to see it the night it was released. I had very high expectations because the first movie was so true to the book. However, with this film that wasn't the case. The screen play was pretty much completely rewritten and included only hints of the original story. I suppose Disney felt it necessary to add in lame typical movie elements that attract mainstream moviegoers. For example a sub-plot romance between Caspian and Susan and battles that never existed. This movie not only failed to develop the characters and events as well as the book, it changed the characters and situations that it did develop.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    I have a lot of trouble saying that I enjoyed the movie. I've read the book series several times, so I was thrown when the movie started with the birth of Miraz's son and was shortly followed by Caspian blowing Susan's Horn. I felt that the movie skipped a huge opportunity to build up Caspian's character and mindset, as well as Miraz's paranoia towards Narnia, by jumping to the birthing scene. Movie-goers who've never read the book really wouldn't understand why Caspian would be safe in the woods, or why Miraz's council was missing so many members. I also felt that Caspian using the horn when he did, rather than using it after he had already built up an army and had already lost several key battles, took away from his character development. The film, by having the Pevensie children come in so early, made it seem as though the Pevensies were the military geniuses. As a result, when Caspian states that he did not feel ready to be king, the movie audience wouldn't see that as a humble statement. I was confused by the siege of the castle scene, though the justification given in the FAQ makes some sense - I just don't see why it was given so much screen time. And the romance between Susan and Caspian was very odd, unless they placed that in there to allude to The Last Battle, where Susan didn't join the rest of the Pevensies because of her interest in make-up and boys.

    As one who's read the books, I didn't enjoy this movie as much as I enjoyed The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe. My husband, who has only read TLTWATW, also did not enjoy the Prince Caspian movie. He felt that the opening scene was confusing because it thrust the audience into the middle of the action, with little to no discussion on what led up to that night. He also felt that the characters weren't well-developed.

    I'm still trying to understand the justification for Peter's rudeness throughout the movie.
  • Prince Caspian expands on the battles in the book; turning them from a few pages long into 30 - 45 minute epic fights that borrowed more than a little from The Return of the King. While competently choreographed -- this is far from the cinematic epic the overreaching soundtrack wants you to believe that it is.

    The movie is entertaining, but rough around the edges. The editing is poor and one scene in particular should have been removed entirely as it does nothing for the film, outside of extend its already substantial length.

    Is it better than The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe? That all depends on your stylistic preferences. If you're the wonderment, fairy-tale, unlimited Turkish Delight type you'll prefer the first Narnia. If you're a darker, sword and sorcery fan you'll consider Prince Caspian the better movie.

    Both were worth the price of admission, but both left me feeling like they were one script doctor, soundtrack and/or director away from being the perfect fantasy movies they could have been. That said, Prince Caspian certainly warrants a bucket of popcorn and a fun Sunday afternoon at the theater with the family.
  • When Queen Prunaprismia (Alicia Borrachero) delivers a baby boy, King Miraz (Sergio Castellitto) orders his soldiers to kill Prince Caspian (Ben Barnes); however his tutor gives Susan's magic horn to him telling that he should blow is his life is in danger and asks him to ride to the forest. However he is chased by the Telmarian soldiers and he summons the Pevensie siblings. They discover that hundred of years have passed in Narnia and they join Prince Caspian to lead the people of Narnia against the evil King Miraz. When the battle begins, the siblings send Lucy to seek out Aslan, otherwise they will not win the powerful Telmarian army.

    I expected to like "The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian" more than I did. The special effects are top-notch, but the story has a poor development of characters and the unoriginal final battle gives a sensation of déjà vu to the viewer with the excessive use of CGI. But the greatest problem is the weak lead cast: the four siblings and Prince Caspian are performed by the wooden and unknown young actors and actresses that are too weak for the lead roles. My vote is six.

    Title (Brazil): "As Crônicas de Nárnia – Príncipe Caspian" ("The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian")
  • Warning: Spoilers
    First things first, "Prince Caspian" is great entertainment, taken strictly as a movie, on its own merits. It moves fast, combines action, adventure, humor, and even a little romance, and feels much shorter than its 2-hour length.

    On the downside, the screenwriters have dramatically changed the storyline and some of the characters, making this movie only very loosely based on C.S. Lewis' novel of the same name.

    I'm not a purist when it comes to adapting books for the screen, but for me "Prince Caspian" goes too far afield from the original material in the name of hitting easy plot points.

    My major issues with the movie are the changes to Peter's character in particular. The faithful and noble Peter from the books is gone, replaced by a rebellious, unhappy, contentious teenager with a chip on his shoulder. Lewis' Peter would not have rolled around in the subway tunnel in a wrestling match with other schoolboys, not would he have knocked heads in a power struggle with Prince Caspian in Narnia. The nonsensical "let's storm the castle" plot line from the movie is a distraction and a time-waster. For this we are denied some of the most wonderful scenes in the book, namely those with Aslan, Susan, Lucy, plus Bacchus and his gang? I was really disappointed with the direction the writers and director chose to take this movie, but in the end, I have to admit that the movie entertains, and the faithful viewers are thrown a few bones in the conversations between Aslan and Lucy and the appearance of one of Lewis' best-loved characters, Reepicheep.

    As for the criticism that the movie is too dark and violent, on the contrary I found it much less disturbing than the first -- if the knife-wielding White Witch slaughtering Aslan on the Stone Table didn't get you in the first movie, I don't know why anything in "Prince Caspian" would be a problem.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Director Andrew Adamson, who helmed the first installment in the series, after making his career primarily in animation (including the original "Shrek") seems decidedly more comfortable in his role as a live action director this time around, and he handles the scope and the pacing of this epic adventure with a polished skill that is a very pleasant surprise. In addition, Georgie Henley, Skandar Keynes, William Moseley and Anna Popplewell, returning as the Pevensie children, have matured, not only physically, but in their acting ability. There is a deftness and self assuredness this time around that surpasses the original, and makes for an extremely entertaining film.

    The story begins with Prince Caspian (Ben Barnes), nephew of Miraz (Sergio Castellito), the leader of the "Telmarines," the human population that is now the dominant race in Narnia, fleeing for his life when Miraz's wife gives birth to a son. Miraz usurped the throne from the rightful King, Caspian's father, and now that he has an heir of his own, he wants Caspian out of the way for good.

    Meanwhile, back in London, Peter and his siblings are trying to adjust to life in the real world. Peter is getting into fights because he can't bear people "treating him like a kid," after growing to adulthood before leaving Narnia, only to return at the exact age he was when he first stepped through the wardrobe. But in less time than it takes to board the London underground, the Pevensie's are once again transported back to the magical kingdom - only it is not the place they left. Over a thousand years have passed, and the castle of Cair Paravel lies in ruins.

    As the children struggle to find out what has happened, they stumble upon a Dwarf named Trumpkin (Peter Dinklage), who is being taken prisoner by abusive Telmarine soldiers. Susan, who doesn't seem to have had much opportunity to show off her finely honed archery skills at home in Finchley, eagerly takes the opportunity to rescue Trumpkin from his captors, and the surly old dwarf (whom Lucy and Edmund nickname "The D.L.F.", or "Dear Little Friend,") explains that all is not well in Narnia. It seems that not long after the High King Peter and his siblings left Narnia, the land was plunged into a dark age, and the Telmarines have ruled for hundreds of years with an iron fist. The days of the many creatures, including talking beasts, living in harmony together, have long since passed, and no one has seen or heard of Aslan the Lion in centuries. And what's more, the trees are no longer friends to the Narnians - they are just normal, everyday trees.

    It doesn't take long before the children meet up with Caspain, who is hiding out in the forest with a misfit band of followers, and soon the young would be heroes join forces in a plot to reclaim Narnia for the Narnians, and place Caspian, the rightful heir, on the throne.

    The film moves along at a steady, exciting pace, with skillfully staged action and suspense that will have audience members on the edge of their seats, and while in general it stays very faithful to the source material, there is quite a bit of added embellishment to make for a grander and more spectacular epic, with added battle and chase sequences that are deftly handled and add to the story and the level of excitement, where in less skilled hands they could have easily overtaken it. The level of action, and violence, is really quite a bit stronger than in the first film, and the film has a darker, grittier tone, which makes it something of a surprise that the filmmakers got away with a PG rating for what is clearly a PG-13 film.

    As mentioned before, the actors really step up to the plate this time, in particularly Keynes and Moseley as Peter and Edmund. But the most delightful performances come from the great Peter Dinklage (known for his brilliantly subtle turn in "The Station Agent," and perhaps best remembered as the diminutive author of children's books in "Elf") and Reepicheep, a bold and chivalrous mouse (voice of Eddie Izzard), who really steals the show. The effects are absolutely top notch, and in the final third the movie reaches such a fever pitch of excitement that it recalls Peter Jackson's "The Two Towers," arguably the most exciting installment of the "Lord of the Rings" trilogy.

    So, in the end, "Prince Caspian" may not be the profound allegorical tale that "The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe" was, or reach the same level of magical wonder, but it more than succeeds at what it sets out to do, and strongly indicates that there is a future in the Narnia franchise.
  • The picture is an extraordinary story with noisy adventures, marvelous fantasy , wonderful scenarios and pretty amusing . Full of action , excitement , entertainment and with an incredible battle scenes similar to ¨Lord of the Rings¨. Fun second part with rousing adventures , incredible monsters and dazzling fights . C.S. Lewis' classic is reborn in this second outing about 'The Chronicles of Narnia' when four children from war-torn England find themselves transported to a land of myth and fantasy . Return to magic , return to hope , return to Narnia . Some journeys take us far from home . Some adventures lead us to our destiny . It begins during German air raids over London in WWII . Four kids travel through underground to the land of Narnia and learn of their destiny to free it and help Prince Caspian . Lucy (George Henley) , Edmund Pevensie (Skandar Keynes) , Susan and Peter return to Narnia where they meet up with Prince Caspian (Ben Barnes) for an impressive battle against dark forces . Along the way they encounter dragons , dwarfs (Peter Dinklage , Warwick Davis) , merfolk, and a band of lost warriors . A fantastic world with fauns and centaurs and where animals speaking , giant mice , beaver , bear , fox , among others . The children are the chosen ones , according an ancient prophecy, and they team up with Aslem , the mighty Lion and real king of Narnia , fighting to defeat a nasty king in an epic finale battle . Then , all of them go throughout the fantastic world and where animals speaking as a likable giant swords-rat , a bull and many others . It has been foretold that they will bring peace to Narnia with the guidance of the mystical lion . They must survive the evil treachery of an usurper king named Miraz (Sergio Castellitto) , his barons , Lord Sopespian (Damián Alcázar) , General Glozelle (Pierfrancesco Favino) and the mysterious White Witch (Tilda Swinton, she also makes a short cameo as a centaur) locked in ice who still claims to be Queen . They team up with Aslan (Liam Neeson ; ¨Aslan" means "lion" in Turkish), the mighty Lion , fighting to defeat the evil in an epic finale battle against a huge army .

    This exciting movie has amazing fantasy, breathtaking adventures , groundbreaking battles and awesome FX , as the film contains over 1500 special effects shots, more than its predecessor's 800 effects shots . In this impressive production , C.S. Lewis' imagination is brought to life with top-drawer computer generator special effects . Although C.S. Lewis wrote "Prince Caspian" second, it is actually the fourth book of "The Chronicles of Narnia . This agreeable story is lavishly produced by Andrew Adamson from ¨Shrek trilogy¨ and Mark Johnson , along with C.S. Lewis' stepson and heir Douglas Gresham was co-producer on this film and its predecessor . The pic is a magic story with rip-snorting adventures , overwhelming fantasy , state-of-art FX , sensational scenarios and good feeling . Plenty of action and emotion with incredible battle scenes , thrills , actions and brief touches of humor . Provide enough amusement to keep the hands on your seat and dazzling eyes until the epic ending . In spite of overlong runtime and the difficult of adapting , the film still managing to keep a quick enough pace for those unfamiliar with the fantastic saga . Sympathetic performances for all casting and including a top-notch support cast . The film displays a colorful and evocative cinematography by Karl Walter Lindenlaub filmed on location ; although parts of the film were made in New Zealand like its predecessor, the majority of shooting took place in Czech, Slovenia and Poland because of the larger sets available . Rousing musical score fitting perfectly to the action-adventure by Harry Gregson-Williams . The motion picture was marvelously directed by Andrew Adamson , he's the director,producer, writer of ¨Shrek¨ trilogy . Adamson found a way to have the film stand on its own by adding a grand scale castle battle to the storyline, to make this film more epic and action oriented ; he made this second trip to Narnia bigger and more overblown than the first. Although this film was quite successful , it was far from the blockbuster success of the first film , as a result , Disney declined co-production on the rest of the series . Rating : Above average and worthwhile seeing , the whole family will enjoy this film . It's a very likable adventure-fantasy and enormously appealing for kids, adolescents and young men . Overall this is a really nice movie . If you are familiar with the story, then there are no real surprises, but makes up for it with overwhelming CGI animation.

    This was the second installment , the first entry was the following : ¨The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and Wardrobe¨ (2005) by Andrew Adamson with Georgie Henley as Lucy Pevensie , Skandar Keynes as Edmund Pevensie , William Moseley as Peter Pevensie , Anna Popplewell as Susan Pevensie , Tilda Swinton as White Witch , James McAvoy as Mr. Tumnus and Jim Broadbent as Professor Kirke ; the third entry was ¨The Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader¨ (2010) by Michael Apted with Ben Barnes as Caspian , Will Poulter as Eustace Scrubb , Gary Sweet as Drinian , Bruce Spence , Bille Brown as Coriakin Laura Brent as Liliandil , Rachel Blakely as Gael's Mum and Nathaliel Parker as father's Caspian
  • Warning: Spoilers
    If you've never read the novel by C.S. Lewis, you will probably think "Prince Caspian" is a terrific movie. However, if you enjoyed reading the book, prepare to be disappointed.

    The most beastly fault in the movie is the portrayal of several key characters. Peter is made out to be a whining, ego-centric child as opposed to his true character as the High King of Narnia. In the opening scenes, Peter is found fighting other children at a train station in London. You find out that Peter started the fight because he doesn't like being treated like a child, a theme which would continue throughout the movie.

    Caspian is portrayed as a true adolescent; rebelling against Peter's decisions and seeking personal vendettas including a developing love affair with Queen Susan (what's that all about?). This move did a great job of making Caspian look like a pompous ass.

    At one point in the movie, Peter decides to attack Miraz's castle against the council of Caspian and others. The plan takes a turn for the worse when Caspian discovers that Miraz killed his father and attempts to assassinate Miraz in his bed chambers. That goes badly, alarms are set off, Narnians retreat leaving several behind. Fingers are pointed at Peter for wanting some glorious victory and back at Caspian for not sticking to the plan. Meanwhile I'm sitting in my seat wondering if I'd missed a chapter or two when I last read the book.

    The last atrocity I'll discuss is the meaning behind seeing Aslan. Faith and Christianity are profound points in C.S. Lewis's novels, and I'll just say that this movie missed the mark yet again.

    It would be ridiculous to believe a movie could follow a book to the letter. However, what this movie did to the characters is cinematic murder.
  • This movie isn't half as charming or eloquently magical as the first, but it engages nonetheless.

    There's something about the young actors chosen to play the four major roles- Peter, Edmund, Susan and Lucy. They badly make you wish you were in their shoes. The film in itself is often reminiscent of LOTR, but the major difference being in a childlike simplicity this one retains.

    Aslan, despite not having much of a role, manages to be the most striking character, and Lucy is as lovable as she was in the first film.

    The battle scenes are brilliant, as are the landscapes. The power politics and senselessness of violence are dealt with a lot maturely in this film as compared to the first installment. At some point you realize you want at least a dozen more films revolving around these four siblings, and to be able to access Narnia for ever.

    The only thing that ruins this film is this strange invasion of Hollywood-like romance as a very annoying little subplot, and the sudden intrusion of a ridiculous song at a climactic point.

    Apart from that, I am pretty sure any fantasy-hound would enjoy this film a lot, and especially so if you're a big Lewis fan.

    I know I am.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    This may be a movie, but it's definitely not Prince Caspian. If the director read the book, he must either have a huge ego or a very bad memory. Lewis' character development (and what is the Narnia series without character development?) is tossed out for invented and interminable conflicts, and the few plot aspects retained from the book are either skewed or time warped. Caspian is about 10 years too old, a romance between him and Susan is invented, and I spent a large part of the movie (and it did seem to go on and on) trying to remember if any of it was in Lewis' book. For me this movie was a bore and a chore. The Voyage of the Dawn Treader may be in production, but I doubt if the remaining four films will be made if it proves to be as disappointing as this one.
  • It was on a sudden decision that I went with a group of friends to a 9:10 showing of this film that, at the time of this review, was yesterday. I had quite enjoyed the first Narnia, but upon seeing this one, I felt kind of blah. Most of my friends felt the same way. Don't get me wrong, the film is well put together. The visuals are impeccable, the production design is well done, the costumes look great, and the actors do fine. Unfortunately, the material seems to be lacking.

    One year has passed in our time, but 1300 years have passed in Narnia. Since the four Penvensie children left, Narnia has been overcome by the evil Telemarines, who have banished all Narnians. Now, the evil king Miraz hopes to permanently establish the Telemarine stronghold, but his throne is threatened by his nephew Prince Caspian. Miraz orders the boy to be murdered, but Caspian escapes, and inadvertently calls for help. This is where the Penvensie children come in, as they are whisked away from London back to Narnia, to restore balance in a now grittier land.

    You would think that with a title like "Prince Caspian," the filmmakers would work to make our hero well rounded. Unfortunantely, they really don't. The whole backstory involving the raising of Prince Caspian from the novel has been cut, making our hero less 3-dimensional than we would want him to be. The filmmakers have also seemed to believe that since we got to know the children in the first movie, we don't need much characterization involving them again. King Miraz looks like the bad guy version of King Leonidas from "300," and his motives seem muddled. Not until the end of the film did I really feel his evil presence, and by then, it was hard for me to start fearing him. The result is that we, as the audience, don't feel very involved with the story. There are characters, some good, some bad, but you are not entirely sure what their motives are.

    As far as the acting goes, I was fine. There were no standouts with this movie like there was with Tilda Swinton in the last one. Part of this I blame on lacking material.

    Since we are not involved with the characters or with the story, all we can do is watch the nice stuff that has been put on screen. Simply put, this is a well put together film that doesn't have a whole lot of material backing it up.

    Hopefully the new director for "The Dawn Treader" will do better.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    I'm obligated to say that this review contains "spoilers," but I use this term reservedly since I'm not sure this movie can really be spoiled. At least, I'm not sure how you would be able to tell.

    Einstein's famous equation E=mc^2, part of his theory of relativity, explains how it is physically impossible for the opening chapters of Lewis' "Prince Caspian" to be rushed through any more quickly than was done by Adamson's abomination of the same name. It literally made me dizzy. I'll just lay it out there and get it over with; Adamson follows the storyline of the book very well. In the book, the Pevensies come to Narnia, help Caspian gain his rightful throne, and then go home; Andrewson has all three of these things happen in the movie. That's about where the similarities end. In a pathetically feeble attempt to keep fans of the book happy, Andrewson plugs in a few scenes or references from the book that don't interfere with his plot. At first, it's kind of interesting to see what kind of events he makes up to tie in the other events he made up with the events from the book. We miss this later in the movie, though, as he pretty much abandons the events from the book until the end. All this happens because he really wants the Pevensies to meet up with Caspian earlier; I have absolutely no idea why this was so important to him. It doesn't really add anything and it wreaks havoc with the storyline. In his determination to be as faithful as possible to the spirit of the book, Adamson hacks out all the events in Narnia that lead up to the blowing of the horn and almost all of the Pevensie's journey to Aslan's How. Shockingly, cutting out the first half of Lewis' story and replacing it with his own leaves the scenes taken from Lewis' story, both those later in the movie and the few scenes randomly inserted in the beginning, seeming somewhat incongruous and forced. You can almost tell what scenes or dialogue are from the book even if you haven't read it, simply by noticing the discontinuity. Whenever, a character seems to be acting out of a character or a scene seems to have little to do with the plot, it's probably from the book.

    I can't imagine what could make this Andrewson character (his real name is Andrew Adamson, by the way) think he has the artistic credentials to make such a massive revision to such a great work. It's not like he's on the short list for a lifetime achievement award here. Does he honestly think he can improve on Lewis? Does he realize that the whole reason this movie is being made is because so many people love Lewis' story? Does he think Lewis' plot isn't good enough? It's not like Lewis' story lacked dramatic tension or action or character development. Andrewson didn't supply what was lacking, he just changed for no apparent reason, exhibiting monumental arrogance in the process. I'm going to harp some more on this because it really baffles me, what was gained by all these revisions? Did Andrewson just decide to use Lewis' story as a platform for his own ideas because he has no respect for a great author, or did he actually have the arrogance to think he could somehow improve on or tell Lewis' story better than Lewis could? I wish I could know what was going through his mind… "hey, I just read this book by a guy named Siyes Lewis, or something like that. Alright, I really just skimmed it. The point is, it gave me some great ideas for a movie"… "Look, Lewis spends way too much time with the Pevensies once they get to Narnia. This movie is not about the Pevensies. I'll have them immediately find Cair Paravel, immediately recognize it as Cair Paravel, immediately rescue the dwarf (whatever-his-name-is) and leave Cair Paravel, and almost immediately get to Aslan's How. That way I can spend more time with the central characters, the Telmarines, who Lewis barely even thinks to mention during this time. Plus, I really need to develop the Telmarines for the viewers since I cut out the whole beginning of the book where Lewis did that." If Andrewson feels no ethical constraint to respect the integrity of another artist's work, you would think he would at least be bright enough to realize that the easiest way to make a brilliant movie is to stick as closely as possible to the brilliant book. That's what Peter Jackson did with Tolkien's Lord of the Rings, and it worked out okay for him.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    A year of leaving Narnia, Peter (William Mosley), Susan (Anna Popplewell), Edmund (Skander Keynes) and Lucy (Georgie Henley) strangely return, only to find Narnia has advanced 1300 years in their absence. They have entered a world which has drastically changed since their last visit where the Narnians appear virtually extinct. They come across Prince Caspian (Ben Barnes), a man who, with the aid of the Narnians, is fighting to have his rightful place as heir to the throne of Cair Paravel returned.

    The story of Prince Caspian is a very on-off affair. It is a fairly simple story to follow and while clearly an adaption of the novel, it does not discard the central thematic of Christian theology on which the novel is based. The story sports some great moral lessons on such concepts as deliverance, and the importance of maturity in respect to one's age. The film also does an amazing job in diverging into the mythology of Narnia by evoking the very history and culture of its inhabitants. This proves to enhance the interaction with the film, but does not stop it from having some very unfortunate mishaps. Firstly, for a film which passes the two-hour mark, Prince Caspian feels quite short on story material, in fact I would go as far as saying that the film could have been done, story wise, in just about hour. Secondly, while Narnia has changed, the world in which the story takes place, feels far too generic. This is because the story never really plays on the whole 'Narnia has changed' concept. It has lost its magical elements of the first film, but there is nothing in its place to help fill the void. These problems all stem to the amount of action sequences in the film.

    The action is pretty enjoyable to watch, from the army fights, to the one-on-one fight, which is quite excellent. However, the action seems to underwhelm the story, pushing it aside into an inferior role. This could just be retribution for the first film, where the roles were reversed, but in this case, it hurts the film in the long run. But even for the lengthy action sequences, the cinematography becomes a little wonky, with director Andrew Adamson, trying to be fancy at times, when the sequence did not need it. There is a noticeable death toll, but the lack of any blood whatsoever, does seem a tad unwarranted, even though this film is aimed at kids.

    The acting department is a definite improvement over the first Narnia film, with the veteran actors feeling more comfortable with their roles. Even newcomers prove equal matches, and thus makes for a well rounded acting performance, even though there were a few hints of actors forcing emotion into some lines. It is a pity that Tilda Swinton, reprising her role as The White Witch, gets very little screen time, and that Liam Neeson, as the voice of Aslan, does not make much of a showing.

    The musical score fits quite snugly within the context of Narnia, but compared to other scores in similar films, the music is not particularly note worthy. Also, the computer animation is not something to get excited about. For the most part, it looks amazing, but there are noticeable moments where the animation loses its level of achievement.

    No sex, nudity or even language for that matter. However the film is big on violence with it taking up a good chunk of the film. Is bloodless, with no gore, but some scenes are still violent nonetheless.

    Prince Caspian is not a bad film, for it is, for the most part, a definite improvement over its predecessor. However, it is not exactly as grand as it should have been, and I emphasize this point, because it really deserved better treatment. Every facet of the film fails to reach high levels: yes there are moments when they do but it is far too inconsistent for the parts to be of real use to the final product. While an improvement, Prince Caspian is still nonetheless a disappointment.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    "The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian" is definitely an adaptation of the beloved children's novel by C.S. Lewis. as a huge fan of both Lewis and cinema, for me, this is both a good thing and a bad thing.

    the book upon which it is based is arguably the worst book of the seven-part Narnia series, and is undoubtedly a difficult book to adapt into film as Lewis spends pages and pages talking about sights and sounds that have nothing to do with the actual plot. the first 45 minutes of the film are oddly paced and the cumbersome work of adapting the book shows. the script rushes over some aspects that I think are rather important, such as the personality of Trumpkin the Dwarf, and a new fan might wish they had a copy of the book to consult at times. at other moments, the film dwells too much on subplots that have little relevance to the main themes, including an invented romance plot between Caspian and Susan which is never even hinted at in the book. also, they try to weave in too many spiritual messages that simply are not in the book, as Lewis based Caspian more on pagan mythology than Gospel theology.

    there are many successful changes, however. the storming of Miraz's castle, though not in the book, is a fantastic sequence. the liberties taken with making Caspian older than in the book is also forgiven as Ben Barnes turns in a great performance. i was also a fan of the imperial Spanish-based culture given to the Telmarines. the film excels the first in its scope and production value, the sets and costumes are astonishing and the visuals are nothing short of spectacular. the Battle of Beruna is a breathtaking affair, wonderfully realized by Adamson and Co.

    the film missteps at times, no doubt, and lacks the emotional punch of its predecessor, but is still very entertaining and a worthy sequel, though a step below LWW. i feel it's a good set up for "The Voyage of the Dawn Treader," which is a book heavier on action than on plot. all in all, a good film, but not a great film.
  • ccvictim20 February 2009
    I am that rare person who managed to read Prince Caspian without having read The LWW. I have seen the first film and believe the last 15 minutes reasonably reflected the Pevensie children as I imagined them from reading the second book. I'm afraid the liberties taken by this film version distort the family relationships as well as rendering other characters completely unfaithful in that context. Enough about the authenticity of the film.

    There has been a fair amount of criticism of this film's actors on this board. As an eldest child I feel compelled to defend the actor portraying Peter as he can hardly have recognised the character he was playing from the book. Whether he appreciated the changes made to Peter or not, he was acting blind, and, surely, it is up to the director to ensure that there is an appropriate consistency in the portrayal. The character presented makes absolutely no sense when compared with the character developed at the end of the first film. To suggest he is having difficulty adapting to being a physical child again is a real stretch. The other children's roles are a tad more consistent with the written word though there is a 21st century knowing about all of them that causes them to lose the sense of wonder necessary. The portrayal of Caspian is also dumbed down, as if, children are no longer expected to imagine the breadth of personality and mixed emotions reflected in the book.

    As usual I ended up enjoying certain elements of the film because of its visual nature (New Zealand excels again), but, now is the time to challenge the children of the world's imaginations rather than spoon feed them this shallower version.
  • tedg23 May 2008
    I came to this skeptically. I live in Virginia Beach where Pat Robertson's billion dollar film school is located. The idea is to blanket us with convincing fundamentalist propaganda. I am convinced that when they get better than their clumsy current efforts, we may be in for a rough ride. The Narnia books are in this same questionable class.

    The first movie was an amazing surprise for me. Yes, it was the same tiresome stuff we have from a dozen other sources about children in mystical or magical contexts who save the world. Yes, it was aggressively allegorical, at the insistence of Lewis' wildeyed nephew who controls the rights. But it was subverted without the knowledge of those pinched faces. Tilda Swinton — an intriguing person — insisted on portraying her character in a certain way. This is the witch that is supposed to represent the evil, anti-Christian forces, but she played her as an Arian representing the abuse of religious argument. While the film itself was boring, her presence and her subversive activity, was wonderful. I'll bet they still don't know.

    But she was to be absent here. And she was, except for one odd scene. So I came to this with some trepidation.

    This is therefore more tedious than the first. All I could see was the stronger allegory of patriotic armies being led to mindless slaughter because of truculent leaders, and in the case of the "good guys" a young fellow who reminded me so much of the current US president. Its almost so obvious it seems deliberate. Perhaps there were many subversives on the set.

    There's a strange plot goof here. These characters were supposed to have lived full lives and then be returned to children's bodies but with the wisdom of ages. Yet as the war actually approaches, they act precisely like children. Even at the end, the youngest is repelled by yucky kissing.

    Here's something to look for if you do choose to see it. Its the character of the river.

    The river is a physical boundary between the two races, and which is clearly supposed by Lewis to denote the transition between the real and magical worlds. Early in the story, our prince crosses it readily and his pursuers are stymied, pharaoh-wise. Shortly after, the first test of the children is to cross this same river, a test they fail because they did not follow Lucy, who alone lucidly sees Christ and is not believed. Later they accept her leadership across this river.

    Meanwhile, the evil man is making a bridge to do the same with violent intent on the magical domain. The river literally becomes a character, called up by the Christ (actually a poet of Christ) and plays a decisive role in the ordained defeat. This should have been the central cinematic spine of the film. But alas, this filmmaker is poor, and we are left with shots through artificially clear water — including one stock shot: of a small boat from below with the sun above. But its done so well, its worth it. And then we have the special effect of the rivergod rising in anger. This is actually a pretty good effect.

    Ted's Evaluation -- 1 of 3: You can find something better to do with this part of your life.
  • Tired of the scenery known as the real world? Why, step right up and enter the wonderful land known as Narnia. Surrounding you will be plenty of beautiful scenery, hundreds of years of nasty conflict, backstabbing, rising tensions, impending warfare, and attempted genocide. Also surrounding you will be corrupt kings, feisty hostile creatures, wild animals, attacking trees, and enough action to not warrant another visit ever again. The best part is, despite all the hostility, deaths, violence, carnage, and intense material, the MPAA decided to throw in the "PG" rating because of the one main thing Narnia has: enough God symbolism to create sermons for weeks.

    Following you on this adventure is Prince Caspian, a prince who does not look his age, does not act his age, and darn it that gives hope to all of the hiding Narnians. However, his very own uncle wants him dead to claim the throne. This is what family does. With the four kids making a return, the five heroes will attempt to conquer the land that was once peaceful and try to bring harmony into the entire community. Helping them is Aslan, the lion from before. However, he is nowhere to be found. Can the kids and the smaller army of creatures win the battle against the forces of Conquistador Evil? Venture on, and you'll find out.

    The critters are the only humorous and vaguely positive things on this dismal trip into a bitter and traumatic Narnia. While this keeps the film remotely child-friendly, it does tamper with the mood of the trip. Doesn't help that you have creatures that literally come out of nowhere to give their two cents and offer their services. These critters are not as memorable as the ones in the first trip, and they do not have much character development either. And why on earth do we have a sequel to Puss-In-Boots here? The kids themselves are still not that interesting with the exception of the youngest one and Prince Caspian pretty much gets reduced to being something the ladies in the trip can fawn over endlessly. The villains themselves are much more threatening, but don't seem as menacing as the White Witch from the original journey. Sometimes, the trips into enemy territory looks like you are entering Spain in the Middle Ages; the actors portraying the enemies look Spanish, and even look alike in certain scenes.

    Directing the trip is the director of the original voyage, and also the first two Shrek movies, Andrew Adamson. His directing is a mixed bag; as the battle sequences are well-directed, but the one-on-one battles lack range, lack originality, and does the typical slow-down/speed-up action that we see far too often. Also, a sign that there isn't much complexity in the fights is when the subjects are too close to the camera. The cinematography suffers from the direction a little, but does have some great shots of the lush environments in Narnia. At least you know the area is beautiful as you battle into potential death.

    Easily the most awe-inspiring moments in the trip to Narnia are the special effects contained in the package. They are so amazing that you don't even realize that most of the characters joining you are CGI. The special effects are at their best whenever the two battles take place, which are both long, both satisfying, and maintain the voyage from being too much of a bore. However, you will be definitely be raising many questions throughout the quest for survival, and sadly, not all are going to be answered. More so, there will be events that will occur out of nowhere and there will be no time to develop them into coherence. Don't worry, they don't run far too long.

    Bottom Line: All right, let's get to the nitty, gritty. Kind of like the main flaw of the Matrix, why would anyone want to visit the alter-ego world when there's easily much more peril and suspense? Prince Caspian is a movie that's pretty much saved by the two epic battle sequences and the decent performance of the main character himself, which is sure to make the ladies swoon upon the first time they see him riding on horseback. But everything else about this fantasy movie just feels too been there-done that (Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter anyone?) The only difference is the immense amount of Christian themes, symbolism, and allusions---and they'll strike repeatedly throughout the movie. If you enjoyed the milder, weaker version of The Fellowship of the Ring, then you'll enjoy the slightly milder, weaker version of The Two Towers. Otherwise, there isn't anything much added to the table besides characters.

    P.S. Lesson learned here is that, in order to make a nasty violent film full of more deaths than a fumigation of a contaminated house maintain the "PG" rating, there must be religious messages tied underneath it all. Funny how religion and warfare comes hand-in-hand even in fiction.
  • Having just come back from a screening of Prince Caspian, I can honestly say that I got the movie fresh in my mind...and it was amazing! Not only was it better than the first in every way - the story, the acting, the screenplay - but it managed to have more of an edge without sinking into the pitfall that movies such as Pirates of the Caribbean have slipped into.

    Meaning that unlike the Pirates sequels (don't get me wrong, I love Pirates, but this is something that bothered me a little), the makers of Prince Caspian did not believe that to make it better and more exciting, they had to gore and bloody it up. Instead, while it is darker, the blood and gore is kept to a bare minimum considering this is an action flick.

    Anyway, that now aside, I highly recommend this! It's a great movie - great action scenes, a tad bit of romance but not overly so, and a good plot. Plus the young cast are even better in this film than they were in the first, and Ben Barnes - well, it's right that he is the title character,because he very nearly would have stolen the floor from underneath the original kids if they were even the slightest bit less perfect (William Moseley was the weakest of the five, as he was in the last movie, but he still stepped it up quite a bit).

    Granted, I've not read the books, so I don't know if this is as dedicated to the book as many fans would like it to be. Then again, most movies adapted from the books never are. However, if they can find it in them to accept changes for theatrical purposes, I'm sure even the most die-hard fans will admit it "wasn't bad."
  • Warning: Spoilers
    I liked the first "Narnia" film. It wasn't perfect, but it was a very enjoyable and well-directed fantasy flick for the whole family.

    "Prince Caspian", on the other side, takes a different approach, being darker and more serious, and while it still keeps some of the "magic" and good elements that the first film had, the truth is that (in my opinion, at least) this sequel feels a bit tedious in several scenes (Particularly the battle scenes), being way more dense and heavy-handed. It seems that Andrew Adamson decided to give Narnia the same treatment that Peter Jackson gave it to the trilogy of "The Lord of the Rings", in order to make it "more epic". This forced imposition results in a sober and well directed film, which sadly lacks of several of several of the enjoyable qualities that "The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe".

    There are still some interesting scenes, though, but I think that this would have been a little bit more entertaining and better developed. Also, I think that The romance between Caspian and Susan was a bit forced, lacking of a more elaborate treatment, due the excessive focus in the battle scenes.

    Overall, this isn't a bad film, I just think that it could have been better. I guess that it is just like Aslan said, "things never happen the same way twice".
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Since the Chronicles of Narnia are a series of widely read and revered books I had to give my first rating of a 1 for this film. We went opening night and I was very disappointed and my wife was in tears by the end because of her disappointment. So much of Lewis' humor was lost in favor of an action movie plot with running battles, some added that aren't in the book while other important pieces from the book are left out. It became just one long tedious battle. And a romance between Caspian & Susan? We love those books so very, very much that it was painful to watch. Our children ages 21, 18 & 15, who were raised on Narnia, were not just disappointed but angry... My eldest daughter was livid. Her close friend whom we had introduced to Narnia just two years ago was very unhappy with what was left out of the film not to mention all that was added. My wife and I felt it was as if the person who wrote the screenplay hadn't read the books at all. Two revealing things we noticed too were during the opening credits with Actors and Directors and Producers names in huge type, it seemed to us that "From a book by C.S. Lewis" was in much smaller type. Also, during the previews of coming attractions, there was another fantasy movie advertised and it had in large print, "From a writer of the Chronicles of Narnia". They must have been referring to a screenwriter, but it was very aggravating! There was only one author of the Chronicles of Narnia and it was C.S. Lewis! Interestingly, they decided to cast all the Telemarines as evil Spaniards. I found that fascinating and would like to know the rationale behind that? In the books, the girls do not participate as warriors, Aslan having said war is unpleasant and decidedly so if girls participate. However, in the movie, Susan is a major warrior and is seen leading Narnians and firing her arrows into Telemarines all over the place. At the final climax and their departure from Narnia, (she and Peter for the last time) she and Prince Caspian first exchange longing glances, which you've been aware of all throughout the film, and then they passionately kiss! I'm all for that of course, but not in this movie about this book... to quote a little boy who was sitting with his grandfather in front of us, "That was yucky!"
  • bruce-24614 May 2008
    I was fortunate enough to be invited to a screening in Washington, DC prior to release. This production has what it takes. Great production, true to the story line, lots of nail biting and fascinating.

    It never felt like it was over two hours. I'd have to say that Walden did an amazing job of staying true to the storyline and that Disney's magic is back. I will recommend this movie and absolutely plan on adding the DVD to my library when it comes out. I may even go and pay to see it again.

    The only recommendation I have is to continue with the other 5 books. I've seen every one of the productions of The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe, and it took Disney to make it right. Now they've continued with Prince Caspian, and I'm anything BUT disappointed. As long as the storyline and production keep improving, it can only get better.
  • While I enjoyed the first film's story more (it was so clearly an allegory for The Atonement, The Resurrection, the Battle of Armageddon, and the Millennium), this one is better made, better written, and better acted. Plus, it has a healthy share of Christian symbolism itself, some rocking battle sequences (how this is only PG baffles me; the intensity of the action has PG-13 written all over it), and some of the best effects I've ever seen (the badger, in particular, is photo-real).

    The idea that the kids actually grew up in Narnia, then returned to their world while retaining all their knowledge and maturity intrigued me (and it makes their battle skills more believable). All that said, I still didn't find myself nearly as emotionally invested or involved in this as I was with The Lord of the Rings, the standard with which it will always, perhaps unfairly, be compared. Why Narnian humans now have Italian accents is beyond me, and some of the jokes fall flat, but all in all it was very good; better than the first in terms of storytelling, character, and filmmaking. ***1/2 (out of five).
  • In some ways I think film makers who create films based off of beloved books have a hard and thankless job. They must balance the creation of a film that anyone can like while still remaining faithful to the subject matter for the fans of the books. Adamson did this brilliantly in the first Narnia movie creating a rich and deep world faithful to the book while still bringing in those who never did read it. Unfortunately he missed the mark sorely with Prince Caspian.

    I tried very hard to separate this film from the book but came up with the conclusion that one can not do that in cases like this. True, movies are never better then the book so you have to go in expecting changes, however this film is so far from the book that if the characters names were changed one would never know it was a Narnia based story. The film felt more like a story someone else wrote and simply pasted names and small scenes from Lewis's book to make it fit the mythos.

    First things I like... Miraz was great! He was evil and developed in ways he wasn't in the book and I thought it was fantastic. I also liked how we got to know Miraz general Glozelle. That character showed a man who was on the wrong side but still had honor. He was worthy of what he receives at the end of the movie and was a great addition not included in the book.

    Now on with the problems. One of the biggest was the dialog. Long gone is the intelligent flow of language and in its place is a modern interpretation of how people should talk to fit in with todays youth. The children and animals say "Shut up" while the dwarfs pipe up with "Ya gotta be kidding." It is clear that this script was not from the book and was from someone else's work not Lewis's.

    Peter and Caspian are not the noble characters impacted by their experience and worthy of leading the Narnians. Peter starts off the film as a whining young man, a mere imitation of the young man we saw in the first film. Peter has little growth from that point never showing any consideration of growth. In fact by the end of the film there is no love for Peter or belief that he is a high King. Caspian is not much better. Caspian lacks humility and any true endearing quality until the end of the film when he admits he feels unworthy to lead (one of the few lines from the book). This moment comes far to late for us to believe there is anything genuine behind it.

    The romance between Caspian and Susan is so forced it becomes painful at times. The entire love aspect adds nothing to the characters and merely adds grown factor to poor character development.

    Attempts are made at creating drama over the four kids sudden disappearance from Narnia but there is no follow through. Several things have this half thought out feel to them making you wonder if the writers felt Lewis didn't know how to write about characters.

    One of the biggest issues is that the lynch-pin for the entire Narnia series is missing for most of the film, Aslan. Aslan is never really referenced through out the first two thirds of the film. The Narnias never mention him or even recognize that he is the major influence for their entire nation. There is a hint at the situation from the book in which the children deal with the fact that only Lucy can see him but what Lewis used to show growth and a major issue of the children's growth in this story is blown over and turned into a three minute trek and dream sequence.

    One of my biggest problems is when Lucy tells Peter that a possible reason that Aslan has not appeared is that he is seeing if they are worthy of him showing up. I was very angry at this statement because if there is one thing the first movie showed us and the books make clear it was that Aslan worked for those he cared for, not because of their deeds but because of who he is. Aslan was treated poorly and we lost all sight of the great lion who was loved as a great leader and king from the first film.

    All in all I think this film suffers from some one else writing the story they think should have been done, not interpreting the story that was written.
An error has occured. Please try again.