The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian

0 of 0 people found the following review helpful:

Solid follow up, 2010-03-14
Very good movie. For children 7 and up...any younger they may not grasp the concept.

0 of 0 people found the following review helpful:

Prince Caspian may be more mature than what Lewis originally intended, but for adults that only makes it more profound., 2010-03-07
Where The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe was more of a carbon copy of the book it was based on, Prince Caspian carries over most of the Christian themes central to the story, but makes it it's own and fresh for those that already know the book well and aren't necessarily looking for a verbatim regurgitation of what they've already read. br / br /Not surprisingly, we bookworms rarely seem to fully appreciate movies based on the books we know and love because the film fails to subscribe as precisely to the book as we would like; and if it does, it's chosen tone often still doesn't align with our own perceptions of what we read. As an avid reader and moviegoer, I know this feeling all to well, but I also feel that thinking that way only takes away from the enjoyment and personal growth that can come from a new, fresh translation. br / br /I'll use the classic story of a sleepy valley near Tarry Town NY to illustrate my point. As much as I loved Tim Burton's dark reimagining of Washington Irvings legendary tale, because of it, I now have a rule never to read books that are based on a movie, instead of the other way around. Reading "Sleepy Hollow" the book translation was essentially like reading the movie; the book neither embellished on the movies script, nor tried to translate the films visual design, which was a huge part of the appeal, if not more intriguing than the story itself. Neither have the many cartoons that attempt to translate Washington Irving's classic novella "The Legend of Sleepy Hollow", merited a second look. They're fine for introducing new generations to the classic tale, but don't offer enough that is new to favor over re-reading the novella. But Burton's Sleepy Hollow and Irving's classic novella are as dissimilar as their respective mediums. And thus can be repeatedly enjoyed individually, even one right after the other, without getting bored by watching something you just read or reading something you just saw. Both, bring enough uniqueness to the table, that for a fan of either, it would still be worthwhile to check out the other. br / br /The same is true of Caspian. The beloved characters and age-old premise are still there, but in addition for fans of the story to being able to actually see this fantasy world brilliantly brought to life by the pinacle of cinematic technology and an uncompromising budget, we get a fresh story that's more than just nuances in personal perception, like the first film essentially was in ways it differed fome the book. br / br /The movie is still faithful to CS Lewis's Christain allegories. Though some side messages may have been compromised, if anything, the major ones have been magnified by changes that more appropriately compliment the cinematic medium. Thanks to this film, we can enjoy a fresh perspective and telling on CS Lewis's heavenly inspired story from both mediums. The movie honors both his work and God's message, dare I say even bettering it in the visual and sonic ways that only the best cinema can, but at least no less profound or worthwhile than what Lewis wrote over six decades ago in late 1949. br / br /I also enjoyed Disney's BD immensely. The picture and sound were as capably preserved as I had hoped they would be, even when projecting onto an unforgiving 100" screen.

0 of 0 people found the following review helpful:

A heart-rending ending song, 2010-03-07
I have never seen this series - "The Chronicles of Narnia". I caught the end of the Prince Caspian, where Regina Spektor sings 'THE CALL': What a beautiful song, and what a lovely rendition. Spektor's ending song caught my heart. Well done!

0 of 0 people found the following review helpful:

awesome, 2010-03-05
I grew up watching the chronicles of narnia, and I loved the four that were produced by the BBC. These are action packed, but alittle abrupt. They're freakin cool no doubt about it, but they just move really fast.

0 of 1 people found the following review helpful:

Bloodbath in Narnia, 2010-02-22
Having read the books more times than I can count, I, like many others, was initially disappointed with the first film in the series (The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe), as it didn't line up with the way I had been envisioning the story and the characters for the last 20 years or so since I first read them. After seeing it once or twice more, however, I came to the conclusion that the first film was actually quite good- mostly because, I suppose, it was respectful of the source material. Almost nothing was left out from the book, and the sequences that were added and 'actioned-up' such as the battle scene, were done so in a way that did not detract from the story, nor did they lose sight of the fact that it is a childrens' movie based on a childrens' book. The innocence and simplicity of the stories are one of the things that make them great, after all. br /This brings us to 'Prince Caspian'; a violent, grim monster of a movie with little to recommend it. To begin with, the characters of Peter and Susan have been altered fairly drastically from the book, turning Peter into a sullen bully and Susan into a brainy snob. To paraphrase the next book in the series (Voyage of the Dawn Treader) Susan is 'no good at school, though very grown-up in other ways'. And the Peter of the film deserves none of the respect due a High King, since he's a whiny brat who clearly can't handle the authority that has been bestowed on him by Aslan. And speaking of Aslan, where was he in this film? There's hardly a sight or mention of him other than from Lucy. The story is altered as such so that when Aslan says, "Nothing ever happens the same way twice" the story is resolved exactly in the manner of the first film. Sloppy writing and pacing abounds. Whereas the crux of the book is seeking Aslan's direction and following him regardless of whether he can be seen of heard (yes, it is a fairly strong Christian allegory, and I can respect that some people may not be comfortable with it, but it IS a story, and if the filmmakers were not comfortable with it, they should not have undertaken this project). In one of the books, Lucy says to Aslan, "Its not Narnia, you know. It's YOU." Although often not seen directly, the presence of Aslan is central to the books. In the film, he is set aside and only let out at the end as a way of resolving an otherwise unresolveable story. There are plenty of other things to complain about, such a the age of Caspian (he's supposed to be a 'boy king', young enough indeed to still have a Nurse who looks after him, instead played by a very pretty 20-something Ben Barnes, who, all things considered doesn't do a bad job at it. He just looks a little too much like Orlando Bloom), the presence of minotaurs and other 'bad guys' in Caspian's army (the moral clarity of the books is another of their strong points- again a somewhat uncomfortable idea for some, but that's the way that Lewis wrote them. There are plenty of other films based on young adult books that are a lot more morally relative), and some other things, but the biggest problem is the excess of violence. br /In the first film, there is a big battle scene, but it is not long, and is clearly a struggle between good and evil. It is, in essence, a fantasy battle. The long, drawn-out violence of 'Prince Caspian', which is brief and only alluded to in the book (where instead, Aslan leads an army of Narnians to free the Telmarines mentally and spiritually from the oppression that has been placed on them. It doesn't sound exciting, but read the book- it is), is much more complex; the Narnians (the 'good' guys) are fighting an army of humans (called 'Telmarines') who are doing battle at the behest of their leader, King Miraz. Now, these people are Caspian's rightful subjects- he is their lawful king. It complicates thing when there is over an hour of war footage where the Narnians slaughter hundreds, maybe thousands of the people they are trying to free from oppression. While Miraz is certainly a villain, his men aren't neccessarily so, and yet we watch as they are mauled by the dozen by Caspian co. Do the Narnians have a choice? In the real world, no. They are justifiably defending themselves. But this is a film, and the writers of the film clearly hadn't thought this through. Would Aslan, who has the power to end this conflict at any time (which he does anyway), allow this sort of massacre to take place so that his choice for king can take power? Likewise, would the Telmarines accept Caspian as their king and liberator after he and his army of non-humans have killed hundreds of their friends, brothers, husbands and sons? In the book, Miraz, the true villain, is fought and killed, but the Telmarines, whose minds and spirits have been held captive by him, are instead given freedom and purpose, not death and destruction. It seems that the filmakers felt that no one would accept a fantasy film without a massive CGI-driven battle scene, and so they forced as much of it in as they could, even writing a whole new sequence (the 'castle raid', which was not in the book at all) to increase the body count. At the end of the film I didn't feel victorious, joyful or elated, as I did after the first film, and certainly after reading any of the books. To the point, I felt better after watching 'Platoon' and 'Saving Private Ryan' than I did after watching the hollow victory of Caspian at such a high cost. And the last straw was watching Susan groping Prince Caspian in a 'romantic' moment where the romance wasn't even hinted at earlier in the film and was very uncomfortable (Susan is supposed to be 13 or 14 in this story and looks a few years older, while Caspian is obviously a lot older and looks 25 and that looks like statutory rape in the works). Again, we can't have a movie without kissing, can we? br /There are a few positive parts of the film, mainly the performance of Skandar Keynes and Georgie Henley as Edmund and Lucy, both very young actors of impressive ability who do bring a little magic back to Narnia. Overall, however, it seems that everyone else forgot this was supposed to be a childrens' film, made for children, based on a childrens' book. The magic, innocence and simplicity are supposed to be a part of it, and in fact, are what makes these stories quite a bit deeper than most childrens' books. That is why even adults read these books over and over, and that is why this film was a nearly complete failure.