Nonureva Really Surprised!

Cleveronix A different way of telling a story

Jakoba True to its essence, the characters remain on the same line and manage to entertain the viewer, each highlighting their own distinctive qualities or touches.

Logan By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

Michael Sloane Let me say up front that I am an atheist and a secularist and as such I don't care about any religious undertones or allegory that this series may possess. I'm judging this movie based on the book to movie transition and the movie as a fantasy film.Prince Caspian is easily the weakest and least enjoyable of the Narnia movies. While the Narnia series is nowhere near as good as Harry Potter or the Middle Earth trilogies both The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe and The Voyage of the Dawn Treader are pretty good movies in their own right. But Prince Caspian suffers from numerous flaws. Let's start with faithfulness to the book. Well plot wise this movie is reasonably faithful to the book. But the problem is the characters. The way several key characters is portrayed is so different from the book that they feel like totally different characters. By far the biggest problem is Peter. The Peter of the book is noble, humble, and kingly and truly deserves the title and position of High King of Narnia. The Peter in this movie is a jerk, whiny, and worst of all, arrogant. This is such a complete misrepresentation of the character that he didn't feel like Peter at all. A similar problem exists on a smaller scale with regard to Caspain himself. Caspian being older in the movie than in the book is a minor flaw. But a much bigger issue is the relationship between Peter and Caspian. In the book there is respect on both sides and Peter even says"I have come not to take your place but to put you in it." This movie depicts palpable tension between Peter and Caspian when there is NO hint of tension between them in the book. A smaller but still annoying issue is that retarded romance between Susan and Caspian. I happen not to be a fan of the romance genre anyway but there is no hint of this in the book either. It seems as though a romance element was added to attract the Twilight/Hunger Games audiences because not only is this not in the book but even within the context of the movie it serves no plot purpose. Plot wise and event wise this movie is fairly faithful to the book but the character portrayals mostly suck. The acting and casting are tough to fairly evaluate here. Georgie is her usual splendid self in her portrayal of Lucy and Liam Neeson is awesome as the voice of Aslan. But William's and Ben's performances are tough to judge. The poor character writing in the script would make it tough to appreciate even good quality acting in those roles. Then there's the pacing. The battle scenes are too long and drawn out leading to a movie that seems to drag. There was a time when I watched this movie after having not seen it for a while when I found myself saying it was better than I remembered. Here's the thing: This movie has a good story to tell and tells it reasonably well but because the battle scenes are so long and loud they tend to dominate the mind's memory of this movie. A better movie would have been produced by simply reducing the length and intensity of some battle scenes. The best part of this movie is its outstanding special effects and visuals. This is a very well made film that is awesome to look at. To address a common complaint: Many people have complained about the"bloodless" nature of the battles in this movie. First, remember that this is fantasy. More importantly, bear in mind that the filmmakers were contractually obligated by the studio to achieve a rating no higher than PG. In fact one scene was altered to eliminate the possibility of implied beheading. In the scene in question the angle of a fallen soldier's helmet was changed to make clear that the helmet was empty and did not contain a severed head. The PG requirement necessities the lack of blood and gore. That said this is still pretty violent and should only be viewed by people in middle school or older. My opinion on this movie is mixed leaning negative. The reason I lean negative is that some of the positive attributes of this movie are damaged by the negative attributes. Faithfulness to the book: 4 out of 10. Casting/Acting: 7 out of 10. Pacing: 3 out of 10. Special effects/visuals: 9 out of 10. Overall: 4 out of 10.

orourkec-292-269155 The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian is a spectacular (and more spectacular than its predecessor) and entertaining family adventure, worthy of the standard set by its predecessor, as well as darker. It has a great beginning, good continuation and a great and emotional ending which left me shattered and in tears. The movie is overall nicely done. However, one thing which I think could have made this second Narnia chapter better would have been to make it into a film which has a bit or some of the Lord of the Rings elements combined with the Narnia elements in order to have a slick and more delicious genre result for the Narnian universe. Also, this second Narnia chapter, while fun to watch, is still (in connection to the first chapter) not good enough in quality to out-rival other similar fantasy movies that have a chance to beat it in genre quality. Nevertheless, it is another well but better done Narnia movie. My rating: 7.2/10

Joris Even worse than the first Narnia film, Prince Caspian must be one of the most amateurishly acted movies I've seen in ages. While in The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe you can forgive the child actors of finding their way in the acting world, discovering an own style and making authentic emotional expressions combined with their memorized lines, it is much harder to forgive them for it when there's almost no improvement to be seen three years later (except for maybe Georgie Henley). On the other hand, just like with Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson and Rupert Grint it takes some time to adjust. For them it also took two Harry Potter movies to get the acting really going. Sadly it makes Prince Caspian hard to watch. There are no James McAvoy and (almost) no Tilda Swanton to cover things up this time. We get Peter Dinklage instead, but that nearly suffices. Especially with Ben Barnes doing a ridiculous Spanish accent. The storyline again is smothered by Christian symbolism and the cinematography by ridiculously bad blue screen effects. The result again is an awful picture that irritates more than it amuses.

Anhun I'm going to break down my review into components: 1. Aesthetics: This movie is absolutely gorgeous. The costumes, the setting, the special effects. Everything draws you into the fantasy setting and makes you want to stay.2. Character development/portrayals: I like how they developed Lucy and Susan. They are a bit more mature than they were in the previous film, which makes perfect sense given that the actresses have aged a bit. Lucy is, at the same time, more enchanting, and more "real." Caspian was too old. In the book, he experiences the same sense of childlike wonder in discovering the Old Narnia, that Lucy does in LWW. I think the movie lacks the trademark Narnian magic because there is no wonder of discovery. The Telmarine villains in this movie are brilliant. They were hateful and compelling at the same time. The character of Edmund was matured, but not enough. They should have either aged the character further, or recast the actor with someone younger. Skandar Keynes performed to the best of his ability, but he was simply too old to be convincing as a boy who thinks girls are icky. I can't stand what they did with Peter. William Moseley is a talented actor, there's no doubt about that, but the writers turned his character into an egotistical brat, and I couldn't stand him. Peter Dinklage as Trumpkin was genius. He was heroic, gruff, and endearing all at once.3: Plot/pacing: I loved the first hour and a half of the movie. They made changes from the book, but all of the changes made cinematic sense. You get to know the New Narnia, and the characters. The adventures are exciting. Unfortunately, Andrew Adamson thought that the big selling point of LWW was the battle, so he decided to cut-out some of the funny character-development moments from the book and extend the battle sequence in PC to an exhausting length. First of all, they are fighting an army that resembles Renaissance-era Spaniards, not mythic beasts, so right away it's much less novel and interesting than the battle in LWW. Second of all, the movie LWW was a well-composed adventure as a whole, for which the battle was a fitting climax, not THE selling point.4. Target audience: This movie is very teen-centric, with romance, action, and period-piece politics. It is not a family film, like LWW. I think this may be why it did not do nearly as well as LWW at the box office. The name "Narnia" conveys a sense of the magic of childhood. People looking for a teen action movie will likely ignore a Narnia movie without even reading a review. At the same time, with critics warning people not to bring children under 12, and word of mouth spreading that families with young children were walking out in the middle because it was too intense, families did not turn out in droves either.