A year has passed by since the Pevensie children stepped through the wardrobe. In Narnia, centuries have passed since the defeat of the White Witch. Now the foursome are sent back to Narnia to find that everything was destroyed and the Narnia they once knew is gone forever. They come to aid the young Prince Caspian, who is leading a group of Old Narnians to wage war against his malicious uncle Miraz, who rules Narnia with an iron fist. Will they succeed? When will Aslan return?Written by
At the beginning, when Susan picks up a magazine from the news stand, it is apparently a December 1939 edition magazine. This is not possible, as the Pevensie children were evacuated to the countryside at the start of the previous movie, which (as it featured an air raid on London) could not have happened before September 1940, and it is quite clearly summer during the scenes at Professor Diggory's house. A few minutes later Peter mentions they've been back from Narnia for a year, meaning that it is at least May 1942 now. See more »
The original theatrical version of this film was released by Walt Disney Pictures, but all television, video, and theatrical re-issue versions of the film are distributed by 20th Century Fox. As a result, the current version in circulation opens with a 20th Century Fox logo. This happened as a result of Disney deciding against its distribution deal when it expired in 2010; Walden Media sold its share of the rights to 20th Century Fox that year. See more »
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."
151 of 265 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?
| Report this