The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian (2008) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
449 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
6/10
Disappointing
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
106 out of 130 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
it might have been better if i hadn't read the book
lodijee16 May 2008
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.
60 out of 77 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
A Terrific Disappointment
daniel_kuehl198019 May 2008
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.
34 out of 44 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Disappointing in the extreme!
revran18 May 2008
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!"
93 out of 136 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
A rousing fantasy adventure.
ungy35714 May 2008
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.
138 out of 209 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
If you liked the book, you'll hate the movie
mattster517 May 2008
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.
75 out of 110 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Pretty endearing
kovalbhatia16 May 2008
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.
129 out of 201 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Reading is Overrated!
CandleKel17 May 2008
Warning: Spoilers
Well, with SO many good movies coming out this summer, Caspian was one that was up on my list. I knew that they were making it, so I read the book to my daughter last year, and I was really excited. And you have to understand that having 2 small children and trying to get to a movie is no small feat. However, we made our escape tonight to a later showing.

So, after seeing "The Lion, Witch and the Wardrobe", I thought Caspian would be the same. By same I mean, like thinking the writers of the screenplay had actually READ THE BOOK! I was SO disappointed (thinking in my head during the movie...should have seen Ironman...should have seen Ironman...should have seen Ironman)!

Sorry, but these C.S. Lewis books are near and dear to their fans hearts and I felt like the Lion, Witch and the Wardrobe stuck SO closely to the book and did such a fabulous job at adding only inconsequential fillers. I really feel that was just BAIT to get us to see the rest of them.

I can NOT recommend this movie, Caspian, because it felt like the screen writer used his teenage daughter to help cast it and help write it. For those of us in our party who had NOT read the book, the reviews were mixed. One fell asleep; one thought it was disconnected and didn't make sense; two liked it because they are TEENAGERS! So, if you are a teenager, and can't READ...then go for it baby!!! AND if you're a girl teenager, Caspian is HOT (I kept expecting him to fling his hair like Prince Charming in Shrek2) and Peter is looking fine and Edmund is adorable and will be mega-handsome as he ages. But, if you are over 25 and HAVE read the book...stay home (or go see Ironman).

I really, really believe that it would have been even MORE exciting had they stuck closer to the story and events of the book. What a great story!!! I just don't get why they didn't. There's NO love interest between Susan and Caspian (actually, I do think that Caspian should have been MUCH younger too). They don't ever go back to the castle do they? One of the best parts of the story (book) was Trumpkin's disbelief and wonderful revelation at seeing Aslan for the first time. Of course these Narnians didn't believe about Aslan either, he'd been gone for like 1,300 years! So, they all were TOO quick to believe. And I have to say there was NO character development for Doctor Cornelius either. That's so sad since he really is one of the VERY main characters! Why change also that Caspian didn't just get knocked out when he hit a tree and then woke up (and WHY in the HECK was Trumpkin gone already???) So, so many errors and unnecessary changes...ARG! Peter and Caspian do NOT fight. Peter doesn't have any "problems" as portrayed in the film. What the heck was going on in that screenwriter's head (or his teenage daughter's)???? WAY, WAY too many things were different! There was NO White Witch (and by the way, HOW do you kill someone who is already dead?). She was merely talked about. I did NOT expect the story to be completely changed in SO many parts. Hey, you know you shouldn't screw with a Mom who can only get out a few times a year. Crap, the last movie we saw in the theaters was Transformers...can't you give a girl a break???

I was SO distracted by the lack of following the story, that I don't even think I could tell you if I would have liked it having not read the book. Very disappointed Disney, Walden, whomever! Shame on you! If you liked the book, you won't like the movie. Just see the Lion, Witch and Wardrobe again and it will make it alright. (Why didn't I go see Ironman?)
37 out of 53 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Caspian movie is terrible adaptation of original CS Lewis story
crosa-217 May 2008
Warning: Spoilers
I was completely disappointed with the movie. I've read Prince Caspian numerous times. The movie was terrible. It fundamentally changed many of the important characters. Aslan, the key character of the book, was emasculated. Peter, originally portrayed as true to Aslan throughout the story came across as a spoiled teenager. The scene in which the White Witch is nearly called back was terrible as well. In the book, neither Caspian nor Peter were tempted to bring her back. The invented romance between Caspian and Susan was awful as well. Don't waste the money on the movie. Buy the book, or get the Focus on the Family Radio Theatre version of Prince Caspian (and the rest of the Chronicles of Narnia).
47 out of 69 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Literally the worst movie adaptation I have ever seen
EvilSorcerer426 May 2008
Warning: Spoilers
According to the Wikipedia article, the directors decided to take "Caspian" in a darker direction -- and boy howdy, did they succeed! C.S. Lewis's "Prince Caspian" was a bright and cheering children's book; Andrew Adamson's "Caspian" is a morally ambiguous soap opera filled with horrific battle scenes. Lewis centered "Caspian" around the children's trek to Aslan's How, on which Lucy, then Edmund, Peter, and finally Susan begin to see Aslan ahead of them on the trail; but this central scene is only alluded to in the movie with a couple of lines of bad dialogue. The next most important scene, the "Romp" with Aslan, is left out entirely, in favor of a bloody battle at Miraz's castle made up by the director.

This isn't like the first movie, in which they screwed up the theology. "Caspian" presents no theological interest at all. Aslan never appears until the very end, and is presented basically as a "tame lion" (he doesn't even shake Trumpkin!). Trumpkin's atheism is played down so far as to be nonexistent; his dialogue implies that he accepts the reality of Aslan from the beginning. While Caspian does reject Nikabrik's evil scheme (the director couldn't very well cut this third critical scene, given that it provided Tilda Swinton's only chance for a cameo), you'll notice that Caspian's army is still full of Minotaurs and Wolves, and early on one character (Trumpkin?) asserts that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" without being rebuked by the children. (Adamson seems to have had something of a minotaur fetish. The battle at the castle is full of lingering shots of dying minotaurs. Never mind that Minotaurs are evil Narnians, or that Lewis's book didn't even mention them.) Adamson adds a pointless and rather insulting "character flaw" for Peter (he's turned into a touchy brawler with a chip on his shoulder, whom the now-decent Edmund has to keep saving); Susan's grown-up girliness is communicated mainly by a pointless and rather insulting "romance" with Caspian. Edmund, on the other hand, is made out to be a decent guy, which is in keeping with Lewis's book --- perhaps too decent, since the writers give all his catty comments to the others, making even Lucy seem a bit of a prig. (Peter: "can't keep a map in their heads". Lucy: "our Dear Little Friend".) Yes, the D.L.F. is alluded to in one brief exchange, then promptly forgotten again. Speaking of lost opportunities for comic relief, the Bulgy Bears have disappeared --- is this really a Disney film? The only belly laugh in the movie (albeit totally unintended) is the first bit of Reepicheep's death scene, when the mice's bagpipe music had everyone next to me anxiously checking their cell phones.

Oh yeah, and for some reason all the Telmarines (even Caspian himself) speak with thick spaghetti-Western accents, rendering half their lines unintelligible to an American audience. Luckily, they're usually just talking politics, or engaging in bedside Mexican standoffs ripped from the latest telenovela.

Zero stars (out of five) for the worst adaptation since Tim Burton's "Planet of the Apes". See it if you must, but in the words of Dave Chappelle, "Better not bring your kids!" There's nothing in this mess for them.
28 out of 39 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Doesn't live up to the hype
bluebrando23 May 2008
Warning: Spoilers
This movie was pretty interesting to watch, but it had a lot of faults. Yet again, I feel like this movie had so much more potential- just like the first one. It often feels like I am watching a child's version of Lord of the Rings. Yes, I know it is directed towards children, but kids don't need cheesy comments or cheesy acting to enjoy a movie. Also, I don't understand the dramatic female vocals towards the end of both movies. I don't feel like it goes at all with the movie. This movie seemed to have something missing. All there was to it was the kids came back to Narnia, found out what was going on, fought a lot, and then left. The whole "romance" between Susan and Caspian was absolutely pointless. First of all, I think they spoke to each other about two or three times, and kept it brief. Then she left? They made it seem like all it was was two teenagers full of hormones...and it was like the creators of the movie decided to throw that in there last minute to attract a broader audience. I think the lack of blood during battle is pointless. There's no need to hide the fact that people have blood running through their veins. A child learns that the first time he/she scrapes their knee. As long as it isn't excessive in a "Kill Bill" way, I think it's appropriate. On another note, why was Edmund put into the background so often? He hardly spoke 5 lines!
10 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
An over-long, boring disappointment
jar164217 May 2008
Warning: Spoilers
Disney continues the C.S. Lewis' Narnia tales, but this time makes a boring, over-long, disappointing movie.

The setup: After returning to England for a year, the four Pevensie siblings respond to a horn calling for help and return to the magical land of Narnia, only to find that in Narnia 1,300 years have passed. Their old castle is in ruins, and it develops that Narnia has been conquered by some people called Telmarines, who have the accents, spade beards, and helmets of stereotypical Spanish conquistadors. Prince Caspian, who called for help, is one of'em, but his uncle wants him dead so the uncle can become king. The intrepid Pevensie quartet size up the situation and decide to help Caspian and simultaneously rid Narnia of the invaders, with the aid of the usual Narnian characters, including dwarfs, centaurs, a talking badger, and a talkative mouse whose manner & dialog were stolen from Antonio Banderas' Puss-in-Boots in "Shrek 2". Aslan makes a brief but effective (plotwise) appearance near the end but my fave villainess, Tilda Swinton as the White Witch, has only an all-too-short cameo.

I thought the plot was erratically developed and the dialog occasionally funny but pretty much unimaginatively routine for high-fantasy stories. My big problem was that I was never brought to care for any of the characters, whose motivations are murky. The young cast put no emotion into their parts.

I found myself realizing that I was bored several times during the flick's 2 hour & 24 minute length. The whole purpose of the movie seemed to be just to set up the big climactic CGI battle at the end. Unfortunately, the CGI was not up to Peter Jackson's standards, even tho it included a forest of trees that turned into Ents and a flood that copied a scene from "The Fellowship of the Ring".

My favorite moment came in a scene toward the end, when Prince Caspian had his evil uncle at sword point, with both characters talking in their Spanish accents. I wanted to yell out the perfect line for our hero to say: "My name is Prince Caspian. You murdered my father. Prepare to die!" Heck, since most of the flick was derivative of the "Lord of the Rings" movies, why not throw in some "Princess Bride", too?
28 out of 40 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Christian fantasy, not Epic fantasy
Vanyel19 May 2008
Warning: Spoilers
The only good thing about this movie was that it is visually appealing, from the special effects to the scenery to Ben Barnes. How Kyle Smith could say "it isn't so overtly Christian" is unfathomable, unless he's had no exposure to Christianity whatsoever.

My biggest problem with the movie relates to that: in an Epic fantasy, the heroes earn their victory, and the lessons they learn from their mistakes along the way help them achieve it. In this movie, while the "heroes" do learn a few small things, victory is achieved not through their efforts, but rather because a little girl "believes". Even that is not a big challenge: she knows he's real because she's worked with him before. The only question is whether or not these particular visions are real, and if he's trying to help, what's the point in only letting one person see him? Letting hundreds of people die until some chosen person comes to beg for help is reason for disdain, not adoration.

If I hadn't been there with friends, this would have been only the second movie I've ever walked out of, at about the point when she went off to fetch him and I realized that they were going to end the movie with "deus ex machina".
15 out of 20 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
So much potential, but so little understanding...
SevenFlorins20 May 2008
Warning: Spoilers
I blissfully sat down in my carefully chosen seat placed in the center of the screen at eye level and began rocking my chair in anxious anticipation. I had told myself I would never watch another Chronicles of Narnia movie made by Walden Media after the butchering of the Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe, which stripped the storyline of the book down to a skeleton and then plastered modern themes and jokes back on, creating a Frankenstonian monster perfectly happy to leave C.S. Lewis fans screaming in horror. But I thought that just maybe they had a change of heart after the first movie got such bad reviews and how many people (that I know anyway) hated it. Even a friend of mine who never read the books admitted that the BBC versions (which follow as much of the storyline as possible almost word for word with their limited technology) were better than the new films. There was so much potential after all if the BBC versions could get so amazingly close. I should have blissfully left the theater right then in my ignorance of what was to come, but that's the problem with ignorance. You don't realize when you're about to stumble upon something that will shatter your bliss. Within the first few minutes of the movie Caspian unloads his lungs into Susan's microscopically designed horn. For you readers who know the storyline, he hadn't even made it into the hut with Trufflehunter, Nickabrick, and Trumpkin yet. He falls off his horse, sees good old Nickabrick and, digging deep into his guts for bravery, snatches up the horn and does his thing as if thinking, "Oh s***! It's a midget with a sword half the length of my pinky! I need help NOW!!!" That's the kind of courage I want my kids to see when they're growing up.

Needless to say because of the premature honking…they cut the part where he gets introduced to the creatures such as Glenstorm and the three bears and the fauns and the little squirrel which they pathetically try to throw in later. They also cut the battle Prince Caspian fights ON HIS OWN BECAUSE HE ACTUALLY HAS A PAIR AND DOESN'T FAINT AT THE THOUGHT OF MIDGET MEN WITH NEEDLES! I wanted to see the fight…I wanted to see the Giant screw up and make the Narnians get demolished. NOOOO, the writers have a better idea. Lets replace the blame on Peter because he's only the freakin' high king of Narnia who everyone looks up to and compares other kings to (although you'd never know why the &%$@ he's thought of so highly the way he's always screwing up and getting scolded by the Prim Dona Susan for not taking care of siblings or, in this case, getting his entire army massacred in a battle that never should have existed.) Peter was a hero…not the scapegoat that he is in these movies.

This next fact should be so obviously horrifying that I'm not sure I can even write an entire paragraph explaining my frustration unless I speak at the level of kindergartners. Aslan was basically nonexistent. He appeared in what? Three scenes at the most??? Four if you count the short dream sequence that, oh wait, SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN A SHORT DREAM BUT A GOOD TALK BETWEEN ASLAN AND LUCY! WTF are these writers on? Crack? And oh yeah… what happened to the entire part where Lucy and Susan stay with Aslan during the battle and wake up the trees with him and meet Bacchus and other such dancing people?…oh right… they had to ride back to find him because they went off to war with Peter and Edmund. What ever happened to the idea of "wars are nasty affairs when girls are involved?" It must have been overturned somewhere because Susan (in her best imitation of the Elves from Lord of the Rings) was down in the battle showing more gumption, skill, and balls than anything which might have even flickered in the eyes of Prince Caspian. Caspian's entire manhood was thrown into question so bad that the writers must have decided that the kiss between Susan and Caspian at the end was necessary, if not for the simple act of modernization, then to assure the audience that Caspian was, in fact, not gay.

If the Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe was turned into a Frankenstein of the original story, Prince Caspian was turned into an Ameba of the original story. After prince Caspian tooted his horn, the skeleton itself disappeared leaving a spineless story attempting to morph into something simply bearable to watch without causing me to burst into tears over the latest victim of C.S. Lewis' stories to Hollywood and the modern culture perfectly happy to accept it.
37 out of 56 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Lewis would be sick
eireinnlassie29 May 2008
Warning: Spoilers
I was annoyed, when LOTR came out, at all the people who complained about the differences between the films and the books. In my opinion, Peter Jackson made the changes he did for excellent reasons. However, the changes made to the storyline of "Prince Caspian" were for obviously promotional reasons and they really took away from the original.

The most annoying part of the film was the silly love story between too-much-eyeliner Susan (why is there eyeliner in Narnia?) and bad-accent Caspian, which was non-existent in the book. There was also the irritating part when the filmmakers decided to (almost) bring the White Witch back, which also was never in the book. It's not like Tilda Swinton won't have a chance to reprise her role; the White Witch returns in "The Magician's Nephew" for a substantial portion of the story. Then there were the parts about the battle at Miraz's castle, which never happens. The best part was the filmmakers' version of the transportation back into Narnia, which fulfilled all my expectations about how that journey began.

As someone who's been reading the "Narnia" series for over twenty years, I was eager to see this film because the first one was pretty good. However, I think the filmmakers made silly choices to try and make an already-dramatic story more exciting and to draw preteens into the theatre, when they would have been better served to stay as true to the novel as the first film did.
13 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Basically Nowhere Near the Book's Storyline
anonymousanswers18 May 2008
Warning: Spoilers
Well, I just saw this last night. Basically, from the previews of the movie I knew I would not like it and knew it had just about nothing to do with the book. I only went because my husband wanted me to. I was right. The thing that made me most mad, was that as usual, Hollywood will NOT make a movie without throwing some sort of sex or romance into it, even if there were NO signs of it in the books. They've got a 26 year old playing a character that is supposed to be about 11-13. Obviously, they've changed him into a character of about 17-19, and had him "yearning" for Queen Susan, and of course she kisses him in the end. That's Hollywood for ya. If she had done that in the book, she would have SOOOOO been a "child molester", because he's just a little boy in the story. That was just the biggest horrible part. The rest of the movie, well, maybe 10% of it followed the story of the book. The other 90% was totally not there. From what I saw, I'm really quite surprised that they kept the main characters' NAMES the same! This is just really NOT a good one for any of the book's fans to see if they're hoping for a good film version of the book.
35 out of 53 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
A huge disappointment
cricketnut20088 June 2008
Warning: Spoilers
I loved the first film and have watched it over and over with my daughter on DVD since we first saw it in the cinema. However, the Prince Caspian screenplay diverged so much from the book they might as well have given this film a different name.

The sickly, contrived love interest between Caspian (a small boy in the book) and Susan was completely incongruous - especially as Ben Barnes (Caspian) is more wooden than a non-talking Narnian tree, however pretty he might be to look at. He wasn't the only poor actor, mind you. The four Pevensie children looked as though they shared my opinion of the script and couldn't get through it fast enough, while the villains were cardboard cutouts. Peter's mumbling in particular was shocking - you could hardly make out a complete sentence of his. The directors were completely high-handed with the plot and played fast and loose with Lewis's character development as well. The only acceptable aspect of the whole thing was the special effects and fight scenes, which were stunning.

I hope they make a better fist of the Dawn Treader, or I will be summoning Aslan to roar their hides off!
9 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
I was surprised
jeanieb-116 May 2008
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."
149 out of 260 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
No, no, NO!
macilwen122 May 2008
Warning: Spoilers
I had such high hopes for this movie...I have always loved Narnia for as long as I can remember, and while Prince Caspian wasn't my favorite one of the books, I still loved the character of Caspian and was looking forward to seeing him, and Reepicheep, and Trumpkin, and all the others...

Well. The whole feel of the storyline was messed up. The book is much more gentle -- you get to know so many of the characters so much better. There are three scenes that I particularly miss: Caspian meeting the Bulgey Bears and Patterkin and the centaurs one-by- one as Nikabrik and Trumpkin and Trufflehunter take him through the woods; the first battle (the REAL first battle, not the ridiculous storming-the-castle thing) where Caspian fails miserably...but it's so tragically funny, because of this giant who has a head-cold and fought badly because of it, so he drips tears onto a poor small fox (bad explanation, wonderful piece of writing tho); and the part with Bacchus and Lucy and Susan, where they free this village, and Aslan does a few miracles, and it's just a lovely "romp", I believe the book calls it. Three of my favorite parts, left out.

Now, what did they put in? Well, for starters, it moved far too quickly in the beginning -- one is supposed to see how miserably Caspian failed on his own before Peter et. al. get there (in the book, this is all read as a flashback. The kids rescue Trumpkin and he explains how he got in that position.), and then the children go off to Aslan's How (taking the bear they killed with them for food, by the way, cause they travel for about three days). They see Aslan one at a time -- Lucy, Edmund, Susan, Peter, Trumpkin (who gets tossed about by Aslan, another great scene). I don't remember a great deal of how the plot goes after that...well, the meeting between Caspian and Peter occurs right when Caspian's discussing the White Witch with the werewolf, the hag, and Nikabrik. Not so. Instead, there's a need for a power battle between Caspian and Peter! And then they go off and talk, blah blah blah, and then they storm Miraz's castle. Seriously??!? OH MY GOODNESS. And Susan shoots Miraz's wife? (By the way, Miraz is excellent. They did him well.)

I could go on and on and on...the humor is obviously forced, what is UP with Susan and Caspian, seriously, etc., etc., etc.

Suffice to say, if you adore the books, don't watch the movie.

Only redeeming quality: the cinematography had some brilliant moments. Battle between Peter and Miraz? Beautiful. Scenes with Aslan? Beautiful. However! That castle scene wasn't done nearly as well...

Oh well.

At this rate, Voyage of the Dawn Treader will be an epic sea battle.
14 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
A Dark and Mature Sequel
tanmaytoraskar16 May 2008
This is something you wouldn't want to miss. If you thoroughly enjoyed the first film, then this one is a darker adventure than the first one. Everything in Narnia goes totally out of control and tough to handle.

The film starts off with a Spanish group who have invaded Narnia and wiped out all the creatures living there. As it goes, the Pevensie kids are summoned to Narnia to fix up the wrong doings. A lot of conspiracy is thrown into the movie, but it feels like a plot well presented. It's pace is quick and starts right off not waiting to re-introduce everything again.

The cast is absolutely fantastic. The Pevensie kids, just like the last time, add the right amount of drama and humor to their respective roles. Especially Georgie Henley who plays Lucy is the standout yet again. But a worthy addition would also be Prince Caspian, played by Ben Barnes. He acts like a courageous and brave Prince born to lead an army. This is a good breakthrough for him. Also worth mentioning is King Miraz, a great villain since Tilda Swinton. As for a few cameo appearances you should also look out for, the performances are remarkable.

The other outstanding details I loved to see yet again in the film were the Cinematography, The Production Design, and Visual Effects. The shots were lavish and grand. Specially the Long shots, reminded me of The Lord Of The Rings. The Art Direction and the locations are astounding, very vibrant and unlike anything you would have ever seen in film. And of course the Visual Effects, those everlasting details adds another level entirely. You will love watching all this come together.

Even the action and battle sequences feel like a last stand to something no one can win. Its against all odds. You would cringe just because of the turn the film takes. It is filled with dark themes and more mature elements which would be a little hard to take. You might feel that the first one was pretty good. But give it another chance and you would feel this movie is just as good as the first.

For what I feel, this is a really good movie. 9 out of 10. Go to Narnia.
121 out of 210 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Empire Strikes Back this is NOT
PeterWorthers17 May 2008
Warning: Spoilers
I will admit that I like the first Narnia film, and was wanting this one to be just as good but for some reason it fell flat for me. Why (other than the fact that my daughter continued to tell me how 'Dreamy' Prince Caspian was) let me count a few of the ways.

First off, it seems the poor Pevensie siblings will continue to be taken advantage of. Hey we need help lets blow this horn and bring those 4 kids back...then when all the fighting is done and the day is saved "Get the hell out of our magic kingdom" and they are sent back to their sad lives in their 'present' day. Why not let them stay with you? Wouldn't that be a small thanks for what they did?

Second, the battle was trying too hard to be like Helms Deep on Lord of the Rings, at least thats the way it seemed to me.

Third, after the failed castle siege attempt, all those Narnians get killed and all, then what do we see later? The same castle with the people that live in the castle throwing a happy parade for the returning Narnians. What the heck? First off, shouldn't everyone there be scared of them, apparently Narnians were just fables only a few days ago, plus the Narnians are the same ones who a day ago snuck in and killed your husbands/sons/fathers...and now you act like nothing is wrong?

Forth, the Pevensie siblings are in the underground one second, then the next WHOOSH! They're in a strange land...and what is the first thing they think of? WATER FIGHT!!! Aren't you scared or curious as to where you are? How do you KNOW you're in Narnia all the sudden? Maybe you were wisked off to New Jersey? YOU DON'T KNOW!

Fifth, if Aslan could have helped the Narnians from the start, then why did he purposely let them walk into a battle he knew they couldn't win without his help? He waited till how many of them had died senselessly till he decided to step in? Come on.

There are just a few, but the movie on whole seemed to drag out and I found myself wanting it to end. Will I see this again? No. Will I buy this on DVD? No. Sorry Narnia, This just didn't do it for me. But the one thing I will take away from this is....Prince Caspian is Dreamy.
15 out of 21 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Overall, very disappointing
kmhmoviewatcher216 May 2008
Warning: Spoilers
Having seen "The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, The Witch And The Wardrobe" six times in the theatre and purchased the DVD, I was treated to a showing of "Prince Caspian" as a birthday present on its opening night. My husband and I were both disappointed. 1. What happened to the story? Yes, many books are slow and may seem boring when translated to film, but this lacks so many of the necessary details of the original story. There are those of us who love romance, but it DOES NOT belong in this story. Yes, battle scenes are enticing to movie-goers, but when was there an attack on Miraz's castle? Dr. Cornelius does not get captured. 2. What's with the Telmarine accent? There could have been something subtle to show that the Telmarines were foreigners to Narnia, but this was ridiculous! 3. Huh? What did they say? Is it possible to speak up a bit and enunciate? I missed so much dialogue; this DID NOT happen in the first movie. 4. Yes, Edmund is more mature and honorable in this story, but Peter did not seem quite so arrogant and vicious. 5. For those who mention the White Witch, no she doesn't have much of a part and well, if person had read the book, he/she would know why. Aslan makes a point of stating why he doesn't appear as much.

It seems few reviewers have read the books and know the stories.
16 out of 23 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Pathetic follow up to the Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe
the-gossip-king5 April 2008
I caught this while on holidays but I won't give any extra details for obvious reasons.

This will most likely go down as one of the most disappointing fantasty films of all time. I think Lord of the Rings is going to always be the best and hoped Narnia would at least come close but Prince Caspian has really dropped the Chronicles of Narnia. The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe was great but not groundbreaking. To be fair this movie was based on what I think was one of the worst books in the series. It was good but not as good as any of the others. Books can be expanded but not in a way which makes it completely boring. The action is dull and not interesting even though there's more of it but the visuals have improved. I liked the kids in the first movie but now they are already on my nerves especially the actor portraying Peter who came off as a snobby, insufferable bully. I hope that when Harry Potter ends the Chronicles of Narnia will be there to pick up all the fans but they need to radically improve. At least Michael Apted is doing the next one. Need IMPROVEMENT!
297 out of 562 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Lost the Magic of the First Movie
jm_chapman200718 May 2008
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.
11 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Rough around the edges
sloopydrew17 May 2008
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.
52 out of 89 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed