good-natured fun.

A slight step up from the original, thanks to being a bit darker and funnier. Prince Caspian makes for a cool hero. However, Andrew Adamson simply doesn't have "the eye" that Peter Jackson used to make LOTR such an extraordinary experience. While his "Narnia" films will always be enjoyable, the fact that he can't film an epic scene with nearly as much awe or quite as pristine editing proves that these films will never live up to the high mark set by LOTR. But I had fun.

B

I walked out.

F

A vast improvement on the first (which while I gave it an excellent rating the first time, on repeat viewing it did not hold up well at all). Still, it is a little too "LoTR-lite" for my taste. Add to that some of the dialogue was insanely stupid ("In case you need to call me again" -- I was wondering about that because it didn't seem that he got her horn number unless they didn't just show that part). And the water thing at the end...

Sigh. It could have been a lot better. It was too family friendly to be a great film. Also, unlike the first film, they did not tone down the allegorical content at all. It was quite obvious this time around (not saying that is a bad thing per se).

B

I thought the second one had much more manageable allegory than the first one. That scene on the stone altar was too much.

...i.e.: none - - they stripped it of meaning...

Thankfully. The first one felt like a Sunday school instructional video.

If they were going to purge the source material they should have considered adding a story to this entry in the series...

What source material did they purge? I wasn't under the impression that they did.

Anyhow, Prince Caspian is an average movie, which makes it light years above the first, a complete disaster.

Why the religious allegories of course.

Mind you, this was the dullest series of fantasy novels I ever read back in the day - - a failed attempt by C.S. Lewis to compete with his friend Tolkien, while worming in his Christian propaganda.

Still, the first movie was excellent - - in my top ten in the year of it's release...

The first one was in my bottom 10 for 2005.

I actually didn't mind the Narnia novels. They were fairly well written, while Lord of the Rings started off quite choppy and didn't get its act together until partway through Two Towers.

I saw it the opposite. Then again I guess because I was raised religiously the first one I didn't find so blatant (and I was well versed in LWW before). I mean the basic story I guess was pretty much a mirror of the parabolic crucifixtion of Christ etc. etc., but this was a little more obscure but ever-so obvious.

I guess, the first time around the story itself was very allegorical and I almost felt it was toned down a bit for the film, whereas the second one it felt like it was more metaphorical with the Christian undertones etc.

After watching this on friday, I decided to buy the first and compare the two. I'd say Caspian is a pretty good improvement over Wardrobe. The darker tone of Caspian was a major change, it almost felt like I was watching a lord of the rings film.

Saw it again on monday, and it was even better the second time.

A-

BINGO!!!

ฺBradley, if you have to pick one of LOTR films that you thought it's the best

(assuming you've seen them all)

which part will be it? And how is Prince Caspian, when compare to that picked one?

Don't get me started on LOTR, it'll just be a derail from this thread - - suffice it to say, that as bad as Prince Caspian was, it's easily better than any of Jackson's LOTR film abortions/adaptations...

8/10 -> B

Solid movie. The Pevensie kids have grown quite nicely. Their acting got much better. But still Peter is the weakest link, and Lucy is the strongest.

The new cast pales in comparison to the first movie, Miraz is nowhere near the villain White Witch was. Her scene was probably the best scene in the whole movie. It just shows that great actress' like Swinton can make anything work wonderfully. Ben "something" as Caspian is quite underwhelming, and the chemistry between Peter and him never worked, which is a pity because it should've been nice if the animosity between the two leaders worked in the first part of the movie.

But everything else is pretty good. The story, the directing, the visuals. Maybe the movie is a bit too long, but that will become more obvious on repeat viewing, it didn't bother me much.

The movies for now don't do any justice to Narnia books. I hope that Dawn Trader, with Magician's Nephew my favorite Narnia book, will be what Azkaban was for HP.

nvm

First one is C-/D quality.

This one is in the B/B- range. I was mega-surprised. My main problem with the first is that it wanted to be Lord of the Rings and light at the same time, and it failed to find that balance... this one I thought was just about perfect for a "family" fantasy film.

Aslan is still a jerk though.

This is probably the best allegory for Jesus and God I've ever seen.

Aslan Saves the day in the first movie
Aslan fucks off for 1300 years while the entire world goes to shit
Aslan demands you believe in him even if you haven't seen him!
Aslan then appears after lots of death and killing has already occured to make the save and claim all the credit.
Aslan then tells the kids to piss off to shitty war torn England and leave behind a world where they are treated like kings.

Otherwise this was pretty good fun thou.....

Speaking about rising from the dead...

Gulli lives!!!

Errr..

I failed to see this as a vast improvement over the first one (which I gave it C+). But it is still an improvement from The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe.

(I watched LWW right before I went to see Prince Caspian)

The action got better, the battle at the end was great though nothing impressive (2x better than the final battle sequence in the first one). The Pevensie children (I mean, all 4 actors who play the roles) are much better here than they were in the first one. All of them, really, especially, William Moseley. He wasn't as bad as I heard of. But don't get it all wrong now, I'm not saying he's great. Ben Barnes was good. Unfortunately, because of his bland-written character, nothing impressive to talk about. Oh, except his hot-ness.

While I didn't like the first one because of its too kid-friendly tone (and everything). This one wasn't much better because of its clumsy script and loosen-focused directing. I believe the first one did a much better job for the script part. So, no matter how good the actor was (Peter Dinklage!!), or how hard my lovely Barnes had tried, the film falls apart. The crazy thing is, it feels quite long but at the same time, I feel like I didn't have enough time with the characters like Trumpkin (Dinklage's character), Reepicheep or Edmund (played by the most impressive actor of all Pevensie children, Skandar Keynes) or even Prince Caspian himself whom I feel like wasn't given enough time for me to care anything about him. I might be blinded by Barnes's hotness. But I refuse to believe this was partly Barnes's fault. It was the clumsy script that spent half of the time with stupid boring politic sub-plot than its character. The first half hour, when the action scene hadn't started to pop up yet, was so boring (no wonder why snack walked out).

And that kiss, eww. I 'eww' with that scene not because I couldn't stand watching Barnes kissing someone who's not me. But that scene was totally 'off', as if it comes out from no where. It's not because of that scene itself. But because of this romantic sub-plot had never been well-developed. So, when this scene arrived, I couldn't help but felt 'WTF'.

I should stop now. It almost sounds like I hate this film while I didn't really. Actually, that's all what I dislike about this movie. But I have to admit, if not for Barnes or had I not been so obsessed with the battle-epic-felt, Prince Caspian would surely rank not far from the first one in my book.

But well, while no great film here, there were still other many things for me to watch. I'm not sure about you though.

B

Haha, how come you're so defensive of a series that you don't seem particularly fond of?

In short; 'BEN BARNES'

I'm not so defensive with the series..

If you recall me seemed to be depressed with Prince Caspian's number. That's just because I want Prince Caspian to do well at the box office, just because it's Barnes' first major film. And I want to see The Voyage of the Dawn Treader, Silver Chair as well.

I'm fine if someone calls this movie 'crap' or gives it 'F'.. only if he/she actually has seen it. It's his/her right to call this movie whatever he/she wants.

Anyway, the next Narnia movie will be directed and written by the film makers of Amazing Grace. I haven't seen it, but have heard good things about it. So, even none of previous Narnia movies has impressed me, I still have hope for the next film.

good film. Though the story was weaker the film was better. Much darker and it felt like it should have been PG-13.

B/B+ havn't decided yet.

I can't beLieve the generaL consensus here thinks this improved over the Last one; it certainLy never did. I mean, it just Lost the aLL magic and interest Lion, Witch, and the Wardrobe had. The action was Less enjoyabLe and over-used here, the characters were Less invoLving, and the story of course got pretty duLL and some stuff just happen without expLanation (or probabLy because I was asLeep for 1/3 of the fiLm). The onLy reason I'm giving it a not-so-disastrous grade was because of the darker tone and better cinematography. Oh, and so much for the LWW hate 'cause that was one of the most enjoyabLe hoLiday fiLms, ever.

C+