Review: The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian (2008)
Steve Rhodes 2 September 2008 05:10:42
THE CHRONICLES OF NARNIA: PRINCE CASPIAN A film review by Steve Rhodes Copyright 2008 Steve Rhodes
RATING (0 TO ****): * 1/2
The magic is gone.
As I said in the first sentence in my review of THE CHRONICLES OF NARNIA: THE LION, THE WITCH AND THE WARDROBE, that film was "magical and marvelous." Neither of these adjectives have any place in a review of the film's tired and laborious sequel, THE CHRONICLES OF NARNIA: PRINCE CASPIAN. While the original was energetic and entertaining, the sequel is plodding and downright dull.
THE CHRONICLES OF NARNIA: PRINCE CASPIAN is one of those "too" movies. It's too long, too slow, too dark, too confusing and too bland. This long and lifeless follow-up will likely have younger members of audiences fidgeting noisily, as they did in our screening, which is a real problem since the actors speak mainly at a low level, probably because their hearts are clearly not in the production.
The title star of the film, a relative unknown actor named Ben Barnes, sleepwalks through his part, acting like a brooding model upset that his scheduled photo shoot is running late. As Prince Caspian, he brings absolutely nothing to the role other than supermodel good looks. But even the kids, Georgie Henley as Lucy, Skandar Keynes as Edmund Pevensie, William Moseley as Peter Pevensie, and Anna Popplewell as Susan Pevensie, aren't very good this time.
About the only characters any good, save a nice cameo by Tilda Swinton as the White Witch, are a few talking animals. The best of these is a smart-alecky mouse named Reepicheep (voiced by Eddie Izzard). But don't be surprised if you think you've seen this character before. You have. That would be Puss In Boots (voiced by Antonio Banderas) in SHREK, another film by THE CHRONICLES OF NARNIA: PRINCE CASPIAN's director Andrew Adamson.
THE CHRONICLES OF NARNIA: PRINCE CASPIAN wants desperately to be the next THE LORD OF RINGS. In battle after perfunctory battle, the movie tries to repeat THE LORD OF THE RINGS look and style, right down to fighting trees.
Is there anything other than a few wisecracking animals that the movie has to offer? The music is pretty good.
THE CHRONICLES OF NARNIA: PRINCE CASPIAN runs a long 2:24. It is rated PG for "epic battle action and violence" and would be acceptable for all ages.
The film opens nationwide in the United States on Friday, May 16, 2008. In the Silicon Valley, it will be showing at the AMC theaters, the Century theaters and the Camera Cinemas.
bThe Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspianb b The Sword and the Pen Arenbt Mighty
by Homer Yen
(c) 2008
In 2005, audiences were first introduced to the world of Narnia and its most famous inhabitant, Aslan the Lion. That was entitled "The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe." The land was in jeopardy and under a brutal curse, but Narnia was saved by the Pevensie siblings, unlikely young heroes who were brave beyond their years. They were Edmund (Skandar Kaynes), Lucy (Georgie Henley), Peter (William Mosely), and young Susan (Anna Poppawell).
The Pevensie children return to Narnia one year after their first adventure. The brothers, however, do not come across as strong this time around. Edmund has become somewhat of a crybaby. Peter doesnbt have any real purpose here. The sisters, though, are a different matter. Lucy has matured into a noble warrior. And, Susan develops a resolute quality as she holds true to her beliefs despite the consternation of others.
Soon after re-entering the kingdom, they learn that 1,000 years has passed, and all is not well as the evil Lord Miraz (Sergio Castellitto) wants to ascend to the throne. The four children make allies and work together to help restore the kingdom to its rightful heir, Prince Caspian (Ben Barnes). But their plan is not without problems. They experience a tough defeat, patience begins to grow thin, and they begin to rely on something that may or may not be there. While most films like this rests upon a leaderbs personal growth, the success of this story arc as well as the success of their mission seems to depend too much on Aslanbs miracle appearance.
Author C.S. Lewis of the Narnia saga has often been criticized for making his stories less of a fable and more of a spiritual re-telling. That spiritual aspect is not as obvious here as it was in the 2005 film. Yet, that inclusion gave the first film a bit of a message and an edge. Without it, the film doesnbt feel as committed to its true underpinnings.
My innate loyalty to the franchise stems from my days as a 5^th grader, growing up familiar with the seven books of the Narnia series. But as a big-film production, the second installment seemed somewhat pointless and not nearly as fun as the 2005 kickoff film. There are several reasons. Bad-guy Miraz is nowhere near as enchanting as the villainess, The White Witch, from the first novel. And, with that thrusting beard, he looks like the undesirable understudy of King Leonidas from b300b.
Also, I think Ibm growing tired of films that culminate into a final scene where a battlefield of good and evil forces are set to collide. You know the kind. CGI special effects create thousands upon thousands of soldiers that stand in threatening formation. Giant war machines, like catapults, are pushed into position. A clever tactic is employed to temporarily stunt the momentum of one of the forces. When it comes to having an awesome-battle-in-scope-and-enormity, bThe Lord of the Ringsb films set the standard by which all others will be measured. Itbs like American Idol hopeful Syesha Mercado pluckily singing bI Will Always Love Youb on Dolly Parton night. But, it just canbt compare to the powerful rendition etched in pop music by Whitney Houston.
C.S. Lewisbs work has a similar feel as colleague J.R.R. Tolkien who penned the Lord of the Rings. Yes, the world is lushly filled with magical and mystical creatures like fauns, centaurs, minotaurs and other talking creatures. But this one has more of a circus-like feel. And it feels heavily like a cross between bLOTRb (which was more compelling) and bShrek 2b (which was more kid-friendly). Missing are the stirring speeches. Missing is the inspiring dramatic arc. Missing is the element of originality. As a fantasy adventure, it only somewhat captivated my attention and my imagination.
Few movies (or TV shows, or anything else) cover all the bases. Some movies are filled with dazzling special effects, but have flat characters whose only job is to say lines such as "The Megazatron is going to explode!" Others have better characters caught up in a ridiculous plot, or delivering preposterous dialogue.
That's tough enough, but some movies are based on books have to satisfy both people who read the book and those who didn't, making changes while remaining true to the author's vision. And a Narnia movie has to shoulder all that responsibility and more: as CS Lewis's epic series of books is a Christian parable, the movie also has to give us an Aslan who is appropriately regal. On that point, "Prince Caspian" bobbles the ball somewhat, but not catastrophically. Curiously, the worst example of getting Aslan wrong involves changing Lewis's dialogue to no apparent purpose. In the book, Lucy sees Aslan, and wants to go to him, but the others have not seen him and so they go a different way. Instead of going to Aslan, she follows them. When, at a later time, she finally catches up with him, she seems him bigger than before, and asks if he's grown. His answers no, "But every year you grow, you will find me bigger." Jesus does not grow: but as we grow, we can learn to see him better. Later in that interview, Lucy realises that she should have gone to Aslan alone if necessary, and asks whether everything would have worked out okay if she had. Aslan gives no answer, and she asks if she will ever know. His answer: "To know what *would* have happened, child? No. Nobody is ever told that."
In the movie, this interview is moved to a different point in the story, which is okay, but Aslan's lines above are changed to "Every year you grow, so shall I." and "We can never know what would have happened." Lewis wrote Aslan as a symbol of Christ: he knows many things we do not, and owes us no answers. At this point in the movie, Aslan seems more like a wise teacher, not an omnipotent Lord. Some changes will be inevitable when a book becomes a movie, but these strike me as pointless. (The moviemakers have apparently said that they did not realise that these small dialogue changes would be so commented upon and searched for meaning. It may be that they lack Lewis's understanding of the subtleties of English, about which I can say (a) most people do, and (b) maybe that's a reason to stick to Lewis's original wording.)
But as I say, though the ball is bobbled, it is not completely lost. Aslan is seen commanding the very elements, which appear at his word (well, roar) and then wait on his nod before they proceed. He restores some who are injured -- notably, not for their own merit, but due to the intercession of others -- and once all can see him, even those who did not believe in Lions accept his authority.
Well, okay, so you're thinking: but what about the rest? What about the plot and dialogue and cinematography? How is it as a *movie*?
As a movie, it mostly delivers. Many of the outdoor scenes are beautiful, and the effects that put human characters into computer- generated scenery works better than it did at times in "The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe". The battle scenes are effective, and the plot does not play out as might be expected for such a story: the heroes face setbacks, have some measured successes, and yet relying on their own strength does not save them. There are clashes among the leaders on both sides, some more significant than others, about who is really in charge and what course of action to take next.
If you liked the book, you'll probably like the movie. If you've never read the book, the movie will still make sense to you. The story itself is weaker than the one which came before (it would be hard to top a retelling of the Fall, the Crucifixion, and the Resurrection), but it does stand on its own as a reasonably interesting tale.
"The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian" - The Sword and the Pen Aren't Mighty
In 2005, audiences were first introduced to the world of Narnia and its most famous inhabitant, Aslan the Lion. That was entitled "The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe." The land was in jeopardy and under a brutal curse, but Narnia was saved by the Pevensie siblings, unlikely young heroes who were brave beyond their years. They were Edmund (Skandar Kaynes), Lucy (Georgie Henley), Peter (William Mosely), and young Susan (Anna Poppawell).
The Pevensie children return to Narnia one year after their first adventure. The brothers, however, do not come across as strong this time around. Edmund has become somewhat of a crybaby. Peter doesn't have any real purpose here. The sisters, though, are a different matter. Lucy has matured into a noble warrior. And, Susan develops a resolute quality as she holds true to her beliefs despite the consternation of others.
Soon after re-entering the kingdom, they learn that 1,000 years has passed, and all is not well as the evil Lord Miraz (Sergio Castellitto) wants to ascend to the throne. The four children make allies and work together to help restore the kingdom to its rightful heir, Prince Caspian (Ben Barnes). But their plan is not without problems. They experience a tough defeat, patience begins to grow thin, and they begin to rely on something that may or may not be there. While most films like this rests upon a leader's personal growth, the success of this story arc as well as the success of their mission seems to depend too much on Aslan's miracle appearance.
Author C.S. Lewis of the Narnia saga has often been criticized for making his stories less of a fable and more of a spiritual re-telling. That spiritual aspect is not as obvious here as it was in the 2005 film. Yet, that inclusion gave the first film a bit of a message and an edge. Without it, the film doesn't feel as committed to its true underpinnings.
My innate loyalty to the franchise stems from my days as a 5th grader, growing up familiar with the seven books of the Narnia series. But as a big-film production, the second installment seemed somewhat pointless and not nearly as fun as the 2005 kickoff film. There are several reasons. Bad-guy Miraz is nowhere near as enchanting as the villainess, The White Witch, from the first novel. And, with that thrusting beard, he looks like the undesirable understudy of King Leonidas from "300".
Also, I think I'm growing tired of films that culminate into a final scene where a battlefield of good and evil forces are set to collide. You know the kind. CGI special effects create thousands upon thousands of soldiers that stand in threatening formation. Giant war machines, like catapults, are pushed into position. A clever tactic is employed to temporarily stunt the momentum of one of the forces. When it comes to having an awesome-battle-in-scope-and-enormity, "The Lord of the Rings" films set the standard by which all others will be measured. It's like American Idol hopeful Syesha Mercado pluckily singing "I Will Always Love You" on Dolly Parton night. But, it just can't compare to the powerful rendition etched in pop music by Whitney Houston.
C.S. Lewis's work has a similar feel as colleague J.R.R. Tolkien who penned the Lord of the Rings. Yes, the world is lushly filled with magical and mystical creatures like fauns, centaurs, minotaurs and other talking creatures. But this one has more of a circus-like feel. And it feels heavily like a cross between "LOTR" (which was more compelling) and "Shrek 2" (which was more kid-friendly). Missing are the stirring speeches. Missing is the inspiring dramatic arc. Missing is the element of originality. As a fantasy adventure, it only somewhat captivated my attention and my imagination.
"The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian" - The Sword and the Pen Aren't Mighty by Homer Yen (c) 2008
In 2005, audiences were first introduced to the world of Narnia and its most famous inhabitant, Aslan the Lion. That was entitled "The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe." The land was in jeopardy and under a brutal curse, but Narnia was saved by the Pevensie siblings, unlikely young heroes who were brave beyond their years. They were Edmund (Skandar Kaynes), Lucy (Georgie Henley), Peter (William Mosely), and young Susan (Anna Poppawell).
The Pevensie children return to Narnia one year after their first adventure. The brothers, however, do not come across as strong this time around. Edmund has become somewhat of a crybaby. Peter doesn't have any real purpose here. The sisters, though, are a different matter. Lucy has matured into a noble warrior. And, Susan develops a resolute quality as she holds true to her beliefs despite the consternation of others.
Soon after re-entering the kingdom, they learn that 1,000 years has passed, and all is not well as the evil Lord Miraz (Sergio Castellitto) wants to ascend to the throne. The four children make allies and work together to help restore the kingdom to its rightful heir, Prince Caspian (Ben Barnes). But their plan is not without problems. They experience a tough defeat, patience begins to grow thin, and they begin to rely on something that may or may not be there. While most films like this rests upon a leader's personal growth, the success of this story arc as well as the success of their mission seems to depend too much on Aslan's miracle appearance.
Author C.S. Lewis of the Narnia saga has often been criticized for making his stories less of a fable and more of a spiritual re-telling. That spiritual aspect is not as obvious here as it was in the 2005 film. Yet, that inclusion gave the first film a bit of a message and an edge. Without it, the film doesn't feel as committed to its true underpinnings.
My innate loyalty to the franchise stems from my days as a 5th grader, growing up familiar with the seven books of the Narnia series. But as a big-film production, the second installment seemed somewhat pointless and not nearly as fun as the 2005 kickoff film. There are several reasons. Bad-guy Miraz is nowhere near as enchanting as the villainess, The White Witch, from the first novel. And, with that thrusting beard, he looks like the undesirable understudy of King Leonidas from "300".
Also, I think I'm growing tired of films that culminate into a final scene where a battlefield of good and evil forces are set to collide. You know the kind. CGI special effects create thousands upon thousands of soldiers that stand in threatening formation. Giant war machines, like catapults, are pushed into position. A clever tactic is employed to temporarily stunt the momentum of one of the forces. When it comes to having an awesome-battle-in-scope-and-enormity, "The Lord of the Rings" films set the standard by which all others will be measured. It's like American Idol hopeful Syesha Mercado pluckily singing "I Will Always Love You" on Dolly Parton night. But, it just can't compare to the powerful rendition etched in pop music by Whitney Houston.
C.S. Lewis's work has a similar feel as colleague J.R.R. Tolkien who penned the Lord of the Rings. Yes, the world is lushly filled with magical and mystical creatures like fauns, centaurs, minotaurs and other talking creatures. But this one has more of a circus-like feel. And it feels heavily like a cross between "LOTR" (which was more compelling) and "Shrek 2" (which was more kid-friendly). Missing are the stirring speeches. Missing is the inspiring dramatic arc. Missing is the element of originality. As a fantasy adventure, it only somewhat captivated my attention and my imagination.
