The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian
Movie Review
"The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian"
Review by Eric D. Snider
Grade: B-
Rating: PG
Released: Friday, May 16, 2008
Directed by:
Cast:
A few things have changed since the first "Chronicles of Narnia" film arrived on the scene. In the sequel, "Prince Caspian," the principal actors are a little older and more proficient. The director, Andrew Adamson, seems more confident; the action scenes are smoother and more polished. The Christian allegories are not as awkward and heavy-handed.
It's a better movie all around, though still not a great one. Like its predecessor, it is plot-heavy, with very little attention paid to characterization. You'll recall that there are four siblings at the center -- and three of them come off as total ciphers here. It wasn't until I re-read my review of the first film that I remembered Edmund (Skandar Keynes) used to be rebellious. If he still is, there's little sign of it. If he isn't anymore, then what is he instead?
The Pevensie child who does not get the short shrift is the oldest, Peter (William Moseley), who returns to Narnia with his siblings when they are summoned by a distress call. It's been a year for them, but several centuries in Narnia-time, and a usurping family has stolen the throne and forced all the Narnian magical creatures into hiding in the forest. The ruling family's teenage Prince Caspian (Ben Barnes) is now hiding, too, because his uncle, the evil King Miraz (Sergio Castellitto), having finally produced a male heir for himself, has no reason to let Caspian keep living. Miraz is leading the army into the forest to find and kill Caspian (and any Narnians that get in the way); Caspian and the Pevensie kids must rally the troops, fight back, and at last reclaim the throne.
Peter, now more serious and grown-up than the last time we saw him, readily adopts his previous position as rightful king of Narnia and deeply considers the options that lie before him. Caspian, meanwhile, is more hotheaded and emotional -- which is understandable, considering his uncle wants to kill him -- and this leads to recklessness. It also leads, inevitably, to Peter's sister Susan (Anna Popplewell) developing a crush on Caspian, in a subplot so underdeveloped that it is an insult to subplots.
Meanwhile, young Lucy (Georgie Henley) insists that Aslan, the mighty Jesus-lion, will yet return and save the day. Her siblings do not share her faith. Lucy even claims to have glimpsed Aslan here and there. When Peter asks why he didn't see him, Lucy says, "Maybe you weren't looking." This is fraught with spiritual import. In fact, everything with Lucy is fraught that way.
Among the new characters the young people encounter are dwarfs named Trumpkin (Peter Dinklage) and Nikabrik (Warwick Davis), plus a mouse (voiced by Eddie Izzard) whose small stature has given him a persecution complex. No one takes a talking mouse seriously, even if he does have a sword.
Light touches like that abound in the film, but there is ample darkness, too. Its PG rating represents an astounding lapse in judgment on the part of the MPAA, as the film is rife with stabbing, slicing, and death. Someone's head gets chopped off. Lots of good creatures are slain while others look on, powerless to help. Very little blood is actually shown, but still, the slaughter is endless. (I don't hold the faulty rating against the film itself, of course. I point it out merely as a reminder for parents with young children. For more on the subject, read my article at Cinematical.)
The battle scenes are well orchestrated and often thrilling. There is also a chilling sequence where someone contemplates a turn to dark magic, and two horrific creatures, one wolflike and one resembling a ghastly bird-headed woman, appear. Moments like that give the film some weight, particularly insofar as they give the characters something complicated to think about.
Predictably, the film's running time -- almost 2 1/2 hours -- feels too long, especially given the story's basic simplicity. And ultimately, the only way the film makes sense is if it's read as a Christian allegory. Taken strictly at face value, it's nonsensical: If Aslan is all-powerful, why doesn't he arrive sooner and defeat the bad guys single-handedly? What makes anyone think he's going to come back at all? Why does he come back when he does? What, exactly, is Aslan's connection to everyone? Is he their king? Their god? Their buddy? These questions are easily answered if you replace "Aslan" with "Jesus" and fill in the biblical blanks, but that limits the movie's potential reach. Someone with no knowledge of Christian theology would be baffled by the movie's strange narrative and leo ex machina ending.
Of course, the only people with no complex knowledge of Christian theology who are likely to see the film are young children, and they won't care about the story's structural flaws. It's the grown-ups who might feel slightly underwhelmed by it all, though they'll likely be moderately entertained by the action and adventure.
Grade: B-
Rated PG, a lot of stabbing, slicing, and killing, but no blood. I was genuinely astonished when I saw the rating, because this is definitely a PG-13 film.
2 hrs., 24 min.
Copyright © Eric D. Snider.
This work may not be transmitted via the Internet, nor reproduced in any other way, without written consent from Eric D. Snider.
This item has 30 comments
May 16, 2008 at 3:44 pm
I haven't read Prince Caspian in some time, but is C.S.Lewis making an allegory of the Reformation with this story? Is Caspian a sort of Martin Luther?
Asking here is waaaay easier than, you know, reading the book, seeing the movie... or just googling.
May 16, 2008 at 7:50 pm
Edmund is no longer rebellious in the books after the first. Remember, he is Lewis' model for the perfect penitent, having been rescued by the supreme sacrifice of his Lord. The movies lack of characterization stem directly from the books lack. Once the characters convert to Aslanism, they cease to progress. The conversion is the story and the personal change that Lewis is interested. Once they are 'saved' they aren't particularly important to the story. In Caspian, the Pevensies mostly serve as props to facilitate the titular character's conversion.
May 18, 2008 at 1:12 am
C.S.Lewis was a Christian writer making an allegorical story which parallels the reality of the spiritual realm. Aslan is the Lord in the story. The good & evil is clearly black and white, just as it is for those able to discerning spiritual matters. Edmund went through a clear repentance experience at the time Aslan took his place and died. The whole point of repentence is a change in direction, a change of the mind. Repentence is not feeling sorry & doing the same things with no change in character. That is why Edmund is clearly changed - to demonstrate the internal change and Aslan's effect in him personally. Only children can go to Narnia from the 'real world' because in C.S. Lewis's real world parallel the Lord said only those that become as a child can enter the kingdom of heaven. Their are many lessons, and faith based examples in the stories. The depth of the Narnia experience is most appreciated from the Christian worldview point because of the allegorical paraellels Lewis makes.
May 18, 2008 at 3:43 am
I'm waiting for someone to mention, that the book has almost no battles at all, in fact none. There is one fight between Peter and Miraz. And then Aslan shows up with the Nymphs and the Telmarines run away.
May 18, 2008 at 5:15 am
Don't watch this movie if you've read the book. Seriously. They butchered it.
May 18, 2008 at 5:22 am
I disagree with Ben. After Peter faces off with Miraz, a battle brought on by treachery ensues. That's when the trees step in and chase the Telmarines to the water. I agree with Maggie's comments and I think she is right on target in her understanding of what Lewis was trying to accomplish with the novel. I've read several reviews about the movie and intend to see it tomorrow. I find it interesting that most of the reviewers did not read the book; therefore, they were quite critical of the movie as filtered through their insufficient understanding of the story. I found it interesting that Emerson, at Ebert.com, couldn't identify the Telmarines - a group of pirates who were wisked away from an island after blundering into a cave/doorway into another reality and found themselves in Narnia (see chapter fifteen). As I look ahead to the movie, I am wondering if it depicts the door Aslan made that the Pevensie children and the remaining Telmarines must pass through to return to their respctive earthly realities.
May 18, 2008 at 6:42 am
Rest assured Ron, it does! Having only read "The Lion, Witch, & the Wardrobe", I can't really compare the book to the movie, but I really enjoyed it. And it kept my five year old nephew quiet for over two hours, which is a feat unto itself!! I thought my nephews would get a little spooked by it, but they didn't & neither did the kids in the audience, that I could tell.
May 18, 2008 at 10:17 pm
"Leo ex Machina" was the best line.
May 19, 2008 at 11:24 am
Eric was nice in giving this a B-. I agree with Sean at #5. The true carnage is in the butchering of the true story. Anyone who truly loves the Narnia series would never agree that this movie is good in any way except maybe a few of the special effects.
My biggest disappointment was in the way they destroyed Peter's character. In the books Peter is the essence of leadership and obedience. There is nothing wrong with a person having a great character, but for some reason, in the movie, Peter is depicted as an arrogant, selfish boor who makes a stupid decision to storm the castle (this whole sequence is not in the book) and sacrifices the lives of the Narnians he loves. He quarrels with Caspian and fights in the subway...
They also left out most of Aslan's extremely necessary role. No wonder the movie seemed choppy and pointless. Without Aslan and the way he guided them, there is no point. But they couldn't include that if they were going to destroy Peter, because he obeys Aslan after one very poignant episode.
In tenth grade I got a D-- (that's two minuses) from my music teacher, who liked me personally, so he didn't want to flunk me even though I deserved it. That's the grade I would give Caspian. I love the books so much that I hate to flunk my beloved Narnia outright. So...my grade is a very bummed D--.
May 19, 2008 at 3:26 pm
See... I was initially bummed about how they turned Peter into, as Jenny put it, an "arrogant, selfish boor" who doubted Aslan's help at the beginning of the movie, but after thinking about it, it made sense for the movie. Really what they did was transfer a lot of Susan's character from the book over to Peter's character in the movie to create an internal conflict, Peter against Caspian at first, then them learning to work together and respect each other toward the end. Sure, it wasn't like that in the book, but I'm sure it took you a little longer than 2 hours to read the book. They didn't have 8 hours to tell an effective story, so they had to take shortcuts in character development, among other things.
I was very pleased that they kept Lucy's relationship with Aslan exactly how it was written in the book (probably one of the more meaningful plot points, IMO). And they fixed the combat scenes (they bothered me inordinately in the first movie). And... holy freaking cow... did you guys see the trees?
May 19, 2008 at 4:14 pm
In quick response to Jonathon: actually, it does only take me about two hours to read the book.
More importantly though, leo ex machina is one of my new favorite phrases.
May 19, 2008 at 9:51 pm
Well ME, MYSELF, and I can read this book in 1 hour and 30 minutes, so there!
May 22, 2008 at 3:40 pm
I think Peter Jackson ruined epic fantasy book adaptations forever. Everything about Caspian just seemed so halfway...the acting, the writing, the special effects, even the sound editing (if you close your eyes you can distinguish the voices of the animated characters from the live actors', which completely spoils the believability of the CGI). Disney is cutting too many corners as they make these films, and it's sad, because the source material deserves better treatment.
I wouldn't give it a D--, but definitely a D and a PG-13 rating.
May 22, 2008 at 7:53 pm
Yeah, there was definitely something wrong with this film, but I still can't put my finger on it. It was perhaps too dark, choppy, or nonsensical. Still fun, but not quite right.
May 24, 2008 at 10:51 pm
For the love of god, honestly its amusing listening to a bunch of adults attempt to debate the viability of a children's novel as a movie. Key word, "children," meaning it was primarily supposed to appeal to kids. Get a grip.
May 25, 2008 at 3:59 am
Just saw the movie. Thirty minutes less of battles would have made it much more enjoyable. Would have liked more Aslan. He's in the story often. There's a great book, FINDING GOD in the land of NARNIA by Kurt Bruner and Jim Ware that does just that. I was disappointed in the initial portrayal of Peter as a hooligan too but in the end Peter's character has been shaped and he relinquishes his high kingship to Caspian. And it isn't just for children.
May 25, 2008 at 9:01 am
My grandson and I enjoyed the movie immensely...you know...the fun part! Give me a break...I even enjoyed Bambi.
May 26, 2008 at 4:02 am
OK. I'll bite what's "Leo ex Machina"?
May 26, 2008 at 3:36 pm
Well I read his book in 1hr. and 25min. so ha
May 27, 2008 at 8:50 pm
The Chronicles of Narnia have been some of my favorite stories since childhood, but that hardly means they're just for kids. I'm glad I saw the movie, but I must say, I was disappointed. It took too many liberties that distracted from the actual tale and invested too much in the fight scenes. Hollywood arrogance strikes again!
Also, did anyone else find the religious allegory obnoxiously heavy handed? I don't think it was nearly so in the book. Part of the Chronicles' charm has always been that they aren't preachy. I can't help but think that someone was pandering to the more zealous Christian audience, which I hardly think was C.S. Lewis's main goal, since he himself, started as an aetheist.
June 1, 2008 at 5:24 pm
Well, I'm an atheist, with no plans of converting anytime soon, and I greatly enjoy Narnia and its respective sequels. I've read them many times since I was a kid, and tbh, I never saw anything particularly wrong, or even religious about the stories until I was much older and discovered the internet. ;)
That being said, this movie had some very unfortunate deviations from the book. It was ok, since with the CGI we have nowadays if you throw $100 million at a movie it has to at lest LOOK good. It inspired me to break out the old Narnia books and reread them, especially Prince Caspian.
The book is 100x better than the movie, after having recently experienced them both. The whole storming the castle thing, Prince Caspian x Susan thing, and the fact that they just rearranged the entire plot as they saw fit was very vexing.
I didn't remember all that as I was watching the movie, but reading the book, I kept thinking "Yes! That's what was wrong, this wasn't supposed to happen until a week later, but what does Disney care about continuity?"
Narnia books aren't even that long, 200 pages or so of small paperback. The Prince Caspian story all takes place over about a week and a half, 3 at MOST. Disney shuffled around major events though, and added completely new ones for the sake of Hollywood.
Yes, there were certain restrictions in the book that they didn't change (and that people complain about occasionally. It's in the book people!). However, one of the MOST BIZARRE changes I thought was the Caspian x Susan thing.
Their "relationship" was something I was extremely curious about. The truth of the matter is, in the book they don't even MEET until the end, and about the ONLY time Susan MIGHT have even SAID something to Caspian was in the very last chapter, when they were about to GO HOME. Seems to me like Disney decided to just butcher the entire story to make Caspian more like a traditional Hollywood "hero," complete with good looking Love Interest.
It would have been a much better movie, imo, if they'd just stuck to the book. Certainly it wouldn't have been as traditional (blah blah, save the world, defeat the evil ruler, get the girl, blah blah), but every fan of the series would have liked it more, and let's face it, original is good these days.
And about Aslan. Yes, he makes sense as a Jesus figure, but honestly, I don't see any other connections to stories in the Bible. The basic plot lines are completely different, there are a MILLION good vs. evil stories out there that aren't allegories, tons of which I'm sure involve a good, powerful being not interfering and letting the heroes and heroines do their jobs.
June 2, 2008 at 4:44 am
I think if you are Catholic it makes the most sense. The LW&W was much easier to figure as it was pretty basic but I think most people missed alot of the meaning. Too much battle seens first of all really did overwhelm us for the very reason that the battle with Satan is on and in full swing and is very overwhelming to those that are aware of what is happening. The brothers might be thow backs to Cain and Able maybe who were the first recipients of orginal sin. Is this a forcast for the future...the vatican (maybe represented by the palace where the four reigned as kings and queens of Narnia or popes and saints) being infiltrated and many catholic chrisitans having to go underground as the world becomes corrupt until Christ comes again? Are we to call out to Mary with the rosary to help us battle Satan like Caspian called out to Susan with the horn? (Read the Book of Revelation "the woman shall crush the serpants head") Does Satan try to attack Mary and cast her down in our pseudo Christian modern veiws as in the forest while Susan plucks of the evil soldiers one by one and then gets knocked down only to be picked up by Caspian? Then is Prince Caspian a future weakend puppet papal figure come round through the decidedly usurping undercover catechist proffessor? Is he in need of a role model to help him pick up his septor and rule over his charge Narnia the way a faulty leader might look to a predecesser for guidence and inspiration? (After all Saint Peter is alive and well in heaven these days anyway and intercessory prayer to those saints is proven to be greatly beneficial -ergo Peter is St. Peter). I felt the battle ground was Italy itself these days particualry the city of Rome (Caspian has an Italian accent perhaps aithout coincidence). The catacombs might well have been the inspiration for the underground holy place where the table that held Aslan at his death was kept. The walls with picture stories of the four children and Mr. Thomnas etc.was the legacy of the Church protected and cultivated in times of persecution and the boxes of the four the tombs of the Holy Ones. The two diabolical characters that tempted Caspian to solicit the ice queen (representing Satan ) used magical references and stated that no one could hate like they themselves can (demons are notorious haters of humans who were created to one day be placed above the angels of which they were fallen ). Lucy is rich character representing all of us who are called to have the faith of a child. She stands strong with Christ at her side in the end and with her faith defeats the demons or evil soldiers. The other two persons of the trinity (the Holy Spirit and God the Father) are represented in the water that rises up to destroy the demons all because Lucy went to the Lord (Aslan) in prayer. Edmonds flash light is an ironic "flash" reminder of the present day from which they must return where the real battle of good and evil is taking place. As the movie ends back in the subway the last people you see are the modern day soldiers of world war 2 ...a war which was engineered by two undoubtedly demonicaly possessed men - Hitler and Stalin - or so Rome's cheif exorcist has said that is what his opinion is.
June 13, 2008 at 11:24 pm
I just saw this movie, and I liked this movie so much, I can't write an objective review. I should also give the caveat that this is the first movie I've seen in a theatre since "the Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe". I've also read the books about a dozen times, and I think that the movie was better than the book it's based on.
June 17, 2008 at 1:48 am
I would also like to add, that the books work very well if you are LDS (mormon) as well. Just keep in mind that Caspian = Joseph Smith.
July 10, 2008 at 4:30 am
Sorry I'm late in all this. Just saw this and was surprised to find I enjoyed it. I rather disliked the first one. The kids weren't likable and there was no character development. I rather liked that they showed the kids affected by going from being adult kings and queens to regular, nobody kids again. I always thought that had to screw someone up in some way. Then to return to the land you knew and loved better than your own world to find everything changed and everyone you knew to be dead. The books always make the characters so flat, except when they are annoying. The movie actually gave some depth to them. Not a great film, but enjoyable enough.
July 15, 2008 at 2:59 pm
Yeah, I know; probably no one really cares what a mad 16-yr-old author thinks, but, well, here I am.
Firstly, there is a noticeable hike in quality from the film’s predecessor. For a start, the swords actually look real! One of the issues I have with the Disney LW&W is that all the props look like they've just been made. The controversial attack on the castle: yeah, it's not in the book, but it's a decent sequence that works with the rest of the film. If there’s no attack on the castle, then there’s much LESS pressure on Caspian (no failure crushing Caspian’s pride and making him more open to suggestions) to accept help from the White Witch. Full marks to Disney for ONCE in that the temptation sequence is really gripping (despite a little too much brawling with the werewolf) and ends with a nice twist, showing Edmund to be very, very different from the first film.
Speaking of which, although there is a lot of sharp-tongued ‘humorous’ backbiting between the children, there’s a sense that they’ve grown up a bit – the older three especially (more on that later).
The fighting: there’s a lot of flak about this, isn't there? Given that it’s a PG – and with the track record of these people – I expected one more-or-less decent swordfight and a not-very-realistic battle. What you actually get is the sort of violence you’d expect from a 12-rated movie: sickening, thudding punches exchanged between Miraz and Peter, charging Minotaurs chopping people’s heads off, and a lot of full-scale-warfare. The swordplay is still below standard, though the battle sequences are significantly better-done than in the Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe…. But that’s not saying much, really, is it?
And, while we’re on the topic of what went wrong with the last film, I thought Aslan was much more impressive (though with less of a major role) in this than in the LW&W.
I thought the CGI animals were really well done, especially Trufflehunter the badger and Reepicheep.My only problem with the latter concerns his slightly forced English accent, which has American overtones…
And did I see the trees? DID I SEE THEM????? Definitely the most original and cool piece of SFX in the film!!!
Down to the negative comments. There were two real issues I have with the film, both linked inextricably: the clumsy & obvious romance between Susan and Caspian, and the ending. When I watched it in the cinema, I thought ‘Huh, typical Disney, they can’t have a film involving two attractive teenagers without some love interest.’
What I really don’t understand is this: if you’re going to keep CS Lewis’ ending, then why put in such a futile romance? Admittedly, I never liked CS Lewis’s "adventure over now, back to normal life" endings anyway. Running as an undercurrent through the whole of Prince Caspian is the message: we belong here; we can’t escape into some fairyland. Even though Susan x Caspian only exaggerates that, and lowers the overall originality of the whole thing.
Overall, it gets four stars from me because, yes, it is quite good. But it’s nothing to rave about, really.
July 16, 2008 at 12:21 am
Some of you commentators keep referring to the books, and having to read the books to know the plot and all the important bits. But, uhm, come on, guys, you shouldn't have to read a book to understand a movie. Not when the movie is an adaptation of a book, at least, and not meant to be complementary, but a replacement of sorts.
If the plot and whatnot isn't clear in the film, then it isn't clear. I shouldn't have to go back and read the book in order to enjoy it.
That said, I haven't seen the film, but thought the book was terribly dull and the leo ex machina just horrid. Having seen from eric's review that the film isn't too great, and then the additional comments about how reading the book makes it so much better, I'm going to have to pass on the film. I'd rather be able to enjoy it without having to get the book from the library as a reference piece.
July 30, 2008 at 7:02 pm
Oh, I wouldn't go so far as to say that it's unexplainable without the book. It flows fairly well, and Caspian is unquestionably cool as far as children are concerned. If you're an adult - well, I think it's worth going to the cinema to see. If you're a child, you ought to enjoy it, even though it's not a five star production.
I mean, come on! Have you seen the old BBC versions? ....YUK!!!! They really were so appalling that anything is better. Cardboard cut-outs and a dwarf in a mouse costume! At least Eddie Izzard is entertaining!
September 8, 2008 at 11:01 am
I think that it is ridiculous that people judge films by the books thay are based on. I love Tolkien and Rowling books, and I enjoyed the Lord of the Ring and the Harry Potter films for what they are, not what I thought they should be.
I could never get through the Narnia series (I thought they were boring), but I have enjoyed both of the films so far, and found them easy to follow even without prior knowledge of the plot.
September 28, 2008 at 4:16 pm
I think it's a great movie and the books are great too! i especially loved the battle scenes. Some parts were different from the actual book but what movie is exactly the same as the book anyway? Because sometimes you have to add some more details or something to actually make it an exciting movie.
but overall great movie