The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian

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.

As a little girl, I adored the Chronicles of Narnia books, and I still do. I also liked the BBC adaptations, done in mini-series format, they weren't amazing, but they were enjoyable and stuck to the books' spirit. As far as these film versions go, I haven't yet seen Voyage of the Dawn Treader, but I enjoyed Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe. Prince Caspian was not a bad film, but it could have been better.

Visually, the film is very well done. I loved the cinematography, while the scenery and costumes are gorgeous. The effects are also good, and Aslan still looks brilliant. The music is beautiful too, with lovely melodies. The end credits song was nice, but I think it should have stayed as an end credits song, it didn't seem right placing it in the final scene to me. The direction is decent too, while the battle sequences are riveting, and the film did begin well.

As far as the acting goes, it wasn't bad but it wasn't amazing either. The best are Eddie Izzard who is spot on, Peter Dinklage who comes close to stealing the film with his eyes alone and Liam Neeson who lends his majestic voice to Aslan, and while her appearance is very brief Tilda Swinton is quite chilling. The four leads are good enough, and in Georgie Henley's case improved. Edmund also has potential. I had mixed feelings on Miraz though, more to how he was written than how he was acted. Sergio Castellitto does make an effort to make Miraz dark and charismatic for the villain of the piece, but the way Miraz is written and developed makes him come across as insipid. The weak link is Ben Barnes. He is handsome and has his moments, but he is rather bland on the whole.

My real problems with Prince Caspian are in the storytelling and pace mainly. The story has a tendency to become too unengaging, the more involving scenes are well done but the slower scenes are close to ponderous. The pace is rather lethargic this time round, while I don't think the film really needed to be as long as it was and the characters come across as shallow. Also particularly with Caspian and Miraz, some of the dialogue is stilted.

All in all, Prince Caspian is not a bad film, but it lacked something. I also forgot to say as an adaptation of the book it is not great, granted the book was not my favourite of the series but I felt sometimes there was a bit too much padding that could have been excised slightly. A disappointment, but on its own terms and for the visuals and music it is worth a look. 6/10 Bethany Cox

While I enjoyed the first film's story more (it was so clearly an allegory for The Atonement, The Resurrection, the Battle of Armageddon, and the Millennium), this one is better made, better written, and better acted. Plus, it has a healthy share of Christian symbolism itself, some rocking battle sequences (how this is only PG baffles me; the intensity of the action has PG-13 written all over it), and some of the best effects I've ever seen (the badger, in particular, is photo-real).

The idea that the kids actually grew up in Narnia, then returned to their world while retaining all their knowledge and maturity intrigued me (and it makes their battle skills more believable). All that said, I still didn't find myself nearly as emotionally invested or involved in this as I was with The Lord of the Rings, the standard with which it will always, perhaps unfairly, be compared. Why Narnian humans now have Italian accents is beyond me, and some of the jokes fall flat, but all in all it was very good; better than the first in terms of storytelling, character, and filmmaking. ***1/2 (out of five).

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."

Taking kids to the cinema can sometimes be painful but this trip was as much for me as them; i have read the book countless times and have just finished it with my eldest daughter.

The film was more LOTR than CS Lewis and don't know what he would have made of this interpretation. There was just enough in common with the book as to transfer the empathy that i have built with the characters over the last 25 years. There were some changes and original scenes that were totally unnecessary and the tone of the movie was much darker and action oriented than the book.

The upside is that aside from that it was a very well made film, almost up there with LOTR in terms of great fantasy and infinitely more appealing to anyone over 12 years old than Harry Potter.

After fictitiously originating the pevensies from finchley in the 1st movie, he has now made the telmarines Spanish and that sort of worked OK. The pevensies and caspian were close to what i would have imagined and the supporting cast of dwarfs and mice were excellent.

Another 2 years to wait till Voyage of the Dawntreader; would have liked to have seen Horse and his boy next. Mind you, in theory that could be done in 10 years time with the same actors.

All in all, a great improvement on the lion, the witch and the wardrobe.