The Chronicles Of Narnia: Prince Caspian

[akitaka]

Saw the screening last night, and while I don't feel that it had the same air of the first movie, worked better for a slightly older audience (being borderline PG).

Nothing particularly new came about it, but it had enough material between the predictable plot to keep the storyline from feeling flat and Lord of the Rings-like (as a lot of films of the medieval fantasy section seem to imitate it). The 2 hours and 30 minutes were utilized to their fullest, so I'd give it a 7/10 or so :-)

I'll be waiting for the next movie.

[Duke Luke of Juke]

I saw it yesterday, good stuff! Like you mentioned, didn't have exactly the same feel as the last, but it was pretty entertaining, all things considered. It did kind of have an anti-climactic feel to me though, to be honest. Maybe it just had to do with trying to stuff so much into 2 hours, but I kind of felt myself wondering why I cared frequently, as well.

*EDIT- LOL just realized this might possibly be a spoiler*

.


.

*Spoiler Space*

.


.

I was also somewhat annoyed by Aslan's character and how when Lucy asked him why he hadn't come yet (to me anyway) he just seemed apathetic about it. Sort of like "I'll come when I'm ready, doesn't always make a difference." :S

[akiachan]

Going against popular belief, this movie lacked too much that would've made it good. First of all, it hardly followed the book and if you haven't read the book you may have noticed the lack of a story. Most of the story is in the book before and I probably would have enjoyed this movie more if the book before it had been made into a movie first. I know that the 4 kids aren't in the book, but it's essitial to tell a story for a movie to be good. This movie was more so made to be an action flick. I do have to admit that some of the action was amazing (see below for spoilers), but other than that the movie was very lacking. I'd give the action an 8/10 but the movie overall gets a 4/10.





When that evil guy got his head chopped up, I laughed mt butt off because the lack of blood is what made it possible to give this movie a PG rather than a PG-13 rating :]

[akitaka]

movie != book. If you make them equivalent it becomes A. predictable and B. much, much longer, which interferes with the budget as adding 30 minutes to an hour more content would cost them more than help them. As far as movie business is concerned, it's good enough to attract audiences whilst retaining values of the book, without straining the crew as they're also on the third installment as we speak.

luke: He's a lion. Doesn't take shit. Y'know, like real ones in Africa ;-)

[dzee]

1. I liked it.
2. Ben Barnes = eye candy :yes:
3. felt a little like LOTR
4. I haven't actually read the book.
5. WHY THE IDIOTIC ROMANCE, DISNEY?! WAS IT ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY? :yuck: