Prince Caspian: Reviews and Reactions Thread

[raginranger]

Hello all,

I did an advanced search for "Narnia" and didn't find any threads on the review of this movie. If this is a duplicate thread though, please delete.

So who all has seen this? What did you guys think?

I personally saw it last night and thought it was good, but not great. It wasn't as good as the first movie in my opinion, but then again the 2nd book isn't as good as 1st book either. I didn't think the director or actors did a bad job; the story just simply isn't as engaging as the first. Hopefully the 3rd will be better, but I've only read the first two books, so i dunno. As usual, I was highly disappointed with the movie theater's image. I could tell my the scenery in the movie that this will look friggin AMAZING on blu-ray; however, the movie theater screen looked like a dvd (boo!). thoughts..?

[emm7th]

Join the Prince Caspian's box office poll:
https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=42635



I still haven't seen it (June 4 is the release date in the Philippines)... box-office-wise, I expect it to perform better outside the States... I hope Disney will eventually make all 7 books into movies...

[ground chuck]

i just got my 3 disc blu-ray version from best buy for $16.99 + tax. sticker price was $34.99, got them to price match the sears 2 disc price of $19.99 and i had a $3 coupon. bb priced matched without hesitation, the sears ad even said 2 disc. oh well, thanks best buy, i deserve a break every now and then.

[ckent22]

I enjoyed the first one better, but still thought this one was decent.

[Teabaggins]

I thought it was mediocre at best, not a gripping story. characters were forgettable and lame. the creature effects looked worse than the first one.

once LOTR came out you really have to up your game if you want to compete.

[Ernest Rister]

Technically, the film is dramatically better than the first film, and screenwriter and director Admanson has bent over backwards to turn this difficult story into an engaging follow-up. He has largely succeeded in this effort (aside from some obvious and pedestrain clunky story beats) -- I was simply surprised at the level of graphic violence in the film. Edmund, Susan, and Peter kill more people than Hannibal Lecter, and there's a shot of lttle Lucy waiting for an army with the red of her dress reflected on her drawn dagger that's as creepy as anything in The Omen.

[dvd_mazter]

First one is better however it think it is a solid fantasy flick with some great CG, it was just too long and lacking in the villian department.

[owa]

I didn't catch it at the theater but watched the blu-ray last night. I was very impressed and enjoyed it more than the first one. Thought they did a better job with the characters in Prince Caspian and that made me get attached to them this time around.

[Grant Matrix]

I enjoyed Capsian alot more than I thought I would. I thought the acting was bit better, the story line a bit stronger and the action sequences .... more and better choreogrpahed. I really hope that the keep the series going. The best thing was how quickly the kids got back to Narnia. My biggest complaint about LWW was how long it takes to get things mvoing along, but overall I have been pleased with the first two tales!

[Blu Titan]

Originally Posted by owa

I didn't catch it at the theater but watched the blu-ray last night. I was very impressed and enjoyed it more than the first one. Thought they did a better job with the characters in Prince Caspian and that made me get attached to them this time around.

I saw it at the theater and liked it...will be watching my Blu-ray on Saturday, and I am really looking foward to it.

[Brandon]

Just watched it last night...very average and unmemorable. Kind of what I expected though.

[Josh]

To me, the first two films in the series were both mediocre. I continue to see way too many allusions towards Lord of the Rings, which is sad because they are two very different stories (even though they were written by friends).

Peter Jackson had an detailed universe with stories that represented thousands of years of history. Even by going epic, he still had to remove parts and pieces to make the film manageable. Whereas Adamson has these quick stories with not a lot of detail, and is trying to build them to epic proportions, and even worse, by emulating Jackson. I don't blame him for it (you're not going to keep an audience awake without tons of drama and action), but maybe this property just can't lend itself well to film.

Of course, that is what they said about LOTR for the longest time (even Tolkien), and look what happened there...

[aramis109]

Originally Posted by Josh

To me, the first two films in the series were both mediocre. I continue to see way too many allusions towards Lord of the Rings, which is sad because they are two very different stories (even though they were written by friends).

Peter Jackson had an detailed universe with stories that represented thousands of years of history. Even by going epic, he still had to remove parts and pieces to make the film manageable. Whereas Adamson has these quick stories with not a lot of detail, and is trying to build them to epic proportions, and even worse, by emulating Jackson. I don't blame him for it (you're not going to keep an audience awake without tons of drama and action), but maybe this property just can't lend itself well to film.

Of course, that is what they said about LOTR for the longest time (even Tolkien), and look what happened there...

While I disagree that they're mediocre (I enjoy watching them with my family quite a bit) I do agree with the rest of what you're saying. However, I don't think this is a fault of the directors, but what the original author was doing. If I recall correctly, Tolkein and Lewis actually taught at school together and talked about what they were working on. Lewis decided to do a similar story to Tolkein but to do it more for children and to write it with more of a Christian slant. Hence, the simpler story.

Tolkein, honestly, went way overboard. The man wrote out and created his own written languages (elvish, for one). He wrote thousands of years of history into his stories. Not many people can compete with that level of dedication and single-mindedness.

[Josh]

Originally Posted by aramis109

While I disagree that they're mediocre (I enjoy watching them with my family quite a bit) I do agree with the rest of what you're saying. However, I don't think this is a fault of the directors, but what the original author was doing. If I recall correctly, Tolkein and Lewis actually taught at school together and talked about what they were working on. Lewis decided to do a similar story to Tolkein but to do it more for children and to write it with more of a Christian slant. Hence, the simpler story.

Tolkein, honestly, went way overboard. The man wrote out and created his own written languages (elvish, for one). He wrote thousands of years of history into his stories. Not many people can compete with that level of dedication and single-mindedness.

Lewis and Tolkien were friends, but I don't know if their work necessarily influenced each other. I know they shared notes, but the directions they took were totally there own - I believe.

Lewis obviously wrote children books with religious undertones. But the kicker is the Tolkien also did that children book (The Hobbit), before writing The Lord of the Rings. While not nearly as detailed as LOTR, The Hobbit had much more detail than any of Lewis' books. It was just the style of writing.

And I agree that it wasn't Adamson's fault, I just think it may not be the strongest property. Disney really screwed up when they dumped LOTR to New Line, and I think this was a knee-jerk reaction to get their hands on something historic. The book-to-film transition is always hard, but is made harder when their is not much book to start with.