The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian
FX: Very nice. Lifelike and original. In general, I'm a sucker for huge epic battle scenes with swordplay galore.
Acting: The four Pevensie children are very good, particularly the little girl who plays Lucy. Liam Neeson lends his voice to Aslan the lion (aka Jesus) and is always welcome. The best acting performance in the movie is by the red-headed dwarf who tells the Pevensies they may find Narnia a more savage place than they remember. I haven't seem him before, but he was great. Unfortunately, Ben Barnes in the title role is wooden and listless. Like Hayden Christensen in the new Star Wars disasters, Barnes looks the part but either doesn't have a handle on the character or is held back by the screenplay, which leads me to...
Screenplay: Mediocre at best. This was the key difference between the greatness of the Lord of the Rings trilogy and the all-around awfulness of the new Star Wars trilogy. Lord of the Rings had well-developed characters with strong dialogue that made you actually care about them. The Star Wars characters were insufferable, lame, and seemingly as artificial as the CGI images surrounding them. This script wasn't as terrible as those, but there seemed to be a disconnect between the action and the reason it was happening. For example, how is it that Caspian is able to convince the Narnians to pledge their lives to him after about 30 seconds of dialogue? What's the deal with the Telmarine general who looks like he might become a good guy? This plot angle is never really followed up on. What's the significance of the evil Telmarine king being murdered by his own lieutenant in the final battle scene? Nothing happens after this event plot-wise; the lieutenant simply kills him and takes his place, and the battle continues as before. And what about Edmund Pevensie? He plays a critical role in "The Lion, the Witch & the Wardrobe," but here he's just along for the ride. Overall, the script is just too long, too clumsy, and too full of holes.
Themes: Everyone knows these stories are Christian allegories. That's okay. What I have a problem with--and maybe I'm just being a liberal here--is the colonialist allegories. The Telmarines are all dark-haired, dark-skinned, dark-bearded Meditteranean people with foreign accents. The good guys are pearly white and virtuous. There's something very British colonialistic in this setup. The Narnians come in all shapes and sizes (and species), but the Telmarines are nameless, faceless storm troopers of uniform ethnicity. What's the message here? The enemy has no humanity and thus deserves to be slaughtered? Maybe I'm taking it too seriously.
In a similar vein, what are these kids even doing in Narnia? The answer, of course, is that they're fighting evil. But what does that consist of? Apparently, gleefully thrusting their swords into the flesh of the evil-doers for 2 1/2 hours. They do nothing but fight for the entire movie...yet there is virtually no blood or gore. On one level, this makes sense, since it's supposed to be a kids movie. On the other hand, isn't this not very healthy to show kids an uber-violent movie that shows no pain or suffering on the part of the hundreds of characters who are slain? At one point, Lucy cries to Peter, "All you want to do is fight; there are other ways!" Well, judging by the rest of the movie, apparently there aren't.
Bottom line: It's not bad, and it lives up to the book (which, if I recall correctly, was okay but not as good as Lion/Witch/Wardrobe or Voyage of the Dawn Treader). However, it felt like it ran on much longer than 2 hours, whereas all three Lords of the Rings felt much shorter than 3 1/2 hours. That's telling.
Acting: The four Pevensie children are very good, particularly the little girl who plays Lucy. Liam Neeson lends his voice to Aslan the lion (aka Jesus) and is always welcome. The best acting performance in the movie is by the red-headed dwarf who tells the Pevensies they may find Narnia a more savage place than they remember. I haven't seem him before, but he was great. Unfortunately, Ben Barnes in the title role is wooden and listless. Like Hayden Christensen in the new Star Wars disasters, Barnes looks the part but either doesn't have a handle on the character or is held back by the screenplay, which leads me to...
Screenplay: Mediocre at best. This was the key difference between the greatness of the Lord of the Rings trilogy and the all-around awfulness of the new Star Wars trilogy. Lord of the Rings had well-developed characters with strong dialogue that made you actually care about them. The Star Wars characters were insufferable, lame, and seemingly as artificial as the CGI images surrounding them. This script wasn't as terrible as those, but there seemed to be a disconnect between the action and the reason it was happening. For example, how is it that Caspian is able to convince the Narnians to pledge their lives to him after about 30 seconds of dialogue? What's the deal with the Telmarine general who looks like he might become a good guy? This plot angle is never really followed up on. What's the significance of the evil Telmarine king being murdered by his own lieutenant in the final battle scene? Nothing happens after this event plot-wise; the lieutenant simply kills him and takes his place, and the battle continues as before. And what about Edmund Pevensie? He plays a critical role in "The Lion, the Witch & the Wardrobe," but here he's just along for the ride. Overall, the script is just too long, too clumsy, and too full of holes.
Themes: Everyone knows these stories are Christian allegories. That's okay. What I have a problem with--and maybe I'm just being a liberal here--is the colonialist allegories. The Telmarines are all dark-haired, dark-skinned, dark-bearded Meditteranean people with foreign accents. The good guys are pearly white and virtuous. There's something very British colonialistic in this setup. The Narnians come in all shapes and sizes (and species), but the Telmarines are nameless, faceless storm troopers of uniform ethnicity. What's the message here? The enemy has no humanity and thus deserves to be slaughtered? Maybe I'm taking it too seriously.
In a similar vein, what are these kids even doing in Narnia? The answer, of course, is that they're fighting evil. But what does that consist of? Apparently, gleefully thrusting their swords into the flesh of the evil-doers for 2 1/2 hours. They do nothing but fight for the entire movie...yet there is virtually no blood or gore. On one level, this makes sense, since it's supposed to be a kids movie. On the other hand, isn't this not very healthy to show kids an uber-violent movie that shows no pain or suffering on the part of the hundreds of characters who are slain? At one point, Lucy cries to Peter, "All you want to do is fight; there are other ways!" Well, judging by the rest of the movie, apparently there aren't.
Bottom line: It's not bad, and it lives up to the book (which, if I recall correctly, was okay but not as good as Lion/Witch/Wardrobe or Voyage of the Dawn Treader). However, it felt like it ran on much longer than 2 hours, whereas all three Lords of the Rings felt much shorter than 3 1/2 hours. That's telling.