Post by Neverending on Nov 18, 2014 17:40:31 GMT -5
MAY 18, 2008
Neverending
I enjoyed it. However, there is one thing that confused me. At the end, when Peter and Susan are no longer allowed to return because they "learned" what they needed to learn, what the fuck is that supposed to mean?
I enjoyed it. However, there is one thing that confused me. At the end, when Peter and Susan are no longer allowed to return because they "learned" what they needed to learn, what the fuck is that supposed to mean?
jbailey84
yea i was alittle lost at that part too
yea i was alittle lost at that part too
Neverending
I was just doing some research, and in the book, Aslan says that they are too old. Okay?
I was just doing some research, and in the book, Aslan says that they are too old. Okay?
jbailey84
thats interesting.
thats interesting.
Neverending
Apparently, Susan becomes a whore in book 7.
In The Last Battle, Susan is conspicuous by her absence. Peter says that she is "no longer a friend of Narnia", and (in Jill Pole's words) "she's interested in nothing now-a-days except nylons and lipstick and invitations".
hahaha.
Apparently, Susan becomes a whore in book 7.
In The Last Battle, Susan is conspicuous by her absence. Peter says that she is "no longer a friend of Narnia", and (in Jill Pole's words) "she's interested in nothing now-a-days except nylons and lipstick and invitations".
hahaha.
jbailey84
thats my girl
thats my girl
Necross
Theres been tons of discussion on this.
Susan becomes vain, one of those women trying to be young, stay young, looking pretty that kind of thing. People used to think that it was used to say sex was bad but its obviously not the case, because in the last book also are the children's parents who had to get it on to have 4 kids. Its vanity that she succumbs too. But I had wished he fleshed it out more. I hope they make all the movies, if its not apparent, in the last two movies, they ADD a lot to the depth of the books. They could do the same with The Last Battle.
also
It does say its because they are too old in Caspian, but in another book it says a little more, it is because of what they learned. They need to live in their true world with the experiences and faith they've had in Narnia and see where it leads them in life.
Also, it didn't underperform at all. I'm thrilled that tons of movies can make 100 million in a weekend now, but I also am irritated that because of this, any movie that doesn't is a bomb or underperforms. This movie will break 100 million, possibly 150 by the time it leaves and will perform awesome overseas.
Theres been tons of discussion on this.
Susan becomes vain, one of those women trying to be young, stay young, looking pretty that kind of thing. People used to think that it was used to say sex was bad but its obviously not the case, because in the last book also are the children's parents who had to get it on to have 4 kids. Its vanity that she succumbs too. But I had wished he fleshed it out more. I hope they make all the movies, if its not apparent, in the last two movies, they ADD a lot to the depth of the books. They could do the same with The Last Battle.
also
It does say its because they are too old in Caspian, but in another book it says a little more, it is because of what they learned. They need to live in their true world with the experiences and faith they've had in Narnia and see where it leads them in life.
Also, it didn't underperform at all. I'm thrilled that tons of movies can make 100 million in a weekend now, but I also am irritated that because of this, any movie that doesn't is a bomb or underperforms. This movie will break 100 million, possibly 150 by the time it leaves and will perform awesome overseas.
Neverending
Oh, I see. So Narnia is like Sunday school. I get it.
Oh, I see. So Narnia is like Sunday school. I get it.
Necross
Yeah, pretty much, Neverending. lol.
Yeah, pretty much, Neverending. lol.
RedVader
I heard the actors for Peter and Susan characters say that these would be their last Narnia film.
I heard the actors for Peter and Susan characters say that these would be their last Narnia film.
Matrix_Fan
I heard they're not making anymore after Dawn Treader, and considering how the series ends, I can see why.
I heard they're not making anymore after Dawn Treader, and considering how the series ends, I can see why.
IanTheCool
well, i would like to see them make silver chair and magicians nephew. they wont make horse and his boy, worrying about racism undertones, and last battle, dealing with judgement day and all, may be a tough sell to family moviesgoers.
well, i would like to see them make silver chair and magicians nephew. they wont make horse and his boy, worrying about racism undertones, and last battle, dealing with judgement day and all, may be a tough sell to family moviesgoers.
MovieBuff801
The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian
**1/2 out of ****
I want to pose a question: whatever happened to the magic and actually fantastical elements of the “Narnia” books by C.S. Lewis? Two of Lewis’ novels have now been made into big-budgeted adventures under the Disney banner (”The Lion, The Witch And The Wardrobe” and now “Prince Caspian”), but what seemed to make the stories so enjoyable on paper is nowhere to be found in these film incarnations. With the sequel “Prince Caspian”, Disney is now 0 for 2 where the success of the movies is concerned, and if they want to at least get one home run in this ballpark, then might I suggest trading in their old players for new ones. Yes, the same team behind “Wardrobe” has returned for “Prince Caspian”, and even though it’s obvious that they were trying to make a better film this time around and they marginally succeeded, the end result still isn’t something quite worth recommending.
Whereas “Wardrobe” seriously lacked a real sense of menace to its story, “Prince Caspian” in turn is entirely too dark and lacks a sense of wonder. But essentially, both “Narnia” films suffer from the same major problem: there’s no magical charm in these movies to make them that fun to watch. An example of what I’m talking about would be that the “Harry Potter” films manage to both be well-made fantasy movies that are also fun to watch. Not only does “Potter” fill the screen with wondorous images, it also possesses a really high energy level that helps us as the viewer glide through the story at a good pace. The problem with “Narnia” is that both of its films are certainly well-made, but the energy level feels almost morose and the viewer must have a Ph.D in Narnia lore in order to fully comprehend the specifics of the story. Indeed, it would help if you either familiarized yourself with this film’s source material or watched the first film before going to see this one, however that’s something I can’t really tell you to do.
Fans of the original will more or less like “Prince Caspian”, but they’ll find themselves treated to a much darker and more brooding excursion into the magical realm of Narnia. There are battle sequences galore this time around and while that may ensure that the movie never becomes dull, elaborate action sequences and set pieces involving mythical creatures and elements does not a successful fantasy film make. As fantasy tales such as the “Harry Potter” adventures have proven, some real and relatable qualities in your main characters are required when crafting these types of stories; and the four Pevensie characters still haven’t been fleshed out all that well, and we’re on the second movie already! When the most likable character in a fantasy adventure is a sword-toting mouse who takes umbrage to being called what he is, then there’s something seiously screwed up in terms of the character development for humans.
However, I will give “Prince Caspian” credit for having some pretty impressive and intense action sequences. These battles, which involve all manner of creatures and half-breeds, are all better than the tame final action sequence we received in “Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe”, do push the limits of the film’s PG rating but there are far too many. One of the more redeeming qualities of “Prince Caspian” ultimately works against it, the battles being a good and bad thing at the same time. It’s truly a shame to see something like “Narnia” become a film bogged down in action when it could have used most of that screentime to work on some of its other elements.
“Prince Caspian” opens on a note which establishes its overall darker tone, with the son of Narnia’s current ruler, King Miraz (Sergio Castellito) being born. Miraz is a tyrranical King who has ascended the throne in the gap between the first and second film and who has run the Narnians out of their homeland. Miraz also intends to kill his nephew Prince Caspian (Ben Barnes) after his son is born. Caspian represents opposition to Miraz’s claim to the throne because Miraz wishes for his son to become King after he dies. But Caspian is warned of Miraz’s assassins in time and escapes to the woods of Narnia, where he stumbles across the exiled Narnians.
Meanwhile, in World War II era London, we catch up with the four Pevensie siblings a year after the events of the first film. But while only a year may have passed for them, a whole 1300 years have gone by for Narnia, and upon the blowing of a magical horn courtesy of Caspian, the Pevensies are once again magically whisked away to Narnia. But Peter (Willam Moseley), Susan (Anna Popplewell), Edmund (Skandar Keynes) and Lucy (Georgie Henley) soon discover that this is not the same Narnia. Indeed, upon returning, they are informed that “you may find Narnia a more savage place than you remember”. After rescuing and befriending a captured dwarf, the Pevensies set out on a journey to meet up with Prince Caspian so that they may restore Narnia back to its former self. And when they meet Caspian, the group of rulers form an army of varying magical creatures, including more dwarves, centaurs, minotaurs and mice to combat Miraz’s own army. And let’s not forget the possibility of the great lion Aslan (again voiced by Liam Neeson) returning to lend a helping paw to the Narnians’ war effort. Throw in a bit of romance between Susan and Prince Caspian, some brief moments of tension between Peter and Caspian, and more talking animals and you’ve got another underdeveloped storyline.
On top of the other recurring flaws, “Prince Caspian” also falls victim to more wooden acting from the four main characters. The acting abilities of these four kids seem to go beyond nothing but their only slightly raising their voices to show mood changes at any given moment; there’s clearly better acting in the “Potter” films and “The Golden Compass”. Ben Barnes is reasonably good as Caspian, but the actor playing Miraz also never really shows any true emotion, even when he’s supposed to be enraged at his incompetent henchmen. Once again, the voice-overs for the animals seem to be better than the on-screen performances from the actors. That’s probably true because director Andrew Adamson, who helmed the first film in addition to the first two “Shrek” movies, is better equipped for coaching his actors vocally. Before I forget, though, I must also mention the brief return of Tilda Swinton as the White Witch, via frozen mirror-thingy and even though Swinton has maybe a total of 3 minutes on-screen, she does reasonably good work.
But in addition to a bunch of admitedly entertaining action sequences, I also must give “Prince Caspian” credit for improved visual effects. Visually, this film definitely is interesting and there’s no denying the epic scope of this film, but you’ll find more or less the same thing in almost any other big fantasy film. There is an impressive sequence involving a midnight raid on Miraz’s castle, however, and a decent final battle sequence. But, like most other final battles, it’s stretched out way too long.
In the end, I just can’t recommend “Prince Caspian” when there are other, better films of its kind out there. If you’re looking for a well-made and highly entertaining fantasy adventure that’s not part of a series, then I strongly urge you to rent last year’s “Stardust”.
For the inevitable third installment entitled “The Voyage of The Dawn Treader”, due out in May 2010, Disney has decided to change writers and director. That may be a good sign. And then maybe, just maybe, I’ll be aboard the “Narnia” boat.
The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian
**1/2 out of ****
I want to pose a question: whatever happened to the magic and actually fantastical elements of the “Narnia” books by C.S. Lewis? Two of Lewis’ novels have now been made into big-budgeted adventures under the Disney banner (”The Lion, The Witch And The Wardrobe” and now “Prince Caspian”), but what seemed to make the stories so enjoyable on paper is nowhere to be found in these film incarnations. With the sequel “Prince Caspian”, Disney is now 0 for 2 where the success of the movies is concerned, and if they want to at least get one home run in this ballpark, then might I suggest trading in their old players for new ones. Yes, the same team behind “Wardrobe” has returned for “Prince Caspian”, and even though it’s obvious that they were trying to make a better film this time around and they marginally succeeded, the end result still isn’t something quite worth recommending.
Whereas “Wardrobe” seriously lacked a real sense of menace to its story, “Prince Caspian” in turn is entirely too dark and lacks a sense of wonder. But essentially, both “Narnia” films suffer from the same major problem: there’s no magical charm in these movies to make them that fun to watch. An example of what I’m talking about would be that the “Harry Potter” films manage to both be well-made fantasy movies that are also fun to watch. Not only does “Potter” fill the screen with wondorous images, it also possesses a really high energy level that helps us as the viewer glide through the story at a good pace. The problem with “Narnia” is that both of its films are certainly well-made, but the energy level feels almost morose and the viewer must have a Ph.D in Narnia lore in order to fully comprehend the specifics of the story. Indeed, it would help if you either familiarized yourself with this film’s source material or watched the first film before going to see this one, however that’s something I can’t really tell you to do.
Fans of the original will more or less like “Prince Caspian”, but they’ll find themselves treated to a much darker and more brooding excursion into the magical realm of Narnia. There are battle sequences galore this time around and while that may ensure that the movie never becomes dull, elaborate action sequences and set pieces involving mythical creatures and elements does not a successful fantasy film make. As fantasy tales such as the “Harry Potter” adventures have proven, some real and relatable qualities in your main characters are required when crafting these types of stories; and the four Pevensie characters still haven’t been fleshed out all that well, and we’re on the second movie already! When the most likable character in a fantasy adventure is a sword-toting mouse who takes umbrage to being called what he is, then there’s something seiously screwed up in terms of the character development for humans.
However, I will give “Prince Caspian” credit for having some pretty impressive and intense action sequences. These battles, which involve all manner of creatures and half-breeds, are all better than the tame final action sequence we received in “Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe”, do push the limits of the film’s PG rating but there are far too many. One of the more redeeming qualities of “Prince Caspian” ultimately works against it, the battles being a good and bad thing at the same time. It’s truly a shame to see something like “Narnia” become a film bogged down in action when it could have used most of that screentime to work on some of its other elements.
“Prince Caspian” opens on a note which establishes its overall darker tone, with the son of Narnia’s current ruler, King Miraz (Sergio Castellito) being born. Miraz is a tyrranical King who has ascended the throne in the gap between the first and second film and who has run the Narnians out of their homeland. Miraz also intends to kill his nephew Prince Caspian (Ben Barnes) after his son is born. Caspian represents opposition to Miraz’s claim to the throne because Miraz wishes for his son to become King after he dies. But Caspian is warned of Miraz’s assassins in time and escapes to the woods of Narnia, where he stumbles across the exiled Narnians.
Meanwhile, in World War II era London, we catch up with the four Pevensie siblings a year after the events of the first film. But while only a year may have passed for them, a whole 1300 years have gone by for Narnia, and upon the blowing of a magical horn courtesy of Caspian, the Pevensies are once again magically whisked away to Narnia. But Peter (Willam Moseley), Susan (Anna Popplewell), Edmund (Skandar Keynes) and Lucy (Georgie Henley) soon discover that this is not the same Narnia. Indeed, upon returning, they are informed that “you may find Narnia a more savage place than you remember”. After rescuing and befriending a captured dwarf, the Pevensies set out on a journey to meet up with Prince Caspian so that they may restore Narnia back to its former self. And when they meet Caspian, the group of rulers form an army of varying magical creatures, including more dwarves, centaurs, minotaurs and mice to combat Miraz’s own army. And let’s not forget the possibility of the great lion Aslan (again voiced by Liam Neeson) returning to lend a helping paw to the Narnians’ war effort. Throw in a bit of romance between Susan and Prince Caspian, some brief moments of tension between Peter and Caspian, and more talking animals and you’ve got another underdeveloped storyline.
On top of the other recurring flaws, “Prince Caspian” also falls victim to more wooden acting from the four main characters. The acting abilities of these four kids seem to go beyond nothing but their only slightly raising their voices to show mood changes at any given moment; there’s clearly better acting in the “Potter” films and “The Golden Compass”. Ben Barnes is reasonably good as Caspian, but the actor playing Miraz also never really shows any true emotion, even when he’s supposed to be enraged at his incompetent henchmen. Once again, the voice-overs for the animals seem to be better than the on-screen performances from the actors. That’s probably true because director Andrew Adamson, who helmed the first film in addition to the first two “Shrek” movies, is better equipped for coaching his actors vocally. Before I forget, though, I must also mention the brief return of Tilda Swinton as the White Witch, via frozen mirror-thingy and even though Swinton has maybe a total of 3 minutes on-screen, she does reasonably good work.
But in addition to a bunch of admitedly entertaining action sequences, I also must give “Prince Caspian” credit for improved visual effects. Visually, this film definitely is interesting and there’s no denying the epic scope of this film, but you’ll find more or less the same thing in almost any other big fantasy film. There is an impressive sequence involving a midnight raid on Miraz’s castle, however, and a decent final battle sequence. But, like most other final battles, it’s stretched out way too long.
In the end, I just can’t recommend “Prince Caspian” when there are other, better films of its kind out there. If you’re looking for a well-made and highly entertaining fantasy adventure that’s not part of a series, then I strongly urge you to rent last year’s “Stardust”.
For the inevitable third installment entitled “The Voyage of The Dawn Treader”, due out in May 2010, Disney has decided to change writers and director. That may be a good sign. And then maybe, just maybe, I’ll be aboard the “Narnia” boat.
