Sound Off: Prince Caspian - What Did You Think?

May 16, 2008

The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian

Now that you've seen it, what did you think? Up next in May's back-to-back summer blockbuster schedule is The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian. This sequel follows 2004's The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, but this time the land of Narnia is a "much more savage place." Director Andrew Adamson is back and so is the primary cast, but it's a new world and a new story. For fans of the first movie, how does this one compare? For fans of the book, how well does this one live up to the text? For those who hated the first movie, if you've seen this sequel, did it surpass your expectations? Sound off below, leave your thoughts, and let us know what you thought of The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian.

To fuel the fire, I will have to say I thoroughly enjoyed Prince Caspian! I really did not like the first Chronicles of Narnia at all. It was a cheesy and boring fantasy film that really couldn't even compare to Lord of the Rings. However, Prince Caspian is successfully darker, grittier, and much more entertaining. Not only are Peter Dinklage and Warwick Davis the two greatest small actors in the world, but I thought everyone else did a great job as well. The action, visual effects, and production design were all top notch and the story was energetic and paced perfectly. To be honest, I was shocked to find I liked it, given how low my expectations were, but that's what happens when the director knows what he is doing.

What did you think of Prince Caspian? Any good or boring and flawed?

Find more posts: Discuss, Hype, Sound Off



I liked the action and the duel before the big fight scene but the addition of the annoying disney like characters annoyed me. The Mouse and the Bear were annoying beyond belief. I have to go back and read the book because I don't know if it followed it exactly but I enjoyed the movie.

Tyler on May 16, 2008


Just a little note: The first Narnia came out in 2005, not 2004. I really enjoyed this one, but I have to disagree about the cheesy thing. This one was much more cheesy then the first one, and that was the main thing I didn't like about it. The action was great and the battles were fantastic just like the first one. I hated the duel before the first fight! The score was excellent too. Some of the characters were annoying and that got to me a little. But still, it was a worthy successor to the first one.

Jeff Warner on May 16, 2008


I saw the first one, and was not impressed. It was just kind of bland. I saw this last night, and have to admit that this one was WAY better than the first. I don't know the story, but it seems to me that they did a good job with it. I was amazed at a lot of the camera shots. I thought it was a really fun ride. As to the cheese factor, it's a Disney movie and geared more towards kids. It's only natural it would be a little cheesy. Aside from a few moments where it was childish, I thought it was really quite good. The music hit every stride, and the action was really good. The duel before the main battle was, I thought, very good. There were shots I'd never really seen in a fight scene, before. All in all, I thought it was surprisingly good, and I didn't even want to go see it!

Brian on May 16, 2008


Eh, it was eh. Eddie Izzard voicing Reepecheep (sp?) was awesome. But other than that, nothing really made me go "Oooooh" like the other two popcorn flicks of the summer. I enjoyed watching it, but I don't feel the need to see it again like I do with Iron Man and Speed Racer

Icarus on May 16, 2008


I thought this was a good sequel. I liked it as much as the first one, even though it's a bit different in tone. The story calls for it to be that way anyway. I loved the griffin assault on the castle, and the river-god sequence or whatever that was (they didn't really explain that well). All in all, this will definitely be in my movie collection when it comes out on DVD.

Dan Geer on May 16, 2008


I can't wait to see it tomorrow though its prospects are looking pretty grim considering the Box Office estimates from a few sources, opening day may not even reach the $23M of the original, or even $20M for the matter!

Ryan on May 16, 2008


I thought this was a really good movie! Just to correct number Disney did not add the characters, they were a part of the book. But this fight scenes were great and I can understand why they didn't have any blood or anything obviously that's what kept down the rating. The acting was decent and boy did Susan really kick ass!

Drew on May 16, 2008


It was a really good film in spite of the low expectations..i thoroughly enjoyed it and i think it was even better than the first one.. Now i really look forward to seeing more Narnia films in the future.

Alfredo on May 17, 2008


I REALLY enjoyed it, very much so. Great movie, and the acting for the most part was pretty spot on. Talking animals aside, none of the dialogue seemed to come across cheesy at all. This was one hell of a quality movie, and hopefully I'll get the chance to catch it again before it leaves theatres.

Billy on May 17, 2008


Hey, you took my name! dammit, I need to start using a different one. But anyway, I also thought it was better than the first one. A lot better. Much more of a LOTR feel, including the moving trees and stuff. I didn't have low expectations at all, but they weren't nearly as high as the other comic book movies. Overall really good movie, thoroughly entertaining and convincingly dark.

Alfredo2 on May 17, 2008


Just a quick comment here: Was I entertained? Very... But here's something interesting that happened. During the tomb scene where Lucy is like, "what is this place?", some guy behind me whispered, "a cave".

LW on May 17, 2008


Just saw it and found it good but I found the "magic" to it was missing. It was good, but I liked the first one better. I am not one for the movies about magical creatures and everything but I felt there was a lack of mysticsim and more battle scenes, though they were extraordinary.

Ryan on May 17, 2008


All right film, failed to wow me but was not a complete waste of money or time. It's on a darker field than the first film, but then again that is sort of the tradition with children's fantasy isn't it? Just look at the Harry Potter books and films, or the His Dark Materials trilogy. It's an unwritten rule that the books that follow should be darker and more dangerous than the predecessors. I would probably recommend this to hard-core C.S. Lewis fans, or fantasy aficionados, other than that it is pretty generic and rather safe despite it edgy plot transition. P.S. I hate it how everyone compares every fantasy film with the LOTR trilogy, and the only reason why I am saying this is those films were bloody great, but should be left in the sidelines since it is an almost impossible feat to top those off. This constant comparison makes it nearly impossible for new fantasy films to survive. The Golden Compass adaptation is a prime example of a children's book turned movie which failed to find an audience when measured up to LOTR.

leo on May 17, 2008


Awesome film! This makes me even more excited for Voyage of the Dawn Treader. That's my favorite book in the series, and now that I know the characters rock, it will also be great. Trumpkin the dwarf and Reepicheep rocked hardcore. Even Caspian held his own. But I was really surprised by Edmund. His performance was surprisingly good. I'd say he even outdid Lucy. Not disappointed at all.

Josh on May 17, 2008


I saw the film today and even though I worried whether I was going to enjoy it, I ended up liking it better than the last film. It helped that the story was darker and more action-packed.

Sean Kelly on May 17, 2008


Just Terrible

Iron Man Fan on May 17, 2008


I thought it was a fun movie, that kept me entertained. The fact that I think they where trying to say Islam in a subliminal way ticked me off a tad. Lose the religion and just make a fun movie.

Mike on May 17, 2008


I'm a long-time fan of the books, and I really enjoyed this movie. It dragged just a little bit when the children first see the Stone Table again, but mostly because it's one slow-turn-around-the-set camera-move too many. I greatly enjoyed the expanded action sequences -- C.S. Lewis really underwrote his battles -- and I was very happy to see that the movie didn't neglect all the little character moments that made me fall in love with the story in the first place. But, then, this movie had nothing to prove to me -- I went in expecting to be delighted and I was. Some of my friends had never read the books and one had never seen the first movie, and they enjoyed it too, but to different degrees than I did. In movies as in life, YMMV, I guess.

-Ingrid on May 17, 2008


Prince Caspin... pretty good movie, would have been better if they told the same story C.S. Louis told instead of making up a new one.

Mary on May 17, 2008


This was the worst movie I've seen in a long time (although I'm glad it wasn't like all this sick crap pumping out of hollywood all the time). They DID add chacters! They changed the personality of all the chacters too! The story line was messed up compleatly! The skipped the begining of the book and many other important parts! Over all the movie was a wonderful way to destroy the book. The effects were great and the acting was pretty good, but it's not even worthy of calling a Narnia movie!

Mary on May 17, 2008


I have mixed feelings. I didn't like it as much as the first one, that's for sure. I thought the acting was uneven and awkward at times and the mouse was pretty annoying. It was fun and cute in the beginning, but they overdid it big time. Oh yeah, the villian uncle just was not a good enough villian. And why did they have Spanish accents? I could barely understand what they were saying, not trying to be rude. People behind me were like "What did he say?" What I did like was the CGI and the overall look of the film. And was I the only one surprised at the PG rating? The villian slapping people and also the scene where he gets killed/murdered? was really not suitable for children, in my opinion. Oh well, overall I enjoyed the film, even though I prefer the first one. The ending really made up for some of the flaws :D. I guess I'll be looking forward to the next one...

Yum on May 18, 2008


It would be good, Mary, if you were to say that the book does not follow CS LEWIS storyline, if you knew how to spell his name. This was no different than the changes made to LOTR. There were a lot. But none of them changed the overall storyline and development of characters. The only one that I thought was weird at first was that Caspian and Peter fought the whole movie until the end. But, in the end, I liked the change. It makes sense.

Josh on May 18, 2008


the movie does not follow*

Josh on May 18, 2008


looks like a lord of the rings rip off. weird cretures fighting a braveheart like war. BORING! Ironman will still be number 1

Dee on May 18, 2008


I thought it was a decent sequel to a good story ( I have read the book...a long while ago). Definitely kept me entertained and I loved how they got away with PG-13 fights by not showing any blood lol. 🙂

Silver on May 18, 2008


LOTS OF SPOILERS DO NOT READ IF YOU HAVE NOT SEEN THE MOVIE So, this weekend the new Narnia movie hit theaters. As a lot of my friends know, I am a big Narnia fan and pretty much know all the books backwards and forwards. This is coming from a purist's point of view....I realize not all books translate into great movies and require some tweaking...however what Andrew Adamson has done here is borderline blasphemy. Read on for an in depth explanation. If you want to skip to the Prince Caspian part, do so past the first paragraph for the first paragraph is my thoughts on the previous movie as well. The first movie was pretty good. In a post-LOTR movie era, I wasn't expecting it to "out-do" it by any means, I was just looking for a great book -to-movie translation. I thought "The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe" was a great adaptation. It stuck to the book pretty hard and had very little to complain about, minus the kiddy nature of the combat aka no blood of any kind. Personally I wasn't expecting excessive blood or anything, after all its adapted from a children's book series, but some blood would have lended it a more realistic feel. Other than that, in my opinion it was a pretty good start. Now, to Prince Caspian. I thought their decision to re-cast the role a bit older than the BBC versions was a smart one....Ben Barnes does a great job as Caspian. The real travesties of this film come from the director, Andrew Adamson, and whoever helped write this script. Now, the trailer seemed to indicate a pretty great film better than the first one was coming to us, the fans. However, I was sadly mistaken. I would honestly rate this on an even plane with the first one, and there are A LOT of things that hold it back from besting the first one. Now if it sounds like all is doom and gloom, do not fear. The cinematography is fantastic, the music is amazing and it is a good film. I'm just merely writing my opinion as to what is holding Narnia back from truly setting itself apart from LOTR and making it a great series worthy of C.S. Lewis' amazing writing. Most of the travesties Adamson commits here is adding to the story of Prince Caspian. I'd have to say the thing that had me frowning at the screen the most was the "love connection" of Caspian and Susan. RIDICULOUS! There was never even a hint of it in the books and frankly it came dangerously close to retarded teen soap opera territory. To put it metaphorically, Adamson ran towards the cliff with Narnia and barely turned back in time. Please don't destroy Narnia, Mr. Adamson. If you are wondering, yes I am tracking down his email and sending him this. I don't think I could do better or some such arrogant thing, just putting in my two cents. I'd say one that Adamson needs to shake hard from this series is almost ripping off Lord of the Rings. The battles described in the Prince Caspian book were not nice and neat as Adamson presents them in the movie. Does it look good? Yeah, but it reeks of influences from LOTR and past "epic" movies such as Gladiator. Another case in point would be the Trees fighting. The trees never fought, or at least it's not made a special note of as Adamson seems to dedicate the victory to them and Aslan when they come in to wrap up the battle. The political plotting with Sopespian and Glozelle should have been WAYYY more obvious than looks and hints. What's the deal with Glozelle being just ELIMINATED entirely from the plot???? In his place is some guy named Scythley. He's quite a factor in the story of Caspian...eliminating him was entirely unnecessary. Unlike the movie, they commit to kill Miraz before the Duel with Peter verbally, not with winks, looks and hints. I gotta hand it to whoever coordinated that fight scene, great work. It was really good. Also what was the deal with adding whole new sections to the movie? I realize the pride of Peter was a bit more obvious than in the book, which I get, but there was a lot of adding onto the story like with the raid on the Castle. I also was very displeased with the constant bickering between the 4 and Caspian...less bickering would have been better I think. The bickering was nonexistent in the book and mostly was bickering amongst the Narnian troops. In the book there was a united front between the 4 and Caspian...they sure did a lot better job leading in the book than in the film. Did anyone else think the whole end thing with the water was a bit retarded? Never happened in the book....the Narnians stopped the Telmarines before they had a chance to retreat. The battle after Miraz is assassinated is a lot less clean than Adamson has in the movie. I think if done right such a scene could have been one less thing like Lord of the Rings. The strength of the Narnia books is its obvious Christian allegory and its beautiful world. I think the allegory was not lost on this film, but seemed shoved in there among other elements that seemed to me, cluttered and too busy. I think Adamson tried to make it more than what it was and wound up with a film that tried to do too much and once again failed to differentiate much with Lord of the Rings. I realize it can't be a TON different in look, since they are a bit similar, but for pete's sake, Adamson isn't trying too hard. The end scene looked a lot like the scene in Return of the King when Arwen was wed to Aragorn....granted I know it is way different in story but I have to say there is not one "thing" I can say made me almost dislike this movie...but rather a multitude of "little things" that added up. The biggest "little thing" I suppose would be the annoying Lucy-Caspian thing. Bury that in the sand and don't let it ever come back in The Last Battle(the 7th and final book). Wholesale new scenes just to illustrate Peter's pride and the ugliness of pride and arrogance seemed too much, to me. Aslan's extended absence in the film was a bit stupid as well. He didn't need to be quite as absent as he was...granted he came into the battle as he did in the book, but he didn't appear to Lucy in a dream and he definitely wasn't sought out by Lucy that late into the film. Note I am a book purist unless something wouldn't translate well to film, such as Tom Bombadil in LOTR. Sticking to what made the book great always translates well into film, in my opinion. Overall I'd have to rate this movie a 8.9/10. I think this has the potential to be really great, but it's being held back by "little things" that add up to detract(yeah I know what I just typed) from the overall package. Focusing on the little things and sticking to the books more will make for much better movies in the future. Personally I'm excited for "The Voyage of the Dawn Treader" in 2010. I just would like them to take their time and don't tread all over the source material in order to make what they perceive to be a better film. Anyone agree with me the ratio it stuck to the book is like 70% book, 30% add-ons?

trigger119 on May 19, 2008


I loved this movie. I was hesitant coming in, based on things I had heard and read...but I was pleasantly surprised. This was a great movie that my whole family loved.

GoofyGator on May 26, 2008


Aww... they totally changed it, they....disneytized it i enjoyed the book better, it was a good movie but not as great as the lion, the witch, and the wardrobe. they had a alot of funny things in it but it changed to many things, like for a kid movie they just had to add the romance between susan and prince caspian, I mean it was cute but it just didn't look-feel right... I'm fourteen and i could see that there was something odd and it just wasn't the same as it's predecessor... i think they had waay to many battle scenes, it was just one after another, although all were great in graphics and all but they could have taken one or two out. such as the atempted castle takeover, that didn't even happen in the book (at least not to my memory..) anyhow, it was a good movie but it could have been better

a on May 29, 2008


Ok I have to say I liked them both. When anyone comes out with a movie that has any references to God or even undertones to him everyone has something critical to say. This movie rocked and was far better then the Golden Compass. That movie was a joke. The guy who wrote those could never in a million years come close to C.S. Lewis. The man was brilliant. NO you can't go directly off the books. Hello the books are more then 2 hours long and would make a quite boring movie. I think they did a great job on this one and I am looking forward to The Voyage of the Dawn Treader. The movie opened and did well in the US. It hasnt even opened in Europe yet. I am sure since 5 of its main actors or from England it will do even better over there and make more money.

Caspian Fan on Jun 5, 2008


I think Prince Caspian of Tijuana with his Mexican accent was a very poor choice ! Not sure that I like any of this movie. I suppose the earlier versions were a bit better 'graphics wise'. Not impressed and cannot say I see too much Christian theology there. If this was Christian, I could find 'Christian' meaning in 90 percent of Hollywood films.

Yuriy on Jul 26, 2008


The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian is ten times better than The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, although the Prince Caspian book is dull, the movie was fantastic. Ben Barnes did a really good job as the lead role, and I think I have a bit of a crush on him. At least Andrew picked an English actor for the role of Caspian, even though Ben was lucky not to get sued for leaving his theatre production, The History Boys. Anyway, the movie was way better than the first, the book is dull, but I'm looking forward to The Voyage of the Dawn Treader. Ben will be back for that one.

Ben Barnes fan on Aug 7, 2008


I LOVED IT!!! I'm so glad you enjoyed it too!!

Susana on Dec 11, 2008


What a total piece of shit! Dumb talking animals

Moovee Lover on Dec 18, 2008


I thought the movie was really good. I loved it!!!! I loved the action and the acting was good too.

Me on Dec 27, 2008

New comments are no longer allowed on this post.



Subscribe to our feed -or- daily newsletter:
Follow Alex's main account on twitter:
For the latest posts only - follow this one:

Add our updates to your Feedly - click here

Get the latest posts sent in Telegram Telegram