Edit: ok, I just had to give you this quote from the New York Post's review. "The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian doesn't quite equal the first film, but some may find this one a less-insistent piece of pure entertainment because it isn't so overtly Christian"
So its not as good, but thats ok, because they got rid of all that nasty christen stuff.
Edit2: Just so you know some particulars of what I'm talking about in case I haven't persuaded you not to waste your time and money.
- Prince Caspian has an under developed character. For some reason somebody thought it would be a good idea for him to have a heavy spanish accent and long hair. for that matter... harry potter has more acting skill than this movie.
- There is a dramatic falling scene during the last battle but the character is only falling about 3 feet. why is this dramatic? because of the next point.
- major overuse and misuse of slow motion. especially right at the beginning of Peter's duel. What the heck, that looks like stop motion animation.
- Why do the narnains have rapid fire everything? rapid fire (gas powered?) crossbows. Rapid Fire spiny trebuche, rapid fire 5 high ballistas? this might be cool in another movie, here its just distracting and gimicky.
- What was wrong with the storyline from the book? I thought it was pretty good. they could have included some of it...
5 comments:
the movie was amazing. end of story.
--nicole
Your certainly entitled to that opinion. Could you please be more specific though. I thought the movie was plagued by poor casting, and therefore poor acting, poor use of slow motion, camera angles, scripting, scene transitions, A woeful departure from the story of the book, subtle and meaningless losses of morals, a lack of Aslan, a poor portrayal of Aslan. Could you please say what about the movie was amazing? Did you think the portrayal of Aslan as a limited God who was actualy "controlled" by the white witch for hundreds of years was a good thing? Did you think that the line where Peter correctly states that his enemies life was "not mine to take" was good enough even though he ruins it by handing the sword over to a minor who would act only out of vengeance? Perhaps you thought the choice of focusing on stormy scenes of hundreds of good characters being mowed down by arrows as they are abandoned by the "good guys", or the dark blood rituals were a good choice for a "family movie" based on Christian virtues. Did you think that the perpetual camera behind the characters head was a good choice? or maybe Lucy's constant whining "nobody believes me" somehow made the movie more real? Seriously. IF it was amazing... what about it? I thought it sucked.
Do you honestly think that movie did the book justice? Or are you just saying that out of fanboism?
Edmund was amazing. They could've made the movie amazing by cutting out every other character and just featuring Edmund. Peter did nothing but run away and retreat, Caspian did nothing but run away and retreat, Susan improved on these by not retreating, but she fell three feet and almost died (and her legolas-like antics were annoying), Lucy was well acted but she served no purpose in the book. The villains were pretty dry. The white witch was still poorly cast. Conclusion, more Edmund. More of the DLF. and More Rippichip of however you say his name. But again, more Edmund.
"My enemy's life is not mine to take."
Peter hands his sword to Caspian, who is "entitled" to vengeance.
Perhaps the audience was supposed to believe that Peter knew that Caspian wouldn't execute vengeance. He forced him to overcome his hatred and find mercy. That's the way it happens in movie romanticism. And that's the way I wishfully interpreted it.
One moral lesson/point that hit me hard and was unmistakable was Edmund's trial with the White Witch that carried from the first movie. Notice at the end of Moive 1 that it was Edmund, not Peter, who destroyed the Witch's ice wand when peter was about to die, even though it would have cost him his life? Why? Because it was Edmund who fell to the temptation of power from the witch and it was Edmund who endangered the entire army and their mission? Because Edmund was the one who was redeemed and forgiven by Aslan's death.
Notice movie 2: Caspian wants to secure his pride as heir and humiliate Peter. So he falls for the temptation of the Witch. He almost defiled his blood when Peter tackles him, and Peter was about to fall victim to the lust as well. Suddenly, it is Edmund who destroyed the portal to the Witch, why? "It's ok. I know." Whatever Edmund says there holds a thousand words. Why? Nobody fights harder against a certain sin than the one who fell to its temptation and was redeemed from it.
Besides that, I was distracted away from the disappointment by the music, which I can always forgive a movie, just if it has a good score, Narnia is no exception.
However, I had more personal transformation after I saw Transformers over Prince Caspian, if that says anything.
Post a Comment