The Chronicles of Narnia - Prince Caspian. Those who happened to like and enjoy the first film should be at least equally pleased with this sequel. But those who happened to fell asleep during most of the first film (just like me), should approach this sequel with caution even if the film has notably a darker tone than the first one, and much much more action-oriented scenes, and much more polished CGI. In short, the film manages to do it better this time around if compared with the first film. But, for all it's worth, i found that in term of fantasy, it still fell short. And don't even start to comparing this with the Lord of the Rings. It's a no contest.
One year after their latest adventure in Narnia, the Pevensies found their real-life routine in London was dull and boring. They mulled about of going back to Narnia even if i personally thought that the mulling and wanting weren't more than just an afterthought casually thrown in for a good measure and an obligation to a script. Meanwhile, in Narnia, things has changed dramatically for that one year for the Pevensies means 1300 years in Narnia. Prince Caspian, the true heir to Narnia's throne was usurped by his uncle King Miraz. Hunted, the Prince flee to the woods but not after been given a magic horn by his aide, Dr.Cornelius. This horn was then used to summon the Pevensies back to Narnia yet again. From here on, it should be easy to guess how the story would unraveled itself.
I found that the same problem with the film has been lingered since the first film. Uninteresting characters that kept me emotionally disconnected with the whole experience. I'm watching this film with three female colleagues from the office whom i thought had pretty much represented the casual film viewers' style and preference, and they scorned the characters, mocking one of the character whenever she made an appearance, and generally unimpressed with the overall tone. And as much as i hate them for being loud during the film, i had a good time (of course, since the girls had bought food and beverages and let me share with them) and couldn't put more words more appropriate to describe the film than some of what the girls had said during the film.
Andrew Adamson, the director of this film has the direction for this film pretty clear. The events rolled out during the first hour or so of the film would lead to a Pelennor-field style all out skirmishes. Some
ignorant dimwitted shallow had even dared to compare this similarity and said that it worked. But please, even if it's significantly better and longer than the first installment, the comparison to aforementioned Lord of the Rings shouldn't even be made in the first place.
As with the first film, i deemed that the character Edmund provides some edge. He's the most interesting character in both films and one that albeit nowhere near, grew a bit closer to a fabled "three-dimensional" characters. Lucy is just as uninteresting as the first film, worse, if it is that even possible. Susan, despite having the spotlight with her bow-and-arrow skills was pretty much detached from the whole experience. Peter, despite having years and years of experience as a King, no, as a High King in the first film had seems to never grow up from his childish persona although that this might attributed to the original writing (has been tried to read one, can't keep the interest lively enough to read the rest). And Prince Caspian is a flat-out forgettable. Probably the scene stealer of this film, is Reepicheep the mouse keeter (voiced by the amazing Eddie Izzard) whose resemblance to - ALSO a scene stealer - Shrek's Puss-in-the-Boots was uncanny. Given that Adamson also directed the first two Shrek films, which gives him an experience, the humor involving Reepicheep mostly worked quite well.
My rating: ** / **** - Way better than the first, but if you're too lazy to rush into the theater this weekend, don't push yourself. Do some gardening instead, or whatever.
Posts
