User reviews

As a little girl, I adored the Chronicles of Narnia books, and I still do. I also liked the BBC adaptations, done in mini-series format, they weren't amazing, but they were enjoyable and stuck to the books' spirit. As far as these film versions go, I haven't yet seen Voyage of the Dawn Treader, but I enjoyed Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe. Prince Caspian was not a bad film, but it could have been better.

Visually, the film is very well done. I loved the cinematography, while the scenery and costumes are gorgeous. The effects are also good, and Aslan still looks brilliant. The music is beautiful too, with lovely melodies. The end credits song was nice, but I think it should have stayed as an end credits song, it didn't seem right placing it in the final scene to me. The direction is decent too, while the battle sequences are riveting, and the film did begin well.

As far as the acting goes, it wasn't bad but it wasn't amazing either. The best are Eddie Izzard who is spot on, Peter Dinklage who comes close to stealing the film with his eyes alone and Liam Neeson who lends his majestic voice to Aslan, and while her appearance is very brief Tilda Swinton is quite chilling. The four leads are good enough, and in Georgie Henley's case improved. Edmund also has potential. I had mixed feelings on Miraz though, more to how he was written than how he was acted. Sergio Castellitto does make an effort to make Miraz dark and charismatic for the villain of the piece, but the way Miraz is written and developed makes him come across as insipid. The weak link is Ben Barnes. He is handsome and has his moments, but he is rather bland on the whole.

My real problems with Prince Caspian are in the storytelling and pace mainly. The story has a tendency to become too unengaging, the more involving scenes are well done but the slower scenes are close to ponderous. The pace is rather lethargic this time round, while I don't think the film really needed to be as long as it was and the characters come across as shallow. Also particularly with Caspian and Miraz, some of the dialogue is stilted.

All in all, Prince Caspian is not a bad film, but it lacked something. I also forgot to say as an adaptation of the book it is not great, granted the book was not my favourite of the series but I felt sometimes there was a bit too much padding that could have been excised slightly. A disappointment, but on its own terms and for the visuals and music it is worth a look. 6/10 Bethany Cox

Prince Caspian expands on the battles in the book; turning them from a few pages long into 30 - 45 minute epic fights that borrowed more than a little from The Return of the King. While competently choreographed -- this is far from the cinematic epic the overreaching soundtrack wants you to believe that it is.

The movie is entertaining, but rough around the edges. The editing is poor and one scene in particular should have been removed entirely as it does nothing for the film, outside of extend its already substantial length.

Is it better than The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe? That all depends on your stylistic preferences. If you're the wonderment, fairy-tale, unlimited Turkish Delight type you'll prefer the first Narnia. If you're a darker, sword and sorcery fan you'll consider Prince Caspian the better movie.

Both were worth the price of admission, but both left me feeling like they were one script doctor, soundtrack and/or director away from being the perfect fantasy movies they could have been. That said, Prince Caspian certainly warrants a bucket of popcorn and a fun Sunday afternoon at the theater with the family.

When Queen Prunaprismia (Alicia Borrachero) delivers a baby boy, King Miraz (Sergio Castellitto) orders his soldiers to kill Prince Caspian (Ben Barnes); however his tutor gives Susan's magic horn to him telling that he should blow is his life is in danger and asks him to ride to the forest. However he is chased by the Telmarian soldiers and he summons the Pevensie siblings. They discover that hundred of years have passed in Narnia and they join Prince Caspian to lead the people of Narnia against the evil King Miraz. When the battle begins, the siblings send Lucy to seek out Aslan, otherwise they will not win the powerful Telmarian army.

I expected to like "The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian" more than I did. The special effects are top-notch, but the story has a poor development of characters and the unoriginal final battle gives a sensation of déjà vu to the viewer with the excessive use of CGI. But the greatest problem is the weak lead cast: the four siblings and Prince Caspian are performed by the wooden and unknown young actors and actresses that are too weak for the lead roles. My vote is six.

Title (Brazil): "As Crônicas de Nárnia – Príncipe Caspian" ("The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian")

The picture is an extraordinary story with noisy adventures, marvelous fantasy , wonderful scenarios and pretty amusing . Full of action , excitement , entertainment and with an incredible battle scenes similar to ¨Lord of the Rings¨. Fun second part with rousing adventures , incredible monsters and dazzling fights . C.S. Lewis' classic is reborn in this second outing about 'The Chronicles of Narnia' when four children from war-torn England find themselves transported to a land of myth and fantasy . Return to magic , return to hope , return to Narnia . Some journeys take us far from home . Some adventures lead us to our destiny . It begins during German air raids over London in WWII . Four kids travel through underground to the land of Narnia and learn of their destiny to free it and help Prince Caspian . Lucy (George Henley) , Edmund Pevensie (Skandar Keynes) , Susan and Peter return to Narnia where they meet up with Prince Caspian (Ben Barnes) for an impressive battle against dark forces . Along the way they encounter dragons , dwarfs (Peter Dinklage , Warwick Davis) , merfolk, and a band of lost warriors . A fantastic world with fauns and centaurs and where animals speaking , giant mice , beaver , bear , fox , among others . The children are the chosen ones , according an ancient prophecy, and they team up with Aslem , the mighty Lion and real king of Narnia , fighting to defeat a nasty king in an epic finale battle . Then , all of them go throughout the fantastic world and where animals speaking as a likable giant swords-rat , a bull and many others . It has been foretold that they will bring peace to Narnia with the guidance of the mystical lion . They must survive the evil treachery of an usurper king named Miraz (Sergio Castellitto) , his barons , Lord Sopespian (Damián Alcázar) , General Glozelle (Pierfrancesco Favino) and the mysterious White Witch (Tilda Swinton, she also makes a short cameo as a centaur) locked in ice who still claims to be Queen . They team up with Aslan (Liam Neeson ; ¨Aslan" means "lion" in Turkish), the mighty Lion , fighting to defeat the evil in an epic finale battle against a huge army .

This exciting movie has amazing fantasy, breathtaking adventures , groundbreaking battles and awesome FX , as the film contains over 1500 special effects shots, more than its predecessor's 800 effects shots . In this impressive production , C.S. Lewis' imagination is brought to life with top-drawer computer generator special effects . Although C.S. Lewis wrote "Prince Caspian" second, it is actually the fourth book of "The Chronicles of Narnia . This agreeable story is lavishly produced by Andrew Adamson from ¨Shrek trilogy¨ and Mark Johnson , along with C.S. Lewis' stepson and heir Douglas Gresham was co-producer on this film and its predecessor . The pic is a magic story with rip-snorting adventures , overwhelming fantasy , state-of-art FX , sensational scenarios and good feeling . Plenty of action and emotion with incredible battle scenes , thrills , actions and brief touches of humor . Provide enough amusement to keep the hands on your seat and dazzling eyes until the epic ending . In spite of overlong runtime and the difficult of adapting , the film still managing to keep a quick enough pace for those unfamiliar with the fantastic saga . Sympathetic performances for all casting and including a top-notch support cast . The film displays a colorful and evocative cinematography by Karl Walter Lindenlaub filmed on location ; although parts of the film were made in New Zealand like its predecessor, the majority of shooting took place in Czech, Slovenia and Poland because of the larger sets available . Rousing musical score fitting perfectly to the action-adventure by Harry Gregson-Williams . The motion picture was marvelously directed by Andrew Adamson , he's the director,producer, writer of ¨Shrek¨ trilogy . Adamson found a way to have the film stand on its own by adding a grand scale castle battle to the storyline, to make this film more epic and action oriented ; he made this second trip to Narnia bigger and more overblown than the first. Although this film was quite successful , it was far from the blockbuster success of the first film , as a result , Disney declined co-production on the rest of the series . Rating : Above average and worthwhile seeing , the whole family will enjoy this film . It's a very likable adventure-fantasy and enormously appealing for kids, adolescents and young men . Overall this is a really nice movie . If you are familiar with the story, then there are no real surprises, but makes up for it with overwhelming CGI animation.

This was the second installment , the first entry was the following : ¨The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and Wardrobe¨ (2005) by Andrew Adamson with Georgie Henley as Lucy Pevensie , Skandar Keynes as Edmund Pevensie , William Moseley as Peter Pevensie , Anna Popplewell as Susan Pevensie , Tilda Swinton as White Witch , James McAvoy as Mr. Tumnus and Jim Broadbent as Professor Kirke ; the third entry was ¨The Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader¨ (2010) by Michael Apted with Ben Barnes as Caspian , Will Poulter as Eustace Scrubb , Gary Sweet as Drinian , Bruce Spence , Bille Brown as Coriakin Laura Brent as Liliandil , Rachel Blakely as Gael's Mum and Nathaliel Parker as father's Caspian

This movie isn't half as charming or eloquently magical as the first, but it engages nonetheless.

There's something about the young actors chosen to play the four major roles- Peter, Edmund, Susan and Lucy. They badly make you wish you were in their shoes. The film in itself is often reminiscent of LOTR, but the major difference being in a childlike simplicity this one retains.

Aslan, despite not having much of a role, manages to be the most striking character, and Lucy is as lovable as she was in the first film.

The battle scenes are brilliant, as are the landscapes. The power politics and senselessness of violence are dealt with a lot maturely in this film as compared to the first installment. At some point you realize you want at least a dozen more films revolving around these four siblings, and to be able to access Narnia for ever.

The only thing that ruins this film is this strange invasion of Hollywood-like romance as a very annoying little subplot, and the sudden intrusion of a ridiculous song at a climactic point.

Apart from that, I am pretty sure any fantasy-hound would enjoy this film a lot, and especially so if you're a big Lewis fan.

I know I am.

It was on a sudden decision that I went with a group of friends to a 9:10 showing of this film that, at the time of this review, was yesterday. I had quite enjoyed the first Narnia, but upon seeing this one, I felt kind of blah. Most of my friends felt the same way. Don't get me wrong, the film is well put together. The visuals are impeccable, the production design is well done, the costumes look great, and the actors do fine. Unfortunately, the material seems to be lacking.

One year has passed in our time, but 1300 years have passed in Narnia. Since the four Penvensie children left, Narnia has been overcome by the evil Telemarines, who have banished all Narnians. Now, the evil king Miraz hopes to permanently establish the Telemarine stronghold, but his throne is threatened by his nephew Prince Caspian. Miraz orders the boy to be murdered, but Caspian escapes, and inadvertently calls for help. This is where the Penvensie children come in, as they are whisked away from London back to Narnia, to restore balance in a now grittier land.

You would think that with a title like "Prince Caspian," the filmmakers would work to make our hero well rounded. Unfortunantely, they really don't. The whole backstory involving the raising of Prince Caspian from the novel has been cut, making our hero less 3-dimensional than we would want him to be. The filmmakers have also seemed to believe that since we got to know the children in the first movie, we don't need much characterization involving them again. King Miraz looks like the bad guy version of King Leonidas from "300," and his motives seem muddled. Not until the end of the film did I really feel his evil presence, and by then, it was hard for me to start fearing him. The result is that we, as the audience, don't feel very involved with the story. There are characters, some good, some bad, but you are not entirely sure what their motives are.

As far as the acting goes, I was fine. There were no standouts with this movie like there was with Tilda Swinton in the last one. Part of this I blame on lacking material.

Since we are not involved with the characters or with the story, all we can do is watch the nice stuff that has been put on screen. Simply put, this is a well put together film that doesn't have a whole lot of material backing it up.

Hopefully the new director for "The Dawn Treader" will do better.

I am that rare person who managed to read Prince Caspian without having read The LWW. I have seen the first film and believe the last 15 minutes reasonably reflected the Pevensie children as I imagined them from reading the second book. I'm afraid the liberties taken by this film version distort the family relationships as well as rendering other characters completely unfaithful in that context. Enough about the authenticity of the film.

There has been a fair amount of criticism of this film's actors on this board. As an eldest child I feel compelled to defend the actor portraying Peter as he can hardly have recognised the character he was playing from the book. Whether he appreciated the changes made to Peter or not, he was acting blind, and, surely, it is up to the director to ensure that there is an appropriate consistency in the portrayal. The character presented makes absolutely no sense when compared with the character developed at the end of the first film. To suggest he is having difficulty adapting to being a physical child again is a real stretch. The other children's roles are a tad more consistent with the written word though there is a 21st century knowing about all of them that causes them to lose the sense of wonder necessary. The portrayal of Caspian is also dumbed down, as if, children are no longer expected to imagine the breadth of personality and mixed emotions reflected in the book.

As usual I ended up enjoying certain elements of the film because of its visual nature (New Zealand excels again), but, now is the time to challenge the children of the world's imaginations rather than spoon feed them this shallower version.

I came to this skeptically. I live in Virginia Beach where Pat Robertson's billion dollar film school is located. The idea is to blanket us with convincing fundamentalist propaganda. I am convinced that when they get better than their clumsy current efforts, we may be in for a rough ride. The Narnia books are in this same questionable class.

The first movie was an amazing surprise for me. Yes, it was the same tiresome stuff we have from a dozen other sources about children in mystical or magical contexts who save the world. Yes, it was aggressively allegorical, at the insistence of Lewis' wildeyed nephew who controls the rights. But it was subverted without the knowledge of those pinched faces. Tilda Swinton — an intriguing person — insisted on portraying her character in a certain way. This is the witch that is supposed to represent the evil, anti-Christian forces, but she played her as an Arian representing the abuse of religious argument. While the film itself was boring, her presence and her subversive activity, was wonderful. I'll bet they still don't know.

But she was to be absent here. And she was, except for one odd scene. So I came to this with some trepidation.

This is therefore more tedious than the first. All I could see was the stronger allegory of patriotic armies being led to mindless slaughter because of truculent leaders, and in the case of the "good guys" a young fellow who reminded me so much of the current US president. Its almost so obvious it seems deliberate. Perhaps there were many subversives on the set.

There's a strange plot goof here. These characters were supposed to have lived full lives and then be returned to children's bodies but with the wisdom of ages. Yet as the war actually approaches, they act precisely like children. Even at the end, the youngest is repelled by yucky kissing.

Here's something to look for if you do choose to see it. Its the character of the river.

The river is a physical boundary between the two races, and which is clearly supposed by Lewis to denote the transition between the real and magical worlds. Early in the story, our prince crosses it readily and his pursuers are stymied, pharaoh-wise. Shortly after, the first test of the children is to cross this same river, a test they fail because they did not follow Lucy, who alone lucidly sees Christ and is not believed. Later they accept her leadership across this river.

Meanwhile, the evil man is making a bridge to do the same with violent intent on the magical domain. The river literally becomes a character, called up by the Christ (actually a poet of Christ) and plays a decisive role in the ordained defeat. This should have been the central cinematic spine of the film. But alas, this filmmaker is poor, and we are left with shots through artificially clear water — including one stock shot: of a small boat from below with the sun above. But its done so well, its worth it. And then we have the special effect of the rivergod rising in anger. This is actually a pretty good effect.

Ted's Evaluation -- 1 of 3: You can find something better to do with this part of your life.

Tired of the scenery known as the real world? Why, step right up and enter the wonderful land known as Narnia. Surrounding you will be plenty of beautiful scenery, hundreds of years of nasty conflict, backstabbing, rising tensions, impending warfare, and attempted genocide. Also surrounding you will be corrupt kings, feisty hostile creatures, wild animals, attacking trees, and enough action to not warrant another visit ever again. The best part is, despite all the hostility, deaths, violence, carnage, and intense material, the MPAA decided to throw in the "PG" rating because of the one main thing Narnia has: enough God symbolism to create sermons for weeks.

Following you on this adventure is Prince Caspian, a prince who does not look his age, does not act his age, and darn it that gives hope to all of the hiding Narnians. However, his very own uncle wants him dead to claim the throne. This is what family does. With the four kids making a return, the five heroes will attempt to conquer the land that was once peaceful and try to bring harmony into the entire community. Helping them is Aslan, the lion from before. However, he is nowhere to be found. Can the kids and the smaller army of creatures win the battle against the forces of Conquistador Evil? Venture on, and you'll find out.

The critters are the only humorous and vaguely positive things on this dismal trip into a bitter and traumatic Narnia. While this keeps the film remotely child-friendly, it does tamper with the mood of the trip. Doesn't help that you have creatures that literally come out of nowhere to give their two cents and offer their services. These critters are not as memorable as the ones in the first trip, and they do not have much character development either. And why on earth do we have a sequel to Puss-In-Boots here? The kids themselves are still not that interesting with the exception of the youngest one and Prince Caspian pretty much gets reduced to being something the ladies in the trip can fawn over endlessly. The villains themselves are much more threatening, but don't seem as menacing as the White Witch from the original journey. Sometimes, the trips into enemy territory looks like you are entering Spain in the Middle Ages; the actors portraying the enemies look Spanish, and even look alike in certain scenes.

Directing the trip is the director of the original voyage, and also the first two Shrek movies, Andrew Adamson. His directing is a mixed bag; as the battle sequences are well-directed, but the one-on-one battles lack range, lack originality, and does the typical slow-down/speed-up action that we see far too often. Also, a sign that there isn't much complexity in the fights is when the subjects are too close to the camera. The cinematography suffers from the direction a little, but does have some great shots of the lush environments in Narnia. At least you know the area is beautiful as you battle into potential death.

Easily the most awe-inspiring moments in the trip to Narnia are the special effects contained in the package. They are so amazing that you don't even realize that most of the characters joining you are CGI. The special effects are at their best whenever the two battles take place, which are both long, both satisfying, and maintain the voyage from being too much of a bore. However, you will be definitely be raising many questions throughout the quest for survival, and sadly, not all are going to be answered. More so, there will be events that will occur out of nowhere and there will be no time to develop them into coherence. Don't worry, they don't run far too long.

Bottom Line: All right, let's get to the nitty, gritty. Kind of like the main flaw of the Matrix, why would anyone want to visit the alter-ego world when there's easily much more peril and suspense? Prince Caspian is a movie that's pretty much saved by the two epic battle sequences and the decent performance of the main character himself, which is sure to make the ladies swoon upon the first time they see him riding on horseback. But everything else about this fantasy movie just feels too been there-done that (Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter anyone?) The only difference is the immense amount of Christian themes, symbolism, and allusions---and they'll strike repeatedly throughout the movie. If you enjoyed the milder, weaker version of The Fellowship of the Ring, then you'll enjoy the slightly milder, weaker version of The Two Towers. Otherwise, there isn't anything much added to the table besides characters.

P.S. Lesson learned here is that, in order to make a nasty violent film full of more deaths than a fumigation of a contaminated house maintain the "PG" rating, there must be religious messages tied underneath it all. Funny how religion and warfare comes hand-in-hand even in fiction.

Having just come back from a screening of Prince Caspian, I can honestly say that I got the movie fresh in my mind...and it was amazing! Not only was it better than the first in every way - the story, the acting, the screenplay - but it managed to have more of an edge without sinking into the pitfall that movies such as Pirates of the Caribbean have slipped into.

Meaning that unlike the Pirates sequels (don't get me wrong, I love Pirates, but this is something that bothered me a little), the makers of Prince Caspian did not believe that to make it better and more exciting, they had to gore and bloody it up. Instead, while it is darker, the blood and gore is kept to a bare minimum considering this is an action flick.

Anyway, that now aside, I highly recommend this! It's a great movie - great action scenes, a tad bit of romance but not overly so, and a good plot. Plus the young cast are even better in this film than they were in the first, and Ben Barnes - well, it's right that he is the title character,because he very nearly would have stolen the floor from underneath the original kids if they were even the slightest bit less perfect (William Moseley was the weakest of the five, as he was in the last movie, but he still stepped it up quite a bit).

Granted, I've not read the books, so I don't know if this is as dedicated to the book as many fans would like it to be. Then again, most movies adapted from the books never are. However, if they can find it in them to accept changes for theatrical purposes, I'm sure even the most die-hard fans will admit it "wasn't bad."

I think it's safe to say that the folks at Disney (the company that made this film) watched too much of THE LORD OF THE RINGS and tried – and failed – to emulate it. Epic battles, living trees, and much more are pulled directly from what we saw only a few years ago under Peter Jackson's able hands. And although THE CHRONICLES OF NARNIA: PRINCE CASPIAN has a few "moments" of its own, it fails to entertain anywhere near the first film, THE CHRONICLES OF NARNIA: THE LION, THE WITCH, AND THE WARDROBE.

This is mostly due to the fact that we are rushed into battle scene after battle scene with little time to look at (and feel for) the characters. This is painfully obvious when we get 7/8 of the way through the film and still haven't seen Aslan but have been in so many fights that they begin to meld together. The Lord of the Rings never had this problem because the focus was kept tight on the characters, particularly the Hobbits. Which brings me to a positive point about Prince Caspian: the development of the friendship between Lucy (Georgie Henley, returning from the first Chronicles film) with that of the dwarf Trumpkin (Peter Dinklage, DEATH AT A FUNERAL). Although lightly touched on by comparisons with, say, Samwise and Frodo, the connection between dwarf and young queen was powerful enough to make me care a bit about what happened to them.

The downsides, however, are just too numerous. The almost bratty nature of Prince Caspian (Ben Barnes (STARDUST) made the main character seem petulant rather than regal. And his continued arrogance toward Peter (William Moseley) was completely out of context with C.S. Lewis' novels. The repetitive battle scenes lead nowhere, and when Narnians die, we really don't feel any remorse for them as the viewer.

That said, there's plenty of eye-candy in terms of CGI. It's everywhere. And it's almost too pervasive. But it is used well ...albeit often.

The big question many may be asking is: "Should I watch it?" And the answer is a definite "yes." Although it's horribly flawed, it's worth watching for Lucy and Trumpkin, as well as the funny antics of Pattertwig the Squirrel and his deadly sword. And you'll need to be up on the film for the final release due out some time in the near future: THE CHRONICLES OF NARNIA: THE VOYAGE OF THE DAWN TREADER. Let's hope Disney gets that one right and we'll at least have two out of three in the positive corner.

I was fortunate enough to be invited to a screening in Washington, DC prior to release. This production has what it takes. Great production, true to the story line, lots of nail biting and fascinating.

It never felt like it was over two hours. I'd have to say that Walden did an amazing job of staying true to the storyline and that Disney's magic is back. I will recommend this movie and absolutely plan on adding the DVD to my library when it comes out. I may even go and pay to see it again.

The only recommendation I have is to continue with the other 5 books. I've seen every one of the productions of The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe, and it took Disney to make it right. Now they've continued with Prince Caspian, and I'm anything BUT disappointed. As long as the storyline and production keep improving, it can only get better.

In some ways I think film makers who create films based off of beloved books have a hard and thankless job. They must balance the creation of a film that anyone can like while still remaining faithful to the subject matter for the fans of the books. Adamson did this brilliantly in the first Narnia movie creating a rich and deep world faithful to the book while still bringing in those who never did read it. Unfortunately he missed the mark sorely with Prince Caspian.

I tried very hard to separate this film from the book but came up with the conclusion that one can not do that in cases like this. True, movies are never better then the book so you have to go in expecting changes, however this film is so far from the book that if the characters names were changed one would never know it was a Narnia based story. The film felt more like a story someone else wrote and simply pasted names and small scenes from Lewis's book to make it fit the mythos.

First things I like... Miraz was great! He was evil and developed in ways he wasn't in the book and I thought it was fantastic. I also liked how we got to know Miraz general Glozelle. That character showed a man who was on the wrong side but still had honor. He was worthy of what he receives at the end of the movie and was a great addition not included in the book.

Now on with the problems. One of the biggest was the dialog. Long gone is the intelligent flow of language and in its place is a modern interpretation of how people should talk to fit in with todays youth. The children and animals say "Shut up" while the dwarfs pipe up with "Ya gotta be kidding." It is clear that this script was not from the book and was from someone else's work not Lewis's.

Peter and Caspian are not the noble characters impacted by their experience and worthy of leading the Narnians. Peter starts off the film as a whining young man, a mere imitation of the young man we saw in the first film. Peter has little growth from that point never showing any consideration of growth. In fact by the end of the film there is no love for Peter or belief that he is a high King. Caspian is not much better. Caspian lacks humility and any true endearing quality until the end of the film when he admits he feels unworthy to lead (one of the few lines from the book). This moment comes far to late for us to believe there is anything genuine behind it.

The romance between Caspian and Susan is so forced it becomes painful at times. The entire love aspect adds nothing to the characters and merely adds grown factor to poor character development.

Attempts are made at creating drama over the four kids sudden disappearance from Narnia but there is no follow through. Several things have this half thought out feel to them making you wonder if the writers felt Lewis didn't know how to write about characters.

One of the biggest issues is that the lynch-pin for the entire Narnia series is missing for most of the film, Aslan. Aslan is never really referenced through out the first two thirds of the film. The Narnias never mention him or even recognize that he is the major influence for their entire nation. There is a hint at the situation from the book in which the children deal with the fact that only Lucy can see him but what Lewis used to show growth and a major issue of the children's growth in this story is blown over and turned into a three minute trek and dream sequence.

One of my biggest problems is when Lucy tells Peter that a possible reason that Aslan has not appeared is that he is seeing if they are worthy of him showing up. I was very angry at this statement because if there is one thing the first movie showed us and the books make clear it was that Aslan worked for those he cared for, not because of their deeds but because of who he is. Aslan was treated poorly and we lost all sight of the great lion who was loved as a great leader and king from the first film.

All in all I think this film suffers from some one else writing the story they think should have been done, not interpreting the story that was written.