Just got back from seeing Prince Caspian

And I liked it! :D

Some things from the book were left out (like Bacchus and the wild women) but overall I thought they did a wonderful job. The creature effects were even better this time around, especially on closeups where they had to show most of the body, like the satyrs, minotaurs and centaurs. There were still some jerky movements to any full CGI creatures, horses and people, but it's getting better.

And Eddie Izzard was fantabulous as Reepicheep!

I think I'll mosey on over to Aatheus' Centaur WWWBoard and see if they got anything going on this...


By the way, I looked earlier and didn't see a general movie forum, only one for "classic movies". I would guess this isn't old enough to be called classic yet ;)

And I love reepicheep! Hmmm, I wasn't so sure I wanted to see this, but now I'm curious!

Shame they left out the Bacchus, and wild women.. guess they wanted to make it a family flick.

:)

As for why they left out Bacchus and the wild women, what you say makes sense. Yet at the same time, if that was truly the case, why did Lewis include them in his "children's" book? ;) Of course, the British aren't nearly as "sensitive" to that kind of thing as American audiences are...

The Voyage of the Dawn Treader should be interesting considering how often Reepicheep pops up, and how often people "insult" his dignity :P

There are minor things left out or moved around, but do consider that were they to have followed the book perfectly or nearly so, this 2 hour and 20 minute movie would have been at least double that. I've read through the first first five books (as I never read them as a child; we didn't have them around the house nor were they offered or encouraged in school) yet I can accept that movies can never do a book complete justice. It would just be too long. I have watched very long movies before, but in the past they put "intermissions" halfway through. Imagine doing that with today's audiences and children for that matter.

The special effects are great, as is the scenery and so on. Of course, I was watching Glenstorm and all the other creatures more than any of them, but that's just me :P

For some reason he seemed to me to dominate every scene he was in.

I liked the film a lot better than the first, and my nine year old daughter said the same thing. It was darker and more politically complex, but she had no trouble following it, and none of it was too disturbing for her. It still amazes me, though, that a film with such shocking and frequent violence can be PG, whereas one hint of passion and it's PG 13 or worse. Some of the killings were quite brutal.

There was one scene where a centaur reared just before charging, and I was appropriately impressed by the FX. The catapults were well done, too. Catapults rarely look lethal in films, but these did. And unlike many fantasy films, the FX seemed to be a tool to tell the story, rather than a spectacle to replace it.

I haven't seen a lot of movies he's been in, but I always felt he did a great job with his parts. :) ("He must be one of those South Pole elves!")

And, yes, the fight scenes and other killings were pretty dark. I was thinking about the violence when I recommended this to a friend of mine, since not everyone likes that kind of thing (I don't necessarily, but sometimes you can't avoid it.) I do remember that so far in the books, Lewis was never that strong on detailing the battles, so it's good that they do show them in the movies. It gives you a better idea of what happens, even in a fantasy setting. Have you noticed, too, that in recent years the kind of catapults the movies have been using are almost exclusively trebuchets? It's almost as if ever since The History Channel and others pointed out their historical use that the movie industry has latched onto them with fervor.

The other addition to the movies that was not in the books were the griffins. Even in the first movie I thought they did a wonderful job of them. They don't talk this time around, but they're still fun to watch.

Yeah, Glenstorm's rearing was probably one of the best close-in shots of a centaur that made him believable. There were only a few scenes where the CGI was a bit "rough" and those usually entailed full CGI creatures instead of real and CGI mergings like the tighter shots. I tried to notice (without ruining my movie-watching experience) just how the "joining" between human and horse on the centaurs was done. That part alone was really telling of how well they had done the CGI. The minotaur holding up the gate was great, too :)

What'd you think of the satyrs jumping across the rooftops during the castle battle? :)

If you haven't seen it, it's a "normal" role about a short person who inherits an old train station in a small town and winds up in a series of small dramas. Excellent indie film which barely touched on his height, so he got to do some straight-forward acting. Co-starred Patricia Clarkson. That's what impresses me--he can play any type of role, and rarely seems to be stuck in a role just because someone needed a dwarf and he was the right heighth, although he can handle those roles, as well.

There were two Dwarves in Narnia--the other was played by Warwick Davis, of Willow fame. He was excellent. They were lucky to find two exceptional actors whose heights didn't have to be CGId for the roles.

I don't remember the satyrs on the rooftops, for some reason. That's probably good--they would have stuck out if they had been badly done. I tend to not focus on effects, and only notice them when they are central, or when they are horrible. The centaur rearing was memorable for the right reasons.

The griffins seemed good, but flying CGI creatures always seem wrong to me. It's hard to imagine what "natural" looks like in something so large and un-birdlike flying.

But like I say, effects are secondary to me. I hate when they are glaringly bad, but I don't really focus on them. I grew up on Dr. Who.