![o{]:)](http://www.wdtprs.com/blog/wp-images/topimage.JPG)
MINI MOVIE REVIEW: Prince Caspain
I went to see Prince Caspian, the next movie in the Narnia series.
There were good moments.
But there were times when I asked myself if something was going to happen, if it was going to end.
The special effects were great. However, there were moments when they were very obviously effects.
Also, I really wanted more in WWII England. And didn’t get it. I feel cheated.
Script: I think the book was Disneyed.
Actors: Well… they had to use the same actors. I am thinking perhaps we may see Edmund and Lucy again. I think little Lucy is the most talented of the young people.
Lucy… light… Dante…. hmmm… I digress.
The sort-of bad guys, Telmarines ("over the far away sea", right?), obviously mislead by a guy with an Islamic sounding name "Miraz", need conversion. They eventually get it, but… the imagery… the imagery….
They are dressed sort of like Conquistadors. Problem, right? They are Spaniards and with a strong Moorish influence, or so it seemed to me. They bear a symbol, and 8-pointed star, which could be Christian or Muslim.
What is going on? Organized religion gone bad? Disney intervening? Dunno.
So, what are we dealing with here: natural religion of happy trees and animals, being "spiritual", as opposed to some religions which is more established? More organized?
I’m just asking.
I will be glad to read your own comments on the movie.
See it if you want.
But if Ironman is showing at the same cinema….
Wow, this took me by surprise. I plumb forgot about this movie coming out now.
Comment by Willebrord — 16 May 2008 @ 7:51 pmI never noticed how the name Miraz sounds Islamic. Interesting… and makes sense.
Sounds terrible, though, about equating the Telmarines with Conquistadores and Spaniards; and obviously how the plot was Disneyed.
Still, can’t forget that this [i]is[/i] Disney, however.
Willebord: Maybe you need to see it yourself. These are simply my first impressions. I will continue to consider these details.
Also, it has been a while since I read the book.
A LONG while.
Comment by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf — 16 May 2008 @ 8:10 pmLewis’ book was one of the weaker in the series, I thought. This movie put some depth in it; I enjoyed the surprises and the character development. Caspian was a bit stiff, but he does have to deal with the violence of his family, his people.
There were lots of good things: the temptations of the White Witch, the set-up for the Peter-Miraz battle, the accurate depiction of the sorrow of war, the mixed abilities of each of the Pevensies to adapt (or not) to England after growing up in Narnia.
It does make a contrast with the first movie, which was based on a far stronger story.
Comment by Todd — 16 May 2008 @ 8:19 pmTodd: I didn’t have problems with the actor for Caspian, given the screenplay.
Also, I agree there had to be a contrast with the first movie.
Comment by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf — 16 May 2008 @ 8:34 pmI liked Ironman, but if I were a Priest I would warn my flock against watching the first 20 minutes (or, perhaps, against the movie as a whole); it’s indicative of our modern culture, and even modern Church, that we have no barometer with respect to sin. I don’t think it’s enough to say, “well, society is fornicating, so we must expect these things in a movie,” because, really, Ironman is geared towards kids first, and adults second. I find it disheartening that those who should be warning us about Ironman are saying it is perfectly, morally, fine. Classically, I can handle my kids watching pg-13 violence, but not pg-13 sex; you liberals will have to get over it!
Comment by Malta — 16 May 2008 @ 8:48 pmI haven’t seen the movie but in general I have to agree with Malta that “we have no barometer with respect to sin”. I have even seen otherwise good movies where the heart warming triumph of good is in fact two people commiting fornication or adultry. And even religious people think you are old fashioned if you object, not simply to the perhaps discreet handling of the act itself but to the fact that an immoral act is presented as a positive good, the liberation of two people or the moment they finally open themselves to each other. Of course the guidance of the Church is long gone.
Comment by David O'Rourke — 16 May 2008 @ 9:24 pmpersonally,I thought the Telmarines seemed more Italian.if you look at the acors who played the three main bad telmarines: Miraz,Glozel and sophespian, two are italian and one is spanish.
just my 2 cents
Comment by Wilhelm — 16 May 2008 @ 9:32 pmI have happy images in my head, from childhood, of the Narnia books. They can’t touch Tolkien’s LOTR, of course, but they are happy images nonetheless. I’m not sure I want to give them up for what Hollyweird wants to replace them with. I may forego seeing any of the rest of the Narnia movies, as the first one left me drumming my fingers on the formed plastic cup holder at the end of the theater arm rest. Maybe I’m getting harder to please as I age, but I didn’t like what Peter Jackson’s LOTR movies did to the previous images in my head from reading those books. Jackson’s movies were excellent, but once I saw them, >> went the previous imprints. At this point I still have intact images of Reep and Puddleglum and Eustace and all of that cast. I prefer to keep them MINE.
Comment by Jim — 16 May 2008 @ 9:40 pmSaw the movie this afternoon and thought it was fantastic. Andrew Adamson, the director, improved the book, keeping its spiritual themes, picking up the pacing, and deepening the drama. Just a joy to see the secular world do something in favor of values and spirituality. I’m a bit Lewis and Tolkien fan and I have to say I was really moved. I’m taking 225 parishioners to it on Sunday afternoon. Should be fun. If interested, check out my review on my blog http://anamchara.blogs.com for a deeper look into the meaning of the film. I also have a newspaper article on it on the web here: http://observer.rockforddiocese.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=6EKzh6LBTyQ%3d&tabid=1235 Sorry to go on so long, but I think this film is a great way to present the Gospel message in a new and creative way for folks of all ages.
Comment by Msgr. Eric Barr — 16 May 2008 @ 9:45 pmI saw the movie this afternoon. Overall, I liked it, though you are right in saying that the book was “Disneyed,” Father. The romance between Susan and Prince Caspian was completely unnecessary, and Lewis would have heartily disapproved. That was the only departure from the book which really rankled me; the others seemed to be very much in the spirit of the Chronicles.
The Telmarines were portrayed fairly close to how they appear in Lewis’ book—they are a darker, Moorish-looking race there, too. It could very well be that Lewis himself was drawing on Islamic peoples when he created them. However, I don’t think you can make a case for theirs being “organized religion gone bad,” because it seems that they have no religion at all, only history and tradition. Both of these crumble when their foundation (faith and morals) is neglected, which is why the Narnians are able to gain the upper hand in the end. I think the movie showed the need for faith fairly well.
A great scene was where Peter was sitting in the temple of the broken altar, just looking at the relief of Aslan, not quite praying, but wishing Aslan would prove his existence. Reminded me of what I would do in Adoration chapels before I was received into the Church.
Comment by Quantitative Metathesis — 16 May 2008 @ 10:05 pmMost of the reviews I have seen on it said it was a good action movie, but that the themes of the book that C.S. Lewis developed were pretty much dropped. Even to a larger extent than in the first move.
decentfilms.com has a good review up on it.
Comment by Jeff Miller — 16 May 2008 @ 10:08 pmI really am not a fan of Narnia. The theology of it bugs the heck out of me…. It’s obviously a good thing, expressing Christian themes hidden in allegory and whatnot, but I really think it can do more harm then good when the themes that are being expressed “undercover” are at times erroneous. When you mix bad stuff with good stuff, it makes it harder to spot. For a guy like me, I can see the problems and ignore them and see the positives and benefit from them, but for kids watching or reading this stuff – which was the intention – to me it poses a tremendous danger of getting them thinking in the wrong theological ways.
Comment by Shane — 16 May 2008 @ 10:16 pmThe book, which I have read every year since I was 8 (and I will not admit how many times that is…), is about the rise of atheism. What the film lacked was a deliberate confrontation between faith and atheism. Sure, there were little hints, like when Aslan tells Lucy that just because her friends lack faith doesn’t mean…blah blah…turning the whole matter into a lecture, and who wants a lecture in a film.
I cannot agree that Adamson improved the book. I don’t think he got it beyond the adventure; any spiritual messages seemed thrown in at the last minute.
Comment by MacBeth — 16 May 2008 @ 10:27 pmFr. Z,
I enjoyed reading your post about the movie. I’m going to take my daughter to see it soon.
I just wanted to thank you for your blog. Your website’s encouragement helped lead me to the TLM, which has really helped me and my family. I didn’t know about the TLM until a couple of months ago. I was always led to believe that “Trads,” whatever that label means, were mean-spirited but the excellent writing and intellectual nature of this blog has helped to show me that that’s a false stereotype. I also have taken comfort in the fact that you seem like both a no-nonsense and a kind person, which is great because I believe(for what it’s worth) that if we try to spread the TLM confidently and charitably, less people will be afraid to try something that’s really awesome and Faith-affirming, though maybe “off-putting” at first to folks who are only use to guitars and the vernacular, like I was.
Please keep this blog running. I discovered a liturgy that I love because of it and I’m sure more people have/will as time passes.
Thanks and God bless.
Comment by anonymous — 16 May 2008 @ 10:37 pmI saw the movie tonight as well and I have to say I did enjoy it. I kept thinking about Padre Pio since the fellow who plays the evil king was the same actor who played the saint in the recent movie! I agree that Ironman was worthy of more praise, but this film had some good moments. The overall theme of man having forgotten God was apparent and true! I enjoyed the moment where Aslan breathes upon the people. I kept thinking of Confirmation or the Chrism Mass! The film does seem to lean a bit in the direction of the tree huggers, but then again its Hollywood. It was enjoyable, but if I were going back…. I would see Ironman again! Padre Steve, SDB
Comment by Padre Steve — 16 May 2008 @ 10:39 pmI thought the Lion, Witch and Wardrobe movie did a reasonably good job of capturing the book. Note that I say reasonably good, and our standards for this have to be depressingly low after things like the Peter Jackson monstrosity (I only saw the first one, and after that torment didn’t subject myself to the other two), but still. The Prince Caspian movie was a cut below the first one, I thought, at least in terms of capturing the story. They pretty much dropped almost the entire first third of the book, and then added multiple gratuitous other scenes. Because of that, the narrative thread was totally confused and much of the story just made no sense: why did the soldiers take Trumpkin hundreds of miles away from the castle just to execute him? How did Trumpkin even know who the children were supposed to be, or where he ought to take them, given that he was captured before he even spoke to Caspian? Why did Caspian seem to be expecting the old kings and queens to arrive, seeing as how Dr. Cornelius never told him what the horn was? And on and on… it was really quite a mess. Prince Caspian’s character was pretty much gutted—I have no strong feelings on the actor either way, but I couldn’t find much reason to think that this Caspian was especially virtuous or fit to rule. But of course, it would be hard to show that without, you know, the first third of the book, where the relationship between Caspian and Miraz is actually established.
There is a solution to this kind of problem. JUST DO IT THE WAY HE WROTE IT. There is no need to try to “improve” classic stories like this. There’s a reason why they’ve been loved by generations of children. One thing that always particularly depresses me is how, when adventure stories are made into movies, they are virtually gutted of dialogue. Talking is reduced to the barest minimum, and even what there is mostly doesn’t come from the book; in place of the dialogue we get scores of gratuitous action scenes and mushy moments. Is this really the kind of culture we are, that we want our classic stories reduced to that hackneyed tripe? Is there some tacit rule that a story can’t be exciting and also have some substance?
Okay, sorry, I’ll stop ranting and go write a review for my own blog. :)
Comment by Clara — 16 May 2008 @ 11:10 pmClassically, I can handle my kids watching pg-13 violence, but not pg-13 sex; you liberals will have to get over it!
My wife and I were discussing exactly that immediately after we saw Ironman because we knew our five year old son would have gone absolutely bananas if we’d let him see it. I suggested that we wouldn’t have problems with him seeing the violence because we could explain it to him, the bad guys try to kill the good guys and the good guys try to stop the bad guys. As for “the other”, that’s none of his business and I’m not going to accelerate the approaching day when I have to explain all that to him.
However within the context of Ironman the first half hour or so was making the point that our “hero” was a cad, as best we can recall (yes, I’ve had to call on my better half for assistance) he never even so much as managed to kiss “Pepper Potts”. It showed a distinct difference in his behavior. That said, the scene, brief as it was (I can’t actually remember it), wasn’t needed to make the point… but the robot with the fire extinguisher may have been the funniest thing I’ve seen all year (other than the “Scottish Falsetto Sock Puppet Theatre”).
Comment by boredoftheworld — 16 May 2008 @ 11:57 pmGosh; doesn’t sound like the book!
Father: if you want the definitive Chronicles of Narnia, then watch the BBC’s miniseries. It was done in the eighties, and was very loyal to the books.
Comment by Mark M — 17 May 2008 @ 1:39 amSome of these comments remind me of the old joke:-
Comment by elizabeth mckernan — 17 May 2008 @ 2:04 am= Where did you get the idea for your new book? – From the film of the old one!
Here’s my review, Father. Keep in mind I had a kidney removed 3 weeks ago; I may still be a might ornery.
Comment by Athos — 17 May 2008 @ 4:29 amI really am not a fan of Narnia. The theology of it bugs the heck out of me…. It’s obviously a good thing, expressing Christian themes hidden in allegory and whatnot, but I really think it can do more harm then good when the themes that are being expressed “undercover” are at times erroneous.
Comment by Shane
Which themes are erroneous.
Comment by RBrown — 17 May 2008 @ 6:33 amIt was definitely Disneyfied, especially with that sappy song at the end, but it could have been worse. The special effects were good, and using Spaniards was a good idea because they have an accent that can be a little hard to place and sounds exotic. I did get the feeling that the Telmarines were supposed to be a warlike Middle Eastern people but not Muslim (I think one of the other books in the series has a more direct reference to Islam, IIRC), who had abandoned all religion and imposed a sort of pragmatic atheism on their kingdom and a system of government that was therefore very dependent on the whims and morality of the leader at the moment. Perhaps they were more like the Phoenecians. Caspian essentially converts