hey guys.............
i found an interestn piece of info. 'bt georgie henley who plays lucy pevensie.........
the most striking part of lucy is her innocence....her purity...............
she is very trusting.......loyal.......sweet.......brave..........n forgiving...........
i mean she helped in transforming mr. tumnus( who was trapped by the witch to do wrong things).......she comes in his life and his last hope is rekindled...........i mean she is so pure by heart......and her innocence changes someone...........
and you know, georgie in real life is a budding writer................
she had penned two books during LWW-“The Snow Stag,” and one is about an artic island, called “The Pillow of Secrets,”
and georgie is so thoughtful that she donated the money to charity-she gave it to WWF-wildlife fund..........
That's wild... she's only like 12 right? I wish I had accomplished as much as her at that age. They clearly did a great job of casting that role, if she does that much good in real life and her character in the films are known for generosity and innocence.
Saw a screening of this last night. Really good movie! It was a lot of fun to watch and the action and battle scenes in this one are pretty epic. I don't want to give to much away but the camera work, Audio, and CGI are all really impressive. And of course the audience loved Reepicheep, he had some great lines.
Gender: Male Location: United States, Wellfleet MA
Jadis The White Witch does not return in the book or the movie ! Before the Werewolf, Hag and Narabrik try too bring her back they are stopped before they can complete the ritual.
Saw it on Saturday. Very good movie, better than the first. It was ALL good until they laid the religious undertone on you rather heavy. I just brushed it aside, but I really wished they'd stay away from that .
__________________ "I feel lethal, on the verge of frenzy."
Gender: Male Location: Following the Source of Light.
That was the mistake that was made with the Golden Compass. By watering down the atheist undertones, they eviscerated the story and it came out flat. The same would have been true of Caspian if they had left out the more divine aspects of Aslan. The book, after all, was overtly religious.
I watched this movie last night with my workout buddy.
I actually laughed out loud at the "Jesus allegories" that abounded in the film.
"Everyone thinks that he should prove himself to us but the whole time, they should have been proving themselves to him"...or something like that....
And then the whole Jesus in the form of the water..
Aslon controls the elements like Moses/Jesus...then the comment Aslon made to the little girl in the woods about her continuting to believe even though no one else did...etc.
This movie was more Jesus'd than the last one...
I give the movie a 6.8 out of 10.
Jesus.
Edit-Before someone says it...I know it was based strongly on the book from C.S. Lewis, a profilic Christian writer...get off meh.
Gender: Male Location: Following the Source of Light.
We're in agreement there. Aslan didn't really come off as divine in the first movie. The opposite is true in Caspian, however that fact didn't really weaken the story, though, IMO. Golden Compass was dealt a much more serious blow by watering down the "God is dead" philosophy upon which the story was rooted.
__________________
Still fighting,
Acrosurge
Last edited by Acrosurge on May 23rd, 2008 at 07:10 PM
I went to see this movie today. I left the theater thoroughly entertained. I am quite surprised how much i enjoyed the movie and to how well made it is. It was quite violent and intense for a family movie, but never overwhelmingly so...,just enough to highlight the gravity of the situations and the tribulations of the characters growth. I think the only problem with the movie is the lack of character development. Prince Caspian's character could have used a bit more explanation in showing why he was, suddenly so willing to devote his life to unifying the Narnians and humans, Narnians he never knew existed. I also think it would have been beneficial if they would have focused a scene or two on the childrens previous rull as kings and queens in Narnia. It would have helped highlight why they were so willing to die to help the Narnians.
These are things which are easily overlooked with a bit of personal deliberation and imagination. I think the cast was near perfect, once again. These kids are better than the Potter bunch when it comes to acting ability. I think the two playing Edmund and peter, specifically did a great job with their roles. I was able to forget that Peter and edmund are merely young teenagers a few times. The action was also beautifully shot. Again, i appreciated the risks they took with all the suggested violence. Although, they couldn't show decapitations or soldiers having their throats being slit...,it happens all through out the movie. This may seem like me screaming for blood, but i think it was a brilliant decision. It really helped to show that these children are not children that they were once full grown adult kings and queens who rulled a great kingdom.
I think, if there is once problem this movie will have it will be the Religious overtones. Now, personally, i believe that if the books have religious overtones, they should be incorporated into the movie. In the first movie, i remember so many people talking about how much it was riddled with Christian metaphors. Having read the first two books, i knew these metaphors and inspirations were there, but i didnt see them in the first movie. In this movie, however, i knew they would be more rampant, and im surprised one of the cast members didn't slip up and refer to asland as Christ a few times. Asland being more like Christ like did kind of hasten the ending, but again, It was much like the book and these religious metaphors are only religious if you want them to be. There is a very good message in the movie and a few good messages that didn't make it in the film, or at least weren't focused on. I would highly recommend this movie to fans of fantasy. If you liked the first movie, there is no reason why you will not like this one.
__________________ "If you tell the truth, you never have to remember anything" -Twain
(sig by Scythe)
I went to see Prince Caspian yesterday and here are my thoughts[spoiler warning]:
-The movie was beyond PG IMO. Is that a problem to me? No, not really. I actually liked that this movie was more mature then the previous one. However this maturity should have given the movie a PG-13. I believe I heard that it was kept PG because there was no 300-esque bloodbath sequences, but the truth is, even though there's no blood, the violence is more intense in this compared to the first. Take for example the Minotaur being crushed by the gate after being shot at repeatedly with arrows, or even the thrilling battle of Peter and Miraz. That's some scary crap for a seven yr. old that was taken by an unknowing mother thinking this movie was going to be as "candy and icecream" as the first. I'll also briefly mention another problem that comes up when taking a youngster to this: Susan's...erm...assets. In the scene where everyone's sleeping on the grass you see Anna's cleavage quite a bit, and in one shot that lasts about ten seconds they fill up at least 1/3 of the screen. I realize that they aren't popping out like in a Pg-13 movie, however I don't think momma wants little jimmy exposed at that age.
-Another thing I didn't really care for was Peter's prickishness. I mean it's been awhile since I read the book, but I don't quite remember him being that way.
-And speaking of having not read the book in awhile, I felt it a little hard [only a little] to keep my facts straight about what was going on. A lot was changed from the book, and that's not a problem, It's just that IMO this movie is harder to grasp by non-readers, which is bad if you want to make good earnings at the box office.
-Maybe I'm just weird, but I personally felt that, after being the title character, Prince Caspian was kind of downplayed in comparrison to the Pevensie's. It honestly felt like if Peter had just been wiser and less prickish [in other words a better leader] then Caspian would have been almost unnecessary [except of course for the part where he needs to blow the horn]. When he became king at the end I thought "Does he really deserve that?" Don't get me wrong Caspian has a few good scenes, I just feel like his character wasn't treated well by the script-writer or Adamson.
-My last two quips about the movie are the romance between Susan and Caspian, and the song at the end. The love thing wasn't necessary to begin with, and was completely underplayed [I mean if your going to use a side-plot, USE IT!]. The song at the end was neither good by itself nor was it good playing at the end of the film. It doesn't fit the tone of the movie, and it's just bad anyway.
Ok, so everything above is just negative, so your probably thinking "He didn't enjoy the movie". Tell you the truth in some ways I enjoyed it more than the first, and in others I didn't. I enjoyed the mature themes, Aslan [of course], the acting is good [however the script being acted out I'm not too keen of], and when it comes to special effects, this movie is definitely #1. The CGI doesn't look like CGI, and the job Weta did on the creatures is incredible, they are so lifelike! So all in all I'd have to give it an 8/10 for all of it's merits, and for the sheer fun I had watching it.
Note: Excuse me for the long post, but most movie reviews, good or bad, are notoriously long.
Off-topic Note: Due to reasons above I am actually glad Adamson is leaving the series, and we are getting a fresh face in the director's chair for Dawn Treader.
__________________ The dark Side is in me. What about you?
I agree that the movie may have warranted a pg-13 rating, but most of the violence is suggested and not shown which is how i think they landed a pg rating. Either way, i dont think there is anything wrong with the rating or violence. It is no more violent than the potter movies and not much more violent than the end of the first narnia movie. These children are portraying adults whom were once adult kings and queens. They would be more prone to taking a life in battle and not thinking twice about it.
As for peter being prickish, i thought that at first, but then i realized that he was just being a leader. He was very decisive and quick to take the initiative. The entire siege on the castle should have worked had Caspien not been side tracked. I also thought that it played out well for the ending. When he was told that he would not be coming back because he learned all that he could from Narnia, it was like Asland telling him that he was not worthy, because he lacked the most important thing...,faith. You dont think the friction between the two leaders of Caspien and Peter played out well? I think if Caspiens character had been given more time to develop some kind of sentiment with the Narnians his presence would fell much more necessary.
I agree that the love thing seemed out of place, but, other than a few lustfull glances and a kiss at the end, it never became a point of focus which i appreciated. This Narnia was about faith and confrontation, a tired love story would have just dragged it down.
__________________ "If you tell the truth, you never have to remember anything" -Twain
(sig by Scythe)
Last edited by jinXed by JaNx on May 27th, 2008 at 06:50 AM
^ I did actually think the Peter-Caspian thing played out well. It just felt like Caspian was a third wheel, and if they had spent more time developing the Caspian-Narnians relationship [like you said], and brought the Pevensies in later, then Caspian would have seemed like a more substantial character.
__________________ The dark Side is in me. What about you?
It'd been awhile since I'd read the book as well and since I went with people who hadn't read the book I had to keep my mouth shut about certain things that confused me!
Spoilers!!!
I was disappointed that they couldn't make a movie without romance... The whole time watching the movie I was all Peter was never this competive with Caspian as far as I can remember! As for those who didn't like the undertones of christianity in it, it's meant to be that way if they cut it all out it wouldn't BE Narnia.
I didn't feel as though the Romance was ever a part of the film. I think it was handled appropriately. There was hardly any dialogue devoted to it. However, it makes little sense that Susan would be interested in Capsian, She is by all means an adult. I agree that they should downplay the religious metaphors and inspirations of the movie, because they are an integral part of the books. Most reviews i have read though, applaud the movie for not being as religious as the original movie. When i first saw the original, i saw little that would suggest any kind of religious influences. Caspian, however, i thought had a heavy christian overtone. It didn't hurt the movie at all, but Asland was a bit all to powerful. It works in the books to have Asland to be Christ, but in the movie it felt anti-climactic. When he gave the mouse back his tail, i almost lost it, had the rest of the movie not been well made and entertaining, it would have hurt the film for me.
__________________ "If you tell the truth, you never have to remember anything" -Twain
(sig by Scythe)
KMC Community Forums
May 8th, 2008 11:51 AM
