The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian

I remember exactly the first time I ever read C. S. Lewis' fourth installment of the Narnia chronicles: I was off to spend a long weekend with the family in Tanay, Rizal, a place, although quiant, did, at the time, only had electricity and basic indoor plumbing to add to its (extremely short) list of luxuries.

The place did have, however, a hammock slung between two trees of star apples.  And I remember spending most of my time on there, reading (as much as the light and the mosquitoes allowed me to).  In a peculiar kind of way it took me way too long to finish the book, and even more peculiar, I'd forgotten many details of the story.  Don't get me wrong, I remembered how it went (with the whole series, it was impossible not to) but I've forgotten the specific details of who said which at which point in the story.  

A couple of weeks ago I finally saw the film and just remembered thinking afterwards, "what a (f*cking) wonderful way to get reacquainted with the world of Narnia, this movie".  It really was beautifully made.  And now just having finished re-reading the material (it only took a little more than a day this time, haha), I appreciate it more, all the effort and the gentle attention paid even to the most miniscule of details.

Very quickly the movie reels you in; starting off with an adrenaline-releasing sequence wherein the title lead, played by Ben Barnes, is seen galloping through breathtaking sceneries only partially hidden by the dark.  And unlike most movies that opted for the same action-packed opening sequence, this one doesn't just leave you hanging.  Even better, it does not leave you crashing either.  Artfully made, the scenes just blend into one another, making for a better landing.

And I'd have to give props to the casting directors on this one.  Did s/he know that there would be a sequel?  If s/he did, did /she somehow know that they'd all grow up like this?  They fit into the roles then, but now it seemed as though they grew (more) into it, if that even makes sense.  For child-actors, basically unknowns really, they're quite exquisite at delivering each line with staggering sincerity.

Someone please tell me how they prepared for this movie because on the book, Lewis stated something about the Pevensie children slowly transforming into their royal selves the longer they stayed in Narnia.  With these four, you could literally feel the change.  I especially loved the scene when they first saw their gifts again.  Once they were garb, holding up the bow and arrow, the cordial and the sword and the shield, there really WAS no doubt that the Kings and Queens of the Golden Age of Narnia were back.

Writers Adrew Adamson, Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely fleshed out the characters through pure but credible internal conflict.  With these they particularly gave more attention to Peter and Susan (was it because of very talented agents or because they won't be in any subsequent films? hmm).

Peter didn't pick fights in the book; if anything it was Edmund who was the restless one, being very much vocal on his wanting to back to Narnia.  William Moseley's Peter had a lot of issues though: here he was in England, bored of his life and infinitely annoyed at the people he's associating with.  They didn't give him the respect he needed, him Peter the Magnificent, High King of Narnia.  And once he's back in Narnia, he is quickly consumed by his ego (he IS High King, after all) and it eats him up inside that he's not really that much help.  He knew that he was brought back for a reason and believed that he alone can come up with the solution.  His faith in Aslan (which was so strong before) was sacrificed for his pride.  

Is that teenage angst right there or what?

With Anna Popplewell's Susan the Valiant, they took liberties.  Way too much, if you ask me.  First off they created this romantic angle between her and Caspian.  I do not agree with this, chiefly because I think Lucy would've fared well better with him on the next book.  Secondly (and I agree on this one) they made Susan more involved in the war.  Given the period the book was written and set in, it was justifiable to keep the girls with Aslan and away from danger.  Women's rights and all that, you know?  Acting-wise I can say nothing bad about the performance.  She's given so many layers to Susan, even hinting at the seeds of haughtiness that will bring forth the character's downfall in the succeeding books.

Skandar Keynes as Edmund was probably my favorite, because he literally looks like he was still licking his wounds from his encounter with Jadis.  He hardly had any lines and it was ridiculous how much he conveyed through his eyes alone.  Here was a little brother who, although scared, was very much willing to help even though his older brother was being a prick and pushes him aside.  The ideal prodigal son, full-on repentance mode.

Georgie Henley reprises her role as Lucy and holy mother of pearl, I honestly didn't recognize her; she's grown so much!  I'll admit it, when the first film came out I didn't think that she was the prettiest actor out there but, wow, now she's really adorable!  It's always amazed me to see her eyes light up when she sees Aslan, almost inspiring, really.  She's held her own in this movie and I find myself looking forward to her future projects.

What probably shocked me the most in this movie were the Telmarine's accents.  Good God, never did I think that Caspian et al had accents.  In retrospect, it made sense since the Telmarines descended from pirates, after all.

Ben Barne's Prince Caspian was believable although for some reason I cannot  take him seriously after that "five more minutes" line said in the ridiculous accent.  It set the feel for the movie I suppose.  I liked that whole ego battle thing he had with Peter in the movie; it certainly wasn't in the book.  Although now, after seeing it fleshed out on screen, I can't imagine it not happening.  C. S. Lewis clearly meant this series to be all about faith and good messages, but really, he had two kings of Narnia at the same time in one place.  How could there be no conflict?

Sergi Castellito played King Miraz extremely well, in my opinion.  He was deliciously evil in it, clearly reveling in the bad-ass-ness of it all.  And let's not forget, he was the only one who truly pulled off the accent.  Also he reminds me of Snape for some reason.

It's not fair to compare a book to its movie adaptation, I know.  But in this particular case the two can be transposed for one another.  They tweaked around with the material a lot, switching character lines and everything but all in all it stayed true to the message and general feel of the story.  Whatever they added (the failed siege of Miraz’s castle, Jadis' cameo and the whole kissing event) and omitted (the Battle of Beruna, the whole Bacchus escapade and about all of Aslan's scenes) didn't hurt the film at all.

Rating: 9/10.  Because Tilda Swinton made an appearance!

PS: When I saw this film I totally wasn't on the look out for incestuous undertones, believe it or not.  But gah, if they truly were the only humans around how did they...?  Okay, never mind.  I totally blame SandraE for this.

PPS: The whole flashlight thing was actually in the book, only there it was called an 'electric lamp'.  I know; that blew me away too.

http://api.ning.com/files/XumM*9LnVXu19B*CMzXYOOXHV62fzHMLtHG22RvpzQpyOj3ZtD3pZhLCSaZqd69v8maS*4BCnYFc4t8TQTu0hgTnbvYO1kPs/TwilightMoviePoster.jpg

i'm a person whose wiring prevents her from going against the norm; if i see something become ridiculously popular i'm immediately wary of it, setting ridiculous standards for that "it" thing to pass.  

i know that it's not a healthy way to go about things but it really is worth it most of the time.  if that particular thing does pass said standards then i'm a pleasantly surprised happy camper (hey, that's what happened in lord of the rings trilogy).  

if people expect me to like something, chances are i'd end up hating it.  and vice versa.  if people expect me to hate something i'd usually end up liking it, with the lowered standards and all, i once again end up a pleasantly surprised happy camper that the thing didn't suck as much.  

either way i end up a happy camper when things don't go the way as planned.

that said, watching catherine hardwicke's 'twilight' had been a weird experience for me.  a couple of friends who've already seen the movie ahead of me texted, swearing to God that i'd probably end up hating it when and if i do decide to see it.  and with those harmless little words, my mind had been set to like it.  hell, by the time the house lights in the theater dimmed down, i felt that familiar rush of nervousness come in waves.

kristen stewart, who played the heroine, was perfect.  she looked the part and actually gave some level of depth to the book's two-dimensional character.  the film makers wisely left out that whole clumsiness trait, but even without the canonical flaw, stewart's bella oddly still felt human.  

robert pattinson's played edward cullen.  well, my biggest peeve was the fact that the twihards all started shrieking the moment he entered the frame.  sure, it's not his fault but gah.  okay, i get it; he's edward in the flesh, but geebus.  get a grip.  

i once read somewhere that pattinson actually had difficulty in playing this particular character, because the books lacked detail as to who exactly edward cullen was.  sure, he's gorgeous, but what else is there?  i think this particular bump showed on screen.  most of the time he looked awkward, especially when he's around bella.  i'm sure he meant to be some sort of brooding, emotionally tortured vampire, but it just came off wrong.  or maybe i was just distracted by the weird make up.  props for making the earnestness believable though, that's a hard trick to pull off.

all in all the movie gave me a feeling of disjointedness, which i found shocking.  really, one would think that a simple, direct to the point story such as twilight would've been easy enough to translate on film.  i mean, it really didn't have that much complications to work around with, i sort of expected a smoother ride. 

really, though, they only had to play up the two characters' chemistry on screen and they'd have had it made.  and clearly, pattinson and stewart have chemistry.  

strangely enough, though, when the characters were indeed speaking with each other, the said chemistry disappears.  i personally blame the dialogue; it was broken and fragmented, leaving a lot of people (who haven't read the book) go "??? what the eff are they going on about?" in the wake.  there are a lot of cheesy lines in the book, i admit, and i pity the person who holds the job of sifting through that mush pile, but really, s/he could've done a much better job.  the garble that ended up on the film made it seem like s/he just picked out all the cheesy lines and threw them inside a fish bowl and picked them out at random.

the action scenes were sort of cheesy, but hey, at least there were action scenes.  i know it's not right to compare a movie to the boook, but come on.  having BOOK!bella sleep through most of the action just seems a tad lazy to me.  

i do, however, appreciate the film makers' effort into trying to make a coherent plot out of the pathetic one they had in the book, by making it seem that the nomads were baddies who were really out for blood (and not just bella's).  also, i happen to like charlie's mustache.  he just seems more solid, both as a father and as a chief of police, with that thing on his face.  

the editing was great, they cut out all the unneeded mush and just relied on the actor's capability to relay the emotions with their facial expressions in the many montages.  and thank GOD that the whole scene with the heart monitor was scrapped; it saved me from unnecessary eye strain from too much rolling of my eyes.  unfortunately they also scraped much of the other vampires' back stories, which i found to be unfortunate, as a little background would've answered a lot of questions.  

the tight shots were effective though.  by focusing on two beautiful people's faces a lot, you somehow manage to sit through lines like "you are my life now" and "you're my own personal brand of heroine" unscathed.  

it took me a while to write this, because it takes me a while to digest emotions.  yeah, it'd been somewhat of a roller coaster ride for me because i was torn between just following that weird wiring and actually trying to make sense of what i saw.  i could've just liked it for what it was (and because people sort of expected me to hate it) but i couldn't.  

if you're going to see this movie though, do try to stay away from the pack of giggling girls in the theater; they'll surely be bound to be a cause of distraction at some point.

rating: 6.0/10 because it lacked SPARKLE!