Synopsis: "The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian" was the second book published of the seven books in the series. It is numbered Book 4 in recent editions because it is the fourth chronologically. It takes place about 1,300 years after the events of "The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe," which was the first published book (second in order chronologically--only "The Magician's Nephew" takes place earlier.) In London, only one year passes between the events of "The Lion" and "Prince Caspian," MORE AT: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0499448/synopsis
Ebert & Roeper: N/A (Due out on Tuesday, May 20, 2008) http://kplusb.org/ebertroeper/
Fandango: 4 Oh No, 5 No, 14 So-So, 44 Go, 93 Must Go
Rotten Tomatoes: T-Meter: 68% (Fresh), Top Critics: 66% (Fresh), RT Community: 74% (Fresh)
Yahoo Movies: Critic: B- Users: A-
My Review: The real question here is dose it hold true to the book and convey the message that C.S.Lewis was trying to say in his writings. I going to say yes, but I also believe that it is more than just a yes. There are add scene from the book, some would say that this is rapping the books material. I would disagree, that’s how C.S.Lewis wanted; he was very vague in his writings leaving the hairy detail to the reader’s imagination. In this the case, the imaginations at stake is Andrew Adamson, Christopher Markus, and Stephen McFeely. There job it to create an adaption witch closely resembles what the fans remember from the book, in my opinion they achieved this beautifully. I also believe that the add scenes are not only the imagination of the production team, but a symbolic way to show what the characters are going through at that particular time in the film. This is one of the many ways to express what is going on inside of a characters head. The other issue that rises from people when talking about the Narnia films is it comparison to The Lord of the Rings trilogy. The Lord of the Rings trilogy can’t be properly compared to the Narnia films because it is like comparing apples and oranges. They are both fruits likewise both movies are fantasy that take place in far way [make believe] lands. Lord of the Rings is more of a young adult to adult movie with a thick and complex storyline while Narnia is for children and per-teens with a simple shiny storyline that gives hope to the audience. Both films are meant to have Christian undertones because both men who wrote the stories were Christian .I might add that Lewis and Tolkien were great friends and colleagues, so their ideals are on the same page. Lord of the Ring may have its glory with its twelve odd some Academy Awards but Narnia holds deeply in the harts of fans. Personally, Narnia draws me closer to my faith then Lord of the Rings, therefore I would chose Narnia over Lord of the Rings, even thought Lord of the Ring would be place in my top ten movies of all time were as Narnia just miss the mark. So what do you choose a red shiny apple or a dull orange that has pouches of juice in the inside?