There's something a little off about these Narnia movies. Anyone who loved the books as a kid remembers how real Narnia seemed: It encompassed both the magical wonder of childhood and the frightening unknowns of the adult world. So why does the cinematic Narnia feel so flat and lifeless? Don't get me wrong, it's beautiful, filmed in Slovenia, where I suddenly have the urge to relocate. But between the uninspired child actors and the unrealistic-looking CG characters, the Narnia of Prince Caspian has little more weight than a cartoon. Our child heroes alternate giggling and furrowing their brows, without any sense that they're coming of age, or even that their actions have consequences. The formidable figure of Aslan the Lion has been reduced to an affable animal pal, like Mickey Mouse with a propensity for self-sacrifice.
In this second installment of The Chronicles of Narnia, the four Pevensie children are summoned back to their beloved magical land, only to find that hundreds of years have passed and their kingdom is in ruins. With the help of a reluctant dwarf, they learn that an evil (and inexplicably Hispanic) rival nation has conquered Narnia, forcing dwarves, talking animals, and all other mythical creatures into exile. It's up to the children, and a displaced prince, to reclaim the kingdom.
Aside from filming in Slovenia, the film's creators have made two very smart decisions: the casting of Peter Dinklage as sarcastic dwarf Trumpkin and Eddie Izzard as the voice of swashbuckling mouse Reepicheep. But those same creators added an extraneous love story (which turns a competent female character into a damsel-in-distress) and several excrutiatingly drawn-out battle sequences. The result is a film that wants to be all things to all viewers, at the expense of its rich source material.
-- Gwynne Watkins
