Prince Caspian

[Alex]

While I overall liked it, I can understand why those who don't feel that way.

The San Francisco Chronicle's Mick LaSalle is one of those and he essentially fails the movie on the basis of the what I listed as the biggest flaw in the movie. For me, it still succeeds as candy but I agree that any deep narrative heft has been stripped out.

[Nephythys]

Originally Posted by Gemini Cricket

I didn't read any of the books past the first one. So, I don't know where the story goes from there...

ah- but did you read Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe or the Magician's Nephew (which is actually the first book in the series)

[Gemini Cricket]

Originally Posted by Nephythys

ah- but did you read Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe or the Magician's Nephew (which is actually the first book in the series)

Didn't know that. Oops. Uh, I guess I read The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe first then. I think my fascination about it was due to seeing the animated film of TLTWATW. (I was obsessed with witches and wizards when I was a kid.)

Neph- did you read them all? I guess Caspian is one of the darker books?

[Alex]

Not that this is a new argument but I don't buy The Magician's Nephew as the "first" book in the series. Yes, in terms of the chronology described the events take place before The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe but the book was written five years later, with full knowledge of what had been written as happening after the events of that book.

So, in that debate I'm firmly on the side that they should be read in published order (or at least with The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe first) as opposed to chronological order.

I'd also say that is true of almost anything where a prequel was later created.

[Strangler Lewis]

I read them in that order--as an adult-- and I think they're about as subtle and magical as a prep school paddling. However, my daughter has read and reread them all, so we'll be going.

[cirquelover]

Originally Posted by Alex

While I overall liked it, I can understand why those who don't feel that way.

The San Francisco Chronicle's Mick LaSalle is one of those and he essentially fails the movie on the basis of the what I listed as the biggest flaw in the movie. For me, it still succeeds as candy but I agree that any deep narrative heft has been stripped out.

What happened to the indepth Alex review, did I miss it somewhere?

You are usually the first one I turn to now for new movie reviews. I know, sad isn't it ;-)

So is it worth it, especially for an 11 year old boy who loved Lion, witch and the wardrobe?

[Moonliner]

Originally Posted by cirquelover

What happened to the indepth Alex review

He stuck in over here.

[BarTopDancer]

I just want to know if Aslan (or any animal that we get attached to) dies.

[Kevy Baby]

Originally Posted by BarTopDancer

I just want to know if Aslan (or any animal that we get attached to) dies.

All animals die.

Eventually

[Alex]

GC has linked to my review at MousePlanet so I didn't.

Originally Posted by BarTopDancer

I just want to know if Aslan (or any animal that we get attached to) dies.

Spoiler:

Aslan is never in any risk of harm. Jesus was resurrected in the first movie.

None of the main animal characters dies but this is a war movie where one of the armies is comprised of animals and mythical creatures and many of them do die, a few quite prominently.