In case you're not paying attention, this is the second book/movie in the "Narnia" series, better known for its first book, The Lion, The Witch, And The Wardrobe. Around 1989, some of the books were made into a TV series by the BBC, but this incarnation of the stories was generally terrible, mainly because the technology and budget at hand were comparable to those old episodes of Dr. Who, and the acting was even worse. (A similar fate befell the first screen incarnation of HHGTTG.) I liked those British TV movies because I had to, although at the time I would openly admit they were disappointing and never desired to see them a second time. When I learned a new series of Narnia movies was being released, I was curious because it would be nice to see a realization of the movies having a budget. However, I haven't seen the first movie, so I'm going into this blind. Coincidentally, Prince Caspian was also the book I read first.

I decided to read the book again the night before seeing the movie so that it would be fresh since it's the only book in the series I hadn't read since the 4th grade. Yes, I know this is setting myself up for disappointment. Although I expected there to be the usual gross alterations that movies always make from the books they're based upon, I was pleasantly surprised when the first Harry Potter movie very closely matched the book, so I wanted to be able to recognize whether they went that route or not.

The presentation of the movie was generally pretty close, but they made some really weird decisions that effectively nullify the relevance of this movie and deem it an amateur effort at best. I shall explain: Of course, they changed the demeanors of some characters. They added some scenes that weren't in the book. They changed the order of events in the book. All of this was to be expected. Since the scenes were way out of order, I just accepted the alterations without extra thought. But as the movie progressed, I realized that, although they're out of order, almost every single scene from the book was included. This was not expected. At face, you'd think this to be great news, but the weirdness begins here. The problem is that, although they included every scene, they omitted all of the characters' dialogue. In the book, over half of the story is told through the spoken and unspoken thoughts of the main characters. So it doesn't make sense that they bothered to follow the book as much as they did yet simulatenously omitted most of the story. It's as if the person tasked with creating the script for the movie transcribed word-for-word every line of the book into the script, except for all the description that wouldn't be made literally visible or audible to the senses within each scene. With the story removed, this movie suffers from severe brain damage.

I can cite many examples of this:

• In the movie: Some guy with a beard shoves something into Caspian's hands just before he flees for his life. He says something about it being the most valuable object in the world, but... what is it? We're allowed a momentary glimpse of what might be a brown paper bag. Maybe it's the most delicious sandwich in the world?
• In the movie: Some bad guys chase Prince Caspian into the woods, but then voluntarily break off their pursuit for no apparent reason.
• In the movie: Caspian spontaneously blows a horn for no apparent reason, which maybe starts a magical sequence of events. Oh wait, is the horn the thing that the "Professor" shoved in his hands earlier? Or do I know this only because I read the God-damned book?
• In the movie: The protagonists wander into some mysterious ruins, and spontaneously break into an underground cache where they gawk in silence at finding some special equipment. Like a scene from The Goonies, there is something wondrous about about finding this treasure room. But they seem to know what they're doing there with silent, zombie-like purpose, yet no explanation is given. Presumably, the first movie makes you familiar with what they find here. But in all, this scene doesn't stand on its own and is therefore broken.
• In the movie: After the protagonists save the life of a dwarf, he refers to them as ghosts for no apparent reason.
• In the movie: Immediately after meeting each other, Edmund and the dwarf start fighting for no apparent reason.
• In the movie: The dwarf stabs a dead bear for no apparent reason.
• In the movie: Caspian meets a talking mouse and a centaur purely by accident, for no apparent reason.
• In the movie: Lucy wanders into a glade of "tree people", who make faces at her. Or something. For no apparent reason. Then she talks to the lion, Aslan, but then she wakes up since that part was just a dream for no apparent reason.
• In the movie: Immediately after meeting each other, Peter and Caspian start fighting for no apparent reason.
• In the movie: The protagonists arrive at an underground fortress that's presented with unwarranted nobility and splendor. And nobody ever verbally recognizes the place as anything in particular.
• In the movie: The protagonists somehow know that they can send Lucy to find the lion Aslan in the forest, and that by doing so, he'll awaken the Walking Trees, which will save the day! Oh wait, they don't actually reveal to the audience what their plan is while Lucy's desperately riding through the forest. Could this be because it makes no fucking sense?
• In the movie: As the bad guys are retreating across a bridge, a giant, magical being made of water suddenly emerges from the river for no apparent reason and dramatically washes away the bridge and everyone. Oh wait, it's 'cause the lion Aslan roared really loud. Yeah, go with that.
• In the movie: The lion Aslan "breathes" at someone, and this means... something?
• In the movie: Whatever, you'll pay to go see it, fuck you.

Why would they do this? Why would they make the "whole" movie, yet leave out all the words, the intention, the reasons? In the book the characters act like human beings with real emotions, but in the strangely silent movie everyone stumbles along without any thought or purpose. The actors themselves seem to be lost at what their characters are supposed to be (just like poor Bob Hoskins in the Super Mario Bros movie). Were they afraid that all that internal dialogue would make the movie unintentionally reminiscent of Hollywood's favorite shame, Dune? It's impossible for me to know what watching the movie is like without already knowing the story, but it's hard to believe at least some of these questions wouldn't come up in the viewer's mind. Well, I guess it's pretty common nowadays for you to simply accept whatever stupid shit happens in movies without question. So you might just have to decide for yourself that you do care when I say that yes, there are reasons and explanations for all of the things listed above, but they were mysteriously omitted from the movie. Even though this is a kids' story, I guess Disney Corp. decided you just can't fucking handle it.

I'd like to take a moment to make fun of the rapid-fire trebuchets by making a reference to Hawk the Slayer... anyone?

Anyway, the characters also mess up their lines frequently when they do speak.

• In the movie: The dwarf can't decide whether he does or doesn't know about the ancient times.
• In the movie: Lucy spoils the "DLF" joke.
• In the movie: Aslan fails to challenge nor admonish Lucy and Susan for their lack of faith. Wasn't this pretty much one of the major themes of this story? I guess we don't need to know about that.
• In the movie: Caspian whines about avenging his father or something, then doesn't actually follow through when he's given the opportunity. This distracts the audience from the real point of the scene, which is that the bad guy gets back-stabbed by one of his own supporters.
• In the movie: When Reepicheep (the talking mouse) loses his tail, he mentions something about his honor but fails to explain that little people need to protect their honor more than others. This is the most charming moment of his dialogue, so why'd they cut it out?
• In the movie: Aslan explains how Caspian is ready to be king instead of how he's not necessarily un-ready. Even this subtle change has unsettling implications.

Perplexing! In fact, the only character who does get his lines right is the creepy Were-wolf, but he's only on the screen for about 1 minute.

Other changes to characters:

• In the movie: Prince Caspian is about 21, has a fake accent, and acts like a confrontational badass. Oh yeah, and he grows some kind of obsession with avenging his father, prepare to die, yadda yadda. In the book: Prince Caspian is about 14, is willing to lead his subjects in battle, but openly doesn't really know what he's doing since he's never been allowed outside before. This change is to be expected because America requires its action heroes be tough assholes in order to be cool. Also, in the movie, Caspian is uncertain of his identity, but in the book, he easily abandons his heritage in favor of living amongst the magical creatures. I guess this change is supposed to make him feel closer to you, the audience, but it's pretty fake.
• In the movie: Peter is a dick. Peter and Caspian are dicks to each other repeatedly for no apparent reason. I guess I'm supposed to automatically assume they have "issues" with their parents or something just because they're teenagers, and of course it's natural for them to take out these frustrations on each other (not). In the book: Peter is responsible as the eldest and always does what's right and is automatically friends with Caspian.
• In the movie: Susan acts like a badass and makes out with Prince Caspian. In the book: Susan is basically a snotty bitch who doesn't do anything important. This change is excusable because the actress playing Susan won't be in the subsequent movies, so this is her last chance to be the it-girl.
• In the movie: The dwarf acts like a badass. In fact, I don't think his sissy name, Trumpkin, is ever spoken.
• In the movie: Everyone acts like a badass. Instead of just simply being themselves, that is.
• In the movie: Minotaurs and griffins fight on Caspian's side. 'Cause, yaknow, a bunch of fauns and talking animals are just too cutesy to comprise an army by themselves.

Well, I have a couple theories to explain this movie. One is that a score of directors and producers acted as "too many cooks" that "spoiled the soup". How else could the direction of a movie have such a multiple-personality disorder?

But I have a better theory: Just before the end of the movie, the most annoying music imaginable starts playing. A girl singing a slow, whiney song. Ding! Of course! This whole movie was supposed to be "for girls"! This completely explains a lot of the pointless little changes that were made:

• Upon their arrival, Lucy illuminates the situation instead of Peter explaining it.
• When saving the dwarf's life, Susan kills one of the guards instead of just scaring them away.
• Lucy makes up a disparaging nickname for the dwarf spontaneously instead of Edmund doing so sarcastically.
• Susan is the one that kills a bear instead of being rescued from the bear herself.
• Lucy doesn't cry when nobody believes her.
• Susan never has a problem believing in Aslan.
• Compared to their personalities in the book, Peter and Edmund and Caspian are relatively stupid brutes who constantly need to be saved by smart girls.
• Lucy helps fight Willow Nikabrik to the death instead of staying well out of harm's way.
• Susan is cold and assertive instead of grumpy and annoying.

All of this indicates Disney Corp's obession in recent years with "empowering little girls". Which is fine in principle, but couldn't they have done it without ruining a good movie in the process?

One more thought: I suppose the story has religious undertones, and we can't have that. Oh well, just read the book if you want the story without all the brain damage. (It's short enough to read in a couple hours.)