I find movie adaptations of books I like to be very difficult to judge objectively. On the one hand, the test of a movie is how well it entertains: plot holes, poor acting, bad photography and other movie blemishes all contribute to this, as does plot. But when a movie claims to be the visual retelling of a novel, then I can't help but ask how faithful it is to that novel. An otherwise excellent movie can be frustrating if it bears little resemblance to the book it claims to represent.

The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian is a very good movie, but a terrible book adaptation. The similarities between the book and the movie appear to be almost entirely character and location names. Well... I suppose that's a slight exaggeration, but not too much. I could almost fairly say the book and movie plots share only coincidental similarities.

I understand Disney can only be expected to do so well on a book adaptation, but there were some significant plot deviations that caught my attention:

Most prominently, Aslan himself does not come to Narnia's aid until Lucy "proves herself to him." Rather than meeting the children in the woods at the River Rush, he waits until Lucy leaves the battle at Aslan's How and goes in search of him in the woods. This is not a trivial plot deviation: Peter tries to command Caspian's army entirely on his own, as he hadn't seen Aslan to that point. Trumpkin doesn't meet Aslan until after the battle at Beruna; and Bacchus never shows up at all. Aslan's freeing of Narnia with Lucy and Susan while Peter and Edmund fight Miraz is completely omitted: in the movie, Susan stays with Peter and Edmund through the battle, while Lucy goes into the woods to find Aslan.

Another significant change is Trumpkin's arrival at Cair Paravel. In the movie, Trumpkin is captured by Telmarines pursuing Caspian on his flight to the forest. So rather than Trumpkin choosing to follow Caspian's orders although he disagrees them, the movie shows Trumpkin not actually meeting Caspian until he arrives with the Pevensies.

Caspian himself is a bit of a wimp, not merely the naive Caspian of the novel, but a weak character who attempts to rally the Narnians to reclaim his throne from Miraz and vies against Peter for command: far from the idealistic Caspian of the novel, the character in the movie is really more motivated by self-interest than a love for the Narnians. I think it significant that in the movie, Peter and Caspian both meet the White Witch in Aslan's How, and both consider her offer of help until Edmund steps in to save the day. In the book, of course, Caspian helps Peter and Edmund destroy the werewolf and the hag before they succeed in raising the Witch.

Dr. Cornelius is generally ignored in the film, except for a weak supporting role. While Dr. Cornelius is not completely overlooked, his substantial role in the novel is reduced to some brief allusions in the movie.

Bacchus is omitted entirely, and Gwendolyn not even mentioned (how could they leave out Gwendolyn?). The river god is seen at the bridge at Beruna, but that sequence is significantly altered from the book: in the movie, Peter, Edmund, Caspian, and the whole Narnian army watch the river god destroy Lord Sopespian.

And then, in addition to all the omissions, the screenwriters made some interesting additions: in the movie, Miraz is declared king after Caspian flees the castle; Peter leads a botched commando raid on Miraz' castle and then flees, deserting several Narnians at the porticulus.

I personally thought they'd have had a better movie if they had cut the additions and kept their omissions.


But aside from its complete failure as a book adaptation, Prince Caspian is actually a good film. A very good film. In fact, if entertainment is the only real test of a movie, this is one of the best movies I've ever seen. The main actors all do quite well, the photography and cinematography are very good, and I found it held my entire attention throughout. I couldn't believe my eyes when I looked at the clock afterwards: this movie really feels much shorter than it is.

The movie was violent in that there are a lot of battle scenes. But there is little or no gore. I took my 6-year-old, and she had to hide her eyes at the hag and werewolf, but did fine the rest of the movie. My kids all loved it.


I highly recommend this movie as an enjoyable afternoon, but if you haven't read the book, you might want to wait until after you've seen the film. Honestly, knowing the story before you see the movie is probably a detriment in this case.


Recommended: Yes

Movie Mood: Family Movie
Film Completeness: Looked complete to me.
Worst Part of this Film: Script