"THE CHRONICLES OF NARNIA: PRINCE CASPIAN" (2008) Review

 

"THE CHRONICLES OF NARNIA: PRINCE CASPIAN" (2008) Review

I must admit that it took me quite a while to write a review of the 2008 cinematic installment of "THE CHRONICLES OF NARNIA" saga. This second installment, "PRINCE CASPIAN", tells the story of four Pevensie children’s return to Narnia to aid Prince Caspian (Ben Barnes) in his struggle for the throne against his corrupt uncle King Miraz (Sergio Castellitto). I tried to think of something different about this chapter in compare to the first - "THE LION, THE WITCH AND THE WARDROBE". But it occurred to me that my reaction to this movie seemed more or less the same as the 2005 release.

And what does that say about my feelings about "PRINCE CASPIAN"? Honestly, I thought it was a solid and entertaining film that both children and adult fans of C.S. Lewis’ saga might enjoy. That is all I can really say. There was nothing really unique about it. Like many other adaptations of literary works, "PRINCE CASPIAN" did not faithfully follow its literary counterpart. Considering that I have never read any of Lewis’ works, I was not particularly disturbed by this. The only reason I am aware of any differences between the literary and cinematic versions, is the Internet.

Like the previous movie, the cast is pretty solid. The actors who portrayed the Pevensie children returned for this sequel. Due to the rapid aging of children in general, work on the script began before "THE LION, THE WITCH AND THE WARDROBE" was released, so filming could begin before the actors grew too old for their parts. William Moseley (Peter), Anna Popplewell (Susan), Skandar Keynes (Edmund) and Georgie Henley (Lucy) all gave solid, yet slightly uninspiring performances as the four siblings. Whereas Keynes got the chance to show Edmund at his peevish worst in the previous film, Moseley portrayed a slightly darker side of oldest brother Peter, whose dissatisfaction with being back in England had produced boorish personality. Perhaps I should rephrase that. Peter’s boorishness, which had been hinted through his handling of Edmund in the first film, was allowed to flourish in this film. It took a military failure against the main villain to give him a boot in the ass to improve his personality. On the other hand, Edmund seemed remarkably changed for the better in this film. One critic had described him as being the film’s "Han Solo". I would agree, except Edmund came off as more mature and intelligent than Han Solo. Anna Popplewell had convinced producer Douglas Gresham to allow Susan to appear in the movie’s major battles, because she feared the character came off as too passive in Lewis’ novel. Many fans of the novel were appalled by this. Not being a literary fan of the saga, it did not bother me at all. At least it gave her something to do. Of all the Pevensie siblings, Georgie Henley’s Lucy seemed to have changed the least. Although she seemed less tolerant of Peter’s boorishness than she was of Edmund’s darker side in the first film.

British actor Ben Barnes portrayed the title role of Prince Caspian of Telmarine with as much solid competence as the four actors who portrayed the Pevensies. Perhaps he seemed a little more competent than his younger co-stars in acting skills, but I could not sense anything remarkable about his performance. Portraying Caspian’s evil uncle and the Telmarine’s false ruler, King Miraz, was actor Sergio Castellitto. He made a very effective villain, but lacked Tilda Swanton’s memorable portrayal as the White Witch. Who, by the way, briefly returned to bring a much-needed spark in the middle of the story. If I must be honest, her brief appearance was probably the best scene in the film. But not even Swinton’s spectacular appearance could not overshadow what I feel was the best performance in the movie – namely that of Peter Dinklage as Trumpkin, a cynical red dwarf. I really enjoyed his sharp and caustic take on the dwarf, who is skeptic of the idea of Aslan and magic.

As much as I enjoyed "PRINCE CASPIAN", I must admit that I found it no more remarkable than the first film. Also, I found it difficult to maintain interest in the film’s first half, as it switched back and forth between Caspian’s flight from his murderous uncle and the Pevensies’ arrival in Narnia. Director Andrew Adamson seemed to lack George Lucas and Peter Jackson’s talent for seamless transition between multiple story lines within one film. But once the Pevensies and Caspian finally met, the movie seemed to discover its pace as it flowed toward the heroes’ ill-fated attempt to attack upon Miraz and the final showdown. There were two scenes that gave me a sense of déjà vu – namely the attacks of the trees and the river god upon the Telmarine army. It seemed as if either Adamson or Lewis had a Tolkien moment. The attack of the trees especially reminded me of the Ents’ attack upon Isengard in the 2002 movie, "LORD OF THE RINGS: THE TWO TOWERS".

"PRINCE CASPIAN" was not the greatest movie I had seen during the summer of 2008. Nor is there anything unique about it. But if one can overcome the fact that it is not an exact adaptation of C.S. Lewis’ novel, he or she might find the movie quite entertaining to watch. I heartily recommend it.

"OUR MUTUAL FRIEND" (1976) Photo Gallery

Below are images from "OUR MUTUAL FRIEND", the 1976 television adaptation of Charles Dickens' 1865 novel. Adapted by Julia Jones and Donald Churchill, the miniseries was directed by Peter Hammond:





"OUR MUTUAL FRIEND" (1976) Photo Gallery

Five Favorite Episodes of "STAR TREK VOYAGER" Season One (1995)

 

Below is a list of my five favorite episodes from Season One of "STAR TREK VOYAGER". Created by Rick Berman, Michael Piller and Jeri Taylor; the series starred Kate Mulgrew as Captain Kathryn Janeway:



FIVE FAVORITE EPISODES OF "STAR TREK VOYAGER" SEASON ONE (1995)



1. (1.11) "State of Flux" - Captain Kathryn Janeway and other senior members of Voyager's crew Janeway attempt to flush out a spy who is sending information to a group of aggressive Delta Quadrant species called the Kazon-Nistrim. Martha Hackett and Josh Clark guest-starred.






2. (1.14) "Faces" - When Lieutenant B'Elanna Torres, Lieutenant Tom Paris and Ensign Pete Durst are captured by Vidiians during an Away mission, Torres is split into her human and Klingon halves in order for her captors to use her DNA to find a cure for their species. Brian Markinson guest-starred.






3. (1.01-1.02) "Caretaker" - While searching for a Maquis ship with a Starfleet spy aboard in the series premiere, the U.S.S. Voyager is swept into the Delta Quadrant, more than 70,000 light-years from home, by an incredibly powerful being known as the "Caretaker". Gavan O'Herlihy and Basil Langston guest-starred.






4. (1.04) "Time and Again" - While investigating a planet just devastated by a polaric explosion, Janeway and Paris are engulfed by a subspace fracture and transported in time to before the accident. Nicolas Surovy guest-starred.






5. (1.07) "Eye of the Needle" - Voyager's crew discover a micro-wormhole leads to the Alpha Quadrant and makes contact with a Romulan ship on the other side with ironic consequences. Vaughn Armstrong guest-starred.

"GODS AND GENERALS" (2003) Review

 

"GODS AND GENERALS" (2003) Review

In 1993, producer Ted Turner and director Ronald Maxwell released "GETTYSBURG", a film adaptation of Michael Shaara's 1974 novel, "The Killer Angels". Shaara's son, Jeffrey, wrote a prequel to his novel called "Gods and Generals" in 1996. Both Turner and Maxwell teamed up again in 2002-2003 to make a film adaptation of the latter novel.

Set between April 1861 and May 1863, "GODS AND GENERALS" related the American Civil War events leading up to the Battle of Gettysburg. Although the movie began with Virginia-born Robert E. Lee's resignation from the U.S. Army, following his home state's secession from the Union; the meat of the film focused on the personal and professional life of Confederate general Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson during those two years. It also touched on how Bowdoin College professor Joshua L. Chamberlain became second-in-command of the 20th Maine Volunteer Infantry Regiment, his military training and his experiences during the Battle of Fredericksburg. But trust me . . . most of the movie is about Jackson. It covered his departure from the Virginia Military Institute; his experiences with the famous "Stonewall Brigade"; his experiences at the Battle of Bull Run; his relationships with both his wife Mary Anna, his servant Jim Lewis and a five-year-old girl from an old Virginia family; and his experiences at the Battle Chancelorville.

"GODS AND GENERALS" had its virtues. One of them turned out to be Michael Z. Hanan's production designs. Hanan and his team did a superb job in re-creating Virginia of the early 1860s. I was especially impressed by their recreation of mid-19th century Fredricksburg during that famous battle in December 1862. I wonder who had the bright idea of using Harper's Ferry, West Virgina for that particular setting. Hanan's work was ably supported by Kees Van Oostrum's photography and Gregory Bolton's art direction. Oostrum's photography and Corky Ehlers' editing was also put to good use during the Fredericksburg battle sequence. And I really enjoyed the costumes designed by Richard La Motte, Maurice Whitlock and Gamila Smith. All three did their homework in re-creating the fashions and uniforms of the period. Unlike "GETTYSBURG", "GODS AND GENERALS" featured major female characters. I suspect this gave the trio the opportunity to indulge their romantic streak with crinolines and hoop skirts galore.

There were some admirable performances in "GODS AND GENERALS". Frankie Faison gave a warm performance as Thomas Jackson's freedman cook, Jim Lewis. I was also impressed by Brian Mallon's subtle portrayal of the concerned Major General Winfield Hancock, a role he had first portrayed in the 1993 film. It is a pity that Bruce Boxleitner did not receive more screen time for his role as Lieutenant General James Longstreet. He had taken over the role from Tom Berenger and gave a pretty solid performance. But alas, he did not receive enough time to do anything with the role. Alex Hyde-White gave an interesting portrayal of Major General Ambrose Burnside, whose decisions led the Union Army to disaster at Fredericksburg. Matt Letscher was very memorable as the 20th Maine's founder and first regimental commander, Colonel Adelbert Ames. I could also say the same for Mira Sorvino's portrayal of Frances "Fanny" Chamberlain, Colonel Chamberlain's passionate and pessimistic wife. In fact, I believe she had the good luck to portray the most interesting female character in the movie.

So . . . what about the other performances? What about the stars Stephen Lang, Jeff Daniels and Robert Duvall? I am not claiming that they gave bad performances. Honestly, they did the best they could. Unfortunately, all three and most of the other cast members had the bad luck to be saddled with very uninteresting characterizations, bad dialogue and self-righteous speeches. In other words, I found them a little BORING!!! I am sorry, but I truly did.

First of all, Lang's Thomas Jackson dominated the film just a little too much. Why bother calling this movie "GODS AND GENERALS"? Why not call it "THE LIFE AND TIMES OF STONEWALL JACKSON"? Even worse, Jackson is portrayed in such an unrelenting positive light that by the time the movie came around to his fate after the Battle of Chancelorville, I practically sighed with relief. Jeff Daniels' Joshua Chamberlain did nothing to rouse my interest in his story. In fact, he disappeared for a long period of time before he made his reappearance during the Battle of Fredericksburg sequence. And his appearance in that particular sequence was completely marred by him and other members of the 20th Maine Volunteer Regiment quoting William Shakespeare's "JULIUS CAESAR", while marching toward Marye's Heights. Oh God, I hate that scene so much! As for Robert Duvall's Robert Lee . . . what a waste of his time. Ronald Maxwell's script did not allow the actor any opportunity to explore Lee's character during those two years leading to Gettysburg. I realize this is not Duvall's fault, but I found myself longing for Martin Sheen's portrayal of the Confederate general in "GETTYSBURG".

There is so much about this movie that I dislike. One, Maxwell's portrayal of the movie's two main African American characters - Jim Lewis and a Fredericksburg slave named Martha, as portrayed by actress/historian Donzaleigh Abernathy - struck me as completely lightweight. Now, I realized that there were black slaves and paid employees who managed to maintain a friendly or close relationship with their owner or employer. But in "GODS AND GENERALS", Lewis seemed quite friendly with his employer Jackson and Martha seemed obviously close to the family that owned her, the Beales. I could have tolerated if Lewis or Martha had been friendly toward those for whom they worked. But both of them? I get the feeling that Maxwell was determined to avoid any of the racial and class tensions between the slave/owner relationship . . . or in Lewis' case, the employee/employer relationship. How cowardly.  Even more cowardly is the fact that Jackson was a slaveowner and Maxwell had failed to reveal this.

In fact, this lack of tension seemed to permeate all of the relationships featured in "GODS AND GENERALS". Aside from one Union commander who berated his men for looting in Fredericksburg, I can barely recall any scenes featuring some form of anger or tension between the major characters. Everyone either seemed to be on his or her best behavior. And could someone please explain why every other sentence that came out of the mouths of most characters seemed to be a damn speech? I realize that Maxwell was trying to re-create the semi-formality of 19th century American dialogue. Well . . . he failed. Miserably. The overindulgence of speeches reminded me of the dialogue from the second NORTH AND SOUTH miniseries, 1986's "NORTH AND SOUTH: BOOK II". But the biggest problem of "GODS AND GENERALS" was that it lacked a central theme. The majority of the movie seemed to be about the Civil War history of Thomas Jackson. But the title and Shaara's novel told a different story. However, I do not believe a detailed adaptation of the novel would have done the trick. Like the movie, it lacked a central theme or topic.

Perhaps I am being too arrogant in believing I know what would have made the story worked. After all, it is not my story. Jeff Shaara was entitled to write it the way he wanted. And Ronald Maxwell was entitled to adapt Shaara's story the way he wanted. But I do know that if I had written "GODS AND GENERALS", it would have been about the Battle of Fredericksburg. It turned out to be the only part of the movie that I found interesting.