This movie was nearly as good as the first part. I highly rate both of them, altho in this movie I can't stand Prince Caspian for some reason.. I can't stand the actor, altho he is a pretty good actor. The Narnia magic is fully present in this sequel also, so don't hesitate to watch it.

I am greatly disappointed in this movie. Maybe partly to my expectations, but " Prince Caspian" lost all its charm and wonder to me. Maybe if yo would see it as a stand alone film it could hold up, but since it is a part of the first movie's story, it fails to engage me as the first movie did. I liked that the characters got a bit more depth, but all side characters got neglected and seemed dull and uninteresting. For the mouse, the makers even 'borrowed' the character of Puss in Boots from 'Shrek'. The story-line seemed to be ragged and pieced together and overall this movie seems to be a portfolio for fighting scenes, rather than a well told story.

This film is the adaptation of a C.S. Lewis book, from a series of novels called "Chronicles of Narnia". In this film, the four Pevensie's return to Narnia unexpectedly, to find it conquered by the Telmarines, humans who slaughtered the talking animals of the country. Directed by Andrew Adamson (who directed Shrek) has script by Andrew Adamson, Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely. The cast was headed by Georgie Henley (Lucy), Skandar Keynes (Edmund), William Moseley (Peter), Anna Popplewell (Susan) and Ben Barnes (Caspian), and counts with the voices of Eddie Izzard (Reepicheep) and Liam Neeson (Aslan).This film is a meritorious continuation of the previous film, "The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe". And I say meritorious because it maintained the quality of previous film, yet not bring anything new or improve any of the negative characteristics of it. In fact, if I could choose the worst film adaptations of books, "The Chronicles of Narnia" was certainly included in the chosen list. For those who have read all the books and knew them well, this film is a disappointment as the previous one. It seems that the writers and the director (well, Adamson did both) didn't read the books but their resumes, or preferred to lighten things up and make a fifth category version of "The Lord of the Rings" (when the dramatic story of Tolkien has nothing to do with the vision, deeply Christian and didactic, of Lewis). Nevertheless, the film continues to work well, delighting the audience although the story does not have much appeal now, and Ben Barnes has been a weak Caspian largely due to that strange and jarring accent. So be warned: those who read the book does not need to see this movie. But, who didn't will certainly adore it.

I'm going to break down my review into components: 1. Aesthetics: This movie is absolutely gorgeous. The costumes, the setting, the special effects. Everything draws you into the fantasy setting and makes you want to stay.2. Character development/portrayals: I like how they developed Lucy and Susan. They are a bit more mature than they were in the previous film, which makes perfect sense given that the actresses have aged a bit. Lucy is, at the same time, more enchanting, and more "real." Caspian was too old. In the book, he experiences the same sense of childlike wonder in discovering the Old Narnia, that Lucy does in LWW. I think the movie lacks the trademark Narnian magic because there is no wonder of discovery. The Telmarine villains in this movie are brilliant. They were hateful and compelling at the same time. The character of Edmund was matured, but not enough. They should have either aged the character further, or recast the actor with someone younger. Skandar Keynes performed to the best of his ability, but he was simply too old to be convincing as a boy who thinks girls are icky. I can't stand what they did with Peter. William Moseley is a talented actor, there's no doubt about that, but the writers turned his character into an egotistical brat, and I couldn't stand him. Peter Dinklage as Trumpkin was genius. He was heroic, gruff, and endearing all at once.3: Plot/pacing: I loved the first hour and a half of the movie. They made changes from the book, but all of the changes made cinematic sense. You get to know the New Narnia, and the characters. The adventures are exciting. Unfortunately, Andrew Adamson thought that the big selling point of LWW was the battle, so he decided to cut-out some of the funny character-development moments from the book and extend the battle sequence in PC to an exhausting length. First of all, they are fighting an army that resembles Renaissance-era Spaniards, not mythic beasts, so right away it's much less novel and interesting than the battle in LWW. Second of all, the movie LWW was a well-composed adventure as a whole, for which the battle was a fitting climax, not THE selling point.4. Target audience: This movie is very teen-centric, with romance, action, and period-piece politics. It is not a family film, like LWW. I think this may be why it did not do nearly as well as LWW at the box office. The name "Narnia" conveys a sense of the magic of childhood. People looking for a teen action movie will likely ignore a Narnia movie without even reading a review. At the same time, with critics warning people not to bring children under 12, and word of mouth spreading that families with young children were walking out in the middle because it was too intense, families did not turn out in droves either.