Point-by-Point: Buried - 7/10

A contract trucker gets buried alive in Iraq. We spend the next 90 minutes in a coffin with him.

The Good: This movie takes it's concept and runs with it. I was skeptical that it could never leave the coffin without getting dull, but the film held my attention throughout. Really, it's impressive that they were able to make such a tight thriller with so little, and should serve as an example for modern thrillers that seem to get more bloated every year. Ryan Reynolds does an admirable job, and they seemingly (and impressively) light the entire movie with items he has in the coffin.

The Bad: There's nothing really profound about the story, and some of the political aspects seem a bit thrown together. And of course, if you happen to be a person who has nightmares about being buried alive, such as my wife, you should probably just find another movie.

The Ugly: Not to spoil it, but the last thing the kidnapper has our hero do is basically awful. Probably unnecessary, but it definitely upped an already tense movie.

Points Pondered  

-I would guess that the most important trick in keeping your cell phone battery up is turning down your brightness, not turning off the vibration.

-Really, why would any actor agree to do this movie? I guess there's a thin line between challenging and hellish.

-One day, the people of Movieland will figure out how to build a flashlight that works as well as a real one and isn't constantly flickering off and on.

-If it's the policy to never pay these kidnappers, why do they keep burying folks in the desert? and really, 90 minutes seems like an absurdly short deadline for a large money transfer.

Point-by-Point: The Warrior's Way - 7/10

A samurai runs away with a child and hides in an American near-ghost town. Stuff happens, but what you really care about is that yes, you get to see who wins if a cowboy fights a samurai. 

The Good: I really like the comic book stylings of this movie. It excuses (or can lead to, depending on your point of view) the over-the-top action, absurdly evil villains, and some of the excesses in acting. Bottom line, this is a throwback Western that looks cool and is a lot of fun.

The Bad: The same things I like about this movie will probably cause many folks to hate it. Also, the movie occasionally stalls when the action abates, and some of the acting is a bit rough.

The Ugly: Even though this movie has a perfectly good Kate Bosworth hanging around, we're stuck with Geoffrey Rush's naked butt.

Points Pondered  

-More babies need handles.

-This movie nailed the comic book feel so well, both in plot and cinematography, that I figured it was based on one. Nope.

-What was Geoffrey Rush doing here?

-I think we can all agree that the French clown is the worst sort of clown.

-Did this movie really need the last scene? It seemed like a stupid add-on to a fine ending.

Point by Point: The Proposition 7/10

A bandit (Guy Pearce) and his little brother are in jail, but the chief of police makes him a deal: He'll let them go free if he goes into the outback and kills his older brother, who's basically a sadistic yet smart jerk. He accepts, because otherwise this would be a short film.

The Good: The setting is simultaneously harsh and beautiful, very much by design. Glorious shots of the Australian wilderness show just how barren it can be. The acting is top-notch, although it takes a few minutes to get an ear for everyone's accents.

The Bad: There are a fair amount of "this is important" cinematography, which can be a little overbearing. The meandering pace accented with brutal violence may definitely throw some people.

The Ugly: It's never fun to watch someone lashed, but the winner here is the townfolk - they got a lot of butt-ugly people to stand around and look cross.

Points Pondered

• If you don't like flies, you should probably avoid Australia.


• Ray Whinstone does not quite look as fit as he did in Beowulf. I think he probably got some CG help with his abs. Just maybe.


• I bet that if you recite a line from a poem after being shot, and the guy that shot you enthusiastically continues the quote, it's of little solace.


• Are you still allowed to call it a Western if it takes place in Australia? Does it get a funny name, like Kangaroo Western?

Haiku: Sleepy Hollow 7/10

LOTS of severed heads
turn horror to comedy
with each bloody thwack

Point-by-Point: Get Smart 7/10

A terrorist smuggles a suitcase-sized nuclear weapon into LA in order to blow up the President as well as a large chunk of downtown. Hilarity ensues! Actually it does, since the whole plot is being stopped by Maxwell Smart, the bumbling CONTROL agent from the classic TV show.

The Good: This movie is thoroughly enjoyable. Looking back, I can't really point to anything that was particularly "good," but everything just seemed to work. It could be that I'm biased, since I tend to Like Steve Carell, Alan Arkin and Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson in anything they do, but there were a lot of scenes and lines that had me laughing hard. There were also some appropriately ridiculous action sequences, so a little something for everyone.

The Bad: The plot and romantic subplot are about as generic as you get, and some of the references to the old show were a bit forced. Plus, the producers completely missed the chance to have Barats and Bereta in their movie, as they tried out for the lab-tech friends.

The Ugly: Well there's an obvious answer, but he's 7'2", 400 lbs and could end me without breaking a sweat.

Points Pondered

• Some may not like changing Maxwell Smart from utterly incompetent agent to an expert analyst who is completely unseasoned in the field, yet overly confident and rather unlucky. Really though, it works and it explains how he could actually keep his job.


• Steve Carell and the Rock would make a seriously cute couple.


• Patrick Warburton makes a cameo at the end. He has the greatest voice ever, and if you don't already love him, go watch the Emperor's New Groove and revel in the awesomeness that is Kronk.


• You gotta hope it's not that easy to get a nuclear bomb within 20 feet of the President. And if you are a villian who DOES manage it, you'd hopefully have a backup way of detonating it, in case your overly-elaborate first method failed.

Full Review: Kung Fu Panda, 7/10

The story of Kung Fu Panda is simple: a panda who loves kung fu but is, to put it nicely, not quite sporting the Bruce Lee physique is “accidentally” chosen to be a warrior by the local dojo in order to combat a psychopathic snow leopard. Training does not go as planned, Po is rejected by the other members of the team, he discovers his secret strength (predisposition to stress-bingeing! now harnessed for motivational use!), saves the day, gains the respect of his peers, everyone goes home happy.

It’s not a new story, but it doesn’t need to be. The small tweaks to the formula, the quality of the animation, and the enthusiasm demonstrated by all of the voice actors involved all make Kung Fu Panda worthwhile. It’s not the best thing that Disney has ever produced, but it is one of the more entertaining bits of their recent oeuvre. Classify this with The Emperor’s New Groove under “throwaway but damn funny”, I guess.

Generally, Disney has a template, and they don’t like deviate from it. It’s worked for donkey’s years and there’s no reason for them to change now. Right? Kung Fu Panda, by and large, plays into this formula -- stressing understanding, individuality, and the ability to succeed against all odds. Where it gets interesting is in where it deviates from the mold. Kids’ movies tend to have a strongly teamwork or cooperative focus, and what really struck me is how independence-focused this one was. Po, our plus-sized hero, does have allies and guidance but he confronts the big bad and triumphs all on his own. It is only after he rejects his position as a member of the team that he is able to succeed. This theme is never made explicit, but the implication is certainly there. There is a line between the importance of being true to yourself and an active dismissal of conformity, and Kung Fu Panda definitely walks it. Striking in a kids’ movie, and a Disney movie, no less.

Also striking: there is no romantic interest whatsoever. The only female character to be found is a bitch -- talented and emotionally-damaged, certainly, but still not romantically appealing. She lives up to her characterization as a tigress, and tigers and pandas don’t play nice. More importantly, she has no arc that would allow her to do so. Respect may be granted between characters, but Kung Fu Panda has no interest in creating frisson. This moral, in and of itself, is refreshing. You can succeed on your own, by the skin of your own teeth, because of your own desire for the end goal -- not because of the motivation offered by a kiss.

Jack Black does, well, Jack Black, but somehow it works. I am not a huge fan of his comedic style, but it’s a lot more palatable when in animated form. There are the requisite fat jokes, PG-rated implications of the obscene, and general JB schtick-- no worries, there. Pandas are also super-cute, which helps, and the rest of the characters are also appealing and work very well as straight-men to the “wackiness” demonstrated by our hero. Dustin Hoffman, in particular, is charmingly dour as the red panda who is the head of the dojo. James Hong, as Po’s oblivious noodle-selling duck of a father, also manages to add heart to what could have been a seriously pathetic role.

I do have a few things to say about the weird kind of fat-positive messages incorporated into this film, but I think that “weight issues” might be an essay unto itself. I realize that I’m probably a bit more sensitive to such things than the average bear, but there was something definitely strange (or at least unconventional) in Kung Fu Panda’s approach to the issue of weight. The one thing that was most off-putting, however, is the esteeming of what is, essentially, bingeing. It’s all for comedic effect, of course, and it is honed into a positive, but still, it’s really unappealing.

Also, in the tradition of Paul, my true ugly point: an ass-clench shot. I really did not need to see a wedgied panda-bum being clenched on a movie-theater sized screen.

It’s a throwaway effort by Disney, but what it lacks in resonance, Kung Fu Panda makes up for in enthusiasm and humor. There’s not a lot of sophisticated humor, but even adults can appreciate sweet and simple amusement, right?

7/10

Point by Point: The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian 7/10

Our heroes return to Narnia and find it rather less magical. Probably due to all the Spanish dudes wandering around killing talking animals. Stupid spanish dudes. Well, save for our other hero, Prince Caspian. It's up to him to fight his own people and give Narnia back to the fantastical-yet-oppressed minority.

The Good: It's actually entertaining, which puts it head and shoulders above its predecessor, The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe. The kids are also 10 times less annoying - I actually don't cringe every time they speak. But really, it's the special effects and battle sequences that make this movie - if not quite Lord of the Rings quality, they're exciting and a blast to watch.

The Bad: The story is a bit hacked together, and no one really steps up acting-wise (save for Peter Dinklage, doing a great job as the dwarf Trumpkin). And apparently Aslan, the protector of Narnia, is also the King of Passive Aggression - just because someone didn't come say hi to him when he momentarily appeared, he let's hundreds of people die. Jerk. Really, hard to be happy at the end of a movie when the deus ex machina could have easily happened an hour earlier.

The Ugly: The old Hawk-lady was seriously creepy.

Points Pondered

• Reason 3,234 You Shouldn't Trust Movies: Lions are NOT as cuddly as they appear. Sure, giving one a hug would be probably awesome for like 5 seconds, but then you are missing a large chunk of your torso.


• For supposedly having a lifetime to grow up before returning to their childhood bodies, the main quartet sure act like kids. And we won't even delve into the whole sex issue. Although I guess options are limited if they only other humans are related to you.


• It's amazing how the two actors' sword-fighting skills went completely downhill after they took of their helmets. I wonder why THAT happened.


• If you're an army and the literal field of battle turns against you, you'd probably best try again another day.

Haiku: Invasion of the Body Snatchers 7/10

PG-rated romp
Where your parents are pod folk.
Yay for nightmare fuel!

Full Review: The Happening, 7/10

The Happening

OK -- I’ll admit it: I was scared to go to this movie. Not because it’s a horror movie; not because The Village kind of terrified me (shush. Cheap scare tactics for Amish children also work for me); I had read the reviews, read the epic panning that Shyamalan’s latest offering had received, and I didn’t want to be disappointed. I like his visual style, I like his stories, and I like his human touch. He writes interesting people, and even if the scare tactics are occasionally over-the-top, the jump-moments are not the point. His movies may be mixed-bag in terms of overall effectiveness, but they’re not stupid. It was striking that so many of the reviews for The Happening emphasized its dullness and its lack of intelligence.

It was heartening that this film managed to exceed all expectations. It’s not loud, it’s not slam-bang action, but it’s cerebral and more resonant than it has been given credit for. It has its flaws, and they’re not to be ignored, but the impact is not insignificant, either. Seriously -- it made me tense over the prospect of wind! and plants! By focusing on a trio of normal people, Shyamalan creates a microcosm that succeeds in keeping the focus intimate while still being easily extrapolated a larger societal scope.

The Happening includes a few of the most powerful, fascinating, scenes that I’ve seen lately -- they’re not easy to watch, but they work perfectly. As well, the camera work and sound effects manage to make plants embarrassingly sinister. Shyamalan, for as much as you may slam him for his cheap thrills, but he also has a true style when it comes to making the ordinary world uncanny. Running from a wind-front. Approaching a tree with pure terror. The idea is absurd, but with the correct suspension of disbelief, it works.

This is not to say that this movie is flawless. In fact, its flaws ultimately conspire to trivialize what could have been a very powerful piece of work. Yes, it has exceptionally strong moments, but the overall film could have been a lot stronger if not for a few elements. M. Night Shyamalan has a little problem: he knows that he’s a good storyteller, knows that he knows his stuff, but he can get a little cocky. There’s always that one extra thing that just has to be thrown into a set-up, and that’s the thing that breaks it.

However, at the same time that certain plotpoints are plagued with kitchen-sinkiness, dialogue suffers from the opposite problem. While I realize that half the point of this film is that no one knows what’s going on, would it be too much to ask for a wee bit of specificity? If all you can do is reference the film’s title and such phrases as “the event” or “it’s an act of nature”, there’s something wrong... or at least annoying.

Also, while I realize that half the strength of this movie is the acute portrayal of regular people in the face of calamity, after spending almost the entire movie making them at least respectable, why go and make them do something impossibly stupid seemingly without good reason? It’s an easy way to make the movie end quickly, but it’s still jarring and smacks of artistic laziness.

When The Happening is good (in its elegant portrayal of how people react to the incomprehensible) it’s very good. When it’s bad, it’s exceedingly frustrating. Shyamalan is an intelligent and very interesting film-creator, but he he can’t rest on his laurels too much -- that’s when things go wrong.

This movie is going to disappoint if you’re looking for action or cheap thrills; if you’re more in search of cerebral, meditative dread, The Happening is not a bad choice. It’s not everyone’s cup of tea, but it doesn’t deserve the derision with which it has been laden.

7/10

Haiku: Finding Nemo 7/10

Gasp! Nemo is lost!
Time to go adventuring!
LUUUUUUCCKKYYYYY IIIIIIII SPEEEEAAAAAKKK WHAAAAAAALEEE

Full review: Wanted, 7/10

Make no mistake, Wanted is not a good movie. It’s loud, it’s dumb as all hell, and its ultimate message is somewhere between nihilism and just good old-fashioned misanthropism, and yet it’s damn fun. It has style and panache to spare and it celebrates a balls-to-the-wall enthusiasm for blood, guns, and ultra-violence that will appease any fan of Equilibrium, The Matrix, or Fight Club. All of these are infinitely better films, but they are at least well-honored as the templates on which Timur Bekmambetov bases his film. The style, though, is the director’s -- he’s already honed his visually audacious approach to film-making with Nightwatch, another jet-black adaptation of a graphic novel, about Russian vampires.

James MacAvoy, as Wesley, our dweeby American-accented hero, makes a rather impressive and Fight Club-Narrator-esque transformation from passive desk-jockey to active killer, but really, who wouldn’t put up with extended hazing for the chance to scamper along moving trains with a scorching-hot Angelina Jolie? Jolie, for her part, does little except slink and pout, but her quicksilver cool is captivating. It’s not really “acting”, but I guarantee that a summer of boys (and girls -- I’m not discriminating here) will have found their eye-candy of choice for at least a few months. Between the icy-hot Jolie and the stylized gunfights, with slow-motion firing and arcing-trajectories of sculpted silver bullets, what’s not to love? Or, rather, what’s not to get your testosterone racing?

This hormonal excitement is clearly intentional, as on a meta level the whole movie plays like one long emotional Viagra infusion (again, hearkening back to Palahniuk/Fincher’s anti-domestication screed) for every emasculated office-worker in the audience. It was striking that in a movie filled with bullets, graphic acts of weaponized violence and torture, the only cheers from the audience (and I do mean actual cheers) came from a scene in which Wesley takes out his aggression on his corporate co-workers. Clearly, women are hot and guns are fun, but giving your manager what-for is where it’s at.

On this theme of non-cooperation, Wanted is interesting because it actively argues against the possibility for real human connections and emotions. Wesley goes from having a girlfriend, a so-called best-friend, co-workers, and the ability to relate to other people to being the ultimate lone wolf. The girlfriend was boinking the best friend, the best friend was a douche, the co-workers were stooges, and generally the lesson becomes that other people suck. Even the talented, hardened, capable people suck.

As multiple characters say, in variation, throughout the movie, “don’t send sheep to do a wolf’s job”, but the ultimate moral is that everyone, even self-professed wolves, are sheep. And sheep always get eaten. The only truth is the one you keep to yourself. There’re not a lot of messages touting peace, love, or teamwork here. Take that for what you will. For good or for ill, it’s nice to see a movie that sticks to its guns regarding the alienation that a “lone wolf” must endure if he wishes to keep himself out of the flock.

Wanted is not going to win any awards, and if you think about it too long you’re going to end up annoyed with yourself for liking it, but for what it is -- an amped-up charge of adrenalin, fueled by hyperviolence and super-stylized action -- it’s great. It's not life-changing, but definitely the spectacle of the summer. And dear lord, does Angelina bring a new level to pure physical perfection -- that, in itself, is awe-inspiring.

Point-by-Point: Indiana Jones 4 7/10

Indiana Jones searches for a crystal skull, and kills Russians to do so. There's more to it than that, but who cares? It's an Indiana Jones movie! Just sit and enjoy! Do do doo doooo do do doo . . .

The Good: This movie is basically pure entertainment. Harrison Ford is more fun than he has been in years, and Shia LaBeouf proves yet again he can play a charming-if-annoying teenager with ease. Between the trademark comedy/action combo and an appropriately far-fetched story, Indy 4 is exactly what you'd expect.
The Bad: That being said, it doesn't really bring anything new to the table. While I wouldn't call it stale, it just doesn't have the impact that Raiders or The Last Crusade do.
The Ugly: The CG groundhogs really suck.

Points Pondered

• I think a crystal skeleton would make an awesome addition to any living room. This would TOTALLY fit in with my mannequin in front of the window idea!!


• Now Indy has survived ridiculous things in the past, but in this movie he goes over three large waterfalls and gets blown up by an atom bomb with nary a scratch. My suspension of disbelief can only stretch so far.


• Is this movie implying that Shia LaBeouf will be the next Brando? I really can't wait to see him all fat and bald in his remake of The Island of Dr. Moreau.


• For the Record: Raiders > Last Crusade > Crystal Skull > Temple of Doom

Haiku: Music and Lyrics 7/10

Adorable fluff
Causes me to crush on Hugh -
He makes bad films good

Haiku: Knocked Up 7/10

When your friend directs
Katherine Heigl falls for you
despite your geekhood

Review: Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull 7/10

Usually, I like to wait a day or three between seeing a movie and actually hammering out my complete thoughts on it -- this technique gives me a chance to mull it over, figure out exactly why I liked it or why I didn’t, and generally get a bit of distance on the experience that was the specified movie. Unfortunately, my super-scientific incubation period has failed. I swear I was paying attention to Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull when I saw it, but in the intervening week it has in large part evanesced from my memory. And so, dear readers, you are stuck with my dawdling upon the memorable bits, as unconnected as they may be.

For the most part, though, what more do you need in an Indiana Jones movie other than “blah blah mythology blah blah awesome history professor with a whip blah blah action blah blah Cold War villains blah blah wisecracks blah blah finis”? I’m going play devil’s advocate on this one and vote for a cohesive story. All of the important pieces are there, in fine form -- myths and legends (this time taking our hero to the jungles of South America), the Soviets, lots of snark, and of course, the inimitable Indy -- there are just a lot of extraneous bits. Spielberg doesn’t just toss in the proverbial kitchen sink for kicks: he launches a veritable armada of them at the audience, for no discernible reason except that he can. Unfortunately, what this means is that for every important or interesting plot point or bit of character development, we get 20 minutes of “exciting”, glitzy, or just completely nonsensical fluff.

One fight scene, in particular, would have been better suited for a Saturday morning cartoon than to an action movie ostensibly aimed at adults, or at least the over-8 set. It goes from “cool idea” to “bye-bye anything approaching realism” to “gosh, what are they going to do next? CG in some rubbery legs to really heighten the stretchy effect?” to “bored now” pretty quickly, but the fight continues for about 5 minutes past that. Luckily, after this over-done wallow in juvenile action, Indiana bounces back and returns to a much more palatable form.

Really, for all the snazzy special effects and well-choreographed action, it’s not the reason we’re paying to see this specific action movie. It’s Indiana Jones, and dammit, I want Indiana! Luckily, the movie delivers -- hat and whip intact. Harrison Ford is older, the character himself is older, and it’s nice to see that the script ages both appropriately, both on the timeline (it’s now the 1950s and we’ve traded Russians for Nazis) and in the way the character reacts to the world around him. Make no mistake -- he’s still bad-ass. He’s just a little arthritic, which, interestingly, is not a bad thing.

The rest of the cast, as well, lives up to the campiness of their surroundings, with Cate Blanchett especialloy sinking her teeth into her “wubble-Us” as a Soviet commander interested in psychic warfare and totally rocking a pseudo-dominatrix look, supremely bad haircut excepted. Also, much to my dear fellow reviewer’s delight, Shia LeBoeuf really is in this movie and almost out-Brandos Brando, circa The Wild One (perhaps this is more for my enjoyment than Paul’s -- his is a more intellectual satisfaction at once again having The Truth proven) [PCW: He's in EVERYTHING. I swear I saw him wandering around in the background of The Constant Gardener]. And Karen Allen pops up again, aging gracefully and oh, so sassily as the love of Indiana’s life. I’m glad they brought her back. She definitely adds spice to the movie. They make a good pair, and I’m endlessly glad they didn’t throw in some hot young number for Indy to lust after -- Marion, middle-aged as she may be, is infinitely better than any nymphet.

I’m still a little bit thrown by the denouement, involving aliens with crystal skeletons (their rib cages are gorgeous! I’m serious.) and what I think was a quadruple-backstabbing, but this is an Indiana Jones movie. It all made some kind of mushy sense in the end.

Is it realistic? Hell no. Is it fun? Oh, yea. Will you remember 85% of the plot twists a day after you walk out of the theatre? Probably not. Will you go home and end up watching the original trilogy and hearken back to the glory days? I hope so.

Review: Prince Caspian 7/10

The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian documents the four Pevensie childrens’ second journey into Narnia, and what has been one year on earth has, for the world through the wardrobe, been over a thousand. The quartet of adolescents have been called back to aid a prince restore his throne and ultimately to restore Narnia to the Narnians from the clutches of a usurper.

Due to its epic-yet-family-friendly scope, this film is an odd combination of empowering children’s fairytale and adult action movie. Unfortunately it accomplishes neither aim and the resulting stew is violent yet bloodless. It’s the Saturday Morning Special version of 300, right down to the warriors’ helmets and their fighting style, but with a troupe of children leading the Spartan -- I mean Narnian -- charge.

All of the actors are serviceable, but they really don’t need to be much more, given that they are mainly used as facilitators for the set-piece battles and as mouthpieces for plot devices. Prince Caspian, played by Ben Barnes, is very fluffily pretty and honorable but with the exception of his distractingly strange accent, he is entirely milquetoast. The four Pevensies, as well, are strikingly non-striking. Generally, they are defined by their most prevalent trait: Lucy is pious and hopeful, Edmund is snarky, Susan is pragmatic, and Peter tries to be brave. The villain, as all villains should, is defined mainly by his perfectly pointy facial hair. The most memorable characters are, ironically, those most heavily buried under make-up or entirely working through an animatronic creation. Peter Dinklage, as a crusty dwarf, especially establishes a human connection where most of the other characters fail.

But enough chat about the people! For as much as the original Narnia novels are about the human effects of faith, greed, and other big-ticket issues, the movies are about monsters, battles, and other big-ticket effects. Luckily, these effects are much improved from The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe, so the film is a visual feast, although moreso in the more personal scenes than in the epic battles. When the focus is tighter -- dancing naiads made of flower-petals, impressively creepy old hawk-women, etc. -- the effects are smoother and are actually more awe-inspiring than grand-scale charges and death en masse.

Where the movie as a whole, and the actors individually, succeed, however, is in the depiction of a quintet of very unlikely heroes. These are not powerful warriors -- and in fact, they don’t even turn into them -- they are, all in all, scared little kids. Even though the Pevensies have previously become renowned as Narnian leaders (on their last excursion through the wardrobe) they are still unsure of themselves and act as any group of children would act. They argue, they get scared, and when things go right, it seems to do so almost in spite of their (often fear-driven) bad choices. In the Lewis book on which this movie is based, the distinction is between Lucy (who has faith in Aslan) and the older children (who rely on themselves and on secular reason), but in this adaptation, it is the childrens’ immaturity that really comes through. Even Lucy, for all of her faith, is, for most of the film, impotent against the forces allied against the Narnians.

The most striking scene in this movie is a duel between the villainous king and Peter, the oldest of the Pevensie children. This is not a heroic, wise-cracks-and-blaring-trumpets duel, but is instead sweaty and wearying, soundtracked by the heavy slithering of chainmail. As is to be expected Good wins out, but it is more a respite than a triumph. This scene works superficially to prove Peter’s prowess, but also stands as an elegant depiction of strength mustered despite fear. For once, it is pure human resolution that triumphs, and that resonates more strongly than any amount of computer-generated effects.

Overall, Prince Caspian would be a worthwhile rental for middle-school children and those charmed by the prospect of centaurs, fauns, gryphons, and other beautifully-constructed creatures.

Oh yea, and Aslan shows up, either (take your pick): as a testament to the power of faith even in the darkest times, or as deus ex machina. For a film based on such a theologically-dense book, this is a surprisingly secular adaptation.

7/10