First of all, I have to admit: I'm not very demanding when it comes to Narnia movies.
For example, when I first saw The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, I didn't really care about the acting or the dialogue or what have you. I was pretty much just thinking something like, "That's just what I imagined! Right up there on the screen!"
I read all the Narnia books when I was a kid, and even though I probably couldn't have told you much more than the skeletons of the plots of them (before I re-read them this week--more on that later), when I saw the first movie, it all came rushing back to me. Because it was just what I imagined! Right up there on the screen! Then I went back and read the book, and realized it was actually pretty bare-bones. Still, it had given my pre-tween imagination plenty to work with.
So the Narnia books aren't like Harry Potter, where they have to cut stuff to make it a movie (which is usually what angers the people who love Harry Potter books but hate the films). If anything, the screenwriters add a little bit, and I think they're pretty good--on the whole--at adding things that are in the spirit of the book. (On the whole. More on that momentarily.)
Ergo, I really liked Prince Caspian. What's not to like? Pretty landscapes! Talking beasts! Big ol' battles! Children with British accents! C'mon, it's Narnia!
As I was saying, I generally liked what they did with the book to make it into a movie. I think the screenwriters did a pretty good job. Structurally, the book Prince Caspian is kind of a mess. (Watch out, I'm about to give some SPOILERS on a 57-year-old book!) The Pevensie children are in England, for about half a page. Then, BAM! They're in Narnia. They spend quite some time trying to figure out where they are and what they should be doing and eating nothing but apples, and it's fairly tiresome. They finally figure out that they're in their old castle, but hundreds and hundreds of years after they left. Then, finally finally, they meet somebody else, who is the dwarf Trumpkin. Then he tells them the story of Prince Caspian, so you have a flashback that goes on for a good three chapters. Then the narrative switches back and forth from the kids walking and walking and walking, trying to meet up with Caspian to Caspian hanging out with his army, holding off the enemy in a fairly boring fashion. In, like, the last quarter (or fifth, I don't remember and I don't have it handy) of the book, the kids and Caspian meet up (again: finally) and then there's some short battling with the enemy, and then The End.
So (movie SPOILERS now!) the movie balances Caspian and the kids much more neatly in the beginning and has them get together much more quickly. The movie also adds a battle at Caspian's evil uncle's castle, which is much better cinematically than Caspian's boring defense of his stronghold. So, good good and good.
More ambivalently: Aslan's role is scaled down from what it is in the book. On the one hand, his not being in it very much might seem to sideline him. However, because of the nature of the Aslan plotline in Prince Caspian, I think it just hammers home the point better. It's all about how having faith that Aslan will show up is important, and that's just made even clearer by how long they have to wait for Aslan. It also makes Lucy's unwavering certainty more impressive, since she has to hold out longer. In conclusion, I approve.
Then there are two Peter issues. First of all, in the book, there's a literary tension because you have two heroes, Caspian and Peter. (Action heroes, that is. I'm discounting Lucy here because she does her own thing which, while ultimately more important, is more subtle in the story structure.) Which one of the young men is the hero? Who needs The Defining Moment more? Who, when you get right down to it, gets the glory? Lewis, I think, leaves that unresolved, and while in real life that wouldn't be a problem, in a fairly simple story, it just doesn't quite work. the movie solves this literary tension by making it actual tension--Peter and Caspian have a real power struggle. This very acknowledgement of the impossibility of having two hero/leaders makes it possible--after Learning Their Lessons, each of them accepts their role, but it is Caspian that emerges as the Official Hero. And he should be, since it's his world, his kingdom (Peter did already have his turn), and his movie--he is the title character, after all. So again, the point goes to the screenwriters.
The second Peter problem is that, in the movie, he's whiny, angry, and kind of insufferable. I don't want to go overboard on the Potter references, but he's not unlike Harry, c. Order of the Phoenix. He got on my nerves, is what I'm saying. Still, I can see the reasons for this choice. Especially in the earlier books, Lewis just didn't do that much character development. Book Peter is perfect, but blandly so. He does what needs done and does it well; he's The Man--but he has no personality. I peg this difference mostly on time period. In the 40's and 50's, who didn't want a stoic man's man for the hero? But in the 21st century, we like our characters flawed. So we get a flawed Peter. . . . Yet, because he was really annoying, I'm going to call this one a draw.
Furthermore, in the movie, we get the addition of a flirtation and even a kiss (!) between Susan and Caspian. First of all, I'm pretty sure that were he alive to see it, that would have given C. S. Lewis some kind of seizure. As MacKenzie pointed out, it really did come out of nowhere. I guess that the motivation was, again, character development, but it really did feel gratuitious.
Oh, also the bad guys are Mediterrean/Latino, for some reason. Well, so is Caspian, but still. That's kind of random. Unnecessary/somewhat demeaning, am I right? (I was also irresistably reminded of a reviewer I had read comparing Caspian's fakey accent to Inigo Montoya's, when Caspian had a sword up to his uncle's neck and was being all threatening about how the uncle had killed his father. I mean, come on.)
Even so, my tally shows two cons to one tie and five pros. And those structure pros are big ones--I read the book right before I saw the movie, and I was really wondering how they were going to pull it off. Overall, I've got to say it was a very good adaptation.
Here ends my needlessly long (and probably fairly boring) analysis, but stayed tuned for over-thought musings on Narnia. It's going to be good times.
