I haven't read the original book, so I can't judge which one is better, but as far as screenwriters are concerned, the difference in the box office between the second and the first movie may explain some problems. Because this work is the second part of the series, people can't help but compare it with the previous work. I remember that when I watched the first part, I had never heard of this magical masterpiece. Interesting, several child actors performed well (especially the youngest sister), the plot is the usual style of Western fantasy works, the slogan is shouted loudly, the plot is a bit brainless (of course not derogatory), the scene is atmospheric, and there is no shortage of people Beasts and all kinds of creatures to embellish. In the second part, basically nothing has changed, but the personal charm of the actors is somewhat compromised. Except for the youngest sister's expression is still innocent (but there are very few opportunities for her to perform), the performance of other young actors has no bright spots. , the cohesion and individual charm of the small family group successfully shaped by the first film have been submerged in the torrent similar to epic temperament, coupled with the lack of freshness of the scene, half of the box office plunge is conceivable.
Another wordy sentence, from the first part, I felt that Peter's actor was a bit unsuccessful (I know he has a lot of fans, sweat), from the looks, temperament and acting skills to completely unable to support the scene, but the first part is the big one. The second brother of the eye, the longer he grows, the brighter he is, and he has a bright future, hehe.
Finally, regarding my title, it's actually pretty good to treat this film as an environmental education film, isn't it?
View more about
The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian reviews
