Brightlyme i know i wasted 90 mins of my life.

Leoni Haney Yes, absolutely, there is fun to be had, as well as many, many things to go boom, all amid an atmospheric urban jungle.

Ezmae Chang This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.

Freeman This film is so real. It treats its characters with so much care and sensitivity.

Leofwine_draca The third and final instalment of the recent big-budget adaptations of C. S. Lewis's NARNIA books, VOYAGE OF THE DAWN TREADER is a mini-masterpiece in comparison to the strong PRINCE CASPIAN that came before it. As a film, it's fast-paced and engaging, a children's adventure film that feels refreshingly old-fashioned and much like the classic adaptations of Edith Nesbit, for example. I should note that I haven't read the book.The plotting sees the older kids from the first two films jettisoned while the youngsters (Edmund and Lucy) now take their place. Once again, they team up with Caspian (Ben Barnes, never more than one dimensional) to go on an epic maritime adventure, tackling sea monsters, magic and a mysterious green mist en route.A potential problem with VOYAGE OF THE DAWN TREADER is that we've seen it all before, but this matters little when the film is so entertaining from the word go. This effects-packed movie features all manner of CGI backdrops and one or two CGI beasties, similar to the Harryhausen epics of old. Will Poulter, as newcomer cousin Eustace, gives a masterful and hilarious performance and a real star-making turn. The movie has a decent pace, the introductory scenes are very well realised (I loved the way the kids access Narnia this time around) and it's more colourful and involving as any PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN film you might name. For me, the trilogy ended on a high.

BenignPillows Finally got around to watching this after Netflix just released it. I always heard it was the worst of the three, but I was pleasantly surprised! Of course, that might be because it doesn't take much to be better than the BBC version I grew up with - and that's coming from someone who loved "The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe" from back in 1988. Richard Dempsey is still my definitive King Peter and Sophie Wilcox my Lucy. It's when making the sequels that BBC just seemed to stop caring, and turned out one awful series after another (don't even get me started on The Silver Chair, the new movie is bound to seem like a masterpiece in comparison).There's also the fact that the book Voyage of the Dawn Treader, which this is based on, is somewhat flawed, especially in dramatic structure. It's very episodic, like many small stories instead of one unified, which isn't good for a movie. Something had to be done, and I actually think they solved it well for this movie, by moving some of the events around, and by inventing a sort of consistent leitmotif; the evil mist. While a poorly developed "villain", it created a better focus and raised the stakes from the beginning. I also think the themes were better developed, for example Lucy being tempted by vanity. "When you grow up, you should be just like YOU" is actually a pretty important message to little girls. And Caspian seemed more like a human being than the cardboard cut-out from the BBC version (and maybe the book). Further, compared to said version, the special effects were of course infinitely better, and the script was also much better, though, as with this whole franchise, I would have liked the language less modernized.The most important thing, the acting, was generally good. Skandar Keynes needs to be mentioned - he has this weird staring look, like he's very nearsighted or something - but he's a great actor. He gave the movie emotional resonance in a way that Georgie Henley couldn't. Sorry, but despite Lucy's vanity arc, I felt Henley was mostly there to look cute and smile in wonder over the magic. That worked when she was little, but in this movie her lack of range and depth showed. Will Poulter, though. What a talent! The guy's a comedic genius! He *was* Eustace, acting not only with his face, but with his whole body. He gave Eustace his own, very geeky way of moving and walking. I do wish they had made him less of a comic relief and more outright mean, so that there would have been more to redeem (like, actually stealing water when there was lack of it), but I like that they moved the sea-serpent to the end battle and let Eustace The Dragon redeem himself through the role he played there. It's too bad Will Poulter is too old to play Eustace now, but I hope he keeps acting. In conclusion - maybe not a great movie, but definitely a decent one, watchable for the whole family.

orourkec-292-269155 If you enjoyed The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe and The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian and have high hopes for this third Narnian installment and hopes that it will be as good as its predecessors then I think you'll be disappointed. I was myself displeased with the movie. Its script is weak, its pacing is businesslike and empty and the lion Aslan is horribly CGI designed unlike the previous Narnia chapters where he was so wonderfully CGI designed. However, this third Narnian chapter does improve upon its predecessors on a few levels: it has more magic, more Narnian creatures and the main danger in the film is bigger, the challenges are higher and they're all striking. The character of Eustace makes for an impressive new-coming character entrance with powerful personalities. The movie includes other wholly amazing elements such as Lucy trying to be more beautiful than what she is and realizing the terrible consequences that could arise from such a thought, Eustace's thought- provoking character development, the unusual relationship between Eustace and Reepicheep at the end of the film, Reepicheep's dream of entering Aslan's Country, Aslan's country featured as big rising waves, the Sea Snake design and more still. My rating: 6.0/10

Joris Exit Susan and Peter, enter Eustace. Two of the main protagonists of the previous two movies are replaced by a new one. Just like in the books. But at what price? Will Poulter may have a very characteristic face (which is a good thing), but is one of the worst child actors I've ever seen. On top of that Ben Barnes again plays Prince Caspian (who is almost unrecognizable compared to the previous film) but with no Spanish accent whatsoever. The story feels more like a Pirates of the Caribbean quest this time. With no success, even if the green and blue screens aren't as ugly as in Prince Caspian. These kind of kiddie movies are too predictable, moralistic (the Christian symbolism in this one isn't even remotely subtle anymore) and boring to entertain almost anyone. Or that's what I should hope. Reality proves me wrong. Unfortunately. Maybe that's why hideous films like Eragon, In the Name of the King and The Sorcerer's Apprentice find an audience. I can't speak for The Water Horse, The Seeker, The Spiderwick Chronicles and Inkeart (I haven't seen them), but something tells me it'll be more of the same (just like Seventh Son, which will be released next year). Maybe I should really reconsider watching the Percy Jackson movies, which I was planning to do next year...