Options
The Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader
![[Deleted User]](https://w4.vanillicon.com/v2/446946ee6c019950f9b28879ef3415d7.svg)
[Deleted User]
Posts: 690 Forum Member
✭✭
Have to say really enjoyed this. Wee Will Poulter (who plays Eustace) steals the show.
The fact that Disney passed on it and Fox picked it up may have been the best thing for the franchise. Michael Apted is a seasoned director and he manages all the action extremely well.
It's the kind of thing that Ray Harryhausen would have loved to do the effects for pre CGI.
Over all a great film for the whole family.
Review here.
BTW is anyone else starting to lose the will to live as far as 3D flicks are concerned?
The fact that Disney passed on it and Fox picked it up may have been the best thing for the franchise. Michael Apted is a seasoned director and he manages all the action extremely well.
It's the kind of thing that Ray Harryhausen would have loved to do the effects for pre CGI.
Over all a great film for the whole family.
Review here.
BTW is anyone else starting to lose the will to live as far as 3D flicks are concerned?
0
Comments
I enjoyed it but it's very different from the book and I didn't think the changes made it better or were necessary.
The green mist thing was bizarre and simply an excuse to use a lot of CGI, especially with the big sea monster at the end. The ending was also so bloody sweet that it made my teeth ache.
I agree though that Will Poulter was great as Eustace. And I hate 3D!
Why not just watch it in 2D saves you money and you don't have to bemoan the 3D "gimmick".
Was it converted to 3D or done properly (Properly = Avatar Standard, where as converted seems to result in things like Clash of the Titans and the Last Airbender, which is dark and rubbish)
I will be watching the film this Sunday hopefully. In 2D more than likely if the 3D is of poor quality. I do hope it is good as I have been disappointed in recent trips to the cinema and hope I get some luck this time round.
It will be interesteing to see how the fans of the books like it as so much was left out. The film needed to be longer. I looked at the running time on IMDB and it said 115 minutes. I looked at my watch at the start and it said 12:25. I left the cinema at 2:10 so the film itself minus credits is only about 100 minutes which is far too short for this film. Some of the other Narnia films (if they get made) you could get away with that running time but not this one. I think this needed to be 150 minutes to allow just over 2 hours of actual film.
I too really liked Will Poulter as Eustace, but did feel he was under used compared to the book. Also I felt that Lucy and Edward were pushed aside as well. I was surprised that Caspian was still being played by Ben Barnes. He looks so different.
Georgie Henley has grown so much since the first film. At times she even looked a bit like Anna Popplewell who played Susan in the previous two films.
I didn't like Simon Peg as Reepicheep. I prefered Eddie Izzard's voice. I think it suited the character more.
Was it me or did Aslan look less realistic in this film?
Despite it's many flaws I liked this film much more than the Harry Potter film. IMO it's an more accessible film. You can watch this as an stand alone film if you've ner read the books or seen the previous films. You can't do that with the Potter film. If you don't know the books or other films then you wouldn't have a clue what is going on in that film.
He is so much more grown up now compared with the first film, and the relationship between Edmund and Eustace in "Dawn Treader" was a bit like the relationship between mature Peter and naughty Edmund in "The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe". I noticed in some of the scenes that Will Poulter seems to have done a growth spurt during filming, just as Skandar did in the first film.
Unlike TLTW&TW and Prince Caspian, this is the first Narnia film which I have seen without having read the book first. It will be interesting to get the book and read it to see what the differences were.
I have just checked Wikipedia, which says that Will Poulter was born in January 1993 (so he's nearly 18 already(!)) but filming was between July and November 2009, when he would have been 16 1/2 to 16 3/4.
I've hated 3D since it first started getting forced in our faces again. I won't pay the over-inflated prices to see a 3D film in the cinema. Paying for 2D is expensive enough. I go to see a film for story and characters. Special effects are a bonus for me, not the end all be all of what can make a good film.
I'm afraid this whole 3D craze is something else I just don't "get"...
Plus Edmund is hotter than the sun.
I knew since the first film that Skandar Keynes would grow up to be more than a bit attractive.
Wasn't sure about him either; just sounded like a Basil Brush impersonation.
LOL!
Now you've said that I can hear it as well, you are right!
I think that some people may be disappointed with this film because there aren't numerous "magical" creatures compared to the other two. When you think about the Minotaur on the ship he wasn't seen as much as you would expect and was totally underused.
My favourite fact about the extremely handsome Skandar's gorgeousness is that when they were filming "Prince Caspian", his voice was already deeper than William Moseley's (even though he's four years younger).
I don't know how well that $24m compares with other films. In a way, it doesn't matter if they don't make any more anyway because Skandar Keynes won't be in them anyway.
He would be in The Last Battle, but really I think that is unfilmable unless the world is ready for films in which swarthy men with turbans are all sent straight to hell except one who recants and converts at the last minute to the true religion. Not to mention the fact that Susan doesn't make heaven because she has discovered her sexuality.
Yet over 100 million worldwide so far and it hasn't even been released in alot of countries yet.
I wouldn't write the series of just yet
I do agree that Eustace stole the show really as he was very good. The only bit I rolled my eyes at was the little sermon about God (but since that is what all the books are really about can't really complain) The worst part of the film for me was being stuck in front a bunch of Kids that just annoyed the hell out of me
3D wasn't too bad, it is not the Avatar standard, and so there were a few scenes that were a little darker than they should have been, but it wasn't gimmickily done - with arrows flying at you and stuff, so I quite liked it.
It's the third. Prince Caspian was the Second film.
I don't think they have combined the books, I know the first two films have the stories from the first two books (Lion/Witch/Wardrobe and Prince Caspian) I would assume that the Dawn Treader is only based on the book of the same title - as it wasn't really long enough to have combined any other story aspects.
I wouldn't understand why they would feel the need to combine the stories, as it would limit the amount of sequels if they combined some of the stories. Harry Potter used each of the stories as individual movies, and I think Lord of the Rings is another one (never read the books though so can't be sure)
well the books aren't very long , I'm sure I heard that the 1st film was more than one book .
Well I have read the first and second Chronicles of Narnia books and I can say for certain that they are the stories from the books and that is it.
I don't think they are that small of books really - they are about 200 - 300 page books, which is similar to the first two Harry Potter books. And as I said the films are not that long, the latest is only 115 mins or something.
And as a plus they needn't remove too much of the story like they have to in the Harry Potter films, to make it fit a standard film time.
But the first film is definitely only the one book.