I think she's good but less natural than in the first 2 movies. In some scenes you can clearly see that she's "acting" if you know what I mean. Maybe because she has grown up and become more self-conscious in front of the camera. Same thing can be said about Skandar. But I think it's a stage that every child actor (except maybe Will Poulter) has to go through. Even Emma Watson overacted in HP and the Goblet of Fire.

Oh man... please tell me it's not so!! What happens to our Lucy...??

oh don't despair ...this is just my personal opinion of her acting. Maybe you guys will see it differently and catch some aspects I didn't notice. Like I said, she forced her emotions in some parts, but overall she's good. And she has her best moments, like when she deals with her temptation.

I agree that she's less natural but she's in no way bad. I also think it has to do with what she was given to do in this movie. Lucy was the believer in the first two films and she has to tackle with the insecurity most teenagers face at one point here. They also made her character to be less faithful in this film (seeing how she reacted when she heard about Aslan's country) which is not necessarily a bad thing as it's consistent to her changes and they didn't went overboard with it. I guess the kind of acting she has to do for the character didn't feel as comfortable for her to do than in the first two films ( I always thought she was kind of playing herself in LWW) but in the end, I'm still satisfied with the character arc of Lucy and Georgie's acting.

I'll be interested to hear reactions to this, I LOVED lu in LWW, abit less in PC, and now in VotDT, there where a few moments that actually made me cringe but thankfully not quite as much as I was dreading. She does overact quite badly in some places (it's quite NAAAARNIAN looking IIISN'T it???), and certainly adult woman may not respond well, but it's not really enough to do major damage to the film. and I won't be too harsh on georgie, to continue the comparison already made, I think she overacts far less than emma watson did at this stage
And some parts of her plotline where actually quite sweetly done
so yes, some bits are bad, but not too bad overall.

I'd agree that Georgie's performance in this movie felt far less natural than it did in the previous films. Watching her in The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe, she really displayed a sort of effortless confidence in her performance that would of led you to believe she would be one of the great british actresses of the coming decades. Here however, you would probably say "yeah, she was ok" but not much more.

I think alot of it however has to do with some the dialogue she had to deal with. Whereas Will Poulter had lots of sharp, clever and outright brilliant dialogue to deliver as Eustace (every single line of which he hit perfectly), Georgie got lumped with a lot of truly awful writing to deal with, and perhaps can be said to have done the best with a bad situation.

Almost every line of Lucy's was either really bland plot-related material, or really heavy-handed character development related material. I'm guessing they wanted to make Lucy's character arc easily accessible to the younger girls of the audience, as they made every piece of Lucy's dialgoue on the matter really obvious - there was no subtly to any of it whatsoever. Given such circumstances it is perhaps understandable that Georgie seemed somewhat under-par compared to the previous two films, though there are perhaps other reasons too.

Ah, so she was stuck with the Mr. Exposition/Captain Obvious duties this time around? Yeah, it takes a lot of talent to pull off those sort of lines, so I'm not surprised her performance wasn't as good this time around.

Goodness, I didn't see it that way at all! She did have some cliched lines but not too many - and although quite a bit of her dialogue was declamatory ("making an announcement") I also noticed a lot of Susan-ish voice tone which I am sure was coached.
Perhaps this time we are looking at Lucy from the outside rather than following the story through her eyes?

Lucy turns into Susan (kind of)??

I also noticed a lot of Susan-ish voice tone which I am sure was coached.

The tone Lucy uses when she says " What was that? " sounds a bit unnatural.The " It`s very Narnian looking." line sounds this way as well. I take it these could be the Susan like tones you are referring to. If this is the case then maybe filmmakers are taking the whole Susan issue a bit too far. It interferes with Georgie`s acting abilities. Story wise it may make sense I suppose. I was hoping Georgie would have a performance liken unto LWW. Having her talk like Susan/Anna isn`t a very good idea. It seems like her acting is suffering for it. She may be so focused on her tones that other elements of her acting are comprised because of it. I read reviews that commented on the less than stellar acting.

So does this has to do with

a) Lucy wanting to be like Susan?

b? Producers thinking fans will miss Susan?

or

c) other?

Why exactly are they tryong to make her sound like Susan?

My guess is that it all goes along with her wanting to be like Susan complex. She not only wants to look like Susan but actually become like her. The mimicking of her voice tones and the spell where Lucy sees herself as Susan in the real world is what film makers are going after.

If that is the case, I agree that thats taking it a tad to far, especially if it hinders Georgie's acting.

Anyways thanks for all your comments so far everyone. I'm a little sad that she isn't AS good as in the previous movie (I still think she will be pretty good .) However, I hope its just a phase as many of you have suggested.

I will see the movie tomorrow night and post my thoughts on her acting right after.