I voted she did bad. I thought she did amazing in the first two. But in VDT, her performance didn't seem anywhere near being up to par.

~Riella

I haven't seen the movie, which is why I didn't vote. [Long story, don't ask. ]

Anyway, after reading everyone's comments I realized that no one has mentioned the director. Many times an actor's performance, good or bad, depends on the director. A great one usually leads to good acting. I mean, look at Apted's Amazing Grace = wow!

Instead of blaming Georgie or the scriptwriters (although I think the latter complaint is valid), consider the director. I don't think Apted's heart was in this movie. In one interview, he ridiculed making a film with furry characters - as though he has issues with the science fiction/fantasy genre. How many movies in this genre has Apted made?

I think Skandar and Georgie's hearts were in the film. Saying they weren't is unfair to them, especially since William and Anna were gone and it felt awkward for them at times. I do think they loved the film and the ship. So don't blame the actors.

Also, Apted usually had only two takes. That doesn't leave much time or tries to get it right. That wasn't true with Adamson. He took longer with each scene, which is why the performances may have been better.

Finally, Adamson understood Lucy. I don't think Apted does (or did).

Good point, 220chrisTian!

That's true with all of them (Will, Anna, Skandar, and Georgie) about the director. Adamson seemed very close to them and really seemed to honestly care for them. For Georgie, he became sort of an adoptive father, especially when she was so young. She probably felt more comfotable around him, and, therefore, her acting was superb.

Maybe she wasn't as close to Apted, so it was harder to get a real reaction out of her at times...?

She was alright but I agree with others, it felt forced at times and cheesy at others and the CGI interaction was a bit odd at times...(Especially her conversation with reepicheep about his song and in particular the line "Thats pretty!" -Cringe) But she was trying and she wasn't the worst, not by a long shot! She's one of my favorite actresses and I really leved her in LWW and PC so i'm willing to put this down to other factors already mentioned (Director, script...)

I wanted to vote "She did Great" but something stopped me, so I did very good/solid performance. I don't think that she's gotten worse, but I think it was a hard part to play, and so some of the lines were forced. But she's a great actress, and did fantastic.

I hadn't considered the director thing before, but it does make a lot of sense! Especially if they only had two takes to do things. That would be very hard, I think.

Yes, I personally think that 2 takes is a rediculas amount! I like to get a feel of the scene that i'm doing and others do to and this can take quite a while! Maybe that is why her performance was a bit stiff?

I voted she didn't an average/so so performance, I watched the first Narnia movie today and was amazed at how well Georgie did in that movie. In VDT, she was good, don't get me wrong and it was quite enjoyable to watch her, but I think it could have been done better, it was okay, but definatly not her best. She is still the best Lucy in my opinion, I just think something was missing from her in this film

I voted ok. Now, having read over these posts, I'm really becoming convinced she did her best and that it was just the director and the poorly written/developed script. If there is a "narnia 4" I hope they do find a better director or get AA back.

I saw the movie last week! I voted 'very good/solid performance.' What kept it from 'great' is explained below. But I did think Georgie's performance in the beauty theme scenes made it better than 'average.'

My movie review is on Aslan's Country - with a link to a revised version.

I thought Georgie's best acting had to do with the beauty theme: outside the enlistment office, in the magician's house, and in Caspian's cabin saying the spell. I especially liked her conversation with Aslan when it was over.

Other times, I thought Lucy just smiled too much sometimes and it seemed a bit fake, like she was obviously acting. Georgie didn't seem very natural in some of these scenes. And again, I think it had to do with the director - not whether or not Georgie's heart was in the film. Because of the beauty theme and her love of Narnia, I think it was.

From my review:

And I loved the beauty spell episode: Lucy in the magician’s house, plus her reading the spell and being transformed into Susan. It may not have matched the book, and yet it worked – for reasons few have realized. The beauty spell encapsulates the film’s message. I’ll explain more later. I also think the beauty spell and ending scenes were Georgie’s best acting in the film, in which her whole heart and interest were engaged. . . .

I think I know what Dawn Treader the movie is about. And it’s this: finding your true identity. That may seem trite, but I’ll explain. I had left the theater and was waiting for my food at a restaurant. And I was thinking about the Narnian people being sold and fed into the mist at the Lone Islands. Then suddenly I thought of Lucy and the beauty spell. And it hit me. When the Narnians were fed into the mist, what happened? They disappeared. They lost their identity – as if they had never existed. These people were sold into spiritual darkness. They had no choice about the matter.

Yet Lucy, who surely knows better by knowing Aslan, through temptation chooses to do just what they did – by saying a magic spell that will make her become Susan. She chooses to succumb to spiritual darkness. Lucy thinks she’s now beautiful, that she’s getting what she wants. Yet by reciting the spell Lucy also disappears – as if she had never existed. Through the early part of the film, she lives in the shadow of Susan. For some reason, Lucy doesn’t really know who she is. Her identity in Aslan isn’t sure. So he must tell her, “Don’t run from who you are.” Lucy is valiant and beautiful, because of her faith in Aslan. When the Lion reminds her of this, and the temptation is broken, the real Lucy reappears. She then helps Gael, telling her that when she grows up she should be herself – not Lucy. It makes me think Aslan allowed Lucy to recite the beauty spell not only to see her true value but also through her experiences to help the unsure, frightened Gaels of the world.

Anyway, after reading everyone's comments I realized that no one has mentioned the director.
....
Finally, Adamson understood Lucy. I don't think Apted does (or did).

I agree with you 100 percent! In fact, I thought I had mentioned director troubles in my post on page one...

Her performance was below what we saw in LWW and PC. Not sure why - it may be something to do with the change in directors.

OK, good, I did. Easy to miss, though!

I think over time I've begun to support this theory more and more. Watching LWW and PC behind-the-scenes reels, and reading interviews with those involved, I'd say Mr. Adamson really took the time to get close to Georgie and the others; to connect with them. Remember how for PC, the scene where Lucy finally finds Aslan in the forest (during the battle) Adamson had Lucy act off of himself as Aslan? That's one tight relationship!
I don't think we'll see the same thing from Apted. Possibly because she's older, it wasn't possible - not on the same level, anyways.

I voted a good performance. Some of her scenes seemed a little off. The bedroom scene at the beginning just didn't feel right to me. "Edmund the painting" didn't seem to have the right feeling in it.

I voted "Not very good." Whatever the reason (i.e. bad scripts, new director or just Georgie) it was a let down compared to her great performance in LWW and even her good one in PC. She didn't convince me that she was Lucy, like she has in the other two. I cringed at a lot of her lines. During my second viewing, I was thinking "what happened to Georgie?"

^something to do that she is growing up? When you grow up, you will loose a lot of your "good side". I find her great as usual. But well, each to her/his own opinions.

I think part of what was different about Lucy was that she was being played by a young teen actor, who was required to act consciously rather than just respond naturally. Georgie had a much more mature understanding of the role and its requirements this time, and she was delivering the part from a more adult perspective. She clearly enjoyed working with Apted for what she could learn from him, and it will have been a good step in her career. I have seen young pre-teen actors who have a lovely natural talent just lose it in the next few years - but I don't think this will happen with Georgie as she has a lot of skills and sensitivity to keep growing as an actor.