That's a pretty nice summary for a film that feels like it's being pummeled by critics. (I realize it's only at 50%, but still, it feels that way.)

I think franchise/adaptation movies such as VDT have less of an appeal to critics because many times they will have not seen the previous installments or read the books, and thus, will not be able to appreciate it or critique it to the fullest regards. Also, these are people who go see movies every week, so they're more likely to be unimpressed if they see a great movie the week before.

At least the freshies (30) have pulled ahead of the rottensies (23) by 7 temporarily.

IMDB has 1213 votes and a weighted 7.0 rating while the mean is 7.5. And 72% of the votes are a 7 or higher rating.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0980970/ratings

Box Office Mojo has 70% voting A out of 88 votes.
http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=narnia3.htm

Still early but moviegoers rating higher than the critics.

For being glimglum, you sure aren't very glum. LOL

Wow, it's down to 49% on RT now... it's really getting savaged by critics.

Concerning 3D, I like what Ebert says:
"I will say it has the best rendition of 3-D I've seen in one of these action spectaculars; Apted uses it and is not driven by it."

He did say that, but coming from him it's faint praise indeed - Ebert really dislikes 3D in films. I actually half-expected him to trash Dawn Treader just out of spite for that reason, but I'm glad to see he didn't and a little surprised to see such a positive review.

It just keeps going down...now the TomatoMeter is at 47%.

Most of the critics are finding the film boring and forgettable. At least those are two factors that are heavily subject to personal opinion...

Concerning 3D, I like what Ebert says:
"I will say it has the best rendition of 3-D I've seen in one of these action spectaculars; Apted uses it and is not driven by it."

He did say that, but coming from him it's faint praise indeed - Ebert really dislikes 3D in films.

I know, which is why I'm very surprised for him to say that. He must have found enough good things about it to praise it.

Most critics are not going to like it. Most readers will not want to believe there is a bias. But I sense there is some. In almost 100% of the nay sayers, there is complaining about the faith and Christian elements in the movie (heavy handed, sermon, etc.). It is the mot consistent criticism of the movie.

It really is the most laughable criticism of the movie. You can't make a faithful adaptation of the books and drop those elements. If you do, it is not a Narnia story but something else.

It would be refreshing to hear most critics acknowlege this. But that is a pipe dream.

rjefvh,
I agree. Not all are biased but I have noticed a great many of them complaining just about the religious undertones. I wish those wouldn't count, but sadly they do. I prefer them all to be objective, anyone going into Narnia knows- or should already know- that there are christian undertones.

Disappointed about RT at 47%, but this is a stark contrast to IMDb which has more than 1200 members giving it a 7.0 out of 10, which is good. If I see the movie and like it as much as the regular moviegoer, then I will lose a lot of respect for said 'critics'.

CorazonBandido55

It is not a movie without flaws. But, to criticize the faith element is silly and it seems as if that is the most consistent criticism. Nothing else is consistent. Some like the pacing, some don't. Some like the plot, some don't. Some think the acting is natural and genuine; others think it is wooden.

Then almost all complain about sermonzing, heavy handed, in your face faith, etc.

It just seems as if they want to hate it, so they do, rather than actually reviewing the film.

Bill Gibron practically says he has hated the first two CoN films. Why does he even bother to review VDT? Simply to shred it?

To go with the IMDB rating of 7 out of 10, Box Office Mojo has its reader rating at a good solid B right now. In comparison, LWW has a B+ and PC has a B.

IMDB has reader ratings for LWW at 7.0 and PC at 6.9. So, thus far, VDT is faring pretty well if you don't count the critics!

Also, IMDB lists VDT as rising 136% in popularity this week.

Russ Breimeier has a very fair review of the movie. You may not like it or even agree after seeing it. But it is fair and spends time discussing problems he sees in the movie, not the faith themes in the movie. But then again, he writes for Christianity Today.

I lost a lot of respect for ChristianityTodayMovies when they gave Avatar 3.5/4 stars. In fact there have been a lot of movies I disagree with them on. I tend to agree with Focus On The Family analysis' much more.

FriendofNarnia2,

thx for the heads up. i will keep them on my approved reviewers list. if you have not read Devin Brown's review yet, it is a must read. it is on http://booksbycslewis.blogspot.com/

Yes, a lot of people have complained about religion in this film. Still, the first two movies are rated fresh with respectable though not stellar RT ratings. Clearly there's more wrong with this film than just people not liking religion. And while a lot of the reviewers have complained about the presence of religious elements (rather stupidly, imo), several have also compared the movie unfavorably to the book.

As is the case with most fairy tales, particularly ones as well loved and well read as Lewis' Narnia series, you know going in how it's all going to turn out, but the richness of the story keeps you coming back. Lewis knew enough to stir up much more than mist in "Dawn Treader," which is probably why it will be his that we remember.

Lacking almost all of author C.S. Lewis’ metaphysical depth and fantastical breadth ... Narnia never settled into its own mythology, instead borrowing wholesale from others and hoping desperately that something might stick.

and its dufflepuds not nearly funny enough. The dufflepuds—one-legged, dunderheaded dwarfs looked after by an exiled magician—are Lewis' comic riff on Caliban. In the book, they're hilarious. ... The movie should have been content to spin these tales of moral progress and send the audience back into the street eagerly debating which stalwart of the British screen would bring appropriate gravitas to the role of Puddleglum the marsh-wiggle in part 4, The Silver Chair. Instead, in an effort to give our heroes some higher duty, the screenwriters introduce a confusing wrinkle: Caspian and company must locate and unite seven swords, lest a strange, green, gaseous evil be loosed throughout Narnia. This unwanted dash of Tolkien-esque questing does little to move the story along. It also lends the movie a sense of foreboding that doesn't befit Lewis' cheery tale. If only the makers of Dawn Treader had learned the lesson Lucy does when she casts that forbidden spell: Don't try to be something you're not.

here they have a series of allegorical, frightening and/or comical adventures, delivered here by veteran English director Michael Apted (who has taken over the series from Andrew Adamson) in a far more directional, video-game fashion than in the Lewis original.

None of that is surprising: Lewis belonged to a far different generation, and was accessing an even more distant tradition. While the Narnia books are indeed, in part, a form of Christian parable (and we'll get to that), they're also an attempt to repurpose adventure stories of the late Middle Ages and Renaissance for a modern readership. Lewis was an eminent literary scholar and a huge fan of the Elizabethan poet Edmund Spenser, whose allegorical epic "The Faerie Queene" must be reckoned as a major influence. In a zillion ways large and small, the creators of the film series have ditched all that, in favor of a generic quest narrative that will presumably seem more familiar to fantasy buffs.

A particular reader favorite, "Dawn Treader" itself posed unique challenges to adaptation: A long seafaring adventure with a vague narrative thrust and no major villain, the story is gentle in spirit, episodic in structure and richly invested in character-driven themes of wisdom and maturity prevailing over temptation and pride. The film's principal flaw is that it views this as a condition to be remedied, rather than a quality to be embraced. Scribes Christopher Markus, Stephen McFeely and "Narnia" newbie Michael Petroni have attempted to up the stakes by tacking on a dull "Rings"-like fantasy quest, as well as a climactic sea-monster battle that smacks of "Pirates of the Caribbean."

But I suspect the fandom at large will conveniently ignore objections like that, blame the negative reviews on Christian-bashing, and then pillory their fellow fans who didn't like the film. We had the same sort of thing happen with PC, so why would things be different this time?