VDT was much too short. It would've benefited from another 30mins or so. The only movies I felt should've had an intermission (for toilet breaks etc.) were the Lord of the Rings movies. They were long! (but great).

I do sort of wish it was longer, but the movie almost didn't get made so I am grateful for the fact that it did get made! and I love it!

I think although they were worried so much about run-time to make a movie people would watch, it worked against them because they didn't give us a chance to emotionally connect with any of the scenes. Lord of the Rings was long, but nobody minded becuase they were so awesome and you got so wrapped up in it. I'm not saying Narnia should be 3 hours long, but it definitely needed more time, and i think even the young audience they were worried about entertaining would have been better entertained if it had given more time to the scenes.

By the time the pace slowed down for the quick battle with the sea serpent, the sea serpent seemed to last forever because the rest went by so quickly.

I can understand why the movie is so short; it was made on a small budget and had to be filmed very quickly. I imagine if it has a really good box office showing perhaps the next film will be longer.

I also think this issue is subjective. It didn't feel too short to me. I certainly would have liked some parts extended, namely the un-dragoning of Eustace and the setup near the beginning of the movie. But I felt totally immersed by the end of the movie and didn't really have a problem with the length. It actually felt downright long to me.
I think this is more of an issue of personal preference; different people like movies to move at different speeds.

Lord of the Rings was long, but nobody minded becuase they were so awesome and you got so wrapped up in it. I'm not saying Narnia should be 3 hours long, but it definitely needed more time, and i think even the young audience they were worried about entertaining would have been better entertained if it had given more time to the scenes.

Yeah if the story had been written better I wouldn't have noticed how long or short it was. I got a "meh" feeling after watching the whole thing and wondered if an hour more was missing....

Unfortunately, I don't think VDT will have the Titanic phenomena happen to it....that really wasn't a great movie either (and way too long) but it still succeeded financially...go figure...

See I would rather the film be as long as Titanic (which actually needed to be 3 hrs long to develop the characters and show the whole sinking) than be rushed and choppy.

Btw, Titanic wasnt a bad movie. It did get 11 oscars after all.

Titanic was boring as all else, but yes, as they included a love story they needed all the time to develop the characters so we felt for them during the disaster. VDT wouldn't require anything near 3 hours but it needed to be much longer.

Titanic was not boring. It was well worth the three hours and i saw it multiple times in the theater when it came out. Giving time for development is a great thing and something that VotDT really needed.

We'll have to agree to disagree. I didn't feel the romance between the two leads, I don't enjoy pure romance stories and I wasn't fond of Di Caprio at the time (he's much better since he's shed the pretty boy persona).

Ok the pacing was definitely my number one problem! They left so much underdeveloped, and the plot felt really rushed... I agree 15 extra minutes would have made a drastic improvement! I think part of that though was that the were targeting younger audiences, at least that's what it seemed like.

The first time I saw it, I was surprised it went so quickly, but now that I've seen it again, I feel like (with the exception of the Lone Islands) the pacing was pretty good. Could the movie benefit from an extra 15 minutes? Sure. But I don't necessarily think it needs it.

We'll have to agree to disagree. I didn't feel the romance between the two leads, I don't enjoy pure romance stories and I wasn't fond of Di Caprio at the time (he's much better since he's shed the pretty boy persona).

I completely agree about DiCaprio, but in my opinion Kate Winslet more then makes up for his failings. It is really her movie anyway and one i liked. We can, of course, agree to disagree. I could understand why people would not like it even though i think it is great.

Basically iy ust needed to be longer, if they added another 30-40 minuets the movie would have been awsomer.

I actually think with VotDT that the film needed to be a little more polished. They need to sort of pan out at points or go back and show the characters before they cut to the next scene. There was a lot of issues like that.

I finally got to see it again for a second time. This time I didn't get thrown out of the scenes like I did the first time. It flowed much more smoothly. My current theory is that because I know the book so well, the non-book stuff kind of threw me. It was still a bit rushed, but not quite the hectic pace it felt the first viewing.