You should read this one. He's a respectable critic.

Very positive review:

Dude at focus on the family LOVED it!

I'm sure I will too. :-)

I saw it in 3-D last night - there were some stellar effects at points, some less stellar at others. I think the movie was well-done for the story it told, but they very definitely created an overall storyline that is not quite in the book. Most of the elements of the story are in there, but they've been re-ordered to fit the new storyline. It worked - but loving the book so much, I found it a little disheartening. I think I feel about this one the way I felt about "Order of the Phoenix" - a fairly good movie with some really sweet moments that totally departed from one of my favorite stories. Sweet and a little sad all at the same time.

not be "Disnified" for the masses makes this one have a chance......I didn't like the first two at all......I have heard that this one is the most "faith driven" and "Christian-metaphor" filled of the three......that makes me at least want to maybe rent it........the other 2 I just waited for on regular TV.

Jeff Dunn at iMonk isn't a fan ...

http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/a-voyage-to-avoid

From friends, I've heard all good things. Some really glowing reviews, too.

Not to be a Debbie Downer, but judging by its numbers, it looks iffy as to whether or not Dawn Treader might be the last Narnia movie you have the opportunity to see in a very long time . . .

http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=narnia3.htm

Worldwide, the film is doing okay, but its gross in the states is, well, gross.

I have heard comments along the lines of Apted's coming out of the studio and director's camps for the past year or so. I understand the need from a movie-making perspective to have a more focused plot. They are looking for the lost Narnian lords and the book kind of sprawls and meanders around from one episode to the next, as they gradually find the fate of most (all?) of the lords, in different locations. Then there is the added piece about maybe finding Aslan's country if they sail far enough, and Reepicheep's desire to go there - which I love. It doesn't make for a streamlined, 2-hour movie. But as one who loves the books as they are, I don't think I'm going to like seeing the story changed all around. I know I didn't like most of the changes they made to the first two, and they were relatively minor compared to this one.

It strikes me that the directors are in a somewhat difficult position, because they are trying to make a children's movie out of a children's book. But the Lewis/Tolkien conception of a "children's book" is very, very different from what would be considered prime material for a children's movie these days. What is perfectly fine to be described in print to young ears would be absolutely unacceptable to show to young eyes.

So I think that a disclaimer should be put on all critical reviews of this movie. The standard of whether or not it's a "good movie" is not: would a mature adult buy it?, but rather: would an imaginative 8-year old love it? While the movie emphatically fails the first (unfair) test, I think it would probably pass the second with flying colors. The fact that Lewis' books could do both should not color our perception of the movie.

So with this, I officially recant my original comment which I made to several people (in person) that is was a terrible movie.

The best thing about Dawn Treader (the movie) is that with this one, they didn't just keep the plot and "Disnify" the film (word credit to nhe). Instead, they went out of their way to keep all of those beautifully profound one-liners that are in so many ways the whole point of the Narnia series. The "surprise attacks" as someone called it in an article on Lewis that I read recently, where the reader thinks he is just reading a pleasant fairy tale, an escape from the real world, but instead he finds eloquent truth stated in ways that could never have worked their way into his mind through ordinary prose.

And so in a sense, while the film did deviate from the plot of the book, this movie is MOST true to Lewis of all the movies made so far.

"I'm trying to figure out when the first movie became unlike its book."

I didn't like the amount of bickering that the movie introduced between the kids (esp. the disharmony between Susan and Peter), nor the "conflicted, reluctant hero" portrayal of Peter, nor the idea that "this isn't our war" and that Peter and Susan want to go back to England rather than help Narnia. It's been a while since I read the book but it seemed like the movie either invented or at least played those things up to a greater degree than the book.

From a CT review of LWW:

"Susan (Anna Popplewell) will learn that logic and "too much thinking" can prevent her from apprehending miracles. Peter (William Moseley) is insecure and easily exasperated, whereas in the book he was a natural leader; like Peter Jackson's melancholic Aragorn in the Lord of the Rings trilogy, he must rise to seize a sword and lead the charge against evil."

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/movies/reviews/2005/lionwitchwardrobe.html

But for me the biggest difference was a subtle shift in the portrayal of Aslan. Again from the CT review:

As for the character we've all longed to see—Aslan—let's face it: He's not the Aslan who gave that novel its bold and beating heart. He's given a voice of nobility and gentleness by Hollywood's favorite warrior-mentor, Liam Neeson. Thanks to the animators, he's a beautiful sight, if not quite as convincing as the CGI characters in Jackson's Middle-Earth. But Adamson, working with Emmy-winning co-writers Ann Peacock, Christopher Markus, and Stephen McFeely, has severely altered Aslan's presence and power in the script.

"While other characters' roles have been expanded, the lion's appearances are painfully brief. He doesn't have the time onscreen to earn our affection and awe the way we might have hoped. And scene by scene, the writers consistently skirt the issue of Aslan's authority, eliminating most references to his history, power, and influence. Aslan's father, the Emperor-beyond-the-sea, is never mentioned. Instead, the lion waxes philosophical like Obi-Wan Kenobi, mentioning the Deep Magic that "governs" his "destiny." Huh?"

The watering down of Aslan was worse in Caspian than it was in the first movie. A friend of mine wrote the following after Caspian:

"Once again, they really dumbed down Aslan's role, even more so than in LWW. He really didn't seem like anything more than a fairly powerful magic lion, and not the character controlling and driving the entire rest of the story from behind the scenes. For example, when Lucy asks him what would've happened had she followed him earlier on, he says "no one can know" rather than "no one is told". Big difference.

Also in Caspian, when Lucy comments on Aslan’s size, he merely replies, “Every year you grow, so shall I.” This is a significant change from the book's version:

Lucy: “You’re bigger, Aslan.”
Aslan: “That’s because you are older, little one.”
Lucy: “Not because you are?”
Aslan: “I am not. But every year you grow, you will find me bigger.”

The revision to "every year you grow, so shall I" subverts the idea that the infinite mystery of God does not itself change, but is always revealed to be greater than we previously supposed as we grow and our capacity to appreciate it increases.

My friend summed up what he thinks the Disney-fied and watered down Aslan might say to the children:

"You will need to learn how to find your truest selves in your own world. Large friendly animals will need your help there as well."--(said with Liam Neeson intonation, as though that inherently lends weight to any dialogue)