User Score

Generally favorable reviews- based on 144 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 91 out of 144
  2. Negative: 19 out of 144

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. Dec 13, 2010
    I really wanted this to be good. Perhaps my expectations were too high but, my first reaction when the end credits began to roll was... "Wouldn't it be great if someone would make a high budget film loosely based on the Dawn Treader?" We've read the books many times over. Therein lies the problem. I realize the need to adapt a story for the big screen but they should be ashamed of themselves. Whatever happened to the art of story telling? It struck me as a dumbed down action flick for kids. Expand
  2. Dec 16, 2010
    The **** of the year, the Narnia's series it's only getting worse, this movie don't have dynamic, it's only talk, talk, talk... In other words, boring. If you don't watch yet, don't go watch, it's a waste of time and money....
  3. Jul 21, 2012
    Dazzling visuals and some solid performances don't help this campy, not-so-fantastical,boring, fantasy. It has bloated action and dialogue, along with choppy editing and pace. The worst installment yet. I give this movie 28%.
  4. Dec 16, 2010
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. David Byrne, back in his "More Songs about Buildings and Food" days with the Talking Heads, once remarked that "heaven [was] a place where nothing ever happen[ed]," hardly the sort of place for a swashbuckling rat like Reepicheep(voiced by Eddie Izzard), who seeks action and is absolutely fearless in any given situation. Assuming that he gets there. Prince Caspian(Ben Barnes) won't go; he politely declines Aslan's invitation to his kingdom, choosing instead to continue his reign over Narnia for the time being, while the wall of tidal water, fluid but frozen in time and space, beckons anybody who wishes to cross over. The rat, on the other hand, presumed to be much older than his human compatriot in arms, accepts the lion's officer, with the understanding that he just punched himself a one-way ticket. After Reepicheep bids everybody a fond farewell, the loyal Narnian subject lays down his earthly possessions on the sand, and scampers toward the shoreline, where the rat disappears into the blue, similar to the way the sixties activist/writer(played by James Earl Jones) in Phil Alden Robinson's "Field of Dreams" vanishes amid the green Iowa corn, with the difference being that Terrence Mann's trip was a round one. Prior to the reclusive author's departure, the 1989 film starring Kevin Costner(based on the novel "Shoeless Joe" by W.P. Kinsella) suggests the un-Christian notion of heaven being a place on earth, when the farmer and his father discuss dreams and geography(suggestive of baseball as being a religion to itself), just before they toss around the baseball(practicing their religion), whereas "The Chronicles of Narnia" books by C.S. Lewis were loaded with Christian teachings that survived the film adaptations, leading the moviegoer to interpret the rat's destination as being heaven, since the mighty lion(voiced by Liam Neeson) is a blatant Christ figure. Aslan alone can rise up from the dead, the only one who can leave Narnia and return as he pleases, because the lion is all-powerful; he's God, after all, while Caspian can't claim to be nothing more than a mere mortal, but the omnipotent one tempts the prince into willfully abdicating his throne and the remainder of his natural life. For his own sake, the royal stands his ground, explaining to Aslan that his father would have wanted him to remain among the Narnians, the denizens he was entrusted with by decree to protect. The moviegoer, however, suspects that the prince also wants to live long enough to "catch"(wink wink nudge nudge) the falling star from the "Island of the Star" on their way back home. Reepicheep, conversely, by his own admission, has seen it all and is all out of fight(and perhaps, all out of love, too, save for one last hug with Lucy), so "dying"(for what else could it be?) becomes easy for the rat, whose derring-do, upon closer examination, was a symptom of his death wish. As the wind and waves thrashes the Dawn Treader this way and that way during a fierce storm, en route to Dark Island, the rat can be glimpsed flitting around up high on the main yard near the top mast, where one false move could have sent the tiny soldier plummeting to the deck, or worse, the turbulent, churning waters they're navigating. Even the horseplay, a practice sword fight, that he participates in with his sparring partner Eustace(Will Poulter), after further review, seems less innocent as it first appeared. This boy, Lucy and Edmund Pevensie's cousin, was swinging his blade at the rat pretty hard. The rat could have easily been the victim of beginner's luck. When Reepicheep jumps into the ocean after the lad, by then, transformed into a dragon, it's with that same dauntless recklessness. Finally, at the beach, the rat reveals his secret desire, as he steps into liquid and, presumably, into the realm of heaven, but doesn't self-murder occasion a trip to the other place? "The Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader" is more bunk about realms and food for ecclesiastical thought. The film sorely misses Susan. Expand
  5. Dec 18, 2010
    Fans most likely would enjoy this and going to this would kind of only be worth it to them, but with a story that is flat and does a complete circle with a sense of urgency, "Dawn Voyager" is either really boring or is overall alright for people that either havenâ
  6. Dec 12, 2010
    This movie was very mediocre. Most of the characters are very one-dimensional and bland. Eustace was the only character that was drawn-out well and turned out to be multi-faceted as we see his transformation in the end. The visual FX were very cheesy for the most part but I've heard this movie had a smaller budget than the previous two which were produced by Disney. Still, this movie looked and felt like a loosely-filmed and low-budget British TV drama more than anything. This is a family-friendly alternative to the edgy first part of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, but it pales in comparison quality-wise. If you like bland and preachy films that feel perfect for Sunday school, you will love this latest Narnia installment more so than its two Disney precedents. Expand
  7. Jan 22, 2011
    Trough the film the spectator loses the interest in the story because all the situations are solved easily and the Christian message is evident. The 3-D effects aren't good and maybe it is better to see it in 2-D.
  8. Feb 22, 2011
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Well, it´s a very good saga on BOOKS!! In the first movie is good; in the second it was boring and without the things that tell the book (like Harry Potter or Twilight) but the third movie has all previous things in one movie
    For me, don´t like =I
  9. Aug 11, 2011
    This was by far the worst movie out of all 3 of them!!! I cant even begin to express how disgusted I am in this one!! I understand the movies cant be exactly the same the story, but come on.... the 3rd one was sooooo way off!!!! I have read and reread the ENTIRE book at least 5 times. Every story was awesome, just brilliantly amazing!!! They could have at least kept to the storyline. I feel bad for people who liked the movie, that just means they didnt read the book and if they did, well then SHAME on them for thinking the movie was good!!! If you have read the book and have not seen the movie I BEG you to please DO NOT watch it!! If you are a true Narnian fan as much as I am, you will regret WASTING your money on such a horrible, awful, useless movie that will leave you saying OMG thats not how it happened and/or OMG why did they change the story line was perfect they should have left it the way it was!!! Even in the second one if you are true Narnian you know half the stuff was not even remotely close to how it happened in the book. so you know I am NOT LYING when I say the 3rd was awful just awful, but hey watch it for yourself and then come back and tell me I am wrong, but I know you true fans wont!!! Expand
  10. Dec 21, 2011
    J'ai trouvé que ce troisième opus était un véritable gâchis! Surtout du fait que la saga venait d'avoir un gain de qualité avec Le Prince Caspian. Mais cette Odysée du Passeur d'Aurore fait retomber le tout bien bas, et ce à cause de nombreux défauts : mal joué, effets numériques inégaux, un manque flagrant de spectaculaire et de magie, mauvaises photographie et mise en scène... Bref, j'ai vraiment eu l'impression de regarder un banal téléfilm plutôt qu'autre chose, qui atteint également un niveau de niaiserie jamais vu dans un tel produit grand public (cela est dû aux dialogues et à la musique). Je ne retiendrai que la légère dose de comique apportée par le personnage d'Eustache ainsi que la séquence divertissante du serpent de mer. A part cela, je mis suis royalement ennuyé, n'ayant pas vu un opus à la hauteur du précédent... pour ne pas dire de la saga... Expand
  11. Jun 20, 2013
    Las cronicas de Narnia siempre sorprende en cada pelicula cada vez menos, claro que en la primera demostro ser buenisima, la segunda paso y era aceptable pero ya la tercera fue un desastre total.

Mixed or average reviews - based on 33 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 12 out of 33
  2. Negative: 1 out of 33
  1. Reviewed by: Marc Savlov
    Dec 15, 2010
    It takes great skill to make something so ponderously stultifying as this third film entry in the ongoing adaptation of C.S. Lewis' series of splendidly imagined children's books.
  2. Reviewed by: Andrew O'Hehir
    Dec 10, 2010
    It's difficult to make this mediocre adaptation of perhaps the best-loved book in C.S. Lewis' Narnia series -- seem particularly interesting.
  3. Reviewed by: Michael Phillips
    Dec 10, 2010
    The Dawn Treader doesn't so much reinvent the "Narnia" franchise as do what's needed, and expected, with a little more zip than the previous voyages.