Didn't care for Voyage of the Dawn Treader either. The one moment in the movie that sticks out as memorable is the dream the younger girl has that has her with her older siblings on Earth. For a second I thought, "good, a scene or two that will have leads that aren't utterly incapable of carrying a movie on their own." And then it ended after ten seconds.
It isn't anywhere near offensively bad, but one of the main problems with it (and the series in general) is that it can't make up its mind if it wants to cater to the kids or appeal to the older audience that read the books as children. This one skews younger, I think, but even then there are inconsistencies: I found the final "battle" more grotesque than anything in the first two movies, but maybe that's just me.
I will agree that the absence of LOTR-lite bloodless epic battles was refreshing, and that Poulter was a nice surprise. He'd be the lead in the next one chronologically iirc, but I think I read somewhere The Magician's Nephew is the one they are planning on doing next.
I was able to see it in 2D thankfully, but I wasn't a fan of the cameras used. Don't know the name of it or its technical term, but it reminded me of the ones Mann used for Public Enemies. I'm not diametrically opposed to their usage, but I don't find that they fit the look of period or fantasy pieces. If that is the visual effect The Hobbit will have due to being filmed at 48 fps, I'm not sure I'm looking forward to that part of it like the technophiles seem to be.
Also,
Roger Ebert finally got around to reviewing Thor. And he gives it the review it deserves:
"Thor" is failure as a movie, but a success as marketing, an illustration of the ancient carnival tactic of telling the rubes anything to get them into the tent.
...
The failure of "Thor" begins at the story level, with a screenplay that essentially links special effects. Some of the dialog is mock heroic ("You are unworthy of your title, and I'll take from you your power!") and some of it winks ironically ("You know, for a crazy homeless person... he's pretty cut.") It adapts the original Stan Lee strategy for Marvel, where characters sometimes spoke out of character.
The story might perhaps be adequate for an animated film for children, with Thor, Odin and the others played by piglets. In the arena of movies about comic book superheroes, it is a desolate vastation. Nothing exciting happens, little of interest is said, and the special effects evoke not a place or a time but simply...special effects.
Thor to begin with is not an interesting character. The gods of Greek, Roman and Norse mythology share the same problem, which is that what you see is what you get. They're defined by their attributes, not their personalities. Odin is Odin and acts as Odin and cannot act as other than Odin, and so on. Thor is a particularly limited case. What does he do? He wields a hammer. That is what he does. You don't have to be especially intelligent to wield a hammer, which is just as well, because in the film Thor (Chris Hemsworth) doesn't seem to be the brightest bulb in Asgard.
...
Superhero movies live and die on the quality of their villains. "Thor" has a shabby crew. The Frost Giants spend most of their time being frosty in their subzero sphere of Jotunheim and occasionally freezing their enemies. Thor's brother Loki (Tom Hiddleston) is dark-haired, skinny, shifty-eyed and sadly lacking in charisma. He might as well be wearing a name tag: "Hi! I can't be trusted!" These villains lack adequate interest to supply a climactic battle, so the plot provides a Metal Giant, sends him to the New Mexico town, and has him blast fiery rays that blow up gas stations real good but always miss his targets.
...
The director given this project, Kenneth Branagh, once obtained funding for a magnificent 70mm version of "Hamlet." Now he makes "Thor." I wonder with a dread fear if someone in Hollywood, stuck with a movie about a Norse god, said "Get Branagh. He deals with that Shakespeare shit."
