El jilguero

Greetings again from the darkness. The challenge after watching this movie is deciding whether it needed more time or less. With a run time of two-and-a-half hours, that may seem like a ludicrous question, but Donna Tartt's Pulitzer Prize (fiction) winning 2013 novel was almost 800 pages long, covering many characters and spanning more than a decade. What to include and what to omit surely generated many discussions between director John Crowley (the excellent BROOKLYN, 2015) and screenwriter Peter Straughan (Oscar nominated for the fantastic TINKER TAILOR SOLDIER SPY, 2011).

13 year old Theo (Oakes Fegley) is visiting the Metropolitan Museum of Art with his mother when a bomb explodes leaving Theo dazed in the rubble and his mother dead. An encounter with an injured stranger causes Theo to take a painting and flee the museum. Theo proceeds to hide the artwork as the family of one of his schoolmates takes him in. The painting is "The Goldfinch" by Rembrandt's pupil Carel Fabritius. In the first of many parallels separated by time, we learn Fabritius was killed (and most of his work destroyed) in an explosion. In fact, it's these parallels and near-mirror-images are what make the story so unique and interesting ... and so difficult to fit into a film.

When Theo's long-lost drunken shyster father (Luke Wilson) shows up with his equally smarmy girlfriend Xandra (Sarah Paulson), they head to the recession-riddled suburbs of Las Vegas. It's here where Theo meets Boris (Finn Wolfhard, Richie from the two IT movies), a Ukranian emigrant living with his dad (yet another parallel). The two boys become friends, partaking in drugs, alcohol, and shoplifting. Another tragedy puts Theo on the run. He finds himself back in New York, where he takes up with Hobie (Jeffrey Wright), the partner of the stranger from the museum.

All of this is told from the perspective of young adult Theodore Decker, played by Ansel Elgort. We see him bunkered in a hotel room contemplating suicide. The story we watch shows how his life unfolded and landed him in this particular situation. And it's here where we find the core of the story. Circumstances in life guide our actions, and in doing so, reveal our true character. Theo carries incredible guilt over his mother, and his actions with Hobie, regardless of the reasons for doing so, lead him to a life that is not so dissimilar to that of adult Boris (Aneurin Barnard, DUNKIRK) when their paths cross again.

Other supporting work is provided by Ashleigh Cummings as Pippa, the object of Theo's desire, Willa Fitzgerald (played young Claire in "House of Cards") as Kitsey Barbour, Theo's fiancé, as well as Denis O'Hare, Peter Jacobson, and Luke Kleintank. As a special treat, Oscar winner Nicole Kidman plays Mrs. Barbour in what feels like two different performances. When Theo is young, she is the cold, standoffish surrogate mother who takes him in; however when older Theo returns, her own personal tragedies have turned her into a warm bundle of emotions in need of pleasantry. It's sterling work from an accomplished actress.

The segments of the film that resonate deepest are those featuring Oakes Fegley as young Theo. Fegley was so good in the criminally underseen WONDERSTRUCK (2017), and here he conveys so much emotion despite maintaining a stoic demeanor. It's rare to see such a layered performance from a young actor. Of course the film is helped immensely by the unequaled work of cinematographer Roger Deakins. Mr. Deakins finally won his first Oscar last year in his 14th nomination. Trevor Gureckis provides the music to fit the various moods and the two time periods. All of these elements work to give the film the look of an Oscar contending project; however, we never seem to connect with the older Theo, which leaves a hollow feeling to a story that should be anything but. Instead we are left to play "spot the parallels" ... a fun game ... but not engaging like we would hope.

I had high hopes for this movie ever since it was announced, as it had cast an all-star cast and the novel (though I never read it) was considered great, so when the negative reviews came out, I lowered my expectations going into the movie and I'm glad I did. The cinematography was great as well as the directing, Oakes Fegley is a star in the making and this is his movie. The remaining cast was pretty good and Finn Wolfhard, despite what critics are saying, nails the Russian accent. This movie represents life and how just one mistake can change your future drastically and it's not a movie for casual film-goers (as I thought 10 minutes could have been trimmed). All in all I loved The Goldfinch and don't let the critics convince you not to watch it.

I have not read the book, so am reviewing this as a film... and I found it gripping and moving. Visually superb and great acting along with an interesting story. I thought it was beautiful. I guess people are rating it low because it did not match up to the book, and this is sometimes the case I know. But my wife has read the book, and was very happy with the film. It definitely deserves more than 6.2, so please ignore this low-ish rating. Enjoy.

Disclaimer: I have not read the novel this is based on.

As I didn't read the novel but heard so much of it's acclaim, I was excited to hear it was being adapted. So at least I would know the story. After seeing this film, I think I have a good idea of the plot. However, telling this story out of order may work in the book (again, I have no idea) but it fails spectacularly here. It's confusing to non-readers of the source material and it chops up character development as well as building emotional connections to the characters. If the characters were played by the same actors throughout maybe it wouldn't feel so abrupt. I think a book as long as 5he Goldfinch would have lent itself more to a limited series like Sharp Objects. I would have liked to see Tartt's characters come to screen as intended.

When Brooklyn came out in 2015, I was mesmerized by the sheer beauty of the picture visually, the story, and the all around fantastic performance by Saoirse Ronan. It was a great effort by John Crowley. So when I heard of The Goldfinch I had high expectations seeing as Crowley set the bar high with his last film. I didn't really care for the trailers though I knew it was based on a well acclaimed book. What can I say, this film is overlong, has a messy narrative, and most definitely has to be losing the meaning and importance of the book because this film is not remarkable.

The film is about a boy who loses his mom in a terrorist attack and then grows up in a foster home and then with his drunken and abusive biological father, followed by a friendly antique owner. The film goes through the protagonists struggle with identity, love, and the fact that he took a really expensive Goldfinch painting the day of the bombing, and this last fact comes back in to factor in different stages of his life. Even describing the plot just now was messy for me.

The film looks quite nice. Crowley's works look grand and intricate but that doesn't really cross the finish line. The main issue with this film is that it has no heart and loses what I assume is a lot of the books importance. Its a meandering tale that doesn't go deep enough and I felt like the last twenty minutes or so were just bad. The relevance of The Goldfinch is just lost on me and its just a moving plot device in a film that doesn't know what it wants to do.

I don't like to say it but The Goldfinch is masking around as Oscar bait but doesn't have a whole lot of quality. I didn't read Brooklyn either but the film feels magical and captures the era and aura of early 1900s Irish Brooklyn. This just feels like it sucks the main ideas of its basis and pastes it onto the screen. At a whopping 2 and a half hours, this film feels its length. Ambitious? Yes, but most certainly better left alone.

6/10