User reviews

If you like well done stories such as the Secret Garden this will appeal to you. The cast of mostly unknown actors give excellent performances. This is the type of movie that Britain does well. The actresses playing Hatty are appealing and the settings and production values are outstanding. While primarily a children's film, this production will appeal to all ages. It was not released theatrically in the States but is on several Cable channels. Don't miss it.

So few people know of this flick. Saw it last year on cable and tried to watch it every time it showed up. Can't purchase on DVD yet. Cast is perfect but it's the English gardens that steal this movie. Add a decent plot and beautiful locations and this one is a hit. Sit back and enjoy, it's delightful.

This is a delightful family film - well acted, well produced and quite touching. You may even feel a little bit of a lump in your throat by the end credits. The film really rests on the shoulders of young Anthony Way. I don't know how much acting he has dome, but he does a credible job here. Fair warning: if you and your kids are more into explosions, cartoon violence and fast action then this is not the movie for you. If you and the family are able to sit still and let the story unfold quietly and gently and slowly draw you in then you will really enjoy this. My family certainly did.

Being British & of an age; I'd previous seen the two BBC versions of the book (1974 & 1989). This film scores over those in it's production values and is a faithful retelling of the story (which works well on screen). However I found two things rather let it down the biggest being the age of the actor playing Tom. Tom is meant to be a young boy of 8 or 10 but here he is played by a 17 year old, and though he does it well, it really doesn't work in places; especially losing the effect of Hetty growing up and leaving him behind. The second thing, I didn't like was the music, which I found very intrusive and annoying in places. That said, it's a good film. I live near Chenies Manor & the garden look beautiful in this. I noticed the old BBC versions are on Youtube; so have a glance at them to compare. And have a good laugh at 1970's Tom's hair-style !

I'd never heard of this movie before today, and had no intention of watching it. I stopped by my parents' house to feed their cat, and offhandedly flipped the TV on, about 10 minutes into the movie. Oh look, I thought, another dry British film. Wow, Greta Scacchi does a pretty good accent. Next thing I knew, I had my coat off, it was 2 hours later, and the film was over. It grabbed me just like that. Of course, I may be biased -- I have a thing for "time travel" stories of any kind, and this one was so subtle that I found it especially intriguing. Anybody who's ever felt a bit alone or abandoned at some point in their life should get a lift from this story. And there's a nice underlying message about the ability of true friendship to transcend both gender and age.

Old age and youth meet up in a loving way that is seldom seen in film, and for this alone I give this film a 7. Both Greta Scacchi and James Wilby are underused and Andrew Way gives a moving performance as Tom, and despite the fact he was perhaps too old for the role it did not matter to me. I wish he had continued giving performances in other films of equal value. But what I did dislike was the beginning and the end. I found it dissipated the magic by putting a cosy, and to me a banal ending to the story. Ambiguity about Tom's future as a man went out of the window and as I have not read the book I hope the mistake was not made there. I just need to add that Joan Plowright gave a performance that moved me to tears. How does she do it ? Magic ?

Unlike many films of this nature, this film does not spend ages character building before launching into the story. The pre-story is short, with the film being plot driven. The characters are not explored in depth, instead it is the relationship between Tom and Hatty that is the focus.

That is not to say that you do not feel for the characters, the empathy is there. Like the best films, not everything is explained, and it is for you to discover it for yourself, leaving you with the desire to say your discovery to the characters. Slowly you become drawn into Tom's world.

The settings are beautiful, the characters are generally well acted, and the ending, whilst obvious, is still wonderful. Warning: may lead to tears !

I would, without question, recommend this film. It appeals to everyone from children to adults, and works on a few different levels.

TOM'S MIDNIGHT GARDEN, the late '90s adaptation of a classic children's novel of the 1950s written by Philippa Pearce, is a passable slice of entertainment that has both good and bad elements to recommend it. While it's entertaining enough as the story progresses, I couldn't help being disappointed in its failure to capture the magical qualities of the written story, which make it one of my favourite children's books of all time.

One of the problems is writer/director Willard Carroll's Americanisation of the material. This is quite subtle for the most part, but Carroll is far too obsessed with cheesy, computer-based special effects over story. Thus we get the ridiculous scene of Tom opening and closing the door and watching the furniture change over and over again, which is as redundant as it is silly. Less effects and tighter storytelling would have been the obvious choice here.

Still, the film looks the part, and the design of the titular garden is particularly strong. The young actress who plays Hattie gives the best performance in the whole thing, while Prince William-lookalike Anthony Way is adequate as Tom. There's a good eye for the supporting cast, which includes nice, if minor, roles for David Bradley and Liz Smith and an alluring turn from Greta Scacchi.

Sadly I did find that the story started to lose me as it progressed, and the last third is noticeably weaker than the preceding two. It happens when Hattie starts to grow up; scenes which should be poignant and heartbreaking are anything but, and I think that's a problem both with Way's acting and the deficiencies of the script. The added, present-day wraparound material (which wasn't in the book) is also unnecessary and distracting.

For me, the definitive version of the story is the BBC miniseries of 1989, which haunted and spellbound me as a child in equal measure. If only that had a DVD release!

I first came across this story when I was a 12 year old watching it on my primary school television. That was back in 1974 and it was a 3 part series. Fast forward to 2008. I managed to track down this version through a website called www.play.com. I sat down and watched it from beginning to end tonight and I was completely captivated by the whole movie. The scenery was breathtaking and the storyline was just as I remembered it. It was one of those movies that you simply did not want to end. I thought the acting was superb throughout but a special mention here for the superb actress that is Joan Plowright. Hers was a small part but she stood out like the fantastic actress she is. A previous reviewer said it was a film that the often criticised British Film Industry is so good at making. I couldn't have put it better myself.

"Blooming Heck" lisps hapless lead Anthony Way halfway through this flat, poorly acted, poorly directed mess of a film. That's my review in a nutshell if you want to stop reading now. Yep, this isn't going to be pretty, "Garden" fans. What's that? This film has no fans?

Things get off to a bad start the moment (former choirboy, you've been warned...) Way first comes loping and blinking into focus. Based on the book, I'd sort of envisioned the titular Tom as a likable, down to earth sort of boy that most kids could vaguely identify with. As opposed to an awkward, gurning,public school irritant with zero charisma and a terrible hair cut.

Titular indeed.

Because make no mistake, whatever qualities this film possesses (some nice photography and...er), this is car-crash cinema, utterly depth-charged by a central performance so staggeringly poor you'll be agreeing with Elvis (and 78% of all Americans, apparently) that shooting your TV screen with a high-calibre handgun is a a Good Thing. There are scenes in this film where poor Anthony can barely get his words out in the right order, let alone with any semblance of believability. Its as if the director (I use the term loosely)just thought "Sod it, I can't be bothered to re-shoot this idiot, he's not going to get any better..."

But the cross-fade addicted "director" doesn't help himself by fumbling key moments and allowing ham-fisted editing into his final cut. Witness the moment when young Tom comes in from the garden and, blank-faced as ever, drops out of view as the picture quickly fades to black. Has he died? Has he fainted? (probably - he certainly seems the type). What are we supposed to make of this moment? Does anyone making this tosh actually care?

The poor lad is so utterly at sea it must be catching because, whoops, his co-star (as Hattie) is also a total plank. So folks, here's a film centering on two kids and neither of them can act in any way shape or form that convinces. What else is there to rescue this repugnant, BAFTA-courting mess?

How about the music! Ahh the "score"...

You know that saying that the best incidental film music is the unobtrusive variety you don't notice? Well, it's not true, because it it was it would have meant no careers for John Williams, John Barry, Jerry Goldsmith and most of the other great composers. But it still rings true when you have to endure the by-numbers, twee, jingle-jangle hack job of a score that curses this movie's entire running time, without let-up. My poor old teeth are still recovering from the permanent edge this soul-destroyingly trite aural holocaust put them on. This is officially the worst film music of all time, no question, and I've sat through a number of Hans Zimmer/Michael Bay collaborations so I knows da territory folks.

My son is 9 years old and isn't a cynical culture assassin like his Dad; he enjoyed the book and wanted to see this film to see how it came over on screen. At the 10 minute point he turned to me un-prompted and used a colourful adjective (that rhymes with "ducking pit"; I blame the parents) to critique what he was seeing. On this occasion I'll let him off - after all, I've always impressed upon him the importance of telling the truth.

Still, the garden's got hedges shaped like squirrels.

2/10 (for the topiary)

My dad had read the book but I was more for the audiobooks at the time. I found the audiobook cassette tape in the local library and took it home. I listened to the tapes so much that they ended up warping!!

So imagine my delight when I found this film and that some of it had been filmed in the Isle of Man, about 5 minutes away from my house!

I've never been so disappointed in a film.

Tom and Hatty were just dreadful and captured none of the magic or excitement. After listening to the audiobook for many years I just don't understand how they couldn't have just gone from that to be honest - word for word, or indeed, use the same actors!

The garden was nice though!

This is one of our favorite films and we were thrilled when we found the region 2 DVD for it. My husband talked about this film for years, since we saw it while in college. We just watched it again tonight and I was bawling while my husband sat glued to the screen. Even our three year old son was interested in the beauty of "Garden" as he called it. This is definitely one of our favorites.

One of the funniest characters, though a small role, is the estate's gardener. He's the same actor who plays Filch in the Harry Potter films. Except for one scene where the little brother appears, which probably makes sense in the book, everything flowed wonderfully in this film. We highly recommend this film.

I first 'met' this story watching the program Merry Go Round in school - it included a black and white serialised version which so enchanted me I immediately sought out the book to read.

I then watched the TV series in the 70s and loved that also.

I had high hopes of the new film - hopes which were dashed. It was so slow. The set up before Tom met Hattie seemed to last forever and Tom was so OLD. He was a little boy in the books - but in this film he is a lumbering teenager.

I agree with other reviewers that the lad playing Tom does not come across as believable.

I managed to stay awake for the first third of the film and then nodded off. When I woke up five minutes later I switched the film off. My husband looked at me and said, "Thank you - I couldn't have stood much more of that." The music is obtrusive and naff. The best actor in the film is the garden.

This film is great.I watched it in school because we were reading the book. Tom Long's brother Peter Long has measles so Tom has to stay with his aunt Gwenn Kitson and uncle Alan Kitson.Tom's aunt and uncle live in a very strange house.A couple of days later Tom makes a new friend, Hatty and they play together.Tom is actually invisible so it makes them playing even better.Hatty is growing up very quickly when Tom is just a kid until Hatty becomes a real women.Tom is telling this true story of when he was young (12 years old). In school we had a trip which was going to see Tom's midnight garden at a theatre and it was fabulous.I got a better understanding when I watched the film because it was great.

I was entranced by this book as a child, so I was hoping for the best from this film. I wish I was able to say that my hopes were fulfilled.

Let's start with the good things. This film looks very good and, visually at least, belies its low budget. One of the things that digital effects have achieved is to enable inexpensively-made films to look as if they cost more to make than they actually did. The sets and outdoor shots are fine, except for one or two scenes where the (hilly) Isle of Man where the film was shot doesn't completely impersonate the (flat) countryside around Ely where the story is set.

So far, so good. The problems start with the script. It tops and tails the original story with an irritating 'present day' sequence featuring a grown-up Tom. I suppose the writers could find no other way to accommodate a story that is firmly fixed in the 1950s, but these scenes still grate.

Next, there is some fearfully clunky dialogue. Many of the adult actors manage to handle the stuff they have to speak pretty well, but this is unfortunately not true of Anthony Way who plays Tom, and whose acting is little better than the sort of thing you can see in any school play. He was 16-17 when the film was made, so he also looks much too old for the part. Perhaps the low budget led to insufficient rehearsal and shooting time. Some scenes are simply embarrassing.

If you can ignore this poor performance there is much to enjoy here. The atmosphere of 1950s England is nicely recreated, for instance. But, in the end, you may find that you're cringing too much...

I have absolutely no knowledge of author Phillipa Pearce or any of her novels and if TOM`S MIDNIGHT GARDEN is typical of her work I probably would have had little interest in her books as a child . When I was a child I wasn`t really interested in litreture unless it had soldiers fighting monsters complete with a high body count

Judging by this film version of TOM`S MIDNIGHT GARDEN I guess Pearce writes for lower middle class kids since much of the story of revolves around protagonist Tom Long moving to a house with no garden then suddenly finding a metaphysical one . Having a garden of your own was no doubt something that working class people didn`t have in the 1950s so I guess there`s some political class ridden subtext there somewhere . There`s also a romance involving a young girl called Hattie but again are cynical kids amoured by love stories ? Perhaps the worst criticism is that very little in the way of excitement or adventure happens within the narrative

This is a childrens film that seems dated by its source . It`s inoffensive but I`m surprised by its high rating by the IMDB voters . I wonder how many of them would have given it so many high marks if they were 10 year olds who`d just seen the LORD OF THE RINGS trilogy ?

I read the book a few years back and was surprised they made a movie out of it. The movie follows very close to the book and is a heartwarming tale.There is a little more character development in the book but the movie is a very good adaption.

It is surprising that the makers of this film thought it was good enough to show on the big screen. It is like they have scraped away to get to the basic material that makes up Tom`s Midnight Garden and then just strung it together. It is as weak and rushed as the TinTin adventures.Some things are still enjoyable if they are rushed but this isn`t one of them. The cast was terrible,the performances wooden,and some of the storylines different from the book. The script is also a problem.It comes in chunks so like you will have a chunk and then none at all and then a chunk and so on. People who like the book will find it a let down. And now we have got a version of Carries War in 2005.I really like the book,so I hope it is of better quality than this awful and shallow film.

This film is very much for children and obviously contains a normal but still very valid and moral parable on growth that is very readable by the viewer. The plot is obviously entirely focused on the personal growth of the two protagonists of which the girl grows both morally and physically until old age, while the protagonist only grows morally acquiring more self-awareness throughout the film up to the wonderful even if predictable final twist that gives a nice ending to a very nice film. As a plot, the film is trivial but at the same time very interesting thanks to very nice gimmicks that enrich the film well.

Suitable for children and adults to watch although probably boring for some adults, I really liked it. I found it to be a pleasant and relaxing movie to watch before bed. Nice to have a movie that isnt filled with lots of violence and drama or crazy excitement. It has a happy ending too which is nice. Suitable for children and adults to watch although probably boring for some adults, I really liked it. I found it to be a pleasant and relaxing movie to watch before bed. Nice to have a movie that isnt filled with lots of violence and drama or crazy excitement. It has a happy ending too which is nice.

This movie had a beautiful plot and inspired a lot of my writing and art. The scenery was perfect and awe-inspiring. This kind of film is where fantasy meets reality. Unfortunately, after watching the movie, I felt a little unfulfilled. Like one of the user comments said, time wasn't spent developing the characters. It's great that they got into the story quickly, but I don't feel they spent enough time setting the mood. I expected this to be a cross between Alice in Wonderland and The Secret Garden because of the description and the setting, so I was really disappointed when I saw that there were very few characters, and the ones that existed were boring. I grew a bit more excited when he met Hattie because I thought that a meaningful relationship twist might develop, but all that happened could be described as a slight crush. They didn't even seem to be very good friends. All in all, though I was extremely satisfied with this movie- until I saw Hattie as an old lady. Ewww! It was disturbing because the whole movie had slightly implied a love for Hattie from Tom, and then she's this old, matronly woman! Also, when Tom saw the tree being cracked by lightning and heard the gasp, the sound effects were horrible, and the timing didn't make any sense. Don't think that I hated this movie, though. It was a very fun film, and I enjoyed watching it. If you're looking to see whether it's worthwhile or not, though, I suggest you save it for a night when you're alone and bored.