User reviews

Short review: give it a chance, it will eventually enchant you. But it is not an easy process

Longer review: did a lot of reviews for IMDb and cannot easily recall a film that tries so hard, has such a great cast, great cinematography, yet is constantly shooting itself in the foot.

The script is ... problematic. Parts of it seem like they were written by a fifth grader. Lots of "is this really happening?" type dialog, which generally you do not ever hear in a film BECAUSE THE ONLY ONE QUALIFIED TO ASK THAT QUESTION IS THE AUDIENCE, NOT THE SCREENWRITER.

Duhhhh

Lots of miscasting. The great Crowe, who could play a phonebook if he had to, is OK as a demon. Will Smith as the devil is another matter entirely. John Hurt has to deliver dialog so weak he must have been wincing inside. Even the beautiful Jennifer Connelly seems to have been lost in the production and is relegated to astonished glances.

Farell, no slouch as an actor, has a gift for getting lost in a role and that really helps him here. He does an OK job.

The two actors who steal their scenes are Jessica Brown Findlay, who is supposed to portray a young woman whose inner beauty lights up every scene she is in .... AND SHE DOES.

And whatever animal they borrowed from the Animal Actors Union to play the magic horse does a great job too. Hopefully they gave him extra carrots as a reward.

You really need to leave critical judgement behind if you are planning on watching this. This is for example a scene at the 1:20 mark where the continuity is so out of sync with the screenplay that Farrell has to break about 75 once sacred "film rules" and deliver a short speech which is 100% backstory, just to make sense of what is happening. Ouch!

And here is a Special Bonus for the lucky IMDb reader who got this far: if you liked this film at all, here are two films that handle the same theme in a slightly different way, and you MUST SEE THEM (no, I don't get a commission if you do). Each rates a perfect "10":

1. The original HERE COMES MR JORDAN with Robert Montgomery

2. The more recent I ORIGINS

I give the film a 6 because of the incredible performances, and I took 4 off because the studio signed off on this script.

The film leaves out how they fell in love.

In the novel, they spend more time in her home on more than one occasion, they make love the first time they meet. And after they arrived at her father's winter home, they tie up a carriage to their horse so Peter and Beverly can take the kids for rides around the frozen lake. One evening they take them across the lake to a tavern with music and drinks so the kids can dance.

Little Willa falls asleep in Peter's lap on the way home. Beverly's heart melts.

Peter Lake's upbringing in America shouldn't have been passed over. He was raised by a local native tribe in the city, until he was sent out to discover the world on his own, ended up in an orphanage for Irish orphans, and thus he developed an Irish accent.

That's as much as I'll get into. I hope I've provided some context. And shame the studio that wasted all of the great talent with this script.

First some background, I'm a guy, a shoot 'em, blow 'em up, Clint Eastwood luvin dude. I do appreciate however a good romantic story. Also, I have NOT read the book, heck, never even heard of it until now.

So that said, here is my take. The haters seem to fall into three major categories.

First, there are the "loved the book, hate the movie" types. Since I never read the book, I can't speak to this, other than to say, "Sorry, it's not the book, it's a movie". I always tell my kids that the medium of film is radically different than that of pulp and what "works" in one doesn't necessarily work in the other. Given that, one should go into a movie with an open mind, even if you've read the book.

Second, there are the "I never read the book, the movie didn't make sense". Now that I can talk to. I never did find myself all that confused. I think falls in large part to the fact that I never assumed the movie was supposed to be based on reality. I mean come on, given the rather obviously "fantastic" aspects of the story, it's not meant to be taken seriously. You're given an overarching concept (basically the power of love to do amazing things) and if you buy in, then the particulars are not really all that important. If you can't get beyond that, or simply don't buy into the central conceit, then you won't like the movie because it rides that wave for all it's worth.

Third are the folks who thought the movie was too schmaltzy. Now that I would at least partially agree with. That said, again, the movie doesn't try to hide the fact that it wears it's heart on it's sleeve. It's fair that if one does not go for that kind of thing, then you won't like this film.

All that said, I thought it was a "good" romantic film. My personal criticisms fall mainly on the somewhat wooden acting and the overall lack of "feel". That's right, despite all I said above there was just something about the film that just never really drew me into the characters. For some reason I never really felt truly emotionally invested in the characters. I didn't hate them, I did care, just not nearly as much as I thought I should. I also thought some of the acting was a bit forced and this might have contributed to not being able to lose myself in the characters. Almost like the actors did a good job of "acting" like the characters but never quite crossed into "being" the characters.

So if you're willing to accept the movie for what it is, an unabashedly romantic film that weaves religion as an integral part of the story, then I think that you will enjoy the film. It's not perfect by any sense of the imagination, but IMHO it's not nearly as bad as some folks are making it out to be.

I wanted to love this movie. Really, really wanted to. Winter's Tale is my favourite novel; but, I didn't want that to get in my way - I went in with an open mind. I knew that lots would have to be cut out (or else the movie would be 27 hours long!), and focusing on Peter Lake and Beverly Penn was obviously the right decision. BUT, then why would Akiva Goldsman ADD something? The totally ridiculous Judge/Devil character, played by Will Smith, is an invention that was very poorly chosen - it destroyed the magic. Parts of it were good: Colin Farrell is brilliant as Peter, Russell Crowe is a fiendishly wonderful Pearly Soames, and William Hurt is perfect as Isaac Penn; yet parts were bad. Although she is a great actor, Jessica Brown Findlay is woefully miscast as Beverly. Do yourself a favour, skip the movie, and instead go and read all of Mark Helprin's novels.

This movie is a pleasant viewing experience as long as you haven't read the book. I was curious to see it, because I was a fan of the book but I never thought it could be made into a movie. I was right. It didn't translate well into film at all. The power of the story was in the language, the amazing writing by Mark Helprin; without that, the story is somewhat silly and shallow. When we die we all become "stars" in the sky; blah blah blah. The director makes things worse by adding a lot of supernatural elements which make things even sillier. If Russell Crowe weren't such a good actor this would have been truly laughable. Colin Farrell is a dream as Peter Lake, adorable enough to carry the whole movie. And Jessica Brown Findley is ethereally beautiful despite the fact that she is supposed to be deathly ill. Only in the movies do dying people look this good.

Directors making their feature-film debuts don't typically have their pick of Hollywood's finest (and busiest) stars - unless they're Akiva Goldsman, that is. For his fantastical romance epic Winter's Tale, the Oscar-winning screenwriter has corralled the likes of Russell Crowe, Jennifer Connelly, Colin Farrell and Eva Marie Saint: an accomplished cast that would make many a more seasoned director envious. The trouble is that Winter's Tale never really comes together as Goldsman clearly wants it to: the writing is smart and occasionally very good, but the film flounders when it should soar, losing rather than gathering pace and tension as it goes on.

The story - based on Mark Helprin's ponderous 1983 novel - follows petty thief Peter Lake (Farrell) from the early 1900s through to the present day. In 1916, Peter is suddenly declared persona non grata by Pearly Soames (Russell Crowe), his frankly insane, literally demonic Irish thug of a mentor. While on the run, Peter encounters a mysterious white horse that points him in the direction of the Penn mansion. Initially looking to steal himself something nice, Peter sets aside all thoughts of pilfering treasure from the Penns when he meets and swiftly falls in love with Beverly (Downton Abbey's Jessica Brown Findlay), the beautiful, flame-haired mistress of the house who is slowly being eaten alive by consumption.

It's all very romantic, or so we're told, with a supernatural element folded into the love story: Pearly becomes convinced that Peter is destined to save a girl with titian hair, an action that would upset the teetering balance between good and evil. Indeed, Peter's burning love winds up keeping him alive for over a century, until he meets single mom/super-journalist Virginia (Jennifer Connelly) and her daughter in modern-day Manhattan. It soon becomes clear that fate, destiny and a whole lot of mystical mumbo-jumbo are at work here, and Peter will soon discover the healing and restorative powers of love itself.

To be fair, Winter's Tale is built upon a raft of quite interesting ideas. It hints at, rather than belabours, the notion of good and evil taking physical form: Pearly lurks through Manhattan, a gangster by trade and a demon by nature. When he decides to confront Peter for good and for ever, he's forced to fight on equal, mortal terms. It's a fantasy universe absolutely begging to be expanded, a fiction that could be real and is all the more tantalising for it.

But Goldsman, in juggling the various elements of his story, lets the opportunity slip him by, instead focusing on the love story in almost excruciating detail - even though he never really creates a connection between Peter and Beverly that rings true. Peter teaches Beverly how to escape her all-consuming fever by slowing her heart down, Beverly explains to Peter how she believes people rise to the stars to find their loved ones when they die - it's all intensely romantic, but hardly emotional. The film then flings a few more tropes and complications into the mix (Peter loses his memory, Peter winds up travelling through the future into our present, love will conquer all etc.), without really stopping to explain just how it all hangs together.

At least Goldsman has pulled together a cast worth watching, even when the film he's constructed around them isn't quite worth their salt. Farrell broods prettily in his boy-band haircut, clearly too old for the part but nonetheless playing it with great gusto. Paying Goldsman back for A Beautiful Mind and Cinderella Man, Crowe marches through the silliness of his raging, bonkers character with strange amounts of joy. Pearly is easily the film's best character, unless you count the one played by another of Goldsman's Facebook friends (no spoilers, but this movie star is no doubt grateful to Goldman for a script that earned him bucketfuls of acting cred many years ago).

Swimming somewhere in the reams of quite lovely footage assembled by Goldsman and his cinematographer Caleb Deschanel, there's a great movie with great ideas. Once in a while, it bursts through - in the shadowy, dank dungeon of a demon's lair, ruled by Lucifer himself; or the snow- swept sparkle of a moonlit night - but, more often than not, it turns into Winter's Tale: an emotionally distant romantic drama that goes for lush, sweeping depth but comes up curiously cold and myopic.

This is not an important movie. This is not a "smart" movie. This movie has a few technical problems, and leaves a lot up to personal interpretation . The script is a bit mysterious ( at best) and incoherent ( at worst). I loved this film. I think it's either a love it , or hate it situation here. I loved this film, because of the main characters, the sweet moments of tenderness, and the innocence about it. It's a fairy tale for adults. If you're the pragmatic type, this might not be a great movie for you. Although I am, and I was able, or allowed myself to get lost in it. I loved that there was some magic in it. I loved Beverly. I don't like many actresses these days, and I just thought she was absolutely beautiful to look at, and her personality is something you just don't see on screen these days. We either get the damsels in distress or the smart asses, never just a Really cool woman. And I believed their love story. It was a nice dream. . A nice break. To just let yourself see things like a child, and enjoy.

I haven't read the novel but watched the movie directly. Its the movie about real-love, destiny and true soul-mate. All in our life is a mystery..whatever today's science was considered as Art earlier. The movie which is based upon the novel tried to depict the few above said things.

If you love real-love, destiny/fate you will certainly love this movie. This is not a normal movie, a unique one focuses more on love-destiny. The movie tend to answer few of the following: Why this world, why we are here, what about stars, what about angels/demons etc.

The world is fully of mystery/surprises. Be prepared to re-live your life. Thanks.

I went to see winters tale this weekend and I had so many different emotions when I watched it. First, Colin Farrell is wonderful...he's really great in this roll as a thief but also as a man who falls in love. He really makes you believe he's this character. Of course all the other actors and the surprise cameo all really worked well together.

Not gonna lie I cried a few different times in the movie, I laughed, and felt so many other things while watching. I'm also a secret hopeless romantic so this movie is great for my fellow love story lovers. Honestly I knew from the previews it was going to have a spiritual and magical story line which I really liked. It's nice to watch films that make you think afterwards and during. So don't go expecting to see a typical story line, because that's not at all what you will get.

When you go see this movie which I definitely recommend, have an open mind and just appreciate what you're watching, honestly it's moving!

So we saw the movie version of 'Winter's Tale' which required me to re-read the first three chapters of Mark Helprin's excellent novel on the subway trip home, to restore my faith in humanity and this extraordinary book. I think that Akiva Goldsman either a) skimmed the book, b) just read the back copy of the paperback edition or c) ripped all the pages out and glued half of them back in random order to write his screenplay. The movie is a mess but a well-intentioned mess.

The negatives: There are a number of serious continuity errors, some laughable dialogue, and a great book with its satiric bite and Dickensian wit sacrificed on the Hollywood altar. Also missing, MAJOR novel characters (Praeger de Pinto, Hardesty Maratta, Cecil Mature (in the movie but unrecognizable unless you really look), Jackson Meade and Mootfowl. The last act has NOTHING to do with the novel's climax and instead focuses on one of the book's lesser sub-plots substituting Peter for Hardesty Maratta. Throughout the movie, events in the book are re-told but shifted to the wrong time period and (too often) to the wrong characters, Russell Crowe has marbles in his mouth, and Will Smith's character is NOT I repeat NOT in the novel. Peter Lake did not grow up in Brooklyn but with the Baymen of the Bayonne Marsh who are also missing from the film.

The positives: What's left is a sweet, gushy romance that has a Wagnerian sweep and an epic feel that occasionally gets Helprin right. I'm glad I saw it with Emily, the music is bloody marvelous, and Colin Farrell and Jessica Brown Findlay are a satisfactory Peter Lake and Beverly Penn. Jennifer Connelly is good casting for Virginia Gamely although removing her character's remarkable entry to NY gives us no idea who she is. Eva Marie Saint is luxury casting in the last act. The best scene: William Hurt as Isaac Penn quoting one of my favorite lines directly from the novel: "Be brief. If you were one of my journalists you'd be done by now. God created the world in six days. Ape him."

Skip the movie. Go read the book.

I give this movie a 7, but only for the acting (several of my favorite actors and actresses are in it) and because I first saw this movie before having read the book. After having read the book, and having enjoyed it, I can say that the movie is light years different from the book and only uses its most basic outline. Certainly I understand why this is the case, trying to film 700 pages of dense and descriptive prose in 2 hours is impossible.....especially when so much of it is fantastical in nature. The movie is not a total failure, but it IS a total failure of adapting its source novel. Scorcese turned down filming this because he said it was "un-filmmable". He was right.

Academy Award Winner, Writer Goldsman, turned Debut Director in this always Fantastical Fantasy about, well, there's the Rub, a Lot of Things.

It Manages to Cobble Together, Time Displacement, the Supernatural, the Cosmos, Smarmy Romanticism, Heartfelt Sincerity, Children of Fate, Incurable Diseases, Lucifer, Demons, and a Pegasus with a Mission, and it all makes about as much Sense as a Dream.

But, it has its Charm and Pulls at the Heartstrings quite Heavily. There is a Miscast Devil Disguised as an Out of Time Will Smith. But the Rest of the Cast are OK with Russell Crowe Happily Chewing the Thing and Colin Farrell looking Determined and Thoughtful as He Discovers many Rules and Regulations concerning "The Ways of the Universe".

Overall, it is an Over-Baked and Underrated Movie that has been Pummeled by Critics and is an Easy Pile-On because of its Sentimentality and ambitious Production Full of Wonders and Willful Seriousness.

It can be Enjoyed if You just Let Go and Let its Gooey Goofiness provide an Escape to another Dimension of Fallen Angels and other Angelic Characters. A Kind of Throwback to a more Innocent Age of Cinema where Cynical Critics were Not Welcome.

I like the story, the Film is ok, it's simple enough, most actors are convincing, especially the little one, and Russel Crowe, who truly excelled as Villain. I am not a fan of Collin Farrell, but even he did ok. Then Will Smith came in, as Lucifer, as the devil, and he couldn't scare my three year old niece, not even with the extra teeth. He is likely one of the very worst, overpaid, overestimated actors anywhere. Even the White horse was better. The only reason why his nonperformance did not utterly wreck this film, is that his role was too short, too meaningless for that. Still, any casting professional will, after seeing this, burn the dude's card, and any director, will never work with that casting director who allowed such a dud in his film.

A baby set adrift in New York Harbor like an immigrant Moses; a flying white horse like a reincarnated Pegasus; a dying virgin with long red tresses who lives like Rapunzel in a castle tower; winter scenes like Hallmark Christmas cards with glitter on the snow; a raging furnace like the boiler of a titanic ocean liner; a mysterious man who never ages. A fairy tale? A dream? A myth? Or just an overblown disaster designed to lose money for a production company's tax write-off? Wasting the talents of a stellar cast that includes four Oscar winners and a pair of former nominees, Akiva Goldman's "Winter's Tale" is a head-scratching "WTF is this?" kind of movie. Perhaps dreamy pre-pubescent girls may take this romantic tale to heart, or those who have suffered through countless viewings of "Somewhere in Time" may be entranced at a new take on timeless love. However, the flagrant waste of money and talent on this drivel is unconscionable; the millions would have been better spent feeding the hungry or housing the homeless.

Colin Farrell's good looks manage to overcome an atrocious haircut, and his talent keeps him from embarrassing himself as the ageless lover and retired thief on the flying white horse. Perhaps inspired by "The Thief of Baghdad," Goldman, who produced, wrote, and directed this film, goes into his own flights of fantasy as the film dreamily shifts back and forth in time; only the flying carpet is missing. Among the film's few highlights is Eva Marie Sainte, who makes a brief, but effective, appearance late in the film; looking lovely and gracious, she manages to breathe some credibility into her role as the mature version of an earlier character. Despite their proved talent, William Hurt, Russell Crowe, Will Smith, Jennifer Connelly, and Graham Greene fail to register strongly, and some of them may grimace when they see their scenes in the final cut.

The wasted talent extends to cinematographer Caleb Deschanel and composer Hans Zimmer. Based on a novel by Mark Helprin, "Winter's Tale" is a film of many mysteries. Why did this cast sign on? Did anyone read the script? How was the production money raised? Did anyone read the script? Possibly in the hands of a capable director (Ang Lee and his success with the seemingly unfilmable "Life of Pi" comes to mind) this material could have been an imaginative tale of undying love that soared and sent sales of Kleenex through the roof. However, Goldman's touch is leaden, and his concept of romance was ripped from 19th-century school girls' fiction. Perhaps the female lead, Jessica Brown Findlay, who shows promise in the role of a red-headed consumptive virgin, can use the experience and connections made with the star-studded cast to find a better role to suit her talents. The rest of the cast can only hope their appearance herein will quickly be forgotten and not blot their resumes.

Once more an Angel Devil Story but made in a ridiculous way. The protagonists can't be taken seriously. Flat Story without strong plots. Even with quite many film stars the movie remains insipid. It is to serious to be a Children's Story but to naive for adults. The flying horse and other special effects are cheep and made loveless. It is not really clear why the devils right hand (Russel Crow) wants to prevent the good from doing this Miracle. All in all a cheerless movie. The movie raises the feeling like it is not finished and the story should continue but for fortunately it does not. The story is linear without surprises. Everything is predictable and suspense won't raise.

This movie is a breath of fresh air. That being said, you have to go into it expecting and understanding it is from the genre of "Magic Realism".

I actually read the entire book by Mark Helprin, unlike most of the professional critics, so I knew what type of movie it was going to be and I had appropriate expectations. The book was around 700 pages and it wasn't a Harry Potter-type 700 pages. The novel is a very complex, wordy, difficult to read and oftentimes very confusing piece of work, jam packed with very descriptive imagery. I found myself reading parts over and over to gain an understanding of it that I still wasn't completely secure with when I was finished. In fact, most people I know have ATTEMPTED READING it, and end up abandoning the book because of the reasons I just mentioned. After I finished the book, I scoured the internet trying to find any reviews of the book to help me understand and see if I "really got it". To my frustration, you really can't find any complete reviews of the book because I'm pretty sure most people (like me) had a lot of confusion with the story as well!

In most of the reviews I read, people are ripping Akiva Goldsman apart saying his adaptation is awful, but I strongly disagree. He had to leave out some of the aspects of the book in the interest of time (For example, a whole storyline of characters from the middle of the book are missing from the film.) He kept the really important parts of the novel and successfully makes them stand on their own.

Leaving the theater, I feel like Goldsman's interpretation ACTUALLY CLARIFIED a lot of the book for me. Incidentally, I went to see the film with someone who had NOT read the book and knew nothing about it, and he thought it was way better that the reviews said as well. As a matter of fact, I definitely liked Goldsman's ending better than Helprin's! I finished the book with the feeling of "What? That's it??? Is my book missing pages?" The movie version is the way I wanted the book to end.

Additionally, Helprin's wordy descriptions played out in my minds eye of the beautiful (and the not-so-beautiful) aspects of the story were brought clearly to life in the movie with the expertly executed "tug-on-your-heartstrings" musical score and cinematography.

So, if you're looking for a curse-them-out, shoot-em-up, or futuristic outer space, or reality-based movie, Winter's Tale would be better rented on DVD. If you're looking for a more philosophical, romantic, thought-provoking fantasy as an escape from most of the usual movies in theaters today, it's worth the ticket price.

The acting goods/talent on hands is exceptional if you look at the cast list. And the emotion Colin F. is able to get by just simply looking at a picture (and conveying that emotion to the viewer) is incredible to say the least. Still the movie feels uneven and might actually work more on kids or have a bigger impact on them. It wouldn't hurt the movie if it picked up the pacing a bit, but it's still decent enough to watch for everyone.

The myth/sage or whatever you want to call it, that's being depicted here is well known from other fairy tales too. Russell Crowe is bit too one-sided and the horse "escape" becomes a bit boring after a while. Still nice to see some big time actors doing small bits in this, because they wanted to be in a fairy tale I suppose. Decent movie

"Winter's Tale" tells the story of a thief, a consumptive heiress, and a sentient magical white horse, but, really, it is the story of New York City in Helprin's imagination, a place like the one in reality but with some strange alterations. The Hudson freezes solid for miles, and people set up tent cities along the ice. There is a frozen magical town up-river where time takes on strange qualities. There is a whirling mysterious white cloud-wall that surrounds the island of Manhattan, a cloud-wall that everyone accepts to such a degree that no one notices it anymore. What is the cloud-wall? What does it signify? The wall is gone in Goldsman's version. In the book, it is the whole point-the reason for everything. Goldsman has missed the point of the book entirely.

One leaves the novel reluctantly. One leaves the film with great relief that it is over.

This movie is absolutely one of the strangest I've ever seen . At some point , I was even thinking I'd leave . However , at the end , I figured out this is one of the movies with a strong message I'd ever seen . Instead of giving it a one-star, I gave it an 8 .

Akiva Goldsman is the one to blame in this mess . I couldn't believe how the movie was shattered , out of tone , confusing at many times , uncontrolled ( not in a good way ) and utterly stupid , not in the least sense near a fairy tale even . A fairy tale is more interesting and even more beautiful than that . The direction was a disaster . Jessica Brown Findlay shines , though . What saved it was what the movie / novel wanted to say about the value of our own selves and the value of love . We have a tendency to believe that miracles are shiny things with a lot of fantasy but actually miracles are not that . This movie will make you look at your own self as a miracle and if you're in love , it will show you how blessed you can be with your love in your life , and how saving one's soul , only by true love and loyalty , is the greatest thing you can accomplish on this earth . Simple and powerful as that .

If you're someone who wants to watch themes of love discussed in good and powerful movies , this is one of the best . It doesn't differ much if you were a believer in true everlasting love or not , or even wondering about it . Try to sit through the stupid parts to enjoy the good ones , most importantly , without prejudice :)

Upon watching the trailer, I thought I had a pretty good idea of what this film was going to be and after watching it, I felt that I was tricked and saw that is slightly better than what it was portrayed to be. Granted it isn't a masterpiece, but still I believe this to be an intriguing film and definitely worth a look. The plot revolves around an Irish burglar (Farrell) in the 1910's, who after attempting to rob a house falls for a dying heiress who had stayed home during the robbery. The inevitable soon happens, and he is left heartbroken. A near century passes with this man losing memory of what happened, but after he discovers who he is, he sets out to find out about his past and how he solve the mystery of his immortality.

This movie was very much sold as a romance movie with elements of fantasy, and although they weren't wrong in that approach, they should have made it clear what the real threat was in this movie. For example, Russell Crowe's character hides a true nature within himself, something that was unclear in the previews. The simple fact that Will Smith is in this movie and I didn't know about it reveals just how much was left out. Now I'm not saying show it all to me in a short clip, but a little bit more context would have been nice. Speaking of the movie's qualities, I believe this to be a competently made movie with great performances, direction and some technical aspects also being highlighted. The story is a bit far fetched with the classic romantic lines and what not, but given that it's a fantasized tale one can overlook this.

As I said, this isn't a movie to be highly remembered, but it is somewhat ostracized for the wrong reasons, hence I recommend a viewing of this, as you just might be surprised.

Rating: 7/10

I could not for the life of me figure out what was wrong with this film. The music is incredible. The cinematography top notch. The special effects are completely adequate. The actors and actresses are some of the best in the business.

So why was I completely bored by this film? For one thing, the production standards are way too high and not aligned with the story, which should have been a lot more HUMBLE. It was a bit like a glitz-ed out version of a Dickens tale. Like seeing a film of Oliver Twist with customized full resolution copyrighted "dirt and grime" to show how poor the lad was.

The other aspect of this film that was dreadful was the script, which switched back and forth between the narration of the book and the actual scenes the whole time. It got old really fast, and it didn't help that the editing was a disjointed mess, an assault on the senses that could be seen as exciting or annoying. For me, it was annoying.

I don't think I need to get into the wooden two dimensional performances of the actors and actresses in this film. Aren'e we tired of Colin's eyebrows yet with their three positions of happy, sad and angry? And Will Smith? WUT?

If you love epic fluff then you will be in heaven with this film. Collect the soundtrack and the action figures and read the book *which wasn't so great if you ask me). But don't expect anything innovative here. It is a dead end.