Um Conto do Destino

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.

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.

If you have not read the book, use this review as a reason to either bypass the film initially and read the book first, or to understand that the screenplay is a huge departure from the intended story.

The novel Winter's Tale is a romance with a supernatural overtone bathed in a tribute to New York City if it could always remain in a mystical state. The book is sometimes verbose, often funny, and heartfelt in it's depiction of love. The movie insults your intellect by ignoring the vast symbolism used in the book. Example: Time Travel - The book allows for you to understand certain characters have time traveled, while the movie insists certain characters travel only to follow others telling you that they are supernatural beings. It's NOT so. Here is exactly where the director really fowled the film. Deviating from the author's intent, turning the story into a devil's agents interplay is awkward out of place. The devil was NEVER once mentioned or implied in the original story. Yes, some devices are necessary in film to help the audience, but Pearly Soames purpose as a protagonist in the film is reduced to silly. Furthermore Pearly's reason for chasing Peter had nothing to do with Peter's love for Beverly. Pearly never met Beverly in the novel. Here is one more non-spoiler as it too won't be found in the film. In the book, Pearly's purpose for chasing Peter Lake began the moment he forced Peter Lake into his employ and Peter later turned a huge heist against Pearly. Pearly's gang was decimated for a time. From that day forward, Pearly's will to kill Peter grew in every chase that left him empty handed.

Being sold as a straight up romance or love story is almost a mistake because the film does try to encompass the much larger story surrounding the love affair. From Peter Lake's horse which has a story of his own to a wildly funny malapropian newspaper editor named Craig Binky. Other Characters such as Virginia Gamely were altered ridiculously. Virginia was from the Lake of the Coherees in the novel. In the film, she is just another New Yorker. This is where the film falls apart. The director's vain effort to include the other threaded stories inside the book are convoluted.

When you use the same title as a book for a movie it's wise to make an honest adaptation, otherwise change the name of the movie from the book entirely to avoid comparisons entirely. Then follow the guide of placing in the credits, "based on the story Winter's Tale by Mark Helprin." Director Akiva Goldsman (also wrote the screenplay) zig-zagged across both these traditional paths and the story suffered in his mash-up. Change a characters hair color, but don't change their role or destiny.

In this case Winter's Tale isn't even a director's interpretation. The book weaves a subtle supernatural element that may be so vague that the director wanted to spell it out to moviegoers. In doing so, he dumbs down the original story to the point it insults the audience, holding their hand and telling them what to think as opposed to letting the moviegoer figure things out.

Winter's Tale is condensed, filtered and sanitized of it's soul. Even without having read the novel, evidence of awkward changes for the screenplay dumb down the original subtle supernatural theme which was ironically as clear in it's message as it was abstract in it's delivery.

As a romance film there are heartfelt moments and the chemistry between Peter Lake and Beverly Penn does have enough strength to bring a tear to some audience members. Collin Farrell's soft humanity is felt quite often too. Yet, except for a candid conversation among the two men Peter Lake and Isaac Penn which draws an intellectual laugh, there is no humor to break up the tension in the film. Yes, the contrast of the book is once again worth noting. The book had meaningful characters which were lost in the movie. They were not a direct part of the love story, and as such were eliminated. Eliminating so many great elements of the original story killed the journey Peter Lake would take you through. The cinematography alone in Winter's Tale was not enough to paint the fantastic picture of the magical New York City the author intended as a character in the story. Without that fabric the mystical world Peter Lake and Beverly Penn exist is absent.

Winter's Tale is a complex supernatural love story with too many important characters to have fit into a short two or three hour film. It's not written in a manner that would translate into a part one and part two series either. Perhaps it's best medium will one day be a mini- series a network can allow to play out over five to eight episodes. It's often said that the journey is the reward and the story of Winter's Tale is a long journey that cannot be condensed. In this case, spotlighting one part of the journey is not fulfilling either.

Let's just make one thing clear to anyone that has neither read the book nor seen the movie. The love story in this film takes place in the first quarter of the novel. There are three remaining quarters to the story that thread the love story of Peter Lake and Beverly Penn into the overall journey, but their story is told early and ends early. Well, that's not entirely true. And yet it is. Now for all those clues and a tease, don't you just wonder what a book that has three quarters more to say – has to say? For my full review just search my name, Lars Hindsley and you'll find DangerMans Lair.

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.