A New York Winter's Tale

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.

As the reviews indicate either you'll love it or hate it. I loved it, my wife hated it. Quite a turnaround considering I wanted to see Robocop, but it was her turn to pick. Slow and confusing in the beginning but picked up speed after the first encounter of Peter and Beverly. The Characters were immediately likable and the two child actresses were captivating. Russell Crowe was great as Demi-Demon Pearly Soames. The visuals were terrific. It kind of made me think of Titanic with Demons, Angels and even a Pegasus replacing the Boat. All under the winter NYC backdrop. Pay attention to the dialogue because there were several of those "oh wow - that's what that meant" moments later on.

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 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.

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.