Winter's Tale (C or 2/4 stars)
'Winter's Tale', directed by Oscar-winning screenwriter Akiva Goldsman, is a bit of a mess. That said, it is, at the very least ... something different. There are elements in this movie that are wonderful and/or moving. But a fair share of it is both hokey & preposterous. The film transpires in 2 time periods with the 1st half occurring in 1915 & the 2nd half in 2014. Back in 1915, Peter Lake (Colin Farrell) is a petty thief who breaks into the lavish house of newspaper publisher Isaac Penn (William Hurt). The only person home happens to be Penn's beautiful daughter, Beverly (Jessica Brown Findlay, adored by many as Lady Sybil on Downton Abbey), who is slowly dying of consumption. Against all sorts of odds, Peter & Beverly fall hopelessly in love.
Unfortunately, Peter is caught in a 'supernatural' debacle. See, while Beverly spends as much time as possible with Peter, and while Peter tries to find a way to 'save' her ... Pearly Soames (Russell Crowe), a demon masquerading as a NYC gangster, wants to kill Peter before he can fulfill his destiny of creating a "miracle". To help Peter, God has sent him a flying white horse who can spirit him away from danger when needed. When the film skips to 2014, some of the characters have come or gone, but the supernatural debacle remains the same with Pearly Soames attempting to kill Peter once again.
When you've got a 115 minute long film & a sprawling story involving consumption, full-fledged romance, astrology, gangsters, henchmen, demons, Will Smith-as-Lucifer, flying horse/dogs, guardian angels, spirits, cancer, 105 yr. old newspaper editors, 2 narrative time frames, etc., etc. ... it's pretty hard to keep all of that clear & comprehensible. The story has so many obviously disparate elements - fantasy, faerie tale, NYC saga, supernaturalism - and it's the job of the director to have it all make sense. Unfortunately, too many of the transitions are clumsy/jarring. Having said that, I don't think the actual story is the problem. Based on a novel, I bet that said novel is a fascinating read ... BUT ... in cinematic form, this type of film is just very difficult to execute and to do so without making it all seem silly.
Beverly is the story's best character. Only 21 & knowing that she will soon die, she claims that the sicker she gets, the more she can see that "everything is connected by light". In a way, she is caught btwn. 2 worlds, still grounded in the physical 'now' but with her head already tuned-in to the afterlife. Jessica Brown Findlay perfectly conveys the kind of ethereal "I know something about mortality that no one else knows" quality that people somehow exude when death is near. As for Peter, the camera loves Colin Farrell's face as he hangs on Beverly's every word & movement. The romance is, without a doubt, the best aspect of this film.
Colin Farrell is an actor who has his detractors, but I've ALWAYS felt that that he has something special. His eyes, his soul, his line deliveries ... they all express sincerity & truth. Loved his sensitive love scene with Jessica Brown Findlay. I enjoyed his too-brief conversations with William Hurt, as well as with 2 children characters. And in only a few scenes, it's a pleasure to watch Farrell interplay with legend Eva Marie Saint -- even when I loathe the treatment of her character (how could a 105 yr.old woman still be an editor of a newspaper!? Hell, the actress looks great & is only 89).
Also wonderful are the production values & Caleb Deschanel's mystical, moody cinematography. Because "light" figures so much into the story (stars, sun, glass, snow), the many glowing backdrops are just gorgeous. I'm reminded of a scene in which Peter & Beverly stroll through a searingly beautiful blue/green winterscape. You know, despite the bizarre Russell Crowe-is-a-gangster/demon & flying horse parts (had to get used to that real fast) ... I really think that 70 of the film's 115 minutes were intriguing & thoroughly charming. But the last 45 minutes go downhill; with some real tonal oddities & story elements that are too far-fetched.
It's difficult to recommend this film because it is so flawed & overstuffed. One has to approach it with willingness to ignore storyline inconsistencies. But there are many virtues too strong to discount. And as I said in the 1st paragraph, for better or worse, this film is different. So with that said, I do think that this film will strike a chord with the type of viewer who is willing to suspend their disbelief, go along with the emotions of the film, & let the supernatural/magical story about life, love, death, & the stars wash over you. Unfortunately, this movie demands a lot from its viewers, and more cynical viewers won't be willing to give in to it.
Unfortunately, Peter is caught in a 'supernatural' debacle. See, while Beverly spends as much time as possible with Peter, and while Peter tries to find a way to 'save' her ... Pearly Soames (Russell Crowe), a demon masquerading as a NYC gangster, wants to kill Peter before he can fulfill his destiny of creating a "miracle". To help Peter, God has sent him a flying white horse who can spirit him away from danger when needed. When the film skips to 2014, some of the characters have come or gone, but the supernatural debacle remains the same with Pearly Soames attempting to kill Peter once again.
When you've got a 115 minute long film & a sprawling story involving consumption, full-fledged romance, astrology, gangsters, henchmen, demons, Will Smith-as-Lucifer, flying horse/dogs, guardian angels, spirits, cancer, 105 yr. old newspaper editors, 2 narrative time frames, etc., etc. ... it's pretty hard to keep all of that clear & comprehensible. The story has so many obviously disparate elements - fantasy, faerie tale, NYC saga, supernaturalism - and it's the job of the director to have it all make sense. Unfortunately, too many of the transitions are clumsy/jarring. Having said that, I don't think the actual story is the problem. Based on a novel, I bet that said novel is a fascinating read ... BUT ... in cinematic form, this type of film is just very difficult to execute and to do so without making it all seem silly.
Beverly is the story's best character. Only 21 & knowing that she will soon die, she claims that the sicker she gets, the more she can see that "everything is connected by light". In a way, she is caught btwn. 2 worlds, still grounded in the physical 'now' but with her head already tuned-in to the afterlife. Jessica Brown Findlay perfectly conveys the kind of ethereal "I know something about mortality that no one else knows" quality that people somehow exude when death is near. As for Peter, the camera loves Colin Farrell's face as he hangs on Beverly's every word & movement. The romance is, without a doubt, the best aspect of this film.
Colin Farrell is an actor who has his detractors, but I've ALWAYS felt that that he has something special. His eyes, his soul, his line deliveries ... they all express sincerity & truth. Loved his sensitive love scene with Jessica Brown Findlay. I enjoyed his too-brief conversations with William Hurt, as well as with 2 children characters. And in only a few scenes, it's a pleasure to watch Farrell interplay with legend Eva Marie Saint -- even when I loathe the treatment of her character (how could a 105 yr.old woman still be an editor of a newspaper!? Hell, the actress looks great & is only 89).
Also wonderful are the production values & Caleb Deschanel's mystical, moody cinematography. Because "light" figures so much into the story (stars, sun, glass, snow), the many glowing backdrops are just gorgeous. I'm reminded of a scene in which Peter & Beverly stroll through a searingly beautiful blue/green winterscape. You know, despite the bizarre Russell Crowe-is-a-gangster/demon & flying horse parts (had to get used to that real fast) ... I really think that 70 of the film's 115 minutes were intriguing & thoroughly charming. But the last 45 minutes go downhill; with some real tonal oddities & story elements that are too far-fetched.
It's difficult to recommend this film because it is so flawed & overstuffed. One has to approach it with willingness to ignore storyline inconsistencies. But there are many virtues too strong to discount. And as I said in the 1st paragraph, for better or worse, this film is different. So with that said, I do think that this film will strike a chord with the type of viewer who is willing to suspend their disbelief, go along with the emotions of the film, & let the supernatural/magical story about life, love, death, & the stars wash over you. Unfortunately, this movie demands a lot from its viewers, and more cynical viewers won't be willing to give in to it.