Finding Neverland

[EvelynNesbit1906]

Posted: 11/20/04 at 1:30am

Anyone see this film yet? I'd like to discuss it. Here's my reaction, posted on a forum devoted to the Oscars a few minutes ago:

I just saw the film. This could easily occupy the Seabiscuit slot as a film that many spectators will find manipulative and not deserving of any major awards, but still worthy of nominations on the basis of its production design. While I liked the film, I thought its efforts at manipulation were a little too deliberate, frequent and obvious. A film like The Hours can easily get away with manipulation by having relatively unusual subject matter such as multiple suicides and unexplained inner-torment. A film that covers stock issues such as children growing up too fast or the impending death of a parent has to be a bit more adept at the art of manipulation -- at least for me to not roll my eyes and snicker repeatedly during the screening. Thematically, there is little that distinguishes Finding Neverland from Terms of Endearment or anything by Spielberg. Highlights were:

1) the fantasy sequences -- but even these were problematic. The switch into fantasy was really only obvious in the scene from the trailer that involves Barrie dancing with a bear, another scene that takes place aboard a ship, and a third that brings the boys and Barrie to the Wild West. Sometimes, it was so adrupt that the real-life action was essentially just left hanging (read: the scene in which Sylvia walks through Neverland). This cannot justly win the Best Adapted Screenplay award unless the competition is "Being Julia," "Stage Beauty," "The Notebook," "Spider Man 2," and other weak or saccharine films.

2) the art direction (which is as its best in the bear dance scene, which oddly reminds me of the circus scene in "Big Fish").

3) Depp's performance -- which is too subtle to win an Oscar but strong enough to occupy the Bridget Jones slot. I'm seeing Ray today and Kinsey Sunday. Between the three lead actors, I'm betting that Liam Neeson will deliver the best performance.

4) Highmore's performance -- a little too much crying and he becomes a real tool for manipulation by the director and screenwriter, but there are several scenes that would cleary make great Oscar clips (especially the one aboard the ship and the other one in which he performs the play while Sylvia coughs, but I'm betting that the rather heavy-handed "I will not be made a fool out of..." scene will be the one that gets played). Anyway, he's the only member of this cast who I think could legitimately win an Oscar for the film. Christie is barely in it, and when she is around, her performance is no more compelling than that of an actress playing a very similar character in a recent period film -- Frances Fisher as Ruth in Titanic. If Christie gets nominated, it'll be on pedigree. Her performance is just nothing special. The screenplay affords her very little material with which to demonstrate her strengths as an actress. Ditto for Kate Winslet. What, are they going to nominate her just for being a celebrity who can very, very briefly play ill? For a dying woman, she's pretty forgettable in this film. There are no scenes in which her temperament significantly changes. If she wins Best Supporting Actress over the (probably) better performances by Laura Linney and Cate Blanchett simply because she's "more due," then there's really no justice. I think the Academy should just nominate her for 'Eternal Sunshine' and call it a day. If she loses one award, she'll just be visibly upset. If she loses two, she'll probably be difficult to drag out of her bedroom for a week. Seriously, this is a person who does not take loss well.

Anyway, if I were voting, I would nominate the film for Lead Actor, Supporting Actor, Art Direction, Costume Design, Adapted Screenplay (just for its distinct "moments"), Cinematography, Visual Effects (because I like when visual effects are actually necessary instead of just present for "the wow" factor), and possibly Picture. Eight is enough. Editing, supporting actress and original score are absolutely out of the question -- ESPECIALLY original score since the music from this film recalled an Afterschool special or something you'd hear on PBS. It was not cinematic at all. If anyone from this film deserves to be nominated for supporting actress, it's Rhada Mitchell as Barrie's wife -- but she's not even under consideration. Ugh.

3/4 stars.

[Type_A_Tiff]

Posted: 11/20/04 at 1:40am

Good review. More or less what I said on here, just more eloquently. I didn't hate the movie, I just felt it was trying too hard. But I'll shut up now. That ^^ is exactly what I wanted to say.

[EvelynNesbit1906]

Posted: 11/20/04 at 2:19am

It WAS trying too hard... or can we say it wasn't trying hard enough? Its little black book of manipulation is a bestseller, if you know what I mean. There was nothing tearjerky about the film that doesn't have at least ten major precedents. As I suggested in my first post, if you've seen Big Fish, Terms of Endearment or any Spielberg film, you have a sense of what Finding Neverland is like! And this coming from someone who enjoyed the film and is a big fan of Kate Winslet.

That you in the icon, Tiff?

[Type_A_Tiff]

Posted: 11/20/04 at 2:31am

Yup, that's me!

And exactly. I think "manipulative" is a good word. I don't think this film will get any/many Oscars, although they will likely get some nods (a la Big Fish). I think the visuals and the performances were the best parts (although I found all the characters to be very one-dimensional, and Julie Christie and Dustin Hoffman - and Kate for that matter - weren't given enough to do).

I did like the shots of the orphans enjoying Peter Pan though. It almost made me teary. But, and I think I wrote this in my review, a lot of the surrealism and such made the preview audience I saw this with snicker and groan. I stopped counting the number of times it made my eyes roll.

[EvelynNesbit1906]

Posted: 11/20/04 at 2:58am

You can bet that the presence of four past Oscar contenders (Hoffman, Christie, Winslet and Depp) will give this film a better shot at Oscar nods than Big Fish had. But thinking about the screenplay, I'm really convinced that cheesy dialogue can easily make or break a film -- especially a non-epic like Finding Neverland. The more I read reviews on IMDB, the more I have to ask myself whether I honestly liked the film. The part where Depp dances with the bear while jesters dance with one another in a ballroom was enchanting, but like you, I had to stop counting the times I rolled my eyes during so many other scenes.

"Why does she have to die?"
"You are not my father!"
"You can go to Neverland anytime, Peter, as long as you BELIEVE."

With lines like those, we've got to wonder whether we're expected to roll our eyes. And the one scene that was obviously intended to be the most charming ended up being the most disturbing (read: the performance for Sylvia in which the actress playing Peter Pan kept making these macabre references to sudden, violent death).

Loved the orphan shots too. The surreal scenes were gorgeous but random as all hell. I blame it on mediocre editing.

And did you want to laugh too when Peter destroyed the set, but you couldn't because other people in the audience were probably moved and would be offended by your laughter? Updated On: 11/20/04 at 02:58 AM

[NYadgal]

Posted: 11/20/04 at 8:10am

Hmmm... I found it enchanting.

[scottwalker]

Posted: 11/20/04 at 8:25am

I`m with you NYadgal.I and my family also found it 'enchanting'.
We all had many teary moments.Thought it was a truely wonderful film.Deserving of many nominations AND awards.
We will be seeing it again.

[EvelynNesbit1906]

Posted: 11/20/04 at 11:53am

Undiscovered, I agree with your evaluation of the performances and the visuals... but "genuinely" moving? Finding Neverland tries all the old tricks in the book of saccharine. There were several scenes in it that reminded me of A.I., Terms of Endearment and Titanic (Kate Winslet's presence notwithstanding).

[CapnHook]

Posted: 11/20/04 at 11:54am

It's too sad that I STILL have yet to see this film.

They didn't have any other options for editing. The film was made BEFORE Pirates of the Carribbean. If they'd bring back the cast to re-shoot anything AGAIN - it would cost way too much.

They could have made this more of a true story by doing just one simple thing...add Nico Llewelyn Davies!

Sylvia had FIVE children, not four. Why was there a need to cut out a child? I hope this will become more clear after I see the film.

[EvelynNesbit1906]

Posted: 11/20/04 at 11:58am

Hook, rest assured that the absence of a fifth child will not become more clear to you after viewing the film -- and I say this not to knock the film, because it's quite enjoyable for the most part despite being too clearly a construction to stand as a great example of filmmaking. It just isn't a biopic. This is fictionalization at its height. Sylvia's husband (still alive at the time that Peter Pan was written) is "dead" in the film and by the end we get the sense that the boys will live happily ever after, even though in reality most of them will commit suicide or be killed.

[MaTakeALookAtMe]

Posted: 11/20/04 at 12:06pm

It reminds me of those "authentic" restaurants along the interstates of America..you know the ones...Macaroni Grill, the Olive Garden, etc... they're popular, they have a great look and style, but they're actually just prefab overly priced frozen dinners cooked by someone else.

Same with Neverland..it looks good, performances are good, it's destined to be good and win awards because it has no personality of it's own. It's a prefab hodgepodge of sentimental (yet hokey) dialogue and cliches combined with an attractive cast and children. It takes no risks...

[scottwalker]

Posted: 11/20/04 at 12:07pm

"Genuinely Moving" ...Definately how my family felt.Do not know much of the original story,but was touched very deeply by this.
I guess it would be pretty hard to come up with something that has not been tried or done somewhere,sometime before in some capacity...But to me...It All Worked.
CapnHook ...It is playing today at many theatres all over in sneak previews...7:00 or 7:30 tonight and again tomorrow afternoon at around 4:00.
Well made.Incredible acting.Excellent in everyway.I said in another thread...can not more highly recommend a film.

[CapnHook]

Posted: 11/20/04 at 12:12pm

The film is playing near my residence, however I have no time to go see it. I am in rehearsals for TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD.

"Hook, rest assured that the absence of a fifth child will not become more clear to you after viewing the film -- and I say this not to knock the film, because it's quite enjoyable for the most part despite being too clearly a construction to stand as a great example of filmmaking. It just isn't a biopic. This is fictionalization at its height. Sylvia's husband (still alive at the time that Peter Pan was written) is "dead" in the film and by the end we get the sense that the boys will live happily ever after, even though in reality most of them will commit suicide or be killed."

Precisely! Always glad when someone knows their history.

But it seems odd that they would do such a thing. Exclude a son? Did they do this JUST to be historically inaccurate? What reason was there for this? If anything, I think it would improve the film.

[EvelynNesbit1906]

Posted: 11/20/04 at 12:18pm

It really doesn't take any risks. Even the rumors that Barrie may have been a pedophile are addressed briefly and then dismissed as inappropriate for a story about children ("Why would anyone do anything to harm children...?," is essentially Barrie's line that dismisses the possibililty of pedophilia period!).

I'm heading out to see Ray and Kinsey this weekend. I'll return with commentary on both. My prediction based on clips and trailers is that Ray falls short of Finding Neverland while Kinsey exceeds them both in quality.

Oh, and Hook -- the other boys are so marginalized in the film due to the heavy focus on Peter that in terms of the narrative, it probably wouldn't have mattered much if they had all been dropped. The "her husband left her with four boys" detail is emphasized throughout the film, so perhaps you're right in suggesting that including the fifth child would have made us sympathize with Sylvia even more... Updated On: 11/20/04 at 12:18 PM

[Matt_G]

Posted: 11/20/04 at 12:30pm

I thought the movie was fabulous. I thought every single thing about it worked perfectly and I can't imagine anything being done to improve upon it.

[CapnHook]

Posted: 11/20/04 at 12:34pm

Also, as you know, the focus should have been placed on Michael. However, I can see why Alan Knee had wanted to change that to Peter.

[Matt_G]

Posted: 11/20/04 at 12:35pm

There was plenty of attention placed on Michael, Capn.

[CapnHook]

Posted: 11/20/04 at 12:39pm

Oh, really? How interesting!

I have only heard about Peter, and how Highmore is outstanding in the role.

[Matt_G]

Posted: 11/20/04 at 12:40pm

He is outstanding in the role. It's understandable why more focus would be put on him since the story is about "Peter Pan" but I thought there was great focus on all the kids. I even told my friends last night that I'm sure you loved it.

[saddle shoe side kick]

Posted: 11/20/04 at 3:02pm

I loved this movie. My dad, sister, and I drove into NYC to see it last Saturday and it was such a moving and wonderful film. I can't wait to see it again. There is a "sneak preview" tonight and tomorrow near me so I hope to go see it again. All of the performances were fantastic. Kate and Johnny definately deserve Oscar nominations. All the kids were adorable and great. I cried on multiple occasions so don't forget the tissues when you go! A lot of the scenery and such was truely beautiful, especially in Neverland.
When Johnny was acting like a pirate I definately saw a little Captain Jack Sparrow He did this beforehand so maybe he pulled a little out of what he did there. Either way it was great . Can't wait to see it again!

Updated On: 11/20/04 at 03:02 PM

[EvelynNesbit1906]

Posted: 11/21/04 at 1:27am

"It's understandable why more focus would be put on him since the story is about "Peter Pan" but I thought there was great focus on all the kids."

While I understand the focus on Peter given Highmore's EXCELLENCE as an actor (anyone else thrilled that he's playing Charlie?), this comment by Matt_G just doesn't match up with the amount of screen time given each character. There is not "great focus" on all of the kids. The oldest son screams at his grandmother in front of Barrie in what was one of the more memorable scenes from the film, and then the youngest son is just adorable all the way through. There's one who doesn't have much of anything to do. MUCH, MUCH more focus is put on Peter than even Winslet's character, and with that in mind, it's not a wonder that he's the one being campaigned for a Best Supporting Actor Oscar while very few critics or people at Miramax are talking about the other boys.

[LittleRed00]

Posted: 11/26/04 at 5:56pm

I (and the rest of my family) really enjoyed it. I went in pretty biased, because I've loved Johnny for years and "Peter Pan" is one of my absolute favorite stories of all time...but still, there was a bit of room to make this too sweet. I think it never did go over the edge...I didn't roll my eyes at all. Johnny, once again, does no wrong!