Hey, everyone. "Moriarty" here with some Rumblings From The Lab.
Yesterday’s review of TUCK EVERLASTING was, to say the least, a slam. It was an evisceration. The reviewer hated the film unconditionally. I found it hard to believe it was THAT bad, having just seen the trailer earlier that afternoon. It looks like decent Disney live action fare. I asked for more reviews. And now, here’s another reviewer, and he’s got a different take on things:
I can’t say I was eagerly anticipating Tuck Everlasting. The last two kids movies I saw, Master of Disguise and The Country Bears, are two of the worst movies of the year. I did not feel like sitting through another live action PG movie from Disney. But considering that I love director Jay Russell’s last flick (My Dog Skip) and the fact that William Hurt, Sissy Spacek and Gandhi are in the movie, I decided to go in with no expectations and give it a shot.
Only fair, right?
All in all, Tuck Everlasting is a pretty decent flick and a great family movie. I was never bored and the 88 minutes go by fairly fast. There are some good performances, the scenery is beautiful and, if you don’t mind the general silliness of the story (immortality), you’ll probably enjoy yourself.
The Foster’s are a wealthy family with only one child, teenage daughter Winnie (The Gilmore Girls’ Alexis Bledel). They want her to be prim and proper, but Winnie, predictably, has other ideas. She is headstrong and independent and loves exploring the woods around her family home. You know she is going to give her parents (Amy Irving and Alias star Victor Garber) headaches.
The Tucks, on the contrary, are poor. They live a quiet, secluded life, and that’s just the way they want it. They have a secret, and they don’t want anyone finding out what it is. They are comprised of father Angus (William Hurt, sporting an unconvincing and puzzling Irish accent), mother Mae (Sissy Spacek), and sons Miles (Scott Bairstow) and Jesse (Jonathan Jackson).
One lovely afternoon Winnie stumbles upon Jesse drinking from the base of a tree in the woods. He pleads with her to not drink the water and soon Miles whisks her off, against her will, to the family home. Angus will know what to do with her.
Before long, Winnie is enjoying her time with the Tucks. She loves their simple ways and they are kind to her. She grows fond of Jesse and he tells her the family secret, which can only cause problems.
Meanwhile, a mysterious man (Ben Kingsley) is tracking the Tucks. You’re not sure why, but clearly he’s up to no good.
There’s nothing remarkable about Tuck Everlasting, and it’s all pretty predictable and melodramatic. But it’s also very sweet and hard to dislike. Winnie and Jesse are appealing characters and you come to care about what happens to them.
The short running time is both an asset and a detriment. On the plus side, things move along quickly and there’s no time to get bored. On the flip side, there’s little to no character development and other than the leads, you don’t really know anything about anyone. As a result the movie isn’t as affecting as it could have been.
It’s not worth rushing out to see, and you’re not missing a whole lot if you never see it, but it’s perfect for kids and families and it’s harmless. Russell knows the territory and it’s nicely done.
Sort of lukewarm. Then there was this review, a bit more positive:
Hey,
Basically, it is a pretty faithful adaptation of the book. Knowing this going in, this allowed me to sit as it verrrrry slowly played out across the screen. It's shot in big fat widescreen and the landscapes look gorgeous.
But how is the acting? It's typical Disney fare. The acting isn't spectacular, but it doesn't detract. It serves the story. You sometimes wonder what the hell William Hurt is doing in the movie since he has only a handful of lines, but whatever floats your boat I guess. Alexis Bledel and Jonathan Jackson aren't fucking superb, but they're practically kids, and they are supposed to be acting prim and proper and all 19th century, so it fit for what it was supposed to be. Ben Kingsley does get the only scenery-chewing role, which I guess explains the reviewers enjoyment of his performance.
SPOILER!
I don't think the ending played on screen. I found myself caring more about what was going to happen to Jonathan Jackson's character, who is doomed to spend eternity without his love who pulled a Kate Winslet and "lived life to the fullest". I thought about his (I'm guessing) dark journey and what a nice story that might be.
ENDSPOILER
Anyway, I don't think it could have been done much better. I had fond memories of the book and they were satisfied. I don't think the average reader of AICN is going to care too terribly much, but no surprise there.
I enjoy the site much. Good luck with your script.
And then finally, there’s this pretty darn positive review of the film:
Hey Moriarty,
Noticed there hadn't been a lot of news on this film, so thought I'd voice my opinion.
First of all, I had never read 'Tuck Everlasting.' I remember some classes in Elementary school that had it as required reading, but we never did. So, I found myself going to the 'juvenile fiction section' of the library to check out a copy, a pretty quick read in itself. I figured I'd get a head start before I saw the film.
I attended the screening with a friend of mine last night. While the film is not spectacular, it's not as bad as most films that make people cringe when they see the logo "Walt Disney Pictures."
'Tuck Everlasting' concerns a young girl named Winnie Foster, daughter of social parents who keep her behind locked gates and intend to raise her into an exceptional young woman. Of course, Winnie is a girl who wants to experience life, and runs away into the nearby woods. There she meets the Tuck family, who she gets to know pretty well, and in which they tell their 'secret' to her. However, Winnie's parents want to find her, and a mysterious 'Man in a yellow suit' is trying to find the Tucks.
The film is exceptional, though like most films, it takes creative liberties with the original material. The time frame has been moved up to the early 1900's, with horse-less carriages moving around the small town of Treegap.
On another note, Natalie Babbitt's original story kept Winnie's parents basically as 'background characters,' while here, Victor Garber and Amy Irving flesh out the roles, with Irving as an overbearing mother (shades of 'Titanic's' Frances Fisher), and Garber as a more proper man.
There is also Winnie's grandmother, who played a small key role in the book, but here is thrown in for a microscopic role that destroys her return in a later scene.
Winnie Foster, played by Alexis Blendel, is a very interesting young woman. Though when it comes down to it, her role is not that different from that of Kate Winslet in 'Titanic.' A young woman wanting to break free of a concise society. But she has to take the first step. And when she meets Jesse Tuck (Joshua Jackson), you can see her slowly opening up and taking flight.
Disney has touted the film with "Academy Award Winners" on it's trailer. And the talent assembled is exceptional-
Ben Kingsley as 'The Man in the Yellow Suit' adds an extra air of mystery and menace to this strange fellow. You can see him calculating something behind those eyes.
William Hurt as Angus Tuck, the father, also is done well. I loved him as Professor Hobby in "A.I.," and here he embodies Tuck well. Notable is in a conversation he has with Winnie later on.
Sissy Spacek as Mae Tuck, comes across as the mother figure that Babbitt portrayed, although not as 'portly.'
Then there were the brothers, Miles & Jesse. Jesse(Joshua Jackson) is given more of a 'free-spirit' approach on the world, whereas his brother Miles (Scott Bairstow) has more of a sullen, world-weary feel, something that was not in the original novel.
Jesse serves as the key to Winnie's free-spirit coming out. He is literally the 'Jack Dawson' of this film, showing Winnie around the Treegap forest. There were some nice little moments between Jesse and Winnie, but I was stuck in a theatre with people from the "Episode II school of let's see them get it on." So any tender moment felt somewhat ruined.
Miles is a man quite unlike his brother. A little older, and having to deal with a burden and seeing things that he keeps tormenting himself with. It works ok for awhile, but it seems that his pent-up rage could eventually destroy him.
The film was directed by Jay Russell, whose last major film was "My Dog Skip." Russell set out to capture a nostalgic childhood with "Skip," and here, he makes great use of time once again in the world of the Fosters and the Tucks. However, his directing style gives way to too much slow-motion running. There are also some edits that don't quite feel right, as we go from quiet scenes to some that has noise that just makes you jump. There were also some flashback scenes that were made to look like old film reel stock. The technique sounds cool, but from what I saw, it didn't really strike me as overly impressive.
While this is no "Remember the Titans" or "The Rookie," this is an exceptional fall film for Disney. I worry that it won't find an audience in October, but it's too soon to know. You may have noticed that I alluded a bit to "Titanic" in this review, and the story structure feels 6/10ths close to it, only on a much more simpler scale. The romance is meant to be slight, and like "Titanic," it doesn't feel to forced after we've been with Jesse and Winnie.
If you're looking for a film to just sit down to and while away the time to, without numerous bells and whistles, I'd say this film fits the bill. It's not perfect, but it will no doubt be better than most of the films out between August and Thanksgiving (But 'Spirited Away,' that's another film you should NOT miss).
uruseiranma
Not a hint of yesterday’s hatred. Was this group just a bunch of soft touches, or is it possible the film’s decent family fare? I’ll see it soon m’self, so we’ll see...
"Moriarty" out.
