A review by Brooks Rich
Oscar season is officially here with the first Oscar-bait release of 2019… the highly anticipated adaptation of Donna Tartt's 2013 Pulitzer Prize winning novel, The Goldfinch. For awhile it seemed like the early front runner for the big prize of Best Picture. However the reviews have not been kind, and the film is being called a shallow adaptation of the book. I couldn't agree with that sentiment more. This film fails at almost every level and is a borderline insult to Tartt's masterpiece.
The plot revolves around thirteen-year-old Theodore "Theo" Decker, whose mother is killed in a terrorist bombing at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City. On his way out he comes across a dying art dealer who directs Theo to his business and also instructs him to take a painting with him, the titular Goldfinch.
So as to not ruin any beat of this novel,(I couldn't care less if I ruin the movie,) I won't say anymore about the plot. Honestly, I think if someone hasn't read the novel, they'll be lost watching this film. The main problem is jay this book really isn't possible to adapt. It's a dense, lengthy novel and a lot of the plot comes from Theo's inner monologue. The film version feels lost, unable to properly communicate what's going on. Scenes feel rushed and I imagine some people will be confused about certain events in the movie. For example, in the book there is the slow development of the relationship between Theo and Kitsey Barbour, the daughter of the woman who takes him in immediately after his mother's death. He and Kitsey eventually become engaged. In the movie, they meet again when they're grown up just once… and then presto! They’re engaged. This will come across as sloppy and rushed, where in the book there is much more development to them.
Director John Crowley makes odd decisions too when it comes to telling the story. He flashes back between young and adult Theo where in the novel young Theo is the focus of the first half of the novel before adult Theo takes over in the second. There are some awkward scene transitions too, such as when a character on screen is talking, but their mouth isn't moving. Then there”s a sudden cut to the scene where they are talking. That's an amateurish scene transition. Crowley is not a bad director by any stretch, see his wonderful film Brooklyn, but he fails here.
The one true bright spot of the film is some of the cast members. One of the best performances is Jeffrey Wright as Theo's mentor and eventual guardian James "Hobie" Hobart. Wright brings a gravitas to the role and every scene with him is great. Another standout is Sarah Paulson as Xandra, the woman Theo's wayward father is shacked up with. Paulson is always fantastic and perfectly brings Xandra to life. Nicole Kidman is interesting as Mrs. Barbour, Kitsey's mother that I mentioned before. Kidman plays her with both warmth and detachment.
But the two show stealers are Aneurin Barnard and Finn Wolfhard as Boris, Theo's best friend and probably the most memorable character from the novel. The film perks up whenever they're on screen. There was a shift in the tone of the film when Wolfhard's Boris first appears, as if there was finally something interesting going on. The film is at it's best when Theo is with Boris, especially in Las Vegas. In a perfect world, Wolfhard scores himself a best supporting actor nomination easily. Barnard is great too, but is following up with what his younger counterpart has set up… but Wright will be the only acting nomination, if the film scores one. The negative response will probably relegate this film to forgotten Oscar-bait.
The most miscast role is Luke Wilson as Theo's father, who does nothing with the role which admittedly is just written as an absentee father. The two actors playing Theo, Ansel Elgort when he's older and Oakes Fegley as young Theo, are fine. Theo is a tough role to adapt to screen as he's such an internal character in the novel, but Fegley and Elgort both do a serviceable job. I might give the better performance to Fegley as there's more to young Theo outwardly then older Theo, but Elgort is fine.
Overall this film should not have been made. At the least, this novel needs a thirteen episode miniseries to properly adapt it, and even then, it might be impossible. The film feels slight and incomplete, more of a collection of ideas and character moments then a finished film. There are great performances in here, but they are desperate for a better movie. Read the book instead.
Rating: 1.5/5
Oscar season is officially here with the first Oscar-bait release of 2019… the highly anticipated adaptation of Donna Tartt's 2013 Pulitzer Prize winning novel, The Goldfinch. For awhile it seemed like the early front runner for the big prize of Best Picture. However the reviews have not been kind, and the film is being called a shallow adaptation of the book. I couldn't agree with that sentiment more. This film fails at almost every level and is a borderline insult to Tartt's masterpiece.
The plot revolves around thirteen-year-old Theodore "Theo" Decker, whose mother is killed in a terrorist bombing at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City. On his way out he comes across a dying art dealer who directs Theo to his business and also instructs him to take a painting with him, the titular Goldfinch.
So as to not ruin any beat of this novel,(I couldn't care less if I ruin the movie,) I won't say anymore about the plot. Honestly, I think if someone hasn't read the novel, they'll be lost watching this film. The main problem is jay this book really isn't possible to adapt. It's a dense, lengthy novel and a lot of the plot comes from Theo's inner monologue. The film version feels lost, unable to properly communicate what's going on. Scenes feel rushed and I imagine some people will be confused about certain events in the movie. For example, in the book there is the slow development of the relationship between Theo and Kitsey Barbour, the daughter of the woman who takes him in immediately after his mother's death. He and Kitsey eventually become engaged. In the movie, they meet again when they're grown up just once… and then presto! They’re engaged. This will come across as sloppy and rushed, where in the book there is much more development to them.
Director John Crowley makes odd decisions too when it comes to telling the story. He flashes back between young and adult Theo where in the novel young Theo is the focus of the first half of the novel before adult Theo takes over in the second. There are some awkward scene transitions too, such as when a character on screen is talking, but their mouth isn't moving. Then there”s a sudden cut to the scene where they are talking. That's an amateurish scene transition. Crowley is not a bad director by any stretch, see his wonderful film Brooklyn, but he fails here.
The one true bright spot of the film is some of the cast members. One of the best performances is Jeffrey Wright as Theo's mentor and eventual guardian James "Hobie" Hobart. Wright brings a gravitas to the role and every scene with him is great. Another standout is Sarah Paulson as Xandra, the woman Theo's wayward father is shacked up with. Paulson is always fantastic and perfectly brings Xandra to life. Nicole Kidman is interesting as Mrs. Barbour, Kitsey's mother that I mentioned before. Kidman plays her with both warmth and detachment.
But the two show stealers are Aneurin Barnard and Finn Wolfhard as Boris, Theo's best friend and probably the most memorable character from the novel. The film perks up whenever they're on screen. There was a shift in the tone of the film when Wolfhard's Boris first appears, as if there was finally something interesting going on. The film is at it's best when Theo is with Boris, especially in Las Vegas. In a perfect world, Wolfhard scores himself a best supporting actor nomination easily. Barnard is great too, but is following up with what his younger counterpart has set up… but Wright will be the only acting nomination, if the film scores one. The negative response will probably relegate this film to forgotten Oscar-bait.
The most miscast role is Luke Wilson as Theo's father, who does nothing with the role which admittedly is just written as an absentee father. The two actors playing Theo, Ansel Elgort when he's older and Oakes Fegley as young Theo, are fine. Theo is a tough role to adapt to screen as he's such an internal character in the novel, but Fegley and Elgort both do a serviceable job. I might give the better performance to Fegley as there's more to young Theo outwardly then older Theo, but Elgort is fine.
Overall this film should not have been made. At the least, this novel needs a thirteen episode miniseries to properly adapt it, and even then, it might be impossible. The film feels slight and incomplete, more of a collection of ideas and character moments then a finished film. There are great performances in here, but they are desperate for a better movie. Read the book instead.
Rating: 1.5/5
Comments
Post a Comment