Five Children and It

FIVE CHILDREN AND IT is the perfect way to trash the memory of the classic Edith Nesbit novel by turning it into something soulless, trivial, and trashy. Although the premise of the the film and the novel are the same, both veer off in very different directions and it has to be said that this bears little relation to the characters or events of the book's storyline.

Firstly, the setting has been changed to WW1 from the Crimean War; I'm not sure why, except maybe people don't know or care about the Crimean War these days. Instead of the likable, inventive children of the Nesbit story, we get a bunch of screamers, whiners, and - in the case of Freddie Highmore - oddly creepy kids and the stock fat cousin character who of course turns out to be evil. God knows what all that monster stuff in the basement laboratory is supposed to be about.

The famous Psammead, voiced by the irritating Eddie Izzard and animated via rubbishy CGI, is a far cry from the excellent puppet utilised in the old BBC TV series version of the tale. Elsewhere, we get horrible CGI dinosaurs, CGI flying people (to cash in on HARRY POTTER, of course), and dumb comedy in the form of fart and burp jokes. The director is so inexperienced he even uses cheesy slow motion in the sentimental interludes. Elsewhere, viewers are stuck watching the likes of Kenneth Branagh and Zoe Wanamaker mugging for all their worth. Stick with the BBC show!

I would think that this was one of those films whose director hadn't read the book it was based on, were it not for the fact that they are just slightly similar. It is certainly possible for a great film to be "based" very loosely on a book and this was certainly the latter but not the former.

There were a number of flaws. One was that it tried to be too much like the Railway Children, probably because adults would expect this, being from the same author. Another is that it also sought to be too like Harry Potter, down to the music and in overemphasizing the setting. I have nothing against J K Rowling or the films but the book is just nothing like the Harry Potter ones. I thought the Psammead, though very well voiced by Eddie Izzard and in character too, was almost gratuitously in a totally inappropriate environment. I may have missed something here, as the comments made about one of the characters' own books may have been a reference to the inaccuracy of the adaptation. There was also no need for the extra characters, and today's special effects could easily have been used to tell the story as it was written, but they weren't.

I saw this film with my two children, one of whom knows the book and the other of whom doesn't. The one who does know it thought it was all right but wasn't as enthusiastic as the one who doesn't. I'm not sure what this means.

A few weeks ago I picked up a very charming children's book called 5 Children and It. Written by E. Nesbit and originally published in 1902 or thereabouts, it's a remarkably modern-sounding tale about a family, with maid and cook, who go to the country for the summer. The father has to work in the city, and the mother is called away on some business, and the children are left to their own devices under the care of the maid and cook, who are happy as long as the children stay outside all day and don't mess up the house, and show up for meals and bed on time. So far an extremely believable story that anyone who has rented a summer place can relate to. The children discover a magical creature called a psammead ("sammyadd") which grants them one wish a day. Minor misadventures ensue, with each succeeding day another chapter in the book. The children learn to be careful in their wishes and to think ahead. A good life lesson. Then they made a movie. Movies can't be about ordinary people because then we would all start thinking we're equal. This family has sent Father off to World War I as a flying ace, Mother as a dedicated volunteer nurse, and the children go to a large country home on the cliffs of Dover to stay with their batty uncle, evil cousin and a mysterious woman who is neither the uncle's wife nor just a housekeeper. It doesn't matter because she just provides plot devices necessary to carry along the movie version which is wholly different from the book except for the character's names and two of the wishes. Imagine if the movie version of Harry Potter had included Dr Xavier and the X-Men characters and been set in wartime because some pinhead producer felt that J K Rowling's story didn't have enough flash and mawkishness. If you've seen the movie, read the book. If you've read the book, skip the movie. There was a BBC version made in the early 1990s. I'm going to find a copy of that and have a look. This book was that good.

I am a judge for the Indianapolis-based Heartland Film Festival. This feature film is a Crystal Heart Award Winner and is eligible to be the Grand Prize Winner in October of 2005. The Heartland Film Festival is a non-profit that honors Truly Moving Pictures. A Truly Moving Picture "…explores the human journey by artistically expressing hope and respect for the positive values of life."

This is a movie in the tradition of "Harry Potter" movies and "Lemony Snicket's A Series of Unfortunate Events." It is a fantasy set in 1917 in wartime England. Five children are sent from London to the countryside for safety and security reasons. They are staying in a large, spooky, Gothic-like house with a math-crazed Uncle played brilliantly by Kenneth Branagh. His acting and make-up are so unique that there is no way you could possibly tell it was Branagh. The Uncle has many rules for the children including stay out of the greenhouse. Of course they disobey the rules and the greenhouse leads them to a secret beach where they find a sand fairy.

The sand fairy is cute and small and insolent and irreverent and funny. The children are off on adventures because the sand fairy grants them one wish a day. They soon find that getting what you wish for can be overwhelming and not welcomed.

The leader among the five children is not the oldest. The leader is a classic all-boy instigator, Robert, that pushes the story forward constantly by being curious and never reigning himself in. He is played by Freddie Highmore of "Finding Neverland" fame and he steals the movie with his character and his screen presence.

The children as a group are interesting. They are loyal to each other, they care deeply for their parents, and they develop a love for the sand fairy. And they learn from their mistakes.

This film has beautiful art direction and wonderful casting and acting.

FYI – There is a Truly Moving Pictures web site where there is a listing of past Crystal Heart winners that are now either at the theater or available on video.

I found this film utterly charming. I had to almost force my daughter to see it (she wanted to see The Princess Diaries 2 (shivers!!!!). But once the children found the Wishasuraus she was transfixed.

It is a film very much of British and of the Railway Children type. and will sadly be missed by many because of the Steam Roller Hype of Shark Tale. But this is a real FAMILY film.

The beginning has a distinct Harry Potter feel to it, The theme tune is clearly influenced by HP. Kenneth Branagh is the quintessential English Eccentric but unlike the Hollywood stereotype this is a British film that has it's tongue firmly in cheek. Zoe Wannamaker as the caring housekeeper who knows more that she lets on is wonderful.

Eddie Izzard as the voice of the Sand Fairy is perfect.

This is as British as Brighton Rock and Whelks in a tray at the sea side. And I loved it.