Swallows and Amazons

It is this reviewer's humble opinion that British children's literature, with its whimsical nature and picturesque settings, is the best of its kind. It is also this reviewer's opinion that British filmmaking best capitalises on these elements, making for full-length features that are every bit as captivating as their source material.

Set against the backdrop of the 1930s English Lake District (shot on location and realised here in breathtaking aerial views), Swallows and Amazons sees an innocent childhood sailing adventure become embroiled in a sinister conflict of interest between two mysterious parties. Though it preceded Enid Blyton's Famous Five stories it is strikingly similar in tone, and reinforces the notion that childhood detective fiction has been consistently appealing to us from Arthur Ransome's classic novel through to the television adventures of Scooby Doo.

Held up by a veteran supporting cast including Harry Enfield and Kelly McDonald, the young Walker children are all an enthusiastic delight, chiefly responsible for rendering this particular adaptation so cheerily playful for the majority of its running time. Even when the atmosphere shifts and the film must briefly cease to reminisce on the carefree pleasures of our youths, the focus adapts accordingly to challenge the audience's perspective on responsibility; as Rafe Spall's cryptic Jim Turner tells an accountable John Walker, this is not (always) a game.

While the topic of childhood privileges is one which the film has no obligation to comment on directly - the source material predating the advent of smart electronics by a great length of time - there are subtle nods to taking the great outdoors for granted which director Philippa Lowthorpe delivers as contemplative gestures, rather than heavy-handed sermons. Swallows and Amazons is precisely the film that family audiences need in 2016; a reminder that a summer spent outdoors, rather than five inches from a screen, is the most memorable of all.

It takes guts to remake a classic film. Unfortunately it takes talent too, and from the "writer" downwards the bunch behind this particular remake are sadly lacking in talent.

Honestly, it makes you wonder if they ever read the original stories. Sure, they're perhaps a little dated now, but I'm convinced it would have been possible to update them without ignoring everything that was good. They certainly did *not* need to rename poor old itty, or make the teenagers a bunch of inept yobs.

Ignore this, go watch the original 1974 version, then hunt out Sophie Neville's beautiful diaries of "The Making of Swallows and Amazons" (it's on Amazon) and let the love and respect for Arthur Ransome's work envelop you.

Not one to casually chuck out the "Childhood ruined" meme, but it is hard not to take the butchering of a treasured childhood story personally.

In fairness, you can see the thought process behind the production decisions. The renaming of Titty is a meeting I feel like I was present for it, is so easy to visualise. The addition of the international intrigue angle adds drama, and you can see a producer demanding it: "you want to make a movie where a bunch of wholesome middle class white kids sail round a lake for a week and then have a tea party? Where is the action? Where is the tension?" I can imagine the script writer going back to the source and coming across Arthur Ransome's Russian connections on wikipedia and having a lightbulb moment that powers them through a midnight rewrite session.

All this I feel could have been forgiven, and even set a little differently to a much better result: The movie could have been somewhat more meta: with the spy plot line going on in the background and the children oblivious to it. Its actually possible to re-read the events of the book as exactly this, with Uncle Jim's various activities made ambiguous, yet the events as perceived by the children remain untouched. This could have added that layer that a scene by scene retelling of the book would have needed to make it compelling on screen, but would have retained the original's charm.

The unforgivable sin of this movie is the degradation of the characters. Not one seems un-touched by a 21st century cynicism: All the adults are hostile, with the generational dynamic speaking more to that between baby boomers and millennials than the values of the 1930s.

The Blacketts have none of that self aware joie-de-vivre. In the books, Nancy is full of bluster, but always reconsiders when about to behave unwisely. In the movie she comes off as casually abusive, hostile and borderline a bully, becoming an ally to the Walkers in the final act with no apparent resolution to the earlier tensions.

The Walkers grieve me the most. They bicker and are incompetent, when in the books they are committed to performing practical tasks of camping and sailing diligently, capably and considerately, always eager to absorb more knowledge and skills and consumed by the learning of their crafts. This was such an inspiration to me as a child, and to see such fundamental carelessness from these loved characters truly grieves. John is abusive and a poor leader, written so purely to set up drama and conflict. Thrown by the wayside is his simple decency from the books, as well as the most interesting struggles with the expectations of his absent father.

I don't want to be unfair to the child-actors, but their performance is frequently painfully wooden, which I'd actually lay at the feet of the direction rather than the actors as even the adult leads fail to shine. Andrew Scott in particular is interesting to contrast with his role as Moriarty in Sherlock, where he is compelling every moment he appears.

For the most part the child actors are debuting in the film. I hope it doesn't stand as a black mark against their futures. In particular Dane Hughes (John) has to be given credit: I might hate the script, character notes and direction he was given, but he gives it his all and adds some believable nuance to his scenes that spoke to me even while I was hating the movie. Teddy-Rose Malleson-Allen (Tatty) also shines: her performance is easy and natural, and overcomes what should be the cringe factor of several of her lines by a number of notches with an innocent charm. Overall poor then. To be sure the source material being very difficult to simply translate directly to the screen is a hard starting place, but several bad decisions compound things, many of them being common irritating features of contemporary film making in needing to add tension and action. I feel as a fan of the source material that a good movie, retaining the innocence and themes of competence, duty and loyalty, is out there if better choices were to be made. Additions to fit the screen medium are of course necessary, but not these additions. Sadly I fear we may not see another attempt to make it work for another 43 years.

How sad that someone's sensitivities (who's?) were considered so important that Titania's original name was changed to 'Tatty' for this film. The character's name is Titty, and has been since 1930 - a very long time - and I consider that the producers should be ashamed of themselves for giving in on such an insignificant matter. Do they not know the expression 'to Roger someone'? Do they not know what a 'John' is in certain societies? Where does all this lunacy stop?

Perhaps the film lacks the intensity of modern, CGI, 'shoot 'em up' films, but the pleasure should lie in the bucolic idealism that Ransome illustrated in all his books. Oh, and the basics of how to sail, alongside other matters naval and historical. Fortunately interest in such activities remains high and will probably remain so for the next few centuries, unlike passing fads passed off as 'entertainment' but actually merely being another vehicle for profit.

To me this was a perfect opportunity to create something special from something classic gone completely wrong. Some of the scenes were lovely to look at but overshadowed by the underwhelming story lines. The acting was completely wooden, the 2 smaller children were quite fun and played their parts well, the older ones however could really have learned something from them. Their characters were completely wooden, no personality, enthusiasm or expression. In the past few years we have seen some amazing child actors such as, The BFG, Pan and What we did on our holiday to name just a few. How then did this go so wrong? As a family we watch a lot of films , old and new, we also spend a lot of time going to the cinema , so pride ourselves in being able to appreciate all sorts of film genres. When we saw this advertised we were quite excited and thought it had a lot of potential. Sadly we walked out of the cinema after seeing this feeling totally unfulfilled.