Encuentro fantástico

Fairytale: A True Story is a truly charming and delightful film, that has all the charm of the enchanting Secret Garden and the equally wonderful Little Princess. The screenplay was very solid, and the film does look very, very beautiful, with perfect camera-work and splendid period detail. The simple but well-told story tells of two young girls who find and photograph fairies, and they manage to convince even Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (marvellously played by Peter O'Toole) that the fairies are real. The music was really lovely to listen to, and director Charles Sturridge manages to draw spirited (and exemplary) performances from his two leads Florence Hoath and Elizabeth Earl. The supporting cast include Paul McGann, Pheobe Nicolls and Harvey Keital, and all do more than a respectable job. Overall, a very pleasing and charming film, that does certainly leave you wanting fairies at the bottom of your garden, like the back of the video box promised. 10/10 Bethany Cox.

This film ostensibly tells the "true story" of the girls who photographed the "Cottingley Fairies" in Yorkshire. But the film takes the point of view that the photographs were genuine and that the fairies were real.

In old age, the girls involved admitted it was all a hoax - so why does the film treat what they say as true?

There is a scene in which Arthur Conan Doyle tries to convince committed rationalist Harry Houdini (Harvey Keitel) that what the girls say must be true - after all how could they, two young girls with apparently no knowledge of photography, fake the photographs and fool some of the greatest minds in the country? Houdini maintains, of course, that they have done so, however unlikely it may seem.

It strikes me that what Houdini says is correct and that THIS IS A BETTER STORY TO TELL! It is precisely because it seems so unlikely that makes it such a good story (now that we know the truth).

My view is that the two little girls were hoaxers, but that doesn't mean I don't have an enormous amount of respect for their achievement. Surely a better tribute is paid to them by showing fully the extent of their cleverness?

There are two different points of view that FAIRYTALE's difficult story can be told: the children and the adults. Apparently, it looks like the adults will be far more interested than the children because of its long discussions about fairy sightings and its overly dramatic nature; this actually is the kind of audience this movie was shooting for. On the children's side, it is magical in the make-believe universe, but not without a couple of horrifying and sorrowful moments (the scarred-face soldier out of WWI, for instance), and may end up as boredom along the way. The fairies and their surroundings would have looked better on the screen if they appeared larger, but there some things to believe in, just as the opening scene tells you; they do exist as fantasy figures to enlighten a child's imagination. The two young girls pull off some charming performances, and some luscious scenery is vivid all throughout. FAIRYTALE should have been a real "family" fantasy picture in the way it is presented, but stands out its own way as a movie that focuses on a slight examination of sightings that is virtually unexplainable (almost similar to science fiction!). Children will most likely appreciate the fairies more than the movie itself. And where is Mel Gibson???

This venture was beautiful, whimsical, and inspired. This work felt as though it were real, although that is only partially true. I really don't care. The (movie) magick to be found here is awe inspiring and will have you watching your bird feeder much more closely.

Backed up by big names, beautiful photography, a solid screenplay, and natural dialog, this production is almost timeless. As it was a "period" piece (1917), it bears the virtue of not showing its wear. It was filmed as "old" when it was new.

The two girls' performances were nothing short of exemplary. They came off as being honest and true to their roles. That having been said, there was not a single poor performance to be found.

While there are some slow spots, as character development and the story are set up for the duration of the work, they are few and do not interrupt the flow of the production enough to break the wonderful spell.

It rates an 8.8/10 from...

the Fiend :.

After watching this film I realize that it is not so much about whether it "was really" true or untrue...the essence of the film, made amply clear is the Belief of the two girls in fairies that made them see them in the first place. On a metaphysical level the film says that if you really believe in something, however odd or outlandish, it will come true or be true. There's no sense in being contentious about the basis of this film because that is very much valid as I have pointed out above. To do so, as I see some people have done over here, is to not only misunderstand the message of the film but to downplay its other qualities.

The acting of Florence Hoath as Elsie and Elizabeth Earl as Frances is really impressive. Both have done complete justice to their characters. The rest of the cast, Paul McGann as Elsie's father, Peter O'Toole as Arthur Conan Doyle and Harvey Keitel as Houdini are also really good. I also absolutely agree with most of the reviewers here that the early 20th century has been evoked very well. But of course, the best thing about the film is the cinematography. It's gorgeous! The woods where the girls encounter the fairies are evoked beautifully, they're appropriately dreamy and realistic. Praise must definitely be due to the set decorators who have done a brilliant job with the house that the Wrights live in and especially the room which Elsie and Frances share. It's a dream garret room! The music is also quite good. I thoroughly recommend this film, certainly for those who believe in Believing things and also for those who like to watch a really well made period film.