Favole

When I saw the average for this film was 6.2 I was uncertain whether I would watch it or not - I am so glad I DID! It was simply delightful and the acting superb, convincing and absolutely fun. I recommend this to anyone who wants to be entertained with a purity and simplicity rarely seen in today's films. It should be rated G and not PG since there was nothing offensive in it and I can't wait to watch it again with my grandson! Peter O'Toole, Harvey Keitel and the little girls made it all so believable. The English scenery, the attention to detail to the time period around 1917 and the entire storyline was wonderful. I recommend this movie to anyone who just wants to believe that there really are fairies. Enjoy!

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?

Based on a famous "Cottingley fairies" hoax perpetrated by two English girls during World War I in 1917, "FairyTale: A True Story" presents alternate views of reality to suggest that, like the view of Aborigines, dreams are as real as conscious reality. If you take the special effects fairies too literally in this film, you will miss the point. The film plays a trick on you, just as the original incident played a trick on Sir Arthur Conan Doyle in 1917. Houdini, as played by Harvey Keitel, gets the point. Although he's one to debunk mystics who defraud the gullible, he too trades on people's need to believe in magic. The girls' deception is also a sort of benign fraud. As any magician, they should never reveal their "secret." The film invites comparisons to the famous French classic, "Forbidden Games" in which children construct an elaborate fantasy world as a way of coping with the reality of war. Here too, the girls use fairies to fill the void in their lives left by their father, who has gone "missing" on the front in France. "I know what they mean by 'missing,'" says one of the sisters, conscious of reality but hoping to "believe" in the unlikely event of his return. This is not a kiddie film, but a langorous period piece on the nature of belief and faith in the face of empirical skepticism. The film reinforces its theme with beautiful details, as at the end when the father says he smells the perfume which isn't there, or in the ghostly intrusion of a dead brother that changes the mind of a skeptical reporter. Even the final sequence, involving fairies, is so charming it steers clear of cynical manipulation. Although there are moments when the plot seems to become arbitrary or plodding, it's all tied up neatly and beautifully in a magical finale. I'd hesitate to call this a classic, but it is a worthwhile "sleeper." Just bring an open mind and heart.

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 :.

Maybe on account of the fact that being 2/3 through my alotted span and with a terrible awareness of what this world is really like and having also managed to really never grow up, I found this film to be the most touching and magical experience of my life. I am more than happy to tell you that the last ten minutes of the film brought tears to my eyes as I witnessed what every young child wants to see....and CAN if only they can put aside life's pitiful and distracting reality.

Released the same time as the excellent PHOTOGRAPHING FAIRIES, both films dwell on the factual events of 1917 when childhood friends Elsie Wright and Florence Griffiths took what they professed to be real photographs of fairies in their immediate neighborhood. The incredible photographs were declared non-hoaxes and even incurred the attention of such as Arthur Conan Doyle and Harry Houdini who visited the girls and examined the phenomenon. Peter O'Toole especially, as Conan Doyle is just superb in his characterisation (why am I NOT surprised?)

Absolutely sumptuous cinematography, a most literate of scripts and some grade A acting, especially from the two girls. The film had a larger budget than PHOTOGRAPHING FAIRIES and it shows. The highlight of course and that which the younger viewers must wait patiently for, is the quite staggering appearance of the fairies at the end. As brilliant a series of special effects as I have ever seen. Several people don't appear to have seen Mel Gibson - you weren't looking to closely!!

The truth or otherwise about the photographs has since been made public although few appear to know. I have no comment to add. If you WANT to know more, contact me.