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.

This rainy day emergency activity last weekend turned out to be the best decision of the holidays. Based on the Arthur Ransome classic with a slightly altered plot, it was a bit slow to get started, but once the main family arrive in the lakes the kids' adventure begins and my two were on the edge of their seats.

The scenery is breathtaking (without any special effects) and for the kids the sense of a REAL adventure must be inspiring. The Walker family children (Swallows) are allowed to go and camp on an island in the middle of a lake and basically fend for themselves. Once on the island it becomes clear that they're not alone and soon war is declared with two local pirate girls (Amazons). The kids catch fish, play with fire, shoot bows and arrows. There is no need to add superheroes or special effects, real life is adventurous enough.

There are some great funny moments, a couple of which had the whole audience in stitches.

Thoroughly recommended, even if it's not raining!!

The makers of this rather odd film don't seem to have been able to make up their minds whether they were doing Swallows and Amazons or The Thirty Nine Steps, and so have gone for a rather awkward blending of the two. Clearly they don't think that Ransome's gentle story of a boating holiday in the Lake District is exciting enough for modern audiences, and they may be right. So on the train on the way to the lake District we get Sinister Spies erupting into the Walker children's compartment (mother has gone outside for a smoke) and one of them (Uncle Jim no less) ends up climbing about on the outside of the train and jumping off. Uncle Jim is in fact the world's worst spy ever. He leaves secret papers and photos lying about in the cabin of his boat in plain view, and doesn't even bother to lock the door when he goes out. He does everything to draw attention to himself except wearing a hat with 'Spy' on it. There is still room for some boating and camping on the island, and when the film stick to what is actually in the book it isn't bad, but the spy stuff weighs the film down, and gets steadily more absurd as the film goes on, culminating in a scene of such joyous absurdity i was reduced to tears of laughter. As a film of Swallows and Amazons this is badly flawed, but is worth 5 out of 10 for making me laugh so much.

This is a perfect summer film for the families that produced by the BBC. Based on the children's book of the same name. Frankly, I haven't seen the television nor the film adaptation of this. It looked very fresh to me, so I enjoyed it thoroughly. I'm a big fan of children's films and this one reminded my childhood vacation in the grandparents' rural. Surely everybody, I mean most of us had this kind of adventure, sometimes that ended very seriously.

This is mainly about a group of children and their summer adventure, especially sailing in a large lake and exploring an uninhabited island of it. Mrs Walker brings her four children to their grandparents' house in a small English village. The bored kids decide to go sailing on the lake nearby where their father promised to take them one day, but now he's out in the sea far away on the job. Somehow they manage to get permission from the elders and so their adventure begins.

They arrive on the island and claim it. But another group who already claimed it challenges them. So their rivalry begins which leads to some great adventures, day and night. How things going to work between them is told in the remaining. Though there are more that takes place alternatively, like the real spy-game of the grown- ups. How these two stories going to meet was revealed with a decent twist. But the thriller parts were compromised since the film is aimed for the little ones.

"I hereby name it Walker Island and claim it for our own."

Great quality, loved the production. The locations were awesome. Initially I thought this will going to take place in the real Amazon, Brasil, but still I'm satisfied with it. I don't know who is this director, but a well done job. I also don't know whether the story is from the book or just the characters, but expecting a sequel and if possible a film series. I'm not expecting the whole 12 books to be made into films, thought at least a trilogy, since it's a live-action and the kids would grow up fast, they have to hurry up like they did for 'Harry Potter' film series.

The story takes place in the summer 1935 and its atmospheres, especially the addition of the spy thing was a smart move as those times were tensed with the early stage of the World War II. Its stretch also gives the adults a reason to watch the film, but sadly that sub-plot was under-used. Anyway, I recommend it to all, since it falls into PG. But there was a scene when the kids decided to go find the source of the fire they saw afar, that part was so edgy. Like that, there are a few more which creates uneasy in the perspective of kids.

Overall the film looks like a non-magical version of Narnia with four siblings and their exploration turned into an unplanned adventure. Yep, it's not summer yet, off the season, but still I loved it. This is one of the first films to I watch in the 2017, but definitely first children's film. On so many levels, it was a very good film, particularly if you haven't seen the other versions like me and a kid's film fan, you will have a good time. But for the families, as I said earlier, it is not to be missed. It got mixed to positive response from both the film critics and the movie goers, but personally I think it's much better than what they have said. So go for it...

7/10

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.