Sem Fôlego

This film was positively wonderful. I am dumbstruck at it's IMDB rating. For crying out loud it's a magical children's tale with a soundtrack that includes Brian Eno/Robert Fripp and 70s soul jams. It's disability-positive, the way the sound is done to convey deaf children navigating NYC is extremely creative and well done. The art and scenes are what I worshipped as a child - my greatest fantasy was to find a secret room in a museum and stay the night! And the dioramas and the incredible way they wove them into the storytelling! The people saying "nothing dramatic happens" are seriously off their rockers - a kid loses his hearing!!! two deaf children run away to NYC!!! how on Earth is that not dramatic? This film made me cry and laugh and feel like a child again. It's beautiful. If you have a child, watch it with them. If you don't, like me, watch it and feel like a kid again.

This film tells the stories of two deaf children, in different eras in New York.

It is unfortunate that the film is just painfully slow to the point that I can skip thirty seconds at a time and still miss nothing. I don't really need to see scenes of characters walking the streets for a whole minute, walking up the stairs for thirty seconds or just sitting for a minute. Most of the film has no dialogue, which is not a problem in itself, but there is just no message to fill the screen. The museum scenes in the two different eras may be trying to make viewers compare and contrast the treatment of deaf children in different eras, but it just does not work at all. It is just tedious and boring. Even Julianne Moore cannot save this film from being a tremendous bore.

This was almost exactly what I expected based on the average reviews. Definitely a significant downgrade from Carol. I appreciated its ambition and some of its visuals, cinematography, and music is really good. But that screenplay is kind of a huge mess, and such a big missed opportunity. I don't see why this film would get much dislike, but I also don't see why it would get much love either. It's almost the complete opposite of mother!, which is probably the worst spot to be in. As soon as it was over I had forgotten it and felt so much apathy towards it. Not terrible or even bad, but not all that good either.

How is a Todd Haynes film with a character based on Lillian Gish this bad? And why is this his follow-up to Carol?!

This YA mystery – adapted by its author – has an intriguing dual- time structure, a nice Carter Burwell score and some neat nods to silents, but it's also cloying, not very mysterious, and incredibly longwinded: not trusting its audience to understand anything, and struggling with some laborious translation problems reminiscent of Le mèpris, in which a lot of the dialogue has to be written down and held up. It doesn't help that the central kid seems to have wandered in from a school play. Or that it ends up looking like an extended advertorial for some museums.

It's sort of like Hugo, if everything that Scorsese's film had done had gone a bit wrong.

(The Gish films being homaged, incidentally, are primarily The Wind (the poster of the film-within-a-film starring 'Lillian Mayhew' is based directly on a publicity image for this 1928 masterpiece) and Orphans of the Storm, though she played mothers in few of her starring vehicles and Wonderstruck diverts considerably from her real life.)

I absolutely love this movie. David Ehrlich wrote:"This is a soul-stirring and fiercely uncynical film that suggests the entire world is a living museum for the people we've lost, and that we should all hope to leave some of ourselves behind in its infinite cabinet of wonders". I couldn't have said it better myself. Of course it is a bit slow and maybe too complicated for a kid (it's definitely not for everyone). But A LOT of people actually love The Greatest Showman or another rubbish...I am 25 years old - I watched it with my mother who is 60 years old and we enjoed it. The ending is quite outstanding in my opinion. Everyone involved did such a beautiful job.