Un amour d'hiver

I wanted to love this movie. Really, really wanted to. Winter's Tale is my favourite novel; but, I didn't want that to get in my way - I went in with an open mind. I knew that lots would have to be cut out (or else the movie would be 27 hours long!), and focusing on Peter Lake and Beverly Penn was obviously the right decision. BUT, then why would Akiva Goldsman ADD something? The totally ridiculous Judge/Devil character, played by Will Smith, is an invention that was very poorly chosen - it destroyed the magic. Parts of it were good: Colin Farrell is brilliant as Peter, Russell Crowe is a fiendishly wonderful Pearly Soames, and William Hurt is perfect as Isaac Penn; yet parts were bad. Although she is a great actor, Jessica Brown Findlay is woefully miscast as Beverly. Do yourself a favour, skip the movie, and instead go and read all of Mark Helprin's novels.

I went to see winters tale this weekend and I had so many different emotions when I watched it. First, Colin Farrell is wonderful...he's really great in this roll as a thief but also as a man who falls in love. He really makes you believe he's this character. Of course all the other actors and the surprise cameo all really worked well together.

Not gonna lie I cried a few different times in the movie, I laughed, and felt so many other things while watching. I'm also a secret hopeless romantic so this movie is great for my fellow love story lovers. Honestly I knew from the previews it was going to have a spiritual and magical story line which I really liked. It's nice to watch films that make you think afterwards and during. So don't go expecting to see a typical story line, because that's not at all what you will get.

When you go see this movie which I definitely recommend, have an open mind and just appreciate what you're watching, honestly it's moving!

I give this movie a 7, but only for the acting (several of my favorite actors and actresses are in it) and because I first saw this movie before having read the book. After having read the book, and having enjoyed it, I can say that the movie is light years different from the book and only uses its most basic outline. Certainly I understand why this is the case, trying to film 700 pages of dense and descriptive prose in 2 hours is impossible.....especially when so much of it is fantastical in nature. The movie is not a total failure, but it IS a total failure of adapting its source novel. Scorcese turned down filming this because he said it was "un-filmmable". He was right.

First some background, I'm a guy, a shoot 'em, blow 'em up, Clint Eastwood luvin dude. I do appreciate however a good romantic story. Also, I have NOT read the book, heck, never even heard of it until now.

So that said, here is my take. The haters seem to fall into three major categories.

First, there are the "loved the book, hate the movie" types. Since I never read the book, I can't speak to this, other than to say, "Sorry, it's not the book, it's a movie". I always tell my kids that the medium of film is radically different than that of pulp and what "works" in one doesn't necessarily work in the other. Given that, one should go into a movie with an open mind, even if you've read the book.

Second, there are the "I never read the book, the movie didn't make sense". Now that I can talk to. I never did find myself all that confused. I think falls in large part to the fact that I never assumed the movie was supposed to be based on reality. I mean come on, given the rather obviously "fantastic" aspects of the story, it's not meant to be taken seriously. You're given an overarching concept (basically the power of love to do amazing things) and if you buy in, then the particulars are not really all that important. If you can't get beyond that, or simply don't buy into the central conceit, then you won't like the movie because it rides that wave for all it's worth.

Third are the folks who thought the movie was too schmaltzy. Now that I would at least partially agree with. That said, again, the movie doesn't try to hide the fact that it wears it's heart on it's sleeve. It's fair that if one does not go for that kind of thing, then you won't like this film.

All that said, I thought it was a "good" romantic film. My personal criticisms fall mainly on the somewhat wooden acting and the overall lack of "feel". That's right, despite all I said above there was just something about the film that just never really drew me into the characters. For some reason I never really felt truly emotionally invested in the characters. I didn't hate them, I did care, just not nearly as much as I thought I should. I also thought some of the acting was a bit forced and this might have contributed to not being able to lose myself in the characters. Almost like the actors did a good job of "acting" like the characters but never quite crossed into "being" the characters.

So if you're willing to accept the movie for what it is, an unabashedly romantic film that weaves religion as an integral part of the story, then I think that you will enjoy the film. It's not perfect by any sense of the imagination, but IMHO it's not nearly as bad as some folks are making it out to be.

Directors making their feature-film debuts don't typically have their pick of Hollywood's finest (and busiest) stars - unless they're Akiva Goldsman, that is. For his fantastical romance epic Winter's Tale, the Oscar-winning screenwriter has corralled the likes of Russell Crowe, Jennifer Connelly, Colin Farrell and Eva Marie Saint: an accomplished cast that would make many a more seasoned director envious. The trouble is that Winter's Tale never really comes together as Goldsman clearly wants it to: the writing is smart and occasionally very good, but the film flounders when it should soar, losing rather than gathering pace and tension as it goes on.

The story - based on Mark Helprin's ponderous 1983 novel - follows petty thief Peter Lake (Farrell) from the early 1900s through to the present day. In 1916, Peter is suddenly declared persona non grata by Pearly Soames (Russell Crowe), his frankly insane, literally demonic Irish thug of a mentor. While on the run, Peter encounters a mysterious white horse that points him in the direction of the Penn mansion. Initially looking to steal himself something nice, Peter sets aside all thoughts of pilfering treasure from the Penns when he meets and swiftly falls in love with Beverly (Downton Abbey's Jessica Brown Findlay), the beautiful, flame-haired mistress of the house who is slowly being eaten alive by consumption.

It's all very romantic, or so we're told, with a supernatural element folded into the love story: Pearly becomes convinced that Peter is destined to save a girl with titian hair, an action that would upset the teetering balance between good and evil. Indeed, Peter's burning love winds up keeping him alive for over a century, until he meets single mom/super-journalist Virginia (Jennifer Connelly) and her daughter in modern-day Manhattan. It soon becomes clear that fate, destiny and a whole lot of mystical mumbo-jumbo are at work here, and Peter will soon discover the healing and restorative powers of love itself.

To be fair, Winter's Tale is built upon a raft of quite interesting ideas. It hints at, rather than belabours, the notion of good and evil taking physical form: Pearly lurks through Manhattan, a gangster by trade and a demon by nature. When he decides to confront Peter for good and for ever, he's forced to fight on equal, mortal terms. It's a fantasy universe absolutely begging to be expanded, a fiction that could be real and is all the more tantalising for it.

But Goldsman, in juggling the various elements of his story, lets the opportunity slip him by, instead focusing on the love story in almost excruciating detail - even though he never really creates a connection between Peter and Beverly that rings true. Peter teaches Beverly how to escape her all-consuming fever by slowing her heart down, Beverly explains to Peter how she believes people rise to the stars to find their loved ones when they die - it's all intensely romantic, but hardly emotional. The film then flings a few more tropes and complications into the mix (Peter loses his memory, Peter winds up travelling through the future into our present, love will conquer all etc.), without really stopping to explain just how it all hangs together.

At least Goldsman has pulled together a cast worth watching, even when the film he's constructed around them isn't quite worth their salt. Farrell broods prettily in his boy-band haircut, clearly too old for the part but nonetheless playing it with great gusto. Paying Goldsman back for A Beautiful Mind and Cinderella Man, Crowe marches through the silliness of his raging, bonkers character with strange amounts of joy. Pearly is easily the film's best character, unless you count the one played by another of Goldsman's Facebook friends (no spoilers, but this movie star is no doubt grateful to Goldman for a script that earned him bucketfuls of acting cred many years ago).

Swimming somewhere in the reams of quite lovely footage assembled by Goldsman and his cinematographer Caleb Deschanel, there's a great movie with great ideas. Once in a while, it bursts through - in the shadowy, dank dungeon of a demon's lair, ruled by Lucifer himself; or the snow- swept sparkle of a moonlit night - but, more often than not, it turns into Winter's Tale: an emotionally distant romantic drama that goes for lush, sweeping depth but comes up curiously cold and myopic.