User reviews

...but it is far from a failure.

Usually, I refrain from commenting on films which I have been fortunate enough to see prior to release, but in this case, I am making an exception.

The early reviews I have seen, including the two posted here, realize that the work product is indeed problematic, and, while they don't say so, they ought to understand that it should have been reworked before the final edit. What they clearly DON'T understand is that Wonderstruck is a fantasy, not a melodrama. Are the two children real? Hardly. All the capers and coincidences and similarities are unbelievable for any realistic narrative. That doesn't matter. Wonderstruck is not credible story; it isn't supposed to be. In music, a composition like this would be "a fantasy on" some composition. We would hear identifiable themes set in a very expansive framework, creating a very different impression of a familiar setting. That's what Wonderstruck intends to do - establish a real world in which the deaf find themselves contained. It's not set up to accommodate them, so they adapt their own reality to exist in it. Is their reality real? To those of us who are not deaf, we can never know what it is to them. So how much of Wonderstruck is real and how much is fantasy, we will never really know. That's the point.

Now, having said that, the film does have problems, not the least of which is that the book's author, Brian Selznick, wrote the screenplay, rarely a good idea without at least having an uninvolved writing partner. He had two problems, both of which handicapped him. He was faced with adapting a 600+ page book into a 2-hour film. A lot of stuff had to be excised, and the original author is the entirely wrong person to be doing it. Author Brian Seltzer knows the material too intimately and is not prepared to inform us of basic information which he has long ago accepted as obvious. Moreover, book structure - and screenwriter Brian Seltzer seems to have adhered closely to it in this case - rarely work for films. Books move slowly. Books let the reader consume the information at his/her own pace, even allowing for back-reference for clarity. Movies dictate our comprehension and understanding. Few novelists get this, and it was Seltzer's main problem.

In the theatre, plays and musicals go "out-of-town" to "try out", the whole purpose being that the show can be viewed in action. The problems can become obvious, and the writers can get to work on fixing them. Films don't have this luxury. True, the final edit can be exhibited for test audiences, but these viewers are very aware of their exceptional status, and they are rarely a good cross section of the viewing public. Wonderstruck could have benefited from an "out-of-town" tryout - even several of them. Unfortunately, this is not a financial expenditure available to most films. Moreover, it would probably lay the film open to reviewers - both professional and amateur - who would delight in their chance to make a difference. (Don't believe it? How credible is Rotten Tomatoes?) Several reviewers have disparaged the talents of the child actors. These commentators have very little credibility in this respect. The intent of the author is that the kids be very ordinary, very everyday. Regular kids are as diverse as adults, but they are not adults; they are still learning how to be adults. They may go off on some adventure that seems quite obvious to them while appearing unacceptable, even ridiculous, to adults. The young actors here were often handicapped by unspeakable dialogue, especially for 12-year-olds. They did everything they could with it because it was not their job to change it or object to it. A good dialogue writer - even a good director - would have realized this and made the changes. (And it is amazing that a director of Todd Haynes' quality missed it - or at least didn't do something about it.) While Millicent Simmonds (Young Rose) is deaf, Oakes Fegley (Ben) presumably has no hearing disability. As an actor he had to convey the confusion he must feel at suddenly being unable to hear but still being able to speak - and within a few months time at that. He obviously had access to a qualified "coach", but he had to replicate a young boy suddenly faced with a life changing disability. I wonder if they were able to find a 12-year-old boy - suddenly deaf - who could have helped him. Probably not. So his reactions were probably his own, and for a young boy in those circumstances, his portrayal was probably as accurate as any. (Interestingly, the boy - Ben - in the book is born deaf in one ear, who suddenly becomes totally deaf. Had that been the film's character, perhaps the actor's task would have been much different.) In summary, Wonderstruck is not a bad film, just not quite ready for prime time. It is quite enjoyable on its own terms.

Carol was one of the best films I saw in 2015, as a matter of fact its probably the best film of that year. Everything about that film was so right. I really like Todd Haynes. Safe is also a fantastic film. I did like Far From Heaven and I'm Not There, though I'm not as crazy about those two. I saw the trailer for Wonderstruck and thought it looked interesting and could possibly be an experience like Carol or Safe. Wonderstruck is definitely a good film but its one of Todd Haynes' weaker efforts. That's really no knock on the film or the filmmaker, its just that Haynes' has set his own bar high.

The film portrays events in the lives of two children, one in the late 1927, the other in 1977. Both kids are deaf and have common elements in their life. Rose (1927) is running away from her dad to New York to find her idol, an actress in New York. Ben (1977) is recently orphaned and runs away to New York on a quest to find his estranged father. Both stories are intertwined and interwoven despite the already visible similarities from each tale. Its an interesting concept and Haynes utilizes unique filming styles to convey the tale, however the film doesn't always have high points and is a bit predictable.

The 1927 portion of the film emulates silent films of the era and is a tribute to movies of the time. The film is score heavy in this decade which makes the picture seem authentic. The score for this film is rather excellent and could be up for award contention at year's end. The 1977 portion has that gritty and colored frame that perfectly represents the cinematography of films of that era. I applaud Haynes for his presentation in style. The child actors do quite well. I actually didn't even realize Michelle Williams was in the film. Its a warm and fuzzy film that lacks any real conflict which I think was needed to perfect the film. Its a very saccharine effort which will appease younger viewers and Haynes definitely intended for it to be that way.

I have to go back to the score because its really riveting. Adds to the magic and wonder of the film and the experiences of the two leads. I love seeing New York in film throughout different decades so visually this film offers a definite viewing experience. Wonderstruck is not Haynes' best effort but like most of his other films its an ambitious effort and technically outstanding.

7/10

Graceful and quite literally quiet, "Wonderstruck" makes for an unconventional (or at least uncommercial) family film, but one worth enduring thanks to director Todd Haynes, the cast and composer Carter Burwell.

Written by Brian Selznick, who authored the book as well as the book that became Martin Scorsese's "Hugo," "Wonderstruck" tells the story of a young boy in 1977 and a young girl in 1927 who take on New York City in search of secrets and a sense of belonging. Ben (Oakes Fegley) is a boy living in Minnesota whose just lost his mother and never knew his father, but has a lead pointing him to NYC; Rose (Millicent Simmonds) is a girl living in New Jersey who is deaf and feels misunderstood by her father in a world unkind to those with disabilities. She takes the ferry across the river to find silent film star Lillian Mayhew (Julianne Moore).

Much like "Hugo," Selznick's story is a love letter (in this case to silent film, New York City and museums) wrapped up in a tale of children escaping challenging circumstances in search of answers and finding friendship along the way. The key difference is that "Hugo" is a more focused mystery that moves concretely from A to B to C, etc. Haynes approaches "Wonderstruck" as more of an art piece that glides about, with both storylines slowly yet inevitably intertwining. The "Carol" and "Far From Heaven" director crafts a seamless audio-visual experience that makes a gentle appeal to our own sense of wonder.

Consequently, "Wonderstruck" will have trouble captivating audiences; children should definitely see it, but not necessarily children with short attention spans. The effort to play off silent films through the lens of deafness has great artistic and even educational value, but entertainment-wise it leaves something to be desired. As thoughtfully as Haynes switches between timelines and contrasts "hearing" scenes with "non-hearing" scenes to affect our perspective, graceful transitions can only be so riveting.

Children will for sure not notice Burwell's score that establishes place, time and wonderment extremely well. He even underscores moments of action, suspense and surprise in the way a silent film score would back in the '20s. These are just some of the artistic touches that make "Wonderstruck" special for adults whose tastes incline them toward films that appreciate history, the arts and other intellectual subjects.

One of the most critical artistic touches comes at the end of the film with an entire sequence told using models and dioramas. It also ties together the entire plot, so a lot hinges on it. It is both a beautiful conclusion and somewhat anti-climactic given that the reveals are not all that surprising (at least to an adult viewer). Yet the point is not for any startling revelations, but for the characters to come to terms with the answers they find and embrace the good that came from the journey.

~Steven C

Thanks for reading! Visit Movie Muse Reviews for more

Went to see the film without knowing anything about it except Julianne Moore being in it - normally a strong sell for me.

I was exceptionally close to walking out of the theater for over the first hour. Not because the performances were bad or anything, it was just... pointless. Devoid of drama, impetus, momentum. There was nothing. It was like watching a sophomore film-maker discovering his camera for the first time, and just "filming neat things".

There's about 25 minutes of good film in here, but that's what they should have made - a 25 minute short film.

Those 25 minutes were touching, but not as much as the thought of getting 2 hours of my life back.

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 movie gets off to a slow start. In fact, I was tempted to turn it off after the first half hour, but I decided to persevere and I'm quite pleased I did. After its slow beginning, this movie settles into being an intriguing mystery and actually becomes quite charming. Now, it's not the kind of mystery where people's lives are in danger or someone has been murdered. It's a more gentle mystery. It has to do with a boy looking for the father he never knew and the lives of two people two people of similar ages but two generations apart and how they come together.

The interesting twist this movie takes is that both these characters are deaf. The story of the girl, who grows up in the earlier part of the twentieth century, is told entirely without sound - in other words, from her point of view (or hearing). The boy, who lives in the late twentieth century, is only recently deaf, so we get to hear all the sounds that he can't. It's an interesting approach, and I'm not 100 percent sure it actually makes for riveting viewing. The girl's story is a bit perplexing until the two stories start to come together and more is revealed. Actually, I got to the end of the movie and realized that the girl's story wasn't really relevant to the main story line - the boy's search for his dad. It could have been excluded and the movie would not have suffered other than only being about an hour long... and we can't have that!

Anyway, to summarize, despite its plodding start, I enjoyed this movie. I enjoyed it sufficiently that I will watch it again in a few weeks, because I think it is one of those movies that warrant a second viewing. I am sure I will discover nuances and throw-away plot points that I missed the first time through but which will be obvious second time. So, would I recommend this movie? Yes I would, but with the caveat that you need to show some perseverance at the start.

This story has so much potential. I loved "Hugo," by the same writer. The parallel time periods and similarities in the stories of the 2 children could have been wonderful if the movie contained some cleverly written exposition.

This film was so dimly lit I could hardly see it, even when it was supposedly a normally lit space. The written notes on paper were not readable and they would have probably given me a clue about the plot. It is ultimately about a newly orphaned child, a worthy subject. However, it is unclear who the boy is staying with in the beginning, unclear whether the adult women is a neighbor, a foster mother, or a friend's mother. It is unclear why the 1927 female lead leaves her home to see an actress. There are notes back and forth I couldn't read. Why is the bookseller significant? Who is he? Is he merely a device to introduce the grandmother? How did the boy get the name of this bookshop? It was hard to see the book he was looking at, so maybe there was a clue there?

Why a museum setting? What will happen to the boy? Will he get lost in the fake city? Is the fake city better than his sad life? Are we to get from this that real life is too hard and we should escape in fantasy? The grandmother leaves home and never goes back. She gets incorporated into a museum. Is that the boy's fate?

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.

I was wondering what inspired directed Todd Haynes to tackle such pedestrian subject matter as a telling of a boy who goes searching for his father in the city. What you end up with is an endearing tale of family connections and parallel stories. Without going into plot (as there really isn't one) it is a gem of storytelling that actually feels like you are reading a storybook. Granted, the topic goes over well tread territory. Most of it will feel really familiar. And we're not learning bigger newer things, BUT...you are dealing with a incredibly simplistic story (sometimes stomach churning contrived) that bridges a warm spot in your heart.

I recommend this movie with a great deal of reservation. For most, it will be dull as watching paint dry. There is a moment when the movie stops dead to investigate the museum. This is a grind to get through. But the overall message is unabashedly sentimental it's hard to hate.

With all the superhero movies and action movies and horror it was actually nice to see a real story about people. As if we were back in kindergarten as the teacher would read you a book. It's that type of film. Beautiful in its execution (the 70s era is unbelievable).

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.

Wonderstruck didn't make a positive first impression on me, with initial scenes, set in the 1970s, that are filmed like a low-budget 70s children's movie. The film alternates with scenes in the '20s, shot in black and white, but oddly rather than capturing the film style of the period those scenes look more like something from the '40s.

The dual stories start without much explanation, as both children set out for Manhattan. Little is explained as the character in the silent era is deaf and the 70s kid becomes deaf early on (leading to an odd initial approach in which the movie sometimes goes silent for reasons that are unclear.

Nothing in the movie grabbed me until a lovely scene on a boat with a fluttering piece of paper. This was followed by both kid's arrival in New York, and everything clicks in place. The black-and-white scenes come closer to old '20s movies and the 70s look works well in upper Manhattan. It's fun to watch the kid's wander the Natural Museum of History, following similar routes 50 years apart.

And then things slowed down again, and that brief moment of intrigue and tension dissipated. Much of the last part of this short film is devoted to trying to stretch it out to a full 90 minutes, and while the semi-animated sequences have a quirky charm to them, it's not enough to make up for the deliberate pace just when you want things to quickly and dramatically unspool.

By the end, my first impression had been confirmed. This isn't a movie I can get excited about.

Todd Haynes tries his hand at making a child-friendly film, like what Martin Scorsese did in "Hugo," with mixed results.

In the plus column we get Julianne Moore, lovely as always as a famous stage actress in 1920s New York and later in the film as that actress's adult daughter. In the debit column we get one of those strained, overly precious stories in which two separate plot strands set in two different time periods come together through the reveal that one character is related to another. I feel like this kind of narrative always works better as a book, when an author can take his/her time at untangling the threads, but suffers in translation when the same story has to be compressed into a reasonable running time for a film. This movie pushes every button it can think of to wring wistful tears from its audience, but it all just feels so manipulated.

I prefer Todd Haynes when he's making films for grown ups.

Grade: B-

"Wonderstruck" (2017 release; 116 min.) brings the story of two kids, Ben and Rose, set 50 years apart, in 1977 and 1927, respectively. As the movie opens, we are told it's "Gunflint, Minnesota, 1977", and we see Ben grieving for his mom, the own librarian who recently dies in a car crash. One evening while trying to make a phone call, Ben is struck by lightning and becomes deaf. In a parallel story, we are told it's "Hoboken, New Jersey, 1927" and get to know Rose, a deaf girl whose mother is a famous actress. Going back to Ben, in a flashback we see him interacting with his mom, who refuses to give him any clues as to the identity of his dad. At this point we are a good 10 min. into the movie. How are Ben and Rose connected? What will become of them? To tell you more of the plot would spoil your viewing experience, you'll just have to see for yourself how it all plays out.

Couple of comments: this is the latest movie from director Todd Haynes, whose previous film "Carol" was in my top 3 of the year. Here he brings Brian Selznick's best-selling novel to the big screen. I haven't read the book so I cannot comment how significantly the narrative differs from the book (if at all). The movie is remarkable on a number of levels: the 1927 scenes are in B&W and play out as a silent movie (more on that later). I am not spoiling anything when I mention that museums play a key role, if not character in this movie. One evening, Ben and his new friend Jamie are hiding in a secret room at the American Museum of Natural History, and you can't help but think back to "A Night at the Museum", only that this is one of a very different kind (and for much the better in my book). The Queens Museum also provides a vital platform. Julianna Moore is the only "big" name in the cast, and she doesn't even show up until 3/4 into the movie. Oakes Fegley, the boy playing Ben, carries the movies on his young shoulders, and quite capably at that. Last but certainly not least, there is a fabulous amount of music in the movie, primarily the original score (which runs quasi non-stop throughout the movie), courtesy of composer Carter Burwell. You can bet on it that I will seek this out.

"Wonderstruck" premiered at this year's Cannes Film Festival to immediate critical acclaim, and I've been waiting to see this ever since. The movie finally opened at my local art-house theater here in Cincinnati. The Saturday early evening screening where I saw this at was attended so-so (maybe 12-13 people in total). Regardless, if you are in the mood for "A Night At the Museum" of a very different kind, I'd readily suggest you check this out, be it in the theater, on Amazon Instant Video, or eventually on DVD/Blu-ray.

This movie had some potential to have a good storyline, but, the story just was not good. It was incredibly frustrating in parts, moved incredibly slow and had no interesting characters or intrigue to the story. I honestly stuck it out because my husband wouldn't give up on it. I am incredibly disappointed that it had no twists or good closure. The music was weird in parts. I neither laughed, nor cried, nor was interested in the characters or how the story turned out. It just fails for me.

I'm very sad to see all the dislike reviews to this Todd Haynes film. Since he made Safe also with Julianne Moore. It was both there first films together. You'll like this film. I'm not going to give any of it away. I just want to save it from all the bad reviews I see here. It's a 2 hour Todd Haynes film. You have to stick with it even for me it was hard but sometimes with a film you have to go with it. And like the other films I see him do. There always beautiful and the tears for this one was hard to hold back. It all makes sense in the end. And it's a interesting story. The 1970's songs he picked were great. Anyway Todd great job on this. I didn't even know about it. Till today.

So now I am going to read the book....the film, I felt was slow moving in a few places, and yet the two story lines, and their eventual meeting were very well done. I don't think current North American audiences are used to having two main characters like the two in this film. I liked how the film was done....the music, the quiet, the connecting threads. I've never been a fan of going back and forth between times, and yet this had to happen in this film. I recommend seeing it.

Terrible waste of time and money. Boring, flat and uninteresting plot. Go stare at a bowl of Rice Krispies for 2 hours and THAT will be a better mind expanding experience. In short, I was not Wonderstruck.

Greetings again from the darkness. If you know an adolescent who is ready to step up from comic book movies, this would be a terrific introduction to more emotionally dramatic and narrative-driven cinema. That's certainly not meant to imply that director Todd Haynes' latest is only for kids, or even that it's aimed at that demographic. Instead, it's the rare opportunity to follow two intersecting story lines over two different time periods with kids as the main focus, and have some very interesting post-movie discussions related to characters, eras, and filmmaking techniques.

We follow the stories of two kids who are separated by 50 years. Although the time boundary exists, the similarities between their journeys are many. Each is running away from home in search of their roots and identity. They are both hearing-impaired and living in less than ideal family environments. Additionally, their footsteps cross many of the same places in New York City as two museums play key roles.

Ben (Oakes Fegley, PETE'S DRAGON) is a 12 year old living in Gunflint, Minnesota. It's 1977 when his mother (Michelle Williams) dies unexpectedly and a freak accident takes his hearing. Convinced an odd bookmark is a clue to finding the father he's never met, Ben sets off for New York City. Rose (remarkable first time actress Millicent Simmonds) lives in 1927 Hoboken, New Jersey and is obsessed with silent screen star Lillian Mayhew (Julianne Moore in a dual role). Rose is an artistic child whose domineering dad has little time for her, so she hops aboard the ferry and heads to the big city to track down an idol - who may be more closely tied than we first imagine.

Brian Selznick adapted the screenplay from his own novel (he also wrote "The Invention of Hugo Cabret", which was the basis for Scorcese's HUGO), and some may find the two story lines muddled or difficult to follow. However, for those who connect with the characters and their adventures, it's a fascinating and entertaining ride. Director Todd Haynes (FAR FROM HEAVEN, CAROL) has established his expertise in visual stylings, and here he gets to present two distinct looks for the separate eras. Ben's 1977 world is filled with the polyester and neon colors of that era and it's even given the washed-out look of 1970's cinema. On the opposite end of the spectrum, Rose's 1927 world is presented in black and white as a silent movie. The lack of dialogue allows us to focus on her facial expressions and body language, which tell us what we need to know.

The American Museum of Natural History plays a significant role in both stories, and the Queens Museum is central to the finale which ties up the two pieces for us. The contrasts of the two eras are as vital as the similarities. Along the way, each of the kids gets a bit of help. Ben befriends Jamie (Jaden Michael) whose connection to the museum and the city provides Ben a boost, while Rose's much older brother Walter (Cory Michael Smith) also has a connection to the museum and helps put Rose on the right track. The distinct photographic styles help us easily switch between eras, and much credit goes to cinematographer (and frequent Haynes collaborator) Edward Lachman and editor Affonso Goncalves.

Oscar Wilde's quote, "We are all in the gutter but some of us are looking at the stars", takes its shot as the theme for the two stories, and really it's a heartfelt film with interesting storytelling and unusual cinematic effects. The set design is terrific throughout, and especially vital during the silent movie segments of Rose's story. Carter Burwell's prominent score also effectively shifts styles between stories and eras. The ties that bind us – a core need to understand our roots – do so regardless of age and time period. This is a nifty little film that provides much to discuss and consider.

The movie is really nice and most importantly is purposeful , and the story is filled with roller coaster of mixed emotions.

The story talks about this kid who lost his mom and in the attempt of finding his father he loses his hearing,, and then he goes into his little adventure of finding his father, while in the same time they show a black and white story of a similar adventure for a little girl which in the end we find out "no spoiler" she's connected somehow to the boy.

The screenplay is creative and not forgetting the montage in the first part and through the rest of the movie where there is silence and they create this white noise then a background music,, it was really good.

Again, the movie was good, the story is satisfying and the soundtracks were really good.

I waited a long time to see this movie. I should have kept waiting. This is a prime example of how someone making a film who doesn't know how, also doesn't know how to interpret a book, I would imagine. But I loathed this truly regrettable uninspiring piece of cement-drying dullness so much that I wouldn't read the book now if it came with a million dollars. And I think that is a vicious thing to do to any author!!

What was it trying to say? A statement about deaf people? A statement about how kids are treated and not heard? A statement about anything at all?

Good direction and a decent script, a few subtitles and it should have been at least watchable. However, because I kept waiting for the big reveal, I forced myself to keep watching at the 15 minute mark, 25 minutes, 55 minutes and then, with gritted teeth the rest of this hash job. The 'big reveal' comes to you with little paper people with pasted heads on and ANOTHER story... typed on little bits of paper during a bus ride.

Horrible muck. Should have been good. Wasn't. Please, can we have a proper director do a re-make.