The Magic Faraway Tree

[readingmakesmehappy]

We’ve just been to see it and I wish they’d stuck more closely to the books. They spent very little time actually in the magic lands. Some terrible wigs. But the kids adored it and it passed the time very happily.

I would have preferred it without the parents. The fun of these types of books is that the kids get to roam free and have adventures and parents are irrelevant to the story.

We went last week, with DD, now 16, who I read it to when she was small. We all enjoyed it. Yes, they’ve modernised it, and yes, some of the family stuff goes on a bit, and is maybe a bit OTT (stroppy Beth needed a serious telling off and agree with whoever said Andrew Garfield’s wardrobe was something to behold, and not in a good way) but in the main we enjoyed it. The tree and the lands were good, more of those and a bit more menace would have worked, as others have said, I remember some of them being relatively scary! But I liked it. It could have been significantly worse IMO.

I thought it was awful! Terribly acted with some odd casting choices, bizarre accents thrown in for good measure and it looked low budget to me. Barely any time spent in the lands and nothing magical about it 😏

Really didn’t enjoy it and neither did dd who loves the books, too much focus on the family and their bloody tomatoes and enough on the tree characters and the lands. Boring!

I went to see it on Good Friday with my kids (who are 11 and 21 so much older than target audience). I read and loved the books as a child. I don't think they read them.

To my surprise we all really enjoyed it and there were bits where the whole cinema was roaring with laughter.
I agree that there wasn't enough about the lands. Even the ones they did visit they didn't seem to be there very long. I was frustrated that they were supposed to go to the Land of Dreams and then ... didn't.
The children were all great though my daughter remarked that the parents barely registered Fran suddenly overcoming her selective mutism.
Magical characters were good though I agree Silky should have been fairy sized and Moonface should have had a moon face!

I didn't mind the family back story. I think it was necessary to pull it together though there was too much about the bloody tomatoes/sauce and the dad character was an annoying wet lettuce especially with "the family song".

As someone with a selectively mute relative I was a bit annoyed at the suggestion that just taking a child to the countryside can suddenly turn them into a little chatterbox. But then I appreciate I am overly sensitive about that issue. It would have been nice if she could have been happy and supported by their family despite their selective mutism.

I adored all 3 books as a child, but actually I left before the end of the film. I agree with a lot of the points made here. It was somehow too shouty and loud (plus weird accents and dancing), but also not scary enough.

Would it have been impossible not to modernise it? I guess maybe, I'm not a filmmaker so I don't know. Perhaps the parents needed to play a bigger role for plot purposes.

I feel a bit like I did about Peter Jackson's hobbit films - the original feel of it was either not understood or deliberately discarded.

The tree was beautiful though.

It's true the books don't have a plot. I think they might lend themselves better to a TV series instead of a film. Shortish episodes.

It was low-budget, apparently, so you're right.

I took my 8-year-old today and she enjoyed it. Her favourite parts included the happy ending and what she called “the prison”. She’s never read the books, but I hope she will now.

I quite enjoyed it but I’m not sure what to think about the family storyline now. One one hand, I like the escapism of the magical lands and don’t appreciate being taken out of them partway through a visit e.g. to watch Dad trying to fix a tractor. On the other hand, if the film was all about three jolly children having fun in magical lands with fairy folk, it might have been rather twee and saccharine. And I hope the tech storyline strikes a chord with DD, although I appreciate the irony of watching a film about the joys of getting away from screens.

I did like the tree and the ladders through the clouds up to the lands - that was rather magical. The washerwoman character really helped set those scenes.

They were my favourite books as a child, and all 3 dcs also loved them all.I've probably read them to each child at least 4 times each, as well as rereading constantly as a child myself.

Disappointing for me. Nowhere near enough detail about the tree / wood folk, the folk of the faraway tree were all wrong (apart from saucepan and washalot), agree with the post up thread the land of birthdays was like the Eurovision gone wrong, felt like the lands weren’t magical, for me, it missed the point of the book totally.

Saying that, as a standalone movie, if you hadn’t read the books and didn’t have any expectations, it would be an ok watch on a rainy day. But having imagined how it might be as a movie for possibly 40 years, it didn’t work for me.

I wish there was more focus on the different lands, it felt fleeting and not enough of them

@honeylulu In talk we went to they explained that they wanted moonface to be a real person, an actual moon shaped face would involve the child actors acting to an inanimate object which they felt would take away from the child actor’s performance. I expect it would have been the same for Silky. I also wonder if they had the budget for two CGI characters throughout.

I suspect it was a budget issue. There was only one land that looked fully realised (the first one - was it the Land of Sweets?). I didn’t like the family plot, but also wouldn’t have liked more lands of the same calibre as 80s Euro Pop Land the Land of Birthdays

I agree. It was episodic and didn't really hang together as a movie so I can see why they tried the family plot. But episodes could work well.

I think that’s because the leads were meant to be a huge draw.

I wondered how the bathroom & appliances they would have needed (washing machine etc) functioned with no electricity or proper set up in that “barn?”

I loved the books as a child and the film was tolerable- I didn’t have high expectations. Some bits were mildly amusing and entertaining. DD aged 10 had no previous knowledge of it and she thought it was fine.

Ah thank you, that makes sense.

I loved it! I read all the books as a child, read them.to my children (who also loved the film) and I try to read it to the classes I teach when appropriate.
I only wish the Dad had been Joe from the original books who had temporarily forgotten the magic in his adulthood

He’d probably have had to be Grandpa Joe by now - oh, wait, that’s a different book!

That does seem to be how film companies think, but personally I couldn't care less if the cast included any "big names". I wanted to see the film because I loved the books as a child. In fact, I often find it distracting if the cast is very famous.

A real bugbear of mine is when a famous actor is shoehorned into a part that doesn't fit them, e.g. because they are obviously the wrong age, or the wrong height, or they have to put on a dodgy accent. I would SO much rather see an unknown actor who fits the part.

Just been to see it. I loved it. It’s a long time since a read the books to be fair but I really enjoyed the film.
even my 15yo who doesn’t really enjoy films for some reason said she liked it.
made me want to re-read the books. I loved them when I was a kid.

I saw it today and loved it.

Agree that I would have liked more tree and less tomato, but that aside I thought it was a lovely film.

I didn't realise it had been done on a small budget, definitely didn't come across as such. Hopefully if they can attract a bigger budget then a sequel could be based more on the magical lands.

Andrew Garfield - absolutely awful, Claire Foy - saved it.

The magic wasn’t there. Some great elements but no peril, no time in the lands, very rushed. But that was the main point of the books! The magical lands. And the lands they did have, were very poorly done. It’s a fantasy film, they had the license to go all out, but birthday land was something out of Eurovision Song Contest with 80s style shell suits?!?

the land time was over way too quick, and no scary anxiety over if they will get back in time. I was looking forward to dame slap but that was over before it started.

they spent so long building the story that the main part- the tree - was ignored.

liked it as a film, apart from Garfield, but they had a chance to do so much more, that would have left so many of us so happy seeing our childhoods memories of fantasy come to life.

I’ve been thinking again about the how film companies like to invest in famous actors in order to attract audiences.

How many children think, “I want to see The Magic Faraway Tree because Claire Foy is in it?” And how many adults think, “I’ll go and see this children’s film because Claire Foy is in it and she’s a really good actor”?

I think the Faraway Tree and its magic lands are the real draw and that should have been the priority for the script and the budget. My eight-year-old didn’t recognise any of the actors - they were all unknowns as far as she was concerned. And I didn’t even notice that Dame Judy Dench was the voice of the fridge!