Did we really need another adaptation of The Secret Garden? No, not really, and this film confirms that. It's not that the film is bad (although it is pretty average), it's just that it offers nothing new to audiences already familiar with the book and the other film adaptations.
Agnieszka Holland's adaptation of The Secret Garden (1993) is one of the best movies adapted from a children's book. Featuring who's who of cinema -- atmospheric cinematography by Roger Deakins, haunting score by Zbigniew Preisner, and screenplay by frequent Tim Burton collaborator, Caroline Thompson -- 1993 adaptation is a great film that does not shy away from dark source material. As its core, it is ultimately about opening yourself up by embracing others.
On paper, this 2020 adaptation released during COVID-19 pandemics is nearly as impressive. Utilizing modern CGI technics, the film is a sight to behold. The garden never looked more beautiful. The music by typically great Dario Marianelli is subtle but fits the quiet narrative.
The cast of young unknowns is competent enough, but the problem is lack of focus. The central theme seems to be the magical connection between the garden and your past. By confronting your past, the garden magically heals. If this psychology theme seems hokey, it is.
Also problematic is the film's interpretation of Mary Lennon, played by newcomer Dixie Egerickx. The character does not make any much efforts to connect with others. Just about the only element that works is Archibald Craven (played by Colin Firth), who provides the film's lone heartfelt moments.
The use of the lightning at least was good, the rest was all horrible, horrible acting, horrible adaptation, one of the worst movies I´ve watched this year.
The dog was real or made with CGI?
Having never read the book or particularly being able to remember the previous film and television versions The Secret Garden comes to me with no baggage attached. I was not expecting something I had seen or read in a cherished past. So often with cherished classic adaptations this is the film’s biggest weakness, and some would say its strength.
The writer and director could have just made a straight down the middle modern version of any of the other versions or indeed the source novel but much to their credit they have put a spin on it that they hope will belong to them. Their vision if you like. Unfortunately, this will alienate probably a good half of the audience before Colin Firth reveals his ‘hunch back’. For anyone like me it does not hit us over the head with the hammer of outrage.
The story is fairly simple and not particularly original, if you boil off the outer coatings it is unlikable character learns that there is more to life than being spoiled and that she was always loved and becomes likeable, it is how we get there that makes the film.
To my eyes and admittedly simple mind we are hand-held throughout the story by Mary, very well played by Dixie Egerickx who should have a long career in entertainment ahead of her if she so chooses, and Mary is a 10-year-old child, an unreliable narrator to wear out a phrase that is in danger of falling to pieces. I assumed what you see on the screen is her recollection, even the dramatic finale, so the robin, enormous plants and foliage, the garden seemingly acres and acres in size and apparently somewhere around a twenty-mile walk from the manor all come from the rich imagination of a girl we are shown loves to tell anybody she meets stories. The events happened, but not in that way. I settled into this way of viewing the film early on and so I enjoyed what I viewed without fussing over the anomalies.
If you bookend the children with Colin Firth and Julie Walters you have sound, strong foundations but as mentioned before Egerickx is an extraordinarily talented young actor and unfortunately outshines her supporting youthful actors, Amir Wilson and Edan Hayhurst, they try their best but there is tiny acting colossus striding about in front of them. To be fair there is nothing wrong with either performance but their characters are not given a lot to do other than get the story to a point needed.
The CGI work of the colourful garden fits right in with the magical feel of the story that surprisingly is grounded in death and grief and points out not too subtly that only nurturing and caring causes anything to thrive. This is okay though as surely much of the audience will be parents and children I would think. So simplifying the original story making it bright with a strong and clear happy ending fits right in there.
The Secret Garden is a much-loved classic and this version is a more modern take with characters updated, removed, changed to fit in with the vision. It does not make it a bad version simply different. As it is this Secret Garden sits well as a family-orientated film that tries to show grief, loss, fear and redemption without making it terrifying or depressing for young viewers. Sometimes films are not made for those looking nostalgically over their shoulders and old cynical people like me.
The vision of the cinematography is colourful and evocative at the right times, dark and menacing when it needs to be, the score suits what is in front of you and the acting is good enough for any film and in some places superb.
The Secret Garden is not going to take your breath away and stay with you for the weeks and months to come but it does what it is meant to do and in general does it very well.
So Colin Firth's character had no relation in blood to the girl, right? They kept calling him uncle. I thought he is her mother's brother.
Not a bad film but convinced the adaptor has never even read the book. Where is Susan Sowerby. Where is Ben Weatherstaff. Where are the main themes of the book: stuck up rich kids learn the value of life through hard work and friendship.
Would it be so bad...if they made a new film of this every few years? (This is the eleventh)
I had a good cry at the end. And, this version incorporated elements I hadn't seen in the last couple...the way they freely included the ghosts reminded me of an old Ingmar Bergman film, it was really nice! In fact, that element brought focus to the garden as a character, and gave it's magic reason. Plus, the letters between the Sisters Mary finds helps resolve the relationships between Mother and Son, and Mother and Daughter. Wonderful casting, acting...and, WOW, the CGI throughout and especially in the garden...it sparkled as a result!
I also enjoyed the song written and performed by Aurora!
It was okay. Slow-paced. I think I prefer the older version. I wouldn't watch it again.
This is incredibly average and boring.
Scenarios, setting, music very well, the rest has not finished convincing me
Shout by Miguel A. ReinaBlockedParent2020-09-05T09:53:54Z
A mutilated adaptation that not only excludes some of the most interesting themes of the original book but betrays them. The bucolic magic landscape is constructed through CGI, which erases some of its potential as a metaphor for maturity and growth. The artificial images offer expressiveness of the psychology of the characters, but also destroys the essence of a book that speaks of nature as a vitalizing effect.