I’m not entirely sure why Amazon recommended the film ‘The Nutcracker and the Four Realms’ to me. Sometimes it’s a bit spooky. I did see an amateur production of ‘The Nutcracker’ ballet mid-December, but must have added this to my wishlist considerably before that time, as I was given it for Christmas 2019.
We wanted to see something light and undemanding, and not too long. So we decided to watch this film, with little idea what to expect. We were, of course, familiar with the basic Nutcracker story, and to start with it looked as though it was going to be an expanded, non-ballet version of that traditional tale.
Clara is the main character, played by Mackenzie Foy, and she does a good job. She’s one of three children who, according to the film, have recently lost their mother. Clara is quite miserable and has no wish to go to the annual Christmas Eve ball given by her godfather. But her father hands out gifts which their mother left them for this occasion; Clara receives a locked container that looks like an egg, but the key is missing.
Morgan Freeman is her godfather, Drosselmeyer, and he - as ever - is superb in the role, though sadly it’s quite a minor one. He is an inventor. But Clara is also mechanically minded, and manages to fix a problem with one of his creations. At the party she follows a golden thread that leads to the key to the box… but it’s stolen by a mouse, and in trying to get it back she is led into adventures in the ‘four realms’ of the title.
There’s more than a nod to the original ‘Nutcracker’, in the places Clara goes, and some of the people she meets. The scenery is stunning, and the CGI so well done that it mixes seamlessly with the real people. There’s an extra plot, involving an old woman - Mother Ginger, played by Helen Mirren, although I didn’t recognise her, which is more Mother Goose than Nutcracker.
But it’s Disney, and they’re not known for sticking to storylines. In the original ‘Nutcracker’ ballet, Clara’s visits to other realms are basically in order to showcase different styles of dancing. In this film they’re an integral part of the story. It felt a bit convoluted in places, with some silliness, but as we reminded ourselves, it’s really intended for children.
There’s a hero - of sorts - in the story, although no romantic development. Philip (Jayden Fowora-Knight) is supposedly the ‘nutcracker soldier’, whom Clara meets as she is trying to cross a bridge. He joins her in her journey, but his acting isn’t very strong, and there didn’t seem any reason for the ‘nutcracker’ name - there’s no back-story, as in the ballet, and he’s an ordinary person, albeit not in a very interesting job.
The other minor annoyance is that the Sugar Plum Fairy (Keira Knightly - and, again, I didn’t recognise her) is frankly irritating, and bears no relation to the original in the ballet. There’s no ballet to speak of, but plenty of the original Tchaikovsky music, connecting the ballet story with the Disney film, and that was well done, although it would have been nice to have a bit more of it.
As well as the adventure story, with the quest to save the realms (and to find Clara’s key) there’s a ‘real world’ story, involving Clara and her father. At the start of the film she is moody and irritable, convinced that he doesn’t care at all about having lost their mother. Towards the end, they manage to reconnect in quite a moving scene.
The rating is PG, which is about right; there are two or three instances of minor bad language, and some slightly tense scenes that could disturb a sensitive child, but since it’s all fairytale fantasy it’s not particularly realistic - other than one scene on a cliff-face, where I had to hide my eyes for a few moments! There’s no real violence and nothing romantic; possibly there were some mild innuendoes, but they would go over the head of most children, and I don’t recall any of them as being offensive.
Overall, we liked the film. Knowing the ‘Nutcracker’ storyline and recognising the music is an advantage in seeing it, but not necessary. If you’re a fan of Disney movies, then this isn’t a bad one; for family nights or children’s viewing I would recommend it. Indeed, I look forward to introducing my grandchildren to it one day.
Review copyright 2020 Sue's DVD Reviews
In the past couple of weeks, we watched the lengthy BBC adaptation of ‘Pride and Prejudice’ with a friend and her young teenage daughter. They were interested to see the 2005 film version starring Keira Knightley, so we watched that with them a couple of days ago.
When we first saw it, just over ten years ago, it had been awhile since we had seen the BBC version and we thought the film well done, on the whole. This time it was impossible not to make comparisons. The story, set around the end of the 18th century, is well-known: Mr and Mrs Bennet have five daughters, and Mrs Bennet is keen to marry them off. She hopes that at least one of them will marry a wealthy man, because their family home is entailed; so when Mr Bennet dies, it will be inherited by his cousin Mr Collins.
Into the neighbourhood come the very rich Mr Bingley and his friend Mr Darcy. Mrs Bennet is delighted when Mr Bingley shows an immediate attraction to her eldest daughter Jane. However Mr Darcy is rather cold and proud, and comes into conflict with Elizabeth, the second daughter and most intelligent of the five. Elizabeth is her father’s obvious favourite; he considers his three younger daughters remarkably silly, even though Mary (the middle one) is ‘bookish’ and uninclined to the frivolities of her younger sisters Kitty and Lydia.
The budget for this film was clearly much higher than that of the BBC adaptation. The balls were lavish, the costumes gorgeous, the stately homes superb. The setting for the Bennets’ house seemed more realistic, too; it came across as rather smaller, not in a top neighbourhood. On the negative side, fitting into just over two hours rather than five and a half, a great deal had to be cut. If we hadn’t read the book or seen the other version, it would have been quite hard to follow the story at times.
We thought that Keira Knightley was well cast as Lizzie Bennet, as was Rosamunde Pike as Jane. The younger sisters had far less of a role in this adaptation than the BBC one, but they were also nicely done. Simon Woods as Mr Bingley was remarkably similar to the character in the BBC version, although he seemed younger and a bit over-enthusiastic at times. Matthew MacFadyen makes a good Mr Darcy, too, although we all agreed that he could not compare to Colin Firth’s portrayal.
We thought Mrs Bennet (Brenda Blethyn) was better acted and more realistic than her equivalent in the BBC version, although without the high drama and screeching she was less amusing. Unfortunately Mr Bennet (Donald Sutherland) was not at all well cast, in our opinions. He came across as very elderly, almost doddering, and there was very little humour in his ironical exchanges with Lizzie and others. He was probably the most disappointing character.
Mr Collins (Tom Hollander) is less horribly smarmy than his BBC equivalent; we thought him more realistic, perhaps, but less amusing. However we were very pleasantly surprised - I had totally forgotten - when Lady Catherine de Burgh appeared, brilliantly portrayed by Judi Dench. She seemed more realistically haughty and cold than the somewhat exaggerated BBC version - though, again, less amusing on the whole.
So it was an interesting experience; perhaps it’s unfair to make so many deliberate comparisons, as the film was an entirely different project, and had to catch the essence of the story while missing out some scenes (and characters) entirely.
However the one part we all agreed was clichéd and disappointing was the ending. Without giving spoilers, it includes soft sunlight, people going to meet each other outside in a scene which didn’t happen that way at all in the book, and a very awkward kissed hand, leading into the credits. No real ending, no weddings, and a sense that it had finished too abruptly.
Thus, despite some clear advantages in a couple of characters and the more lavish settings, we all agreed that the BBC version was far truer to the book, and more enjoyable to watch overall.
Other recommended adaptations of Jane Austen books include:
Review copyright 2019 Sue's DVD Reviews
I was a little reluctant to watch the 2005 version of 'Pride and Prejudice'. It's not that I dislike movie versions of books; indeed, Jane Austen's novels seem to translate particularly well to the screen. But I had so much enjoyed the BBC mini-series that I was fairly sure that this shorter version would be disappointing.
However, sufficient people recommended this to me that I eventually put it on my wishlist; and we finally got around to watching it last night.
Being so much shorter than the BBC version, it was inevitably rather cut down as far as the various sub-plots go, but I thought that it was still true to the book. There was some excellent casting, other than Mr Bingley who we thought very weak.
It was evidently given a much higher budget for extras than the BBC version had; the balls were particularly lavish, and the sound track added to the atmosphere in a positive way.
All in all, I thought this version of the classic book very enjoyable. Particularly recommended if you don't know the book, or want to introduce someone else to it without spending house in front of the screen.
Review copyright Sue's DVD Reviews
