Review of Wonderstruck (2017) by Brandon M — 01 Dec 2017

Six years ago, when Martin Scorsese brings Brian Selznick's novel, "The Invention of Hugo Cabret," (which was titled "Hugo"), to the big screen, I was blown away by it. Not just because that the special effects were great and the cast were excellent, but it's also because that it has a beautiful message about cinema and many other things. Ever since I've read the novel of Wonderstruck, (which was another great novel by the same author), I really wanted to know how this was gonna go, and as far as I can tell you about my experience, I find myself to be somewhere in the middle.

It's split up into two separate stories. The first one, in 1927, centers on a young deaf girl named Rose (newcomer Millicent Simmonds), who's living with her brutal father. She runs away from home, and heads out to New York City to find her absent mother and idol, Lillian Mayhew (Julianne Moore, who's playing two characters in this film).

The second one, in 1977, centers on Ben (Oakes Fegley, the young talented actor who was in David Lowery's remake of "Pete's Dragon"), who, after losing his mother (Michelle Williams) and his hearing, runs away from his hometown and heads out to New York City, except he's trying to find out more information about his father and hopefully one day will find him.

I don't think Todd Haynes did a terrible job with this adaptation because I can easily see he had so much passion and care to the material he was given. I've never seen any of his movies, not even the ones with Julianne Moore in it, (such as "Far From Heaven" and "Safe"). Even though his previous film, "Carol," is very lovely to at, I never find myself wanting to watch it because I don't find its premise to be interesting. In "Wonderstruck," he managed to translate everything in the novel, especially its two separate stories. The most creative thing in the novel of "Wonderstruck" is how Rose's story was told through pictures, while Ben's story was told through words. I was quite fine to see how the film's narrative was going back and forth of these two separate stories. It's like a puzzle that wants us to solve it, but I figured many people are going to find that to be obvious and irradiating as it goes on. However, my biggest problem I have with this is, while it's not without its ambitions, I don't find it to be as breathtaking as "Hugo.".

Despite that it's about two hours long, I felt like I wanted more from this film. The way how most of the elements, (such as its characters and themes), that made the novel so great are lacking. Once the drama was presented in the film, I've found it to be all right, but in the novel, I've found it to be strikingly good, just on how it was lingering these elements as long as possible. One of the highlights in "Wonderstruck" is the friendship between Ben and Jamie (Jaden Michael). By the time Ben arrives at New York City and trying to find information about his father, he encounters Jamie, a young boy who spends his summer in the American Museum of Natural History. The way how they bonded one another and Jamie expresses his feelings to Ben were amazing, but that was in the novel. In the film, which I have to admit that Oakes Fegley and Jaden Michael give terrific performances, I've found these moments to be short. I don't find Rose's story to be as interesting as Ben's story, but I really like how Todd Haynes was making her story as a silent film and Millicent Simmonds's portrayal as Rose is undeniably wonderful. It shows that great acting doesn't only come with dialogue, but it can also come with expressions and movements.

Other great things I could mention about the film are Edward Lachman's memorizing cinematography, Carter Burwell's immense score, Sandy Powell's beautiful costumes, and its outstanding art direction. I wouldn't be surprise if these things get nominated for an Oscar this year. This adaptation is well-acted and does a lovely job of its time periods, but I seriously felt like I wanted more from its story and characters. My full opinion: 6.5/10.