Swallows and Amazons

It takes guts to remake a classic film. Unfortunately it takes talent too, and from the "writer" downwards the bunch behind this particular remake are sadly lacking in talent.

Honestly, it makes you wonder if they ever read the original stories. Sure, they're perhaps a little dated now, but I'm convinced it would have been possible to update them without ignoring everything that was good. They certainly did *not* need to rename poor old itty, or make the teenagers a bunch of inept yobs.

Ignore this, go watch the original 1974 version, then hunt out Sophie Neville's beautiful diaries of "The Making of Swallows and Amazons" (it's on Amazon) and let the love and respect for Arthur Ransome's work envelop you.

This is a perfect summer film for the families that produced by the BBC. Based on the children's book of the same name. Frankly, I haven't seen the television nor the film adaptation of this. It looked very fresh to me, so I enjoyed it thoroughly. I'm a big fan of children's films and this one reminded my childhood vacation in the grandparents' rural. Surely everybody, I mean most of us had this kind of adventure, sometimes that ended very seriously.

This is mainly about a group of children and their summer adventure, especially sailing in a large lake and exploring an uninhabited island of it. Mrs Walker brings her four children to their grandparents' house in a small English village. The bored kids decide to go sailing on the lake nearby where their father promised to take them one day, but now he's out in the sea far away on the job. Somehow they manage to get permission from the elders and so their adventure begins.

They arrive on the island and claim it. But another group who already claimed it challenges them. So their rivalry begins which leads to some great adventures, day and night. How things going to work between them is told in the remaining. Though there are more that takes place alternatively, like the real spy-game of the grown- ups. How these two stories going to meet was revealed with a decent twist. But the thriller parts were compromised since the film is aimed for the little ones.

"I hereby name it Walker Island and claim it for our own."

Great quality, loved the production. The locations were awesome. Initially I thought this will going to take place in the real Amazon, Brasil, but still I'm satisfied with it. I don't know who is this director, but a well done job. I also don't know whether the story is from the book or just the characters, but expecting a sequel and if possible a film series. I'm not expecting the whole 12 books to be made into films, thought at least a trilogy, since it's a live-action and the kids would grow up fast, they have to hurry up like they did for 'Harry Potter' film series.

The story takes place in the summer 1935 and its atmospheres, especially the addition of the spy thing was a smart move as those times were tensed with the early stage of the World War II. Its stretch also gives the adults a reason to watch the film, but sadly that sub-plot was under-used. Anyway, I recommend it to all, since it falls into PG. But there was a scene when the kids decided to go find the source of the fire they saw afar, that part was so edgy. Like that, there are a few more which creates uneasy in the perspective of kids.

Overall the film looks like a non-magical version of Narnia with four siblings and their exploration turned into an unplanned adventure. Yep, it's not summer yet, off the season, but still I loved it. This is one of the first films to I watch in the 2017, but definitely first children's film. On so many levels, it was a very good film, particularly if you haven't seen the other versions like me and a kid's film fan, you will have a good time. But for the families, as I said earlier, it is not to be missed. It got mixed to positive response from both the film critics and the movie goers, but personally I think it's much better than what they have said. So go for it...

7/10

It is hard to say which is the better 'Swallows and Amazons' film between this and the 1974 film. Neither are without their flaws, both are in fact pretty problematic, but both have great charm and there are a number of strengths with both.

As an adaptation, it is understandable as to why some may like the 1974 film more. While lacking Ransome's evocative way of writing, which gave it a blandness, there is more of a gentle and nostalgic feel in that film than here, which is very loyal in spirit to Ransome's storytelling. Plus the production values and the music are wonderful, the main theme in the music being the most memorable element of the whole film and a pretty unforgettable theme in its own right. This said, the film did drag in places, due to some uneventful narrative, and had a miscast Roger (too gormless) and Nancy (too old and too posh), as well as Ronald Fraser overacting pretty badly.

This said, despite having its fair shares of alterations and feeling at times on the muddled side, it is easy to see why more modern audiences will like this more. The characters are more interesting in the source material certainly, and there are additions and omissions or things that are there but could have been done better. Generally, 'Swallows and Amazons' (2016) does a laudable job making a great story suitable for film and even more so maintaining the gentle and nostalgic essence in the scenes with the children and trying to give the pacing more snap and urgency.

Of course, not everything in 'Swallows and Amazons' is entirely smooth sailing. The spy subplot has been criticised by some here and for reasons that are understandable, and an opinion shared by me. Tonally, with the action being significantly intensified, it clashed too much with the rest of the story, there was too much of it and it made some of the story feel muddled. The script does feel awkward and repetitive too often, and it was sad that Susan's character is just so bland and with not much personality due to her being very underwritten.

'Swallows and Amazons' however is a treat to watch visually, being beautifully shot with even more splendid scenery. The music score soars thrillingly yet with also gentle playfulness, the element feeling and sounding the most cinematic. This said, while it is an excellent score nothing is quite as unforgettable as the main theme of the 1974 film.

Where 'Swallows and Amazons' scores with much more success in the storytelling is in the scenes with the children, which do feel natural in chemistry and are gentle without being overly-genteel or mawkish and quaintly nostalgic. That was a huge part of the charm with the source material and previous film version, so it was a joy for that essence to translate here also and so strongly. The direction does more than capably.

Regarding the acting, it was good, although Orla Hill isn't able to do anything with severely wanting material as Susan. Bobby McCulloch and Seren Hawkes prove to be much better casting as Roger and Nancy than in the 1974 film, Roger is not an annoying character this time and Hawkes is more age-appropriate and doesn't look as out of place in the setting. Rafe Spall's Uncle Jim is much more subtle than before, while of the children delightful Teddie-Rose Malleson-Allen is particularly strong. Kelly MacDonald is a charming mother figure, while Andrew Scott shows that he excels at playing villains and Jessica Stevenson and Harry Enfield portray the Jacksons well (was surprised at how well Enfield fitted).

Overall, 'Swallows and Amazons' is laudably brought to film in a problematic but worthwhile adaptation, that is best enjoyed as a standalone. 7/10 Bethany Cox

Not one to casually chuck out the "Childhood ruined" meme, but it is hard not to take the butchering of a treasured childhood story personally.

In fairness, you can see the thought process behind the production decisions. The renaming of Titty is a meeting I feel like I was present for it, is so easy to visualise. The addition of the international intrigue angle adds drama, and you can see a producer demanding it: "you want to make a movie where a bunch of wholesome middle class white kids sail round a lake for a week and then have a tea party? Where is the action? Where is the tension?" I can imagine the script writer going back to the source and coming across Arthur Ransome's Russian connections on wikipedia and having a lightbulb moment that powers them through a midnight rewrite session.

All this I feel could have been forgiven, and even set a little differently to a much better result: The movie could have been somewhat more meta: with the spy plot line going on in the background and the children oblivious to it. Its actually possible to re-read the events of the book as exactly this, with Uncle Jim's various activities made ambiguous, yet the events as perceived by the children remain untouched. This could have added that layer that a scene by scene retelling of the book would have needed to make it compelling on screen, but would have retained the original's charm.

The unforgivable sin of this movie is the degradation of the characters. Not one seems un-touched by a 21st century cynicism: All the adults are hostile, with the generational dynamic speaking more to that between baby boomers and millennials than the values of the 1930s.

The Blacketts have none of that self aware joie-de-vivre. In the books, Nancy is full of bluster, but always reconsiders when about to behave unwisely. In the movie she comes off as casually abusive, hostile and borderline a bully, becoming an ally to the Walkers in the final act with no apparent resolution to the earlier tensions.

The Walkers grieve me the most. They bicker and are incompetent, when in the books they are committed to performing practical tasks of camping and sailing diligently, capably and considerately, always eager to absorb more knowledge and skills and consumed by the learning of their crafts. This was such an inspiration to me as a child, and to see such fundamental carelessness from these loved characters truly grieves. John is abusive and a poor leader, written so purely to set up drama and conflict. Thrown by the wayside is his simple decency from the books, as well as the most interesting struggles with the expectations of his absent father.

I don't want to be unfair to the child-actors, but their performance is frequently painfully wooden, which I'd actually lay at the feet of the direction rather than the actors as even the adult leads fail to shine. Andrew Scott in particular is interesting to contrast with his role as Moriarty in Sherlock, where he is compelling every moment he appears.

For the most part the child actors are debuting in the film. I hope it doesn't stand as a black mark against their futures. In particular Dane Hughes (John) has to be given credit: I might hate the script, character notes and direction he was given, but he gives it his all and adds some believable nuance to his scenes that spoke to me even while I was hating the movie. Teddy-Rose Malleson-Allen (Tatty) also shines: her performance is easy and natural, and overcomes what should be the cringe factor of several of her lines by a number of notches with an innocent charm. Overall poor then. To be sure the source material being very difficult to simply translate directly to the screen is a hard starting place, but several bad decisions compound things, many of them being common irritating features of contemporary film making in needing to add tension and action. I feel as a fan of the source material that a good movie, retaining the innocence and themes of competence, duty and loyalty, is out there if better choices were to be made. Additions to fit the screen medium are of course necessary, but not these additions. Sadly I fear we may not see another attempt to make it work for another 43 years.

...we're adding a whole new plot"

That's always a sign that a production is heading for disaster. If you think the book isn't exciting, don't use it; find some other material. If you think you don't have the ability to convey to an audience what you find exciting about it, find another career.

'Swallows and Amazons' works as a book - and still does, nearly 90 years after it was written - precisely because it is concerned only with the children and their doings. No adult POV is included to give us a perspective on the children's outlook, their emotions and imaginative world; we only see what matters to them and we see it with their eyes. This makes perfect sense to children, and it takes adults back to our own childhood when we too found our own fantasy games far more important and meaningful than anything adults did. I couldn't see how a subplot about 'real' 1930s Soviet spies could possibly be introduced into the plot without making the children's pirate adventures and sea battles seem suddenly trivial and, well, childish.

And sadly, that's exactly what happens. Philippa Lowthorpe works hard to create a sense of danger and excitement in the childhood adventure of unaccompanied sailing, and camping on an island, and very nice too. But the effort is pointless when you throw in real gun-toting nasties kidnapping people and chasing them along trains; that just makes the children's 'pirate wars' fantasy look piffling and tiresome.

A real pity. You wonder why they bothered, and why anybody didn't advise them not to.