Hellen
I like the storyline of this show,it attract me so much
RyothChatty
ridiculous rating
Supelice
Dreadfully Boring
Staci Frederick
Blistering performances.
inge_ref
I'm a sentimental fellow and I like this kind of a movie, throughout I wanted to give it a 9 but the ending kind of disappointed in a way. Because I did actually like the ending but it would have been greatly improved, at least for me if that other kid didn't just show up out of nowhere at the end to say "I followed you", if the audience had gotten just a little wink and a nod beforehand that the kid was going to follow him because, I don't know I just felt like it didn't fit/work with him just showing up like that.
bartelkatherine
This story has so much potential. I loved "Hugo," by the same writer. The parallel time periods and similarities in the stories of the 2 children could have been wonderful if the movie contained some cleverly written exposition.This film was so dimly lit I could hardly see it, even when it was supposedly a normally lit space. The written notes on paper were not readable and they would have probably given me a clue about the plot. It is ultimately about a newly orphaned child, a worthy subject. However, it is unclear who the boy is staying with in the beginning, unclear whether the adult women is a neighbor, a foster mother, or a friend's mother. It is unclear why the 1927 female lead leaves her home to see an actress. There are notes back and forth I couldn't read. Why is the bookseller significant? Who is he? Is he merely a device to introduce the grandmother? How did the boy get the name of this bookshop? It was hard to see the book he was looking at, so maybe there was a clue there?Why a museum setting? What will happen to the boy? Will he get lost in the fake city? Is the fake city better than his sad life? Are we to get from this that real life is too hard and we should escape in fantasy? The grandmother leaves home and never goes back. She gets incorporated into a museum. Is that the boy's fate?
merelyaninnuendo
WonderstruckA genuinely moving throwback to all those early silent features that used to endorse humanity in the most innocent and subtle way possible with a keen sense of awareness on installing touching details about its pragmatic characters and the eerie bubble that it resides in. Todd Haynes's brilliant execution skills factors in its favor but the real gem in here is Brian Selznick's smart adaptation for the screen. Julianne Moore and Michelle Williams are good supporters to these brilliant young actors i.e. Oakes Fegley and Millicent Simmonds (her portrayal overpowers everyone on screen). Wonderstruck walks on two different lines set in its own palpable tone where even though "the 1977" part has more material to feed, "the 1927" one steals the show for its poetic nature that draws out the best emotion from the screen.
angiebelt
THIS WAS VERY CONFUSING FOR ME. I DIDN'T CATCH THAT THEY WERE SEPARATED BY TIME UNTIL I WAS HALFWAY THOUGH THE MOVIE THEN I CAUGHT ON.
