organic-66295 I was charmed by this film and amused with Ioan Gruffudd's role here. I have to say he's actually a bit hilarious when he's angry. He struts about his keen acting skills with a natural edge. One scene in particular gives me a rather visceral reaction. (It involves a raw egg.)I've seen some negative reviews and comments calling it silly, but it is in NO WAY any sillier than any Disney film! (And the Disney film won't have been made on a bargain budget.) If you dislike fantasy, then this film isn't for you. But some of us love fantasy regardless of age!The animals add so much to this film. While watching, you can tell the main dog used is nothing but a big fluffy, marshmallowy sweetheart! I was impressed with Dakota Blue Richards in her subtle acting abilities and her interaction with the rabbit.I can't recommend this film highly enough. It's child friendly but not child exclusive if you've a penchant for fantasy and don't mind a long gander at Ioan Gruffudd.

nuthillproductions We live in an age where literacy is on the wane. The reviews of this film clearly are from people who do not realize the book was produced in 1946 and was popular in an era when people commonly used their imagination and did not expect to be told what to feel as is common in film. It predates the books about Narnia(1950) but not The Hobbit (1937). This was an era when children's literature was in a renaissance that lasted for decades. I remember loving the atmosphere of enchantment set by the book when I read it as a child and was surprised to see it had been filmed. The caustic reviewers should inform themselves about this form of literature in order to know what they're talking about. I'd like to see the film despite the fact that film productions often deal with subtle nuances from books like Jack the Ripper performing surgery. The Narnia stories thus far are amazingly well done all things considered and there is a lot to consider.

sun_rises_down Firstly, I haven't read the book. In a way it works for my advantage allowing me to criticize the movie solely based on what was presented there and not be distracted by what was left out compared to book etc. I can think of two kinds of fairy tales: one is the kind you love when you're 7 but think it utterly stupid and childish when you're 30; the other type is the kind you find magical no matter how old you are. This movie here could've easily belonged to the first group but turned out to be something more valuable. The bicycle has been invented and now it's all about how you do it, not what you do. The whole movie in its being is one big cliché, BUT they have successfully managed to turn that weakness into a strong point. This could've easily been a cheesy Raspberry candidate and I am very picky about my fairy tales and fantasy and I was not disappointed. Several aspects made the story believable, starting from the level of acting and ending with props. When it comes to acting, the weakest link in the bunch was Natascha McElhone, who didn't always seem to be in it as much as the others (e.g the cursing part, people seem to agree on that part mostly). I was thoroughly impressed by Ioan Gruffudd, going from cold to heartbroken definitely moved my cruel heart. The milieu and the special effects were outstanding. No Lord of the Rings, don't get me wrong, but there was no half-hearted effort in that area. The Moonacre Manor and the many other scenes were picturesque and the costumes far-enough-out-of-the-box creative, mixing the traditional with a modern touch in perfect balance. All in all, I was left feeling satisfied and enriched and I reckon this movie deserves a rating above 7 of 10 the least, for it certainly wasn't a mediocre experience.

Jamie Ward Fairy tales are movies that either sink or swim when it comes to the silver screen, based upon the merits of their story and the characters that exist to propel the fantasy past the absurd and into the tangibly real. The Secret of Moonacre is unfortunately an example of absurdist fairytale done with little restraint or tact; the story is robust with cliché devices, the characters flat and cursed with banal dialogue, and the backstory, costume designs, production—everything just falls far short of what you may come to expect fro productions of this nature. To be fair, there are certain elements inherent to Csupo's outing here that borders on mildly entertaining if only for the references that they make to other works, yet such moments are far and few between and never truly dispel the sour taste of hackneyed amateurism that permeates the majority of Moonacre's ridiculously generic universe.At its core, The Secret of Moonacre strives to be part adventure fairytale and part whimsy comedy stitched together with undercooked themes of pride, corruption and the power of love to overcome all shadows of the human heart. Ostensibly, this mix has all the elements to make for an enjoyable family feature, yet burdened with a plodding pace and characters that never come off the screen in any manner, the Secret of Moonacre is a dull one. Centring around young teenage girl Maria (Dakota Blue Richards) as she moves into her extravagant and eccentric uncle's mansion in the Middle of Nowhere Forest under the protection of nanny Miss Heliotrope (Juliet Stevenson who serves as a trite source of comic relief every now and then with her biggest character trait being an impromptu belch), Goudge's story is one built upon established ground-works for any old fantasy tale. Sure, fair enough—there's nothing wrong with building upon already tried and tested methods—yet very little is done beyond this to help Moonacre feel like a tale of its own.Perhaps the greatest and most obvious detractive trait inherent to Alborough's adaptation however is simply through its writing which seems to go through the motions at each and every turn. The result is a feature that plods along through countless cliché and predictable contrivances to the point where all fantastical elements are lost within the generic gloop that is the whole backstory and focus point of Moonacre's world. About half way into the movie, it should be no surprise then that the production boils down to one of absurd ridicule—without the feeling of otherworldly mysticism to back up all the theatrical dialogue, sets and costumes, Csupo neglects his feature to being bland and utterly forgettable in spite of its striking visuals and over-the-top performances. In fact, with the exception of perhaps Ioan Gruffudd , the majority of the acting ensemble here feel just as disconnected to the story's fantasy as everything else does. It's not just bad—it's distracting and downright laughable when any sort of tension or conflict is pushed down the throat with little to no tangible reason to believe in it.Yet this neglect to raising the suspension of disbelief is what ultimately stops The Secret of Moonacre from ever truly coming off the screen. Perhaps with a greater budget, some bigger stars and a re-write or two, Csupo could have made something more than a sporadically pretty treat for the senses, yet as it stands nothing of the sort of achieved throughout its bumbling and overly melodramatic runtime. This in turn makes recommending Moonacre a lost cause; young females may be able to enjoy all the unicorns, pretty dresses and coy humour to the extent that everything else is ignored, yet even this assertion serves as a broad test of the imagination—which is ironically more than Csupo manages here through his excruciatingly mundane two hour exercise in creating yet another Pedestrian Fantasy By Numbers.A review by Jamie Robert Ward (http://www.invocus.net)