Miss Peregrine’s home for peculiar children – A review

Miss Peregrine’s home for peculiar children is about an American teenage boy whose storytelling grandfather just died under mysterious circumstances. To solve his trauma and find out the truth he goes to a small island off the coast of great ol’ England. There he finds more than he has bargained for…

Again a movie of which I read the book in advance. And I liked it (I still need to read the other two parts –though). Now, the book is basically a story build around some peculiar turn-of-the-century photographs.

Like any medium photography was quickly used for more illusion-creating purposes (George Mêlées in film, or the existence of tromp l'oeil in painting).

So the writer (Randsom Riggs) found several strange pictures from the past and created an interesting story behind it. One big problem in his book, however, is the third act that doesn't really work. The movie-version noticed this as well and created a vastly different version. But whether it did so for the good or the bad is quite the matter of opinion.

Story

One big plus of this adaptation is that it pretty much fast-forwards through the first four chapters of the book. Within five minutes the movie is already comfortably setting sail towards chapter five. And, even though it glances over some character development. It starts quickly and confidently.

(I would have preferred Asa Butterfield's character to be a bit more rebellious. But, then again, I did like the fact that the movie doesn't mention that his character's family is loaded with money - something that was totally unnecessary in the book.

It's when the cast arrives at the magical island that Burton gets to have some fun with his personal toolbox of insanity. And, as a big (very big) plus this movies doesn't rely on CGI overkill like Alice in Wonderland (or Johnny Depp playing a make-up-mad-man). In Burton's repertoire Miss Peregrine’s home for peculiar children sits comfortably between Sweeney Todd and Alice. Or, Edward Scissorhands's divide between the gothic laboratory and the colorful urban world.

Characters/actors

Asa Butterfield tries his hand at another possible franchise. And, again, as always, he's a solid actor to rely upon (this boy hasn’t made a wrong step yet). There aren't a lot of faults to blame on his portrayal. Rather his character in the script.

Chris O’Dowd, then, is great as his father. And even though it is strange to hear him talk in an American accent there's no denying that he rocks in short-pants. He truly is the loving but strict father this story needs.

Of all the children, who each play their part to perfection -regardless of screen time (some children take a bit of a backseat), it is actually Cameron King who left most of an impression on me as the invisible boy. Which is, of course, weird because you don't see him. It has everything to do with his voice. I would say that here there is a great voice actor in the making.

But the two biggest players are also the ones who deserve the most credit. Eva Green as Miss Peregrine is perfectly cast as the Mary-Poppins-with-a-crossbow character. I would (based on the books) preferred an older actress. But after seeing Green's performance she truly won me over.

Samuel L. Jackson, however, is chewing all kinds of scenery as the villain and you either like it or you hate it (he does start to get a bit annoying towards the end). He's threatening and you'll remember him when the movie is done. But such a theatrical villain, is a bit too much for this movie. It feels like Burton was afraid to ask the big Jackson to tone it down a bit. But then again Jackson has a surplus of charm so it's fun to watch.

I would have preferred a small interaction - for lack of a better word- between Bronwyn and her brother. Now this character is shoe-horned in and forgotten in a space of three minutes. It works to explain the evilness of the Hollows but it could also have been used for more character development.

The third act.

If the first two acts are solid introduction. The third act goes completely bonkers. For example: Ray Harryhousen's skeletons are brought up (again. Same as in Spy Kids 2). I loved it, no doubt. But it does feel like it suddenly shifts into a completely different direction, dislodging it from the two hours previous.

Truth be told I had the same feeling reading the novel. All those problems could’ve been solved
in an instant (in the movie using the twins, for instance).

 

The best way I can describe it is by adressing the problem between dark and light this movie suffers from. I've watched my share of horror movies so I'm probably a bit numbed when it comes to bloodshed. But at one point various characters are seen eating eyeballs. While at the same time the corpses who 'delivered' said eyes are shown completely intact with some black lenses. I actually had to double-back when I saw the eyeballs-scene because I realized that all those bodies I've seen before were actually eyeless. I mean, there are heart-transplants and crossbow-headshots the over in this movie yet not a single drop of blood is seen.

I think this movie would have benefited from just the tiniest amount of blood here and there. I mean, even the Neverending Story (one of the best children's-films ever) had the main character Arturo walking around with a big bloody gash on his chest.

Conclusion

But overall Tim Burton has crafted a solid movie. The third act overdid it a bit. Noticable in the strange balance between gothic and colorful or bloodless and bloodshed. But if you look at it as it is: a thrilling tale filled with fantasy you've got a great ride ahead of you.

However, I do wish Burton started crafting his own tales again. Big Eyes and Big Fish (a coincidence?) are two of his most personal and best movies in his career.