I know this film is based on a book, so it's completely worthless of me to say this but I'm going to say it anyway: if this film had been what the IMDb longline has it about, it would have been a very compelling film. If the last half an hour had been the first half an hour, you have a great film. As it is, you have a tedious 2 1/2 hour film trying to figure out how ANY of this is relevant and why should we care? They might as well advertised the film as a coming of age story after a boy loses his mom in a bombing. Only then would people have been prepared for the snoozefest that ensued. For those people saying this would have made a better miniseries: ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR MIND? I can't imagine watching this crap for 6-8 weeks just for THAT to be the conclusion. I also see people praising the director because he did 'Brooklyn'-one: that was a bore of a film that reminded me of watching Nicholas sparks worst film and 2) roger deakins legendary cinematography couldn't save this movie. It want even that impressive, don't know what people are going on about. Anyway, as a screenwriter and video editor myself, I'm glad to see film critics have some sense left and won't fall for ALL oscar bait films. The worst part about this film is the waste of a cast. Oh well.
Review of The Goldfinch
