The Spiderwick Chronicles Movie
Storyline
TAGLINES
Their World Is Closer Than You Think
Experience Their World In IMAX
Once upon a time, upon moving into the run-down Spiderwick Estate with their mother, twin brothers Jared and Simon Grace, along with their sister Mallory, find themselves pulled into an alternate world full of faeries and other creatures. Unable to explain the strange disappearances and accidents that seem to be happening on a daily basis, the family blames it all on Jared. When he, Simon and Mallory investigate what's really going on, they uncover the fantastic truth of the Spiderwick estate and of the creatures that inhabit it.
| Freddie Highmore | Jared Grace/Simon Grace |
| Nick Nolte | Mulgarath |
| David Strathairn | Arthur Spiderwick |
| Seth Rogen | Hogsqueal |
| Martin Short | Thimbletack |
| Andrew McCarthy | Richard Grace |
| Tod Fennell | Helen's Co-Worker |
| Jeremy Lavalley | Tow Truck Driver |
| Kyle Switzer | Additional Performer |
7.10 out of 10 (4376 votes)
Visitor Reviews
Nothing New, But Enjoyable Enough
posted on 20 Aug 2009This film's not half bad, even if it does have a "been there, done that" quality to it in the wake of the recent glut of fantasy films based on children's books.Freddie Highmore is a good little actor, and he carries this movie about three children who unwittingly become involved in a battle to keep a book of magic secrets from falling into the hands of an evil goblin (played by Nick Nolte, because who else would play an evil goblin?) The movie never gives us a great deal of reason to care about anything going on, and the special effects are numerous and unimpressive, but I was moderately engaged anyway. It probably helps that I saw it on a flight from Hawaii to Chicago and had little else to do, but still....Grade: B
Beautiful
posted on 18 Aug 2009Great CG, funny creatures and a touchy performance by Joan Plowright makes this my favorite of these "children" movies. The CG is pure class, it has the right mix of reality and fantasy. There is only one scene I didn't find so great, which involved a big snake, and that's probably due to reminding me of "Anaconda". Other than that its a feast to the eyes, not only the creatures and their personalities, but also the landscapes created so beautifully. It makes a great job creating an certain magic atmosphere which I recall felling in "Legend"(1985). It has it's silly moments of childish acting, but overall does a great job if you're up to this kind of movie, of course. Joan Plowright certainly comes from another generation of actors, she can deliver emotion in such a reduced role, and in such a simple and concise way, that I, being born in the 70's, was taken by surprise, not being very used to this kind of performance on movies. I'll give it a 9, cause it delivers what it's supposed to. Also I'm sorry for my English...
Which came first, the movie or the book?
posted on 06 Aug 2009This movie was a great thriller. My cousin thought that it was a great movie too. Although I have read the books, there are a few things to say, or maybe a lot. For one thing, the whole fourth book with the Dwarfs and their robot dogs weren't in the movie. I also expected one of the biggest fights, the Dragon versus the Griffin in the movie too. That fight could've made the movie more exiting. Also, for some of you thinking of the part where Jared stabbed his father, THAT WASN'T HIS FATHER!!! He knew that it was the evil Mulgarath in disguise that the goblins summoned because he asked one simple question of what he said on the phone. Since the "fake" father answered incorrectly, it was the evil Mulgarath in disguise that wanted to get the book and the "real" father was somewhere else at another place and didn't know what was happening. Geez people, pay attention in the storyline, next thing you know, people would think that the goblins were actually based on munchkins. Even though my cousin liked it, after I asked him if he would read the books, now he said that the movie wasn't so great after all compared to the books. For people that didn't read the book, it would be a great and awesome movie. And No, the director of the movie wasn't trying to compete with Harry Potter, or the Chronicles of Narnia. So don't go saying that 'the movie was just trying to be all cool and challenging the almighty Lord of the Rings' or something. Trust me, I've been reading the 1st book in 2002. The books have a stronger storyline and also with Jared having a goal to keep the book safe and also trying to save his family which at the end, he succeeds.
Fantastic
posted on 29 Jul 2009NOTE: I only clicked the "spoiler warning" because I mention things which were featured prominently in the books, but were NOT in the film version. I in no way give away the story to anyone who has never read the books. Thank you. Unlike most movies of this type, there is no comic relief. Jared (the starring character) has serious anger issues (he hits things whenever he is mad, yells at his mother, and acts out in general) over a father who has left and a mother who refuses to explain anything. While the Faeries and Faerie-kind do serve to lighten the mood, there is nothing comic or comedic or even child-like about them.This work has lessons to teach, concerning when it's time to accept a situation with grace and work positively towards a satisfactory change. But the more superficial lessons are to listen to your children, give true time and attention to those in your life and the world around you, and time is NOT on your side.There have been lots of gentle cautionings to parents of younger children of the fear factor of this work and there ARE some startling scenes, but my caution would be more geared towards younger children's inability to understand Jared's anger issues and his behaviors as inappropriate, due to the movie's failure to address these issues.The CGI was wonderful, but after the Lord of the Rings and the Chronicles of Narnia, it almost requires something as creative as Pan's Labyrinth to impress me, but I am (admittedly) a graphics (visuals) addict.Freddie Highmore turns in a stellar performance as Jared Grace, while his interpretation of Simon suffers to give Jared's character adequate development and screen time. Also painted as sacrificial lambs were Mallory's fencing competition, a plethora of other events and details, and the WHOLE FOURTH BOOK! I thought the rewriting of the troll as a "mole troll" was a horrible contrivance; the mother isn't kidnapped; there is no junkyard (ergo: no Dragons); no elves; no inclusion of Simon's love for animals, his having loads of pets, etc.; and NO Dwarfs! No Poohka, no riddles, no Jared searching for the book, and NONE Of the intrigues, whatsoever! And the whole bit about Byron (the griffin) was totally rewritten. But... what you DO get is a brilliant adaptation, which will be wholly loved by ANYone who has missed the books...A brilliant adaptation most book fans will no doubt find as incomplete as any Harry Potter movie. But wonderful, nonetheless.Mulgarath is darkly wonderful, as are his Goblins. Hogsqueal is done particularly well. I personally especially loved his nose; it gave him a 'cuteness' factor he otherwise would have lacked (trust me here).The performances are professional but I was (again) particularly impressed with Highmore. Sarah Bolger contributed an adequate performance, as did Mary-Louise Parker, but it was Highmore who rightly stars herein. Also, I would be remiss if I failed to mention BBC Diva, Joan Plowright. Wow, what a lady! All in all? For all my complaints about what was omitted, I have to say I liked the screen adaptation even better than the accumulated story from the five sequential books! Especially the ending. The ending was beautiful and it is probably what strayed most from the literary version. I loved it, but won't spoil it.It rates an 8.7/10 from...the Fiend :.
Fun But Forgettable
posted on 19 Jul 2009This movie was a surprise!! I find myself quite enjoying it at the same time a little disappointed by it. It was a fast pace action movie for kids that adult would also enjoy, though might be too scary in some part for young children.Synopsis: Jared a curious boy stumble upon a secret field guide that been kept hidden for 80 years from the faries, goblin and other creatures that live among us. A field guild that could destroy the whole world if fall into the wrong hand.This movie was quite alright, it was very extremely fast pace so I was never bored by it, that is the really good thing, and the amount of action is like from the beginning to the end. The little problem for me was that there isn’t much of character development in the movie at all. It was all really brief and didn’t satisfy me at all. Some character appearance is just too brief and didn’t even emphasize them.Otherwise the CGI and effect was truly awesome with a great detail, the voice really go well with each character. It was nice to see that Freddie kid in an American accent and doing double roles, and he did it pretty alright. And his sister was alright too, but it was the adult that give out a very bland performance and weird lines.Overall it was very fun movie to watch, with everything that work out pretty well (also great direction, and lighting, and score) apart from too brief of character, but since it is intended for young adult, I say it was alright, don’t go too serious on it and just try to enjoy the movie with all the fighting, chasing, flying, screaming.Recommendation: Yeah Sure, Watch it when you’re Bored and Nothing to Do.Reason to Watch: Bored and have to watch something.Reason not to: It was fun at the time, but then forgot about it.Rating: 7/10 (Grade: C+).Please rate Y/N after read.
Amusing, but not great
posted on 15 Jul 2009I can't comment on this from the point of view of the book, having not read it, but the film was entertaining, which is as much as I usually expect from a film (meaning I'm pleasantly surprised if it's better than just 'entertaining'). I can't fault the acting and was particularly taken with the character of Thimbletack (Martin Short, I believe). That said, the film never really took off, for me. There was a fair bit of information giving about the book the children discover, the strange creatures they encounter and their family history, but the main part of the story (i.e. their attempts to discover a way of defeating Mulgarath) seemed quite superfluous as a result. There were enough humorous parts to the story to make it worth watching, even for adults, but I suspect it's one mainly for the kids.
Their World Is Closer Than You Think
posted on 11 Jul 2009Upon moving into the run-down Spiderwick Estate with their mother, twin brothers Jared and Simon Grace, along with their sister Mallory, find themselves pulled into an alternate world full of faeries and other creatures.I've made up a theory: People who have read books that are turned into movies will be more harsh to judge the films unlike people who see movies without reading the book. I think this theory is right. I was disappointed by Harry Potter 5 at first, but watching it now for a year later and nearly forgetting about the book, I found it the best in the series.The same might as well go with this film. I was disappointed. If you don't know, this film is based on 5 books. However, the movie ignores the 4th book, which is probably because of budget issues and/or limited running time. Still, I can't help but complain. There could've been more creative production designs to see, more action, and more magical creatures.Apart from that, I felt that the film was well put together, especially the fact that they skipped a lot in the books. The special effects are very good, as well as the action scenes. I also may feel this film pushed the PG rating. It certainly is not as intense as Harry Potter 3 but there might be about 2 to 3 scenes that could make this film a PG-13 rating.The performances here are decent, although not captivating. The film may be a bit fast paced, if you asked me. Overall, this is a decent adaption to another fantasy book. If you have read the books, you might be disappointed. If you have not, enjoy it.
Fine for kids, but...
posted on 09 Jul 2009I often select movies to watch based on the user feedback from other IMDb comments and in this case I was sorely mislead.How on earth did 67% of you vote this movie a 10? Are you all under the age of 13? It's a cute movie if you have kids. Your 10 year old will love it. If you are an adult (my wife and I are in our 30's) this is NOT worth paying full ticket price to see.The acting was fine, but the plot is entirely laid out in front of you; presumably to fit in with the cognitive reasoning abilities of their intended target audience. Really good movies are worth seeing in the the theater, movies that aren't quite that good are reserved for Netflix. One notch below that is cable and below that is commercial television. This movie is best saved for commercial television. Or perhaps when you have the flu and you want something brainless to keep you occupied while you play hooky from work.
Other Worlds, Other Films.
posted on 05 Jul 2009It has been a while since I have seen a really entertaining fantasy film! I couldn't help thinking, though, whether the writers of the story had not been influenced to some extent by true events in Yorkshire (England) during late Victorian times, when two cousins, one local and one South African(White) alleged that they had seen fairies, and no less an a person than the eminent Sir Arthur Conan Doyle believed them. Fairies will only let you see them if they want to. Extend that to other magical creatures...or, even to parallel worlds. Even today, people believe in magic; some scientists talk about other dimensions superimposed on or at another speed to our own, astrophysicists talk of parallel universes and Penrose Diagrams and it gets complicated and very far from this excellent film. Yes, I agree with all those who praised Freddie Highmore for his dual performance, and I did like Simon's answer when asked to help out against Mallory - 'I don't do conflict' - then look at the fights he ended up in! The fencing adolescent added a nice, feisty touch, as did the incredulous mother - bah! Parents never even believe the noses on their faces if their own children tell them thereof. Of the Fantasy characters, perhaps the best had to be Hogsqueal: and suddenly his irritating habit of becoming distracted by his predilection for birds as a snack fitted in so nicely and usefully! Okay, hang me: I enjoyed this stacks more than that dismal trilogy about which such a big fuss was made, i.e. 'The Lord of the Things' - I'll call it. Having given this film both thumbs up, I am not sure whether I would like to see a sequel. There are really too many of those. Many thanks for this space.
Slightly below average fairytale
posted on 01 Jul 2009I didn't expect much, but I got even less than that. The graphics are well done and the actors' play is decent, but the story itself makes no real sense. It's easy to lose sense when you are doing a children fantastic story, but it doesn't really make sense from a cinematic perspective either. What is the point in making a simple story if it has holes in it? What is the reason of bringing Nick Nolte for a few scenes? What is the reason to use a child in a double role of brothers when you could have easily hired twins? And so on and so on.It's not really bad. I mean, it has some scares for small children and maybe their imagination would blow the whole thing out of proportion anyway and make it a good film just because they automagically plug the holes and add details in the little heads, before they grow up into sour movie critics as myself, but still, this could have been a little more than just a "make money from a children story" project.Bottom line: watch it with small children, maybe 10 or 12 years old max. Anything above that would laugh at it and adults just don't get the necessary level of story quality to enjoy the film.
Not so good
posted on 29 Jun 2009My wife and I walked out. Very boring. Acting was weak. At one point a sink broke and sprayed water in the mom's face. I thought she was going to cry. I thought that this was going to be a touching moment where we really felt for this woman. Didn't happen. She didn't even cry and was fine. They were trying to show us that there was a background for these characters, but they didn't seem to concerned with giving the whole story. Finally, we kind of find out where the dad is...they say something real quick... and then back to the adventure. Maybe they should've concentrated on one or the other.I think these new fantasy movies are trying too hard. Packing a whole lot of material into 2 hours. The TV show Lost is in it's 4th season and we only have background on half the characters. If they want us to feel for the characters, they need more information, otherwise leave it alone.I didn't see the other movies that were out because of the constant sex and language...and this is what was available. I will not use those guidelines to select a movie anymore. Happy Valentine's Day.
Loved it
posted on 27 Jun 2009I truly wasn't expecting much from this movie goon in but it was the only family movie available to watch with my 5 and 3 year old. I figured that because it wasn't a cartoon I'd have to deal with squirming bottoms and talking. But to my amazement the movie was not only entertaining to both of my boys (NO SQUIRMING!!!) both my husband and I loved it. My husband wouldn't even get a refill on the popcorn----and believe me that doesn't happen often!!!! I have nothing negative to say about the film. Some might think it's a little too scarry for younger kids but neither one of mine were scarred. A couple of times I had to explain some things to my 5 year old. The head goblin is kind of scarry looking; but not too bad.
Enter a breathtaking world of beauty and danger
posted on 15 Jun 2009Gnomes, brownies, boggarts, pixies, sylphs, hobgoblins, ogres, trolls, griffins - we step into their world when a single mom and her three children move into the Spiderwick mansion, deserted after their Aunt Lucinda was sent to a sanatorium. At first, things just go missing; but then when young Jared Grace opens a musty old book with a warning that it should not be read and he reads it anyway, that's when things get really nasty. The book details the secrets of the fairy world that the evil ogre Mulgarath wants to get hold of so that he can rule over them all. Jared, his 'pacifist' twin Simon and their elder sister Mallory then have to take it on themselves to protect the book and defeat the ogre. All that is done with much aplomb, and with some help from their Aunt Lucinda and ol' Arthur Spiderwick himself too. This movie is great fun to watch, is cleverly scripted and beautifully acted by Freddie Highmore as the twins. The effects are fantastic and the photography is by the legendary Caleb Deschanel.
Better than Narnia!
posted on 15 Jun 2009Believe me when i say that this movie is a thrilling ride of entertainment. First of all the plot is loads of fun. It's about a divorced mother and her three kids who move to there distant relatives estate. There they discover a book that uncovers secrets to a mysterious world around us. These creatures include: Hobgoblins, Trolls, Fairies, an evil ogre and more. This adventure is filled with breath-taking special effects and good acting. Throughout the movie there are several action scenes that keep you interested and then finally comes the highly anticipated climax. The pacing in this film is incredible. I can't wait till it comes out to buy. This almost ranks among Harry Potter and it just about surpasses Narnia. Great film and I highly recommend it!
Pretty Lame Even for Kids Movie Expectations
posted on 13 Jun 2009I'm going to film school to be a family filmmaker. I did my part by buying tickets to this show. But I was very disappointed.I didn't read the books so I'm not going to complain about the poor adaptation or any of that. Basically the plot goes nowhere. Nothing is ever introduced that matters a whole lot, the story never gets going and by the end of it I could care less. Here's a thought: A hero needs a goal! I wasn't distracted enough by the special effects or the world-outside-our own either.Three bright spots: Music: it was great, obviously the studio dumped some money into this thing to get James Horner to do the soundtrack. Acting: Freddy Highmore did a great job. It was so distracting to see him play his own twin though. Was it necessary? Or just distracting? I think it's the latter. Why not let him speak with his native accent as well? What's the point? Cinematography: every shot was in focus and well framed, sequences flowed nicely etc. All of these people did their jobs, but the writing was crap. You can't cover poor narrative with a Tom Hanks performance (I.E. Da Vinci Code). I'll say it again: a hero needs a goal! Juno's got to deal with the baby, Bruce Willis has to stop the terrorists and Marty has to get his parents back together and then get back to 1985! Got it?
Well done, a bit scary for small kids, but ultimately not very memorable
posted on 07 Jun 2009Spiderwick Chronicles involves a family moving into an old house somewhere in New England, and the house belonged to one Arthur Spiderwick. It seems that Mr. Spiderwick wrote a book about fairies, goblins, and such, that he called a field guide, but in doing so he placed himself (and his young daughter) in danger because apparently the goblins didn't want such things to be public knowledge. The new family has a few issues, like, for instance, they're not complete, as in, there's no dad & they're starting over again. Freddie Highmore (Charlie & The Chocolate Factory) plays twin brothers, one calm & cool Simon), the other a bit more troubled and apt to "act out" his aggressions due to no dad being there (Jared). The family isn't in the house for long before they realize that small things are disappearing, and a presence reveals itself, that being a brownie called "Thimbletack" (Martin Short) who gets rather agitated at times but can always be placated with honey (of which there is a generous supply in the house). Jared finds the "field guide" and reads it and then realizes that they're not alone in the house or the surrounding countryside. Eventually the goblins make their move for the book and while the house is surrounded by a "fairie ring" it doesn't help when the book is removed from the house & the protective circle. Eventually a visit is paid by two of the children to the daughter of Arthur, who now lives in an asylum due to her claims that a goblin bit her when she was a child, which wasn't taken particularly well at the time and she was diagnosed as being insane. Of course, she isn't, and helps to save the day. This is a fairly well done & entertaining movie but ultimately somewhat forgettable, unless you're a small child & have had the crap scared out of you by the BIG goblin, which I think happened to my buddy's 5-year old who was sitting next to me and drew back in his seat as it reared up on the screen. Yes, it's a bit scary for little kids. A good effort but nothing I'd bother to see again, probably. 7 out of 10.
Movie vs Book problem (again)
posted on 01 Jun 2009If you have read the books and you are a fan of them, you may find the movie very annoying. If I had to guess, I would say that 10% of the books made it into this movie. The characters were off and the creatures were not properly portrayed. Jared, Simon and Mallory's father became too important a character. He became almost the only thing that drove Jared's actions. Many of the creatures (such as elves, phooka, fairy grass, and troll(the one in the creek)) were left out. They completely skipped over 'The Ironwood Tree' and just played it off as an underground passage that led from the house to the town.Thimbletack is one of my favorite characters in the books and they portrayed him HORRIBLY! He turned into the boggart whenever he got only slightly irritated and would change back when offered honey from the bottle. He reminded me a bit of a drug addict. I really didn't like how he was shown in the movie.And Mulgarath? He looked completely different from the drawing that is the cover of the last book. He looked more like a giant dog with horns in his head. I was very disappointed in that.Overall, the movie was okay. Since I have read the books, I knew what was going on in the story (at least what was still there), so I do not know how the movie was seen by people who haven't read the books. If you have already seen the movie, read the books. Although they are labeled as being for a younger audience, they are very good books to read. I highly recommend them but do not recommend this movie.
Comparing to Harry Potter...
posted on 18 May 2009This is being compared to Harry Potter? That is completely ridiculous. Some idiotic critics are saying "This movie isn't like Harry Potter, therefore, it's terrible" This movie is an amazing example of a fantasy movie, and one that doesn't cut much out, unlike Harry Potter. This movie has great acting, especially by the dual-part playing Freddie Highmore, who loses his British accent quite convincingly. Also, Sarah Bolger and Mary-Louise Parker do superb jobs with their acting considering it's mostly a four-person cast. (Excluding voice overs) The special effects alone are amazing. If you don't like this movie, you have to admit, the special effects were amazing. If there were a sequel, I would most definitely see it as long as it has the same actors, special effects team, and director.
Not so enjoyable
posted on 08 May 2009This film is about a young boy discovering a book in a secret room, which is sought after by magical creatures.I am afraid I did not enjoy "The Spiderwick Chronicles". Though the magical creatures are convincingly made by computer graphics, the plot is not interesting or engaging. The constant battles between bad creatures and humans do not add more thrill and suspense, but become tiring and repetitive. The two twins are annoying in the film, but the most annoying thing is that there is so much fuss about this book! The addition of the scenes geared towards adult viewers, such as the subplot about love and parental separation, are not so engaging at all. It is in fact better been left out, so that the film is more focused.I thought it was a kids' story, but it is far too dark and violent to be enjoyed as a light hearted story. I am surprised that kids would like this and not get scared.
Scary supposed children's fantasy film...
posted on 26 Aug 20091st watched 6/4/2009 – 4 out of 10 (Dir – Mark Waters): Scary supposed children's fantasy film was really pretty much a horror flick with fantasy characters thrown in. A real disappointment, in my opinion, because they focused on the kids in terror aspect instead of allowing us to understand the fantasy world a little bit better instead of jolting us for 90 minutes. The basic storyline revolves around a troubled family that movie into an old house and find a book that is(guess what…) not supposed to be opened!! And, of course, one of the Freddie Highmore characters( he plays a dual role of American speaking twins) opens it and all hell breaks loose in the fantasy world. The book was written by a man named Spiderwick 80 years earlier and tells of the unseen world and all of it's secrets. An evil character wants the book and a protective character, voiced by Martin Short, tries to explain the scenario to the child. The rest of the movie, the kids are pursued by the evil forces and their goal is to not be killed by it and kill it, of course. Sounds like a horror movie, doesn't it?? Anyway, the last 15 minutes are good but getting there is not fun. This movie was based on a series of books but I find it hard to believe that the series boiled down to this action piece. In my opinion, this was Hollywood's attempt to make it marketable and it doesn't work. Too bad, because I'm sure this movie disappointed many adults and the kids they brought in to see it.