Support NeoGAF

[Oersted]

Here is a trailer


http://youtu.be/GZ0Bey4YUGI

Synopsis

Sophie (Ruby Barnhill) befriends a friendly giant named the BFG (Mark Rylance) as they set out on an adventure to capture the evil, man-eating giants who have been invading the human world.

Reviews

Still, there are a number of compelling moments to compensate for the lesser story. Sophie's trip with the BFG to dream country, which lies beneath a shimmering lake filled with shimmering neon embers, has a phantasmagoric quality that elevates the narrative to appropriately magical heights. The digital wizardry contributes to a unique world that's both visibly artificial and hyperreal. These days, however, impressive effects are such a given — see the similarly convincing giants of the comparatively DIY Norwegian thriller "Trollhunter" — that "The BFG" can't mask its slight touch with digital finesse.

Of course, Spielberg remains the preeminent classical Hollywood storyteller our times, whose ability to create astonishing moments surfaces in every carefully enacted camera movement. Visually alluring in every frame, "The BFG" proves that he's at the height of his powers even when the material doesn't soar on quite the same level.

http://www.indiewire.com/article/the-bfg-review-cannes-2016-steven-spielberg-mark-rylance

Rather, the film represents the director in a more pensive, even philosophical vein, less interested in propulsive cinema and more reflective about what would seem to mean the most to him—dreams, and the ability to make them come true. This is what The BFG is about but, unfortunately, that is basically all it’s about and by a considerable measure too explicitly and single-mindedly so.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/review/bfg-cannes-review-894036

These are hardly the comparisons Spielberg might be aiming for with what is clearly designed to be a late-career classic, though enlisting the Queen’s assistance is about as far as one can get from the problematic last act of “E.T.” — which is not to say that watching Her Majesty rip “whizzpoppers” is necessarily a better solution. By this point in their collaboration, Spielberg and d.p. Janusz Kaminski have arrived at lighting and framing their footage in such a way that it feels downright authoritative, as if no better vantage could be had on the moment in question. Here, that quality allows Barnhill (who looks like a less-precious version of “Matilda” star Mara Wilson) and the virtual Rylance to convincingly coexist, especially on the gorgeous emerald-green steppes of Giant Country, where Spielberg invites us to believe our eyes.

http://variety.com/2016/film/reviews/the-bfg-review-steven-spielberg-1201774476/

It’s Spielberg’s first collaboration with the late screenwriter Melissa Mathison since E.T. The Extra Terrestrial, which also premiered here 34 years ago, but it’s also arguably his first live-action family film since Jurassic Park. Fans of that world-famous imagination will hope he has a few more of that caliber left in the tank. All that said, it’s in no way a difficult watch, and this should come as a relief to many — we will all be seeing this thing for Christmases ad infinitum. It simply fails to be the sum of its many decorated parts.

https://thefilmstage.com/reviews/cannes-review-the-bfg/

The film picks up a little momentum late in the game when the Queen of England gets involved (don’t ask how, or expect it to make much sense), leading to a scene of farting corgis that has to count as some kind of perverse highlight.

The applause was warm after the screening — but then, the film screened in front of an audience that cheered all of the company credits at the beginning of the film, behavior more expected of invited premiere guests than cynical reporters.

But the Spielberg brand still carries weight, and in Cannes the director did a reasonable job of showing why. If only “The BFG” was as memorable as the BFG.

https://www.thewrap.com/the-bfg-can...ahl-have-a-great-character-not-a-great-movie/

The film theoretically picks up when it moves on to Buckingham Palace and to an audience with the Queen, where we get some decent laughs — particularly in a big set piece involving the giant having breakfast with the queen’s retinue, a scene punctuated by a series of massive farts (all straight out of Dahl, I’m told). But while Spielberg is an expert at offhand humor — throwaway lines, background slapstick, deadpan undercutting of suspense — he’s on less-secure footing with big comic sequences. He treats them like action scenes: They’re all build, anticipation, and climax, with little room left for unpredictability, charm, or freedom. Kids may well dig it. (Hell, my kid may well dig it.) But for me, The BFG was all anticipation of a different kind, leading to a massive letdown.

http://www.villagevoice.com/film/a-small-sigh-for-the-bfg-the-spielberg-letdown-at-cannes-8623353

Which brings me back to the little nap I almost took about 30 minutes into the film. I’m glad I was ultimately able to stay awake, because there are small pleasures sprinkled throughout The BFG. But I was hoping that a Spielberg adaptation of Roald Dahl would excite and transport me, not lull me to almost-sleep. I guess that means The BFG does its most literal job as a bedtime story. (That Mark Rylance, with all his wibbling about with the giant’s peculiar way of speaking, is just so soothing!) But I was hoping for a grander adventure. Something, well, a bit bigger.

http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2016/05/the-bfg-cannes-review

As usual, lock if old

 

[valkillmore]

Posted earlier, but you have more reviews in yours.

 

[Wollan]

Didn't Steven Spielberg take a year off to cruise the world with his family? I guess that's a couple of years ago now and I just recollect that I watched Bridge of Spies last year.

 

[Oersted]

Posted some new reviews.

Didn't Steven Spielberg take a year off to cruise the world with his family? I guess that's a couple of years ago now and I just recollect that I watched Bridge of Spies last year.

Never heard about that lol

 

[Strax]

I just saw it.
It looks good and has a lot of charm but it lacks character motivation and a compelling story arc for the main characters

 

[taoofjord]

Saw it today and enjoyed it.

First off, it looks fantastic both artistically and technically. They really captured Mark Rylance's many nuanced expressions, no doubt the indisputable highlight of the film (Rylance continues to prove himself to be one of the best actors in the business).

I never read the book, though I'm familiar with Dahl's work, but the movie certainly comes across as true to Dahl's spirit. It's super weird, even uncomfortably creepy at times, and if you analyze it you might think no child should be allowed to watch it. It's also whimsical and extremely creative and original.

The pacing was really odd. I don't see many kids loving this, even though there are some scenes later in the film they will enjoy. The story kinda meanders and comes across as random, non-nonsensical, and shallow.

In the end, I did enjoy it, especially because of Rylance who never disappoints. In spite of (and because of) the movie's flaws it's an interesting film that would be fun to talk about with others.

 

[| Praxis |]

I'll watch it. I liked the book and the cartoon adaptation when I was a kid, mainly for the bad giants, I hope they're good in this.

 

[KeyBladerXIII]

I'll watch it. I liked the book and the cartoon adaptation when I was a kid, mainly for the bad giants, I hope they're good in this.

I found them to be quite distrubing, as far as looks go. There's a lanky one that gave me the creeps. It's uncanny valley but in an effective way.

 

[SCULLIBUNDO]

It was cute, but script felt very underwritten.

Some nice effects work. Still waiting for this decade's Spielberg gem. This sure ain't it.

 

[TestMonkey]

I dunno. A few of the reviews I read said that the movie was made family friendly. Dahl's books are pretty gruesome. Most of the giants in The BFG are supposed to be man-eaters and in The Witches the ending does not go well for anyone. My favorite part of Dahl's books was the honesty of them. Is that missing in the movie?

 

[KeyBladerXIII]

I dunno. A few of the reviews I read said that the movie was made family friendly. Dahl's books are pretty gruesome. Most of the giants in The BFG are supposed to be man-eaters and in The Witches the ending does not go well for anyone. My favorite part of Dahl's books was the honesty of them. Is that missing in the movie?

Haven't read the book, but it is made very clear that the other giants are maneaters.

Spoiler that may have been in the book:

Spoiler

A jacket the girl wears while with the BFG is revealed to have belonged to a boy the BFG befriended before the other giants ate him.

 

[BreezyLimbo]

Wait this is a movie? Weird. I had scene a poster of it, but it said something like 'Experience the BFG at Disney', thought it was some sort of show they were holding~

Huh. First I hear of it being a movie, otherwise.

 

[Rich!]

Haven't read the book, but it is made very clear that the other giants are maneaters.

Spoiler that may have been in the book:

Spoiler

A jacket the girl wears while with the BFG is revealed to have belonged to a boy the BFG befriended before the other giants ate him.

I reread the book recently. The other giants are explicitly made clear to be man eaters. Hell, even the names allude to that

Dahl is dark as hell

 

[Toa TAK]

It was cute, but script felt very underwritten.

Some nice effects work. Still waiting for this decade's Spielberg gem. This sure ain't it.

What if it doesn't come?

So far, these reviews and impressions are confirming what I hoped wouldn't be the case. When I think of Spielberg adapting a children's novel, fucking Roald Dahl aint it.

 

[demon]

It was cute, but script felt very underwritten.

Some nice effects work. Still waiting for this decade's Spielberg gem. This sure ain't it.

He hasn't made an unforgettable movie in a long time. Lincoln was good, but not amazing. The last movies he made that I really gave a shit about came out 11 and 13 years ago respectively. IMO the age of Speilberg may just be over.

 

[| Praxis |]

I liked Munich. It had its problems, but it's a film I revisit quite often.

 

[Blader]

It was cute, but script felt very underwritten.

Some nice effects work. Still waiting for this decade's Spielberg gem. This sure ain't it.

The fact that he's going to be cranking out five movies over five years: a) is incredible, but also b) makes me doubt we're gonna get another Spielberg gem this decade.

Lincoln is a fine film, and to a lesser extent so are Bridge of Spies and War Horse (contrary to popular opinion; also to the contrary, I didn't care for Tintin at all). But I think Munich is going to end up standing as Spielberg's last great movie.

 

[Draconian]

It was cute, but script felt very underwritten.

Some nice effects work. Still waiting for this decade's Spielberg gem. This sure ain't it.

It's going to be Tintin. Haters can take a hike.

 

[MattKeil]

The fact that he's going to be cranking out five movies over five years: a) is incredible, but also b) makes me doubt we're gonna get another Spielberg gem this decade.

Lincoln is a fine film, and to a lesser extent so are Bridge of Spies and War Horse (contrary to popular opinion; also to the contrary, I didn't care for Tintin at all). But I think Munich is going to end up standing as Spielberg's last great movie.

I liked Tintin a lot, but I think you're going to end up being right about Munich.

 

[SCULLIBUNDO]

The fact that he's going to be cranking out five movies over five years: a) is incredible, but also b) makes me doubt we're gonna get another Spielberg gem this decade.

Lincoln is a fine film, and to a lesser extent so are Bridge of Spies and War Horse (contrary to popular opinion; also to the contrary, I didn't care for Tintin at all). But I think Munich is going to end up standing as Spielberg's last great movie.

Nah. Usually the faster he works, the better his films. Look at his output 2000 - 2005. Dude was firing on all cylinders when he gets into the thick of it.

 

[Riposte]

big fucking giant?

 

[Regiruler]

I'm a bit disappointed by the lukewarm reviews. The animation looked absolutely great in the trailer I saw.

 

[rekameohs]

I've been a little iffy since I did not care much for Tintin, but I really liked the source material as a kid, still interested in seeing it.

I'm of the mindset that Spielberg's still got some greatness left in him. Lincoln was very good outside of its stupid-ass ending, and I feel that it perhaps just slightly fell short of being a part of his "great" films. I hope he can get another one someday: