keslalarose Beautiful and underrated. If you need hope in life then watch this film. The love and friendship between a small boy and his town is moving and shows that belief in hope, no matter how many want you to fail is stronger than anything. Love yourself and others as though you are not separate and you will learn how to live happily. The directing is phenomenal and the dialog is fantastic. Regardless of what you hate about yourself, this film will teach you how to be grateful for the life you live. The narration by Jim is perfect and not once do you believe he is telling a "story." He is speaking of the strength it takes to put your faith in another's hands and never regretting it because the life lessons you learn.

hgnfrk This is the corniest movie I have seen in a long while. The main character is unbelievable and the scene where Ashley Judd's character is 'knocked out' is totally contrived and unbelievable. How could such a small person hit a ball so hard as to kill someone? People with diabetes should avoid this film due to its sugary composition. The main character is not only unbelievable but not very likable. His complaints about church socials having a continental breakfast make him sound like a Christian tali-ban. I would not let my children see this film because of Simon Birch's pretentious and self-righteous view of the world and religion.

Baron Ronan Doyle Having seen, and been somewhat dissatisfied with, The Cider House Rules and The World According to Garp, I was, as I've previously remarked on this very site, pretty much convinced that the novels of John Irving are inherently unfilmable. Simon Birch, billed as "suggested by" A Prayer for Owen Meany—my favourite Irving, and perhaps even favourite novel—is so titled at Irving's request, so different he felt were the stories.Showing the titular character's grave at the film's beginning, Simon Birch follows its namesake from birth to death. Extremely small, shrilly-voiced, and devoutly religious, Simon believes himself to be "God's instrument", put upon the earth in his unusual form for a distinct purpose.Firstly, I feel the need to vent. What is it with Irving adaptations and this horrid reliance on saccharine music? It's so bloody cliché it makes me want to weep with frustration, tear my hair out, and howl for hours. Now that that's said, shall we move on? Commendations firstly to star and one time actor Ian Michael Smith, who delivers a convincing, humorous, and persuasive performance as the zealous young Simon. Indeed the entire cast is solidly... well, cast. A special mention is reserved for Oliver Platt, whose character's original literary basis was a favourite who seemed misrepresented at first, but was eventually realised well in Platt's performance—a considerable task I assure you. It's not difficult to see why Irving declined to permit the usage of his character's names, the plot taking a complete turn about halfway through the film. This turn makes sense, given the time restrictions of a feature film compared to a novel, though it leaves the former considerably less impactful than the latter. The movie offers a story which moves steadily forward, honouring the book for as long as the two overlap. The relationship between the young characters at the film's heart is well appropriated, Joe's fondness for his minuscule friend articulated through the nuances of their dialogue as well as the actors' respective performances. It's in the last act of the film that it loses itself, the inevitable foreseen incident—beautifully constructed in the novel—poorly brought to fruition. One understands the reason behind changing the ending to this, but it ought to have been handled with much more grace. Plot holes emerge, grow, and eventually suck the film into them, so distracting are they from the poignancy of the drama. Yet, that said, the drama loses poignancy all of its own at this point anyway. The ending—I am permitted to reveal it is Simon's death; the film begins with a shot of his gravestone including dates—feels shoved in to align with the book. I found myself wondering why exactly the boy had died, no sufficiently decent reason offered by the film. The ending places a severe blemish on the rest of the film, marred particularly in no small part due to the final overly sentimental return to the graveside.Starting out well, inasmuch as it follows more or less exactly the book's path, Simon Birch shows promise of a decent childhood drama. It maintains this facade for some time, before the ending finally exposes it for the lacking piece it—rather unfortunately—is. There is a gaping chasm of narrative quality between the two halves, no doubt the result of adapting just half a book; the latter section demonstrating wildly its inferior writing. Nevertheless, the film has its merits, for which it is worthy of viewing and appreciation.

MattCScicluna Upon watching Simon Birtch I felt that the director wanted me to go out and do something uber Catholic. What does he do? He makes a film packed full of catharsis. Just because a film makes you cry doesn't make it a good one.This film employs far too many pity tactics like that Simon and Joe have no friends and that Joe accidentally killed Simon's mother in a baseball accident (I hope insurance covers that, never know if it will happen to me some day). What the hell is the point of all this? Is it to hide the fact that there is almost no actual story going on here? Overall, this film is like the passion of the Christ, except with a midget Jesus. Basically every bad thing you could possibly imagine, plus some you wouldn't (when he grabs the girls boobs), happen to poor Simon, which makes dumb teenagers cry their eyes out and call this a masterpiece. I'd call it a propaganda film, but it deters me farther from Catholicism.