Scott Oh dear where to even begin. This should have been a short - the first half hour sort-of brings together some good elements with the parallel time approach. Then, it all falls apart:First: why does the main character also need to go deaf? You seriously expect us to follow and believe that he gets Struck By Lightening, recovers in a day or two, is deaf, and then gallops down the yellow brick road to NYC??Then, he meets a weirdo son of the museum director by chance, who just HAPPENS to be connected to his father. Via a book we keep seeing over & over, and some museum cabinet, that never gets explored or resolved? Then, you expect us to believe he LEARNS SIGN LANGUAGE IN A DAY? Then, after about 30 minutes of dull repetitive shots where NOTHING HAPPENS, you finally get him to the bookshop and his grandmother, and then TORTURE us to sit and listen to him read some explanation she magically hand writes at a bus stop in 5 minutes???Haynes saw 'Big FIsh' and 'Never Ending Story' and, like so many other derivative hipsters - said 'me too' and made a film. Disaster of epic proportions - and the fact that this insulting piece of tripe made it past serious executives and editors proves, once again, the McHollywood is drowning in it's own self-congratulating hype.

inge_ref I'm a sentimental fellow and I like this kind of a movie, throughout I wanted to give it a 9 but the ending kind of disappointed in a way. Because I did actually like the ending but it would have been greatly improved, at least for me if that other kid didn't just show up out of nowhere at the end to say "I followed you", if the audience had gotten just a little wink and a nod beforehand that the kid was going to follow him because, I don't know I just felt like it didn't fit/work with him just showing up like that.

TxMike My wife and I were able to watch this on Amazon streaming movies. The sound is Dolby so it comes across quite nicely on our home receiver which decoded it into surround sound.The writer is the same one that gave us "Hugo" which is one of my recent favorites. It has a similar atmosphere, elements are introduced but not explained, yet as the story continues things eventually all come together. However this one is complex enough that near the end the boy reads an account of the complete story, aloud, so that the audience clearly understands the whole story.It uses a unique approach, cutting between a deaf girl in 1927, going off alone to New York to look for her mother, and a recently deaf boy in 1977 going off alone to New York to find his father. The 1927 part is in B&W while the 1977 part is in color,the movie switches often between the two and the stories have certain parallels. We sense there is a connection between the two but we are uncertain what, until things come together in the end.Overall a different and nicely entertaining fable, with family values.

TheLittleSongbird Loved 'Wonderstruck's' concept, one of my favourites of the year in fact, and there is a lot to admire about Todd Haynes' previous work that includes the likes of 'Carol', 'Safe' and 'Far from Heaven'. Julianne Moore is always worth watching too.'Wonderstruck' is not one of Haynes' best, a lesser effort perhaps. That it is still very good (though divisive) just goes to show how good Haynes' previous work is. Can totally see why it won't work, and hasn't worked, for some, some may be alienated by the pace and structure of the film while others will be entranced and fascinated. It certainly worked for me and found myself really connecting with it. Not a perfect film by all means. It does drag and ramble in the middle act and there are scenes that go on for too long and could have done with a small trim or a complete excision. Can't find much to fault otherwise. Most of the pace was fine for me, it is deliberate but the atmosphere kept me entranced. The two time-lines/periods (one being from 1927, the other being from 1977) structure is fascinating, both periods but especially for 1927, and fluidly handled with no jarring. Loved how the two contrasted in how they were shot and their tones.It is a beautiful-looking film, exquisite at its very best. The different visual styles for the two periods were both wonderfully filmed, with a real sense of affectionate nostalgia for 1927, with the visual language of silent cinema, and a grittier one for 1977. Haynes directs with skill.A big star of 'Wonderstruck' is Carter Burwell's stunning music score, adding to and enhancing the atmosphere of both stories. The use of songs was inspired and nostalgic. The writing is sensitive and thought-provoking, though 'Wonderstruck' shows the beauty of actions and expressions reading louder than words. It is also another strong case of some of the cleverest and effective uses of sound design/editing of the year.The emotional impact of the story and how this fascinating concept was executed were most striking. 'Wonderstruck' is not just affectionately nostalgic, thoughtful and at times uplifting, it is also a very emotional experience. Especially the last half an hour, which reduced me to sobbing like a baby. The film really moved me and stirred my soul, part of me related to it too despite not ever being in the situation, and it never felt manipulative or trying too hard.Millicent Simmonds and Oakes Fegley are excellent leads, especially Simmonds, who is actually deaf in real life, in the more challenging role, what a beyond her years powerful performance. Julianne Moore glows with radiance in two roles. In conclusion, not for everybody but for me it was a beautiful and very moving film while finding faults with the middle act. 8/10 Bethany Cox