Although it wasn’t quite “grizzling or horrigust,” The BFG just might be categorized as a “grunicous” (as BFG would say) film to sit through for anyone who’s graduated from elementary school.
Moviegoers can’t help but to expect an E.T.-like film upon hearing Steven Spielberg was directing another story about a child developing a friendship with a fantastical being, but The BFG (The Big-Friendly Giant) falls short of the storytelling magic E.T. possesses that we’ve come to expect from Spielberg.
The film focuses on Sophie, an orphan, who is snatched by a giant from her bed. The tale continues with an unlikely, yet lovable friendship between Sophie and the giant, whom she dubs “BFG.” BFG isn’t the only giant in the world, though; there are several other giants, who have terrifying names, “Bloodbottler” and “Maidmasher,” for example, who eat children such as Sophie. The rest of the story tells Sophie’s and BFG’s quest to end the terror the other giants inflict upon “human beans,” and even BFG himself.
BFG is not entirely without merit. The budding young star, Ruby Barnhill, delivers an admirable performance as Sophie, the orphan who travels to Giant Country. Mark Rylance also provides a wonderful voice performance as the title character.
The CGI in the film is striking as well; however, this year’s The Jungle Book’s imagery is much more so. With today’s CGI possibilities, it seems that the scenery could have so much more depth — “Giant Country” is dull and lacking compared to the intricate and detailed jungle in The Jungle Book.
Despite Barnhill and Rylance’s performances, older filmgoers may begin to suffer from boredom halfway through the film. The characters never seem to progress past being completely “good” or utterly “bad.” Understood, this sort of generalization is typical in children’s movies, but the family-friendly films that can go beyond this and have clearly visible dynamic characters — Frozen, It’s A Wonderful Life, Toy Story, The Wizard of Oz , Mary Poppins, to name a few — are the really successful ones that are later hailed as classics.
Roald Dahl’s beloved story is not given the justice it deserves with this adaption. It appears to have been stripped of anything somewhat dark or even mysterious — even the giants daring to eat “human beans” don’t seem terrifying in the least. The giants seem more like drunken animals that just run around clueless, posing no real threat to anyone near them.
While viewing the film, it somewhat reminded me of Martin Scorsese’s 2011 film, Hugo. Hugo — the film that gave a gracious nod to classic film and produced advanced visual effects — excited viewers, even though its story was not necessarily perfect. Spielberg’s BFG is different, however, in that it lacks excitement, and the story it tells does not equal Dahl’s memorable tale.
While BFG lacks excitement, Spielberg does succeed by providing a sweet, delicate sentiment appropriate for younger audiences. This provides a direct contrast to today’s action-packed, fast-moving films, and this is not necessarily a bad thing.
Yes, BFG, requires patience, but even if one can muster up the patience to see the film through to its ending, it’s unsatisfactory. In the original novel, Dahl’s classic tale ends happily for Sophie and BFG, with the two of them living as neighbors together in England. BFG gets a giant castle, and Sophie lives in a small cottage next door. This film ends, though, quite differently.
BFG is not a tale for those much older than 12, but for younger moviegoers, it tells a pleasant, non-threatening story, complete with a warm, classic friendship and plenty of “whizpopper” jokes — two traits sure to satisfy and elicit several endearing giggles from kids.
Photo courtesy of Walt Disney Pictures