The story is true about the girls and the photos. The story is true about the photos and how they tricked people. But the fairies flying around and bathing with fins and dodging cigarettes while carrying suitcases is not true. The ghost of a child blocking a doubting reporter from framing these girls after breaking into their room is also not true. This movie should not have "A True Story" at the end. It would be like "Titanic: A True Story", simply because the ship sinking is true. This is a good movie at times, has a lot of charm and the magic shines through. Harvey Keitel seems more like a downtown New York thug than a famous magician. The two leads who play the girls are charming, sweet, and talented. But my problem goes back to the "truth"; if they are going to show fairies they should have only showed them when the girls were present, so then it would be assumed that they might be only in the girl's imagination... or not. Showing the fairies flying around without the girls turns this "true story" into a "fairy tale", as in... it ruins the entire mystique that the pictures raised in the first place. The movie should center more on the hoax, on how the girls did what they did to trick scholars, famous writers and basically an entire continent. That would be interesting. Instead we get a fairy tale within a fairy tale with a false premise of the entire thing being true, that is, a movie that is telling us that fairies actually exist by tagging this "a true story". It's not true, it's merely based on truth. Just like "The Titanic", which didn't have "A True Story" added to the title; this movie should only be called "FairyTale", or better yet, "The Cottingley Hoax", or something based on actual history, not manipulation.
66 Reviews
Dramatic fairy tale aims for a more suitable crowd.
emm28 April 1999
There are two different points of view that FAIRYTALE's difficult story can be told: the children and the adults. Apparently, it looks like the adults will be far more interested than the children because of its long discussions about fairy sightings and its overly dramatic nature; this actually is the kind of audience this movie was shooting for. On the children's side, it is magical in the make-believe universe, but not without a couple of horrifying and sorrowful moments (the scarred-face soldier out of WWI, for instance), and may end up as boredom along the way. The fairies and their surroundings would have looked better on the screen if they appeared larger, but there some things to believe in, just as the opening scene tells you; they do exist as fantasy figures to enlighten a child's imagination. The two young girls pull off some charming performances, and some luscious scenery is vivid all throughout. FAIRYTALE should have been a real "family" fantasy picture in the way it is presented, but stands out its own way as a movie that focuses on a slight examination of sightings that is virtually unexplainable (almost similar to science fiction!). Children will most likely appreciate the fairies more than the movie itself. And where is Mel Gibson???
A magical story behind the poorly directed film
Efenstor29 November 2008
Everyone who's deeply interested in folklore, as I dare to say I am, knows the story of the Fairies of Cottingley, it's one nearly-epic story of the two girls who inadvertently made a half of the world actually believe in magical creatures (I don't count children, for they did, they do and they will believe, and that's wondrous), and the best part of the epic is that they had never straightforwardly confessed that they've forged it just not to ruin people's glimpse of faith in magical.
If that's what this movie should have been telling about then it certainly does not the job. Despite the wonderful and believable acting of Florence Hoath and Elizabeth Earl, the incoherent screenplay and direction ruin everything and only a shadow of the childhood magic remains in the dark corner pushed away by the social-drama clichés (they even managed to insert there a villain and the goddammit comic relief!). And the top-notch CGI doesn't help out. There's more magic even in ghost-story movies, such as 'Lady in White' or 'The Changeling'. Worth watching, but only once. I deeply hope that some day someone will make a movie worthy of this story's spiritual background, so you'd understand why some perfectly sane people believe in fairies, even without the photographs.
One of my favorite books is the collection of narrative tales, recorded in the middle of the 20th century among the Siberian villagers, mostly in the Chita region, by V.P. Zinovyev, and the thing I really love and adore in those stories is that those people actually believe all the folklore things they're speaking about! It's grievous that there are less and less such people live in this world, of that kind who believe because of the purity of the heart, not because of fear or passion. Some call those people dark and unenlightened, some laugh at them, but the thing they actually have is the faith, whilst everyone else have only a ghost of it. That who knows cannot believe.
If that's what this movie should have been telling about then it certainly does not the job. Despite the wonderful and believable acting of Florence Hoath and Elizabeth Earl, the incoherent screenplay and direction ruin everything and only a shadow of the childhood magic remains in the dark corner pushed away by the social-drama clichés (they even managed to insert there a villain and the goddammit comic relief!). And the top-notch CGI doesn't help out. There's more magic even in ghost-story movies, such as 'Lady in White' or 'The Changeling'. Worth watching, but only once. I deeply hope that some day someone will make a movie worthy of this story's spiritual background, so you'd understand why some perfectly sane people believe in fairies, even without the photographs.
One of my favorite books is the collection of narrative tales, recorded in the middle of the 20th century among the Siberian villagers, mostly in the Chita region, by V.P. Zinovyev, and the thing I really love and adore in those stories is that those people actually believe all the folklore things they're speaking about! It's grievous that there are less and less such people live in this world, of that kind who believe because of the purity of the heart, not because of fear or passion. Some call those people dark and unenlightened, some laugh at them, but the thing they actually have is the faith, whilst everyone else have only a ghost of it. That who knows cannot believe.
not really a children's film
didi-516 April 2004
The kind of movie that could almost persuade you that fairies were real. The story is that of the Cottingley Fairy photographs of the 1920s (taken by two Yorkshire girls who later revealed they were fakes) those fooled included celebrated writer Arthur Conan Doyle (played here effectively by Peter O'Toole) while cynics included magician Harry Houdini (a charming role for Harvey Keitel, who manages not to swear and keep his clothes on for once).
The supporting cast are excellent Paul McGann as the girls' dad/uncle; Tim McInnerny and Bill Nighy as journalist snoops; and Phoebe Nicholls as the girls' mother/aunt. The girls themselves are played with ease by Florence Hoath and Elizabeth Earl. Mel Gibson has a tiny cameo at the end (I don't want to spoil it by saying as what).
A thumbs-up, too, for the special effects achieved in this movie. The movie certainly is sentimental and does seem to come down on the side of the unknown and imply that the girls' claims were true, but it is a terrific family film I wouldn't hesitate to recommend.
The supporting cast are excellent Paul McGann as the girls' dad/uncle; Tim McInnerny and Bill Nighy as journalist snoops; and Phoebe Nicholls as the girls' mother/aunt. The girls themselves are played with ease by Florence Hoath and Elizabeth Earl. Mel Gibson has a tiny cameo at the end (I don't want to spoil it by saying as what).
A thumbs-up, too, for the special effects achieved in this movie. The movie certainly is sentimental and does seem to come down on the side of the unknown and imply that the girls' claims were true, but it is a terrific family film I wouldn't hesitate to recommend.
A Mostly Enjoyable Account of a True Story
gavin694224 December 2016
In 1917, two children take a photograph, which is soon believed by some to be the first scientific evidence of the existence of fairies.
First of all, much praise to Harvey Keitel in his portrayal of Harry Houdini. Whether there were camera tricks or not, his on-screen illusions look great. He also portrays the character rather well. Keitel, much better known for his foul-mouthed cop-and-gangster roles, really shines here.
As a whole, I liked the movie, and I think it presented a fairly accurate account of what happened in this case. I am a bit disappointed that it left open the idea that believing in fairies is a good, rational thing to do, but I guess that's just the cynic in me. I should be praising them for giving kids a sense of wonder.
First of all, much praise to Harvey Keitel in his portrayal of Harry Houdini. Whether there were camera tricks or not, his on-screen illusions look great. He also portrays the character rather well. Keitel, much better known for his foul-mouthed cop-and-gangster roles, really shines here.
As a whole, I liked the movie, and I think it presented a fairly accurate account of what happened in this case. I am a bit disappointed that it left open the idea that believing in fairies is a good, rational thing to do, but I guess that's just the cynic in me. I should be praising them for giving kids a sense of wonder.
Imaginary Playmate Comes Out Of The Wood.
rmax30482331 August 2012
Warning: Spoilers
Two little girls -- eight and twelve years old -- in rural Yorkshire get hold of their Dad's camera and return with pictures of stereotypical tiny fairies during World War One. The photos get into the hands of the Theosophical Society and then the press and cause a great to-do. Sir Arthur Conan-Doyle (O'Toole) and Houdini (Keitel) are swept up in the investigation.
First things first. The two little girls are as cute as all get out. The older one is thoughtful and reserved. The younger one is expressive and whimsical. (The first will grow up loving wisely; the second will love too well.) The younger girl has even features and may grow up to be quite beautiful and well known if she decides to pursue an acting career. I can't remember the names of the actresses but both are splendid in their roles. How do you get kids that young to act so well on screen? At the same time, we have to be careful about believing the tales that kids bring us. Joan of Arc was only a teen ager, and St. Bernadette was fourteen when she had her visions. And let's not forget that the witch hunts of Salem, Massachusetts, were begun because of the fairy tales spun by a handful of girls the same age as the ones in this movie. So watch out.
Okay. The second thing that impressed me is the location. Rarely has West (or North) Yorkshire looked so ravishing. It's summer and the hills are like slight sea swells, criss-crossed by stone walls. And the place where the girls claim to have found the fairies! It's tranquil, placid, languorous, bewitching. There's a trickling rill that spreads out and runs a few inches deep across flat gray rocks, in some spots forming miniature pools. Overhead are drooping branches. And it's all surrounded by light forests and fields of pale purple flowers. I'm telling you, if you lie too long next to that brook, especially in the light of a full moon, you too will be overcome by your collective unconscious and the sprites and elves will come fluttering forth.
Of course the two little girls are frauds, but consider the times. For Europe, unlike America, the first war was a horrendous bloody catastrophe that accomplished nothing in the long run and had little cause in the first place. And in the previous generation, science seemed to have made great advances and offered up a challenge to belief in the supernatural -- meaning no afterlife, no heaven or hell, no nothing. Damned Darwin and Freud and their acolytes and bulldogs. Conan-Doyle had just lost a son pointlessly. It's no wonder the two little liars became sensations. Like the magic of the fairy home, mysticism was in the air. For a similar story from the same period, see "Miss Morrison's Ghosts." It's a slow movie, especially if you've recently been fed a diet of slam-bang action movies. It's done in a classical ("old-fashioned") style with a mostly still camera. Yet there are moments of tension and drama. And the acting is superb. Peter O'Toole is a very gentlemanly and sad Conan-Doyle. And Keitel -- who looks great in his stage make up as Houdini -- is the friendliest of skeptics. Supporting parts are well done and, as I say, it would be hard to improve upon the two girls. The only sour note is the villainous reporter (McInernny), a gawky and ambitious character with a long neck and tiny jaw who undergoes his own comic conversion.
It all ends, appropriately, with dozens of fairies buzzing around like dragonflies, although they're all fakes.
First things first. The two little girls are as cute as all get out. The older one is thoughtful and reserved. The younger one is expressive and whimsical. (The first will grow up loving wisely; the second will love too well.) The younger girl has even features and may grow up to be quite beautiful and well known if she decides to pursue an acting career. I can't remember the names of the actresses but both are splendid in their roles. How do you get kids that young to act so well on screen? At the same time, we have to be careful about believing the tales that kids bring us. Joan of Arc was only a teen ager, and St. Bernadette was fourteen when she had her visions. And let's not forget that the witch hunts of Salem, Massachusetts, were begun because of the fairy tales spun by a handful of girls the same age as the ones in this movie. So watch out.
Okay. The second thing that impressed me is the location. Rarely has West (or North) Yorkshire looked so ravishing. It's summer and the hills are like slight sea swells, criss-crossed by stone walls. And the place where the girls claim to have found the fairies! It's tranquil, placid, languorous, bewitching. There's a trickling rill that spreads out and runs a few inches deep across flat gray rocks, in some spots forming miniature pools. Overhead are drooping branches. And it's all surrounded by light forests and fields of pale purple flowers. I'm telling you, if you lie too long next to that brook, especially in the light of a full moon, you too will be overcome by your collective unconscious and the sprites and elves will come fluttering forth.
Of course the two little girls are frauds, but consider the times. For Europe, unlike America, the first war was a horrendous bloody catastrophe that accomplished nothing in the long run and had little cause in the first place. And in the previous generation, science seemed to have made great advances and offered up a challenge to belief in the supernatural -- meaning no afterlife, no heaven or hell, no nothing. Damned Darwin and Freud and their acolytes and bulldogs. Conan-Doyle had just lost a son pointlessly. It's no wonder the two little liars became sensations. Like the magic of the fairy home, mysticism was in the air. For a similar story from the same period, see "Miss Morrison's Ghosts." It's a slow movie, especially if you've recently been fed a diet of slam-bang action movies. It's done in a classical ("old-fashioned") style with a mostly still camera. Yet there are moments of tension and drama. And the acting is superb. Peter O'Toole is a very gentlemanly and sad Conan-Doyle. And Keitel -- who looks great in his stage make up as Houdini -- is the friendliest of skeptics. Supporting parts are well done and, as I say, it would be hard to improve upon the two girls. The only sour note is the villainous reporter (McInernny), a gawky and ambitious character with a long neck and tiny jaw who undergoes his own comic conversion.
It all ends, appropriately, with dozens of fairies buzzing around like dragonflies, although they're all fakes.
A good story, but panders to the kids too much
Leofwine_draca29 December 2015
Warning: Spoilers
The tale of the Cottingley Fairy hoax is an endearing - and enduring - one that's been passed down over the ages. The nation was entranced by photographs taken by a pair of girls which apparently showed them playing with fairies at the bottom of their garden. Soon, the scientific community was deriding the photographs as a joke, but others, including Sherlock Holmes creator Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, remained convinced of their veracity.
FAIRY TALE: A TRUE STORY is anything but a true story, taking as it does huge liberties with the original story. These range from the minor and rather enjoyable - Harry Houdini plays a significant role here, not that he did in real life, although I appreciated Harvey Keitel's performance nonetheless - to the extreme, i.e. the sight of CGI fairies floating around. I appreciate that the latter scenes were included to pander to the kids, but I think the film would have done a lot better by leaving it up to the viewer to make his or her own mind up rather than being so blatant about it.
Otherwise, attention to period detail is good, and the child performers give strong turns. There's an exemplary supporting cast including Peter O'Toole and Paul McGann. The production values are evidently strong and it's hard to dislike a film telling such a vivid and memorable tale. Another, more adult version of the same story came out at the same time, PHOTOGRAPHING FAIRIES, although I haven't had the pleasure of that one yet.
FAIRY TALE: A TRUE STORY is anything but a true story, taking as it does huge liberties with the original story. These range from the minor and rather enjoyable - Harry Houdini plays a significant role here, not that he did in real life, although I appreciated Harvey Keitel's performance nonetheless - to the extreme, i.e. the sight of CGI fairies floating around. I appreciate that the latter scenes were included to pander to the kids, but I think the film would have done a lot better by leaving it up to the viewer to make his or her own mind up rather than being so blatant about it.
Otherwise, attention to period detail is good, and the child performers give strong turns. There's an exemplary supporting cast including Peter O'Toole and Paul McGann. The production values are evidently strong and it's hard to dislike a film telling such a vivid and memorable tale. Another, more adult version of the same story came out at the same time, PHOTOGRAPHING FAIRIES, although I haven't had the pleasure of that one yet.
Fairy Tale Aimed Wrong.
anaconda-406588 October 2015
Warning: Spoilers
Fairy Tale: A True Story (1997): Dir: Charles Sturridge / Cast: Florence Hoath, Elizabeth Earl, Harvey Keitel, Peter O'Toole, Bill Nighy: Fascinating themes aimed at the wrong audience. It brings elements of fantasy and enters it into present day. Two girls get snap shots of fairies in the wilderness, which gives them unwanted media attention. Good concept with little information about the fairies. They do not appear until the end of the film, which may ruin it for its intended audience. Directed by Charles Sturridge who previously made Aria. He is backed with beautiful photography and visual elements. Florence Hoath and Elizabeth Earl make a fine pairing as two carefree girls who happen upon the extraordinary and are suddenly thrust into media spotlight. Unfortunately Harvey Keitel as Harry Houdini serves little purpose. One could say that the character references the magic or fantasy elements but in his own film the Houdini character would flourish. Here he is a bad distraction. Peter O'Toole also makes an appearance but he never makes an impact. The special effects are the sell and that element works well, particularly when the fairies finally make an appearance in all their glory. Theme of media manipulation allows the film a documentary appeal but since the film has more adult appeal than for children it leaves the biggest tale told by the filmmakers. Score: 6 / 10
Undeniably charming; an absolutely delightful film for the whole family!
TheLittleSongbird17 July 2009
Fairytale: A True Story is a truly charming and delightful film, that has all the charm of the enchanting Secret Garden and the equally wonderful Little Princess. The screenplay was very solid, and the film does look very, very beautiful, with perfect camera-work and splendid period detail. The simple but well-told story tells of two young girls who find and photograph fairies, and they manage to convince even Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (marvellously played by Peter O'Toole) that the fairies are real. The music was really lovely to listen to, and director Charles Sturridge manages to draw spirited (and exemplary) performances from his two leads Florence Hoath and Elizabeth Earl. The supporting cast include Paul McGann, Pheobe Nicolls and Harvey Keital, and all do more than a respectable job. Overall, a very pleasing and charming film, that does certainly leave you wanting fairies at the bottom of your garden, like the back of the video box promised. 10/10 Bethany Cox.
A matter of reality
katjamats13 March 2005
This movie is very sweet.
A Fairy-tale might be just a FAIRY-TALE! But there do exist some other creatures called angels. Maybe this "fairies" in the movie really were angels? Truth is that especially children can be open enough to believe in the spiritual realm.
Unfortunately not all spiritual creatures are good, and we are warned against the occult things some people thrive in. It seems like Sir Arthur Conan Doyle did so. (So did NOT Houdini !) Nevertheless we need to accept what good things God has created, but be selective.
Maybe the true story behind the movie was not a fraud, but real ANGELS?!
(By the way: Why isn't Mel Gibson credited for his cast in the end?!)
A Fairy-tale might be just a FAIRY-TALE! But there do exist some other creatures called angels. Maybe this "fairies" in the movie really were angels? Truth is that especially children can be open enough to believe in the spiritual realm.
Unfortunately not all spiritual creatures are good, and we are warned against the occult things some people thrive in. It seems like Sir Arthur Conan Doyle did so. (So did NOT Houdini !) Nevertheless we need to accept what good things God has created, but be selective.
Maybe the true story behind the movie was not a fraud, but real ANGELS?!
(By the way: Why isn't Mel Gibson credited for his cast in the end?!)
The True Story was better
dabedwards25 March 2015
Warning: Spoilers
Like others writing here, I felt a bit cheated that the movie did not focus on the real "true story", which is certainly a better one for an adult audience. Perhaps it would not have had such a general appeal, and would have been less commercial. The notion that it was all a hoax, and yet true at the same time, seemed disingenuous. The story of how grief and loss in the years after the First World War led many to become self-deluded and consequently vulnerable to "psychic" charlatans is a very adult one. Houdini was a hero in the cause of stamping this shoddy business out. He was a champion of reason. I have no problems with films that alter and compress historical events for dramatic reasons, but this film actually negated the essence of the true story and wasted an opportunity. And we were deprived of the delicious final twist, when the surviving girl (by then an old lady) confessed all in the 1980s. The film was an enjoyable fantasy, and could have been presented as being "inspired by, but not based on" actual events (as were Citizen Kane and Personal Services). There is always going to be a problem with films based on true events, and in this case it seemed like a good story trashed.
Believe...Can You?
FiendishDramaturgy13 January 2005
This venture was beautiful, whimsical, and inspired. This work felt as though it were real, although that is only partially true. I really don't care. The (movie) magick to be found here is awe inspiring and will have you watching your bird feeder much more closely.
Backed up by big names, beautiful photography, a solid screenplay, and natural dialog, this production is almost timeless. As it was a "period" piece (1917), it bears the virtue of not showing its wear. It was filmed as "old" when it was new.
The two girls' performances were nothing short of exemplary. They came off as being honest and true to their roles. That having been said, there was not a single poor performance to be found.
While there are some slow spots, as character development and the story are set up for the duration of the work, they are few and do not interrupt the flow of the production enough to break the wonderful spell.
It rates an 8.8/10 from...
the Fiend :.
Backed up by big names, beautiful photography, a solid screenplay, and natural dialog, this production is almost timeless. As it was a "period" piece (1917), it bears the virtue of not showing its wear. It was filmed as "old" when it was new.
The two girls' performances were nothing short of exemplary. They came off as being honest and true to their roles. That having been said, there was not a single poor performance to be found.
While there are some slow spots, as character development and the story are set up for the duration of the work, they are few and do not interrupt the flow of the production enough to break the wonderful spell.
It rates an 8.8/10 from...
the Fiend :.
FairyTale: A True Story
jboothmillard2 February 2012
Warning: Spoilers
As the title says, this film is apparently, loosely anyway, based on the real life story of Cottingley Fairies, this story of course turned out to be fake, but this film at least creates the sense of realism felt at the time by many people, from director Charles Sturridge (Lassie). Basically, set in the early 20th Century, England, during the time that electricity and photography had been invented, many people have their own particular beliefs and become fascinated with phenomenas, including writer and Sherlock Holmes creator Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (Peter O'Toole) and magician, escapologist and stunt performer Harry Houdini (Harvey Keitel). The daughter of devoted father Arthur (Paul McGann) and mother Polly (Phoebe Nicholls) who is grieving for the death of the son, twelve year old Elsie Wright (Florence Hoath), has kept her dead brother Joseph's scrapbooks and stuff that relate to fairies. She is joined by her cousin Frances Griffiths (Elizabeth Earl) who has come from abroad while her father goes into action during World War I, and the two of them become close friends, spending much of their time at the brook and near the stream. It is there that they supposedly occasionally see actual fairies, and borrowing Elsie's father's camera they capture two photographs of them together with these fairies, and these are meant as gifts for Polly. However she takes them to Theosophist lecturer Edward L. Gardner (Bill Nighy), who gets them analysed by a photography professional who can determine whether they are fake or not, and they are pronounced genuine, due to fairy wings moving. Many adults say that the girls could have faked the photographs, but more say that they may be real, including Conan-Doyle, and Houdini sees them too, and two more photographs taken allow publication in The Strand, creating a big buzz. The attention however comes from some unwanted sources, with hundreds of people crowding the village looking for fairies themselves, or the girls interacting with them, such as reporters, like John Ferret (Tim McInnerny). The girls have become celebrities when they travel to London, and they get to meet Houdini again, and see his water tank escape performance, and the film ends with him telling Elsie not to reveal anything, only to leave people to make their own minds up, there is a brief return from the fairies, and Frances' Father (Mel Gibson in a cameo) returns from war. Also starring Jurassic Park's Bob Peck as Harry Briggs, War Horse's Peter Mullan as Sergeant Farmer and Four Weddings and a Funeral's Anna Chancellor as Peter Pan. The acting is as good as you are going to get from terrific actors like Keitel, O'Toole and Nighy, and it is a pleasant story, obviously if you knew that the five captured photographs from the real girls were faked it would technically ruin your belief, but either way it is a nice tale that works with the fantasy element, and obviously the small special effects to create the fairies supposedly captured, of course in real life they were gift book cutouts LOL, a worthwhile period drama based on a true story. It won the BAFTA Children's Award for Best Children's Film. Good!
It's Pathetic The Lies Filmmakers Get Away With
ccthemovieman-119 September 2007
Another reviewer here on the user-comments asks, "Is there anyone left in this world who objects to being lied to?
Yeah, I do!
The main drawback, however, even more than the absurdity of the story, is that it is simply boring. "Fairy Tale: A Boring Story" would have been truthful, not labeling it a "true story." To repeat: the headline on this film is an out-and-out LIE.
This is a supposed "true story" about two little girls in England who see and communicate with fairies - little Peter Pan-type beings who flutter around. Give me a break!!!!
The only redeeming value of all this nonsense and New Age propaganda is some pretty photography. That's all the film offers, unless you are total moron and still believe in the Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus, too. If this was billed as a fantasy, I would have enjoyed it, but to tell me this is truth is ludicrous.
Yeah, I do!
The main drawback, however, even more than the absurdity of the story, is that it is simply boring. "Fairy Tale: A Boring Story" would have been truthful, not labeling it a "true story." To repeat: the headline on this film is an out-and-out LIE.
This is a supposed "true story" about two little girls in England who see and communicate with fairies - little Peter Pan-type beings who flutter around. Give me a break!!!!
The only redeeming value of all this nonsense and New Age propaganda is some pretty photography. That's all the film offers, unless you are total moron and still believe in the Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus, too. If this was billed as a fantasy, I would have enjoyed it, but to tell me this is truth is ludicrous.
Hope in the unreal
kev-2222 January 1999
Based on a famous "Cottingley fairies" hoax perpetrated by two English girls during World War I in 1917, "FairyTale: A True Story" presents alternate views of reality to suggest that, like the view of Aborigines, dreams are as real as conscious reality. If you take the special effects fairies too literally in this film, you will miss the point. The film plays a trick on you, just as the original incident played a trick on Sir Arthur Conan Doyle in 1917. Houdini, as played by Harvey Keitel, gets the point. Although he's one to debunk mystics who defraud the gullible, he too trades on people's need to believe in magic. The girls' deception is also a sort of benign fraud. As any magician, they should never reveal their "secret." The film invites comparisons to the famous French classic, "Forbidden Games" in which children construct an elaborate fantasy world as a way of coping with the reality of war. Here too, the girls use fairies to fill the void in their lives left by their father, who has gone "missing" on the front in France. "I know what they mean by 'missing,'" says one of the sisters, conscious of reality but hoping to "believe" in the unlikely event of his return. This is not a kiddie film, but a langorous period piece on the nature of belief and faith in the face of empirical skepticism. The film reinforces its theme with beautiful details, as at the end when the father says he smells the perfume which isn't there, or in the ghostly intrusion of a dead brother that changes the mind of a skeptical reporter. Even the final sequence, involving fairies, is so charming it steers clear of cynical manipulation. Although there are moments when the plot seems to become arbitrary or plodding, it's all tied up neatly and beautifully in a magical finale. I'd hesitate to call this a classic, but it is a worthwhile "sleeper." Just bring an open mind and heart.
Just an average film, but fantastic fairies!
raymond-151 May 2000
Do fairies,ghosts and extra-terrestrial beings really exist? Some people reply in the positive and why? Because they have seen them. Others have recorded them on photographic film...or have they? Is it a trick of the light or an unexplained blur on the exposed film? Imagination in hand with wishful thinking can work miracles. In this film two little girls living in the beautiful English countryside claim that they not only saw fairies, but actually captured them on film. The rest of the movie records the reaction of the media and notable figures of World War 1 England. Houdini the great escapologist claims he never gives away the secret of his famous escapes (and do people really want to know and thus destroy the magic of the moment?) He believes that the children do hold a secret and he tells them never to reveal it. On the other hand Conan Doyle accepts the photographs as the truth (or says he does) and thus gains notoriety himself by publishing articles about the phenomenon. The story as it is related leaves us in a bit of a quandary - to believe or not to believe. Not a great film by any means despite the presence of top stars such as Harvey Keitel and Peter O'Toole, but the film is definitely worth seeing solely for the scenes in which the fairies appear. Shaped like slender dragon-flies with gauzy wings that flutter at lightning speed, they dart about in the most convincing manner. And they are not cartoon characters either, but real actors with their names listed in the credits. See the film just to be enchanted by these wonderful creatures and then ask yourself "If only........"
Just Delightful
rkeinc3 September 2007
When I saw the average for this film was 6.2 I was uncertain whether I would watch it or not - I am so glad I DID! It was simply delightful and the acting superb, convincing and absolutely fun. I recommend this to anyone who wants to be entertained with a purity and simplicity rarely seen in today's films. It should be rated G and not PG since there was nothing offensive in it and I can't wait to watch it again with my grandson! Peter O'Toole, Harvey Keitel and the little girls made it all so believable. The English scenery, the attention to detail to the time period around 1917 and the entire storyline was wonderful. I recommend this movie to anyone who just wants to believe that there really are fairies. Enjoy!
Based on a Photograph
The-Sarkologist27 January 2012
Warning: Spoilers
When I watched this movie I was so tired that I slept through a part of it and didn't take in much of the other but from what I saw and from listening to others I picked up enough to comment on it. From what I heard this movie is based on some photographs taken in 1915 of some fairies. The photos could not be proved that they were faked and baffled a lot of people. What this movie has done is made the fairies real so as to create a child's movie.
The plot is very thin but it is about people believing in fairies. The end comes with everybody seeing the evidence of the existence of fairies and believing in them. The thing is that the fairies play very little part in this movie and it is more focused on the children. The fairies never speak and interact with the children very rarely.
This also seems to be an excuse to parade famous identities in the movie. We have Sir Arthur Conan Doyle and Harry Houdini as major characters in the movie and even show Houdini performing some of his escapes. Doyle is said to have written a book on fairies which my friend wanted to look for. He also said that the soundtrack was relaxing. They liked it but I slept and really had little interest in this movie. These fairies were the beautiful children fairies which I do not like, when it comes to fairies I like Faeries. What is the difference? Faeries are the more adult versions and appear in Mid-summer Night's Dream and Faerie Tale. These are much more vicious and hostile, especially Titania and Oberon in Midsummer Night's Dream. Those I love, Fairy Tale I don't. Oh well, each to his own.
The plot is very thin but it is about people believing in fairies. The end comes with everybody seeing the evidence of the existence of fairies and believing in them. The thing is that the fairies play very little part in this movie and it is more focused on the children. The fairies never speak and interact with the children very rarely.
This also seems to be an excuse to parade famous identities in the movie. We have Sir Arthur Conan Doyle and Harry Houdini as major characters in the movie and even show Houdini performing some of his escapes. Doyle is said to have written a book on fairies which my friend wanted to look for. He also said that the soundtrack was relaxing. They liked it but I slept and really had little interest in this movie. These fairies were the beautiful children fairies which I do not like, when it comes to fairies I like Faeries. What is the difference? Faeries are the more adult versions and appear in Mid-summer Night's Dream and Faerie Tale. These are much more vicious and hostile, especially Titania and Oberon in Midsummer Night's Dream. Those I love, Fairy Tale I don't. Oh well, each to his own.
Absolutely Magical!!!!
bellspirit24 August 2004
When I first saw the title and the packaging, I thought this film would be for younger viewers and that I'd probably be bored by it. I was totally wrong!!! What a completely enchanting film this turned out to be!!!! The story was wonderful and I wasn't bored for a minute. The two little girls who played the main characters were perfect for their parts. Part of the plot suggests that the girls' fairy photographs were a hoax, but then there are a few twists and turns that leave you thinking, maybe they do exist? Some visual effects were not overly done at all and they helped by enhancing the atmosphere and mood of the film. I could feel the fairy dust coming through the screen!! I *loved* this film and would watch it again and again!! A truly heartwarming, magical film!!
Watch a different movie
objviewer1 July 2023
Maybe I wouldn't have rated this so low if I hadn't seen a far superior rendering of this story. Despite some great actors (Peter O'Toole), and pretty scenery, FairyTale: A True Story is syrupy, lame, full of banal dialogue, and just plain boring. Movie sticks in plot points (someone died) to try and flesh out characters, but that's just how it feels - a plot point stuck in with no development.
Watch instead, "Photographing Fairies". A movie that achieves a tone both of mystery, and the sadness and grief that propels some to want to believe in "something more" , and others who feel their bitterness and cynicism is justified.
Problem is, I can't find "Photographing Fairies" anywhere to watch.
Watch instead, "Photographing Fairies". A movie that achieves a tone both of mystery, and the sadness and grief that propels some to want to believe in "something more" , and others who feel their bitterness and cynicism is justified.
Problem is, I can't find "Photographing Fairies" anywhere to watch.
As Harry Houdini says...
pekinman10 December 2004
..."I see only joy here." No truer words can be evoked to describe the purpose and effect of this beautiful film.
Charles Sturridge ('Brideshead Revisited' and 'A Handful of Dust') has assembled a cast that would be the envy of many other top flight producers and directors embarking upon a "serious" film. That is not to say this isn't a serious film, it is. It is marketed for children, naturally, but it has deeper levels that challenge the adult mind far beyond what one normally encounters in films directed towards adult audiences.
The quality of this script attracted such great actors as Peter O'Toole (Sir Arthur Conan Doyle), Harvey Keitel (Harry Houdini), Bill Nighy, Phoebe Nicholls, Paul McGann and a slew of other well-known British actors. You might also take note of Mel Gibson in an uncredited cameo at the very end.
Sturridge and his team of writers has come up with something beguilingly profound, flowing quietly beneath the simple story of two little girls who have managed to photograph fairies at the bottom of the garden. This is based on the famous "scandal" of the early 20th century when a similar event took place, only in the film the photographs are pronounce authentic whereas in the actual event in England the "experts" proved the photographs to be false. But the film does not pretend to represent the actual events but moves beyond them to a more fundamental issue of out times.
There is nothing "twee" about this movie either and it could have easily become mawkish and sugar-sweet in less committed hands.
I am left, after viewing this film, with Shakespeare's words ringing in my head... "there is far more in heaven and earth than meets [our] little philosophy."
In this blighted age of science and money-worship it is good to be reminded that we limit ourselves through our cynical prejudices and need to have everything proved scientifically, usually for profit.
When the condition of our lives and society has got you all blocked up, watch this little gem and weep for everything that has been lost to us. You will feel better afterward.
I will stop this commentary abruptly now by recommending 'Fairy Tale' to one and all. And get out the Kleenex box before you begin.
Charles Sturridge ('Brideshead Revisited' and 'A Handful of Dust') has assembled a cast that would be the envy of many other top flight producers and directors embarking upon a "serious" film. That is not to say this isn't a serious film, it is. It is marketed for children, naturally, but it has deeper levels that challenge the adult mind far beyond what one normally encounters in films directed towards adult audiences.
The quality of this script attracted such great actors as Peter O'Toole (Sir Arthur Conan Doyle), Harvey Keitel (Harry Houdini), Bill Nighy, Phoebe Nicholls, Paul McGann and a slew of other well-known British actors. You might also take note of Mel Gibson in an uncredited cameo at the very end.
Sturridge and his team of writers has come up with something beguilingly profound, flowing quietly beneath the simple story of two little girls who have managed to photograph fairies at the bottom of the garden. This is based on the famous "scandal" of the early 20th century when a similar event took place, only in the film the photographs are pronounce authentic whereas in the actual event in England the "experts" proved the photographs to be false. But the film does not pretend to represent the actual events but moves beyond them to a more fundamental issue of out times.
There is nothing "twee" about this movie either and it could have easily become mawkish and sugar-sweet in less committed hands.
I am left, after viewing this film, with Shakespeare's words ringing in my head... "there is far more in heaven and earth than meets [our] little philosophy."
In this blighted age of science and money-worship it is good to be reminded that we limit ourselves through our cynical prejudices and need to have everything proved scientifically, usually for profit.
When the condition of our lives and society has got you all blocked up, watch this little gem and weep for everything that has been lost to us. You will feel better afterward.
I will stop this commentary abruptly now by recommending 'Fairy Tale' to one and all. And get out the Kleenex box before you begin.
Other Reviewers Are WRONG About One Thing....
super-joey3 September 2019
Warning: Spoilers
Other reviewers have pointed out that, in real life, the girls admitted their photographs were fake. So why does the movie say they were genuine? Well, actually the movie does not say that. Watch very closely. While some of the characters think the photos were real, there is a scene where it is made clear that the photographs were, in fact, faked.
The film merely maintains that the fairies *themselves* were real. Not the photos. Apparently the girls were unable to get photos of the actual fairies so they faked photos instead. That's the movie's point of view.
The idea, I suspect, was to tell the true story but without spoiling it for the kids in the audience.
Now, of course there are other alterations to historical facts... But that's typical for any movie based on a true story. Still, it's a fantastic tale with fun performances from the likes of Harvey Keitel and Peter O'Toole to name just a couple. It's also got a great tone, spirit and a really good soundtrack. Fairy Tale was one of my favorite movies of 1997.
Watch for a true cameo appearance (uncredited small role) by Mel Gibson.
The film merely maintains that the fairies *themselves* were real. Not the photos. Apparently the girls were unable to get photos of the actual fairies so they faked photos instead. That's the movie's point of view.
The idea, I suspect, was to tell the true story but without spoiling it for the kids in the audience.
Now, of course there are other alterations to historical facts... But that's typical for any movie based on a true story. Still, it's a fantastic tale with fun performances from the likes of Harvey Keitel and Peter O'Toole to name just a couple. It's also got a great tone, spirit and a really good soundtrack. Fairy Tale was one of my favorite movies of 1997.
Watch for a true cameo appearance (uncredited small role) by Mel Gibson.
Fairly Untrue
neongen31 July 2022
Style of the piece is flat, that is does not cause the viewer to become emotionally invested in the events. Even worse virtually everything in the story is fiction using the real events as a scaffold. Don't like distortions of real life events. Did not last to the end.
A Wistful, Visual Masterpiece!
Gunn27 October 1998
Few films affect me as immediately as Fairy Tale: A True Story. It is visually stunning, excellently acted with star turns by Peter O'Toole and Harvey Keitel. The story is engrossing and you can decide for yourself whether it is about a hoax or not, but that is not important here. It captures the period of the early 1900s magnificently. Special effects are unbelievably realistic. Apparently Academy members never saw this film or it would have gathered a handful of Oscars. The cinematography should have garnered an Oscar as should the moving and glorious music score. I plan to purchase the CD. Despite the title, this film is more for adults and older children. It would not hold the attention of the younger ones.
For true believers in the power of magic and innocence
uds322 May 2002
Maybe on account of the fact that being 2/3 through my alotted span and with a terrible awareness of what this world is really like and having also managed to really never grow up, I found this film to be the most touching and magical experience of my life. I am more than happy to tell you that the last ten minutes of the film brought tears to my eyes as I witnessed what every young child wants to see....and CAN if only they can put aside life's pitiful and distracting reality.
Released the same time as the excellent PHOTOGRAPHING FAIRIES, both films dwell on the factual events of 1917 when childhood friends Elsie Wright and Florence Griffiths took what they professed to be real photographs of fairies in their immediate neighborhood. The incredible photographs were declared non-hoaxes and even incurred the attention of such as Arthur Conan Doyle and Harry Houdini who visited the girls and examined the phenomenon. Peter O'Toole especially, as Conan Doyle is just superb in his characterisation (why am I NOT surprised?)
Absolutely sumptuous cinematography, a most literate of scripts and some grade A acting, especially from the two girls. The film had a larger budget than PHOTOGRAPHING FAIRIES and it shows. The highlight of course and that which the younger viewers must wait patiently for, is the quite staggering appearance of the fairies at the end. As brilliant a series of special effects as I have ever seen. Several people don't appear to have seen Mel Gibson - you weren't looking to closely!!
The truth or otherwise about the photographs has since been made public although few appear to know. I have no comment to add. If you WANT to know more, contact me.
Released the same time as the excellent PHOTOGRAPHING FAIRIES, both films dwell on the factual events of 1917 when childhood friends Elsie Wright and Florence Griffiths took what they professed to be real photographs of fairies in their immediate neighborhood. The incredible photographs were declared non-hoaxes and even incurred the attention of such as Arthur Conan Doyle and Harry Houdini who visited the girls and examined the phenomenon. Peter O'Toole especially, as Conan Doyle is just superb in his characterisation (why am I NOT surprised?)
Absolutely sumptuous cinematography, a most literate of scripts and some grade A acting, especially from the two girls. The film had a larger budget than PHOTOGRAPHING FAIRIES and it shows. The highlight of course and that which the younger viewers must wait patiently for, is the quite staggering appearance of the fairies at the end. As brilliant a series of special effects as I have ever seen. Several people don't appear to have seen Mel Gibson - you weren't looking to closely!!
The truth or otherwise about the photographs has since been made public although few appear to know. I have no comment to add. If you WANT to know more, contact me.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
