This is an enjoyable film but if you are expecting a film of the book you won't get it. It begins accurately enough but segues into pure fantasy. The secret garden, which should be a walled garden of ordinary size becomes a massive acreage. The whole point is that the garden is neglected and Mary's story is about rescuing the garden, tending it with Dickon, learning to sow and grow plants and through the garden saving Colin and herself. That was all lost here with the garden some sort of Eden that would be most unlikely in Yorkshire and totally unrealistic. Why make a film of a book and then completely ignore the book? Disappointing.
130 Reviews
Well I enjoyed it
theresehaynes26 October 2020
I nearly didn't watch it because of the awful reviews on this site.
I"m glad I have learned to use my own discrepancy .
I've seen all the original films and read the book.
So I had an idea what to expect.
I wanted a bit of fantasy and escapism. The Secret garden is comforting and familiar territory .
Beautiful scenery, good acting nice familiar storyline.
it was exactly what I needed during this miserable Covid-19 time.
Please ignore the ridiculously negative reviews and snuggle down and with it for yourself.
Bad remake
nagyovamonika24 October 2020
Blech, blech, blech, blech
maynarddugan14 November 2020
Frances Hodgson Burnett's novel is charming. This movie is a bloated melodrama. 1. Just because you can use CGI doesn't mean you have to. 2. Who needs all the ancillary backstory(ies) that aren't in the novel, and serve no useful narrative purpose. 3. In this film, the secret garden - which is, in the novel, a secret garden - is about the size of the county of Cornwall in England, and full of all sorts of exotic plants that are not in the garden in the novel. In the novel, the children gain agency in their lives by learning to take care of the secret garden, and bring order into a place that has been abandoned and left to go wild (as, in some respects, two of the children have been left uncared-for) - this is sort of the whole point of the story. It would take an army of professional gardeners months if not years to maintain the garden in this film. Read the book, watch the earlier movie. Miss this one.
Mr Darcy becomes Mrs Danvers
istara28 September 2020
The Secret Garden (2020) is a movie of two halves. The first half verges on excellent, with some creative and beautiful CGI used to represent Mary's imagination. The scenes in the chaos of golden, dusty India followed by the bleak grey of England are harrowing in different ways.
It starts so well: how could it finish so badly?
About half way through the whole thing devolves into a car crash of overblown CGI Disney schmaltz. Suddenly dream/imagination sequences are "real", there are ghosts, there's a bizarre attempt to create a mystery where there's no mystery in the book nor a need for one (isn't the Garden enough?) and weird themes of mental illness and maternal abandonment that simply don't add anything. That these children are orphaned is surely enough?
The child actress who plays Mary, Dixie Egerickx (she'll be spelling out that surname all her life) is superb. She has an "intelligent stillness" that sets her apart. I don't doubt she will go very far, and probably end up a Dame if she sticks with acting. She's very watchable.
Julie Walters is excellent as Mrs Medlock, but then she's always excellent! Isis Davis as Martha is also very enjoyable. Amir Wilson isn't given much of a role as her brother Dickon (I recall it as a larger, more interesting role in the book and other productions). Even in Midsummer when Mary's winter coat has changed to a light skirt and blouse, he appears to be wearing the same padded sack. Edan Hayhurst playing Colin is quite good.
And Colin Firth: poor Colin Firth. In this production he's given a hunchback and ultimately turned into Mrs Danvers, staggering through a burning house with a face like doom - why show us those beautiful frescoes/murals one moment if only to burn them to pieces the next? - while his beloved dead wife's preserved possessions are consumed by the flames. What an absurd ending: Mary and her uncle would have been unconscious within seconds from the heat and flames, but their escape goes on and on and on.
I was left wondering why I had gone to see The Secret Garden but emerged from a surreal production of Rebecca.
It starts so well: how could it finish so badly?
About half way through the whole thing devolves into a car crash of overblown CGI Disney schmaltz. Suddenly dream/imagination sequences are "real", there are ghosts, there's a bizarre attempt to create a mystery where there's no mystery in the book nor a need for one (isn't the Garden enough?) and weird themes of mental illness and maternal abandonment that simply don't add anything. That these children are orphaned is surely enough?
The child actress who plays Mary, Dixie Egerickx (she'll be spelling out that surname all her life) is superb. She has an "intelligent stillness" that sets her apart. I don't doubt she will go very far, and probably end up a Dame if she sticks with acting. She's very watchable.
Julie Walters is excellent as Mrs Medlock, but then she's always excellent! Isis Davis as Martha is also very enjoyable. Amir Wilson isn't given much of a role as her brother Dickon (I recall it as a larger, more interesting role in the book and other productions). Even in Midsummer when Mary's winter coat has changed to a light skirt and blouse, he appears to be wearing the same padded sack. Edan Hayhurst playing Colin is quite good.
And Colin Firth: poor Colin Firth. In this production he's given a hunchback and ultimately turned into Mrs Danvers, staggering through a burning house with a face like doom - why show us those beautiful frescoes/murals one moment if only to burn them to pieces the next? - while his beloved dead wife's preserved possessions are consumed by the flames. What an absurd ending: Mary and her uncle would have been unconscious within seconds from the heat and flames, but their escape goes on and on and on.
I was left wondering why I had gone to see The Secret Garden but emerged from a surreal production of Rebecca.
So disappointed
davidporter5323 October 2020
If you have read the book, then prepare to be disappointed This doesn't do the book justice at all. The deviation from the original story lost everything that was special about the book.
If you haven't read the book then it's possible you may like this film, but if you are a fan of the book then avoid this film at all costs.
If you haven't read the book then it's possible you may like this film, but if you are a fan of the book then avoid this film at all costs.
Pretty but boring
Gordon-118 August 2020
Not much happens in the film, and the characters are rather flat and dull. The colour scheme is beautiful, but it doesn't save the film from being a bore. I'm not the target demographic, so I thought it was pretty but boring.
follow that Robin
ferguson-66 August 2020
Warning: Spoilers
Greetings again from the darkness. In the years since Frances Hodgson Burnett's novel was first published in 1911, "The Secret Garden" has become one of the most popular and oft-read children's books. Previous film adaptations include the 1949 version with Margaret O'Brien and Dean Stockwell, and the 1993 version with Kate Maberly and Maggie Smith. Additionally, the novel has been adapted numerous times for the stage and television. Director Marc Munden is working with the screenplay adapted by Jack Thorne (WONDER, 2017), and the two had previously collaborated on the BBC series "National Treasure". Readers of the beloved novel will certainly recognize the changes and differences within this version, both in characters and theme.
As the film begins, we are told it's "the eve of Partition", which was the 1947 division of British India into two separate states: India and Pakistan. This timing is, of course, quite a bit later than Ms. Burnett's setting, but the effect is the same - young Mary Lennox (Dixie Egerickx) is orphaned when her parents die, and left alone when the servants desert her. She is shipped off to live with an uncle (Oscar winner Colin Firth) she doesn't know. Accompanied to massive Misselthwaite Manor by the housekeeper, Mrs. Medlock (Julie Walters), Mary quickly understands that Uncle Archibald Craven is a grieving widow (his wife was Mary's mother's sister) who is not to be disturbed, and his hunchback is not to be stared upon. Mary soon learns that her spoiled brat manner will not be tolerated, though her natural spunk will prove advantageous. The young girl is one who is accustomed to be waited on, while also wanting to prove her independence.
Mary's imagination is extraordinary and she often asks, "Do you want to hear a story?" CGI effects allow us to see what she has envisioned, whether it's the wallpaper coming to life, or her mother and aunt frolicking through the halls or swinging in the garden. Mary soon befriends Martha the maid (Isis Davis), and then happens upon "Jemima" the dog while wandering the estate grounds. It's here where the fantastical and supernatural meet reality, and a helpful Robin leads Mary to the key that unlocks the gates of the gardens that have been locked away since Uncle's wife died. Mary and her new friend Dickon (Amir Wilson) go on adventures through the garden - a garden which has mystical powers.
One evening Mary hears cries echoing in the halls of Misselthwaite. Despite being forbidden from exploring, she discovers her cousin Colin (Edan Hayhurst) locked away in a far off bedroom. Colin is a sickly child, supposedly stricken with a spinal problem that keeps him from going outside. Mary continues to visit Colin, and soon she and Dickon are sneaking Colin into the secret garden, where the magical healing powers begin to take hold. The titular garden doesn't make an appearance until about one hour in, but its beauty and wonder are on full display.
This is a story about the power of loss and grief and depression, and it offers the life lesson that the things we care for blossom and grow and thrive. This version has some elements of such classics as "Peter Pan" and "The Chronicles of Narnia" in that fantasy and magic play a much larger role than in the novel. Director Munden employs a darker approach and seems to emphasize self-discovery. Young actress Dixie Egerickx was a standout in the recently watched SUMMERLAND, and she is terrific here - despite the changes to the story that some fans might not embrace. The film seems a bit disjointed at times, but it's always a feast for the eyes, and offers up one of the year's best scores, courtesy of Oscar winner Dario Marianelli (ATONEMENT, 2007).
As the film begins, we are told it's "the eve of Partition", which was the 1947 division of British India into two separate states: India and Pakistan. This timing is, of course, quite a bit later than Ms. Burnett's setting, but the effect is the same - young Mary Lennox (Dixie Egerickx) is orphaned when her parents die, and left alone when the servants desert her. She is shipped off to live with an uncle (Oscar winner Colin Firth) she doesn't know. Accompanied to massive Misselthwaite Manor by the housekeeper, Mrs. Medlock (Julie Walters), Mary quickly understands that Uncle Archibald Craven is a grieving widow (his wife was Mary's mother's sister) who is not to be disturbed, and his hunchback is not to be stared upon. Mary soon learns that her spoiled brat manner will not be tolerated, though her natural spunk will prove advantageous. The young girl is one who is accustomed to be waited on, while also wanting to prove her independence.
Mary's imagination is extraordinary and she often asks, "Do you want to hear a story?" CGI effects allow us to see what she has envisioned, whether it's the wallpaper coming to life, or her mother and aunt frolicking through the halls or swinging in the garden. Mary soon befriends Martha the maid (Isis Davis), and then happens upon "Jemima" the dog while wandering the estate grounds. It's here where the fantastical and supernatural meet reality, and a helpful Robin leads Mary to the key that unlocks the gates of the gardens that have been locked away since Uncle's wife died. Mary and her new friend Dickon (Amir Wilson) go on adventures through the garden - a garden which has mystical powers.
One evening Mary hears cries echoing in the halls of Misselthwaite. Despite being forbidden from exploring, she discovers her cousin Colin (Edan Hayhurst) locked away in a far off bedroom. Colin is a sickly child, supposedly stricken with a spinal problem that keeps him from going outside. Mary continues to visit Colin, and soon she and Dickon are sneaking Colin into the secret garden, where the magical healing powers begin to take hold. The titular garden doesn't make an appearance until about one hour in, but its beauty and wonder are on full display.
This is a story about the power of loss and grief and depression, and it offers the life lesson that the things we care for blossom and grow and thrive. This version has some elements of such classics as "Peter Pan" and "The Chronicles of Narnia" in that fantasy and magic play a much larger role than in the novel. Director Munden employs a darker approach and seems to emphasize self-discovery. Young actress Dixie Egerickx was a standout in the recently watched SUMMERLAND, and she is terrific here - despite the changes to the story that some fans might not embrace. The film seems a bit disjointed at times, but it's always a feast for the eyes, and offers up one of the year's best scores, courtesy of Oscar winner Dario Marianelli (ATONEMENT, 2007).
Poor adaptation very disappointing
lornamgibbon9 November 2020
Warning: Spoilers
I have read and re-read the book over many years and I have seen many adaptations of it. This was by far the worst I have ever seen. The whole essence of the book was completely ignored/lost. It started off not too badly, although it was set in 1947 when the original was published in 1911 - but thereafter it deteriorated both quickly and badly
Odd scenes from the book were depicted - but mostly completely out of context so the viewer did not get a proper feel for what the writer of the book intended. There was no Ben Weatherstaff, Archibald Craven (Colin Firth) was at the manor all the time instead of being absent for most of it and it turned into a weird psychological Disney type movie with an ending that had (almost) nothing that was recognisable from the original story
Odd scenes from the book were depicted - but mostly completely out of context so the viewer did not get a proper feel for what the writer of the book intended. There was no Ben Weatherstaff, Archibald Craven (Colin Firth) was at the manor all the time instead of being absent for most of it and it turned into a weird psychological Disney type movie with an ending that had (almost) nothing that was recognisable from the original story
Easy watch children's movie
clarkecol26 October 2020
This is of course a remake of a film which has unfortunately been remade before and if you have seen the previous films this one will not seem as good but it is a good film in its own right. The characters and storyline vary a little, but the young actors and actress do bring their own style and life to their characters. Well worth a watch on a rainy day.
Feels a lot longer than it is - and quite gloomy
thekarmicnomad17 August 2020
A young girl in the 1940's has to go and live with a distant uncle she doesn't know and she finds a secret garden and some friends.
This starts of very bleak. The only comparison I can think of for this level of isolation, loneliness and alienation is "28 Days Later." The film carries on like this for a while and we get to know the unhappy lead character rather well.
As little girls in the 1940's, stuck in dusty manors in the middle of the moors don't really get up to much the film feels very, very slow and voyeuristic at times.
You get shots of fingers brushing leaves, shoes stamping in puddles, misty moorland, overcast skies, etc.
Then the movie has to put its foot down to get the actual story underway. All that time defining this disturbed, distant little girl is erased in an instant when she suddenly realises that her mum did love her and she transforms into Pollyanna overnight. She then runs around the estate marking off her check list of people to fix.
After an hour and a quarter of gloom and depression the last fifteen minutes are just too cloying. It is like being punched in the throat by a fist made of sweetener.
The young actors are very good. Colin Firth, Julie Walters and Isis Davis are only there for set dressing. The garden is vibrant and bright but not really a garden and no distinction is made between fantasy and reality so you never really get a handle on what it is.
This is a short film that feels long and leaves you struggling to remember what you just watched.
This starts of very bleak. The only comparison I can think of for this level of isolation, loneliness and alienation is "28 Days Later." The film carries on like this for a while and we get to know the unhappy lead character rather well.
As little girls in the 1940's, stuck in dusty manors in the middle of the moors don't really get up to much the film feels very, very slow and voyeuristic at times.
You get shots of fingers brushing leaves, shoes stamping in puddles, misty moorland, overcast skies, etc.
Then the movie has to put its foot down to get the actual story underway. All that time defining this disturbed, distant little girl is erased in an instant when she suddenly realises that her mum did love her and she transforms into Pollyanna overnight. She then runs around the estate marking off her check list of people to fix.
After an hour and a quarter of gloom and depression the last fifteen minutes are just too cloying. It is like being punched in the throat by a fist made of sweetener.
The young actors are very good. Colin Firth, Julie Walters and Isis Davis are only there for set dressing. The garden is vibrant and bright but not really a garden and no distinction is made between fantasy and reality so you never really get a handle on what it is.
This is a short film that feels long and leaves you struggling to remember what you just watched.
For the classic introverted child to showcase their imaginations.
ianjameswatson11 August 2020
This was one of those stories I remember being read to as a child. It was good quality time with my mum and I always remembered how much she loved reading it even though as a child I could tell it was probably more girly than I'd want. I loved the classic superhero stuff as a boy. I always thought the film with Maggie Smith was a bit odd, especially between the cousins but enjoyed the story anyway. Now I'm older, maybe I just appreciate it more, but I thought this was really heartwarming. I felt like the CGI worked well and wasn't overdone but understand if people see it as otherwise, I felt like it fed the imagination of the writer or director reading their own version of the story and it just seemed like a bonus if anything. I think the storyline was much clearer than the 1993 version and could really help those struggling with loss with a ton of happy emotions. The actors were great and for those annoyed by the children, they're not supposed to be likeable characters in the story, that should be fairly obvious but I don't understand how people can't appreciate the growth of a character. I think this would be a great film to watch with the family and I'm looking forward to sharing it with my girl when she's grown and we've read through the book together. I also think it might help children who find it hard to process their emotions and can potentially be too introverted. I remember as a child, because of this story I felt inspired to have an imagination and with the added bonus of the CGI in this, it'll surely help children express their creativity on what they see. Give it a go! It's a stunning film.
A bright, colourful looking update to a classic children's novel that may or may not win over modern audiences
MrDHWong20 August 2020
The Secret Garden is a fantasy drama film based on the novel of the same name by Frances Hodgson Burnett. Starring Colin Firth and Julie Walters, it is a bright, colourful looking update to a classic children's novel that may or may not win over modern audiences.
In 1947, young Mary Lennox (Dixie Egerickx) is taken away from her home in India to live at her strict uncle Lord Craven's (Colin Firth) large mansion in Yorkshire, England after both of her parents die from cholera. Due to the neglected nature of her upbringing, Mary has great difficulty expressing her emotions and struggles to open up to other people. Upon arriving at the mansion, Mary soon discovers that it hides various secrets and mysteries, including that of a large beautiful garden locked away from the rest of the estate. Over time, Mary befriends a stray dog she names Jemima, a young boy named Dickon (Amir Wilson), the brother of one of her uncle's maids, and also meets her bedridden cousin Colin (Edan Hayhurst), the latter of which she believes spending time in the garden will cure him of all his ailments.
Up to this point, there have been three previous film adaptations of "The Secret Garden", with the 1993 version considered to be the one that most people fondly remember. This 2020 reimagining doesn't so much feel like a remake of that film but rather its own unique take on what I can only guess made the original novel a classic in the first place. I have not read the novel but I have seen and enjoyed the 1993 film so this is the only thing I am able to compare this one to. With that said, although I think the 1993 film is superior, I did like how the 2020 film kept its important moral intact, being that the story is essentially a metaphor for personal growth and self-improvement. Both films communicate this message over to children in a relatively easy to understand manner, not once feeling as though it is talking down to them or belittling them for the changes they may be going through. Instead, they are shown that life can be unfair at certain points and that the only way to get through it is to work at your problems and find new methods of progressing forward.
What I feel is this film's biggest issue is its choppily edited first act. The whole time it seemed as though the director wanted to tell Mary's backstory through some oddly placed flashbacks and hallucinations during her stay at the mansion. This proved highly distracting and made it difficult to take in the atmosphere of her new environment when it kept jumping back and forth between Mary's life in India and her life in England. A technique like this may have worked better on paper, but on screen it just felt like an awkward afterthought added in post-production. On the other hand, one thing I think this film does considerably better than its 1993 predecessor was the visual style. I loved the use of vibrant colours in the titular secret garden juxtaposed against the backdrop of the gloomy lurid looking mansion. It really gave the sense that this garden was a magical place of escapism that the children can play in without a care in the world.
All of the film's child actors did a fine job in their roles, with Dixie Egerickx clearly being the standout as Mary. It is never easy for most people to step out of their comfort zone as they try to adjust to living in a new area, and Egerickx's performance definitely gave off that feeling that anyone who is going through such a thing will be able to find something to relate to. I also loved the adorable dog known as Jemima, who wasn't in any previous adaptations as far as I know and it really added a nice air of cuteness to the story. However, I was disappointed with how underused all of the adults were. Colin Firth barely has enough screen time to leave an impression, which is a shame because I was genuinely curious to see how he could have played his character in comparison to the actor in the 1993 film. The same can be said for Julie Walters, whose 1993 counterpart to her role was played by Maggie Smith, who was one of that film's standouts. This may have been done to put more emphasis on the child characters, but the 1993 film had a nice balance between the children and the adults so I don't understand why they couldn't do that here as well.
Even though it may not be remembered as affectionately as its previous adaptation, I'd say that this film still has just enough in it for most audiences to enjoy. Nevertheless, the 1993 film is still the better one and I definitely prefer it for the various reasons stated above. Watching both of these films has actually made me interested in reading the original novel to see how it compares to all these onscreen treatments and I am certain the story is better in print form. With that said, go and see the 1993 film if you haven't already, and if you feel up to it, watch this one afterwards.
I rate it 6.5/10
In 1947, young Mary Lennox (Dixie Egerickx) is taken away from her home in India to live at her strict uncle Lord Craven's (Colin Firth) large mansion in Yorkshire, England after both of her parents die from cholera. Due to the neglected nature of her upbringing, Mary has great difficulty expressing her emotions and struggles to open up to other people. Upon arriving at the mansion, Mary soon discovers that it hides various secrets and mysteries, including that of a large beautiful garden locked away from the rest of the estate. Over time, Mary befriends a stray dog she names Jemima, a young boy named Dickon (Amir Wilson), the brother of one of her uncle's maids, and also meets her bedridden cousin Colin (Edan Hayhurst), the latter of which she believes spending time in the garden will cure him of all his ailments.
Up to this point, there have been three previous film adaptations of "The Secret Garden", with the 1993 version considered to be the one that most people fondly remember. This 2020 reimagining doesn't so much feel like a remake of that film but rather its own unique take on what I can only guess made the original novel a classic in the first place. I have not read the novel but I have seen and enjoyed the 1993 film so this is the only thing I am able to compare this one to. With that said, although I think the 1993 film is superior, I did like how the 2020 film kept its important moral intact, being that the story is essentially a metaphor for personal growth and self-improvement. Both films communicate this message over to children in a relatively easy to understand manner, not once feeling as though it is talking down to them or belittling them for the changes they may be going through. Instead, they are shown that life can be unfair at certain points and that the only way to get through it is to work at your problems and find new methods of progressing forward.
What I feel is this film's biggest issue is its choppily edited first act. The whole time it seemed as though the director wanted to tell Mary's backstory through some oddly placed flashbacks and hallucinations during her stay at the mansion. This proved highly distracting and made it difficult to take in the atmosphere of her new environment when it kept jumping back and forth between Mary's life in India and her life in England. A technique like this may have worked better on paper, but on screen it just felt like an awkward afterthought added in post-production. On the other hand, one thing I think this film does considerably better than its 1993 predecessor was the visual style. I loved the use of vibrant colours in the titular secret garden juxtaposed against the backdrop of the gloomy lurid looking mansion. It really gave the sense that this garden was a magical place of escapism that the children can play in without a care in the world.
All of the film's child actors did a fine job in their roles, with Dixie Egerickx clearly being the standout as Mary. It is never easy for most people to step out of their comfort zone as they try to adjust to living in a new area, and Egerickx's performance definitely gave off that feeling that anyone who is going through such a thing will be able to find something to relate to. I also loved the adorable dog known as Jemima, who wasn't in any previous adaptations as far as I know and it really added a nice air of cuteness to the story. However, I was disappointed with how underused all of the adults were. Colin Firth barely has enough screen time to leave an impression, which is a shame because I was genuinely curious to see how he could have played his character in comparison to the actor in the 1993 film. The same can be said for Julie Walters, whose 1993 counterpart to her role was played by Maggie Smith, who was one of that film's standouts. This may have been done to put more emphasis on the child characters, but the 1993 film had a nice balance between the children and the adults so I don't understand why they couldn't do that here as well.
Even though it may not be remembered as affectionately as its previous adaptation, I'd say that this film still has just enough in it for most audiences to enjoy. Nevertheless, the 1993 film is still the better one and I definitely prefer it for the various reasons stated above. Watching both of these films has actually made me interested in reading the original novel to see how it compares to all these onscreen treatments and I am certain the story is better in print form. With that said, go and see the 1993 film if you haven't already, and if you feel up to it, watch this one afterwards.
I rate it 6.5/10
Sara Crewe replaces Mary Lennox in a duller version of The Secret Garden
kattygurl_2113 February 2021
Warning: Spoilers
It felt like a less developed Sara Crewe (from A Little Princess) was dropped into The Secret Garden. All of the characters that shape Mary in the book to be a better, kinder person seem harsher and blander, while the more selfish characters are all made softer. Meanwhile, Mary is not near as selfish or as spoiled and is far more imaginative than she was even in the end of the novel. And it seems to show a completely different childhood than in the books with flashbacks of her father playing with her. And while we see her mother avoiding her, it suggests that her mother did use to let Mary share her stories with her and was involved with her and letters that indicated that she did love Mary.
Martha in the book was a cheerful and kind young woman who introduces Mary to what it is to actually be cared about not just cared for. She even gives her a gift, despite having little herself. While also helping her form relationships with some of the other characters (like her mother and Dickon). In the movie, she is short-tempered with Mary and often dismissive (bordering on mean). She doesn't teach Mary anything. Mary already knows how to care for herself, dress herself, and even has the jump rope already. And instead of encouraging her to meet and befriend Dickon, she tells Mary that Dickon "already has enough problems without you to bother him". Dickon is not near as cheerful or kind either. And Collin doesn't want to go out into the garden., they basically kidnap him and force him to go out.
In the book, it is a big deal to Mary to befriend the bird who is selective in its relationships, never having had a friend or knowing how to be one herself. In the movie she befriends a dog with food basically on day 2. And there is more time spent on her playing with the dog than her actually developing as a character. While the robin basically just flies into some shots but plays no real role.
The fire really adds nothing. And none of the relationships feel fully developed.
Overall, it felt like an incredibly hollow version of the original with only a small fraction of its growth or depth. And the main character had the least amount of character development.
All that said, some of the visual effects were beautiful and it did look very pretty. It just didn't feel substantive.
Martha in the book was a cheerful and kind young woman who introduces Mary to what it is to actually be cared about not just cared for. She even gives her a gift, despite having little herself. While also helping her form relationships with some of the other characters (like her mother and Dickon). In the movie, she is short-tempered with Mary and often dismissive (bordering on mean). She doesn't teach Mary anything. Mary already knows how to care for herself, dress herself, and even has the jump rope already. And instead of encouraging her to meet and befriend Dickon, she tells Mary that Dickon "already has enough problems without you to bother him". Dickon is not near as cheerful or kind either. And Collin doesn't want to go out into the garden., they basically kidnap him and force him to go out.
In the book, it is a big deal to Mary to befriend the bird who is selective in its relationships, never having had a friend or knowing how to be one herself. In the movie she befriends a dog with food basically on day 2. And there is more time spent on her playing with the dog than her actually developing as a character. While the robin basically just flies into some shots but plays no real role.
The fire really adds nothing. And none of the relationships feel fully developed.
Overall, it felt like an incredibly hollow version of the original with only a small fraction of its growth or depth. And the main character had the least amount of character development.
All that said, some of the visual effects were beautiful and it did look very pretty. It just didn't feel substantive.
It should have stayed a secret.
Pjtaylor-96-13804424 October 2020
Despite some emotionally mature themes and a decent sense of atmosphere, 'The Secret Garden (2020)' feels relatively uninspired and lifeless. It isn't particularly engaging and its protagonist is somewhat abrasive (abrasive by design but abrasive nevertheless). It does have some strong set-design; the eponymous garden is lavish and bright, contrasting nicely with the drab yet grand mansion that acts as its counterpoint. The performances are all decent (although the main male character is actually rather annoying) and the ending does a good job of tying all the subtext together. It's not a terrible experience, but it isn't exactly good, either. It just sort of unfolds in front of you, only occasionally getting you involved with its narrative. It's just about passable, but I wouldn't really recommend it. 4/10
A story of friendship and healing, with the garden as a character.
TxMike25 November 2020
As the movie starts it is 1947 and a small British girl and her family are living well in India. Then when both parents die, newly orphaned she is sent to her wealthy uncle's estate in England. Not sure what age she was supposed to be, the actress was 12 during filming.
She has led a privileged life and at first is difficult in her new surroundings. Then wandering around the large estate encounters a dog, she feeds it the meat from her sandwich, soon the two are looking for each other each day.
Then the dog takes her to a place surrounded by a tall, old wall overgrown with various vegetation, she climbs and inside finds a wonderous, somewhat magical garden, the "secret garden" of the title. Further investigation reveals it was a favorite getaway for her mother and aunt.
She also discovers she has a cousin living in the same big house, a boy mostly bed-bound. Then she meets a local boy out at the garden, eventually the three of them explore together.
All of them, and including the dad, had healings that were needed, the friendships and perhaps some of the magic of the garden help all of them.
Good movie, my wife and I watched it at home on DVD from our public library. Watching the extras on the disc, for the filming in the secret garden they actually used a number of the best gardens in the UK for sites and stitched them together for the film to seem like it was all at one place.
She has led a privileged life and at first is difficult in her new surroundings. Then wandering around the large estate encounters a dog, she feeds it the meat from her sandwich, soon the two are looking for each other each day.
Then the dog takes her to a place surrounded by a tall, old wall overgrown with various vegetation, she climbs and inside finds a wonderous, somewhat magical garden, the "secret garden" of the title. Further investigation reveals it was a favorite getaway for her mother and aunt.
She also discovers she has a cousin living in the same big house, a boy mostly bed-bound. Then she meets a local boy out at the garden, eventually the three of them explore together.
All of them, and including the dad, had healings that were needed, the friendships and perhaps some of the magic of the garden help all of them.
Good movie, my wife and I watched it at home on DVD from our public library. Watching the extras on the disc, for the filming in the secret garden they actually used a number of the best gardens in the UK for sites and stitched them together for the film to seem like it was all at one place.
It's too much
desy_8326 August 2020
This movie looks beautiful, it really does. And the acting is good. But why oh why did they feel they needed to upgrade an already amazing story? It's too embellished, and there are new storylines added that weren't in the book. Why? The story is magical enough as it is!
The entire movie seems like Mary's hallucinating!
ezragambler25 September 2020
I was actually liking this movie, until every other scene looked like a weird hallucination that Mary had. It started to seem incredibly random. They took out all the novel's world-building & replaced it with cgi. While beautiful, it wasn't very coherent. Changing the movie's timeline to the 40's didnt seem necessary other than being different to the other adaptations.
The book was better but I still enjoyed it
artsycutie12 August 2020
Warning: Spoilers
I still remember being a little girl and seeing my dad building my first bookshelf in my room and my mom putting my first book onto the bookshelf. Not knowing that the book was going to change my life, I read a book about loss and tragedy, but also about life and innocence. It was the first time I learned about the moral of the book, which was that a child's love and kindness can heal the emotional scars of their parents. I remember reading this book over and over again because it was so beautiful. As it was the first book I had ever read in my entire life, I would probably remember it for the rest of my life. I cried throughout the film, thinking about the first time I ever opened this book. I kept this book so close to my heart because it is about rejuvenation and healing. There's so many beautiful metaphors and symbolism in it; I remember that the children saved the secret garden, and in return the garden saved them. The grief and loss and despair of parents was something I didn't understand as a child, but I understood much later how important it is that even a child can teach an adult many lessons. At the end of the film, the father said: "How is it that we are taught by our children?" I thought this line was the most powerful one because he had made so many mistakes in his life, but his son taught him to forgive and think about life and how beautiful life can be, like the secret garden. Anyways, I prefer the book much more than the film, but I'm so grateful that this was the first book I ever owned and read
If you've read the book, DON'T watch this film!!!
hefo-6455827 November 2020
I am in love with the book and was so happy when I saw a new film had been made. Thought that modern technology would only add to the magic of this wonderful story. What a disappointment! The film only scratches the original script, taking out everything that makes the story so special and leaving it shallow and dull. Even the great Colin Firth and Julie Walters didn't have their usual sparkle. It is a mystery to me why someone would choose to do a re-make and then violating it in such a manner. I wish I could un-see this film.
interesting, different
edjali26 August 2020
why yet another version of a movie for the umpteenth time?
lamoreaj22114 December 2020
Warning: Spoilers
This is rather disappointing. whatever happened to Martha?! she was the one person able to connect with Mary Lennox in the book and now she's a bitter snippy housemaid. even Mrs. Medlock is kinder than Martha is. if you would like to watch a better version, see if you can't find Margaret O'brians version. it's one of the best, and she is a perfect Mary Lennox. Colin in this production is lacking. and when the two meet, it's rather anti-climactic and disappointing.
there is no point to purchasing the rights to a book and then ignoring it. that is what this movie has done. watch the 1993 or the 1940's version.
It's charming and meaningful
Manthatyoufear66623 August 2020
The cinematography is excellent.. Their acting wasn't lazy. Most of them had soul and believable. Better than the 2017 version, not better than the 1993 / 1975 version -btw, the animated version was also good tho. For fans of fantasy/adventure , give this a watch.👍
The Magic Garden
cauwboy16 September 2020
Warning: Spoilers
The book belongs among the big classics, an easy read and hard to put away as soon as you open it up. It's a very calm and soothing tale that cures the reader just as much as the characters in the book, or at least that's how I felt when I read it.
As for the film it was inevitable for it to follow the book, because that's not how film productions works these days, for the filmmakers, they obviously wants as many as possible to see the film and for that to happen they have to grab their attention somehow, in this case with a three-act structure where there's a very dramatic end and also a lot more stakes with Mary having to leave the place because of misbehaviour. Oh, and then there's the actual garden that now seems to be magical and alive, branches helping Mary when she's climbing over the wall and also healing powers that cures the dog as well as Colin. I can see how that would anger fans of the book, because it's quite obviously not what the author had in mind with the garden but more like Colin being delusional, staying locked in his room all the time, believing that he was ill and not getting any fresh air.
So, having that said, the film should be seen for what it is and not what it could've been. It's really a visual film, the shots of Mary coming to her new room in her uncle's Manor, the long corridors that she explores and also the scenes on the moor, the film really made sure to be beautiful, which it is. As for the garden I was a bit taken away from the experience because of the enhanced plants and oversaturated colors, it didn't bother me too much and it also made sense when the filmmakers decided to make the garden magic instead of just secret.
I also love the soundtrack to this film. I've heard some composers saying that the best soundtrack is the one you don't notice in a film, but I don't agree, when a soundtrack is that good so you want to know who composed it and where to get it, that's when a soundtrack has done something special to me. I'm going to check up on Dario Marianelli's previous works.
I had no problem with the cast either, the children did a good job and Colin Firth is always good, whatever he does. There were times I was thinking that some of it worked better in the book than the film, but that's the curse of knowing the story it's based on.
To sum it all up, it's an okay adaptation with a couple of changes to make it more dramatic and with more fantastical visuals. It would've made more sense to call it The Magic Garden, but that's not how it works in the film industry when you adapt a book to a film.
As for the film it was inevitable for it to follow the book, because that's not how film productions works these days, for the filmmakers, they obviously wants as many as possible to see the film and for that to happen they have to grab their attention somehow, in this case with a three-act structure where there's a very dramatic end and also a lot more stakes with Mary having to leave the place because of misbehaviour. Oh, and then there's the actual garden that now seems to be magical and alive, branches helping Mary when she's climbing over the wall and also healing powers that cures the dog as well as Colin. I can see how that would anger fans of the book, because it's quite obviously not what the author had in mind with the garden but more like Colin being delusional, staying locked in his room all the time, believing that he was ill and not getting any fresh air.
So, having that said, the film should be seen for what it is and not what it could've been. It's really a visual film, the shots of Mary coming to her new room in her uncle's Manor, the long corridors that she explores and also the scenes on the moor, the film really made sure to be beautiful, which it is. As for the garden I was a bit taken away from the experience because of the enhanced plants and oversaturated colors, it didn't bother me too much and it also made sense when the filmmakers decided to make the garden magic instead of just secret.
I also love the soundtrack to this film. I've heard some composers saying that the best soundtrack is the one you don't notice in a film, but I don't agree, when a soundtrack is that good so you want to know who composed it and where to get it, that's when a soundtrack has done something special to me. I'm going to check up on Dario Marianelli's previous works.
I had no problem with the cast either, the children did a good job and Colin Firth is always good, whatever he does. There were times I was thinking that some of it worked better in the book than the film, but that's the curse of knowing the story it's based on.
To sum it all up, it's an okay adaptation with a couple of changes to make it more dramatic and with more fantastical visuals. It would've made more sense to call it The Magic Garden, but that's not how it works in the film industry when you adapt a book to a film.
Oh dear. What a disappointment.
Lyndylupin25 October 2020
If you've never read the book or seen the earlier films, you'll probably think, like my husband, that this is quite good.
As someone else has said, why didn't they just make a completely different film instead of changing so much of the original story?
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
