MovieChat Forums > Swallows and Amazons (2017) Discussion > Facts wrong in user reviews.

Facts wrong in user reviews.

posted 8 years ago by Bigmoviefan
8 replies | jump to latest

User reviews. Hmm. I find it difficult to take them seriously when people mangle facts.

User editor-06667 claimed the name Titty came from Titania. It didn't. It is well known that the character - a real girl - chose the nickname from the poem about Titty and Tatty mouse. The filmmakers say they just chose the other mouse. Her actual name was Mavis.

User Alanjackd spent time criticising the director. Using the term 'he' all the way through. The film was directed by a woman.

I'm afraid reviews that get basic facts wrong are useless.

[–] SrEditor 8 years ago

I agree. No matter how well done, when people can't get their facts straight, or even make up their own explanations, their reviews completely lose any credibility they might have had.

[–] louiseculmer 8 years ago

I thought it odd that that reviewer spends a lot of time complainng about the name change bit says nothing about the much odder changes - the addition of all that spy stuff for instance. quite strange to focus on somerhing so trivial. And wrong anyway. It's a pity there's no facility on here for commenting on reviews.

[–] Bigmoviefan 8 years ago

It's weird. When the BBC made it in the 1960s, the name was changed to Kitty. Long before the 1974 film. But I know that because I looked it up. A few simple fact checks can go a long way.

The spy stuff: I think there had to be a little more to the story for it to be released today. After all, no point in remaking an exact replica of a previous film.

At least, again, it came from real life. Arthur Ransome was apparently an agent for MI6 in Russia. That only got revealed a few years ago.

Personally, I think it works - and gives us a chance to see Andrew Scott.

[–] louiseculmer 8 years ago

if the story as it is isn't interesting enough to be a film, then i think it woudl have been better to make a different story. there are plenty of books with spies in if they wanted a spy story. there are none in Swallows and aamazons.

[–] Bigmoviefan 7 years ago

It wasn't a spy story, though, was it?

It was the same story - kids being allowed their freedom, learning responsibility, cooking, camping, sailing - with a bit of added spy (which comes from Ransome's real life).

I saw the film a few months ago. In a cinema filled with kids. They adored it and clapped at the end.

It's sad that people who are older now don't embrace the fact that new, young people will be inspired by the ethos - to go and make your own adventures - instead.

Nothing worse than people who think their childhood is threatened - trying to stifle others childhood.

[–] louiseculmer 7 years ago

of course it was a spy story, the spy motif was introduced from the beginning, on the train. it was absurd, because there isn't even a whif of a spy in the book. And the chidlren were pretty hopeless, getting everything wrong all the time and being shown as totally incompetent, again nothing like the book. They were all duffers. Amazing they didn't drown.

i think the 1974 version was far superior to this one.

[–] Bigmoviefan 7 years ago

"The kids get everything wrong".

Except they don't. They learn how to make fire, camp successfully, sail efficiently when most needed, and save the day.

They win against the bad guys and make friends with their child enemies. And along the way, they learn to co-operate, and work as a team. Pretty much what you'd want for all children.

[–] paulhfromthedeep 7 years ago

One wants children to 'grow' with each passing experience, not to handle all of those with the expertise expected from an adult.