What I probably enjoyed most about PHOTOGRAPHING FAIRIES was that it's a different take on the afterlife-theme. As much as it is a compelling movie that draws you into its mystery, it also hesitates in settling on one genre which makes the movie a bit slow at times. Luckily the story is intriguing enough to keep you interested. I really wanted to see this film because of two reasons. One being director Nick Willing. I had already seen his DOCTOR SLEEP (aka HYPNOTIC) and THE RIVER KING which I enjoyed very much. The second reason was that I'd seen that other fairy-movie based on the same events involving a photograph showing a true fairy at the beginning of the 20th century. That movie was FAIRYTALE: A TRUE STORY and was released the same year as PHOTOGRAPHING FAIRIES. Even though I recall liking FAIRYTALE a little bit more, I still have to say that Nick Willing made an astonishingly beautiful debut with PHOTOGRAPHING FAIRIES.
The movie is part love-story, part fairy-tale mystery, part drama and that's what slows the general development towards the final conclusion a bit down. Still, the swifting between genres happens very smoothly. The acting was very decent all the time, especially Toby Stephens playing Charles Castle. His character is given a lot of depth. He is a war-photographer who loses his fresh wife in a mountain-accident the day after their wedding. He then stumbles through his life a bit cold-hearted and unaffected by danger. After the war he turns to the routine of portrait photography. Until the day a woman walks into his office, showing him a blurry photo of a girl holding a fairy in her hand. After some tests, Charles is convinced the photo isn't fake and sets off to solve the mystery.
Like I said, Charles Castle has a lot of psychological content, which is always good for a protagonist. The only problem concerning the actors I had, was with Ben Kingsley. It's a bit sad, really, but after seeing him in BLOODRAYNE and A SOUND OF THUNDER, I simply cannot take the poor man seriously anymore. The sets and costumes were all convincing as well as the occasional effects (only the scenes on the snowy mountain were clearly filmed on a set, making it all look a bit fake). The movie has a very nice musical score by Simon Boswell, but it does feel a bit too dominant at times. Even though I figured out very early the exact origin of the fairies, I couldn't possibly predict the actions of the protagonist towards the end. There were quite a lot of elements in the story I liked (the flower used as a drug to alter perception, the origin of the fairies,...) and I also liked the ending. But I thoroughly disliked the little epilogue on the mountain. What the hell were the filmmakers (probably the producers) trying to say with it? It would be very stupid to make us believe that between the prologue and epilogue the movie simply didn't happen. That might work for a psychological horror movie, but not for this type of film. So I'll rule that option out. I think I'll simply please myself with the explanation that the scriptwriter was trying to say that in a perfect world, Charles Castle would have been able to save his wife on the mountain. Sadly the real world isn't perfect, end of story. That would work more for me than the producers trying to shove a forced happy-end feeling down our throats. And otherwise I would deduct a serious amount of points from the over-all rating for PHOTOGRAPHING FAIRIES, which I refuse to do. Because this movie is beautiful and worth seeing.
The movie is part love-story, part fairy-tale mystery, part drama and that's what slows the general development towards the final conclusion a bit down. Still, the swifting between genres happens very smoothly. The acting was very decent all the time, especially Toby Stephens playing Charles Castle. His character is given a lot of depth. He is a war-photographer who loses his fresh wife in a mountain-accident the day after their wedding. He then stumbles through his life a bit cold-hearted and unaffected by danger. After the war he turns to the routine of portrait photography. Until the day a woman walks into his office, showing him a blurry photo of a girl holding a fairy in her hand. After some tests, Charles is convinced the photo isn't fake and sets off to solve the mystery.
Like I said, Charles Castle has a lot of psychological content, which is always good for a protagonist. The only problem concerning the actors I had, was with Ben Kingsley. It's a bit sad, really, but after seeing him in BLOODRAYNE and A SOUND OF THUNDER, I simply cannot take the poor man seriously anymore. The sets and costumes were all convincing as well as the occasional effects (only the scenes on the snowy mountain were clearly filmed on a set, making it all look a bit fake). The movie has a very nice musical score by Simon Boswell, but it does feel a bit too dominant at times. Even though I figured out very early the exact origin of the fairies, I couldn't possibly predict the actions of the protagonist towards the end. There were quite a lot of elements in the story I liked (the flower used as a drug to alter perception, the origin of the fairies,...) and I also liked the ending. But I thoroughly disliked the little epilogue on the mountain. What the hell were the filmmakers (probably the producers) trying to say with it? It would be very stupid to make us believe that between the prologue and epilogue the movie simply didn't happen. That might work for a psychological horror movie, but not for this type of film. So I'll rule that option out. I think I'll simply please myself with the explanation that the scriptwriter was trying to say that in a perfect world, Charles Castle would have been able to save his wife on the mountain. Sadly the real world isn't perfect, end of story. That would work more for me than the producers trying to shove a forced happy-end feeling down our throats. And otherwise I would deduct a serious amount of points from the over-all rating for PHOTOGRAPHING FAIRIES, which I refuse to do. Because this movie is beautiful and worth seeing.