Tuck Everlasting (2002) User Reviews

Good for all ages

[rbverhoef · 8/10 · 16 May 2004]

'Tuck Everlasting' is one of those sweet movies with a lot of flaws you don't care about. You could ask question after question but I did not find a reason to do so. The story about an immortal family and a young teenager that comes into their lives is probably a well known story for some audiences, but I didn't know it. The immortal family exists out of father Angus Tuck (William Hurt), mother Mae (Sissy Spacek) and two sons named Miles (Scott Bairstow) and Jesse (Jonathan Jackson). The young teenager who is taken by the family so she can not reveal their secret is Winnie Foster (Alexis Bledel).

Although at first the family thinks Winnie needs to be killed, things change when Jesse Tuck and Winnie start to have feeling for one another. Winnie becomes a new member of the family. In the mean while we have Winnie's parents (played by Amy Irving and Victor Garber) looking for her. A man in a yellow suit (Ben Kingsley) is actually looking for the Tuck family but thinks he will find the girl with them as well. He knows how the Tucks have found their immortality and has plans for himself.

You can probably understand how many flaws a movie like this must have. There a couple of reasons we don't really want to ask too many questions. First of all it is a good thing the movie keeps the attention in the middle of everything. It does not really focus on the reason of immortality, it does not really focus on the relationship between Jesse and Winnie and it does not really focus on the outsiders like Winnie's parents and the Kingsley-character. Although that is not a good thing in most movies it works perfectly here.

Another reason you don't want to ask questions is Alexis Bledel together with Jonathan Jackson. They are sweet together, have some nice scenes. Although you sometimes see the Rory Gilmore of 'The Gilmore Girls' Bledel does a nice job with her Winnie Foster. Jonathan Jackson, who I only know from a small part in 'Insomnia', is a good choice for Jesse. This and three other respectable actors like Hurt, Spacek and Kingsley make sure the movie does not fail on that level.

All this together with a very nice score and some beautiful images make this a very good movie. It is perfect for the whole family. If you can forget the flaws, forget the question you might have, you must be able to fully enjoy this.

An excellent use of time.

[DeusExKatrina · 7/10 · 9 January 2005]

I'll keep it brief - I appreciate this movie a whole lot. When I got it I really was expecting something different, so for the majority of the movie I was disappointed, considered the plot and characters mediocre. But the last two minutes of the movie made me rethink the entire thing, man... I can not promise you an amazing ending or anything like that, because most people probably saw it coming, all I can say for certain is that it sure did affect me. I thought it would just be all typical and uninteresting and everything but having a meaningfully strung conclusion like that set my head straight and made me see what it was all about. Now I can't wait to watch it again. I consider this movie a well done story with good acting and a nice enough plot. It has strong aesthetic value through it's good looking images/scenery, too. Of course it made me completely depressed. The stories that are supposed to be life-affirming are always the ones that make me the most depressed, "A Year of Impossible Goodbyes" was supposed to be a life-affirming adventure but it's the saddest book I've ever read!

A secret worth keeping

[bkoganbing · 8/10 · 3 March 2018]

One of the things that I liked about Tuck Everlasting is that it conceded that in the coming age secrets like what the Tuck family has would be harder to keep. And the Tucks have a secret well worth keeping. They were at that time before World War I acknowledging the faster methods of communication and transportation would make it impossible. In 2002 when the film was released we are now passed the industrial age and into the age of communication. You know someone would find out and post it on the web.

The secret of the Tucks is that they've found the secret of immortality in a spring located deep in the woods where they've settled. The family is parents William Hurt and Sissy Spacek and sons the brooding Scott Bairstow and the eternally youthful Jonathan Jackson.

The property however is owned by Victor Garber and Amy Irving and they've got a daughter Alexis Bledel whom they keep most sheltered. One day she wonders into the Tuck woods and meets the family. She nearly drinks from the spring and can't understand why the Tucks warn her away. But she experiences a first love with Jackson and they are a pair of the most romantic lovers you will ever meet.

It's a regular Garden of Eden the Tucks have, but there's a serpent there and it's in the form of Ben Kingsley. Kingsley has heard rumors of this fountain of youth and immortality and he's here to find it and exploit it as he feels that only certain people should enjoy immortality. As the film builds Kingsley grows more evil and more serpentine, he will really creep you out.

This film bears comparison to the Highlander movies and TV series and a bit of comparison to Sean Connery's science fiction classic Zardoz. All deal with immortality and what a trap it can be if you think about it. The Tucks have it better than Duncan McLeod, he can go if he's decapitated. A highland broadsword wouldn't even penetrate the skin of a Tuck.

Tuck Everlasting is really about Bledel and Jackson and a love that can never be. Scott Bairstow has an effective scene about the family he raised who have all gone and left him alone for an eternity.

Fitting that Tuck Everlasting should be a product of the Disney studios because the film has an aura of magic and it's fitting it come from the Magic Kingdom. It's a charming fantasy, you can't do much better with films of fantasy than this one.

This is highly recommended.

[Jack the Ripper1888 · 10 May 2003]

Like many other people on this website, I myself had to read the novel upon which this film is based when I was in the sixth grade. I really can't remember it that much, but seeing the movie brought some of it back to me.

The movie strays from Babitt's novel in some ways, as the "love" between two central characters is romanticized slightly. Otherwise, the story is not changed all that much, but there are still a few minor changes to the story that I could remember.

Most of the cast was perfect. Ben Kingsley fits the role of The Man in the Yellow Suit pretty well. Out of place kinda are Sissy Spacek and William Hurt who have the minority roles in this film. They were still quite good, though.

The story flows nicely, but there were still a few scenes that were different as I had envisioned. I pictured the Treegap Constable having a bigger role, and I also envisioned there to be more 19th century costume and prop designs. Just some things to be kept in mind when the next remake of this novel comes out in another thirty years or so.

TUCK EVERLASTING: 4/5.

A Beautiful Movie For The Whole Family

[Darkest_Rose · 7/10 · 12 March 2003]

Winnie Foster(Alexis Bledel) is a free spirited young girl who is sick of living a boring life with her rich strict parents and one night after an argument with her parents Winnie runs away. She gets lost in a forest and stumbles upon Jesse(Jonathon Jackson). His family now takes Winnie with them because she has discovered a secret. That the Tuck's are immortal and that she can never ever tell anybody about that. Winnie and Jesse fall in love, and now Winnie must choose, will she go on and live her life like she is supposed to, or will she become immortal just like Jesse and spend forever with him? I thought this was a very beautiful movie, it is not just for kids like many people say. I think the whole family could enjoy this movie, it questions a lot of things people wonder about these days and it's just a really great magical fairytale. I would give Tuck Everlasting 10/10

Nice, But Could Have Been......

[ccthemovieman-1 · 7/10 · 8 September 2006]

Make no mistake: this is a nice movie, but it's one of those films you can't help but feel could have been so much better.

The first 20 minutes was very promising with spectacular scenery, overall cinematography and interesting characters. But, it started to slow down and then just bogged down more and more with a teen romance. Yes, it finished fairly well but unless you are a teen or 20-something young woman, I doubt this film will hold your interest.

Perhaps even for some women, this movie did not turn out as dramatically as it should have been. It's just too flat. Too bad; it looked like a "keeper' for awhile.

Hardly 'Everlasting'

[cnycitylady · 6/10 · 3 May 2016]

Disney's adaptation of Natalie Babbitt's beloved childhood novel is not as powerful as it tries to come across as. Winnie is aged so that she and Jamie can have a more romantic story-line and so the heart of the story will be their tragic love for each other. But it is just so unnecessary. The original novel holds true wisdom because this little girl, in the prime of her innocence and childhood youth can see that everlasting life is not all it's cracked up to be and she decides to let time play a part in her decision. But in the movie Winnie is grown and in love with Jamie, so her decision is odd. I for one could not see why she wouldn't be forever happy with the man she loves.

That small alteration is about the only difference from book to film, but it is a fatal one. In changing the age of the main character you change the essence of the story and it in turn loses everything that was everlasting about it. This overdone Romeo and Juliet bit is so prosaic that you cannot even really feel bad for the lovers when they are inevitably torn apart by circumstance, distance and eventually, time.

This will not be the definitive film version and I eagerly await another go at it. 6/10

Could become a Disney Classic (Slight Spoiler)

[iwatcheverything · 7/10 · 3 September 2003]

This movie was a real good watch. It was a very sweet and sad film and was played good by the actors and actresses. I think it was kind of short and was over done with the jump to 1999. Present day should have been closer so that the feel of the film would not have been affected. I do believe that Disney has another classic on their hands. Next time they may want to stay away from the modern day tie in.

Wonderful Film For All Ages

[shark-43 · 9/10 · 2 October 2003]

I can be a pretty cynical fella, but I had actually read the young adult novel this film is based on and really enjoyed it. The message of the book is brought to the screen and I was thoroughly impressed with the adaptation. A fine cast does great work and Ben Kingsley has a field day playing the mysterious Man In The Yellow Suit. The film is a little slow going in the beginning but all the strands and backstory must be laid out and once it gets going - the film moves with a beauty and tenderness that is rare. The music score is lovely as is the cinematography but overall, the message of the movie is what is special - it is not how LONG we live, but HOW we live. A beautiful film - for kids 9 and up.

Beautiful, if not perfect film **spoilers**

[Hancock_the_Superb · 7/10 · 24 June 2003]

Just as a consumer note, I have read Natalie Babbit's novel, but I read it like four years ago and thus don't remember all the details. I did see the 1981 version, which was okay but pretty dull. So I will not be comparing the book and the film.

You all know the plot: rich little girl Winnie (Alexis Bledel) runs away from home and stumbles across the Tucks, a family who never age. Eventually she falls in love with the youngest Tuck, Jesse (Jonathan Jackson), and is forced to choose between eternal life, or, well, not eternal life.

A simplistic and yet interesting tale, in of itself. The film is beautifully made, perfectly acted, and is even touching to an extent. The cast brings what were in the book (and on paper) fairly bland ciphers to life.

We obviously must start with Alexis Bledel. I will admit that I have never seen "Gilmore Girls", but on the basis of this film, she is a great young actress. The best ever? Hardly. But her interplay with Jackson is perfectly portrayed, and she brings naivety and love of adventure to the role. I look forward to seeing more of her work.

The supporting cast is made up of some of the best character actors ever. Ben Kingsley, best known for his Oscar-winning role as the star of "Gandhi", is perfectly menacing as the man in the yellow suit. Amy Irving ("Carrie") and Victor Garber ("Titanic") as Winnie's parents are superb. Jonathan Jackson and Scott Bairstow are equally effective as the Tuck boys, with veteran actors Sissy Spacek and William Hurt as their parents.

The film is helped by excellent cinematography and direction by James L. Carter ("My Dog Skip"), and a simple but beautiful score by William Ross.

This isn't the greatest film ever, but it's better than 90% of all children's fair today, "The Lion King" and "Toy Story" notwithstanding. Has a few flaws, but definitely worth your time.

Seven stars.

Good book... bad movie

[invalid_eVe · 2/10 · 11 October 2002]

When I was a child I read the book and it instantly became my favorite novel of all time, it remains this way till today. However this movie does not do the book justice in the least, drifting far from the original story line this movie is a catastrophe. All I can say is I now sympathize with my friend who said she was disappointed after seeing The Lord of The Ring: The Fellowship of the Ring.

Excellent fantasy film

[preppy-3 · 10/10 · 20 February 2005]

A young rich girl (Alexis Bledel) in the early 1990s, meets and falls in love with Jesse Tuck (Jonathan Jackson). The problem is that he's part of a family that are immortal.

I read this book in college as part of a Children's Literature class. I love it! I thought it was just incredible. I never saw the 1980 version of this and when I heard Disney was going to redo it I expected the worst. Fortunately I was wrong. Disney made a quiet, beautiful, charming fantasy film. They don't overdo the sentimentality (as they could have) and make the story quite moving and engrossing.

This is also a rare film where virtually every performance is good--especially Bledel and Jackson. But Sissy Spacek, William Hurt, Amy Irving and Scott Bairstrow also turn in very good acting. And Elisabeth Shue narrates and does an excellent job.

This is beautiful--well-directed and acted with a sweeping music score. I was captivated from beginning to end. This failed at the box office but it really should be rediscovered. I give it a 10!

Sappy,but entertaining.

[Christian_Dimartino · 7/10 · 4 October 2010]

Romance,especially in Nicholas Spark's case, is usually cheesy nowadays. Rarely, a romance is nominated for best movie of the year. And when it is, you understand why. Films like Atonement and An education are a good example of that. But sometimes there are some that are sappy but you enjoy. Tuck everlasting is a good example. It's sappy,and ridiculous,but it doesn't matter. You leave illogic at the door, and you enjoy.

Alexis Bledel plays Winnie Foster, a girl, living back in the old times, who has just moved to some town, I don't know where. One day when she's walking in the woods, she meets a stranger named Jesse Tuck(Johnathon Jackson), who tells her to go away. Soon after, she is captured and taken away by Jesse's brother.

She is missing,and her parents are looking for her. They aren't the only ones. There is a stranger(Ben Kingsley) who is looking for her and The Tucks, because he knows about their secret(which I won't give away). Winnie is living with The Tucks,in hiding, and soon falls for Jesse,and soon finds out their secret.

The movie is very cheesy. When you hear Jesse say" I'll love you til the day I die", you may not be able to help but roll your eyes. The movie is sappy,but it's cute. The plot obviously isn't feasible, but the movie is adorable,and entertaining.

The two leads evoke charm. I preferred it over movies like The Notebook, or anything Nicholas Sparks for that matter. Those movies are too cheesy. This movie still has flaws, but I liked it. So, it's worth seeing if you haven't already.

3/4

Highlander on Prozac

[elroy_geronimo · 1/10 · 17 November 2002]

This drama is a must not see. The adaptation of the story is superficial and those among us that seem to think the movie portrays rounded characters just haven't seen enough movies and certainly haven't read this novel. The length of the film alone (88 min.) can tell you that it is impossible to look into their souls. Jesse is the happy brother who wants to live and falls in love with Winnifred (his first love in a 104 years ??) Miles is the angry brother who wants to die. His wife ran away from him, with their two children because she didn't want to drink from the fountain of youth, because she thinks it's the devil's work and thus let their daughter Anna die of pneumonia at 15. Shouldn't he be just a little mad at her as well??? The father is the wise old man. He must be about a 150 and his sons are 104 and about a 115. They should be wise old men themselves by now. Or are we to believe that as the body doesn't grow older the mind doesn't either ? The mother is just the mother, loving and caring and protecting her family when she should. The man that hunts the Tucks is a Tuck himself. He's Miles his grandson but all he's interested in is making money of the spring. No-one else seems to care that he's family as well. Winnifred's character is the worst of all. She's a 10 year old trapped in a young woman's body. The other characters I won't even mention because they are even flatter than the above mentioned main characters from this weak screenplay. It's a very bad adaptation of Natalie Babbit's wonderful novel. In the book our naive Winnifred really is 10 years old. That's why she and Jesse only kiss. JEFFREY LIEBER, the one who is RESPONSIBLE for this bad screenplay, just was to lazy or lacks the talent to let the actions of Winnifred fit the age he has given her or was ordered by the studio to give her. This explains why the young woman in this film takes the challenge of playing some stickball in the beginning of the movie and why at the end of the movie she runs back to daddy instead of following her first true love. All and all the cinematography, the acting and the ending make up for the very very very bad screenplay, but not enough to change my mind about this film. It's just more infantile Hollywood-pulp that murdered a wonderful story. The 1980 British adaptation of this children's novel was a better one......

Great Movie

[todd2u · 5 June 2003]

Even though Disney does have some very bad movies out there, there are still ones that are excellent. Tuck Everlasting was such a great film. The acting was great. William Hurt, Ben Kingsley, Sissy Spacek, Jonathan Jackson, Scott Bairstow, Amy Irving, Victor Garbor, Alexis Bledel are excellent in this movie. They are all such good actors/ actresses. The scenery was just beautiful. The music was very very pretty. I never read the book and I know there are probably changes in it from the movie, but as a movie lover I loved ever minute of it. This movie is for everyone. I recommend this movie to anyone who loves a good Disney movie or just a good family movie.

Very underrated film

[lisafordeay · 7/10 · 27 March 2020]

Tuck Everlasting is based on a novel of the same name and tells the tale of a young woman who falls for a guy who is hiding a secret. Turns out his family are immortal and use a magic fountain to gain their youthful appearance. When Tuck's brother sees Willow(Biedel),he kidnaps Willow and spends time with the Tucks. Later a mysterious figure (Ben Kingsley)wants to track down the Tucks(the immortal family) and they are in grave danger. The acting was good,the ending was satisfying yet I wished it had a more happy ending. If you love movies about immortality than check it out.

Also stars Sissy Spaceks andAlexis Biedel.

"Opens the young's mind fills the old's hearts."

[ponyboys-girl · 6/10 · 24 October 2006]

This is the saying I would give to this book/movie. It basscily describes it in one senctence. This book/movie educates why young readers why immortally is not all it's cracked up to be. It gives the older a sense of knowing that in the end ever thing will be all right. Plus It is a classic. Even though the movie strays from the book a little you still can appricate it. The movie allows the same story to be viewed from a older Winnie. I also liked it better in my younger years. In the book you see the story from an older Winnie. Both are enjoyable and both. teach the same moral. Both aren't soon forgotten after they are put back on the shelf.

fine but not that magical

[SnoopyStyle · 6/10 · 13 August 2016]

In 1914, brothers Jesse Tuck (Jonathan Jackson) and Miles Tuck (Scott Bairstow) return to Treegap and their parents Angus (William Hurt) and Mae Tuck (Sissy Spacek) followed by a mysterious man (Ben Kingsley) in yellow. Winifred Foster (Alexis Bledel) is eager to live without the control of her parents (Amy Irving, Victor Garber). They own much of the forest. Winnie encounters Jesse in the woods drinking from a special spring. Miles kidnaps her back to the Tuck homestead.

It's a fine coming-of-age romance. It's very PG. It doesn't have great tension or more importantly, magic. This needs a sprinkle of that Disney magic. The young couple's romance is not that compelling and they are limited in the amount of heat. Their chemistry is strictly overwrought puppy love. There is a chance for a compelling ending reveal but the big reveal in the movie is not that compelling. It tries a little poetry and leaves it less than satisfying.

great cinematography

[dhaufrect · 6/10 · 28 October 2002]

This film is a beauty to watch for the breathtaking photography alone. The blue and gold filters give a warm or cool sense in a somatic way that permeates the entire movie. Performances by Sissy Spacek and William Hurt are underplayed in a believable pattern.

Disney magic at its best

[jwhale9382 · 9/10 · 18 October 2003]

I will start by saying that I have read the book and it is one of my all-time favorites. The movie stuck pretty close to the book, right down to several quotes taken from the book. There were a few changes that surprised me. For example, in the book, Miles is a mild mannered person. In the movie, he's extremely bitter because of what happened to him due to his immortality. (Sorry, no spoilers) It was a good change.

The casting was amazing. Alexis Bledel plays Winnie Foster. Like Rory on Gilmore Girls, Winnie is very serious, but wants to have fun. William Hurt didn't strike me as someone old and wise, but he portrays Angus Tuck very well. Sissy Spacek was great as Mae Tuck, showing her character's motherly side toward Winnie.

Ben Kingsley plays the Man in the Yellow Suit (TMITYS). TMITYS is a great villain in the same league as Lex Luthor. He has no superpowers, but his mere presence can send super humans (immortals) running for cover. In the book, he's a vague character. He doesn't even seem to be a villain until later in the book. All we know is that he wants to find the Tucks and their spring. In the movie, TMITYS is presented as a villain, and we find out more about what he wants and how he knows about the Tucks. Bravo, Mr. Kingsley!

One last thought... (I know I said 'no spoilers', so I'll be as discreet as I can.) Don't let the ending disappoint you. I told my cousin the end of the movie and she said it was a terrible ending. It wasn't terrible. One character just made a choice. I strongly recommend this movie to people of all ages.

Beautiful Movie (some spoilers)

[Goonies_girl · 7/10 · 8 March 2003]

The scenery and music was so beautiful. This movie is so sweet and romantic.I loved the ending when he went back to the tree and saw Winnies grave. It was so sad because I was expecting a typical ending and having her waiting for him at the tree. I loved the quotes, "Don't be afraid of death, be afraid of the unlived life." and, " You don't have to live forever, you just have to live." Overall, it was a beautiful and touching movie that made you think of things. 6.5/10

Living ever after

[Prismark10 · 4/10 · 30 March 2015]

Tuck Everlasting is an adaptation of an acclaimed book into a underwhelming film. It is set in the early 1900s, The Tuck family have drank from a stream which has made them immortal and they have no aged. Jesse Tuck looks 17 years old despite being 104. So far so Twilight without any vampires about.

A teenage girl from a well to do family Winifred stumbles into the stream and sees Jesse drinking from there and he in order to keep the stream secret abducts her and they fall for each other as she finds out the family's secret. Why he keeps on drinking from the stream is never explained.

Winnie's family feared that she is kidnapped falls prey to a mysterious man in a yellow suit who has been tracking down the Tucks as he seems to know about their secret as well.

In the end Winnie must decide whether she drinks from the fountain of youth or live a normal life.

The film has three Oscar winning actors in Ben Kingsley, Sissy Spacek and William Hurt. Kingsley brings a bit of malevolence as the man in the yellow suit. Scott Bairstow as Jesse's brother brings a bit of pathos regarding the curse of immortality as he saw his wife being driven mad.

The film is bland and subdued. Its a bare bones story which does not work as a love story or a mystery. You have to applaud Twilight for making more from similar ingredients as it actually dealt better with a man trapped in a youth's body for decades, repeating high school every few years, not getting too close with people as they will one day age and die. Here you question what has the Tuck family done with their lives given they are immortal apart from just living life in the backwoods.

A Disney movie that Walt would have been proud of

[vogueman · 9/10 · 24 August 2002]

This is the best adaptation of a classic children's book I've seen in a very long time. Nearly everything in this film is just right. Of all the live-action films that Walt Disney produced in his lifetime, one he was very proud of was the 1960 POLLYANNA, and TUCK EVERLASTING reminded me of POLLYANNA in several key aspects. Like POLLYANNA, TUCK has a meticulous attention to period details (it takes place in 1914). Also like POLLYANNA, it has some high-powered acting talent in peripheral roles, with the main focus of the story on younger, less well-known actors. The cinematography is beautiful, with a rich interplay of light and shadow, and to best appreciate this aspect, you should try to see it in a theater with the brightest picture available. Like another classic children's book (CHARLOTTE'S WEB) TUCK EVERLASTING explores philosophical concepts of life and death and eternity that most adult films, much less children's films, ever touch on. I hope that TUCK doesn't end up comparable to POLLYANNA in one key area: lack of box-office success. Walt was extremely disappointed when, despite the loving attention he garnished on the film, audiences for the most part stayed away. TUCK EVERLASTING deserves to be a huge success. Hollywood has come under frequent criticism for not making enough family-friendly films, but it seems that when a rich, intelligent film does come out, it's ignored. I hope and pray that this one won't be.

not SO bad

[SILENCEikillyou · 6/10 · 1 May 2003]

Well... what to say about "Tuck Everlasting". I'll bet the book was good because the movie... um.. wasn't. NOT that I'm some kind of expert, considering I had slightly too much wine during watching this movie. HOWEVEr, I will say that I have been 'buzzed' while watching 'Gilmore Girls' and laughed my ass off. I've watched 'Dawson's Creek' and cried from the same inebriated state. But this movie... I had not reaction drunk or sober. It wasn't BAD. NO. It was just kind of... LACKLUSTER. I don't know what that means. Watch this movie by ALL means and decide for yourself. ONE thing I CAN say: It did make me want to read the book. Decide for yourself what that might mean. I absolutely love Alexis Bledel; always have from 'Gilmore Girls' and she's just quite an up and coming exquisite actress. She needs MORE film to work with. Something more DAZZLING and brilliant in her career to give her, her wings. So I voted this movie for 6 out of 10. It wasn't bad.

thank you

Not good

[melindaowen-77339 · 1/10 · 28 November 2019]

Boring, slow, wrong choice of actors. Overall flat, unmemorable characters. Weird/ cringey chemistry between the "lovers". Lots of things that made no sense. One of the worst movies I have ever seen.