Top 10 Problems with the Goldfinch Movie

They say the book is always better than the movie, especially when the story has been described as unfilmable. While the source material wasn’t without its detractors, “The Goldfinch” quickly flew off the shelves as 2013’s must-read book. In addition to receiving acclaim from literary giants like Stephen King, Tartt’s novel won the 2014 Pulitzer Prize for Fiction. Fans knew that adapting this grand tale to the screen would be no easy task, but surely some of the book’s greatness would rub off on the movie, right? Alas, the gripping narrative that made Tartt’s book such a page-turner gets lost in this jumbled film version. Even if you took the book out of the equation, this film would still be one big missed opportunity.

“The Goldfinch” has no shortage of A-listers like Nicole Kidman and Sarah Paulson, as well as talented rising stars like Ansel Elgort and Oakes Fegley as the protagonist Theo. Unfortunately, each actor is basically given one note to work with. Sarah Paulson gets saddled playing a stereotypical sleazy girlfriend who’s constantly chewing gum and drinking wine. Luke Wilson does what he can playing a one-dimensional deadbeat dad who only cares about his son’s money. As much as we adored Finn Wolfhard in “Stranger Things” and the “It” movies, his over-the-top East Slavic accent makes Zoya the Destroya sound legit. We don’t blame the actors per se, as they’re all enormously talented and are clearly trying here. They simply needed a superior script and better direction.

“The Goldfinch” possesses major talent both in front of and behind the camera. Director John Crowley rose to prominence with the Best Picture-nominated “Brooklyn,” leaving us all eager to see what he’d bring to the silver screen next. On paper, Crowley certainly seemed like a worthy candidate to adapt “The Goldfinch,” which – like his previous film – tells a coming-of-age story that’s mostly set in New York. Crowley’s latest cinematic outing lacks the heart and focus that made audiences fall in love with “Brooklyn,” though. From a technical standpoint, “The Goldfinch” is a well-crafted movie, which is to be expected when you have Roger Deakins supplying the cinematography. As attractive as the movie can look, however, it’s clouded by an inconsistent tone and meandering story structure.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Crowley_(director)

“Brooklyn” (2015)
Lionsgate, Mongrel Media

This is one of those movies that comes off as hungry for attention, acting as if it’s doing something bold and new. Like “Collateral Beauty,” “The Goldfinch” isn’t nearly as profound or innovative as it aspires to be. The film touches upon terrorist attacks, substance abuse, and grief. Where the book took the time to explore these issues, Peter Straughan’s screenplay feels as if it’s missing several vital pages. For a movie that tries to tackle such serious subjects, there aren’t any real consequences in the long run. The filmmakers want to make a strong emotional connection with their audience, but they don’t know what they want to say. We’re thus left with a film that’s laced with heavy drama and tragedy, but little humanity.

“Collateral Beauty” (2016)
Warner Bros.

The general mood of “The Goldfinch” comes off as so melodramatic that you’d swear this was either written for the Lifetime Channel or daytime television. To be fair, legitimate drama can shine through in melodrama. “Far from Heaven” and “Carol,” both Todd Haynes movies, are two prime examples. Unlike those films, however, little about “The Goldfinch” feels natural or relatable. Every person is artificial, every plot point is manipulative, and every life lesson is unearned. The film is deprived of anything resembling joy or wonder, which makes it especially uncomfortable when the movie tries to incorporate moments of quirky humor. Then just when you think the movie can’t get any more cloying, it shoe horns in a message about how the world works in mysterious ways.

“Carol” (2015)
StudioCanal, The Weinstein Company

“Far from Heaven” (2002)
Focus Features

Where the book told a primarily linear story, the film frequently bounces between Theo’s childhood and adulthood. In some movies, like “Slumdog Millionaire,” a nonlinear approach can make for an effective character study, examining how far our protagonist has come over time. The problem with “The Goldfinch” is that we never see Theo truly evolve as a person. Instead of blurring the lines between the past and present, the film jumps around time periods with little rhyme or reason. The nonlinear structure is not only pointless, but also makes the story increasingly difficult to follow. Rather than getting caught up in the drama or the overarching mystery, we’re regularly left asking ourselves, “what’s going on?”, “where is this going?”, and “why should we care?”

“Slumdog Millionaire” (2008)
Fox Searchlight Pictures, Warner Bros. Pictures Pathé

https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/movies/2019/05/28/the-goldfinch-exclusive-first-look-ansel-elgort-nicole-kidman-star/1249134001/

https://screenrant.com/goldfinch-book-movie-reasons-to-be-excited-nervous/

If “Avengers: Endgame” proved anything, it’s that audiences will gladly sit through a lengthy movie… as long as it holds their attention. Viewers can expect to check their watches and phones more than a few times watching “The Goldfinch,” which prattles on for just under two and a half hours. It’s only natural that a film like this would have a sizable runtime, seeing how the book was 784 pages. Even with that bloated runtime, though, this movie somehow comes off as both overdone and undercooked. The film doesn’t take the time to flesh out its characters, most of whom come and go at random. Since we don’t come to identify with these people or their struggles, “The Goldfinch” seems even longer than it actually is.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Goldfinch_(novel)

“Avengers: Endgame” (2019)
Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures

There’s a difference between having several subplots and having several main plots competing for the spotlight. The film starts off as something of an “Oliver Twist” fable about a young boy searching for a family. By the conclusion, it turns into an intense crime gone wrong thriller. How did we get from Point A to Point B? Who knows! The movie juggles so many story threads and characters that we can rarely keep track. If a film adaptation was going to work, more cuts needed to be made and the story had to be simplified. If the filmmakers wanted to cover everything, they should have just made a miniseries instead. As is, “The Goldfinch” is like watching multiple soap operas at the exact same time.

How could a movie that literally opens with a bang be so explosively dull? With a tragic bombing, a mysterious art theft, and a protagonist desperately seeking redemption, “The Goldfinch” should’ve been an easy film to make fascinating. Yet somehow, the filmmakers turn in a snoozefest that even the politest viewers will find themselves yawning at. The movie is swarming with tedious scenes and even entire plotlines that go nowhere, causing us to lose more interest with each passing second. You’ll go into “The Goldfinch” wanting to love it, especially if you read the book. By the time the film limps to its unsatisfying conclusion, though, all you’ll want is the past 149 minutes back.

When the first trailer for “The Goldfinch” hit, it looked like we were in store for an emotional powerhouse. The fact that it was premiering at the Toronto International Film Festival only gave us more reason to believe the early Oscar buzz. If a movie is made with the intention of winning awards, however, it can backfire drastically. Rather than simply telling a good story, “The Goldfinch” seems more concerned about checking off all the items on the Academy’s wish list. The film is anything but subtle in its shameless ploys to win over Oscar voters, making the final product look like an impression of every Academy Award winner. Just because a movie has “gold” in the title doesn’t mean it’s destined for Oscar gold.