I’m a big Tim Burton fan. I’ve seen all of his movies (Even the ones that DON’T feature his frequent collaborator, Johnny Depp), and I’d say that of the 20 feature-length films that he’s done, I like a good percentage of them.
However, there’s one film in particular of his that I genuinely cannot stand, and, yep, as you can tell from the title, it’s 2016’s Miss Peregrine’s Home for Peculiar Children. While I can usually find at least one thing to like in almost all of his movies (I’m the guy who’s willing to go to bat for his version of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, after all), I genuinely can’t find a single thing to like about his adaptation of the popular YA novel.
This is a shame, too, because it really SHOULD be good, given the director. I’ll explain.
First Off, Tim Burton STILL Feels Like The Perfect Director For The Job…So Why Didn’t It Work?
As an avid reader and cinephile, I understand that movies don’t need to be like the books to be enjoyable. To wit, I actually prefer movies that are DIFFERENT from the books since I appreciate the same story, but with a different experience. This is why I like it when movies are arguably better than the books, but I much prefer it when the books and movies are both great, but for different reasons. A good example of this would be Stanley Kubrick’s The Shining, which its author, Stephen King, seems to hate, but most people love. That said, the book is also excellent.
Well, I was hoping that the movie adaptation for Miss Peregrine’s Home for Peculiar Children would have a similar trajectory, because I like the books. I was hoping to get a new, exciting take on the story from a director like Tim Burton, because the thing about the Peculiar Children series is that they're all really weird. It’s the story of a teenager named Jacob who gets swept up into a world of time loops, kids with powers, and mysterious men with white eyes. It seriously feels like the series that Tim Burton was BORN to direct.
So, why then did it feel so bland when the final product came out? For the most part, Burton followed the story closely enough from the first novel, but…it just didn’t feel weird enough. Which is so strange! This is the guy who gave us Edward Scissorhands and Pee-wee’s Big Adventure, and BOTH of those films were way weirder than this movie was.
Some Of The Peculiar Children Switched Powers From The Book Because Why?
Look, I’m typically not a stickler for details. For example, I know Avatar fans hate M. Night Shyamalan’s The Last Airbender, and a lot of the hate is justified. However, of all of that movie’s shortcomings, I don’t bring up stuff like, “They mispronounced Aang’s name.” Because while that’s pretty bad, I think there were a lot of other issues with the movie that could have prevented it from being one of the worst adaptations ever.
So, I say all that only to make a petty statement like, “Some of the peculiar children switched powers from the book because why?” Which, you know, shouldn’t really bother me. However, coupled with the movie being so boring, it actually does.
For example, in the book, Jacob's love interest is a character named Emma Bloom (and she has fire powers), but in the movie, Emma does not have fire powers. Instead, she needs to be tethered to a rope because she floats away if she isn't. However, in the book, there's a character named Olive - who is just a little girl, mind you - and she's the character who floats, whereas in the movie, they made Olive the character with the fire powers. Confused yet?
It goes deeper. There's another character in the book named Enoch, and he's a necromancer. Well, in the book, he's a creepy little kid, and nobody's love interest. But in the movie, he's played by Finlay MacMillan (who was 20-years-old at the time), and his love interest is Olive (who again, was just a child in the book). I'm not sure why these changes were made for the film, but it's super annoying, and just another reason why I don't like this movie in any way whatsoever. The changes make no sense!
Also, Some Of The Peculiar “Children” Felt Way Too Old In The Movie When Compared To The Book
The series is called Miss Peregrine’s Home for Peculiar “Children,” so why then do some of the characters feel so old in this movie? Granted, the thing about the “children” in the story is that they’re not actually kids anymore. Due to a time loop, they remain “children” (and act like it sometimes), but they’re actually several decades older since they’re just reliving the same day over and over again.
That's a cool conceit. It's very effective in the books and reminds me of Kirsten Dunst's character in Interview with the Vampire, as she was bitten as a child and remains in a child's body, but is mentally a woman. That's what's kind of going on in the Peculiar Children novels. While SOME of the characters are actually children in the film, the main ones are teenagers, which just doesn't work.
For instance, Olive is definitely a little girl in the novels, and she has a childlike attitude. Not so in the movie, playing Jacob's love interest. Another character, Enoch, who is essentially a necromancer, is a creepy kid in the books. However, in the movie, he's played by Finlay MacMillan, who was 20-years-old when this movie came out, which is definitely NOT a kid. He also has a love interest in this movie, which just feels weird.
The whole movie is like this. Most of the time, I don't really care about changes from books to movies, as I get it. You have a lot less time to tell a story when making a film. However, changing the characters, aging them up, and adding romance where there wasn't any before really just irks me, and I hate it.
I Love Samuel L. Jackson, But He Just Doesn't Fit As The Villain This Time Around
I don't think anybody on the face of this planet would call Miss Peregrine’s Home for Peculiar Children one of Samuel L. Jackson's best movies, but I actually think this is one of the few times where he was woefully miscast. Perhaps it’s just that Burton didn't know what to do with him.
In the books, Samuel L. Jackson's character, Barron, is sort of like an evil scientist/old-timey gangster. His name is Dr. Golan, and he's the leader of the Wights. He basically had Jacob's grandfather killed by a monster called a hollowgast, and that’s what sets Jacob on his journey.
However, I don't know what Burton had Samuel L. Jackson doing here. His character in the book is evil and almost like a Nazi, which makes sense, given that Jacob's grandfather was a Jew in World War II, but here he's super silly, grinning with sharp teeth and delivering ridiculous lines.
It totally disrupts the creepy vibe that was in the books, which may be the biggest offense of all. Add in a plot that feels like an absolute mess, and you have a movie that I just can't stand. I know this movie has its fans, but I'm certainly not one of them.
