Product test

Artemis Fowl: no

13.6.2020

Translation: machine translated

Disney thought that "Artemis Fowl" would bring in considerable sums. Not a chance. The film is so bad that no one should ever have to watch it. It betrays everything that author Eoin Colfer created in his books.

"Artemis Fowl", the film, is the franchise that Disney wants to use to entertain you for years to come and make a lot of money. Artemis Fowl, the book series, comprises seven books that have made a mark on the international market that no one has ever filled before. Artemis Fowl, the character, is one of the most endearing you, the reader, will follow.

Everything that author Eoin Colfer has built up in his books is destroyed in the first ten minutes of the film "Artemis Fowl". This review probably won't be totally spoiler-free, but you're welcome to read on. I've watched the film so you don't have to. Also, it's hard to tell exactly what the film is about.

In the end, two impressions as well as a lot of swearing remain:

Judi Dench should sack her agent without notice. First Cats, now this.
Matthew Tucker, chief editor, is expected to reconsider his career choice.
Screenwriters Conor McPherson and Hamish McColl should never be allowed to write a film again.
Disney needs to get its act together. Really.

The People: a mythology unlike any other

In his books, Eoin Colfer has done some extraordinary things. He has created Haven, the capital of The People, as a living, working place where fairies, elves, goblins, trolls and all sorts of other magical creatures live. They call themselves the Fairy People. They have no use for the Mud People, the humans who populate the surface of the Earth. In their cities close to the Earth's core, the People have technology that we backward people, with our iPhones and our Internet, dare not even dream of.

Haven City looks good.looks good, but makes no sense

In the film, Haven City - why did they have to add 'City'? - is a CGI-filled, barely functional place that exists somewhere. Haven City is an example of how the film "Artemis Fowl" handles its mythology. Which is to say, not at all. Concepts are thrown in all over the place and after a more or less moving opening scene with the film's hero, all the characters are busy with exposition.

"We have fed the troll a little potion of nettles and wasp juice. Everything trolls are allergic to. It's made it twice as strong and ten times as mad," says an elf meant to be Briar Cudgeon (Joshua McGuire) just before the grand finale.

This scene is a bit of a surprise, but it's not the only one.

This scene, in which Cudgeon reveals important information to the audience to dramatic music, lasts 11 seconds. That's why the plot quickly had to be paused so that we, the idiots in front of the screen, could understand why we should now be worried.

Every aspect of the film suffers from this narrative style. Editor Matthew Tucker has to pretend that something is actually happening in the film and that it looks exciting. But it isn't. It never does. The film, as it is, can't create momentum, suspense or emotional connections.

And in other places, key concepts are swept under the carpet. "You're in my house. You know the Rules," says the film's Artemis (Ferdia Shaw); a completely different character to the one in the book. The Rules, a set of rules that apply to magical beings, are the most important customs of the Fairy People. There is a Fairy Bible written in Gnomish, the language of the Fairies. It says things like "Do not enter a stranger's house unless you are invited". If a fairy does, she will suffer stomach cramps, headaches and ultimately the permanent loss of her magic. Wouldn't it be nice if the film took the trouble to explain this? It could also be done in 11 seconds.

I'll try to do an expository scene with a bit of characterisation:

The Lower Elements Police Recon (LEPRecon) finds itself in the Time Freeze - you'd like to know what that is, wouldn't you? So would we - outside Fowl Manor. The elves with their flying rucksacks don't really look like a police unit, but more like an army. There are tanks, guns and fighter planes.

Two people face the army: Butler and Artemis Fowl. A giant with a handgun and a frail boy in a black suit with no weapons. They both stand on the veranda of the old mansion and watch the creatures stirring.

"Artemis, I'm not sure this is a good idea," says Butler.

"Don't worry Butler, as long as we stay inside we're safe. They're not allowed in a house unless they're invited," says the 12-year-old. A smile spreads across his lips. He turns around, takes a quick step towards the front door.

"Vien Butler, we have our work cut out for us."

With this staging, the film would already be doing more for the characters than the film in its current form. Because where everyone is busy always talking about exposition, it's mostly the characters who suffer.

They have so much to talk about in the "Artemis Fowl" film, I wonder if screenwriters Conor McPherson and Hamish McColl have actually read any of the books.

Artemis Fowl: the boy who is as he should not be

The main character suffers the most.

The Artemis of the book is a sociopath. The Artemis of the book sees no problem in harming other living beings. The book "Artemis Fowl" begins with a strong passage:

The story began several years ago at the dawn of the twenty-first century. Artemis Fowl had devised a plan to restore his family's fortune. A plan that could topple civilizations and plunge the planet into a cross-species war. He was twelve years old at the time...

Eoin Colfer, Artemis Fowl, ISBN 0-670-89962-3

Who can resist this? The Artemis of the book is one of the smartest people on the planet, he has the fortune of his rich but lost father, but he is morally and ethically "bankrupt". He has no problem hurting other creatures. He breaks laws when it suits him. He's arrogant, lonely and friendless. His father taught him that only financial wealth counts. Only his butler, whom he constantly refers to as "Butler", is on the little brat's side.

The book "Artemis Fowl", was published in 2001, shortly after J.K. Rowling's "Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire". The Artemis of the book is "anti Harry". Where Harry has suffered all his life, but still has a pure heart, Artemis was born with a silver spoon in his mouth. But he is cold, calculating and dangerous. He's a bit like the Malfoy of the story. In the first book, Artemis is even the villain. He kidnaps an elf and demands a ton of gold from the Fairies.

The Artemis of the film is a Harry Potter in costume. We don't know why Artemis does what he does. In the first half of the film, Artemis is barely present, as some of the CGI scenes are meant to create a kind of suspense. Flying objects twirl around, Mulch Diggums (Josh Gad) gives even more information about what we'd really like to see in voiceover and the visual effects department shows what they can do. Everything comes together quickly and nobody notices that the film doesn't know what to do with the main character. As it feels like he's only on screen for 10 minutes, any development is denied to the character.

It doesn't seem to matter to the film, because the senior Fowl is there so Artemis can give him the show. "I just want to believe in you, Dad."

This is what the young man, who is supposed to be a blackmailer, kidnapper and sociopath, says.

In the book, Artémis is the villain of the story

Why is Artemis sympathetic? Wasn't it the great appeal of the first book that the main character had no problem kidnapping, blackmailing, administering drugs and scheming all sorts of things? As Ferdia Shaw, the young actor stands in front of a television and looks shocked to hear that his father is behind a series of robberies. Artemis is one of the world's greatest geniuses. The script wants you to believe that one of the world's greatest geniuses didn't notice that priceless antiquities always disappear when his father was away on business. It would only take the Artemis of the book ten minutes - if he hadn't grown up knowing his father's machinations - to work out what's going on. Then another ten minutes before devising a plan that would have eclipsed all his father's ideas.

The film's Artemis shouts "He's not a criminal. He's my dad. He's my dad!"

while being dragged out of the room by Butler so that he doesn't have to keep shouting in front of the television.
The Artemis in the film shouts "He's not a criminal.
When we learn that the Fowl clan has played a role in protecting the elven world for centuries, and that the film's Artemis is destined to do the same, that really is the end of it. The Artemis of the book has appropriated the Faerie Bible and deciphered it. He taught himself the language of the Féess, studied their rules and used them against LEPRecon.

In the film, Butler says: "Here's a shelf that contains everything you need for the plot. You're so clever, Artemis. I'll let you use your intelligence, while I twiddle my thumbs next door."

Holly Short: the woman who has to look like the token idiot

Since the film's Artemis played by Ferdia Shaw is already a bit of an idiot, Butler has nothing to do, Mulch Diggums is in prison and the plot runs itself, someone has to play thewide-eyed idiot who sympathises with criminals and has failed so badly in the elf police department that for some reason she is allowed to speak in person to the LEPRecon police commander (Judi Dench). Another amusing detail: as luck would have it, her father is also missing. Yes, it happens.

I hate the film script.

In the book, Holly Short is the first woman to join the ranks of the elite LEPRecon police unit. Her commanding officer, a man in the book, is a firm believer in "The Future is Female" and so courts Holly. But instead of whining and blaming the commander, the Holly of the book stands firm. Time and time again she proves her abilities as a law enforcement officer, fighter, pilot, thinker and diplomat. Holly Short is a brilliant book character.

The Aculos. I don't know what it is or what function it has, but it's important.

In the film, she's a faithful, bumbling idiot who has no control over anything and is looking for the film's MacGuffin. An object called Aculos that does something. The film is so busy showing off beautiful CGI landscapes and well-made sets that the scriptwriters have forgotten to explain what the Aculos is, what it can do and why it interests us as viewers. If, after half an hour, every character blurts out something like "The Aculos is the most precious object of all precious objects that has ever existed" and you still don't know what it's for.... after a while, you get fed up.

Holly Short, best policewoman, spends the final battle tangled up and left to her own devices in a chandelier.

During the final battle, Holly has become entangled with her wings in a chandelier and is unable to fight. Holly Short is LEPRecon's best feature.

Butler: the butler whose secret is revealed in two words

One of the most annoying aspects of the film's opening minutes is that Mulch Diggums narrates in voiceover who's who, who's doing what and why. Only scrolling text would be worse than this. The role of the butler is the most affected. One of the biggest secrets of his character in the books is his real name. He's a butler, yes, but as Eoin Colferu's joke goes, it's also his surname. His first name is a secret, because during his training as a bodyguard, probably the best in the world, he was taught that he should never reveal his full name to his client. This could imply closeness and emotional entanglements.

Mulch Diggums loudly divulges the butler's full name to the public.

In the books, Butler is more a force of nature than a man. When a three-metre-tall, several-hundred-pound wild troll stands at Fowl Manor, baring its teeth, armed and with murderous thoughts, Butler stands in its way. Without hesitation and without weapons. His only thought: "I don't know what this beast is, but he's going to have a hard time of it". Butler is the one who strikes fear.

You can't fault actor Nonso Anozie. His Butler tries to be as impressive as the pale giant in the books. The script doesn't allow him to be reduced to the status of someone who points at things and says, "Oh, it's a Magitropilux, a magical object that's just necessary to the plot". Why does a boy who is so good with elven laser weapons - like a hoverboard - need a bodyguard?

The book was better, but...

For almost every film adaptation of a novel, readers say "the book was better". This is usually the case, with a few big exceptions like Nick Hornby's "High Fidelity" or Paul Verhoeven's "Starship Troopers". Most of the time, though, the sentence could be continued with "the book was better, but the film wasn't bad."

"Artemis Fowl" was neither good nor ok. The film is devoid of love, incredibly poorly edited and an insult to everything Eoin Colfer built and executed over the course of his seven books. The basic concepts are simply changed, presumably because Disney formulated the mandate that a hero should not evoke antipathy in the audience. Did you have to do that? Can't we handle a cleverly constructed story of a villain on a mission? Can't we put up with a character who has learned something by the end of the film and is no longer what he was at the beginning?

The actors would all be somewhere between good and evil. Judi Dench is a legend, but with this film and "Cats", she shot herself in the foot, career-wise. Poor woman. But the script doesn't allow anyone to give her character any depth. With the character of Artemis, Ferdia Shaw can briefly show some emotion at the beginning - something the Artemis of the book would never do - but then is stoic and speaks only in exposition, like all the other characters. Where's Root's bad temper? Where is Holly Short's determination? Where is Butler's concern and dislike for his protégé?

The story is bad. There's no other word for it. Disney has invested 125 million in this film. And it shows. The special effects are nice, the fight scenes are well choreographed, but the film is pointless and boring. Somewhere in the film is the scene where Mulch Diggums digs a tunnel in the second floor of Fowl Manor. Normally, excavations always take place high up, as is well known.

Nobody liked the film "Artemis Fowl". Everyone loved the film's financial potential, the existing fandom, the franchise potential. However, nobody cared about the important elements of the film, the story and the characters.

The film is a disaster.

Don't watch it.

Yuck.

38 people like this article

Dominik Bärlocher

Senior Editor

dominik.baerlocher@digitecgalaxus.ch

Journalist. Author. Hacker. A storyteller searching for boundaries, secrets and taboos – putting the world to paper. Not because I can but because I can’t not.

Audio

Follow topics and stay updated on your areas of interest

Movies and series

Follow topics and stay updated on your areas of interest

Product test

Our experts test products and their applications. Independently and neutrally.

Show all

These articles might also interest you

Product test
Journey to China: Mystery of Iron Mask review: Jackie Chan meets Arnold Schwarzenegger
by Dominik Bärlocher
Product test
Minor hitches aside, «Fantastic Beasts 3» is simply magical
by Luca Fontana
Product test
Venom 2 fits the bill: but don’t expect anything more than mindless fun
by Luca Fontana