"Millions" is one of those movies about characters (in this case, children) who stumble upon a wad of cash, decide to use it for their own purposes instead of turning it in to police, and ultimately learn a valuable lesson about materialism. This is not exactly a new idea. I am told that the director Danny Boyle has himself used it before, in his more grownup 1994 film "Shallow Grave." The twist in "Millions" is that England is about to switch over to the euro, so the kids have only a short time to use the money they have found!
It's a clever twist, with numerous plot possibilities. One of the things I liked about the film was that it avoided the usual route of assuming that the kids would be motivated by greed. The main kid, played by Alexander Nathan Etel in an exceptionally good debut performance, is obsessed with Catholic saints, and has a strong philanthropic impulse. The main thing he seeks to do with the money is to help poor kids in the neighborhood, or at least kids he thinks are poor. It is the adults who end up being more materialistic. One of the best scenes involves an argument between the child and his father over what to do with the cash, and it is the father who comes off as more selfish--though not necessarily wrong. What's nice about the scene is the way it avoids taking sides, and falls well in the tradition of stories where a child discovers that the world is more complex than he first believed.
Unfortunately, that scene is one of the few that really work. The film, for all its charms, has a myriad of flaws. Why didn't most critics take note of them? Probably because the film has the sort of artsy feel that critics love, with its visual creativity and its quirky British humor. These elements, while entertaining, mask weak plot development. For example, I found it hard to believe that the adult characters would continually fail to pick up on what the kids were up to. For the first hour, indeed, it is as if the adults are absent in the manner of a "Peanuts" cartoon, and when they do finally figure into the story as we expected they would, we're not sure why it took them so long.
I could have forgiven the movie for this plausibility problem if the ending had provided a sense of closure, but in that arena the movie also falls short. In most stories of this kind, there is a point when the main character realizes that the money has brought him nothing but misery, and he decides to destroy it. When that point finally does arrive in this film, it is based more on plot manipulation than on rational judgment, and it left me unsure what the movie's attitude really was toward the money.
I admit that it is easy to confuse weak plotting with mere subtlety, especially since this film has an abundance of both. It's the sort of film where very little is spelled out, where much is left to implication. Only twice is it hinted that the kid's vivid fantasies are hallucinations, and it requires some effort to determine whether some scenes are real or imagined. The older brother's resentment at his dad's girlfriend also goes unexplained. Mature viewers will discern that the mother's death is at the heart of these two children's erratic behavior, both the older brother's anger and the younger kid's withdrawal into a fantasy world. I wish the film had focused more on the death and bereavement theme instead of leaving us to speculate about how it affected everything. Ultimately, the film short-circuits this plot point with a trite message about the true meaning of "miracles."
Of course, this is all heavy stuff that younger viewers are unlikely to understand. But contrary to what you may have heard, "Millions" is not really a children's movie; it is basically an adult movie depicting a child's perspective on the world. I didn't have a problem with that. There is a wonderful Swedish film called "My Life as a Dog" which uses a similar approach to great effect. What bothered me about "Millions" was its failure to provide a clear sense of its events, or to follow through with its themes.
It's a clever twist, with numerous plot possibilities. One of the things I liked about the film was that it avoided the usual route of assuming that the kids would be motivated by greed. The main kid, played by Alexander Nathan Etel in an exceptionally good debut performance, is obsessed with Catholic saints, and has a strong philanthropic impulse. The main thing he seeks to do with the money is to help poor kids in the neighborhood, or at least kids he thinks are poor. It is the adults who end up being more materialistic. One of the best scenes involves an argument between the child and his father over what to do with the cash, and it is the father who comes off as more selfish--though not necessarily wrong. What's nice about the scene is the way it avoids taking sides, and falls well in the tradition of stories where a child discovers that the world is more complex than he first believed.
Unfortunately, that scene is one of the few that really work. The film, for all its charms, has a myriad of flaws. Why didn't most critics take note of them? Probably because the film has the sort of artsy feel that critics love, with its visual creativity and its quirky British humor. These elements, while entertaining, mask weak plot development. For example, I found it hard to believe that the adult characters would continually fail to pick up on what the kids were up to. For the first hour, indeed, it is as if the adults are absent in the manner of a "Peanuts" cartoon, and when they do finally figure into the story as we expected they would, we're not sure why it took them so long.
I could have forgiven the movie for this plausibility problem if the ending had provided a sense of closure, but in that arena the movie also falls short. In most stories of this kind, there is a point when the main character realizes that the money has brought him nothing but misery, and he decides to destroy it. When that point finally does arrive in this film, it is based more on plot manipulation than on rational judgment, and it left me unsure what the movie's attitude really was toward the money.
I admit that it is easy to confuse weak plotting with mere subtlety, especially since this film has an abundance of both. It's the sort of film where very little is spelled out, where much is left to implication. Only twice is it hinted that the kid's vivid fantasies are hallucinations, and it requires some effort to determine whether some scenes are real or imagined. The older brother's resentment at his dad's girlfriend also goes unexplained. Mature viewers will discern that the mother's death is at the heart of these two children's erratic behavior, both the older brother's anger and the younger kid's withdrawal into a fantasy world. I wish the film had focused more on the death and bereavement theme instead of leaving us to speculate about how it affected everything. Ultimately, the film short-circuits this plot point with a trite message about the true meaning of "miracles."
Of course, this is all heavy stuff that younger viewers are unlikely to understand. But contrary to what you may have heard, "Millions" is not really a children's movie; it is basically an adult movie depicting a child's perspective on the world. I didn't have a problem with that. There is a wonderful Swedish film called "My Life as a Dog" which uses a similar approach to great effect. What bothered me about "Millions" was its failure to provide a clear sense of its events, or to follow through with its themes.