Kenneth Branagh's 'Artemis Fowl' is an unsuccessful attempt to replicate the success of Harry Potter.

After enduring all the torments of production hell, the project Artemis Fowl, an adaptation of the eponymous book series by Eoin Colfer, has reached audiences, but without a theatrical release, debuting directly on the Disney+ streaming platform. Perhaps this decision will save the studio from colossal losses, because such a poorly made film could never recoup its investment (which is roughly $125 million) in a traditional theatrical release. Let's figure out what's wrong with the new directorial work by Kenneth Branagh and why it rightfully receives a wave of hate from both critics and fans of the source material.

Script Confusion

At the center of the story is a 12-year-old genius named Artemis Fowl (Ferdia Shaw), whose father (Colin Farrell) suddenly disappears. The boy, distinguished by his daring character, along with a butler named Dom (Nonso Anozie), tries to uncover the mystery of the disappearance of Artemis Fowl Sr., simultaneously realizing that his father's stories about fairies, goblins, and other magical creatures of the underworld are not fiction.

In terms of the script, the new Disney blockbuster has a huge number of problems: inconsistencies, gaps and understatement, lack of clear motivation for the characters, and haste in revealing the secrets and features of the magical side of the story.

We can start the list of complaints with the most obvious absurdity: Artemis Fowl himself and other characters repeatedly state that he is considered a criminal genius, but here's the catch — the main character does nothing criminal either in the backstory or throughout the film's plot. Or is the boy so brilliant that no one understood anything? Doubtful.

The main character in Branagh's film looks like an ordinary and unremarkable boy, detached from reality by a script whim. He is not alive, not dynamic, not interesting in the slightest.

Another problem with the film can be called the lack of an adequate antagonist. It's hard to call 'Artemis Fowl' the new 'Harry Potter', whose laurels the creators were clearly aiming for, because Opal is no match for Voldemort. By and large, without knowing the plot of the literary source, it's generally difficult to understand what the main villain wants, what motives and goals she pursues, and what her characteristics are. De facto, the antagonist is present in the story, but why? The film gives no answer to this question, only clumsily hinting that everything will be clear in the sequel, which will never see the light of day.

Mediocre Blockbuster

Almost any weak story can be spiced up by the attributes of a cinematic attraction: large-scale scenes, exciting adventures, and appealing visuals. And here, 'Artemis Fowl' is frankly bad.

Perhaps I will incur the righteous wrath of fans of the British filmmaker's talent, but I am firmly convinced that Kenneth Branagh does not know how to make films. At least, not blockbusters. One can recall the derivative 'Thor', the pompous and empty 'Cinderella', or the lackluster 'Jack Ryan'.

The scenes in 'Artemis Fowl' lack dynamics, they don't have an ounce of originality (just think, the central action episode is an encounter with a troll!), and the special effects for the most part look cheap and unconvincing. What the $125 million budget was spent on is completely unclear.

Silver Lining

The only positive aspect of the film 'Artemis Fowl' can be called the character played by Josh Gad. With his charm and irony, the actor at least somewhat livens up this outright farce. But the efforts of one supporting character are clearly not enough to say anything positive about the film.

Is 'Artemis Fowl' Worth Watching?

The new Disney film can already be called an addition to the already rich collection of mediocre family blockbusters. Neither the renowned director, nor the talented cast, nor the popular book source material save the film from being derivative, lacking in ideas, and devoid of inspiration.

Trailer: