Bardlerx Strictly average movie

PlatinumRead Just so...so bad

Smartorhypo Highly Overrated But Still Good

ClassyWas Excellent, smart action film.

generaallucas So, I've watched Pinocchio. So, what do I think about it? Let's begin with the good parts. We have Prague, Český Krumlov and Croatia serving as the sets, I adored that, and it makes the movie better because of it. The music matches the tone of the scenes and gives a nice feeling to it. The puppet of Pinocchio is also a nice piece of professional craftsmanship and is properly used in the movie production. And there is Martin Landau playing as Gepetto and it is obvious he's doing a good job at it.But then everyone with a human brain that is properly functioning and isn't here for a cheesy half-dead experience starts to think about what the movie shows them. And then this movie falls apart. The writing is bad and that is obvious. I'm not going to do a scene analysis but just going to pick the biggest sore points I saw in this movie.For instance, we have Pepe the Cricket. I think he is supposed to be reminiscent of Jiminy Cricket in some way, but he is not helping Pinocchio really as a supporting character. I think Pinocchio just found everything he needed to know out on his own and Pepe did not really help in that. His jokes also aren't funny and he is just plain annoying. And whereas with the Disney version we clearly understood why Jiminy was doing what he was doing because the Blue Faerie asked him to do so, Pepe is just a stalker doing things for no reason or motive whatsoever. The second problem is Pinocchio's quest to become a real boy. It is contrived and comes out of nowhere and only seems to exist ''just because all Pinocchio versions are based around that''. But here there are no promises regarding him becoming a real boy if he fulfills a certain condition (like the Blue Faerie gave him in the Disney version after he was made alive and in the book at a certain point in the story), but here it is blatant wish-fulfillment and because miracles come from the heart. Yeah, that is a great idea for writing. The third problem is the lore of the world in general. Lore is information we learn about the universe of the story and what makes it tick. Some parts are nicely set up, like how Gepetto's emotional impact on a tree makes the magic in it alive so he could years later find it again and make a puppet out of it. And of course there is the water that turns people into animals they are mostly in common with and how Pinocchio escapes that by the holes in his body. It could've been done better but we understand why things are the way they are. However, there are major holes that a bit of rationalizing aren't going to save. This is mostly due to poor exposition. For instance: at the end of the story we learn that Lampwick was turned back into a human because he did a lot of good deeds. Wait, what? We only were told that the water turned people into animals, not how to resolve that. If we as the audience could learn about what the solution was against it, and it turned out to be good deeds, then we understood what their next plan was and how Lampwick could resolve his tiny problem. And also, if good deeds are the answer, wouldn't any hard-working donkey-kid turn back after a certain amount of time? Weird. And then there is the problem regarding the foreman turning into a monster – wait, that isn't an animal. Why not a vicious wolf or bear or any other animal that can fit his metaphor?The fourth problem are Volpe and Felinet (get it? Fox and Feline. Yeah, great satire here.) Whereas in the book they were brilliant and deceitful, and in the Disney movie they had a clear motive to what they were doing, they're suffering here from the same problem as Pepe; what are they doing anyways? I understood the part with Lorenzini because of the money and all that, but afterwards they don't really seem to have a purpose except for staying on screen and annoying everybody. O, yes, they're supposed to bring him back to Lorenzini but they're not trying to do that. Strange.And my last big problem is the teacher. If I were a teacher back then, I would have noticed that there is a boy in my class that isn't a student of mine, and, o yeah, is A WOODEN PUPPET. He does never question it but only remarks the nose, like he had more wooden puppets before as students. Great. Anyway, for those who were TL; DR: the atmosphere is good, the acting is decent but the story falls flat on its wooden face. And stories are kind of important.

lwjoslin This is a lavish, sumptuously-mounted version of the classic story. Great costumes and location work, with Prague as 18th-century Italy. Top-notch FX: Pinocchio himself; Pepe (not Jiminy) Cricket; a hUge, whale-like sea monster; boys morphing into jackasses.Good cast: Martin Landau (fresh from his Oscar-winning portrayal of Lugosi in "Ed Wood") as Gepetto; Genevieve Bujold, whom I hadn't seen in ages (and who is aging very nicely), as his long-term love interest; Udo Kier as the heavy; plus an assortment of other character actors mostly unknown to me.Altogether well-done, its only drawbacks being a couple of lame songs, plus occasional slapstick for the kiddies. And it must be admitted, the Diz cartoon is a tough act to follow.

soranno The world famous fairy tale, "Pinocchio" is a story that is better suited for animation formats when it comes to film adaptations. This 1996 New Line Cinema version makes its first mistake by casting "Home Improvement" costar Jonathan Taylor Thomas in the title role and it makes more mistakes by not entirely sticking to the true storyline much of the time. However, Martin Landau makes a believable Gepetto and his performance prevents this film from being a complete waste of time.

Scott Miller For the first half hour of this movie, I felt I had completely wasted my money. It's so kid-friendly it's almost unbearable. But somewhere along the line, as the wooden puppet begins to discover more about life, the movie begins to figure things out, as well. Ultimately, the movie redeems itself, but I still don't know that I can recommend it. It's not a film to be avoided, but I wouldn't go out of my way to see it.