Jeanskynebu the audience applauded

Kodie Bird True to its essence, the characters remain on the same line and manage to entertain the viewer, each highlighting their own distinctive qualities or touches.

Taha Avalos The best films of this genre always show a path and provide a takeaway for being a better person.

Beulah Bram A film of deceptively outspoken contemporary relevance, this is cinema at its most alert, alarming and alive.

pwla Accepting the hazards inherent in any attempt to realise a well-known and loved book in audio/visual form, "Disneyising" this plot is still a mistake. One of the great joys of the book, especially for (older) adults, is its distinctive Australianism, its evocation of the period of Banjo Patterson's "Saltbush Bill", and this is paid lip-service only. The watered-down accents, presumably to make the movie more "internationally acceptable", are a letdown as well. I would have expected to have recognised Jack Thompson's voice instantly. Even the potentially inspired casting of John Cleese as Albert, the Puddin', falls short. Albert and Basil Fawlty have a good deal in common, and one listens largely in vain for any sign of this. Viewed in isolation, on its own merits, a moderately enjoyable pre-teen animation. As a film realisation of a unique, and distinctively Australian, classic, a huge disappointment.

aplord You know a film is in trouble when a character in children's classic written early last century utters a line like " It'll destroy the very fabric of the universe!" That line - or something like it, gets a workout towards the end of this crude updating of the Australian Classic.Of course, you won't have to wait until near the end to realise that this film is in trouble. The first few minutes will be all it takes.Assemble a fine cast, spend millions and adapt the Australian Children's book that's in the same league as the "Wizard of Oz", "Wind in the Willows" or "Alice in Wonderland". A recipe for success you would think.Instead this is a disaster.Why? Because the makers simply didn't trust the strength of their material. Norman Lindsay wrote the book to prove that kids like hearing stories about food. It was a bet. Someone else had offered the opinion that what children wanted to hear about was "fairies and elves "."Nonsense," said Lindsay and wrote the Magic Pudding to prove it.The Magic Pudding is loud, fast, broad, satirical and the book they invented the word "rambunctious" for.The film is mild, meandering and with a moral about friendship and not being greedy. It comes with extra characters to give it cuteness, extra plot to give it relevance and extra gags "for the kids".Sad sad sad. Read the book. Read the book aloud. Read it aloud to kids. Don't bother seeing this movie.

snowyguineapig I watched the first half hour of this thing on Showtime this morning before I switched off the TV. The best bits were the water colour backgrounds. Story was s***e. No direction. Lots of meaningless action. All wasted and futile. The people that made this need to go back and Learn the craft of Storytelling. Moral: Don't try and upgrade a classic.Funniest bit: John Laws trying to act. Hilarious!

simonc-3 I really had high hopes for this film. Twelve million dollar budget, digitalanimation, star-packed cast (John Cleese, Sam Neill, Geoffrey Rush, Hugo Weaving, Toni Collette, Jack Thompson), fond memories of the Norman Lindsay story and the promise that it was going to mark a new direction in Australian mainstream animation.Well, five minutes in and I was ready to leave. Most of the audience (packed to capacity with kids and adults) looked fidgety and bored. It's hard to remember a film that fails so comprehensively.Looking forward to state-of-the art digital animation? Well you will have to be content with shoddy eighties-style Yoram Gross animation with a few digital lens flares. Yes, washed out watercolour backgrounds and sub-Disney style characters with bad inbetweening are back! Oh yes, and atrocious lip-syncing. At several points, Bill Barnacle's mouth doesn't even move when he talks!Want a good story? Well this confusingly paced film had most of the kids restless and scratching their heads as they tried to figure out what was going on. For adults and fans of the Lindsay original, it manages to tick-off the original in plot points and scenes without any of the warmth or character of the original. It also introduces new elements such as Bluegum's lost parents that please no one. It reminded me of the old Rankin Bass "animated classics"; exciting stories leeched of their quirkyness and originality through a pedestrian TV-style telling.Great voice acting and dialogue? Well if you can get past John Laws as Bumpus, the voice acting is okay. The dialogue however is awful. Poor old John Cleese is left to seemingly improvise old Fawlty Towers/Monty Python material while Geoffrey Rush utters some insipid stuff as Bunyip Bluegum. And yes, I know it's a kids movie!Top musical numbers? Well the musical numbers pop up at unexpected moments but are mercifully brief. Most of them are passable eighties fare with the exception of one sickly-sweet Celine Dion power ballad by Bluegum's mum. In a week, I will have forgotten how they sounded.The rest? Well did I mention the Saturday morning cartoon gags complete with musical "stings" or the TV-style direction (no swooping digital camera techniques here). Think of the The Silver Brumby and you'd be close..This is not a clever movie. This is a dumb TV cartoon writ large. It shows no love for Lindsay nor any understanding of what a modern kids movie should be.