26 reviews
I remember back around the time this 1996 version of "Pinocchio" was released (not sure whether it was around the time of its theatrical release or its home video release). I saw the promotional image of a wooden Pinocchio looking at a real version of himself like a reflection in the water, and later saw a trailer for this adaptation of Carlo Collodi's story on TV. Even though I was very familiar with the classic 1940 Disney version, I never actually saw this movie when it was new, not that I was missing much. Well over a decade later, I finally saw it just last night. By this point, I knew it wasn't a very popular film, so my expectations weren't very high, and it's a good thing they weren't, since I found "The Adventures of Pinocchio" to be below average!
Pinocchio is a wooden puppet carved by a woodcutter and puppet maker named Geppetto. Soon after he finishes making this puppet figure of a boy, it magically comes to life! Even though Pinocchio is still wooden, he can now move and talk, but doesn't know much about the world around him. He wants to be a real boy, but has a lot to learn before that can happen. While walking out with Geppetto, he meets some schoolchildren and wants to go to school himself. He also catches the attention of two criminals named Felinet and Volpe, and is soon wanted by the evil Lorenzini! At school, Pinocchio punches a classmate and lies to the teacher about it, causing his nose to grow longer with each lie, and after he finally confesses, he is kicked out of class. He then goes to a bakery, where he causes chaos, and for this, he and Geppetto are both taken to court! They will both be sent to prison unless Gepetto can pay for the damages, which he can't, so Lorenzini offers to pay, but only if Pinocchio is given to him. Eventually, Geppetto reluctantly gives in and Lorenzini gets the puppet, but it turns out Pinocchio is not safe with him! The living wooden puppet finds himself on an adventure full of danger, with a wise cricket named Pepe often appearing to give him advice!
This film adaptation begins with a poor opening narration from David Doyle, which turns out to be the voice of Pepe the Cricket. This character is supposed to be funny, but he fails. The same goes for the rest of the film's humour in general, in scenes such as the havoc Pinocchio wreaks in the bakery. It's not funny when it tries to be. Also, it seems Felinet and Volpe are supposed to be funny, but they also fail miserably, unlike Honest John and Gideon in the 1940 version. Some of the characters in this 1996 version may get a little annoying at times, including the title one, and I think this is when they're trying to be funny. The poor humour isn't the only problem here. "The Adventures of Pinocchio" seems rushed, going too fast and seeming to just throw in characters without taking enough time to introduce them, making them seem very insignificant. Geppetto certainly doesn't seem very surprised when he sees Pinocchio alive for the first time. The lack of focus even makes the story seem almost meaningless, even though it does include the morals of the story, but in a very ineffective manner! The film fails both at trying to be funny AND trying to be touching, except maybe near the end. I also didn't care for the design of the wooden Pinocchio's face and his facial expressions.
I have never read the 19th century book, "The Adventures of Pinocchio", by Carlo Collodi, but have been familiar with the animated 1940 Disney flick from a very early age, so it's obviously hard for me not to compare these two films. I can't forget the times I saw the 1940 version as a kid, and I still thought that film was great when I watched it again a couple times in 2007, my first viewings of the classic piece of Disney animation since my childhood in the 90's. It has excitement, poignancy, and some good humour, and all this is more than I can say about the 1996 version. This movie does have some nice visuals, but that's the only positive thing I can think of to say about it, and that's certainly not enough to make it worthwhile. Some movies can improve with a second viewing, but I can't imagine how I could ever warm up to this mess of a live action adaptation of Collodi's story, so I don't intend to watch it again. If the screenplay had been better written, it could have made a really good family movie, but due to its poor quality and lack of focus, the film's results were disappointing.
Pinocchio is a wooden puppet carved by a woodcutter and puppet maker named Geppetto. Soon after he finishes making this puppet figure of a boy, it magically comes to life! Even though Pinocchio is still wooden, he can now move and talk, but doesn't know much about the world around him. He wants to be a real boy, but has a lot to learn before that can happen. While walking out with Geppetto, he meets some schoolchildren and wants to go to school himself. He also catches the attention of two criminals named Felinet and Volpe, and is soon wanted by the evil Lorenzini! At school, Pinocchio punches a classmate and lies to the teacher about it, causing his nose to grow longer with each lie, and after he finally confesses, he is kicked out of class. He then goes to a bakery, where he causes chaos, and for this, he and Geppetto are both taken to court! They will both be sent to prison unless Gepetto can pay for the damages, which he can't, so Lorenzini offers to pay, but only if Pinocchio is given to him. Eventually, Geppetto reluctantly gives in and Lorenzini gets the puppet, but it turns out Pinocchio is not safe with him! The living wooden puppet finds himself on an adventure full of danger, with a wise cricket named Pepe often appearing to give him advice!
This film adaptation begins with a poor opening narration from David Doyle, which turns out to be the voice of Pepe the Cricket. This character is supposed to be funny, but he fails. The same goes for the rest of the film's humour in general, in scenes such as the havoc Pinocchio wreaks in the bakery. It's not funny when it tries to be. Also, it seems Felinet and Volpe are supposed to be funny, but they also fail miserably, unlike Honest John and Gideon in the 1940 version. Some of the characters in this 1996 version may get a little annoying at times, including the title one, and I think this is when they're trying to be funny. The poor humour isn't the only problem here. "The Adventures of Pinocchio" seems rushed, going too fast and seeming to just throw in characters without taking enough time to introduce them, making them seem very insignificant. Geppetto certainly doesn't seem very surprised when he sees Pinocchio alive for the first time. The lack of focus even makes the story seem almost meaningless, even though it does include the morals of the story, but in a very ineffective manner! The film fails both at trying to be funny AND trying to be touching, except maybe near the end. I also didn't care for the design of the wooden Pinocchio's face and his facial expressions.
I have never read the 19th century book, "The Adventures of Pinocchio", by Carlo Collodi, but have been familiar with the animated 1940 Disney flick from a very early age, so it's obviously hard for me not to compare these two films. I can't forget the times I saw the 1940 version as a kid, and I still thought that film was great when I watched it again a couple times in 2007, my first viewings of the classic piece of Disney animation since my childhood in the 90's. It has excitement, poignancy, and some good humour, and all this is more than I can say about the 1996 version. This movie does have some nice visuals, but that's the only positive thing I can think of to say about it, and that's certainly not enough to make it worthwhile. Some movies can improve with a second viewing, but I can't imagine how I could ever warm up to this mess of a live action adaptation of Collodi's story, so I don't intend to watch it again. If the screenplay had been better written, it could have made a really good family movie, but due to its poor quality and lack of focus, the film's results were disappointing.
- Beta_Gallinger
- Jul 31, 2010
- Permalink
- LordNuggets
- Jan 21, 2014
- Permalink
Another film watched in preparation for the "How Did This Get Made Podcast". Whilst it's certainly not great, or even good, it's a little better than most of the other films I've watched for them.
Lonely Geppetto (Martin Landau) fills his time making puppets, in the Italian town he lives in. One day he carves a new marionette out of a magical piece of wood and that night it comes to life. This puppet, Pinocchio (Voiced by Jonathan Taylor Thomas), struggles with his naivety and his trusting nature and soon his misfortune is exploited by Lorenzini (Udo Kier) who makes him the star of his puppet show.
So first, I have to say that I struggled enormously with the version of this film that's on UK Amazon Prime. I don't think it was my internet connection, as both immediately before and afterwards streaming was working fine, but whilst viewing this film I was plagued with freezes, blank screens and framerate issues. It very nearly rendered it unwatchable and I kept having to stop and restart the film in order to make it bearable.
From what I could make out then, visually the film was pretty strong. There's a lot of excellent work done in set design and background effects. The Czech Republic doubles for Italy nicely at whatever year the story was supposed to be set in (Mid 1800s?). The visual effects towards the end are pretty solid too. It's odd, but interesting, to see so many UK comedy actors flown out for very little. Dawn French has two scenes, John Sessions one and Griff Rhys Jones has about one line. Big fan of Bebe Neuworth in anything, even if here she and Rob Schneider are pretty tiresome in this.
The puppet of Pinocchio, though really well made, is a bit creepy. There are general issues with the film stock used and the quality of the dialogue recording (even allowing for the issues I was having streaming it). It looks like it could have been made twenty years earlier than 1996, but what's very 1996 is the CGI cricket that fulfils the conscience role. It's both terrible to look at and the script given to veteran vocal performer David Doyle is full of modern idioms and the worst self-referential puns you could imagine.
Whilst I admire the effort that's gone into it, "The Adventure of Pinocchio" has aged like a fine yoghurt and unfortunately wasn't that good to begin with.
Lonely Geppetto (Martin Landau) fills his time making puppets, in the Italian town he lives in. One day he carves a new marionette out of a magical piece of wood and that night it comes to life. This puppet, Pinocchio (Voiced by Jonathan Taylor Thomas), struggles with his naivety and his trusting nature and soon his misfortune is exploited by Lorenzini (Udo Kier) who makes him the star of his puppet show.
So first, I have to say that I struggled enormously with the version of this film that's on UK Amazon Prime. I don't think it was my internet connection, as both immediately before and afterwards streaming was working fine, but whilst viewing this film I was plagued with freezes, blank screens and framerate issues. It very nearly rendered it unwatchable and I kept having to stop and restart the film in order to make it bearable.
From what I could make out then, visually the film was pretty strong. There's a lot of excellent work done in set design and background effects. The Czech Republic doubles for Italy nicely at whatever year the story was supposed to be set in (Mid 1800s?). The visual effects towards the end are pretty solid too. It's odd, but interesting, to see so many UK comedy actors flown out for very little. Dawn French has two scenes, John Sessions one and Griff Rhys Jones has about one line. Big fan of Bebe Neuworth in anything, even if here she and Rob Schneider are pretty tiresome in this.
The puppet of Pinocchio, though really well made, is a bit creepy. There are general issues with the film stock used and the quality of the dialogue recording (even allowing for the issues I was having streaming it). It looks like it could have been made twenty years earlier than 1996, but what's very 1996 is the CGI cricket that fulfils the conscience role. It's both terrible to look at and the script given to veteran vocal performer David Doyle is full of modern idioms and the worst self-referential puns you could imagine.
Whilst I admire the effort that's gone into it, "The Adventure of Pinocchio" has aged like a fine yoghurt and unfortunately wasn't that good to begin with.
- southdavid
- Jan 28, 2020
- Permalink
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.
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.
- jboothmillard
- Sep 12, 2005
- Permalink
- anaconda-40658
- Aug 10, 2015
- Permalink
This is one of the better "family films" that adults would still enjoy, and I don' mean to use that as a cliché. Suffice to say it's a fast-moving story, is creatively done and looks super on DVD. This was a stunner, visually-speaking.
The creativity - especially for a film 10 years old - involves the wonderful special-effects that make the famous wooden puppet so lifelike. I haven't seen it in eight or nine years but when this came out first on VHS I remember being shocked at the visuals and how real things looked.
This is not an animated film, and the story is a bit different from other versions. How faithful this is to the original story, I cannot tell you, because I never was a big fan of the story. I can tell you, however, that Martin Landau is very good playing Pinochhio's creator "Geppetto."
I found it interesting that the cricket in this story was called "Pepe," not Jiminy Cricket. At any rate, this is a nicely-done version of the famous kids' story.
The creativity - especially for a film 10 years old - involves the wonderful special-effects that make the famous wooden puppet so lifelike. I haven't seen it in eight or nine years but when this came out first on VHS I remember being shocked at the visuals and how real things looked.
This is not an animated film, and the story is a bit different from other versions. How faithful this is to the original story, I cannot tell you, because I never was a big fan of the story. I can tell you, however, that Martin Landau is very good playing Pinochhio's creator "Geppetto."
I found it interesting that the cricket in this story was called "Pepe," not Jiminy Cricket. At any rate, this is a nicely-done version of the famous kids' story.
- ccthemovieman-1
- Mar 28, 2006
- Permalink
- luigiisepik
- Dec 22, 2022
- Permalink
Don't get me wrong, I really like this movie. The star is Pinnocchio himself, with a very likable voice over by Jonathan Taylor Thomas, with very careful design by Angus Bickerton. Also superb is Martin Landau as Geopetto, who brought charm and sadness to the role. The only things that weren't so well done were Jiminy Cricket, though David Doyle voiced him with spirit,(it's just his character animation was a bit mechanical) and Udo Keir's villain did little for me, but that is just me being picky. The film is lavishly designed, especially with the scenes with the puppets with the sets that look like something out of an opera or vaudeville. Also Rachel Portman's score was beautiful, very dynamic and sometimes moving in the more slower bits. Comparing this to the Disney film, this is a lot more faithful to the book by Carlo Callodi, but the Disney film has charm and a certain darkness that isn't quite there here, but it is evident. All in all, a highly underrated and beautiful film. 7/10 Bethany Cox.
- TheLittleSongbird
- May 14, 2009
- Permalink
It's hard for me to believe this movie had received such a low rating when it deserves wonderful reviews. Adventures of Pinocchio is a true gem, so perfect, so unique, that it can only be defined as a work of art. You don't have to believe me, just rent it today. I have watched this movie several times and is one of my favorite movies of all times.
This is certainly a well done movie, with an all-star cast. However, the intended target audience of this film is unclear. While little kids, who know of Pinocchio from story books and the Disney Animated Classic, are sure to enjoy the outstanding animation of the puppet, will most likely be frightened by many of the other scenes. Older kids, teenagers, and many adults often consider themselves too old for the story of Pinocchio; with a few exceptions.
There's also a couple other scenes in the film which make it objectionable for younger children. One scene makes repeated use of the word "jack-a**"; while referring to donkeys, as in the original story, the word seems a little over used for a film that has a "G" rating in Canada (not sure of the US rating). Another objectionable scene is at the end when "real boy" Pinocchio, tells a lie to two of the films villains, knowing that his nose won't grow anymore. To me this counter-acts the lesson to be learned by having his nose grow when he lies in the first place.
Over all the film is still really well done, and very touching (provoking tear-ducts in places). The acting is excellent and the direction seems good. The script on the whole seems good, apart from the few objectionable scenes, which make me wonder what the film's target audience is meant to be; as opposed the recent Disney musical version, titled "Geppetto", which was definitely family-oriented.
There's also a couple other scenes in the film which make it objectionable for younger children. One scene makes repeated use of the word "jack-a**"; while referring to donkeys, as in the original story, the word seems a little over used for a film that has a "G" rating in Canada (not sure of the US rating). Another objectionable scene is at the end when "real boy" Pinocchio, tells a lie to two of the films villains, knowing that his nose won't grow anymore. To me this counter-acts the lesson to be learned by having his nose grow when he lies in the first place.
Over all the film is still really well done, and very touching (provoking tear-ducts in places). The acting is excellent and the direction seems good. The script on the whole seems good, apart from the few objectionable scenes, which make me wonder what the film's target audience is meant to be; as opposed the recent Disney musical version, titled "Geppetto", which was definitely family-oriented.
- deepspace93
- May 29, 2000
- Permalink
Saw it on DVD, pretty good transfer from film. I can't give it a very high rating as a film, it was a bit muddled at times in exactly what it was trying to convey. But the wooden puppet looked very life-like, his "education" was handled very well, and in the end the message of where life really comes from is very clear. My favorite part, however, was listening to Stevie Wonder sing the songs he wrote for the film.
I bought the DVD to give to my grandchildren, 7 and 10. It will be interesting to see how they react to it.
I bought the DVD to give to my grandchildren, 7 and 10. It will be interesting to see how they react to it.
Several years ago, Disney released their second animated feature length film Pinocchio in 1940, based on a book by Carlo Collodi and was considered as one of their most darkest films ever made before The Black Cauldron (which became a failure for Disney in 1985). It was also well-received by critics and people all over the world as one of the best films that touched their hearts since Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs. Years later, New Line Cinema made their own adaptation of the story and it got seriously panned by critics while resulting in bombing at the box office, but some people actually liked it and I'm one of those people. Sadly, I never read the book, but I'm planning to someday.
I used to like this as a kid, but as a young adult, this isn't in the same depth as the Disney version. It's pacing is pretty slow at times, but the stiff character animation of Jiminy Cricket and the underused villain are even bigger flaws than the pacing. Flaws aside, this is a pretty good adaptation. In fact, it's actually more faithful to the book compared to the Disney version. Don't get me wrong. Their version had charm and darkness that wasn't presented here, but this version has some elements from the book. With that said, there are some good aspects that made this worth-watching.
Jonathan Taylor Thomas' voice over for Pinocchio made him likable as did Martin Landau who brought sadness to his role as Gepetto. David Doyle did great as Jiminy Cricket despite it's stiff character animation and Rob Schneider and Bebe Neuwirth did very decent Volpe and Felinet. Udo Kier, although underused, did great as the villain Lorenzini. The cast isn't the only strongest aspect, however. The mixture of animation and live-action with the help of the Muppet creator, Jim Henson, captures the spirit of the book perfectly well and the CGI effects on Pinocchio is creative to look at you can feel like thanking the company for doing such a fine job. The visuals are magnificent and the cinematography is imaginative. Rachel Portman's music is dynamic and fitted quite well with the movie's slow moments and the pop songs, although not the greatest, are at least worth-listening to.
The Adventures of Pinocchio may not be the kind of family movie you've expected it to be, but due to it's faithfulness to the story with a likable cast, fantastic visuals, and solid CGI effects, this is a worth-watchable film to not only fans of the book, but to families young and old.
I used to like this as a kid, but as a young adult, this isn't in the same depth as the Disney version. It's pacing is pretty slow at times, but the stiff character animation of Jiminy Cricket and the underused villain are even bigger flaws than the pacing. Flaws aside, this is a pretty good adaptation. In fact, it's actually more faithful to the book compared to the Disney version. Don't get me wrong. Their version had charm and darkness that wasn't presented here, but this version has some elements from the book. With that said, there are some good aspects that made this worth-watching.
Jonathan Taylor Thomas' voice over for Pinocchio made him likable as did Martin Landau who brought sadness to his role as Gepetto. David Doyle did great as Jiminy Cricket despite it's stiff character animation and Rob Schneider and Bebe Neuwirth did very decent Volpe and Felinet. Udo Kier, although underused, did great as the villain Lorenzini. The cast isn't the only strongest aspect, however. The mixture of animation and live-action with the help of the Muppet creator, Jim Henson, captures the spirit of the book perfectly well and the CGI effects on Pinocchio is creative to look at you can feel like thanking the company for doing such a fine job. The visuals are magnificent and the cinematography is imaginative. Rachel Portman's music is dynamic and fitted quite well with the movie's slow moments and the pop songs, although not the greatest, are at least worth-listening to.
The Adventures of Pinocchio may not be the kind of family movie you've expected it to be, but due to it's faithfulness to the story with a likable cast, fantastic visuals, and solid CGI effects, this is a worth-watchable film to not only fans of the book, but to families young and old.
- gavin-thelordofthefu-48-460297
- Jul 10, 2012
- Permalink
I liked when they bullies said he had termites but by the end of the movie they were all friends and it was nice to see. At the start of the movie Pinocchio can't really walk or talk by the end he is a pro. The movie took many liberties from the source material, mainly this is something you watch and hear and don't read. A wood pecker attacked Pinocchio at one point so that maybe scary to children or adults afraid of birds.
7 outta 10! Would Recommend to anyone who enjoys period pieces about wooden children and is not afraid of birds, like my mother in law is.
7 outta 10! Would Recommend to anyone who enjoys period pieces about wooden children and is not afraid of birds, like my mother in law is.
- TheMaskedFacedReviewer
- Nov 12, 2021
- Permalink
Few people know about the extravagant, gorgeous 90's live action The Adventures Of Pinocchio. It's wonderful. Pinocchio and various other wonders in the film are designed by Jim Henson's creature shop, to startling effect. It's a dazzling, eye boggling version that for me even tops Disney's crack at it. Martin Landau plays Geppetto with humble charm and aching paternal kindness. Home Improvement's Jonathan Taylor Thomas voices The wooden puppet with staccato, confused word associations, until his interacting with the world around him teaches him how to speak properly. Bebe Neurith and Rob Schneider of all people, are sleazy and dim witted as real people versions of the cat and the fox. Character actor Udo Kier gives the best performance of the film as the films Stromboli, or here called Lorenzini. He's an evil fire breathing monster, and he plays the role to the hilt with his mad dog glare a smooth, terrifying demeanour. The special effects are first rate, from Jiminy Cricket bouncing around, to the ginormous whale in the third act, as well as the costumes and makeup, all truly something to be proud of. The one thing this one could have done without though, is a few goofy ass songs from Stevie Wonder. Like, wtf. Other than that the score itself is a perfectly operatic old world ballad of Italian arias and catchy flute tunes. For pure atmosphere and execution alone, this is the version of the timeless tale to see. It's got a baroque grandeur and whimsical storytelling that comes from the heart, as well as plenty of imagination.
- NateWatchesCoolMovies
- Aug 7, 2015
- Permalink
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.
- RestlessRust
- Aug 5, 2002
- Permalink
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.
Yes this movie's practical effects, characters and special effects didn't hold up very well, yes this didn't have the budget to justify a story of this scope, yes the donkey transformation is scary, yes this isn't the best depiction of Pinocchio, but you know what, that's okay.
The movie had one goal in mind, to try and translate the original novel as closely as possible, and if not, just tell a story. And they did. They put their best effort to try and make something unique, and it wasn't all for a lack of effort. If this had more money put into it, they could've done a much better job, clearly ambition outweighed what their budget could allow.
I will say on the donkey transformation, it's supposed to be scary, it's supposed to tell Pinocchio that something is seriously wrong and make him realize he made a terrible mistake.
In spite of this film's many flaws, they're more earnest compared to the 2022 Pinocchio live-action remake, Disney's own mind you. They represent the other extreme. They had all the money in the world and made something of it, but the story is far more hollow by comparison, all that effort, and it was all for nothing.
If you ask me, give me childhood trauma over a wet fart any day of the week, trauma builds character.
The movie had one goal in mind, to try and translate the original novel as closely as possible, and if not, just tell a story. And they did. They put their best effort to try and make something unique, and it wasn't all for a lack of effort. If this had more money put into it, they could've done a much better job, clearly ambition outweighed what their budget could allow.
I will say on the donkey transformation, it's supposed to be scary, it's supposed to tell Pinocchio that something is seriously wrong and make him realize he made a terrible mistake.
In spite of this film's many flaws, they're more earnest compared to the 2022 Pinocchio live-action remake, Disney's own mind you. They represent the other extreme. They had all the money in the world and made something of it, but the story is far more hollow by comparison, all that effort, and it was all for nothing.
If you ask me, give me childhood trauma over a wet fart any day of the week, trauma builds character.
- Channeleven
- Oct 26, 2023
- Permalink
There's no fairy in this movie which makes the magical aspects seem rather random at times, but Pinocchio himself is likeable, and sometimes funny. Gepetto is disappointing but the actor is fine, it's just this interpretation that didn't do it for me. Lorenzini is a good villain, all though the twist with him at the end was a bit weird unless your open minded about it.
I feel like the Cricket and Pinocchio relationship in this film was shafted, since there wasn't much of an internal conflict between Pinocchio's choices, and the cricket's wisdom. The film was just Pinocchio getting into debacles, but it wasn't really his fault, except in the beginning.
The Disney and newest version handled this aspect better, where Pinocchio kept making bad choices and therefore you felt the same sadness and betrayal that those characters felt. I didn't feel much of that here.
I feel like the Cricket and Pinocchio relationship in this film was shafted, since there wasn't much of an internal conflict between Pinocchio's choices, and the cricket's wisdom. The film was just Pinocchio getting into debacles, but it wasn't really his fault, except in the beginning.
The Disney and newest version handled this aspect better, where Pinocchio kept making bad choices and therefore you felt the same sadness and betrayal that those characters felt. I didn't feel much of that here.
Had this version of Pinnochio been made by a major Hollywood studio we would have had adverts on TV, all the major cinemas would have run it for weeks and we would never have heard the end of it. I saw this premiered at the Edinburgh Festival where the running time was listed as 180 minutes (so far as I can recall) and I thought we were half way through when in fact there were just 15 minutes to go. After the premier, it vanished from sight and I never heard nor saw any sign of it again. What a terrible waste. The film deserves better. My only disappointment was when the puppet turned into a chubby little boy but, after the excellent blending of animation with live action, this was a minor niggle. I found the film entertaining on several levels and strongly recommend it to film clubs and people with large screens - I suspect this is a film that does not work nearly so well on an average television set - a full-sized cinema or large Home Cinema system with surround sound is what it needs to do it justice.
I really hate the Disney movie of Pinocchio. Why? Because it totally destroys the real Pinocchio's image. Pinocchio isn't a such kid-friendly story in his original BOOK (yes, it is a book, not a fairy tale) written by Carlo Collodi. It was a story for everyone yes, but it was also pretty dark and edgy too!
That's why I absolutely love this movie (and hate to the death that awful sequel). I know, like the Disney one, it doesn't follow perfectly the plot of the book, but the big difference is that it actually have MORE things from the book than the Disney one. Also, the book has a pretty long story with lots of things that are difficult to put in a hour and half movie (Roberto Begnigni tried to do that, and we all know that the result was horrible). The classic special effects without CGI are amazing and the acting is great. The style of the movie reminds me a little Terry Gilliam's "The Adventures of Baron Munchausen" (1988). This movie is really magic to me and it has all the atmosphere and style of the original book. If only people read more Collodi's book (wich is amazing) and watch less the Disney movie, everybody would agree with me.
This is by far my favorite Pinocchio movie, and one of my favorite movies of all time.
That's why I absolutely love this movie (and hate to the death that awful sequel). I know, like the Disney one, it doesn't follow perfectly the plot of the book, but the big difference is that it actually have MORE things from the book than the Disney one. Also, the book has a pretty long story with lots of things that are difficult to put in a hour and half movie (Roberto Begnigni tried to do that, and we all know that the result was horrible). The classic special effects without CGI are amazing and the acting is great. The style of the movie reminds me a little Terry Gilliam's "The Adventures of Baron Munchausen" (1988). This movie is really magic to me and it has all the atmosphere and style of the original book. If only people read more Collodi's book (wich is amazing) and watch less the Disney movie, everybody would agree with me.
This is by far my favorite Pinocchio movie, and one of my favorite movies of all time.
- GrantKanigan
- Jan 30, 2020
- Permalink
I bought the DVD at Walmart because it looked okay, and was less than 6 bucks. Somehow the movie lost me when the cricket said they should bottle the pine scent. At that point it seemed to have a different writer. But the worst of all is the out of place Stevie Wonder songs. When I heard him sing I thought, "What is THAT noise? Who screwed up the sound track?"
Nonetheless, the wooden puppet is great and I particularly like the way they handled Pinocchio's origin (the tree carving) and the water transforming device. They were welcomed twists that gave the classic story some freshness.
Nonetheless, the wooden puppet is great and I particularly like the way they handled Pinocchio's origin (the tree carving) and the water transforming device. They were welcomed twists that gave the classic story some freshness.
- captaincrouton
- May 24, 2003
- Permalink