Well lets not let this thread get hot or staff might close it.... (I wont add my comments or it may indeed blow sky high)
In the end it seemed like Joseph Gordon-Levitt was doing a Will Smith impression when he voiced Jiminy Cricket.
Yeah, this is spot on. Having two little guys in the house, I see a ton of Disney stuff now. This one is pretty much a dud. Looking forward to Guillermo’s version, which was shot here in Portland.
My gut told me this would be a stinker, but in truth I only watched the first 15 minutes and bailed, so I might be completely wrong. Still, I have no urge to go back and find out.
It doesn't get any better after the first fifteen minutes. An exception - the visuals during the Pleasure Island sequence are pretty spectacular.
I watched it and didn't think it was a bad movie. It's kind of pointless however, and does not bring much to the screen that the story already has given. It follows the original tale very closely to a T, and they did a good job in that regard. What makes it an odd-ball, you have the great talent of Tom Hanks playing a part when he is so much better than this. Being a Hanks fan, just the same, I would not have watched the film otherwise. In terms of what Hanks can bring to a movie, yeah, it's probably a 5/10, because he deserves better. I don't see why the young crowd wouldn't love it though, spite a lot of the negative reviews it's getting. I enjoyed it enough, but it wont be high on my repeat play list... So many of these great 'older' actors still around, but the material is letting a lot of them down. Everything now just seems like a repeat of something already done.... I'll give this one a.... 5.5/10
Well, at the very least, Pinocchio actually looks like his 2D counterpart. Which might not seem like much, but it's actually the nicest thing I have ever said about any of these remakes.
I don't think it has any thing to do with "politics", particularly in this case...just another in a series of creative decisions a part of the public wasn't involved in, and somehow feels they have a right to be. The same thing happens every time I start a thread here when somebody doesn't want the rest of the forum to read and consider what it is I'm saying. Seeing people twist themselves in knots looking for reasons the film is "bad" when it's worst sin is perhaps just that it was, "unnecessary", is almost laughable. Because, it wasn't their job to sign off on that project. Learn the craft, get a job in the industry, work your way up through the ranks, walk a mile in those shoes, see the ledger from the other side of the desk, and you finally get the right to do more than judge who deserves to see the movie you have in your mind. If anybody here has a right to even be close to that decision, it's me - because I'm a voting Disney stockholder. I'm just waiting for that great day Disney decides to do their live action remake of The Princess And The Frog...and re-cast the "princess" as a fat, bald comic book guy with glasses who lives in his mother's basement. Maybe then it will be "okay"...?
