Pacionsbo Absolutely Fantastic

Tayyab Torres Strong acting helps the film overcome an uncertain premise and create characters that hold our attention absolutely.

Kaelan Mccaffrey Like the great film, it's made with a great deal of visible affection both in front of and behind the camera.

Scarlet The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

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.

Electrified_Voltage 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.

TheLittleSongbird 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.

cjteninty I saw this movie with my kids, and frankly, they could not stay focused on it. The movie jumped around a lot. I tended to get lost. I did however, like Rob Schneider, I felt he did a pretty good job. All in all my summary is if you have seen the Walt Disney version, DON'T see this one! The animated version is much more better. Although they did it 90's style, for instance in the Disney version the boys going to the island smoked cigars; this version, they drank the water and you know the rest.