NateWatchesCoolMovies 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.

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.

Gavin Cresswell (gavin-thelordofthefu-48-460297) 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.

captaincrouton 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.