Leofwine_draca
I consider myself a fan of THE BORROWERS after watching the BBC children's TV series in the early 1990s. Recently I read the original novel for the first time and enjoyed it; I also saw the fine Japanese animated adaptation of the story, ARRIETTY. So I was interested, if not a little wary, to see how this American version of the story would held up. It's worth noting that I'd never seen it before.Simply put, this is a travesty of a film and a huge disappointment for a true BORROWERS fan. Other than the central characters, the entire storyline has been jettisoned in favour of a bombastic, action-packed chase narrative in which the little people must team up to battle evil property tycoon John Goodman. This is about as far from the small-scale (pun intended) origins of the original Mary Norton story as it gets.There are a few lights twinkling away amid the garbage; I'll be the first to admit that Jim Broadbent makes for an effective Pod, and Tom Felton shines in an early role. Celia Imrie isn't bad as Homily, but she's no match for Penelope Wilton. The special effects aren't too bad for the year, and few of them scream 'obvious CGI' like so many Hollywood films today.So where did it go wrong? Well, the attempts to update the story for a modern American audience is a good start. The setting is some ridiculous 'netherworld' which mixes modern-day technology with 1950s-era Britain and America. It's ludicrous. Goodman's villain is poorly shoe-horned into the storyline and the subject of numerous fat jokes. Really? Is it right for a film to be teaching kids to constantly insult people due to their weight? The characters are badly written, the dumb humour consists of farting dogs and the like, and the whole thing has been dumbed down massively and lost the magic of the original. In the end it's just another soulless Hollywood effects piece.
TheLittleSongbird
If you forgive the fact that there are slow moments in the plot, this is a truly delightful family film. There are some genuinely funny and heart warming moments in the script, the costumes are colourful and the sets and scenery are quite elaborate. The part with Ocious and the Exterminator trying to demolish the house is one of many hilarious parts of the movie. Of course though it is indeed the special effects that steal the show, highly imaginative and clever. The film is directed by Peter Hewitt who also directed Bill and Ted's Bogus Journey, and is fairly solid. As for the acting it was great. While there is a hilarious supporting turn from Mark Williams as the Exterminator, and fine support from British thespians Hugh Laurie, an adorable Tom Felton and Celia Imrie, two casting members stood out. One was Jim Broadbent, while he has been better, he is in good form as the father of the tiny Clocks. The other, and the more obvious one, is a perfectly cast John Goodman as the unscrupulous lawyer Ocious P. Potter. The music is great as well.All in all, a pretty darn good family film. Not perfect, but well worth the watch. 9/10 Bethany Cox
ccthemovieman-1
When this first came out, almost a decade ago, I thought it was the best job I had seen of making miniature people look real. This showed how far technology had come in films and now, of course, we see a lot more amazing special effects.It was fun to view how these "borrowers" moved about, using ordinary household items to propel themselves around a normal-sized house. It's all pretty ingenious.John Goodman plays a cartoon-like role, a role that is generally funny to watch. The cast has a mixture of American and English actors, with a setting of 1940s Britain. I first saw this on VHS and then later on DVD, which was improvement not only video-wise, but audio, too, as it somehow went from mono to surround sound. This might be considered a kids movie but a lot of the humor is more adult-oriented.
Meredith-7
Having read the mary Norton novels I was expecting a little morefrom the film. What i got was entertaining enough, it could havebeen better though. It seemed to be a mismatch between HomeAlone and Honey I Shrunk the Kids, and was pretty much on thesame par as these two films. The acting was o.k, and the visualeffects were quite good but i thought it could have benefited frommore substance. Still it was not a total waste of time, it had somegood parts. The 10 year old boy was quite annoying though, andwould benefit from a few more years acting lessons beforeinflicting us with his talentless efforts. That said the largelyBritish cast did their best.
AD
