jackcwelch23 This was my favourite film as a kid. Being born the year it came out, I think i spent the majority of 1998 watching it as that is when my brain developed enough to remember a movie. I honestly remember sitting there in my lounge room literally wishing there would be a sequel or a longer version somewhere out there because even as a toddler there were still parts of the film frustrated the hell out of me. I wanted to see Richard at school, get better sense of his lack of friends and worried, overly cautious nature. I wanted him to have a girl he liked, or someone he wanted to impress, that he could after his adventures with the books. I wanted more Christopher Lloyd. I wanted the areas of the journey he embarked upon to go longer than about 15 minutes each, I wanted more jokes and maybe a few more characters for them to meet along the way. I also would have liked more books to pop up, maybe like action or something like that. Even just a little cameo would have been cool.All that being said, what I was left with, I loved. More than anything. James Horner's score is easily my favourite of all time and summarises my awesome childhood. Macaulay Culkin was always my hero. I was delighted he was the star of this. It was a hell of a lot better than richie rich. Yeesh. The visuals were terrific and it really did have a sense of wonder. The very short runtime however, stopped it from being a real classic. Man oh man that was a small tragedy as a kid. It filled me with a rich sadness, because I didn't want the story to end. It did make me feel as hard as i think i ever felt as a child though, and for that, I cant fault it. Plus the bike scene made me want to jump 10 feet in the air with happiness.

Mathewdixon42 The Pagemaster was released after 3 and a half years of work in 1994 to critical and financial failure. However I ask, does anyone care? I saw this film a very long time ago, as a kid. I loved it back then! And I'm sure I'm not the only one. I'm sure I was not the only one to grow up and be surprised by this films rampant bad reviews. Does it deserve them? The film opens with a live action segment showing Macaulay Culkin's character and his family. Thankfully this is a short part of the film as it is relatively boring, until it reaches the Library. Here we are introduced to one of many seasoned actors in this film. We start with Christopher Lloyd, as the creepy librarian. Lloyd's performance in this minor scene is really what kick starts the better part of the film. It turns animated in less then 5 minutes from this point. Now let's talk about the animation first, standard for the time. But very well done. It is gorgeous to look at, although somewhat bland in certain moments. The horror scenes in particular are not very interesting. It's not given enough time for real atmosphere and does not come off at all scary. The adventure section is faster paced, and even a bit longer. We get more time to appreciate the animation here. The animated sequences reach their peak during the fantasy section. This brings me to the story line. There is one very obvious and unfortunate flaw wit this film. It is only 75 minutes long, which for an animated film may not be a problem. But for this film, they tried to cram way to much in it for a run-time this short. For starters they have classic story-lines from some of the most incredible novels of all time to work with, and very few of them are given any more than 2 to 5 minutes each. This is insulting. To hire someone as perfect as Leonard Nemoy to play Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde for only 5 minutes at most is a waste, pure and simple. To include Captain Ahab for less then 2 minutes is confusing to those who do not know the true mania of his character. The only one to get any semblance of screen time is Long John Silver. If they were planning to show three plots, one from each section, they failed. Too many are included here and all are unfocused. It may have worked if they chose one story for each section and stuck to it for 20 minutes each, finding better ways to include the characters. Not only do I believe that would have worked, but it would have been very unique.So what about the humor? Meh, hit and miss. Mostly miss. Almost all miss. In fact the script mostly consists of references and repeated lines. The only truly funny one here is Patrick Stewart's character. I admit to still giggling despite my self at his "curl up with a good book" quip. So far this movie doesn't sound all that great, so what does work in it? The actors, that's what. Christopher Lloyd, Leonard Nemoy, Frank Welker, Whoopie Goldburg, and Patrick Stewart all play their parts very well. In particular Stewart, he played the character so well that I didn't even recognize his legendary voice in the role. Now that is performing. Frank Welker is always fantastic, whether you know you are hearing him or not. Nemoy's voice is wonderful, it's just a shame we didn't hear more of it. I never really liked Macaulay Culkin. I know he was a huge deal in the early nineties, when all said and done though, I've seen far better child actors in better films over the years. Okay he's scared, what else has he to offer? Not much, he spends most of all his performances talking to himself. I've found him to be far more creepy than cute. Alright, so far not a great review. The story is too fast and unfocused. The novel references are insulting to anyone who knows the stories well, and too vague for anyone who has not read them. I mean really, how many kids in the 90's has read Moby-Dick or The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde? I did later on, but sure didn't when I was 6 years old. The acting is enjoyable, although brief. Too many big names are wasted here. The movie moves along far to quickly and spends no time finding itself or figuring out what it wants to be. It could have had a decent message behind it, but it gets lost in a sea of lazy writing and lighting speed pacing issues. Now, before giving my final word here. I have a love for this movie, because I grew up with it. This is the curse this movie will always have, it is only appealing to the very young. Unless they were very young the first time they saw it. To anyone else it would come across as bad for all of the reasons I've listed above. Overall, it's too quick, actors are wasted, the lead is not appealing and it's only appealing to the very young. And worst of all, insulting to those who are familiar with the classic stories it travels through. I still enjoy it though. 4/10.

valentynne When I was a little girl, I used to love this movie and I truly believe it deserves a better rating. I haven't watched it in years and yet, I still remember the huge library, the three different books (Adventure, Horror and Fantasy if I remember well), their related stories and universes. I remember understanding the cowardice of the boy (why are heroes always so confident?) and how he overcomes it. And as a French student of English literature, I believe it's a nice way for a child to approach some classics of British literature. It could even be used in schools (am I going too far? aha). Perhaps that if I watched it now, as an adult, I'd hate it. But does it really matter? It's meant for kids anyway!

Armand it has a beautiful idea - introduce the young people in the great books universe.than, it is nice, not extraordinary but decent, amusing option for each age. it is a common film but few moments, the different way to discover the books, crumbs from another films, dust of other characters for actors, the soft feeling of a animation movie are good ingredients for not rejected it. the mixture between actors and animation is not really inspired but it is not boring or deep unrealistic. and, more important, Culkin is himself. so, not surprises. or great expectations. a film about books can not be an error. at least, the good intentions are precious. this film is an example.