If the ambition is to provide two hours of instantly forgettable, popcorn-munching escapism, it succeeds.

This movie was so-so. It had it's moments, but wasn't the greatest.

Clever and entertaining enough to recommend even to members of the 1%

Great story, amazing characters, superb action, enthralling cinematography. Yes, this is something I am glad I spent money on.

Growing up in the 60's and 70's as a huge fan of the Rascals, I feel this remake really captured the original Little Rascals in a fresh modern way. Better than the 1994 theatrical release. This movie was able to capture the mischief and the innocence that were alway so dear in the original shorts. They really did justice to each of the characters, young and old alike. The people that made this film did a nice tip of the hat to this beloved classic. Would recommend this to anyone who has children or to any old time Rascals fans including Leonard Maltin. Normally I dislike most remakes but this one really hit the mark.

For the record, "The Little Rascals Save the Day" is not supposed to be a sequel to the 1994 film "The Little Rascals". But as with the 90's flick, it is intended to be a reboot of Hal Roach's original Little Rascals (originally known as "Our Gang") from the 1930's. And for the record, I did grow up with the 1994 movie, and still have a soft spot for it. However, once I discovered the old "Our Gang" about a decade ago, I didn't find the 90's reboot nearly as awesome as the original classics. Just my opinion.Either way, the film is flawed. As with the 1994 movie, this one borrows heavily from the original series. The basic plot is based on the 1931 film "Helping Grandma," the kids' band (as well as its creative name) is picked up from 1934's "Mike Fright," a scene involving an explosive cake is taken from 1932's "Birthday Blues" (complete with the memorable "weep wow" sound effect). It wouldn't be a Rascals film without the Woodchucks high-sign. You get the idea. And hey, there's even a few inside jokes for fans of both the original series and the 90's flick. The kids attend "Robert McGowan Elementary School" (a reference to "Our Gang"'s first director), a marquee outside of a movie theater reads "Hal Roach Film Festival", and Bug Hall (90's Alfalfa) has a small cameo.So what's wrong with this movie? Recreating the Little Rascals is a difficult task. Especially in the technology-driven twenty-first century. That being said, placing characters from the 1930's in a modern day setting was a mistake. Unless the idea was played for laughs (à la the Brady Bunch movies). The Rascals seem out of place here, with their homemade cars and musical instruments, and their choices of headgear. The kids building their own material made sense in the Depression era, when most people didn't have money, and generally had to find their own ways to entertain themselves. Additionally, the overall film is missing the charm that made the original series (and to lesser extent, the 90's movie) so great. "Our Gang" relied on kids acting like... well, kids. The original gang had the sort of adventures kids would want to have, and adults wished they could have had when they were kids. Another part of the original series' charm was that the majority of the young actors were portraying themselves. Therefore, the writing/directing almost always came off as natural (at least before the series jumped the shark/boned the fish in the 1940s).But my biggest concern is more along the lines of how the characters were written. I wouldn't have minded the way the characters were depicted if the script was written to match the actors' personalities (again, referring to the natural acting that made the original series such a hit). However, the writers attempted to recreate some of the characters from the old "Our Gang". For the most part, America's favorite kids aren't exactly written the way they ought to have been. Spanky is a bit too chipper for my liking (though that may be due to young Jet Jurgensmeyer's performance). But at least he has a personality in this movie (he's even involved in an admittedly decent side story in which his friends decide to quit on him). Most of the rest of the kids are about as interesting as mud. It's a shame, considering the writers chose a nice array of memorable characters to recreate. I do wish they had spent more time studying the individual personalities of the kids rather than simply placing lookalikes in situations reminiscent of the Our Gang world.And why is Waldo the villain (again)? In every adaptation that reuses Waldo, he is depicted as a bad guy. This wasn't the case in the original series, where Waldo may have rivaled Alfalfa for Darla, but never seemed to fully realize it. The original Waldo was more of a mutual friend to Alfalfa and co. And where are his trademark glasses in this movie?Speaking of off recreations of characters, Kennedy the Cop (played in the original series by the brilliant Edgar Kennedy, and here by character actor Lex Medlin) is depicted as someone who hates kids (especially the Rascals) in this movie. The original Kennedy was a surrogate uncle to the kids, usually spending more time hanging around them than doing his job. Seeing him openly despise the Rascals is off- putting.Other characters, like Butch and Woim (called "Worm" in this film), could have been written out easily.As for the cast themselves? The kids are a mixed bag. Some are decent actors, others could have used better direction. And others are a bit too over the top. And because this is an Alex Zamm family film, the usual array of cartoon-y humor is prevalent. But I'm sure his heart was in the right place. He clearly likes the original Rascals, and most likely grew up watching them in reruns on TV. And only someone who likes the original series would throw out names like "Mr. Kaye", "June", and "Edgar" (you have to be a fan of the original series to get those references). Heck, he even did a pretty decent recreation of the sort of neighborhood the original Rascals would often hang around in.Not an awful movie, but it could have been better. Us purists may not love it, but I wouldn't be surprised if kids will (after all, it is a kids' movie). Though strangely, it seems as though us fans of the original series are more lenient towards this flick than fans of the 90's one. Whatever your preference of Rascals era, give it the movie a shot and form your own opinion.

this movie really hit it off with my kids ages 4, 7, and 9. i watched it with them and found some scenes and lines a bit silly. some did make me chuckle. i thought the child actors played their part really well, a bit of over-acting but hey they're kids!! and my kids are happy and occupied the next two hours, so that's good enough for me too. oh i have to write at least 10 more lines for my review to be accepted... OK so i thought the rating of 5 stars was kind of low it deserves to go up a bit..maybe upto 7 or 8. but i'm giving it a 9 coz i liked the musical aspect of the movie. it had my little girl singing. im not really familiar with the original rascals so if this movie did not stick to the original... we don't really care.

LIttle Rascals have been around longer than I have been alive. They made people laugh and go awww at the same time back then and in the 90s when the first movie was released.First, let me just say that over all the kids that played the Little Rascals was damn near perfect casting. Some of them, like Darla for example, almost looked like the original actress that played her had come back and not aged a single day. You will be consumed by the same laughter you come to expect from these characters. The rascals try different ways to make money for their Grandmas bakery to say up. They have many crazy harebrained ideas, some of which are downright hilarious. The movie really is a great watch for adults and children alike. While the ending I must admit I was not a fan of. I feel just because a movie doesn't end well, that the entire movie is bad. Overall, it was very enjoyable.rlyonsii.neyt