One of the worst movies I've ever seen

I like Black Panther, but I didn't like this movie.

From my favorite movies..

The performances transcend the film's tropes, grounding it in characters that feel more complete than this subgenre often produces.

While it doesn't hold a candle to the 1940 Disney film, which nearly 80 years later is one of their greatest triumphs and one of the best animated films of all time.'The Adventures of Pinocchio', dating from 1996, had its flaws, but was decent and a nice alternative to the Disney film. This sequel, 'The New Adventures of Pinocchio' from 1999, is mediocre at best and even often quite weak.It does have some good things. Gabriel Thomson is a likable and earnest Pinocchio and Udo Kier steals the film as an over-the-top, sometimes weird but incredibly fun Madame Flambeau. Rachel Portman is missed, her score was beautiful, more dynamic and poignant but the music in 'The New Adventures of Pinocchio' is serviceable enough. Warwick Davis does a decent job as Pepe.However, Martin Landau's Geopetto is almost completely sidelined and Landau, who was superb in 'The Adventures of Pinocchio and has given great performance, phones it in here. And while Kier is fun as Madame Flambeau his Lorenzini (a villain that could have been much more interesting) is just not sinister enough.What particularly hurts the film are the visuals and the story. 'The New Adventures of Pinocchio' looks rather cheap, the photography isn't as lavish, editing is sloppy and the sets and costumes do look like shoestring budget material, but it's the puppetry and special effects that are particularly subpar at best and often extremely poor and too obvious. Pepe is very mechanical in movement and design, the sea donkey is especially cheaply weak, Kier's sea monster make up couldn't have been more bizarre and the scene with the talking fish should have been left on the cutting/editing room floor.The story tries to put twists on some of the events of 'The Adventures of Pinocchio, but just feels like a dull, soulless and charmless retread with role reversals. Pacing is dull, the dialogue couldn't have been more cheesy or bland and the direction often is inept, especially in the talking fish/cart ride scene.Overall, weak sequel though not without its moments. 4/10 Bethany Cox

I was part of the "extras" together with my 6 year old daughter. It's true that the site, the weather, were fantastic BUT... you could feel from the beginning that this movie will not be that successful due to many various factors. That was the first time I participated in a movie production and found out that all the people working on the set had an over dimensioned ego, finally, only the actors were nice and friendly. The official photographer was chasing the extras who were taking pics of themselves in their funny costumes. He was threatening us. The casting girl was atrocious, nasty and arrogant. Some extras thought they were THE movie stars and were constantly pushing the others to arrive all the time in front of the cameras. Extras were getting poor food while the crew was nicely treated in term of food. We were so naive, just wanting to participate in a dream, trying to make nice souvenirs. Well, I participated in other movies and yes, I have to say that this movie environment is really a pitiless world, the jungle where the strongest bites the poorest. A simple replication of the world I must say.

I have to concede that this movie is a very deficient sequel to the original Pinocchio plot. As I watched it I expected better images - this is a real point of criticism here. A movie like this one, which actually features substantial magical input and imposes visual challenges for the producers ought to meet the requirements and try to live up to the premise it is built on.Thus this brings down the rating significantly. I would normally be more indulgent with low budget productions, but as stated above, Pinocchio lives and dies with the transformation of visuals and the quality of the images. Some were acceptable, the majority indifferent, and some simply ludicrous and a real shame.What makes me award this weakly equipped movie with a solid 6 though is based on two reasons: 1. The British actor Gabriel Thomson as Pinocchio. Gabriel Thomson is one of very few young actors who have natural skills and the ability to project their characters' sensibility with very subtle and decent acting. I was stunned by his genuine performance and the way he is able to express so much with so little endeavor. He shines here as he does in his most notable appearance in 'Enemy at the Gates'. He manages to vitalize Pinocchio in a way that makes the audience relate to him as a character - something that is not always the case in movies featuring a preposterous edge as 'Pinocchio' does. Gabriel's performance is very intriguing and much better than everything else this movie has to offer.2. The story itself detached from the actual transcription. I do not know if this sequel to the well-known Pinocchio-plot has a literary artwork as a basis. Anyway, I think the idea itself of how the original story can be continued is true to the original concept and properly developed. There are some nice messages and the story proceeds at a smart pace that compensates for some of the visual flaws.'The New Adventures of Pinocchio' is not for everyone and it could have been done significantly better regarding its decor. However, if you are looking for a well-developed story and a brilliant Gabriel Thomson as Pinocchio, you might want to give it a try.

I watched this film on TV with my two children (aged 12 and 10) and I think I enjoyed it as much as they did, maybe more. The whole production is beautiful and feels like a fairy tale should. The plot kept my children engrossed and amazingly stays true to the story. It probably wasn't pre-tested or had to have its ending changed to suit the market. In short, well-made, well-acted and well-filmed with special effects that are good enough to create some magic without being too spectacular and distracting. It also makes good use of its location setting (admittedly in Luxembourg and not Italy). A really pleasant way to spend an hour or so with the kids. So why bother to comment at all? The thing is a lot of people of my generation grew up with the Disneytized versions of what were mostly European fairy tales or children's stories, such as Pinocchio, Sleeping Beauty, Peter Pan, Winnie the Poo, etc, etc. In the end, it's hard for us non-Americans to convince our kids that these are not the original stories. Apart from incongruous American accents (okay, we're used to these a lot more than Americans are used to our "foreign" accents), names get changed (Jimminy Cricket instead of Pepe, which was good enough for the author), locations get switched and elements of the plot are shifted about or simplified. Sometimes the tough parts are made just plain cute. Maybe it shouldn't matter but when one culture dominates the film and TV outlets as much as is happening today then there's a feeling that when a film goes half-way to keeping its balance (with a nice mix of European and American actors) it serves as a terrific antidote. the recent Midsummer Night's Dream (dir. Michael Hoffman) was another good example. What a lot of Americans perhaps realize is just how many plots (children's movies aside) that are simply lifted from the original settings, maybe French, maybe British, by the US film and TV industry and then represented as original output. It's a pity because that way, you don't get to know as much about us as we do about you. Incidentally, my kids voted for this movie over the Disney version. It made me proud.