The New Adventures of Pinocchio

To say this is a silly movie is an understatement. The premise, that Gepetto is now turned into a puppet, has a great deal of promise, in that it could have explored the mirror images, so to speak, of the poignant emotions that have made Collodi's original tale immortal. Sadly, none of this occurs. Instead, every millimeter of depth is drained, leaving only an insipid story of a boy and man who seem less real than the puppets they sometimes occupy. Gabriel Thomson, in the title role, comes across as trying very hard to rescue anything he can out of this part, which must have felt pretty humiliating right after "Pip" of "Great Expectations." He showed much more what he was capable of in "Enemy at the Gates" (2001), and then went on to a TV series. I suppose the very young might find a few laughs in this "Pinocchio," but if you're looking for a further lesson in life or what constitutes being human, you won't find it here.

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.

The previous writers comments were not based on The New Adventures of Pinochio. In this version Martin Landau (Jeppeto) becomes a puppet when he accidentally drinks a magic potion. An English boy plays his son in the title role and gives a marvelous sensitive performance. Except for some poor special effects, this Pinochio is really fun, believable and a must see. Forget the previous versions. Jeppeto is captured by a traveling circus, and Pinochio with his friend spends his time trying to rescue him, and remove the evil spell. While attempting to rescue Jepetto, Pinochio is captured, falls under this spell and he becomes a wooden boy, This movie is really fun,hard to find. If you are in Europe I think you will be able to see it.

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 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.