Super Mario Bros.

I actually enjoyed this movie, despite the terrible reviews and the terrible user ratings. Its plot is fair, it's effects are great, even for now, and the acting, although certainly not brilliant, is fair enough to work with the plot. I'd give it a 7/10.

Why does this film have such a low rating? Sure it may not be along the storylines of the Super Mario Bros. game for the NES back in '85, but in my opinion, it has to be one of the best films I have ever seen. Some noticeable changes are in this film, such as that the princess' name is Daisy, and she's being held in a tower instead of a castle. There's plenty of fungus and mushrooms around, but I think that the storyline is actually improved from the game, because if it were exactly like the game, it would be just running round, bashing blocks, grabbing coins and eating mushrooms all the way, which would eventually just become boring. This film has variety, like in a real world, there are phone boxes, houses, restaurants, and much more than just pipes, flags and castles. It just also happens that my favourite actor, Bob Hoskins, has the main role as Mario, which makes this film more appealing and exciting. There are also things from the Mario games in the film such as Bob-Ombs (licensed by Reebok, mysteriously), and Goomba Shoes that are powered by Bullet Bills. So to top it off, this has to be one of the best films ever made, and one of my all-time favourites.

Super Mario Bros. (1993), was another case of the source material, for a film idea, being too advanced for the cinematic technology of the day. CGI was just starting with Jurassic Park (1993), so the choice to do this film with practical, physical effects and live action characters was its major downfall. This prompted the story to be adjusted to fit the capabilities of the filmmakers of the day. It all culminates into a silly plot, that actually manages to make video game characters, caricatures of themselves. This however, isn't a knock on the special effects used in this film at all. The effects fit the pre-CGI era fairly well. They did a very good job with the special effects, art direction, set design and most of the costumes and make-up. There actually is a dinosaur in the film and the computer effects used for him are pretty good. For 1993, it is visually pleasant.

Dennis Hopper, as President Koopa (Bowser), looks ridiculous though. There also is this weird use of the fungus in the film. It looks bad technically and isn't menacing at all. Many of the characters are pail, empty and mindless, especially Samantha Mathis as Princess Daisy. It doesn't translate well, especially having to depict Mario (Bob Hoskins) and Luigi (John Leguizamo), running around Brooklyn. The attempt to make the film as real as possible backfires. I never got a chance to see this film when it was first released, but I had heard of the negative fallout that came after it was released. I remember when Siskel and Ebert gave it two thumbs down. Most film-buffs remember hearing, that Bob Hoskins hated the movie. This is probably why I never got around to seeing Super Mario Bros. (1993), until the 2023 film was announced. 30 years later I finally understood. This film is a failure, but I still recommend seeing it, at least once, as a curiosity, because you have to see it to believe it.

3.9 (F+ MyGrade) = 4 IMDB.

This is a cheesy movie for people who play video games. I don't understand why some people adamantly insist this movie should never have been made. It's cute and entertaining. It doesn't stay completely loyal to the game storyline, but Bob Hoskins and John Leguizamo are perfect for these two roles. Worth watching if you see it on TV.

This is one of those films where it's more fun to hear about how it was created than actually watching it.

It's not as bad as people like to think, so let's just hope in the future they give the same sort of love to a Mario movie as they did for Mortal Kombat, or even Sonc.