Le Petit Monde des Borrowers

I loved the "Borrowers" books when I was a kid, and the movie is a quite good adaptation of the concept. There were a few minor bafflements [such as what time period the movie was supposed to be in, and where it was set], but those aren't major. Overall, quite enjoyable.

I have to be honest, I was not looking forward to this movie. I never heard of it nor know anything about those in it, except for John Goodman. However, this selection was for my daughter and did not want to see a repeat of another cartoon-type movie. My wife and I found the movie to be good clean fun with some mild but acceptable violence and virtually no language. A good combo for a family film and for a child. My daughter said it was "good" and my wife and I thought it was cute. In this day and age, it can be hard to find good movies around. While this movie may not be a keeper in your own collection, it is worth renting. The behind-the-scenes on the DVD was good and the DVD also contained both letterboxed and Pan-and-scan versions.

i adore this movie. it gives an entirely new perspective about the world. much the same effect as "honey i shrunk the kids" had only more every day life. tables, chairs, beds, clothes. it's great. what I love is the cast. I just keep recognizing people. "he was in jumanji!" "he was in stuart little!" "he is in the harry potter movies!" "he was in moulin rouge!" i loved it. actually, this movie is worth watching just for the hair styles! ^_^

Reading some of the other reviews you get the impression that the Special Effects in the Borrowers are somewhat mediocre, well I feel I must stand up for them. The effects in this film are on the whole superb. The problem is that some of them are so good you just don't notice them unless they are pointed out to you. In my opinion the effects in the Borrowers are vastly superior to things like say Titanic, which rather unbelievably won an Oscar. Any effect which you're inclined to say "That's a good effect" too, is not a good effect, it is a poor one because you can tell it's an effect. The best effects go unnoticed, not only by the movie going public but also by the Academy it seems.

I've been interested in seeing this adaptation of Mary Norton's novels ever since I saw the Studio Ghibli adaptation, The Secret World of Arrietty, last February. As I expected, this is more of a comic adventure film, a pretty typical children's film for the time, as opposed to the serious and beautiful Ghibli version. I have no idea which is closer to the source material (I'd actually bet the 1997 version is; the other one is way too Ghibli-esque not to have been heavily changed). As it is, the 1997 version is a halfway decent children's films. Not good, not bad. If I were a kid, I think I'd enjoy it. It stars John Goodman and Jim Broadbent, so it at least has something going for it. The family is pretty similar to the Ghibli version, except for they also have a son (Tom Felton). Felton and Flora Newbigin (who plays Arrietty) get separated from their parents (Broadbent and Celia Imrie) when the house they live in is set to be bulldozed by evil land developer (is there any other kind?) John Goodman. There's no seriousness here. It's all just loud adventure type stuff as the borrower children outsmart Goodman at every turn (he could probably very easily defeat his nemeses here if he would just avoid those comic pauses every time they're about to get him). I'm surprised Newbigin didn't go onto anything better. She's a pretty good juvenile actress. I don't think this film was very successful. I don't ever remember it existing (I was in college at the time, so I wouldn't have had any interest). The special effects aren't too bad. The story was adapted just five years previous with Ian Holm starring in the Jim Broadbent role.