Os Pequeninos

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.

When this first came out, almost a decade ago, I thought it was the best job I had seen of making miniature people look real. This showed how far technology had come in films and now, of course, we see a lot more amazing special effects.

It was fun to view how these "borrowers" moved about, using ordinary household items to propel themselves around a normal-sized house. It's all pretty ingenious.

John Goodman plays a cartoon-like role, a role that is generally funny to watch. The cast has a mixture of American and English actors, with a setting of 1940s Britain. I first saw this on VHS and then later on DVD, which was improvement not only video-wise, but audio, too, as it somehow went from mono to surround sound. This might be considered a kids movie but a lot of the humor is more adult-oriented.

I was charmed by this movie and cannot understand the venom unleashed upon it by some of the other reviews. I don't have any kids, nor do I spend a whole lot of time watching movies geared towards them, but most "kiddie fare" seems so saccharine and preachy, with screeching soundtracks and day-glo color schemes all designed to work as commercials for happy meals and action figures that this one stands out because it's just plain fun. The production design and special effects are unique -- and purposefully so. Some reviews have complained that the film is not set in a readily identifiable time or place, but that's the charm; set in a kind of timeless anywhere that is both familiar and foreign, with the kind of hazy details and warm glow that suggest a fond childhood memory/fantasy. If you expect some Dizneefied, pre-fabbed, pre-digested offering that hits all of the right beats at the right moments with such predictability that you can set your watch to them, skip this. (Or watch "South Park: Bigger, Longer and Uncut," because it sure mimics the form while subverting the content.) If you want something fun and imaginative, different from the usual, give this a try. And if the kids complain that it's boring, send them to bed and watch it yourself.

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.

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.