zzzorf If it wasn't for having to watch this movie for completion purposes for a movie challenge I am doing I would have turned it off probably 10 minutes into it (yeah I know I could have changed to so many other choices but once my decision was made of the challenge movie then I feel like I should stick to it). I honestly have no idea what I just watched, I mean I get the basis of the story, even if it made virtually no sense to me whatsoever but honestly the whole thing seemed ridiculous. Now don't get me wrong, I can deal with ridiculousness in a movie but there is a limit. The over the topness just took away from the movie and put me way out of place, not allowing me to emphasise at all with any character or even care in the slightest what was going on. I really don't recommend this movie.

trancenational I don't know. Been trying to find words for a long time and I still cannot describe accurately what is wrong with this movie. It is like someone was pathologically obsessed with Gilliam (esp.Brazil) and vowed to develop his style to perfection. And this perfectionism led to the point of absurdity - it is so overly polished that the final result is utterly irritating beautiful empty shell without any life inside.

augurar This movie is visually rich and fairly engaging, but some key element is missing to tie everything together.The movie's narrative structure is fairly simple: Krank, the evil creation of an anonymous mad scientist, is kidnapping children to steal their dreams for himself. Krank's henchmen kidnap Denree, adopted younger brother of One, a slow-witted but good-hearted circus strongman. One bands together with pristine street urchin Miette to bring Denree back and defeat Krank in the process.However, the plot, when examined more closely, is full of implausibilities and inconsistencies. Taken together, these plot holes comprise one of the film's major flaws: the whole universe seems to exist solely for the purpose of supporting the story. Sadly, this makes it seem very contrived and one-dimensional. For example, the "cyclops" people, who are seen as a formidable force at the beginning of the film, completely vanish from the story midway through. Miette's fellow orphans seem much more like a band of ragtag adventurers out of some Disney production than real street kids. The villainous conjoined twins are plenty villainous, but they don't seem to have any real motives, making them pretty bland, predictable antagonists. And so on.Another issue I had with the movie was that a love of spectacle seemed to subsume a sense of balance and pacing. There were plenty of visually interesting moments, but they typically flashed past once and then vanished, never to be seen again. Examples include the carnival seen at the beginning of the film, the stronghold of the Cyclops-men, and the underwater home of the bearded inventor. Each of these settings suggested an interesting world in themselves, but the movie only paused in each location long enough to show us the most interesting visuals, then resumed its relentless march onward. This gave the movie a somewhat scattered feeling, as though it couldn't ever really commit to its setting.Oddly enough, this rapid stream of visuals was accompanied by a rather slow-moving plot. There are basically three phases to the movie: the call to adventure, a series of advances and setbacks, and the final confrontation with Krank. Unfortunately, both the challenges the protagonists face and the corresponding resolutions of those challenges are caused by forces entirely beyond the characters' control. Everything is external to them -- they basically bumble through the plot without ever making significant choices. Thus, the monomyth is crippled, there is no fatal flaw that the hero must confront, and the "climax" feels weak and pointless. The characters undergo no changes over the course of the film. There is no real progress, just a lot of aimless wandering.For all its shortcomings, the movie does have some good points. For the most part, the acting is good, with particularly strong performances from Judith Vittet as Miette and Ron Perelman as One. Jean-Claude Dreyfus also did a great job in his supporting role as Marcello. I didn't really care for Dominique Pinon as the unnamed creator ("The Original") and his assorted clones, but maybe that's just me -- I tend to find his exaggerated grimaces disagreeable rather than funny. As I mentioned earlier, the movie does a great job creating rich visual environments. It sort of reminds me of a concept painting for some post- apocalyptic video game - full of grimy textures, well-lit interiors with dim backgrounds, and highly saturated lighting. I actually saw this in a fairly low resolution on the internet, but the visuals still drew me in to the world of the story.In conclusion, I'd say this film is worth watching for the interesting visuals – but don't expect much more than that.

margetwormwood I was given this film by a friend to watch. It first sight I was skeptical. It is now, by far, one of my favorite films of all time!Visually it is unreal. I could simply turn off the sound and stare at it. Even watching the film in its native tongue is impressive. I wish more films would follow suit. You rarely see American films with the mix of such heavy subjects tied with humor. Maybe some day someone will come along and mimic the feel and look of this film. We could only be so lucky!Ron Perlman is very good in it as well as his sidekick..Miette. I was further impressed that Ron had to learn French just for the role. How many actors would do that, I ask?I would suggest anyone who is a film buff to see this movie. It will change the way you look at cinema.