TheLittleSongbird 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

Jackson Booth-Millard I would definitely rather see the Disney cartoon than this piece of crap. When I was younger it was good in places, and now the only good thing I can say about it is that there are some good stars in it, but that is it! You know the story, Geppetto (Martin Landau) makes puppets, including Pinocchio, who is brought to life (played by Gabriel Thomson) and will hopefully become a real boy. It is hardly the same as the Disney cartoon though, they have more scenes with him going hardly anywhere, he actually gets to go to school, his Dad goes to court or something, and Jiminey Cricket is now named Pepe. Also starring Udo Kier as Madame Flambeau/Lorenzini, Gemma Gregory as Blue Fairy, Leprachaun's Warwick Davis as Dwarf and Dawn French as the Baker's Wife. It is just ridiculous, and not special effects or the many stars can save it from being a piece of crap! Poor!

bcrumpacker A poorly made g rated movie. Martin Landau as Gepetto is either unconscious in bed or doing a voice over. Talk about phoning in a part. Jonathan is a prince who briefly visits the show, and he has few or no lines. This is what he deserves for walking away from a hit TV show. The drag queen circus master, Udo Kier, looks exactly like Hillary Clinton if she painted an eyeball on her cheek every day. The computer generated wooden puppets look weird, and the blue fairy speaks in clichés. On the plus side, Felinet can snuggle in my lap anytime. This movie is only suitable for little kids and the weak minded; it is excruciating for adults. BC

Keith Jinks 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.