The Borrowers (1998)

Please don't spend money on this.

It is a performances centric movie

I gave this film a 9 out of 10, because it was exactly what I expected it to be.

It's a good bad... and worth a popcorn matinée. While it's easy to lament what could have been...

I really could never have imagined that it would be possible to make a movie adaptation based on the Mary Norton books that would be so completely devoid of charm. When the estate licensed this adaptation, they made a terrible, terrible mistake.It's vile. I would have rated it a zero, but the scale only goes down to 1.

The Borrowers (1997): Dir: Peter Hewitt / Cast: John Goodman, Jim Broadbent, Bradley Pierce, Mark Williams, Hugh Laurie: Recycled story (The Indian in the Cupboard, Honey, I Shrunk the Kids) about little people who live beneath the floor boards of a house. They do not steal but borrow (hence the title). The plot is a series of cat and mouse games where the villain attempts to vanquish them so that he may take possession of a will that was left at the house. He wishes to destroy the house and build apartment buildings in its place but he must burn the will that states ownership of the family living there. Thrilling visual effects include being showered with ice cubes, encountering pigeons, and being trapped in a milk bottle. Unfortunately the film is pure crap that borrows from other films of its kind. Formula story directed by Peter Hewitt whose terrible Bill and Ted's Bogus Journey actually looks good in comparison to this. John Goodman as the villain plays off the slapstick well but the role is cardboard. Jim Broadbent plays the head borrower. Bradley Pierce plays the boy who befriends them so that's pretty much straight forward. Mark Williams plays an exterminator in what is pretty standard for a film such as this. Hugh Laurie plays an idiot cop who should have arrested the people who suggested this film get made. Entertaining visuals within a rather dull story that steals from everything. Score: 2 / 10

I haven't come to the film through the book, and so have no memories to spoil. Purely on its own terms I and my family greatly enjoyed this piece of family entertainment. Personally I rather liked the vaguely mid-Altantic fantasy universe which strangely encompasses the whole of the 20th century, a rather dowdy place where the policemen look Edwardian but people might wear 1930's clothing while speaking on their mobile phones, yet drive 1960's Morris Minor cars on the right despite road markings on the left. Yes, mainly slapstick with flimsy screenplay (and occasionally flimsy acting too, though it's rarely awful as some suggest). In no sense is it deep, but none the worse for that. It's entertainment pure and simple, and on that level it succeeds.

I get really irritated by reviewers intellectualising kids' movies. Not for one second do I think children should be patronised by being offered crap (such as TV rubbish designed to suck out their brains, eg the Cow and Chicken cartoons). However, I do think we adults should be a little more understanding that films made for children not only don't need to be deep and meaningful - but they must not be deep and meaningful. By definition! This movie is silly, and fun, and clever, and it has several important messages about tolerance. How much more deep and meaningful do you need a movie to be?!