• The scene of Tarzan (Elmo Lincoln) fighting and killing the lion was a real one. The lion became annoyed at having its tail pulled and attacked Lincoln, who was forced to fight for his life and managed to kill the animal after stabbing it several times. The scene was left in the film.
• Episode titles were: – 1. Jungle Romance – 2. City of Gold – 3. Sun Death – 4. The Stalking Death – 5. Flames of Hate – 6. The Ivory Tomb – 7. The Jungle Trap – 8. The Tornado – 9. Fangs of the Lion – 10. The Simoon – 11. The Hidden Arrows – 12. The Dynamite Trail – 13. The Jungle’s Prey – 14. Flaming Arrows – 15. The Last Adventure
• This serial is not lost. Some parts of it are missing. 16mm reduction positive prints of the feature film and the Artclass 1928 re-release versions exist in the UCLA Film and Television Archive film archive, in the Library of Congress film archive, in the International Museum of Photography at George Eastman House film archive and in the Academy Film Archive film archive. Recently, it has been released in a 10 chapter restored version.
• A jungle fire sequence filmed at the Great Western Studio nearly burned down the studio buildings.
• Numa Pictures claimed that more time had been given to the production of this film than any serial yet produced.
• On July 15, 1921 five actors were hospitalized, three cameras destroyed, the film from the day’s shoot was ruined and the many people on the set narrowly escaped injury when three lions ran amok.
• The production wrapped up by August 13, 1921

2) Ruby Shetty a beautiful and captive young woman move in to live with her dad whom she hate allot since he is responsible for her mother’s death. Her dad works with a man called DK who has the capability of hunting down wild animals. One day a job is given to DK of capturing in the jungle far away an ape-man or Tarzan as it is known. However they manage to make the impossible possible by getting into the dangerous jungle and began to camp by the help of lighting a fire to scare away wild animals. However after a couple of days Ruby is found missing. She manage to fall in allot of misc hap and is saved by Tarzan. However Ruby found Tarzan as a friendly thing and not a harmful thing. And also find he cannot talk and decides to teach him the art of learning and later falls in love with him, but before all love happen scenes could happen. Tarzan is capture by DK and mortgage to Krishnahant Verma who owns Apollo circus but by the attempts of many wild animals who appear in the city Tarzan was rescue from the circus and was also able to marry ruby his future love-life.

3) DK is assigned the task of capturing an ape-man named Tarzan and hand him over to the owner of Apollo Circus, Krishnakant Verma. He travels in the jungle with wealthy Mr. Shetty who has a beautiful daughter, Ruby. While in the jungle Ruby is kidnapped by the master of Shakabhoomi tribe and is to be made there queen but before this could happen, she is rescued by Tarzan, hereafter Tarzan and Ruby spend beautiful moments together and this has blossomed to love, while all this is happening Shetty and his entire troop is killed by the Shakabhoomi tribe, the only man that survives is DK and he holds Tarzan responsible for this crime and take an oath that he will have to somehow locate Ruby and shoot this beast.

Rubi Shetty (Kimi Katkar) stays with her dad Shetty (Om Shivpuri) who is a wealthy businessman and loves hunting and exploring the jungles. One day Ruby accompanies her father deep in the jungle to explore the world of jungle. During her trip her father introduces him to a man named D K (Dalip Tahil). Shetty is fond of DK and desires his daughter Ruby to marry him. DK has an instant liking for the beautiful Ruby. DK is involved in trapping wild animals and sending them to the circus.

One day Ruby is lost in the jungle and faces lots of hardships and misadventures in the jungle. She is attacked by wild animals and Tarzan (Hemant Birje) comes to her rescue. He saves her from the attacks of the wild animals. Ruby becomes unconscious due to fear of the wild animals and Tarzan takes her with him. After regaining her consciousness she spends time with Tarzan and becomes friends with him.

Tarzan has a great bonding with the animals in the jungle. He easily controls the wild animals in the jungle and they consider Tarzan as their friend. They is a great bonding of love between Tarzan and the animals in the jungle and the animals cant bear if Tarzan is in trouble. They help each other in the time of distress. She is quite impressed after observing the unconditional love between Tarzan and the animals of the jungle.
She also finds that Tarzan doesnt know how to talk and decides to teach him. She teaches Tarzan normal human activities and also falls in love with him.

In the meantime DK finds Ruby and Tarzan and captures Tarzan. He sends Tarzan to the circus and forces him to show his antics. Children love when Tarzan performs in the circus and instantly they bond with Tarzan. Even Tarzan shares a great rapport and bonding with children.

The film will be loved by children and they will love the character of Tarzan and the bonding of animals and Tarzan.

2) Apart from being a typical bollywood movie of the 80s(with disco music)this one dares more than others. Intead of thinking about the dumbmuscled Tarzan u gonna be quite impressed with the saucy girl Kimi, whois pretty bold for an Indian movie. See through tops of luscious Kimiare worth the average movie. A landmark in boldness in an Indian movie,this one has good songs though. Tarzan is again unintentionally funnybut entertaining nevertheless. An overall happy movie, no disturbingviolence, only romance in the jungle.

3) Apart from the last half an hour of the film,where Tarzan was draggedto the circus, overall the film was Entertaining. Song videos were shotat good locations but the songs itself seemed to have been prepared atthe last minute, not catchy at all. They were worst. As required Tarzancharacter played dumb throughout. Some realistic grunts and animalsounds could have been added if properly directed. In all Tarzan filmschimps played an important role but there was no interaction with themhere. Only elephants seemed to be leading. Lions and tigers appearingonly in songs and last half hour and again no interaction with Tarzan.Kimi suited her role but the first half hour of Kimi's appearance wasdefinitely unsuitable for family audience and more aiming towards somelow class audience. Actor Hermant fitted into his 'Tarzan' characterperfectly more than any other actor could have both looks and physiquewise. His script and acting could have been more productive.

4) Yup, this one is as bad as it sounds. A remake of Tarzan in a Hindifilm. Hemant Birje is the muscle-bound stud with nary an acting musclein his body. He is matched in the non-acting department by the sexyKimi Katkar. Admittedly, there are some nice scenes of these tworolling around and getting naughty in the jungle. However, the bulk ofthe film is atrocious with next to nil production values, junglenatives who seem to have stepped right out of the 1930s and ascreenplay clearly written by a four year old. There is a little campyfun to be had, but its just too long to suffer through. Avoid.

Overall 2/10

• Filmed in part on the same sets used for "Adventures of Superman" (1952).
• This short film was actually a pilot for a proposed series. It was created in an effort by the network to salvage the Superman television series after the suicide of George Reeves. The characters were all animal parodies of those from the series starring little people in large masks. The series was never picked up and this short was never broadcast.

If those out there in TV land thought that kiddies would watch any oldgarbage shoved in front of them, they were proved wrong with TheAdventures Of Superpup.

Not so much a pup, more a mange-ridden mongrel, Superpup is really BarkBent (non-US English-speaking countries will get an added laugh withthis name), mild-mannered reporter, but has a head so big that if hedidn't have super powers, his neck would snap if he was the passengerin a car (or a locomotive) that was hit from behind by another vehicle.

The sheer awfulness of this lousy pilot has to be seen to be believed -Superpup is aided by an annoying hand-puppet that provides expositorydialogue (in one instance, this puppet is even employed to cover over aHUGE continuity error!). This character is SO annoying that one wouldwish arthritis on the person operating it.

The models of the main characters aren't too bad (the Perry Whitebulldog character looks like something from Peter Jackson's Meet theFeebles), and there is enough action to keep the most undemanding kidsamused (though they would probably not be allowed access to sharpobjects), but the sheer ghastliness of trying to create an extension ofthe hugely popular Superman TV show leaves a bad taste in the mouth.

If there was one moment of unintentional hilarity, it comes whenSuperpup's sidekick, Mongomery Mouse (a glove puppet), has to call thepolice – the operator of the puppet makes no attempt to try and use thehands of the puppet to pick up the receiver, instead just grabbing thething the way anyone wearing a glove would pick up a receiver. Funnystuff! The Adventures of Superpup only gets a 2-star rating because ofthe hysterical moment mentioned above – otherwise, it's an abomination.

Thankfully, Superpup was neutered and didn't beget a full series.

2) THE ADVENTURES OF SUPERPUP. From the title, one can tell that this isgoing to be absolute rubbish. But, I watched nearly everything elsecontained in the SUPERMAN: ULTIMATE COLLECTOR'S EDITION DVD boxed set,so I figured I'd give it a shot. My verdict: BOMB out of five stars (or1 out of 10 here). This is the absolute worst pilot episode I have everseen in my life. This is a disgrace to the SUPERMAN legacy. However, itdoes make its viewer laugh quite heartily. I can't remember the lasttime I watched something so bad that it made me laugh so hard. Onereally has to see this in order to truly appreciate it. I canunderstand why it wasn't chosen to go on to become a full series. Ithad to have been intended for an audience of children, but I don'tthink that even children would have been amused. Well, I was amused. Itwas just that horrible. It really is quite comical to see peoplerunning around in big dog costumes trying to save the world. Anyway,I'll leave THE ADVENTURES OF SUPERPUP alone now. In fact, I might evengo watch it again!!!!!

• This pilot was filmed after the death of George Reeves, who had already agreed to do another season of "Adventures of Superman" (1952).
• Although only the pilot was made, 12 additional episodes were written. The screenplays for which are included in the book, “Superboy and Superpup: the Lost Pilots”.

Apparently the publisher, NATIONAL COMICS(ALSO KNOWN AS DC COMICS) hadleaked out this info, as it was soon reported in the TV sections of thedaily newspapers. They even mentioned it in the letter columns of theircomics and sent a mailing(post card) to readers that they should watchfor Superboy on Television.

The series never materialized. It's unfortunate that it did not. Afterhaving viewed the Pilot film one finds a decent, family oriented storywhich was not ashamed to endorse an ethical and law abiding way oflife. In short,although it featured the presence of the young Superman,it was a story that could be anyone's story happening anywhere. It wasat least as good as so much of the series Television that was around in1961.

That loveable muppet from Sesame Street has his veryownanimated TV special. No, it’s not Elmo! It’s Grover, who winsoverElmo any day! Grover’s mommy makes him a superhero costume forHalloweenand as soon as he put’s it on, he becomes a superhero. Smarterthana speeding bullet. More furrier than a fast locomotive. Able toeattall sandwiches in a single bound!

Super Grover helps out his friends in every situationthatcould possibly come up. Like, his friend Rhonda Subicede wassleddingdown a hill very fast and Grover tried to stop her by building agiantwall, putting up a stop sign or even trying to grab her, all ofwhichfailed. Next, he saved Prairie Dawn from some wild bears. She wasdoinga play on Goldilocks and the Three Bears and the bears were playedbyBert, Ernie and Herry. Grover didn’t know this. And finally, onafishing trip with friends, Grover notices the boat has leaks sohediscovers a telephone booth underwater and becomes Super Groverandflies his friends to safety.

This is such a memorable cartoon! Back in the days whenSesameStreet was good. Not like today now that those corporate clones ranitsmack dab into the ground! I mean on Sesame Street now they’vetakenaway the Fix-It Shop! Come on!! Suppose something broke, like thetimeBert accidentally broke David’s teapot, he took it to Luis attheFix-It shop. What will happen if something like this happensagain?Would he just order a new one from the Mail-It shop? And Elmohasbecome the dominant one. WHY? So in conclusion, if you’re a fanofOLD Sesame Street like I am, steer clear of the ones on TV todayandwatch a classic like Super Grover. If you can find it. I recommendit!

-

• In the opening of Chapter 10, a group of men in the “Department of Internal Affairs – Territorial Division” are going over a list of names of civilian/military casualties the previous day during the attack on Pearl Harbor. One of the names mentioned is William Sickner. William A. Sickner was the cinematographer on this chapter play.
• “Fraulein von Teufel” translates more or less as “Devil Woman”. This is alluded to in the final (13th) episode, where Kageyama’s last words before dying are “Teufel. Devil.”
• Chapter Titles: 1. The High Road to Doom; 2. The Rising Sun Strikes; 3. Attacked by Bombers; 4. Knives of Vengeance; 5. A Watery Grave; 6. Escape by Clipper; 7. Fifteen Fathoms Below; 8. Treachery at Sea; 9. The Bridge of Peril; 10. Blackout in the Islands; 12. The Torture Fire Test; 13. Sinking the Rising Sun.

• Errors in geography: Though Mandon is supposedly located on the border between China and India, the walls of the high priest’s temple are decorated with Egyptian hieroglyphics. (Universal recycled the set from the 1940 film “The Mummy’s Hand.”)

2) All in all, I liked this for what it was: an un-subtle manipulation oftheater patrons. The main enemy in this serial is Japan, and theJapanese are diminished to Japs and Nips (always said with a slightsneer), while the Chinese are simply Chinese. There's a Germanubiquitous female agent who fancies herself to be in command of theJapanese, but she is just one dimensional: harsh, nasty, humorless.

The plot is a bit thin. A peace loving Chinese province bordering theHimalayas has a secret passage (the Stillwell Road?) of some sort toIndia, through which vital troops and supplies could be funneled tofight the Japanese. The spiritual leader of the province agrees toreveal the secret to the Chinese and British, with numerous conditions,and the Axis tries to kidnap or kill him before he can talk. There isdelay upon delay for no reason but to string this out to 13 chapters.

There are the usual hairbreadth escapes after each cliffhanger episode,and some of them are pretty silly. As in all serials, the viewer ischeated, in that a bit of film is held back, film in which the heroescapes death in the nick of time. There are also the usual fistfightswithout a knuckle getting skinned, the usual chases, etc.

As serials go, this is fairly standard, directed toward the puerileaudience that filled theaters on Saturday afternoons.

3) There are basically three types of mysteries/adventures:

1. The audience discovers who the villain is at the very end along withthe"good guys".2. Somewhere during the story the villain is found out and the remainderofthe story is spent proving his or her guilt.3. The audience knows who the villain is at the beginning and the entirestory is spent watching the "good guys" try to find out who the villainisand then capture him or her.

The third is by far the least entertaining (with the possible exceptionofColumbo). The Adventures of Smilin’ Jack falls into the third category.What is even worse is that the villain is not being chased butaccompaniesthe `good guys’ all over the Pacific while leaving behind a string ofnefarious deeds.

Before viewing this serial I had visions of Dixie Lee (possibly the mostalluring heroine ever to appear in a comic strip), Slickville andeverythingelse that made Smilin’ Jack a great comic strip. With Charlie Chan,NumberOne Son and Danny Thomas’ future wife in the cast, my expectations whereheightened all the more. Unfortunately, there was no Dixie Lee, noSlickville and very little plot. By the seventh episode I was bothfeelingextremely sorry for Jack because he was so dumb and bored to boot.Althoughthere was `aerial action’, so to speak, it involved planes catching fireandbeing shot out of the air by a Japanese submarine (if you can believethat).There were none of the aerial stunts and acrobatics that usuallyaccompanies Jack’s adventures and made the strip so interesting. Maybetheywere not included because of the expense involved.

I am a fan of serials. I really enjoyed the classics like The MaskedMarvel, The Phantom, Daredevils of the Red Circle, Captain Marvel, et.al.They were extremely entertaining and usually kept you guessing. Eventhough you knew who the villain was early in a few of the true classicstheymanaged to hold your interest to the very end. The Adventures of Smilin’Jack can’t hold a candle to the classics. It has difficulty holding uptothe mediocre serials.

• Chapter Titles: 1. Stolen Sword 2. Galahad’s Daring 3. Prisoners of Ulric 4. Attack on Camelot 5. Galahad to the Rescue 6. Passage of Peril 7. Unknow Betrayer 8. Perilous Adventure 9. Treacherous Magic 10.The Sorcerer’s Spell 11.Valley of No Return 12.Castle Prilous 13.The Wizard’s Vengeance 14.Quest for the Queen 15.Galahad’s Triumph

rto1 Cincinnati, OH

Great Fun. (Seeing this on TV or finding a copy might be tough. Trye-bay)

2) Ben Affleck playing George Reeves in Hollywoodland has a scene where hecomments negatively about his career stalling and being reduced todoing this serial. Despite Reeves displeasure this is a good, ifjuvenile, serial that is completely unlike any other one from the soundera in that it concerns knights in armor. The plot has Galahad tryingto find the stolen sword Excalibur and battling various baddies whowant to take over Camelot. With its use of swords and sorcery even themost run of the mill cliffhangers have a new sheen to them. You have togive the serial points for giving us a cliffhanger that has a tree inan enchanted forest come to life and grab Galahad and hold him tightwhile a ring of magic fire tries to roast him. Actually you have togive the serial points simply for doing something differently at a timewhen the production of serials was shifting towards reuse and cookiecutter interchangeability. Because of its setting nothing could reallyhave been reused from other serials so its all pretty new. To becertain the performances are uneven, with many people walking throughtheir roles and Reeves good sometimes and bored at others.Unfortunately, even though he liked to think otherwise he was a goodactor of limited range. He was pretty much always the same guy. Comparethis role to Superman/ Clark Kent- it's basically the same character.The story is also a bit too geared towards kids at times with thingsconstantly looping back on itself. Still this is a good time killerthat remains watchable thanks to the uniqueness of the setting.Recommended.

3) If you’re a George Reeves fan, and can track this serial down, it’sdefinitely worth watching, especially to see George sport a "PrinceValiant"haircut. Working on this low-budget serial probably prepared him for thelow-budget on the series that would catapult him to stardom, TheAdventuresof Superman.

4) Made on the cusp of the 50s this klunky sword and derring do sillinessis fun in an interminable way. Columbia’s serials for no known reasonusually ran for 15 chapters. Republic had the good manners to fit allthe chasing and fighting into a neat dozen..and basically get on withit. If you watch enough of them from any studio you can usually watchchapters 1 and 2 and then the last two and still follow the story. Thechapters in the middle are lots of chasings, everyone chases everyoneand then they all swap. In between they all run in and out ofwharehouses (or castles, or huts) and slug it out with each other andfall over. It is such hilarious great fun. This one uses leftover KingArthur bits and some GREEN ARCHER doorways and a lot of tin armoury andwobbly swords. The same bad guys are seen in every serial, but thistime the lead actor is Superman fresh from his 1948 serial and in a tincan suit with a feather on the top. It is a wonder Buster Crabbe didn’tride over from PRC ranch with Fuzzy Knight (haha…if you all getthat). Columbia’s serial interest were waning and box office was aboutto dive into TV abyss…..see this serial and then watch the creakyCAPTAIN KIDD made a few years later as a bargain counter costume epicunder severe restrictions. More Sir Galah than Sir Galahad and immensefun all the clippety clop way.

• Although William Gillette’s name appears in the credits, this film bears little or no resemblance to his 1899 play “Sherlock Holmes”.
• The movie’s line “Elementary, my dear Watson.” was voted as the #65 movie quote by the American Film Institute (out of 100).
• Lionel Atwill was originally cast as Prof. Moriarty, but was replaced before shooting by George Zucco.
• The second of fourteen films based on Arthur Conan Doyle’s fictional consulting detective Sherlock Holmes starring Basil Rathbone as Sherlock Holmes and Nigel Bruce as Doctor Watson.

• Continuity: Holmes’s pipe disappears from one shot to the next as he sees Sir Ronald Ramsgate out the door early in the film.

• The story was conceived by Robert Rodriguez’s then seven-year-old son Racer Rodriguez, who receives an on-screen “Story By” credit.
• While Max is on the dock before he runs into Sharkboy you can see a fast food bag for “Big Kahuna Burgers” a fictional burger joint used in a lot of Robert Rodriguez’s films as well as those of his buddy Quentin Tarantino.
• The character of “Max” is named after the middle name of Racer Rodriguez.
• The movie was shot and completed so quickly that by the time Robert Rodriguez was ready to ship it, the advertisements weren’t finished.
• The face of the boy from the Troublemaker Studios logo can be seen as a design or sticker on the cover of Linus’ binder in multiple scenes.

• Continuity: In the classroom scene just before Sharkboy and Lavagirl appear, Max throws his dream journal at Linus. In the next shot the dream journal is back on Max’s desk.
• Continuity: Sharkboy’s back fin falls off of his back as he dangles from the bridge leading up to Ice Princess’s castle. In the next shot, it reappears.
• Continuity: Prior to getting caught by his parents in the kitchen, Max picks up a cookie bitten by Sharkboy with the bite perfectly straight. After getting caught, Max shows his parents the same cookie with the bite in a circular shape.

• Audio/visual unsynchronized: When Lavagirl jumped into the water to save Sharkboy, the height of the splash is not proportionate to the height of her leap.
• Continuity: When Linus captures the three heroes, Max asks “How did you get so powerful?” Linus shows that he has his dream book, which he shows upside-down. In the next shot it is still held at arm’s length, but right-side-up.
• Revealing mistakes: When Sharkboy is carrying Lavagirl towards the volcano, you can easily see its a dummy he’s holding.
• Revealing mistakes: When Max’s parents are going through the tornado to the school to get him, the tornado has enough force so that his dad has to hold on to a tree while the mum gets lifted off the ground. When she’s sucked into the tornado, Max’s dad lets go of the tree and stands there, not being pulled in at all.
• Continuity: When Lavagirl’s hair is on fire, Sharkboy cools it off by putting water on it. A few shots later, her hair isn’t wet at all (it’s not in a face shot, so it’s hard to see).
• Revealing mistakes: Towards the end of the movie when Max is back at school fighting Mr. Electric with his classmates, after he’s defeated, there’s a wide shot showing all the students in the demolished classroom with Mr. Electricidad, the teacher. It is obviously not George Lopez standing there, but a much younger man with a goatee.

My daughter laughed and laughed. She loved Lavagirl. She thought it washilarious when Lavagirl zapped Sharkboy because he said someone elsewas prettier. And my daughter is old enough to understand the themes ofpursuing your goals and remaining strong in the face of discouragement.So I think she walked away very pleased with the film. She said shewants to be Lavagirl for Halloween.

If you’re 16+ this movie is a loser. You won’t like it, and thatexplains all the low scores you’re seeing here. This movie just isn’tfor adults. But if you are a parent looking to entertain your kids,this movie works. And if you are reading this near the end of 2005 orlater, you should probably know that renting this as a video will be afine way to keep your kids occupied.

-Tony

2) I took my 9 year old son to Shark Boy and Lava Girl expecting to see amovie for kids. I saw a movie for kids. Yes, the story was predictableand the acting could have been better. Many scenes had my son at theedge of his seat. He has a wild imagination and enjoyed seeing a movieabout a boy with a similar imagination. Taylor Dooley is adorable, andTaylor Lautner has some great moves in the movie. I asked my son for aquote about the movie: "It is exciting, adventurous, and the 3-deffects could have been a little better, but if it wasn’t 3-d itwouldn’t be good at all". It’s a kids movie and my kid liked it, maybeyours will too. I

3) I hadn’t planned on wasting my time reviewing this mess, but there aresome subtleties that crept into my consciousness after the secondforced viewing which may enhance a prospective viewer’s experience.

First of all, this movie obviously was designed for younger kids. Thatfact alone has a detrimental effect on a review done by an adult (ascan be seen by previous reviews). However, it should be noted that amovie for the target audience will most likely be attended by theirparents or guardians, and should be at least bearable for them also.This movie falls short in that regard.

My son, who is 5, absolutely raves about this movie, and will no doubtwear out the DVD in the next few weeks. But my younger brother, who is17, walked out five minutes into it. Kids under 12 will probably bebest entertained by Sharkboy & Lavagirl. It is a very colourful moviewith a lot of motion and many bizarre graphics. There is nothingoffensive in this movie by the way. Even the "fight" scenes are mildand clean.

Now, the main subtlety on my mind is that Sharkboy (who was the bestactor in this colourful, but mindless drivel) has obvious hiddentalent. This movie, however, was not the right venue to expose thattalent. Sharkboy moves well in action scenes and would be more aptlysuited to a martial arts style role. Also, Sharkboy has a wide range offacial expressions (although the ones emphasised by this movieconsisted mainly of scowls and frowns). With continued training,suitable roles, and of course (and most importantly) proper direction,Sharkboy could go far with his acting career. Also, he is a decentlooking lad, which seems to be a requirement for an acting career thesedays. I’m certainly hoping we’ll be seeing more of Sharkboy in thefuture.

Another noted item: If you have the 2D version, it seems to be farsuperior to the 3D. My son thought the glasses were fun the first time,but after that he didn’t want anything to do with them and now onlywatches the 2D version. Possibly this 3D effect is better if viewed ina theatre.

I’m giving out a rating of 7 for this title, simply because itcertainly has the ability to entertain the kids…which was its purposeI’m sure. I would definitely recommend Sharkboy & Lavagirl if you haveyounger children. For adults it has no value whatsoever.

4) This movie doesn’t really need a review. If you have a boy between theages of 5 and 12, you are probably going to have/get to see this filmso here’s what to expect:

More of the same… only less. Sorry if that doesn’t make sense but itwill. More of the same because it’s just like "Spy Kids 3-D" on the wayit looks and unfold. It looks like a video game and is verypredictable. Less is because there is, unfortunately, hardly any good3-D sequences. Nothing pops out at you the way it did in SPY KIDSexcept for when someone sneezes or throws something, and that is nottoo often. The 3-D in the action scenes was poor and barely noticeable.You can’t expect too much from the RED AND BLUE 3-D but this was a stepbackwards from SPY KIDS.

The good news is that you will probably not get a headache from the 3-Dlike SPY KIDS. My 6 year old loved it and did not say a word throughout(a minor miracle), so i guess it does what it is supposed to do.Entertain the kids.

5) Alright, I am bias… I don’t think I possess the ability not to be. Ihave read Robert’s book "Rebel without a crew", I have seen all of hismovies. So, I am a fan of what I feel he is trying to do.

I saw the trailer for this movie, and thought it looked well… like abad idea. But then I heard that it was his son’s idea, and I did warmup to it. That said I didn’t go to the theater expecting very much, butI knew I wanted to watch it with the mindset of a child. I have ayounger brother, and now that I have seen it… I want to take him. Butwouldn’t have taken him without seeing it first, as he is still quiteyoung. So my girlfriend and I went, and after a heated debate aboutfilm with some cinematic idiot while my girlfriend was in the washroom,we went in to see what it was all about.

So I’m not going to write out all the thing I liked it didn’t like as aplay by play on this movie. The one main thing that I really hated wasthe constant puns. But really, if I was a kid, I really think I wouldlike it, a lot. It didn’t seem all that different to me than any of thespy kids, and I plan on taking my little brother to see if my theory istrue. The 3D worked on me, and while things weren’t flying in my facethe whole time, it did give the movie a strange depth.

So what can I say, I was in no way expecting cinematic brilliance but Idid enjoy most of what I say created before me. I’m 20 years old, and Ithink I understood what they were trying to do.

So, I don’t know… give it a chance. Take a kid to see it, or just tryto enjoy it for what it is. But try to remember this, when you are akid your imagination is insane. My brother tells me the most foolish,crazy stories… because he is a kid. The movie lets imagination runfree, and I think that is a good thing.

6) I hated it.

My two kids (5 and 7) thought it was the best movie of all time. Andthey’ve seen lots of movies. Let’s face it: we can’t always dictatewhat the kids should like. This one simply appeals to them, and from aparents perspective, its basically harmless (except to the older crowd- then it is painfully boring).

I would recommend bringing a book.

Or a pillow and a sweater.

Or, at least some thoughts that you wanted to concentrate on for awhile.

7) I can't remember the last time a movie confused and tormented myfilmgoing soul as much as this movie did. Everything inside of me,everything in me that loves Shawshank Redemption and Vertigo and RagingBull and all these great great great classic movies tells me thatSharkboy and Lavagirl was awful. And it was. Drastically awful. And Ienjoyed almost every minute of it. Let me try and explain it this way -I have written ongoing lists of the greatest films ever made, and theworst films ever made, and Sharkboy and Lavagirl is the only movie I'veever seen that has gotten a placement in both lists for me.

Sharkboy is about a young child named Max who dreams up wonderfulfantasies and adolescent superhero type adventures. Eventually hetravels into this dream world aided by the aforementioned Sharkboy andLavagirl as they fight to keep the dream world a happy go lucky placefrom the evil Mr. Electric. So there's the story. Simple, childish, anda bit reminiscent of Neverending Story. I knew this plot before my 6year old cousin made me watch the film and I sighed. What a waste oftwo hours this would be. Then something strange happened. I got achill. Then Lavagirl and Sharkboy appeared and took Max into theirspaceship, and I got more chills. Throughout the course of the movie,especially in the end, I was enthralled and received more goosebumpsthan when I watched Braveheart, much to the embarrassment of mydumbfounded girlfriend.

I have no idea how to explain my reaction to the film. I was pleasantlysurprised, obviously, and I had a lot of fun watching the movie (I'mexcluding the terrible 3-D version of the film, which is a pointlessdistract-or and takes away a lot of the magic). Then why am I onlygiving this movie 5 stars out of 10 (a middling mark to avoid giving ita 10 or a 1)? For the same reason why the movie is both on my list ofmost hated and most loved – it's a bad movie. To say it's a guiltypleasure to me would be underestimating guilt and pleasure. The scriptis silly, the special effects are slapdash, the editing is at timesincoherent, the acting is atrocious, and there are moments where evenmy 6 year old cousin grimaced at the lame dialogue. But damned if thismovie isn't a lot of fun.

So I can't really recommend the movie to anyone over the age of 10. Istill can't believe that I, a 17 year old classic film lover, enjoyedthis movie as much as I did. But I can definitely tell that it's amovie younger kids, especially boys (for I'm pretty sure every boy thisage has dreams and fantasies just like the ones in the film) will love.I harkin this bizarre feeling I have for Sharkboy to when you find anold cartoon you used to love as a young child and watch it again. Eventhough you're reciting the lines and the songs like you did when youwere young, you know deep down that if it wasn't a childhood favouriteand gave you so much nostalgia, you'd hate it just as much as everyoneelse. This is what this movie was like for me. It was the childhoodflick I never got to see. Maybe that warrants a recommendation. Maybestill not. I really don't know – you'll have to see it for yourself andfind out.

Or maybe not.

This is sort of a double review cause me and my girlfriend watched thistogether and we both have "thoughts" about it.

My 9yo cousin gave us this movie just cause he liked it…he even gotus a couple pairs of 3d glasses to watch it with.

Both of us thought the movie was kid junk, but really isn’t that whatit was supposed to be? There were some fun spots though.

TRAVIS: Most of the characters I hated. (Too bad Mr. Electric didn’t doaway with some of em before he was defeated.) They were weak and poorlyacted…esp. Max. But I liked Sharkboy for the most part. He had thatcocky attitude that sort of appeals to me. And, although not original,some of his one-liners were cool.

ANNETTE: Travis is a bit harsh (as usual), but I’ll agree with himabout weak and poorly acted characters. I couldn’t even identify withLavagirl, although I thought she was quite attractive. Sharkboy was areally cute guy though. Mr. Electric/Teacher was nothing short ofannoying.

TRAVIS: Story was really lame, but it’s probably good enough foryounger kids. It pretty much bored me tho. Some of the 3d was okay andI noticed it looked a heck of a lot better on our LCD TV than the oldone.

ANNETTE: Yes. The story was very weak. But it was colourful, and asTravis noted, should appeal to a younger audience. 3d was fun, but notthe best I’ve seen. We watched this on a 27-inch LCD screen with quitenice results.

ANNETTE: I thought the scene where Lavagirl zaps Sharkboy out ofjealousy was the cutest part of this movie. And the way Sharkboy copiedthe tone of the Jurassic Park character’s false calm in his"yell…scream" comment when they were on the "train-of-thought" wassort of humorous.

TRAVIS: Yeah Annette. You would like that zapping scene! My favouritescene was when Sharkboy says "ouch" with that sh*t-eating grin on hisface when Lavagirl kisses him.

Well, anyhow, as you can see, we didn’t totally abhor this movie.Although I think we both agree the only decent acting was by Sharkboy.For the most part this movie was boring. But that’s most likely becausewe are too old for it. If you’ve got younger kids, it will probablyentertain them adequately. Avg. rating=5.

TRAVIS: I rated this a 4 cause it seemed to be cranked out without muchthought. With some extra work it could have been a lot better. The onlyreason it gets as high as a 4 is cause I liked Sharkboy.

ANNETTE: I rated this a 6 because it seemed to appeal to the audienceintended. But I also agree that with more time and attention therecertainly could have been a lot of improvement. Perhaps if Rodriguezdecides to make a sequel, he will obtain a better story with betteractors and surprise us all.

9) This is by far the worst film I've ever seen. It's cheesy, predictable,and 1 dimensional (even the 3-dimensional aspect to this film couldn'tmake up for it). It's about this ugly, moronic little kid who daydreamsabout stupid superheros. Then the superheros come to his school andkidnap him to save their own planet. Then they go through various"tasks" like "the land of milk and cookies". The stupid lava-freak hasidentity issues and the ugly shark kid is a violent, rabid freak whoneeds some medication or something.

I was embarrassed for watching this movie and for the people in it. itis a horrid insult to anyone who watches it.

The guy who played "Shark-Boy" goes to my friends school. He's aSophomore. He's not very popular and gets made fun of a lot…..

10) This movie makes no sense- at least, not in the linear, neat, tidy,world of adulthood. But, it captures the messy, gritty, disjointed,weird, raw, non-linear, funky, wild, whimsical, internally inconsistentworld of true childhood fantasy better than any film I can remember.The story is based off the "dreams" and stories of the director’s then7 year old son. As a mother and teacher, I can tell you that while thecharacters and situations are unique, they are also completelyrepresentative of the types of stories and imagination games that Ihave heard again and again.

My own children have certainly created their own superheroes steeped inthe same balance of derivative lore and imaginative elements thatSharkboy and Lavagirl possess. When faced with similar fantasies playedout on screen, my children responded gleefully. Heck, even before wegot the DVD home their imaginations had been so captured by what theyread on the box that they could not stop discussing it. And, once theyhad viewed the film, the conversation continued (and continued andcontinued!). Almost immediately, characters from the film began showingup in my children’s own pretending games- only, not *quite* as they hadexisted in the movie. The characters grew and evolved and were changedand fluffed until they fit seamlessly into my daughter’s world of"Sigalates" and my son’s "Robotland".

In other words, the film did beautifully what all good fantasies do- itinspired others to create, examine and expand their own. In my opinion,that is a near complete success.

• Errors in geography: Though set in Dutchess County, NY, most of the locations shown are actually in neighboring Ulster County, NY (e.g. the liquor store is in Kingston, NY – the high school is Onteora Jr/Sr High in Boiceville, NY)
• Anachronisms: The movie that Sebastian and his date go to see is The Mangler (1995). But the film takes place in the mid to late-1980s and The Mangler was released in 1995.
• Continuity: When Sebastian is running to catch the school bus his blue scarf is on again, off again through the entire scene after he misses the bus.

The acting was good, especially the performance of Adrian Grenier. Iloved him as Sebastian. He was comical and dramatic. Sebastian wasmaturing though out the film but still had a lot to learn about life.Adrian Grenier knew how to become this character and I think that hisperformance was phenomenal.

2) A comical and realistic view of the real world of high school without allthat American Pie/She’s All That crap about just capitalizing off of whatkids WISHED their high school life was like. This truly was a movie thathadeverything in it: great wit, great drama, a great plot, great music, andgreat acting. If the distributor had only allowed it to more theaters, itwould have surely been more of a success as most people HEARD it was good,but were not able to see it since it was only released in a few places forafew days. Kudos to Tod Williams.

3) This little film is surprisingly quite observant of it’s characters anddoesn’t turn this film into a crazy Farrelly bros. comedy or silly farce. Ihas good performances,especially from the lead,Grenier,who shows a lot ofdepth and mystery. You kinda can understand the quiet hauntings inside hishead and the fact that he doesn’t want to attach to anyone. It’s a film thatreally brings out the trappings of what it is really like to be a growingyoung adult coping with the problems of understanding love,sex,school,sexchanges,stepfather wanting a sex change(I know this is not a usualtrapping..just being silly),and wanting more from life than the expectedfuture. Sebastian wants to go on "adventures like Ernest Hemingway." That’sthe lifeblood of the film. Cole is not your ordinary kid..he thrives to getthe most from his life..he wants to discover emotions and unpredictablehappenings. He puts himself in situations just to see what results wiloccur. He is a complex character and that is what makes this little filmspecial..it’s a breath of fresh air and a good experience.****/*****

4) Sebastian Cole (Adrian Grenier) is a teenager of seventeen years old,living in a small town with his mother Joan Cole (Margaret Colin), hisstepfather Hank (Clark Gregg) and his sister Jessica (Marni Lustig).His father Hartley (John Shea) is an architect and his grandparents arepersons very traditional, conservatives and arrogant. One day, hisstepfather gathers the family and informs that he will make anoperation for changing his sex. This communication is enough to leavethe members of the family astonished and break the structure of thefamily. Jessica decides to leave home immediately with her boyfriend.Joan decides to move to England with Sebastian. A few months later,Sebastian decides to come back to USA and to live with his stepfather,now called Henriette. He joins the high school and becomes a very rebelteenager, certainly affected by the whole situation, shocking theelders in most of his attitudes. This low budget and independent moviehas a very original screenplay. The excellent cast and direction aresharp. The story is not indicated for all audiences, but the viewer whoappreciates a different story will have the chance to watch a goodmovie. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): "Febre de Viver" ("Fever of Living"

5) What can be said for a movie that is truly original. The movie has abasic premise, a coming of age story. But it is so much more than that.Sebastian is a warm character who you believe in because he actuallyexists in real life. His father figure Hank/Henritta is a positiveinfluence in his life and you can't help but like how well the movieprogresses. It is has a good script with nice character development anddialog. I remember seeing this movie when I was 19 and thinking abouthow great a personality Adrian Grenier had back then. Also keep an earout for some really great period music from the early 80-'s I highlyrecommend this movie.

6) There are some that love this movie, and there are some that hate itwith the fire of a thousand suns. True, this movie isn’t for everyone,but if you’re like me, it might possibly become one of your favoritesof all time. I’m a big 80s junky, I love all the classics, from JohnHughes to Cameron Crowe, and I always thought they just don’t maketeenage movies like the ones from yesteryear anymore. Then cameSebastian Cole. It looked and felt like a film picked straight out ofthe Golden Age, back in the 80s when teen movies were in their prime.The film was a timeless, edgy, and original take on something we’ve allseen before: the coming of age story. The title character, Sebastian,is endearing, and though the plot can get a bit slow at times, you’realways interested in where his life is leading next during the courseof the story. His relationships with his sister, his friends, hisgirlfriend, and his stepfather all pan out beautifully and by the end,you feel like you know these people. If you’re looking for somethingnew and different in a sea of "American Pie’s", you should definitelycheck this movie out.

7) Coming of age in a dysfunctional family has been worked and overworked inrecent years, but "The Adventures of Sebastian Cole" presents a somewhatdifferent slant on the story. It also contains characters that are notwritten as "can-you-top-this?" stereotypes: the clueless fathers, slutstepmothers, stormtrooper school administrators, you’ve seen them over andover. In this movie, the focal relationship between stepfather and teenageson is rather realistic and touching, even though the stepfather is in theprocess of changing his sex. Quirky, yes, very much so, but nonetheless thecharacters have a natural charm that is missing from many films of thisgenre. This is not an A-list movie with high production values, but Irecommend it when in the mood for something a tad different.

The film is criticized for not going anywhere, but I think this is becausesome critics can’t handle a storyline that doesn’t have an action-based,simplified plot. The story is coherent and flows well. There is nowastedtime – small moments are significant. The visual symbolism (such as thearrow that falls between Sebastian and Mary) is fantastic, as is thedialogue. There is no empty imagery.

Many films rely too much of the visual element. The writing was great,andso was the camera work. And the acting. Bravo to the wholecrew.

I hope that Tod Williams is in it for the long haul and writes _and_directsmore work of his own, and soon. If someone out there knows him and thinkshe needs an ego boost on a bad day, please pass this along.

9) I expected a lot more out of this film. The preview looked interesting so Idecided to check it out. Bottom line is that "The Adventures of SebastianCole" only had one decent thing: Adrian Grenier.

I really like Grenier and found his performance to be very pleasing. Thecharacter is designed well, but everything else sort of just drifts alongthrough the duration of the movie. Clark Gregg is really good, but I don’tthink that his character was explained too well. I mean there’s not toomuch to explain; he wants to become a woman. Still, something was missing.

The obvious low budget of the film was nice to see. I enjoyed that themovie was filmed on just a script (a bad one at that) and just a few actors. It was a nice change.

While the main idea of the film was actually okay, it became disappointingto see a lot of scenes that had nothing to do with it just thrown in hereand there. Like I said, the script looked promising and I must say that Iwas interested where director Tod Williams was headed, but it was basicallya very slow movie with not too good of dialogue.

"Sebastian" started to look good towards the end, but again, it fell rightback down into a hole. The acting was mostly good, the writing is in needof some work, yet the budget of the film helped it out in the longrun.

I would recommend this to someone if they wanted to watch a quiet movie witha strong lead character, but other than that I would stay away. Personally,I wouldn’t watch it twice.

10) Rarely does a film capture with any kind of authenticity the subtleties ofthe qualities of a particular time and place. When it does so it issomething that can be appreciated not for standing out from the story butfor becoming integral to the fabric of the narrative. The "Adventures ofSebastian Cole" achieves this rare unity of time, place, character andstoryand it does so in the most unassuming way. The atmosphere of Sebastian’sworld is undeniably one of normalcy and yet it is also undeniablybeautifuland rich with possibilities for anything. In this world even the smallestofpleasures, the smallest of adventures takes on a sublime quality and seemsready to infect the future of the character with an understanding andappreciation of his youth. We can appreciate everything about this storyforbeing small and unassuming and yet alive. Sebastian’s confusion and"posing"seem somehow sincere and he remains likeable as the protagonist. As thestory unfolds, watching Sebastian Cole lead his life of adventure, no onecould possibly feel unable to identify. There is something very genuine inthe story and lives of the characters. At the same time there is a deepsense of loss, of delusion, of dislocation. There is something intangibleabout this film, something that goes beyond story and plot. The charactersare both likeable and despicable. The acting is almost flawless and apleasure to watch, Clark Gregg is never over the top in his role asHank/Henrietta. There is very little moralizing, very little hitting overthe head with a message. The story is presented as a slice of life and weare allowed to fill in the blanks and make judgments for ourselves. It is,overall, a film that reminds you a life is always a complicated,disappointing and wonderful thing and always what you makeit.