In here, the new scenes are real-life action ones in which a young boy,dressed with a frilly shirt, is picked on by a bully. The smaller kidhad just purchased a Popeye comic book. Popepe "sees" what's going onand tells the kid how he used to handle bad situations, trying toinspire the kid. Thus, we see highlights from four previous cartoons inwhich Popeye defeated Bluto or a bunch of wild animals.

The real-life kid then downs a can of spinach, and with the aid ofmixing animation with real-life action, takes care of the bully. Thatending was funny but doesn't make up for the fact this was a "re-run."

If you've never seen the other cartons, then this one would be a goodone, but it's a waste when you include this with all the previouscartoons in a DVD package. (For that reason, I didn't register a ratingvote for this.)

2) Adventures of Popeye (1935)

*** 1/2 (out of 4)

Live action mixes in with the animation here as a young boy is gettingpicked on by a bully so Popeye teaches him how to handle thesesituations. For the most part we see clips from earlier Popeye filmsbut they use some of the better clips from the series, which leads toplenty of laughs. The live action stuff is pretty good as well and itmixes very well with the animation. We see earlier clips of Popeyebattling Bluto, a wild bull and a giant snake among other things.

On DVD from Warner.

In the decade of 2080, on a lunar colony called Little America, a retired smuggler named Pluto Nash (Eddie Murphy) buys a nightclub in order to fulfill a longtime wish and prevent the murder of Anthony Frankowski (Jay Mohr), the club’s previous owner, by his creditors. Seven years later, "Club Pluto" has become a successful business that is frequented by many socialites. The staff consists of Pluto, a Hispanic assistant, and an anthropomorphic android robot named Bruno (Randy Quaid). Meanwhile, Anthony has become a stage performer under the name of Tony Francis, under which name he has achieved interplanetary fame despite his apparent lack of talent. His music, performance style, and costume resemble those of Frank Sinatra.

Pluto is approached one night by a young woman called Dina Lake (Rosario Dawson), who has become stranded on the Moon and desires to earn money to pay for transport to Earth. She seeks help from Pluto because her father, "Nicky Sticks", was a friend of Pluto’s, to whom offers her skills as a singer. Instead, Pluto gives her a job as server at his club and allows her to remain after closure. During the same night, Pluto is approached three times by messengers of a mysterious entrepreneur called Rex Crater, who wishes to buy Club Pluto and convert it into a gambling casino. When Pluto refuses, Rex Crater’s minions destroy the club. Pluto, Dina, and Bruno escape. They therafter begin to investigate Rex Crater, about whom very little is known. Rowland (Peter Boyle), a friend to Pluto’s mother and retired police detective, informs Pluto that Rex Crater is never seen outside of a penthouse in the city of Moon Beach. Rex is said to have been involved with a geneticist named Runa Pendankin, who specialized in cloning before her death.

Pluto and Dina visit Doctor Pendankin’s apprentice, Mona Zimmer, who operates a cosmetic surgery station. To inflitrate this, they pose as a married couple attempting to revive their infatuation for one another by having their figures altered. After they have seen several examples of commonly preferred body shapes and contours, Zimmer asks for a police permit to perform the operation. Pluto bribes her to ignore this formality, and when she accepts the bribe poses as a police officer bent on interrogating her. Having been intimidated by Pluto’s bluffs, Zimmer reveals that Doctor Pendankin had worked for or with a Terrestrial criminal having what appeared to be the initials "WZW" inscribed on his briefcase prior to her death.

Pluto and Dina return to the hotel. They meet Pluto’s mother, Flura Nash (Pam Grier). All are attacked by Rex Crater’s assassins, who have tracked them to the hotel. They all narrowly escape, whereinafter Pluto steals a car to transport himself, Dina, and Bruno to an abandoned smuggler’s refuge.

At this hideout, Pluto mounts an Internet-based search for any Terrestrial criminal with the initials "WZW". When this yields nothing, Dina suggests that the initials are in fact "MZM", having been seen upside-down by Mona Zimmer. Pluto, on this basis, discovers a criminal called Michael Zoroaster Marucci. Pluto suspects that Michael Marucci and Rex Crater are one and the same. Abruptly, he is contacted by his mother, who tells him that Rowland has been killed. Moments later, the hideout is attacked by Rex Crater’s agents. A chase ensues; during Pluto’s final evasive manouvere, their car is damaged and explodes, causing them to be presumed dead.

They are eventually rescued and taken to Moon Beach by Felix Laranga (Luis Guzmn), a smuggler who idolizes Pluto Nash. They infiltrate Rex Crater’s casino/hotel, where they contact Tony Francis after his concert. Tony attempts to help them, but they are captured by Rex Crater’s agents and taken to him.

Pluto accuses Rex Crater of being Michael Marucci, whereupon Rex Crater reveals himself to be a clone of Pluto, created by Doctor Pendankin to act as a public face of Michael Marucci’s illegal activities, but who then killed Marucci. Rex coolly murders his agents who had failed to destroy Pluto, shocking most of the onlookers, then goes on to explain his elaborate plans to create a chain of "exclusive" gambling casinos from the ruins of other establishments including Club Pluto. At this, Pluto contemptuously destroys Rex’s model of the casino and assaults him. Rex and Pluto then fight for possession of Rex’s gun while the others watch, uncertain of which is Pluto and which is Rex.

Pluto shoots Bruno when he gains possession of the gun, whereupon Rex’s assistant Belcher (James Rebhorn) assumes that Pluto would not damage his own robot and shoots Rex. Pluto orders the robot guards to leave, then reveals his identity to Dina by speaking of her employment to him. When Belcher realizes the truth, he is struck down; Bruno then reveals that he was wearing a bulletproof shirt on Pluto’s advice. Rex, who shares Pluto’s memories and was therefore also wearing a bulletproof shirt, is revived attempts to garotte Pluto with a wire paperweight. He is then thrown through a window and dies falling into the casino below.

The movie ends with the protagonists celebrating in the rebuilt Club Pluto. Bruno is made manager of the Club and Dina its lead singer. Felix is granted lifelong credit and Tony invited to the celebration. Pluto, his desires fulfilled, rests at ease.

• This movie was shelved for almost two years before it was released.
• In absolute terms, this movie made the largest financial loss of any movie to date, with a budget of $100 million and a total US gross of $4.41 million (total loss, $95.59 million).
• The original script was written in 1985. A dozen other writers wrote treatments of it, but Neil Cuthbert was the only one credited.

• Continuity: While Pluto is in his hidden moon warehouse/lair and checking his computer to find the crook, he is given a sandwich. From behind we see he takes a big bite from the middle of the sandwich. When we cut to face Pluto, the bite has moved to the edge and the middle is bite-free.
• Continuity: When Pluto and Dina are in the Garden of Paradise and Pluto is about to leave, the clock by the door reads 6:54. However, when he has walked out, as the door is closing, the clock reads 1:17.
• Continuity: When Pluto Nash finally meets his “twin”, he has a black tie and his twin has a red one. In the next shot they both are wearing black ties.

• Continuity: In the end fight, Pluto Nash’s twin falls and crashes onto the Blackjack table, the female on the right side has no reaction but step back, smiles, and doesn’t even spill her champagne while everybody else is shocked and jumping back. In the escape scene, when Pluto and Dina are leaving the secret warehouse, Dina is wearing a purple spacesuit, then later on while traveling in the space car she is wearing an orange space suit. When they exit the car her spacesuit is purple again.

Kudos to Randy Quaid, who’s about the only one entirely believable in hisrole (and to think he had the toughest part!). Eddie Murphy does an OK job,but its clear his best part is as a character actor, or someone a littlemore interesting (like Jay Mohr’s character). Easily a 6, and I’ll probablyvote a 7 just to balance out those cast votes to moviessight-unseen.

2) I am an Eddie Murphy fan, but I did not go to the theater to see thismovie because of the horrible reviews that I read about it. My feelingsafter catching this movie on HBO are clear, don’t necessarily base allof your decisions to watch a movie or not on highly publicized reviews.The fact is, that I enjoyed this movie. I thought that the cast wasattractive and talented; and that there were some credible laughs. Butmost of all, I thoroughly enjoyed the way the movie looked and how itwas filmed. This film was simply not as bad as the critics said it was.It is possible that because the critics criticized the movie so much,that when I finally saw the movie, and was not repulsed by it, that Ibegan to relax and enjoy it. I think that many of the critics wereexpecting a Beverly Hills Cop-type laugh fest, but that is not a comedythat’s really an action-drama with a few laughs. This is strictly asci-fi comedy, as such, it does not take itself seriously; and neithershould you if you decide to watch it. Just see if you enjoy it. I suredid.

3) This is just another example of the continuing downward spiral of EddieMurphy’s once exciting career. Murphy will always have scripts handed to himand he’ll always be working in films but the once edgy comedian has lost hisedge a long time ago. This story takes place in the future where Earth haspopulated the Moon and a former smuggler named Pluto Nash (Murphy) takesover a nightclub from a friend and Nash makes it a big success andmoneymaker. A young woman and aspiring singer named Dina Lake (RosarioDawson) asks for a job but all Nash gives her is the opportunity towaitress. Some mobsters have been buying up the local business’s and theywant Nash’s club but he won’t sell. So they blow the place up and try tokill him but Nash, Dina and a robot named Bruno (Randy Quaid) escape and themobsters try and find him. This film was directed by Ron Underwood who isusually reliable with lightweight comedy like this but this film fails fromthe outset. The special effects are adequate but not overly impressive. Manyof the scenes are clearly filmed on a soundstage and in one shot Underwoodresorts to actors being hoisted by wires for the gravity effect. Didn’t theystop doing that in the 60’s? And poor Randy Quaid has to play a horny andoverly sensitive robot. Were we really suppose to find it amusing that hetries to get it on with other robots? But the big flaw comes from Murphyhimself. This once exciting comedian use to be so reliable for edgyperformances but here he plays his character totally straight. As you watchthis you keep waiting for Murphy to say something witty and off the cuff butit never happens. It looks like Murphy has decided to try and be an actionstar or be the romantic lead. Murphy has become boring to watch and its sadto watch his films now. Pam Grier pops up as Murphy’s mother but she hasnothing to do. She has maybe two scenes and then she runs off (Literally).This film wastes opportunities and the script has nothing new to offer.Along with Murphy’s boring and drab performance this film was dead onarrival!

4) And to think my all-time fav genre is sci-fi comedy! Here's a primetextbook case at how not to do one.

It's a comedy with only a microscopic trace of humor, a sci-fi thatreally could just have easily been set in present-day Earth with nosci-fi elements at all, and an action film that contains only thestandard D-grade action story setups and climaxes – and done at alackadaisical by-the numbers contract-delivery pace.

The only element that has the slight bit of remote interest is RandyQuaid as a rather quirky bodyguard robot. At least it's an interestingexercise at how to play a totally fanciful out-of-this world conceptwith no real-life equivalent. Yeah – the sort of role that yourstandard modern drama school graduate would be scratching their headstrying to get a grip on; and your academic drama scholar would betearing their hair out till they looked like Homer Simpson over thefact "its not the type of role -or story for that matter- that has anycredibility or truth to the human experience" (blah blah!) The factthat he is even a tiny bit watchable in that deserves a bit of afinger-clap – maybe.

It could have been so much better – a few puppet-type aliens hangingaround, a bit more showing of the light gravity bits, a dig at yourserious Arthur C Clarke space drama like MOONDUST – anything at all tomake this remotely interesting as a cinema experience – or even astoryline.

But what we actually get is the real sort of movie that theconservative critics have accused all summer-style movies of being:brainless formulaic uncreative popcorn entertainment plying to thelowest common denominator that is churned out when the bloatedHollywood studio system is working on autopilot.

Actually – this is the movie that makes the normal summer blockbustermovies look like works of literary genius. The critics should have beenaware of the old saying: "Be careful what you wish for – you just mightget it."

5) See a lot of guys giving this a one out of ten, not really fair I feel.To me there are lots of worse movies in all categories. But that said -it's not a top notch movie.

I've never been a fan of director Ron Underwood – he might be decentfor TV but features aren't his strong side in my opinion. You'll noticebest when it comes to the comedy parts (the attempts I should say) andthe actions sequences.

As for comedy, the directing does nothing to enhance the seemingly weakscript. Since comedy seems to be what this movie was to be about andthe pace seems intended to be rather fast – maybe they should have gonefor a director who could make something out of it? The action sequencesare incredibly lame. It resembles grown people playing war withoutsaying "pow pow". Here the director's at a loss as well, which shows insequences as when Randy Quaid's robot character is taking out his twocanons for guns. I take it, this is supposed to be a "cool" shot butthe angle of camera, timing and pace makes it about as cool as whenyour dad hangs up his coat upon returning home from work.

The budget ($100 million allegedly) didn't seem to be a problem and thespecial effects as well as the sets seem pretty well done, along with apretty nice cast (even tiny sub-minute parts are mostly done by actorsyou at least recognize). This must be seen as further critique of thedirector, since he seemed to have all the necessary tools at hand.

The actors put in from a half-hearted to a decent effort. A lot ofgreat character actors (Joe Pantoliano) didn't get enough space to beinteresting and there is a lot of untapped comedy resource in both JayMohr and Eddie Murphy. Though it has to be said – Pam Grier put in whathas to be her worst performance ever as the mother of Eddie Murphy'scharacter. One you can always trust to give his spirit is Luis Guzmán,and he doesn't disappoint in this one either.

All in all I would say there was a weak script to start with, that greweven weaker when it was handed to a director that couldn't handle thesort of comedy it was supposed to be, nor the action it was supposed tocontain. Probably actors underachieved, especially in the comedydepartment, due to this directing. The end result was nor a comedy, noran action – simply a bleak sci-fi that was one of the biggestnet-losses in movie history if I got it right. My guess is that theguys at Warner Brothers probably are killing themselves for not pickinga more suitable director.

6) A lot of reviewers on this site seem to dismiss "Pluto Nash" because itwas a box office failure. I say: So what?! Did you invest money in thismovie? Probably not. And yet, you as viewer, are treated to a -I admit-mediocre story, but with EXCELLENT special effects.

I like to think of "The Adventures of Pluto Nash" as a feel-goodscience fiction. There is no 'deep' philosophical theme going on, butthen again: this film never pretends to be like that. It's just a filmwith a happy ending. Yay!

Here are some things I really enjoyed:

- Low/no gravity battle. Did Star Trek ever do this? Once! Almost everySF film or series ever tries to evade low/no-grav battles. And yet, itlooks so cool! The special effect department did a wonderful job makingthis look realistic.

- Futuristic dancing. I love that! Every decade has it's own sillydances and it's so funny to look at this from an outsiders point ofview. Just like watching 'jumpstyle'.

- John Cleese was a realistic and believable CGI character. I don'tneed to reminds you how awful CGI characters can turn out (Jar JarBinks!). Cleese was a floating projection of a head in a hovercar, buthe was memorable and quotable.

- The gun that goes 'WWWWHHHHhhhhhhiiiiiiiiiiiiiii' in an super highpitched tone when it locks on target.

- An android with a personality. Star Trek needed many seasons toestablish the character of Data, but "Pluto Nash" gives us at least oneandroid with a genuine personality. Very nicely integrated into thestory too.

- The music was great. I am personally not really fan of R&B or rap,but I loved the way the music was put into the story:

*The dancing and the 'fast-forward' R&B music were hilarious

*Songs about the moon

*The 'scratching' sounds during fight scenes worked out perfectly

*The up-beat R&B style music was contrasted by some other types ofmusic, like Tony Francis' show and his intro song (when he's wearing akilt). Refreshingly divers.

- Some have said it wasn't funny enough. I think these reviewers arenot getting the subtle humor of this film. If you were hoping forPolice Academy jokes, this might not be for you. The level of sarcasmis higher, e.g.," That's what I love about you. I ask you a simplequestion and four hours later I get a simple answer.")

- The TWIST in the end. In retrospective it makes sense, but it reallycomes as a surprise on the first viewing.

- CGI was great. The Lunar Highway scene, the deserted desert area ofthe moon with Earth in the background, the establishing shot of 'LittleAmerica', the hovercar chase… All very impressive.

This film is getting a lower rating then it should get. There areenough movie references in this film for a film student to write asmall paper about. There are worse films out there like "A Sound ofThunder" that get a higher rating than this film, even though they hada comparable budget yet messed up on the story AND the CGI.

7) There's maybe one laugh (if you're lucky) in this universally-panneddisaster, but that doesn't mean THE ADVENTURES OF PLUTO NASH is acomplete loss. Eddie Murphy is the title character, a reformed felonoperating the most successful club in the "Little America" part of theMoon. But after he turns down an offer to sell to a shyster for $10million, the laser bullets begin flying in his direction. Now he andgal pal Rosario Dawson, along with robot bodyguard Randy Quaid, are onthe run.

Murphy is generally appealing, but his comic touch just doesn't jivewith the sci-fi environment. The plot is at times incoherent andsuffers from trying to roll comedy, action and excitement all into one.It's kind of amazing this clunker ever made it beyond the idea phase,particularly with talents such as Murphy and director Ron Underwood(CITY SLICKERS) involved.

What does PLUTO NASH have going for it? Though it's supposed to be acomedy, it actually works to some degree as a sci-fi adventure. Themassive $100 million budget and futuristic setting make for someinteresting visuals. And the picture moves along at a fair pace, with atidy running time of 95 minutes.

For all its flaws, I would not use the term "boring" to describe PLUTONASH. Hollywood has done much better, but it's also done far worse.

This is one of those movies that you read about here on the IMDB, and findthat everyone pans. So you go to see it at the dollar theatre notexpectingto be entertained, but just for the popcorn and pop and to smooch withyourgirlfriend. When you do that, you could be pleasantly surprised. Thismovieis fun, not fantastically funny, but entertaining. Kind of a cross betweenThe Fifth Element and The Milagro Bean Field Wars. Visually, big screenpresence reminiscent of Total Recall. Go in planning not to like it, andyouwill probably end up buying it on previously viewed DVD or videosomeday.

9) It seems that a lot of people went into this movie expecting asidesplittingcomedy. That was not the point of the movie. This movie was rocking goodsci-fi action, with just enough humor to keep it fun without degeneratinginto the usual slapstick retardation. The plot was fun and interesting,andI really liked the way the movie had an atmosphere that melded the futurewith the past. Notice in particular the cool looking vehicles. It was alittle like Total Recall, and also like The Fifth Element, but thisdoesn’tmean it stole from either. It was quite original I think. I recommendthismovie, it is fun and exciting. Just don’t expect a total comedy and lotsofdirty jokes or you will be disappointed. Expect some good sciencefiction,with some genuinely funny moments. I enjoyed this movie a lot. Give it achance, don’t decide what it is and then think it sucks because it’s notwhat you expected.

10) Pluto Nash is the owner of the hottest club on the moon. With theoutlawing of gambling on earth and the potential for it being legalisedon the moon, Nash finds his club to be hotly sought after by the locallunar mobsters. His continued refusal to sell though ultimately seeshis place bombed and his life under threat. With pretty young waitressDina and trusty old robot Bruno in tow, Nash tries to stay alive longenough to get to the man responsible for trying to kill him.

Two things drew me to this film. One was Rosario Dawson, who is as goodan actress as her agent is bad at making decisions on commercial roles– plus she is stunning which is a big part of it. The second was thatthis film was slated as one of the worst ever and indeed was once onthe bottom 100 on this site. Seeing it for myself I was surprised thatit was not that bad but it is no doubt that it is no good at all. Theplot is a bit like Total Recall but with the main difference that TotalRecall was funnier, more exciting and actually very good. Pluto Nash isfull of ideas but it can't do much with any of them other than churnout genre clichés. This wouldn't matter too much if it were funnybecause, after all, this is a film that markets itself as a sci-ficomedy. Sadly though there is not a single laugh in the whole thing andonly one single moment that gave me a very slight chuckle.

This leaves the plot to do most of the work and, while there is a solidsci-fi plot here mostly the film misjudges it and relies too heavily oncoincidence, obvious devices and just plain ol' lapses of logic to makeit move forward. The effects are pretty good and I imagine quiteexpensive. The actors can't do much as they are lost in a comedywithout laughs and a sci-fi without a decent plot or flow. Murphy doesthe usual in these situations and falls back on "big grin ladies man"as his character, it is lazy, tired and, without laughs, tiresome.Dawson also just falls back on her looks but in this film that doesn'tget her very far – it is clear she is not even able to try. Quaid isstuck in a poor robot role with one or two bad gags to work with atbest. Pantoliano has done better but will survive but I'm sure for allthe time they got on this that Guzman, Mohr, Boyle, Grier and Cleeseall wish they could have this expunged from their CV's.

Pluto Nash is not as bad as everyone says – it is just that criticslove to slate things when they get the chance because so many films are"OK" or a "bit sub-par". However this is not me defending it because itisn't any good either. As a sci-fi the effects are good but the plot isa mess of clichés and badly formed ideas. As a comedy it falls evenharder by failing to even have one laugh in the whole damn thing – notone. No wonder the cast are so at sea in this poor star vehicle. Notthe sign of the apocalypse that some suggest but no utter good either.

• The villain, Lorenzini, played by Udo Kier, gets his name from the novel’s author, Carlo Collodi, whose real surname was Lorenzini.

The creativity – especially for a film 10 years old – involves thewonderful special-effects that make the famous wooden puppet solifelike. I haven’t seen it in eight or nine years but when this cameout first on VHS I remember being shocked at the visuals and how realthings looked.

This is not an animated film, and the story is a bit different fromother versions. How faithful this is to the original story, I cannottell you, because I never was a big fan of the story. I can tell you,however, that Martin Landau is very good playing Pinochhio’s creator"Geppetto."

I found it interesting that the cricket in this story was called"Pepe," not Jiminy Cricket. At any rate, this is a nicely-done versionof the famous kids’ story.

2) This is certainly a well done movie, with an all-star cast. However, theintended target audience of this film is unclear. While little kids, whoknow of Pinocchio from story books and the Disney Animated Classic, aresureto enjoy the outstanding animation of the puppet, will most likely befrightened by many of the other scenes. Older kids, teenagers, and manyadults often consider themselves too old for the story of Pinocchio; with afew exceptions.

There’s also a couple other scenes in the film which make it objectionablefor younger children. One scene makes repeated use of the word "jack-a**";while referring to donkeys, as in the original story, the word seems alittle over used for a film that has a "G" rating in Canada (not sure oftheUS rating). Another objectionable scene is at the end when "real boy"Pinocchio, tells a lie to two of the films villains, knowing that his nosewon’t grow anymore. To me this counter-acts the lesson to be learned byhaving his nose grow when he lies in the first place.

Over all the film is still really well done, and very touching (provokingtear-ducts in places). The acting is excellent and the direction seemsgood. The script on the whole seems good, apart from the few objectionablescenes, which make me wonder what the film’s target audience is meant tobe;as opposed the recent Disney musical version, titled "Geppetto", which wasdefinitely family-oriented.

3) This is a lavish, sumptuously-mounted version of the classic story. Greatcostumes and location work, with Prague as 18th-century Italy. Top-notchFX: Pinocchio himself; Pepe (not Jiminy) Cricket; a hUge, whale-like seamonster; boys morphing into jackasses.

Good cast: Martin Landau (fresh from his Oscar-winning portrayal of Lugosiin "Ed Wood") as Gepetto; Genevieve Bujold, whom I hadn’t seen in ages (andwho is aging very nicely), as his long-term love interest; Udo Kier as theheavy; plus an assortment of other character actors mostly unknown tome.

Altogether well-done, its only drawbacks being a couple of lame songs, plusoccasional slapstick for the kiddies. And it must be admitted, the Dizcartoon is a tough act to follow.

4) It’s hard for me to believe this movie had received such a low rating whenit deserves wonderful reviews. Adventures of Pinocchio is a true gem, soperfect, so unique, that it can only be defined as a work of art. Youdon’thave to believe me, just rent it today. I have watched this movie severaltimes and is one of my favorite movies of all times.

5) Don't get me wrong, I really like this movie. The star is Pinnocchiohimself, with a very likable voice over by Jonathan Taylor Thomas, withvery careful design by Angus Bickerton. Also superb is Martin Landau asGeopetto, who brought charm and sadness to the role. The only thingsthat weren't so well done were Jiminy Cricket, though David Doylevoiced him with spirit,(it's just his character animation was a bitmechanical) and Udo Keir's villain did little for me, but that is justme being picky. The film is lavishly designed, especially with thescenes with the puppets with the sets that look like something out ofan opera or vaudeville. Also Rachel Portman's score was beautiful, verydynamic and sometimes moving in the more slower bits. Comparing this tothe Disney film, this is a lot more faithful to the book by CarloCallodi, but the Disney film has charm and a certain darkness thatisn't quite there here, but it is evident. All in all, a highlyunderrated and beautiful film. 7/10 Bethany Cox.

6) Had this version of Pinnochio been made by a major Hollywood studio wewould have had adverts on TV, all the major cinemas would have run itfor weeks and we would never have heard the end of it. I saw thispremiered at the Edinburgh Festival where the running time was listedas 180 minutes (so far as I can recall) and I thought we were half waythrough when in fact there were just 15 minutes to go. After thepremier, it vanished from sight and I never heard nor saw any sign ofit again. What a terrible waste. The film deserves better. My onlydisappointment was when the puppet turned into a chubby little boy but,after the excellent blending of animation with live action, this was aminor niggle. I found the film entertaining on several levels andstrongly recommend it to film clubs and people with large screens – Isuspect this is a film that does not work nearly so well on an averagetelevision set – a full-sized cinema or large Home Cinema system withsurround sound is what it needs to do it justice.

7) Saw it on DVD, pretty good transfer from film. I can’t give it a very highrating as a film, it was a bit muddled at times in exactly what it wastrying to convey. But the wooden puppet looked very life-like, his"education" was handled very well, and in the end the message of wherelifereally comes from is very clear. My favorite part, however, was listeningtoStevie Wonder sing the songs he wrote for the film.

I bought the DVD to give to my grandchildren, 7 and 10. It will beinteresting to see how they react to it.

I bought the DVD at Walmart because it looked okay, and was less than 6bucks. Somehow the movie lost me when the cricket said they shouldbottlethe pine scent. At that point it seemed to have a different writer. Butthe worst of all is the out of place Stevie Wonder songs. When I heardhimsing I thought, "What is THAT noise? Who screwed up the sound track?"

Nonetheless, the wooden puppet is great and I particularly like the waytheyhandled Pinocchio’s origin (the tree carving) and the water transformingdevice. They were welcomed twists that gave the classic story somefreshness.

9) I loved it! It was funny yet sad. I like the story of Pinocchio. this is a goodfilm for younger kids and adults to enjoy together. JTT was so fine as thePinocchio. He provided a good strong voice for the spunkyPinocchio.

10) For the first half hour of this movie, I felt I had completely wasted mymoney. It’s so kid-friendly it’s almost unbearable. But somewhere alongthe line, as the wooden puppet begins to discover more about life, themoviebegins to figure things out, as well. Ultimately, the movie redeemsitself,but I still don’t know that I can recommend it. It’s not a film to beavoided, but I wouldn’t go out of my way to see it.

2) Not having see Pinocchio in a while we though tonight would be a goodtime to see it with our 4 year old daughter…

The Anaimation was bad, the voice over was bad, but the content waseven worse. My daughter kept asking why are they being so mean to him,why are they not nice….

This was bad all around… Bring back the Disney version! This was badenough that we are taking our copy out of circulation. It is already inthe trash!

Even if your not a Disney fan, do not buy this version – look elsewhereand save yourself the 90 minutes of your life that we'll never getback!

3)

This Pinocchio, from 1984, is possibly the worst remake in movie history.Whereas the original, 1940, Disney Pinocchio, based on the Collodifantasyabout the misadventures of a wooden puppet who gets the chance to becomeareal boy was one of the greatest movies ever made, with Oscar-winningmusicand songs by Harline and Washington, vivid characters, striking animationand variously charming and scary voice performers, this version has alimpscreenplay, forgettable characters, lousy voice acting and animation thatwouldn’t pass muster for the cheesiest, PBS TV cartoon show. That IMDBdoesn’t list the names of any of the voice performers, may be a blessingfortheir careers. Get the original Pinocchio, and avoid this one like a badstreet.

Now to the problem: Disney has inexplicably discontinued the originalPinocchio. Thus, the only way to view it is via expensive used copies onsale through Amazon ($36-45), or through renting it from a video outlet.Ihope that the geniuses at Disney aren’t preparing to loose a politicallycorrect replacement on the world. Hopefully, they have a deluxe DVD intheworks. Prayers may be in order.

• The titles of the episodes for this film serial were as follows: [1] “The Leopard’s Mark,” released 1 May 1916 (three reels); [2] “A Strange Inheritance”; [3] “In the Lion’s Den”; [4] “The Circus Mongrels”; [5] “The House of Mystery”; [6] “The Cry for Help; or, Cry of the Ring”; [7] “The Wreck”; [8] “Outwitted”; [9] “The Leap”; [10] “In the Hands of the Enemy”; [11] “The Stampede”; [12] “On the High Seas”; [13] “The Clown Act”; [14] “The Will”; [15] “Retribution.” Each episode was two reels, with the exception of the first episode, which was three reels.
• This film is believed to be lost.

• Based on a popular BBC radio series. Eric Phillips is the only actor to re-create his radio role, however Brian Reece and Joy Shelton took over their roles for the sequel.

Gangly Metropolitan constable Archibald Berkeley-Willoughby (PC 49)wants to be assigned to special duties to help track down a violentgang of truck hi-jackers stealing fags and booze galore. To this end hefrequents all the greasy spoon cafés he can find that lorry driversstop for a cup of char, especially dear old Ma Brady's. He cannilyinfiltrates the gang, which amazingly turns out to be the originalBrady Bunch, displaying such a level of foresight along the way it'samazing the goodies weren't all shot to pieces well before the end. Butas this was aimed at a younger audience it should be apparent rightfrom the off whether good will triumph over bad. Hugh Latimer seemed anodd choice for the job: he looked more convincing playing the baddie inhere, and was an uncomfortable woodentop for a lot of his PC scenes,while his girlfriend was well played by Patricia Cutts but with anindelibly painted on smile. The original radio pair Brian Reece as 49and Joy Shelton as his fiancé thankfully moved in for the sequel.

But still indispensable for a window on the mores of a vanished race,and also a nice hour's entertainment for the discerning. Sadly mostserious people today would utterly despise this even after watching itassiduously for the hour too! I wish it had been two hours long.

2) Before "Dixon of Dock Green" there was "PC49",possibly of Dock Green aswell,certainly some murky part of a smog bound London where theoccasional car-horn was drowned by the sound of goods trains and thesad wail of ships' hooters on the turgid Thames.Created for radio,thecharacter of Archibald Berkeley Willoughby made an uneasy translationto the world of the British "quickie" movie in the late 1940s.For astart Brian Reece who had created the role and had a huge following asa result wasn't used in the film,"49",as he was known,being played byHugh Latimer.Furthermore, "49"'s part of London existed only in theimagination of the listeners,and bringing it to life on the screen wasgoing to disappoint at least as many of them as it delighted.It wouldbe easy to laugh at the world portrayed in this film,so many of thebeliefs,customs and moral attitudes may seem to sophisticated 21stcentury audiences ridiculously naive or even reactionary.Please bear inmind that the Londoners of 1949 would find the vast majority of ourenlightened" beliefs as outrageous as we find theirs.What is regardedas mainstream entertainment they would see as horrifying andobscene.This was an era when cinemas were not allowed to open on aSunday,it was 3 years before the word "virgin" was allowed to be spokenin a movie(which was immediately awarded an "X" certificate thusguaranteeing it a popularity far in excess of its merit.Viz:-"TheMoonis Blue"). PC 49 himself was a young idealistic Met copper in the dayswhen they wore high collar tunics and were recruited straight from theforces. He was looked up to by the boys at the Youth Club and had thegrudging respect of the local ne'er-do-wells.Clean of mind and limb,wewould do well to remember that men like him did exist in the bad olddays when there was a blame culture and old people weren't locked awayin homes the moment they became unproductive. As was the fashion at thetime,49 had a fiancée – Joan – and their relationship was all ratherjolly and Enid Blyton-ish.Both would have been outraged at anysuggestion that they should have sex before marriage -or much of itafter marriage probably.In this film she is played by Miss PatriciaCutts on whom I had a bit of a crush since I'd seen her in a "JustWilliam" film.She disappeared from the movies for many years in themid-fifties before appearing in "Private Road" in 1971 which sadlyproved her swansong.She died at the tragically young age of 48 in 1974.49 was absolutely sure that he was on the side of the angels,noagonising self-doubt for him,if "chummy" needed nicking he gotnicked,no fannying about."Out you go,49",Sgt Wright used tosay,ushering him from the office on to his beat.And off he went,happilychatting to the coaster mongers and shopkeepers,seeing old ladiesacross the road and confiscating catapults from schoolboys.As he dreamsof hearing a shout of "Stop! Thief!" whereupon he'll take off hishelmet and run like the wind with God and Right on his side,,he fadesinto history along with "Meccano" and "The Schoolboys' Exhibition"and,believe me ,the world is a far poorer place without him.

• Ociee Nash was an actual person, the grandmother of author Milam McGraw Propst, who penned the novel “A Flower Blooms on Charlotte Street” from which the screenplay was drawn. The real Ociee Nash was born in 1889 and was 9 years old in 1898 – the year in which the film is set, and the age of the on-screen title character.

So if you are looking for an entertaining movie that will be enjoyed byyounger children and adults alike – you have found it! It doesn’t relyon gimmicks, crudeness or "blowing things up" in lieu of a real plot -so it is a throwback to quality children’s’ movies of yesteryear. Themovie’s makers are to be rewarded for believing there is still a placefor a wholesome movie in an increasingly Bratz kind of world – andthere is and this movie proves it.

2) Growing up, Sounder, Tom Sawyer, and Mary Poppins were the movies thatmolded me and I was pleasantly surprised at the quality of Ociee Nash,a small homegrown film. As a Georgian, I was glad to see Atlanta’sbeauty through a filmmaker’s eyes and as an artist, I was glad to seeso many local celebrities mixed in with solid performers like KeithCarradine and Mare Winningham. We, in the suburbs of Atlanta, werefortunate to be able to send many friends to to see what I now call anendangered species – the FAMILY FILM. As I grow older, I long for thosefilms that make us, as human beings, dare to search for greatadventure. Milam Propst’s A Flower Blooms on Charlotte Street was agreat children’s book that some adults may never have known about hadthere not been The Adventures of Ociee Nash. I am glad the McGarysisters had the vision to turn this magical story into a movie thateveryone can enjoy. As a side note – any story with a mysterious gypsywith one eye and an infectious laugh is sure to be a crowd pleaser!!

3) Parents take their kids by droves to the latest Disney or Pixar films, andother high production value movies that basically just stimulatehyperactivity in kids. That’s okay, but parents should give their kids abalanced diet by also taking them to see movies like Ociee Nash that are alittle bit closer to the world that they live in, with simpler, thoughtprovoking situations that a child can identify with. The theater that IsawOciee in during a Saturday matinee had lots of small children in theaudience. They were quiet as can be and seemed completely engaged in thestory. I knew they were watching because they would occasionally laugh orcomment at something that one of the characters said, indicating that theywere actually listening to the dialogue! Not bad for a movie that actuallyhas some redeeming value to it. The movie shows how a young person canovercome adversity in their life through courage and love, and that bydoingso they can have a positive effect on the lives of the people around them.

For adults the movie offers a quirky charm and a gentle touch which is notonly rare, but virtually extinct in Hollywood. Watching this movie withyour kids will do you some good too.

4) My husband and I took my eight and ten year old daughters to see this filmon a recommendation from our neighbors. We loved it! Our girls continue toquote lines from the film especially "Hey Mister, Where’s your sister?" Somany times we take our children to movies and struggle to answer questionconcerning the movies content. With Ociee Nash, we were able to get a bitofa history lesson with characters like President McKinley, the WrightBrothers, and Nellie Bly in the story line. The scenery was a delight:thetrains, the countryside, the beautiful turn of the century homes. It’sniceto find a movie that can be entertaining while at the same time remindingusthat character and bravery are timeless qualities.

5) While this was not a high tech movie, it was very refreshing to enjoy afamily story in which the children were not crass and rude, the father wasnot an idiot, and the mother was not a wise-cracking woman constantlymakinga fool out of Dad while remaining always in confused deference to the lastword spoken by the children. Thanks to the creators of this movie forgiving us something different for family fare! We will recommend themovie,and we’ll watch it again.We are from Chattanooga, so it was especially fun for us to see the partsofthe film made here in our city, and in nearby Atlanta.

6) If you have children and do not like the films of today that strip ouryoungchildren of their innocence, you will love this film! Simple, safe for anychild, clean, good story line, lively charactors, beautiful scenery, greathistory lesson through fiction and just a calm relaxing movie for theparents and their children. Nice change of pace… It will remind you (ifyou are a babyboomer) of the Disney type films we grew up on. Read theothercomments and of coarse the one bad one, isn’t funny how we all focus ontheone bad comment and ignore the all the other good ones. People love thenegative. Well Ociee Nash film is everything but negative, so if you wouldlike some positive in your live go see ociee.

7) The Adventures of Ociee Nash is a sweet and gentle film for families whoaretired of or afraid of taking their children to the movies any more. Whilefilms that are marketed as "children’s" or "family" films sometimes offendparents with marginal language, questionable action, and cynical viewpoints, "Ociee" is genuinely what it is: a film for the WHOLE family.Onlythe most jaded viewers will not respond to this earnest, old-fashionedstoryabout one plucky little girl’s journey. As the title character, SkylerDayis terrifically charming and appealing. She’s a great role model forotherlittle girls, and I bet she’s already inspiring little boys to have bigcrushes.

The movie is set in 1898 and focuses on a young girl from a Mississippifarmwho is sent to Asheville, NC to live with her aunt to learn how to be aproper young lady. The title character lost her mother to "the measles."Interstate travel is by passenger train. Local travel is by horseback orhorse-drawn wagon or carriage. The opportunities for women in this era areseverely limited. Keith Carradine’s portrayal of Ociee’s father, a widowedfarmer who wants the best for his beloved only daughter, resonates withallthe appropriate love and simple dignity. Skyler Day is quite perfect asOciee. Mare Winningham, whose character, "Aunt Mamie," would have been alifeless cliche in the hands of a lesser actor, makes Aunt Mamie a living,breathing, complex and slightly mysterious Southern Lady. All the childactors are completely believable. The scenery in the movie is beautiful.There is no bad language in this film, no violence beyond the level of atypical sibling wrestling match. The film has a quirkiness reminiscent of"Oh Brother, Where Art Thou?" and "Forrest Gump," but it can stand aloneonits own merits. It should be irresistible to anyone who has ever wrestledwith a sibling, climbed a tree, or been criticized for not being a"proper"young lady or gentleman. See it with someone you love.

9) After seeing The Adventures of Ociee Nash for the third time withaudiencesof children of all ages, their parents, and adults without children, I amconvinced of the power of this film to entertain and educate many.Hearingthe laughter, the clapping, and even a few sobs, I knew that this film hadthe secret ingredient that makes people love it…a heart. As an adultwithout children, seeing Ociee made me nostalgic for the family films ofmyyouth, the ones that were wholesome, sweet, and moral. In an age wherefilmmakers and studios resort to the lowest means to attract the attentionof theatergoers, particularly the youth, The Adventures of Ociee Nashtakesthe high road and relies solely on a great story and great filmmaking.Kudos to those responsible for this treasure for the ages.

10) Please take your Family to see this wonderful Movie. Great happy feel goodending. You’ll walk out with your spirits lifted.The kind of movie Hollywood used to make for kids.This beautiful Movie is a delight from start to finish.Parents have been asking for a Movie like Ociee for years, now that it ishere, go see and enjoy it.Ociee is the story of a young farm girl, played beautifully by Skylar Day,that bravely travels from Mississippi to Asheville, NC, to live with herAunt and learn all the "social graces", after the death of her Mother.Youwill laugh and cry as one adventure leads to another.We need more Movies like Ociee.

2) This one is to be recommended to fans of Robert Conrad only. It offers aslim slice of the fun we had watching the attractive star step back intime in "The Wild Wild West," but this murder mystery is an otherwisefamiliar and by-the-book story. Conrad, famous for peeling off his shirtand doing his own fighting stunts as James West, hits the same marks inhis first scene, electing to box a fighter being touted as an investmentprospect. The sparring is for real, and concludes with Conrad teeing uphis chin at the surprising news of his friend’s death, then crashing tothe canvas when his opponent just about takes his head off with aknockout punch. He’s no Jackie Chan–or Laurence Olivier for thatmatter–but Conrad always gets an "E" for effort.

2) When I was a kid, I used to like this cartoon version of the famousKenneth Grahame story about the river. This was just the first part ofa three part bunch of stories. This is the order: The Adventures ofMole, Mole's Christmas and The Adventures of Mr. Toad. Anyway, youprobably know the story. Mole's spring cleaning, then goes outside anddiscovers the river and meets Rat. Then later they meet Mr. Toad(voiced by Hugh Laurie), and finally meet Mr. Badger after a frightfultrip in the Wild Wood. This cartoon was pretty good at the time, butnot as good as some other versions of the story. I suppose it isalright!

• The movie is based around the real TV kid’s game-show, Virtual Memory, hosted by Jamie Alexander.

the movie painted a picture of a very colorful world with interestingcharacters that didn't take themselves too seriously and made them funto watch.

i got a DVD of this from a friend and i even found the special featuresfunny and entertaining.

if you look closely, there's even an easter egg for us to find… goodtimes!

when can we see more? maybe there's a gigabyte man in the future?

2) I really thought this was a good movie…..it was good stuff. It isreally funny. The ending was a little weird but all in all it was veryfunny and a good movie. The concept seems bigger than what is actuallyon the DVD. The acting is very good. Jamie Alexander and Graham Sibleyare very funny! But I noticed a gem of a character that I foundhilarious Ted The Lighting Guy – he is played by Justin Folk who isjust hilarious! Also I found a hidden little gem on the DVD. If you goall the way over to the last scene selection page there is the funniestthing I have ever heard. Check it out! I laughed for 10 minutes solid.I will check out what these guys do next….