Pinocho, la leyenda

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

Good cast: Martin Landau (fresh from his Oscar-winning portrayal of Lugosi in "Ed Wood") as Gepetto; Genevieve Bujold, whom I hadn't seen in ages (and who is aging very nicely), as his long-term love interest; Udo Kier as the heavy; plus an assortment of other character actors mostly unknown to me.

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

The world famous fairy tale, "Pinocchio" is a story that is better suited for animation formats when it comes to film adaptations. This 1996 New Line Cinema version makes its first mistake by casting "Home Improvement" costar Jonathan Taylor Thomas in the title role and it makes more mistakes by not entirely sticking to the true storyline much of the time. However, Martin Landau makes a believable Gepetto and his performance prevents this film from being a complete waste of time.

This is certainly a well done movie, with an all-star cast. However, the intended target audience of this film is unclear. While little kids, who know of Pinocchio from story books and the Disney Animated Classic, are sure to enjoy the outstanding animation of the puppet, will most likely be frightened by many of the other scenes. Older kids, teenagers, and many adults often consider themselves too old for the story of Pinocchio; with a few exceptions.

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

Over all the film is still really well done, and very touching (provoking tear-ducts in places). The acting is excellent and the direction seems good. The script on the whole seems good, apart from the few objectionable scenes, which make me wonder what the film's target audience is meant to be; as opposed the recent Disney musical version, titled "Geppetto", which was definitely family-oriented.

I remember back around the time this 1996 version of "Pinocchio" was released (not sure whether it was around the time of its theatrical release or its home video release). I saw the promotional image of a wooden Pinocchio looking at a real version of himself like a reflection in the water, and later saw a trailer for this adaptation of Carlo Collodi's story on TV. Even though I was very familiar with the classic 1940 Disney version, I never actually saw this movie when it was new, not that I was missing much. Well over a decade later, I finally saw it just last night. By this point, I knew it wasn't a very popular film, so my expectations weren't very high, and it's a good thing they weren't, since I found "The Adventures of Pinocchio" to be below average!

Pinocchio is a wooden puppet carved by a woodcutter and puppet maker named Geppetto. Soon after he finishes making this puppet figure of a boy, it magically comes to life! Even though Pinocchio is still wooden, he can now move and talk, but doesn't know much about the world around him. He wants to be a real boy, but has a lot to learn before that can happen. While walking out with Geppetto, he meets some schoolchildren and wants to go to school himself. He also catches the attention of two criminals named Felinet and Volpe, and is soon wanted by the evil Lorenzini! At school, Pinocchio punches a classmate and lies to the teacher about it, causing his nose to grow longer with each lie, and after he finally confesses, he is kicked out of class. He then goes to a bakery, where he causes chaos, and for this, he and Geppetto are both taken to court! They will both be sent to prison unless Gepetto can pay for the damages, which he can't, so Lorenzini offers to pay, but only if Pinocchio is given to him. Eventually, Geppetto reluctantly gives in and Lorenzini gets the puppet, but it turns out Pinocchio is not safe with him! The living wooden puppet finds himself on an adventure full of danger, with a wise cricket named Pepe often appearing to give him advice!

This film adaptation begins with a poor opening narration from David Doyle, which turns out to be the voice of Pepe the Cricket. This character is supposed to be funny, but he fails. The same goes for the rest of the film's humour in general, in scenes such as the havoc Pinocchio wreaks in the bakery. It's not funny when it tries to be. Also, it seems Felinet and Volpe are supposed to be funny, but they also fail miserably, unlike Honest John and Gideon in the 1940 version. Some of the characters in this 1996 version may get a little annoying at times, including the title one, and I think this is when they're trying to be funny. The poor humour isn't the only problem here. "The Adventures of Pinocchio" seems rushed, going too fast and seeming to just throw in characters without taking enough time to introduce them, making them seem very insignificant. Geppetto certainly doesn't seem very surprised when he sees Pinocchio alive for the first time. The lack of focus even makes the story seem almost meaningless, even though it does include the morals of the story, but in a very ineffective manner! The film fails both at trying to be funny AND trying to be touching, except maybe near the end. I also didn't care for the design of the wooden Pinocchio's face and his facial expressions.

I have never read the 19th century book, "The Adventures of Pinocchio", by Carlo Collodi, but have been familiar with the animated 1940 Disney flick from a very early age, so it's obviously hard for me not to compare these two films. I can't forget the times I saw the 1940 version as a kid, and I still thought that film was great when I watched it again a couple times in 2007, my first viewings of the classic piece of Disney animation since my childhood in the 90's. It has excitement, poignancy, and some good humour, and all this is more than I can say about the 1996 version. This movie does have some nice visuals, but that's the only positive thing I can think of to say about it, and that's certainly not enough to make it worthwhile. Some movies can improve with a second viewing, but I can't imagine how I could ever warm up to this mess of a live action adaptation of Collodi's story, so I don't intend to watch it again. If the screenplay had been better written, it could have made a really good family movie, but due to its poor quality and lack of focus, the film's results were disappointing.

This is one of the better "family films" that adults would still enjoy, and I don' mean to use that as a cliché. Suffice to say it's a fast-moving story, is creatively done and looks super on DVD. This was a stunner, visually-speaking.

The creativity - especially for a film 10 years old - involves the wonderful special-effects that make the famous wooden puppet so lifelike. I haven't seen it in eight or nine years but when this came out first on VHS I remember being shocked at the visuals and how real things looked.

This is not an animated film, and the story is a bit different from other versions. How faithful this is to the original story, I cannot tell 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 version of the famous kids' story.