In Pinocchio, bad creative choices clip this adaptation’s strings
Not even Tom Hanks working at top form can save this live-action remake of Disney's animated classic
Film Reviews Pinocchio
Contrary to the beliefs of social media lurkers unhappy with equivocating reviews of their favorite intellectual property, Disney does not pay critics, but the studio does frequently—and mostly nicely—ask them not to reveal plot points that could be deemed “spoilers.” It’s a request you might not even think was possible for, say, a mostly faithful remake of an animated film from 1940. In the case of Disney+’s live-action Pinocchio, however, director Robert Zemeckis makes choices so different and disastrous that they derail the entire movie. And of course this review will not reveal what they are, but they make the difference between a misguided cover version and a disastrous reinvention.
Live-action Disney remakes are best seen as the equivalent of Broadway musical versions: they add a few new songs, toss in some contemporary jokes, and throw a ton of money at special effects. Expecting the same kind of timelessness a second time is mostly a futile exercise: the state fair might book a talented cover band, but we’re listening to the original artist in our car or at home. This Pinocchio needed extra money or time, because the animation either looks unfinished or deliberately cartoonish, and the title character’s voice drastically changes from one scene to the next. Meanwhile, new songs by Alan Silvestri and Glen Ballard lack the snappiness and easy-rhyming wordplay of classics like “I’ve Got No Strings” or “When You Wish Upon A Star.”
Fans of Carlo Collodi’s original 1883 serialized children’s book likely never considered the Disney animated film its definitive adaptation, but rather one well-done interpretation that took plenty of creative license. The challenge other cinematic versions have subsequently faced is that Collodi’s source material requires considerable resources to do its spectacle justice—as well as a much more likable protagonist to marshal them around. As written, Pinocchio is a selfish brat who needs a dose of humility, and eventually receives it. Roberto Benigni’s 2002 version stuck closest to the text, even as he tested the audience’s suspension of disbelief by playing the wooden boy himself. Matteo Garrone’s 2019 take probably struck the best balance between fealty to the source material and cinematic spectacle, shying away (perhaps necessarily) from some of Collodi’s darkest moments but largely recreating what happens in the text with lavish makeup and effects.
Consequently, a new version changing things again is not that big a deal (or at least shouldn’t be a surprise) to longtime fans of the story, but it may bug those tethered to the 1940 take. Robert Zemeckis and Chris Weitz’s script pulls together some of the story’s more random elements—there’s more set-up to Geppetto going out in that boat, for example—but injects a level of self-awareness that feels anachronistic at best (Chris Pine jokes, anyone?). Other choices feel more perverse: Geppetto (Tom Hanks) literally builds Pinocchio to be a replica of his own dead kid. The story doesn’t delve into that idea much further, but it forms a creepy foundation for their future relationship.
Joseph Gordon-Levitt does his best Cliff Edwards impersonation as Jiminy Cricket, narrating and costarring in the story, but his passable rendition unmistakably feels like a younger actor pretending to be older and more Southern than they are. Someone like Jeff Foxworthy might have made a less-affected choice. On the other hand, Keegan-Michael Key delivers the best voice performance as the conniving fox Honest John, who sings “Hi Diddle Dee Dee” far better than expected. (For all Disney’s changes to the story, they at least preserve the conman team as an actual fox and cat, where most other adaptations use humans with bad wigs and prosthetic teeth.)
The story otherwise remains recognizably the same, with a blue fairy (Cynthia Erivo, who gets only one scene) bringing the puppet to life and him falling victim to various temptations after literally being born yesterday. Ultimately this leads him to Pleasure Island, an evil playground whose similarities to Disney’s California Adventure make the film the second Disney live-action remake (after Dumbo) to depict theme parks as horrible, exploitative places. Disney may or may not be mocking their money-machine, but they also offset such meta-critiques by adorning Geppetto’s workshop with a bunch of merchandise-ready cuckoo clocks. (Upon seeing them, my wife immediately said, “If they sell those cuckoo clocks, we’re buying some of them.”)
As Geppetto, Hanks once again puts to good use those hours of working opposite Wilson the volleyball, effectively displaying an entire range of emotions to scene partners who were never present on set. You’ll believe he’s petting a real cat, or hugging a marionette like he means it. Hanks’ Italian accent is thankfully subtle, in marked contrast to the Cockney accent of Luke Evans’ evil coachman, even if it perhaps makes that character’s Oliver Twist/Fagin connection more obvious. Clearly cast for his ability to dance, Evans impressively buries those Gaston good looks under hairpieces and scowls.
For director Robert Zemeckis, so many of his recent projects have felt like experimentation or stealth research and development for new advancements in special effects; for better or worse, The Polar Express and Beowulf walked so the likes of Avatar could fly. But in Pinocchio, he feels behind the curve technologically for the first time, chasing the tail of other projects by transforming Monstro from a whale into a Syfy-worthy Sharktopus.
Even so, changes—or shortcomings—like these wouldn’t necessarily be a deal-breaker for Pinocchio fans, who have endured many different versions in the name of supporting the story they love. And for the most part, things shuffle along charmingly enough for a welcome but hardly necessary reimagining of Collodi’s text—at least until they really, really do not. Far be it from us to actively reveal what scuttles Zemeckis’ film, but let’s just say that it seems like the people who made its biggest creative choices have more wood for brains than the character they brought to life.
142 Comments
SPOILER SPACE!SPOILER SPACE!SPOILER SPACE!
So… vague, spoiler/conjecture for two 2022 Pinocchio movies, I guess. I think the big change the author is complaining about is exactly what the official trailer would lead you to expect if you really paid attention to it, the last line and image in particular. It’s also exactly the same twist Guillermo del Toro has revealed he has in his version, which he had previously said makes it unlike any other version. Whoops.
I really wanna know what this big change is. I read the wikipedia synopsis for the film but it doesn’t look to me like there’s any drastic change I can pinpoint.
Well, since we’re in SPOILER space…. I don’t think Pinocchio is transformed into a real flesh-and-blood boy in either of the new versions. Del Toro has already said that about his. I think it’s implied in the Disney trailer (1:45). so it shouldn’t really be a shock.
Which would be similar (in terms of reversing the familiar ending) to what The Jungle Book remake did, as well
I saw it earlier today and no, he doesn’t turn into a real boy, but the way it’s “yadda, yadda’d” off made me quite literally laugh out loud! Jimminy Cricket basically says something to the effect of “Some people say he became a real boy! I mean…I don’t know. I guess. Who cares?”
I scanned through the movie just to see that ending and it really is that lousy. Why would they do that? You adapt 98% of the original movie and then just give up at the finish line?
Ah ok, I did kind of glean that from the synopsis I read, but I don’t know that it’s SUCH a shocking change that it ruptures the very fabric of space time the way this review seemed to indicate. It’s kind of a “who’s to say what’s real?” type thing, the real boy was the friends he made along the way, etc. Like all his experiences and the fact that he literally is a living breathing creature with thoughts and feelings kinda makes him “real” even if he’s still technically made of wood.
donkey dicks in this version 🙁
Turns out Pinocchio is the one who made Gepetto, and implanted false memories into his consciousness Blade Runner-style.
The next movie will feature sexy Pinocchio fighting gothic horror robots with a bow saw.
What was the last great thing Tom Hanks was in?
The Family Ties episode where he drinks vanilla extract and beats up Michael J. Fox. It was all downhill from there.
For some reason, that’s the only Family Ties episode whose plot points I actually remember.Mainly because it made me worried when I saw a bottle of vanilla extract amongst my mom’s baking supplies. Oh, no, its the nectar of the devil!
Because Family Ties was not a very good show, that particular episode is hilarious though.
I remember that one and the one where Michael J. Fox gets hepped up on speed.
Holy crap. I think I actually remember that one, because even an 8-9 year old rogue knew how stupid it was.
Joe Verses The Booze-cano
To no one in particular: “It’s vanilla time!”
Don’t forget the Bosom Buddies episode where Hanks and Peter Scolari got drunk and clumsily investigated their cross dressing and how it made them feel about each other.
Elvis
I didn’t see News of the World. His Apple projects, Greyhound and Finch, were solid “good” movies but the last “great” thing he was in was probably A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood back in 2018 (and by this, I mean he was great in it)
I also thought he was great in A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood, as was Matthew Rhys, but I just didn’t enjoy that movie for some reason
I’ll chime in here and say I really liked News of the World. Very solid adaptation of the novel; Hanks was good and the girl (Helena Zengel, yes I had to look it up) was fantastic.
arguably Forrest Gump and that movie is the poster child for “’great’ movies that have NOT aged well”.
Dude . . . since Forest Gump, Hanks has been in Apollo 13, Toy Story, Saving Private Ryan, Castaway and Catch Me if You Can.
I forget Toy Story because I don’t automatically associate Hanks with Woody, and Saving Private Ryan is great but a very difficult watch, especially the D-Day opening scene, which usually leaves me too drained to finish the movie. The others are fine IMO (I feel like The Martian nailed what Apollo 13 attempted to do). In terms of re-watchability (my main criteria for a “great” movie) in his collaborations with Spielberg, I’d put Bridge of Spies ahead of Saving Private Ryan (and well ahead of Catch me if you Can). Cast Away was fine but I wouldn’t call it great.
I won’t go point by point because taste is subjective, we have different takes on movies, and my intention is not to be confrontational. But! I did want to push back on the idea that “The Martian Nailed What Apollo 13 was trying to do.” I really enjoyed the Martian. It was fun! But to me, it felt like the Disney ride version of Apollo 13. Stakes were lower, tone was less serious, spectacle was more important than story or character. It was an absolutely enjoyable blockbuster that I’ve watched many times, but I feel like it’s a different class of movie. It feels like saying “The Big Bang Theory nailed what Seinfeld was trying to do.”If I’m comparing The Martian to a Hanks movie, it would actually be Castaway.
Apollo 13 was a true story and the Martian was an engineer’s very obvious self-insert fiction/fantasy. The problem-solving in it was mostly cartoonish, implausible (or downright impossible), silly and hand-wavy. Very weird to think it’s the superior version of that story.
The real problem with The Martian is once you realize that either everyone has to survive the rescue mission or they all have to die kind of makes getting there pointless.
I don’t really follow… it’s fiction so that’s just high stakes drama right? Like “everyone has to survive” is the goal? I mean, the plausibility of that decision being made in the real world can be debated but given how silly the rest of the movie is that seems to fit in.
what took the cherry off the sundae of Apollo 13 (that also happens for any other “based on a true story” movie with me) is that you know what’s going to happen, and I just don’t think Ron Howard is a good enough director to create a lot of suspense from a true story. Same with Affleck’s movie about the Iran hostages; I just couldn’t get into it knowing how it turned out (and that’s after he allegedly took a LOT of liberties with it to amp up the suspense, e.g. I don’t think the Iranian soldiers were literally chasing the plane down the runway LOL). Having said that, a “based on a true story” movie that worked massively well for me despite knowing the outcome was Zero Dark Thirty (which should have won the Best Picture Oscar that Affleck’s movie won). I can’t explain why that worked but whenever it is on I know I’m not getting anything done for the next 2.5 hours.
I will never, never, never understand the idea that the effectiveness of a movie in any way hinges on whether we know if the heroes will live or die. It’s totally baffling to me. Did you not enjoy Raiders of the Lost Arc because you knew Indy was going to survive? I just don’t get it.
again, I can’t explain it but I can confirm it is a “thing” LOL. Spielberg has the chops to make what is an almost inevitable outcome (fiction vs. non-fiction) still suspenseful; Ron Howard does not apparently.
Yeah, if someone told me at a party that they thought The Martian was a better-executed version of Apollo 13, I think I would just walk away from the conversation entirely. That’s just a ludicrous assertion.
Who could you possibly immediately associate with Woody in Toy Story, if not Tom Hanks???? I don’t like Tim Allen but I’ll acknowledge that he’s Buzz.
Don’t forget That Thing You Do!I’ll say this, though – his performance in Captain Phillips was pretty riveting.
Thank you! I thought I was going to be alone here pointing the spotlight on That Thing You Do!
Catch Me If You Can is 20 years old now! His filmography since is pretty rough.
Sure. No star shines forever, I was just refuting the argument that Gump is when the magic stopped. And in Hanks’ defense, he’s made some good movies since Catch Me, but obviously, nothing will top his incredible run in the 90’s.
I disagree that they haven’t aged well, but rather think that they reflect the times in which they were written. It’s a bit nuts to expect sensitivity from something written or filmed in an era insensitive to (your issue here). An anachronism can still be entertaining, and being entertained by something is certainly no endorsement of behaviors/ideas depicted; if we held ourselves to such a standard, movies made through at least 1990 would be out of bounds for about a million reasons.
I agree, and my saying a film “hasn’t aged well” is my acknowledgement of the points you raise rather than urging people to not watch the movies, to excoriate the makers of the movie, etc. Mel Brooks’ comedies in the 70’s were hilarious and hilariously offensive on so many levels but you could get away with that back then; now he seems to at least acknowledge that he was really punching down then, and I don’t damn him or any others for that reason; it was a different time. Whenever Young Frankenstein or Blazing Saddles comes on I watch them, and cringe a little at some of their jokes, but mainly I laugh my ass off because they’re classics.
If someone can watch a Mel Brooks movie and fail to understand that he is satirizing racism, illustrating the rampant idiocy of racist people, I’m not too interested in what that person has to say. I fully appreciate the (now) conventional wisdom regarding utterance of the “n” word, although I remain mystified at any idea that a word designed to be a slur can ever be reclaimed (it never had a benign use and it’s clear from the opprobrium heaped on those who aren’t black who use it that it never will), but the movies were made then, not now, and the historical context of the scripts would be perverted if people didn’t use a word that was quite literally part of the vernacular.
the only reason I wouldn’t unequivocally agree with you that he was playing it all for satire is that along with the racist stuff he did, he was absolutely brutal to homosexuals, especially in Blazing Saddles and History of the World Pt 1. He used every gay stereotype there was, the lispy effeminate behaviors, the F word, you name it. Could he have been satirizing racism but engaging in comedic gay-bashing? Again, it was a very different time, now he’d probably express regret, but he was pretty clearly punching down there.
I wonder, because while he certainly seems to be punching down, it’s impossible to imagine that Brooks didn’t interact or work regularly throughout his career. That by itself means nothing, but Nathan Lane once said of Brooks that “Mel’s take is that we’re all flamboyant extra-terrestrials”, and implied that Brooks found humor in flamboyant gayness as opposed to, shall we say, less exuberant gay people.There are exceptions, but most people in the theater and film world have never known a time where they weren’t surrounded by gay colleagues – actors, dancers, composers, set and costume designers, make-up artists, directors, producers and, of course, critics, gossip writers and audiences. It is a challenge for a real homophobe to function in such an environment. Personally, I think Brooks inhabited an era when gay presentment was really exceptional and that those who did were in a safe enough place (entertainment) to be what then might have been considered over the top – over the top is funny. It’s funny when satirizing racists, the super-religious, civil servants, dilettantes, so it’s hard to contend that gay flamboyance isn’t sometimes funny. There’s no chance you don’t have at least one friend who’s dramatic about literally everything.I’d also say that people can also presume such familiarity with groups to which they don’t belong that they feel entitled to use certain words that are offensive when used by anyone but group members. The F-word, the N-word, the B-word – they’re all offensive. I understand that some might think those insults can be endearing intra-group, but I am not one of those people. Brooks, on the other hand, when he portrayed a tophat and tails dance number, wasn’t presuming when he characterized the cast of dancers as gay, because, well, c’mon. The guy loved musical theater and had been in it all of his professional life – I’d bet the house he heard a thousand gay guys use the f-word with abandon. All of that said – was he lovingly lampooning, or was he being vicious, or was he just reliant on a lazy stereotype for easy laughs? I don’t really think I’m qualified to say, because I’m sympathetic to anyone who feels targeted by the jokes and portrayals, but also because I understand why an enlightened guy might have felt comfortable making those jokes.
we’re gonna have to agree to disagree on this one LOL. I’ll give you the point about satirizing racism in Blazing Saddles but the way he mocked homosexuals was pretty nasty. Maybe he was comfortable doing it because he had done it before and the known homosexuals he did it in front of laughed it off (and possibly a few wanted to beat his tiny ass for it), but it sure didn’t seem to be in jest to me. Again, I don’t hold it against him because I don’t think he’d do it now, and he’d probably be regretful about it now, but it was and is still cringey to watch.
I agree it’s painful to watch. And, pretty mean. Also though, a product of its time. What I was trying to say, inartfully, is there is a difference between forgiving offensive portrayals and understanding the historical context that made those portrayals uncontroversial. There’s also the fact that LGBTQ people occasionally collaborated in their own objectification; Richard Pryor was black and bi-sexual, for example. Paul Mooney, another one. Hell, Gershwin.Point is, they likely thought they were being benign, and maybe by the standards of the time, they were. We’re under no obligation to ignore racist or queer-phobic portrayals from any era, but it’s the more recent stuff that raises my blood pressure, because, and despite the efforts of the MAGA crowd to turn back the clock, we have evolved as a society to the point where most of the -isms in which we see people engage are choices to deny the humanity of others. I won’t allow anyone to wrap themselves in the mantle of religion or tradition to justify such behavior or abuse.
Also, two of the five credited writers were black, and one of them was Richard fucking Pryor. That movie is not punching down in any sense whatsoever.
I love Forrest Gump just as much now as I did when it first came out; I would argue that it’s aged just fine because it was never a “great” movie to begin with. It’s a well-made, entertaining movie with an interesting story that ultimately means nothing (you gotta love how they set up the destiny vs random chance question throughout the movie then answer it with “maybe both?”).
The ‘Burbs?
The Burbs
Probably Captain Phillips
I don’t think many will agree, but for me: Cloud Atlas.
His cockney gangster/author is my favorite part of that movie, even if he’s only in it for one scene.
Not enough people appreciate Cloud Atlas, in all its weirdness and bizarre makeup choices.
But the best part, and I can’t believe I’m saying this, was Hugh Grant.
Hugh Grant has rapidly morphed into such a great actor. He’s repeatedly said cloud atlas blasted him out of his comfort zone, and my word did that film use him in genius ways. Without cloud atlas, we never would have gotten the late period Paddington 2 wonder of Grant.
THERE ARE DOZENS OF US!
Hell yeah
Mazes & Monsters
i thought he was great as an executive producer on Mamma Mia 2 lol xThat, or the Carly Rae Jepson music video or Cloud Atlas.
he may give a career-worst performance, but i thought elvis was great.
Not seeing a whole lot of love for Road to Perdition here which I thought was a terrific movie, and Hanks was good playing against type.
I liked him in that News of the World film.
Yo momma.
my sister thinks his performance in Elvis was the worst of his career but somehow this sounds worse
He did that Forrest Gump movie recently
I don’t think I’ve ever seen him do anything great, or seen him in anything great. I liked A League of Our Own, but I didn’t like him in it. I spend that movie wishing that our ladies had Don Davis as a coach instead of Hanks. His “drunk asshole” routine seems as contrived as his “cuddly nice guy” routine. I know this may be an unpopular opinion, but I don’t like Tom Hanks.
Good job making Tom Hanks look like Walter Matthau playing Mark Twain.
And not succeeding at any of those impersonations.
Great – now I’m imagining Lt. Garber saying things like “I was educated once. It took me years to get over it.” (Rico: “What?!” Garber: “Forget it.”)
(Also, the 1974 “Taking of Pelham One Two Three” was the greatest NYC movie ever made – fight me).
(and I should have realized it’s “…One Two Three”, unlike the awful remake)
Man, you are *on* it today lol
That reminds of me of Dana Gould as Maurice Evans as Dr. Zaius as Hal Holbrook as Mark Twain.
So many of Zemeckis’ recent projects have felt like experimentation or stealth research and development for new advancements in special effects it reminds me a bit of when a grandparent gets an iPhone for the first time; “hey look at this thing, it takes pictures! I am going to take SO many pictures.” LOLbut yeah when I realize whatever new movie Zemeckis is working on incorporates some new VFX tech, I pretty much know it’ll make the movie worse than it needs to be.
I think Zemeckis actually outdid himself in that department with Welcome to Marwen. One of the absolute worst movies of the last few years for me. Good god that thing was horrible.
“If they sell those cuckoo clocks, we’re buying some of them.”
Ummmmmm…Daphne Zuniga
…is NOT for sale!
Where the real money from the movie is made!
Carving the puppet into an image of his son is creepy, but not as creepy as a lonely old man wanting a little boy so bad that he makes one a puppet of one.
Remember when a new movie from Robert Zemeckis was cause for excitement? Instead of this unending sequence of movies filled with CGI mannequins
Was Flight his last genuinely great film? I think that was flight.
Flight was good, but I had to do a double take (and a Google search) when you said it was Zemeckis’. But you are right — it was his. But it has none of the whimsy that can either be heartwarming (in a good Zemeckis film) or sickeningly manipulative (in the bad ones). It’s just a serious story, seriously told.
Take heart: at least Disney is running out of cartoon movies to go the pointless re-do route.
Geppetto (Tom Hanks) literally builds Pinocchio to be a replica of his own dead kid. The story doesn’t delve into that idea much further, but it forms a creepy foundation for their future relationship. That’s more or less the plot of Astro Boy (which is distinctly Pinocchio-inspired). Except there, it’s supposed to be a bit creepy.
Isn’t the robot boy in AI designed to look like the dead child? AI also being distinctly Pinocchio-inspired)
The robot is replacing a comatose child, but doesn’t look like him. It really leans into the creep factor though.
William Hurt’s dead kid.
Yeah, near the end, the robot discovers that he’s modeled on his inventor’s dead son. Watching the Shining recently, it struck me just how much the movie relates to Danny. AI is almost a companion piece, about a child suffering after his parents lose the ability to care for him. Kubrick was kind of a softy for kids.
Yeah! Like in Lolita! That guy sure did love kids! Although to be serious, he did at least age up the girl to a teenager (she was pre-teen in the book).
More sad than creepy imo.. you guys find everything creepy
Wow, Disney really doesn’t want spoilers for the sex scene.
As long as it does not involve Harry Styles, spitting or dining room furniture. I’m kinda done with that shit.
Don’t move. AV Club can’t see you if you don’t move.
The guy who directed Gomorrah made a Pinocchio movie?!
He made “Tale of Tales” also, so it isn’t even his only foray into fairy tale material.
Some day, that’s gonna be one hell of a film fest.
Disney absolutely does pay critics with money as well as access in exchange for positive reviews. If you are too good to allow that to happen then congratulations you’re more ethical than most in your industry, but please don’t pretend it’s not true.
Whoever keeps asking for these fucking things, could you stop?
Disney execs looking for cash?
No one has to keep asking for them. Aladdin and The Lion King (which had mixed to bad reviews, respectively) both made over $1 billion. Disney has zero incentive to stop now.
But those went to the theater, Pinnocchio is straight to Disney Plus, so not sure what the point is. They aren’t making $1B from this turd.
We are years into this system and I confess I still don’t understand how something like this, with no theatrical release, makes money. I seriously doubt it’s bringing in new subscribers, so it has to be something else.
Cribbing this idea from a recent twitter thread, and paraphrasing since I don’t feel like tracking down the original:Disney owns the Muppets. If they are so dead-set on remaking all of their classic animated movies, could they at least be doing Muppet versions instead of these live action remakes? The various Muppet films have consistently been fun, and I think the Muppet Christmas Carol is one of the best adaptations of that story.Imagine Muppet Beauty and the Beast. With all Muppets, except the Beast is played by Chris Hemsworth. No prosthetics or anything, just normal Hemsworth – but since he’s a non-Muppet, everyone considers him hideous. Beauty is obviously Miss Piggy, and at then end, when the Beast learns to love, he turns into Kermit.
I am throwing money at the screen. Please take it… Plus think of Pepe the King Prawn in a live action muppet Little Mermaid.
The only valid live action remake was the jungle book, because that movie was both deeply respectful to the cartoon, but boldly charting a fairly different narrative path, even if the core beats were similar. Watching that, I at least understand why it exists, since jungle book was quite different from cartoon to live action. These other ones are just, why the hell would I waste time and money watching a crappy live action version of a near identical iconic cartoon?
Admittedly the advantage jungle book had was that the original cartoon is iconic, but had room for improvement. How do improve Aladdin or lion king to the point that a love action version is needed?
So you know, the original story is why it’s his long dead son. The Del Toro version that comes out later this year, also follows this storyline. I think it makes it far more compelling a story.
Chris Pine jokes, anyone? Just …. ugh.
How do you feel about Spruce Springsteen?
Thora Birch? Or is that too on the nose for Pinocchio?
Thora Birch was right there!
All Disney remakes should be on Disney plus. Lady and the tramp, even though it was good and the launch film of the service, is a perfect example.
IMO, Tom Hanks is a better actor when he’s not covered in prosthetics and/or employing weird affectations and accents.In both this and Elvis the “gimmicks” only make it more apparent to me that I’m watching “Tom Hanks as” rather than being able to suspend disbelief.As for this film, meh…I’m sure it’s fine, but I’m more looking forward to Guillermo Del Toro’s version.
The exception being cloud atlas, where the prosthetics and accents are the central appeal of his, and every other cast member’s performance.
Agreed. Cloud Atlas seems woefully underappreciated as a whole.
Thanks but I’ll just wait for the Flop House episode.
This review tells me to not bother with this film. thank you.
Big Alan Silvestri fan as a film composer, but if the Back to the Future musical is any indication, he really should stop moonlighting as a songwriter.
A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood was great. Greyhound was good. News of the World was good. Bridge o f Spies was excellent. Toy Story 4, despite being unnecessary, was solid.
His hits far outnumber his misses, like The Circle, any of the Dan Brown stuff, etc.
Other choices feel more perverse: Geppetto (Tom Hanks) literally builds Pinocchio to be a replica of his own dead kid.I’m as ready to write this off as anyone else, but this is literally the story of Pinocchio. How is this a criticism?
In the first Disney version, he is an old bachelor who longs to have a son. In the original text, his reasons for creating Pinocchio are more prosaic:“I thought of making myself a beautiful wooden Marionette. It must be wonderful, one that will be able to dance, fence, and turn somersaults. With it I intend to go around the world, to earn my crust of bread and cup of wine. What do you think of it?”It is Pinocchio himself who wishes to become a real boy, and the idea comes fairly late in the story.
No, it’s not. In neither the original story nor the original Disney animated movie was Pinocchio ever said to have been created to resemble or replace anyone’s dead kid.
I’d like to take some liberties with the Pinocchio story:
Geppetto is in charge of providing musical entertainments for the dance. When he cannot find a real band to perform, he creates a band of puppets, names them The Dregs of Humanity and finds himself living a lie when the “band” are the hit of the dance and the kids want more and more of them.
A game Tom Hanks can’t buoy a tepid Pinocchio
I cannot believe the original Pinocchio film is over 80 years old. It’s just unbelievable to me how old some of these films are. Black-and-white films from that era are very much of their time, but there’s something about those animated Disney films and Looney Tunes shorts that have such a timeless quality to them.
Yeah, there is considerably more time between the original Disney movie and the remake than there was between the first movie and Collodi’s story. Wild!(There’s still a ways to go before Disney’s Snow White is as far back in time as the Brothers Grimm’s collection of fairy tales were when the movie came out, though—another four decades or so.)
i thought Guillermo Del Toro was doing a Pinocchio film, guess that is something different from this
When You Wish Upon a Star is undoubtedly a beautiful song and rightfully among Disney’s best produced pieces.Unfortunately, in the same vein as Somewhere Over the Rainbow, I absolutely cannot listen to them. They’re both songs I absolutely loved when I was a little kid but are both so tied to my memories of traumatic experiences in that era that they both break my heart.
I haven’t watched it yet, but I do think that this one *looks* the best of the CGI/live action remakes. Like, they struck a good aesthetic balance between cartoon and photo realism. It seems well-suited to this sort of approach compared to hyper photo real Lion King or even slightly hard to read Beauty and the Beast knick knacks.That can’t account for story choices, unfortunately.
My girlfriend and I watched it last night and we both agreed that the trailer is a little miseleading in terms of how it looks. To be honest, I’ve never seen CGI effects this bad in a major Disney movie since probably the early 2000s. They’re literally Polar Express-tier at multiple times. The whole movie was VERY obviously a Covid production, there’s very few physical sets, and there’s one scene in particular where there’s a group of kids, and you can clearly tell that they shot them all individually and then overlapped the shots to make it look like they were in a group. The blue fairy even semi-flubs a line at one point and they left it in. Tom Hanks is trying his best and seems to be having a good time, and I even like what they did with Pinocchio’s character, but everything else in the movie (besides KMK as Honest Jon) was a massive letdown, unfortunately.
Well, that’s disappointing.I totally get these remakes are cash grabs, but the trailer gave me high hopes. Such a shame. Will probably still check it out especially for KMK.
It’s a decent movie to have on if you’re doing something else and want something pleasant in the background, at least.
Or if you have kids of a certain age.
I’m sure this will make money (Disney, I.P., Hanks, etc.) and a paycheck is a paycheck for all the below the line people, but this has to be in the running for the #1 “you don’t have to do this” movie of all time.
You know, a version of Pinocchio where none of the bad things that happen to him are particularly the result of his poor decision-making is very, very odd.Also, I felt like it was set up for a sequel.
Yeah, this was the part that seemed so poorly conceived for me. He’s just an innocent little idiot here, where as the 1940 cartoon was waaaaay harder-edged. The whole point is that he has to grow! You can’t do that if you… ahem… sand off all his rough edges (sorry).He doesn’t even enjoy himself at Pleasure Island, so there’s no reason for him to be turned into a jackass. He doesn’t get all puffed up by fame. They even make Strombolli a buffoon, instead of one of the creepiest dudes to haunt your childhood. Dudes missed the point of the story, trying to soft-peddle every dark aspect of a children’s story. When they get to the live-action Bambi, a kindly truffle-hunter’s gonna have taken mom to the vet for a splinter…
I wonder if they thought Pinocchio starting out bratty would somehow be setting a bad example for children, or if they feel that modern children are already so immersed in expectations of good behavior that they felt that a bratty Pinocchio would be too unlikable to them…
I had the same reaction. It was a bit of a cowardly choice to get rid of the bratty behaviour.
I haven’t watched the original animated movie in decades, so I’m not sure how close some things are, but in the original, is the Pinnocchio/Gepetto relationship so underdeveloped? I mean, he comes to life, and Gepetto is shoving him out the door to go to school in seconds here! So when Pinnocchio is sad about the clock thing, it doesn’t really fit anything we’ve seen. Maybe instead of having Tom Hanks talking to himself about these things, they should have had him and Pinnocchio spend time together and he tells him. Then the end would have felt a little more emotional/earned.
What, no outcries of cultural appropriation for having a non-Italian in the Geppetto role?
Hypocrites.
The secrecy is because they brought back the space whale, isn’t it?