flickaddict Reviews

The Village (2004)

Boredom sets in after about 20 minutes...

[12 September 2004]

I really loved The 6th Sense. I can't remember anything about Unbreakable, so that one didn't make much of an impression I guess. I fell asleep when the aliens in Signs appeared to be, well, just that. So I can't say I'm a fan of Mr. Shyamalans general work, only of his first film. But the trailer of The Village looked really good! I love period films and I'm easily scared by unseen horrors that lurk in forests, so this one would surely entertain me! Think again...

***Major spoilers!***

The beginning was alright. Eerie howling coming from the woods scared the sh*t out of me and really seemed to set the tone for the rest of the film. But quite early in the film, when the monsters started to skin pets (and Sigourney Weaver tried to make everyone believe it was done by a coyote... sure, they pull the skin off neatly and leave the rest of the meat??), I became suspicious. Then I started to get annoyed by the villagers. They spoke in a silly, overly theatrical way, like they were acting in some Shakespearian wannabe play. Not convincing at all. And then there was the "all people from the outside world are evil, don't go to the Towns" thing. At this point, the villagers rapidly began to resemble a weird kind of sect, who obviously had something to hide and who tried to keep the outside world at a distance.

O, never mind those villagers, the monsters are still out there! What are they? What do they want? what do they look like? Tension builds and when the alarm bells rang and panic broke out when they came to the village, I was at the edge of my seat.

At this point Mr. Shyamalan in his endless wisdom decides to take all the tension away by showing you the "monster": a monster walking like a man, covered with silly porcupine quills and wearing red CLOTHING??

Wait a minute... If I add this information to those suspicious acting, extremely conservative village elders who hate the outside world....

Damn, I guessed the TWIST already!

Never mind, Mr.Shyamalan must have thought, we'll just keep the "plot" going and sent the poor blind girl into the scary woods to get help. Blind girl stumbles along and encounters.... a porcupine MONSTER! O no! Hey, wait a minute. That's not scary. They're FAKE, remember!

Cue plot TWIST #2: girl gets rescued by a guy in a modern CAR.... OK, I must admit I didn't see that one coming, but I also just couldn't care anymore since I was laughing uncontrollably since the "blind-girl-in-not-so-scary-wood-since-there-are-no monsters-and-she-knows-that" part.

Let's wrap it up, said Mr.Shyamalan. Obviously deranged girl is left by side of road (??), guy goes away to "sneak" some medicine from a cupboard (was the other ranger BLIND or something?), goes back with a ladder and helps the weird girl in the outdated dress back into the wildlife reserve. No questions asked. End credits.

O, and the other ranger helpfully mentions the fact that no aircrafts are allowed to fly across the wildlife reserve. So THAT'S why this group of weirdo's haven't been detected for the past 40 years or so... But what about foresters? And how did they get all the materials to build their lovely little village inside that wildlife reserve in the first place?

Never mind gaping plot holes, at least this film has some of my trademark TWISTS. Right, Mr. Shyamalan?

To sum it up: film delivers until the first "monster" is shown, after which most people will be able to figure out TWIST #1 quite easily. And as for TWIST #2. Could we care less by that time??

Boring, predictable and laughable after the first 20 minutes or so.

** out of *****

King Arthur (2004)

Could have been awesome...

[22 August 2004]

As a student of Medieval history and literature I really enjoyed this film. Not because of the intriguing plot (there is none) of the in-depth exploration of the characters (none either), but because I kept laughing my ass of!

It could have been so awesome. I mean, using the Celtic Arthurian legend for a change (I for one am more a fan of those than of the rather tame, overly romantic French stories of later date) sounded great to me. Trailer looked cool as well. Clive Owen is an actor I already really liked (after seeing him in Bent and Croupier), as is Stellan Skarsgard. So what went wrong....??

EVERYTHING! They just couldn't get ANY even remotely historical or literary aspect of this period and legend right! * Saxons invading from the North (and a couple of centuries too early as well) * A Pope as the head of the Roman Church * A bunch of late-Medieval French knights with famous names disguised as "Sarmatians" from God-knows-where * A table with no clear purpose (which, I must admit, was round) * A crazy wizard-who-wasn't-a-wizard with no clear purpose (although, I must admit, he was called Merlin) * A bunch of blue "Woads" who were also "Britons" (I got really confused here, as the Britons were just one of the Celtic tribes, but here the word "Briton" seemed to be synonymous for "Celt" as in "indigenous inhabitant or Britain") * A never fully explored sword-in-burial mount-theme (I must admit, a boy pulled it out of something and it was called Excalibur) * A guy with a stupid Italian accent (signifying him as being a Roman) living in a Roman villa complete with Mediterranean poplar trees, NORTH of Hadrians Wall (???). Did he have some kind of death-wish? * A half-naked, starved Kiera warrior princess pretending to be a Celtic Boadicae, French Guinevere and Maximus the Gladiator all at the same time * A Lancelot who served no purpose but looking good and moaning to Arthur about going home (while stroking a mummified rat, of whatever it was) * A steamy lovescene that wasn't steamy but blue and boring * A Christian Arthur who marries Boadicae/Guinevere/Maximus in a polystyrene Stonehenge near the coast (??), while being blessed by some Welsh-sounding druid wannabe (at least he pronounced the name of Guinevere the right way, since this is supposed to be the Celtic Guinevere) * Mount Badon being near Hadrians Wall (??) * Mysterious doors that need to be opened the fist time by 2 horses, to open all by themselves after that (maybe they had some unseen cave-trolls on top of the wall...) * Clive Owen uttering the most incredibly cheesy dialogue I have ever heard. "Mark my face, Saxon, for it will be the last thing you see on this earth" -sigh-.... I was constantly thinking "this movie could have been remotely enjoyable, if Arthur would just look rugged and SHUT HIS MOUTH". I got the impression Mr. Owen was a bit ashamed of being in this film as well (at least he looked like it) * Stellan Skarsgard doing even worse, confusing muttering one-word-phrases like "burn" and "kill" in a low American accent with being fearsome. He looked half asleep the entire time!

and so on and so on.....

This could have been a great movie in the tradition of Gladiator (a movie which actually had a PLOT). The sets looked cool (better than those obvious CGI soldiers and ships in Troy). But what this film missed was a plot, a cool hero (sorry Mr. Owen), a cool soundtrack (please stop copy-pasting from your own previous work, Mr.Zimmer) and blood (this film has the most bloodless battles I have ever seen in a period film. Gladiator is a regular blood-fest compared to this one!).

Enjoyable if you want to spend an evening laughing, but could have been much, much, much better (if, say, Ridley Scott had directed it and Clive Owen had just kept his mouth shut).

The Passion of the Christ (2004)

Mixed feelings...

[2 April 2004]

OK, I just saw The Passion of the Christ, and left the cinema with very mixed feelings....

I really wanted to like this film. I've not been brought up religious and I don't believe in a God in the way he is portrayed in the Bible. But I do believe that someone like Jesus (or with a different name, that doesn't matter) really existed in those times, and that this man spread a message of love that touched enough people in his time to have that message recorded in historical documents (I'm not saying "in the Bible" because for me the Bible is just 1 historical document among countless others).

So, I expected to see a film about this man and about his message of peace and love. And yes, I knew that "passion" meant "suffering", so I expected a lot of blood and pain as well. But somehow, this film didn't really "do it" for me emotionally. Unfortunately, I hardly got to see this man. The best scene for me was the one where Jesus is building a table and joking with his mother. Only in that scene did he become a human being to me, more than just being reduced to a bleeding body.

Also the storyline, even though it followed the Bible close enough (and yes, I've read the Bible, even though I'm not a Christian) was in my opinion very fragmented. I didn't get a sense of a flowing storyline at all. I just saw one beautiful picture (picture in the sense of "painting") after another rolling by, without something to glue all those nice pictures together. The message of Jesus could have been that glue for me, but the emphasis clearly wasn't on his message in this film.

At the crucifixion scene I became more emotionally involved, but only then and only at the scene where he cries out "why have you forsaken me?". That was a very strong scene, even for a non-religious viewer like myself. And the single "tear" from the sky, I liked that very much as well.

As for the gore; hey, crucifixions where nasty, and so was flogging! But a little less gore would have worked just as well I think. As well as a little less slow-motion. Slow-motion is OK, but in this film all the slow-motion scenes had D R A M A spelled out all over them in big, bright letters.

My biggest fear is that most viewers will accept this film to be historically accurate. The Bible is NOT an accurate historical document! It has been edited and re-edited over and over through the ages, and scholars (mostly) agree that there has been more than 1 "editor". OK, Romans did flog and crucify people, and yes, that was nasty. But I've spoken to people who now believe that the Romans where a savage people of drunk brutes... Please, read a decent history book on Roman society (and Jewish society and religion in those times as well) before you accept everything Mel Gibson dishes out here as the historical truth!!

My over all impression of the film was a range of scenes (quite beautifully shot, I must admit), but without a coherent structure and without a Jesus as a man with emotions, depth, warmth, a message. James Caviezel did a good job though, looking very kind and handsome in the flashback scenes and very, well, suffering in the rest of the film. He did look like Jesus as I always imagined him (only his eyes had a strange light brownish color... must be the contact lenses or digital grading) and expressing so much pain through only 1 eye I imagine is very difficult for an actor. The pacing was very slow at times as well. I was genuinely bored to death when Jesus fell down in slow-motion while carrying the cross (for what felt like the 50th time....).

I give this film *** out of *****.

28 Days Later (2002)

anyone read 'Day of the Triffids' ?

[14 November 2003]

Maybe some other viewers/filmcritics have noticed this too (I haven't read all the comments), but I think this film is just a shameless ripoff of the great novel "THE DAY OF THE TRIFFIDS" by John Wyndham. This story (first published in 1951!) is about a guy who wakes up in a deserted hospital only to discover that almost al people have become blind after watching a mysterious shower of meteorites. Meanwhile the "triffids" (a newly discovered breed of stinging flesh-eating plants who are bred for their oil), break free and roam (yes, they can WALK) the deserted streets and countryside. Because the plants (obviously) are accustomed to being blind, they have the advantage now and are killing the helpless blind people by the thousands.

The guy and some other people who (for various reasons) have kept their sight flee the city and eventually take refuge in an isolated farmhouse which they defend like a military base. As years go by the issue raises whether the surviving women have the obligation to prevent the human race from dying out (and consequently have to be forced to have children). ....notice some similarities, anyone ?? Just replace "killer flesh-eating plants" with "crazy screaming zombies" and you get, surprise...: 28 Days Later!

I found the beginning of the movie rather startling, but mainly because it made me think about the hazards of freeing animals from labs(like many fanatic animal liberation groups are doing today). The rest was just a boring repetition of "o no, there they come again!".

The New Adventures of Pippi Longstocking (1988)

Why rip a very good SWEDISH Pippi-series ????

[30 June 2003]

I've always liked Astrid Lindgrens children's books very very much, and watched the original Swedish TV-series of Pippi over and over again (with Dutch subtitles). I think the Swedish girl (Inger Nilsson) who played Pippi in the original version was WAY better then this annoying American teenager pretending to be all cute and 10 years old! True, the original series look rather out of date now (being filmed in the 1970's), but for me, that always added a kind of innocense and charm to it. And the horse and monkey were not supposed to talk! Why add such "It's a kiddy movie, so all animals are fluffy and can speak" nonsense to an already great story ?

The only possible justification I can think of for "improving" the Swedish series like this is that the original TV-series isn't available in the US. Maybe American kids like this new version, but I will surely NEVER watch this crap again! I still have some of the original episodes on tape, and my cousins still laugh every time they watch them (despite the lousy special effects and the subtitles)!

I give this terrible rip-off 1 star out of 5 (maybe kids who don't know the books or the Swedish version like it)

Ronia: The Robber's Daughter (1984)

THE BEST CHILDREN"S FILM EVER!

[10/10 · 28 June 2003]

I saw this film for the first time when I was about 7 years old (only a few years after it's release in 1984). My mother first wouldn't let me see it, because she thought it would be too scary for me. I'm still glad she changed her mind!

I had never seen a film like this before.... From the very first scene until the last I was totally captivated by the medieval/fantasy world and this brave, strongminded girl. And the surroundings, WOW! What adventurous kid (and I was) wouldn't want such a forest to roam in? Every time I finished watching it (and I saw it MANY times!), I immediately ran outdoors and pretended I was Ronja for the rest of the day (including her "Spring-scream" :-)

(the following includes **spoilers**)

The film is about an 11-year old girl, Ronja, who lives in a huge medieval castle in the middle of a vast and wild forest. Her macho father Mattis is the leader of a band of twelve robbers who roam the woods and rob the travelers passing through. The night Ronja is born there is a storm, and lightning makes the castle split in two, with a huge abyss in the middle. One day, Ronja spots a boy on the other side of the gap...It's the first child she has ever seen, and he turns out to be Birk, the 11-year old son of another leader of robbers who have moved into the other half of Mattis' castle! They become friends and secretly meet and play in the woods. Of course, Ronja's very macho (but also very sweet) father goes bananas when he learns about these intruders.... He captures Birk, but that proves too much for Ronja. She and Birk decide to leave their crazy fathers and to live in a cave in the forest until their fathers come to their senses and stop fighting.... Eventually they do, but untill that moment a lot of adventures happen! I'm in my twenties now, and I still love this film as much as the first time I saw it as a child. It just has everything, as do all Astrid Lindrens childrens books. The way in which Lindgren manages to take difficult situations and problems and make them understandable for children is really amazing. The story is about growing up, betrayal, choosing sides (even if that means standing up to your father), leaving home, looking after yourself, the death of a grandparent and eventually the proof that family bonds can not easily be broken. If I watch it now I can't help noticing that these themes are very mature, not the happy "Disney-themes" you would expect in a childrens film (especially a Hollywood production) at all. But Lindgren succeeded in making these big, important themes very accessible and understandable for (even very little) children. And the feminist element in all her stories was way ahead of its time!

Ronja immediately became my role-model, and the medieval world captured my imagination (as it still does; I study Medieval History at university now). The many fantasy-elements are great too, and make the story very suitable for little children as well as adults.

Ronja has a special place in my heart from the first time I saw her. This heartwarming film carries important messages about growing up, life, family, friendship and death, but never gets too heavy or incomprehensible for little children. I think every child (and especially girls) should watch it, but since it is a Swedish film I don't think it will ever reach a wide audience. I live in The Netherlands and had to order the DVD in Sweden (without subtitles, but I don't care. I now it by heart!).

Anyway, I think "Ronja the Robber's Daughter" is a gem among children's films, a timeless masterpiece that will captivate even the latest generation of 21th-century kids. If you can get your hands on it, rent/buy it and watch it with your children!

I give this heartwarming film ***** out of 5 !

The Celebration (1998)

How can anyone LAUGH during this gut-wrenching film ?

[11 October 2001]

OK, I'm not going to cover the story or the secret here, since that has been done in so many other user comments already. I already knew the secret before watching, and still I was 'smashed in the face' by Christian's dinner speech.

The weird thing though, was that I was actually very BORED sometimes. And then, out of the blue...BANG ! Something even more gut-wrenching hits you.

During most of the film, I was waiting for the situation to totally explode....but it didn't. Everyone just goes on partying, drinking, shoving away the terrible, unspeakable family secret that has been revealed by the eldest son Christian (brilliant performance of Ulrich Thomsen !).

But the secret is always there, in his face. And THAT was, for me, the best thing in the entire film ! No hysterical crying from Christian, no over-the-top emotions from a tormented victim.....just that accusing, still face in the background (you can see the emotional storms raging beneath the surface)while the party and the denial go on.....

And finally, when Christian asks his father WHY, the answer felt like a blow in my stomach. "Because it was the only thing you were good for"......

I rewinded this scene over and over again, just to listen to the actual Danish words. They express so much more emotion than just the subtitles, even when you don't speak the language (which I don't).

Anyway, this is a film that you have to see to understand what everyone is talking about. Just rent it, and DON'T let yourself be put off by the sometimes boring scenes. The horrifying stuff that comes next will make it worth every dollar you spent on it !

Event Horizon (1997)

Started a bit lame, but proved worth watching & buying !

[27 July 2001]

GREAT film, it scared the hell out of me !

The plot seemed a bit lame at first : ship disappears in a black hole, comes back again and shows weird results on life-form scan.....Boring and predictable, was my first thought. And me NOT being a Sam Neill-fan didn't help either. But don't let the simple storyline put you off. As I was watching it, and the ship begins to play with the minds of the crewmembers, it started to scare the hell (even if that's just a word.......I LOVED that line !) out of me. OK, it had some major "scientific" crap in it, and some bad acting too (Sam Neill, the black guy that gets blasted into space but -unfortunately- gets back to the ship). And the ending wasn't very good either. But I'm a major fan of Jason Isaacs and Sean Pertwee, so watching them made up for the other stuff. I think Laurence Fishburne was good too, as usual. But I liked DJ the best, because you don't really get to know his character and he does some unpredictable things.

SPOILERS !!! I also saw some things that seemed to predict the way in which some of the crewmembers died. Before Smithy finds the bomb, you see a tag with his name on it dripping with blood. And just before DJ is sliced open by Weir, you can see a huge scar running across his chest. Is this something I was suppose to see, or just my imagination running wild because of the film ? I don't know, but it made the movie even more scary for me.

And the gore...well, it was only terrible if I watched it in slo-mo (which I did, it IS quite sick). It flashes by so fast most of the time that it only leaves a very uneasy feeling, but no actual memories of what you actually saw in those flashes. I think it at least was 'gore with a purpose', not just put in to scare everyone. It showed a bit of the 'dark' beyond the black hole. They were in fact the only images you get from the 'enemy'. Great that there wasn't some alien being ! A fake or very UNscary alien is enough to ruin a film like this. The ship just made the crew kill itself....Great film, even bought it on tape !

Great and very unsettling film, despite some bad acting and a very simple storyline. I give it a 9 out of 10 !

Shrek (2001)

Who needs Disney anyway.....

[23 July 2001]

WOW, I want to take that chattering donkey home ! Who cares about good ol' Disney ????? I almost choked with laughter during most of the scenes (line-dancing merry men.....hilarious !) Even if it started a bit tame and childish, it lived up to every dollar I spent on the ticket! 10 thumbs up, even if I only got 2 !

* * * * * mean green stars out of 5 !

Speak Up! It's So Dark... (1993)

Confrontation between a young neo-Nazi and a Jewish doctor

[10/10 · 11 August 1999]

A chilling, breathtaking, frightening film. A great psychological drama, about a young Swedish neo-nazi, who has been beaten up by other neo-nazis and hides from them in a train. In there, he catches the attention of an older Jewish doctor, Jacob, who notices that Soren ( the neo-nazi ) is injured and invites him to come to his practice to treat him. I found it so very touching that this Jewish man, with all his horrible memories( his entire family died in Auschwitz ), offers his help to this young man, even though he undoubtably must have noticed that it is a neo-nazi, with obviously the anti-Semetic ideas of this movement.

Soren visites the practice, and is invited by Jacob to visit him in his home. Jacob has noticed that this young man has deep-seeded problems, and is fascinated by the reasons and motivations for his ( racial-) hatred and aggressive behaviour.

Then we see a series of 'sessions' in which Jacob learns more about Soren and Soren's background, and Soren in return learns more about Jacob, his terrible losses during World War II, and the true meaning of what happened to the Jews in the camps. In the beginning, Soren is very aggressive and doesn't believe a thing Jacob is trying to tell him. He mocks at him, makes anti-Semitic remarks, threatens him and tries to justify his racialistic ideas and hostile acts towards immigrants.

But slowly, they begin to respect and understand each other, and Soren begins to see that his troubled youth might have something to do with his aggressive behaviour, and that his ideas about Jews, homosexuals and immigrants may not be entirely true or justified after all. Soren doesn't really express his newly gained insights in so many words, but in the end ( when they meet in a train again ), he sits next to Jacob, and smiles at him in a friendly way.

Most of the scenes were shot in a livingroom in Jacob's own home. There are only two important characters, Jacob and Soren. There is no great soundtrack, no special effects, no beautiful sets or locations, but still this is one of the best ( if not THE best ) films I have ever seen. The ongoing conversation between these two opposite characters - one full of kindness and compassion and understanding, the other full of hatred and deep-buried sorrow and pain - is absolutely poignant to watch. There are a number of talking-sessions in which you get some understanding in Jacob's own youth ( through beautifully shot black-and-white scenes of his flight to Sweden with his mother as a young boy ), and in other scenes some insight in Sorens life as a violent neo-nazi and of his troubled childhood with a dominant, violent and abusive father.

Both the actors are really great, and act in such a pure, natural way that I sometimes had the feeling that I was actually watching a real-life documentary with real people who had been through everything that is told in the movie. I found it sometimes very difficult to keep up with and understand Soren's twisted way of thinking, but the conversations never became to difficult or to winded to fail in holding my complete attention.

A chilling, horrific, beautiful, impressive, frightening and sorrowful film. I was still shivering hours later..............I give it 10 out of 10 !

George of the Jungle (1997)

Stupid smiling ape-guy swings into ( fake ) trees.

[1/10 · 10 August 1999]

I'm sorry, but this film is one of the worst I have ever seen. I rented it because of Brendan Fraser ( who plays George ). I saw him in ' School Ties ' , a delightful film and one of his earlier ( and I think best )roles. Because of that film he caught my attention as a great and promising young actor. After seeing this horrible, not-funny-at-all copy of the Tarzan movies, I'm beginning to have second thoughts about his acting talents. Why does an actor with so much talents agree to star in a film like this ???? That's what I asked myself the entire 88 minutes of this absolutely boring film. I've seen a number of other films ( like ' Still breathing ' or ' Blast from the past') in which Brendan Fraser is really great, so why on earth did he need to accept a role in which the only thing he seems to be doing is smiling stupidly, flying around in a jaguar-print bikini and making irritating attempts at being the funniest guy in the jungle ?

And not to mention the 'special effects'.....fake trees, silly puppet lions, and actors in shabby gorilla-outfits............. The only thing that I thougt could be called a ' special effect' was the computer generated elephant Shep, who thinks that he's a dog. It was the only thing in the film that looked ( sort of ) realistic to me.

For little kids it might be entertaining, but I actually found this film in the adult section of our videostore, and thought it to be a little bit out of place there. As I said, I only rented it because of Fraser, and expected it to be silly, but at the end it proved to be even more stupid and meaningless as I imagined. Not funny at all, and a real shame for such a promising actor as Brendan Fraser !

I give this wouldbe comedy 1 out of 10 for adults, and 6 out of 10 for children.

School Ties (1992)

Jewish middle-class boy gets into elite-highschool, and gets into trouble when he hides the fact that he's jewish.

[9/10 · 7 August 1999]

Great drama with even greater performances from the relatively young and unknown cast. Especially Brendan Fraser's acting is really intense. One of his first roles, and in my opinion his best. He was not yet as famous as he is now ( after, for example, a film as 'the Mummy' ), but I think that his acting never had the intensity and credibility of that part.(In fact, I was shocked when I discovered that it was in fact Fraser in the horrible " George of the jungle' ! How could a fine actor like him accept such a terrible role ? ) Also Matt Damon (also an unknown actor at that time )and the other young actors are great. A terrific, subtle drama !

9 out of 10 !

Ronia: The Robber's Daughter (1984)

A brave young girl who defies her father by becoming friends with the son of his enemy ( another leader of a group of robbers)

[10/10 · 16 July 1999]

I must have seen this film at least 50 times........It's so wonderful, that I even watch it now from time to time, just to experience that amazing feeling of joy, wonder and adventure it gave me. I don't speak any Swedish, but still I know all the lines by heart, just by seeing it so many times !

I saw it for the first time when I was about 6 or 7 years old. I was totally amazed. Amazed by this simple story about an 11-year-old girl living in a medieval castle ( surrounded by a huge forest )with a gang of hairy robbers and her stern but loving mother. Her father is the leader of the band, and regards himself as the greatest and bravest robber that ever roamed the woods. Her world is also inhabited by strange creatures, from little gnome-like creatures to flying evil birdlike witches. When her father discovers her friendship with the son of another leader of a gang of robbers ( and therefore his sworn enemy ), she leaves home and settles with Birk ( the boy ) in a cave in the woods. Together they try to survive until their fathers stop hating each other (which eventually happens).

Ronja immediately became my role-model. She showed me that girls can stand up for themselves just as boys, and that women can be just as tough as men. This simple story deals with all basic things in life : friendship, doing what you think is right, following your heart, stand up for yourself and facing the dangers and problems in life with your chin up and your back straight. The element of fantasy and all the creatures make it a great movie for children, but I believe even younger children will appreciate the story of friendship and love too, and will capture the important messages that this movie carries. I have it on tape, and I hope that I will be able to watch it some day with my daughter(s). I think this film should especially be watched by girls, since Astrid lindgren has put in it a special message for them. But apart from that, it's a film that can be watched and enjoyed by anyone between the age of 5 and 105 ! In my opinion one of the best, if not THE best children's movie ever made ! Watch it, and be a kid again. Watch it, and see the basic things that make life worth living.

10 out of 10 !