The Borrowers

I, for one, very much enjoyed this movie, so much so, that I even purchased it on DVD. Of course, I'm a big fan of British Comedy and Sci-Fi, and always enjoy any opportunity to see the work of Hugh Laurie and Mark Williams. This was the first time I'd seen anything with Jim Broadbent, but went on to watch some of his other work, and have grown to appreciate him, as well. Ruby Wax was charming, and I'd like to see more of Flora Newbigin, however, it appears she isn't doing much in the industry, except for an appearance in one episode "Holby City."

I find this movie charming in it's escapism. Sure, it mixes times and cities, making it impossible to identify where and when it takes place, but does it even have to be anywhere on Earth? It's fantasy, and I found it entertaining.

This movie still stands up the test of time as a feel good silly children's film for ages 8-14. I still recall this film now that I'm in my early 30's. While a child and still active in cinema and commercials, films like this and Mouse Trap always stuck out as wonderful and underrated family films. I appreciated them alot then, I appreciate them even more now.

Goodman is a genius - give it a shot.

I honestly don't understand all the bad reviews this show has gotten. I think it's a great flick. Their sets and props were amusing (i.e., using birthday cake candles for torches and credit cards for doors), and it was interesting to see the world from a little person's point of view. The plot was very good, as was the acting, and the Borrowers' accents just added to their charm. You really should give this film a try.

Reading some of the other reviews you get the impression that the Special Effects in the Borrowers are somewhat mediocre, well I feel I must stand up for them. The effects in this film are on the whole superb. The problem is that some of them are so good you just don't notice them unless they are pointed out to you. In my opinion the effects in the Borrowers are vastly superior to things like say Titanic, which rather unbelievably won an Oscar. Any effect which you're inclined to say "That's a good effect" too, is not a good effect, it is a poor one because you can tell it's an effect. The best effects go unnoticed, not only by the movie going public but also by the Academy it seems.

I've been interested in seeing this adaptation of Mary Norton's novels ever since I saw the Studio Ghibli adaptation, The Secret World of Arrietty, last February. As I expected, this is more of a comic adventure film, a pretty typical children's film for the time, as opposed to the serious and beautiful Ghibli version. I have no idea which is closer to the source material (I'd actually bet the 1997 version is; the other one is way too Ghibli-esque not to have been heavily changed). As it is, the 1997 version is a halfway decent children's films. Not good, not bad. If I were a kid, I think I'd enjoy it. It stars John Goodman and Jim Broadbent, so it at least has something going for it. The family is pretty similar to the Ghibli version, except for they also have a son (Tom Felton). Felton and Flora Newbigin (who plays Arrietty) get separated from their parents (Broadbent and Celia Imrie) when the house they live in is set to be bulldozed by evil land developer (is there any other kind?) John Goodman. There's no seriousness here. It's all just loud adventure type stuff as the borrower children outsmart Goodman at every turn (he could probably very easily defeat his nemeses here if he would just avoid those comic pauses every time they're about to get him). I'm surprised Newbigin didn't go onto anything better. She's a pretty good juvenile actress. I don't think this film was very successful. I don't ever remember it existing (I was in college at the time, so I wouldn't have had any interest). The special effects aren't too bad. The story was adapted just five years previous with Ian Holm starring in the Jim Broadbent role.