Reviews

This show is not about tiny houses; it's about nattering personalities and mugging and trying too hard to be good tv. Roughly 10 minutes of the 25 minute show was actually about building the home.. If you actually want to learn about tiny homes, YouTube channels "Living Big in a Tiny House" or "Tiny House Expeditions". This is absolute rubbish.

Just got done watching it. My initial reaction: "Wow. These people are nuts."

Don't get me wrong - this is a fun watch as long as you don't take any of it too seriously. I know the film pretty well, but these "analysts" go out of their way to ignore the obvious in order to drive on to their wacky conclusions.

Thanks to the infinite paranoia pool that we call the Internet, the mythology about The Shining is outstripping the history of the film itself. This is less about the movie but more about people who look for conspiracies in every corner. Faked moon landings? Set geometry? Minotaurs? Absurd, sure, but how different are they from those people that deny birth certificates or imagine black UN helicopters or, most recently, those who say Sandy Hook was faked. These Deniers create their own logic, disallow any reality that doesn't fit and then warp the facts to fit their conclusions. I think this film really does a great job showing these people for what they are - delusional and and self-obsessed.

We can let them be entertaining, but we can never take any of what they say seriously.

I knew it existed but never watched it. I've seen many a Jim Carrey movie so I thought I'd give it a go.

I want my life back. That ruined everything I ever knew about 1) the Dicken's novel, 2) Jim Carrey movies, 3) Animation, 4) Redemption stories, 5) Broadcast TV movies, 6) the Hollywood movie system, 7) The possibilities of computers ruling the world (if computers were that smart they would have revolted during the production)...I could go on, but suffice to say it was perhaps the biggest steaming turd I've seen paraded through the holiday season (and that includes the fruitcake).

Ignore that this is looks less like Victorian London and more like Uncanny Valley (it's well known that the director just-keeps-trying to make this kind of animation work, which is rather endearing...kind of like watching the dog continually chase his tail). Ignore that the colors are flat in tone, or the eternally the zooming camera that can't get a sense of space - just depth (seriously - being trapped in a room with a ghost just doesn't seem to be good enough - it's got to zoom through the city WHILE in the room). Ignore that they seem to have confused this movie with "The Rescuers" towards the end. IGNORE that you can see - in your head - Jim Carrey constantly acting out of the side of his mouth, trying to act..desperately trying to act, but abjectly failing - and not even convincingly.

Ignore all that and more - seriously, it's a car crash - but the single, most terrible thing about this travesty? They rushed the end - no sense of redemption, no sense that he's seriously trying to reconnect with his fellow man, not even a scene at the Cratchit's receiving the goose - just a rush to the end with Scrooge dropping spare change in several random scenes. He's paying his way back in...no sense he's trying to make his life better, and better for all.

The just completely miss the point of the whole thing. Idiots.

If you want to see a great version of this tale, by all means see 1951's "Scrooge". It was nostalgic even in those days but Alistair Sim makes the entire transformation so entirely believable.

It's not half bad - certainly beautiful to watch (I saw it on blu-ray in 2D) and I can understand the character development and the processes the characters went through, unlike the Narnia movies which seems far less involving.

Is it the cartoon/anime? I don't know - never saw it, probably never will. Certainly don't care to. But not unlike "The Shining" or "V for Vendetta", I think the movie tries to carve out it's own existence and does so admirably for a family film. I do think it's trying to jam a lot of plot into it's time slot, but I have a feeling it didn't have much of a choice. Trying to get a 4- film franchise for earth, fire, water and air would be hard.

I also don't think the director had the clout anymore to say no to having post-processed 3D foisted upon him. Of course everyone has to say it was designed to be so, but if you see the blu-ray print, you'll see some truly beautiful lighting and set design, perfectly balanced for normal, flat movies. 3D is a phase - let it die.

Lastly, I can't get into the hate. If you read many of the user reviews, you'd believe this thing is a harbinger of the apocalypse - this is because there's an internet phenomenon whereby people believe they're more deeply invested in the material than the writers, director, actors - it doesn't matter. They'll hate it into submission, and that kind of hate campaign works too. Will it cost the studio money? Almost certainly - that's the game plan. It's like shampoo - create fake accounts, spend your life ranting how awful it was, repeat daily. Manos - Hands of Fate, now that's a 1-star movie, not this. Ignore the haters - they'll just go swarm on the next Stargate series instead.

No. Simply...no.

This is was wrong, so wrong, in so many way. Dull, overacted by everyone but Attenborough. A miserable and mean DA and bitter "tension" that really doesn't belong in this movie. Telegraphed acting and sloppy writing (please stop telling us what is going to happen!)..and it ends with a golf ball from Cartier?? And bonuses. And an expensive new house..."they can afford it now"?? It *was* all about the money.. Tasteless..

Awful, awful awful - No whimsy. No fun...nothing as simple and heartwarming as watching the little Dutch girl from the fabulous 1947 original—geez, I just hated every moment of it.

Yes, this is modern. Yes, it has color. Yes, it's made by *your* generation for *your* kids.

So is Velveeta.

...because Universe is good.

The more I watch it, the more I enjoy the interplay between characters and the greater respect I have for the creators for trying to do something better.

I just wanted to write a note here because reading the opinions here has been so much fun. Don't you love the reviewers who TYPE IN CAPITOLS to show how dedicated they are? Or that they have PROOF at the UYZ.com blog that it's all some kind of conspiracy?

Seriously people, it's a SyFy channel TV show; they best you can say is that it's keeping Canadians employed.

Really kids. Open a window - some of you aren't getting enough oxygen.

I really don't understand the bad reviews for this movie - it's an excellent, fun family-friendly homage to the classic cartoon, and as such it's really a marvel. I had the chance to see the original cartoon's first year recently - the jump-jacks, the World Racing League, the mountain-climbing cars, the pitch-perfect voice of Matthew Fox as Racer X...it's all there and much more.

Some reviewers can't get past the physics of the movie, or that you have to be under 10 to appreciate it, or any number of narrow-minded reasons. Sure - it's not for everyone, but here's a clue: it's a CARTOON, bright and colorful, made for kids who like to play with their Hot Wheels (and everyone who can remember what kind of simple joy that was).

Speed Racer is amazingly original in conceptualization and design, as beautiful to watch as The Royal Tennanbaums (for instance). It's like a designer's orgasm. The flowing transitions are perhaps some of the most kinetic editing moves since The Road Warrior. It's real and unreal at the same time (which makes it all very safe for younger viewers).

It's also about not losing what makes you special on your way to growing up. It's fiercely anti-corporate and focused on the the family as the center of learning about life, not what you can get away with. Many times Speed is tempted to take the short path or be a bad sport. There are many lessons in this movie, just buried beneath the glossy surface. By the end, when the lights and animation are flying fast and free, the heart of the movie bares itself.

Plus it has a monkey. More movies need a monkey these days.

Some writers have been disingenuous concerning an incident of "animal cruelty" - one of the chimps bit an actor, and the hired handler struck the animal. You can read about it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_Racer_(film)#Plot but you'll also appreciate this has nothing to do with the production or the intentions of the filmmakers.

It's also the perfect movie if you have an axe to grind: if you're anti-big Hollywood, or computer animation, or PETA-philes, or if you're anally-attached to real-world physics, or if you want your childhood entertainment "dark" to match your adult views. Listen to these voices at your own peril - they're the grumblings of frustrated adults who've forgotten the thrill of playing with cars on the stairs.

Speed Racer is an auteur's vision of a classic anime - it's not perfect, and sometimes it's too camp for it's own good - but it's also sweet and decent and furiously-fun entertainment that's safe for all ages. And if that's not rare and precious thing these days, I don't know what is.

Go, Speed - Go!

It's not bad - it's not the RSC production everyone unfairly compares it to, but it's as entertaining as a 2 hour version can be expected to be. Sound like faint praise, but really - keep your expectations honest and you'll enjoy it.

I've sat through the RSC's 9-hour event (twice in the theater and I own the DVD set) and yes - it's a more faithful interpretation, but that doesn't diminish this version. I do have some issues with the casting, primarily Jaime Bell as Smike and Charlie Hunnam. Bell is just far too healthy, too good-looking to play the battered, pitiful Smike. Hunnam is just a bit too gee-whiz, too bright-eyed throughout - in a word, lightweight. It's an interesting balance in the way these two are portrayed; in the RSC plays, Nicholas is almost a step-parent, in the movie, more a brother; I do prefer the former balance.