The Borrowers (1998)

Good story, Not enough for a whole film

If the ambition is to provide two hours of instantly forgettable, popcorn-munching escapism, it succeeds.

This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.

A terrific literary drama and character piece that shows how the process of creating art can be seen differently by those doing it and those looking at it from the outside.

I heard about "The Borrowers" when it got released but wasn't interested in seeing it. Now that I've seen it, I can say that it's pretty enjoyable, despite the occasional crude humor. Much of it reminded me of the similarly themed "Mouse Hunt", released around the same time (I would avoid comparing either one to the overrated "Home Alone").It got released around the same time as three other movies co-starring John Goodman: "Fallen" (an obvious ripoff of Wes Craven's "Shocker"), "Blues Brothers 2000" (I must've been the only person who liked that one) and "The Big Lebowski".I had never realized that "The Borrowers" was based on a book until after watching this (there's also been a couple of other small-screen adaptations). For now at least, I'll only know this one. Pretty fun.The rest of the cast includes Jim Broadbent, Hugh Laurie (Dr. House), Tom Felton (Draco Malfoy) and Bradley Pierce (of "Jumanji").

I haven't come to the film through the book, and so have no memories to spoil. Purely on its own terms I and my family greatly enjoyed this piece of family entertainment. Personally I rather liked the vaguely mid-Altantic fantasy universe which strangely encompasses the whole of the 20th century, a rather dowdy place where the policemen look Edwardian but people might wear 1930's clothing while speaking on their mobile phones, yet drive 1960's Morris Minor cars on the right despite road markings on the left. Yes, mainly slapstick with flimsy screenplay (and occasionally flimsy acting too, though it's rarely awful as some suggest). In no sense is it deep, but none the worse for that. It's entertainment pure and simple, and on that level it succeeds.

The Borrowers movie is quirky, fun, and an enjoyable way to spend an afternoon with kids but it lacks the overall charm the books did. This was much better, and more accurately, captured by the 1992 BBC TV series than by this movie.The plot of this story is okay but it only takes bear elements from the books, inventing new characters and altering the setting - I'm not sure why but I have to admit as a fan of the books I did feel somewhat alienated by this. I understand that books often don't match their on-screen adaptions exactly but this felt to me so drastically different that it was far more jarring than the excellent Harry Potter and Narnia adaptions.Where did Peagreen come from? Arietty is not supposed to have a brother, let alone a one as whiny as Peagreen. Why to all the humans (save one or two) have American accents and all the Borrowers British? Why was this set in some werid quasi-'50s/'90s alternate reality rather than simply setting it in the original time of the books? (Although I admit there was some appeal in the quirkiness of this setting I did feel confused by it).I did enjoy this movie but it isn't fantastic, it isn't horrible but I look to the BBC series as much more charming adaption.

i adore this movie. it gives an entirely new perspective about the world. much the same effect as "honey i shrunk the kids" had only more every day life. tables, chairs, beds, clothes. it's great. what I love is the cast. I just keep recognizing people. "he was in jumanji!" "he was in stuart little!" "he is in the harry potter movies!" "he was in moulin rouge!" i loved it. actually, this movie is worth watching just for the hair styles! ^_^