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.
Add a Review
-
zetes1 July 2012
-
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. -
chandler_n22 November 2020This 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. -
Witch Hazel14 January 2001I 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.
-
Meredith-731 October 2002Having read the mary Norton novels I was expecting a little more
from the film. What i got was entertaining enough, it could have
been better though. It seemed to be a mismatch between Home
Alone and Honey I Shrunk the Kids, and was pretty much on the
same par as these two films. The acting was o.k, and the visual
effects were quite good but i thought it could have benefited from
more substance. Still it was not a total waste of time, it had some
good parts. The 10 year old boy was quite annoying though, and
would benefit from a few more years acting lessons before
inflicting us with his talentless efforts. That said the largely
British cast did their best. -
lee_eisenberg1 July 2018I 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"). -
Leofwine_draca24 December 2015I consider myself a fan of THE BORROWERS after watching the BBC children's TV series in the early 1990s. Recently I read the original novel for the first time and enjoyed it; I also saw the fine Japanese animated adaptation of the story, ARRIETTY. So I was interested, if not a little wary, to see how this American version of the story would held up. It's worth noting that I'd never seen it before.
Simply put, this is a travesty of a film and a huge disappointment for a true BORROWERS fan. Other than the central characters, the entire storyline has been jettisoned in favour of a bombastic, action-packed chase narrative in which the little people must team up to battle evil property tycoon John Goodman. This is about as far from the small-scale (pun intended) origins of the original Mary Norton story as it gets.
There are a few lights twinkling away amid the garbage; I'll be the first to admit that Jim Broadbent makes for an effective Pod, and Tom Felton shines in an early role. Celia Imrie isn't bad as Homily, but she's no match for Penelope Wilton. The special effects aren't too bad for the year, and few of them scream 'obvious CGI' like so many Hollywood films today.
So where did it go wrong? Well, the attempts to update the story for a modern American audience is a good start. The setting is some ridiculous 'netherworld' which mixes modern-day technology with 1950s-era Britain and America. It's ludicrous. Goodman's villain is poorly shoe-horned into the storyline and the subject of numerous fat jokes. Really? Is it right for a film to be teaching kids to constantly insult people due to their weight? The characters are badly written, the dumb humour consists of farting dogs and the like, and the whole thing has been dumbed down massively and lost the magic of the original. In the end it's just another soulless Hollywood effects piece. -
Didier-Becu16 August 2003Normally I am not the kind of guy who is into familymovies as they all rely a bit too much on the silly parts of the human brains so I watched it as there was nothing else on telly, not expecting one good thing from it. But I was utterly charmed by it... Not that it are little people as I saw that trick too many times (Honey I shrunk the kids, Willow or even in the fourties there was Tom Thumb) but just because of the great decors! This movie takes place in the fifties and everything is made with a huge nostalgia sense (from the cars to the food the Borrowers are borrowing). In some house a boy discovers that there are little creatures living under the floor, once the family is out they "borrow" stuff to keep their household going on and it's like Indiana Jones filmed in Disneystyle (just watch the scene in where the daughter is stuck in the refrigerator). Sadly enough the little family Clock or played by redheads who all talk in a very Irish way and they play in such an arrogant Robin Hoodway that you wanna put your feet on them the moment they catch your eyes, just like John Goodman who in slapstickstyle who plays the role of a corrupt advocate who'd stolen the testament of the family so he can build his building complex (where have we heard this before?). The big family Lender and the Borrowers join hands to rescue the house and during 90 minutes the sole option that is left for director Peter Hewitt (who is now directing Garfield) is the chase for The Borrowers in where Goodman gets the help of some funny guy whose job is exterminating insects or little creatures. This is the kind of movie that can end up like The Flinstones or Scooby Doo but director Hewitt saves it all thanks to the impressive decors, the very nice special effects and a godlike performance from Goodman (who is just doing his usual thing). Not outstanding but it feels like this movie is over in 15 minutes just because of its charming slapstickstyle. Not a monument at all but a perfect movie to relive the child in you even if most of the kids won't be happy by the childish approach (the kids of today aren't living in the fifties you know...)
-
Goon-22 February 1999Even when children's movies contain no actors I like, or the story does not seem particularly compelling, I usually find them at least moderately entertaining. This was not the case with "The Borrowers." By the end of the first scene, I became pretty bored with the run-of-the-mill, slapsticky plot twists. Characters do things like run around, screech, burp, fall for no apparent reason, tie people up, and pretty much what they do in almost every other movie aimed at kids. The characters are also pretty dimwitted, racous, grating, and even The Borrower family failed to capture my sympathy. The lady was scary, the man was wooden, and the kids were brats. John Goodman has a very slapsticky role, and I have pretty much forgetten everybody else in the film.
-
OhSoVerySweetox5 September 2006It was a good film but I feel it does not compare to any of the Disney movies or any Harry Potter movie. The story line was great but the cinematography wasn't very good. The best part of the whole movie was the little Tom Felton. He is an amazing actor and that is why I say it is a good film to see, but there are definitely better ones out there. Especially if you want to see more of Tom Felton, I would recommend the Harry Potter films. The funny thing is, he doesn't even think he wants acting for a career. He is more of a fisherman. Go figure. Anyway, The Borrowers is an older movie now and the Special Effects really don't stand up to other movies now. Unfortunately it was a good movie when it came out but now I may think otherwise. I give The Borrowers 7/10 stars.
-
I was so excited to learn that someone had adapted the Borrowers series that I had loved so much, but I found myself instantly disappointed. With the exception of Pod, Homily, and Arrietty, this movie has pretty much nothing in common with its source material. I'm 99% certain that the character of Peagreen was added to bring more boys into the theater. Though I like many of the actors featured, and the special effects were good, the plot was terrible, and the lovely story in the books was turned into one long "Three Stooges with Tiny People" gag. If you're looking for a faithful adaptation of the original source material, watch Studio Ghibli's "The Secret Life of Arrietty." Barring a few minor changes, the story and tone match the books perfectly.
-
ccthemovieman-125 April 2006When this first came out, almost a decade ago, I thought it was the best job I had seen of making miniature people look real. This showed how far technology had come in films and now, of course, we see a lot more amazing special effects.
It was fun to view how these "borrowers" moved about, using ordinary household items to propel themselves around a normal-sized house. It's all pretty ingenious.
John Goodman plays a cartoon-like role, a role that is generally funny to watch. The cast has a mixture of American and English actors, with a setting of 1940s Britain. I first saw this on VHS and then later on DVD, which was improvement not only video-wise, but audio, too, as it somehow went from mono to surround sound. This might be considered a kids movie but a lot of the humor is more adult-oriented. -
When I found out there was an anime of Arietty a spin off of The Borrowers, I decided to go back and watch this movie beforehand remembering that I enjoyed it quite a bit as a kid.
I never read the novel The Borrowers but I do remember seeing a British TV miniseries more faithful to the novel years ago and also liking that. I have a feeling that is less childish and more faithful to the novel than this adaptation but this is the one I am reviewing so I am listing pros and cons:
Pros:
1. John Goodman does a pretty good job playing the villain and does so with some laughs and genuinely intimidating moments.
2. Jim Broadbent is good as the dad Borrower.
3. The set design is actually very clever and impressive.
4. Some of the writing is clever as are The Borrowers themselves. It's nice the screenplay treats it's protagonists with intelligence.
CONS:
1. To me this movie is like a mix between Honey, I Shrunk the Kids and Home Alone, two of my favorite childhood movies. That may not have necessarily been a bad thing if they hadn't kept making more entries in those franchises and beating more dead horses but unfortunately they did and if you have seen any or all of those other movies you will probably roll your eyes at the familiar formula here. I don't believe the novel was that type of slapstick comedy as evidenced here but of course after the huge success of Home Alone there were so many imitators and studios kept trying to rip off that formula. So the unoriginality is a bit exhausting at times.
2. This movie had a a bit too much crude humor and moments that could have been more clever are substituted with fart jokes or John Goodman getting something stuck on his butt or whatever else alike. Both Steven Spielberg and Robert Zemeckis declined to direct because of the crude humor which should say something.
Still as another Home Alone/Honey I Shrunk the Kids knock off it's still pretty entertaining.
If you want to show your kids something different than the typical movies from your adolescence they will probably enjoy this for what it is.
For adults you have seen this stuff all before in other movies, so it likely won't connect with you the same even if you liked it as a kid, but it was made for kids and despite its flaws it's an overall satisfactory entertainment for children.
I would probably want to watch the aforementioned miniseries again for a better Borrowers adaptation but on the whole there is some stuff to admire here nonetheless and there are certainly worse and far more stupid children's films out there.
Recommended as an overall fun watch for families with younger kids. -
pkendell22 January 2001Great production design and good effects won't mollify Mary Norton fans, I suspect.
BTW, it's set in Leighton Buzzard, which is a market town about 40 miles north of London, as a freeze on the will reveals. -
kinophile-24 July 2000I was charmed by this movie and cannot understand the venom unleashed upon it by some of the other reviews. I don't have any kids, nor do I spend a whole lot of time watching movies geared towards them, but most "kiddie fare" seems so saccharine and preachy, with screeching soundtracks and day-glo color schemes all designed to work as commercials for happy meals and action figures that this one stands out because it's just plain fun. The production design and special effects are unique -- and purposefully so. Some reviews have complained that the film is not set in a readily identifiable time or place, but that's the charm; set in a kind of timeless anywhere that is both familiar and foreign, with the kind of hazy details and warm glow that suggest a fond childhood memory/fantasy. If you expect some Dizneefied, pre-fabbed, pre-digested offering that hits all of the right beats at the right moments with such predictability that you can set your watch to them, skip this. (Or watch "South Park: Bigger, Longer and Uncut," because it sure mimics the form while subverting the content.) If you want something fun and imaginative, different from the usual, give this a try. And if the kids complain that it's boring, send them to bed and watch it yourself.
-
r96sk8 January 2020'The Borrowers' is a solid, fun film for the whole family. Well constructed and well delivered plot, with good performances from a host of stars in John Goodman, Jim Broadbent, Mark Williams and Hugh Laurie.
-
A movie is set in England. It about friendship between the borrowers - the Clock family and the lenders. At first, they don't know about each other, but then, because of the curiosity of Arriety - Pod's daughter, Arriety and Pete become good friends. After that, Arriety and her brother - Peagreen - accidentally take part in an adventure when they fall out of the lorry while they are moving with the lenders to the lender's new house. Arriety and Peagreen save the house from being demolished by an evil lawyer named Peter. At the end, the Clock family and the lenders become close-friends and they live happily together. A movie has special effects and a good cast...it's a great movie for your weekend with your family.
-
AngelHonesty2 November 2023I think this movie was meant for kids. There's no real texture to it for an adult. The entire thing is quite silly to the point it gets boring fast.
I really liked the concept of the movie. Little people who live in your house and borrow your things. It's very creative and the movie could have went into so many directions. Just the concept of seeing the world from a tiny persons point of view could have been fun. But unfortunately the cool concept was ruined.
The movie followed two kids trying to take down the bad guy and save the day. For starters I doubt the bad guy would have been able to see the small people most of the time. And it was ridiculous how much ground the little guys could cover. They were faster than normal sized folk. Also the movie kept repeating itself. The big human almost killing the small guys and failing. And the little people almost taking out the big guy but failing. It soon became exhausting as this same plot kept going on forever.
On top of it we never really got to know the characters. Who they were, how they got small or really anything about them. It would have been much more interesting to see the world from their point of view. And more about every day survival, or exploring the town or something.
The only character I really liked was the police man. He was so funny. Hugh Laurie is awesome. -
ThunderKing64 May 2022The 90s have done it again. Better story, production, actors without having to overuse cgi, remakes and bad actors.
Borrrowers is a movie based on the books I never read about tiny people living in a big house. It was a fine show to relax to. Some children of today might like it, though it lacks the stimulation and frequency of today's shows.
This movie contains very popular actors at the time that showed up and did their thing.
Borrowers is a good movie despite its dull execution. A fine book to movie adaption which may or may not be accurate. -
chwalker-christopher19 February 2017I really could never have imagined that it would be possible to make a movie adaptation based on the Mary Norton books that would be so completely devoid of charm. When the estate licensed this adaptation, they made a terrible, terrible mistake.
It's vile. I would have rated it a zero, but the scale only goes down to 1. -
mardalsfossen0121 January 2019This is a good movie for kids which has a good portion of Fantasy and Action in the fashion of 'Honey, I Shrunk The Kids' or 'Ant-Man'. But be warned - it is a little bit scary as well due to 'the villain'.
I think it's definitely still watchable in 2019, even if kids would likely rather watch something more modern. -
anaconda-406584 March 2016The Borrowers (1997): Dir: Peter Hewitt / Cast: John Goodman, Jim Broadbent, Bradley Pierce, Mark Williams, Hugh Laurie: Recycled story (The Indian in the Cupboard, Honey, I Shrunk the Kids) about little people who live beneath the floor boards of a house. They do not steal but borrow (hence the title). The plot is a series of cat and mouse games where the villain attempts to vanquish them so that he may take possession of a will that was left at the house. He wishes to destroy the house and build apartment buildings in its place but he must burn the will that states ownership of the family living there. Thrilling visual effects include being showered with ice cubes, encountering pigeons, and being trapped in a milk bottle. Unfortunately the film is pure crap that borrows from other films of its kind. Formula story directed by Peter Hewitt whose terrible Bill and Ted's Bogus Journey actually looks good in comparison to this. John Goodman as the villain plays off the slapstick well but the role is cardboard. Jim Broadbent plays the head borrower. Bradley Pierce plays the boy who befriends them so that's pretty much straight forward. Mark Williams plays an exterminator in what is pretty standard for a film such as this. Hugh Laurie plays an idiot cop who should have arrested the people who suggested this film get made. Entertaining visuals within a rather dull story that steals from everything. Score: 2 / 10
-
DrWhoBob18 May 2002I, 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. -
heatnation-486465 September 2021If you're bored, then watch it. If not, then find something else to watch. It drags out and there is a lot of unnecessary parts in this movie.
It only gets interesting in the last 10-15 minutes. Not worth the time to sit down to watch it. -
Lady_Jenna10 November 2002i 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! ^_^