Kit Kittredge
Added 11/20/2009
If you're going to make an innocent film or a "family" film, this is how you do it.
The film is enjoyable and never mean-spirited *except where the plot calls for it*. The whole sassy/smarmy thing is old; Hollywood needs to get over it.
This film is full of real characters -- as real as they can be in a period piece -- who are *genuinely* kind and helpful with each other. It harks back to the Disney films and more innocent stories of decades past, and earns nearly every emotional moment it presents.
One of the more enjoyable film experiences I've had in a while. The performances are very good. The set-up and situation provide for a fun home environment (with numerous guests) in which some serious issues are portrayed in a light but realistic manner. The actors look like they're *actually having fun* doing this, and every one of them gives dignity to her/his role in a way that shows why they're the names we know, from Chris O'Donnell to Joan Cusack to Stanley Tucci to many others. Cusack has a monologue at the end that had me punching the chair with laughter; it's the kind of humor kids will enjoy, too. It's inimitable Cusack.
Nice to see something innocent and genuine for a change, with well-intentioned characters. Recommended.
P.S. Little Stirling and Countee are great; they will make any viewer smile.
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
great for girls and families
Added 11/19/2009
This is an excellent movie that is loved by all. It is great to see entertaining and wholesome movies still being made!!!
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
family favorite
Added 11/17/2009
We rented this movie after my 7 year old read Meet Kit. The whole family enjoyed watching it (except my 3 year old son) so much that we decided to buy it for our daughter. After watching it she couldn't wait to read the other books! Yes, it was a little corny at times, but great for families. Be aware, it covers the high points of the Kit series, not just one book, so if you haven't read them all, it's kind of a spoiler.
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
Great Family Movie
Added 10/26/2009
A great fun clean family movie. Demonstrates that good family movies can be made (you'll love it!) and proud to share it.
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
Kit Kittredge is AWESOME!
Added 9/17/2009
I thought that this would be a fabulous movie for my daughter. Well, it was and I thought that the entire family should watch together! It was a wonderful story about compassion and hard times just as we are having now. Get it now...for your whole family. Mine came in GREAT condition!
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
The girl and the agoraphobic
Added 10/26/2009
Nim Russo (her mother "invented" the name before vanishing at sea, purportedly down the throat of a whale) has a life many kids might envy. She lives with her father, Jack, on an isolated South Sea island where they generate their own power, grow their own food, connect with the world via satphone and satellite Internet, and get a visit from the supply ship every so often; no one but its crew is allowed to know their location, and no one including the crew is allowed to step ashore. At 11 she's totally homeschooled (or "island-schooled," as she calls it), mostly by way of the many books they order, and associates only with her father and her pets, including a sea lion, a pelican, a sea turtle, and a spiny lizard. Jack is a marine biologist whose fixed obsession is the discovery of a new one-celled organism, to be named Protozoa Nim. One day he heads out to sea in their little sailboat to see if he can find it. Nim stays behind to rescue the little turtles about to hatch from her pet's nest. When a sudden storm cripples Jack's boat and leaves him unable to communicate with his daughter, and Nim finds her island about to be "invaded" by Buccaneer Tours, it's up to her to find a way to fend off the outsiders. For help she calls on Alex Rover, the world's greatest adventurer--who, unknown to her, is actually the creation of Alexandra Rover, a seriously agoraphobic San Francisco novelist. But when Alexandra discovers that her new cyberpal is an 11-year-old girl left alone on an island and coping with a 5" gash on her leg, she somehow finds the courage to conquer her fears and set out on a wild journey halfway around the world.
Nim, played by Abigail Breslin, is a child-heroine for today and one boys and girls alike should enjoy--cool under pressure, resourceful, self-sufficient and free. Jodie Foster manages to bring Alexandra to life in a slightly over-the-top way, with an exaggerated sort of humor that's unexpected given her previous roles. Gerard Butler plays a dual role--Jack and Alex, who's a combination of Indiana Jones, Richard Halliburton (see Richard Halliburton's Complete Book of Marvels), and Lawrence of Arabia. This is a fun family movie with a slightly improbable yet somehow plausible story. Recommended.
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
Nim's Island
Added 8/30/2009
Nim's Island comes across with a clean, crisp transfer. Excellent sound and some very interesting special features. All in all, a pleasure to watch-good movie for kids and adults.
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
Just Because the Kids Laugh Doesn't Mean It's Funny
Added 8/25/2009
Like any other genre, you can see some pretty bad films within the children's films niche. This ranks up with the best of the worst. The acting is ok, though Jodie Foster's attempts at slapstick tend not to come off that well -- I think she should stay away from physical comedy, if not comedy all together. And Abigail Breslin seems to have succumbed to the Dora the Explorer 'have all the characters shout their lines' method of acting. It has some not half bad camera work. What tanks the film is the writing/plot structure. It seems to be trying for the record for greatest number of active and unrelated or unfulfilled plot lines.
-- Jodie Foster plays an agoraphobic adventure writer who decides to venture out from San Francisco to a remote Pacific island, by plane, boat, and helicopter, to save Nim. But how Foster's bumbling appearance on an isolated island is supposed to help Nim in any way -- never mind help her save her father -- is beyond the plot conception: at no point does the plot actually believe Foster could help in any real way. And in the end, she has to be rescued by Nim. What then is the purpose of that plot line except for some lame slapstick? I don't do justice here to the irrelevance of Foster's character to Nim's plight, or the irrelevance of Foster's adventures to the film -- unless, that is, it's actually a film about Foster, not Nim, and I'm mis-reading it.
-- Gerard Butler, stranded on his wrecked boat, is ostensibly the driving motivation of the movie, as Nim is seeking aid to rescue him. Yet he ends up saving himself, with the help of Galileo the pelican, by miraculously building a raft in open sea _after_ his boat is sunk.
-- Nim calls on Foster for help (thinking Foster is actually her books' adventure hero), yet is utterly capable to handling everything by herself, including defending her island against tourist invaders(in a plot line that has nothing to do with the other stories, but serves to fill up half an hour of movie).
So we're supposed to think Nim needs help, when she's the most capable character in the movie. We're supposed to think Foster can help, when she's the most incapable character of the movie. And Gerard Butler, well, he's got a pelican helping him.
Anyway, a groaningly absurd, pointless, and (I mention in passing) logically flawed plot. It is unfortunate that my 1 1/2 year old daughter likes the movie. But she likes it for the primary tension: she understands Nim's father is missing. Unfortunately the screenwriters/director lost sight of that primary tension.
I have not read the book. And there are moments in the film -- as when Nim and the boy are talking about stories vs. reality -- where the threads of a more ideationally developed plot -- one that holds the whole film together -- might reside. But they are at best mal-formed teases of a better film.
One might say everything above is irrelevant to a child's movie, so long as the children like it. But I have to disagree. To say that is to say, essentially, "We don't care is you feed our children crap, just so long as they're smiling." And that's, in essence, is why Johnny can't read (to appropriate the phrase). Simply because the film is aimed at children does not give everyone involved a get out of jail free card for quality. The opposite should be the case. As said, my 1 1/2 year old is enjoying the DVD currently. Hopefully by the time she's 6 she'll have outgrown it.
Don't praise bad film making simply because your kid likes it. Demand better. Always demand better.
1 out of 4 people found this helpful.
|
