|Page 4 of 16:||             |
|Index||154 reviews in total|
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
I only gave this one star because there was no option for 1/2 or even
This movie is awful and should never have been released to theaters but used as an example to future and current movie directors / producers of how NOT to make a movie.... the beginning was okay, I get that I need to see what the village looks like, but as soon as they get blasted into New York City through the portal it all goes downhill. I still can't believe this was considered a movie and I stress to anyone to rent this if anything for your kids. I would never buy such a movie if my life depended on it
Well, I wish I could write something positive but the movie is neither for kids nor for adults. Kids wouldn't even get what is going on and adults may find it childish and boring. So, who is the target audience for this movie? I don't know but definitely not kids. I enjoyed smurfs when I was a kid. They were little, blue and cute characters living in a different world. There was childish action and fun. Also, what made Smurfs enjoyable during our childhood was the forest they live and all this little things they build. This movie carries the story to our time and world (which is an idea I found completely bad). So, all aspects of the magical world they were living in is left behind as well. Moral of the story, weak story and little fun.
At my school they show different movies every Saturday at 11pm and this movie was playing. I didn't know what to expect but I never thought it would be THAT bad. But it was a million time WORSE than I anticipated. This was the first movie that was physically painful to watch. I was happy it was over and I wish there was a way I could hurt this movie but I can never hurt it the way it hurt me. Bottom line NEVER see this movie! Even Neil Patrick Harris was bad in this movie which was so surprising and disappointing! The script was badly written and I hurt to watch. such great actor doing a horrible movie so this makes them look bad. Its Star Wars Episodes I and II all over again.
This film was as smurfy and schmaltzy as i expected. And I would have enjoyed it. However what I did not expect was the unnecessary, anti-semitic negative stereotype of the villainous wizard Gargamel and his evil cat Azrael. It was reminiscent of the stereotypes published in 1930s Germany. Yes Gargamel was funny, but humour does not make racism acceptable. He could have been funny without all the Fagin mannerisms, yiddish accent and hooked nose. I was really gutted that the filmmakers had put this offensive stereotype into a kids film. I and other adults can probably see it for what it is (racism) but kids just absorb it. By the way, I'm not someone who usually writes reviews, but I feel silence may be viewed as acceptance of these ugly attitudes which are foisted upon unsuspecting audiences.
Despite me trying to be as neutral as possible before settling down to
watch a film I found myself preparing for the long haul when I decided
to watch The Smurfs. As a kid I never really got into them but did
occasionally catch a TV show or two so wasn't flying completely into
the unknown like some of the more recent comic book characters that I
Upon entering the world of the Smurfs we find the blue critters relaxing in their mushroom metropolis preparing for the special Blue moon festival. But all is not well- the evil wizard Gargamel (Hank Azaria), after years of searching, has finally found their village. In the ensuing chaos he chases some of the Smurfs out of their village where they are sucked through a vortex and into our world. Determined to capture them so he can harness their Smurf goodness, Gargamel and his cat follow them through. So begins the race to get back to their world before they are captured.
Given I was expecting the absolute worst, the film managed to lift itself above that lowly bar and not bore me to tears within 20 minutes. Also, somewhat surprisingly, there were a couple of times where my preprepared grimace transformed itself into something resembling a smirk. This was in most part down to the performance of Azaria. It's no Oscar worth performance but is probably the highest you can go whilst acting in something that has so specifically be designed for an audience whose age can be counted on one hand. This brings me to my next point...
Why does Hollywood think that just because they are making a film for children that it can forego any form of quality. They seem to take the stance that just because their audience is young no effort will be required to keep them entertained and who cares if it's rubbish as it's only a kid's movie- just fill the screen with bright colours and hey presto instant success. I'm not sure if the fact that they think this represents entertainment or that the public actually accept it as such is more worrying to me.
One thing that slowly ate away at my sanity during The Smurfs is their habit of making sure at least every sentence has the word smurf in it whether it is being used as an insult, during a joke or just replacing a generic word. Most of the time it was used as a tool to get the Smurfs cursing away without affecting the film's U certificate. And if that doesn't worm its way into your head then I challenge even the most anti Smurf amongst you to escape from this film without humming their catchy Smurf tune at least a couple of times after leaving the cinema.
This is Katy Perry's (Smurfette) first major voyage onto the big screen and I was not convinced much like many of the other voices behind the blue faces. I also don't understand why they felt it necessary to squeeze in her singing part of one of her songs either given that it won't make 5 year old go out and download it. The non CGI cast wasn't much better with the casting guys plan to throw in successful TV actors not having the desired effect as they failed to impress in their roles on the big screen. Neil Patrick Harris especially didn't work as the doting husband.
The animation just about held up but there were some points when it became obvious that the actors were interacting with themselves rather than the Smurfs particularly when being held or embraced and at other times the Smurfs looked a bit too fake. I can't understand why, if your going to make yourself a CGI fest Smurf movie, you set it in the real world. I'm sure that it would have been a much more enjoyable film if they had stayed in 'Smurfland' and battled Gargamel there.
As for the story, it was atypical for a children's film keeping the plot quite simple whilst throwing in a sprinkling of slapstick comedy and funny characters to get most of the laughs. I was expecting the adult audience to be completely disengaged but there were some moments that hit the double entendre mark and would have woken the adults whilst flying over the heads of the rest. Don't get me wrong, this is still geared 95% to a kid audience but I was expecting 100% so was pleasantly surprised at the inclusion of a few adult themed jokes.
The only reason you are going to want to pay to see this would be if you've got yourself a couple of kids as they are bound to enjoy. As for the rest of us, although it wasn't a complete waste of time (think Garfield, Alvin and the Chipmunks) I'd rather go and smurf a smurf. (Let your imaginations run wild- answers on a postcard).
Rating: D+ For further reviews feel free to check out: http://www.fanaticalaboutfilms.com
Not only does Hollywood succeed in making a boat-load of money off of
these mangy CGI/live-action films, but they continue to destroy the
warmth, the special qualities, and the simplistic feeling all of these
cartoons had. Alvin and the Chipmunks, Garfield, Scooby-Doo, and Yogi
Bear have all been victims to this new tampering of family films and
now The Smurfs just got smurfed with.
I judge family films by two simple things; will the kids enjoy it and will the parents enjoy it? Very few films take this small rule into consideration, because it's a very hard thing to do. When parents take their children to films, they usually think "two hours of day-dreaming." But it doesn't have to be that way. Some films, like Shrek and Spy Kids will charm adults as well as children. But CGI-ed features like this easily get bogged down by immaturity, lack of imagination, and big name stars doing the roles of animated creatures.
The story is The Smurfs get sucked into New York City and are being chased by some creepy magician/wizard, hunchback named Gargamel (Azaria) who wants to kidnap The Smurfs so he can create gold. Meanwhile, The Smurfs get sucked into the real world and land in the clichéd city of New York. This insults the viewer seeing as every film has to include Chicago, Los Angeles, or New York to be relevant.
So, they get sucked in and go to an advertiser's house where him and his wife (Harris and Mays) live. It doesn't take much before the couple to basically briefly adopt these creatures without asking any questions. If five inch tall blue people wandered in your house would you ask a minute and a half to two minutes worth of questions before welcoming them into your home? Most illogical.
This is the rare case where this family film will please neither the adults or the children. It may bring a brief smile to the children's face, but their smiles will quickly diminish when they discover the film packs a plot amusing for only a few minutes, characters that grow annoying quickly and don't act out of their names (think of a world where people are called by their stereotypes. IE: nerd, geek, Jew, etc and each one acted like they are said to act). Most likely children aged three to five will find some enjoyment in this, but will not likely be able to sit through this ninety-two minute plot.
One character that bothered me was the main villain, Gargamel. His appearance is odd, his actions even odder, and his overall presence is awkward and out of place. He has a sidekick cat who he treats like a piece of meat, and that's one thing I can't and will never be able to condone or go unsaid; I hate animal abuse with a passion. I'm well aware the cat is a CGI creation, but the thought of someone doing this to a cat is inexcusable. This cat is beat to hell throughout this film. It is not funny. It is not clever. It is unnecessary.
Director Raja Gosnell doesn't necessarily have the best filmography out there. He has worked on Home Alone 3, Scooby-Doo and its sequel, Yours, Mine, & Ours, and Beverly Hills Chihuahua. Let those films set the bar for this one.
There are perks. Neil Patrick Harris does the best he can do under the given circumstances. He seems to resent the idea of playing secondhand man to a bunch of non-existing blue people, but does it with a cheery, yet likable persona. Though he can be good, there are parts, like the big climatic point where he begins to hate The Smurfs, that isn't believable. His anger isn't acted out properly, and the whole scene ruins any sympathy or believability for the characters.
Every film can be good, it just needs to be in the right hands, in the right directions, and done with the right cast. The Smurfs could've been good if it wasn't CGI mixed with live-action. It is such an out of place, awkwardly made mix that I believe the only two films that did it and did it well were The Spongebob Squarepants Movie and Who Framed Roger Rabbit? If you're going to make a movie about The Smurfs make it one of two ways (1) entirely CGI or (2) classically animated (recommended by me and the audience of America).
If you think it can't be done, a new-age animated film done in its classic style of animation, watch Winnie the Pooh and tell me I'm wrong.
Starring: Neil Patrick Harris, Jayma Mays, Sofia Vergara, and Hank Azaria. Voiced by: Jonathan Winters, Katy Perry, Anton Yelchin, Frank Welker, Fred Armisen, Alan Cumming, and George Lopez. Directed by: Raja Gosnell.
Watched this with a bunch of kids on New Years Eve, and it was just so
agonizing to suffer through. The attempts at humor didn't even bring a
smile to our faces. As an adult, I have low expectations, but even the
8 year old said "am I supposed to be laughing?"
It's smurftastically, smurfing, horrible. The jokes bludgeon your intelligence, forcing you to try, with grimaces, to feel entertained and amused.
The concept had potential. Cute blue people. Real world. Peril. But it never went anywhere.
I want my buck back from Redbox.
It's no Citizen Kane, but it's good fun for kids and it's a good family
It's basically the film Enchanted, where fairy tale creatures are brought into a modern setting. Only it's with Smurfs.
It was fun seeing Neil Patrick Harris interact with the Smurfs and Hank Azaria is great as Gargamel. And the Smurfs themselves are enjoyable, although most of their humor consists of using the word "Smurf" for everything. However, I don't appreciate vulgar humor in children's film and this movie has a little bit of that. Vulgar humor in kid's movies always seem forced and it's no exception in "Smurfs"
That's basically all I have to say. See it in 3D. It's good family fun. And as a silly family movie I give it a 10. As a film all together, a 3.
Yes, easy the most hyped And worst movie of the year. Who ever hired
the actors needs to be fired. the voices were so bad i wanted to shoot
my self every time "George Lopez" talked. The plot line was something
out of a bad pro communist propaganda film. Not to be an prick but
films like this is why kids in America are so damn stupid, Hell watch
this movie a couple times and it will give you Autism like the damn
1 out of 10 easy.
if i could do 10 lines for this crap film, I would be running for congress. sorry some damn Pop up is blocking my post. saying i have to say more about a movie that is so simple that the pop corn on the floor of a theater would want to take its own life after seeing this Horrible Film.
In the late 1950s, a cartoonist in Belgium by the name of Peyo made a
comic strip that featured small blue creatures. When the United States
of America caught a glimpse of these comic strips from Belgium,
American newspapers translated the strips, and called the little blue
creatures "Smurfs". Then, in the early 1980s, animation pioneers
William Hanna and Joseph Barbera brought the Smurfs to American
television, where it became a huge success. Then, in 1983, we got a
Smurfs movie entitled "The Smurfs and the Magic Flute" where it became
a huge success. Now with the age of computers, Hollywood has delivered
a more digital version of the cartoon in a movie simply known as "The
Smurfs". How does it look and hold up to the original creations of
Peyo? Not smurfing much. The movie is a really bad mix between
live-action and animation that's sure to please kids, but not so much
adults. Hollywood tries to make a modern Smurfs movie, but fails
The plot of the movie centers on the title characters known as the Smurfs. The leader of the Smurfs is Papa Smurf (Jonathan Winters), who looks like a blue Santa Claus, and he must keep things in balance at the time for the festival of the blue moon. But the evil wizard Gargamel (Hank Azaria) tries to capture these Smurfs for their magical power. Luckily, some of the Smurfs, including Grumpy Smurf, Brainy Smurf, Gutsy Smurf, Clumsy Smurf, and Smurfette (the only female Smurf) escape Gargamel and they fall through a portal that lands them in New York City. Here, the Smurfs meet Patrick Winslow (Neil Patrick Harris) and with him, the Smurfs must try to find a way home. Also, Gargamel comes through the portal with his cat Azrael (Frank Welker) to try and catch the Smurfs to let his evil plan fall through.
"The Smurfs" is not a terrible film, but it is just bad. The movie fails at almost every level. While I was watching the film, I found several mistakes that made the movie almost very hard to sit through.
The first problem I had with the movie was that the story was wretched. We've seen the scenario done better in other films, mainly time travel movies, where the main group of characters are from one time period and end up in the future. Now Hollywood is doing this with the Smurfs? You've got to be kidding me.
The second problem that I had with the film is that the casting was just poor. For the live-action part, Neil Patrick Harris was not convincing and not believable as the main lead human character. For the animation segments, George Lopez and Katy Perry did not fit their roles as Grumpy Smurf and Smurfette. In fact, the writers of this film actually managed to sneak in a line from one Katy Perry's songs "I Kissed a Girl" making an obvious pop culture reference that we do not need.
The third problem that I had with the film is that if you look at the animation done on the Smurfs on a TV, it looks pretty good. But when see the animation on the big screen, it looks kind of creepy. In fact, Raja Gosnell, the director behind 2002's "Scooby-Doo" adaptation, and its squeal "Scooby-Doo 2: Monster's Unleashed", could have done a better job at directing this movie.
But my main problem with the film is the pacing. At 1 hour and 33 minutes, the movie felt very quick and almost jumbled in some areas; this holds true especially at the middle of the film. "The Smurfs" had a serious editing problem. If the movie had been shortened by 10 minutes, then it would have worked.
Speaking of things working, is there anything that I liked about the movie? Well, I did enjoy the opening scene showcasing the Smurf village. I also liked Jonathan Winters' performance of Papa Smurf, being that his was the most believable of all the Smurfs. But the big positive note that made the movie work was Hank Azaria's performance as Gargamel. His acting in this movie was bad, no doubt about that, but it was so funny to watch you can't help but laugh at it. Other than that, "The Smurfs" really has nothing going for it.
Overall, "The Smurfs" is a poor effort from Hollywood to cash in on a valuable franchise. To me, there wasn't enough potential to keep me interested. As far as summer movies go, this one smurfed up big time.
|Page 4 of 16:||             |
|Plot summary||Plot synopsis||Ratings|
|Awards||External reviews||Parents Guide|
|Official site||Plot keywords||Main details|
|Your user reviews||Your vote history|