this was a totally enjoyable movie in tom and jerry fashion...all characters were great and the cast had great chemistry...i bet half of the low raters didn't even see this movie and gave it a low rating based on its concept-
shareI've always wondered the same thing ever since I first saw this movie. It rules! It's like a live action cartoon in every way. The cast is perfect and there's enough humor for both kids and adults. I LOVE this movie.
shareHaven't you noticed? That old child comedy movies that are not quite famous are being bash.I loved this movie too
shareI saw this film at Christmas. Prior to watching it, I was extremely sceptical as I had only really previously seen Lee Evans in his awful sit-com. I was pleasantly surprised. In many respects, it was like a modern-day Laurel and Hardy.
However, I suspect that the reason it has been criticised on these boards are two-fold:
1) It is old fashioned slap stick - people seem to either prefer the ultra crude vulgarity of the Farrelly brothers or sharp, intellectual satire these days.
2) Some people have objected to some of the more crude moments in the film. However, I think this is unfair as they were precisely the sorts of things that children will laugh at. For example, go into any playground, and you will hear six year olds giggling at just the mention of the word 'poo'. Kids like disgusting things, and this is primarily aimed at children.
So, to summarise, I think it is a good film, but you can see why people may not like it.
yes...a rating between 6 and 7 sounds justified-
"Don't do drugs, don't have unprotected sex, don't be violent... leave that to me."
I agree completely. I consider myself open to all sorts of humor, so I can appreciate something like Mouse Hunt and then watch a good gross-out comedy and enjoy that as well, and then go for a satirical type of film. I like my humor VERSATILE, heh.
shareI always loved this movie, but it has kind of dark humor and the concept is a little farfetched but it is hilarious...I hope soon the ratings for this movie will go up a lot because it is a really great movie!
shareI agree it's great. When I first saw it when i was about 8, I thought it was the most hillarious thing in the world! Especially that bit at the begining, It was just so funny.
share[deleted]
I always thought it to be comic genius...very few movies made me laugh like this one did. deserves at least a 7.
shareI think it was great fun. I am a big Nathan Lane fan. I thought the movie was well done and a little slapstick is ok. I rated it a 10, not because I liked it that much but it deserves more than a 5.9
shareTHis movie is good for either 5 yr olds, or 35 yr olds...lee evans whimpering is the funniest thing..
share[deleted]
Because 75% of humanity are idiots - ergo, so are movie viewers, who overrated this garbage instead of sending it into the bottom 100, where it belongs.
[deleted]
It should be rated 7.5 - 8. Anyone that can't see the comic genius of it, has no sense of humor. It's a great comedy flick, and way above most of the old time classics that it emulates. (It's most of the imdb amateur reviewers that are idiots).
share I find it interesting that Ive seen Raiders Of The Lost Ark three times and Mousehunt about twelve times in one hour segments. This is what having a two yer old will do to you. I consider myself well informed as far as this movie is concerned and it is pretty good. I agree 5.8 is too low. I'm going to give it at least a 7.2.
Nathan lane is good. I think this is the only movie I've seen him in and I became more impressed the more I watched. The visuals and scenery in the movie were really well done. For some reason the antique nail gun/air compressor was one of the details that impressed me.
This movie isn't comic gold but I own it on VHS and it's really fun just to watch it sometimes. For a few months my answering machine said, "When you hear the beep, start talking."
shareMousehunt had horrible PR. It was advertized so poorly 9 years ago, as almost a home alone-esqe crappy remake. No one expected it to be as clever and quippy as it was, and so no one has given it a fair chance.
Good call with the generational slap-stick comments in the beggining though, this is very laurel and hardy, and as depressing as it sounds, I dont know if too many people appreciate that sort of thing now-a-days. (I sound like an old man...yeesh...but it's true.)
[deleted]
Hm, I have to agree that it deserves better than the low scores it has been given. I gave it a 7 because it deserves a score in the high 6s to low 8s depending on how much you liked it. Everyone has an opinion, but I liked this movie. It wasn't the best I had ever seen, but it wasn't the worst either. I enjoyed the "Tom and Jerry" type of slapstick humor and it had touching scenes after all. I felt a heartwarming sensation at the end of the movie (where it showed what was in the picture frame--don't want to spoil the movie for anyone). I also liked how it had things kids would like and understand and then it had things adults would like and understand. I love Nathan Lane and I love his movies, so I think it deserves better. Besides, who doesn't like a mouse who beats people up? Come on!
shareI gave this film a one because it was boring (to me) and I didn't see any point in it. According to the recommendations, it says if you liked this film, you would like Stuart Little. I'd take Stuart Little any day over this.
shareThis movie IMHO was beautifully done. Lars and Ernie were PERFECT characaters for the part of the two brothers, and Christopher Walken was the perfect character for the exterminator. In my humble opinion this movie deserves higher than a 7.0. A 5.6 is a joke rating for this movie. Even at my age i can get laughs out of this movie, after seeing it dozens of times. This movie is great for any age, thats what makes it one of my favorites.
shareYes, I agree. It does deserve higher score than it has and it's horrible to have the score so low.
shareI will have to say that there is a very big underlying idea here with this movie. After seeing if numerous times over the years (the first when I was 10 now I am 20) I cant help be sense the filmmakers were trying to go for a tale which was timeless in many ways paying a homage of how people lived life circa 1900-1940.
For example Lars and Ernie everyday clothes as well as most of the cast are rather dated as in something business men would wear back in the 1930’s. Lars and Ernie’s car could easily be circa 1940’s or earlier. When the town mayor ends up choking on Ernie’s dinner reporters use old style cameras to capture his reaction. When Lars is propositioned by the Zeppco salesmen the salesmen accents, demeanor and dress are clearly a homage to gangsters from the 1920’s or 1930’s. Lars and Ernie’s mansion seems it has not been inhabited since the 1940’s given the tin cans, appliances, furniture and newspaper shreds left behind. When Ernie is working at the street side dinner its style is very reminiscent of old style dinners from decades before.
It also seems the film makers inserted some very modern day things as well. The scene where Lars is fighting with his girlfriend shows her house to be very modern both inside and outside. When Ernie and Lars go to the animal pound a modern security camera can be seen. Also some of the prospective buyers at the end of the film ride away in cars that are very new.
Overall I feel the painstakingly creative feel of this film was impossible to appreciate given its target audience being young children. Obviously quite a few jokes were lost on the younger generation and were definitely funny if you were old enough to understand them. Yes Indeed this feel is definitely underrated because so much more could have been made out of it. There is definitely an underlying feel of maturity in this film billed as a kids comedy.