Top 250? Not hardly. Let's have some PERSPECTIVE!

Rating: 4/10 (29 June 2002)

Film was OK. But there was ZERO acting (one of the ingredients of good film). There was ZERO direction, the plot was stock, the talent was all in computer CGI. Eventually we will all be replaced by computers, does that mean that art starts first? This film does not deserve being in the top 250 films, saying otherwise does great discredit to actors, directors, and screenwriters everywhere. It was CUTE, but let's not get carried away. Get out more and see some CINEMA, people!