Q: First of all the movie, is an ingenious work of art(movie). The plot was filled with surprises, a little kid pretends to be a grown up inherits one million dollars and how he spends it. I mean how whacked out is this. Walt Disney really outdid themselves this time. The comedy is most of the times expected but the other times unexpected. I mean was this movie OK or was this movie OK. It also teaches a lot about wise youths and I this kid is really wise and a bit time smart pants. But also it sucks. How the heck could a guy like that kid get a hot police babe and his dad let him go free. That's like let a killer get bailed free for ten years. If I were to do that I'd get beaten with a 'suble jack'(a huge stick that stings when used to bench your butts really hard). That kid is really lucky. Back to the story. The movie makers really knew what they were doing when they made this movie but still it's not perfect. The acting was good and bad. The kid and woman had no chemistry neither did the father but the bros were excellent'. The special effects on the other hand was lame. Plus this movie isn't based on reality. I hated and loved it at the same time.
A: positive
Q: Ah, true memories. I lived in Holland at the time and looked eagerly forward to it every Sunday evening and later Tuesdays. I saw it during my 14-16s. Very good for my (at the time school-)English, as Dutch TV provides subtitles for other languages, except for kiddies shows nowadays. So you would hear the original voices and language. - The best series were the first three ones and then after the third series, the great character, Nazi Von Gelb, who was such a formidable enemy, disappeared from the series (I don't think they ever really caught him, he always escaped, leaving room to have him appear again in a next story) because evidently the series also was distributed to Germany, and a Nazi enemy wouldn't go over very well! Too bad, because Geoffrey Toone did such a wonderful convincing job of portraying the intelligent Nazi aristocrat, who had this ongoing obsession to take revenge on England. It was a true delight to see this kind of high quality performance in a youth series, but Ronald Leigh-Hunt was a good counterpart and the youngsters were so normal. They were very believable to me at the time and as a kid I could just imagine to be part of these youngsters, who at the time were about four years older than me. It was a very exciting series to me, standing out in my memory of those times as a special show with "the Prisoner" as well. I hope they will publish a good quality DVD of the series, that would be wonderful. Even the bad copies around are still enjoyable to watch. The later series were not as good, watered down and just not as much fun as the first three. Hopefully they also find the other series with Von Gelb to be put on DVD. Greetings from Canada.
A: positive
Q: There is no possible reason I can fathom why this movie was ever made.

Why must Hollywood continue to crank out one horrible update of a classic after another? ( Cases in point: Mister Magoo, The Avengers - awful! )

Christopher Lloyd, whom I normally enjoy, was so miserably miscast in this role. His manic portrayal of our beloved "Uncle Martin" is so unspeakably unenjoyable to be almost criminal. His ranting, groaning, grimacing and histrionics provide us with no reason to care for his character except as some 1 dimensional cartoon character.

The director must have thought that fast movements, screaming dialogue and "one-take" slapstick had some similarity to comedy. Apparently he told EVERY ACTOR to act as if they had red ants in their pants.

Fault must lie with the irresponsibly wrought script. I think the writer used "It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World" as an example of a fine comedy script. As manic as that 1963 classic is, it is far superior to this claptrap - in fact - suddenly it looks pretty good in comparison.

What is most sad about this movie is that it must have apparently been written to appeal to young children. I just am not sure whose children it was made for. Certainly no self-respecting, card-carrying child I know!

If they HAD to remake "My Favorite Martian", why didn't they add some of the timeless charm of the original classic?

Unfortunately, IMDB.com cannot factor in "zero" as a rating for its readers, that is the only rating that comes to mind in describing this travesty.

One good thing did come from this movie, the actors and crew were paid - I think.
A: negative
Q: While I can't deny that his movies are often entertaining, I have always personally felt that Martin Scorsese is just a little overrated in his abilities. His use of flashy stylistics in a good number of his movies seems to scream "Look at me, aren't I an imaginative director?". His best film that I have seen is the one with the least added flourishes, the superlative "Raging Bull".

For this remake it appears it was business as usual, though. The dull film stock to convey a 1950's setting was so bland as to be a distraction in itself. The melodramatic close-ups combined with the sub-par imitation of the classic "Psycho" score are more likely to provoke smirks of derision than a sense of atmospheric terror. The score for "Psycho" was brilliantly unnerving, this 'homage' just sounds shrill and annoying. Even the cast, who can be decent at times, deliver histrionic performances that just scream 'caricature'; the notable exception to this being an intelligent turn by Lewis as the impressionable teenage daughter of the Bowden family.

The worst acting offender here is surprisingly De Niro. Sure, he looks suitably menacing but as soon as he opens his mouth that aura just drains away. Now I'm no expert on American accents, me originally coming from near Manchester in England an' all, but surely he could've come up with a more convincing Southern drawl than that? Being the gifted physical actor he is, he almost overcomes this fatal flaw, but not quite. It was disconcerting for me, as a De Niro fan, to be wishing he was off screen, rather than rapt at his performance.

(POSSIBLE SPOILERS.)

The over-the-top style of the whole movie extends to the ridiculously overblown finale. When will Scorsese learn that underplaying the situation can sometimes build tension just as effectively as giving the viewer a visual and sonic bombardment? I also thought that he was too respected a reputation to resort to the 'killer-not-dead-yet' cheap trick that less talented individuals might employ.

All in all, a thoroughly ridiculous 'thriller'. Scorsese and De Niro have done MUCH better work together.
A: negative