User Reviews

This family is so poor that Tom's father (a very practical man) decides that his five sons should be taken into the forest and left there to be devoured by wolves. There's an ogre in the forest too that Tom fears, but Tom's father says "Be more afraid of a failed harvest, for then we have nothing to eat".

The ogre is a terrifying individual of gigantic proportions and huge teeth. His savage roar is so loud the earth seems to shudder. Although the brothers are chased by wolves, their flight from the ogre is far more terrifying. The most exciting part of the film takes us to a craggy mountain where the brothers stumble up among the sharp and slippery rocks attempting to escape from the ferocity of the ogre. As they slip and slide we fear that at any moment they will drop to their deaths from a mountain ledge.

Because Tom is small he often has to do the dirty work such as crawling through tiny apertures. Despite his small stature, Tom seems the bravest of the lot. And when he gets hold of the magical seven league boots, he literally takes flight.

The sets and lighting complement the telling of the fairy tale. There is a surreal feel about the whole presentation. Photographic images are super-imposed in rapid succession with the boys screaming and the ogre roaring. We cannot see the detail but we know full well that a terrible struggle is taking place.

I am not sure that young children should watch this film. When the ogre gives the brothers shelter for the night and orders his wife to cook them for breakfast, it is to say the least very unsettling. For grown-ups it is a stark reminder of our early days and explains perhaps why so many of us are afraid of the dark.

A totally silly movie that seems to have no idea what is its target audience. It's too violent for a kid's movie, and too stupid to be an adult one. Yes, the painted backdrops are fantastic, but that's about really all that this movie has going for it.

The ogre in his Hannibal Lector mask is an insult to viewers in this high-tech age. The little ogresses are hilarious, and I'm sure that that was unintentional.

I'm trying to watch as many "foreign" (non-Hollywood, I guess) films as I can these days, to try to get some variety of film-making styles. Many are good. This one was not.

Le petit poucet is a great french adaptation of the classic tale. What really makes it stand out are the beautiful backgrounds and sceneries. Each scene is like a painting. This makes watching 'Le petit poucet' like reading the fairy tale accompanied by beautiful drawings. But there's more: this movie actually knows what a fairy tale originally was: a pretty dark and scary story for adults. This makes that 'Le petit poucet' isn't really suited for young children but grown-ups like myself who have read the story as a child will be excited and enchanted when they see how director Olivier Dahan has adapted it for the big screen. A must-see for fans of fairy tales and fantasy films alike!

Le Petit Poucet is disappointing on many levels. Firstly, although it seemingly adheres to the original Perrault tale, it pads it out adding unnecessary details and the ogre is frankly ridiculous (looking more like a warhammer character than a traditional mythical creature).

Secondly the quality of the film is well below that of a film made in 2001 (the same year that the technically adventurous Amélie was released). The set design is unrealistic and the special effects are mostly terrible. To compare this to the work of Tim Burton is fairly adventurous. The sets in Burton's work are far more surreal, but realistic than those found here. Although I realise that Jeunet and Burton are big time producers, and that Le Petit Poucet was a little more tightly budgeted, I would have preferred to see a more simpler, more honest representation.

This film would work much better as a theatre production, and it is true that the fairy tale is generally a fairly theatrical genre, but this to me, seems more like an amateur production of A Midsummer Night's Dream.

Recently bought this film on dvd blindly and the film turned out pretty good. It's a bit short but then again the story it is based on was a short one. Overall an entertaining film plenty of theater-like visual backgrounds, good sfx and even the acting of the kids is good. The kid who play Anakin Skywalker can learn from these french kid actors. Íf you like fantasy, check this one out!

Did you know that before Victorian moralists got to it, the wicked sisters in 'Cinderella' had their their toes and heels cut off in order to fit into the slipper?

Fairy Tales are supposed to be intense and often truly frightening, not just placating and cute. They once performed an important psychological role in helping children through difficult transitional issues. Is it just coincidence that since we have sanitised these children's stories, there is a massive demand for ADULT horror stories?

Forgive the preamble, but it seemed necessary to explain why the 2001 French production of 'Tom Thumb' is not an aberration, but more of a return to roots. In 'Tom Thumb', the Ogre is genuinely terrifying; there is real poverty, heartbreak, death and oh yeah, a fair bit of oedipal stuff, which is also totally traditional.

Don't be scared off, though. 'Tom Thumb' isn't THAT gruesome. I think such reactions merely stem from the fact that we're accustomed to fairy tales being Disneyfied to the point of absurdity.

'Tom Thumb' is colourful, atmospheric and gripping. There are moments of real desolation, excitement, fear and enchantment. Nearly all of the scenes are shot in studio sets using backlit backdrops, creating a sense of super-reality, saturated with wild colours. In fact, ironically, the use of colour in 'Tom Thumb' is very cartoonish. The Ogre's castle appears against a blood-red sky. At other times the sky is saturated with intense mixtures of colour which nuance the emotion of the scenes. It is often, quite simply, beautiful. At other times it is richly atmospheric and brooding.

I can't think of anything bad to say about 'Tom Thumb'. The French have a real knack of turning out children's films, and films about children, which are genuinely magical to an adult audience (check out 'The City of Lost Children', for instance).

A strong 8 out of 10, and bravo!

This is a 'children's film that I highly recommend. It is a dark film but mature children will understand it and yes, enjoy it as well. It is very well done at I can confidently compare it to films such as Ridley Scott's Legend (Le Petit is a better film) and the cinema of Tim Burton. It is a very well created dream/fairy land that is presented in the film with realistic touches though. The ogre scenes are pretty frightening and realistic. The actress who plays the ogre's wife was memorable and pretty in a dark way. She is an attractive woman and why she would want to marry an ogre is beside me (maybe she was forced into the situation). Anyway, If you are a fan of fantasy/Tim Burton cinema go out and rent/buy this film. It is not for all children (kind of on the level of Edward Scissorhands). I rented this film and I look forward to purchasing within the near future.

It was the second time Perrault's fairytale had been tranferred to the screen,in the wake of Demy's wonderful "Peau d'Ane " , Michel Boisrond tried his luck with "le petit poucet" (1972) with mixed results .

The sun King's reign was a hard time for the humble;famine would often run rampant,particularly in 1793-1794 .Charles Perraut (1628-1703) lived in those troubled times ,and although disguised as fairy tales ,his stories reflected the realities of the era ; the "little riding rood" ending was sweetened when told to the children ;the moral was :"to eat or to be eaten" ; that's the story of le petit poucet (aka "Hop On My Thumb" aka " Tom thumb ") ; parents would often abandon their children (babies were found in the churches ;Saint Vincent De Paul founded the "foundlings hospital " and reportedly saved 600 children ).

Unlike Boisrond's screenplay ,which blended two stories (adding the story of a royal family with their daughter poisoned with protection) , Dahan's movie only kept the main plot and opted for Perrault's alternate ending ,which allows us to catch a glimpse of Catherine Deneuve ,the special guest star ,as a pacifist queen (unlike the writer's king who used his royal messenger to win the wars ).

All the scenes when the animals intervene are rather successful but,as the story was too short ,it had to be fleshed out to become a feature film ; then the worst sides of Olivier Dahan ( primarily a video director ;his only strong film being "la môme " ,aka "la vie en rose ,an Edith Piaf who owed a lot to oscar-winning Marion Cotillar) surface : would be realistic plunder scenes and "the man-with -the iron-leg " interventions make the movie look like a video game .

And why not an ogre with a human face? Jean -Pierre Marielle rose up to the occasion in 1972 ,in spite of an inevitable overplaying ;here the ogre looks like Darth Vader and the chase in the mountain with claps of thunder and flashes is clearly inspired by Disney's "Snow White and the seven dwarves".

The best of this curate's egg remains the pictures in the forest ,with sometimes splendid color ,and the harsh moral "to eat or to be eaten " is better applied when the wolves are howling in the night and in the surprising moment when Poucet forces himself to eat a snail (a French gourmet dish now).