Great movie, lame reviews...

Nope, No spam here, My name is Jamie Fuller (jamiefuller.com or even google my name!). I was in no way shape or form linked to this film and a quick look at my website will show that I'm a real, albeit slightly strange, person.

Why can some people not understand that even though THEY don't like something that it can still be good? Especially when THEY are not the target audience?...Last time I looked, the sun was the center of the universe...not you, and whilst some of the comments are very valid about the film , they are a touch sensitive considering the actual target audience.

When I'm driving in my car, my daughter loooooves to listen to britney spears, I hate her with a passion (Britney not my daughter!), however, I allow my daughter her pleasure as it keeps her happy. Whilst I can see Britney is a talentless boob-job, that doesn't change the fact that she entertains my daughter and given the choice between renting 'Shawshank' and 'Crossroads' on a saturday afternoon, when the kids are driving me potty, its gonna be 'Crossroads' that wins everytime. When reviewing a Kiddie-flik these are things the reviewers need to consider.

Ok, I DID work on the movie, I was the cameraman. So you can say I have an axe to grind here, however I would like to think I'm being fairy (ok fairly)objective when I support this picture.I can back up another comment on the message board site for TOOTH, that Ed Nammour, the director, is a most accomplished, talented and all round good bloke, and I very much enjoyed working with him. I think the movie has many faults and sadly I cant stand outside every cinema and apologise for them, offering a VERY SMALL budget as the excuse that resulted in those problems. However I have attended many screenings, largely with young kids, who HAVE appeared to enjoy the film greatly. Special effects are, these days, fantastically accomplished, clever and super credible, but at a great cost. Low to nothing budget movies have so much to compete with when attempting to satisfy sophisticated audiences. Happily young kids can still get a kick out of economically produced pictures.

im gonna fall for your puppet Edward_Mcpirate ,30dirtybirds whpo incedently is a puppet of several other people who must be the same person. The writing style is all the same.

"Of course Jesus was black; he called everyone brother,liked gospel and couldn't get a fair trial"

why can no-one like a film without being accused of being involved in it

Because most of the user reviews and comments on this board have been shared with us by some sad case who is shilling for the film, or as we film geeks like to say, PLANT!!!!!

You look in a dustbin for something to eat
You find a dead rat and think it's a treat
In your Liverpool slums!

why can no-one like a film without being accused of being involved in it.

Ordinarily, one can, but sadly the IMDb message board for this particular film is inhabited by some poor, unfortunate soul with severe paranoid delusions. There might even be more than one such poor, unfortunate soul, as the number of user names suggests, but you know, the writing style is all the same... ;)

Oh no, wait. It would be paranoia if they thought everyone was against them. But in this case, several people are against them, and the delusion is that they're not - or, at least, that only one person is. So it seems like rather the opposite of paranoia, in a way. I wonder if there's a term for it...

Okay, you can tell I'm not a psychiatrist. But perhaps we should find one before this individual gets too far out of control, if it's not already too late... ;)

it may not be the matrix

And thank God for that! The Matrix was utter bilge. The special effects may have been impressive, but they're just superficial decorations. What really matters in a film are the characters, the plot, the script, and the messages it leaves you with. The Matrix was full of unsympathetic characters, plot holes, philosophical clichés, and a message of Ludditism, anarchy, and amorality.

Tooth, on the other hand, was just great fun. :) Yes, it had its flaws, but to me they just reminded me that the people making it were, after all, only human. And that's not such a bad thing. ;) I loved Harry Enfield's performance as a pantomime baddie, and the children - Yasmin Paige, Rory Copus, and Maisie Preston, I mean - were all brilliant. Richard E. Grant and Stephen Fry were... well, they were in it. I think that's about as much as can be said of their performances, but what the heck. Just their being in it was enough. :)

There were also imaginative ideas, interesting sets, a few genuinely funny lines, and some nice, positive sentiments about selflessless, and following one's dreams, and all that sort of thing. What more do you need from a film? :)

This film is not good... Rory Copus gets annoyed when i talk to him about it.
His acting was very talented though

You can still say it's a bad film though. Whether your kids enjoyed it or not :)

I'm 39 and found it a great deal of fun for really young kids (maybe between 5 - 9 years old). They even hid the name of the actor playing Santa Claus in the credits: it reads "Santa Claus Himself", how cool is that? Hehehehe