Linbeymusol Wonderful character development!

ReaderKenka Let's be realistic.

Borgarkeri A bit overrated, but still an amazing film

Fairaher The film makes a home in your brain and the only cure is to see it again.

mcintoshalyssa24 I honestly like this Mimi-Siku better in this version. In two versions (Little Indian Big City "Un Indien Dans la ville) and Jungle 2 Jungle- the characters had different personalities. 1. First shot we see of the character walking in the jungle, canoing in the river, shooting a iguana with a bow and arrow and shooting a rocket that's self destructing (which the beginning of Mimi in the Disney film was a little different) 2.In most scenes when Mimi wears that loincloth his face is always painted (only part when he doesn't have the painted red on his face is when he wears clothes. (That was unlike the Mimi in the Disney version when he wore the loincloth and all, his face was not painted). 3. On Mimi's first visit to Paris, he actually wears clothes but is still barefooted despite wearing a loincloth all his life-I guess they wouldn't allow a kid to go around half-naked in a city (even though on Mimi's first visit to New York, he was still in loincloth) 5. Some scenes Mimi wears the headband, some scenes he doesn't. 6. How Mimi spoke (if you heard him in the English dub) was like a real Indian. He didn't speak like he was educated French/English. He said Paliku taught it to him. Some would say that is how a 2 1/2 year old kid would've talked. "Me do this-you do that." 7. Mimi is never emotional in most of the scenes. The English dubbed version he says to his dad at the airport "Me no cry. Me a man." Even a man can cry and have emotions-but never in his tribe. But it's kind of cute the way some kids say that "Me not scared. Me a grown-up. Me no cry. Me a grown-up."

Wizard-8 When it was released in the United States, "Little Indian, Big City" received a lot of brutal reviews; critics Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert, among others, declared it as one of the worse movies they had ever seen. Is the movie really one of the worst ever made? No - it isn't aggressive in its badness as the worst movies out there. But all the same, it's still a pretty bad movie. It's biggest problem is that it's not the least bit funny, with juvenile gags that even kids won't laugh at. But it's also incompetent in its execution, with scenes that seem to be missing or key footage in scenes that are there missing. It doesn't help that the English dubbing is badly done, making the characters speak in awkward English in an attempt to match the lip movements. The American remake of this movie ("Jungle 2 Jungle") is an improvement - but not by much.

johnrec Gee, I guess I should be embarrassed, but I liked this movie. It's sort of an ultra-lightweight comic version of François Truffaut's "Wild Child"...the adults are appropriately silly, the boy is a charmer, the girl is cute, the climb of the Eiffel Tower is pretty spectacular and the movie ends well for everyone. The Russian bad-guys and some of the treatment of animals (birds!) make the movie a little heavy for young kids, but overall the film is far more effective than the Disney remake, where the boy is too old and the adults don't really make much sense, even for a comedy.

ann-44 This movie is supposed to be funny, but I didn´t laugh once. The story is about a man who´s getting a divorce so that he can finally marry he´s girlfriend.He learns that he´s ex wife now lives in South america and decides to go there to get those divorce papers.There he learns that he has a son who grew up with the indians and now asks his father to bring him to Paris where the father lives. The story could have been funny in a way,but it isn`t.The son is climbing the Eiffel tower and the father pays more attention to his work and his strange wife-to-be is just interested in her New-age guru.This is NOT a comedy.Don´t waste your money.Spend them on a Paul Hogan movie instead!