Warner Bros. Pictures | Release Date: August 21, 2009
3.6
USER SCORE
Generally unfavorable reviews based on 29 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
6
Mixed:
8
Negative:
15
WATCH NOW
Stream On
Stream On
Review this movie
VOTE NOW
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Check box if your review contains spoilers 0 characters (5000 max)
0
BridgetASep 8, 2009
This film was, WITHOUT ANY DOUBT, the worst film I have ever seen in my point. It was puerile, pointless and a cynical bid to make some easy last minute cash at the end of the summer. It had no redeeming features whatsoever. Even my 6 year This film was, WITHOUT ANY DOUBT, the worst film I have ever seen in my point. It was puerile, pointless and a cynical bid to make some easy last minute cash at the end of the summer. It had no redeeming features whatsoever. Even my 6 year old thought it was pointless and stupid. Absolute rubbish. Expand
1 of 1 users found this helpful
5
RickASep 15, 2009
This was one of those that was just o k. I did not like or dislike this movie. Worth the money is a question only you can answer after seeing this one.
3 of 4 users found this helpful
1
MRSep 8, 2009
If any bona fide film "critic" gave this film a favorable review, he/she is clearly being paid to do so by the studio. This movie is downright awful.
0 of 1 users found this helpful
2
ShawnPAug 24, 2009
Random and pointless.
0 of 1 users found this helpful
4
ChadS.Aug 23, 2009
"Shorts" might be headache-inducing, but that's only if you're old enough to have seen "The Goonies"(the Richard Donner-directed film which had some film critics reaching for the Tylenol, or revolver) in its original theatrical "Shorts" might be headache-inducing, but that's only if you're old enough to have seen "The Goonies"(the Richard Donner-directed film which had some film critics reaching for the Tylenol, or revolver) in its original theatrical run, because more likely than not, moppets and sprouts are going to love the Booger Monster like how the ogre-like creature from the 1985 Steven Spielberg-produced summer blockbuster kept the analog generation in thrall. Presented as a series of linked stories, needless to say, "Shorts" has no aspirations to be literary(like Ernest Hemingway's short story collection, also linked, "In Our Time"), but that doesn't mean this CGI-laden film is completely devoid of sophistication. In the prologue, a bully picks up a rainbow colored stone, then hurls it at Toe Thompson(Jimmy Bennett), who promptly falls from a tree. The multi-hued piece of mineral matter just happened to be lying there, without explanation. Also in the prologue, Toe's friend Loogie(Trevor Gagnon) has a relentless supply of objects(which are identified as chocolate bars in another story) pouring out from both pockets; again, at that juncture, without any justifying cause. By some fluke, the unofficial prologue of "Shorts" shares with Ernest Hemingway's first short story collection, a stylistic decision to present its narrative without exposition. Although not for one second is this tiresome film the least bit engrossing, as family entertainments go, however, "Shorts" differs in that the story unravels non-linearly, which may provide young moviegoers with the dexterity to enjoy sequentially-challenged films such as Christopher Nolan's "Memento" and Jill Sprecher's "13 Conversations About One Thing", when they grow up. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
ScottG.Aug 24, 2009
Even the kids got bored at some points.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
corpepDec 20, 2010
not worth seeing . so a magic rock , big deal . if i could rewind time i would not see it . everybody was booing . i understand . it is like unwashed ripped shorts !
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
ZilcellMay 26, 2012
The shorts out of order thing is obviously a weird gimmick to attempt to make it seem cooler. It does get a little out of hand, but my family found it to be pretty fun to watch
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
5
monkeyshiner444Nov 10, 2011
All that I could say is that it was just OK because the story was OK, the acting was OK and the whole rest of the movie was just OK. There was nothing GREAT about this movie and there was not anything BAD.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
3
FreedomFightersNov 21, 2016
Yeahhh...no. After "Spy Kids 3D: Game Over" and "The Adventures of Sharkboy and Lavagirl" were poorly received, Robert Rodriguez was determined to give it another go with "Shorts," but unfortunately, he didn't really do a great job with it.Yeahhh...no. After "Spy Kids 3D: Game Over" and "The Adventures of Sharkboy and Lavagirl" were poorly received, Robert Rodriguez was determined to give it another go with "Shorts," but unfortunately, he didn't really do a great job with it. While the idea of a number of short films combining into one story might seem like a great idea, the film itself just isn't very charming, funny, or entertaining at all. And while the film seems to be aiming at children, I'm sure children might even find themselves getting bored by this film. In all honesty, I really hope that in 2009, if your kids really wanted to see a live-action "kiddy film," you took them to "Aliens in the Attic" instead, because at least that movie was competent. "Shorts" is incredibly bland, and unless you feel like torturing yourself a lot, or need some kind of kid's film for "Bad Movie Night," make it a point to ignore this film. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
2
RayzorMooseNov 16, 2013
Shorts is far too long.
The movie is absolutely terrible, horrible kids movie, and just awful in general. The script is bad, the acting is bad, and the entire premise is just terrible.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
5
CineAutoctonoDec 19, 2015
Children have their own history , but they get a stone short , hatching so embarrassing , or not put as a story , rather short , but the script is so fun , the same special effects to movies "Spy Kids" but very damaged the plot
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
4
EpicLadySpongeMay 11, 2016
This was actually a movie? I swear, in any circumstances, I was reading it going in theaters back in 2009 when I saw a commercial of this on television (probably forgot when and how). Now there's possibly no way that this film can still existThis was actually a movie? I swear, in any circumstances, I was reading it going in theaters back in 2009 when I saw a commercial of this on television (probably forgot when and how). Now there's possibly no way that this film can still exist up to this day. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews