Well, it’s not in verse, but you have to love the New York Times’ rave review: " . . . a vulgar, uninspired lump of poisoned eye candy . . . scarcely a moment of genuine laughter in the mercifully brief 78 minutes . . . a grueling, chaotic stew of forced whimsy . . . like a noisemaker wielded by a drunken birthday-party clown desperate to prevent his cranky audience from showing signs of boredom . . . this Cat should be tied up in a sack and drowned . . . “Make that cat go away! Tell that cat in the hat you do not want to play.”
I wonder what the NY Times reviewer REALLY thought.
Great imagery, though:
“like a noisemaker wielded by a drunken birthday-party clown desperate to prevent his cranky audience from showing signs of boredom”
I can’t imagine how anyone thought this movie would be anything but dreadful.
While I’ve never been a big fan of Jim Carrey, I have enjoyed some of his films and he was funny on “In Living Color”. But his part in the rape-and-pillaging of the Grinch has pretty much turned me against him for the rest of my life. I hope the flop of this film will put and end to more Dr Suess “adaptations”.
The McDonalds rhyming adds kill me also. I’m sure that Dr. Seuss wanted his books aimed at helping kids to be used to pimp fast food that is pretty bad for anyone. And I’m sure he’d have wanted them to ape his style while doing it. Hey, maybe next they can use a John Lennon song in a sneaker commercial. Remind me to burn all of my art after I die.
Mind you, I think Myers is good at what he does, but what he does is pretty limited.
When I saw, in the recent ads, the Cat in the Hat performing standard comedy schticks such as DiD (Dressing in Drag), GWitN (Getting Whacked in the Nards), and MICAC (Making Inappropriate Comments Around Children), it became clear that I wouldn’t be needing to see this movie. If anything, I expect it’ll be worse than Grinch. That one had its moments, though it wasn’t good either. I don’t think Myers’ take on Cat in the Hat will be anything but warmed-over Myers material. The previews I’ve seen and the reviews I’ve read have done nothing to convince me otherwise.
My wife and I, avid Dr. Seuss fans, will likely boycott this film.
I would not watch it in a boat!
I would not watch it with a goat!
I would not watch it in a tree!
I would not watch it with a bee!
I would not watch it there or here!
[quote]
Wasn’t Dr. Seuss a cranky old bastard who hated kids?
[/quotes]
Makes sense. He’s trying to correct what he see as wrong with kids these days. The Seuss stuff was created to help solve what was seen as a deficit in the education of children. The fact that this stuff sprung from a man who wasn’t happy with the way kids were turning out isn’t that surprising. Doesn’t mean that he would be happy that his art and images are being used to promote a very unhealthy food source. The whole thing was centered around helping to correct a public concern (the lack of proper education in children) after all. I don’t think that using that material for the purpose of pimping something that is a big part of an unhealthy lifestyle. I may be wrong of course, but I’d be surprised.
[quote]
Wasn’t Dr. Seuss a cranky old bastard who hated kids?
[/quotes]
Makes sense. He’s trying to correct what he see as wrong with kids these days. The Seuss stuff was created to help solve what was seen as a deficit in the education of children. The fact that this stuff sprung from a man who wasn’t happy with the way kids were turning out isn’t that surprising. Doesn’t mean that he would be happy that his art and images are being used to promote a very unhealthy food source. The whole thing was centered around helping to correct a public concern (the lack of proper education in children) after all. I don’t think that using that material for the purpose of pimping something that is a big part of an unhealthy lifestyle would have gone over to well while he was alive. I may be wrong of course, but I’d be surprised. Why didn’t they make these movies when he was alive?
Damn, I blew that post twice. Ignore those. Let’s try one more time:
Makes sense. He was trying to correct something he saw as being wrong with kids ‘these days’. The Seuss stuff was created to help solve what was seen as a deficit in the education of children. The fact that this stuff sprung from a man who wasn’t happy with the way kids were turning out isn’t that surprising. Doesn’t mean that he would be happy that his art and images are being used to promote a very unhealthy food source. The whole thing was centered around helping to correct a public concern (illiteracy in children) after all. I don’t think that using that material for the purpose of pimping something that is a big part of an unhealthy lifestyle would have gone over to well while he was alive. I may be wrong of course, but I’d be surprised. I wonder why they didn’t make these movies when he was alive?
The whole thing sprung from a desire to fight against illiteracy, so I very much doubt that the same material being used to advertise for a company that is a big part of the obesity problem (another public well being issue) would have been kosher. Especially since obesity in kids is a very real problem these days.
The Cat in the Hat-Oh, those silly reviewers!
They think that this cat should go back to the sewers. This Catholic review rhymes too, and I think this guys’
Seussian tribute’s much better than the LA Times tries.
I’m sure there are more. (Hey, there couldn’t be less.)
I agree with you Eve, the New York Times’ guess
Of the quality is quite a funny ol’ note.
I’ll break out of the rhyme and I’ll add in a quote:
I think you can see that, no need to explain,
Ol’ Theo S. Geisel has entered my brain.
I have to stop soon while I am still alive,
So I guess I will stop here now. -m85
