"I am the Lorax, and speak for the trees,
And for the grand Big Mac here at Mickey D’s!
The world will be wrong, and we’ll all roam and ramble
UNLESS…you clean with things from Proctor and Gamble.
They’re fancy and cleansing and work like a breeze,
And they’re pretty much harmless to Truffula Trees!"
My son wanted to see it, and I of course, had to see it with him.
He actually liked it (I wonder about that kid)
I hated it.
Alec Baldwin sucks, big time!(he also sneezed purple gooze)
It was disjointed without much of a coherant plot.
Theres a cameo by Paris Hilton.
Thing 1 and 2 look hideous!
Hows THAT for a review?
The always entertaining Walter Chaw at filmfreakcentral.net says:
"The only case that could be made for The Cat in the Hat is as some sort of black satire meant to punish well-meaning parents for being dumb enough to believe that the wit, intelligence, and useful anxiety of the Seuss source material could ever be honoured in this format with this creative team. "
Doesn’t it bother anyone else that the Cat in the Hat bears a striking and terrifying resemblance to Jack Nicholson as The Joker in “Batman”?
Christ, that did it for me. What else needs to be said?
Okay … I took the bullet on this one for you. At least half of it because my son started having an outburst and we had to leave early. I think now that he possibly did me a favor.
Parts of this were just painful to watch. The entire show was plotted WAY too heavily, sucking all of the original simple charm from the original story. Myers sounded like he was trying to channel Bert Lahr as the cowardly lion. Badly. And the parts of the movie I did see seemed to be trying for more adult, almost frat-boy “Animal House” type humor.
The only really good part was the way they did the opening Universal, Dreamworks, and Imagine logos in the red, white and blue Dr. Seuss styles. That was clever. And there was one hilarious sequence whith the Cat doing an infomercial for a cupcake maker, but again, it seemed to be directed to more adult tastes.
Anyone taking their kids to see this thinking they’re going to see something along the preschool lines of the book are going to be really dissappointed. As was I.
There is - with gross things flying out of his mouth.
Overall, if you allow yourself to forget the “real” Cat in the Hat , the movie comes out like Austin Powers for 8 year olds.
Take every character Myers has ever done and roll them into one, cover it with black fur, and keep it from explicitly saying anything vulgar (although indirect references are frequently used), and you get this Cat in the Hat.
While I watched it, there were a lot of stupid things I laughed at. After it was over, I found myself thinking something was wrong.
I took my 7 year old nephew to this stinker on saturday night. His parents wanted him out of the house so his 15 year old sister could have some friends - including a Sadie Hawkins Day date, over without him bugging them.
He seemed to enjoy it, but didn’t have much to say about it afterwards. As we were walking out of the theater, he was more interested in the arcade, and in asking me if I would take him to see Looney Tunes (which he’s already seen).
I thought there was way too much Mike Myers in the character and not enough actual “fun” in the movie.
And really, what good can you say about a film with an appearance by Paris Hilton? Thank the Gods that they at least didn’t allow her to speak.
I haven’t seen it, but from what I’ve heard, it’s clear that the filmmakers don’t know Thing One about Thing 2.
and we coul’ve gone to Looney Tunes.
But my son wanted to.
My taste is obviously better than his!
He wants to go see Shreck 2.
Easy with the jumping and the conclusions. I never said that they were solely responsible, that the parents/guardians of these children are without blame, nor that the children themselves are without a part in this. I simply said that the fast food industry is a big part as well. One need only look to the latest KFC adds (now pulled) to see that these companies are up to no good. Fast fiood, for the most part, is pretty unhealthy. It’s Ok once and a while, but as the cornerstone of a diet it sucks. Obesity is a complex problem involving many factors - one of which is a careless fast food industry. I’m not even saying that these places should be banned. Lately, I’m more of the opinion that spending should factor in environmental/health costs. So burning fuel should have an environmental tax, and serving unhealthy food should have some sort of medical-related tax. In this way the market (a very effective tool) can be used to realistically represent the true cost of things. That’s as much as I’ll say outside of the pit or GD, but this hijack is not all that far off base. The commercializing of this property has alot to do with the subject at hand, as do the industries (like movie reviewers!) who are exploiting them, as well as similar products and companies engaging in similar behaivior. It’s not really got the heat for a rant, and it often seems to me that a reasonable amount of civil discussion/debate is tolerated. It seem particularly appropriate considering that the writer wrote anti-consumerism related material like the Lorax.
Classic. Perfectly done. I guess it’s OK for posters on message boards to exploit the guys style - so long as it is in parody of those corporate sell out facist movie reviewers and the corrupt and vein industry they represent. Yeah. That’ll show them all.
DaLovin’ Dj
Not a problem! Just mangle the story and the underlying ethic, like they did with The Grinch (in the book, the Whos are portrayed as joyful innocents, not a consumer-obsessed society that needs the help of the partly-reformed Grinch to come to some syrupy realisation and repentance).
So all they need to do is make the Lorax the bad guy and keep it that way.
I don’t think I’ve ever seen a fairly mainstream reviewer ever say something like this:
Wow. And there’s also calling the pic “film kitty litter”, “turd-box”, “shitstorm”, “a litter box bursting with disposable pop-culture clumps” (I sense a trend), “patently offensive”, and “train wreck”. Make up your mind and quit mincing words- is it a trainwreck or a shitstorm?
What can I say? I love parodies, and corporate sponsorship of Seuss is an easy target.
The Cat in the Hat
has a tie-in with Cascade.
Yeah. Kids love cleanser.
-Haiku by Time Carvell, Entertainment Weekly 11/28/03
Brilliant! Mike Myers: Asshole in Fur! We’ve just found the title of his yet untitled, unauthroized autobiography.
I’ve always liked Mike Myers, though. I’ve always dug his humour (but I also dig crotch shots and elongated belches). So, reading all this makes me sort of sad. But then again laughing at someone’s expense makes me happy so it all evens out.
However, reading all these snippets of reviews has got me thinking; how un-noble it is to be a movie reviewer. I’m convinced that most of these folks are frustrated journalists or writers or talentless ex-film students. It’s so easy to criticize and shoot down someone’s work. Some reviewers, like Roger Ebert and to an extent, Leonard Maltin can review a move objectively; story, editing, sound and then subjectively; how they connected emotionally with the characters, how they identified with the story, yada yada yada.
But most of the reviewers out there use their reviews as a platform to take personal pot-shots at the performers (as in the hilarious yet evil review by Gregory Weinkauf), writers or directors.
It seems that anyone with a 3rd grade education can write a scathing movie review (not to say that all good reviews are deserved), but not anyone can make or act in a movie.
I’m not defending this apparent lousy film, mind you, I’m just wondering why we put so much stock in what movie reviewers have to say.
Oh, and to tie it up in a nice bow. I feel that those reviewers who made an effort to wittingly write a review in Seussian prose must really think they’re the cat’s ass. (oh, look at that, I made a funny!).
BRJ
I’d like to know what makes you “bizarro”…