I do not like this as a movie; I do not think it will be groovy. (1 Viewer)

[rich_d]

Glad to know I wasn't the only one that thought the trailer was blinking big red letters saying "avoid at all costs."

Sure we are being judgemental, that's what we do here. But if they can't even make the trailer seem interesting - it looks like a stinker.

 

[Peter Kline]

The trailer was very revealing as to Mike Myers portrayal of the Cat as well as the look and tone of the film. There was no way, I believe, NOT to get the idea that whimsy was missing and replaced by double entendres and heavy handidness. The film looks slick but many hollow films do. The book is a delight. The vast majority of reviews coming along today are confirming that the film is a disaster. Many of the reviews, as mentioned above, are funnier then the film.

From USA Today:

As silly as all the contrivances are, the real disappointment is Myers' human-size cat, who is a fast-talking, self-centered, litigious annoyance instead of the nutty, endearingly childlike fun-seeker he was on the page. Myers' thick New York accent (with undertones of Bert Lahr's Cowardly Lion) would have been put to better use with funnier lines. He tends to sound like a Cat-skills comic on a bad day.

 

[RobertR]

I saw the trailer for this many months ago, and it had "big obnoxious Mike Myers production" written all over it, instead of "Dr. Seuss adaptation". I'm also annoyed by the promotions for this film. I went to the supermarket, and various items are marked as "Cat in the Hat" items. Ugh.

 

[ChrisMatson]

I try to keep an open mind about movies that I have not seen, but sometimes the reviews are just too damning. Gigli? Swept Away? Battlefield Earth? Glitter? The Adventures of Pluto Nash? From Justin to Kelly? Pinocchio (Benigni)?

I love Martin's thoughts on this:

After all, there is only so much time and money, so I try to minimize the stinkers, although there are the occasional guilty pleasures.

 

[Peter Kline]

If you go to the front page of the LA Times website - www.latimes.com and scroll down to the Calendar section, there's an audio review of the film you can click on. You'll have to register to hear it. It's quite well done.
UPDATE: LINK NO LONGER AVAILABLE.

 

[Seth Paxton]

Well I was defending the IDEA of this film some time ago, but now that we have seen lots of footage in various trailers as well as having tons of cross-promotion shoved down our throats, I've realized that it sure does appear to be a pile of crap.

I haven't seen it but the reviews will keep that from changing anytime soon. Not just that they are negative reviews but that what they say strongly meshes with what the trailers as well as Myers comedic choices seem to have already indicated about this project.

At this point Myers seems to clearly be in a rut in which he keeps repeating the same gags/characters over and over. I understand you will always be yourself, but the Scottish or Jewish accents as well as the Dr. Evil style of gags are getting old due to be reissued in everything he does.

With Goldmember some of that came through but to me it was fine since it was part of the AP series and therefore appropriate. But when he fails to shift to fit into other roles you have to worry a bit. Myers WAS hilarious, but can he invent anything fresh or new now? Hopefully, but maybe not.


I can honestly say that based on the complaints I've heard as well as the lines of dialog I've seen or heard that this film probably would have been much better had the role gone to Tim Allen instead.

I stand by the IDEA of the film and the production values look pretty impressive in the trailers, but just like any other film you still have to produce a quality narrative with the right sense of humor and emotion if you want the film to be any good.

 

[Seth Paxton]

So far, the only good thing that's come of it's making is that it got Alec Baldwin back on SNL.

I agree with a lot of stuff Robert says around here, especially this. Baldwin bashers are way off with Alec I think, especially in comedic roles. He kills on SNL even as the cast dies around him sometimes. The guy can act. Just compare GgGRoss or Red October to him playing the pedaphile scout leader on SNL.

 

[David Fisher]

Brenton said:

You know what you guys are doing? You've never even seen the movie, but you are making it impossible for the movie to please you. With attitudes such as these already in place, the movie stands NO chance, no matter how good or bad it turns out to be.

I'll eventually give this movie a chance. I won't see it in the theater, but I'm sure I'll watch the DVD pretty soon after release.

I'm a fan of Dr. Seuss. A fan of Mike Myers. I even like most of the episodes written by the film's writers.

I can tell by the previews that I will not enjoy this "vision" of Dr. Seuss' material, no matter how well it is presented to the audience. This might as well be a movie about the Kool-Aid Man, because it certainly doesn't seem to be about Seuss' Cat.

 

[Peter Kline]

The film will be number one at the b.o. this weekend no doubt about it. With the massive tv campaign and cross promotion with Burger King, kids will want to see it. But, it will fall dramatically in the second week, perhaps by 60 percent. We'll see.

 

[Brian W.]

My, oh, my. This movie currently scores only 11% on Rotten Tomatoes. Haven't seen it, but from the previews, it doesn't look like anything I'd want to see.

When the problem with The Cat in the Hat is the Cat itself, nothing else can save the movie."
-- Sarah Chauncey, REEL.COM

 

[Morgan Jolley]

I saw some of it while working at the theater today, and I have to say it was funnier than I thought it would be, albeit way above little kids' heads, relatively vulgar (in a "cute" way), and definitely NOT Seuss.

The main thing that bugs me is that it's The Cat in the Hat. If it was a movie about the same thing but had no correlation to Dr. Seuss' book, then it would be fine.

 

[DonRoeber]

David, you should not have said that. This time two years, we'll be talking about how horrible the forthcoming Kool-Aid Man will be!

 

[Peter Kline]

Even if the film is "funny" to some, look at this comment from the Contra Costa Times Review:

At one point, the Cat picks up a photo of Mom, remarks on her beauty and his tail rises up to a full salute. One supposes this is for the benefit of parents, but it seems unlikely that many moms and dads are going to feel grateful for the inclusion of an erection joke in the big-screen version of "The Cat in the Hat."

It's humor like this that earned the movie its PG rating, detailed as for "mild crude humor and some double-entendres." Let's remember what PG means to the people who run the MPAA's rating system: "Some material may not be suitable for children."

In what universe is it OK to make a movie version of a classic children's book that is not suitable for the very demographic the author was aiming for? Published in 1957, "The Cat in the Hat" was intended to be educational, to introduce 220 new vocabulary words to youngsters in an entertaining fashion. Which it did, beautifully, and continues to do with each new generation. Let's hope this insult of a movie doesn't taint any child's ability to enjoy the original.

 

[RobertR]

In what universe is it OK to make a movie version of a classic children's book that is not suitable for the very demographic the author was aiming for?

The universe of today's Hollywood, which is so devoid of original ideas that it's willing to ransack ANY literary source for its products, and ignore the original intent of the source in the process.

 

[rich_d]

The universe of today's Hollywood, which is so devoid of original ideas that it's willing to ransack ANY literary source for its products, and ignore the original intent of the source in the process.

I really don't mind new points-of-view for another audience. Certainly the current musical Wicked on Broadway borrows from the Wizard of Oz but takes a different approach on the story. But Wicked isn't marketed for children. Of that point, we are in total agreement.
However, we shouldn't point a finger at "today's Hollywood." Like any business, they are quite reluctant from taking any risk and, in fact, try to minimize the risks. Films based on books are as old as Hollywood.
Different subject, but when people talk about re-made films of today's Hollywood as proof of the current lack of creativity in Hollywood - they forget that many of the first talkie's were quick remakes of the silent films.
In the end, we need to blame ourselves as the movie-going public. If we won't stop paying money for this stuff, why would Hollywood ever stop making it?

 

[Peter Kline]

If you want to put blame, the producer Brian Grazer is where to point. With the success of "Grinch", even though it was panned by most critics, he decided he could do this film based on a 300 word book! What chutzpah! ("nerve" to those who don't know the word). Reworking a story, even a children's one is perfectly OK. BUT, when you pass off this abomination (I saw it last night with my nephew) as "Dr. Seuss' Cat In The Hat" then you've crossed the line. Poo on everybody involved in this atrocity.

 

[BarryR]

Ironically it's ELF that seems to deliver all the charm and whimsey that CAT didn't even try for. And ELF will no doubt be the more enduring film. I'm glad it's doing so well at the box offic.

 

[David Fisher]

David, you should not have said that. This time two years, we'll be talking about how horrible the forthcoming Kool-Aid Man will be!

Hollywood will rue the day that they screw with my Kool-Aid Man.

 

[Peter Kline]

Box Office for Friday was estimated to be 10.64 million. This would mean about 25-30 million plus for the weekend. The end of civilization as we know it I'm afraid. But I'm partially to blame for agreeing to see it with my nephew.
:frowning:

 

[Patrick Sun]

Having seen this movie, I would say that this movie is bad, go see "Elf" instead.