DVDizzy Forum

Just to show Box Office success doesn't mean a quality film.

http://film.guardian.co.uk/news/story/0 ... 82,00.html

having not seen the movie yet ...

those reviews were harsh

To be fair, I could've produced "The Cat In The Hat" in my living room with a cookie jar budget and it still would've been just as marketable because of the Seuss franchise... you don't need to produce a quality film to rake in profits when you're sitting on the legal rights to such a goldmine. It would've been just as weak and just as successful if John Schultz strung it together with Jerry O'Connell and Hillary Mcgruff and a cameo by Scooby Doo. It's just another example of commercial exploitation of someone else's artistic creativity and success.

Well, yes. But the review snippits are a good laugh to read.

I'm just sorry because Dakota Fanning is in it. It's hard to believe that this is the same child actress who gave such an outstanding performance in "I Am Sam"

Looks like she's fallen prey to the hollywood dreck-factory already.

Seeing the preview I thought it would be tolerable for about 5 minutes. Luckily I did not have to go when my wife took our daughter ... she absolutely hated it (my wife, that is) and said she almost fell asleep. My mom and two nephews also went with her and no one except for Hailey (my daughter) liked the movie.

Well, despite what other people think of the film, I highly enjoyed it. It wasn't as good as Grinch, but it still rocked my socks. I can't wait for the sequel.

Wasn't as good as "The Grinch" (assuming you mean the Ron Howard-directed live action film), and yet you still enjoyed it? I just can't IMAGINE that!

I'm not expecting this film to do well or be liked at all. Think about the Grinch-it wasn't based on the original book, it was based on the classic TV special.
The Cat in the Hat is based directly on a 20-something page picture book with little substance at all. At least the Grinch had lessons and morals.

And Dakota Whateverherlastnameis was also wonderful and Kleenex-worthy in UpTown Girls.

Prince Adam wrote: Think about the Grinch-it wasn't based on the original book, it was based on the classic TV special.

It wasn't even based on that, they made up a lot of that stuff for the movie, then completely changed the story. The Whos down in Whoville knew the true meaning of Christmas in the cartoon, they didn't in the live action movie. I didn't care for that movie, so I have no motivation to see the Cat in the Hat either as it seems to follow the same structure. Get a big name comedian (Grinch=Jim Carrey, Cat=Mike Myers) have hem do an inappropriate voice for the character (Grinch=Richard Nixon, Cat=The Coffee Talk lady from Sat Night Live) some effects, some inappropriate adult humor and some gross out gag type stuff. Yep, the cartoons are good enough for me, lol.

I know I started this thread, but I didn't think the Grinch was that bad.

As a film it was very, very weak narrative wise, but Carrey put in another excellent-but-overlooked-by-everybody performance. And it was a performance different from his usual "Ace Ventura" comedy mugging.

I suppose Grinch was an OK - but nothing special movie. It certainly didn't deserve the "success" it got. I doubt I would recommend it to anyone unless pushed.

Dakota Fanning was also in the 'Taken' TV mini-series, where she gave an excellent (but not as good as her "I Am Sam") performance.

It's really frustrating to me that a film like "I Am Sam", which actually has something to say - is seen by virtually nobody, and crap like "Cat in the Hat" get record breaking audiences (and I'd guess even the makers would class CitH as crap if honest).

But don't mind me, I'm still grumpy over the Looney Tunes: Back in Action figures.

My friend when and saw this movie with his 6 year old son. He almost walked out because of some of the "sexual" comments that were being made (mind you they were subliminal). I don't think Dr. Suess would have been too thrilled to see what they have done to his book.

I've decided not to see it. No child should be subject to sexual innuendos.

I just watched a really informative and interesting biography on Ted Geisel on A&E earlier this evening and after hearing what those who knew him best had to say about his perceptions towards his work and life in general, as well as hearing him speak on such relative subjects, I utterly refuse to put one dollar down on a ticket to support this movie! It's blatant exploitation of Geisel's art and there is no doubt in my mind that such a project would not have been approved by him if he were with us today. The marketing and merchandising, etc. that's gone into promoting this film would have gone against Seuss every principle and it's sad that someone so close to him would disrespect his work by compromising it in such a way. There are more upholding ways of honoring Seuss's legacy...

I didn't want to go waste my time and money. The previews looked horrible. The Grinch is 10 times better!

I had a free ticket and so I went to see it tonight. It was not worth the drive through traffic to get there and back.

Also, in addition to the previously mentioned sexual innuendos throughout the movie, there were also several instances of almost cussing and cursing.