Horton Hears A Who

[Tamaki Suoh]

Judging from the previews alone, I'm not too confident that this movie will be as good as it could be; it seems like it might rely too much on trying-too-hard humor and pretense, but I have a feeling it will still be entertaining and funny anyway. I'm definitely seeing it, and I'm seeing it the day it comes out because my brother and I having been planning on it for quite a while now. :silly:

What do you think? Are you going to see it? Will it be good?

[arii]

Those recent trailers have actually raised my expectations (which were previously at, "Wow, this is going to be terrible") for this a fair amount. Besides, Steve Carell + Mike Reiss writing in some jokes, I'll at the very least download it.

[Mr.Penguin]

I'm definetly going to try to see this the first day! It looks really good so fat, and is the most cartoony CG animation I've ever seen. The recent trailers have been pretty funny (the new official one, mostly), and if nothing else; it's gonna look fantastic.

[mrmeatysucks]

I just hope it's better than that stupid Cat in the Hat movie.

[TheSuperiorGerbil]

The visuals and voice actors might actually get me to see it. Although, if it is too childish, only dubbed copies will be released here, in which case I'd have to wait for the dvd.

[Stevie V. Scrivello]

It looks alright, I suppose, but the Cat in the Hat, and to a lesser degree, the live-action Grinch movie have made me apprehensive of any Dr. Seuss-based works. Still, I'm a huge fan of both Jim Carrey and Steve Carrell and will probably end up seeing the film for their talents, if nothing else.

[Ryan]

Some early reviewer on Ain't It Cool News said that it's exactly like the other two Seuss film adaptations, except that it's animated. Want proof? According to him, one of the members of Whoville logs on to whospace.com and says she has over a hundred friends. ;-/

[Stevie V. Scrivello]

Some early reviewer on Ain't It Cool News said that it's exactly like the other two Seuss film adaptations, except that it's animated. Want proof? According to him, one of the members of Whoville logs on to whospace.com and says she has over a hundred friends. ;-/

And there go my positive expectations.

Yup, I'm just seing it for Carrey and Carrell now.

[Dave Shutton]

I'm confused, so does this take place in Whoville like The Grinch? Are the Whos in the Grinch really tiny too? Does anyone think The Grinch will make a cameo in this movie?

EDIT: ^Wow that makes me sound like I am obsessed with The Grinch.

[CMYK]

Jim carrey can do one of theses Dr. Seuss CGI Animations but he cant do the third Ace Ventura. Aye crumba.

At least his still in the acting I guess.

[Gatorgod]

I wanna see this movie. I know I'll have a good time. If I can enjoy "Over the Hedge".. Then I know fer sure I have the ability to like this film.
And yes, I believe the Who's of this story occupy the same subatomic world that the Grinch story does.
Since the Who world is a complete planetoid with continents and oceans, a prehistory and future. I'm sure that it contains MANY stories beyond those 2 mentioned that haven't been told.

Come to think of it, thats not a bad Idea. "Tales from Who ville" would make a great spin-off series . ..just like when Disney makes spin-off series from some of its animated movies. I'd watch it! ..and I'm sure the folks what owns the Suess franchise rights wouldn't be afraid of making extra money of its property

[Sniper Squirrel]

I'll possibly see it in a cheap matinee if the reviews or good enough, otherwise I'll wait untill it's on DVD or cable

[PreciousBodilyFluids]

Dr. Seuss' stories are generally able to be told in ten minutes or less. Stretching one out to the length of a feature film using modern humor and story alterations is bad news, as evidenced by the previous two attempts. While this one stands a better chance of being good than the other two, Blue Sky has yet to make a good film and this looks to be no exception.

[Semaj]

I might actually see this.

The main reason why this is all-animated is because Seuss' widow didn't want anymore live-action adaptions to her husband's stories, which understandably, were deviating from the family-oriented themes that were the basis of the books.


My one concern with this film is Jim Carrey voicing Horton. As funny as he is, his personality doesn't sound like an appropriate match for Horton.

[Moe Nopoly]

the previews didn't convince me so far, but some of the characters look funny.
And the movie title sounds funny too.

[shark_vs_gorilla]

I'm confused, so does this take place in Whoville like The Grinch? Are the Whos in the Grinch really tiny too? Does anyone think The Grinch will make a cameo in this movie?

EDIT: ^Wow that makes me sound like I am obsessed with The Grinch.

It's actually something that's confused me since childhood. what further complicates the size debate is that there was an animated special involving both the Grinch and the Cat in the Hat. I believe it was "The Grinch Grinches The Cat in the Hat" it's best not to think about it though it is somewhat intreging.

As for the movie... yeah I'll probably see it. it looks cute and pretty funny from the newest previews

[Dave Shutton]

i'll probably wait till it's on HBO or something

[grissom]

This doesn't look terrible (trailers are so-so), but the fact that they're stretching a short children's book into a 90-120 minute movie assures me that it probably will be.

[Sexy Beast]

Haha my drama club is taking a field trip to see this because we put on the play Seussical in December which pretty much followed the plot of Horton Hears A Who. I was the Mayor

[Elkwood]

I'm confused, so does this take place in Whoville like The Grinch? Are the Whos in the Grinch really tiny too? Does anyone think The Grinch will make a cameo in this movie?

EDIT: ^Wow that makes me sound like I am obsessed with The Grinch.

Well, in Seussical: The Musical, The Grinch was shown living on the small speck of dusk around Christmas.

It's actually something that's confused me since childhood. what further complicates the size debate is that there was an animated special involving both the Grinch and the Cat in the Hat. I believe it was "The Grinch Grinches The Cat in the Hat" it's best not to think about it though it is somewhat intreging.

Maybe The Cat in the Hat takes place in Whoville. Or maybe The Cat in the Hat takes place in a land that's on the same speck of dust as Whoville.

[D DEBBS]

Just saw it...not bad, although the story line dragged in places.

Best scene was a 2-D Japanimation sequence.

[Cartoonnetwork]

^Heh, I actually think that was one of the worst scenes. Well, the scene was fun enough, I guess, it's just that I find it was completely out of place in this type of story.

A visually stunning and quite entertaining movie but too much of a missed opportunity as well IMO. While there wasn't any real reasons for a remake of The Grinch in a life action film (cause Jones' version is 100% perfect) maybe Chuck Jones' version of "Horton" was a little too tame and slow paced for modern audience and its animation actually looked a little more cheap, reusing animation and not as great in aspects like character facial expressions as The Grinch one.

So this could have been a more spectacular/fun/fast paced version of the same story and maybe it's what it tries to be, but it works only at places. Some things are pretty funny, even some of the violent cartoony things that maybe are not very Seussical (I haven't really read Seuss' books, they are not very popular in Spain). But the pop/modern culture references are really out of place.

Some characters have been changed for the worse: the Wickersham Brothers for example, look good, but their role is too brief, Mrs Kangaroo is too stereotypical in her villain attitude and Jojo has been turned into an "emo". There is a little too much of Jim Carrey in Horton, even though I've watched the movie dubbed. The character keeps some of his original qualities, though.

On the other hand I really liked Steve Carell's character, probably even more than the guy in the Jones' short. I don't know which one is more similar to the character in the book, but I suspect Jones' version was way more similar. The design in the Major is very good and the character is very fun and "independent" of the celebrity behind him, even though it has some of the usual traits in Carell's characters. Vlad is also a pretty funny character and the animal kids have odd and fun designs.

So it's mainly a collection of set-pieces, some of them do work, others don't, and the visuals are great. They more or less kept the moral of the story but sometimes the emotion doesn't feel sincere enough. Some scenes are spectacular, but sometimes it lacks the charm.

Overall it's entertaining but they could have done a modern classic. It's kind of a pitty that they have made it so much about the celebrity voices. Stilll it's not crap. At the very least the film is very succesful in making a CGI film look cartoony.

[Tamaki Suoh]

^Yeah, I saw it last night and I agree that basically some parts worked and others didn't. There were plenty of genuinely funny scenes to keep me pretty entertained, but there were a plethora of flaws as well: the stereo-typicality of some of the characters, jokes or scenes that dragged on without any value, a predictable and slightly strangely-done ending, predictable and emotionally manipulative plot points (Jojo and the Kangaroo's son especially), and the obvious repeating of themes and attempts at satire for the young audience. Still, I enjoyed Horton and the Mayor as characters and thought their voice-acting was really good. The animation too was beautiful, especially the scenery scenes and the opening act, and as I aforementioned, there were plenty of scenes that were funny and engaging.

[Gatorgod]

Does any one think Dr Suess secretly intended his story to be a Pro life - Anti-abortion message? Maybe, maybe not?

Horton believes in protecting the lives of things that are too small for most people to recognize as real or living "a persons a person, no matter how small" .. Almost sounds to me like Horton/Suess is defending the rights of the unborn. Just look at how many kids Steve Carell's character has!! If that isnt a pro life statement. I dont know what is..

I wouldn't be surprised if that was Dr Suess intent. Yertle the Turtle is a clear anti-totalitarianism slam at the Stalins & Hitlers of his day.

[You Bent My Wookiee]

I like the looks of this movie (first, its G-rated and for young kids, unlike the Grinch and Cat in the Hat, both sucked mucked, as Dr. Seuss would put it.) To be honest, I do not mind the adding of additional characters because this is a very short book-turned-movie and imagine if you tried to remain as accurate as possible. Besides, one thing I like about Yertle the Turtle and Horton Hears a Who is that it they each have good lessons and hidden messages (Horton is pro-life no doubt while Yertle is anti-Hitler.) I will go see this sometime and this might be the first of todays Dr. Seuss movies that I might like.

[arii]

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/arts/bookta...s/s1096785.htm

Amanda Smith: And then, also, the anti-abortion lobby in the United States has used a line from Horton Hears a Who, the line that says, ‘A person’s a person, no matter how small.’ Would that have been in accord with Seuss’s intended meaning?

Philip Nel: Absolutely not. In fact, during his lifetime Seuss threatened to sue an anti-abortion group unless they took that off their stationery and they did take it off their stationery but it’s still used. I’ve still seen propaganda in recent years from pro-life groups that have adopted Horton’s line, ‘A person’s a person, no matter how small.’ It’s one of the ways in which Seuss has been misappropriated. He would not agree with that.

And his widow don't like it too much either.

I haven't seen it yet, but I definitely will since this has really been getting some great reviews (and cartoony CGI does look pretty fantastic). Might even go out tonight for it...

[Gatorgod]

And his widow don't like it too much either.

I still think Seuss actually meant it to be anti-abortion, ..but in a light, subliminal way. never wanting to be known as a fiery soap box bellowing advocate of this issue, or any other, least it rob his works and his reputation of its legendary lightheartedness. I think his attacking folks who wanted to use his books as an endorsement for their causes was his way of "acting up the angel".. "feigning indignity".. in order to throw pushy people off his tail.

Perhaps he wanted a message to sink in individually, privately, quietly,.. from reader to reader. If I were him, I too would probably say BACKOFF! to radical activist. I don't want your help, and I don't want people to mentally link me with you. I'll handle things my way, but your not leaching your clinic bombing ideas from me!
Off of my Yard! Ya hear me? I said Scoot!

[Moose of Doom!]

wow, so even with evidence to the contrary you still think so?

the movie doesn't really support your argument, seeing how the purple kangaroo comes across as a thinly veiled slam at loud-mouthed fundamentalists. i mean, she "pouch-schools" her kid, argues that horton is "corrupting and influencing the children", is basically defeated at the end when people start ignoring her, etc.

still, good movie.

[Gatorgod]

wow, so even with evidence to the contrary you still think so?

Evidence? threating to sue (seu-ss?) isnt evidence. like the shakespear folks say, ..Me thinks he protest too much.

[Moose of Doom!]

generally when artists sue/file complaint against people who co-opt their work for blatant political reasons, it's sort of implied that the artist does not agree with said political reasons (see the recent dilemmas Huckabee and McCain had with campaign for example).

and you're saying apparently that he doesn't have the right to argue about the use of his work? it's his property, he owns it and the copyright, so he has final say about how others can and should use it. it's that simple.