I have been seeing previews of this movie. First of all, I had no clue that was Mike Myers in that get-up. However, the more previews I saw, the more I got the feeling that it was a cheap looking movie when it came to special effects, etc. However, the bigger problem is this: why in the world does Hollywood or someone within Hollywood think that taking children's stories, especially from a beloved figure like Dr. Seuss, are going to make good movies? When I think of "The Cat in the Hat", I think of the little cartoon movie that was so good (I still remember that song he sang about the word hat and what it means in all the different languages). What is going to be shown in the next couple of months is crude, scary, creepy, and cheap. So, I guess you know how I feel about the question in the thread title. If I had kids, I would NOT let them go see this movie. I would try to find the cartoon that I saw as a kid and let them watch that. I just think there are some things that you don't try to make into a live-action movie. If they had decided to do the Cat in the Hat character as a cartoon instead of a person dressed up in a suit like Myers, I think it would have been more effective. And for the record, I felt the same way with Jim Carrey and the Grinch movie.
why do they do it? because they make a ton of money on licensing. hollywood has no intention to make good movies as they know that kids are easily amused by overused tricks. they want the profit from making money in other avenues. take the "hulk" for instance, they lost money on the movie, but they made a ton on licesing and will make another ton on the dvds. the movie industry has changed to the point where they dont intend to make money from ticket sales. from what ive read, the last movie to actually make money in the theatres was, "my big fat greek wedding". i think the "blair witch project" also made a bucket load just on hype and low cost.
What does this story teach kids anyways? It's ok to hang out with strangers and mess up your house when your mom is away? J/K Seriously, the best movie to take kids to this Christmas is Bad Santa.
hate to see this movie reviewed by BBS posters, they would come out criticising the Cat for hogging the Hat and not sharing it with Yao
I would have enjoyed renting this movie in a few months, but the reviews have been so horrid I won't even bother. I'll just stick with the original cartoon I grew up on ---
Dr. Seuss scared the hell out of me when I was a kid and he scares the hell out of me now. I'm sure not going to watch that genetic anomaly on the big screen. And that Burger King ad where he starts laughing at the end of the commercial scares the hell out of me, too... he's evil. Kids shouldn't watch these things!!
has any movie ever had so many ****ing commercial tie-ins!! every damn commercial i see somehow involves TCITH. i mean i've seen movies have a few tie-ins, but this is a whole new level. and yes, the movie looks disturbing (not scary, just more in the "that ain't right" type disturbing). the costumes, set, scenery, all most creepy. i actually don't remember a cat in the hat cartoon (the only dr. seuss cartoon i remember seeing was "the grinch") but it couldn't be as disturbing as the movie looks. and what is the cat's purpose again? to be a jerk and get the kids in trouble or teach them how to have fun or ...? only parts that has seemed funny in the ads is the part where he's looking at the picture of their mom. critics apparently hate it but they just said it pulled in $40M and was #1. from what ive read, the last movie to actually make money in the theatres was, "my big fat greek wedding what is that based on? there are plenty of movies that take in more at the box office than what they cost to make. The Ring i believe made over $100M and it sure didn't cost that much to make. and there are definitely more on top of that. unless they are adding on more to the cost of movies and only giving the movies a part of the box office cut, then i don't see how that's true.
Everything you guys just ranted about is probably true. And this movie will, in all likelihood, still make a sh*tload of money. That's why Hollywood thought it was a good idea.
Read it and weep, Manny. Then, when you're done bawling in the corner, give in to Hollywood's sub-standard idea of an "event" movie and embrace mediocrity at its finest. Shell out your hard-earned cash and allow some brainless, coked-up writer/producer/director to rape your childhood. Resistance is futile. All your base belong to Hollywood. ... Oh, yeah, and remember to bring kids along with you. If Hollywood can successfully dumb them down early in their years, they'll gladly pay money for "Pet Rock: The Movie" later on... BTW, The Cat in the Hat is sitting at a blistering 13% at RottenTomatoes.com... ----------------------------------------------- From Yahoo Movies: "The Cat in the Hat," a comedy loosely based on the children's book by Dr. Seuss, scampered to the No. 1 slot at the North American box office with ticket sales of $40.1 million in its first weekend, according to studio estimates issued on Sunday. The movie, which stars Mike Myers as the titular feline, was released in North America by Universal Pictures, a unit of Vivendi Universal SA, which partnered on the $109 million project with closely held studio DreamWorks SKG and producer Imagine Entertainment. The opening for the critically lambasted "Cat" pales against that of the previous Dr. Seuss movie, "How the Grinch Stole Christmas," which starred Jim Carrey and bowed with $55.1 million in 2000. However, Universal executives said the new film performed within expectations.
Looks to me like it's probably the ugliest movie ever. A lot of people are going to get headaches watching this garbage.
Not I said the fly. I don't care if my kids want to see it, that's one movie I won't take them to see. I just can't believe they would try to attempt to put Dr. Seuss on the big screen.....again. Especially after that awful Grinch movie.
I think MBFGW was the last movie to make more in profits than the total cost or production and marketing. It made like 240 million, cost 5 million to make, and 19 to market.
