Movie Night: Horton Hears a Who!

Review #483: Horton Hears a Who!

Cast
Jim Carrey (Horton), Steve Carell (Mayor Ned McDodd), Carol Burnett (Sour Kangaroo), Will Arnett (Vlad Vladikoff), Seth Rogen (Morton), Amy Poehler (Sally O'Malley), Dan Fogler (The Councilman and Yummo Wickersham), Jesse McCartney (JoJo), and Isla Fisher (Dr. Mary Lou LaRue) Directed by Jimmy Hayward and Steve Martino.

Review
When my enthusiasm after watching The Day of the Doctor today finally quieted down, I found something to watch, another familiar friend from the past. I've reviewed films based off the works of Dr. Seuss before (#210 - The Cat in the Hat and #301 - How the Grinch Stole Christmas), which ranged from mediocre (but understandably fine at Christmas time for others) to being awful enough to inspire me to make a poem about it. But anyways, making a Seuss story adapt to animated form is a really good idea, given that making effects for things like say, a speck, or an elephant, are more convincing then say...the makeup that made up the Cat in The Cat in the Hat for example. Then there's the film itself, and it's...okay, I suppose. Shockingly (I know, right?), it's probably the best Seuss film adaptation I've seen (excluding The Lorax, which hasn't been reviewed), but that's also kind of sad, when you think about it long enough. Once again, Jim Carrey stars in a Seuss film, and he...I don't know what it is, but his performance bugs me. Maybe it's the script, or possibly the multitudes of times where it seems he loses all subtlety, but he doesn't provide too many laughs. Steve Carrell on the other hand does bring me joy, and he makes me wonder why I haven't ever reviewed anything else he appears him. Carol Burnett does a fine job as...the villain, I suppose. I don't know if you can call her a villain, but she makes the best of it. The film is fine in the acting department and the visuals are excellent, and despite the brooding attempts of the pop culture references to get in the way, this is a fairly decent film that while not exactly a good film, it's probably the only Seuss film that I can recommend. That, or you could stick to the book, but oh well.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Alvin and the Chipmunks.

Review #308: Alvin and the Chipmunks.

Cast
Jason Lee (Dave Seville), David Cross (Ian Hawke), Justin Long (Alvin), Matthew Gray Gubler (Simon), Jesse McCartney (Theodore), Cameron Richardson (Claire Wilson), and Jane Lynch (Gail) Directed by Tim Hill.

Review
For anyone who might not know (Which might be either from having decent memories of them or from trying to block them from your memory long ago), Alvin and the Chipmunks is an American animated music group created by Ross Bagdasarian, Sr, originally created for a novelty record in 1958, and they've been an ongoing group ever since. As such, because I apparently thought this might be an okay Christmas film for December (I hope all this Christmas stiff doesn't annoy the stuff out of me...or you.), I'm deciding to review this film (Not the first based on the Chipmunks, which was the Chipmunk Adventure in 1987), eventual regret or not. So how is it? For my sake, it's...not good, I'll say that. I am aware this is probably intended for little children, I'll concede that. But I take that condeding back with this. Little kids? How little? Littler then than an intended audience for a Pixar, Disney, or Dreamworks film. (Yes I said Disney. Happy? I'm not.) I'm getting way off track, but that is what happens with this film. You think about other, more entertaining films or even more interesting music. Catchy as it may be, the songs might actually make Dr. Seuss look deep. (No offense to Dr. Seuss. He was awesome.) The Chipmunks don't exactly have personality (Probably how they were 50 years ago) beyond arrogant, smart, and..sweet-hearted (Each describing each of the three), and yet the only one who I actually care about is Jason Lee. He actually gives the look of "Why am I taking care of three chipmunks instead of just sending off to a far less suffering place", which...makes sense. Cross is...strangely here. It's like he only did it-Oh. Okay than. It does indeed provide entertainment for younger people, but for others (and for the younger kids who aged rapidly since 2007) it isn't a good film.

Overall, I give it 4 out of 10 stars.