EdnaWelthorpe Reviews

The Cat in the Hat (2003)

Unacceptable, Unbearable, Unwatchable, UNFORGIVABLE!

[1/10 · 29 April 2013]

Words cannot possibly express or comprehend how horrendous and downright foul this movie is...but I'll give it a shot anyway.

The Cat in the Hat is one of the most beloved children's books of all times. A mischievous cat enters in on two bored children, causes some mischief but then cleans it all of and goes off into the horizon. A true classic. Which then begs the question how on earth someone with $165 million to spend could possibly look at the source material and produce this abomination.

Why do I hate it so much? Well there's the fact that the characters are incredibly hateful. From the mother's hateful boss, the mother herself, the bratty brat played by Abigail Breslin's less talented sibling, Alec Baldwin's completely unnecessary character, the racist stereotype babysitter (I'll get to her) and of course, the cat himself.

My congratulations to Mike Myers and the script writers, it takes a lot of effort to remove all charm and joy from Dr. Seuss's most beloved character but by god, they succeeded! Especially when they quickly say he doesn't do rhyming because the writers clearly stopped caring later on. Myers doesn't really play the Cat in the Hat as much as go through his shtick that in hindsight, should have warned us about the dated and repetitious Goldmember movie.

And let's talk about the jokes. They're horrendous, hateful and shockingly crude. From the Cat ogling a picture of the mother and opening like a playboy centerfold, the grotesque racial stereotype -- Mrs. Kwan and outright physical abuse they put her through (line from the move -- "we're riding Mrs. Kwan"), and the swearing. Now I'm all for free use of our vocabulary but seeing the Cat drop the f-bomb and s*** is very disheartening. Not to mention all the penis jokes, butt jokes, cross-dressing, death threats, and the worst attempt at fourth wall humor to justify blatant product placement.

And speaking of blatant pandering, Paris Hilton has a cameo and Myers dances with her -- WHY ON EARTH IS Paris HILTON IN A DR. SEUSS MOVIE!?

I could go into the bad plot, forced dilemmas and inconsistent faithfulness and use of Dr. Seuss's work and prose but the above pretty much established there was no hope for something like plot to save this travesty.

I hate this film, I really, really, really hate this film. I haven't worked out an order for my most hated films but this is in the top three. No wonder Dr. Seuss's widow was so disgusted with this film that she did the world a favor by pulling the plug on future live-action adaptations of Dr. Seuss. And given that she's had the Lorax shill for Mazda, that's really saying something.

OVERALL: To borrow/steal a line from the late great Roger Ebert describing "Battle: Los Angeles", "If your friend likes this, they're idiots, if your date likes it, you need to tell them that it's time to consider seeing other people, and if someone tries to show it to your young children, have them barred from ever being around a minor."

Carpool (1996)

Abysmal

[1/10 · 17 July 2012]

I only saw this movie once years ago. I suppose the fact that I still remember it should be to the film's credit but every time I think about it, I just get filled with revulsion and rage over how incredibly stupid this movie is.

Why do I hate it? Well let's start with the premise of Tom Arnold being a goofball who happens to take an entire carpool hostage...how could anyone think this premise would work? Especially with Tom Arnold as the lead?

The rest is a series of unfunny chase scenes, including driving through the mall just like the Blues Brothers only that movie was funny and this one...oh and there's one scene where Tom Arnold has the dad hold his hand and give him a baseball related pep talk of some kind (I don't know how to describe it) so that he could urinate.

Also scraping the bottom of the barrel in the movie is the treatment of Rachel Leigh Cook as she is subjected to repeated, unwanted advances from the boy who is her age. Pretty sure it qualified as harassment.

But when this movie could not get any stupider, it ends with everyone going to the dad's presentation and somehow pitching their horrific kidnapping and ordeal into a commercial pitch.

This movie is awful! Avoid it like the plague if you can.

The Iron Giant (1999)

A True Classic

[10/10 · 17 July 2012]

I dismissed this movie altogether when it was first released in theaters. Basically it looked another pointless adventure film aimed for kids about a boy who encounters a robot and have to run from a bad guy. I think there were even fast food promotions for it so I ignored it like many others did. It wasn't till a few years later that for some reason, I decided to rent and watch it. Kill a few hours, enjoy the evening.

I was quite surprised at what I discovered.

I never expected to encounter such a rich story with beautiful animation, three dimensional characters -- even the antagonist wasn't your run of the mill cliché. I especially loved the intelligent dialogue that provided sharp insight into Cold War and even modern day paranoia. And the climax...just not something no one but Brad Bird and his team would have the cajones to put into a kids film.

Many have harped on the marketing and I am piling on, Warner Bros. screwed up royally. They clearly had no idea at the time what they had by promoting it as a basic kids film instead of as a film all could enjoy and respect.

It is a marvelous film, if you haven't seen it, go now.

How the Grinch Stole Christmas (2000)

Another horrible Seuss adaptation

[4/10 · 15 December 2011]

"How the Grinch Stole Christmas" is a timeless classic. A simple story about a grumpy green creature who hatches a plan to torment the simple denizens of "Whoville" by literally stealing Christmas only to achieve a heartwarming epiphany in the end. It's a great children's book and the 1966 film captures the spirit of Dr. Seuss perfectly.

The 2000 live adaptation on the other hand doesn't come close one bit.

It is one of the more unpleasant and mean spirited movies that I have seen and since this is an adaptation of a holiday classic, the mean-spiritedness really stands out.

What do I mean? The Whos are absolutely horrible! Materialistic, ugly both physically and morally, their unpleasantness is made more prominent by the rather smudged cameras (well they seem smudged anyway) and the scenery that could be described as "polluted". Oh and the numerous adult themed jokes that do nothing but make everyone uncomfortable.

Jim Carrey tries hard as the Grinch which is unfortunately a problem as he continually goes over the top and swallows the scenery at every turn. He sadly makes up the high point of the movie.

Overall, to the film's credit...it's not the worst Seuss adaptation out there and whatever dark forces were at work controlling Ron Howard, they seemed to be excised. But yeah, get the 1966 cartoon and pretend this movie never happened.

Burn After Reading (2008)

Love the Coen Bros. but I don't like this film

[5/10 · 27 December 2010]

I would like to preface this review by saying that I love the Coen Bros. Millers Crossing is one of, if not my favorite movie ever made. I also love Barton Fink, Big Lebowski, O Brother Where Art Thou and of course, Fargo. How can anyone not love them? The films are gripping, the dialog sharp, smart and whip fast and my favorite, how genteel scenes can occur right after scenes of intense violence (Barton Fink is a prime example).

All that said, I hate this film. I mean I have seen far, far worse films (The Last Airbender, Dragonball Evolution, An American Carol) but while these films were pretty doomed from the get go (except maybe ATLA but I don't want to get into a Shyamalan rant here) this film had potential. It did not meet said potential.

The plot is this: a retiring CIA agent played by John Malkovich plans to write a memoir but leaves behind a CD containing his memoir that is picked up but two incredibly dumb trainers, one of whom played by Frances McDormand wants to get plastic surgery. Her and the other guy played by Brad Pitt think its government secrets and try to sell it to the Russians. While all this is going on, a character played by George Clooney is having an affair with the retired agents wife while also entering an affair with McDormand...AND also while growing paranoid at the realization he's being followed. Naturally given that this is a Coen Bros. film, things go spectacularly wrong and lives are lost.

Okay, now for my biggest gripe about the film -- the characters. For me, there is absolutely no reason to care about any of them. I mean films like Miller's Crossing and Fargo work so well because we care for the characters -- Tom as he tries to navigate his way through a dangerous underworld and Officer Marge as she moves in on our antagonists. We care about them and we watch to see what happens. In "Burn After Reading" there is no reason because all of the main characters are terrible people. McDormand's character is incredibly selfish and vapid, Pitt's character is just vapid while the other characters are just defined by their flaws which gets tedious after awhile.

Overall, there are worse films out there and apparently even worse Coen Bros. films (Ladykillers) but this one was just plain boring.

Now if you're done looking through this, go watch Miller's Crossing if you haven't before, it is truly special.

An American Carol (2008)

Vile, mean-spirited plea for racial profiling

[1/10 · 8 November 2010]

Wow, I saw this film on television and like an idiot, I gave in to curiosity and watched it all the way through and boy did I feel dirty when it was over.

In the film, we have the dessicated remains of Leslie Neilsen at a Fourth of July barbecue where he tells his bored grandkids the story of "An American Carol"...that's right, the entire thing is supposedly a story from Leslie Neilsen, while not quite as a low as calling it all a dream, that's still very poor. Anyway, he tells his kids about world where all liberals are terrorist sympathizing, America hating idiots who also happen to be ugly and not like bathing. While such crude generalizations can work, it only happens when there is a larger and deeper point to be made. Not so with Zucker, what you see is what you get. And of course, the biggest loser of them all is Michael Moor -- I mean Michael Malone. Why Zucker decided to devote one hundred minutes and 20 million dollars to bashing Michael Moore is beyond me but we have Michael Malone played in career ending fashion by Kevin Farley. Moore -- I mean Malone is an award winning documentarian who is oblivious and hated by all including his own supporters.

While planning a campaign to end the Fourth of July, why I dunno, and he's visited by the ghosts of JFK, George Patton and Trace Adkins leading us to find the answers to questions like "was Kelsey Grammar really this crazy?" and "why on earth would anyone find the idea of a living country music star being a right wing spirit funny?" We don't find the answers to that as we go through exceptionally crude flashbacks, alternate realities and outright hippie punching. Oh and during all this Malone gets roped into a terrorist plot by a group led by Robert Davi whose performance offends at all levels. The lowest moment of the film is easily the scene where the late Dennis Hopper calls for ACLU lawyers to be murdered...way to defend free speech there Zucker! The rest rolls out in very predictable fashion.

This film is just plain vile. There is a lot to satirize and mock about liberals and PJ O'Rourke has made a very fine living doing so but presenting crude caricatures thinner than what Ann Coulter would sketch and mocking other people's view without any honest exploration into them, it's just plain bullying. In fact, this entire movie was like being bullied, you're either for the troops, racial profiling and can never ever question US policy or you support terrorism.

Terrible movie and a lousy mark on the continued, if terminal decline of the career of David Zucker.

The Last Airbender (2010)

Not Dragonball Evolution bad...barely

[1/10 · 18 July 2010]

My lord what a mess. I had high hopes for this movie too. Sure I was skeptical at first but when I read about M.Night's children were fans of the series and that he became a fan as well after watching it, I thought he would provide some of the talent that brought about Sixth Sense and the reverence to the source material that comes from being a fan.

Boy was I mistaken! Let's talk about what went right first...there was some effort to maintain some semblance to the source material which is more than can be said about Dragonball Evolution...Noah Ringer has real martial arts talent. And that's it.

As for what went wrong...

1. The Cast. A catastrophe all-around; a collection of mistakes and miscasts. The main heroes: terrible. While I can't blame Noah Ringer completely for the horrific portrayal of Aang (that would be the writers) I do hold him accountable for his robotic acting, monotone delivery and incapability of delivering expressions and emotions beyond vacant, stunned stupidity. Nicola Peltz's turn as Katara was a laughable miscast (and one insisted by Shyamalan). Racial issues aside, she looks like she's eight and seems to come from the school of acting that calls for every big moment to have her quiver on the verge of tears.

Both of them though are nothing compared to the misery that was Jackson Rathbone as Sokka. Of all the actors, I thought he was the worst. It was amazing how he captures absolutely nothing of the original character. Instead of a sarcastic warrior with budding genius capabilities, we have a wooden cut out who stares vacantly and pretty much could have been cut out of the film without anyone noticing. While also a fault of the writers, Rathbone's "acting" makes it all the easier to loathe.

Dev Patel is the only actor to acquit himself. I don't blame him for why they didn't get the hairstyle right, why he has both eyebrows and why his scar is barely noticeable. He makes the most of a lousy script. It almost makes you forget that the person originally set to be Zuko was JESSE MCCARTNEY. I think Dev Patel probably saved lives by playing Zuko.

Shaun Taub is mediocre as Iroh, displays the edge but none of the warmth and humor that makes the character so beloved. Aasiv Mandvi was badly miscast as the ferocious Zhao -- he seemed like what he was, a comic actor trying to be threatening. Cliff Curtis is also badly miscast as a very non-threatening Ozai.

Oh and if that androgynous puppet was supposed to be Haru...GAAAHHH!

2. The script. The writing, pacing and dialogue is so bad you'll be forgiven if you thought George Lucas took over. Due to time constraints, we get a lot of things explained away with Peltz's very uninspiring narration. This takes a turn for the worse when we get to the North Pole and they actually TELL US THAT SOKKA AND YUE LIKE EACH OTHER! SERIOUSLY THEY COULDN'T ACTUALLY SHOW GENUINE CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT AND EMOTIONAL ATTACHMENT BUT THEY TELL US! THAT'S JUST BEYOND LAZY! Sorry, got a bit carried away there.

Then of course, we have laughable lines like Aang asking in the middle of the battle "is there a spiritual place where I can meditate?" I laughed at that though I don't think that was intended.

And then there's the story itself. Due to time constraints a lot gets cut out but what they left fails to make any sense. Why on earth would you cut out the Kyoshi Warriors or visit to the Fire Temple but leave in the Haru/Earth Kingdom village thing which by the way is completely ruined when you see that they are KEPT IN AN OUTDOOR PRISON RIGHT NEXT TO THE VILLAGE! THEY ARE RIGHT IN THEIR ELEMENT BUT APPARENTLY NEEDED A POORLY DELIVERED MOTIVATIONAL SPEECH FROM "UNG" TO FIGHT BACK! Then I swear halfway through the film, it just stops. I honestly have no idea since it's too dark then to distinguish anything though I think it's supposed to be "The Storm". Oh and did I mention the random flashbacks Aang has that add nothing to the story? Then there are changes that just serve no purpose except to make fans hate it more. There's the annunciations of course, the decision to cut out Roku and that firebenders now need a source to bend from...WHAT!? Oh and the fact that the Avatar gang is completely useless fighting the Fire Nation at the North Pole. No cool Avatar State moment for "Ung" in this movie. And then there's Zhao is casually murdered by four waterbenders. That was a big "what the -- ?" moment for me.

Oh and one more horrific and unnecessary change, they change the time line, now Aang only has THREE YEARS TO MASTER ALL ELEMENTS -- WHAT!? THE ANIMATED SERIES HAD A TIMELINE OF ABOUT 11 MONTHS TOPS FOR AANG TO MASTER ALL ELEMENTS, THREE YEARS!? WHY NOT MAKE IT TWENTY WHILE WE'RE AT IT!?

3. The effects. What really sticks in my chaw is how pathetic the bending is in the movie. All the benders make all these waves and kicks to get a very pitiful movement from whatever element they control. The waterbending was especially bad since the Tai Chi movements were so slow and dull. They actually made bending boring. Incredible.

Overall this film should be presented to future film makers to demonstrate how you DON'T approach a big budget adaptation and to hammer the point home, show Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings for contrast.

Now if you'll excuse me, I need to find a spiritual place to pray that M. Night is not allowed near any future Avatar project.

Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005)

Could have been worse but could have been much better.

[6/10 · 18 July 2010]

This was a film that I had high hopes for when it came out. I loved the 1971 movie and of course, Gene Wilder's performance as Wonka is one for the ages. Nonetheless it does deviate from the book quite a bit so I was very interested to see if Tim Burton would present a more faithful adaptation. All the magazines seemed to say so. I saw the film about a month after it came out and I must say -- -- I was quite underwhelmed.

There are good things about the film. The visuals are excellent, Burton does a terrific job modernizing the story to fit the plot (or is it the other way around?) and the supporting cast are pretty good. The other kids are as bratty as can be remembered and I liked that they actually went ahead with the nut checking squirrels (talk about your double entendre -- hehe).

However this film has two very big problems that hurt it in my opinion.

1. Johnny Depp's performance as Wonka. Boy, talk about a let down. I don't know whose idea it was to portray Wonka as some sort of Michael Jackson figure but it was a big mistake. Whereas Wilder's Wonka was charming, devious, clearly intelligent and most importantly, had a nicely defined dark edge to him, Depp's Wonka was just plain annoying. Depp is incredibly awkward, silly and shows no sign of the intelligence, creativity or control that makes him the genius as he's supposed to be in the story. In fact if you were to have never read the book or seen the first movie, there is no way anyone can believe that this wincing wreck who has Vietnam like flashbacks could be the greatest candy creator of all time.

Honestly, Depp should have just brought along Captain Jack Sparrow to portray Wonka. Sparrow actually is far closer to Wonka than what his portrayal of Wonka ended up being.

2. Wonka's back story. Honestly this was just completely unnecessary. Why did Tim Burton decide that this was a good idea? Does the audience really need to know that Wonka was the son of a dentist (played in paycheck receiving fashion by Christopher Lee) who hated candy and was abandoned by him? Do we even care? I mean honestly, how arrogant does one have to be to decide that a 200 page Roald Dahl story is not enough to adapt and instead puts in a back story that adds nothing but time to the movie and ends up being more of a detraction? Not only that, it makes it an abrupt shift since we're supposed to be focused on Charlie and suddenly, we have Willy Wonka's childhood!? Oy.

Overall, a moderately satisfying film that unfortunately falls short of the potential it could have achieved. That's also why I say the 1971 version is the superior one. At least their changes to the story didn't involve frequent, time-consuming flashbacks.

Dragonball Evolution (2009)

amazing...unbelievable really

[1/10 · 8 June 2010]

I saw the film for the first time recently on television and since I refused to see the film in theaters because the trailers showed what looked a godawful cash in of an adaptation, I thought "I'll give it a shot, how bad can it be?"

For the first time, I can honestly say that it hurt to watch a movie. Seriously, watching this movie left me in physical pain, that's how bad it was.

Like many, I grew up following Dragonball Z. Actually I had seen Dragonball first but only a few episodes and then it was years before I found DBZ and I was hooked. Sure in hindsight the stories were flimsy and contained more padding than a junior high school student but I was drawn in by characters like Gohan and Krillin as well as the fighting scenes when they did happen.

Enough happy times, time for the plot of this movie. Goku is a young, happy boy living by himself in the woods, he is freakishly strong and has a tail and completely ignorant to the outside world until -- oh I'm sorry, that's actually the original storyline from Akira Toriyama. No, instead we have Goku in high school.

GOKU IN HIGH SCHOOL!? Not even 15 minutes and already this film is ruined but wait, it gets even WORSE! Not only is Goku in high school but Goku is, as one youtube critic put it: "a whining little crapsack who never smiles." Did I also mention that they took away his tail?

Then we have Bulma, played Emma Rossum doing a fantastic impression of a wooden cutout...oh and they also screwed up her character. Yes in the anime she was shallow, cowardly and selfish but you know what, she was actually the most normal character in the anime, aside from being a super-genius that is.

DBE's Bulma seemed more like a Bond-girl reject, a gun toting Jean-Claude Van Damme wannabe. Oh and I love how she doesn't have blue hair because the creative "talents" thought it would be unrealistic...THE SHOW HAS DINOSAURS, SPACE ALIENS THAT CAN DESTROY PLANETS WITH A FINGER, TALKING ANIMALS, HOUSES COMING FROM CAPSULES AND ONE OF THE BIGGEST MACGUFFIN'S THERE IS AND THEY THINK BULMA HAVING BLUE HAIR IS UNREALISTIC!? And then there's Master Roshi...they just didn't even try to be faithful. Not even a beard, just Chow Yun-Fat waiting for his hopefully massive pay check.

And don't me started on Chi-Chi, Yamcha or Piccolo. I'm actually amazed they found a way to make Yamcha's character even more useless than Toriyama did in DBZ.

This film is awful! Just a complete and utter neutering of a flagship franchise. Yes changes are expected BUT TO BASICALLY GIVE A GIANT MIDDLE FINGER TO WHAT AKIRA TORIYAMA PRODUCED IS UNFORGIVABLE!

Spider-Man 3 (2007)

Like a sandwich with good bread and sand in the middle

[4/10 · 9 May 2007]

Being a Spiderman fan (the 90's cartoon series, too cheap for the comics), I enjoyed the second film and looked forward to the third.

The beginning wasn't bad but once it got to the middle, everything that made the movie series so great went down the terlet.

Now I have a theory - Joel Schumacher kidnapped Sam Raimi and took over after the beginning. It's the only logical reasoning I can think of for the bloated mess in the middle.

First of all, when did Mary-Jane become a singer? And when did she get decidedly dumber and sorry to add on here, but at some point, you gotta stop with all the kidnappings. I mean if I was kidnapped as much as MJ was in the film, I would probably take a nap in that cab. Makes you wish for a Guild of Calamitous Intent to provide spacing.

Sorry.

Anywho, Gwen Stacy - completely unnecessary, one-dimensional, should have been in the first film if they really wanted her in this.

The montage sequence was WAY too long, WAY overdone, it was unintentional comedy at its most bloated. With all the eye shadow and black clothing, I thought Parker would have locked himself in his room and listened to the Cure for 15 hours. Would have fit in better than the most ridiculous dance since the Batousi.

Another problem - too many supervillians. If they wanted more than one, they should have kept Doc Oc alive in the second film and start up the Sinister Syndicate or whatever it was called. Venom is good enough by himself with out any need for the Goblin or Sandman.

Speaking of the Goblin, did the audience really want another Goblin appearance? Couldn't Harry have played no role and then make a grand appearance in the fourth one? Stop the losing the damn mask! I swear, what is the point of the costume if the guy keeps losing his mask? Do you see Batman having this problem? How about comic book Wolverine? My main gripe though is the middle which as stated before, contained not only the overdone montage but an instance of assault which helped lead to one of the more ridiculous endings I have seen. They hug and that's that...what now everything is just hunky-dory? In condensed form: the beginning was good, the middle sucked and dragged the ending with it.

For the next three films, they need to streamline the story, rediscover Spiderman's witty banter and have him keep his mask on.

Animorphs (1998–2000)

Truly awful

[1/10 · 9 May 2007]

Ah Animorphs. I loved the book series and eagerly devoured each one in middle school and when I heard that there was a television adaptation, I was very excited.

Boy what a let down the final product was. I think for me, this was the moment when Nickelodeon stopped being about cool programming and became more generic.

So what was wrong with the series? Let me count the ways:

1. The characters were HORRIFICALLY miscast. In the books, the Animorphs were somewhere between 12-14, the television cast were at least 18. I remember being horrified when I first saw the cast photos.

2. Horrific acting/bad writing. I dunno which was to blame so I'm lumping into the lumpy mass that it was. Perhaps it was the fact that the accelerated age of the cast hampered the humor that is at least cute coming out of a 13 year old because Marco - not funny. In fact, I don't remember a single comical moment from the group and there were a few. The actors were certainly not helped by the writing which was bland at its best and head smackingly pathetic at its worst.

3. My lord they were stingy with the budget. The final result of the Andalites alone should have convinced Viacom to pull the plug...Their heads had clefts that clearly showed which was the helmet.

4. Back to the cast - Rachel by far was the biggest let down, far from being the warrior woman in the books, the best equivalent in the TV series was "scarecrow". Also, I know Cassie was an idealist but there is a difference between "idealist" and "idiot".

5. One of the worst opening titles ever. Did the music have to be THAT obvious?

6. Answering question 5, "yes" because everything else was so dumbed down why shouldn't the supposedly less intelligent viewers receive a thick as a brick song from a lame rap-rock rip-off or whatever the hell that was.

This show sucked and was an abomination to the book series it was supposed to be based from.

Team America: World Police (2004)

This film sucks

[4/10 · 17 July 2005]

I just want to say that I love South Park, loved Baseketball and their South Park movie was not only funny but a surprisingly witty and vulgar satire on censorship and hypocrisy.

That being said, the creators have had their work go into unfunny directions when they get caught up on their own right wing leaning philosophy and outright savaging of all pop icons they don't like. Team America is their bad habits at their most bloated.

The biggest problem I have with the film is this -- it's not funny. It's pretty much puppets swearing, repetitive gay jokes, repetitive gags for that matter that get old real fast (case in point, the vomit scene). Finally they lost a lot of focus and momentum when they focused a lot on their attacks on the left wing and by the left wing I mean Hollywood...look there are inflated egos and I enjoy seeing excellent satire at their expense. What Team America offers is beyond overkill. I mean, WHY obsessively attack Hollywood stars? They're annoying but they're also inconsequential. I just found it to be more akin to bullying than actual satire.

In a way, it's a lot like Starship Troopers -- a misguided attempt at satire that ends up promoting a very authoritarian right wing message.