Advertisement
Latest Feature
Latest Episode
Latest Comments
El Diaro Del Macho Borracho
Old school like Aztecs but new in other aspects: horror, video games, wrestling, culture, and nonsense. Also, this is the place to check for new features/updates on the tech side of Bloody Good Horror.
Box Office Boner - Horton Hears a Who
After months of listening to Jon blab about "THE BOX" on the Podcast, I've taken it upon myself to occasionally go out of my way to see at least one blockbuster a month and report back to the Bloody Good Horror nerd cave about whether or not it in fact deserves its accolades. Stay tuned for more!
Horton Hears a Who
Somewhat Relevant Thematic Tie-Ins:
Book Adaptations
Remakes
CGI
The Skinny:
As a child who's complete understanding of the Cold War was based on "The Butter Battle Book," it's safe to say I approached this film with a great deal of excitement and healthy skepticism. What I got was (mostly) what I was expecting, and some.
This film, on the whole, stays about as true to the charm of a Suess book as a CG feature can, even if it is somewhat lacking in the subtlety department. The wacky creatures, imaginative landscapes, and omniscient narration (though sparse) are all present and feel remarkably "suess-ian." I'll be goddamned if I didn't squeal just a little when I saw the big reveal at the end in all of it's humongous, twisted (physically, not metaphorically) glory. I could have dealt with more narration and actual readings from the book, but the use of passages from the book were well thought out and appropriately used throughout the film. There were also some parts where the classic line of the book ("An elephant's an elephant...") was played with in such a way that was an obvious nod to people that grew up with 'tha Doctor,' without being smarmy about it. Also, the loaded social commentary of Suess' original is here en force, relatively untouched, with themes about god, intelligent design, independence and acceptance sprinkled throughout.
You may also have heard that the film itself is beautiful. I can in fact, confirm this. The fact that there was an entire section in the credits dedicated to the "Fur" team should give you an indication as to how much care was put into this animation. Obviously any medium aside from cel-shading isn't going to give you the exact look and feel of the book (although there was a brief cutaway to a more "classic" 2D animation style), the team at this studio did an incredible job of bringing these characters to life. There were parts where I was actually had to do a double take and re-look, especially in the water and fur effects department. Some people call it distracting, I call it effective. I got a sense of the fragility of the Who world, and found myself wrapped up in the character movements and gestures. The physical "believability" of the characters really helped to make the ending of the film hit home, so much so that I almost got misty.
(This is the point where I go to the bathroom, splash water on my face, and remember that I'm writing about HORTON HEARS A FUCKING WHO. Jesus christ)
It's not ALL shits and giggles however. There were some amusing yet wholly unnecessary non-sequiturs that really drew me away, mainly the cutaway to a Samurai-Jack style animation sequence that although well done, felt forced and left me with an overall "what the fuck?" sort of feeling. I could also have dealt without the wacky music sequences, that felt very out of place in relation to the world in the same way that the Oompa Loompa techno dance party in Burton's "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" felt a little too 2006/7/8 to be appropriate. I can also admit that it did take me a while to accept that the entire piece wasn't going to by rhymed, but once I was hooked to the characters, it became a non-issue.
Overall, I would say that "Horton" succeeds where many horror adaptations/remakes fail. It took a strong original piece, did it justice, and added in enough of it's own flair to make the film stand out strongly on its own. I would accept this film as a worthy companion to the book, and would have no problem showing it to my sprouts if and when I have any.
Intended Audience:
Children, Parents With Children
Extended Audience:
Suess fans, people under the influence of marijuana/Hallucinogens, people who get boners over water/particle/fur effects, children at heart
Worth it?
Absolutely
Author's Note: If you're interested in seeing this as a full time feature, or you have ideas for movies I should see/review let me know! Let it be said however, that I will never, EVER in a million fucking years, even under threat of Chinese water torture suspended over an active volcano, see "Never Back Down," despite its successes and advances in man-sweat technology.
- mark's blog
- Login or register to post comments
- Email this page









Dude
Man-sweat technology has come so far. Gotta respect that. Also, please don't undermine Never Back Down's trend-making use of H2 semi-circles as a fighting arena.
Otherwise, really nice feature. I've heard good things about Horton, but I'm morally opposed to any animation film where the marketing aggressively touts the voice acting as if that's a reason to go see it. Obviously you want good voice talent, but there's thousands of voice actors out there who do terrific work even though no one knows what the hell they look like (a little show called The Simpsons comes to mind, perhaps you're aware of it). The fact that I can name at least 3 voice actors from this film means that they're trying pretty hard to make those names a draw.
Compare that to Ratatouille, which was fucking amazing, and most people couldn't name more than one or possibly two voice actors who worked on the film.
Whewww. Feels good to get that out of my system. Again, excellent feature.
The crazy part of the
The crazy part of the voice-acting situation is, Jim Carrey doesn't sound at all like any Jim Carrey I've ever heard, which in this case is a good thing. Carrell's portion borders on "Office" soundbites, but to me, that's NOT a bad thing in this case. He plays the delusional wacky boss/mayor to a t.
Voice Acting
I read an interview a while back with Billy West (?) the guy who did the voice of Stimpy from Ren and Stimpy and Frye from Futurama and about a million other voices for animation and he railed against the celebrity voice-over trend. I imagine it is frustrating for people who have built their careers specifically on acting with their voice and doing a variety of different voices to lose out on jobs to some celebrity who just reads lines in their normal voice. Granted, some actors like Jim
Carrey or Mike Meyers or Robin Williams probably do understand voice acting more than others, but does Cameron Diaz for example bring anything to Shrek that pretty much any female voice actor couldn't top?
It's not so much that it
It's not so much that it bothers me from a voice acting standpoint, as I'm just sick of the formulaic nature of these animated movies. Grab a bunch of animals, put them in a hilariously "human" story, and then hire a bunch of famous people to voice them.
At least with this one they're attempting to take some pretty classic children's material and modernize it. And I would say kudos for the "Butter Battle Book" reference, except now I want toast.
the "Pixar" difference
One of the main differences between say "Ratatouille" that Jon mentioned and the formulaic 'talking animal' movies that Eric mentioned is that even though Ratatouille featured a talking animal, it took years to make because of the detail, not the bullshit. Aside from Patton Oswalt, who nobody gives a shit about, there was no voice actor hype.
Allison and I sat through the previews before Horton and saw trailers for both "Kung Fu Panda" 'featuring' Jack Black and Wall-E featuring, get this, no one! Watching the two previews back to back gave me a greater appreciation for how much Pixar understands what makes a remarkable CG animated feature.
Word. It still bothers me
Word. It still bothers me that Wall-E looks exactly like Johnny 5. But hey, what are you gonna do.