This movie appears to be giving "Gigli" competition as the Worst Reviewed Movie of 2003. To me, it shows that Hollywood is simply running out of ideas. To keep the screens busy and the rental stores full, increasingly massive amounts of money are being spent to make unnecessary remakes, eviscerate well-known books, and lash together cinematic cliches into hollow vanity projects for uneducated actors and artless directors, all supported by "studios" that envision three audiences: horny young males, simpy date-movie goers, and Christmas-time Oscar-bait middlebrows. The films are loaded with obvious advertisements for useless consumer goods, aging male actors are paired with actresses the age of their daughters, marquee names keep playing the same characters over and over again, and some movies are so laden with CGI effects that they have become merely louder and more violent (and stupider) versions of "The Incredible Mister Limpet." The movie industry today actually makes me pine for the days of the legendary and dictatorial studio heads of the Thirties and Forties...

I'm sorry for the outburst, I should go see Eddie Murphy in "The Haunted Mansion." I'm sure that will make me feel better.

And then you have Seabiscuit which we just saw, as it went to the $2 seat theatre and... what a charmer. I suppose one can put it in the category of Rocky and others "poor boy becomes a champ..." I am not sure. I really cannot put it in any category. But then, of course, what do I know? I am just a movie goer.

I'm just glad they didn't make a movie of that small-l libertarian classic, *Thidwick the Big-Hearted Moose*.

"Seabiscuit" was a very good movie, adapted from an excellent book. Yes, the "little guy triumphs" is a familiar theme in movies, but the secret is to take a formula and find a way to make the viewer say, "Oh, I didn't expect that!" (One of the elements that kept "Gladiator" from being a total waste of celluloid was that in the end Maximus dies; I'm sick to death of movies where when the hero wins he [and it is always almost a he] has to do so in front of a giant cheering audience.) In fact, "Rocky" is a decent movie, too, not great art, but worth watching. There are plenty of well-done formula movies: "Hunt for Red October" (submarine picture), "Silverado" (Western), "Saving Private Ryan" (war movie). And hanna is right, you are just a movie-goer, with individual tastes and preferences, not a focus-group tested consumer, not an "audience". Not every movie will attract a huge audience, but too many in Hollywood think that they have to do everything they can do make it so. Heck, I agree with most movie critics who say that "2001" is one of the best movies ever made, and it is, quite frankly, a tough movie for a lot of people because it seems so obscure. The same with films by David Lynch or John Waters: not always great, but I've never seen one that looks like any other director could have made it.

Yikes! I meant to say, in comments about "Gladiator", "...and it is almost always a he..." BIG difference.

The WSJ's Joe Morgenstern, whose movie reviews I like - today raves about 21 grams - also hates the Cat in the Hat:

You May Be Sad and Even Mad,
But 'Cat in the Hat' Is Very Bad

"...abomination, impure and simple... functioning like a cattle prod for kids who've already been stupefied by Saturday morning cartoons... shamelessly sexualized: a reference to a woman as a "dirty ho'", the mother's breasts swelling out of her dress.

As for Gigli, the WSJ John Lippman, in his Hollywood Report about the marketability of Ben Affleck, writes that Gigli "was single-handedly responsible for pushing giant Sony Pictures into the red for the quarter."

I won't see Cat in the Hat, sounds miserable. On a digression, does anyone else see a cliff looming ahead for Hollywood that their car is about to careen off of? There are these eerie parallels to the music industry:
Movies: Bad product, overproduced for a specific "audience", which is usually males 18-34. Lots of sequels and remakes. Heavy reliance on computer tech to wow viewers. Overpriced tickets.

Music: a few years ago was relying on old artists reissuing, new studio products that had zero talent and were marketing products, tech wizardy to make J Lo sound marginally talented, inflated prices. Then along came Napster, the industry got clobbered, blamed it on the internet, had nothing to do with the schlock they were churning out and jamming down our throats via Big Radio and charging 18 dollars for.

Is there going to be a Napster of film that opens the floodgates? Will audiences stop paying 11 dollars to see crap? Will the MPAA, or whatever studio group association, become shrill and reactive like the RIAA? I think it might be fun to watch, I hope so. Please o please let compression and bandwidth make it possible. Comeuppance is due.

Here's what I'd like to know: how much revenue is the U.S. Post Office getting from putting up cardboard advertisements for The Cat In The Hat? Those ads also feature a Mastercard ad.

In the small print at the bottom, it instructs that the ad must stay up until 12/26/03. Perhaps they'll have attached 'Now on DVD!' stickers to them by then.