Horton Hears a Who

Got time to kill? The filmmakers do…

2008

Review: March 21, 2008

Director: Jimmy Hayward, Steve Martino

Starring: Jim Carrey, Steve Carell, Carol Burnett, Will Arnett, Seth Rogen

Ideal.

THE SETUP:

Elephant becomes aware of tiny world in a speck o’ dust.

DISCUSSION:

My friend wanted to see this, and I usually don’t mind kids computer-animated fare, so off we go. This is the latest adaptation of a Dr. Seuss book, and, according to the New York Times, distinguishes itself from the other adaptations simply by “not being one of the worst movies ever made.”

Horton, voiced by Jim Carrey, is a friendly elephant who one day hears a little yelp from a passing speck of dust. He soon discovers that this speck contains an entire world, Whoville, and determines to find a safe spot for them to live, without danger of being blown around further. Horton endures complications from an uptight kangaroo, played by Carol Burnett, as does the mayor of Whoville, voiced by Steve Carell.

It’s all well and good, only soon you start to notice certain scenes that seem like so much pointless mucking about, and then you start to reflect on the fact that the problem the filmmakers face is to turn a 10-minute story into a 90-minute movie. The way they accomplish this is to invent several pointless scenes and complications, then to extend each of these as far as possible in order to fill up time. So while it’s all relatively lighthearted and amusing, after a while the absolute wheel-spinning of the entire exercise begins to become the main impression, and you kind of sit there amazed at all the painstaking effort that went into dilly-dallying as much as possible. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a movie that spends so much effort simply to fill up time.

This has the sum effect of making the movie seem much longer than it is… and it’s only 86 minutes, including a long end credits sequence. Toward the end I would have sworn it was a full two hours. Some of the animation looks great, and nothing ever happens that seems completely out of character or vulgar to the memory of the book, it’s just difficult to get into a movie that is spending so much effort to waste time without thinking about the various things one could be doing instead of sitting there watching pretty pictures that dither away the day.

Maybe for kids that’s absolutely perfect. Who knows. As an adult, it’s a different story. It’s pleasant enough, it’s just unusual to sit through a movie that makes one so aware that it is nothing but a waste of time.

A WEEK LATER I find I have relatively pleasant memories of this movie, despite what it may sound like above. I still don't LOVE it, or really even like it, but the animation is very nice and there are worse things to do than look at pretty pictures for 86 minutes.

SHOULD YOU WATCH IT?

If you want, or if you have kids.