I used to like this movie when I was younger, but after I heard many not-so-good things about it all over the internet years ago, I now hate it and have a hard time believing that I used to like it. I must have been blinded by my love of The Cat in the Hat book and animated TV special. I have a DVD of this abomination, but I'm going to get rid of it at some point. I also have a DVD of the original cartoon, but I'm keeping it.
The movie is very unfaithful to the book for the most part. Dr. Seuss probably wouldn't like this if he was still alive. Thankfully, his widow, Audrey Geisel, hated it so much and banned Hollywood from making any more live-action adaptations of her late husband's works. There are some unnecessary new characters and little to no rhymes, and the old characters have been flanderized. The Cat in the Hat (Mike Myers) briefly says that he isn't good at rhyming, which is ironic because part of the reason why Dr. Seuss's books are extremely popular is because of the constant rhyming. The fish (Sean Hayes) is the only good character. The story focuses more on new elements than the same scenes from the book. That makes sense because this is a feature-length adaptation of a short story, so the scenes from the book would likely only take up close to 10 minutes of the movie, and there would be lots of extra time to fill up. However, the film doesn't add anything to the story or expand upon it. Instead, it takes a few brief bits of the story, and the rest is a skit show.
Nearly every character is one-dimensional. Conrad (Spencer Breslin) is a rule breaker, Sally (Dakota Fanning) is a control freak, Mr. Humberfloob (also Sean Hayes) is a "germophobe," and Mrs. Kwan is a lazy babysitter who does nothing but sleep for most of the movie instead of doing her job.
There are numerous innuendos and gross-out jokes that are quite noticeable-some are poorly hidden, while others are downright disgusting or mean-spirited-such as the Cat in the Hat's bare butt appearing on screen with him letting out a stinky fart, multiple instances of him swearing (some are censored and others are not), him throwing the fish in the toilet, a scene where he tells the kids that the fish drinks his own pee, Larry Quinn's (Alec Baldwin) extremely hairy body being revealed (Did anyone really have to see that?), the infamous garden hoe pun, and many more. The inclusion of gross-out humor feels excessive and out of place in a story meant for children.
It also takes away the imaginative and whimsical elements that are characteristic of Dr. Seuss's work. The humor seems aimed more at adults than at children, which leads to confusion about the intended audience. Even though this is supposed to be a children's movie and an adaptation of a children's book, it definitely isn't for 4- and 5-year-olds who enjoy the book. This disconnection might leave parents questioning why certain scenes were included, especially considering the original book's charm and innocence.
Furthermore, the overwhelming quantity of innuendos could cause a misunderstanding about what is appropriate for young viewers. Kids are often easily influenced, and introducing these themes in a children's movie can lead to uncomfortable discussions or unwarranted curiosity. Even though the adult jokes will go over many younger viewers' heads, young children shouldn't be exposed to them. They make the movie feel like a Cat in the Hat parody rather than an adaptation.
Because of their presence, I'm surprised I was allowed to watch it when I was younger, but when and if I ever have any kids in the future, I won't let them watch this until they're older, maybe when they're 12 or 13. However, I will let them read the book and watch the cartoon at any age. It would have been more effective to maintain the playful spirit of the source material without such crude humor. This so-called adaptation is rated PG, but it would've made more sense to give it a PG-13 rating. Overall, while humor has its place in children's entertainment, there's a fine line between funny and inappropriate, and this film seems to blur that line rather menacingly.
Some of the character designs are creepy, especially the Cat, Thing 1, and Thing 2's designs. The Cat more closely resembles a giant skunk than a cat. He looks like Pepe Lepew and Ronald McDonald fused into one character, as Nostalgia Critic says in his Cat in the Hat review. The things do look accurate, but they look even creepier. As mentioned in the same video, "What makes something cute in a drawing doesn't always make it cute in real life. In a drawing, you can get away with leaving certain things out, like upper lips per se. They would look like wrinkles if you put them in a drawing, but in real life, it looks scary!" I strongly agree with that. I don't know what else to say about the character designs.
Don't watch The Cat in the Hat (2003). Watch the cartoon and read the book instead. If you're looking for a good live-action Dr. Seuss adaptation, watch How the Grinch Stole Christmas (2000).
Update for October 10, 2024: My DVD of this movie thankfully got donated recently.
The movie is very unfaithful to the book for the most part. Dr. Seuss probably wouldn't like this if he was still alive. Thankfully, his widow, Audrey Geisel, hated it so much and banned Hollywood from making any more live-action adaptations of her late husband's works. There are some unnecessary new characters and little to no rhymes, and the old characters have been flanderized. The Cat in the Hat (Mike Myers) briefly says that he isn't good at rhyming, which is ironic because part of the reason why Dr. Seuss's books are extremely popular is because of the constant rhyming. The fish (Sean Hayes) is the only good character. The story focuses more on new elements than the same scenes from the book. That makes sense because this is a feature-length adaptation of a short story, so the scenes from the book would likely only take up close to 10 minutes of the movie, and there would be lots of extra time to fill up. However, the film doesn't add anything to the story or expand upon it. Instead, it takes a few brief bits of the story, and the rest is a skit show.
Nearly every character is one-dimensional. Conrad (Spencer Breslin) is a rule breaker, Sally (Dakota Fanning) is a control freak, Mr. Humberfloob (also Sean Hayes) is a "germophobe," and Mrs. Kwan is a lazy babysitter who does nothing but sleep for most of the movie instead of doing her job.
There are numerous innuendos and gross-out jokes that are quite noticeable-some are poorly hidden, while others are downright disgusting or mean-spirited-such as the Cat in the Hat's bare butt appearing on screen with him letting out a stinky fart, multiple instances of him swearing (some are censored and others are not), him throwing the fish in the toilet, a scene where he tells the kids that the fish drinks his own pee, Larry Quinn's (Alec Baldwin) extremely hairy body being revealed (Did anyone really have to see that?), the infamous garden hoe pun, and many more. The inclusion of gross-out humor feels excessive and out of place in a story meant for children.
It also takes away the imaginative and whimsical elements that are characteristic of Dr. Seuss's work. The humor seems aimed more at adults than at children, which leads to confusion about the intended audience. Even though this is supposed to be a children's movie and an adaptation of a children's book, it definitely isn't for 4- and 5-year-olds who enjoy the book. This disconnection might leave parents questioning why certain scenes were included, especially considering the original book's charm and innocence.
Furthermore, the overwhelming quantity of innuendos could cause a misunderstanding about what is appropriate for young viewers. Kids are often easily influenced, and introducing these themes in a children's movie can lead to uncomfortable discussions or unwarranted curiosity. Even though the adult jokes will go over many younger viewers' heads, young children shouldn't be exposed to them. They make the movie feel like a Cat in the Hat parody rather than an adaptation.
Because of their presence, I'm surprised I was allowed to watch it when I was younger, but when and if I ever have any kids in the future, I won't let them watch this until they're older, maybe when they're 12 or 13. However, I will let them read the book and watch the cartoon at any age. It would have been more effective to maintain the playful spirit of the source material without such crude humor. This so-called adaptation is rated PG, but it would've made more sense to give it a PG-13 rating. Overall, while humor has its place in children's entertainment, there's a fine line between funny and inappropriate, and this film seems to blur that line rather menacingly.
Some of the character designs are creepy, especially the Cat, Thing 1, and Thing 2's designs. The Cat more closely resembles a giant skunk than a cat. He looks like Pepe Lepew and Ronald McDonald fused into one character, as Nostalgia Critic says in his Cat in the Hat review. The things do look accurate, but they look even creepier. As mentioned in the same video, "What makes something cute in a drawing doesn't always make it cute in real life. In a drawing, you can get away with leaving certain things out, like upper lips per se. They would look like wrinkles if you put them in a drawing, but in real life, it looks scary!" I strongly agree with that. I don't know what else to say about the character designs.
Don't watch The Cat in the Hat (2003). Watch the cartoon and read the book instead. If you're looking for a good live-action Dr. Seuss adaptation, watch How the Grinch Stole Christmas (2000).
Update for October 10, 2024: My DVD of this movie thankfully got donated recently.