All I Can Hear is Tired Groaning
I love Doctor Seuss. The man got kids' stories right. He stretched the imagination, made it okay to rhyme real words with imaginary ones, and talked about grown-up issues in a way kids could understand. He was okay in my book.
That's why I consider this movie to be a piss-poor adaptation of his book about a loveable elephant who hears voice nobody else can. Horton Hears a Who! is crammed to the brim with action and movement, often becoming a loud and chaotic mess that takes no time to reflect on itself. It highlights the weirdness of the situation in a way that comes off more glib than clever. Most of all, it lacks sincerity. The movie's greatest crime is that it could not resist telling the story without poking fun at it, almost behind its back.
So why did we make a drinking game for this shlock? Because, as I've pointed out before, boring predictability is the number one ingredient to a fantastic drinking game.
That's why I consider this movie to be a piss-poor adaptation of his book about a loveable elephant who hears voice nobody else can. Horton Hears a Who! is crammed to the brim with action and movement, often becoming a loud and chaotic mess that takes no time to reflect on itself. It highlights the weirdness of the situation in a way that comes off more glib than clever. Most of all, it lacks sincerity. The movie's greatest crime is that it could not resist telling the story without poking fun at it, almost behind its back.
So why did we make a drinking game for this shlock? Because, as I've pointed out before, boring predictability is the number one ingredient to a fantastic drinking game.
"Horton Beers a Who!": The Rules
We drank Fuzzy Navels while playing this game. Because...Whos are fuzzy...so are the flowers in this movie...Horton's probably also...pretty fuzzy...
Shut up, my logic works.
Shut up, my logic works.
See? Fuzzy!
Easy Mode
1. Drink for Title Drops. For Easy Mode, that's every time someone says the word "Horton".
2. Drink when they drink.
3. Drink for Daddy Issues. JoJo has this rule covered.
4. Drink for snark. I'll elaborate on this.
5. Drink when Seuss' words are spoken. But drink TWICE when the movie tries to add in Seussian phrasing.
Medium Mode
All the above rules apply. Also...
1. Drink for Title Drops. For Medium Mode, that's every time someone says the word "Who". Do you know what Whos like to do? Say "Who".
2. Drink when someone gets injured. Horton can take a lot of damage before actually feeling any pain, so pay attention.
Hard Mode
All the above rules apply. Also...
1. Drink when any behavior occurs that could be classified as "psychotic".
1. Drink for Title Drops. For Easy Mode, that's every time someone says the word "Horton".
2. Drink when they drink.
3. Drink for Daddy Issues. JoJo has this rule covered.
4. Drink for snark. I'll elaborate on this.
5. Drink when Seuss' words are spoken. But drink TWICE when the movie tries to add in Seussian phrasing.
Medium Mode
All the above rules apply. Also...
1. Drink for Title Drops. For Medium Mode, that's every time someone says the word "Who". Do you know what Whos like to do? Say "Who".
2. Drink when someone gets injured. Horton can take a lot of damage before actually feeling any pain, so pay attention.
Hard Mode
All the above rules apply. Also...
1. Drink when any behavior occurs that could be classified as "psychotic".
Or really anytime Horton acts like Jim Carrey.
The Players
Our players for this game are...
Velma Jenkies: Hears a What (Easy)
Seb: Hears a Why (Easy)
Pooh Daddy: Hears a How (Medium)
Some Guy: Hears a When (Medium)
Krissy Pappau: Hears a Where (Hard)
Big Moose: Hears a Whatever (Hard)
Help us vanquish this sham of a children's movie. Here's "Horton Hears a Who!"
Velma Jenkies: Hears a What (Easy)
Seb: Hears a Why (Easy)
Pooh Daddy: Hears a How (Medium)
Some Guy: Hears a When (Medium)
Krissy Pappau: Hears a Where (Hard)
Big Moose: Hears a Whatever (Hard)
Help us vanquish this sham of a children's movie. Here's "Horton Hears a Who!"
Snark vs Sarcasm
"I don't get why you guys are hating on this movie," Velma Jenkies eventually put in. "I like this movie a lot."
"Horton Hears a Who!" is not entirely without merit. There's some cute gags. The character animation is really interesting, the colors are bright, there's nothing really OFFENSIVE about it. Even some of the additions to the plot are kind of cute, like the Mayor of Whoville's 96 Who-daughters who all have to ration out their time with their dad because he's so busy.
"Horton Hears a Who!" is not entirely without merit. There's some cute gags. The character animation is really interesting, the colors are bright, there's nothing really OFFENSIVE about it. Even some of the additions to the plot are kind of cute, like the Mayor of Whoville's 96 Who-daughters who all have to ration out their time with their dad because he's so busy.
"I'm just gonna say it: Why can't one of the daughters be mayor?" -Seb
But I still consider it a failure as a movie, for several reasons.
The 2000's were a very good decade for animation in America, especially children's animation. Horton was released in 2008, the same year that Disney Pixar unleashed "Wall-E" on the general public, and the same year that the acclaimed children's series "Avatar: The Last Airbender" wrapped its final season. This movie was in very good company, released in a decade where the general public was beginning to view animation as a legitimate art form that could be not only a valuable storytelling medium, but a medium that could appeal to children AND adults.
"Horton Hears a Who!" manages to take an elephant-sized step backwards when it comes to advancing animation as an art form, which may be unfair for a children's film, but there are children's movies that avoid the pitfalls this movie readily plunges into. For starters, "Horton," like many Blue Sky movies, is filled with snark.
What exactly do I mean when I say "snark?" Here's an example: In the middle of the movie, the Mayor of Whoville (Steve Carrell) panics because he's hearing a voice from above and there's a possibility he's going nuts. He's interrupted by his secretary, who tells him that he has an appointment for a Who-root canal (drink).
"You know," he calls to her retreating back, "Adding "Who" to the beginning of every word doesn't help anything! Just wastes time!"
The 2000's were a very good decade for animation in America, especially children's animation. Horton was released in 2008, the same year that Disney Pixar unleashed "Wall-E" on the general public, and the same year that the acclaimed children's series "Avatar: The Last Airbender" wrapped its final season. This movie was in very good company, released in a decade where the general public was beginning to view animation as a legitimate art form that could be not only a valuable storytelling medium, but a medium that could appeal to children AND adults.
"Horton Hears a Who!" manages to take an elephant-sized step backwards when it comes to advancing animation as an art form, which may be unfair for a children's film, but there are children's movies that avoid the pitfalls this movie readily plunges into. For starters, "Horton," like many Blue Sky movies, is filled with snark.
What exactly do I mean when I say "snark?" Here's an example: In the middle of the movie, the Mayor of Whoville (Steve Carrell) panics because he's hearing a voice from above and there's a possibility he's going nuts. He's interrupted by his secretary, who tells him that he has an appointment for a Who-root canal (drink).
"You know," he calls to her retreating back, "Adding "Who" to the beginning of every word doesn't help anything! Just wastes time!"
You're the MAYOR of WHOVILLE.
This kind of joke is supposed to make us laugh in recognition at something absurd. Oh, those Whos. Adding "Who" to the beginning of all the words in their dictionary. What will they think of next?
It doesn't come off that way. The Mayor supposedly grew up in this town and has been presiding over it for years. This is not something he should be noticing. The syntax of his world should seem perfectly normal to him. It's like if Papa Smurf suddenly started questioning why "smurf" is such a versitile word around Smurf Village.
What sets "snark" apart from ordinary sarcasm is the idea that the character is "pointing" at something strange. Sarcasm has the potential to be clever and insightful. "Snark" is often unnecessary and obnoxious, because it's drawing attention to something that everyone already knows.
In another scene, Horton drops the famous "An elephant's faithful, 100 percent" line (drink) to explain why he's refusing to change his beliefs to his mouse-friend-thing Morton. Morton responds, "Just once, could you be faithful 99 percent of the time? I've never been 99 percent good at anything, and I think I'm awesome!"
It doesn't come off that way. The Mayor supposedly grew up in this town and has been presiding over it for years. This is not something he should be noticing. The syntax of his world should seem perfectly normal to him. It's like if Papa Smurf suddenly started questioning why "smurf" is such a versitile word around Smurf Village.
What sets "snark" apart from ordinary sarcasm is the idea that the character is "pointing" at something strange. Sarcasm has the potential to be clever and insightful. "Snark" is often unnecessary and obnoxious, because it's drawing attention to something that everyone already knows.
In another scene, Horton drops the famous "An elephant's faithful, 100 percent" line (drink) to explain why he's refusing to change his beliefs to his mouse-friend-thing Morton. Morton responds, "Just once, could you be faithful 99 percent of the time? I've never been 99 percent good at anything, and I think I'm awesome!"
"I'm drinking for emotional pain on THIS side of the screen" -Big Moose
This completely sucks the emotional weight out of the scene. Horton is very sincere in his commitment to the Whos. By having Morton respond in such a blatantly sarcastic way, the writers are turning what could be a true emotional moment into a set-up for a cheap gag you would only understand if you had some relationship to the original text. A child won't see the joke, and the adult won't think it's funny. This kind of writing is indicative of a huge mistake many kids' writers make: sacrificing sincerity and drama for the sake of comedy and excitement. Coupled with the terrible pacing of this movie, this dialogue drags down the film, and directly counteracts the brightness and cheeriness of the design.
Horton the Elephant: Psychopath
Speaking of sincerity, let's take a look at our main character: Horton the elephant.
In the books, Horton's kind of dopey, but good hearted. Everyone in Nool has nice things to say about him, and he has a reputation for being dependable and clear-headed, which is why the whole thing about him hearing voices on a speck of dust comes as a shock to the rest of the jungle. He's letting them down, because he's suddenly professing irrational beliefs.
Horton in the movie...well...he's a little off his rocker.
I guess the basic character is still there, but movie Horton seems possessed by a frenetic energy. He can never sit still. All of the pop culture quotes in the movie come from him, which makes it seem like he's channeling this other world that nobody knows nothing about (schizophrenic ramblings). The character feels more like Robin Williams' Genie from Aladdin than Seuss' original character. Hell, Robin Williams would almost be a better casting fit. His brand of energy and bravado stems from a passionate need to share information. Jim Carrey is a talented man, but even when his shtick is rooted in drama, he's decidedly not down-to-earth in the slightest. Horton needs that sense of grounding for us to believe him as a protagonist.
Besides, Carrey's brand of crazy has always translated better to live action.
In the books, Horton's kind of dopey, but good hearted. Everyone in Nool has nice things to say about him, and he has a reputation for being dependable and clear-headed, which is why the whole thing about him hearing voices on a speck of dust comes as a shock to the rest of the jungle. He's letting them down, because he's suddenly professing irrational beliefs.
Horton in the movie...well...he's a little off his rocker.
I guess the basic character is still there, but movie Horton seems possessed by a frenetic energy. He can never sit still. All of the pop culture quotes in the movie come from him, which makes it seem like he's channeling this other world that nobody knows nothing about (schizophrenic ramblings). The character feels more like Robin Williams' Genie from Aladdin than Seuss' original character. Hell, Robin Williams would almost be a better casting fit. His brand of energy and bravado stems from a passionate need to share information. Jim Carrey is a talented man, but even when his shtick is rooted in drama, he's decidedly not down-to-earth in the slightest. Horton needs that sense of grounding for us to believe him as a protagonist.
Besides, Carrey's brand of crazy has always translated better to live action.
"I would watch a movie about Jim Carrey talking to himself" -Some Guy
That's not the least of it, though. About halfway through the movie, Vlad (Will Arnett), a hired assassin sent to take out Horton's clover, succeeds in wrenching Whoville away from our hero and dropping it into a field of several hundred identical clovers. Horton, faced with a needle in a haystack problem and still devoted to his quest, proceeds to rip up the entire clover field until he finds the one with the Whos living in it.
Now hold up. The entire point of this trek was to find a place where the Whos could be safe. Wouldn't the safest place for a clover be in a field full of other clovers? Yes, sure, that place on the top of Mount Nool would probably be better, but Horton didn't have to go and decimate an entire forest to achieve his goal.
"It seems like everything's okay," Big Moose said. "Horton's just being an egomaniacal prick."
The attempts to add "personality" to Horton's character don't make him more engaging. The attempts to spice up the plot don't make it move along faster. They make our lead character unlikable, and they cause the movie to drag.
But if Horton's behavior isn't wild enough for you to call "psychotic", look no further than one of the ancillary characters as a reason to drink for that rule.
Now hold up. The entire point of this trek was to find a place where the Whos could be safe. Wouldn't the safest place for a clover be in a field full of other clovers? Yes, sure, that place on the top of Mount Nool would probably be better, but Horton didn't have to go and decimate an entire forest to achieve his goal.
"It seems like everything's okay," Big Moose said. "Horton's just being an egomaniacal prick."
The attempts to add "personality" to Horton's character don't make him more engaging. The attempts to spice up the plot don't make it move along faster. They make our lead character unlikable, and they cause the movie to drag.
But if Horton's behavior isn't wild enough for you to call "psychotic", look no further than one of the ancillary characters as a reason to drink for that rule.
What are you Trying to Say?
The book has a very clear message: Trust your instincts and stand up for your beliefs, no matter how bad things get. In the movie, that message is still there, but it's less clear. I blame the Sour Kangaroo.
Played by Carol Burnett, the Kangaroo is kind of a...matriarch? Mayoress? Community organizer? I was never really clear on her role in the jungle, but whatever it is, she's sure able to get the denizens of Nool riled up pretty quickly. It doesn't take much effort at all for her to organize an angry mob, tie Horton up, and threaten to cage him and destroy Whoville by boiling the clover in a pot of boiling oile, all because his beliefs are different from hers.
"So basically," said Pooh Daddy," "This movie is saying, "conform to societal norms or we'll boil you alive.""
Geez, that escalated quickly. What an overblown villain. It's exactly this kind of treatment of children's books that makes me feel like adaptation is a dead art form. I'll bet the Sour Kangaroo was a lot more subtle in the original book.
You know it's been a while...what DID happen in the original book?
Played by Carol Burnett, the Kangaroo is kind of a...matriarch? Mayoress? Community organizer? I was never really clear on her role in the jungle, but whatever it is, she's sure able to get the denizens of Nool riled up pretty quickly. It doesn't take much effort at all for her to organize an angry mob, tie Horton up, and threaten to cage him and destroy Whoville by boiling the clover in a pot of boiling oile, all because his beliefs are different from hers.
"So basically," said Pooh Daddy," "This movie is saying, "conform to societal norms or we'll boil you alive.""
Geez, that escalated quickly. What an overblown villain. It's exactly this kind of treatment of children's books that makes me feel like adaptation is a dead art form. I'll bet the Sour Kangaroo was a lot more subtle in the original book.
You know it's been a while...what DID happen in the original book?
Oh. Well...huh.
Okay, the same thing happens. The Sour Kangaroo gets the whole jungle to tie Horton up. Weird.
Okay, but that whole thing with the vulture earlier was ridiculous. Why insert a character like that?
Okay, but that whole thing with the vulture earlier was ridiculous. Why insert a character like that?
Man, did I even read this book?
So that happens too, huh?
Maybe I'm being too hard on this movie. The original source material has some of the same problems. The bad guys are kind of one-dimensional. And things get out of control FAST. And Horton frickin tears a forest down.
But while the film stays true to the action of the book, it does not stay true to the book's spirit. Seuss was good at creating epic stories because of the epic feelings behind them: redemption, love, honor, loyalty, and above all, sincerity. This movie only touches on those feelings. And while the packaging should indicate an upbeat re-telling that modern children can relate to, a nice box for the movie to come in shouldn't come at the expense of the heart of the story.
So yes, I meant what I said. And I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful, 100 percent.
Maybe I'm being too hard on this movie. The original source material has some of the same problems. The bad guys are kind of one-dimensional. And things get out of control FAST. And Horton frickin tears a forest down.
But while the film stays true to the action of the book, it does not stay true to the book's spirit. Seuss was good at creating epic stories because of the epic feelings behind them: redemption, love, honor, loyalty, and above all, sincerity. This movie only touches on those feelings. And while the packaging should indicate an upbeat re-telling that modern children can relate to, a nice box for the movie to come in shouldn't come at the expense of the heart of the story.
So yes, I meant what I said. And I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful, 100 percent.
The Results
We had to pack a lot of rage drinking into an hour and a half, but the game worked out very well. In fact, it made a lot of the movie bearable. Here's some extra rules if you want to tinker with our base set.
Drink whenever classical music plays
I guess the movie blew its budget on star power and animation, because a lot of the soundtrack is public domain. Mostly in the action scenes.
Drink whenever a pop culture reference is made
And CHUG when the homage to Japanese anime comes out of nowhere halfway through the film.
Drink whenever reference is made to hearing or ears.
If you want to be especially mean, you can also drink when the homophone "here" is said.
Drink whenever classical music plays
I guess the movie blew its budget on star power and animation, because a lot of the soundtrack is public domain. Mostly in the action scenes.
Drink whenever a pop culture reference is made
And CHUG when the homage to Japanese anime comes out of nowhere halfway through the film.
Drink whenever reference is made to hearing or ears.
If you want to be especially mean, you can also drink when the homophone "here" is said.
"...we're queer! Get used to it!" -Velma Jenkies
On that note, allow me to introduce the game for next week.
It's another 90's sitcooooom!
Like what you see? Follow us on Facebook and Twitter, at For Your Inebriation and @KrissyPappau respectively. You'll get weekly updates, behind the scenes drunk talk, and other chatter!
For Your Inebriation is written by Krissy Pappau (Hollis Beck). Video footage is taken and edited by Seb (Amy Yourd). All Horton Hears a Who! related photos are owned by Blue Sky Entertainment and 20th Century Fox.
For Your Inebriation is written by Krissy Pappau (Hollis Beck). Video footage is taken and edited by Seb (Amy Yourd). All Horton Hears a Who! related photos are owned by Blue Sky Entertainment and 20th Century Fox.
RSS Feed