web
counter
 

Hoodwinked Too! Hood vs. Evil Review: Pow! Right in the Wallet

By Agent Bedhead | Posted Under Film Reviews | Comments (23)



hoodwinked1sm.jpg

A few years into the latest 3D phase (and, make no mistake, it is only a phase), I still grate my teeth at the disproportionate number of children’s movies offered at such a premium price. It doesn’t make me any happier when the 3D effects in question are added in the post-production phase as is the case with Hoodwinked Too! Hood vs. Evil, which wouldn’t even be worth the price of a 2D matinee or a Redbox rental. Any children’s movie that unironically overdoes the postmodern allusions to such a degree that, within the space of one breath, “Say hello to my lil’ friend” is instantaneously followed-up with “Hasta la vista, baby” should not only be avoided in the the theater but also in the DVD market. Quite simply, there is no excuse for any movie that believes the money should just roll in as a result of the kind of laziness that inspires screenwriters to forego an actual story in favor of repeating the same old tired references (to Silence of the Lambs, Mission: Impossible, Die Hard, Ghostbusters, and Star Wars) that have long ceased to cause any audience response other than sheer disgust.

Enough, already.

Now that I’ve gotten that little declaration out of the way (and probably only confirmed what you already knew), let’s commence discussion of this needless sequel that’s been six years in the making. Here, the story still revolves around the Happy Endings Agency (hereinafter known as “H.E.A.”), which has somehow inserted its most important members into Kill Bill: The Whole Shitty Children’s Affair. Red Riding Hood (Hayden Panettiere, picking up after Anne Hathaway ran like hell) has been biding her time with some intense martial-arts training at an establishment (called “Sisters of the Hood”) that’s not unlike Pai Mei’s temple; Granny (Glenn Close) actually wears The Bride’s yellow jumpsuit; and The Big (Not-So-)Bad Wolf (Patrick Warburton) now lives like a castaway in a Bud-like trailer home. Also, the Wolf takes it in the nuts innumerable times, but I must be missing the significance of that repeated ritual because there’s no way that the (four) screenwriters could have intentionally and persistently employed the same joke merely because they thought it was funny. Right?

As a matter of course, the H.E.A. calls Red out of her training camp when Granny is kidnapped by Verushka the Witch (Joan Cusack, who needs some career counseling after this and Mars Needs Moms). It turns out that Verushka’s after Granny’s super-secret, all-powerful truffle recipe, and the Witch has also taken additional hostages in the form of two little brats named Hansel (Bill Hader) and Gretel (Amy Poehler). So it’s up to Red to save the day with the help of the nut-ravaged Wolf; along the way, various other characters — Kirk the Woodman (Martin Short); Shrek The Giant (Brad Garrett); Jimmy 10-Strings (Wayne Newton) — appear for no discernible reason other than to fill the time and cause the adults to wonder why these actors were so hard up for work. In addition, Cheech Marin and Tommy Chong make brief appearances as two of the Three Little Pigs.

In a movie with such little visual or storytelling appeal as Hood vs. Evil, it matters very little whether the voice work succeeds or not. However, since the name recognition factor is the only potential appeal (and there is very little else to say) about a movie like this, I will concede that Poehler, Warburton, and Newton made the experience slightly less insufferable, but even the tiniest pleasures are overcome by the cheap visuals and pointlessness of the story. Naturally, a few obstacles must be overcome for Red to succeed in discovering the Sister Hood power within herself, but it’s impossible to root for such a blatantly unlikeable heroine. It’s not really Red’s fault though, for she’s very poorly drawn as a character, and the fact that the filmmakers care so little about her will likely duplicate itself in kind in terms of audience appeal. As such, the sleeper appeal of the first movie shall not repeat itself with this sequel.

Agent Bedhead lives in Tulsa, Oklahoma. She and her little black heart can be found at agentbedhead.com.









Each Time You Like, Share, Tweet or Stumble a Pajiba Post, An Angel Does the Paul Rudd Dance



We Hate it When Our Friends Become Successful: The Most Egregious Best Actor/Actress Oscar Errors | The Weekly Murdertank: Dead Eyes, Douchy Films, Boobquake and the Bike Rack









Comments

AB, I wonder how you do it.
The trailer was enough to alert caring parents and this review will seal the deal for those clever enough to peruse this website.
I'm glad, for the sake of parents and their kids, that you take time to see and write about these atrocities.
You're doing Godtopus' work, here, young lady.

Posted by: Spender at April 30, 2011 1:52 PM

I sought out the first movie, based on a good review I read somewhere, and was most thoroughly disappointed. The animation was a little above par (for its time) but everything else about it was worse than bad--it was boring.

It was one of those movies I had to apologize to my husband for. I can't believe anyone thought a sequel would be a good thing to do, even after giving the pubic six years to forget.

Posted by: Jerce at April 30, 2011 2:33 PM

The problem I see is that for some reason so-called critics had pretty much the same hate for the first one. You know what? The first one was as good if not better than other animated critical favorites, it's certainly better than Cars, by a mile.
Considering this site's abysmal record with non-hipster fare I'm going to toss this review on the IGNORE pile.

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at April 30, 2011 2:33 PM

Nope. The first one was ass, too. And no, they should not have made a sequel to Cars either. I remain baffled by the decisions being made by movie studios. And I continue to wait for the sequel to The Incredibles to be greenlit.

Posted by: greer at April 30, 2011 2:51 PM

I...quite liked the first one.

Sure, the animation was subpar, it was wildly uneven, but c'mon.

It had a talking squirrel in it.

Surely these is nobody in the universe who doesn't feel the bane of their mundane, plebejan existence momentarily lifted by the awesome sight of a talking squirrel all antsied up on coffee.

Posted by: Zirze at April 30, 2011 4:28 PM

I only saw bits of the first one (and still think I need therapy), but I shall shun this one. No reason to see it, no desire to see it.

No money to see it (I spent the last of April's entertainment budget at a strip bar last night).

Posted by: The Wanderer at April 30, 2011 4:47 PM

A talking squirrel and a movie stealing performance by Andy Dick, of all people, as Boingo the mad bunny.
A comment on Andy Dick, it's very easy to regard him as just some coked-out weirdo but when you watch those Ben Stiller Show episodes you see there was true comedic talent there, on par, hell, better, than anything on SNL.

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at April 30, 2011 4:51 PM

the fine print on a cereal box was better than Cars, so that's a pretty low bar

Posted by: idleprimate at April 30, 2011 5:36 PM

Setting Cars as a bar, as far as critics go,is not inappropriate when you consider the critics gave it glowing reviews (it has a Fresh 74% rating on Rottentomatoes). The problem with reviewers of animated films is that it's either Pixar or it's crap. It has become absurd, the animation has to be like Pixar, the jokes have to be like Pixar the voice talent has to be Pixar. When did that become the standard? Anything that dares to present a different style or tone is summarily and automatically rejected.

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at April 30, 2011 5:59 PM

I saw the trailer for this when I went to see Rango on opening night and for a few minutes I on the verge of rising, turning to face the audience and laying about them verbally for daring to cheer and laugh at that godawful drek.

It looked truly terrible then, and I wouldn't take a child to that movie under any circumstance. No one should have to see it. Ever. I'd sooner go see Atlas Shrugged part 1.

Posted by: Wintermute at April 30, 2011 6:10 PM

BarbadoSlim is right and you're not. Deal with it.

Posted by: Bob Kelso at April 30, 2011 7:25 PM

I really liked the first movie and thought it was cute. Not Finding Nemo or Despicable Me great but cute. Even the still picture for this sequel looks awful. The animation is not the same, the plot sounds ridiculous, and I don't even understand why they would make a sequel. Ugh, lame!!

Posted by: Ashley at April 30, 2011 7:40 PM

The first one was good, we watched it for a class that was doing a reading on Rashomon.

Posted by: sailboat at April 30, 2011 8:08 PM

Last year's best animated movie was not Pixar's IMO. How to Train Your Dragon > Toy Story 3.

repeating the same old tired references (to Silence of the Lambs, Mission: Impossible, Die Hard, Ghostbusters, and Star Wars)

Let's see:

Silence of the Lambs: someone's strapped to a gurney with the Lecter mask on.

Mission: Impossible: a break-in into a vault and the same suspended 3 inches from the floor shot.

Die Hard: someone's sliding through the vents of a building.

Ghostbusters: crossing the streams?

Star Wars: tough one...hmm...the opening shot with the Star Destroyer that just goes on and on?

Posted by: Fredo at April 30, 2011 8:34 PM

I'm going to guess that someone claims to be someone's father, Fredo.

Posted by: Optimus Rhyme at April 30, 2011 10:40 PM

Let's be clear - I don't think Toy Story 3 was the Best Animated Picture last year. How to Train your Dragon was a fantastic film. Not an animated film, a fantastic film period.

I remember watching the original hoodwinked. It was amusing, but by no means did I think it was a great piece of cinema. It didn't have much depth, it wasn't terribly funny, I didn't enjoy it.

But I am not of the "Pixar is God" camp either. Up was an amazing achievement in storytelling. They told a better story in the first ten minutes than most filmmakers manage in their entire careers. With a minimum of dialogue that only added to the impact of the images.

But Cars? I didn't think it was that great a movie. Not compared to some animated features I've seen. Finding Nemo was fun, so was Monsters Inc, but they are not the be all and end all. There are a LOT of places to look to find excellent animated films. Studio Ghibli is a fine place to start, and there are lots more out there. Rango was one of the best westerns I've seen in years!

Hoodwinked Too! however, would not appear to belong on the list. Not from the trailer I saw and not from this review (and better you than me sitting through the whole thing).

It goes in the same pile in my mind as the Shrek sequels and the direct to video Disney sequels and those gods-bedamned Barbie movies and all the rest of the "show it to the kids and they'll shut up for an hour" genre.

Except I wouldn't subject any children of mine to that stuff. I'd rather sit down with kids and watch something classic and fun, like Robin Hood, an old western, some early Disney or even some Wile E. Coyote and Roadrunner.

Gods but I'm going to make a terrible parent someday. I foresee bitter, vindictive children plotting my downfall already.

Posted by: Wintermute at April 30, 2011 11:41 PM

I have a theory. Any and all movies that use the line "Say hello to my little friend" will be terrible. And yes, I include the original Scarface in this.

Posted by: Figgy at May 1, 2011 12:47 AM

The only good thing about the first movie was the inclusion of Ben Folds' "Red is Blue." Other than that it was shite, and I'm sure this sequel is as well.

Posted by: Dingles at May 1, 2011 5:26 AM

I don't think anyone over the age of 6 would argue that Cars was great cinema. The reason they're making the sequel is because it is a DVD and merchandising juggernaut. I do not know a single toddler who is not in love with Lightning McQueen and/or Mater. I've never bought any merchandising, but my son has received as gifts 4 LM's, a King, a Mater t-shirt, and the straight to DVD Maters Tall Tales. This movie is probably the most popular little kid's movie out there, and stores still regularly sell out of the associated stuff every major holiday. Combine all that with the fact that it is decent enough to not make parents want to throw themselves out a 4th floor window after every viewing and there's no way a sequel was not going to be made. Just accept that no matter how unsatisfying it is the Cars sequel will be a huge moneymaker for Pixar and move on.

Posted by: McSquish at May 1, 2011 7:56 AM

The most obvious signal they were going straight for your wallet was their lining up big-name voice talent for a kids' movie. Is there a single 8-year-old in the country who would know Glenn Close on sight, let alone just by voice?

(Puddy's voice, I might recognize, but for that matter usually even I couldn't begin to tell you whose voice is behind that animated rabbit, or whatever. And why would I care anyway? Why can't they give the voice talent paycheck to some no-name who needs it? Mel Blanc wouldn't have a chance today.)

Big-name voice talent on kids' movies is such a cynical marketing ploy (marketing dreck to adults), they might as well just employ pickpockets in the theater lobby.

Posted by: , at May 1, 2011 9:34 AM

BarbadoSlim is never right.

Posted by: snapnhiss at May 1, 2011 11:08 AM

Heh, that's what she said.

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at May 1, 2011 1:30 PM

Optimus Rhyme, you're probably right.

Posted by: Fredo at May 1, 2011 1:33 PM