free counter with statistics Mr. Magorium's Wonder Emporium | Pajiba - Scathing Reviews for Bitchy People

dustin_hoffman1.jpg

If You Want to Say Yes, Say Yes. If You Want to Say No, Say No.

Mr. Magorium’s Wonder Emporium / Dustin Rowles

Film Reviews | November 18, 2007 | Comments (53)


I developed a little crush on Zach Helm (“the new Charlie Kaufmann”) after watching his screenwriting debut, Stranger than Fiction, last year, and after seeing Mr. Magorium’s Wonder Emporium, which he wrote and directed, I may just be falling in love. Indeed, everything that is wrong about Emporium, namely that it is a kid’s movie that stubbornly refuses to speak on the same level as the target demographic, only increases my affection for the man’s work. It doesn’t make for a particularly great viewing experience for either children — because it’s a little too mature — or adults — because of all those toys and the obnoxious Jumanji-like effects — but if you can somehow draw upon that childlike reverie inside of you while also watching Emporium with an adult’s eye, it’s a winsome, fluttery experience that doesn’t come along too often. Unfortunately, in seeking — it seems — not to bog Emporium down in blobs of sentimentality, I think that Helm undersells the picture to a degree, and for that, I appreciate the director even more. He could’ve easily manipulated the heartstrings, but in trying to earn your tears, he comes up a little short.

Mr. Magorium’s Wonder Emporium is about a magical toy shop that runs on the karmic energy of Mr. Magorium (Dustin Hoffman), a 243-year-old toy impresario, who is part Willy Wonka, party Nutty Professor (the Jerry Lewis version) and part Rain Man. He decides one day, after living a very full life, that he’s ready to depart the world and leave his store to Molly Monahan (Natalie Portman), formerly a child prodigy, but who is now stuck in a creative rut, unable to complete her signature composition. Magorium hires a cynical, non-believing accountant, Henry Weston (affectionately known as “the Mutant”) (Jason Bateman, playing Will Ferrell’s Fiction role), to put his house in order, so to speak, before Magorium heads off to Shangri-La at his appointed time, 4:30 p.m. the next day. However, the Wonder Emporium, which has a life of its own, grows petulant with Magorium’s decision to abandon it, so it gives up its magic after he departs, and it is up to Molly and Henry, with a great deal of assistance from nine-year-old Eric Applebaum, the hat collector (Zach Mills), to bring the store and its magic back to life.

Hoffman is actually the weakest part of the film. He kooks and stutters and bobbles around like a toy soldier dressed in a suit who decides to give up soldiering in favor of a career as a mad scientist — he’s too eccentric to curry favor with adults and too creepy to for kids to enjoy. But no matter; Natalie Portman, who plays his apprentice and the manager of the store, is … well, she is lovely. She has an Audrey Hepburn luminosity that glows under soft focus and gives off a radiant cinematic energy that I always forget about when I’m not seeing it up close, though if you’re not into quirky self-awareness, both Portman and her character may rub you the wrong way. Bateman is also surprisingly well cast as the straight-laced “just man” and it’s kind of cool to see Bateman’s trademark “AD” dryness give in to the magical wonder of the store; in fact, seeing him draw from his inner child even briefly, triggered memories of his role on “Silver Spoons” (he was pre-Alfonso Ribiero).

But if you and your cold heart aren’t into whimsy and fancy, or if Wes Anderson and Michel Gondry have sapped you dry, Mr. Magorium’s Wonder Emporium will probably annoy you to death with all its quirks and precious sweetness. The bombardment of special effects and bright colors, likewise, can be a little blinding at times. It’s one shiny penny after another, mercilessly distracting attention away from an otherwise sweet story, though the F.A.O. Schwartzness of it all is also the only part of Emporium likely to keep the kids’ minds preoccupied (it was a packed theater full of restless lil’ ones at the screening I attended).

Moreover, Emporium will probably suffer from far too many comparisons to Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory, and I actually think that’s unfair. While the narrative — eccentric genius handing over his workshop to an heir with the right sense of wonder and appreciation — bears something in common with Wonka, the themes are far more similar to Harold and Maude. When Mr. Magorium, after fulfilling his last few wishes, chooses to die under his own terms, as Maude did, it is up to Molly to decide whether to mourn his death or pick up her banjo (or conductor’s stick, in this instance) and celebrate the life he had and its affect on her. Indeed (*obvious spoiler alert*), the only thing missing when Molly finally brings that store’s magic back to life is Cat Stevens’ “If You Want to Sing Out,” but then again, Helm is a little too smart to make it that obvious.

There is a lot in Emporium that doesn’t work; the execution of a fun idea, for one, is erratic at best; Hoffman is terrible — it’s a performance more embarrassing even than his turn in Meet the Fockers; there’s not a lot of dramatic tension in the film; and the look and style often feel like they were bought at a second-hand Tim Burton shop. And maybe, on a different day, I would’ve disliked Mr. Magorium’s Magic Emporium. But today, I went in determined to see the film as a kid might, and while the little boy in me was disappointed with the movie, he was able to put aside his critical faculties so that the adult in me could appreciate the wonder and magic that I think Helm intended.

Dustin Rowles is the publisher of Pajiba. He lives with his wife and son in Ithaca, New York. You may email him, or leave a comment below.


Pajiba Love 11/16/07 | Beowulf



Comments

I've seen a lot of reviews, but you're the only one who took the time to engage it at a decent level. You do that with a lot of movies that other reviewers brush off.

You're an awesome movie critic. Thanks for putting the time in.

Posted by: twig at November 16, 2007 3:51 PM

I haven't seen the movie, so take this for what it's worth but....
I am stunned this got a positive review. It's been a long time since I saw a preview that annoyed me /this/ much. It's just one of the many 'Holiday commercials' whose disappearance makes the post-Christmas malaise something to look forward to.
This line for example, delivered by Portman's character: "I asked for a lollipop, and I got a /lemur/!" Oh my, what an amusing problem! The consonance, the consonance!
Not to mention I am beyond weary with the theft of music from the Nutcracker to characterize every single last Holiday movie with a frenetic scene. Not only that, but they go ahead and swipe the theme from.../Pee-Wee's Big Adventure/ I think?

Alright, so to be fair, my problems with this film are all trailer-based, and trailers are notorious for misrepresenting movies. But this one is beyond annoying.

Posted by: amea_gari at November 16, 2007 3:53 PM

So it seems that you've adopted Helm under your wing, hoping that someday he'll join the ranks of other Pajiba directors, Wes Anderson, Joss, and others.

Basically, if I read this review right, is that while he's not there yet, you're saying that this guy will someday be worthy of our worship?

Posted by: Withnail at November 16, 2007 3:55 PM

So there's just a certain something about it that may appeal to a certain someone? Okay, at least when my son drags me to see it, I'll know that it won't burn my eyes out if I turn off my dark side for awhile. Thanks for the review!

Posted by: staylor at November 16, 2007 3:57 PM

i get the impression that it is not a very good movie and you're trying real hard to like it, or at the very least, not trash it.
is that you like natalie and dustin enough to be kind?

I wouldn't say that, maxpurr9. Hoffman is awful here, and most of the time, I could give or take Portman. It's more that this film is technically bad -- like this review, it was all over the place. But on a visceral level, I quite liked it despite its many flaws.-- DR

Posted by: maxpurr9 at November 16, 2007 4:00 PM

Part of cinephilia is being able to enjoy a film while still perceiving and lamenting its flaws; in fact, I think that's a bit of a curse for film-lovers, in that it becomes difficult to disconnect from the analytical, to suspend disbelief and just let cinema wash over you. With the exception of the occasional perfect film like Pan's Labyrinth, I find myself "negging" even films that I enjoy. Of course, it works both ways -- for films that aren't really any good, I can still get some pleasure out of chewing on what they did right, but why bother watching such films?

(Wait . . . "cinephilia" doesn't mean movie-fucking, does it?)

Posted by: socalledonlycousins at November 16, 2007 4:10 PM

"there's a million ways to go, you know that there are"

Thanks for the Cat Stevens reference.

Socalled, you fucking pervert. I had no idea you rolled that freaky.

Posted by: TK at November 16, 2007 4:12 PM

I don't think I'll be seeing this one, b/c I didn't care for Stranger Than Fiction, but I like Hoffman and it's good to see him on screen again (I'm not counting Meet the Fockers, though).

I think Natalie Portman is an amazing actress, but I've never really understood the Audrey Hepburn comparison, unless we're just talking about looks. Hepburn had a very innocent, sweet quality about her, whereas Portman is known for her maturity and level-headed personality (in her roles, anyway). I'm not saying one is better than the other, but I don't see the similarity.

Posted by: Brie at November 16, 2007 4:40 PM

"She has an Audrey Hepburn luminosity that glows under soft focus" "quirky self-awareness"

It's going to say this shit on her headstone. I think NP is a beauty, but such mediocre actress. C'mon. Audrey was ten times the actress Portman will ever be.

Posted by: Samantha T at November 16, 2007 5:14 PM

I never expected a somewhat-positive review for this movie, because the trailer annoyed the shit out of me. Is Dustin getting.....soft?

Posted by: Jon at November 16, 2007 5:25 PM

I have a soft spot for magical, sparkly, childlike films. I've been looking forward to this one, and it appears that it's going to be exactly what I want it to.

My boyfriend Jason Bateman isn't going to hurt it, either.

Posted by: Mimi at November 16, 2007 6:00 PM

I don't know, Hoffman seems to be falling into the "DeNiro doing his schtick" category as of late.
I'll see it, but I'll probably won't like it.

Bateman was Da' bomb on "It's Your Move"

As for Portman, meh, like 99.9999% of this generation's... "talent"... she hasn't the poise, the presence, the beauty, the class, or the skill to stand next to her predecessors.

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at November 16, 2007 6:08 PM

I *hate* the comparisons between Audrey and Natalie! Wtf? Audrey Hepburn was actually a really good actress and you can't see her struggle through her lines ever at all. Acting just seems natural to her. She was adorable and smart like Natalie seems to be, but she had real talent to go along with it. She was just fantastic. Natalie might get there, but not yet (which is odd to me, because she's like... 26 now and has been acting most of her life). She's simply cute and intelligent but ultimately very blah on screen. I wouldn't mind hanging out with her, from what I know of her, but do not make me sit through one of her movies. Her cuteness and her acting ability remain to be complete separate for me.

That being said, I might sit through this one, all for Jason Bateman. I loves him.

Posted by: kayla at November 16, 2007 6:12 PM

*completely :P

Posted by: akyla at November 16, 2007 6:14 PM

i was not a huge stranger than fiction fan...you could say i hated it, even...so i feel no need to see this, especially considering the fact that each new trailer makes me want to kill more and more. i mean..good lord this movie looks balls to the walls obnoxious. still, its really interesting to see a reviewer struggle with himself in the midst of writing a review...i can tell that a little part of you is saying "no, no, no! fight the movie!" but you let the softy in you take hold...and nothing wrong with that. one problem i had though was...do we really need a new charlie kaufman? the charlie kaufman we have is pretty damn clever, and has some gas left in him yet...

Posted by: jordan at November 16, 2007 6:47 PM

Portman can be great or crap. Hepburn wasn't much of an actress and she often struggled (which I feel is pretty obvious in most of her films) and she was well known for not knowing her lines. The comparison annoys me because Hepburn never even tried to be anything other than a Movie Stah, all charisma and beauty but very little skill or self-awareness.

Hoffman annoys the shit out of me in the trailer so I'll be avoiding this like the plague.

Posted by: Jon at November 16, 2007 6:51 PM

Did anyone else think that 'Stranger Than Fiction' sucked? I understand what they were trying to achieve, but it failed miserably, mostly because Will Ferrell couldn't carry that weight. He was trying too hard to be as good as Jim Carrey in 'Eternal Sunshine...'. Maggie Gyllenhaal, however, was adorable!

Posted by: reesy at November 16, 2007 6:56 PM

Don't you hate it when your favorite actors get sucked into atrocious movies (i.e. my beloved Kevin Spacey in Fred Claus)? Dustin Hoffman is a wonderful actor, but when they started airing the previews for Mr.Magorium's, at least 3 times during each commercial break, I can't help but to cringe. The dialogue looks painful, the characters weak, and what is it with the re-hashed music? Don't they play that same tune during those Visa check card commercials?

As for Portman, I'd rather watch logs burning in a fireplace. A real fireplace that makes lovely crackling noises and where the flames dance around? No, sir. One of those electric fireplaces where the logs are fake and don't actually do anything.

Posted by: maria at November 16, 2007 6:58 PM

But today, I went in determined to see the film as a kid might, and while the little boy in me was disappointed with the movie, he was able to put aside his critical faculties so that the adult in me could appreciate the wonder and magic that I think Helm intended.

That sentence has more twists and turns than a small intestine, but somehow (like said organ), it works. I appreciate that you're daring (and gifted) enough to write such a seemingly contradictory review. On a visceral level, it makes sense. Also, the bitch inside me loves when great actors give terrible performances.

And aw, TK, I thought I'd be the first to call that Cat Stevens reference. Now there's a movie I'd call perfect.

Posted by: Diana at November 16, 2007 7:48 PM

Thank you, Jon, for the Hepburn statement. I wholeheartedly agree with you.

I'm shocked to learn that he who was behind one of my favorite films of late (Stranger Than Fiction) is responsible for this. It looks AWFUL. However, if I've exhausted my options at the local theaters, I might give it a try. (But only after this Pajiba encouragement.)

Heheh, cinephilia. That comment exchange gave me a good chuckle.

Posted by: Gudrun at November 16, 2007 10:01 PM

"are we going on an adventure?!?!?" good god, if this movie is full of those kinds of saccharine crap lines that natalie portman spews in the trailer I will not only pass, but I'll buy it later just to burn it

Posted by: peanut at November 17, 2007 12:20 AM

Nice work Dustin.

Gracious, sharp and smooth.....

and that ain't so easy. Thanks.

Posted by: mrmook at November 17, 2007 12:20 AM

"are we going on an adventure?!?!?" good god, if this movie is full of those kinds of saccharine crap lines that natalie portman spews in the trailer I will not only pass, but I'll buy it later just to burn it

Posted by: peanut at November 17, 2007 12:20 AM

Gah,I'm glad to see some of you genuinely disliked 'Stranger Than Fiction'-I refrained from seeing it at the theatres with all the reviewers practically wetting themselves over the damn thing,& only saw it a year later.It was worse than I suspected-deliberately monotonous without that quiet charm,repetitive & dry and just plain pastiche.

That said,I really appreciate this review-others have said it,but I still have to-usually reviewers here tend to sway one way a bit too determinedly to the point where it's a bit annoying,like they're forcing themselves to a certain direction.But this review,it's fair,covers all the bases and is clear without having to resort to pretentious vocab or that deliberate "let's show-off showdown" critics tend to do.

I know we prob won't get this much more or too often,so thank you for this one.

Posted by: Daniel at November 17, 2007 1:07 AM

This looks wishy-washy, whimsical and half-baked (I am talking about the movie, not the review, although, to be fair, the review leaves much to be desired because it's just so indecisive), I guess I won't be seeing it. I am too old for this shit... And not in a good way.

Posted by: Toothed Varmint at November 17, 2007 3:14 AM

I think Dustin is testing us with this review. He's sitting at home with some popcorn, counting the minutes until somebody goes "WHERE'S THE BITCHY REVIEW YOU OWE US?!"

You sly man, you.

Posted by: MJ at November 17, 2007 7:23 AM

A couple of thoughts:
1. Is this the movie where Natalie shows us her bum? No? Then I'll pass.
2. Dustin, your kid is clearly changing your perspective and it won't be long until you give us a rave review of Fred Claus IV. You going soft brotha.
3. No one has used the word "visceral" in almost two hours so...
visceral, visceral and visceral.

Posted by: JP at November 17, 2007 12:27 PM

"Bateman was Da' bomb on "It's Your Move"
Posted by: BarbadoSlim at November 16, 2007 6:08 PM"

Oh my god, I LOVED that show!
When will they bring that out on dvd, fer criminy's sake?!

Posted by: Loob at November 17, 2007 1:23 PM

I loved Stranger Than Fiction. I thought Ferrell's performance was pretty powerful, especially when he reads the book on the train.

I spent this weekend watching Throne of Blood, Ran and The Bad Seed, thanks to Ranlyt, ROFL.

Oh this movie? Meh. Probably won't see it.

Posted by: Kathy at November 17, 2007 6:07 PM

"The comparison annoys me because Hepburn never even tried to be anything other than a Movie Stah, all charisma and beauty but very little skill or self-awareness."

Allright, I am partial toward A. Hepburn, I'll admit. I'll put aside for the moment the fact that she was a WWII refugee, was actually a very private person and scandal-free, and was known until the end of her life as a true philanthropist. However, I'm curious what NP tries to be besides a "movie stah." Seriously. Yes, we know you graduated from Harvard (is there a single person who isn't reminded of that?). Anything else?

Posted by: Samantha T at November 17, 2007 9:52 PM

I keep seeing the trailers for this, and every time I fight the strong desire to run out and rent "Toys".

Posted by: Nadha at November 17, 2007 10:50 PM

This is what amazes me at Pajiba. Every time I've read about this movie, in many different places and in three languages, I disliked it more and more -- of course this is a figure of speech, but you catch my drift.

Then I come to Pajiba and, like just about everyone before me here, I couldn't believe this thing got a positive review. I'm not sure what happened, but I think there's more in that little answer Dustin inserted in a comment up there than in the whole review.

And just when the review fails -- sorry, it does -- the commenters remind me of what the site is all about. The comments show a lot of independent thinking, not always agreeing with the reviewer and not necessarily being litigious at the same time. I love this. It means I can come still here and have the whole discussion as a good thermometer, just like I've been doing for some time now. It also means I do not have to agree with the whole set of the pajibans as well, but they keep showing me they are smart people.

Dustin, it's not a critic's job to "like" or "dislike" a movie, man. Get your stuff together. If you analyze this crap and realize that it's, well, crap, then put it out the right and honest way. Pretty please?

Posted by: gargumma at November 17, 2007 11:17 PM

A superb review. The dichotomy of the experience of watching this film really comes through. I hadn't seen any trailers to be put off by but, had I been, this review would have made me see past it.

Natalie Portman's education is brought up by the media at the drop of a hat but it's a shame for her to be criticized for it.

Posted by: Rebecca H. at November 17, 2007 11:38 PM

We talkin' about Harvard educated Natalie Portman? The HARVARD graduate who acts in movies? She went to Harvard and majored in... something, at Harvard. You know who else went to Harvard, the place were Natalie Portman graduated from? Mira Sorvino, who's also a Harvard graduate, like Natalie Portman.

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at November 18, 2007 5:48 AM

Where is Mira Sorvino these days? She's awesome. Maybe we should start a movement. forgetnataliewhereismira.com

Posted by: Rebecca H. at November 18, 2007 7:28 AM

Hey, I don't want to forget Natalie! I happen to think that she is very beautiful. I love her ever since Leon (come on, I was much younger then too, so please). That said, I don't necessarily love the films she chooses to appear in. Leon, Beautiful Girls, er... what other good movies she was in?
As for Mira Sorvino - exactly, where's she now? Do we need her? Do we miss her? I know I don't, if she carries on appearing in dreck like "The Replacement Killers". She is quite good looking, though, I grant you that. I mean, I would.

Posted by: Toothed Varmint at November 18, 2007 12:32 PM

Samantha T- I think she's tried. Portman rarely takes lead roles (she's either co, ensemble or supporting) and a lot of her work these past few years has been in smaller, unseen fare (Goya's Ghosts, My Blueberry Nights, Free Zone, shorts). Now, whether or not she's succeeded? YMMV.

Mira Sorvino? Eck. *She* pimped her education. Sort of how Sharon Stone never shuts the hell up about being in Mensa or whatever? It grates to the tenth when the press is kissing Portman's butt over her degree. But when I hear her bring it up she's usually mocking her education. So I roll my eyes and leave it alone.

I actually saw this- my sister and her kid liked it but I was really bored. Hoffman is about twenty times more annoying in the movie than he is in the trailer. Bateman was the best thing in the film.

I do think it's pretty uncreative of reviewers to compare it to Willy Wonka. 60% of dramas and comedies have similar plots so I don't see why people get their knickers in a wad when it happens with a fantasy movie. I think Helm was trying for something very original. He just failed. A for effort, though.

Posted by: Jon at November 18, 2007 2:50 PM

People, are we forgetting the SNL Digital Short with rapping Natalie? She mocks her education and classy image and is just so freaking awesome, you can never feel anything but warm feelings toward her.

Posted by: Diana at November 18, 2007 10:34 PM

Hmmm... all I can think is: Whatever happened to Alfonso Ribiero?

I was put off by this film due to the title alone - it reminded me far too much of that Simpsons episode with Troy McClure's sham marriage to Marge's sister, "The Contrabulous Fabtraption of Professor Horatio Hufnagel". Just, no.

Posted by: fran at November 19, 2007 8:17 AM

Major super wonder props for the Cat Stevens reference in the title!

Posted by: sia at November 19, 2007 11:11 AM

Whenever I hear about famous actors (or olympic athletes for that matter) going to ivy leagues I take it with a grain of salt. I suspect it is alot easier to get accepted to Harvard when you are famous. I wonder what these celebrity Harvard grads got on their SATs...

Posted by: Elle at November 20, 2007 11:06 AM

My children loved this movie for the simple reason that it was fun & made them happy. My youngest (6) asked to see it again today.

I havent' seen it & probably won't until it comes out on DVD.

Posted by: GinKirk at November 20, 2007 11:26 AM

I do not understand the bitchiness leveled towards famous people who go to Harvard et al. Especially from the usually high-minded folks reading this site. In a time when Paris Hilton and Jessica Simpson are celebrated for their stupidity we fault a woman who takes a portion of 4 years out of her prime money-making career to go to school. She didn't have to go to Harvard to make money. In fact, she surely lost money from doing so. A female movie actress has a short enough career. If she goes on MTV or does some interview where she talks about her education she should be praised. What a good role model for young woman.

Posted by: JP at November 21, 2007 1:21 PM

Okay, "Magorium" is not a name. It just isn't. And making up a stupid name just to rhyme it with whatever word you're looking to use is just pathetic.

What's next, "Mr. Nexual Editor, the Sexual Predator"? "Mr. Folliday Snockbuster's Holiday Blockbuster"? There should be a RULE for this. No can do.

--A bitchy person

Posted by: Mr. Mannoyed at November 22, 2007 4:44 PM

"What's next, "Mr. Nexual Editor, the Sexual Predator"? "Mr. Folliday Snockbuster's Holiday Blockbuster"? "

Ahhh. That was fantastic. But I pulled a stomach muscle from the laughing. :D

Posted by: Loob at November 22, 2007 8:03 PM

Mr. Mannoyed: That was gold, GOLD!

Well played.

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at November 23, 2007 12:07 PM

I never got the memo on Natalie Portman. Yes, she's is very pretty, but I don't think she is... special. Her voice is grating, and she always seems to be aching whenever she smiles- her face stretches beyond genuine means.

I liked her in Leon, but that's about it.

Also, Audrey Hepburn was not that good an actress. Anyone who saw My Fair Lady can attest to that. She can actually be rather painful to watch. However, there are two things on her side: her beauty, and her charisma.

Posted by: dene at November 23, 2007 7:07 PM

J.P. - I'm not criticizing her having attended Harvard, I'm criticizing the ridiculous adulation heaped upon her for having done so.

I also have a theory that Hollywood types always attend schools that the moviegoing public would recognize. When was the last time a starlet attended Swarthmore?

Posted by: samantha t at November 24, 2007 5:33 PM

Samantha -- I hear what you are saying, but I still think its very impressive that someone would choose going to college over making a few million dollars. That applies whether its going to Harvard or the local J.C.

Posted by: JP at November 26, 2007 2:09 AM

She already had several million dollars under her belt - how much more does one really need? Going to a great university with rampant grade inflation in one of the greatest cities/n'hoods in the country for four years without any debt or job prospects to worry about isn't some tremendous personal sacrifice.

Posted by: Samantha T at November 26, 2007 3:18 PM

I'm heading out right now to re-watch both Toys and Harold and Maude.
Then I'm going to listen to Cat Stevens.
This thread has made me nostalgic.

Posted by: Torontopam at November 27, 2007 2:46 PM

What ?! Yes I liked Stranger than Fiction, but Mr. Magorium's was one of the worst movies I have seen in a long time! (For a movie with Wonder in its title, there was absolutely none of it. Except perhaps a very poorly acted pretense of it.) And Hoffman recycling his irritating Rainman role for this was truly unforgivable. Pls. don't compare him to a legend like Dinero who's simply made some desperate senescent mistakes in script choices, and as far as I know, never chose to act like a special kid in said mistakes.

I don't know if this movie was trying to be true to some kids book or what, and maybe producers meant well, but I think the credits were the most cringe inducing: As if children are too stupid to figure out what hair and makeup are, so instead let's list them in rainbow crayon colors as "people who made people look good."

Also is anyone else out there sick of movies that vilify adults for JUST being adults and doing their jobs? (And I'm not JUST [I make no apologies.] talking kids films. I'll be so glad when we're rid of the baby boomer cluelessly self-righteous generation.)

Moreover I was disturbed by the treatment of the gifted "hat collector kid." Clearly he needed some sort of school or forum where he could excel without worrying about fitting in or being liked. Really I kinda felt like the film was preaching a sort of juevenile mediocrity.

Sorry to be so harsh, I normally think that critics like Roeper are way to jaded, but for once a film deserves a lot of criticism.

Posted by: Francesca at December 6, 2007 2:56 PM

The movie just wasn't good. I did not realize it was ALL about death. I took my 5 year old, she ended up crying. And what is the deal with the sock monkey? (More tears for my daughter).

Posted by: Pieeyed at December 28, 2007 3:40 PM