One Sentence Movie Reviews: “Charlotte’s Web” (2006):

Charlottesweb

Charlotte’s Web (2006): “Money spent on voices does not show up on the screen”

Notes: What the hell? I’ve read Charlotte’s Web about 500 times, seen the 1973 cartoon version and this retelling, with unlimited resources at its disposal looks ghetto. Ghetto like someone blew the bank on voice talent and forgot there was a movie to make. Wilbur’s barn has the effervescence of a loading dock while the town looks like the backend of a studio prop warehouse. The human characters barely rise above sketches so the movie misses out on the gruff kindness of Homer Zuckerman, the loveable idiocy of the farmhand Lurvy and the mischief of Fern’s brother Avery. Even Dakota Fanning as Fern seems hustled out of the frame so the filmmakers can parade all the money they spent getting Oprah to voice a goose.

Bottom line: This has half the magic Charlotte’s Web should. For a moment, it did remind me that this is also a story about friendship and loyalty as much as about the passage of time and the cycle of life. But only for a moment.

Reader interactions

10 Replies to “One Sentence Movie Reviews: “Charlotte’s Web” (2006):”

  1. That was more than one sentence. But really, the movie is not that bad. Excellent entertainment for kids and us adults who have loved the story since we were kids. And Dakota does a great job despite her limited screentime.

  2. That was more than one sentence. But really, the movie is not that bad. Excellent entertainment for kids and us adults who have loved the story since we were kids. And Dakota does a great job despite her limited screentime.

  3. Thanks for the pickup Moira. Fixed.
    I use Safari.

  4. Thanks for the pickup Moira. Fixed.
    I use Safari.

  5. Steven Mark Pilling January 7, 2007 at 11:59 am

    It might be well advised to remember that, after making this film, Dakota Fanning went on to star in the first movie in the history of American feature films to directly involve children in explicit sexual conduct with adult actors (and each other!) in the process of filming. Dakota was, in fact, central to virtually all of those scenes in the movie “Hounddog”, including one where she dances wildly in (simulated?) nudity… and is then violently molested. If anyone is thinking of seeing “Harlot’s Web”, it should be noted that by seeing it, you effectively enable all her efforts… including this last one that virtually legitimizes kiddie porn.

  6. Steven Mark Pilling January 7, 2007 at 11:59 am

    It might be well advised to remember that, after making this film, Dakota Fanning went on to star in the first movie in the history of American feature films to directly involve children in explicit sexual conduct with adult actors (and each other!) in the process of filming. Dakota was, in fact, central to virtually all of those scenes in the movie “Hounddog”, including one where she dances wildly in (simulated?) nudity… and is then violently molested. If anyone is thinking of seeing “Harlot’s Web”, it should be noted that by seeing it, you effectively enable all her efforts… including this last one that virtually legitimizes kiddie porn.

  7. Steven Pilling is a nut case. Charlotte’s Web is a wonderful movie. Go see it two or three times. It has already grossed almost $100,000,000.
    The truth about Hounddog:
    http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/743411173

  8. Steven Pilling is a nut case. Charlotte’s Web is a wonderful movie. Go see it two or three times. It has already grossed almost $100,000,000.
    The truth about Hounddog:
    http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/743411173

  9. Steven Mark Pilling January 22, 2007 at 10:34 am

    Dear, sweet Lewellen!! Actually, it’s grossed about $92 million to date and will probably top 100. However, when you consider that the production costs alone came to $80 million, it’s apparent that this “Christmas blockbuster” was a sad disappointment for Paramount/DreamWorks. This cannot be good news for Dakota’s handlers, either. The ongoing (and increasing) fallout over what’s now popularly called “The Dakota Fanning Rape Movie” can’t have helped “Web’s” profits much. Paramount’s going to blame someone. It’ll likely be them!
    Also: For the REAL truth of “Hounddog”, try:
    “thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/467880755”, “bluelineradio.com” and “minorcon.org”. Much more informative and much more honest.

  10. Steven Mark Pilling January 22, 2007 at 10:34 am

    Dear, sweet Lewellen!! Actually, it’s grossed about $92 million to date and will probably top 100. However, when you consider that the production costs alone came to $80 million, it’s apparent that this “Christmas blockbuster” was a sad disappointment for Paramount/DreamWorks. This cannot be good news for Dakota’s handlers, either. The ongoing (and increasing) fallout over what’s now popularly called “The Dakota Fanning Rape Movie” can’t have helped “Web’s” profits much. Paramount’s going to blame someone. It’ll likely be them!
    Also: For the REAL truth of “Hounddog”, try:
    “thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/467880755”, “bluelineradio.com” and “minorcon.org”. Much more informative and much more honest.

Leave a Reply