Feels lacking

I’d rather eat at Mother Paula’s Pancake House than see this movie again

must see for environmentalists! light hearted, fun watch

This movie deserves a mere 0.5 stars in my book. Its predictable plot and lackluster execution make it a forgettable family film.

Honestly, the only reason I bothered seeing this movie from Walden Media, riding high off of the massive success of Narnia a year earlier, was because of the cast. There's Percy Jackson, Captain Marvel herself and Phil Coulson in the pre-Marvel days except this time they aren't on the same side here. And now that I've seen Hoot...I'm not really sure why I bothered. The environmental message is important and I respect that and Logan Lerman is likeable enough as the main protagonist but honestly, Hoot is rather stale and boring, but at least it was short. It's not funny, exciting or heartwarming, the characters are quite bland, the direction is impersonal and the execution of its message is cheesy as hell. Maybe the original book handled the themes more tactfully but we're not focusing on that now, are we? Sadly, Hoot just doesn't stand out at all in the sea of family films that were everywhere in the 2000's with the only reason worth checking it out for is to see what Logan Lerman, Brie Larson and Clark Gregg were up to before they started appearing in larger-scale projects.

In the seemingly bottomless category of "uneven films," "Hoot" is a unique case. On one hand, the wildly over-the-top acting by Luke Wilson (Delinko), Tim Blake Nelson (Curly), Clark Gregg (Muckle), Eric Phillips (Dana), Damaris Justamante (Mrs. Matherson) and Jessica Cauffiel (Kimberly/Mother Paula) borders on the bizarre, even for what is ostensibly a children's movie. Their portrayals belong in a Looney Tunes cartoon from the 1940s, the kind that featured roadrunners racing off of cliffs and canaries outsmarting cats. Contrast that with the oddly underplayed, oh-so-mellow acting by Neil Flynn (Mr. Eberhardt), Kiersten Warren (Mrs. Eberhardt) and, especially, Jimmy Buffet (yes, that Jimmy Buffet) (Mr. Ryan), who all seem to be floating around in a much different film universe, one that is far more slow-paced, serious and grounded in reality. And then there's the aggressively mean-spirited -- dare I say hateful? -- portrayal of Beatrice by Brie Larson, who persists in calling Roy Eberhardt (Logan Lerman) by the pejorative, emasculating nickname of "Cowgirl" for much of the movie -- even AFTER she's decided he is an ally to her and her brother (Cody Linley as "Mullet Fingers"). (And, side note: Is it realistic that Linley's character's true first name wouldn't be mentioned even once by his sister or his new best bud? No, of course it isn't.) Meanwhile, the tone of the film's "main" subject matter -- protecting endangered burrowing owls -- is WAY too serious for a movie aimed at pre-teens who are also supposed to giggle at all of the "Home Alone"-type pranks being pulled on the adults. (And about those antics: Kidnapping? Felony vandalism? Fleeing and eluding the police? Trespassing? Seriously?) And yet, and yet, and yet... There are two things that save "Hoot," and somehow render all of the above issues essentially moot: One: The luminescent, almost hypnotic vibe that Jimmy Buffet's songs give the film, particularly with the "Floridays" montage scene with Roy and Mullet Fingers. That, and the cinematography, make Florida seem magical, unadulterated and alluring in almost every shot. And two, and most importantly: The acting and character portrayals turned in by Logan Lerman as Roy, and a bleached-blond Cody Linley as Mullet Fingers. (And also, in a minor role, Lerman's real-life best bud Dean Collins as Roy's school friend Garrett, who -- like Lerman and Linley -- turns in a strong, even-keeled performance.) I don't believe that "Hoot" is "really" about owls. I believe it is about friendship, and more specifically, best friends... friends without ulterior motives. I've read a few stories online about the fan theory that "Hoot" is actually about two gay teens, Roy and Mullet Fingers; these articles cherry-pick out various scenes that they believe have a homoerotic subtext, such as Roy bandaging Mullet Finger's leg, or helping carry him to the hospital. I watched "Hoot" again with that theory in mind... and I don't think that's what's going on. No, I think what's actually happening with Roy and Mullet Fingers is rare, G-rated, hetero and innocent: the budding of true friendship between two males in their mid teens. How many films have you seen where one teen character actually says to another of the same sex (and I'm paraphrasing): "I know you did that because you care about me"? I mean, honestly, I can't even recall dialogue like that in a "Lassie" film, much less a 21st century movie. But somehow, it all comes across as genuine and heartfelt. It's as if Lerman and Linley decided to block out the "noise" of all of the cartoonish acting going on around them, and simply turn in honest, believable character portrayals. While I don't think the script does Lerman any favors by having him "chase down" Linley's character at the outset for implausible reasons, once Roy and Mullet Fingers start to become friends, "Hoot" suddenly hits its stride. Most "teen" films today insist on portraying all teen boys as sex-crazed (hetero) maniacs, and slotting them into neat stereotypical categories (e.g., jocks, nerds, burnouts, etc.). Did you know that, pre-World War II, it was actually considered "abnormal" for teen boys (in movies, and in real life) to chase girls... and boys who did were considered effeminate and abnormal? Teen boys were expected to hang with their buddies; girls could wait until college or later. Fast-forward to today, when that kind of closeness between teen boys in films (and in reality) is viewed with suspicion, and must be tempered with plenty of macho talk about chasing girls, even among pre-teens. Teen buds today can't have any physical contact whatsoever expect the rare fist-bump, and certainly can't admit that they care about each other. It's easy to see, then, why some might assume that Roy and Mullet Fingers are "falling in love," and that the burrowing, skittish owls in "Hoot" are some sort of weird metaphor for wary, closeted gay teens. And, who knows, maybe that's exactly what's going on here; and if so, that's OK, too, I guess. I don't think so, though. I think that director Wil Shriner has captured something rare and special in "Hoot": the birth of an unpretentious, untarnished, genuine friendship. No ulterior motives; no macho posturing; no gay panic; and no overcompensating... just friendship. And watching that rapport between Lerman and Linley unfold on screen makes "Hoot" much more compelling than you might think. "Hopin' for a breath... hopin' for a break... hopin' for the give without the take..." -- Jimmy Buffet, "Floridays"

Man, this is a TERRIBLE book adaptation, and nobody talks about it, but for good reason. It has extremely fast pacing that goes through 50 pages every 10 or so minutes, acting that felt like was done just to earn an easy paycheck, weird decisions like cutting out characters, anything that was remotely funny, and the entire third act, which was made SO much worse. 3/10.

Hoot is toned-down from its already toned-down source material. Its heart is in the right place, and it has a few memorable characters and funny moments, but the overall production is insipid. It's a fine film for its target audience (9-to-12-year-olds) and for classroom exhibition.

Based on a preteen-friendly novel, Hoot follows a quiet boy, freshly transplanted from a happy life in Montana, to his new home under the Florida sun. There, he runs afoul of bullies (a majority of the school population is unreasonably aggressive) and joins a small team of environmentally-conscious peers in sabotaging the construction of a new pancake restaurant. A parliament of burrowing owls have taken up residence on the land, you see, so the kids aim to make life difficult for the construction crew in hopes the whole deal will fall through. Somehow, they imagine, a sack of wild snakes will dissuade the forklifts but ignore the nearby family of conveniently meal-sized fowl. It's a weak, Disney Channel-quality adaptation at best, despite the presence of a few recognizable actors. Tim Blake Nelson is the long-suffering construction manager, constantly rubbing his palms together and bemoaning "these darn kids" like a cartoon villain. Luke Wilson is his closest confidant, a dopey sheriff who aims to do good but falls for every lame trick in the book. Mr. Margaritaville, Jimmy Buffett, cameos as a chill middle school teacher (he also provides the ill-suited music) and a very young Brie Larson shows charisma but rudimentary acting chops in a large, early supporting role. Hammy performances, awkward editing, amateur production values, one-dimensional characters and plot holes for miles... whoah, even for lightweight kiddie fare, this is a bad one.

I can't believe the stiff necks that gave this a bad review!! I got kids and it's a cold winters night up here and we loved the escape to the Florida keys with Jimmy setting the vibe as producer, actor and music coordinator. Opening song is his own rendition of Canadian artist Bruce Cohburns "Wondering where the lions are". Great flick if your not already desensitized by this mad world of entertainment.

emotionless and effortless. I don't see the happiness, the mystery, the drama, and even less, the comedy. Many reviews say that the comedy is only made for kids, but here is the question… where? They are excessively repetitive, that i don't get it as comedy. Also, the actors and actresses aren't representative enough it's characters. about the difference of the book and the movie, they use the same dialogue, but the plot is arranged to fit the movie, i don't judge them by that, is normal to see a movie being like this when inspired from the book.

I thought it was better than the book, but it was still nothing special and the story is childish.

this is a movie made after a bad book and bad is a understatement for the movie because it is even worse

Pretty forgettable, but it has a little charm to it.

Not a good movie to watch

I loved this movie when I was 12, I've read the book as a summer reading thing when I lived in NYC:

The environmental message can be perceived as preachy by some, the story and the characters don't have nearly as much depth as in the original book, and the acting just plain sucks! However, the movie as a whole could be even worse.

"Hoot" is a piece of work. It is everything that is wrong with family films. Every time that Disney releases a new film, families flock to the theater for an experience that will be entertaining and meaningful to all. While the most important thing is for Disney to make families happy, they also make the critics happy. If you look at their 2016 releases, Rotten Tomatoes rates them at 98% (Moana), 86% (Pete's Dragon), 75% (The BFG), 94% (Finding Dory), 30% (Alice Through the Looking Glass), 94% (The Jungle Book), and 98% (Zootopia). There is no excuse for a production company to release a film like "Hoot" that earned a whopping 26% when Disney can put out a consistent stream of quality, family-friendly films. While this is a review for "Hoot," I think it is important that we acknowledge that we all take Disney films for granted. Now back to the movie at hand. What makes it so bad? Here is a short list: Poor acting, a bad script, an unnecessary Jimmy Buffet character, 17-year-old Brie Larson playing a middle school student, a soundtrack of Jimmy Buffet singing a compilation of his own and other peoples' music, a tired "Save the Earth" story, and an unnecessary closing credits song by Jimmy Buffet called "Good Guys Win (Every Once In A While)." It contains nearly every stereotype of a poorly made family film, complete with a big bully that gets beat up by a little protagonist, a clumsy cop (played by none other than... Luke Wilson?) and a Tiananmen Square-style showdown with a bulldozer. I'm sure that kids were entertained by this movie but there is literally nothing in it for adults, which I consider to be a failure on the part of the writers. Disney has shown us that kids movies can appeal to the entire film (and movie critics!) but "Hoot" completely fails to cater to anyone other than preteens.

This film not only fails as a kids film, but as a motion picture in general. Feels like a low-budget 온라인카지노추천 film.

7/22/2016: The moral of the story is good, but that was really it. The plot was mostly boring and didn't provide any real suspense.