The Lorax Reviews

The message is anything but subtle and thankfully neither is the comedy.

The casting of DeVito was perfect, leading a decent voice cast overall.

Overall, it was surprising good, nothing special or new, as far as writing, animation, editing, but good overall. 6/10 seems it is!

Honestly, when I was a child, I never read a book written by Dr. Seuss. I know they are pretty popular and for many years, they have been trying to adapt them to the silver screen, usually with some rather mixed results. I will warn you, this movie is not an exception, even though, I have to admit it, it wasn't that bad at all. Indeed, the animation looked pretty gorgeous but, unfortunately, I thought that the story was terribly childish. Of course, since it has been adapted from a children book, it is hardly surprising, but, still, I thought there was a really limited target audience for this flick and I definitely didn't belong to this group. Right from the start, you had this terribly annoying music scene, and they kept throwing those from time to time which just aggravated me. Even as a child, I always dreaded those songs in any animated features and, in my opinion, there are only a few animated movies with some really nice musical sequence. Also, I thought the whole thing was actually poorly structured. Indeed, you start with Ted’s story but, at some point, you switched to the Once-ler’s story which was much more interesting in my opinion so, as a result, I had a hard time to care about Ted and his quest to win the girl of his dreams. To conclude, in spite of its flaws, it remains a visually really appealing animated feature and it is worth a look, especially if you like the genre or if you have some young children to entertain.

Good movie. Kids love it, adults love it too. Dr Seuss always gets it right. Nice animation.
I have to say my favorite characters are the animals in Truffula Valley- the bears,fish and birds

I tried to be optimistic with this film, really I did. But I was doomed as soon as it began.

The first thing I had the misfortune of noticing, was that the film was not centered on the main story that made up the majority of the book, but it was, instead, confused about whatever it was trying to do. Is it trying to be a love story, a musical, a comedy, or an ever-so cliché environmental public service announcement? Oh yeah, did I forget to mention it’s a musical? Is it any good? Take a wild guess…







This actually makes the film even more dragged down than it already would be without the music. It’s like Hoodwinked, except that film actually had redeeming qualities that excused the annoying songs in it. Yet where that film had humor to redeem it, this film tries to hide behind its source material’s main theme, which creates a problem when you’re trying to make something that’s supposed entertain.

In this film, the main protagonist here supposedly goes against the wishes of his ruler (who is an all powerful dictator that controls the populace and distribution of goods) because he’s in love with someone who is also a rebel. Oh gee, where have I heard that before?







Except, unlike this film, 1984 did not have a “happy ending.” I haven’t even mentioned the actual story from the book yet.

So after 20 minutes of giving Dr. Seuss the middle finger (a quote actually taken from the book is mocked by one of the characters), our protagonist finally goes to the Once-ler to find out about what happened to all the trees. Why? Because he is in love with someone who wants one.

The Once-ler finally gets to talk about The Lorax. This just so happens to be the best part of the film, but it is absolutely nothing spectacular. In fact, this section gets cut into 3 parts by the "real" plot, with more emphasis on the love story. This manages to give off more environmental messages when not taking the viewpoint of the Once-ler (who is meant to be ambiguous just like in the book, but is completely visible by the end of the movie), in a town that is technically a smaller, plastic model version of Ba Sing Se. Yes, I am of course talking about this Ba Sing Se:







The actual Lorax scenes are the ones that have most of the talented writing put into them, but the movie's length is, for some reason, stretched thin of any potential charm the film could have had, which is exactly why the Lorax scenes aren't that much different from the the rest of the movie. You don’t have much fun watching these scenes because they really aren't all that fun, just a little bit more entertaining than the other 5/8ths of the film.


And you know what? The book wasn't all fun either, but at least that was the point. It was meant to be a clear message to children and adults of all ages about how we can make a difference. But here, what we get is attempt after attempt at humor that doesn't work throughout the hour and a half running time, unless, of course, you are a young child; very young. The writers use bears that eat marshmallows and fish with lungs to try and make the film funny because they ran out of good ideas for the human characters before they could actually come up with them. I’m dead serious. And when the film actually does try to be funny with human characters, it either falls flat or it's already been too damn late (or both).


The near end of the film is where it's at its worst. Because here, the movie has become so irritating, it’s screaming, “if you don’t save trees, you’re evil” over and over and over again. That’s where the annoying musical numbers come into play because unlike movies that can find their way around sending a message without being annoying the ever-loving fuck out of you, this doesn't even try. It milks the message dry, so much to the point of where it becomes as obnoxious as Al Gore.







It’s kind of sad to see that the creators of Despicable Me can’t seem to make another great film, first it was Hop and now this. It is only safe to say that we can hope the best for their first sequel to their best movie. And finally, I would like to add that there are so many better films you can watch that have environmental messages, like WALL-E.

Considering that the children’s books by the late Dr. Seuss have been classics over the years, adaptations of these stories have not been entirely well-received critically in the film industry. Following previous adaptations How The Grinch Stole Christmas, The Cat In The Hat and Horton Hears A Who!, The Lorax follows in the footsteps of those films as it makes its mark as the fourth film on Seuss’s work. The film’s immediate approach was that of a much more colourful, child-friendly feature; maybe even at a pre-school standard for infants. Still, The Lorax unfortunately transformed itself into a complete misinterpretation of Seuss’s book and, therefore, sinks to an incredibly low level that almost merges with the other Seuss adaptation disaster - The Cat In The Hat.


For anybody to make a film based on a children’s book will always either hit the nail on the head or simply flop, which has been the case with Dr. Seuss’s work. There are the basic animated family films that serve meaningful messages with a tender and exciting story as well as lovable characters. In the case of The Lorax, it was not really anything at all. For example, like the 1972 TV special, it is stationed as a musical and even the songs did not enlighten the tone of the film and they just did not flow with the story. Furthermore, this whole scenario regarding the environment and protecting it may be a soft spot for under-4 kids but it is still serves a very unrealistic that, quite frankly, nobody even cares about. However, the animation was, of course, remarkable and the crew behind Despicable Me did a good job with that, but even that didn’t save The Lorax.


You can quite easily tell that The Lorax is attempting to aim high towards its target audience (young children) by typically casting two popular symbols for that age range as the leading male and female characters – Zac Efron as Ted and Taylor Swift as Audrey. Both of these characters very closely define both of these actors and, like what has been the case on a number of occasions with Seuss film adaptations, it lacked the charm and wit of the characters from the original source. The decision to cast Danny DeVito in the role of the Lorax was absolutely typical as the short and stocky appearance of the character is identical to DeVito himself. Seuss has introduced characters where you cannot explain what type of creature they are (whether they’re a form of extra-terrestrial or human). Still, despite that and that the Lorax, quite frankly, is not really a form of anything; he is one of the least funny and most unrealistic and corny children’s characters. However, the biggest controversy of the film in comparison to the book was the completely different transformation of a crucial supporting character - The Once-Ler. There have been the minor adjustments in almost every film, such as events that occur and what is said, but going beyond the limit is altering the physical representation of a character. Of what we saw of the Once-Ler in the film, he is identified as a human, but in the book, he is a mysterious creature which, therefore, left the audience something to think about.


Although the studio behind Despicable Me obviously provided very colourful and impressive animated effects, it still did not in the slightest save the film. Watching The Lorax was literally like experiencing an empty and incredibly corny direct-to-video feature. It takes incredibly poor preparation to transform another Seuss adaptation into a complete disaster like the agonizingly painful The Cat In The Hat and despite The Lorax may have the slighter edge due to effects, it is still a complete and utter failure. This is a solid example of why certain books should not be made into films.

This movie is so bad that it doesnt matter how good the original might have been. They didn´t even try to make anything valuable, just random crap for random kids who haven´t had the opportunity to watch anything better yet.

Sad.

I think when this movie was first announced there was uproar of people who didn't want the beloved Dr. Seuss classic soiled by a Hollywood watered down version. Now, I will say that the book is better, but there are some things about it that work.

Now arguably, the film does go for a more light-hearted tone than the book which was very heavy handed and dark, as it should be since it is supposed to be a cautionary tale about how mankind shouldn't do nothing, and if they do, the problem isn't going to go away it's only going to get worse. Because of that, the novel ends on a feeling of caution but light hope. The movie, on the other hand, actually semi-resolves the issue and ends on a feeling of strong hopefulness and satisfaction. Which ending works better? Well, I personally think the book has a better ending, but for my money, the movie handles the happy ending well, not showing too much, and still leaving the viewers with a feeling of responsibility.

But with that said, I must bring up the film's fatal flaw, and the main reason why this film isn't as good as it could've been. The film is just too preachy. We get it, trees are awesome. Also, I have to raise some complaint that the film seems to have Anti-Capitalist leanings, stating that business is bad. I think the film sadly doesn't find a perfect balance between corrupt capitalism and the appreciation of nature. There is very little subtlety in this film. Okay, the book wasn't exactly subtle either, but it was more subtle than this.

I will say that the film does at least seem to be self-aware that it is preachy and tries to have fun with it. The scene where the first tree is chopped, all the creatures put rocks around the stump like it's a grave. I'm not sure if it was done seriously or not, but I will say that I laughed.

The film is actually quite funny and I laughed a lot during the film. Maybe that's not what the story quite needs, but heck, it's a lighthearted family comedy, and I think its funny enough.

I will also say that the computer animation is just stellar. It looks jaw-droppingly unbelievable, and even without the 3-D it feels like you're transported into another world. The trees look so soft you can practically feel them. It creates a great atmosphere and it's phenomenal.

The one thing that I think the film actually improved from the book is the portrayal of the Once-ler. In the book, he is faceless, and represents stubborn businessmen who refuse to compromise in order for the environment to be cleaner. So it makes sense that he is faceless. In the film, however, the Once-ler is a young naive entrepreneur who is a nice guy with good intentions, but when he becomes successful, his success goes to his head, and the people he surrounds himself with try to get him to renegade on his promises and his circumstances force him to make a difficult decision. It makes the character more tragic and not only strengthens the theme of human's responsibility for ecological preservation, but also offers a cautionary tale about the downside and dangers of capitalism, and the tragedy of a man who realizes his mistakes too late. It's a fascinating character and is an improvement over the book's portrayal (the books isn't bad, I just think the movies way of showing the character is more interesting).

It's bright, it's colorful, it's funny, it's a decent, nice trip. Some people will strongly object to the somewhat anti-corporate message (funny seeing how many tie-ins I saw for The Lorax), and the complete lack of subtlety (seriously, some subtlety would've been nice, guys), but I think the film is charming and funny enough, and the film is saying that we need to take care of the environment, not necessarily a bad thing. But, man this film had potential to be fantastic, especially with such a great character in the form of The Once-ler.

The day I saw the advertisement of the movie even though it was not launched and with Dr Suess name on it, i decided to take my 7 year old nephew and 3 year ole niece to the movie. Yesterday it happened and I took oth of these kids to the local theatre attrium to watch the movie in 3D. It is the first time for little in niece to be in a theatre and 2nd time for nephew. Both the kids enjoyed the movie and not only them but all the kids present in the theatre enjoyed it a lot. They clapped at the end of the movie and I think Dr Suess succeed in communincating the message he wants to put across in the young minds in the fun way.

Dr. Seuss didnt afraid to provide serious messages in his books. The Lorax may not have the joy and humor of his other books but surely it left its readers with a clear message and dire warning.

The 3D CGI-animated adaptation extended further the message to the young minds specially who have to take reign of the world business in future.

Dr. Seuss’ book had a simple premise: a young boy visits the Once-ler and the Once-ler tells the tale of how his greed and ambition chopped down the forest, and how he should have listened to The Lorax, who “spoke for the trees.”

So I must say give it a try.

Nicely making the transition from book to screen, Dr. Seuss' 1971 children's classic comes across like cautionary science fiction for the prepubescent set. Colorful and visually delightful, the film is complemented by lively vocal work that engages viewers without calling attention to the stars behind the voices. The film's ecological message is its primary takeaway, but that message develops as an organic element of the story rather than a moralistic afterthought. The Lorax allows us to imagine what might happen to the world were there no longer trees and air a commodity that must be purchased.
The town of Thneedville is the embodiment of that nightmare prospect, even though its inhabitants are not aware there is anything wrong. The entire city is made of plastic, bright and imaginatively shaped. The status quo only begins to fray when young Ted (Efron) tries to impress Audrey (Swift), a girl who would like more than anything to see a real tree. That quest leads Ted to break through the city limits to find the Once-ler (Helms), who is rumored to hold the secret to the trees’ disappearance. Ted's grandmother (White) encourages him and stokes him with her childhood memories of life before the trees went away. Once found, the Once-ler tells Ted his long, sad story about how he is the one responsible for the decimation of the forest outside Thneedville's borders. It involves a rash, young man out to make his fortune by going into the woods armed with marshmallows to feed the bears and an axe to cut down the trees (which look like psychedelic palm trees topped with colorful, round tufts). His actions bring forth the Lorax, a peanut-shaped thing with a mustache, who is the guardian of the forest. The Lorax and the other animals try to coexist with the Once-ler at first, but his business success becomes their downfall, and they all depart. Ever since, the Once-ler has remained a hermit in the woods, harboring one last seed that he passes on to Ted, who uses it to get the girl and ultimately show the entire community the error of their ways.
Although the movie's ecological message is dominant, it’s not heavy-handed. Rather, the ecological warnings are tossed out with the same joie de vivre the Once-ler displays when tossing marshmallows to the bears. In fact, on the subliminal-message scale, I have more trouble with the film's only electric rock song being associated with the movie's bad guy, Mr. O'Hare (Riggle), who bottles air to sell to the citizens of Thneedville. The film’s zippy and buoyant framework, however, make the lessons seem not like medicine.