It's the second movie of Dr. Suess I have watched until now. The first one, which I watched about 3 years ago, Horton hears the who, is still in my top 20 animated movies of all time. I'd already set mediocre expectations for this one with the reviews, ratings and the plot. At the start, we come to know what message we are gonna get at the end. So, it's not pretty suspenseful. Also, it starts slow. It took almost half the movie to let them come to the track and pick up. It's not slow, but boring in the middle although a few laughs from the little ones which doesn't amuse the giant us too much. No doubt, towards the end, laughs get better and more, however, remain average. The last few minutes are fun, rest it's average/below average stuff. The animation is good. Average Animation movie. Exact 6/10
Add a Review
-
I went to see this movie with two girl friends of mine. Throughout the movie, one of them kept groaning and sighing at the same parts I did. The other later accused us of never having been kids. I think they might both be right.
If you were ever a child, you are probably familiar with Doctor Seuss's 'The Lorax', a tale of a world where man's greed and selfishness has eradicated all the trees in favor of their escapist man-made town. It's a charming yet somewhat depressing book as the main character realizes what he's destroyed, yet leaves a glimmer of hope at the end as he passes off the last tree seed to a young boy to plant. As a kid, I loved the bittersweet end, as it got the message across and made me want to care about preserving nature.
The movie, on the other hand, left me thoroughly unimpressed. Let me get the good parts out of the way first. Naturally, the art style is fantastic and whimsical, as all Seuss work is. Danny Devito does a great job as the Lorax, and I feel it's pretty safe to say that the parts of the story actually focusing on the Lorax himself were indeed enjoyable. That is, with the exception of a badly placed musical number, which makes any sorrow at the trees being destroyed seem diluted. You should be upset that the Lorax leaves us, but I was more upset that I WASN'T upset.
Unfortunately, the part of the story focusing on the boy trying to find a tree was tiresome. It's a case where the book was more dramatic than the story - nature had been ravaged, and nobody cared about it except for one boy. In the movie, it's basically all because of some horribly stereotyped evil characters - Once-ler himself is painted as naive but still a good person, but the creators apparently didn't want him to seem corrupt in chopping down all the trees so they have his redneck family do it for him. And the business tycoon Mr. O-Hare is just ridiculously evil. I'm not going to say that big businessmen shouldn't be villains or anything like that , but the point of the original book was that all of mankind had stopped caring, whereas the movie says it's the fault of Once-ler and O'hare entirely, the latter of who deliberately is keeping people clueless about trees. I just feel the ending would have been far more dramatically appropriate if, instead of having a cliché'd (and underwhelming) chase scene where he shows everybody O'hare is evil, if he instead needed to actually CONVINCE people that trees were worth caring about (he convinces them by knocking down a wall at the end. Apparently in the last 15 or so years nobody had even once looked outside.) Additionally, when he finally plants the seed, all the other trees start growing again. Not sure how, but it makes me wonder - if that's all it took, why didn't Once-ler try to plant the seed 15 years ago?
Also, they throw in a 'hip grandmother' pretty much entirely because they know grandparents will be taking their kid. At one point the romantic interest actually says 'Wow, how cool is your grandmother'. This bothered me for some reason. Perhaps because I have no soul.
Also, it's apparently a musical, something that the ads failed to mention. I'm not against musicals, but the combined fact that 1.) i wasn't prepared for that (Despicable Me, their previous movie, had none) and 2.) the music was... bland. I can't remember any of it and i just got out 20 minutes ago. Also, as I said earlier, one musical number completely ruins the tragic mood it tried to set with the trees getting chopped down.
I know that it can be hard translating a Seuss book, usually with only 20 or 30 pages, into a feature film is a tough task. But honestly, if you don't even get the theme right then you have failed in your task. Lorax is enjoyable in a lot of parts, but the parts that aren't AREN'T.
Final verdict: 5/10. Your kids might like it, but the uninspired music, botched ending, and boring finale are real game breakers. -
ebbradsh9 April 2014All reviewers of this movie seem to either love it or hate it, and it's easy to see why.
As has been pointed out to death, the "modernized" Hollywood story added in of a celebrity-voiced kid trying to win a girl and overcome a two- dimensional villain in the process is thoroughly uninteresting, and will make older moviegoers angry at the lack of effort made in expanding the story.
The Once-ler's tale, on the other hand, is the story carried over from the book, one of unchecked ambition and carelessness. The Once-ler is morally gray and this is done very well, as he is likable, yet you're never sure- is he a villain? A misguided hero? Somewhere in between? Sure, it's padded out with cutesy animals, but knowing what becomes of them in the end makes it considerably less innocent. This story is where Seuss's message is, and it still makes it through.
The score by John Powell is epic and the animation and designs are gorgeous, which add great atmosphere in the darker parts of the movie. The environmental message is very un-subtle, and people who dislike that in other movies will dislike it here.
One need only listen to the cut song "Biggering" to see how powerful this story could have gotten. And they just didn't have the guts. But beauty does manage to seep through in places, and this is one movie that I'd highly recommend seeing only parts of. -
The_Film_Cricket9 September 2012One of the problems with the recent attempts to adapt Dr. Seuss' books into movies is Hollywood's tendency to intrude upon his work with cute, snappy dialogue and slapstick comedy, and expand on appropriately thin material with gobs of hip-cool dialogue and needless subplots. Anyone familiar with Dr. Seuss' books knows that this is completely the wrong approach. A good example is "The Lorax", the 1971 book which was about the depletion of the environment through industrial carelessness. The book ends with a somber, but hopeful, message that the environment could be saved by one caring individual. The movie ends with a car chase. You can see the problem here.
The original story involved a little boy who arrived, under "smog-smuggered sky", to see a hermit called The Once-ler, who lived in sad looking structure atop his store. For a small fee, the guilt-ridden Once-ler laid out the story of how the land got so filthy. Years before, he had arrived in this land when it was brimming with bountiful color and life and how he decimated that life by cutting down all the Truffala Trees in order to make a product called The Thneed. Despite dire warnings from the forest guardian called The Lorax, the Once-ler continued his profligate ways until he turned the once beautiful landscape into a desolate wasteland.
The book never gave the boy a name, an origin, or a reason for coming to see The Once-ler (he was meant to represent the reader). Not so in the movie. The boy is called Ted Wiggins and he lives in a completely artificial town of Thneedville, which is completely devoid of anything natural and surrounded by a large steel wall. His reason for seeking out The Once-ler is that he wants to impress a girl by bringing her a Truffala Tree, which are extinct. Exiting the town on his motorbike, he goes to find The Once-ler, who spells out his story.
Much of the movie flashes back in time to tell how The Once-ler (who was never seen in the book, but is often seen here) came to destroy this beautiful forest. The Lorax, who "speaks for the trees" wants the Once-ler to stop his wasteful means and move on, but The Once-ler sees profit in logging and won't stop. That's good enough, but why did we need a subplot in which Ted tries to stop a greedy industrialist called Mr. O'Hare (who has made millions selling bottles of fresh air) from planting trees? Worse, why did we need a happy ending? Why did the book's hopeful ending get drawn out into a roller-coaster car chase around Thneedville followed by a lame musical number? Even more puzzling is why the screenwriters decided to throw away Dr. Seuss' dialogue. The magic of Seuss' stories lay in his dances of words and a distinctive rhyming structure. The movie has none of this. The characters speak in the kinds of smart-alecky phrases that every animated feature these days seems to incorporate. That means quips, insults, clever asides and buzz words. The title is painfully misleading.
The basic problem is that the filmmakers didn't have the courage to follow the original work. Their movie represents a fear that telling such a deep and sorrowful story will offend viewers who might ask for their money back. Their movie is blown up, wrapped up and packaged as silly musical comedy with an environmental message buried in the corner. This isn't the worst movie of the year, but it is certainly the most weak-kneed.
Will kids enjoy it? As a diversion for a Saturday afternoon, probably, but it would do an injustice to introduce this story to them through this movie. The only positive is that it will probably exit their brains almost as soon as it is over. Revisit the book and you'll that there is a reason that Dr. Suess' story has remained in our minds for 40 years. If Dr. Seuss had written his book as it plays out in this movie, it would have long been lost into the dustbins of history, which where this wrong-headed movie is very likely headed. -
fembot10056 March 2012The Lorax is a very fun movie that I'd recommend taking your kids to any time.
It's so fun! The characters are very funny for kids and adults too especially the little fish! The fish are so funny they act like a kind of a chorus or something in the story.
The Lorax himself is a great character, very nice and likable with a great voice.
Worth seeing for sure.
Movies are getting more and more expensive but this movie is fun and has a good message. -
afh1795 March 2012Instead, go in with and open mind and prepare to be entertained. The newest Seuss book to be adapted to film happens to be one of the great author's works that I enjoyed the most growing up, the Lorax. The first thing you'll notice about this film is the animation. The colors are bright and vibrant, and the animation is excellent. Another bright spot in the film is the musical numbers, the songs are catchy and creative and add a nice spice to the movie. The main thing about the movie though, is that it follows the book loosely. It is by no means a direct adaptation, but keeps the key plot elements while remaining a modern-day animated kids movie. Fans of the book shouldn't be disappointed, I certainly wasn't. I left the theater feeling satisfied and proud that one of my favorite Seuess stories was done justice on the big screen, as so many animated films don't deliver. But this is one worth seeing, and will be enjoyed by everyone from the youngest of Seuess fans to the very oldest.
Overall: 7/10 -
shaun_lime7 October 2019I've only just got around to watching this film and I've got to say It's got a great message and this world needs to listen to it.
Overall it's roots were strong and it had a great sense of humour and also had a dark side to it.
Good animation -
Thneedville is a plasticized world where everything is about consumerism and creating an environment with fake grass, trees and bushes. Through some flashbacks, a boy learns that this world wasn't always this way...it used to be beautiful and green. But mankind's greed destroyed the natural beauty.
When I was a kid, I loved the cartoon version of "The Lorax". It told a great story AND a great lesson about preserving the environment....and it did it in a fun way that made you listen to the message. Now, decades later, you could see the original...or you could watch this incredibly loud and padded 2012 CGI offering. Loud....big time! Heavy padded? Yep. The original was only 25 minutes...this thing from Universal is nearly 90 minutes and they can't help but overly pad out the story to keep it going this long. The padding consisted of adding a lot of songs...mostly terrible songs...as well as adding side stories that weren't in the cartoon nor Dr. Seuss' book. They also padded it by having countless scenes of the boy riding his motorcyle-like device....all things that really test the patience of folks who actually KNOW and care about the original story. Overall, I hated this film. Despite great CGI and some decent voice acting, the story just was diluted and dull. A huge misfire that is MUCH worse than its current mediocre score. Oh well...at least it wasn't the live action "Cat in the Hat"!
By the way, if you DO watch, note the little bears. They are, essentially, the minions (from the same film studio) just dressed in different garb. -
HollywoodJunket5 March 2012"Dr. Seuss' The Lorax" is an updated version of its own television cartoon written by Kenneth Chisholm called "The Lorax" (1972) about the telling of the story of an industrialist who turned a lush tree filled environment into a wasteland in order to mass produce his fashion product.
In the updated version, "Dr. Seuss The Lorax" in 3D, it's the re-telling of a very similar story. When a young boy, Ted (Zac Efron) falls for a girl, Audrey (Taylor Swift) who lives down the street, there's just about nothing he wouldn't do to capture her heart. They live in a town called "Theneedvile" that has no trees. They rely on store bought tree replicas which don't have the benefits of photosynthesis that produces fresh air. The town's zillionaire, O'Hare (Rob Riggle) made his fortune on this fact by selling bottled fresh air with his "O'Hare Air" products.
When she shows him a mural of trees that she painted in her backyard and tells him that she would marry the first guy that brought her a tree, or "Trufulla", it turns Ted's world into a frenzy as he focuses on where to get a real tree for her. His grandmother, Norma (Betty White) remembers a time when trees were plentiful and tips him off on where to find out how to obtain a tree. Ted ventures off to see the only one person that can help him, "The Once-ler" (Ed Helms) who lives high above the devastated, grey and barren land without fresh air that he is responsible for.
As a young man, "The Once-ler" harvested the Trufulla trees to use their colorful, cotton-candy like textured tops to make "Thneeds", a product that can be used at fill any human need- a scarf, an umbrella, a hat, even a tight-rope. His pitch tag-line is "everyone needs a Thneed". With the first chopping-down of a Trufulla tree, brings "The Lorax" (Danny DeVito) the guardian of the forest who warns the Once-Ler to stop his greedy commence, anti-environmentalist ways.
"Dr. Seuss' The Lorax" is a great reminder to children of the importance of conservation and preserving mother nature and animals. In the Dr Seuss' case, it's the Humming-Fish, Swomee-Swans, and Brown Bar-ba-loots bears that thrive in the natural Thneedville land.
The colorful palettes used in "Dr. Seuss The Lorax" is very true to the classic picture books I remember as a child. The 3D effects was a fresh and welcoming change at the beginning of the movie but faded as the movie went on and ultimately the movie stood alone without the need of it.
"Dr. Seuss The Lorax" opens in theaters in realD & IMAX 3D on Friday, March 2nd.
www.HollywoodJunket.com -
billygoat107121 March 2012It's hard for Hollywood to make an adaptation of a book by Dr. Seuss. Especially if it's something like The Lorax. The Lorax is one of Dr. Seuss' darkest tales with a serious sentiment. This film adaptation keeps the story but it focuses too much to its fun characters and gimmickry of the 3D than the environmental message. It leaves the message as the background of the film. As a whole, it's colorful and fun but it feels very different.
The film adds a lot of new things to stretch this small story. Like the Once-ler reveals his face and the kid from from the beginning has a different motive why he went to the Once-ler. It's strange and clever. This is from the creators of Despicable Me and the studio's trademark is to add some cute comic relief characters. The Humming Fish, Swomee Swans, and The Barbaloots are cute enough.
It's easy to say that Danny DeVito is perfect as the Lorax and Ed Helms is a bit charming as the Once-ler. Everything in this film fun. The songs are pretty good although it's not quite memorable. What disappoints here is the execution of the story. Yes, the message is there but it feels like it's just the background of the film. More goes to the fun. There's nothing wrong with that but it's too light for this dark story.
The film has the heart and soul to show Dr. Seuss' illustration but the storytelling feels too different. The message is there but it's not as compelling as the book. It's pretty hard to say it's a bad film because it's entertaining and fun. It's hard to say it's great because it lacks eagerness to the message. It seems like Horton Hears A Who will remain as the best Dr. Seuss adaptation so far. -
If someone walked up to you in the street with a rock that had THE MORAL written on it in capital letters, and them proceeded to beat you about the head with it, it would be more subtle than this movie.
It was trite, preachy, and more full of flagrant cliché than any movie I have ever seen.
The thing I loved most about Seuss was his ability to nestle a moral gently and concisely under layers of symbolism. Yes, his stories were sometimes over the top and hyperbolic, in an endearing way, but they made their point and moved on.
As I am now.
If you love Seuss, and do not want to risk ruining everything that his genius taught you, do not watch this movie. -
...in this case, changes from the book/original TV short. A lot of people have been lamenting the "frame story" this movie adds in, as well as the idea of making the Once-ler a human character. As far as the frame goes, it's done pretty well. It's a bit flat but perfectly enjoyable for younger kids. Making the Once-ler human, though? BRILLIANT. Hear me out. The original Once-ler was a faceless force of destruction, a shadowy embodiment of greed. This Once-ler is just a stupid kid with a dream, a guy who wants to change the world. He's not evil, but he lets his success get to his head, and that brings about his own downfall and the destruction of the forest. That's FANTASTIC, and here's why: that's how the world really is! Companies don't sit around all day cackling about how much smog they're pumping into the atmosphere; it's a process, and something that happened gradually. Obliviousness is just as dangerous as maliciousness, and that's a really powerful lesson. This can happen to YOU if you're not careful; anybody can hurt the planet if they don't pay attention. That's a rare lesson, and one I'm really pleased to see in this movie.
So, is it silly and stupid sometimes? Yes, of course. But it's colorful and exuberant, and in a lot of ways I think it really captured the "Seuss-ness" that similar remakes have missed. There's nothing offensive about it (besides the miserable marketing) and my little brother enjoyed it as a fun movie. I enjoyed it for giving us a deeper--and in my opinion, very powerful--character type: the accidental villain, the everydude who makes a horrible mistake that the environment suffers for. So take that as you will...but overall, I found myself liking this a lot more than I expected. Definitely worth a watch. -
TheLittleSongbird16 August 2012As far as the feature Dr Seuss adaptations go, the best by quite some distance was the animated Horton Hears a Who. The Grinch I also liked, even though it doesn't hold a candle to the 1966 animated version, though I can definitely see why people may dislike it. But I detested Cat in the Hat, a failure both as an adaptation and on its own terms. In all honesty I was very nervous about seeing The Lorax, I'd see anything to do with Dr Seuss but when I saw people likening it to propaganda and the more positive reviews getting overly defensive and condescending and making all kinds of annoying excuses it did lower my expectations. After seeing it, I don't think it was as bad as all that, calling it propaganda I think is unfair, but I don't think it is perfect either. It does pale in comparison to the original story and to the 1972 cartoon, but on its own merits, on which I do think generally a movie should be judged, I found it a perfectly decent movie. Perfect? No, the "hippy grandma" character did get on my nerves and the main subplot with Ted could have been better developed. My biggest reservation was that while the story did have its heart and charm it was rather stretched which loses the initial simplicity of the story. However, the animation is wonderful, very bright and whimsical as it should be with some pleasingly psychedelic moments also. The songs are suitably catchy with some deliciously playful lyrics. The writing is much better than I expected, I was expecting the toilet humour and fart jokes of Cat in the Hat but actually the humour is cheerful and amusing. The message is heartfelt and despite what you'd expect reading the plot summary I don't think it talked down to the audience that much. The ending is heartwarming and a nice change from the one of the more downbeat yet hopeful one of the 1972 cartoon. The characters on the whole are likable and personable, the best being the Lorax himself, and the animals are very cute. The voice acting is also fine, Danny DeVito does cranky brilliantly, and Ed Helms and Betty White are also amusing. Zac Efron and Taylor Swift may raise some eyebrows and I was initially perplexed at their casting, but actually both do spirited jobs. So all in all, while I can understand the disappointment of those who didn't like it as much I did enjoy The Lorax despite fears that I wouldn't. 7/10 Bethany Cox
-
Why someone decided to take Dr. Seuss' best book, a powerful treatise on the environment, and turn it into a silly musical, is beyond me. But it was not just overkill, it completely destroyed the tone and power of the story. This movie has voice talent, I'll give them that, and the visuals are stunning, but the tone and music just were awful choices. And for me, it is NOT the Lorax. It is some bad Hollyweird reimagination. The animated classic is the only way to go, if you want a motion picture, but the best way is to read the book, an amazing classic. It deserved better.
-
lotekguy-12 March 2012The demented alien pod person who took over Lou Dobbs' body has railed against this charming animated feature, based on a beloved children's' book. He claims it's part of an Obama/Occupy conspiracy to brainwash kids with pro-environment/anti-business messages. Dr. Seuss wrote the story in 1971, when President Obama was 10; and, given how long it takes to draw and voice such productions, most, if not all the work was done long before the Occupy Movement began.
The premise is a dystopic reality beneath the idyllic surface of a town that's 100% artificial, after all the trees were chopped up to make a certain product. Greed and short-sighted thinking led to lurking disaster. But what's new, or even controversial, about that? For decades, the entire lumber industry has understood the need for planned re-foresting to assure the future availability of raw materials, and its own survival. As to the politicizing polemics, Wall-E presented an even gloomier future with otiose blobs of humanity floating in space above the garbage-strewn Earth they had to abandon. That came out before the 2008 elections. I don't recall the original Mr. Dobbs, or the pod overlord who apparently evicted him from his own flesh, blaming that one on President Bush.
More importantly (and rationally), the film offers fun for all ages with delightful visuals, a perky pace, a few first-rate musical numbers and several well-crafted characters. Danny DeVito, Zac Efron and the blissfully ubiquitous Betty White head the voice cast. The 3-D option is a fine enhancement, making a number of scenes more exciting than 2-D. And, if every ticket purchased pains those pod people trying to pass for humans, eventually driving them back to their home planet, consider that a bonus. -
anaconda-4065818 May 2015The Lorax (2012): Dir: Chris Renaud, Kyle Balda / Voices: Danny De Vito, Zac Efron, Ed Helms, Taylor Swift, Rob Riggle: A stunning animation that represents those of us concerned with our environment and the state of our world through greed and carelessness. Zac Efron voices Ted Wiggins who wishes to impress Audrey, a female he crushes on. She desires to see a real living tree. Their town has become one plastic landscape with one great joke regarding a villain who sells bottled air since the trees have pretty much been vanquished. Despite cameras being everywhere he manages to escape to the wilderness where he hears of the destructive past from a being who calls himself the Once-ler who regrets actions that have led to the dead scenery around him. He was warned by the mystical Lorax who overlooks the forest. While the concept is appealing, the screenplay is reduced to formula and a climax that viewers will likely see planted long before the seed drops. The appeal lies within creative images of bears, birds, singing fish that scamper on land, as well as marshmallows that descend everywhere. Besides Ted becoming part of a bigger picture, there is Ed Helms voicing the regrets of the Once-ler. Taylor Swift is given the cardboard role of Audrey. Danny De Vito steals the film as the orange oval shaped Lorax who sports wisdom, wit and a thick yellow moustache. Rob Riggle can be funny but voicing the mayor is hardly a great opportunity to showcase his comic potential. Family friendly animation with dazzling comic images and a message of warning when it comes to our trees. Score: 7 ½ / 10
-
ironhorse_iv15 October 2015That honor goes to the wonderful made, 1972 animated musical television special; in which, this movie was remade from. I think, the reason why, I ponder this way, is because the 2012's version has an over-saturation amount of consumerist-tie-ins. There are, at least, 70 different marketing promotions here! This marketing ploy really does betrayed, the original conservation and protecting the environment message of the Dr. Seuss's children's book of the same name, in which the movies were based on. For an anti-materialism story to advertise so many products to kids and their parents; it sends a particularly confusing message. Yes, kids might want to leave the film wanting to do more to help nature, however; that message will be diluted by the onslaught of available merchandise with the Lorax's brand. Directed by Chris Renaud & Kyle Balda, and released by Universal Pictures on March 2, 2012, the 108th birthday of Dr. Seuss. The movie tells the story of a young boy named Ted (Voiced by Zac Efton) living in the town of Thneedville; a place, where nothing grows. When his girl crush, Audrey (Voiced by Taylor Swift) wish to see a real tree, he sets out to find one for her, with the help of the reclusive Once-ler (Voiced by Ed Helms) and the once-strong, forest guardian, the Lorax (Voiced by Danny DeVito). Can Ted find a tree or has the final tree, already been cut down? Watch the movie to find out, if you want to! Without spoiling the movie, too much, I have to say, the story of the Once-ler interaction with the Lorax, is far more superior, than, the expanded story of Ted trying to get a tree. I really didn't like, any of the new stuff that they added to push, the film's runtime more. The whole subplot of Ted's tree rescue, being threaten by the new town's bigwig, Mr. O'Hare (Voiced by Rob Riggle), because trees provide oxygen is somewhat confusing. Yes, it makes sense that he would try to stop it, since his profits come from the manufactured air that the citizens have been taught to buy and breathe. However, the movie never explains, how he gets his bottles of clear air. Nor, does it, explain, how the people of Thneedville are able to survived, in such a desolate wasteland with no trees. No trees mean no food, water or oxygen! You would think, these people would be gasping for air, or suffocating, by now. For all we know, there is no natural source. The real problem I had with this adaptation, is how little, does things like this, seem logical. Another thing that seem illogical, is the over the top eco-villain. You would think, Mr. O'Hare would rather steal the tree, than try to destroy it. However, wouldn't it, be better if they weren't any villains. Isn't the idea of The Lorax, is to tell a cautionary tale of when someone, anyone, takes too much without realizing it. That anybody, can, end up like the Once-ler. I guess, the producers didn't want people to feel bad about themselves. So, they create a clean cut unrealistic villain, instead. The writers should had, kept the Once-ler, the only antagonist, tragic figure and should had kept him, hidden. After all, he's supposed to represent us. Still, I do, like, how they made the character, into a sympathetic human character than monster, but the way, they show it was kinda rushed and underdeveloped. In the film, he's really only cutting down trees by pressure from his family who aren't sympathetic in the least, until the "How Bad Can I Be" number, where he becomes consumed by the greed and its capitalism way. However, in the 1972 animated special, he's not outright bad, but have a multifarious view when it comes to production. The movie gives him, a lot more time to debate his actions, and always finding an excuse to cut more and more trees, because he fears people would lose their jobs. It made the film, so much more complex. I hate the fact, that this movie makes the issue, seem simple, when it isn't. One of the biggest complains, I have, about both movies is, how the Once-ler, not once, try to fix his own mistake. If the goal of the movie was to promote environmentalism, the Once-ler should have done, something, but, instead, he waits for someone else to come along and fix it. What kind of message, is that? Are we supposed to be shameful of our misdeeds and hope that the next generation can do something better about it? That's a crappy ending. This 2012 film kinda make it, worst. I really didn't like, the force pandering happy ending in this. I would rather take the original powerfully thought-provoking, emotionally fueled, and subtly ambiguous bittersweet ending over this, any day. That said, The Lorax isn't a bad movie. It's certainly not painful to watch, but it's not all that fun either. The jokes were mostly a miss than a hit. I didn't like the pop-culture references, nor the music and songs in the film. They weren't that memorable. While, the animation was mostly alright; it's seem to borrow, a lot from 2010's Despicable Me. I really didn't like, how the forest animals act like minions. Last is the awkward voice-acting. The voice actors they chose for this film, doesn't really do much for the characters. The worst had to be, the then-21 year old, Zac Efron as a 12 year-old boy & the then-38 Ed Helms voicing a young 20 year-old hipster, Once-ler. They sound, nothing like, the age, they're supposed to be portraying. However, Danny DeVito was a great choice for the Lorax. I just wish, the producers didn't have him, try to kill the Once-ler. Overall: Though, it's not as bad as the live-action versions of Dr. Seuss's books, the Lorax is still a mess of a film. You're better off, revisiting the book, instead.
-
cultfilmfreaksdotcom4 March 2012If you think Hollywood is the greediest moneygrubbing plastic city in the world, think again – and welcome to Thneedville, where every overly promoted, abundantly commercialized item costs bundles and, scariest of all, there are no trees. Enter Ted, a kid smitten with a gorgeous girl Audrey, who has only one wish – painted along the back of her house are tall skinny things resembling straws harboring wispy windblown cotton candy. These are the long forgotten trees, and she wants one, a real one, badly. Through his wise old granny, Ted learns of The Once-ler, a hermit residing on the outskirts of the shallow metropolis: walled in and policed by a wicked, and very short, dictator O'Hare.
But Ted gets easily past the border and, using his power scooter, zips into a dark flatland where he finds a faceless hermit in a spooky house. Here he learns the backstory and what the film's all about: Once-ler was once a poor farm boy who discovered a land abundant in nature and cutesy animals. He realizes, to make his dream invention – what he calls the Thneed (think of a Bionic Snuggie) – he has to chop down a tree: which summons our titular hero, The Lorax. This mustached, peanut-shaped, blunt yet lovable orange creature (voiced by Danny DeVito) is an underdog environmentalist that can only point the Once-ler toward wisdom. But becoming a powerful businessman is Once-ler's priority – and his Thneed's a big hit until all the trees are gone.
Now we're back with Ted, whose input means very little – especially since the title character (who has surprisingly minimal screen time and plot relevance) is history and the real tale has been told. Nevertheless, Ted's final mission is to plant one last seed. Although the greedy O'Hare – who sells clean air in cans and fake trees for big bucks – wants him stopped.
Kids will enjoy the wonderfully vivid animation and the cutesy characters, especially a bear cub and singing fish residing in the tree-laden forest. Here's where the most involving, fast-paced action occurs. And the overly obvious environmental message works in scenes where each tree falls to their death: like best friends dying slowly, and painfully, before your very eyes.
But once the movie ends with a corny singalong about letting it grow, you'll realize this ninety-minute tale was really just a message with lots of vibrant color: Other than a greedy entrepreneur cutting down trees to make money and then realizing his mistake, not much really happens.
Yet the real moral of this anti-capitalist movie is that it grossed a whopping $70 million this weekend. But since spending, and making, large amounts of money is a bad thing, you can do the producers a favor: instead of paying $14 bucks to watch THE LORAX, go plant a tree!
For More Reviews: www.cultfilmfreaks.com -
I always remember this film as "The Last Tree" regardless of its real title. Maybe because it's about the last tree, so, I considered the title as "The Last Tree".
This film is one of those films which have important message. Tree is one of the most important things to have in this world. Trees make oxygen and prevent the environment from getting hotter. Chopping trees can make you money of course, but at the same time, it makes the environment worse than before. Nowadays, in some countries, the weather is so hot, hotter than past 2 or 3 years. Mostly, it's because there aren't more trees. People are chopping them to sell. Some people make things and sell them like in the film. Some people are just selling the whole thing. Trees becomes less and hence, making the weather hotter and hotter. So, if we want to stop this condition, we have to protect the trees and plant more trees. Otherwise, it will become exactly shown in this animation.
Although this film has the greatest and most important message, it also have the biggest flaw. The trees in this film look weird. The trees from the real world are not like them. In the other words, the trees from the animation aren't realistic. It makes the viewers feel strange.
Overall is that this film is also a great film. It's one of those films you can't miss. Everyone must watch this one at least one time and learn a lifetime lesson. -
michellevandewauer5 March 2012This is a fun animated movie for kids and grown ups alike. It has an obvious message about wastefulness and the environment that I like but that is maybe a bit too strong. The movie has a fault in that it is kind of a thin story, it is based on a short Dr. Seuss story that doesn't really seem like it's long enough or meaty enough to stretch out to this feature length film. Basically the town they live in is completely fake - everything is fake - and the character decides to get his girlfriend a gift of a real tree that they have never seen and that only one wise person, who also happens to be the keeper of the only known tree seeds, can tell him how to find it.
-
cricketbat28 December 2018The Lorax took a simple children's story and turned it into a brightly-colored, heavy-handed snorefest. It's obvious, based on the casting, that they were trying to lure in younger viewers, but they forgot to make the filler plot or the musical numbers interesting. The book is definitely better.
-
'The Lorax' was awesome.*MIGHT BE SPOILER*.
The musical numbers was entertaining, and taught the message of the book. It was nice to see the Once-Ler as human; it showed him as just a normal person who made bad decision, and not just a faceless monster who hated trees. The boy motivation in the beginning might had be selfish, but he soon wanted the seed not for the girl but because the world needed the trees.
The spirit of Dr. Seuss was in this movie. The art, even in 3-D, stay true to the Dr's. Even his message was there. Many fail to remember that the original children's book, and 30 min animated short was just that. In order to make the 89min film, extras needed to be added. Which they were able to do very well.
Overall, don't believe the reviews that people have posted about 'The Lorax'. People were looking for something bad in the movie since it was announce they were making it. When they couldn't find anything they made some up.
I say go out and see the movie for yourself, and leave the haters behind.
"Unless Someone Like You Cares a Whole Awful Lot Nothing's going to get Better. It's not." ~Once-Ler -
DICK STEEL4 March 2012Dr Seuss' stories for children have been finding their way to the big screen, be it live action or animated variants. The Lorax becomes the first to be presented in IMAX 3D, although frankly speaking having watched this in the 2D version, there aren't that many clues why it would have warranted a 3D treatment given a rather flat animated design that won't contribute much to the 3D format, although having presented in IMAX would mean a crisp presentation, with the musical elements likely to have pushed the song and dance sequence into aural and visual perfection given the vibrant colours involved.
Given that it's a kid's film, director Chris Renaud clearly has brought his Despicable Me know how into The Lorax, knowing just what buttons to push to keep the young ones engaged and entertained. With his earlier animated effort, even the most bored adult in the audience would find the little yellow minions in the film fairly amusing with their antics, and here with co- direction by Kyle Balda, that responsibility fell onto the many strange animals in the land of Thneed-Ville before it became polluted and uninhabitable. There are many of cute, furry bears running around the landscape filled with the Truffula trees, which serve up delicacies for the animals, and who can forget the singing/humming fishes out of water who are primarily key to why the musical numbers were plenty of fun. Or the birds of the land as well, way before the introduction of the very grumpy Lorax, protector of the trees when Once-ler (Ed Helms) fell one of them to extract raw material for his production of Thneed, a multi- purpose fabric.
It's a story within a story, which began with Ted (Zac Efron) having the hots for Audrey (Taylor Swift), who has a penchant for wanting to see a real tree. Living in Thneed-Ville where everything is artificial, Ted discovers the simplest way to score with his lady love is to make her sole dream come true, but requires to do the forbidden and step outside their gated community, and seek out the fabled Once-ler, as advised by his grandma (Betty White). So begins the actual story of The Lorax with the background of how the Once-ler ended up where he is, from a promising young man seeking his fortunes to learning the universal lesson of how to take care of our only planet, told through multiple visits that Ted makes each time to learn a lot more.
The story's pretty much very point blank in its obvious message about the environment, and conservation, where the ill effects of industrialization, blatant pollution and the destruction of nature get dealt with in the narrative – when natural habitats are destroyed, those oh-so-cute all-singing-and-dancing animals will soon have to depart or face extinction. However, having this shoved down your throat every now and then does become somewhat of a put off. While the young ones will likely be entertained, accompanying adults will likely stay two steps ahead of the story since it doesn't toss up any surprises, and you can be accurately guessing how everything turned out like it is for Thneed-Ville given the very lively introduction to the town.
The villain is of course the conglomerate head Mr O'Hare (Rob Riggle) whose objective is sky rocketing profits from a self fulfilling cycle of production and waste, churning out products such as filters and bottled clean air to serve as growing necessities for the town's inhabitants. Despite getting title billing, the Lorax (voiced by Danny DeVito) isn't that much well liked or have taken centre-stage, despite having to crack some one-liners every now and then, but character wise, almost everything stuck to their assigned caricature. This makes the narrative a little bit bland and boring, unable to keep pace with its punchier song and dance moments when it played out more like a musical.
Fans of Despicable Me will find some grounds for familiarity given how director Renaud stuck to his formula of packing the visuals in with bright, vibrant colours, and staffed full of cutesy animals and creatures that Once-ler finds himself in the company of. It's a story about redemption after betrayal of the highest order, breaking that circle of trust in the name of production and capitalism, and sort of reflects a current state in modern society with morals thrown out the window in exchange for riches. But for the young ones who are here to watch this show, parents beware, should there be a slew of merchandise and toys lined up to capture their attention post-screening. -
Filvies1444 October 2015Now before this film was bad they made 2 awful live-action adaptations, the Grinch, and the Cat in the hat. They were so bad that Dr. Suess's wife did not allow any more of them. Then they made Horton hears a who animated, which was decent. But now lets look at this one.
OK, lets start with the plot. The main plot is pretty weak because it's about a boy who lives in a town with no trees but fake designs that people like called thneedvile. He visits the onceler not because he was interested in nature. He gets in trouble by the mayor doing it, but he does it to receive a seed for a truffula tree, for a girl. Yep, that's all. But the good thing is that the plot of the original book with the Lorax and the onceler is pretty good. So the main story is not well written, but the books plot is.
The animation is pretty good. The character design has always been a weak point at illumination, but it is decent. The environment is very colorful and looks excellent. So you got to hand it to the animation.
The characters I like the most is the onceler . The onceler because he goes through development, and knows that what he did was wrong. Danny DeVito does good as the Lorax, but the Lorax doesn't get enough screen time, but is slightly annoying as the onceler said it best. The other characters are very one dimensional and the mayor would've been a better villain if he had been more sinister.
There are 4 surprise musical numbers. All of them are horrendous. With bad lyrics, bad tune, and are very surprising and annoying. They are only a little better than Rebecca Black's Friday, but that's not saying anything at all. These songs are horrid! So the verdict overall is that it's not any better than the just OK Horton hears a who movie. It's just not. The animation is pretty good, but I forgot to tell you that the jokes are pretty bad actually. With only 2 good characters but otherwise a one dimensional cast, a weak main story, and atrocious songs, it is an improvement of the live action films, but it is still just not good. It's just not.
Story: 4.5/10 Animation: 7.5/10 Characters: 4.5/10 Songs: 1.25/10 4/10 -
This movie is fairly entertaining for children. However, it leaves very little for others.
I went to see The Lorax because I have always loved Dr. Seuss. However, next to following the basic story-line from the book, there was really no Dr. Seuss to be seen. At no point were the fun rhymes from the book used in the movie. In fact, there were no rhymes at all. The voice acting was decent and the graphics were fine. However, I saw very little advantage seeing it in 3D. If they had just included more Dr. Seuss and less pointless musicals, this movie would have been much better.