The Lorax (2012) Review

Hollywood has become very infamous for taking pieces of classic children's material and watering them down with their "modernization. Sometimes, it works, and most of the time, Hollywood tends to take the easy way out by just sticking to "whatever kids like." One of the most infamous examples of this is their constant attempts at adapting Dr. Seuss material.

Dr. Seuss himself (otherwise known as Theodore Seuss Geisel) was against having his material marketed outside of the context of the original books, which is why adaptations never made it past the 30-minute cartoons we all know and love. After his death in 1991, his widow was given the licensing rights and allowed Universal to adapt How The Grinch Stole Christmas into the live-action Ron Howard movie from 2000, and while the movie received mixed reception from critics and even worse reception from fans, it currently ranks up as the 2nd highest grossing Christmas movie. After that success, Universal continued with an adaptation of The Cat in the Hat, and it came off as a failure in every sense of the word. It received negative reviews from critics, it barely got its budget back in box office, and even Mrs. Geisel took away the rights to make live-action adaptations of the classic books. After that, Blue Sky Studios, the folks behind Ice Age, were given the rights to adapt Horton Hears a Who, and it was so well-received that it was decided that animated adaptations were much more suitable.

Now comes The Lorax, another attempt at an adaptation from Universal Studios, currently celebrating their 100th anniversary and delivering what I consider to be their best logo yet. More specifically, this movie was animated by Illumination Entertainment, an animation company that got its kick-off with the phenomenally successful Despicable Me from 2010. The movie had a lot of heavy marketing behind it, gaining endorsements from companies such as IHOP and whoever the hell makes Mazdas. So yes, you heard right; the Lorax advertises SUVs now.

But I think that's enough background. On to the review!

The movie follows a 12-year-old boy named Ted, played by Zac Efron, living in the city of Thneedville where everything is made of plastic and nothing is natural, to a point where people have to buy fresh air in bottles from a guy named O'Hare, played by Rob Riggle. He has a crush on a girl in high school named Audrey, played by Taylor Swift, and constantly "accidentally" causes baseballs and model airplanes to land in her yard just so he can see her. She tells him that one thing she wants to see more than anything is a real live tree. So, his grandma tips him off that he has to get out of town and find a man known as The Once-ler in order to find out how to grow a tree. Once he finds this Once-ler, he tells him a story about why there aren't any trees around anymore. Apparently, The Once-ler started an industry for a product called the Thneed, but after he chopped down his first tree to get the needed material, a creature known as The Lorax, played by Danny DeVito, appeared and warned him that the force of nature would be against him if he kept chopping down trees. However, The Once-ler did not listen to him, and soon, his industry became so big that he managed to chop down every tree in sight.

So yeah, apart from the whole sub-plots about Ted, his crush, and his town, it's basically the same story we've heard before. The challenge that all of these children's book adaptations are presented with is attempting to extend their stories into 90-minute features. As far as this movie goes, on paper, this does seem like a damn good way to extend the story. Ted has a reasonable motivation to leave town and get his tree, especially for a kid his age. Some might find it a little creepy that a young kid likes an older kid, but come on, at the age of 12, the whole concept of "cooties" basically vanishes, and I have to admit, Audrey is beautiful, and that's basically all a kid needs at that age to like someone.

However, the movie does have one major flaw. The environmental message that was so deep and well-told in the original story takes a back seat to family fare. It would have been nice if the movie explained a bit better how letting trees grow would lead to a better life, but nope, characters are just senselessly motivated by the whole idea of trees. Not that I don't understand their importance, but as far as I can tell, the movie doesn't understand. I think the closest thing to an explanation is that trees give air for free. You know, as opposed to the industry of selling air in bottles. Even worse is that Ted's motivation never changes. It would have been better if he had realized the importance of trees halfway through his adventure, but in the end, he's still just doing this to get the girl.

While all of that much needed development takes a back seat to Hollywood zaniness, that same zaniness does make it entertaining enough to satisfy.

The animation is very bright and colorful, going beyond the standards of a typical CG animated movie. The character designs are precisely how I would imagine a modern CG animated movie to interpret Dr. Seuss characters. All except The Lorax. He looks a little too orange to me. Also, did anyone else imagine The Once-ler looking more like The Grinch? Anyway, on top of that, the 3D is stellar, looking just as crystal clear as I'd expect it to be these days. It doesn't "express" the 3D as much as, say, Hugo, but it's still worth the extra three bucks.

The voice performances, for the most part, aren't half bad. I constantly keep forgetting that Zac Efron is playing Ted, proving to be the better kind of performance where I hear the character and not the actor. Taylor Swift does a decent job as Audrey, and Ed Helms should get a lot of laughs as The Once-Ler. The only problem I have is with The Lorax himself. Danny DeVito doesn't do that bad of a job, but he's terribly miscast, which is a problem I find in basically all these Dr. Seuss adaptations. The original cartoon portrayed The Lorax as a wise old man. DeVito sounds more like an industrialist, and yes, you guessed it, that comes off as hypocritical. Obviously, these Hollywood executives were just looking for a big name star to fill the role, but you know what? If you're going to go with DeVito, why not get someone like, say..... Mickey Rooney?

What might end up being the killer for most people is that the movie has musical numbers. Obviously, this is coinciding with the developing return of musical numbers in kids movies such as Tangled, Rio, and to a lesser extent, The Muppets. How do these songs hold up? Well, they're pretty forgettable, but most of them are still riveting enough to keep the movie in its light mood. However, the choreography is nothing special, despite the movie setting up people in crowds.

So, what's my consensus? Well, it's much more entertaining than those live-action Dr. Seuss movies. The animation is beautiful, the characters and voice performances are a lot of fun, and the musical numbers are riveting. At the same time, however, it's not as good as it could have been. The original story had a deep message about saving the environment, and the movie doesn't really develop that message enough to make it believable. If you're looking for a solid adaptation of the story, I say stick with the classic cartoon version. If you're looking for a fun night out at the movies with your family, I'd say this would be a good choice, if not entirely inferior to that OTHER animated movie I reviewed not too long ago.... 

This movie is worth $10 out of $20.