A 12 year old boy named Ted (Zac Efron) lives in a town called "Thneedville" where fresh air is being sold in a bottle since Trees no longer exist as they are replaced by artificial trees. Ted is secretly in love with a girl who is older than him named Audrey (Taylor Swift) and all she really wants in life is a real tree. Ted is told by his Grandma (Betty White) to see the Once-Ler (Ed Helms) in order to get a tree. And when Ted finally finds the Once-ler instead of giving him a tree, he begins to tell Ted the story about his encounter with the Lorax (Danny Devito) and why there are no trees.
So our main character Ted doesn't go because of the ruined land he sees before him and wonders what has happened to the land; he's only doing it because his love interest loves trees. That not only destroys the purpose on why the character in the original wanted to learn about what happened, but it's as cliched as it gets! It’s obvious that Zac Efron (Who sounds way too old to be voicing a 12 year old) and Taylor Swift were obviously chosen to attract the younger crowd, while Devito was casted to attract the older crowd, and boy are Ted and Audrey boring. Ted is not just the cliched young boy, who's madly in love, but the film tries to make him cool and have him perform stunts, which feels veru unneeded for a Dr. Seuss movie. Even that big chase during the climax where he’s shown performing “cool” stunts is one of the many aspects of the film that feels forced to only lengthen the movie. And that’s pretty much what at least 90% of the film has filler. Another example of the film’s forced in filler is when our main character sees the Once-Ler. Instead of him telling Ted the whole story, he tells him to come back the next day, which of course is not only made to give the film some extra time, but the stuff that happens in between the flashbacks themselves just feel pointless and rushed to the point where I find myself screaming "GET BACK TO THE STORY ALREADY!" Getting back to the love couple; Taylor Swift as Audrey is just playing herself since the actual character is so dull and bland that she was only shoehorned into the film as a love interest to only (YOU GUESSED IT) lengthen it.
The Lorax voiced by Danny Devito is just playing Danny Devito (just like Swift)! I'm sorry, but hearing Danny Devito's voice as a cute and humble creature (which, he's neither) just doesn't work. In fact, The Lorax is a bit of a jerk! He not only lacks being cute, humble and wise, but he invades the Once-Ler's privacy; takes advantage of him; and instead of not using violence as a method, he nearly has the Once-ler killed by sending him down a waterfall. And if your argument is that he didn't mean to nearly kill him, my defense is HE'S THE LORAX! He not only should have pulled such a distasteful action, but he should know the land he lives, protects, and watches over! By the way, remember when this film came out that they used this iconic anti cooperate character on commercials...I bet Dr. Seuss himself would be extremely proud! As for the animals that live in this beautiful land, let's be honest, they're not the Dr. Seuss characters that we love, they're the Minions from "Despicable Me" only made to look like the animals from the story who come off as annoying and obnoxious than funny.
Who's that young guy with the guitar you may ask, that's the Once-Ler. Not only should it be a crime to show the Once-Lers face in any adaptation of this story, but would you have ever had pictured him to look like this!? I sure as heck wouldn't! Who would ever think that the Once-Ler was a young, handsome guy with a guitar in the book or cartoon? It's just as dumb as casting Rupert Everett as Dr. Claw in the "Inspector Gadget Movie", it just doesn't work! I kind of like that they're trying to give the Once-Ler a relationship with the Lorax and have his family and the people to be the ones forcing him to do what he does, but how can I feel any of that since I'm looking at the exact opposite of the classic Once-Ler character, as well as the story and characters being almost completely backwards? As for the Once-Ler as an old man, not only is he an over the top character who lacks regret for what he’s done, but I completely gave up on the character from the minute when I almost can clearly see him as an old man. Just for the record, as if the film didn't need an extra villain, there's a present day business man who wants to destroy the last remaining tree seed. All I'm going to say is the film needed him just as badly as they needed Alec Baldwin as the nasty next door neighbor in "The Cat In The Hat" starring Mike Myers.
While the film has nice animation, it still doesn't feel like a true Seuss movie, it feels like a Seuss movie trying to be cool, hip and modern, and none of that can ever work in a Dr. Seuss flick, even if we have a guilty pleasure for any of the previous films. As for the songs in the movie (as if the film needed any) they are so pointless; so forgettable; so hammered in; so corny; and so dumb that it doesn't bring the same musical narrative structure that the classic cartoon had. What, really disappoints me about the atmosphere is it's not as sad, dark and depressing as the cartoon or story. It's all very corny, painfully modernized, and is so over exaggerated and over the top that it destroys the creativity, the fun, and the timeless impact that Dr. Seuss has left us to give us something forced, rushed, loud and obnoxious! Its fine to have humorous moments in a Dr. Seuss movie, but too much of it ruins the seriousness of the story. The reason why the book and cartoon left an impact on us was how maturely it handled its message and themes. And by having the Lorax or his friends not coming back at the end, but leaves us with a symbol of hope makes the message stick with kids more than giving you a comedic atmosphere and a happy ending to go along with it.
While the film kind of tries to give its message on the environment, it all just feels like the typical Dr. Seuss movie that just wants money than to pay tribute to a great author and visionary.
RATING 1/5
No comments:
Post a Comment