LAST ACTION HERO

Continuing my series of reviews from 93, let's take a look at the most infamous (if not the lowest) box-office bomb of that year...

Amateur script writers Adam Leff and Zak Penn wrote a screenplay that was a dark satire on action films titled "Extremely Violent" about a teenage boy being teleported inside one with the lead character being written for the famous muscle flexing action star at the time Arnold Schwarzenegger. Columbia bought the script liking the idea; got Arnold to sign on for the picture as the star as well as giving him his first shot as a producer by placing him as the film's executive producer; John McTiernan (director of "Die Hard" and "Predator") was placed in the director's chair after Steven Spielberg and Robert Zemeckis turned down directing the film; and screenplay writer Shane Black (who wrote the Lethal Weapon movies) and his partner David Arnott were hired to do rewrites. Leff and Penn didn't like the changes that Black and Arnott made for the script by taking away the darkness that was in their original draft, and were later kicked off the project when it came to working with them. Arnold himself was not too fond of the script either, and demanded for more rewrites by giving more depth to the character's and pushing for the script to be PG-13 material so that the film can be sold to a wider audience by being more family friendly, or else he will not allow the shooting for his scenes to begin. Two time Oscar winning screenwriter William Goldman came to revise the script meeting Arnold's demands that consequently resulted with delays as the film had to be rewritten, shot, edited, tested, and ready within 9 and a half months. When shooting was finished, McTiernan had three weeks to edit the film, where he only had time to have one test screening which bored audiences for its 2 hours and 20 minute run time and containing more scenes of tedious dialogue instead of action. The studio declined the request to delay the film's release date, which only gave time for McTiernan to trim the film down by being 9 minutes shorter than its original run-time.

 

As all this trouble was happening behind the scenes, Arnold wanted to do whatever he can to promote the film and sell merchandise based off it, such as video games, animated motion cups of comic-book illustrations based on the film sold by Burger King, a giant inflatable Arnold Schwarzenegger as the main character Jack Slater, and paid N.A.S.A. to promote the film in space! It was ambition and its heart was in the right place, but it became just as big of a disaster as the film was. They did pay N.A.S.A. to advertise the film on a space shuttle that cost $500,000, only just like the amount of delays that went on when making the film during its tight and hectic schedule, the launch was delayed and eventually dropped because by the time that they were ready to promote the film it would have already been released to theaters. The timing for marketing couldn't have been any worse when the balloon of Arnold holding a shot-gun in one hand and stick of dynamite in the other, was seen floating in Time Square shortly after the first bombing of the World Trade Center, where they had no choice but to deflate it, and replace the dynamite with a badge. When making action figures to promote the film, Arnold being determined to sell this film to kids forbid any guns to be propped with the toys which seemed foolish considering that it's an action movie filled with gun-play, resulting with Arnold's constant attempts to lure families to see it to draw back hardcore action fans who loved Schwarzenegger in films like "Commando", "Predator", and the first two Terminator films. And let's not dive into the crappy game tie-ins.

Through all the constant rewrites to make it family friendly, limited time to put the film together with delays, one test screening that had people yawning instead of cheering, and big marketing that only worked against hyping-up the film; the biggest problem that the film faced that was painted on the tip of the bomb that the film would see before it would destroy any chance that it had to be the ultimate summer action-packed blockbusters for families, is that it came out a week after that this ultimate summer action-packed blockbusters for families was released...

It's not hard to understand how "Jurassic Park" devoured "Last Action Hero". It was a family friendly adventure film filled with dinosaurs (that easily attracts kids) that had the perfect balance of action, humor, intelligence, enchantment, and scares, as it contained groundbreaking special effects unlike how anyone has seen Dinosaurs on the big-screen before, where the film is still celebrated, marketed, and discussed today. It became the hit that "Last Action Hero" was aiming to be. This cemented the film's destiny for failure as it bombed miserably at the Box-Office while audiences and critics openly detested the film. The film went on to be nominated for 6 Razzies (including "Worst Picture"), and was satirized in Weird Al Yankovic's "Jurassic Park" music video by having a Claymation figure made to resemble Arnold as the film's character being quickly sliced in half by the dinosaurs. Devastated by the overwhelming film-making experience and dreadful results, McTiernan went to his home in Wyoming to take a break from his career as a filmmaker, while Arnold being so disappointed with the final product that he personally considered it to be his first true failure in films and his downfall as an actor.

Years after the film's release, the film has slowly gained a cult-following through its Home Video releases. Some people believe it's an underrated action-comedy masterpiece that was released at the wrong time; others find it to be an incredibly entertaining mess of a movie; while others still see it as bad as it was when it first came out. When I was in 5th grade I was a major fan of "The Terminator" films, and would always rent and watch them as much as the kid in “Last Action Hero” would watch a Schwarzenegger movie. When I saw a promo for "The Ultimate DVD" of "Terminator 2: Judgement Day" during a VHS preview, I asked my Dad to get it for me for my Birthday, for how awesome it sounds (and just for the record, it's still as Ultimate as it’s been promoted). Having trouble finding it (and possibly couldn't take my obsession for such a violent film at a young age) he bought me "Last Action Hero" in its place. I looked at the cover and showed disinterest in it for looking like your typical average action-film with Arnold Schwarzenegger. Eventually though, I did watch it and from the moment when Arnold arrived I was pumped and wasn't bored or disappointed by its action. And as soon as I discovered that the film was about a kid around my age being sucked into an action-movie with a magic ticket as the film would mock the cliches and illogical things happening in the movie world, and would show the grim reality of the real world when the kid along with the character's exit the film world, I was thoroughly thrilled enjoying every single turn that the film took. Then I saw the Nostalgia Critic's review of the movie when I was in High School as he pointed out what a boring and clumsily made satire the film is, and read up a few articles discovering that the film was not a hit when it came out. I still enjoyed the film, but it wasn't as spectacular as I remembered it to be, so I didn't watch it as often as I used to, and eventually stopped revisiting the film altogether, until now. After hearing about its disastrous history and tons criticisms from many critics, and yet hearing tons praise from its fan-base, how well does the film hold-up from my view point? ON WITH THE REVIEW!

I hate to do this again, but my short synopsis of the film was already mentioned when discussing the history, and I refuse to give it anymore detail. This won't be a habit in future reviews, it just seems pointless and a waste of my time to give you more depth in the story when I'll clearly get more into it during the review portion.

With the exception of The Terminator, Arnold Schwarzenegger is not a good actor. His timing for comedy is awkward; when conveying emotion it’s always wooden; and when he goes over the top its complete overkill. But as terrible as an actor he is, he's still full of charisma. When a scene calls for him to look and act badass or menacing he can do it within a blink of an eye; when given cheesy jokes or awful puns and one-liners his bad delivery makes these bad jokes and stupid lines of dialogue hilarious thanks to his insane enthusiasm when saying them (that is if we can ignore his annoying ice puns); and while his acting of showing pain and despair are more suitable for Razzies than they are for Oscars, he's trying so hard that he makes these corny and badly acted moments strangely endearing. And all of that can be said about his performance in this film. It baffles me sometimes why so many people found Arnold boring in this film. He does everything that he's best known for in his film career. He looks cool when fighting and taunting the badguys; I still get plenty of good laughs out of him for how he fails and yet succeeds with the jokes he's given (both good and bad); and he puts plenty of heart when he finds out that he's a fictional character and has trouble adapting to the real world, even if his acting isn't good. I don’t fully understand what the disconnection is that audiences have with Arnold’s performance? Was it released at a time when they became sick and tired of Arnold's shtick after seeing him take audiences by storm in the famous "Terminator" sequel? Is the humor and environment so off-putting that Arnold's silly acting made it worse, as he would later do in "Batman & Robin"? Was it because that the character of Jack Slater was so similar to the character of John McClane by being a cynical cop who doesn't play by the rules, that Bruce Willis should have been casted in the role instead since Arnold doesn't have the same timing as Willis does? Any of these reasons would make sense, but personally I find Arnold as charismatic and entertaining to watch as he was in most of his previous films before this. I'll even go as far to say that this is one of Arnold's most underappreciated roles for how he successfully gives audiences what they wish to see from him that doesn't feel lacking as he manages to effectively transcend from a self-parody of an action hero who is completely unaware that he's in a movie, to a fictional character struggling to face the facts of his non-existing life in his own Schwarzenegger style of acting.

I suppose another major reason why people don't fully enjoy Arnold is because he's partnered up with the film's most obvious bate to draw in a younger audience, a kid named Danny played by Austin O'Brien. I can definitely see it being a problem for how much Arnold spends most of his time arguing with a kid, than kicking somebody's butt, especially when considering that most audiences find O'Brien's performance to be utterly annoying. And as much as I will openly defend Arnold in this movie, I can't fully defend O'Brien. His constant complaining can get quite annoying from time to time; and though his methods of trying to prove to Arnold that he's in a movie is well-written and funny, it does get quite tedious after a while since that's half of his dialogue, and is not even warranted at times for how much he states the obvious when a scene could've been funnier without his commentary. Some of his decisions aren't helping the character much either, like him using a girls bike to play chicken with a limousine, or him trying to tell Slater about a secret involving the villain right as they're still on their doorstep. For a kid who knows so much about film cliches and action tropes, he certainly becomes victim to the bad ones, including when talking about villains being too busy talking when they should just shoot their victims as he has a henchmen at gunpoint. But for his faults, I don't think he's all that bad either. I've seen way worst child actors and characters in other movies (including Schwarzenegger films) and this kid doesn't come close to earning a Razzie. He can be funny on many occasions; his love and knowledge for action films is believable for how passionate he sounds when delivering his lines; how he shows the character’s feelings towards the people around him feels natural; and he has a near right balance of being smart, naive, wondrous, vulnerable, and brave, making him overall feel like a real kid for us to identify with than someone who's too cutesy for us to believe that he watches violent movies all the time, or intelligent to the point where it’s unrealistic.

In the real world where Danny lives, there are two supporting characters. The first being his overworked and stressed out widow of a Mother played by the same women who played Tom Hanks' Mom in "Big", Mercedes Ruehl. She does a great job of playing the overworked Mom that nicely balances the humor and drama as she did in "Big", but as far as the character goes she could've easily just been present for a cameo. The death of Danny's Father never quite goes anywhere; and her hooking up with Slater in one scene while being nice to see considering that he finally has a conversation with a woman then using corny pick-up lines, nothing really blossoms from their relationship. The supporting character from the real world that Danny spends most of his time with is the old theater projectionist Nick (Robert Prosky) who's in many ways like an eccentric and humble grandfather figure to Danny. Prosky is quite charming as this kind hearted old man, but he can at times be a little creepy. He clearly knows that Danny is cutting school to see the movies, showing no care that what he's doing is wrong. He doesn't try to lecture him, he just tells him to go straight to school after skipping 4 hours of it and will reward him by showing him a private screening of the latest Jack Slater movie at Midnight with just the two of them, not at all feeling remotely concerned of how his Mother may feel. And when Danny shows up, he closes the doors, speaks to Danny softly and intensely as he walks closer to him, and gives him the magic ticket. I get that he's a carefree eccentric, but the writing and acting just sends up plenty of red flags to not make him seem all that trustworthy.

We mainly get two supporting characters on the hero's side in the film world as well. Bridgette Wilson plays Slater's daughter Whitney (who also plays in the real world for no apparent reason a rising actress in her first movie role that feels so unimportant to the plot that she could've easily been playing herself). She's sweet, tough, and gorgeous who seems worthy enough to aid Jack and Danny, however she only has one scene of her defeating a henchman as she plays the damsel of the distress for the majority of the time she's present, and is never seen again until she arrives for a funny plot convince joke. Her character feels wasted since she proves to be just as tough as her Father, but maybe it’s for the best because if I have to hear more of her screaming and squeeing I may burst an eardrum before the third act. To be fair she doesn't do as much screaming as Jack's angry blabbermouth Lieutenant played by Frank McRae. McRae's energy, furious animated expression, and loud fast talking voice is funny, owning every single moment he has. I just wish there was more to the character than what we see. We hear that he and Jack are secretly friends, which sounds interesting except that we never see them show a personal connection of any kind. There's a purpose for the reveal that gets a nice little giggle out of me, but it in no way goes beyond the character's cranky personality.

The film contains a big cast of villains as well, the main one being the deadly assassin with a collection of glass eyes Benedict (Charles Dance). Dance gives plenty of personality to his character for him to be lively and mad to stand out as a man who takes pleasure in killing and committing crimes, while still managing to have a quiet and laid-back sophisticated personality to give his character a sense of dignity. Some of his best moments showing the character's coolness is him being questioned by Arnold, and him questioning Danny; as the moments that show how playfully wicked he is are when discussing his plans of what he intends to do with the ticket with showing complete confidence that no one can get in his way with the power that he possess. Watching Dance's performance again, I've noticed that he seems to be mimicking Alan Rickman's performance as Hans Gruber from "Die Hard" making it seem like that he's a self-parody of the character, with enough differences to have him stand-out as his own character. The reason for this was because the part was written for Rickman but he turned down the role because of the salary, which is quite tragic for how much I would've enjoyed watching Rickman fight against Schwarzenegger, but Dance is far from a bad substitute. If I had any problems with the character, I will say that his schemes that he has in the real world are quite disappointing for either not making sense or teasing us into thinking that something awesome is going to happen.

The villain that Benedict works for is a scheming mobster played by Anthony Quinn, who seems to be having a blast playing the Italian mobster stereotype by giving a performance that's just as colorful as the very Hawaiian shirt that he wears. The funniest exchanges come from him getting idioms wrong causing Benedict to quietly pronounce the real saying and ending it with an insult, showing pure annoyance that he's working for a crime lord that's not as smart as he is. F. Murray Abraham who is known for playing backstabbing characters like Omar Suarez in "Scarface" and Antonio Salieri in "Amadeus" is casted as Jack's partner who is obviously going to betray him for coming across as sinister during his friendly moments as Danny tries to warn Jack about him being a traitor since that's what Abraham is best known for playing, making it one of the film's cleverest jokes. Beyond the supporting villains, the one who gets more screen-time and honestly more depth than Benedict does is Tom Noonan playing an axe wielding serial killer who calls himself The Ripper (a dark humorous nod to his famous performance as the serial killer Francis Dolarhyde in "Manhunter"). Between him and Benedict, this is the villain that I wished to see as the main antagonist. He's deranged and taunting, but he can be silent and soft-spoken. He's comical but also eerie for his creepy Make-up design and badass axe that he wields. He wants vengeance on Jack more than Benedict, and is willing to kill a bunch of innocent cowering children including Jack's own son to get to him. There's so many personality traits as well as a great deal of history and tension between these two that clearly he should've been the one for Arnold to face throughout the film. However, choosing between a serial killer who only carries an axe and a henchman who's a skilled shooter to carry an action-comedy, it makes sense why Benedict has most of the attention. 

An aspect of the film that greatly show what a hit and miss movie it is, is the excessively large amount of cameos that appear constantly in the film. Some that make sense, some that don’t, some that are funny, and some that are pointless. Some of the best ones include Art Carney as Jack's second cousin Frank in his final film role; Joan Plowright as Danny's English teacher; and a poster of Sylvester Stallone as The Terminator (easily the biggest laugh in the movie). I also don't mind most of the cameos of the celebrities at the premier. If Schwarzenegger (as himself) was the only star to appear, it wouldn't have felt like a real event, there needed to be at least a few other celebrities to make it seem authentic. But then there's the random cameos of Robert Patrick as the T-1000 and Sharon Stone as Catherine Tramell from "Basic Instinct"; Ian McKellen as Death from "The Seventh Seal"; Tina Turner as the mayor; and Danny Devito as the voice of an animated cat named Whiskers. When I was a kid, I remember loving these cameos, but watching it again, though I'd be lying if I said that I don't personally enjoy this cool randomness, they're still awfully pointless and stupid. Patrick and Stone literally say nothing or make eye contact with the characters; the appearance of Death only exists to give exposition to something that Danny could've figured out on his own, with his presence and reason for why he appears leaves the viewer with unsolved questions; Turner is just there; and how the hell does an animated cat fit the film at all?! Upon recent viewing I've began to notice a few second long cameo of Michael V. Gazzo as Quinn's rival at the funeral. Loving his Oscar nominated role as Frank Pentangeli in "The Godfather Part II", I was happily surprised to discover that he was in this film as well, and yet disappointed at the same time when he doesn't do anything where his over the top style of acting would be most welcomed. It's a complete missed opportunity to have him in a cameo so minor that it makes no difference of who plays the character.

A style that I admire the film for attempting and succeeding in some areas is capturing both worlds. The film world appears to look like a big budgeted action flick when comparing how the real world is shot, where setting it in a place as sunny and flashy as California makes it seem more fantasy-like with its art direction that almost resembles a comic-book. The over-blown action scenes that take place in the film world are indeed highly entertaining to watch through its impressive stunt-work, choreography, special effects, situations, hard rock soundtrack, and of course its sense of humor. And speaking of humor, the mockery of the action-tropes regarding the film world are practically endless, and I don't wish to reveal too much for how funny many of them are, after describing a decent amount of them when discussing the characters. There is however one major problem that works against most of these jokes, and that's the environment that they are being presented in. Danny is inside a Schwarzenegger movie, which is fine, except that despite it being an action film starring Arnold, it doesn't feel like any of the action films that he's done in the past, nor can I say action films that either starred Stallone and Willis. What kind of Schwarzenegger movie would have old school mobsters as the main villain; when has an angry boss in action cop films ever blown steam out of their ears and speak gibberish; what's the Looney Tunes brand ACME doing in an adult action movie; since when can vicious guard dogs do stunts performed at a circus; and what the hell are old widows and nuns doing carrying guns? Does any of this sound like something you'd see in an iron pumping action flick? And really think about half of the pointless cameos that I mentioned. Outside of a comedy like Wayne's World, would it make sense to include the T-1000 in a non-Terminator film starring Arnold; would you ever think to see an animated cartoon character aid Schwarzenegger; NO YOU WOULDN'T! And I get it, this is supposed to be a parody, and that most of Schwarzenegger's action films are stupid and over the top, but it's still no excuse? None of this stuff fits a Schwarzenegger film or any action-film at that time, and the film that Danny enters is supposed to represent a run of the mill action-flick, but it doesn't! If anything, the film that Danny's in feels more like a live-action cartoon parody that's so ridiculous that the climax involves a dead body of a mobster spreading deadly gas from a fart (and the mobster's name is literally Leo the Fart). Wouldn't it make more sense to make Slater's world less goofy, and have it be a little more adult where the only comedy comes from the kid's observation and interaction with Schwarzenegger and the world he's in? I guess the makers were trying so hard to attract kids and keep them entertained that they didn't care how outlandish the film's world is when depicting a typical action movie, which clearly should've been tongue and cheek for the parody in the film's context to truly work, much like how the original script made it appear to be dark.

Contrasting to Slater's silly action-packed world, is the real world that's colorless and gritty and appears to look like that it’s shot on a low-budget to the capture the dark and dirty streets of New York City. It feels realistic, and looks harsh with one or two brutal scenes, but there are problems when capturing the realism of Danny's world. Ignoring the whole magic ticket concept because then we wouldn't have much of a film, there are plenty of stupid moments that don't seem normal like Benedict killing a man and shouting out that he committed the crime where people's reactions in the buildings are literally them yelling "Shut-up"; Arnold punching through the window of car discovering that it hurts his hand, when in reality it should be bleeding or broken; and people for some weird reason never crowding Slater thinking that they're seeing Arnold walking the crowded streets of New York City except when he's present at the premier. I understand that liberties are still going to be taken when a film tries to resemble real-life, it's just moments like these are too stupidly obvious not to ignore. But the real downgrade when experiencing the real world is that this is the point where the film overstays its welcome. We just saw a big scene of Slater saving the lives of "innocents" (you know mobsters and civilians carrying machine guns) making you think that it's going to be the climax of the movie, until all of a sudden, Benedict enters the real world with the ticket as Danny and Jack chase after him that's followed by one slow-moving conversation after another, after another. Personally I don't have that much of an issue with it, because the film is already establishing Benedict's plan to crossover, making this turn of events seem less out of left field; and seeing the characters interact in their new environment as idiotic as the writing gets is still amusing to see. With that said, a part of me does wish that half of these scenes and conversations (even before the third act) were cut or trimmed, because they do delay the excitement, but on the other hand I still find them to be entertaining and engaging so I'm not bored. But given the film's attempt for a family friendly appeal, plenty of this will bore the kids and annoy the die-hard action-film goers who just want to see things blow-up.

And through all the jumping around between both worlds, there's somehow an entire sequence dedicated to Arnold in the role of Hamlet. The scene happens when Danny is daydreaming of Schwarzenegger in the role as he's bored by the classic Lawrence Oliver film in his English class, that's supposed to show how obsessed he is with Arnold in his action-films, but in the long run the scene is entirely pointless! We already know beforehand that he obsesses over his movies for how excited he gets when the next one is coming out as he skips school just to see them multiple times, and it's later shown constantly that he's a big expert with his movies, so why show him daydreaming about him? You could cut that scene out and miss nothing! There's no reason for it to exist. However, even though it adds nothing to the story, it's still thee absolute highlight of the movie! Watching this sequence is like watching one of those fake trailers in "Tropic Thunder" for how ridiculous it is, except that it's completely badass. The scene is mostly shot in black-and-white that would only use colors to emphasize on the action and Arnold acting like a badass; all of Arnold's cheesy one-liners and puns are unforgettably cool; and the amount of action taking place is so chaotic that it doesn't stop until it is finished. It's indeed one of the best pointless outings to happen in any kind of movie good-or-bad, that's worth seeing alone!

OVERALL THOUGHTS

The main problem that the film has is that it doesn't know exactly what it wants to be. It has a whimsical lighthearted charm of a fantasy kids movie, but there's all kinds of violence happening left and right with a massive body count. It feels like watching a cartoony parody movie, but the film takes itself way too seriously for it to work. There's tons of entertaining mindless action, but there are so many scenes of dialogue that it slows the film down. The film is trying so hard to appeal to two different types of audiences that what we get is a tonal mess of a film that clearly doesn't know exactly what it's doing. But as absolutely messy as the film is, it's still very entertaining. There are more than enough jokes that do work; the action is a lot of fun; the ideas that the film has are fascinating; the visual style of establishing both world's is appealing; and the performances are very enjoyable. I can see the problems that people have with the movie, and I'm not going to say that it's a good movie because it is very flawed and makes no sense half of the time. But whenever I watch this movie, I always find myself having a blast watching it regardless of how flawed it is. If you haven't seen it, and are remotely interested in it, give it a look and determine your own conclusion.

HORTON HEARS A WHO! (2008)

I recently reviewed the original 1970 TV cartoon of "Horton Hears a Who", and to keep with the tradition of how I review Seuss adaptations by reviewing the original cartoon short and its full-length film adaptation back to back, that means my next review is on its 2008 remake.

 

After the miserable and extremely painful train-wreck of a live-action Seuss adaptation infamously known as "The Cat In the Hat", Dr. Seuss' widow Audrey Giesel was so enraged of how the film tainted her husbands timeless story (as I'm sure every person who has respect for Seuss’ work would feel) that when hearing a sequel was going to be made based on the book "The Cat In The Hat Comes Back" (I don't dare wish to imagine seeing little people being made-up to look as hideous as Myers), she forced Hollywood to stop making any more live-action films based on her husband's work. This, however, didn't stop Hollywood from producing Seuss films all together because in their minds "if we can't turn this weirdo's basic stories into money-making sell-outs full of pop culture references, dirty humor, and modern slang to please the kids as we expand more on an imperfect story in live-action; will just simply repackage all of it in animation that will look less obvious and offensive because we can now make the characters and backgrounds look almost exactly like how they were drawn which will cause kids to instantly believe that this is how the world of Seuss truly is". "Horton Hears a Who!" became the start of this new trend of Seuss films that most people consider to be the least bad out of the Seuss films that Hollywood's produced after Seuss' television specials. How did Audrey react toward this new beginning of film representations to her late husbands work, she hated it, only this time instead of preventing Hollywood from never making another Seuss film ever again, she went to "Illumination Entertainment" to adapt "The Lorax", and she loved it (I guess the film quoting Seuss at the end had won her over). I personally have never watched the film until I decided to review it, so I don't have any nostalgic memories involving the picture like the other Seuss films except for the marketing and my friends talking about it. Is this film really the least bad out of the Seuss films as many people have claimed with some good in it, or is it a well-animated piece of elephant turd that's a little worse than the other Seuss films underneath the crappiest one of them all "The Cat In the Hat"? ON WITH THE REVIEW!

I'm not going to waste my time writing up the plot of the story since I described it in my previous review, which brings me once again to start talking about everyone's favorite (and most likely only) Seuss elephant, Horton.



Coming off the heels of the great Hans Conried who previously voiced Horton, which actor did Hollywood cast to give the character the same subtle warmth, heart, and dignity to this beloved elephant as what Conried brought, Jim Carrey! Why, well theoretically speaking considering how he proved to be a better lead than Mike Myers in the Seuss film that started a short-lived live-action trend, the safest bet seemed to be to hire the lead actor that got the first Seuss film "right" in their first effort of making an hour and a half animated movies. Plus this seemed like the perfect opportunity to give Carrey his start in voice acting given that he's practically a living cartoon character. Was it the best casting choice? Was Jim Carrey subtle as the Grinch? He's less annoying than he was as the Grinch. He doesn't resort to giving the character a voice as excessively goofy as the Horton in the "Merrie Melodies" cartoon, bbbuuut he's still pretty distastefully loony. For the majority of the film, the character of Horton spends most of his time acting like a buffoon, getting into foolish mishaps, and forcefully referencing pop culture, where none of it is charming and rarely funny. All subtlety, wonder, and innocence that were previously given to the character are thrown so deep in the clover-field that by the time that those characteristics are found they'd be dead. You see, Horton is so idiotic about finding a world on a dust speck that he fools around with it, not quickly realizing the dangers that his joking around may bring, even when after knowing about the society living inside it. This, my fellow readers, isn't the only time Horton's encountered a small society either, because much, much later on in the film, it is revealed that he accidentally sat on a fly city and killed all those that lived there. Now I'd give it some kind of credit if this past incident is what leads to Horton to act protective towards the dust speck, but it's nothing more than a poorly written joke that's not given any kind of emotional depth. The film gracefully gives Horton some quieter moments and shows him being determined to keep the Who's safe, unfortunately, those moments mostly just show it than it does emote to it since it has to show some kind connection to Horton's relationship to the Who world. Even when Horton says two of his iconic lines from the source material they feel only present as fan service to those who adore Seuss' books and cartoons than coming off as naturally touching because you believe that's what the character thinks and feels. But he doesn't for how much the film is too busy making him out to be an obnoxious clown just to entertain the kids, thus lacking the emotional connection that's supposed to be present with this character.

 

A criticism that I pointed out when reviewing the original short is Conried's lack of variety with changing his voice when given the task to voice three completely different characters, as well as the odd choice of casting animator Chuck Jones as little Jojo that overall brought a slight vibe of feeling the actors recording their lines for how distracting that these decisions were. Apart of me didn't think that the voice acting wouldn't be much of a problem here, but honestly, it's worse. How can that be? Well as obvious that Horton, Dr. Hoovey, and the narrator are all voiced by the same guy, Conried's acting along with the rest of the cast (except Jones as Jojo) still nicely matched the design, tone, and mannerisms that are supposed to be brought to these characters, making it seem believable that this is how they're supposed to sound and act. The big named celebrities cast here like Carrey, Carol Burnett, Steve Carrel, and Seth Rogen appear to be playing more like themselves and the type of characters they're usually typecasted as in Hollywood movies than feeling like that this is how the characters are supposed to sound and act like. I'm always aware that these characters are being voiced by these excellent performers as I feel them recording and reading their lines in a booth. The primary reason why they don't emerge as the characters is mainly due to the fact that all the characters are completely exaggerated with little subtlety and emotion given to them, and because that the actors are directed to ham-up their performances the same way as most of the actors were in the previous Seuss films, they lose track of the emotions that we're supposed to get out of these characters. Therefore, making them seem like that these Seuss characters are now suddenly doing a comical reenactment to their own story by impersonating celebrities that they somehow know about.



The closest that an actor in this film tries to provide any kind of subtlety is Steve Carell as the Who that Horton interacts with. The Who that Horton talked to in the original cartoon was a Professor that the Whos had trouble believing; this film takes the character back to what he was from the story which was being the Mayor of "Whoville", and that's completely fine. Carell seems constantly stressed out and on edge with everything regarding running the city, trying to protect it from disaster, connecting with his very large family, and getting physical abuse from the misfortunes caused by the speck of dust's encounters in the Jungle of Nool. He certainly seems to give more of a damn with saving his city when compared to Carrey as Horton. The Mayor even does something that Dr. Hoovey didn't do in the original and that's attempting to prove to the Who's about their world. The problem, however, is that Carell comes off like any other awkward character getting into bad luck that he's played before only this time made to resemble a Who which makes the character nothing special for how blandly uninteresting he is. On top of it, the relationship that he has with Horton though is kind of there, it's not as intriguing as it was in the original. What made their relationship in the original so appealing was how they're both misfits in their own community where the only people that felt and understood them were each other who were both not part of the same world. In this version on the other hand, Horton has a best friend and is a teacher to little animals (that's only shown once in the film) that enjoy being around him, while the Mayor is respected by the Who's in “Whoville”, and loved by his family. They're not alone so their relationship doesn't feel as deep as the original was, and aren't shown to be relating or understanding each other on a personal level since most of their dialogue is just them goofing around and figuring out how to protect the city to just move the plot forward. The relationship is so bland that when the clover is dropped into the Clover-field, I'm thinking more logically by believing that the Clover-field is the perfect place to keep them safe since that's Horton's goal, instead of emotionally wanting to see Horton find them so he can be with his only friend.



Apart from saving the city, the only person that the Mayor is shown trying to connect with from an emotional stand-point is his son Jojo. Jojo in the original was just a small random kid that was the only Who to not make a sound; Jojo here is the Mayor's only son who always keeps quiet. It's an interesting idea that sounds welcoming to flesh-out a character that had a small but important role, except that it all gets ruined when Hollywood decides to give him the same pretty boy treatment to make young girls squee as they would later do with the Onceler. He's not a regular quiet kid; he's now an emo boy who doesn't show any emotion outside of being depressed and annoyed. It's mentioned that he doesn't want to speak because he doesn't want to offend his dad by telling him that being the mayor is not his dream career, which I don't buy at all that he would feel this way given his stereotypical I don't care emo attitude as he distances himself from his father. It's shown in the climax that its music that he wants to do, but it doesn't feel effective for the lack of tension that he has with his father for how emotionless and silly the relationship is, and his skills and reasons of wanting to be a musician are so underdeveloped that when it's revealed it comes out of nowhere. The only reason the musician element of the character exists is that Jesse McCarthy was hired to voice the character (how low can the decisions towards Jojo's character go). Having the character mute is more than enough to build up a character arc, there was no need to make him emo and have him wanting to pick a different career path that his father wanted him to take, resulting with these alterations not furthering or enhancing the story in any special way. Jojo's nothing more than a product of Hollywood's desperate attempt to create hot young boys for young girls to fantasize about as they do with Edward Cullen from "Twilight", or any male pop stars that Disney loves to exploit, only he's an unholy combination of both.




The other Who's we meet in "Whoville" thankfully don't cross that line of being inhumanely mean and joyful to the point where it becomes torturous as they were in the live-action film version of "The Grinch", but they're nearly as dull as Jojo is, as they all pretty much contain one personality trait through a performance as bland as Carell's. They're not on the same level of offensively bad to appeal to the masses like Jojo (except for the punk Who), there's just hardly anything fun or memorable about them. The only real offensive quality that the Who's have is how stupid they are. In the original, the Who's felt and saw nothing abnormal when Horton would rescue and interact with the dust speck giving them a reason to not believe in Dr. Hoovey's discovery until it was dropped in the Clover-field where their city gets destroyed. Being that the film takes the advantage of having more disasters happening to Whoville prior to the Clover-field incident such as night and day constantly switching when the speck is put in the shade, and the ground always shaking causing buildings and objects to fly up, you'd think that the Who's would be warier and possibly consider the Mayor's warnings despite his reasons sounding outlandish, but instead they all shrug it off never questioning about it, and believe he's a fool until it's too late. I can point every depiction of the Who's for being either cheery, innocent, wicked, and feeling like a welcoming yet not so perfect community. The Who's in this film earns the title of being the dumbest depiction of them for their stupidity, and having tacky trends that are trying to con young audiences into believing that they're awesome and timeless. Still, while the Who's themselves suck, "Whoville" itself despite having some weak modern-day commentary ("Whophones", and "Whospace") is much more visually fun to look at compared to "Whoville" in the original cartoon. Unlike how the original cartoon was limited in exploiting the amount of creativity that the original Grinch cartoon was able to show, this film takes nearly every chance it can when showing how the Who's live and interact in a busy environment full of wacky and unique contraptions for them to work, play, and communicate while containing tons of little Easter Eggs referencing Seuss' other works. This is exactly what I wanted to see in the original short! The imagination given to this world is nearly up to par with the classic animated Grinch.



The Jungle of Nool itself has a bit more personality as well. How the jungle looked in the original wasn't bad, it just seemed like every other animated jungle you'd see at the time that the short was made. It was practically the jungle where George of the Jungle would swing and crash into trees only made to resemble Seuss' art style. The Jungle of Nool here looks like a jungle that you'd want to explore for how gigantic and full detail it is. It has trees that you feel like you could touch; mountains as tall as Mount Crumpit; a Clover-field that stretches out for miles and miles that seem fun and soft to frolic in; areas that are ominous for how dark and gloomy they look; it just teleports you into this world the same way as how "Whoville" did. And instead of seeing gossiping birds as the only residents outside of the antagonists and protagonist, we see all kinds of different wild animals and bugs that add to its wildlife feel. However, in terms of character, they're as appealing as the Who's. Horton has a mouse for a best friend voiced by Seth Rogen, who is nothing more than just a rodent version of himself just minus being funny. The gossiping birds are just there, And the young animals that Horton teaches are forgettable with the exception of the tiny fluffy yellow Yak Katie. She is as scary as the Who's in the live-action Grinch, and Mike Myers and the Things in "The Cat and the Hat" for her awkwardly strange personality with no life, and having expressions so deranged that she looks like a soulless demon from the pits of hell, only made to look "cute and cuddly".



Jane Kangaroo is voiced by Carol Burnett whose character in this version comes across as a little more humanized than the character was in the original cartoon. She has that sour personality that we associate the character for, but she also acts a little fairer by giving Horton a few chances to rid the dust speck before taking drastic measures and is concerned that Horton's actions is brainwashing the children than just changing their politics. It sounds like they fleshed out her character despite Carol Burnett sounding like that she’s playing Miss Hannigan in animated form just without being insane, but the changes barely make sense. She wants Horton to rid that dust speck and admit that no one's on it, so why doesn't Horton just tell her that he's getting rid of it himself and promises he won't talk about it again once his task is finished? Judging by how reasonable she can be when compared to the original character being completely stubborn, it'd seem like the proper compromise, and if Horton should violate refusing to leave them behind that would result with her and the Wickershams taking care of it themselves starting with the Clover-field obstacle. It would be as much filler as almost everything in The Grinch with Jim Carrey, but the change in the plot will make enough sense for it to fit the scenes that resemble the source material. But nope, the film much rather pads things out with scenes of comedy that are pointless and stupid. And speaking of stupid, her motivation of protecting the kids from Horton's actions doesn't make much sense either or feels needed. The film already has her being concerned with Horton changing their way of life, and yet she shows concern over the kids too? I guess it's because that Horton telling a young youth about another world existing will cause them to rebel against society as they grow older, which seems like a valid reason for her to get worried about except that the kids seem to be using this information to play pretend and use their imagination as opposed to actually believing that the world's that they've created actually exists which they'll undoubtedly grow-out of in time (well with the exception of Katie). And because Jane hardly shows any care for kids since she's too busy controlling her own son, I don't see why she would care so much. I know her son tries to take part in pretending too thus giving her a reason to stop Horton, but she's always been keeping him away from the kids and disciplining him to listen to her at all times, so I don't see how that would set her off. Besides when her son is being threatened with death when she’s making a deal with a deadly animal that wants him in exchange she seems less concerned for how he's feeling, and wonders if she should sacrifice him for the community. Care for the children my foot! Having an elephant acting strange is enough for her to draw suspicion and worry, all this other stuff involving the kids and her son has no real purpose in the overall story.



The Wickersham Brothers, who I loved so much in the 70s cartoon, don't really do much here! They throw bananas, stand by the sour Kangaroo, and rope and cage Horton as they try to boil the dust speck, but they aren't the ones who steal the clover, don't talk as much, or have much of a personality except to be obnoxious while looking like bullies. Their redesigns aren’t that creative or mischievous looking neither, as they appear more apish than they did in the original. The original Wickersham’s contained the same amount of fur as the Grinch had, and were given big and bright mean green eyes with dark shades around them that resembled a mask that a burglar would wear. The new Wickershams barley contain anything imaginative or distinctive in their designs. It seems that more time attention towards the animals working for Jane Kangaroo went to the giant black bird Vlad, probably because he's voiced by another big named celebrity Will Arnett. Out of all the stars casted in the film, Arnett is the only actor who emerges himself as the character by providing a dark Russian accent that's unrecognizable and matches with the character's sinister nature. The design that Vlad given is also the kind of intimidating look that I expected the Wickershams to have. He's now a vulture instead of an eagle to make him appear more deadly, and carries a nasty face of evil as he spreads out his long and large crooked wings. It's quite terrifying! The only major downside is he's mostly played for comedy. His character is actually weak and tries as hard as he can to hide his foolish personality by looking scary towards the residents around him, so as threatening as he seems, he's not that way at heart, which in the end kills a promising character update.




Much like "The Lorax", the only thing that the film does better when compared to the original and the Seuss films before it is the animation. The animation in the 70s cartoon is still good, it's just the animation here appears to be less limited and has a great amount of detail. Everything looks like something that you can touch and want to feel (such as the Clover, the feathers from the Vulture); the movements are very flowing, full of energy, and well timed; and the animators are now able to get creative with its worlds, gags, and creatures without having any restraint. It also gives the speck of dust interacting with Horton's world plenty of weight of bringing the sense that the Who's world is in jeopardy for its size and scale of the dangers happening around them to make the stakes feel higher than it ever was before. And when we see Horton in the clover-field tossing the clovers into stacks, they look and feel vulnerable as if they can collapse or blow away at any second that will cause Horton to start all over again making the viewer become just as stressed as he is, instead of the stacks looking neat and nearly as solid as a rock. Beyond that, the film occasionally gives us some 2-D animation for whenever we enter Horton's thoughts that are as nicely animated as they are in CG. The animation is fantastic, it just upsets me that it's wasted with so many scenes of unfunny slapstick and poor visual gags to prevent me from fully appreciating it. Exactly like every other Seuss movie, this film is not subtle or executes its message at a mature level to make it stand-tall, it's mostly focused on being over the top obnoxious with its humor, and referencing whatever's popular at the time to please it's young crowd when it clearly isn't needed it. There were some visual jokes that I thought were neat like Horton's trunk acting like a shower-head, and the Who's interacting in the snow only to find it gone as they're still playing in it; and I'll admit that I did find a one or two lines to be funny. But on the whole, it's annoying and doesn't fit with Seuss' style, where the majority of it takes away the emotional element for how goofy it is, and is used as filler to pad out the film's run time, like Horton crossing a rocky old bridge, or him chasing after the speck of dust as he overcomes obstacles and randomly blurts out references to pop culture.



And let's get to the references to pop culture. There's plenty of dialogue and moments that horrifically shoehorn them in, but we get two whole scenes that show it at its worst. The film is not a musical, and yet at the very last scene of the movie, the film randomly decides to have the characters dance and sing "Can't Fight This Feeling" by REO Speedwagon. At least in the previous Seuss films that awkwardly phoned in musical numbers, they were either original, or songs from the source material. This film enters a whole new level of bad in the Seuss movies by giving these iconic characters an 80s rock tune that doesn't fit within their world given that this is supposed to represent Seuss. It's certainly not the worst, I'll still never forget the sick lyrics, the drastic changes in music styles, and terrifying visuals during the song sequence when The Cat In the Hat sings about fun; it's just that the choice of throwing in an unoriginal song for the movie is the last thing that I would expect from these films. But it's not as outlandish when the film decides to stop dead in its tracks to pointlessly become an anime for 30 seconds or so. Earlier in the film when Horton imagines what tiny people calling for help could be on the falling dust speck, the style for his thought are designed to resemble Seuss' illustrations which is a clever way of referencing the original art style and still have it connect to the story. Then later on in the film when Horton is determined to bring the clover to the cave up in the mountains, he imagines himself to be a powerful ninja warrior, where his thoughts are now designed to a resemble an anime. WHY THE FLIPPIN' HELL DOES A DR. SEUSS MOVIE NEED ANIME REFERENCES?! It's stupid, it's not funny, it's offensively annoying, and it makes no sense! There's no rhyme or reason for it to be in the movie, so why does it exist?! Because kids love anime, and since the film is so desperate to get kids to like this movie by changing and adding things in for the worst, they decided to forcefully add-in a popular genre of entertainment without caring how pointlessly out of place it is!

OVERALL THOUGHTS

I do agree that this is the least offensive of the Seuss films, for being less mean-spirited, scary, annoying, and insulting; and having animation that I'll argue is better than the animation in "The Lorax" for the amount of life, detail, and creativity that went into it. HOWEVER, it's still as bad as all the other Seuss films crapped out from Hollywood. It lacks emotion, subtlety, and thought since it's too busy being crazy and loud to keep the kids mindlessly entertained; the changes to the story don't make sense or feel needed; the actors voicing these timeless characters sound and act way too much as themselves where they don't emerge as the characters; the jokes are stupid; and you can easily spot the fingerprints from the Hollywood executives all over the film for whenever there's a reference to pop culture to appeal to the masses or a modernized attempt to make it "timeless". I don't care if the experience wasn't as painful when compared to the other Seuss films! Just because something hurts less that doesn't mean that it doesn't hurt. For all I care, this film can be burned along with the rest of the Seuss films. There's clearly no respect or passion in any of these films to represent the works of a great man, and the fact that Hollywood is still continuing with this trend of showing little to no promise of giving the kids something smart and challenging while paying respect to a children's author that will live on forever without resorting to any childish and modern gimmicks leaves me in pure disgust! And as I sit there cringing, the memories of me being manipulated by this junk in the past (even when I first wrote my reviews on my Facebook page in 9th grade) will forever haunt me until the day I die.

DR. SEUSS' HORTON HEARS A WHO!

Let's dive a little into the dark side of a great children's writer and illustrator...



Dr.Seuss!

We all have grown up reading and cherishing his books for his use of rhyming to tell his stories; having deep and thought provoking morals underneath his lighthearted stories; and creating illustrations that are so imaginative and iconic that you couldn't mistake his art style for anyone else. He's a legendary genius in the world of children's literature who continues to inspire and amaze us as we get older, whether it being from an artistic level or a storytelling stand-point! But as much as we love to remember him fondly (and for good reason) that doesn't mean that he always created material that wasn't mediocre or down-right offensive. When he wasn't writing a book geared for children in the 40s such as "Horton Hatches the Egg", he drew hundreds of political cartoons for the newspaper geared for adults that would contain the same amount of shocking racially insensitive stereotypes that animation studios like Disney and Warner Brothers were infamously known for at the time. And out of all the racist imagery that he drew in these political cartoons, his most infamous ones were his drawings of the Japanese.

During World War II when America was at war with them, Seuss would depict the Japanese as violent soulless monsters in his cartoons as he would give them slant-eyes, buck-teeth, pig noses, thick glasses, and had them speak in broken English. This was not uncommon since that's what other animators and war-time propaganda films were doing at the time (and I'm NOT AT ALL saying that it was right), however Seuss' anger towards the Japanese seemed to come off as more obvious and personal, as opposed to a great artist who had no choice but to draw these images because that's what the country wanted at the time of fear and despair. Seuss was in fact open about his hatred towards the Japanese outside of his drawings, by being a full supporter for the "Internment of Japanese Americans", and responding to his readers who complained about his sick depiction of them that "when the Japs are planting their hatchets in our skulls, it seems like a hell of a time for us to smile and warble: 'Brothers!' It is a rather flabby battlecry. If we want to win, we’ve got to kill Japs...We can get palsy-walsy afterward with those that are left.”

When reading these quotes, looking up these facts, and gazing at cartoons that I couldn't believe came from Seuss, I was disturbed that such a wonderful man from my childhood was cruelly racist, but decided to move on with my life and take in the good with the bad as I've already done with other influential artists that I grew up with. Upon doing research for this review, I came across a little light to the controversy that's been following Dr. Seuss for decades. In 1953, Seuss went to Japan to do research for an article for Life Magazine about the post-war effects, and how the children in Japan are recovering from it. During Seuss' visit, he met the dean of Doshisha University in Kyoto named Mitsugi Nakamura and was aided by him during his trip, where Seuss talked to people who witness the aftermath of the Hiroshima bombing and went to schools asking children to draw what they wanted to be when they grew up. When returning home from his trip to Japan, shocked at what he saw, and seeing the citizens of Japan to be more civilized human beings than he previously gave them credit for; Seuss' wanted to reflect his change of heart while dedicating it to Nakamura for helping him during his journey in his next book...

The story about an elephant protecting a civilization of Whos living in a tiny speck of dust on top of a clover believing that "a person is a person, no matter how small", as he's being laughed at and harassed by the animals in the jungle who think he's crazy and want to rid that speck of dust is a timeless Seuss story about the value of life that has been celebrated, and studied for years to come! Kids enjoyed it for its characters, illustrations, rhyming, and message; while adults can find more to admire from it for its subtle social and political commentary, and how much of the story reflects the artist himself. The story has become so popular over time that it's been adapted for TV, theater, and film; and for this review, I'm going to take a look at its television adaptation in 1970.

I was first introduced to this cartoon through my VHS copy of "How the Grinch Stole Christmas?" that would play right after the film being that it involved the Whos in "Whoville", and was the next televised Seuss cartoon to follow after the Christmas classic that people nowadays take fore-granted. I remember enjoying it fine as a kid, and being blown away at seeing more of "Whoville" while witnessing a few cameos of the Who's from the original special, but it wasn't a cartoon that I admired as much as its predecessor and a few of Seuss' other animated shorts that I grew up watching. I didn't think it was bad, I just wasn't all that mesmerized by it. But now after discovering the meanings and history behind the book and looking into its legacy, it made me wonder if the TV special is better than I remembered it to be. It's obviously not a cartoon as iconic as "How the Grinch Stole Christmas?" but does it still do a beautiful job at capturing Seuss' story and message to almost make it nearly as incredible as the "Citizen Kane" of Seuss cartoons; ON WITH THE REVIEW!

I've already gone over the story when talking about the book's history, so I'm just going to start talking about the title character Horton.

Taking on the role of Horton is legendary voice actor Hans Conried, which seems like an odd choice considering that he's best known for voicing the devious smiling sophisticated villains that love to twirl their mustache, and would later on during these televised Seuss shorts be filling in the shoes for Boris Karloff as in the Grinch in the Halloween spin-off.  But Conried surprisingly does manage to capture the innocent nature to this famous Seuss character. Before Conried stepped into the role of this simple elephant, the Merrie Melodies cartoon of "Horton Hatches the Egg" in 1942 would give Horton a loud and goofy voice that became gradually annoying as the cartoon went along, as Horton's personality would be so dimwitted and over the top that he had very little dignity. Conried gives the character the same amount of innocence and dignity as what Sterling Holloway gave to Winnie the Pooh. He speaks in a calm and elegant voice that matches perfectly with Seuss' words and tone, while still being able to pull off the sweet child-like wonder and helplessness to the character. And through his animated expressions, writing, and voice acting, you feel and side with his determination of saving the Whos and feelings towards his motto "A person's a person's, no matter how small" all the way through for how much he legitimately cares and doesn't give up, even when all seems lost and that no one will listen to him. Conried also serves as the special's narrator (because it's almost traditional in these Seuss cartoons that the actor voicing the main character will also be given the task to tell the story) who brings the same kind of warmth and subtly as he provided for Horton, and for what Karloff did when he narrated "How the Grinch Stole Christmas?".

Just when you think Conried is given enough characters to play, he's given a third character to voice who is the Who that communicates with Horton Dr. H. Hoovey. Conried again provides the same tone and heart that he brings for the narrator and protagonist, and seems to be bringing a small dose of his cartoony voice acting when voicing the Doctor by giving him an old voice without ever going overboard, however since Conried has such a distinct voice when voicing all three of these characters with little alterations in the way he sounds, it becomes a bit of a distraction. You become aware that all three characters are voiced by the same guy for the little differences there is from how the pitch of their voices sounds and is one of those occasions where I can feel the actor recording his lines in the booth for how rough the audio sounds at times. I can recall at least two occasions when I found myself confused about which one of the characters voiced by Conried is currently speaking when we don't see a character's face or lips move. You can argue that Boris Karloff as the Grinch/narrator was guilty for these problems too, but the reason why it's not as much of a bother when compared to Conried was because Karloff knew what kind of tone and personality he should give to both roles to make them stand-out; Conried tries to do that and does make the characters he voices successfully endearing, but he doesn't reach that point where he gives each person he voices their own vocal identity where you can overlook how obvious it is that these characters share the same voice actor.

Focusing on the character of Dr. Hoovey himself, what's intriguing about his character is that he's Horton's Who counterpart. Horton, though not nearly as intelligent as Dr. Hoovey, is wiser than his animal acquaintances give him credit for, but is always laughed at and bullied when trying to prove that another world exists which he acknowledges is strange too, except that he has proof while the others choose to ignore it since they don't share the same incredible hearing as he does. Hoovey deals with a similar problem of trying to convince everyone that their world is being kept alive by the watchful eye of an elephant, which they find to be silly and never ever taken this scientist seriously since they believe he's a crackpot, therefore making him a misfit in his own community for how different and unbelievably smart he is (though it puzzles me a bit how he's never tried to show a single Who what goes on outside of their world through his periscope). The bond that they share comes across as strong, and gets even stronger as well as smart regarding Seuss' themes of tolerance and equality when you realize that they're the only friends they have, and though living in two completely different societies they still have tons of things in common to bring them close together. Conried's voice acting does get in the way at times for me to fully embrace their relationship since I get the impression that Conried is talking to himself, but on the whole, it's still an overall beautiful friendship that the two share with a deep meaning underneath it.

   

I mentioned how amazed I was at seeing more of "Whoville" when I watched it as a kid, and looking at it again, it, for the most part, is still intriguing. We all know how much "the Who's down in Whoville" are full of Christmas cheer during the holiday seasons, as some us know how helpless they are during the fall on "Grinch Night", while others overlook how scary and cruel they can be when depicted in live-action; but this (before the remake) was the only version where we see the Who's interact in their town outside anything holiday related as they appear to be more human than they were in any of the versions that came before and after this special. They as a community are friendly and humble creatures that seem pleasant to be around, but they're not as perfect as they are in "How the Grinch Stole Christmas?" for how they mock and snottily dismiss Dr. Hoovey's warnings, only they do it in a more playful and naive way to keep with their humble nature as opposed to acting as soulless and selfish as the Who's were in the live-action remake involving the Grinch. And when their life is in parallel they act as frighten and helpless as they would later be in "Halloween is Grinch Night", but don't want to go down without trying to get their voices heard. As much as I will always cherish the Who's in any Seuss film THAT IS AN ANIMATED SHORT, the Whos in this cartoon are the best depiction of them since they don't come across as one dimensional because they’re given more of a personality, as well as authentic feel of how they live and work together as a society since every other time we're with them, is always during a holiday. Is it perfect, I can't say that 100%. It’s cool seeing how they live outside the holidays, but it's not as visually stunning when compared to how their world looked in the other animated specials. And though we get a nice tiny cameo of the Grinch singing with the Who's in their time of despair, the cameos of the Who's that appeared in the Christmas special are copied and pasted onto the environment when making noise, that was amazing when I first saw the cartoon as a kid, but now it just feels lazy. What's even more awkward than Conried having nearly the same voice for the characters his voice, is hearing Chuck Jones' voice come out of a little kid. It's an interesting cameo from this legendary animator, it just doesn't feel as special when he's already voiced many other characters in this special, including some of the male Who's which makes me wish that they just hired a kid to yell "YOPP" if not have him just scream that one word and let Conried do all the talking before that moment.

As we're given a cynical but happy community with the Who's, the characters in Horton's world (with the exception of the gossiping birds that fear that Horton is crazy) all play as the antagonists since they're the ones who are always putting the Who's world in danger, whether it's from the taunting black-bottom eagle Whizzer McWoff (Chuck Jones), or the playfully mischievous Wickersham Brothers (who resemble the Grinch if he was given a chimp-like design), who are led by the animal behind the whole conspiracy Jane Kangaroo and the small Kangaroo in her pouch Junior. All of them are fun to watch through their sinister designs and playfully mean personalities given to them. My favorite out of them all growing up was always the Wickersham brothers for how much life is given to these scoundrels from they move and sing together as they chase after Horton. And while I still get a kick out of them, truthfully I now get more enjoyment out of Jane Kangaroo. As a kid I find her to be nothing more than a stick-in-the-mud villain, which she still is, only upon recent viewing I find her bitterness to be more comical as opposed to a killjoy to all the color and life given to all the characters around her. The elegant and snobby personality that the late June Foray brings to the character combined with a design that's always seen to be frowning and pouting brings the same sense of threat and humor as what Boris Karloff's Grinch provided. The Grinch's expressions, design, and voice work is easily more iconic and way more menacing when compared to the Seuss antagonist that follows after him, but she still has all the qualities of what makes a good Seuss foe, thus making her a worthy follow-up. Plus having a baby Kangaroo with practically the same design except only darker, smaller, and having Chuck Jones put on a voice just as snobby as Foray only with a high pitched voice to make him sound young always gets a big chuckle out of me.

Of course, what's a televised Seuss short without containing songs? As some of you probably guessed none of the songs come across as unforgettable as the songs from its predecessor, but they're not as forgettable as say the songs in "The Lorax" short (not to imply that they are bad). Most of them are quite memorable for being catchy and containing inventive lyrics written by Seuss. The best ones all come from the Wickersham Brothers who are voiced by the famous Mellomen (including Thrul Ravenscroft) who are the perfect group at singing chilling upbeat villain songs (such as "Yo Ho, a Pirates Life for Me", "Grim Grinning Ghosts", and "Heffalumps and Woozles"), and their singing here is no exception. They bring the same energy, fun, and sense of dread when singing the "Wickersham Brothers Song"; to later on building up the suspense and tension when chant singing "Horton the Elephant's Going to be Caged". The closing song "Be Kind to Your Small Person" is also a nice catchy triumphant send-off to end the cartoon on the perfect note (like most Seuss cartoons) as well as help make the message stick with younger viewers after it ends. The songs that the Who's sing isn't bad either, for the majority of songs they sing, they hit all the emotions that they have towards Dr. Hoovey, whether it be mocking him, realizing the grim reality of their situation, or seeing the light as it's all sung in excellent harmony. There are, however a few songs that don't match up with the quality as the others I've praised. The song that Dr. Hoovey sings at the climax starts out fine with a melody and tempo creating the fear of time running out, and having lyrics that Seuss can only come up with, but towards the middle of the song, it begins to sound disjointed. I guess that was the intention considering that the Who's are making all kinds of loud noises and calls left and right, but Conried's singing of expressing Hoovey's fear of being boiled comes off as casual instead feeling like he's distressed that this might be his final hour. But the worst song in the cartoon is easily the first one "Mrs. Toucanella Told Me" sung by the birds in the Jungle of Nool. Foray does a flawless job of voicing all the birds by making it seem like that they're all being voiced by different people, and the song does express the fear that the jungle residence feel towards Horton talking to the dust speck; but this is a talk-singing song, which I'm fine with and was done greatly during the song "Old Doc Hoovey" with the Who's. However, while that song had the right balance of the characters talk-singing and harmonizing as it had a wonderful melody to keep it together, this one is so focused at talking at such a fast pace in order to build-up to them panicking that the melody trying to tie it together feels lacking for how last minute it sounds. These two songs aren't bad since they are memorable and help tell the story, they're just the weakest ones of the bunch by sounding less like songs and more like scenes of dialogue that were later decided to be given a musical treatment.

The animation quality is not really all that different compared to the other Seuss cartoon shorts that I reviewed in the past. It overall captures Seuss' illustrations extraordinarily well, even down to the point where the drawings and movements that come across as sketchy add to the charm for how much it resembles Seuss original works. The environments themselves are all colorful and carry a visually distinct look to them for places like Whoville (outside of the holidays), the Jungle of Nool, and the bright and beautiful clover-fields (that makes me wonder sometimes why Horton didn't just let the Clover stay there since it seems they'll be safe from any kind of harm). Sure there are some notable continuity errors, recycling of animation, and lip movements that at times don't match up to what the characters are saying, but on the whole, it's still just as good as the animation from "How the Grinch Stole Christmas?" and in the following specials. All I can really say is while still being very good, it's not as visually interesting when compared to the Seuss specials that I previously reviewed. Each of the Seuss specials was always throwing uniquely creative surprises at us left and right, and had environments that were atmospheric and given plenty of personality. This special doesn't get as imaginative with providing us with as many zany and bizarre visuals, as the places we visit are nothing more than a simple city or jungle with not much going on. But to be fair, the cartoon seems more focused with bringing a sense of weight for how vulnerable the dust speck is as it emphasizes on the dangers surrounding it, and in that regard it does a suspenseful job at doing so where you always feel constantly aware of what is at stake if Horton should fail to save them.

OVERALL THOUGHTS

Watching and analyzing this special from an adult stand-point after researching Seuss' history with the book, though I can't necessarily call it better than "How the Grinch Stole Christmas?" for the distracting voice acting from Hans Conried and Chuck Jones, lacking the creative freedom that other Seuss specials that I reviewed had, and having a few songs that feel a bit phoned in, it is by far the most thought-provoking Seuss special that I reviewed. Its message of tolerance and valuing life among mankind is still as powerful as it was when I watched it growing up, but there are so many different layers of adult topics like politics and religion that they remain as strong and relevant as it was when it was released making it timeless. Seeing the Who's recovering from the wreckage after being dropped in the clover-field from the black-bottom eagle is much more haunting and an effective turning point for the characters after realizing that it's an allegory for Japan recovering after the bombing from America; the Who's laughing at the absurdities of what's helping their way of life seems more like a form of atheism as Horton practically plays the role of God; and watching the Who's desperation to get their voices heard where they need everyone they can to prevent a disaster from occurring at the hands of an organization more powerful than them is stronger than ever when viewing it regarding today's politics. It's a cartoon to a classic story that offers more than meets the eye at first glance where it only gets better and more meaningful the more times you watch it as we become older and wiser towards our surroundings in life. It's one of Seuss' smartest works he's ever created, that contains colorful characters, neat animation matching with Seuss' style, and tuneful songs that tell the story and give excellent depth to how the characters are feeling, that in the end deems itself as a worthy follow-up to a groundbreaking Seuss classic!