Review of The Lorax (2012) by Fdt44 — 02 Mar 2012

Flagrantly inferior to its literary predecessor, 'The Lorax' sends a skewed message to its viewers, one that is less timely and memorable, and more puffed with crass one-liners and subtle condescension; an utter denigration to one of the greatest children's authors to ever live.

However, more maddening of all is the lack of regard and reverence to Geisel's words, mellifluously melodic syllables accompanied by sticking alliteration and rhythmic patterns; they are defecated on.

Much to the viewer's chagrin, the film does not include a narration: how does a 'Seuss' adaptation not have a narration? Only in one instance are words from the book uttered, albeit words offensively disparaged.

Early on in the film, Audrey (voiced by Swift), a character nowhere to be found in the book, quotes Geisel in regard to the truffula trees: "The touch of their tufts was much softer than silk, and they had the sweet smell of fresh butterfly milk.

" This is relieving to hear and see. However, such memorable quote is replied by Ted (voiced by Efron) with "Wow, what does that even mean?" And, Audrey says, "I know, right?" So, what we have here is a character who was not even in the book, now in the film, belittling the very words which the film, itself, was shaped.

This example, ultimately sums up the direction of the film; changing what wasn't already broken, and breaking it. Don't become too skeptical, 'Lorax' does contain rich, diaphanous colors that bring to life some of what Geisel's book intended to show through words, however, the film's attempts to put a new spin on things, especially by adding characters not found in the book, creates a blurred focus and disconnect, which results in a story that looks more like something you've seen before as opposed to the original, timeless literary version.

Much of this is emanated by the title character, who voiced by DeVito, becomes too-well-overdone, and eventually becomes irksome and forced; he appears much more in the film than the book. I understand the film's casting of DeVito," again, to "spin things up," however, his 'Lorax' character doesn't match the same prominence as the book, rather, DeVito comes across as too imperiously assuming; an unpleasant, discordant "Jor-zey" inflection that becomes old, very quickly.

I can't imagine the filmmakers wanting that. As a whole, 'Lorax' is a propaganda filled, "green-pushing" adult-first animation film that looks impressive, but inevitably sends a twisted message to kids that "it's great to help the environment, but only to further oneself in the process.

" Moreover, the film is, for the greater portion of an hour, 'Lorax' is partially fulfilling, mostly to do with the visuals, however, the most compelling sequence lies in the last 20-25 minutes, once the garrulous 'Lorax' and dainty animals are finally exited from view.

Having said such, only ephemerally does the film endow the same sense of loss and somberness found in the book. Lastly, the underlying theme and parable of the film is not so hidden, as even the kids will, atleast minimally, capture what it's aiming to say.

However, the guise with which it sticks with throughout (large smiles, balmy jokes, and fuzzy "fluff"), is more than enough to divert the kid's thought-provaction. In 3-D, though, the action doesn't quite match the subject material.

For most adults, the slapstick won't fly very far; it's a "T-I-M-B-E-R" kind of spectacle; falling before your eyes.