Duckyworth's Thoughts: The Lorax ~ 2012

Directors: Chris Renaud and Kyle Balda 

 Rating: U

 My Personal Rating:

Hello my friends, and welcome to my next Duckyworth’s Thoughts review!

Okay then, it’s time to return back to the land of the lame Dr Seuss film adaptations for my next review. Last year, I reviewed one of the absolute WORST live action films I have EVER seen, and easily the worst Dr Seuss film adaptation ever…. *reels at the memory of Michael Myers saying ‘Dirty hoe’, throwing up mountains of hairballs and having his hat grow in an innuendo fashion* ….Yeah, there are some things you don’t put in a children’s film, Hollywood, and THOSE are definitely not appropriate for ANY audience – not just children… While the film I’ll be looking at today may not have problems AS severe as horribly racist stereotypes, bad acting and tons of raunchy adult humour, it does still have some big problems that…. Let’s be perfectly honest – just miss the point of the original story – at least in my opinion. So… let’s see what the studio executives of Hollywood have inserted to botch THIS Dr Seuss story in…. The Lorax.

The original Lorax story is a story released by Dr Seuss in 1971, and was made into a short animated film in 1972. The book is commonly recognized as a fable concerning the danger corporate greed poses to nature, using the literary element of personification to give life to industry as the Once-ler and the environment as The Lorax. I’ve recently uploaded a 1001 Animations, and I’ll admit…. It’s now one of my favourite animated shorts. I may not have watched it until very recently, but that just shows timeless and thought provoking the original Dr Seuss stories are – similar to how it wasn’t until relatively recently that I saw the animated Cat in the Hat and How The Grinch Stole Christmas stories (yeah, I know – I don’t have a childhood for waiting until NOW to watch them…. ). Apparently, the animation added quite a bit more depth to The Once-ler, by showing him arguing with himself, and asking the Lorax whether shutting down his factory (thus putting hundreds of people out of work) is practical. It shows how there is no real right or wrong answer, but there has to be a compromise between both industrialists and environmentalists – and that there is no real hero or villain when it comes to these things – as both parties make good points about what their practices could bring. In fact, one thing I find really cool is that The Lorax was Dr. Seuss' personal favourite of his books.

And of course…. Just like The Cat in the Hat, the Hollywood executives couldn’t help but milk this poor cow for the all the money it was worth…. And thus comes what many people consider to be the worst Dr Seuss adaptation since The Cat in the Hat…. Which is a bad sign… Now, before I start, let me say this - I get that when you adapt something, you have to make changes. But in the new Lorax, what they changed ruined the whole point of the story. But the problems with the new film in particular are six main points that I’ll address as we get through the film…. But bear in mind that there are NUMEROUS problems throughout the film, which we’ll be getting to in time. So… let’s speak for the trees…. And against terrible film adaptations.

The film opens with the Lorax, voiced by Danny DeVito (and to be fair, Danny DeVito isn’t the worst choice of actor to voice The Lorax – he does sound a bit like), introducing the film, saying that there’s more to the story than what’s on the page….. So… this film is going to try and go into more depth about what goes on in the book? Hopefully…. Either that, or it’s just going to give the impression it respects the source material without doing so – like The Cat in the Hat did…. The film starts out in the city of Thneedville, which is ironically just like most of what the bad Dr Seuss adaptations turn out being – completely made of plastic, nothing organic exists, and everyone is unbelievably upbeat and peppy. Now… okay, let me address the elephant in the room – yes, I am aware that the Lego Movie ALSO starts out in a city that’s very upbeat, but the film did show a lot of energy and originality in how Lord Business was keeping everything in order and everyone was naively happy about how upbeat their lives were, and the main character, Emmet – learned a great lesson about how someone from the most humble of backgrounds can be capable of anything, breaking out of how robotic his life was before. As I said in my Alpha and Omega review, being clichéd can work, but only if it's well-observed, depicted or written, not the case here. In the Lego Movie, it was VERY well written, and the message that anyone can make a difference spoke out to everyone who had grown with Lego toys in a pretty mature and thought provoking way – because it doesn’t just apply to Lego toys and the creativity they can bring out of people, but with ANYTHING. In Alpha and Omega and The Lorax remake though….. well, to start off with, the opening song has nothing on ‘Everything is Awesome’. I will admit that the animation in this film is very good, and as some people have said, CGI animation fits better into the world of Dr Seuss than live action does, but the song itself is just very bland and forgettable… And of course, the lyrics are forgettable (I really don’t think we needed that verse about a carpark with them singing in an annoying soprano pitch ), and I… really wish that fat guy who keeps belting out ear-grating notes would just shut up – because he just can’t sing at all… And that one bit when he sings on top of the car LITERALLY put Wilma the Weasel to shame… By the way, I’ve got a bit of a question – this is a town WITHOUT TREES – bear that in mind. How then, is the Mayor of the town, Aloysius O’Hare able to SELL AIR? If there aren’t any trees to produce clean air, how the heck does he get the air? Does he have a chemical lab that can produce air? Does he have a gigantic algae tank or something to produce air? Explain, movie! Explain!!

*crickets* …..The… film isn’t going to explain that, is it? Erm… okay…. Let’s just ignore that minor HUGE plothole and move on. This boy named Ted starts driving off to somewhere in town, and decides to… fly a plane around into someone’s backgarden, just so they can go in and get it back… You see, this boy has a… crush on the girl who lives in that house. The boy’s name is Ted – voiced by…. Zac Efron, of all people. Yes – a 10 year old boy is voiced by someone in his mid 20’s…. Just like with Hiccup from How to Train Your Dragon and Jack Frost from Rise of the Guardians, that is NOT the voice I expected to hear coming out of this boy… And the girl who lives in the house? A girl who is clearly quite a bit older than him, named Audrey, played by Taylor Swift….. Another voice that doesn’t really match….

Okay then, everyone – let’s start playing ‘Point Out The Terrible Changes To The Original Story’. It’s a really fun game to play when watching terrible adaptations like this – Legend of the Guardians: Owls of Ga’Hoole, The Last Airbender, The Cat in the Hat, and THIS film too. As I said, there are numerous problems in this film – but to be fair, things like music and such aren’t essential to getting the point of the story and the moral across. But the main points I’ll mention pretty much eviscerate everything the original stood for….

Terrible Change Number 1 - the new characters. I get that you need to stretch out the movie so it can reach feature length, but the new characters (Ted and Audrey) aren't interesting characters. It turns out that Ted has been flying his plane into Audrey’s garden before, and when Audrey invites him in, he…. Uses breath freshener that you usually use before you KISS someone…. Okay, Ted – how old are you? You look like you’re TEN!! What are you doing hitting on someone who looks like she’s 17?! This is kind of…. Creepy, in my opinion…. Yeah, these two are REALLY bland and boring, and Ted's reason for looking for trees is just because Audrey wants one – as is shown by her paintings of some, which is really lazy and forced. Yeah, they flat out STATE that Ted’s entire ‘goal’ throughout the film is finding a Truffula tree so he can get into Audrey’s pants…. I personally feel that the whole environment thing doesn’t matter in the slightest to him. The way that they say ‘if a guy were to somehow get you one…’ and ‘I’d probably marry him on the spot’ sounds like not only a terrible exchange, but also a pretty lame way to get the main character (well, if he counts as the main character – for reasons I’ll explain later) to want to find a Truffula tree….

Ted goes home to his family, who happen to be two more clichéd and boring characters – his typical embarrassing mom, who rather obnoxiously dances disco style to some lights on their synthetic tree they have at home (it’s only a few seconds long, but it’s still painful) and is basically nothing but a tool – like Audrey, and Ted’s grandmother, who starts telling Ted a story about the Once-ler – a man who lives outside town, who knows about what happened to the Truffula trees. He lives in an old house where nothing ever grows, and the only birds that pass there are old crows. Tod gets some stuff to give to the Once-ler in return for knowledge, and heads off…. All to pursue his selfish desires to marry a girl who shares no chemistry with him and is just as boring, bland, and poorly voice acted as he is. Just like Kate and Humphrey in Alpha and Omega, they share no real chemistry with each other, and get together just because the film says so….

And speaking of new characters – Terrible Change Number 2 - The villain, Aloysius O'Hare, is a horrible edition to the story. The whole point of the original story was that there is no villain, it's just a contemporary story about how having too much without seeing it can corrupt us all, and that there is no one answer to a problem. The original shows this when The Lorax is talking to the Once-ler, and the Once-ler says: "What do you expect me to do? Shut down my factory? Fire a hundred thousand workers?" The Lorax replies: "I see your point, but I wouldn't have an answer". By showing a clear good guy and bad guy, this film sucks out the humanity of the story, because O'Hare, Ted and Audrey aren't realistic characters. Ted and Audrey are nice and kind (as well as being horribly bland), while O'Hare is just a greedy asshole with no redeeming qualities (as well as being horribly bland). Making the characters less human damages the whole point of the story, not allowing audiences to see what can happen when they are corrupted by greed. I personally wouldn’t mind that much to be honest, if the villain was a genuine threat and was interesting – but NO. Aloysius O’ Hare is one of the most FORGETTABLE villains I have ever seen in the whole of cinema…. I barely remember a THING about him. His voice is boring, his DESIGN is boring (and to be honest, it just looks like they stole the design of Edna Mode from The Incredibles and mixed it together with Danganronpa 2’s Teruteru Hanamura’s eyebrows ), and his motivation is – guess what, BORING. Give Hexxus from FernGully some credit, he’s at least entertaining and GENUINELY threatening at times – and his motivation is to get revenge on those who imprisoned him – I feel that’s a good motivation, personally…. But O’Hare…. Just doesn’t have that distinction…. In fact, the VERY FIRST SCENE with him in after the opening song shows him talking to two more irredeemable industrialists, who are discussing their plans to make even more money from people in the town over fresh air… which again, this film is never going to explain how they make it….

The film cuts to another big problem with the film – Terrible Change Number 3 - the film seems to be anti-corporate in many of the scenes in the film, mocking obnoxious advertisements and selling out tactics carried out by corporate companies. Erm…. Let me ask you a simple question, film…. Didn’t YOU use obnoxious advertisements and selling out tactics? Yeah – the film is actually a hypocrite in this regard – at the time that this film came out, there was a LOT of adverts for products being released at the same time which were secretly corporate adverts for The Lorax movie…. A storyline that condemns corporate greed that leads to environmental destruction doesn’t lend itself well to corporate sponsorship—and yet, that’s exactly what Universal did with the film, which has nearly 70 corporate and nonprofit sponsors, including HP, Comcast, IHOP, and Mazda. Of all those 70 partners, the Mazda campaign quickly became a lightning rod for Lorax controversy, primarily because of an advert where it calls the 2013 Mazda CX-5—an efficient car, but one that’s entirely powered by gasoline—"Truffala-tree friendly." The ad also praises Mazda as the only carmaker to receive "the Truffula Tree Seal of Approval." …….Er, okay Universal - it’s not hard to see the problem with the ad: an SUV that runs on oil, a substance that comes from an industry which all too often ravages the environment, is cruising through the world of the Lorax. How could it possibly be Truffala-tree approved? And why would Truffala trees ever approve of an industrial product to begin with? It’s like if the characters from Watership Down started promoting housing estates, despite the fact that a housing estate being constructed destroyed their old home– it’s just not going to fit….. So… with that out the way, back to business, so to speak – the one-dimensional corporate bad guys start throwing in more clear signs that they only care about making money, making them look even less human – they want to make O’Hare Air in plastic bottles, which will demand ANOTHER factory, which will make the air even worse and promote even more sales of O’Hare Air… which once again, the film hasn’t explained how they make it despite the fact there aren’t any trees…. O’Hare’s bodyguards come in, and show him a camera feed of Ted sneaking out of town.

Ted comes across visuals that would make Ferngully cringe at how obviously anti-corporate it is, by showing tons of oil being squirted out. Ted exits town, and drives through the desolate wasteland with felled trees to find The Once-ler. And I will be honest, the next scene did get a bit of a laugh out of me – Ted finds a chasm, and tries using a wooden plank as an improvised ramp – but instead of going over the chasm, he heads straight down. Okay, that got a laugh out of me. Ted eventually makes his way to The Once-ler’s house, and he… *sees him pass the rock slab with the word ‘Unless’ written on it* Erm, wait. Why did the film reveal that rock post NOW? He… hasn’t even talked to the Once-ler yet, so why has it revealed that so early? Anyway, as Zac Efron keeps annoyingly shouting, reminding me what a bad idea it was to give a twenty something year old the task of voicing a TEN OR TWELVE YEAR old, he eventually comes face to face with the Once-ler. He says that he still cares about trees – erm, no you don’t, Ted – you just want to get a tree so you can get into Audrey’s pants, and you even try to HURRY THE ONCE-LER ALONG, as if you don’t care about the well being of the flora and fauna of the land – you don’t care anything about the environment, do you? The Once-ler, voiced by Ed Helms, sits Ted down, and tells him about what happened to the trees, saying it was his fault that the Truffula tree has died out…. And it takes place in flashback, showing….. the face of a baby faced fedora hat wearing electric guitar playing hipster…… Ooooooh, dear… missed the mark quite a bit here, didn’t you, film? In fact…. Terrible Change Number 4 – giving the Once-ler a face. This is a similar problem to those that I have with giving Ted a tacked on side story. I would be able to forgive giving the Once-ler a face and I would forgive having Ted go through his own story on the side if they were INTERESTING. But… they’re just NOT… The point of having the Once-ler be faceless was to show that his descent into greed and corruption can happen to ABSOLUTELY anyone if they have too much without seeing it. But in this film, they try to make him more of a sympathetic character by making the people who push him to make a business out of the Truffula trees be his horrid family, who pressure him to be a successful businessman. Speaking of which - Terrible Change Number 5 - Not making the Once-ler responsible for his own actions, and instead just blaming it on his greedy family. Which leaves the whole idea of having the Once-ler representative of the whole human race purposeless….. Yeah, great moral, film – just make it so that it’s not YOU who’s to blame, but your greedy family – so if you don’t have a greedy family, this kind of thing could NEVER happen to you. THINK THROUGH YOUR IMPLICATIONS. Yes, in the original story, the Once-ler’s family DID show up when The Once-ler started selling his thneeds, but they kept THEM in the shadows as well, once again, showing how this could happen to anyone….. And… sigh, I’m sorry – but the idea of The Once-ler being a ‘product of the times’ character gets to me quite a lot…. And yes, I am aware that…for some strange reason, this character picked up a lot of squealing fangirls for some reason – just like Jack Frost from Rise of the Guardians and Humphrey from Alpha and Omega, it’s just because he’s either ‘tragic’ or modern and ‘hip’ that the character garnered all these screeching fangirls who act like they want to worship him…. Even though Jack Frost and The Once-ler don’t possess too much personality outside of being ‘tragic’ and are actually a bit generic and bland- *shields self from screeching fangirls of The Once-ler, Humphrey and Jack Frost, who are threatening to gouge my eyes out with their nails* Okay, okay, okay!! Hear me out! I don’t hate Jack Frost – I like the scenes of him spreading cheer and fun-filled joy in the snow – THAT part of his character I enjoyed, but I just thought he could have had a bit more personality to him, personally… With the Once-ler though….. sorry, everyone, but he’s even blander and less interesting. And the way they make his family unlikeable douchebags just seems to be a manipulative way to make us forget that this guy pretty much DESTROYS EVERYTHING GREEN IN THE WORLD…. And once again, it ruins the whole ‘he represents the human race’ concept…. Also – just a bit of a side comment, has anyone noticed how many male protagonists in modern animated films have similar designs: clean-shaven, spiky-haired, usually in late teens or early twenties. I mean you have Hiccup from HTTYD, Jack Frost from RotG, Flint Lockwood from Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs, Hiro from Big Hero 6, and now the Once-Ler – and yes, Humphrey from Alpha and Omega counts too, because his design is clearly NOT that of a normal functioning wolf. They all seem copy-and-paste and generic in terms of design (I can at least give Flint some leeway since he's basically a mad scientist-type who clearly has some Autistic-like traits, and Hiro can be excused because his hair is anime-style – once again, looking like Hajime Hinata from Danganronpa 2 – in fact, ANY Danganronpa, Kingdom Hearts or similar anime or Japanese video game character with spiky hair can be excused from this because spiky hair is an anime staple – and besides, I think Leon Kuwata looks pretty cool ), almost like a clear ploy by marketers to try to appeal to teenage girls who had just got off the Twilight bandwagon and jumped into these copy and paste designs….

Anyway – the Once-ler sets off on his cart, singing on an electric guitar annoyingly (yeah, this character’s voice annoys me quite a bit – reminding me too much of Humphrey from Alpha and Omega ), and then finds….. The Great Valley from The Land Before Time – I mean, the Truffula tree fields. And I will admit, the Truffula trees look quite soft and cuddly in that animation, as the Once-ler (no, you know what – this…. Hipster is NOT the Once-ler, so from this point onwards, let’s call him Not-the-once-ler. ) annoyingly points out. He quickly comes across the hummingfish - *they start singing in a high pitch* OW!! *sees them slide around* …..Yeah, the hummingfish aren’t ripping off the Minions from Despicable Me or anything, are they? And to be perfectly honest, the hummingfish kind of scare me a bit…. Not as bad as Thing 1 and Thing 2 from the remake of The Cat in the Hat – but something about the way they look at the screen at times looks a bit… creepy. Speaking of bad singing, now Not-the-once-ler starts randomly singing in a….. *the song starts* ….Ugh, time for yet another annoyingly upbeat and forgettable song, as he starts throwing things out of his cart, about to chop down a Truffula tree. Not surprisingly, the animals are as annoyed with his bland pointless singing as I am, and attack him. Yes, teach that wannabe Flash Sentry! But after one of the Babaloots (I…. think that’s how you spell Babaloot) bite open a marshmallow bag he has, the marshmallows start…. Exploding everywhere…. And the animals start eating them in a very over the top scene that goes on forever….. Even TED realises that this is most likely a Big Lipped Alligator Moment, and tries rushing along the story – which ironically, is ANOTHER Big Lipped Alligator moment, where Not-The-Once-ler threatens to dispose of Ted if he doesn’t listen to his story.

Not-the-once-ler chops down one of the Truffula trees and takes it away to start making a Thneed, unaware that he has awoken The Lorax with his actions. Actually…. Have you noticed something missing from The Lorax – yeah, THE LORAX!!! He’s BARELY in this! We’re about 21 minutes in, and only NOW does he show up! But I will admit, I do actually like this scene where The Lorax comes to the forest, and sees the chopped down tree, placing a kind of grave around the tree, which all of the other animals help to make. Thank you, film – a moment of subtlety! And it actually feels like it could very well fit into the book, with it’s subtle However… this gets ruined by Not-the-once-ler using part of the Truffula tree as… makeshift maracas… Actually, to be fair, the one scene where Not-the-onceler feeds The Lorax a marshmallow did get a snigger out of me. But then it’s followed by MORE character changes that spit on the original…. What do I mean by that?

Terrible Change Number 5 – the changes they made to The Lorax’s character and personality. In the original, the Lorax was a peaceful pacifist who tried to find a route that harmed no-one, but saved the fauna and flora that the Once-ler was endangering by his industry. And even then, when the Once-ler mentions that closing down the factory could ruin the economy because how important the Thneed is and how versatile and high-in-demand a product it is, the Lorax says that he sees his point, and to make HIM identifiable, admits that while he makes a lot of good points about pollution and the speed of progress, he doesn’t know a sure answer to solve all the dilemmas. He also tries to speak to everyone because of what the Once-ler is clearly doing to the environment. How does the film handle The Lorax, you may ask? Well… he starts off by kicking out all of the pegs holding Not-the-once-ler’s tent up – and to be perfectly honest, the way The Lorax releases the pegs and insults Not-the-once-ler makes him seem a bit… antagonistic, to be honest…. Trust me, at first it isn’t too bad, but The Lorax becomes more and more of a jerk as the film goes on. And this only results in more problems for both The Lorax and what this film believes to be The Once-ler… He rallies the woodland creatures against Not-the-once-ler…. True, the guy DID chop down a tree, but… only ONE… And when he’s hammering down the pegs the Lorax is unleashing, he ACCIDENTALLY grabbed a Babaloot…. As far as I can tell, The Lorax is doing this solely to make Not-the-once-ler look bad…. Quick question, Lorax, we’re supposed to be rooting for you, correct? You’re supposed to lash out at The Once-ler because of what he’s doing, not because of what he MIGHT do….

Anyway, now Not-the-once-ler’s story takes a little bit of a break – as he tells Ted to come back the next day…. Yeah, because what I really needed was the film taking a BREAK from what the book ACTUALLY focused on, and heading back to a dream sequence of Ted’s, revolving around the bland-as-rice-paper Audrey’s birthday, dressed as a princess…. Dressed up in a posh outfit, Ted slides down a banister, and reveals a tree to her under a tarp, and now he kneels on one knee and… proposes to her…. Ted, HOW OLD ARE YOU?! You’re a TEN YEAR OLD boy having fantasies about proposing to a girl in her late TEENS!! Doesn’t anyone else find this a tad creepy? This next scene is pretty much a bland pointless scene of the family playing a round of Scrabble… And then he rides on his scooter, running into O’Hare’s bodyguards – oh yeah, O’Hare… I forgot about him… even though he only showed up something like ten minutes ago. He begins telling Ted that he makes a living selling fresh air, while trees give them out for free, and of course, only gives a damn about his business. Okay, here’s another plothole… apart from that stupid reason Ted has for getting a tree – to hopefully get a date with the girl who’s quite a bit older than him… WHY DO THE PEOPLE OF THNEEDVILLE NEED TREES ANYWAY?! Even though they still never explain HOW O’Hare makes air, they seem to be getting on okay as they are…. So… they don’t need trees…

After those few minutes of pointlessness, Ted heads back to Not-the-once-ler’s house, and now they partake in lame modern day references – Not-the-once-ler asks Ted why he isn’t breakdancing and playing Donkey Kong like other children…. Yeah, because THOSE don’t age this film at all. And Not-the-once-ler pretty much figures out that Ted is only interested in getting a tree to impress a girl, and yet… for some reason, decides to continue on with his story. Okay, Not-the-once-ler – the only reason this boy wants a tree is to impress a girl, NOT to save the fauna and flora of the world…. He’s a waste of time – just like this film. Anyway, in his story, Not-the-once-ler has just finished making his Thneed, and goes to sleep for the night. And now The Lorax – GET THIS – makes all the forest animals KIDNAP The Once-ler out of his house, and send him down a RIVER. Okay, now The Lorax gets CREEPY. Once again – I must re-iterate – I know the film is TRYING to make Not-the-once-ler sympathetic – but in doing so, not only have they made him generic, irrelevant, uninteresting and bland, but it also makes The Lorax surprisingly unlikeable too…. As the film goes on, he becomes more of a wise-cracking jerk, which – while he isn’t as destructive or unlikeable as Michael Myer’s version of The Cat in the Hat – goes against the way the original made us sympathise with The Lorax – and needless to say, I don’t want to see The Lorax try to MURDER someone! He does this through an annoying Mission Impossible homage (with more creepy hummingfish) – and only heads after Not-the-Once-ler’s bed after it’s revealed a Babaloot is on it – not caring about Not-the-once-ler at all. Not-the-once-ler heads down some rapids to a large waterfall, but The Lorax manages to save him and the Babaloot. Okay – The Lorax feels bad about nearly killing him (once again – I can’t believe THE LORAX is doing this), but says the woodland creatures need the trees, and Not-the-once-ler was chopping them all down. Erm… no, he only chopped ONE down… Aren’t you over-reacting a bit? Not-the-once-ler promises not to chop down any more trees, and goes to sleep that night, seeing that - *The Lorax is in his bed, and punches him as he wakes up screaming*….. Ohoh, this can only make you look better… Yeah – now this film has The Lorax and the woodland creatures invading Not-the-once-ler’s house and wreaking everything….. Wha-wa-WHAT DID HE DO?! Last I checked, he only chopped down ONE tree at this point, and promised he wouldn’t chop down anymore, and now YOU’RE invading his house and wreaking everything that belongs to him! Who’s being the environment destroyer to who?! So, yeah, The Lorax in this film, and the film itself for that matter, is a HYPOCRITE! Good to know….

Not-the-once-ler goes into town to sell his Thneed, and now this film FINALLY gets back to the book, by showing Not-the-once-ler show off the many uses of the Thneed…. But with one drawback – this scene is shot so much like an advert on TV it’s not even funny. And guess what, he advertises his Thneed through – what else? – another bland upbeat pop song….. And for some reason, everyone starts acting like a douchebag to Not-the-once-ler…. In the original, the Once-ler did show off his product and it was snapped up by a customer instantly…. He did NOT have to go through unnecessarily cruel bashing by everyone to make it. Yeah – I know that this scene is supposed to be mean to make us sympathise for Not-the-once-ler, but…. I find myself calling himself more of an idiot – why didn’t he just show off the uses of the Thneed rather than spout more pointless pop songs? Throwing his Thneed to the side, it just HAPPENS to land on someone’s head, and everyone starts saying the hat looks cool in MORE ways that are shot so much like an advert it’s not even funny. Okay – first of all, in the original The Lorax, the Once-ler ALSO (yeah – I say that because Not-the-once-ler and the original Once-ler are clearly NOT the same character ) made the Thneed look like a hat, but it actually LOOKED like a hat – not like someone puked a pile of intestines onto that woman’s head… Second – the way the people here say ‘oh my gosh, I totally want one’ and ‘that thing makes me like you even more’, in ways that will no doubt age this film horribly in a few years (in fact, it’s pretty dated only three years after it was released) really annoys me for some reason – it just seems to be ANOTHER way this film is trying to get ‘hip’ with the teens… and failing miserably… Not-the-once-ler returns home, and makes a pancake – acting more like a hipster…. However, it turns out that everyone really wants a Thneed, and they - *they come up to Not-the-once-ler and break out into SONG* Oh, NICE…. Another bland upbeat SONG. Come on, film – write some VARIETY into your songs, will you?! All these songs sound exactly the same! Now – let me make this clear – I have nothing against musicals. In fact, my second favourite episode of Friendship is Magic is Magical Mystery Cure – there, the songs were not only memorable, but they actually PROGRESSED the plot and had a purpose….. With the songs in this film, though…. They all seem pointless….. Also, why is a Babaloot jumping in the air in celebration, if these Thneeds can only be made by CHOPPING DOWN A TREE? So… he’s praising his own habitat being destroyed….. Not-the-once-ler calls his family to come down to the Truffula forest to help his business, and then…. the film cuts back to a pointless moment with Ted….

With his grandma on his back, he pretty much sums up how he cares nothing about Not-the-once-ler’s story, and more about getting a tree…. Anything to get married to a girl that’s older than him…. I KNOW we’re supposed to care about these characters, but they’re so bland, one-dimensional and boring, that…. These characters end up contributing virtually ANYTHING to the plot and could have been written out the film entirely – for the love of Seuss, this is called THE LORAX. And yet The Lorax, similar to Giratina in GIRATINA AND THE SKY WARRIOR, is BARELY in the film enough to earn a name in the title… And Ted ends up being just as annoying a hipster as Not-the-once-ler…. And now it turns out that – OH NO – O’Hare destroyed Audrey’s artwork…. You know I may have actually cared about her if this really gave me a reason to care other than the fact that she likes trees… Give me more than just one defining trait. Also…. This isn’t that big a deal, guys…. Anyway, Ted finds out O’Hare welded down the button Ted’s been using to get out the town, and….. drives his scooter over the rooftops to get out.

Back to Not-the-once-ler’s story, as his family turns up. And once again, the film kind of ruins the whole ‘relatable Once-ler’ concept by making it be his dysfunctional FAMILY that comes in and starts ruining everything…. Am I the only one who finds the way they’re turning a character who was originally an industrialist who was solely responsible for his actions and yet was relatable in how everyone needed his product and he wasn’t completely blind to the ramifications of his actions into a… ‘sympathetic’ and ‘tragic’ man kind of… manipulative? This guy pretty much DESTROYED AN ECO-SYSTEM, true, but at the same time, I couldn’t find myself HATING the original Once-ler because of how it was written how relatable he was, and constantly came into internal conflict, but kept pushing himself to go even further – also showing that he had some good bits of humanity in him – in fact, it was his own product being extremely necessary that pushed him mostly to go further. Here though, this goes back to the film sucking out the humanity out of the villains, and making Not-the-once-ler’s family be careless, evil people who just push the Once-ler to go forward with deforestation…. And even then, the whole ‘sympathetic Once-ler’ thing gets thrown out the window later.

Oh – don’t get me started on his family… In their poor attempts to make Not-the-once-ler sympathetic (and thus, removing any sense of relatable traits The Once-ler had), they make his family as evil and unlikeable as possible, purposefully making them pretend to be bad at picking tuffs from the Truffula trees, pushing Not-the-once-ler to start cutting them down….. All of the horrible family members are here, and are as blandly horrible as possible – and for some reason, they make them Southern stereotypes – two stupid bullying elder brothers, a stingy aunt, a completely forgettable father and….. not to forget… the MOTHER – Isabella…. I’d call her a stereotype, but by this point, I can safely say that she is one of the most CLICHED things in the WHOLE OF MEDIA. Knowing ME and my least favourite clichés, you can probably guess – she’s the abusive neglectful guardian who either is much too incompetent to care after a child, or only wants anything to do with her son if it fulfils her own selfish ends – using their own child as a means to an end, and never takes responsibility for her actions or receives justice for what she does…. Oh, and they also have a tendancy to abandon their own flesh and blood at the drop of a hat, showing little to no remorse for doing so…. Sigh…. Okay, everyone, sorry about this, but I need to say something here…. Get ready, because this mini-rant is going to go on for quite a while….

*takes a deep breath* Denethor from Lord of the Rings, The Cobblepots from Batman Returns, Mr Marsh from Stephen King’s It, Peter and Lois Griffin from Family Guy, Perry Babcock from ParaNorman, Prancer from the Niko films (and Oona in the second one gets hints of this too), Lord Portley-Rind from Boxtrolls, Captain Vidal from Pan’s Labyrinth, Mr Krabs from Modern Spongebob, the Turner parents from Fairly Odd Parents, Big Bob and Miriam Pataki from Hey Arnold, Teru’s father from Ginga Densetsu Weed, David and Rosemary Bower from Dolls, Unalaq from Legend of Korra, Princess Bubblegum from Adventure Time, Amy Wong’s parents from Futurama, Blaise Debeste and Dane Gustavia from Miles Edgeworth Investigations 2: Prosecutor’s Path, Ichabod’s father in Tim Burton’s Sleepy Hollow, Jack Black’s parents from The Pick of Destiny, Jim Hawkin’s father in Treasure Planet, Buck Cluck from Chicken Little – hell… I…. why the hell am I even going on with this?!! I think I’ve pretty much listed nearly EVERY OTHER PARENT CHARACTER in the whole of media! And knowing how common this character type is, I’ve most likely missed out quite a few…. AT LEAST! This cliché has been used so much that it’s not even funny – it’s been beaten to a pulp, plastered over every other piece of media that I can’t even look at some of my favourite films of all time without being reminded of them…. Just. STOP IT! There is nothing else that you can do with this kind of character that is different than any other one of their kind – they are virtually THE SAME CHARACTER. Everything that you can do with an abusive parent character has been done – by Denethor alone! He has pretty shown every single wrong turn that you can take with a parent character, and then some…. I have rarely EVER come across this type of character done right-and that’s just when they’re villains who receive punishment for what they do and actually manage to be entertaining (Lady Tremaine from Cinderella, Mother Gothel from Tangled, the Other Mother from Coraline and Frollo from Hunchback of Notre Dame – Frollo and the Other Mother in particular are two of my favourite villains in media), and even when they make the abusive parents the clear villain, they STILL find a way to mess that up – Captain Vidal from Pan’s Labyrinth, for example, just ENRAGES me to no end – just like all the other parents I mentioned in that big list, and Isabella is no exception…. You cannot make these characters interesting, you cannot make them endearing, you cannot make them entertaining – all they really are are TOOLS – just something to go onto a least favourite character’s list and make us feel sympathy for the main character. Yes, feeling sympathy for a main character is a good thing – but you shouldn’t do that by making the parents neglectful and abusive jerks… This wouldn’t be so bad if this kind of character wasn’t EVERYWHERE… If someone could show me one example of an abusive parent character THAT ISN’T THE MAIN VILLAIN done right, just ONE – I’d be really happy, because… I’m so sick and tired of this character type showing up…. I’d much rather have a parent character be OVERPROTECTIVE – like Dracula from Hotel Transylvania – then neglectful, at least that shows signs they CARE about their child, instead of leave them in the dust when they’re no longer needed….. This isn’t a character stereotype – it’s a stock and boring CLICHÉ. Yes, I know that not every parent is going to be as kind and attentive as Mrs Brisby from The Secret of NIMH, but all these characters are seem to be one-dimensional bully characters placed into the home, showing that not even at HOME can the main characters escape from abuse…. ……Pant… sorry, that bit of angers been welling up inside for a while now, I just HAD to vent that out eventually… Just… PLEASE stop using this cliché…..

Oh, and speaking of ruining any kind of likeability and sympathy (and relatability) that Not-the-once-ler may have had, all it takes for him to turn into an industrialist tyrant is…. Get this – ANOTHER BLAND SONG! As well as being as bland and forgettable as the other songs in the film, Not-the-once-ler Takes a Level in Jackass here – and becomes pretty jerkish….. Well, there went the sympathetic route, guys…. If he REALLY cared about The Lorax and the environment, he could have LEFT his abusive family and said ‘no’, hired some other people to help, and… I don’t know, take more than just ONE SONG to become a jerk…. The original Once-ler progressed over the course of the story, showing much better development and relatable actions…. Pretty much the ONLY bit of development that comes into Not-the-once-ler in this song is the following line – ‘The people will the money make this everloving world go round’. And they throw in all of the scenes in the original where The Once-ler makes oil and smoke in the book pretty much summed in THREE SECONDS… And once again, this song seems to be trying to be ‘anti-corporate’… but in doing so, it becomes very hypocritical… There’s a scene where the Lorax is given a Thneed, and a photo is taken, saying Lorax approved…. Now doesn’t that sound familiar…. OH YEAH, THE MAZDA CAR ADVERT!!! Film – stop being hypocritical… it’s REALLY getting annoying…

So, as Not-the-once-ler’s factory is at full throttle, he goes into the factory, and…. upon seeing The Lorax, starts acting like even more and more of a douche… Okay, NOT EVEN THE ORIGINAL ONCE-LER was this mean – they at least showed signs that he was beginning to doubt himself in the original…. Once again, it just feels very rushed and forced to make Not-the-once-ler like this, as just now, the last Truffula tree gets chopped down…. Well… that went quickly…. Most of the book compressed into a forgettable three minute song…. Why don’t I feel emotions towards this again? Oh, yeah, and Aloysius O’Hare (remember him? Because I sure as hell don’t ) gets inspired to be the next big industrialist, selling clean air… which, ONCE AGAIN – the film NEVER EXPLAINS HOW HE MAKES THE AIR DESPITE THEIR BEING NO TREES – oh, hell, I’m just sounding like a broken record… And now, after turning him into a douche in about a split minute of screentime, and not inspired by his own actions, but his HORRID FAMILY (once again, removing signs of relatability he could have had), Not-the-once-ler sees his family leave him as the business goes bust. In the original, the story just said that there was nothing else the Once-ler’s family could do now the business was gone and there was no purpose for them to be there. Here – oh, I can’t say it :icondoublefapalmplz: - Isabella BLAMES NOT-THE-ONCE-LER for the deforestation, and practically DISOWNS HIM IN FRONT OF HIS OWN FACE – NOT TAKING ANY RESPONSIBILITY FOR WHAT SHE HAS DONE AND JUST LEAVING THE STORY FOR GOOD…… I…I…I…..

FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU-

….ahem. What I would like to say is, I think I’ve found a new most hated mother in the entirety of media….. Good work, The Lorax remake…. You not only removed any kind of relatability I had for Not-the-once-ler by making his inhuman EVIL FAMILY be responsible for destroying the Truffula forest, but you also produced the worst mother I have ever seen in my life…. What I would give to have Zoroark, a much better mother character, claw your face off right now….

Now that the Truffula forest has been destroyed, only NOW do all the animals leave… Once again, the original showed The Lorax send them off ONE BY ONE, allowing the Once-ler to take in the ramifications of his actions. Here, it’s almost like the filmmakers said ‘oh yeah, we were meant to send the animals off, weren’t we? Well, better late than never…’ The Lorax lifts himself up into the sky, leaving Not-the-once-ler alone with his ruined factory, and the word ‘unless’ scrawled on a stone. Riddle me this, how come I feel so much more emotion when the original story did this, but I feel absolutely NOTHING here? Maybe it’s because Not-the-once-ler is nowhere near as relatable as the Once-ler. Maybe it’s because nothing about the deforestation in this film progresses naturally like in the original Lorax…. Everything about this just feels simplified beyond all belief, and once again - you're not responsible for your actions - and if you are, you have no chance to redeem yourself. THAT’S A GREAT MORAL. And now, Not-the-once-ler drops the last Truffula tree seed to Ted, telling him to take care of it, in the hopes of creating a cleaner and better future….. Now, if this film had ANY sense of shame left, it would END the film here…. But no, it KEEPS GOING…. And now….

Terrible Change Number 6 - Showing what happens after Not-the-once-ler gives Ted the last Truffula seed. The whole point of leaving it open in the original is to symbolize that it is the job of the next generation to improve the mistakes of the old generation. The boy is representative of the young children watching, at the end, showing that the boy (the children’s watching) need to take it upon themselves to improve our world. Showing what happens completely destroys the original purpose of the story…. If the film hadn’t given up long before now, they’ve finally kicked the bucket here…. And once again – the reason Ted cares about this seed is most likely just to get Audrey to love him…. And I may have cared about Ted if he wasn’t so bland and forgettable…

Sneaking back into town, Ted knocks out one of O’Hare’s cameras, unaware that O’Hare knows that he has the seed, and has…. Entered his house… Sorry… but I really, REALLY couldn’t care less…. He’s just like Big Boss from Rio 2 – a one dimensional tree hating man with no redeeming qualities…. Of course, he gets to show the plot device girlfriend the seed, just before they head out in a…. disco car… I don’t care…. To the centre of town, in a…. car chase… That just feels more boring than entertaining. And there is absolutely NO TENSION, because there’s NOTHING to be lost….. the town doesn’t NEED trees – as I said before, they’re somehow making air by themselves and surviving well enough by themselves… It’s not like the world is going to END unless they plant the Truffula seed…. Oh, and now they shoe-horn in Ted’s grandma skiing… for some reason, the way Audrey blandly says ‘how cool is your grandma’ annoys me. They get the seed to the centre of town, but Aloysius O’Hare pretty much sums up my problem – why do they NEED a tree?! And now, he annoyingly keeps making excuses as to why trees are bad – like leaves and sap… But, to prove his point, Ted knocks down the wall separating town from the outside, showing the polluted outside world. And now – instead of developing their emotions towards the tree over time, they develop it INSTANTLY – to which point it’s pretty damn unbelievable. Oh, and let’s end out the film with yet another bland and forgettable pop song…. GOD… ENOUGH OF THESE BLAND FORGETTABLE SONGS! And of course – Aloysius O’Hare, being the one dimensional terrible villain he is, doesn’t change his ways, saying ‘let it die’ rather than ‘let it grow’…. Okay, pal, even HEXXUS from FernGully is staring at you saying – ‘Wow, and I thought I didn’t give a damn about the environment….’ As they send O’Hare shooting off into the distance, they plant the Truffula seed, the bland Audrey kisses bland Ted (oh, bleck – yeah, because of all the plot points, THAT one was interesting enough to be resolved ), and of course, showing how easy it is to find answers and resolve problems just like it would be in REAL LIFE (that was sarcasm, by the way), the Lorax COMES BACK…. And no, the over emotional music isn’t making me feel anything, film – no matter how much you think it may…. Look…. I have no problems with happy endings, but if they’re earned by DESTROYING most of what the original story stood for, that happy ending becomes unwelcome, at least for me… Because The Lorax isn’t a shrugging-off happy ending story, it’s supposed to be a DARK FABLE showing how anyone can cause destructive problems if they take too much without giving anything back, and left it open ON PURPOSE – leaving children (and adults) to think about what may happen after the film is over.

If someone walked up to you in the street with a rock that had THE MORAL written on it in capital letters, and then proceeded to beat you about the head with it, it would be more subtle than this movie. It was trite, preachy, and full of flagrant clichés that could even make Alpha and Omega feel bad for them. The thing I loved most about Seuss was his ability to nestle a moral gently and concisely under layers of symbolism. Yes, his stories were sometimes over the top and hyperbolic, in an endearing way, but they made their point and moved on. As I am now.

That's why the new one sucks so hard, because it made the whole story meaningless. It simply took out all the complex ideas and just gave the audiences answers to everything. Because in a story about living a corrupted life, the clear thing to do is give the audience answers, isn’t it? Because life is really made up of clear answers, and you're not responsible for your actions - and if you are, you have no chance to redeem yourself. The new movie completely RAPED the whole story. I know the word ‘raped’ is quite a strong word to use in that context, but that’s how I honestly feel about the remake….

The original makes you think, the new one thinks for you. The problem is this: the latter implies you are lazy, the former at least knows that there are people who want to do the thinking themselves.

Honestly, the 2012 version is twelve times worse the 1972 movie. Pop culture references, celebrity voices that are mediocre at best, forgettable songs, and forced humor that wouldn't make my six year old cousin laugh? Yep, this, my friends, is an example of a modern reboot of a short, but sweet environmental film that didn't need to be changed. So yeah, f**k this movie.

iconsaysplz: give me the 72 version than the souless glitsed up version that is the remake

The original. I only watched fragments from Nostalgia Critic episode, but they're much better, than this bullshit from 2012. The Lorax from 2012 is filled with pop culture references, lame pop songs and generic stereotypes; even story has been unnecessary upgraded (and when I mean upgraded, I mean turning to generic story about saving trees).

I prefer the 1972 TV special over the 2012 film, which not to say that the 2012 adaptation was bad, but was more on the lines of meh, the redeeming thing about the 2012 film is the Lorax himself (and that one scene with him and the animals mourning the loss of a tree),anything else is okay at best and lame or generic at worst, so yeah the 1972 adaptation wins for me, because-unlike the 2012 film-it was more complex and was paced very well and was even timeless.

I have nothing against the film adaptation of the Lorax. Sure maybe there could have been a few changes here and there, but I would rather be sticking to this than that abomination Cat in the Hat film. Hardly anything will beat the original, but this was still a great adaptation to me. Ever since I saw the old one, I had been wishing that the Lorax would come back in the end somehow. I was glad they gave the Once-ler a face instead of keeping him all mysterious.

I personally feel mixed about the 2012 Lorax. On one hand, they do convey the message and the emotions from the book pretty well with some colourful animation to go with it. That, and I actually don't mind the Once-ler's face being shown, because that helps us connect with other people who made big mistakes, instead of some mysterious monster with green gloves.
But, there are plenty of things Illumination did screw up with, like the romance subplot is completely unnecessary, the comedy animals just pad the runtime, O'Hare is a generic and dumb villain, and the songs... oh god! They're AWFUL!
Comparing it to the 1972 special, that one is the stronger adaptation since stayed closer to the book, and it presented good interactions between the Lorax and the Once-ler, something I wish they did more of for the 2012 version instead of "How Bad Can I Be?". While I'm not saying the 2012 version is terrible, it just could have been executed much better.

maybe it's because he's voiced by an actor who i think can be funny, maybe it's because i find Alocious O'Hare and the Once-ler's family worse but i dont mind the once-ler

While the original is clearly better, I actually liked the 2012 movie. Yes, it’s got crappy pop songs, taylor swift, and some other problems but it did a solid job at expanding the materiel, especially when it comes to Oncelor’s character. It’s not perfect, but it’s at least solid. The original special is a masterpiece though.

Let me get the good parts out of the way first. Naturally, the art style is fantastic and whimsical, as all Seuss work is. Danny Devito does a great job as the Lorax, but the character of the Lorax feels strangely antagonistic in this version – and he barely appears at all, to be honest. Also, a badly placed musical number makes any sorrow at the trees being destroyed seem diluted. You should be upset that the Lorax leaves us, but I was more upset that I WASN'T upset.

Unfortunately, the part of the story focusing on the boy trying to find a tree was tiresome. It's a case where the book was more dramatic than the story - nature had been ravaged, and nobody cared about it except for one boy. In the movie, it's basically all because of some horribly stereotyped evil characters – Not-the-once-ler himself is painted as naive but still a good person, but the creators apparently didn't want him to seem corrupt in chopping down all the trees so they have his redneck family do it for him. And the business tycoon Aloysius O-Hare is just ridiculously evil. I'm not going to say that big businessmen shouldn't be villains or anything like that, but the point of the original book was that all of mankind had stopped caring, whereas the movie says it's the fault of Not-the-once-ler’s family and O'Hare entirely, the latter of who deliberately is keeping people clueless about trees. I just feel the ending would have been far more dramatically appropriate if, instead of having a cliché'd (and underwhelming) chase scene where he shows everybody O'Hare is evil, if he instead needed to actually CONVINCE people that trees were worth caring about (he convinces them by knocking down a wall at the end. Apparently in the last 15 or so years nobody had even once looked outside. ) Additionally, when he finally plants the seed, all the other trees start growing again. Not sure how, but it makes me wonder - if that's all it took, why didn't Not-the-once-ler try to plant the seed 15 years ago?

I'm not against musicals, but the combined fact that 1.) i wasn't prepared for that and 2.) the music was... bland. I can't remember any of it and I just finished it a few minutes before writing this review. Also, as I said earlier, one musical number completely ruins the tragic mood it tried to set with the trees getting chopped down.

I know that it can be hard translating a Seuss book, usually with only 20 or 30 pages, into a feature film – it’s a tough task. But honestly, if you don't even get the theme right then you have failed in your task. I’m going to say it – this is a worse adaptation than Legend of the Guardians: Owls of Ga’Hoole…. At least that film TRIED to capture the original feel the books had – I mean, it still missed out a LOT of stuff, flanderised characters and watered it down, but it was at least GOING for an epic, dark story, like the books. Here, The Lorax, while not as terribly missing the point as The Cat in the Hat remake, the basic problem is that the filmmakers didn't have the courage to follow the original work. Their movie represents a fear that telling such a deep and sorrowful story will offend viewers who might ask for their money back. Their movie is blown up, wrapped up and packaged as silly musical comedy with an environmental message buried in the corner. This might not be the worst movie of 2012 (I’m not entirely sure), but it is certainly the most weak-kneed. Take a look at ParaNorman, a film that came out in the exact same year – that dealt with some pretty hardcore themes, and didn’t talk down to its audience at all…. Something that The Lorax remake clearly lacks…..

Revisit the book, and I think you'll find that there is a reason that Dr. Suess' story has remained in our minds for 40 years. If Dr. Seuss had written his book as it plays out in this movie, it would have long been lost into the dustbins of history, which where this wrong-headed movie is very likely headed……

Well….I think I’ll take a break from Dr Seuss for now, and head onto another film I’ve been meaning to review for a while – a Don Bluth film, which… according to some people, is supposed to be the most BORING of Don Bluth’s films…. Sigh, hopefully, I’ll be able to write a review about it and not be sent to sleep, like I often end up being with some bad films I review on here….

Stay tuned folks, for my next review – for Don Bluth’s Thumbelina….

UPCOMING REVIEWS

169. Thumbelina

170. The Magic Voyage

171. The True Story of Puss ‘n Boots

172. The Fox and the Hound 2

173. Rock-A-Doodle

174. The Pebble and The Penguin

175. Chirin No Suzu

176. The Secret of NIMH 2: Timmy to the Rescue

177. The Wolf Children

178. Equestria Girls – Rainbow Rocks

Duckyworth’s Edits: The Secret of Kells’ Abbot Cellach

Duckyworth’s Edits: All Dogs Go To Heaven Getting ‘Craps’ Past the Radar