ironhorse_iv
That honor goes to the wonderful made, 1972 animated musical television special; in which, this movie was remade from. I think, the reason why, I ponder this way, is because the 2012's version has an over-saturation amount of consumerist-tie-ins. There are, at least, 70 different marketing promotions here! This marketing ploy really does betrayed, the original conservation and protecting the environment message of the Dr. Seuss's children's book of the same name, in which the movies were based on. For an anti-materialism story to advertise so many products to kids and their parents; it sends a particularly confusing message. Yes, kids might want to leave the film wanting to do more to help nature, however; that message will be diluted by the onslaught of available merchandise with the Lorax's brand. Directed by Chris Renaud & Kyle Balda, and released by Universal Pictures on March 2, 2012, the 108th birthday of Dr. Seuss. The movie tells the story of a young boy named Ted (Voiced by Zac Efton) living in the town of Thneedville; a place, where nothing grows. When his girl crush, Audrey (Voiced by Taylor Swift) wish to see a real tree, he sets out to find one for her, with the help of the reclusive Once-ler (Voiced by Ed Helms) and the once-strong, forest guardian, the Lorax (Voiced by Danny DeVito). Can Ted find a tree or has the final tree, already been cut down? Watch the movie to find out, if you want to! Without spoiling the movie, too much, I have to say, the story of the Once-ler interaction with the Lorax, is far more superior, than, the expanded story of Ted trying to get a tree. I really didn't like, any of the new stuff that they added to push, the film's runtime more. The whole subplot of Ted's tree rescue, being threaten by the new town's bigwig, Mr. O'Hare (Voiced by Rob Riggle), because trees provide oxygen is somewhat confusing. Yes, it makes sense that he would try to stop it, since his profits come from the manufactured air that the citizens have been taught to buy and breathe. However, the movie never explains, how he gets his bottles of clear air. Nor, does it, explain, how the people of Thneedville are able to survived, in such a desolate wasteland with no trees. No trees mean no food, water or oxygen! You would think, these people would be gasping for air, or suffocating, by now. For all we know, there is no natural source. The real problem I had with this adaptation, is how little, does things like this, seem logical. Another thing that seem illogical, is the over the top eco-villain. You would think, Mr. O'Hare would rather steal the tree, than try to destroy it. However, wouldn't it, be better if they weren't any villains. Isn't the idea of The Lorax, is to tell a cautionary tale of when someone, anyone, takes too much without realizing it. That anybody, can, end up like the Once-ler. I guess, the producers didn't want people to feel bad about themselves. So, they create a clean cut unrealistic villain, instead. The writers should had, kept the Once-ler, the only antagonist, tragic figure and should had kept him, hidden. After all, he's supposed to represent us. Still, I do, like, how they made the character, into a sympathetic human character than monster, but the way, they show it was kinda rushed and underdeveloped. In the film, he's really only cutting down trees by pressure from his family who aren't sympathetic in the least, until the "How Bad Can I Be" number, where he becomes consumed by the greed and its capitalism way. However, in the 1972 animated special, he's not outright bad, but have a multifarious view when it comes to production. The movie gives him, a lot more time to debate his actions, and always finding an excuse to cut more and more trees, because he fears people would lose their jobs. It made the film, so much more complex. I hate the fact, that this movie makes the issue, seem simple, when it isn't. One of the biggest complains, I have, about both movies is, how the Once-ler, not once, try to fix his own mistake. If the goal of the movie was to promote environmentalism, the Once-ler should have done, something, but, instead, he waits for someone else to come along and fix it. What kind of message, is that? Are we supposed to be shameful of our misdeeds and hope that the next generation can do something better about it? That's a crappy ending. This 2012 film kinda make it, worst. I really didn't like, the force pandering happy ending in this. I would rather take the original powerfully thought-provoking, emotionally fueled, and subtly ambiguous bittersweet ending over this, any day. That said, The Lorax isn't a bad movie. It's certainly not painful to watch, but it's not all that fun either. The jokes were mostly a miss than a hit. I didn't like the pop-culture references, nor the music and songs in the film. They weren't that memorable. While, the animation was mostly alright; it's seem to borrow, a lot from 2010's Despicable Me. I really didn't like, how the forest animals act like minions. Last is the awkward voice-acting. The voice actors they chose for this film, doesn't really do much for the characters. The worst had to be, the then-21 year old, Zac Efron as a 12 year-old boy & the then-38 Ed Helms voicing a young 20 year-old hipster, Once-ler. They sound, nothing like, the age, they're supposed to be portraying. However, Danny DeVito was a great choice for the Lorax. I just wish, the producers didn't have him, try to kill the Once-ler. Overall: Though, it's not as bad as the live-action versions of Dr. Seuss's books, the Lorax is still a mess of a film. You're better off, revisiting the book, instead.
