The Lorax Reviews and Ratings


  • jlizarde
    May 27, 2012
    jlizarde
    IMA SEE IT WHEN I HAVE MONEY
  • timoncjm
    May 27, 2012
    timoncjm
    I enjoyed this animated movie a lot. It had top notch animation, first rate musical numbers, awesome visuals, memorable characters, lots of comedy, lots of action, very well done voice cast, very well done 3D, and a good plot. It is better than the book. It should be pleased by b... read moreoth kids and adults.
  • YosemiteSamFan
    May 23, 2012
    YosemiteSamFan
    Colorful fun magical tale with a meaningful message. The eye candy 3D animation, punchy musical numbers, cute cartoon animals and the brief appearances of the Lorax himself - make this a special movie indeed. I loved it!
  • ifitz
    May 18, 2012
    ifitz
    My only real complaint is that if I were under the age of ten this would be a phenomenal movie. The thing is I'm not under the age of ten. And the music was very cheesy... and why didn't Taylor Swift sing? Why would you have Taylor Swift in a musical and not have her sing? Never-... read morethe-less this is a well made film with perfectly cast voice acting and some great visuals.
  • selinajohnson71
    May 11, 2012
    selinajohnson71
    I was so disappointed in this movie. I love Dr. Suess and was really excited to see this but was terribly let down, almost as much as i was with The Cat in the Hat. Please do better next time.
  • fb149700886
    May 9, 2012
    fb149700886
    Though often entertaining, it's mindless drivel disguised as meaningful drivel.

    As I've said over and over, just because a film is primarily targeted at kids, doesn't mean it has to be pandering, juvenile, intellectually-challenged fluff. Countless Disney and Pixar films can at... read moretest to this fact. Therefore, I feel no remorse or concern over being too harsh when I criticize this film. That being said, I'll admit that "The Lorax" initially had me sucked in with its peppy musical numbers and colorful animation. But when I sit back and really examine the content of the movie, there's very little I can say about it that's positive.

    Here's a pro/con list to (hopefully) make this review a bit easier to digest...

    PROS:

    *Beautiful, colorful animation. Here's one thing the folks at Illumination Entertainment generally get right.
    *The songs. Honestly, this is only half-praise. The film's songs succeed at being catchy and drilling their way into one's brain like Centaurian slugs. If that's their purpose, they went above and beyond! In all seriousness, the music is quite good. It's just the lyrics that I find insufferable ("How ba-a-a-ad can I be?").
    *Casting Danny DeVito! Though he's not really allowed to transcend the insufferable property manager act and bring on the needed whimsy and gravitas that this role often requires, he's a perfect choice for the Lorax.

    CONS:

    Many of the cons below address changes made from the book (and original TV special) to the big screen. While some may argue that this movie should be judged on its own merits, I cannot ignore the plot and story changes when I am fully aware that much better choices were made when crafting the original story. I mean, who are we to argue with Dr. Seuss?

    *Having the Lorax open the story. This seems like a lazy way to give the Lorax/Danny DeVito more screen-time. It's silly and unnecessary (though I'll agree the Lorax should have been way more prominent).
    *The Lorax is a minor character in his own film. Originally, the Lorax and the Once-ler were equal players in the narrative, but here the Lorax is sidelined in favor of making the kid who is told the story of the Lorax the main protagonist. As a result, many of the Lorax's more interesting moments and actions aren't depicted (many are reduced to a montage). Apparently the studio forgot about the film "Up." That animated masterpiece starred a diminutive, old man and made lots of money, yet these people still think you need a child protagonist for a children's movie to be successful.
    *The kid. Apparently his name is Ted, but whatever. Putting aside the fact that he's portrayed by the abysmal Zac Efron, this character is uninteresting and an unworthy protagonist. Instead of writing him as someone who genuinely cares about the environment, and trees and whatnot, he's made into a teen whose only motivation for finding out about the Once-ler is so he can get with the cute girl next door. While I understand that his character gains a story arc through this motivation (he ends up caring more about environmental issues by the end of the film), this wouldn't be necessary if the film focused on the Lorax like it should have.
    *The film features plenty of what makes many modern animated films so terrible: cute, cuddly, supposedly funny characters that simply come off as annoying, pop culture references mistaken for humor, puns, watering down themes and darker story elements, crazy, irresponsible adult characters, etc...
    *Choosing to show the Once-ler. I understand the problems involved in simply depicting a character's arms throughout a feature-length film. I may not even be able to say in all confidence that I wouldn't have chucked that design choice were I in charge of this production. I do know, however, that these filmmakers squandered an opportunity by doing so. Seuss and company actually made a bold, intriguing, symbolism-laden choice when they decided to keep the Once-ler in the shadows. It was an aesthetic that really made the original work stand appart. Unfortunately, those involved in this production thought that the children (and their parents) in the audience weren't smart enough to digest such a choice through the film's entirety.
    *The film's environmental message is bogged down by an unneeded plot-line dealing with the "evils" of capitalism and consumerism. While I'm all for films touching on corporate greed, I feel like this choice (along with the unnecessary executive villain) takes away precious screen-time from the Lorax and his environmental crusade. Not to mention, similar themes are already addressed in the Once-ler's story arc. It's as if the film's screenwriter is seeking to shoehorn his own personal politics into the movie to make it "timely." He, of course, ignores the fact that the company distributing this film is one of the largest media conglomerates in the world (NBCUniversal/Comcast), with a marketing department engaged in corporate tie-ins with Mazda and IHOP.
    *The Once-ler isn't the villain. Sure, at one point he's shown acting quite villainously, but he's always meant to be sympathetic. The character's also been dumbed down to a discouraging level. Whereas the original story features two titans--one representing the environment (the Lorax), the other representing corporatism (the Once-ler)--coming head-to-head in what feels like a significant stand-off, here we get the Lorax as annoying bunk-mate to the Once-ler. How precious. I much prefer the complexity of the original story. The audience hated the Once-ler but grew to like him by the end. It was a much better redemption story. Here, the Once-ler is always fun with his humor and musical numbers--regardless of his negative actions. Incidentally, the corporate villain (Mr. O'Hare) is a piss-poor replacement for the original Once-ler.
    *The songs. As I said before, these have terrible lyrics.
    *The movie's climax. Evidently, they really had trouble thinking of how to end this. In the interests of not spoiling anything, I'll just say that while I understand the need for a more climactic ending, the action here feels unnecessary, out of place, and just...silly (even for a cartoon).
    *Most of the humor falls flat.

    CONCLUSION:

    There are certainly worse films that you and your kids could see (I'm looking at you, "Smurfs"). This movie has a lot of fun, whimsy, and "heart." It's well-animated and generally entertaining. When I delve deeper, however, I realize that there isn't much there. It's a vain attempt to make a kids movie with a message. In my opinion, most of what this film tries to do, it fails miserably at. If Illumination and Universal had stayed closer to Dr. Seuss's source material, however, they may have turned out a deeper, smarter, more emotional, film with stronger characters.

    Peace.
  • hobster1
    May 9, 2012
    hobster1
    The Lorax is a mixed bag. There are some bright spots. The animation is vivid and there are a trio of fish that sing in unison with amusing high pitched vocals. They are memorable. They're reminiscent of character types in early Max Fleischer shorts. But the Lorax himself, which... read more should have been a tragic figure, is an annoying pain every time he shows up here with a lecture. The movie is a product of our modern age. I'll admit I was amused by the irony of a film warning against the dangers of consumerism in a movie that totally represents that mentality. The 3D computer graphics are oddly inappropriate for a story about going back to basics. The script is like a result of some focus group trying hard to be hip. Phrases like "You rule Grandma!" or "I know, right?!" are so distinctly 2012 that they betray the timeless quality of the original message. Dr. Seuss adaptations have been historically difficult. The Cat in the Hat remains one of the worst aberrations of the source material ever made. Yet these are the same scribes that adapted Horton Hears a Who! and that was rather charming. The Lorax isn't a horrible picture. It's a vibrant, colorful spectacle that is pleasant enough. The pro-environment moral is well intentioned. But the simplicity of the book is missing. In its place is a heavy handed tale of corporate greed that feels labored and somewhat joyless.
  • cherylwalker2
    April 28, 2012
    cherylwalker2
    The film was cute, but not super. The musical numbers and comedy were simply not that catchy or funny. It is vibrant and colorful animation however.
  • clairint
    April 26, 2012
    clairint
    oh boy, this movie was such a fun filled ride! loving the songs and happiness, joy that is filled in this movie!
  • sdcraftnmom
    April 20, 2012
    sdcraftnmom
    for movie cash on movies i bought so was able to take son to movie for 50 cents a piece... which made movie even better....
  • casillase1
    April 19, 2012
    casillase1
    Hollywood just can't get Dr. Seuss right, and this animated adaptation of The Lorax is possibly the worst of the worst, even when you consider How The Grinch Stole Christmas, The Cat In The Hat and Horton Hears A Who. This 3-D animated, musical version dumbs down everything that ... read moremade the source material so amazing, adding characters and idiotic plots twists. Most egregiously, there just isn't enough Lorax. The story is still set in the polluted town of Thneedville, where air is sold in jars and trees haven't grown in years. The conflict of principles between the Lorax (Danny DeVito, inspired casting) and the Once-ler (Ed Helms) is sidetracked for a dumb love story between young Ted (Zac Efron) who wants to impress the girl (Taylor Swift) he's crushing on by finding a real tree. Nothing sticks in The Lorax. It's a crapfest.

Summary

The Lorax Summary