Dr. Seuss’ The Lorax

Dr. Seuss’ The Lorax – 86min – PG

Let me get this rant out of the way. I grew up on Dr. Seuss books. I love them almost as much as I love my own mother. I was thrilled in 2000 when I saw a Grinch movie coming out. I was also completely disappointed with it. Let’s not talk about The Cat in the Hat. Awkward. Horton Hears a Who was better but still not a good track record for these stories.

The main problem I have had with these films is that it takes way too many liberties with the source material. I am well aware of how a book and a movie are not going to be the same but there are some lines you don’t cross with adaptations, especially with children’s books.

I was extremely nervous when they announced another release of a Dr. Seuss book. I was downright fearful of how bad they could mess this one up. I went to the movie expecting a complete slaughtering of yet another beloved childhood memory. I was completely wrong. This movie is a green light film because it does adaptation right.

The story starts with Ted (Zac Efron) a young boy who is trying to get the attention of the girl next door, Audrey (Taylor Swift). He finds out she really would like to see a real tree because they live in a city that is completely made out of plastic.

He starts a quest to find out what happened to real trees. With the help of his Grammy (Betty White) he starts to look for a man known as The Once-ler(Ed Helms). The Once-ler tells the story of what happened to trees and of the warnings of a defender of trees known as The Lorax (Danny DeVito). The town is run by Mr. O’Hare (Rob Riggle) and he does not want any real trees horning in on his caned air business.

This movie takes the elements of the original story and keeps them in tact without corrupting them with crass humor or changing the message to modernize it. The theme of the story is applicable today with the green movement and the overall message is that we have to be considerate of our environment. The Co-directors Chris Renaud and Kyle Balda, did an excellent job of keeping the level of entertainment focused on the younger audience.

There is a reason these stories are classics: because they don’t need to be changed. If you do a movie like this it needs to respect the source material.

Warning Spoilers!!!! Only friends of the Truffula Trees past this point!!!

We see the progression of capitalism applied to its extreme and the deforestations of the trees. The preachy nature of the story was in the book but it did not show us the actual deforestation or the ramifications of the actions that were taken. It’s one thing to be told the bad things happen and another to show it. This movie does have a "save the trees message" but it does not apply it with an environmentally sound brick to the head.

One side character that I want to highlight is the Once-ler’s Mom (Nasim Pedrad) she did an excellent job of making me hate her. I love this performer I have enjoyed her work on SNL and other things but I really despised her character.

It was an excellent story of poor guy take out on his own, makes it big, turns his back on his promises and then falls into ruin but in the end saves the day; as well as a story of a young boy risking everything for love. Great two for one story extravaganza.

What kid’s book have you enjoyed and wanted to see in the big screen?

The Hangover Part II

The Hangover Part II - 102min – R

This movie was a pale rehash of the exact same story from the first movie. Yes, it takes place in Thailand. Yes, there are new shenanigans. No, it’s not original or clever or humorous. One bright note I did get to see this movie free of charge, but there was a high price for seeing this film, it was 102 min I will never get back again. I think I got gipped. I am at a loss for words on how bland this movie was. The only character I thought was entertaining was the monkey (Crystal). I think it was Penn Jillette who said it best “there is nothing funnier than a smoking monkey.” Unfortunately, this comedy gold is wasted on an extravagant waste of time. Don’t get me wrong: I truly enjoyed watching the characters get the tar beat out of them but I don’t think it was for the reasons that the filmmakers intended. If you liked the original, just re-watch it. Do not waste your time on this half-assed retread. I am obviously going to give this movie a red light, for failing to do anything more with the characters or the storyline.

The movie starts out with some friends Phil (Bradley Cooper), Stu (Ed Helms), Alan(Zach Galifianakis) and Doug (Justin Bartha) getting together to have a little bachelor party, things get out of hand and they have one wild night in Vega…excuse me Bangkok. They lose a member of their happy band and spend the next few days trying to find him before they have to get back to the wedding. After a long chance though the city uncover clues as to what happed, they gather the lost friend and get back to the wedding on time and then stumble on a camera that has pictures of what really happed on their wild night of fun. Oh wait did I just give you the synopsis of the first one or the second one? Meh it doesn’t matter.

I think the fault here lies in the fact that they thought they could skate the same movie by with a different set. I place the blame on Todd Phillips. He seems to think that this kind of churn and burn sequel will be fine. He has done some really good comedies in the past… well, ok, really he has done this kind of film before with different people and setting but it’s the same kind of thing. It might be a case of “hey guys, I just got a budget to take us all to Thailand, let’s go do The Hangover Part 2.”

It could also be the fault of the writers. Craig Mazin is known for his work on ultra spoofs like Scary Movie 4 and Super Hero Movie. Scot Armstrong who has worked with Phillips before also took part in the creation of this film. Todd Phillips also has a writer’s credit on this film. I can’t even cut him a break of, “look, he was just the director he did not know what he was doing”. Nope his hands where on this steamer from start to finish.

From a filmmaker’s perspective there was nothing wrong with this film. It did a good job of putting the film together and making it work as a travelogue. But the big problem that holds this movie back is that they seemed to be resting on their laurels and coasted in on the back of the success of the first movie.

Here are the only funny parts that got a few laughs out of me.

WARNING!! THERE BE SPOILIERS HERE!!

When they take the monk back to the monastery and the younger monk beats the hell out of them because they will not stop talking, I found myself laughing that that. It had a fairly reminiscent feel of the scene in Hitchhikers Guide to the Universe.

I did like how Teddy (Mason Lee) made sure that the monk was ok during the street riot, which stood out to me. Not a funny scene but it was the only connection I had with any of the characters that were of my species.

Stu’s rendition of Billy Joel’s Allentown was good, and it was well done where Alan did not realize how pointed the song was.

Did you see this movie? On purpose?(Gasp)is someone holding you against your will? I want to know if you really liked this film or not. Post your response. Why did you like it or why did you not.