‘Lorax,’ a Seuss classic, may disappoint

Danny DeVito plays an interesting interpretation of the Lorax.
Danny DeVito plays an interesting interpretation of the Lorax.

I wouldn’t call “The Lorax” disappointing, but I did finish it wishing that it could have been better. Don’t get me wrong, as a stand-alone movie, it holds up pretty well.

It has an obvious moral tale, it sets up the story and delivers, and if I hadn’t been in love with the book that it is based off of, I probably would have very few issues with it.

So, before I say anything else, please watch this movie. It’s worth it.

But let me go on a short rant about the importance of the book (if you disagree or think that I only place a high value on it because I loved it growing up, I understand, but I don’t really care).

Dr. Seuss, I hope most of you agree, was often brilliant. I don’t just say this because he’s virtually the most prolific writer of children’s books of all time, but because his work (at least to my memory) was often heavy with some moral message, while at the same time rich with wit and rhyme.

To me, “The Lorax” was the pinnacle of his work. There was such a dark undercurrent in the book, that the first time I read it, at age 8, I was a little bit uncomfortable.
Something is lost in the movie.

It holds up to the environmental theme and understandably adapts a somewhat modern plotline, but it just can’t get close to the magic of the book.
Danny DeVito brings a spark to the movie, and directors Chris Renaud and Kyle Balda do a good job at telling Seuss’s classic, but if you’re crazy about the book, beware. This movie doesn’t bring it to life.

On a more positive note, I would recommend this as a fun movie with a decent morality tale, that is worth paying a buck for at your local Redbox. It’s pretty funny and entertaining and I’d go as far as to give it four out of five popcorns, despite it not living up to my childhood dreams.

About Brendan McGrath 49 Articles
Editor-in-Chief