Contact movie critic Carol Cling at ccling@reviewjournal.com. By CAROL CLING ADVERTISING Boo-ray for Hollywood — they’ve got no excuse For distorting yet another classic tale by Dr. Seuss. “The Lorax” is the victim this time around, And while it’s hardly
By CAROL CLING
Boo-ray for Hollywood — they’ve got no excuse
For distorting yet another classic tale by Dr. Seuss.
“The Lorax” is the victim this time around,
And while it’s hardly the worst Dr. Seuss movie to be found — “The Cat in the Hat” claims that title for the ages —
“The Lorax” falls short of the original’s pages.
Then again, maybe short’s not the right word to use,
Considering how bloated this new “Lorax” proves.
Dr. Seuss’ story was a quiet, simple one,
More poignant and thoughtful than giddy-up fun.
The movie’s too busy adding characters to the mix,
From air mogul O’Hare to the Once-ler’s family of hicks.
The scheming O’Hare, who’s voiced by Rob Riggle,
Is occasionally good for an up-to-no-good giggle.
But he seems awfully familiar — no coincidence there,
Because “The Lorax” is clogged with parts best described as spare.
“Despicable Me” comes to mind, for a start —
“The Lorax” has the same directors and writers, if not half as much heart.
It’s too busy tossing in action designed for 3-D —
Perhaps to distract us from thoughts of “Wall-E,”
Which explored the same themes with more wit and grace.
“The Lorax” would rather play its in-your-face ace,
With frenetic slapstick to lighten the mood
And chances for DeVito’s Lorax to act amusingly rude.
But he’s never as funny as he’s meant to be,
And he keeps disappearing, like one more Truffula tree.
So instead of a wistful, thought-provoking fable,
This “Lorax” wears a light-hearted, once-over-lightly label.
That’s not necessarily bad, just disappointing to note
If you treasure “The Lorax” that Dr. Seuss wrote.
Contact movie critic Carol Cling at ccling@reviewjournal.com.
