Dr. Seuss' The Lorax 3D Review, or Dr. Seuss is Turning in His Grave
 |
| YouTube |
Let's start off with...
The 3D Review
I've heard people comment on my 3D reviews, saying that they've had a lot of nosebleeds, because they found the reviews to be too technical and jargon-filled. That's because the 3D part of the review was meant for stereographers and people interested in stereo photography. So you can just skip to the regular review.
 |
|
"Move along now... move along." |
All I have to say about the 3D for The Lorax is... not bad. Good job, Illumination entertainment. But in one shot, when the subject went out beyond the screen plane, the stereography was too strong. The separation was too great, it was unnatural, and thus a strain on the eyes. But that was just one shot.
And now, we go on to...
The Regular Review
Just how true to the source material should an adaptation be for it to still be considered an adaptation?
 |
|
"You tell me!" |
I don't really know how true you have to be, because I don't really know the gauge for measuring truth. I rely more on feel. If it feels more or less like the book, then the adaptation works. Or if the film elicits from you the same emotions as the original, then it works as an adaptation.
This film, therefore, does not work as an adaptation.
If we go by feel, then this obviously fails. It feels nothing like the book. The story is definitely set in the modern world, and no amount of crooked architecture will make it feel like a Seussian world (I just made that word up). The human characters aren't even drawn in the Seussian style.
 |
|
Too pretty by half. |
If we go by emotions, then this film fails as well. The original book had the feeling of whimsy, of wonder, and of straight-up Seussian senselessness. If you got any of those emotions while watching this film, then I'd like to ask what you've been smoking, and I'd like to have some of that.
Basically, the only things that looked legitimately from the Dr. Seuss universe were the trees, maybe the houses, and the annoying goldfish.
 |
|
"We have teeth!" |
My point is, since this film has departed quite far from the book, it can actually stand alone as an original work in itself, which is a movie about caring for the environment.
And for that, you don't need the Lorax anymore.
 |
|
But you still need a villain with a really bad haircut. |
Dr. Seuss' The Lorax. USA. 2012.
Rating: Six out of ten.
0 comments :
Post a Comment