The Nostalgia Critic Thread Lives Again!

[CensoredAlso]

The others are based specifically off the book, and technically not a remake... no more so than a Dracula film based on the book is a remake of the Bella Legousi one.

I always diagree with that. If it's a visual adaptation, then it's inevitably going to be compared to and influenced by the most well known visual adaptation. It's a remake as far as I'm concerned and doesn't deserve a higher title.

 

[frogboy4]

The Grinch is only good if you actually like Jim Carrey. I admit, I kinda like the concept of the Grinch wanting to steal Christmas out of anger of a hypocritical society that doesn't appreciate what Christmas is all about. I kinda liked Jim Carrey back then and thus found the film alright. I think the complete Seussian makeup was wasted on such a meh movie. That said, I refuse to give Cat in the Hat any more than the couple minutes I saw of it. The Grinch was at least watchable, Cat in the hat was... well, suffice to say, I'm sure a lot of people swore off hard drugs watching that.

Horton was decent, but I totally agree it's an ensemble piece. Actually, everyone BUT Jim Carrey was pure magic. Even the Charles Osgood narration... but Jim just sounded completely generic. Like I say every time, they just wanted the name. Matt Frewer would have done the movie for half the price. Steve Carrel pretty much carried the film.

Though I agree with Snowth. Was there any call for Jojo to be an at the moment emo? Who else thought the "we really never seen an anime" anime sequence was unnecessary? And I really want to like Katie, but she feels completely in the wrong movie. Still, I'd say Horton's much higher quality than Grinch, but they both suck compared to the Chuck Jones versions (even though the Chuck Jones Horton was done on the cheap, and reused a LOT of animation, including an entire sequence from The Grinch).

I have ABSOLUTELY no excitement for The Lorax. I love Danny Devito, he's one of my favorite actors... I cursed my local MeTV for cutting to infomercials and not showing Taxi. But there's just nothing appealing to me in this film. It has a pretty Seussy look to it, but overall, the previews just give me the same yawn every third party kiddy film does.

i love katie! she was the best part of the movie!

 

[Sgt Floyd]

I have ABSOLUTELY no excitement for The Lorax. I love Danny Devito, he's one of my favorite actors... I cursed my local MeTV for cutting to infomercials and not showing Taxi. But there's just nothing appealing to me in this film. It has a pretty Seussy look to it, but overall, the previews just give me the same yawn every third party kiddy film does.

Butting in to say the Lorax was my favorite Dr Seuss story growing up, and I'm not entirely sure I like where the trailer is going. First of all, I can't tell if they are trying to market it as a serious commentary or as a comedy staring a strangely violent Lorax. I loved Despicable Me, so I might be surprised, but seriously. It seems like the same principle as Cloudy with a Chance. Like...in name only. I'm old enough now to realize the deep messages in the Lorax, whereas when I was a kid, I liked it because it was dark and a somewhat more difficult read compared to other Seuss stories. I'm not really feeling that deepness here.

 

[CensoredAlso]

I'm not really feeling that deepness here.

You can say that about most remakes.

 

[Sgt Floyd]

You can say that about most remakes.

True dat, man

But anyway, I am a tad confused. Is the lumberjack guy supposed to be the Once-ler?

 

[Drtooth]

I always diagree with that. If it's a visual adaptation, then it's inevitably going to be compared to and influenced by the most well known visual adaptation. It's a remake as far as I'm concerned and doesn't deserve a higher title.

I don't agree on the basis that everything would then be a remake for being remade from the original book source as well. Remaking a film is one thing, but adapting a book will invariably lead to different interpretations. The Grinch movie was a remake of the cartoon, as it included elements exclusive to the animated version... I'd call Horton a remake as well if it incorporated even the musical numbers. But it's clearly using the book exclusively as a source. So technically it's more an adaption than a remake. Plus, let's be honest... The Grinch cartoon special got far more of an audience than the Lorax one did.

i love katie! she was the best part of the movie!

I want to, but it felt out of place. Seems like if that character was in Ice Age or some other original movie of theirs, the character would have fit in nicely. It's like putting red licorice on pizza. I like them separately, they tastes great by themselves, but together is another story. It's a slightly different type of humor than the rest of the movie. Plus it seems that she would have worked better if she was used more.

Butting in to say the Lorax was my favorite Dr Seuss story growing up, and I'm not entirely sure I like where the trailer is going. First of all, I can't tell if they are trying to market it as a serious commentary or as a comedy staring a strangely violent Lorax. I loved Despicable Me, so I might be surprised, but seriously. It seems like the same principle as Cloudy with a Chance. Like...in name only. I'm old enough now to realize the deep messages in the Lorax, whereas when I was a kid, I liked it because it was dark and a somewhat more difficult read compared to other Seuss stories. I'm not really feeling that deepness here.

Tricky thing, those 90 minute film adaptions of kids picture books. Chapter books give you wiggle room... but to stretch out something that takes 10 minutes to read to fit a film, you wind up having to add stuff that takes away from the source material... even if it's a GOOD movie. Shrek added a bunch of passive aggressive Anti-Disney concepts (the prince who was a thinly veiled caricature of Michael Eisner) and other stuff to basically a slim story about the ogre that didn't want to be feared and the annoying talking donkey that wanted friends. They changed the rest of the book completely, including the stuff about the princess. In the book, she was always an ogre. There was no curse... and she fell in love with Shrek in a very Oscar the Grouch sort of way. Cloudy, as I complained about before, trashed the source material by explaining an unexplained phenomenon from a grandfathers story... and by doing it in such a banal way. Where the Wild Things Are played it too safe and wound up with a result that's enjoyable only on the level of child psychology and stream of juvenile consciousness. I still look at that movie as the lucky one.

The Lorax is a very specific, though simple concept. Everyone ignored the little creature that said "be careful" and it lead to a major environmental crisis. It has a very sharp anti-consumerist message to it (wait till we see all the crummy Lorax products out there), and it manages to say something important in a pretty bleak way. This is why I'd hate a Butter Battle Book movie. They'd kill all the important dark satire (Butter Battle Book was a love letter to Reagan's international defense policy and the milked for opportunity by both sides Cold War in the 80's), and just make a blanket "liberal Hollywood" message that will annoy those who feel it's their God given American right to drive gas guzzlers and toss their soda cups out the window. But it's not going to change anything or open any eyes. It's going to stand up as a plasticky hypocritical message to say "SEE? We're doing good."

 

[Sgt Floyd]

I'm surprised i did not address it in my last post, but the thing that bothers me about the Lorax is that the character seems like a vehicle for Danny Devito's humor. The trailer seems to make the Lorax violent. The Lorax was not violent.

 

[Drtooth]

The Danny Devito Lorax I could take. It's just the tone of the movie that bugs me. From what I read, it's like the entire story of the Lorax turns into an anecdote in a very generic story. What's special about the Lorax is buried under every kiddy CGI movie by a third party company in the past 10 years.

There is something to be said about what they're going for. In the book/TV special, without the Lorax, everything's a dark, smoggy wasteland. In this film, everything's completely artificial. While that does speak to our society and ho0w artificial everything is now, I don't see it as an improvement. I'm sure they explain that they think they're better off without the Lorax... but it just seems like a concept that undermines the concepts in the book. Even if it was a little bleaker, not even Wall*e bleak, it would have worked better. But then again, I'd have to see the film (or more of it) to really fget a feeling for what they were going for.

 

[CensoredAlso]

While that does speak to our society and ho0w artificial everything is now, I don't see it as an improvement. I'm sure they explain that they think they're better off without the Lorax... but it just seems like a concept that undermines the concepts in the book.

Exactly it's like how they completely changed the Grinch story (and not for the better, heh).

 

[D'Snowth]

Now that I've been able to catch up on some of what I've been missing on my old computer, I notice lately Doug's been doing a lot more reviews just as himself rather than as his Nostalgia Critic alter ego... maybe I've still missed something, is he simply trying to do something new/different (since a lot of people have been saying NC hasn't been the same lately), or has he said anything about why or what? I'm just curious.

On a side note, Doug, as himself, seems like a pretty laid back, cool guy... he does still seemed to get flustered easily, though not quite as quick-tempered as NC.