Theatrical Review of Dr. Seuss' Horton Hears a Who!

---

Tools:
Send to a friend »

---

On the surface, "Dr. Seuss´ Horton Hears a Who!" is a fun, decently paced animated adventure based on a 1954 book. Dig deeper, as some groups and critics have, and a whole new side to the story comes to light: the oft-repeated "a person´s a person, no matter how small" seems to suggest an anti-abortion approach by the good "doctor," not to mention a more ethical debate about standing up for the little guy. Seuss´ widow, Audrey, has maintained there was no political motive in creating the story, just the desire to create an entertaining read. There is one inalienable conclusion, regardless of the story, when it comes to Dr. Seuss on the big screen: stay away.

Horton, a slower elephant, comes across a speck on a flower in the jungle. Just as he´s about to carry on with his day, he hears yelling coming from the speck. Turns out, there is an entire world there with a thriving civilization, children, families, businesses and a government. The elephant, with some prodding by the mayor of Whoville, is determined to find a safe place for this society, away from the many dangers he sees in the jungle. But before he can set out on his quest, a purple kangaroo-the leader of the jungle, as it were-intrudes on him. He must get rid of the flower-and Whoville-or else leave his home forever. Keeping in mind this is a children´s movie, what do you think Horton does?

Yes, I did advise staying away from this latest version of the "Horton" story (it´s previously been a TV special and a Russian production). Not because it´s bad like the Jim Carrey version of "The Grinch Who Stole Christmas," but rather because it´s too long. A story which has fit into under 30 minutes in the past is stretched past it´s breaking point here, to nearly 90 minutes. Seuss adaptations work best when the story on screen flows as quickly and effortlessly as the story on the page. That´s half the fun of his work, after all. The rhyming and speed at which everything happens. Instead of remaining a tight piece of fiction, events are elongated to such a point when the inevitable conclusion comes along, there is no sense of accomplishment, only one of joy that we´re finally done. Maybe the film will play better at home. I just can´t shake the feeling the finished product is too long by about half.

Now, I´m not one of those people who demands a movie adaptation strictly adheres to the source material. It is acceptable to make creative decisions about what works and what doesn´t work on the screen. However, entire scenes and conversations seem like complete filler, someone´s brilliant idea of how to make a short children´s story feature length. I sincerely doubt Seuss went into exquisite detail about the Mayor´s children or spent any amount of time talking about their daily routines. Of course it fleshes out the universe a bit and that´s never a bad thing in film, yet here all it does is add a chuckle or two. Nothing substantial to the proceedings.

Unsurprisingly, Jim Carrey again takes part in a Seuss theatrical (he played the Grinch in the misbegotten 2000 live action flick). His vocal talents and range fit in with animated fare better than they do in nearly all of his other "real" endeavors. As Horton, Carrey plays not only a "small" elephant, but also any number of variations. From a new version of "What a Feeling" at the end of the picture to confident and angry, we´re never reminded of the actor, only the character. The same can be said for Steve Carell´s Mayor. Come to think of it, none of the voice actors stand out as anything but the character they play-except, perhaps, Carol Burnett. And she´s only noticeable due to the fact she plays the Kangaroo character as herself. One only has to imagine her pulling on her ear during a monologue.

The rest of the voice cast, from Amy Poehler ("Saturday Night Live") to Jonah Hill and Seth Rogen, "Clean House"s Niecy Nash and Jesse McCartney, get lost in their dialogue, not once betraying their true identities. "Horton" is one of those rare animated films with A-list casting which doesn´t call attention to itself. Carrey is the undeniable star here, though he shares the spotlight with each of his fellow actors without stepping on their toes.

Since this is an animated film, it wouldn´t be right to leave out discussion of the computer generated images. In brief, the finished product looks polished and refined, though misses details we´ve come to expect from these types of movies. Yes, the rippling water in a stream and it´s accompanying reflection are a joy to look at from a movie making perspective. Close ups on Horton´s toe nails reveal a worn look. Both of these details, and many more, are welcome additions. But in contrast to any of Pixar´s films (especially last year´s "Ratatouille"), "Horton" can´t measure up in any way. Whereas Remy the rat´s hairs bristled with the slightest gust of wind, little Morton´s blue hair or Kangaroo´s purple generally stays in one place unless there is a story reason for it to move. Horton´s skin, similarly, doesn´t provide the wealth of texture I expected, either. Looking at a human´s skin-or that of an elephant-is like looking at a living jigsaw puzzle. That is what we should have seen here. I wouldn´t call this sloppy animation…just shy of being lifelike.

Our theater at just after 11 am on a Saturday morning on the second weekend of release was full of children and their families. The only time any of the young ones had a hard time was in a particularly dark sequence involving Kangaroo and Vlad the Vulture. The combination of sharp teeth, a dark locale and a plot to destroy Horton´s speck was apparently too much for some kids to handle, based on their reactions. Otherwise, they seemed to relatively engaged by the movie, though I have to wonder how much was staring in amazement at the colorful images and not following along with the plot itself.

In the grand scheme of Dr. Seuss theatrical adaptations, "Horton Hears a Who!" is better than both of its predecessors. Almost by default, it had to be, seeing how abysmal the others were. I´ve yet to see a film which tramples all over a beloved children´s classic like Ron Howard´s "Grinch." Indeed, that isn´t the loftiest goal for a film-to be better than either "Grinch" or "The Cat in the Hat"-but so be it. I recommend the book first and foremost (despite not having read it) and even the 1970 animated version (again, sight unseen). This outing, while inoffensive, remains too long and bloated for what should be a simple story. A 5 out of 10. Adjust according to your tastes.

---

---