Placeholder Image

Subtitles section Play video

  • - [Strider] Howdy!

  • When it come to animated movies

  • that at least claim to be based off a book,

  • we can sometimes get a movie

  • that brings a new life to the original book,

  • bringing the book's original message

  • out to a brand-new audience.

  • But sadly,

  • we also get plenty of miserable, cash-grabbing,

  • watered-down garbage piles

  • that desecrate the original author's writing.

  • And honestly,

  • we've got an interesting chunk of both this time.

  • So let's check out

  • the Top 5 Best & Worst Book Book-based Animated Movies.

  • And of course,

  • if you do have a differing opinion on these movies,

  • that's great!

  • It's just my silly personal opinion,

  • and I'd love to hear what you like or dislike about these movies

  • in the comments below.

  • Also, I'm excluding Disney,

  • as many of their animated movies are...

  • loosely based on books.

  • Anyway, onto the countdown.

  • For the fifth-worst...

  • "The Lorax".

  • (Bar-ba-loots chanting)

  • - [Once-ler] Haha, that's great!

  • - [Strider] Well... (sighs)

  • let's start with what is probably

  • the most bright and shiny Dr. Seuss remake

  • with no inherent soul whatsoever within.

  • Every question,

  • every silent thinking moment

  • the viewer was given in the original book

  • and the original movie

  • is filled out with fairy floss,

  • oversimplistic, pusillanimous pap.

  • The city of Whoville is made of rubber,

  • which is an excellent representation

  • of how this movie feels.

  • Like it's rubber and artificial.

  • Instead of a thought-provoking tale

  • on the impact we have on our world around us...

  • - Wow.

  • What does that even mean?

  • - [Strider] ...we have your typical

  • cutesy tale about a boy named Ted

  • trying to win a kiss

  • from a girl named Audrey.

  • Who also HAPPENS to be an environmentalist.

  • Voiced by...

  • Taylor Swift?

  • - Did your ball land in my backyard AGAIN?

  • - [Strider] Jeebus,

  • how do the world's most powerful public figures

  • keep ending up with such bland film roles?

  • Are we going to get Obama voicing

  • Generic Cat #2 next?

  • Though that actually sounds pretty awesome, I'd...

  • probably go see that.

  • Anyway, Ted is off to bring her

  • a real tree from the Once-ler.

  • I don't suppose he could

  • genuinely care about not seeing the world turn into

  • a flaming dumpster pile?

  • No?

  • Fine.

  • - [Old Once-ler] Do you want a tree?

  • - Yes! Yes...

  • - So now, with the Once-ler,

  • we've got dancing bears,

  • painfully floundery and meaningless

  • song and dance sequences.

  • Like, seriously.

  • Why do we need a long guitar song from the Once-ler

  • about Truffula Trees?

  • - ♪ These Truffula Trees

  • are just what I need

  • - [Strider] Even Danny DeVito,

  • who plays the Lorax,

  • couldn't quite bring the charm to the movie for me.

  • And I like to hear him in a reserved role.

  • Though the movie probably is better off with him than without him.

  • And what do we get in the end?

  • A completely happy, oversimplified ending

  • that completely misses the point

  • of the original "Lorax" story.

  • In fact, they even gave us

  • a big corporate bad guy

  • to tribe against and hate.

  • (sarcastically) No, no,

  • we can't have the viewers

  • question their own way of life

  • and what they take for granted!

  • No! Because our shareholders say

  • that might deter future viewers!

  • It might make them uncomfortable!

  • The message of the original "Lorax"

  • is that there IS NO BAD GUY!

  • We all play a part.

  • And that we alone can make a change in ourselves

  • and perhaps slightly better the world for tomorrow.

  • But nahhhhh!

  • Bring in the big bad corporation guy

  • to stupid down the plot.

  • - ♪ Let it die, let it die,

  • let it shrivel up and--

  • C'mon, who's with me, huh?

  • - The original Once-ler

  • isn't just an unrelatable supervillain.

  • He's a reflection of ourselves.

  • He's potentially you,

  • and he's most certainly potentially me!

  • There's not a lot wrong with this movie on a technical level.

  • I mean, the CG will probably lure you in.

  • But there's nothing behind that CG

  • but an ugly defilement of the original message

  • in a time where that message

  • is more important than ever.

  • And the fifth-best book-based animated movie is...

  • "Horton Hears a Who".

  • Ahh, now THIS is more like it.

  • In terms of Dr. Seuss remakes,

  • I consider this the best of all.

  • I mean, look at the design of these characters.

  • This is about the best CG depiction of Dr. Seuss

  • I've ever seen.

  • Unlike "The Lorax",

  • the characters are vibrant and different

  • while not being too obtrusively garish.

  • The colors aren't so overly-saturated

  • I feel blinded every time I look at the screen.

  • I like the small details,

  • like how the Mayor tiptoes across the floor,

  • or the pleasant design of their eyes.

  • There's a real gentleness and grace to this animation style.

  • Jim Carrey plays Horton,

  • and, like Danny DeVito,

  • I actually enjoyed hearing him in a more reserved role.

  • - No... please, no!

  • Ohh... this isn't fair!

  • - You wouldn't think a giant grinning elephant

  • would be a relatively reserved role,

  • but Jim Carrey makes it work.

  • What I like about this "Horton" movie

  • is it actually keeps the original Dr. Seuss message intact.

  • The story still encourages kids

  • to acknowledge the potential insignificance

  • of our own existences

  • without being too confronting.

  • This is illustrated great

  • through the tiny, tiny city

  • that Horton is holding.

  • And it does this message

  • while still keeping it very lighthearted.

  • And Seuss's original message of facing skepticism

  • is also kept intact.

  • And when every Who in Whoville

  • has to speak up

  • in order to save their tiny world,

  • it's just as memorable in the movie

  • as it was in the book.

  • (whooshing fanfare)

  • - [Crowd] We're here!

  • - For the... two people who don't know,

  • Horton's a pachyderm that finds a tiny microscopic world

  • on top of a clover.

  • And it's up to Horton and all the citizens of Whoville

  • to save their society from extinction.

  • Unlike the "Lorax" remake,

  • there aren't excessive pop culture riffs here.

  • But there's still a sense of

  • modern realization to it.

  • It also keeps that sense of rhyme-rhythm

  • from the original Dr. Seuss book.

  • - Hello?

  • - [Narrator] And by noon,

  • poor Horton, more dead than alive,

  • had picked, searched, and piled up

  • 9,005.

  • - But most importantly,

  • it doesn't water down the message

  • Dr. Seuss tried to convey to the reader.

  • I mean, it's a 90-minute Dr. Seuss book,

  • so there's gonna be a bit of movement

  • purely for the sake of

  • entertaining kids and filling time,

  • but to me, it's a drastic improvement

  • over "Lorax" and "Grinch".

  • "Horton Hears a Who" is creative in design

  • and faithful in spirit.

  • Blue Sky Studios are to be commended for this adaptation.

  • And for the fourth-worst...

  • "The Grinch". The 2018 version.

  • (sighs) Don't get me wrong,

  • this is perfectly well-animated and serviceable on the surface,

  • but JEEBUS it's a whole lotta' nothin'!

  • If you do like this one,

  • I get it.

  • There's nothing offensive about it.

  • But that's just the thing,

  • there's nothing offensive about it!

  • This Grinch is so weak and inoffensive

  • that I barely remember anything about him.

  • I guess if you want a child-friendly version

  • of an already children's book character,

  • maybe "The Grinch" is appropriate?

  • Well, this is the most demure, tame Grinch

  • you will ever lay eyes upon.

  • Unlike the books or movies from the past,

  • he's no longer a diabolical monster,

  • he's the ultimate example

  • of watering down a character

  • to be as inoffensive as possible

  • to the largest possible audience.

  • Because...

  • I guess that's what the shareholders wanted.

  • In fact,

  • he rarely even ever looks angry.

  • A lot of the time,

  • he just looks outright bored.

  • The Grinch himself looks like he's in a

  • permanent state of boredom,

  • unable to even summon the energy to be angry.

  • It ALMOST made me miss the Jim Carrey Grinch.

  • At least he gave an interesting

  • if cringeworthy performance.

  • At least it was memorable.

  • I still remember that tablecloth scene.

  • (footsteps)

  • (cloth slipping, metal clattering)

  • (metal clattering)

  • Don't get me wrong.

  • Benedict Cumberbatch, a.k.a...

  • - Doctor Strange.

  • - Oh, you're using the made-up name.

  • - [Strider] ...reads his Grinch lines fine,

  • and I find it entertaining to listen to him.

  • But that's because he's Benedict Cumberbatch.

  • - [Grinch] Let me guess.

  • Small child, December 20th, rapidly searching for

  • a "really important" lost letter.

  • Maybe your list of demands to Santa?

  • - [Strider] This Grinch doesn't

  • shut himself away from humanity,

  • becoming more bitter and twisted

  • from his isolation.

  • Nope!

  • He just strolls around town

  • like anybody else.

  • But oh no!

  • He causes minor inconveniences!

  • This is not a fearsome mountain-dweller

  • who could turn on you at any second.

  • It's a slightly crotchety neighbor

  • who probably just needs a friend to chat with

  • down at the pokeys.

  • Oh no, he slightly poked that snowman too hard.

  • Oh, woe is me.

  • To me,

  • this is just an hour of inoffensive Grinch padding

  • with very talented actors

  • with nothing to work