Horton hears a Who

    I still remember a David Letterman top 10 list a long while ago that was children's stories made dirty, and one of the top ones was Horton hears a Whore… I'll admit it made me laugh a lot. I have always loved Dr. Suess and I have up until this point absolutely loathed Hollywood's attempt to cash in on his work. I think Grinch is a horrible bastardization of the original, and I cringe every time I think about Jim Carrey using the word "bitch" towards the end. Theodore Giesel would not approve and that pretty much ruined all hope of me ever showing it to my kids. Cat in the Hat was a potty gagged, insipid movie that sucked in every possible way and I grew more and more convinced that Suess could not be translated to the big screen.

    So why did I see Horton with such low expectations? Good reviews from a few friends, and a lot of hope in the animation and faithfulness to the source material I saw in the trailer. Jim Carrey has redeemed himself, breaking even on his performance as the indomitably good spirited elephant of the title. This movie is one of the best non Pixar animated films out there. The humor is very well done, ranging from obvious to subtle, to guffaw inducing non-sequiters like a little yellow puffball named Katie whose eyeballs are sort of free floating in her skull and who is constantly doing the oddest things. A brilliant bit of animation there. The story isn't all that complex, and doesn't try to be, a relief from all these films that try to add more and more material to bloat the source up for a full length feature. This didn't feel forced at all and as a result the flow of the movie is flawless. If I had one criticism though it would be that some of the cultural references, although they are very very funny, seem equally out of place. At one point Horton imagines himself a kung fu warrior and the audience is treated to a 2-d anime homage that is a spot on parody of that genre. I laughed pretty hard at that, but couldn't help but feel like it kind of broke the mood that the movie had set up to that point. A small problem to be sure. Like I said, it made me laugh so I am not all that upset about it.

    I am a huge animation fan, I have a good chunk of what would be considered the dawn of animation in my collection, easily a couple hundred hours worth of stuff. It has made me sad that 3-D animation using computers has taken over. Largely because I think it has led to a certain laziness with the storylines, and characterization, and at times the true art of animation, the facial expressions and focus on making a non-existent character seem real has just failed outright on soooo many occasions. Pixar has been the only studio up to this point that has consistently done a good job. Dreamworks, who made this film, along with Ice Age, and the Shrek films is getting there and I think there is genuine competition going on now which can only be good for us the viewers. Kung Fu Panda from Dreamworks looks promising, and Wall-E from Pixar looks like pure genius so I am starting to soften on the whole issue. As long as there are more Horton's than there are Robots and other crap like it I will be happy.

    What makes Horton successful is Dr. Suess original art given life. The devotion to the source is a love letter to the author and his unique artistic style. Horton is Horton with those trademark ears. There is not one really recognizable animal even though we know that the kangaroo is a kangaroo. She is purple and somehow not entirely Kangarooey at all. The same goes for the monkeys, the giraffe's and every other kooky creature in the bunch. I believe this is a movie that Dr. Suess would actually be proud of, and it is a movie I would love to show my kids after they memorize the book. It's nice to see something… well… nice for once. A movie that doesn't take a piece of my childhood and exploit it for financial gain. If you loved Horton as a kid, you'll love it now as big kid.