Horton Hears a Who!

I saw both of these TV specials as a kid. I was 8 when How the Grinch Stole Christmas! premiered and 12 when Horton Hears a Who premiered.

And I wondered then and wonder still As children do and adults will

If those kind Whos in the Grinch's show Are the same that Horton hears, you know?

Then this would mean to one and all That Whos are not the only ones small

And that big, gruesome, greedy Grinch Who seeks the Whos' Yule for to pinch Is towered over by an INCH!

Did Seuss mean for Whoville to be The same in either show we see?

I've pondered this and ponder still As adults may and children will

The Whos we meet in Grinch's show Are kindly folks we'd like to know

But those we see mock Dr. Whovey Are arrogant and not so groovy!

Seuss never linked the Whos for us So you may ask why I make fuss

I simply think his brain sublime Would create different pronoun rhyme If those Whos weren't the same, cor blime!

This is a great and well-made cartoon for children.

Growing up in the '70s, I had vague, but favorable memories of animation like "Horton Hears a Who", "The Lorax", "Dr. Seuss on the Loose (the Sneetches)", and "Rikki Tikki Tavi". After having children of my own, I took up the mission of finding, acquiring and viewing these films with my kids. I discovered all of these children's books converted to animation withstood the test of time and were loved by my boys as much as they were by me (maybe it's a male thing).

These cartoons had two things that 21st century remakes (e.g. Tim Burton's "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory") don't have: 1.) they respected the original but built upon it (Dr. Seuss/Ted Geisel and Chuck Jones complement each other with their own unique contributions); and, 2.) they focused on well-founded ethical points that many films today lack. Writers and directors today could learn something from these animated features. Namely, when producing films targeted at children and their parents (e.g. "Shrek 2"), subtlety, and a good story beats ostentatious effects and double entendre wisecracks any day.

My intent is neither to trash the remakes that are ubiquitous in Hollywood (I liked "Shrek", "Shrek 2" and "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory"), nor is it to wallow in the nostalgia of my childhood. It simply is my opinion that these old cartoons deserve a second look. If you enjoy illustrated entertainment like comics, children's books and cartoons you (and your kids) will enjoy "Horton Hears a Who".

Dr Seuss was one of my childhood favourites and I still have a big soft spot for him now. Of the animated adaptations of his work, almost all are absolute gems and show an utmost respect for it. And Horton Hears a Who is no exception. The animation is bright and colourful with beautifully rendered character designs(they are also true to the illustrations in the book), and the songs deliciously catchy. The writing and rhymes are relatively simple(in a good way) as well as witty and very easy to get in your head. The story is zippily paced, upbeat and charming with a nice message, which is exactly what Dr Seuss should be like, and it doesn't suffer from too much padding or useless scenes. The ending is also very heartfelt. The characters are timeless and always engage you, and the voice acting especially from Hans Conreid is terrific. Overall, a treasure, every bit as good as the book and deserves its place among the other animated Dr Seuss adaptation classics. The Jim Carrey animated film I also found entertaining and easily the best of the feature length adaptations, but I'll always prefer this. 10/10 Bethany Cox

While some might say that "Horton Hears a Who!" was mostly a funny story for children, I notice a similarity to an earlier cartoon which Chuck Jones - who would have turned 95 today - directed: "Punch Trunk". That one portrays a tiny elephant accidentally ending up in a major city, and anyone who sees it is considered insane (though it really does exist in the cartoon). In this cartoon, Horton befriends the microscopic citizens of Whoville but everyone else considers him crazy. Not only do both stories involve elephants, but they both depict beings which most individuals would probably never imagine existing but really do exist (in the cartoons, that is). What to make of this? Maybe I'm reading too far into the cartoon. Dr. Seuss and Chuck Jones probably intended for the story to mostly be entertainment for children, and it is quite enjoyable. I recommend it.