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,