Search This Blog

Monday, December 21, 2015

THE GRINCH (JIM CARREY)

Well yesterday I reviewed the iconic and cherished animated Holiday classic by Dr.Seuss "How The Grinch Stole Christmas!”; now it's time for me to review the live action Ron Howard movie that stars Jim Carrey.

 Image result for How the grinch stole christmas jim carrey

As a kid around 7 who used to watch the cartoon of the Dr.Seuss story constantly, when I first saw the trailer and commercials for this movie, I was really hyped to see it. I didn't know who Jim Carrey was at the time, but the visuals looked cool; it looked like it was going to be very funny; and seeing this animated story being made into live action made me feel like it was going to treat me like an adult instead of a kid. When I saw it in theaters, I was blown away by it. I was literally laughing and enjoying every single visual from beginning to end. I loved it that much as a kid. When my Dad bought it for me on VHS, I began to watch this film more than the animated versions, and apparently everybody else around my age group seemed to have the same feelings and reactions towards the film. As time went by, this film along with "The Cat In The Hat" would be two film's that I would find myself enjoying from elementary school, to the start of High School. Once I started going to High School, I realized these films weren't good, but my nostalgia for these two films along with my love for adult humor from the actors starring in those films was so strong that I found them to be my guilty pleasures. Then as I got more and more grown-up and critical throughout my High School years; saw a few reviews of these films by my favorite Critic Doug Walker (Aka, The Nostalgia Critic); saw the crappy CG animated film of "The Lorax" that had me walking out in disgust; and started watching the original cartoons and reading the books by Dr. Seuss, I began to find out that these films are more insulting to the point where I was getting sick of them. I became so sick of them that I not only hated the new Seuss film realizing what sell-outs these films are, but my feelings and opinions for the live action version of "The Cat In The Hat" with Mike Myers went from being a guilty pleasure, to a film where I still to this day question how I ever got sucked into this film for so many years where I could be reading the book or watching the cartoon to make me feel like a kid again after all this time? It’s such an awful movie that my nostalgia and inner child doesn’t at all embrace it, but rather feels disgusted by it.

I'll admit it's been awhile since I watched the live action version of "How The Grinch Stole Christmas!" from beginning to end, and while I have my doubts that the film will fail to make me love it just as much as I did when I was a kid (Especially after seeing and reviewing the animated version), there's a chance that I might still find it to be a guilty pleasure. Yes it started the trend of insulting film sell-outs from the works of a great author, but it turns out that many people out there seem to love it more than the horrible Seuss movies that hit the big screen over the years. One of my favorite critics Lindsay Ellis (Aka, The Nostalgia Chick) admitted that this film is her number 1 guilty pleasure, despite knowing that it's a bad film that makes her feel dirty and doesn't at all have a nostalgia connection to it unlike most people who enjoy it. Even Doug Walker who helped open my eyes with the Seuss' films, understands how people could like this movie, even though he despises it. So maybe I myself might still fall under that guilty pleasure category. Is there any good in this film to make me still see it as a guilty pleasure; ON WITH THE REVIEW!

Inside a Snowflake is a world where creatures called The Who's live in who love to celebrate Christmas. However, a monstrous green furry creature called the Grinch who lives on top of the mountain overlooking the town of Whoville, hates it with a passion. After causing some pranks in the town of Whoville, The Grinch reluctantly saves a little girl named Cindy Lou from being crushed by a stamping machine after scaring her. After being saved by the Grinch and hearing the Grinch’s back story of why he hates Christmas, Cindy Lou believes that the Grinch still has a heart somewhere inside him and tries to find a way to make him love Christmas again. Meanwhile, the Grinch finally puts his foot down with the many years he had to put with Christmas and decides to dress up as Santa Claus and prevent Christmas from coming by stealing everything that has to do with Christmas.

Image result for grinch snowflake

Ok, before I start talking about Jim Carrey as the Grinch, I just want to remind you all that the whole entire story takes place inside a falling Snowflake. The idea of the Whos living inside Snowflake is undoubtedly a reference to the speck of dust that the Whos live in from the Seuss story "Horton Hears A Who", but I have to admit, this was an aspect of the story that I never bought into as a kid. It to me always felt like a pointless thrown in reference to another Seuss story where it's never talked about or analyzed again, nor does it make any sense for that matter. I know that sense and logic aren't the main ingredients of a Seuss story, but the Whos living in the dust speck in "Horton Hears A Who" played a major part of the story, where in this film it doesn't play any kind of role in the story aside from the fact that they live inside it. I also find it pretty scary that a culture of creatures live inside a falling Snowflake. Does that mean all the other Snowflakes have worlds inside them, and that every Snowflake that hits the ground or that we touch means death to the people who live inside it?! Ok, now I’m over-analyzing, but I'm just saying that this is a concept that honestly didn't at all feel of any importance to the actual story.

Image result for the grinch jim carrey

So the infamous Christmas hating monster is played by none other than Jim Carrey who is no doubt the reason why so many people watch this film. What really impresses me about Carrey's performance is the energy he puts into it. We all know how energetic Jim Carrey can be where it seems that he's naturally energetic instead of trying to be energetic, but seeing him getting covered in heavily detailed Make-Up along with a big and heavy furry green suit is a major step up to the game. I mean seriously, Carrey has to put a lot of over the top expressions and movements while wearing a heavy suit and heavily detailed Make-Up as he's being filmed under hot studio lights. That doesn't at all seem easy to pull, but surprisingly as Carrey’s being filmed he never for one moment shows any signs of his struggles with being energetic, which as a result makes his energetic performance look completely natural with no hard effort put into it at all. I honestly do give some serious props for Carrey with working with the suit and Make-Up. Speaking of Make-Up, as scary and at times pedophile as it looks, I will admit the Make-Up still looks freaking awesome! Unlike Myers' Make-Up in "The Cat In The Hat" where he still looks like Mike Myers, I can honestly never see Carrey's actual face under all that Make-Up. In personality wise I can see Carrey underneath it all, but when I look at his green and furry face, I honestly can’t no matter how hard I try. So despite being crap your pants scary, the Make-Up on Carrey is very impressive, as well as the suit itself looking like it's a part of Carrey instead of a suit.


Image result for grinch max getting kissed

Sadly though, despite having lots of energy while being covered in convincing Make-Up and a heavy fur suit, Carrey's performance sadly fails to capture the grump that we all know and love. Now to be fair, Carrey does express how his character hates Christmas and the Whos that live down in Whoville, but he does it in a more over the top comedic way where it's played out more for laughs than it does with emotion. I will admit that there were a few lines and moments where I got a good laugh out of Carrey, but sadly since he's always acting over the top and bouncing off the walls in every single scene he's in, his performance sadly comes off as obnoxiously annoying after awhile. There's hardly any subtlety in his performance, and when there is emotional subtlety it usually gets ruined by having him instantly going back to his over the top behavior in the same scene, or turning a touching smile on his face into something creepy or pedophile. All those elements can not only be found in the scene where he learns the true meaning of Christmas, but the scene itself drags on so much that it feels like forever before he starts bringing the presents back to Whoville!

Image result for The Grinch as a kid

The closest thing that the film ever comes close to making us feel pity or any type of emotion from the Grinch that's not over the top or creepy is his back story when he was a kid played by Josh Ryan Evans (Who in reality is 19 and looks that way because he suffers from a disease that makes him look and sound like a child). Evans' actually makes the character more sympathetic than Carrey makes his character out to be, while still of course keeping that mischievous personality. With that said however, the back story didn't really feel needed and just seemed like it was pretty much just put in the film to only lengthen it. I mean it could work since the Grinch is different from all the Whos, but the execution felt so rushed and lazily written in that you hardly feel the emotion out of this tragic back story, despite that Evans seems to care more about the characters emotions than Carrey or Howard does. The back story even leads to a few pointless characters and a downplayed subplot that the film could do without, but will get to that later. 

 Image result for jim carrey grinch

Aside from the back story and a few characters that came from that story (Again, will get to them later) feeling pointless, rushed, and unneeded, the film really drowns itself with elements that are only in the film to lengthen it rather than doing something smart and creative with it. Most of the scenes with Carrey goofing around and hanging out in his cave, as funny as some of those moments are, still feel shoehorned into the movie to give Carrey screen-time to goof around as his Carrey self, rather than trying to make you feel his emotions. The film tries on a few occasions to make you feel sorry for him, but really they're just comical moments where the emotion feels like an afterthought. Even some of his humorous scenes go on way too long, especially the scene when he tries to scare Cindy Lou. That was both torturous and desperate. The film also gives itself a completely pointless sequence where the Grinch is invited to a holiday festival by the Whos that adds nothing to the story and could just be completely cut out. It has its humorous moments, but it really, and I mean really feels very unneeded. I mean out of all the pointless subplots and sequences in the film that's only there to lengthen the film, this sequence marks as number 1! Did anyone else watching this sequence actually think that the event was going to change the Grinch and prevent him from trying to steal Christmas, despite that it's the title of the damn movie?! I was pretty much telling the film at that point to get to the traditional story already!


Image result for the grinch jim carrey

When the film finally starts to adapt the traditional classic Dr.Seuss story, even that aspect feels like a half-assed afterthought. The whole sequence of The Grinch stealing Christmas feels like they’re just banking on the fact that you saw the original cartoon and therefore doesn't have to try too hard with recreating it. The majority of the scenes that recreate the story are lazily just making the reference to the cartoon; using classic moments from the story to give Jim Carrey some unfunny dialogue that feels forcefully thrown into the scene to give it some kind of originality; and the new methods that the Grinch uses to steal Christmas aren't as creative as the ways of how the Grinch stole Christmas in the cartoon, despite having some good effects. Even Anthony Hopkins as the narrator in the film seems like an afterthought. I'm not at all saying Hopkins' narration is bad; he does a good job and seems to be very fitting for the role since he's a classy actor who's best known for playing a horror icon like the narrator in the cartoon Boris Karloff. I just can't help but get the impression that Howard just threw in a narrator because the cartoon had one and must get one for this movie and try to find a way to fit Hopkin's narration and the traditional quotes in the story that we all know and love, between Carrey's over the top behavior and the many scenes of pointless and lazily written filler. He seems better off narrating the story for a book on tape, or for one of those "Beginner Book Videos" instead of narrating the story for this film. Some of the scenes that the film adapts from the story don't even fit with the recreation of the story either. After we see the Grinch's back story, the narrator still questions why The Grinch hates Christmas; and in the scene when Cindy Lou sees The Grinch disguised as Santa, she's still somehow fooled by his disguise despite seeing him on numerous occasions. I know it's being faithful to the source material, but the way it's executed is done very poorly. Instead having the narrator question about why the Grinch hates Christmas after the back story, how about having him questioning it before the back story? Instead of the Grinch showing his face to Cindy Lou, how about just hiding him behind the tree like the film did earlier, despite his big long and green furry hands being a big give away? There are so many ways that these problems can easily be fixed to fit within the context of the story.

Image result for the grinch jim carrey

What really makes me cringe with disgust about the film are the adult jokes. Ok granted, I think the adult jokes in "The Cat In The Hat" with Mike Myers are more shameful than this film is with them, but this film is still just as bad, if not worse. Scenes like the Grinch landing in a pair of boobs; the Grinch's forcefully shoving his Dogs butt into a sleeping Mayor's face to get his ass kissed, as Max crawls away feeling rapped; and the scene when the Grinch says "Bitchin" are so painfully unneeded and are clearly just in the film to get a PG rating so the adults can enjoy this film, that it's despicable. This is the world of Dr.Seuss; does it seriously need to be adult rated?! As a kid I laughed, but now as an adult, I'm disgusted. As if the adult jokes don't feel forcefully unneeded enough, the film's pop culture references are just as forcefully unneeded. I hardly laughed at any of them, nor did I think they fit within the world of Dr.Seuss. Really, the cartoon makes me laugh harder than this film does, and that doesn't even have adult jokes or pop culture references.

Image result for Whoville Grinch 2000

Moving away from Carrey as the Grinch, how are the Whos? Well when we don't have to see Carrey's scary Grinch face, we have to face the Whos who are just as scary. Ok, I don't find them to be nightmare fuel or anything, but the Make-Up design that crosses between humans and creatures with pig-like noses and wrinkles all over their faces looks very awkward and unpleasant. At least Jim Carrey's Make-Up looks cool to look at; the Make-Up designs for these characters do not, or look as convincing as Carrey's Make-Up. The worst part about the Whos is they aren't as fun, cute, and cheerful as the Whos in the cartoon, they're actually kind of dicks! I understand that you can't make a community of creatures happy and cheerful for a full hour and a half movie, fair enough because it would get annoying pretty fast. But with that said however, the Whos are still awful creatures. I know they're supposed to be the reason why the Grinch hates Christmas, and that they're supposed to be a representation with how we see Christmas as a marketing tool, where in the end the Whos also understand the true meaning of Christmas; but it isn't done as effectively as the original story handled the Whos and the moral, if anything it feels just as half-assed filler like almost everything else in this movie that's not connected to the source material. First of all, this is the Grinch's story and journey about finding the true meaning of Christmas; not the Whos! Second, the way they celebrate Christmas and how they are to one another unlike the Whos in the original is very mean spirited, from making fun of the Grinch as a kid over something that isn't even funny; to being competitive and full of their-selves; to force feeding the Grinch their baked goods where he doesn't have time to even digest them. I don't want to celebrate Christmas with these creatures; I’d actually stay away from them. Third and finally, when the Whos start to learn the true meaning of Christmas, the delivery and execution of the message is so painfully slow, cheesy, and half-baked that it comes nowhere near as touching and effective as the way the message was executed in the original. Even as a kid I found myself bored and not at all touched by the film's execution of this great message. Seriously, the film's depiction of the Whos is ugly and bitter, while the message of the Whos also learning the true meaning of Christmas feels forced in as an extra moral that doesn't at all come close to touching or inspiring. As if the Whos aren't pleasant enough to celebrate with, neither is the world where they and the Grinch live in. When I think of the cartoon, I think of a bright and colorful imaginative environment filled with nothing but Christmas cheer. With this film on the other hand, I think of a dark and muggy environment with dim colors that doesn't feel cheery or beautiful to look at. Ok I'll admit, some of the sets do look nice, and the Christmas lights when the Grinch steals Christmas do look almost as nice as the houses you'd see around Christmas time; but sadly that pretty much doesn't save the fact that the world still looks like a wasteland full of butt ugly people that are annoying and mean spirited.

Image result for Grinch and cindy lou 2000

If the Whos are terrible that means the supporting characters are bad too right; pretty much so. Remember when I said earlier about a few pointless characters and a downplayed subplot from the back story that the  film could do without; well the Who Mayor (Jeffrey Tambor) and the town beauty (or whore most likely) Martha (Christine Baranski) are those characters. Apparently this film has a villain who is the town Mayor who bullied the Grinch since childhood, and is pretty much the main reason why the Whos are such nasty creatures. As a villain, he's not only boring, but his presence in the film feels like they needed him just as badly as "The Cat In The Hat" and "The Lorax" needed a villain. Seriously, why throw in a villain (An irredeemable villain for that matter) to make a world and story Black-&-White; the Grinch should be both the villain and the hero, that's what made the story so great! The town whore beauty plays out as a love interest for the Grinch that he's loved since childhood. Seriously we're giving the Grinch a love story. I wouldn't mind it so much if the relationship between the two of them was interesting, but it’s not at all. They hardly ever spend any screen-time together; we just know that they have the hots for each other and that's it. We know nothing about what they have in common; most of the screen-time with them together is the Grinch making perverted jokes about her, as she just stares at him; and we never see them try to reconnect after all these years. This is just as bad as the forced love story between Zac Efron and Taylor Swift in "The Lorax". The Grinch's partner in crime Max as much as I praise how well trained the Dog is I hardly felt any personality and character from the Grinch's faithful sidekick like I did in the cartoon. I know it's because the dog is real instead of being animated, but trust me, there are plenty of films out there where live action animals that don't talk can still give a lot of personality, when this film on the other hand doesn't. The only supporting character I liked and thought was trying harder than the rest of the cast is Taylor Momsen as Cindy Lou Who. I'm not at all saying her character is interesting because she isn't. Her character is the bland cliched person who doesn't understand Christmas and the traditions, and wonders what the true meaning of Christmas is and blah blah blah blah. She's basically like Charlie Brown in "A Charlie Brown Christmas", just without being interesting or fun. With that said however, you can tell that Momsen is trying really hard with her cliched role, and is maybe the only performer in the film who's taking the film seriously (Even more seriously than the film's director Ron Howard). Is her character interesting, no; is her performance memorable, aside from being cute, not really; is she trying, most definitively.


Image result for Grinch Whoville 2000

One of the popular things to have ever came out of this movie is the song "Where Are You Christmas?" and I'm going to be honest about the song, despite the fact that we hear the song sung by Faith Hill on the radio constantly during Christmas time, I’m actually not too crazy about the song as everybody else is. When Taylor Momsen sings it in the film, as much as she tries all she could to sing it, she sadly can't save the blandness of this forced and slow moving song. Even Faith Hill's version of the song I found to be pretty bland as well, despite being better than the actual film version. Sorry to disappoint some of you, it’s just that I never really found it to be a good or touching Christmas song. As for rest of the songs in the movie (With the exception of the Whos mercifully short "Boo Hoo" song) they’re the songs that you know and love from the classic cartoon, but just like the film’s references and jokes on the classic cartoon, it doesn't do anything special with the songs and instead just has Jim Carrey goofing around, while singing them. He goes from messing around with the classic Grinch theme song, to making fun of the words in the Who song "Welcome Christmas". These renditions to these classic songs don’t at all come close to hitting the same great note like they did in the cartoon, and the film doesn’t seem to try to make them as great as the original songs since Howard and Carrey clearly know that you know them by heart and that they aren’t ever going to be topped. So if you're not going to try to make the songs better (Which I don’t see that at all working), then why even include these songs? I will admit that the film's score by James Horner is pretty nice. As loud and over the top as the film is, Horner's score is probably the only thing that's ever nice and subtle about this film that hardly ever gets ruined.

So that's my review of "The Grinch", do I still think of it as a guilty pleasure? Well giving credit where credit's due, the Make-Up and suit that Jim Carrey has to wear is impressive to look at; the amount of energy and expression that Carrey puts into his performance while being covered with Make-Up and a furry green suit from top to bottom is amazing; there are a few times where I did find Carrey to be really funny; some of the sets and lighting looks neat; Anthony Hopkins does a good job with narrating the story; the score is nice; and I like how hard Momsen and Evans try to work with the roles that they are given that are written poorly. Still, I really can't at all say that this is a good movie, nor can I say that half of the stuff that I mentioned is something worth going back too. Carrey may look good in all that Make-Up and can bring a few laughs with his energetic performance, but his performance lacks any subtlety and just comes off as annoying and obnoxious where the jokes that made me laugh are too far and in between; the sets and lights may look pretty and neat, but it sadly doesn't save the world from looking like a dump; Anthony Hopkins maybe perfect for the narrator, but his presence feels like a forced afterthought; the score maybe nice, but it is still forgettable and nothing special; and despite the efforts from Momsen and Evans for trying to give a good performance, their characters and performances are still forgettable. There's hardly anything that holds up about this film. The stuff that doesn't follow the story feels like forced in filler, and the stuff that does have to do with the story is so half-assed and lacks the fun and creativity that the cartoon had that the film is pretty much telling you that the cartoon is better than this film. So if the film pretty much knows that the cartoon is better and is not going to try to be better, than why even bother remaking it? Everything in the cartoon was done ever so perfectly, where in this movie everything for the majority of the film is done poorly. Watching and reviewing both of these adaptations back to back, I can't help but feel that the cartoon version treated me more like an adult, while the live action version treated me like a child. I may have liked this movie as a kid, but looking at it now, aside from a few good jokes from Carrey that I still quote from time to time, it sadly doesn't hold up at all. If I want to see a green faced Jim Carrey making me laugh non-stop, while having creative colorful visuals, I'll watch "The Mask". If I want to watch a nostalgic guilty pleasure  that involves the Grinch, I'll watch "Halloween Is Grinch Night". If I want to watch an adaptation of the Dr.Seuss' story that's faithful, fun, creative, funny, colorful, imaginative, memorable, cute, touching, rich, meaningful, and nostalgic, than I'll watch the classic Chuck Jones animated version of the story.

RATING 1/5

No comments:

Post a Comment