So much invective, so many hurt feelings on this one. Bad press and word of mouth followed this movie around like the plague upon its release at Thanksgiving, 2000. On one level, of course, I can understand it; "Grinch" certainly didn't need the big-screen, live action treatment - the simple half-hour cartoon is, and always will be, a classic unto itself. But exactly because that version is in no danger of going away or being forgotten (or - perish the thought! - replaced), I for one was able to be more generous and forgiving when watching this movie. Oh hell, I might as well admit it - I watched it at all pretty much explicitly to see what Jim Carrey was going to do with the lead role. On that score, I was not disappointed; he took the basic character sketch that is the Grinch and embroidered it with all manner of tics, impersonations, and over-the-top shenanigans. As usual, if you're no fan of Carrey - and broad humor in general - there's nothing here that will convert you. Me, I'm constantly astonished by his resourcefulness and creativity, as well as the almost superhuman energy he brings to every role. Here it's especially impressive, as he coaxes a pulsing life force to come through layers and layers of prosthetics. In fact, it occurred to me, watching the film, that if anyone could be a modern day Lon Chaney, it would be Jim Carrey - I could see him making a good career out of bringing life to a rogues' gallery of monsters, grotesques, and other costumed or heavily made-up characters. It would in fact seem the natural extension of his talents and inclination; if there's ever been anyone constrained by the notion of being a "normal" person, it's Jim Carrey. But by the same token, no one - not Jack Nicholson in Batman, not Christopher Lloyd in Who Framed Roger Rabbit?, not even Paul Reubens as Pee Wee Herman - has seemed so at home projecting the weightlessness and exaggeration of a cartoon existence more fully than Jim Carrey. This is no easy trick by any stretch of the imagination, and I hope for all our sakes that he'll always at least keep his hand in this style of performing; there's many who can do "realistic" acting (in varying degrees of quality, of course) - there's precious few, maybe no one else currently alive, who can do what Carrey does.
As to the movie itself: is there anything here beyond Carrey's performance that makes it worth seeing? Not really. But then again there's nothing that really gets in the way, either. The sets and the basic look of the movie are reasonably well done: nothing overtly memorable, but not the ugly and barren wasteland many reviewers have suggested. Taylor Momsen as Cindy Lou-Hoo is suitably cute in her part without being insufferable (and on that score let's not forget that even Dr. Seuss's Cindy Lou was impossibly precious and saccharine in the first place) and she develops a nice rapport with Carrey that helps anchor the film. The backstory which "explains" the Grinch and how he became that way . . . well, yeah, it's stupid, but it also doesn't take up much time, so if you just twiddle your thumbs for a few minutes you can get through it without too much pain or discomfort.
But many objected to the film on the basic grounds that its portrayal of the Hoos was an abomination; that it took the simple, good-hearted creatures of the Dr. Seuss original and turned them into lunk-headed and materialistic busybodies - in essence, caricatures of Yuletide soul-lessness and consumerism. Personally, I think it's an interesting change. Seuss's heart was always more with Grinch's cynicism and disgruntlement anyway, so it makes sense to pile on those qualities in an extended treatment of the story. Furthermore, while the Hoos as paragons of perfect virtue and simplicity works OK in a 22-minute treatment (especially one where we don't see much of them), there's something fundamentally false and unsatisfying about it. After all, even in the original tale, these people *are* pretty ostentatious and materialistic in their celebration of Christmas. It makes sense to me that they - just as much as the Grinch - would need a reminder in what the true meaning of the holiday season really is before they would lovingly burst into song at the prospect of a Christmas without any presents or decorations. And, of course, this makes them closer in conception to the average American, and thereby more identifiable and accessible (if necessarily less admirable). Especially since, as I've said, this new version doesn't wipe out the old one, I think the change in the Hoos is utterly defensible and adds an interesting wrinkle that the film can truly call its own.
So that's the Grinch, circa 2000 - no big whoop, but no big travesty either. And if you like Jim Carrey, another notch on his belt of impressive performances. That's really all you need to know.
As to the movie itself: is there anything here beyond Carrey's performance that makes it worth seeing? Not really. But then again there's nothing that really gets in the way, either. The sets and the basic look of the movie are reasonably well done: nothing overtly memorable, but not the ugly and barren wasteland many reviewers have suggested. Taylor Momsen as Cindy Lou-Hoo is suitably cute in her part without being insufferable (and on that score let's not forget that even Dr. Seuss's Cindy Lou was impossibly precious and saccharine in the first place) and she develops a nice rapport with Carrey that helps anchor the film. The backstory which "explains" the Grinch and how he became that way . . . well, yeah, it's stupid, but it also doesn't take up much time, so if you just twiddle your thumbs for a few minutes you can get through it without too much pain or discomfort.
But many objected to the film on the basic grounds that its portrayal of the Hoos was an abomination; that it took the simple, good-hearted creatures of the Dr. Seuss original and turned them into lunk-headed and materialistic busybodies - in essence, caricatures of Yuletide soul-lessness and consumerism. Personally, I think it's an interesting change. Seuss's heart was always more with Grinch's cynicism and disgruntlement anyway, so it makes sense to pile on those qualities in an extended treatment of the story. Furthermore, while the Hoos as paragons of perfect virtue and simplicity works OK in a 22-minute treatment (especially one where we don't see much of them), there's something fundamentally false and unsatisfying about it. After all, even in the original tale, these people *are* pretty ostentatious and materialistic in their celebration of Christmas. It makes sense to me that they - just as much as the Grinch - would need a reminder in what the true meaning of the holiday season really is before they would lovingly burst into song at the prospect of a Christmas without any presents or decorations. And, of course, this makes them closer in conception to the average American, and thereby more identifiable and accessible (if necessarily less admirable). Especially since, as I've said, this new version doesn't wipe out the old one, I think the change in the Hoos is utterly defensible and adds an interesting wrinkle that the film can truly call its own.
So that's the Grinch, circa 2000 - no big whoop, but no big travesty either. And if you like Jim Carrey, another notch on his belt of impressive performances. That's really all you need to know.