How the Grinch Stole Christmas (2000)

Ah, it’s that time of the year again. The most wonderful time, if you’re so inclined. Because of that, I thought of no better way to celebrate then with one of Dr. Seuss’ most beloved stories: How the Grinch Stole Christmas. Oh wait, this is the crappy remake.

You might be wondering why I chose not to call this movie Dr. Seuss’ How the Grinch Stole Christmas (2000) in the title of this post. The reason is because this film in no way properly represents the ideas of Dr. Seuss. So I refuse to say this is Dr. Seuss’ story, because it isn’t. In fact, this movie seems to be ashamed it’s based on a Dr. Seuss story. If that’s the case, why not just make your own story?

Anyway, I’m sure you probably read the excerpt I wrote for this review. Yes, it’s true, this used to be my favorite Holiday film. I watched it an uncountable number of times as a kid, and even made a tradition to watch it in pieces on the days leading up to Christmas itself. Part of it was also because I share an unfortunate kinship with this movie. It came out in the year 2000 and I was born that same year around the Christmas Season. So, like it or not, I’ll always be connected to it.

All of that’s really embarrassing since I now see this movie for what it really is: a crazy, unfaithful, annoying, ugly, and drug-induced retelling of a classic story.

To be clear, I don’t blame all of it on Jim Carrey. In fact, despite how grating his character can be, I respect his physicality to work through the pounds of makeup he’s constantly covered in. If anything, that’s probably still my favorite aspect of the film. Besides that, it’s all downhill. What specifically does it get wrong, though?

Well, let’s take a trip back inside the snowflake, for some reason, and climb Mount Crumpit to find out what the deal is with How the Grinch Stole Christmas (2000).

Before we get too far, let’s break it down. This is a 1 hour and 37 minute film based on a 25 minute long special based on a less than 30 page book. So, there’s a crap-ton of filler in this. I wouldn’t mind so much if this movie was up-front about this to begin with, but it calls itself Dr. Seuss’ How the Grinch Stole Christmas. Going in, with that title in mind, it sets us up to expect a faithful adaptation of the original story. However, the actual movie is anything but.

[NARRATOR] *Inside a snowflake, like the one on your sleeve,*
*There happened a story you must see to believe.*
I’m immediately lost.

In both the book and 1966 Boris Karloff version, Whoville was never in a snowflake, so even as a kid I didn’t understand this. There was another Dr. Seuss book, “Horton Hears a Who,” which dealt with a civilization of Whos living on a dust speck, but that’s the closest connection I can make and it still doesn’t explain the snowflake decision. In fact, there’s no real reason to do this in the first place.

Each of Dr. Seuss’ stories were self-contained and took place in their own worlds that didn’t need to be explained. Through the actions and interactions between characters, we were able to understand both what was happening and the underlying message. The whole snowflake thing just seems like a cheap way to get children more closely connected to the movie. Needless to say, it never got me to look at snowflakes differently.

Wait, we haven’t even gotten to the story yet. Don’t worry, because the movie doesn’t even get to the story until nearly an HOUR IN!

What are you even doing for the first 59 minutes?

[ANSWERING MACHINE] *You have no messages.*
*Odd.*

*I merely noticed you were improperly packaged, my dear.*

*Hey, stranger, won’t let you go ‘til you buy a chapeau.*

Yeah. THIS is what takes up two thirds of the film. It’s gonna be a long movie. With that said, you now know why I won’t call this film Dr. Seuss’ How the Grinch Stole Christmas. Okay, so maybe the story isn’t the most faithful, but at least the characters are truly timeless. No, just no.

Remember how in the original there were only three characters the story touched on which kept everything more focused? Well now, let’s throw in a bunch of dead-weight characters that make this story a shadow of its former self. We of course still have the Grinch, Max the Dog, and Cindy Lou Who, but we also have several others.

There’s Cindy’s mother and father, Martha May Whovier, and Mayor Augustus May Who. What do they add? An excuse for filler.

Good golly, what’s wrong with their faces?!
…Oh, I’m being told this is to make the movie “more authentic.”
Why not just *make it more authentic* then?

You can make it look like the original story all you want, that doesn’t make it the original story. Sure they look similar in a side-by-side, but one of these things is not like the other:

*Maybe Christmas…perhaps…means a little bit more!*

Either way, we were talking about the characters. Cindy’s father (played by Bill Irwin), Lou Lou Who (it’s very funny), is the easiest of the unneeded side characters to like. This is mostly because he’s the only one who kinda gets Dr. Seuss’ original intent behind the story. However, he still has to spell it out for the audience by the end.

*I don’t need anything more for Christmas than this right here: my family.*
How is the picture book aimed at ***kindergartners*** more subtle than this?

Cindy’s mother, Betty Lou Who (played by Molly Shannon), is pretty much the comic relief. Her only goal in the film is to have the best Christmas light display in Whoville and nothing ever comes of it, so why should we care? Whenever we see her, she’s usually taking her Christmas display way too seriously resulting in moments like this:

*I just found the cutest light for my Christmas display.*
[distant crash]

*Hurry up, we’re gonna be late.*
Ah, the sounds of fatal car crashes fill me with Holiday cheer…
Also, it’s probably not the best idea to carry egg nog on your head like that.

Martha May Whovier (played by Christine Baranski)…I think is high 24/7.

*HiiiiIIIiIiiIIiiIIiiiI.*
…Oooookaaaaaayyy.

Pretty much every line she says sounds like she smoked 40 joints before shooting. I’m inclined to believe that this is an instance of misguided directing, because I recall Christine Baranski being a talented actress. Even for her relatively small role in the film Chicago I still enjoyed her performance, but this -

*Did I have a crush on the Grinch? Well, of course not!*
- is painful.
Also, you heard right, Martha May is the Grinch’s love interest.
Because that’s what I’d expect a hard-boiled, bitter recluse to have: a love interest.
Lastly, can we straighten the camera please?
I’m getting *Battlefield Earth* flashbacks.

Making Martha May the Grinch’s love interest is just a half-baked attempt at making Martha May more important to the plot. Also, to make the filler feel less like filler despite the fact it’s definitely filler. Anyway, the last character they added is the Mayor of Whoville, Augustus May Who (played uncomfortably in hindsight by Jeffrey Tambor).

This character is the easiest to dislike, because, like most unpopular politicians, he’s a pretty big jerk. He was a bully at school, he abuses his assistant, he reprimands other people’s children, and he treats women like trophies. You can’t fault good casting. I have a problem with this character because he’s more hateable than the character you’re supposed to hate. When did this character ever have a song dedicated to how bad he is? NEVER! Put some mother-loving respect on the Grinch’s name!

Besides these random people, how’re our core three? Accurately represented? Not really. I’ll start with the main man himself, the Grinch (played by Jim Carrey).

While some aspects of his original character are still there, they’re greatly exaggerated for the sake of ear-splitting humor and physical comedy. A great example of the character disconnect is what he says immediately after the close-up above. Tell me if this is something the Grinch should be saying:

*I guess I could use a little…social interaction…*
While that is a true statement, social interaction is great for your mental health, this is not something **the Grinch** should want.
In fact, it’s the exact **opposite** of what the Grinch should want.

The whole thing about the Grinch is that he hates the Whos and wants to stay far away from them, not throw himself into attention-grabbing mayhem. Once again, I can’t say I fault Carrey for this, he was likely just told to “do his thing” while he was on set as opposed to create a three-dimensional character. Rarely it can be funny, but since nearly all of his scenes involve him either jumping around like a kid who desperately needs Adderall or screaming like he just got circumcised, it gets annoying pretty quick.

*Is my sub-zero chillibrator running? I suppose…*

*Maybe you need a time-out…*
Yes please, do us all a favor.

The main reason I don’t blame Carrey for this is because I understand the discomfort he had to endure while on set. While you don’t see an ounce of it in the finished product, Carrey was incredibly uncomfortable acting underneath the pounds of makeup he was covered in. It was so bad that he even had to go through special training to prevent himself from going insane and every day they shot he had to remind himself “It’s for the kids…” So, in this instance, I don’t think it’s the actor.

More proof of this is the Grinch’s motivation. What was it in the original? Noise, feast, singing, screwy head, tight shoes, heart atrophy, etc. Point being: you don’t really know. I’m okay with that. The Grinch was just a grumpy guy who hated seeing people happy and wanted to put a stop to it any way he could. In the movie though, they actually try to make him relatable.

…

WHAT?!?!?!?!?

**EEEWWWW, NO!**
**PLEASE**, never show that again!
You think this is Grogu and it just isn’t.

Apparently he never had a family of his own, is a freak of nature, was bullied in school by our ever-loving Mayor, and was laughed out of class resulting in his hatred of Christmas. I think… It’s weirdly harder to follow this than the original. At least in the original it’s consistent with how mysterious his hatred of Christmas is, but here they try to make up their own backstory for him while also merging it with the original and it makes no sense.

In the movie, ever since he was born he appeared to have a clear distaste for Christmas, but for some reason this one bullying moment pushes him over the edge. Yet they keep bringing heart imagery back in as a returning object like that has some bearing on his character even when they clearly established it…doesn’t?

**AAAAAAAHHHHHHHH!**
Sorry, I’ll focus.
*Santa, bye-bye.*

[NARRATOR] *And what happened then? Well, in Whoville, they say*
*That the Grinch’s small heart grew three sizes that day.*

***I! HATE! CHRISTMAS!***
So, **which one is it then?**

If you wanna just make your own version of the story, fine. At least I could commend you on trying something risky and it didn’t work, but go all the way with it. Don’t go halfway and call it good, that’s just lazy. Speaking of lazy: Cindy Lou Who (played by Taylor Momsen in her first role). While she has an expanded role in the film, she still leaves little impact. Sure, in the original she was just the innocent child put in to offset the Grinch’s mean personality, but they don’t add anything to it in the film.

Her role is instead to contemplate the true meaning of Christmas. Wait, isn’t that the Grinch’s job?

[shaky and whisper-y singing of “Where Are You Christmas”]
Who’s the person that said “Dr. Seuss needs more Faith Hill?”
Also, Cindy Lou can’t sing.

Yeah, the point of the original was for the Grinch to realize the true meaning of Christmas through the act of stealing it from the Whos only for the Whos to show him Christmas can’t be stolen. So…what does this add to Cindy’s character? More excuses for filler. Yeah, this movie thrives on its filler, doesn’t it? They show her trying to get the Grinch involved in the Whos’ celebrations only for it to fail at every turn. Well, those are minutes of my life I’ll never get back.

You could say she’s young and naive, but she’s actually not. Apparently she’s able to climb mountains in 5 minutes and can sneak away from her parents with ease. However, she is dumb. Despite seeing the Grinch several times before Christmas Eve, when he starts stealing Christmas, she, for some reason, doesn’t recognize him.

In the original, she had an excuse. She was 2. Now they try to make her this smart, quick-witted girl which just makes this scene even dumber. Also, showing Cindy Lou with the Grinch several times before this moment totally ruins the point of it. Cindy was never meant to be more than a passing character who tests the Grinch’s attitude, now she’s blander than Jake Lloyd.

To the movie’s very little credit, the most consistent character in the movie is Max the Dog (played primarily by Kelley).

He’s loyal (because he’s a dog), but he still prefers to enjoy Christmas and be optimistic even if his master doesn’t which is just like the original Max. Also, I have to admit that Max is the only character that can get some legitimate laughs out of me. Save for this one moment.

I’m now convinced that the children’s film industry exists only for adults to explore extremely specific fetishes.

To tie this review together, there are only a couple more things I’d like to talk about regarding this movie. The first is the overall look of the film. I have to admit that some of the sets can be pretty impressive and creative, but on the whole, it’s still pretty disgusting. Why? Observe the colors. Compare the colors of the poster to the colors in the actual movie:

Who smeared grime and *The Matrix* all over the lens?

I don’t know who the color corrector was, but they should’ve been fired. Also, just take a look at some of the images from the 1966 animated special.

Every scene, no, every **image** is bursting with color and personality. It practically ***demands*** your attention.

This is what a kids movie would look like if it wanted to **mug** you.
What kind of kid would want to watch this?

I guess I would…

With that out of the way, let’s close out this review by taking a closer look at this film’s “faithfulness.”

I think the faithfulness of this movie can be summed up like this:

*They’ll eat their Who-pudding, and rare Who roast beast*
*Which is something I just cannot stand in the least!*

*I’m speaking in* ***rhyme***!
Yeah, **you should be!**

I will admit, I’m not completely against a remake diverting from the original. There are some key caveats to this though: you need to make changes that make sense given the original’s setup, you can change the protagonist like you’re telling the same story from a different perspective, and/or the original’s message can be challenged in a way that makes you think more deeply about the original and what it means from a modern perspective. Does this movie do any of these things? I think you know the answer.

More than anything, this movie is a horrific hodgepodge of unfunny jokes, half-baked morals, insane visuals, and annoying characters. However, I’d be lying if I said I completely hate it. There was still a kid at one point who enjoyed watching this movie every year around the holidays, and that kid is still inside me a little bit. As I’ve gotten older, I’ve grown to realize the carnival of terrors this movie truly is, but because of my love for it in the past, I can’t help but feel nostalgic whenever I see it.

Do I recommend it as a heartwarming holiday flick? No. Not even a little. If you do want something good to come out of it though, I do recommend the film’s soundtrack. That’s probably my favorite thing about the movie. I’ve always been a fan of music, and despite everything else, this soundtrack is pretty Christmas-y even if the film itself most assuredly is NOT.

So if you want some holiday cheer this weekend movie night…read or watch the original.

I knew this would happen eventually, but I still wasn’t ready for it. This film gets a 1/5 Dr. Seusses (that’s the plural of Dr. Seuss). When I thought about it, there are still a few things here that I like. As I mentioned previous: Jim Carrey’s physical acting is impressive even if it gets old quick, the soundtrack is really good, the sets are ambitious though shot abysmally, and it can rarely get a laugh. Other than that, don’t bother.

(I make no claim of ownership for any of the images used in this post)

(Each of them are owned entirely by their respective copyright holders, which are not me)

(I’m just a humble blogger who talks about movies, I do not make them)

(Yet)

WHAT?!?!?!?!?

A Christmas Carol (2009)

Annie