How the Grinch Stole Christmas (2000)

As Christmas approaches (and hopefully isn't stolen by the Mayan calendar) we were given an assignment in English class: Write a critical review of the grinch. Best assignment ever. Here it is in it's entirety. Merry Christmas.


I’m submitting a new title for the movie. It’s called “How The Grinch Stole Two Hours of My Life”. While there’s a certain audience for this movie, and I’m not included in it, I don’t think Ron Howard or anyone else working on the film knew who that audience was. It was like watching a rhinoceros attempting to juggle; it failed miserably. 

The film opens on a snowflake when, with a closer look, turns out to be the small town of Whoville. On it rests the materialistic society of the Whos (no pun intended) who uphold Christmas with the same fervor Americans uphold 4th of July. It defines the Whos and their lifestyle. Only one person in Whoville (more like near Whoville) despises Christmas. His name? The Grinch (Jim Carrey). An outcast as a child, the Grinch has hated Christmas since he stuck his neck out on the line for Martha May Whovier (Christine Baranski) and was ridiculed for it. He lives in constant hatred of the Whos and their atrocious holiday until one day, a little girl named Cindy-Loo Who (Taylor Momsen) gives him the benefit of the doubt and invites him to enjoy Christmas with the Whos. Odd though, the film only focuses on ‘How the Grinch Stole Christmas’ for about 15 minutes. The majority of the film is focused on the despicable way the Grinch lives his life, while the Whos enjoy the pleasures of Whoville. That’s where the trouble begins.

That’s not to say the film didn’t have it’s moments. A couple scenes when the Grinch, who as Roger Ebert describes him “looks more like a perverse wolfman than the hero of a comedy,” breaks the fourth wall completely are well played (Ebert). Even the Grinch’s best moments are faulted though, seeing as the majority of the audience, children, won’t understand this joke. While I know they’re trying to appeal to a larger audience, that humor doesn’t need to be there. There are many references, including one to the film’s own director, that take away from the experience.

Roger Ebert also describes the films aesthetic aspects spot on. “What is strange is how the inspiration of his drawings has been expanded almost grotesquely into a world so unattractive and menacing,” (Ebert). The oddest portion of the film comes in the Grinch’s lair. It shows him snacking on glass bottles, with everything looking one shade of green or another. The color correction was done to capture the Christmas-y feeling, although all that was accomplished was a thin haze in every shot.

While the film doesn’t entirely deliver, certain portions do. There’s something to be said about a fearless actor, Andy Serkis in ‘Lord of the Rings’ and Sharlto Copley in ‘District 9’ are two of the best examples. Jim Carrey is obviously the stand-out in this film due to the very same fearlessness both Serkis and Copley portrayed. He does an outstanding job in this film, given the material. The problem is, no one else rises to the occasion. Every other actor or actress in this film, especially Taylor Momsen, plays the cuteness of Who’s and Whoville. This goes back to the films main problem; little to no balance. 

A terrible aspect of HTGSC is the annoying, redundant, cliche theme that centers around the entire film. “Christmas isn’t about the gifts, it’s about each other.” “We don’t need presents to make us happy.” “If we sing at the end, everything will turn out alright.” There’s nothing new about the Grinch’s plot, which is good when you’re marketing to small children but, again, the inadequate job of balance makes the substandard plot boring and repetitive. 

While certain features work in HTGSC, the cons far outweigh the pros. Jim Carrey’s performance can only carry so much of the film, and it’s already carrying too much. It strains under the dead weights of unnecessary dialogue, overused themes, and a bar set almost unreachably high. A rare miss in Ron Howard’s directing life. D+

Lone Ranger Trailer #2 Reaction

This summer I had the incredible opportunity to visit the set of the “Lone Ranger” and work as a PA for the visual effects team. I can’t say much about what I saw, so I’ll let the trailer speak for itself.

The most prominent feature of the footage is the aesthetically pleasing atmosphere Gore Verbinski uses in his films. It can be seen in the Pirates of the Caribbean series and his Academy Award-winning animated film “Rango”. 

Another constant theme in his films is the use of Johnny Depp, which no one can really complain about. He’s one of the most fearless actors out there today, which makes him perfect for the role of a Native American sidekick with a bird on it’s head throughout the film. 

While the aesthetically pleasing aspect is incredibly important to notice for this film, the underlying dark tone of this trailer looks to be another crucial element in this adaptation. The first and most obvious example of this would be seeing what looks to be the Lone Ranger’s (Armie Hammer) only family get torn away from him, which also seems to happen to Tonto (Johnny Depp) later on in the trailer. This trailer shows to hurt heroes looking for justice, much like Batman and Robin. Also like Batman, this modern adaptation is much grittier than the rest of the franchise.

The film will rely heavily on Armie Hammer and Johnny Depp’s chemistry, which we got a little taste of on the subject of Armie Hammer’s “resurrection” from the grave Tonto buried him in. There isn’t much chemistry to see in this trailer (mainly because of how action-driven it is), so we’ll have to wait and see in the coming trailers, or just wait for July 3rd, 2013.

I have a few doubts about this film; how far it’s been pushed back, how over-budget it’s gone, but most all of them were put to rest with this trailer. I’m stoked for this film and the only thing the trailer has done is fan the flame. I’ve got faith in Jerry Bruckheimer and I have a fondness for Gore Verbinski’s directing style, not to mention my enjoyment of Hans Zimmer as the composer.

All I’m hoping for is that this film is compared to the Dark Knight trilogy. A darker toned adaptation, with a fine cast, and a well-suited lead. From this trailer, I can’t wait to see more, hopefully before next summer.

Trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JjFsNSoDZK8

Star Trek Into Darkness Trailer

Shots that are completely out of context, with a blaring horn section, and a british voice over (done wonderfully by Benedict Cumberbatch). This is a routine, yet effective teaser trailer for a big budget summer movie like this. While there still isn't much known from the trailer, we can learn this much. The USS Enterprise shouldn't be taking a bath.

The trailer begins ominously with shots of Starfleet Academy. Captain Kirk looks to be receiving some sort of commemoration, most likely for the battle with Nero and the Romulans in the previous film. We're then shown a moment where Kirk and Bones are jumping off what seems to be a giant red island, connected to other red reefs. All this with Benedict Cumberbatch whispering about how their world isn't safe. 

By the end of his monologue, we're finally given a good glimpse at Cumberbatch's character, one who looks nothing like I thought he would. It still isn't completely clear who he is, but one thing does become clear. This is a villain with a purpose, to extract vengeance on someone for something. 

From there we're shown shots of the rest of the crew including Spock brandishing a phaser, Uhura, Scotty, some falling crew members (red coats, we can assume), and a classic shot of the main cabin sparking up whenever the Enterprise is hit.

All in all, this is a perfect teaser trailer. One that captures the dark tone of the second film while not giving much away at all. Hopefully by the time I see the prologue in the Hobbit it'll all become a little more clear as to what's going on.

Trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7gUwH14wsbc

Ashton Kutcher as Steve Jobs

A new photo has emerged of Ashton Kutcher in the new film “Jobs” as... well, Steve Jobs, the late co-founder of Apple Inc. I have many doubts about the film “Jobs” and the release of this picture only adds to them. I don’t think the problem is Kutcher not looking enough like Jobs, but looking way too much like Kutcher with a beard. I hope his performance makes up for the lack of Jobs-esque he displays in the released image. I can’t judge anything about the story seeing as there’s still no trailer or any footage, but so far I’m still quite skeptical about their casting move.

Poster Reactions 12/3/12

Today, Warner Bros. released posters for two of it’s most anticipated movies of the year. The first was Zack Snyder’s “Man of Steel”. 

The poster reminded me of Loki being voluntarily captured in “Avengers”, not only due to the way they both were cuffed in front, but also the fact that either one of them could have easily avoided the situation. Loki was voluntarily captured, which we later found out was part of his master plan. The same could be said for the man of steel. Those handcuffs are about as much of a threat as an abandoned car is to Godzilla. That being said, the handcuffs could be made of Superman’s only weakness. Or maybe it’s a lack of that good-old-planet-earth-yellow-sunlight that has the son of Krypton looking about as defenseless as Lois Lane in, well, any situation Lois Lane is put in. 

But there seems to be a much larger question lurking in the haze of the poster. Why is Superman being captured in the first place? Especially by what looks to be soldiers from the planet he’s come to protect. And what’s up with the gleaming chip he seems to have on his shoulder? All this talk about soldiers and shoulders is giving me a headache so, let’s move on to the second poster released today.

While there aren’t many things known about Star Trek Into Darkness, or any things to be learned from the poster, you can take a few things from it. The crew of the USS Enterprise is going up against a one man army, much like Batman in “The Dark Knight Rises”. 

Although the more striking impression from this poster is that the marketing team at Warner Bros. seems to be fresh out of ideas for summer blockbuster posters. 

A destroyed building forming a well known symbol of hope is also reminiscent of TDKR. Either the symbol of hope will “rise” out of the destruction, or it’s the symbol that is literally being destroyed. In TDKR’s case, it was a little bit of both, which could mean that “Into Darkness” will follow it’s path. While I don’t think that’ll be the case, I have a feeling this villain (played by Benedict Cumberbatch) will try to break Captain Kirk, or quite possibly, all of Starfleet Academy. 

Star Trek showed the forming of a crew, Star Trek Into Darkness looks to test the crew’s teamwork. A team that has already shown they’ve got it in themselves to fuel a franchise that will “live long and prosper”.