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+
No comments:
Post a Comment