The Grinch (2018) review

When it comes to children’s literature, easily one of the most famous authors of all-time was Theodor Geisel, better known through his pen name, Dr. Seuss. From 1937 up until his passing in 1991, he wrote and illustrated more than 60 books that were hailed for their imaginative imagery and wonderful rhyme-based writing, thus paving the way for classics like The Cat in the Hat, Green Eggs and Ham, and Oh the Places You’ll Go. And easily one of his most famous creations was the Grinch, a furry, green creature who despised the holiday season. This character first made his debut in Seuss’ 1957 effort, How the Grinch Stole Christmas. Less than a decade later, Geisel teamed up with legendary animator Chuck Jones for a 26-minute television special that has continued to be one of the most beloved Christmas specials of all-time. The Grinch would then see new life on the big screen in 2000 thanks to a live-action adaptation that was directed by Ron Howard and starred Jim Carrey in the title role. This one, however, was a bit more controversial amongst critics and audiences. While it does still have its fans (namely those who were kids when it first came out… including me), it wasn’t as well-received as its animated counterpart. But now the ‘mean one’ known as ‘Mr. Grinch’ is back in a second feature film adaptation, this time as an animated feature courtesy of Illumination Entertainment, who had previously adapted Seuss’ 1971 story The Lorax in 2012. And although their last foray into the world of Dr. Seuss didn’t turn out so well, this new one works a lot better as a charming little family flick even if it’s still just the same story that we know and love at the end of the day.  

In the peaceful town of Whoville, one holiday is revered more than anything else, and that is Christmas. Every year, the Whos of Whoville go all out with their holiday celebrations, which become even more extravagant this year when the Mayor (voiced by Angela Lansbury) declares that they will have a Christmas that’s three times bigger than anything they’ve ever had before. But while everyone in Whoville likes Christmas a lot, the same cannot be said for the Grinch (voiced by Benedict Cumberbatch), a miserable loner who spends most of his time in his mountain lair looking down in disgust upon the town. For the past 53 years, the Grinch has hated the holiday season with a burning passion; a hatred that primarily spawned from all the time that he spent alone at the local orphanage when he was a kid. And when he learns about the Whos’ plan to make their Christmas celebration even bigger, he decides that the time has finally come to do something about it. His ‘wonderful, awful’ idea? Dress up as Santa Claus, find reindeer to lead the sleigh, sneak down into Whoville, and steal all their presents and decorations. Thus, with the aid of his loyal canine companion Max, the Grinch begins working on his plan to give the Whos the worst Christmas that they’ve ever had. Meanwhile, down in Whoville, a young, innocent Who named Cindy Lou (voiced by Cameron Seely) initiates a plan of her own to aid her overworked mother Donna (voiced by Rashida Jones) by finding the one and only St. Nick.

If there’s one thing that you can never fault Illumination films for, it’s for having bad animation. While I do love the live-action Grinch film with Jim Carrey, I will also admit that Dr. Seuss’ creations work a lot better in animation than they do in live-action, and the animation team at Illumination did a wonderful job in replicating Seuss’ style through the locales and character designs. As for the story, though, don’t expect anything new from this classic story. While it does do a different spin on the Grinch’s backstory and Cindy Lou Who’s role in the plot, it’s still the same premise and overall outcome through and through. But for what it’s worth, the film manages to work around this thanks to its laid-back tone and some decent bits of humor here and there. Ultimately, though, the best aspect of the film is Benedict Cumberbatch in the title role. Admittedly, when the first clips of him voicing the character were released, I was surprised to see that his Grinch wasn’t adopting the English accent that was originated by Boris Karloff in the 60’s special and then used, in part, by Jim Carrey in the live-action film. Instead, he goes for a more Americanized accent, but it’s still a solid take on the character and Cumberbatch works well with the film’s humor. Aside from him, there’s a notable supporting turn from SNL vet Kenan Thompson as the overly jolly Who Bricklebaum that the Grinch continually crosses paths with. And as for Cindy Lou Who, I appreciate that this film did the same thing that the live-action film did by giving her a more prominent role in the story. Instead of her struggling to understand the meaning of Christmas in an increasingly commercialized time, her arc in this film is a sweet one as it sees her just trying to find Santa so that he can do something nice for her overworked mother Donna (sadly, Rashida Jones doesn’t get much to work with here).  

Now I went into this film with far different expectations than most people. I think it’s safe to say that a lot of people went into this hoping that it’d be a better feature film adaptation of The Grinch compared to the previous one. But as I’ve noted before, I’m part of the crowd that grew up with the Ron Howard/Jim Carrey version, and I’m not afraid to admit that I still love it. Thus, when it comes to this new version, I was just curious to see what it’d be like compared to its predecessors. And while I do have my doubts about this film going on to maintain as much of a legacy as either of its two predecessors (yes, folks, the live-action Grinch does have somewhat of a positive legacy… even if it depends heavily on who you ask…), this version of The Grinch is still a cute little animated flick. This is, of course, primarily due to Benedict Cumberbatch clearly having a lot of fun in the title role and some gorgeous animation that does a nice job paying tribute to Seuss’ iconic visual style. At the same time, though, there isn’t that much different about this film in terms of its story compared to previous adaptations. And yet, even with that said, I was surprised by how this was a far more restrained affair compared to other Illumination projects. At the time that I’m writing this, I’ve only seen three Illumination films (this, Sing, and The Lorax) and have usually had the impression that they can often be a bit too wacky for their own good. But as for this film, aside from maybe one or two dips into modern-day references, it surprisingly may just be the most respectful adaptation of a Dr. Seuss story to date. And yes, considering some of the previous film adaptations of Seuss’ work (e.g. the infamous live-action adaptation of The Cat in the Hat starring Mike Myers), I know that this isn’t really saying a lot, but I will give this film credit for, at the very least, keeping it simple.

Rating: 3.5/5

Top 5 Disappointing Films of 2012

As we near the end of the year, it's time to start looking back on the year in movies. My lists of the worst and best films of the year won't be coming for a few weeks, but today I decided to do a different list. Why? Well, 2012 was actually such a great year for movies that, when looking back on the films I have seen this year (not counting any re-releases), I feel that I have only seen one truly godawful film all year, meaning that I can't really do a 'Top 5 Worst Films of the Year'. Unless I do see some of the 'bad' films that came out this year, most of the films I would have put on that list would have been films that I actually did like. So, here are five films that had a lot of potential but in the end failed to meet expectations. For the record, I didn't necessarily dislike any of the films that are on this list, but in the end, they just didn't work in some way. So, with that in mind, let's get started as I count down the Top 5 most disappointing films of 2012.

 

Starting off this list is a movie that sadly came from one of the most respected film studios working today. Last year, they released what many call their first 'bad' movie and while this film received better reception, it still wasn't up to par with the company's greatest works. I am of course referring to...

5. BRAVE

It truly is sad for me to put this film on this list, because I love Pixar. Their movies are not only great for kids, but some of the routes that they take with their movies also make them highly entertaining even for adults. Just look at the opening sequence from 'Up' or the dark turn taken near the end of 'Toy Story 3' and you'll see what I'm talking about. But their last two movies haven't been on the same level of quality as all of their other works. I'll admit that I did like 'Cars 2', primarily because I was a fan of the first film. So what went wrong with their latest film Brave? Well, the film starts out really well with what is probably the most mature story Pixar has ever done yet and it establishes the lead character of Merida as a strong female character. But then, once the second half of the movie starts, it quickly shifts to a more kid-friendly story. The trailers implied that Merida was going to change her own fate, but really it was her trying to get along with her mother and then accidentally turning her into a bear and trying to change her back before it's too late. To be fair, the animation is still excellent and the film does have a good message of mother-daughter bonding, but this one wasn't as groundbreaking as some of Pixar's best. That is why it takes the number five spot on this list.

Next up is a more recent film that drew you in with its ambition and scope, but in the end I just felt that it didn't really do much for me.

4. CLOUD ATLAS

For the record, I never read the book this film was originally based on, but even with some of the research that I did beforehand (the trailer really didn't even explain what the movie was actually about), I was still lost after watching this near three-hour epic. No, I do not think this is a bad movie, because I do admire the filmmakers' ambition and in terms of adapting a novel that was deemed unfilmable, they actually did make it work on the big screen. Really, the thing that loses me is how the six separated story-lines in the film, set across time, are supposed to be 'connected'. The only way I felt that these stories were even connected at all was because the members of the cast portrayed different characters in each storyline. Again, this may be because I didn't read the book, but to me this film just fell flat. On the other hand, I actually recommend this movie because it is one of those movies that you should see and give your own opinion on.

At number three, we have another animated flick. This one in question is based on a famous kid's story by one of the most iconic authors of all time. On the other hand, this is an author whose stories have had a rather rocky run when it comes to attempts to bring them to the big screen.

3. THE LORAX

 



Adapting a Dr. Seuss book to the big screen is a very hard thing to do seeing how the books are very short, meaning that filmmakers have to add more to the plot to satisfy a film's run-time. Now, I loved 'The Grinch', as it was one of those films that I saw at a very young age. Sure, it's not perfect, but it's always great around Christmas. As for the other live-action Dr. Seuss movie, 'The Cat in the Hat'... the less said about that film, the better. Thankfully, Blue Sky Studios finally made a Dr. Seuss story work with 2008's 'Horton Hears a Who', which was strictly an animated film. The way I see it, that's how all Dr. Seuss stories should be... animated. So, what went wrong with Illumination Entertainment's take on Dr. Seuss' economic tale of a creature who 'speaks for the trees'? Well, the problem is the material that the filmmakers added just to make it work on the big screen in the first place. The best part of this whole movie are the scenes that were actually based on the book, and Danny DeVito and Ed Helms do great jobs as the Lorax and the Onceler. But as for the main storyline of a kid named Ted trying to impress an older girl named Audrey by trying to find a real tree, that part of the movie falls flat. Really, this whole movie is just generic. Generic protagonists, generic villain, generic sidekicks, etc. It's a film that is just not worthy of being based on a Dr. Seuss story.

At number two, we have a war film which was produced by a company responsible for two of the most famous movie franchises of all time. What could go wrong? Well...

2. RED TAILS

Red Tails was the first film in years to be made by Lucasfilm that was not associated with the Star Wars or Indiana Jones franchises. With both franchises' recent efforts in mind, I went into this film hoping that this would improve on what George Lucas has made recently. However, in the end, Red Tails fell to the same problems that plagued the Star Wars prequels; a weak script and one-dimensional characters, including a 'villain' fighter pilot who spoke nothing but cliched dialogue. Now, it is clear that Lucas and company do have good intentions with making this movie and have nothing but respect for the Tuskegee Airmen, the World War II fighter pilots for whom this film is based off of. But, if we are talking about the biographical aspect of the film, it didn't even really go into much of the challenges that these men faced on their way to becoming legends. Like the prequels, this movie was entertaining but in the end, Lucas could have done a whole lot better. Not a good way to start off 2012 (this was actually the first movie I saw all year), but thankfully things got better.

And finally, it's time for number one. Here is my pick for the most disappointing film of 2012. The culprit...

1. THE BOURNE LEGACY

I am both depressed and sort of angry over how this movie turned out. I went into it having just watched the entire Bourne trilogy, which is easily one of the best trilogies ever made as all three films are well-written and very thrilling spy movies. With this new film, star Matt Damon and 'Bourne Supremacy/Ultimatum' director Paul Greengrass are both absent. Instead, in the leading role this time is Jeremy Renner, fresh off of this year's 'Avengers', and in the director chair this time around is Tony Gilroy, who previously written all three Bourne films. The trailers promoted this film as revolving around Renner's character Aaron Cross as he goes against his superiors looking to finish what Jason Bourne started. Sounds awesome, right? Well, I must have seen a different movie because the one I saw was a bare-bones thriller. What this movie was really about was that Aaron Cross was looking for his medication which gave him enhanced physical and mental capabilities. As for the whole Bourne thing, Matt Damon's picture is seen throughout the film. That's it. As for action, pretty much every action sequence was in the trailer. It is very clear why Damon and Greengrass left the franchise if this is the route they're taking now. Now, this film isn't all that bad. Jeremy Renner does prove that he can lead a movie on his own, even if the character of Cross is a little flat, and Rachel Weisz also does a great job as Cross' ally Marta. But seriously filmmakers, if you have Edward Norton in your film, actually use him. Don't promote him as the villain and just have him stand over computer monitors and bark orders at people. No, this movie isn't really that bad, but it's a severe letdown after a terrific trilogy of films. That is why it is my pick for the most disappointing film of 2012.