Reseñas de usuarios

I have just read the lead comment for this film that is on the front page with the voting results and cast run down.

Why is it that some people can not take a film for what it is supposed to be.

This film is supposed to be a light hearted, tonge in cheek, family comedy, things to make the kids laugh and things for the adults, and that is exactly what this film does.

I laughed my nuts off at this film, I thought Carey put in a great performance and the whole film (if watched at Christmas) really give you a bit of festive cheer

So to all of you film reviewers stop trying to sound like film students and knock every film because it is not "Taxi Driver" or "The Godfather" and take films for what they are supposed to be, entertainment!!

Great and Delightful Film. Funny Enough and Great Message. This was a True Christmas Spirit I would say. The Characters are So Great. This Movie touches my Heart From The Ending. They should make movies like this someday

Big budget remake of the classic cartoon about a creature (Jim Carrey) intent on stealing Christmas.

I had rather low expectations for this one... not sure why, as it turned out to be quite good. I just wanted to add a few thoughts here.

First of all, Taylor Momsen nailed the Cindy Lou Who part. She has gone on to bigger, better things ("Gossip Girl") and good for her. Second, Ron Howard nailed the look of a Seussian world. The faces, the architecture, it all seems so right and I think the good doctor would have approved. I heard that Tim Burton was approached to direct, and I think he would have done a fine job, but how do you beat this?

And last, Jim Carrey. Wow. He has had some good and bad career decisions, and this has to be among his best. The physical comedy, the improvised jokes, it was like the role he was born to play. The other choices were Jack Nicholson and Eddie Murphy. Nicholson could possibly have done it ten years earlier, but did he have that range of motion in 2000? And Eddie Murphy? Maybe, maybe not. This was a Carrey role inside and out.

Well, I finally broke down and went to see it. I was hesitant after reading all the pans here. Egad! It was a great movie! You can't compare it to the "original" any more than you can compare "Scrooge" to the eternal Dickens classic. It has a life of its own. Jim Carrey was amazing. How he can deliver so many feelings and emotions behind 10 pounds of latex is fantastic. Some of his scenes (obviously impromptu) were so funny I nearly wet myself. The sets were great and not nearly as over-blown as I had expected. As for the "prequel" portion, well, it was only so-so. The best part of the whole show is when they sing the "Ah hoo torres" song at the end which has ALWAYS been my most favorite Christmas song ever.

I recommend the movie highly to kids and adults. As for the negative comments on imdb.com I gotta say..."get over it, ya big bunch of grinches!!!!!"

This movie really reveals the meaning of Christmas by revealing what It is not about, which is materialism or gifts.

By grabbing hold of and finding the strength of the very merry, holly and jolly Christmas, he saves everyone's Christmas instead of stealing or ruining it. They make his Christmas the best one so far, and he makes the Christmas their best ever. By watching this with my grandfather, it really brought out the Christmas spirit in me. It really, truly did. It made my Christmas.

The music in this movie brought it up, if just a little. It was nice, it was indeed.

I am giving it 6 or 7 stars out of a possible 10. I think I will give it 7, because it made my Christmas a bit better.

Bon soir. Goodnight. Guten nacht. God natt. Buenos Noches.

Peace & Love God Bless

• Shevy

Jim Carrey plays himself in a film set in his brain. If anyone else had played the grinch in live action it wouldn't have been anywhere near as good. The set design and makeup on all of the who's and whoville is immaculate. Not to mention Anthony Hopkins perfect narration, making the film fee even more like a cinematic dr Seus book.

It's almost Christmas and deep in the mountains is a small town that loves and celebrates Christmas more than any other place on Earth. However, in a cave high above the town lives someone who hates Christmas - The Grinch. This year he is determined to ruin Christmas for everybody.

A good, fun adaptation of the Dr. Suess classic. Great makeup and special effects make for a colourful, vibrant atmosphere. However, it is the performance of Jim Carrey as The Grinch that makes the movie. Wonderfully over-the-top with some perfectly delivered one-liners and zany antics I can't imagine anyone else playing The Grinch.

Not in the same league as the original 1966 "How the Grinch Stole Christmas!", however. The original is much more impactful - dialogue and narration are snappier, the script is more clever and the outcome is more emotional. This, the 2000 version, relies almost entirely on Jim Carrey's antics and doesn't have the emotional and intellectual weight of the original.

You could ascribe this to the new version being four times longer than the original - 104 minutes vs 26 - meaning that in order to turn a short into a full-length movie the writers had to add something and they mostly added wacky misbehavings by the The Grinch. This is fun but dilutes the impact of the original plot and makes the film seem clumsy and unfocussed at times.

Still, a good movie and ideal for Christmas.

Well.

Little bit of history here. When I first heard that they were working on a live-action remake of "How the Grinch Stole Christmas!", I immediately filed it with "the Wiz", the live-action "101 Dalmatians" movies, and the rumored "Marilyn Manson and the Chocolate Factory" under Remakes Nobody Needs. I was as enthusiastic about this movie as I was about "Space Jam".

Furthermore, the original "Grinch" film, directed by Chuck Jones (who is, like, a god to me) and personally supervised by Dr. Suess is as close to perfect as any Christmas movie; or any animated short for that matter; has ever come to perfection. It is sacred ground. Do not touch.

So this here movie had two or three strikes against it BEFORE I made myself watch it.

There is good news. Jim Carrey is an adorable Grinch. I don't think anyone else could have pulled this off nearly as well. Anytime he gives us the Patented Grinchy Grin, it... well, it made me nostalgic for the original. But, anyway, I can't blame him for this mess. Everybody else, on the other hand, has to be taken into account.

But, you know what, it's Christmastime. And as the song goes, I'll let in light and banish the hate. So I can't rightly yell at anyone. Let me just give you my four-word review:

STICK WITH THE ORIGINAL!!!!!!!

Happy holidays to all.

This movie was never intended to win an Oscar, but for what it is, this movie is an absolute Christmas classic. I was a kid when I saw this in theaters and it still makes me crack up at 28. Jim Carrey is hilarious as the Grinch!

Ok first of all I don't know why people hate this movie so much. Is this better than the TV version? Absolutely not. I'm pretty sure there wasn't an explosion in the book, just going to throw that out there. It's certainly not a perfect Christmas movie but it does have heart. I saw this movie as a child and I thought it wasn't bad, and now watching an adult the dialogue is full of words that are seventh grade level that I started to break out the dictionary. Ron Howard does an amazing job of flipping the script where we feel for the Grinch's pain and makes the WHOVILLES the villains. Anyway it may not be perfect but it does have heart so back off.

One hopes the screenplay, from the man who wrote Who Framed Roger Rabbit, might have been more clever and sharp than the product the incredibly talentless Ron Howard, and Jim Carrey (talented, but only when he's given some restrained direction ala The Mask) came up with in the end.

Carrey does have a couple of good moments as he always does, but more times than not he mugs the jokes to death. Subtle he is not, and anyone who loves the original Chuck Jones/Boris Karloff cartoon as I do knows that subtle nuance is what made that cartoon a masterpiece.

The Grinch should be more subdued rather than manic, shrewd with his mannerisms rather than in your face with them. He should have been presented for the first 30-40 minutes with some mystery, some build-up, some method to his madness as he presides over Whoville and comes to despise the sounds of Christmas' approach until he can't take it any more. What we get instead is instant gratification, throwing the Grinch at us in all his glory in the first 5 minutes of the story, then it all

goes downhill faster than his rocket sled from there. Until the last half hour anyway. The finale, as the Grinch decides to steal Christmas sticks mainly to the cartoon despite a modification or two, and is actually quite entertaining. What came before though was quite simply a mess.

Having the Grinch's sad childhood depicted was just the worst possible direction the story could have gone in. Why do we care what the Grinch's backstory is. It could have been hinted at in the dialogue instead of shown. Howard has repeatedly shown in his films that he has no idea how to develop a character through thoughtful direction. Instead, like a previous member said, he just pulls out the giant mallett and hammers the character into our heads.

Also, why couldn't the Who's have been depicted more like the Munchkins in The Wizard of Oz, just there to forward the plot along and not saying anymore than they should. Who cares about the overbearing schmuck of a Mayor or Cindy Lou Who's parents, or the fact the whoville beauty queen is in love with the Grinch. It's obvious Howard went after a kind of Munchkinland feel to Whoville, but again he hasn't got a clue what made that movie great either. There's just too much useless dialogue and subplots. Superfluous, as Cindy Lou says.

If someone like Rob Reiner or Robert Zemeckis had directed this it would have been given the comedic treatment it deserved. Howard needs to take a trip back to Mayberry to relearn what funny and sophisticated comedy is.

In addition to the overdone antics, the Grinch is shot looking straight at his face too often. The best angles are his profile or at an angle. The make-up does not resemble the Grinch at all looking directly at him. There are moments when the production DOES look spot on but they are few and far between.

Carrey is a pretty good choice for the Grinch, if someone would ever tell him to keep his yap shut, but the first hour should have been erased and redone. Ron Howard must be the culprit for the tatty way this production was handled.

The attractive production design, Taylor Momsen as Cindy Lou ( what a little sweetheart!) and a few of Carrey's better moments aren't enough to save this one from sliding over the cliff.

The Grinch hates Christmas, then steals it!

When this first came out I liked the original version much more, but as time goes on I'm finding myself preferring this version more and more. Perhaps it's because Jim Carey's portrayal is more relatable, or perhaps I'm more impressed with the visuals and production value than I once was, or maybe I just understand the adult jokes more. Whatever the reason, this is a fantastic adaptation.

What stands out above all is Jim Carey's performance, followed by the sets and costumes. It is an unforgettable experience that might never be replicated again.

While kids may prefer the original, certainly this will be all the adults most preferred version of the Grinch.

I guess I am a purist. I am a huge fan of the original cartoon and its uplifting spirit. Since the story had to be embellished to stretch its length, much of the added story is sad, mean or crude. The Whos are not portrayed as very innocent. They have their character flaws. The audience I saw the movie with did not laugh very much, along with myself. However, I did hear kids leaving the theater say they really enjoyed the movie. Jim Carrey is great in the role and the young actor that plays Cindy Lou is also fantastic. The movie has its moments, but it did not leave me feeling good like the cartoon did.

I've seen far many, many reviews of `Dr. Seuss' How the The Grinch Stole Christmas' in which critics can't resist the urge to write in rhyme, and every last one I've read irritates me. Yet, as I sit to begin my review, I feel the uncontrollable urge to begin rhyming myself. I promise not to.

I remember being excited to hear that there would be a live action version of `The Grinch' starring Jim Carrey, and I also remember being disturbed to hear that it would be directed by Ron `Opie' Howard. I had hoping for an artistic genius such as Tim Burton or a holiday entertainment luminary like John Hughes. Oddly, Opie pulled this one off.

If you want to see a good, fun holiday movie, go see this one. I'm not going to start comparing it to the classic animated `Grinch,' but I think it did a noteworthy job of giving some back story on the Grinch's character and a little history on the town of Whoville.

It also attempted to answer some age old questions- most notably, `Where is Whoville?' Well, the movie begins by showing, visually, that Whoville exists deep inside a tiny snowflake. The only problem with this is that the rest of the film goes on to prove that Whoville is actually located in northern Minnesota.

I've noticed that Jim Carrey is a lot more fun to watch when he talks like Jimmy Stweart on crack. Honestly, I don't think anyone else could have pulled off such a classic character. Carrey's Grinch could be the standard by which we measure all other bastardized Hollywood versions of cherished childhood memories.

`The Grinch' is packed with Ron Howard's `in-jokes' and double entendres aimed at disillusioned Gen-Xers. Seuss purists may find this distasteful, but honestly, why spend millions of dollars on a big-budget remake if you're just going to rehash the same material?

Cindy Lou who had gigantic teeth and gigantic hair. She also sang a nice little tune. Let's move on.

The film's talent award goes to the dog. If anyone truly lived up to the persona given them in the original Seuss drawings, it was Max. Some may argue that Carrey's performance was more admirable. To those people, I say, `but the dog was cute and had an antler on his head for a good portion of the movie. Did Jim Carrey even attempt this feat? I think not.'

Let's look at `The Grinch' by the numbers. The props department provided 1,938 candy canes, 152,000 pounds of crushed marble (used for fake snow), 8,200 christmas tree ornaments, and no less than two million linear feet of styrofoam to build the city of Whoville itself. Opie got the studio to go all out financially, and it shows. The sets look like you'd expect Whoville to look. Great stuff.

`The Grinch' gets a `B+.' It won't by any means replace its predecessor as a holiday classic, but you'll leave the theater feeling like a six-year old.

If you enjoyed the cartoon version, you'll enjoy this more. The setting and makeup really makes this look like a Dr. Seuss film, freaking Jim Carrey as The Grinch is the best thing out of this movie...that's all I have to say.

It is one of the Christmas classics.

Jim Carrey is Jim Carrey :) It was fun.

Jim Carrey is excellent as the Grinch. Hilarious in his "I insist on being grumpy and hateful" role and ofcourse, lots of physical comedy. The little girl is cute and a bit over the top, but so is the whole movie. The fantasyland is like a big theater with all of its colours and larger than life villagers and the underlying story of greed and appearances doesn't take it too far. I hadn't seen this before, but I can imagine watching this next year again.

I was scouting this movie out to see if my 4yr old would like it. There are a few scary scenes for little ones. Definitely not for under 6!. But they took a lot of the charm and elegant simplicity out of the video and book. The Whos are not very likeable and while Jim Carrey does a good job, you will find yourself disappointed. Do yourself a favor, buy/rent the video cartoon done by Chuck Jones (and the screenplay written by Seuss himself, as well as the songs) or better yet, read the book to your kids. You'll like that better.

Besides, all of the marketing and cross promotion associated with this movie is disconcerting. It is exactly the opposite of the point of the story. How would Seuss himself react to Grinch cereal?

Of course it isn't as good as the animated classic, an immensely charming, beautifully animated gem, that is a family Christmas favourite. I will admit I was a bit sceptical of the remake, but other than some slow scenes in the middle half and a patchy script, this film is surprisingly good. Honestly if you thought this is terrible, and I completely respect anyone who thinks that, I warn you Cat in the Hat was much worse, and gets my vote as the worst Dr Seuss adaptation ever. How The Grinch stole Christmas is very colourful, with great set design, and an unrecognisable Jim Carrey was terrific as the Grinch, he was actually really funny, not like Mike Myers who was miscast as the cat in Cat in The Hat. Everyone else was fine too, particularly the girl, and while he is no Boris Karloff Antony Hopkins does a good job as the narrator. The script is patchy in places, but there are a number of very funny bits, and it was nice having some character context about the Grinch. All in all, a colourful, well performed film, not as good as the 1966 animated classic,and flawed it is, but actually one of the better Dr Seuss adaptations. 8/10 Bethany Cox

I agree completely, this film looks extremely overblown, and it is.

Though the sets and costumes are visually amazing, they go by too fast too be truly appreciated, and there is the feeling that it is too much crammed into too little. Besides this, the supporting cast have very little to do, and the presence of Anthony Hopkins as the narrator is rather puzzling. Besides that, several weak story points are added, for instance, like the romance between the Grinch and Martha May seems completely superfluous. However, if you want to see this movie, see for Jim Carrey, who steals the show as the title role. He is simply hilarious! He does, however, run a close race against Cindy Lou Who, who is unbelievably cute.

The difference between this movie, and the cartoon, is that this movie is set more from the point of view of the Grinch. In the cartoon, the Grinch is the villain, a grumpy old hermit who is jealous of the Whos and their happiness. The Whos, in the cartoon, are just simple, country townsfolk celebrating Christmas, and when the Grinch finds he cannot destroy Christmas, he knows he cannot make them suffer the absence he feels in his life, and finally understands the holiday spirit. In the movie, however, the Grinch is a slightly more modern take on his character. Actually, you can't blame him for wanting to do something about the Whos, who, in this movie, are a grim reflection of our society, and the crass consumerism and capitalism that yearly chokes the true meaning of the holiday spirit for material possessions. The Whos are so immersed in their own greed that it almost seems they deserve it when the Grinch drops the ball on them. The writers also make them seem as irritating and overly cheerful and loud as possible, with their gaudy decorations and foods, and creepy, sugar-coated style. Cindy Lou's reaction to this is our own, and she and the Grinch find the real meaning of the holiday. She and the Grinch are better seen as role models to today's holiday company, as a message not to lose ourselves in our own material greed that has become common to this holiday, but to instead remember what Christmas is. I think this holiday would get a much better reputation if people made it a routine to imagine a Christmas without presents or trimmings every year, just to keep that image in mind. But, if you don't want to be annoyed by the Whos, or blinded by the slightly overdone sets and costumes, watch it for Cindy Lou, or, if you don't like 'cute' movies like me, but like Jim Carrey's raunchy, slapstick, Marx Bros. style comedy, watch it for him.

This movie is horrible. This is definantly Jim Carrey's worst movie yet. It is so much different than the book and I thought that the ending was quite bad. The only plus to this movie were the special effects which were excellent. He doesn't even start stealing till about 10 minutes toward the ending. 2/10

How the Grinch Stole Christmas (2000) is a movie in my DVD collection that I recently rewatched with my daughter on HBOMAX. The storyline follows the city of Whoville which is filled with Whos. One day a grinch is accidentally delivered there and tries to understand their ways and love for Christmas but fails and comes to loath it. He moves into the far mountains of Whoville and becomes a hermit. When a little girl knocks on his door and tries to get him in the Christmas spirit he decides to take his hate for Christmas out on the locals. Can anyone or anything stop him?

This movie is directed by icon Ron Howard (Splash) and stars Jim Carrey (Liar Liar), Clint Howard (The Waterboy), Jeffrey Tambor (Arrested Development), Christine Baranski (Chicago), Molly Shannon (Superstar) and Taylor Momsen (Gossip Girls).

Everything about this movie is perfect. The universe is perfectly created and thoroughly captures your imagination. The backdrops, sets and props are stupendous. The costumes, makeup and hairstyles were a lot of fun. Jim Carrey delivers an amazing performance. His dialogue, mannerisms and facial expressions are awesome. The storyline is well written and I loved the way it explains how the Grinch arrived, his childhood, his current state and his evolution. How can you not love Max and the ending was perfect. Even the soundtrack is good.

Overall, this is one of the greatest Christmas movies ever made. I would score this a 10/10 and strongly recommend it.

Jim's score...the rest as it is too boring and forced

Stick the the cartoon version from 1966. This film is overdone, and over the top. And what was cute in animation, comes off as grotesque when seen in life. The set and costumes are impressive, and it is clear a lot of money was spent.

In the land of Whoville everyone loves Christmas and count down the whole year until that wonderful time. However just outside Whoville lives the Grinch, a green hairy twisted creature that hates, and always has hated, Christmas and was rejected by the Who's as a child. A young girl from Whoville sets out to befriend the Grinch and help him find his love of Christmas but, when it goes wrong early on, the Grinch becomes even more rotten and plans to ruin it for everyone.

I have never read the book or seen the original animated version of this story, but I do enjoy a bit of Dr Seuss and was worried about how such imagination would be filled out on the screen. The film actually manages it very well and the whole film has the look of the books, even if it lacks soul at times. The plot is stretched out to the running time and could have easily been shorter and punchier, but at heart it is a good little moral that is good from Christmas time.

However, aside from the look of the film, the main reason that the film works is Jim Carrey. I cannot think of another actor who could have pulled off this role as well as he did. He is manic and really funny although I imagine that if you dislike him and his antics that you'd hate the film totally. I'm on the fence about him but I did enjoy him here. Momsen is OK but really just a `cute kid' and, while the support cast has quite a few famous faces, they don't make much of an impact under the makeup and the film is left to Carrey to save it - which he happily does.

Overall this film is a little too long and padded out, but while Carrey is onscreen it seems to go pretty fast due to his hyper acting and comedy antics. However, it's Christmas and it has a nice message while not totally giving in to syrupy sentiment (thanks again to manic Carrey) and it's just perfect for kids and adults at Christmas time.