O Grinch

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.

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

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 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!!

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.