“How the Grinch Stole Christmas”: THR’s review from 2000

On November 17, 2000, Universal released the live-action adaptation of the Dr. Seuss classic How the Grinch Stole Christmas starring Jim Carrey in theaters, where it grossed $345 million worldwide. The Hollywood Reporter's original review can be found below:

While adapting a beloved animated classic for the big screen can undoubtedly be a daunting task, Ron Howard never has to worry about How the Grinch Stole Christmas – Dr. Seuss to be confused with anything that resembles an instant holiday classic.

More from The Hollywood Reporter

It's not so much that anything goes wrong with the reportedly $120 million production, but rather that it never goes right. The tone, which seems to change by the minute, is wrong from the start, leaving a completely unattractive trail of half-baked ideas and misguided attempts at subversive provocation.

Given Universal's determination to set some kind of marketing record for “Grinch” movies, the PG-rated film has a good chance of stealing the weekend. That said, it will soon become clear that Seuss' pachyderm Horton wasn't the only one who hatched an egg.

Contrary to initial fears, the sight of Jim Carrey sweating under matted, dyed yak fur is not as terrifying as it might first appear. Thanks to makeup artist Rick Baker's surprisingly flexible latex work, Carrey's patented rubbery expressions come through unhindered.

Carrey is a man known for his extensive improvisation on set, and here it definitely sounds like he is making everything up, but he is not the only one. Director Howard is using a script that Jeffrey Price and Peter S. Seaman (both Who Framed Roger Rabbit fame) as a frequent jumping-off point, he peppers the material with odd asides. At one point, for example, the rear end of Max, the Grinch's faithful dog, has an unfortunate encounter with Jeffrey Tambor's tongue. Don't ask.

The fundamental problem is that a live-action Grinch film requires a director with the strong visual sense of an artist, especially when it comes to fantasy, and Howard, despite showing a proven penchant for genre-hopping, is simply not up to the task that one would expect of the likes of Tim Burton or Terry Gilliam or John Lasseter (the Toy history Films). Hell, even a Pedro Almodovar would have had a better handle on the stylistic sensibility of Theodor Geisel and Chuck Jones.

Even Whoville looks disappointingly unassuming. The giant styrofoam seas are more reminiscent of a theme park attraction than a whimsical Seuss setting, while the residents are practically lost under their latex objects.

Despite the presence of Tambor as the righteous Mayor May Who, Christine Baranski as the seductive Martha May Whovier and the gifted mime Bill Irwin as the town's baffled postmaster, it's pretty clear that they're mere extras on “The Jim Carrey Show.” As sweet little Cindy Lou Who, newcomer Taylor Momsen is called upon primarily to be an appreciative audience for Carrey's occasionally inspired antics.

It's a hard job, but someone has to do it. — Michael Rechtshaffen, originally published on November 17, 2000.

The Best of Hollywood Reporter