"For kids and those who are not familiar with the story."
The separation of Dr. Seuss' How the Grinch Stole Christmas as a movie and then as the story Dr. Seuss had written are two very different things.As a movie, let me restate that, as a childrens' movie, The Grinch is a contradictory tailored fable of one's disillusionment of what Christmas is and what it represents. As an interpretation of Dr. Seuss' famed and lovable book, it is most, strictly speaking, a desecration of a work of art, of a piece of puerile literature that was perfectly fine on its own, notwithstanding the more faithful cartoon classic adaptation. But by having Ron Howard turn this story into a feature length movie, that demands for a fuller realization and expansion into something to stretch at least 90-minutes. Here we have the old ossature of the story, where the Grinch (Jim Carrey), whose "heart is two sizes too small," is very much out of the Christmas spirit. Now, we additionally get an explanation of why, adding flashbacks to when he was small, like a mix between a green Spanky from The Little Rascals, and a green, baby version of Chuckie, from Child's Play. Furthermore, we have the storyline of a little "Who-venile delinquent" (Taylor Momsen) who is confused to what Christmas should represent. However nice the message may be that her character is trying to convey, the end result is completely contradicted by the lavish, extravagant (although still pretty) production design, costumes, visuals, etc. It blatantly screams commercialism and consumerism at the girl's queries in silence. Howard takes it way too far and makes it something else, trespassing on something that was fine on its own. And curiosity wants to know why all but Momsen and Christine Baranski have those rodent-like snouts. For kids and those who are not familiar with the story. Otherwise, cry for the "Who-manity" of alterations and changes that prevent Dr. Seuss' How the Grinch Stole Christmas from being the real McCoy.Final Verdict: B-.