MovieChat Forums > How the Grinch Stole Christmas (2000) Discussion > WHY exactly do people dislike the movie?

WHY exactly do people dislike the movie?

posted 10 years ago by novastar_6
44 replies | jump to latest

I don't get it. Yeah, it's not the cartoon, okay, the whole backstory, well they needed SOME way to fill up 1 1/2 hours instead of 25 minutes, but what's people's REAL problem with it?

[–] exithereplease (3553) 4 years ago

It's hard to believe this was the highest grossing movie of 2000.

https://www.boxofficemojo.com/year/2000/?ref_=bo_yl_table_21

[–] GreenGoblinsOck8 (7734) 4 years ago

I like this movie but I am surprised X-Men didn't make more money than it did. Heck, I am surprised Gladiator made more than X-Men. What the heck!? Meet the parents made more than X-Men!? Really!?

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

Audience size is a big reason. X-men was a comic book movie in a market that wasn't great. Just before it's release, we had batman and Robin and steel. Both were really bad.

Gladiator was a great movie from a well known director. Russell Crowe was on the rise as an actor.
Meet the parents did well because we all just came off of there's something about Mary and Analyze This. Both were really popular.

X-men today would be bigger in this market, but at the time the market was pretty nerdy and not nerdy in the way people prop it up today.

[–] GreenGoblinsOck8 (7734) 4 years ago

I see. In that case it's a miracle there was even sequels.

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

Spiderman had a big part in that. X men was great, but Spiderman blew the doors wide open. It's a crazy moment in film history.

[–] GreenGoblinsOck8 (7734) 4 years ago

By the way, I was a teen when the first X-Men movie came out. I just didn't pay attention to box office results.

[–] blue1981 (7834) 4 years ago

The Whos of Whoville scare me and the bloated backstory was awful.

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

I wouldn't say I hate it, but I wouldn't watch it again.

It was too long, hammy, and I don't care for Jim Carey's comedic style all the time.

The pro for the movie is that it was well produced. Jim Carey, though I don't care for his performance, was a good choice. He is very animated. The young grinch was a good scene.

I think it's just not my thing. The original was a great adaptation of the book. It has a brilliant narration with a beautiful voice (the same as Tony the Tiger). Perhaps my appreciation of the original is the biggest block. But then I think of how ugly a lot of the movie is and I doubt that.

[–] exithereplease (3553) 4 years ago

The sets. The Costume designs. The lack or originality.

The sets. It just seemed so focused based on sets.

Ironic, since CGI had advanced so far by 2000.

[–] strangenstein (683) 4 years ago

Bloated
Overblown
No heart
Post-modernism
The Grinch swearing
Inane backstory

The list goes on...

[–] elprimitivo (352) 4 years ago

Two words. Jim Carrey.

[–] BOandBarbecue (2264) 2 years ago

it does not have story. film need story. it does not have interesting character. film need interesting character you care and roots for.

i give you example of classic christmas film that have story and interesting character:

home alone - kid left at home, then has to defend home from burgler - good story. kevin and buzz and family and burglers - all good character you root/care for.

christmas vacations - man prepares for christmas and everything go wrong. then mans family have christmas that turn to even bigger disaster when relative arrive - fun story many relate to. clark and cousin eddie are good character that care/roots for!

grinch? story is not interesting. not any memorable character you root for.

[–] blue1981 (7834) a year ago

The Whos of Whoville look like rat faced mutants