Grinch is more boring than vile

Benedict Cumberbatch voices the Grinch in The Grinch. Image courtesy Universal Pictures.

I'm not quite sure what Illumination was going for with its adaptation of How the Grinch Stole Christmas!, The Grinch. If there's a point for this film's existence, it never comes out over the course of 90 minutes packed with bland animation and an incredibly boring main character. The film has nothing interesting to say about it's star character that needed to be said. There's little art to be found in this interpretation of a seasonal classic, no real moments of innovation or profundity in sight. Like the rest of Illumination's catalog, the movie's main selling points are shininess and a brilliant ability to be completely inoffensive

 

Narrated occasionally by Pharrell, The Grinch throws Benedict Cumberbatch's voice into the mouth of the eponymous green creature who despises the Christmas season. The Grinch is particularly frustrated by the announcement from his neighbor Bricklebaum (Kenan Thompson) that this Christmas will be three times larger than any Christmas before, and vows to ruin Christmas with the help of his very faithful dog Max. Meanwhile, the young Cindy Lou Who (Cameron Seely) hatches a scheme to meet Santa to ask for a little help for her put upon mother, Donna (a very wasted Rashida Jones). Their paths eventually cross and lessons are learned about the meaning of Christmas.

What stands out about The Grinch is the lack of enthusiasm it has for the Grinch as a character. To put it simply, this Grinch is excessively boring, more irked by the world around him than properly evil. On the one hand, this version of the Grinch is far more tolerable than the aggressively obnoxious portrayal offered by Jim Carrey back in 2000, but there's not much to get a hold on beyond a few fun moments of mild chaziness. He's more akin to a mild-mannered Larry David than the imposing figure voiced by Boris Karloff. Cumberbatch's work drives a lot of this problem; he severely underplays his character's enthusiastic entrances into villainy. Like much of the cast, Cumberbatch comes across as unenthusiastic about his participation in this movie. The problem ultimately falls on the writing. The decision to have this Grinch be more put upon than vile just doesn't make a lot of sense on a narrative level. It reduces the sinister nature of his actions – forcing a dog to carry an enormous sleigh and stealing presents on Christmas is just wicked – and negates the grand change of heart at the end. The Grinch even gives him a few moments of outright decency ahead of his redemption that really undercuts the effect of his turn to kindness. 

 

The Grinch works best as a character whose motivations remain somewhat mysterious. There are conjectures and ideas for his vileness presented, but the fact there is disagreement as to what makes him such a monster makes the character far more interesting. Yet the feature-length adaptations have a real bad habit of attempting to explain the why behind the Grinch. The Grinch links this hatred back to a traumatic childhood event, even tossing in an orphanage for good measure. Aside from being tremendously lazy writing, adding a childhood wrinkle adds humanity to a monster before the monster can find his humanity. The ability for a loathsome creature like the Grinch to find love and joy despite his evil ways is inspiring.

The closest the film gets to finding a character of interest is the Grinch's counterpart, Cindy Lou Who. Her kindhearted nature is mixed well by some rambunctious and a hint of mischief, making her a decently fleshed out character. Cindy Lou comes ever so close to a fulfilling story, but the writers can't keep it together in the final act. Instead of fulfilling her wish, the writers ignore the necessity of her actions and never offer Donna any peace of mind. The Grinch doesn't really Cindy Lou for her efforts, but it does shortchange its most interesting story arc.

The troubles with Cindy Lou's story, and that of the Grinch, are connected by both poor writing and uninspired storytelling. The Grinch has nothing of note to say about its characters or about the meaning of Christmas itself. The best parts are cribbed from Dr. Seuss directly, because the original story is so well done it's very difficult to muck it up. But once the movie starts to stray away from the source material it doesn't know what to do with itself. Ingenuity requires some level of courage, and The Grinch's lack of the latter eliminates the former.

Review: Two out of Five Stars

Click here to see the trailer.

Rating: PG

Run time: 90 minutes

Genre: Animated

tl;dr

What Worked: Cindy Lou Who

What Fell Short: The Grinch, narrative arcs, animation, Benedict Cumberbatch

What To Watch Instead: How the Grinch Stole Christmas!, Arthur Christmas

Bohemian Rhapsody fails to embrace the mystery of Mercury

Joseph Mazzello, Rami Malek, Gwilym Lee, and Ben Hardy in Bohemian Rhapsody. Image courtesy 20th Century Fox.

Bohemian Rhapsody seems to have good intentions. Its ambition, to find some way of grounding Queen lead singer Freddie Mercury's complicated and mysterious life, is grand and approached with occasional vigor. The movie often wants to be inspirational, especially to the LGTBQ community and to dreamers hoping to become among the spectacular. Intentions only go so far, especially in a movie rife with clunky storytelling and an awkward method of handling it's star's sexuality, the latter of which crosses over into harmful. For a movie about someone as fascinating and brilliant as Freddie Mercury, Bohemian Rhapsody is far more boring than it has any right to be.

Bohemian Rhapsody tells the story of the life of Freddie Mercury (a very good Rami Malek) over a 15-year span, from his first encounters with Queen bandmates Roger Taylor (Ben Hardy), John Deacon (Joseph Mazzello), and Brian May (Gwilym Lee) through his complex relationship with Mary Austin (Lucy Boynton) and ending with the band's performance at Live Aid in 1985. Along for the ride are a series of band manager and record producers (Tom Hollander, Aidan Gillen, and Mike Myers) who either completely get Queen or shrug them off, a manager Paul Prenter (Allen Leech) with an unhealthy obsession with Mercury, and a love interest for Mercury, Jim Hutton (Aaron McCusker).

Every now and then Bohemian Rhapsody has something inspired to say about Freddie Mercury and Queen. Printing the negative reviews about the titular song is a neat joke about how shortsighted criticism can be. The songwriting scenes and spurts of inspiration in the studio give something of a peek into the band's quirky songwriting and recording methods. The Live Aid closer is an engaging re-creation of original performance that shows how easily Mercury captured an audience. Much of what surrounds these moments consists of tired biopic driblets that follow the usual notes of the genre. It's safe storytelling, a quick brush of 15 years of history without diving into what the band meant in those moments, or what those moments meant to Mercury. 

 

Then again, Bohemian Rhapsody has a nasty habit of playing fast and loose with the life of Freddie Mercury to the point where many of the high points in the story are complete rubbish. Most notable is the film diagnosing Mercury with AIDS ahead of the Live Aid performance, when by all accounts he wasn't diagnosed until two years after. The intent is to add a level of heroism to the performance, giving Mercury something to overcome for the biggest moment in his professional career. But it's really just a cheap trick that overrides Mercury's powers as a lead singer. The Live Aid performance was not about Mercury fighting his diminished health for a last great performance; it was of a showman at the height of his powers, entrancing a worldwide audience with unbelievable levels of charisma and talent.

The AIDS diagnosis is part of an overarching problem Bohemian Rhapsody has addressing Mercury's sexuality. On the surface, the intentions are good; there is an alarming absence of queer figures in popular culture, and there remains a penchant for creating chaste gay characters who express their love off screen. But the movie generally leans closer to portraying Mercury as more flirty than engaged in his sexuality. The most the film shows of Mercury expressing his sexuality are a few kisses and scenes of him navigating through clubs in the 1980s. What's missing is a sense of passion from Mercury in this movie, something to show him expressing himself instead of talking around the subject. Bohemian Rhapsody certainly identifies Mercury as gay, at the expense of overriding Mercury's self-identification as bisexual. It's an unsurprising choice – it's far simpler to explain a binary concept than a fluid one – but a quietly dangerous one because it strips Mercury of his agency. The choice no longer belongs to Mercury, but to the filmmakers who felt it easier to ensure his place as a gay icon instead of a queer one. 

 

Mercury could have been gay in real life, but it remains unclear as to where he resided along that spectrum. Like much of Mercury's life, it was a mystery, a part of his depths as a human being. Bohemian Rhapsody doesn't care much for ambiguity, instead doing all it can to explain who Mercury was despite never having a firm grasp on him. Which is really a fatal flaw for a movie about someone as complex as Mercury was; reliving the mystery is far more interesting than trying to explain the fact.

Review: Two and a half out of Five Stars

Click here to see the trailer.

Rating: PG-13

Run time: 134 minutes

Genre: Biography

tl;dr

What Worked: Rami Malek, soundtrack, Live Aid concert

What Fell Short: Trite narrative, untrue storytelling

What To Watch Instead: American Splendor, Love & Mercy, Queen's Live Aid set