VS. 
So Illumination Entertainment's version of The Grinch was released two years ago. And it was...well, divisive is probably the best way to put it. Looking at the review websites for instance, you'll see that it has 60% from the Rotten Tomatoes critics, 50% from the Rotten Tomatoes audiences, 6.3/10 from iMDb, 51/100 from the Metacritic critics and 6.2/10 from the Metacritic audiences. Google users were noticeably kinder with 87% of them liking it, but that was the lone exception.
Not that different from the live-action film from 2000 with Jim Carrey then. That one has 49% from the Rotten Tomatoes critics, 56% from the Rotten Tomatoes audiences, 6.2/10 from iMDb, 46/100 from the Metacritic critics, 6.5/10 from the Metacritic audiences and 88% from Google users. Oh well, at least it's better than the abomination that was The Cat In The Hat with Mike Myers, even though it's partly the reason why the latter film exists in the first place.
As it's coming up to Christmas and The Grinch has always been a favourite Christmas tale for many people, especially Dr. Seuss fans, I thought it was best if I just re-evaluated these films to see if any of them was clearly superior to the other. I will be comparing them in the following categories: the Grinch himself, the people of Whoville who he initially detests, the aesthetics and tones, the soundtracks and the overall message of the stories.
Keep in mind that this will not count the Chuck Jones animated special from 1966, as that one is obviously the best adaptation already. It has the legendary Boris Karloff (known for his work in horror films) as the Grinch and the narrator, the theme song is superbly sung by Thurl Ravenscroft (most known as Tony the Tiger), the animation is both faithful to the original illustration and somehow ends up looking distinct from it anyway and it is much less heavy-handed about the anti-consumerism message it promotes. Need more proof of its quality? It has 100% from Rotten Tomatoes critics, 98% from Rotten Tomatoes audiences, 8.3/10 from iMDb, and 92% from Google users. Sure, there aren't any Metacritic scores up yet, but for now it doesn't matter. Pretty clear cut victory if you ask me.
The Grinch.
Let's start by analysing the Grinch himself - he is the one mentioned in the title after all. He's that miserable old grump who hates Christmas so much that steals all of the decorations and food from Whoville, only to realise that Christmas is more than just gifts and having a change of heart as a result.
There was never really any big backstory for why the Grinch originally had such a poor sentiment towards Christmas, other than the fact that his heart was "three sizes too small". The same went for the Chuck Jones special. The feature-length films however had to give him a "sympathetic" excuse involving childhood trauma in order to explain the way he is today. Sure, they need to expand for time, but the original incarnation of him was fine. Simply hating Christmas because he sees it as some ridiculously noisy over-the-top thing that only seems to be about gift-giving is a legitimate excuse. If anything, it helps out with the anti-consumerism message even more by painting him as the consumerist in the process.
Anyway, onto the 2000 version. This version of him was horrifically abused by the Whos when he was younger, simply because he looked different compared to them. The whole thing is an allegory for racism, especially once he yells out "IS IT BECAUSE I'M GREEN?!" after they screw him over yet again just before he decides to steal everything. I'm not that fond of the backstory - it villainises everyone else as a result and that's not the point of the original story.
Fortunately, the Grinch is still kind of a jackass in this version. Plus, Jim Carrey was at the peak of his career when he made this movie and did a surprisingly good job in the role. I'm not normally a fan of Jim Carrey's works - for instance, The Mask is kind of overrated when compared to the original gory comic book it was based on and Mr. Popper's Penguins is just a betrayal of the original book. But when Carrey does well, he does well. His hammy nature makes the character pretty enjoyable and his makeup job is convincing, especially once he dons the Santa suit. It's most likely that the film would have been an absolute mess without him onboard, as the live-action version of The Cat In The Hat would further prove.
The 2018 version gives him the backstory of being in an orphanage and having a PTSD-like reaction to Christmas as a result. Not as problematic as the 2000 version in that regard, but still clearly trying to make the audience sympathise with someone who plans to sabotage Christmas. It was interesting how he initially didn't join in with the Christmas festivities after saving the day due to his guilt over what he did.
The main problem is that the Grinch comes across as too "nice". Sure, it was sweet that he didn't bully his dog Max for once, but someone could have him be nice to Max in their own take whilst still having him come across as a proper villain. As someone said on a ProtonJon livestream I watched once, he's not so much evil as much as "annoyed". Which is technically true, as he seems to come across as more of a trickster archetype in this version, who's mainly stealing gifts to teach Whoville that Christmas shouldn't just be about gift-giving. Benedict Cumberbatch does a pretty good job with the voice and portrayal, though it's certainly unlikely to be as memorable as Boris Karloff or Jim Carrey's takes on the character. Overall, he's mainly a grump who still harbours trauma from his past. That is all.
Winner: The 2000 version. He's just so much more memorable and he truly does come off as a "mean one" at times, in contrast with his simply grouchy 2018 counterpart.
The People Of Whoville.
The people in Whoville like Christmas a lot...and that's pretty much the only thing the films have in common with regard to the depiction of the Whos. One is downright offensive whilst the other is more faithful to the original story.
So let's discuss the 2000 version. Jesus Christ what was up with the Whos there?! They have now become a bunch of obnoxious idiots who only care about presents, with Cindy, Martha and Cindy's father being the only exceptions. The WHOLE POINT of the original story was that the Grinch was the consumeristic one who believed that they were just as consumeristic as him. It was all a gross misunderstanding on his part. The Mayor in particular is handled in an appalling manner in this movie. He is the one who was most abusive to the Grinch and then tries to pin the blame on Cindy when the Grinch predictably steals everything after that dreadful "razor" incident. If you are like me and consider the original Whoville to be the same one in the original Horton Hears A Who! story, it completely goes against the Mayor's original characterisation.
The 2018 version is much more faithful in its portrayal of the Whos on the other hand. They still have flaws, but this time it's more because they love to have big celebrations with extravagant decorations and keep on going more over the top with every passing year. Otherwise, they seem pretty accepting of the Grinch even before the climatic moment when he turns good, and they don't seem to notice anything up with him beforehand. Plus, they don't seem to mind what happened with the presents and are a lot more accepting of Cindy as well. Like in the original book, it seems to be more of a misunderstanding on the Grinch's part.
Winner: The 2018 version. This one was a little too obvious. You know what, just pretend the ones from the 2000 version don't exist.
The Aesthetic And Tone.
Besides the fact that one is live-action and the other is animated, the main difference between the films is the tone they have. Essentially, one is downright weird (even by Dr. Seuss standards) and offensive, and the other is "safe" and a little bit bland as a result.
The 2000 version has a darker aesthetic, which is interesting, but it also tries to go for a rather vulgar and surreal tone, which pretty much falls flat. The "termites in his smile" scene makes sense, but the heart attack scene is just ridiculous (even if it does seem like the more realistic reaction to your heart growing three sizes). It's especially odd when you consider that Ron Howard directed the film, and he normally directs films that aren't like this. I guess maybe the studio were forcing him to go with this aesthetic?
Whilst Jim Carrey looks fine as the Grinch (especially once he puts on the Santa outfit) and Cindy looks adorable, most of the Whos look downright hideous. Okay, I guess they were trying to make them look as obnoxious as they acted, but really?! It's essentially like what happened in The Cat In The Hat with the weird Cat suit and those grotesques versions of Thing #1 and Thing #2. Yes, Dr. Seuss stories are normally bizarre themselves, but not in a vulgar way. No wonder we haven't had any more live-action adaptations since then.
The 2018 version goes for brighter colours and looks somewhat more faithful to the original illustrations. Well okay, it still looks like an Illumination Entertainment movie but the characters don't look ridiculous. Plus it relies less on the vulgar humour that the 2000 version did. It's unfortunately nowhere near as wacky as Dr. Seuss stories normally are, but it does have its moments at times.
Winner: The 2018 version. It's pretty much another standard Illumination Entertainment film, but it's still more faithful than vulgar humour and hideous-looking live-action characters. Well, at least as faithful as a relatively tame version can get.
The Soundtrack.
The Chuck Jones special was where we originally heard the classic "You're A Mean One Mr. Grinch". It is just awesome. Thurl Ravenscroft absolutely nails it with his bass and the lyrics do not hold back when describing the "vile" Grinch himself. It's not just the theme song though - the rest of the soundtrack is also pretty good quality, with a sort of old-timey feel to it.
For some reason, both films decided to "modernise" the soundtrack to make it "relate" more with contemporary audiences. And by that, I mean use "trendy" music that will be extremely out of date a decade later or so - though considering this is 2020, the 2000 version is already out of date. Most notably, both involve rappers. Word of advice - don't do that sort of thing. It just becomes downright cringeworthy and will turn off viewers who aren't into that stuff in the first place.
The 2000 version goes for an fascinating route by having Jim Carrey sing the song in character as the Grinch. So rather than it being one insult after another hurled at him, it becomes more of a song revelling in his villainy. Kind of like what happened with "Macavity" when the Cats musical was adapted for the screen - actually no, on seconds thoughts, forget that even happened. Otherwise, they simply hired "modern" bands such as Smash Mouth and *NSYNC - bands that no doubt were more relevent in the 90s than today. Busta Rhymes also appears for some bizarre reason.
The 2018 version? Sadly, even the theme song is "modernised", which is now performed by the rapper Tyler, The Creator (yes, the comma is part of the name). Using Jackie Wilson's "Deck The Halls" is fine as that is already a timeless Christmas song and the same goes for the other oldies music that gets used (examples include The Supremes and Nat King Cole). Using rap music just because it's "trendy" is not (even if Run DMC is a brilliant band).
Winner: The 2000 version, if only slightly. "Updating" the music is simply a no-no for me in both cases, but at least Jim Carrey does the more interesting theme tune.
The Message.
The moral of the original story is essentially that Christmas isn't about material goods and is more about enjoying the good times with your loved ones. The book presents this message well, as does the TV special. The feature-length movies however try to be too forceful with the message, whilst at the same time completely undermining themselves by essentially being made for money purposes. Well, considering their quality and soundtracks, it seems that money was the main thing in mind.
The way the 2000 version handles the message is more forceful than thrusting an anvil into somebody's face. As I mentioned, the Whos are now consumeristic morons. Cindy is one of the only exceptions. It's only once Cindy's father stands up for his daughter that they realise how awful they have been towards the Grinch. This is especially bewildering when you consider the fact that the movie was mostly made as a cash-grabber and modernised its own soundtrack. Pretty hypocritical if you ask me.
At first glance, it would seem that the 2018 version fixed that problem by making the Whos nicer characters and the Grinch more of a lonely character with PTSD. Alas, the anti-consumerism message is undermined by the fact that the film does not practice what it preaches itself. Besides trying to modernise the soundtrack like the other movie did, this probably has even more merchandise associated with it than the 2000 version. Oh, and don't forget some of the weird memes it used in its advertising stage. "When guac is extra", anyone?
Winner: It's a tie. If anything, the original book and TV special managed to make the anti-consumerism message more noticeable without being forceful about it.
So after analysing both films in detail on these aspects, I can only conclude that these films don't really surpass each other. Obviously, they have different aspects that either make them better or make them worse. The 2000 version has the better Grinch and soundtrack and is a much more memorable film to top it off, for better and for worse. On the other hand, the 2018 version has more sympathetic characters in general and in a way is more faithful when it comes to tone, aesthetics and (in a sense) the plot. The only thing that can truly be agreed on by most people is that they don't match up with the original book and the Chuck Jones special.
In fact, most of these differences that make one film better than another are pretty subtle, rather than clear cut. And the review ratings show this perfectly. Critics were slightly more in favour of the 2018 version whilst audiences were slightly more in favour of the 2000 version (with iMDb being one of the few exceptions). If anything, it's probably best if we get a general opinion from everybody who watched these films.
I have created a poll in Google Forms here, where people can vote for which feature-length film they preferred, as well as comment on why they preferred it. I'm genuinely interested to see other people's thoughts on these films given how their critical and commercial reception so far appears to be similar. Meanwhile, I'm going to probably be watching the TV special all over again. It's certainly a treat, I can acknowledge that. ;)
