In what appears an attempt to mix drama and comedy, Manuel Gomez Pereira made this film, 'Things that make life worthwhile. "It is not an original discovery, by many voice you have (quite off the pitch, by the way), but it departs somewhat from the norm in the Spanish cinema. The downside is that the elements forming the film are poorly combined, and while some points are not well developed, others are out of place. A day in the lives of two people close to the median age. It's basically what the movie Gómez Pereira. Jorge (Eduard Fernandez) is a stationary (parado) one which, despite load on your back with a drama major, seems willing to see things change. Only this explains his commitment to a minor could mean a turning point in its existence. In line with Audrey Tautou of 'Long dating' (Jean-Pierre Jeunet, 2004), Jorge says things like this to herself: "if I find a coin before the corner that is now going to change my luck. " Of course it finds it, begins to play 'Today could be a great day' (Hoy puede ser un gran dia)by Joan Manuel Serrat and in a few crosses on its way Hortensia (Ana Belen).She is another woman entry age, divorced and a little lonely. Take valeriana for sleeping, organizes birthday parties as an exemplary mother, said her belief in God and leads to a speed of homicidal mother. Hortensia is a woman of many contradictions in his behavior, life was going in his head driving data as "70% of people fall in love only once in a lifetime" and said although it is short of Jorge and unemployed and does not preclude the possibility that it is a "sadistic" sleeping in his shoulder in the cinema at the earliest opportunity. Later came a communion, a dance in the luxurious wedding banquet, the back of a car and other things that players seem to live unique experiences like that but end up doing quite heavy for the viewer. 'Things that make life worthwhile' debate between us is the drama of two adult persons who have no other that leads them to see where their strange relationship and, conversely, make us take the case as a comedy, focusing on things like a Chinese singing at a wedding (which seem to be amusing in itself) or the gait of a drunk person. The problem is that it does not leave us time to connect with the players, therefore we can not identify with the dramatic, and not give us a solid base comic too, leaving everything except pure joke. In the end, all mixed in a way that the viewer no longer know very well whether to laugh or mourn, and ends up not doing either. And it is true that something is not seen a thousand times, is not the kind of film that we find to bend every corner, but it is not sufficiently different or special as we want to do. Ana Belén (which apparently far less than the 53 years that has in this film) and Eduard Fernandez are two actors who are very enjoyable to see working, but this time it seems ready or comfortable enough in scenes that require him to break the calm that prevails in the film, so in moments like the "accident" with the children of the bar thing seems to be slipping from their hands. Perhaps a very dramatic change that has to do, but that is no excuse to lower our guard. In any case, both interpreters are erected easily the highlight of the function. 'Things that make life worthwhile' work only up to the modest level of entertainment. Any claim that is beyond that point has not been fulfilled, as a romantic comedy or dramatic as that, we presume, they wanted to do, can not afford to have little moments finished successful (beyond bad) as that in which one of the characters talk and laugh, lost drunk, compared to a boy who remains in a coma in part because of him. Neither do much for people like Rosario Pardo, making the typical friend launched whose biggest contribution to the film is the phrase "must be screwed over," and songs from the soundtrack, though significant, not just fit. It is true that the film by Manuel Gomez Pereira has its hits (some of the moments involving Jose Sacristan), but the whole is a anodyne Story, a film with good intentions and a nice result when the better.

Ron Howard directed this? The 1966 cartoon is charming, teaching a simple lesson to children using a simple plot. In this movie, Howard gives us a Whoville filled with greedy, manipulative, self-centered Whos. Jim Carrey is terrible, but I'm sure it's not his fault; I imagine the script called for the nastiest person imaginable, so Carrey channeled Tom Green and the result is movie magic. Much like Danny Devito's Penguin in Batman Returns, Carrey's Grinch is so thoroughly unlikeable that any degree of comedy that might be mined from his character simply evaporates. Where the 1966 cartoon featured a Grinch that we could all identify with, Carrey's Grinch is that angry, soulless old man that we've all seen at one time or another, sitting in a parked car muttering to himself or tripping toddlers at the supermarket with his cane. This Grinch is thoroughly bereft of any degree of humanity, humor, or insight whatsoever, and his redemption at the end of the movie rings false. The whole movie rings false: there is some stupid Christmas lighting competition, a failed attempt at explaining why the Grinch is such a jerk by digging into his childhood, and an indecipherable mystery as to why some of the Whos have that weird lip extension and some of them don't. Contrary to the 1966 cartoon, I would imagine children would find this movie tiresome, irritating, and filled with contradictory messages. Did we really need to see Slutty Smurf, aka Christine Baranski as Martha May Whovier? In addition, Ron Howard filled the cast with his untalented relatives. Throw in the requisite butt jokes, fart jokes, sex jokes, and other obligatory Carreyesque low-brow humor, and you have a movie that is about as far from the 1966 cartoon (or book that inspired it) as George W. Bush is from rational, lucid thought. Thumbs down on this big fat turkey.