Posts Tagged ‘Christmas’

One Magic Christmas

One Magic Christmas

Wednesday, January 6th, 2010

At last, my “good, new (to me), Christmas movie” for the year :) How come they always come to me at the last minute?

At the heart of this movie is a practically flawless performance by Mary Steenburgen. An angel, played by Harry Dean Stanton, is sent to her with a mission basically to get her back into the Christmas spirit, as she never says “Merry Christmas” to anyone anymore (“Nobody ever means it when they say it anyway,” she tells her 6 year old daughter). Like the best grinchy characters, she’s not a total Scrooge (okay, obviously he wasn’t either, but I like that sentence anyway). We get a sense that she’s “worth” saving despite her current opposition to the Christmas season when we meet her. We see her happily singing in the shower early on, and singing again later on in the street at night in what turns out to be an important scene. We discover a different side of her, this side worth saving, in these private moments shown in harsh contrast alongside her difficult and very real public life. She remembers better times and knows what happiness is … but like a lot of us, she just doesn’t get much.

Midway, when I had already pretty much fallen in love with the movie, it takes a turn I will try not to spoil here but feel compelled to discuss. I’m pretty sure there will be reviews out there that criticise the way it deals with death given that many kids, some perhaps without one or both their parents, will see it and be taken in particularly in the Christmas season. I wondered how JK Rowling, who has always been so final about death even in her magical world, would think of this movie. But despite a little unsettlement at one particular point here, I kinda went with it in the end as it’s more a It’s a Wonderful Life type solution in the end and is more about giving Steenburgen’s character a second chance than giving anybody in the world just anything their heart desires, which let’s face it would be the “bad Disney” many people mistakenly perceive. I would just say, if you plan to watch it with young kids, especially if your family has known death, then take a look at it first yourself and then decide whether to go ahead and watch it together.

All this goes towards saying, wow, what a movie. Its early portion has moments in it where Stanton’s character “intervenes” with events that just goshdarnit make you want to believe in angels at the very least. The grounding of all the fantasy elements in this harsh reality is crucial and missing from so many seasonal movies because filmmakers are so afraid of offending anybody this time of year. This one so goes for it, more than I ever imagined. You watch this and Return to Oz and The Black Cauldron and think “who the heck had a bad day at Disney in 1985 and can I shake their hand?” ‘cos they really nailed the tightrope balance between dark and light at that time. If you’re starved for a great new Christmas movie to watch next year (since it’s a bit late now for this Christmas), and haven’t seen this, put it on top of your list. It mightn’t be great great, but it really goes there.



Mrs. Santa Claus

Mrs. Santa Claus

Wednesday, January 6th, 2010

I half-expected to like this one a lot more. Jerry Herman, Angela Lansbury, lavish design, it’d least be something to hark and gawk at. However, a little like (nowhere near as much as) Prancer Returns, I found this had nowhere near as much to do with Christmas as it perhaps should. We open with a catchy tune and elves singing whilst building toys, etc, and it’s great, then Mrs Claus decides to take the sleigh for a spin and spends most of the rest of the movie down in NYC righting wrongs at a time when suffragettes were controversial.

It reminded me very much of Samantha: An American Girl Holiday: which, though I know was written later and also lacks the musical touch, still tackled the same kind of stuff better and felt more like a Christmas movie. Lansbury is of course wonderful though, as are the tunes (I was disappointed to only hear a cameo melody of “We Need a Little Christmas”, I didn’t realise while watching that that song came from “Mame”, not this, lol), and there’s a hilariously eccentric villain in the form of Terrence Mann, in short, plenty to keep you entertained over 90 minutes plus… I just kinda hoped for something less, “hmm… not surprised it’s on TV not the stage…”.



Prancer Returns

Prancer Returns

Tuesday, January 5th, 2010

As my mind boggles at how this installment has a higher score than the original on the IMDb and yet no one defending the ’89 movie anywhere, despite my pretty much zoning out after the point where they kill the eponymous reindeer here, this review becomes an easy one to write because I know exactly what I need to say. There is no way in hell that this is better than the original Prancer.

The original was about faith, childhood, and entirely put you in the best kind of Christmas spirit, that of a child. Its comedy came from truth: right from the off, for example, the little heroine’s loud singing which in itself reflected on the themes, she sang loud because she really believed in Christmas that much, it was an outward expression of her enthusiasm. The comedy in this movie is pure and simple slapstick. This story could be transplanted and displaced wherever and whenever you want it because it is nothing but a typical “kid brings something home they’re not supposed to and hilarity ensues” tale. You know: E.T., Fly Away Home, Pete’s Dragon. Oh wait, those were all fantastic because they weren’t piggybacking someone else’s legend. Prancer Returns‘ relationship with the first movie? It’s the same town, the kid in question expresses interest in the original story (which is quickly swept aside), and decides that a dead reindeer he finds is Prancer, thence naming the baby reindeer he finds close to the scene … also Prancer.

People speak of remakes and re-imaginings as “raping their childhood” and I always found that a ludicrously extreme response to the things I saw it said of but I understand the feeling here because this movie has no respect whatsoever for its namesake. It’s like one of the many sequels to Hellraiser which had nothing to do with Clive Barker’s universe but had the box and Pinhead shoehorned in somewhere, enough to warrant a title and coverart and nothing more. Only, this was worse. Consider it deleted from the Sky+ box and forgotten forever. Yes kids might like it but they deserve better, and let’s face it there’s plenty better.

(It needs to be said perhaps that I wrote most of the above long before the movie finished: I half hoped, half feared the movie would make a fool of me by maybe having the original Prancer actually “Return” hence the title at the end or something but not even that … seriously how anybody can feel good about this movie is beyond me.)



Scrooge – A Christmas Carol [1951]

Scrooge – A Christmas Carol [1951]

Monday, January 4th, 2010

My second review of an adaptation of this book this year and I’m afraid I’m going to come out sounding like a bit of a Scrooge myself. As you’ll know if you’ve been reading a month or more, I didn’t much like Robert Zemeckis’ new 3D animated version, especially not it’s last third. Since writing that review I saw the Muppet version for the umpteenth time and James Cameron’s Avatar in 3D, which collectively made me think even less of Zemeckis’ take not only on Dickens’ novel but also on 3D and motion/performance-capture cinema. So, we come to this, the one which Mark Kermode mentions glowingly on his show every Christmas (he likes the Muppet one too, it must be said) as being one of the best.

I don’t know what to say. I tried reading the original book again this year and stopped after the first ghost because I just know it too well. While one can’t deny that this is probably one of the greatest stories ever told, there’s just something after so many tellings that feels like all the energy and creativity in the storytelling has been snuffed out. I find myself turning to the more out-there versions, Scrooged, The Muppets, because all the nobler, “accurate” adaptations just feel like painting by numbers… almost like going to a very, very boring church, just point by point like an upmarket school nativity.

This is a version I’ll watch much sooner again than Zemeckis’ (if only because, for shame, this particular viewing was of the Five broadcast colorized version – I’ll likely get the Blu-ray for next year and give it a fighting chance). I was surprised by just how much I thought invented in Zemeckis’ version was not only present here but, when I looked back, actually in Dickens’ own words to begin with. I’d prefer Bill Murray or The Muppets and Paul Williams’ songs any day, though, and it’s Christmas so I really don’t care how that makes me sound :-P



Prancer

Prancer

Tuesday, January 6th, 2009

“Yes santa, there are still Virginia’s in this world.”

I thought this was one of those movies I saw when little but had pretty much forgotten so much that it might as well be declared a first time viewing. But from the start here, I’m not so sure – it’s more likely, given the year, that it’s a movie I desperately wanted to see but just never got around to once school got in the way of things.

There’s a thing I have about titles that you may have noticed if you regularly read my reviews, and that’s: if you use a single word, an icon, just about anything definitive (think “Halloween”, “Santa Claus”, “Innocence” …), in your movie’s title, you better darn well earn the right to use it. Using the most beautiful of the reindeer names counts. Well, again from the off here, this doesn’t disappoint. Movie openings for me don’t get much better than a teacher telling the by-no-means-conventionally-cute heroine here to, “Sing more softly!” before cutting to a typically ramshackle school nativity where the girl defiantly (and probably obliviously) continues to sing however she damn well pleases. Cut from there to the rounder-faced, pre-Jurassic Park Ariana Richards, and my mind literally boggles over why I haven’t watched this in 15 years at least, nevermind the 20 since its release.

The story here is simple but perfect – somewhere in the middle of a mesh of Free Willy, Dreamer and E.T. (note the scene where she coaxes him to her house with Christmassy cookies, lol – the reindeer even makes an ET sound) – important to note only one of these movies came before 1989. It tugs your heartstrings with quotes from “Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus” but somehow I for one couldn’t help but counting it is utterly unique by way of quotes like the one I began with above. This is a movie about noticing how wonderful the minds of children are and I don’t care if it’s not of the moment to elevate things like this any more but it’s just about the most important theme of all to me and it’s likely I’ll never consider anything more important … Cloris Leachman and Sam Elliot play their parts perfectly in this movie, the part of the resilient grown-up world doubting the power of fantasy and hope. We live in a world where wars are started and people die over Christ and Muhammad. What harm is there believing in Santa Claus. Like Colbert’s Christmas special said … there are always worse things to believe in.

In short, my movie viewing this past year has really bombed and that was reflected in my Christmas watching too – I’m overjoyed I managed to fit this one first-time viewing in before the 12th day was over. It most definitely goes on my mental list (which one of these days I’ll write down) of the best Christmas movies, but it might just be one of my personal faves regardless of the season too. The one question that remains I guess … does this count as a girl/horse movie? hehe :) I believe it does, which is probably why I love it so.



Bright Eyes

Bright Eyes

Tuesday, April 29th, 2008

“There ain’t no Santa Claus!”
“Don’t say ain’t! Say isn’t.”

Okay, this is more like it. I was surprised as I checked about 10 minutes into this that it, too, like the three Shirley Temple movies I watched at the end of last week, was released in 1934. She looks a year or two older to me as she appears at the start here, marching down the road in flying leathers hitching a ride to the airport, and she looks a lot more comfortable too.

But just 15 minutes later, I discover, yet again there’s something in this Shirley Temple movie that overshadows pretty much all her contribution. It’s Jane Withers, a screen brat who certainly predated but possibly also exceeds the likes of Patty McCormack in The Bad Seed. It’s astonishing given the clear value Temple held for Hollywood at the time that nobody seems ever to have stepped in and put a damper on Withers’ performance – if it can be called that even. Where Temple is as controlled and directed as ever, Withers seems simply to have been placed on the set with her full knowing that if anyone’s going to notice her over her co-star, then dangit she’s gonna have to scream, lol.

Anyway, the story worked for me and even moved me, despite Shirley’s complete inability to stir empathy in me. James Dunn as the godfather Loop is fantastic, particularly when explaining to Shirley about her mother – and the ending is one of the most beautiful ideas I’ve seen in a movie so old … early in the movie, Loop asks Shirley “how much do you love me?” and she gives him the tightest of hugs, and this he repeats in order to make her hold on as they bail out of a storm-wracked plane with one parachute. There’s some funny business with the Uncle in the wheelchair too. Well worth the watch, and I’ll likely bring it out at Christmas some time as that’s where the movie begins.



Alvin and the Chipmunks

Alvin and the Chipmunks

Friday, February 1st, 2008

If someone had told me this had been “Josie and the Pussycatzed up” on its way to the screen, I might’ve got overly excited. I was pretty excited to see a Chipmunks movie anyway, but slipping in a little music industry satire too? How could it fail?

Well, it turns out the brilliant Josie did just about all you can do with that without needing a repeat, and when it comes to the Chipmunks … I’d really prefer it were kept a little more cute and traditional.

I think it was of this Mark Kermode said, “it’s not quite Garfield …” while I’d say, that’s just about exactly the level it’s at. It has its moments, at 90 minutes it’s not worth complaining about, but really, I’d sooner get some nostalgia and watch the old TV show and get the satire from Josie. That said, if a sequel means Chipettes? Well I’m so there, lol ;-) One thing’s for sure, the look of the chipmunks is the least of this movie’s problems … I know a lot of people nearly died when the teaser poster was unveiled but I really don’t see the problem … Theodore in particular is adorable, I want one! And they each have distinctive personalities to the point where you know which is which long before they don the colour-coded sweaters. The point where childhoods really start being raped is with the too-modern songs the guys are singing – but even that complaint gets fairly shot down by the closing credits showing all the albums released under the Chipmunks name over the decades … they have always changed with the times. There’s really nothing wrong with this movie, it’s really just a matter of how well you take it.

One thing I hadn’t bargained on was the major Christmas theme running through the movie. Of course, the Chipmunks’ Christmas album is one of their most popular recordings so I should’ve known. Still, at least I slipped it in before January was out … and it gives me a good excuse to watch it again since at that time of year I’ll pretty much watch anything :)



Black Christmas [1974]

Black Christmas [1974]

Thursday, January 3rd, 2008

I’m gonna come clean here and say, I actually watched this last week but I really couldn’t bring myself to review it because my response was so utterly non-existent compared to what I’d heard about it over the years. It’s directed by Bob Clark, who made A Christmas Story years later, a movie I was similarly underwhelmed by compared to its reputation.

So, I’ve seen it twice now. I get that it was 1974, it preceded all the slashers we all think defined the genre etc, like it even has the POV thing 4 years before Halloween. But, y’know, I’d always pegged Psycho and Night of the Living Dead and Peeping Tom for doing many of these things anyway. It’s better than the remake, I’ll give it that, but, having given it the second chance I give few movies that disappoint me, I’m really still just as I was after the first watch. It gets a little creepy just as they’re realising the killer is in the house, etc, but really, I was close to falling asleep both times. Very disappointing indeed.