The Life and Times of a Midwestern Movie Addict

A Very Violent Valentine's Day

2012-02-15T13:46:00.000-05:00

I have few things to participate in on Valentine's Day...and no, I'm not about to throw a tantrum about it being stupid, condescending to singles, and driven by greeting card and candy companies. What I mean is, there isn't a lot for the holiday to offer outside of bright decorations, specially packaged candy, and an amplification of awareness that most of the world is single. We don't get off school for it, because honestly...no one needs a day off work to spend the day with a loved one. We don't give gifts, unless we have a friend or significant other that we have made agreements with. We don't even really do parties for it (I mean grown up parties...the little ones kids do in elementary school don't count) because it's become unattractive to be a part of. Like the Star Wars prequels (or the whole series if you're as tired of it as I am), it is something that is fashionable to hate because many of us are bitter about being alone and having to sit through the weeks leading up to an event that we are not invited to. I have many friends who wish people a Happy Singles Awareness Day instead, though I think that focuses too much on our own frustrations with being lonely and less on the real trouble with the holiday...that it doesn't honor it's roots. Valentine's Day began as an observance of one or more Christian martyrs named Valentinus and it was not until the time of Geoffrey Chauser that the day became associate with romantic love or courting paractices (and people began giving valentines). You read that right kids, the day is meant to honor those who died for their faith (probably violently) and not those who have found love (or at the very least, lust). It is fitting then, that I look at a film today that is not about romance, but about violence against an innocent. I'm sure the filmmakers of this particular horror yarn were not thinking this deeply, which simply makes the irony even more prevalent in the fact that they chose to capitalize on the "holiday horror" craze of the 80s by making a film where a killer butchered some young people on Valentine's Day. So this...belated...valentine is for those of you who feel left out and ignored by the romantic side of Valentine's Day, won't you be My Bloody Valentine?

In 1960, the town of Valentine Bluffs suffered a terrible tragedy. Due to a couple of foremen wanting to get to the annual Valentine's Dance on time, a methane warning went unchecked and an explosion trapped five miners in the Hanniger Mine. Six weeks later the accident's sole survivor, Harry Warden, was rescued...much to everyone's horror. It seems that Warden survived by eating his dead co-workers and he had gone completely mad in six weeks time. After a year in a mental institution, Harry escaped and went back to Valentine Bluffs to kill the foremen responsible. As a warning, he cut the heart out of each man and placed them in heart shaped boxes with a note threatening that he would kill anyone who ever tried to hold a Valentine's Dance there again. Several years pass and Harry Warden has become a town legend that is laughed at by the kids and young people there. A group of miners decide to revive the dance, concluding that Harry Warden is nothing but a ghost story and that there is nothing to fear. However, when more hearts show up in heart shaped boxes and murders begin to occur, the town cancels the dance so as to avoid more trouble. Not to be disappointed, the miners set up their own party at the mine where, unseen, a man in a miner's outfit is slowly dispatching of them one by one. Has Harry Warden returned?

My Bloody Valentine gets a lot of flack for being one of Paramount's "Friday the 13th" clones and I think only a marginal amount of it is justified. Yes it has gore and a masked killer, and yet it is set on a 'day specific' event but there the similarities end. If anything, this film is more like Prom Night and other slashers of it's ilk where there is a mystery to be solved. Also, Valentine handles it's mystery elements and 'whodunnit?' angle better than Friday the 13th because you actually wonder about whether or not the killer is Harry Warden or one of the people from town. Another element that separates Valentine from it's brethren is it's setting. Whoever decided that a mine would make a good scary setting really had something there. Yes, "Scooby Doo" goes to the old abandoned mine a lot for clues, but live action film never really goes there in terms of setting a menacing location. Having the mine play a prominant role and having the killer wear a gas mask and mine suit makes everything about the 'horror' elements work together as an organic whole. The performances are standard and none of them really stand out...in fact, the three leads who make up the three parts of a love triangle are all fairly weak and underwritten...but luckily they are surrounded by interesting supporting cast members who take some of the weight off of their shoulders. Valentine's sense of humor is refreshing too in it's sense of irony. For example, when one girl that we know is pick-axe fodder by minute 15 is talking about her dress for the party she almost knowingly says "Cut down to here, split up to here...I might not get out alive!" It's a tremendously funny, yet also chilling moment because we know that cuts and splits don't just refer to fashion and that very few will get out of this alive. The film is peppered with funny moments like these that help to relieve the tension but that also provide excellent dramatic, situational, and verbal irony for those of us who are in the know. I think that My Bloody Valentine is clearly one of the better slasher films to come out of the 80's slasher craze, and certainly one that fits it's holiday's roots much better than you might think. These innocent victims recall the Valentinus martyrs of old and how they were needlessly slaughtered to satisfy the cruelty of another.

That's Just Ducky

2012-02-14T14:23:00.001-05:00

It's a very common thing to feel like an outcast, especially in a world where fitting in and being a part of a group is seen as so important. I see students struggling to fit in every day in school and succeeding and failing about equally in this, and I often wonder if it's something that we really can fix? I mean think about it? Most stories that we see nowadays aren't about being an individual but about coming to be accepted by the group. Some would say this is a positive, but isn't that just giving the masses the permission that it's "ok" to accept people into the assimilation machine? Where are the heartwarming stories about characters who embrace their individuality and shun the group? They do exist, but not in enough numbers. Too often we see the outcast embraced and assimilated into the group, sacrificing part of themselves in order to make the transition and we cheer for them not because it is good...but because it is what we all secretly want. We all want to belong. I can't help thinking of this subversive tactic when I'm watching films that we're supposed to hate, because I often feel like these films are outcasts that refuse to play by the group's rules...and therefore are shunned like the nerdy girl at a house party. One in particular I avoided for years because it had an infamous reputation of being one of the worst films ever made, and yet when I finally watched this supposed travesty of filmmaking, I was not turned off. Indeed, I found myself laughing at the absurdity of it all and honestly believing that that was what I was supposed to be doing. True, audiences are never going to embrace really wild ideas like pregnant men, interspecies relations, and (in the case of today's film) foulmouthed water foul. So it is with the interest of the outcast in mind that I bring to you a proud-to-be-different film called Howard the Duck.

Howard the Duck is living a fairly average life in Duckworld, the duck equivalent of Earth, where anthropomorphic ducks have evolved to achieve civilization rather than people. It is very clear that Howard lives a fine life, but is dissatisfied in his day-to-day routine. All that changes, however, when a intergalactic beam grabs him and transports him to Earth...Cleveland, Ohio to be precise. Earth's citizens are not thrilled about running into a 4-foot, talking duck and so Howard is immediately shunned, reviled, and even punished for not being more human. However he makes a friend in Beverly Switzler, a rocker in a band, who is saved by Howard when he whips up some "Quack Fu" on some muggers who accost her. Together, Beverly and Howard try to discover why he is here and how to send them back. Teamed with a batty scientist named Phil Blumburtt, they track down the source of the beam that brought Howard here to a large electromagnetic telescope that has the force to lock onto beings several galaxies away and bring them here. Things take a turn for the worst, however, when while trying to send Howard back they inadvertantly grab ahold of one of the Dark Overlords of the Universe, who then takes residence inside of Dr. Walter Jenning and threatens to destroy the world. It's up to Howard, Beverly, and Phil to stop him before it's too late.

Howard the Duck is universally considered one of the worst films ever made...and there is a lot to recommend that honor. The film centers around a 4 foot tall anthropomorphic duck which, no matter how you justify it, just seems silly. Then there is the idea that Beverly isn't just a friend to Howard, but she is actually attracted to him. This tends to turn most people's stomachs in the same way that homosexuality does for people who aren't affected by such feelings. The performances and story are campy as hell, and it often feels like two films hastily sewn together (one half is a fish-out-of-water story, the other is an alien invasion plot). Yet, I cannot find it in myself to fault Howard. Yes, it is a bad movie...but based on the level of humor and the way much of the film is staged, it is clear that that is the filmmaker's intention. It's as if they said, "How do you take a film where the star is a duck seriously?" and then answered "You don't." Everything about the film is parody from the 80s lifestyles and fashions, to the way we stereotype outsiders and weirdos. The film does not pander to us either by making the obvious and overplayed route of making a "It's ok to be me" movie. It doesn't even broach that topic...no it revels in doing what people wouldn't do with a story like this...by having Howard try to join human civilization and giving the finger to anyone who won't let him....and then it makes him fight a big, greasy monster. It's totally absurd and I have to believe that that is what the filmmakers intended...and America simply didn't get the joke. Granted, the joke isn't all that funny to begin with...but it certainly does make us look like schmucks in the way it lampoons both American culture and the way we treat those who are different. Maybe we're more comfortable when films about outsiders make us cry rather than make us laugh...afterall, films like Carrie and Mask still pack them in. Odd that we can cry for the losers, but we can't laugh at ourselves for making them that way.

Bad Kids and Broomsticks

2012-02-09T13:35:00.001-05:00

It's hard following the rules sometimes, especially in something as pointless and demeaning as study hall. I make no secret about disliking the way study hall is being done this year although I can't say it isn't a better alternative than having regular periods around lunch rather than blocks. You see, in our school, we have a lunch room that is shared with the middle school and thus requires that certain times be used for lunch and never ever changed regardless of two hour delays or schedules that otherwise don't match. It leaves a large gap in our day where nothing is happening unless there is a class...or a study hall. In the past we simply had class before and after lunch (6A and 6B) and certain teachers would either be teaching or at lunch depending on whether they had Lunch 1 or Lunch 2. Now every teacher has a study hall (X or Y) that coinsides with first or second lunch respectively. Sadly, it is mainly extended babysitting and kid corralling. Student come into the room with no expectations and no grading and essentially it is either a silent detention-like environment, or it is a social half-hour with kids talking loudly and otherwise behaving like kids. I could probably stand this if I had kids that I like...but unfortunately I have a few students in study hall that have an excess of personality (I prefer to say that than other choice words) and revel in causing drama. Earlier in the year, it became common place for kids to move between study halls in order to work (read: socialize) with friends or to complete tests with other teachers. This removed some of the 'excessive personality' students from my room and made me happier...but now, due to several issues because kids weren't where they were supposed to be...administration has asked us to only send kids using passes and making sure a call is made from teacher-to-teacher to confirm that the student did indeed arrive. I have simplified this even more by simply not allowing anyone to leave anymore, at all. I made this announcement today under the guise of being forced into it by administration (not that I want them to hate admin. but I think this is just easier) and I think most of the kids were fine with it. Then there were the ones who weren't...and I could feel their eyes burning into me like hot coals as I resumed my spot behind my desk. I wondered to myself what they would do if they thought they could get rid of me at that moment, which put me in mind of a film I began showing my sophomores today. I love to read literature and then watch the corresponding film after we complete it so that those kids who "got it" can get even more from it by seeing a visual representation and those that didn't can hopefully get a better grasp of the material as we move on. This particular piece is based on a famous play by Arthur Miller that on the surface is about the Salem Witch Trials, but on a deeper level is about the more figurative witch hunts that plague important moments through history (like Miller's own dealings with the House Un-American Activities Committee). It is also a fantastic piece of interpersonal and psychological drama and one I think every student should see. So let's head off to the trial and experience The Crucible.

Early morning in 1692 Salem, Massachusetts, some young village girls meet in the woods with a Barbadian slave named Tituba (Charlayne Woodard). One of the girls, Abigail Williams (Winona Ryder), kills a chicken and drinks the blood, wishing for John Proctor's wife to die. They are surprised by Abigail's uncle, Reverend Samuel Parris (Bruce Davison), who discovers them. As the girls run away, Parris' daughter, Betty (Rachael Bella), falls over unconscious. Parris questions Abigail about the events that took place in the woods; Betty will not awaken, nor will Ruth (Ashley Peldon), the daughter of Thomas and Ann Putnam (Jeffrey Jones and Frances Conroy), who was also dancing. This strikes Mrs. Putnam hard as she has had seven other children before Ruth who died at childbirth. The Parris house is also visited by Giles Corey (Peter Vaughan), who suspects that the children are just acting their sicknesses, and John Proctor (Daniel Day-Lewis), with whom Abigail had an affair and whose wife she wants dead. Abigail still loves Proctor, but Proctor feels that he made a mistake and leaves her. The Putnams and Reverend Parris believe that Betty and Ruth are demonically possessed, so they call Reverend John Hale (Rob Campbell) from Beverly, to examine Betty. To save herself and the other girls from punishment, Abigail claims that Tituba was working with the devil. After a brutal whipping, Tituba confesses to being a witch. Struck by their newfound power, the other girls begin naming other women whom they "saw" with the devil. What then transpires is a whirlwind of finger pointing and a real test of truth as Proctor, Corey, and Nurse all try to fight against the lies of the girls while Abigail continues to gain power and support.

The Crucible is simply an amazing adaptation. Most people who see it would never know it was a play first because of the skillful way that Miller opens up his own work and incorporates the town and characters that are only mentioned in passing within his rich original text. The addition of people who were accused but never seen in the play is masterful and allows for some very filmic montages of innocent yet unusual happenings followed closely by rabid accusation by Abigail and the girls of Salem. The performances are also top notch, as should be expected in an adaptation of a largely character and performance driven piece. Ryder crafts Abigail in a highly complex way so that she is soft and victim-like when she needs to be, and then vicious and hateful when the scene calls for it...she also never lets you see whether the softness is her mask or if her viciousness is. Day-Lewis as Proctor is tremendous (as always) and has the perfect foil in Allen's Elizabeth, for which she won an Oscar. Day-Lewis's Proctor runs a careful balance between stagey over-the-top campiness and quiet, film-like subtlety which plays perfectly against Allen's quiet coldness. She makes Elizabeth much more complex than she usually appears in the plays as she slowly lowers her walls and builds subtly to her final dramatic scene with John in the jail. Im short, there is a reason she won. So much works in The Crucible that it makes anything that doesn't stand out just a little bit more. Yes some of the scenes seem to favor screaming for actual emoting and some of the court moments veer toward campy...but isn't that also the point? These girls were faking these events so shouldn't they come off as over-the-top and unrealistic for us as a matter of dramatic irony? In any case, this is a solid adaptation and one I am anxious to enjoy through the eyes of my students as they react to the powerhouse performances and the fantastic drama.

I Couldn't Find a Good Youtube vid to embed...so here's a link instead

Madness...Times Four

2012-02-07T14:24:00.001-05:00

Today hasn't quite turned out like I had expected. I had planned to use the laptop computers with my speech classes today and then have a nice, relaxing 6th and 8th periods while our guidance counselor went over the specifics of scheduling them for their junior year. However, even the best laid plans can have hiccups. First, the laptop cart was taken by the technology dept. and so I had to (in a matter or seconds) reschedule my speech class for the library computers...and then my 6th period was less than relaxing because the only way our sophomore guidance counselor could see all of the English classes was to combine my class (which is not exactly stellar) with another teacher's class (which is comprised of a surprising variety of hoodlums) and thus, it was interesting to say the least. For the first hour it was fairly quiet and respectful, but I could sense the outbreak simmering below the surface. Then when she passed out the class choice forms...it was like the eruption of Mt. St. Helens. Ok, maybe it wasn't that bad but it certainly was chaotic. I'm hoping that 8th period, which is not combined with anyone's class, is nicer and more restrained. I was put in the mindset of madness, though, and thinking about how quickly placidity becomes absolute bedlam under the right circumstances...and I was reminded of a film that is being released on Blu-ray today as one of MGM's latest catalogue releases. It is an amazing sight...a screwball/chase comedy featuring some of that decade's biggest stars that can also be classified as an epic, seeing as it runs over two and a half hours. You might think that a comic genre cannot sustain a film of such a massive length and would grow stale and boring...and that is where the film defies by being one of the most engaging and entertaining comedies of the 1960s. So let's join in on the chase as we find out that It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World.

A group of strangers all traveling the same stretch of road find themselves thrown into a crazy adventure when an out of control car nearly runs them off the road. The driver of the car is "Smiler" Grogan, a suspect in a tuna factory robbery 15 years ago. The strangers, Melville Crump, a dentist; Lennie Pike, a furniture mover; Dingy Bell and Benjy Benjamin, two friends on their way to Las Vegas; and J. Russell Finch, an entrepreneur, all bear witness to Smiler's dying words. As he fades away, he reveals that he has hidden away his stolen fortune of $350,000 in Santa Rosa under "a big W". The strangers all agree to ignore the information...at least for a hot minute. Soon they are all convincing themselves to go after the cash (or in the case of Finch, convinced by an overbearing mother-in-law) and are dead set on arriving there first so they can profit and screw the others out of a cut. The race to the finish becomes nasty, then violent, and then all-out insane as they ruin cars, boats, planes, and other assorted vehicles in their pursuit of financial gain. Along the way, more and more bystanders who hear about the stolen money begin to join in on the hunt until it seems like the whole world is out to get the loot...along with a police detective who has been hunting Smiler and his loot for 15 years. Who will succeed?

It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World is the perfect kind of blockbuster. It takes a very simple idea and then adds in hundreds of characters that will add to the drama of the simple idea and expand the run time to over 2 hours. Then you cast the whole picture, even the cameo roles, with huge Hollywood stars. It then no longer feels like a simple idea...it feels like an event. Irwin Allen would use this formula to good effect many times when he produced his disaster movies...but Mad is probably more effective than any of those, because it is a comedy. No one dies (except for Jimmy Durante as Smiler) and all the violent situations end with some kind of punchline so the audience remains enthralled and in suspense without getting depressed. It really shouldn't work and should play more like a gargantuan mistake, however thanks to the film's unabashed disdain for anything traditional and it's embracing of all that is insane and hilarious. There are clear protagonists who have arcs...but they often change and aren't always who you think. Also, its amazing which characters you will find memorable in the assortment. Some latch onto Spencer Tracy's downtrodden police detective while others relate to the arc of Dorothy Provine who plays the seen and rarely heard (until the end) wife of Milton Berle's Finch. Myself, I tend to follow Ethel Merman's Mrs. Marcus, the shrill and overbearing mother-in-law of Finch (because she is so beautifully insufferable). There's something and someone for everyone in this film...as long as you can outlast the run time. I think the only downside to Mad is it's extremely long run time, which seems excessive but ends up being necessary given the sizable load of characters in the piece. However, should your butt fall asleep during the viewing...it doesn't hurt to hit the pause button at Intermission. Rent it for a Friday or Saturday night when you don't have anything planned and laugh yourself silly.

Rocket Man

2012-02-02T13:42:00.000-05:00

When I think back on my youth, there always seemed to be a class, or a guest speaker, or a test that would ask about your favorite superpower. In trying to understand how student minds work, someone always asks what ability you wish you had that is supernatural (in fact, I've even done this in my own classes). A lot of people choose telepathy and mind reading, others choose invisibility, and still others like choosing eternal life. Me, I was much more simple. I wanted to be able to fly. I always enjoyed stories of characters who could fly and it always seemed to me to be a much more practical super power than invisibility or eternal life (although telepathy would be pretty awesome). If I could fly, I could reach destinations faster and cut down on my gas bill...I could reach the top of buildings and mezzanines in a single bound and never worry about stairs or elevators again. I could even see the world from a completely new perspective. My fascination with flying is not unique; it seems as though everyone would love to be able to fly. The writers of Superman, Watchmen, and even Hancock all have added flight to one or more of their characters because of how powerful it makes characters seem. Air travel remains popular due to it's ease and speed and folks almost always want the window seat so they can look down at the world below them. Flight is one of life's miracles and we treat it with reverence. I suppose that is why today's film still fascinates me as much as it did when it was new. So let's take to the skies with Disney's answer to the comic book movie, The Rocketeer.

Cliff Seacord is a pilot who hopes to make his mark as an aerial racer and artist, however circumstances never seem to be going his way. He has done clown shows for very little money, has kept himself from treating his girlfriend Jenny Blake to nicer dates because he is broke, and has hung all of his hopes and dreams on a single airplane. You can imagine his shock and dismay then, when that plane is totaled when the FBI is chasing a fugitive across his runway and the gunfire brings him down. The FBI destroys his plane and a gas tank in their chase and refuse to pay for it, leaving Seacord and his mechanic, Peevy, to hold the bill. Little do they know that the crook took Peevy's old vacuum cleaner and substituted it for what he stole...a prototype made by aviation king Howard Hughes. When Cliff and Peevy find it, they think that just maybe their luck has changed. The prototype is a backpack rocket, meant to allow a man to fly. The first time they turn the contraption on, it goes flying across the room and nearly destroys their work space, but soon after they begin to understand how the device works. Meanwhile Jenny, who aspires to be an actress, has just joined the cast of a medieval film featuring Nevile Sinclair, a dapper Clark Gable-like actor. She admires him and longs to play a scene with him, but she does not realize that Sinclair is actually a Nazi spy who originally commissioned the theft of the rocket. Nevile soon realizes that Seacord has the rocket and makes plans to use Jenny to get it from him...and Seacord suddenly finds himself needing to become a hero.

The Rocketeer takes elements from superhero films like Superman: The Movie and mixes in a healthy dose of 1930s Indiana Jones flavor to create something that feels familiar on one hand and yet terribly unique. It is one of the many cases, particulalry in the wake of 1989's Batman, where a film was clearly meant to be a franchise starter and yet never quite took off. Like The Shadow and The Phantom, audiences weren't exactly dying to see The Rocketeer and with good reason. It merely looked like "Superman" crossed with "Indiana Jones" from the advertisements and so people already felt that it was "been there, done that". While part of that is true, another part of that ignores what made The Rocketeer unique. First, it was a very violent film for Disney, with men being folded in half and a respectable amount of fake blood dribbling from wounds but also, it was much like Die Hard in that it was about a reluctant hero. Superman and Batman are fighting crime because they feel they must...but Cliff Seacord simply gets dragged into the action due to proximity. He only becomes a hero in the interest of saving his girlfriend, not because he wants to save the world. Few comic book films featured a hero who didn't want to be a hero and that sets The Rocketeer apart from it's brethren. That's not to say that Cliff is selfish, not a bit...he just knows that when you want something done right, you should do it yourself. That is his position each time he saves someone, whether it is a friend caught in an airplane disaster, or his lady love when she is heald bay by the evil villain. Billy Campbell, Jennifer Connelly, and Timothy Dalton should all be commended for their performances...particularly Campbell and Connelly who were not "names" at the time and so feel like fresh-new faces for us to fall in love with. It's a shame that the film didn't take off with audiences (no pun intended) and thus we have no part 2, 3, or 4. However, maybe that's best given the track record of comic book sequels in the 90s. Perhaps someone will do a reimagining (I hate that word) of the story for new audiences and turn it into something that people will want to see again and again. Until then, we will only have the original comic books and the film, which is a diamond in the rough for anyone to discover.

Being Fair

2012-01-30T13:31:00.002-05:00

Ah, we are getting into the month of February...where romantic comedies abound thanks to Valentine's Day and where other films go to die. February, like January, has that terrible reputation of being a dumping ground for films studios don't have much faith in. It should come as no surprise then that, aside from a few annual exceptions, the films released here often get bad reviews. Notice that I didn't say that these films actually are bad...as some analysts and critics would have you believe...rather because it is well-known in the industry that these months are landfills, critics tend to be harsher and much less in the mood to watch these films (which is odd, since you'd think that films picked last for the softball team should be treated a little more gently...since we know they can't perform amongst their better-date brethren). There are notable exceptions (many of them put in limited release in December to be eligible for awards season, but wide released in January or February to acclaim) which include Coraline, and then there really are poor films like Virus. However, it really isn't all that different from other times in the year aside from the fact that there are very few tentpole releases. Then there is another well-followed axiom of the film world, which is that any film that does not pre-screen for critics almost always gets terrible reviews. Again, cynical critics and analysts would have you believe that that means the films are bad...but that is not often the case. Critics, try as they might, are not the objective folk they try to appear to be and they are subject to the same biases and personal taste preferences as the rest of us. They also hold a grudge when they aren't invited to a party, and when they have to see a movie with the rest of us mortals they tend to be fairly unapologetic. However, this should not act as an actual evaluation of quality. Many know the tale of Alfred Hitchcock's Psycho and how it was released unscreened for critics. The reviewers attempted to bury the film because they were ticked at not being allowed to see it first, but the public spoke and now it is considered a classic and beyond reproach. Heaven help a film then, if it is released in the early months of the year AND is not screened by critics. That is the moment when people begin to make next year's Razzie Nominations. Such a think happened this past weekend and a film that was a labor of love for many was thrown under the bus. Were the critics too harsh or was the venom justified? Let's see as I do my own look at a book-to-film adaptation 15 years in the making, One for the Money.

Stephanie Plum is an out of work and single woman in her 30s who lives in The Burg, a rather close knit and colorful portion of Trenton, New Jersey. She had been working as a lingerie salesgirl at Macy's but was let go due to down-sizing. She has no car, no income, and no skills so it seems that Stephanie may be at the end of her rope. However, thanks largely to the urging of her Grandma Mazur, Stephanie goes to see her cousin Vinnie who runs a bail bonding company to see if she can persuade (read: blackmail) him into giving her a job as a filing clerk. Unfortunately for Stephanie, the filing job is no longer needed. However, the store manager Connie suggests that Stephanie look into skip-tracing. Essentially she would track down any clients who were FTA (Failure to Appear for a Court Date) and bring them in to collect 10 percent of the bond. Stephanie agrees upon seeing that an ex-boyfriend, Joe Morelli, has skipped bail and will net her $1000 is she can catch him. Thus begins a cat-and-mouse game that teaches Stephanie that she needs more than a smile and her natural stubborness to catch a crook. She begins learning the trade of bounty hunting from Ranger, a much more experienced skip tracer, and through her own experience and in doing so, begins to suspect that there is more to Morelli's case than meets the eye. As the clock ticks forward and everyone Stephanie has talked to about the case seems to wind up dead, she begins to wonder if she is in over her head.

One for the Money currently has a 3% on Rotten Tomatoes and a score of 20/100 on Meta Critic which would tell anyone who relies on reviews to stay away...the message is clear: this film is worse than Ishtar or Gigli. I have to admit, that even I was gun shy about seeing this one...and I consider myself a moderate fan of Janet Evanovich's 18 book series about the female bounty hunter (having loved the first 10 books and then feeling waning disinterest as I kept going). However, I also couldn't understand how anyone could have made a horrible movie based on this wonderfully funny and exciting book so I went to see it anyway. I was pleasantly surprised to see that the crowd was packed pretty tight at our theater for it as well, considering the bad press it was getting. However, the real surprise was how much I and my fellow audience members enjoyed the picture. No, there were no real belly laughs or guffaws, but several hearty "hah!s" and "chuckles". Actually, the picture was darker than the trailers would have had you believe and more people were wrapped up in the mystery plot (which several reviewers had called ridiculous and ineptly handled). Going out, I decided that no...it certainly wasn't the best action comedy I'd ever seen (that goes hands-down to Romancing the Stone), but it was still a good film (fine at worst) in that it did the job it set out to do, it entertained me. I enjoyed Katherine Heigl's turn as Plum, much more than I thought I would, and I felt that the material remained true and in-spirit to the source material. The comedy was amusing, and the suspense was genuine. I could only guess, upon leaving, that I must simply have less discriminating tastes or I must have bad taste if I liked a film so loathed by critics. How else could I explain that pleasant feeling that I felt (you know the one I mean, when you've really enjoyed your night at the flicks) afterward? Far be it from me to imply that the critics are being overly harsh to this little yarn and it's star (the seemingly universally disliked Katherine Heigl) or to imply that with a different star, press screenings, and a better release date it might be much closer to a 45 or 50% rating (I'm not naive...it's not groundbreaking cinema). Then again...when a film makes number three in the country despite a 3% in ratings, you do have to wonder if the opinions being shared aren't somewhat biased.

The Big Picture

2012-01-25T12:41:00.000-05:00

Yesterday was a pretty big day. I had auditions for the senior class play (which went well considering only five students showed up), a full day of reading in my sophomore classes (we FINALLY started Act III of the Crucible), and the CCT awards dinner (from which I won nothing, but I don't mind...the best folks did indeed win) and by the end of it all, I was fairly pooped. You'd think I'd sleep really well after such a busy day...and yet, you'd be dead wrong. I ate three desserts at the dinner (because I had walked up so many extra calories going back and forth across the school yesterday) and since I hadn't done that many sweets in a terribly long time, I think all the sugar kept me awake. It was a very good day, however, and once I got into the afternoon it flew by so quickly. However, I still had time to watch a movie before bed and here it is for your consideration. It's probably spoiling my usual lead-up to tell you that the film is the sequel to the film I covered yesterday, but given my level of exhaustion I kinda don't care. I suppose sometimes our emotions are just bigger than usual...which goes along with the film nicely. It is a film about growth and size...and for once that is meant in the literal rather than in the figurative sense. So I bring to you one of the screen's BIGGEST stories (Ok, I'll stop the puns after this) entitled Honey, I Blew Up the Kid.

The Szalinski's (Wayne, Diane, Amy, Nick, and their new 2-year old baby Adam) have moved from their Fresno, California residence into a new address in Vista Del Mar, outside of Las Vegas, due to the success of Wayne's shrinking technology. The family still keeps the tale of how he shrank the kids on the down-low to keep Amy and Nick from being questioned, harassed, and tested and Wayne is discovering how challenging corporate science can be. His partner (read: boss) Dr. Charles Hendrickson is constantly trying to keep Wayne from being involved in their new project, reversing the process to make things grow, and Wayne has mainly remained in the project as a figurehead because he cannot tow the line and do as he's told. Meanwhile, Amy is leaving for college and Diane insists on going with her to help her set up in her new dorm so that leaves Wayne, Nick, and Adam to enjoy a temporary bachelorhood. However, before you can say "sequel", Adam is accidentally exposed to Wayne's new growth-ray and starts to gradually grow in size every time he comes in contact with an electrical appliance. Despite Nick's, Wayne's, and Diane's efforts, they cannot keep him from growing and soon Adam is a towering 112 feet tall. It is then up to the Szalinskis and Wayne's boss Clifford Sterling to find Adam and shrink him back down to size before he destroys the city of Las Vegas completely.

Honey, I Blew Up the Kid is a hard film to like...and at the same time a hard film to dislike. The film expands on the original characters and gives everyone, from Wayne to Diane and down to Nick (sadly excluded is Amy, who is written into going to college) more to do than the last installment. However, the plot is so predictable and easy to figure out (I mean, you literally imagine the producers discussing the story "First he made teenagers small...what if he made a baby BIG?") that you spend much of the film waiting for things to happen rather than wondering what will happen. There is a certain level of suspense in wondering whether Adam really will seriously hurt someone or destroy something...but after a while, you realize that nothing of the sort will really happen because as precocious as Adam is...he is ultimately gentle and merely at play. In fact, I think if Disney had placed any of the scampering humans at Adam's feet in genuine peril that the audience would have objected and the film would have gone to much darker places than this summer blockbuster really has any right to go. It's true that the film was rewritten from a original script into a "Honey" sequel and so the limitations of the plot's imagination isn't completely it's fault (though it's a good thing they made it a sequel...because if this were trying to look original everyone would have just compared it to the first Honey anyway). The comedy is solid and the direction, given the limitation of the early 90s effects, is also solid so I can't fault the film there. I really is just a highly predictable and by-the-numbers film that is fine but never a replacement for it's much superior original.

It's a Small World Afterall

2012-01-24T18:08:00.000-05:00

Yesterday was a great day. I know I gave mention to that yesterday at this time, but I really mean it. The school day passed very quickly and I had plenty of time at home to relax...however I didn't relax, I made a mess in my kitchen instead. Tonight is the annual CCT (Chillicothe Civic Theater) awards dinner and they asked all who were attending to bring a covered dish to share. I decided to make the Bacon Cheddar Mashed Potatoes that I made with my sister this past Thanksgiving (and got rave reviews for), but I had never made mashed potatoes from scratch before. Usually I just make the powdered kind which taste just fine to me, but I figured since I'm making this for a large group I should go all out. So after peeling, slicing (with a food processor), and boiling the potatoes I had already spent 45 minutes on this one dish. Good grief! I also had to cook bacon and grate cheddar cheese too, which added to the time (though I was able to do most of that during the boil time for the potatoes. From that point it was fairly easy, I just dumped the potatoes into my mixer and used the whisk attachment to mix in all the other ingrediants. At the end of the experience (including clean up) I had spent an hour and a half making food that I myself was not planning to even eat that night. It was a little rough on me mentally and pretty much made me pooped for the remainder of the night. I don't mind, however...I know the dish will be a hit. It was interesting how my time shrank down to practically nothing as I sat there in the kitchen and worked, which put me in the mood for today's film. I remember having a facination with miniature things when I was a child. Models, 3D puzzles, Micro Machines, and even mini-games simply amazed me. I don't know if it was just that the things were reduced in size or that I was simply easy to entertain...but regardless I found the small universe facinating. My mom seemed to understand this too, because she often delighted in giving me mini-foods (usually when I wouldn't eat the regular sized version) and mini-things. I suppose then it was inevitable in the summer of 1989 that I would end up at one film that dealt with things that were miniature as well as things that were huge. It was a live-action picture from Disney (who hadn't made many successful live-action films in a while) and was tailored almost perfectly for a kid like me. So let's shrink ourselves down to size and enjoy revisiting Honey, I Shrunk the Kids.

Wayne Szalinski, a scientist, is struggling both in his professional life and in his marriage. His wife Diane is largely supporting their family through her real estate work while Wayne spends much of his time inventing, and then she comes home from that to clean house and cook for her demanding family. During a particularly rough patch in their relationship Wayne also hits a rough patch in his work. The shrink ray he is attempting to create refuses to work and only wants to blow things up and this forces him to complete his presentation on his work without proof...essentially getting himself laughed off the stage. Little does Wayne know that he is about to have some very tangible proof very soon. His children, Amy and Nick, are home alone trying to clean the house when Ron Thompson, a neighbor kid, hits his baseball into the Szalinski's attic and accidentally activates the machine. Russ Thompson Jr., Ron's older brother, makes Ron go to apologize and when they go up to retrieve the baseball, they are all shrunk by the machine to a height of 1/4 of an inch. To add to their plight, Wayne comes home and destroys his machine in a rage and throws the kids out in the garbage...now they must deal with gigantic bugs, huge lawnmowers, and a backyard that is more like a vast jungle than the boring suburban space they know. The kids must get back to the house and get big, or else they could be in big trouble.

Honey, I Shrunk the Kids is one of those perfect family movies from the 1980s. It has action, special effects, an excellent story, and a great deal of heart thanks to the performances of it's leads. The sets are particularly astounding as they perfectly replicate attic floors, blades of grass, counter tops, and other everyday objects as enormous environments for the four kids to run around in. The design of the shrink ray is also impressive given that it looks highly technical and yet completely homemade. Joe Johnston, a long time cinematographer for Steven Spielberg, expertly directs this, his first feature, as a rollicking old-fashioned adventure that has the feel of a real-life safari mixed with the feel of playing make believe in the backyard. Watching this film again I had a tremendous feeling of nostalgia, and yet really appreciated how well the film has aged. Sure, the song Amy dances to in the kitchen reeks of the late 80s and the clothes and hair styles are not of this time...yet the film still works as an exciting romp for young and old, and is a great film to revisit nowadays.

A Remake Done the Spielberg Way

2012-01-23T14:16:00.001-05:00

Last week was amazing. I got so much work done both on the finishing up side of things and the prep side and I had a great time hanging out with my teacher friends at our long lunches (everyone gets an hour for lunch during an exam week). Add to that getting to spend more time with my friend Bond than I have in over a year this past weekend and a fancy meal at J. Gilbert's (it was Restaurant Week in Columbus again), and you have the mark of an amazing week. I also hadn't seen my study hall in over a week (which in itself is enough to make a week great...they annoy the piss out of me) so it's almost a shame that today we had to get back into the normal routine of class, rinse, repeat. However, I am cautiously optimistic about this second half of the school year. The first half seems to have flown by, from my point of view, and I know with the senior play and the musical in the near future that my time is going to essentially evaporate into the air. Before you know it (in exactly 4 months and six work days), it will be summer and I'll be chilling. It's a nice thought, considering the challenges ahead (like getting through my second year of having students in the OGT and finding all the props we'll need for the shows) and it's part of what keeps me going. Also, I feel like I've largely broken in my classes and that I can control them all and get them to produce the kind of work I expect (which in itself is a first-time feeling...usually by now I've resigned myself to "what you see is what you get"). Maybe I have finally hit that 3rd year stride all the wizened ancients have told me about. Now, onto today's film which is also about new beginnings and renewals but also about love and loss...all those great general emotions that make for touching stories. It is a film that had already been made once before in the 1940s as A Guy Named Joe and is not one you would expect to see as a contemporary story in 1989...considering the film was about World War II and fighter pilots. To my knowledge, even though we were all terrified of World War III, it wasn't something that had happened and thus could be written into a story like this. However, Steven Spielberg and his team of artists would not be blocked from bringing their version of the story to screens (afterall, it was one of his favorite films) and so they made a few setting changes and took some generous liberties and suddenly yes...the story was fresh and relevant again. However, would it be a success or would it be known as Spielberg's second major failure (cause we know how people loathe the idea of remakes). Let's fly into the sunset and find out with Always.

Pete Sandich is an aerial firefighter who spends his days flying a surplus A-26 bomber over forest fires and dumping fire resistant slurry on them to put them out. He is an ace pilot and wonderful at what he does, however he is also a huge risk taker and is constantly putting his life in danger for his job. This gives his partner Al Yackey pause and drives his girlfriend Dorinda Durston, a pilot and a dispatcher, many sleepless nights. One night, after Pete manages to glide into the runway on nothing but a wing and a prayer, Dorinda presents him with an ultimatum: either Pete gets out of the air and moves to Flat Rock, Colorado to train firefighters or she leaves him to find a man who can fly sensibly. To quote her, "I love you Pete, but I'm not enjoying it." Pete agrees, but not before he is needed for one last run. During the flight, Al's engine catches fire and Pete risks his own life to save him...killing himself in the process. Al and Dorinda mourn Pete's loss and move on to new places, seemingly drawing the story to a close. However, Pete's spirit is still kicking and has been assigned by Hap, a kind of angel, to be the inspiration and guide of a new pilot in training named Ted Baker. Ted is a bit of a klutz, but he has talent that Pete can easily see even when his instructor (Pete's old friend Al) cannot. Things become more difficult for Pete, however, when he discovers that Dorinda is also in Flat Rock and that Ted is falling in love with her. He now has to ask himself if he should spend his energy getting her to not forget him, or if he has the strength to let her go.

Always is something of a curiosity for Spielberg in that it came after a long smear of action-adventure pictures and two heartfelt dramas (Empire of the Sun and The Color Purple respectively). It looked to follow in those films footsteps in that it was about human emotion and drama, but it also had the supernatural angle that was more in tune with the Indiana Jones films and Poltergeist (which Steve directed). However, it was not meant to be a success, as it opened behind National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation, Tango and Cash, The War of the Roses, and Back to the Future Part II and didn't exactly light the box-office on fire. More damning was the critical response which criticized the director's departure from his established formula, his insistence on making a remake, and dated material. Indeed, the film even takes a moment to mention how much the firefighter's lodge is reminiscent of the USOs of WWII. Tired and dirty airmen and women hang around while they drink beer and eat bad food. Some of them fall in love and then spend sleepless nights wondering when their partners will arrive home safe and sound. However, I think this comparison does a disservice to the film. Sure it feels a little like romanticised World War II...but at the same time it is a depiction of what life is like (or may be like) for those firefighters who work so hard to keep our nations national forests from burning to the ground each year. I personally think it was an ingenious plot device that allowed Speilberg to have his WWII planes and pilots and yet still keep the film firmly rooted in the present day. How many other directors were making films about aerial firefighters? That story also provides a great deal of conflict early on in the film and provides Dorinda with a very good motive for wanting Pete to stop what he is doing. To quote her again, "I could understand if you were risking your life for someone else's life...anybody's life." Indeed, the fact that Pete risks himself for burning trees makes his daredevil piloting much more of a character flaw that it would have in a film where soldiers are really risking themselves for the lives of the men they work with and thus gives him immediate complexity as a character. Richard Dreyfuss as Pete is only one part of the heart of the film...the other parts filled by John Goodman as Al and Holly Hunter as Dorinda. Goodman always gives 110% whenever he is on camera and that is true here as well as he manages to be funny and amazingly touching (sometimes even in the same scene) and Holly Hunter expertly acts Dorinda and keeps her from being the nagging and worrisome shrew she could have been. She is both soft and strong, funny and serious, and she carries the biggest challange of the film...not turning into a stereotypical "weeping widow". All three actors deserve to be nominated for their work in this film, and it is a real shame that none of them were. Sure, they've all earned their respective awards for better known work...but it is work like this that goes unnoticed due to critical disintrest and box office numbers that really matters and shows that it isn't just "Roseanne" or The Piano or The Goodbye Girl that are worth seeing. I will always love Always (forgive the terrible pun that I didn't mean to write) and will forever insist that it is a gem of a movie. (P.S. I forgot to mention, this film is also the final film performance of Audrey Hepburn who expertly plays the angel Hap with a grace and a wisdom that seems supernatural and it is always a delight to see her in this.)

Nice Doing Business With You

2012-01-12T12:30:00.001-05:00

There are some movies, as I said back when I first started this blog, that we aren't supposed to like because of several factors. Perhaps it is because the star is someone that is generally known to have little to no talent, or maybe it is the fact that the film is a remake or a sequel to something much more well liked, or maybe the story is just too strange or odd to really connect with mass amounts of people. Either way, general consensus dictates that the film is of poor quality and so it gets shuffled off to the side to rot. It might surprise you to know that many of my favorite films fall into that outcast group of films we're supposed to not enjoy. I think this is the case for two reasons...one, I've always been a little left-of-center regarding my taste, but also when I see these films my expectations remain low and allow the films a much better chance of impressing me. We come, then, to the film of the day that I have enjoyed since I was in college and which was considered a misfire by those in the know...it has actually become something of a winter tradition too. Every January, I either rent or watch the film on Netflix because I need a good laugh and it delivers (I probably should buy it at some point). It is an underdog story and a gender reversal story which makes it ripe with comic possibilities and full of deeper themes at work, and I think makes it eligible for a second look from the public. So let's head down to Wall Street and conference with The Associate.

Laurel Ayres is a smart and single investment banker trying to move her way up the corporate ladder. She thinks she has a promotion in the bag, but discovers the cold truth about the Wall Street 'boy's club' when her partner, who she trained, takes her promotion right out from under her. Unable to deal with it and tow the line like the other women who have been passed over, Laurel tries to start her own business as an investment banker. All of her old contacts are not interested in working with her because she is an African American woman and she becomes highly discouraged. In a moment of desperation, she invents a fictional partner who is both male and white and makes it seem like he is her boss and the man behind the ideas. She names him Robert S. Cutty and creates an entire persona and identity for him in order to make people believe that he really exists. Then, along with a computer-savvy secretary named Sally Dugan, she begins to become one of the best independent stock brokers in the city. However, when the public demands to see more of Cutty and Laurel begins losing credit to Cutty for her own ideas, she begins to wonder if she will be able to keep the lie going.

The Associate is a seemingly routine comedy with fairly standard comic tropes such as underdog-makes-good and the gender-bender, but there is much more going on than just a standard comedy. The film also takes malicious glee in sending-up the media and their frantic scramble to find the next new face of fame (and to hunt it down when it refuses to appear on camera). I particularly enjoy how it cynically and matter-of-factly points out that everyone is in on the take, from bellhops and concierges of hotels, to high-end business people and professionals. The film also, in it's most prominent theme, examines the effort businessmen go to to keep women (especially women of color) out of their executive board rooms and clubs. A particularly wonderful scene features Laurel (Whoopi Goldberg) entering the Peabody Club (rich males only) dressed as Cutty and unmasking upon accepting the Businessman of the Year award. The men all react with shocked expressions, but the women who are demanded to remain outside and the waiters and bus boys who serve the men, give her a standing ovation. Speaking of performances, while Whoopi is wonderful as always, it is the supporting players who give the film it's most oomph. Dianne Wiest plays Whoopi's overlooked secretary with a sweetness that makes her very likable and pleasant, but also with a bit of tartness to show that she has some attitude to match. Her character is a wonderful foil for Whoopi and a voice of reason to her when her lies begin to become too intricate. Also lighting up the sidelines are Bebe Newurth as a shrewd and sexy accountant, Lanie Kazan as a loud-mouthed reporter, and Tim Daly as Laurel's former partner and chief antagonist of the film. Overall, I would definately place this film next to Working Girl as a "women in business" double feature. See if you haven't, and maybe you'll make it a tradition too. (Apologies, the trailer is in another language.)

Something Fishy (and non horrific)

2012-01-06T13:36:00.000-05:00

I've watched and reviewed a lot of horror these past few days and so I think today I should do something a little different today. First let me lament about the Internet situation here in the building today. The Internet has been running slow and sluggish the whole week and today the technology department decided to run a full diagnostic over it which requires turning off several Internet ports...which makes the Internet not work in several places in the building. This normally wouldn't bother me, as it comes back with enough frequency to allow me to take role and check things for starting class. However, I am also giving my quarterly assessments today and we have to do them online...which is fairly difficult when the Internet keeps going in and out. I literally almost pulled out my hair trying to deal with that this morning and assuring the students that everything would be fine eventually. This afternoon is my last class where I need to do this and I am hopeful that everything will be much smoother. Sometimes I wonder, despite my love for new technology, if I wouldn't be happier in a simpler time or place. Animals don't have to deal with frustrations like these, they just have to deal with the survival of the fittest (which seems like a perfectly reasonable full time job). The film I am looking at today looks at a man who wishes he could live a simpler life as an animal, and against all odds he gets his wish. So let's get swimming and look at The Incredible Mr. Limpet.

The film opens in 1941 and focuses on Henry Limpet, a shy bookkeeper with an astigmatism and a fascination with fish. He wants nothing more than to be able to join the Navy, but his vision and his small stature keep him from doing so. His wife, Bessie, tries to love him and be supportive of him but she finds his interest in fishes and lectures to be aggravating. His friend George Stickle often comes to visit and smugly rubs his Naval commission in Henry's face. One afternoon, when the trio is visiting Coney Island, Henry goes out on the pier and while wishing he could become a fish, he accidentally falls in. As he sinks, he slowly turns into a large spectacle-wearing fish while Bessie and George simply assume that Henry has drowned. Enjoying his new body, Limpet swims off into the ocean where he meets a grumpy crab he names Crusty, and a lovely lavender porpoise he names Ladyfish. He also discovers he can produce a powerful underwater "thrum" that can actually knock larger fish away from him through the water. Realizing that his knowledge of boats can help the Navy, he gets in touch with them by helping them sink a U-boat. George becomes Limpet's liaison to the Navy and they set off on a mission to invade Germany by sea. However, the Nazi forces have begun developing a weapon to hunt and kill Limpet before he can destroy anymore of their ships. It is now a race against time to see if Limpet will prevail against the Third Reich.

Like many family-oriented films in the 1960s, The Incredible Mr. Limpet looks kinda cheap and is just a little too precious for it's own good. The story is largely implausible due to there being no explanation for Limpet's change in form nor his "thrum" ability. However, the cast and director take the affair so seriously (comic moments notwithstanding) that it is hard to not get caught up in the fun of it. Don Knotts plays Limpet very meekly in human form and then steadily bolder as he learns to live life as a fish. It's hard to think of Knotts as a war hero, but his Limpet is courageous and genuine like some of film's classic heroes. The other human players are good, but they can't really hold a candle to Knotts. The music of Limpet is not the best you will ever hear nor the most memorable, in fact this is one musical where I think the songs really slow the plot down rather than help it along (which may be what the filmmakers intended, since the film's story is fairly straightforward). The bright colors and stagy production design for the live action scenes, as well as the mixing of animation and live actors, make this another candidate for 'films most likely to be mistaken for a Disney production'. It's palate and artificiality match much of what was coming out of the Mouse House in the same era, such as Mary Poppins, though the former has been given considerably more love and care than Warner's has done with Limpet. Still, it's a charming (if flawed) picture that manages to entertain me consistantly each viewing. If you have little ones, they will probably enjoy the animated fish while you laugh at the fun that is poked at World War II. It certainly won't be dull.

New Decade, New Rules

2012-01-05T13:51:00.002-05:00

I'm starting to feel old. I know I say that a lot, but after last year's theatrical offerings I really feel old. For example, The Muppets was released at the tail end of the year and was all about how they weren't cool anymore and had been forgotten largely by the pop culture center. Having existed in the heyday of the Muppets career, that hit me somewhat hard. Also, shows I used to love are now entering their 20th and 30th anniversaries (such as Designing Women and Roseanne) and some of the actors are even dead now. So the recent nostalgia/reboot kick has both delighted me and made me a little embarrassed, because even though I've been a lifelong fan of something like the Muppets...its now more campy and "cute" to still like them rather than to have grown up and moved on. So it is with deep reverence that I bring to you my look at the latest and so-far final entry in the "Scream" series, released to theaters in April of 2011. It finds the familiar characters older and more world-weary than before and a bit lost in the current pop culture world...much how my generation is scrambling for a foothold to stay hip and aware. And yet, the film is timely and topical in a way that only Kevin Williamson and Wes Craven know how to be and it feels like an homage to the 90s and an ode to today. It is without further ado that I introduce a film that rejuvinated my faith in horror, Scream 4.

It has been 11 years since Ghostface last terrorized Sidney Prescott and all has been very quiet on that front. However, a good horror franchise must keep going and so the Stab movies have continued...using the character of Ghostface but remaining largely unrelated to Sidney and her troubles. Now that they have reached part 7, the series has descended into to a formulaic rut where cliches run abound and little actual terror is seen on screen...that is until a new Ghostface killer shows up in Woodsboro and brutally murders two teenaged girls just mere days before the anniversary of the original Ghostface killings. The crime coinsides with Sidney Prescott's media-hyped return to Woodsboro to plug her new book, "Out of Darkness", which tells her story through her eyes rather than the sensationalist media and discusses her refusal to remain a victim. Sheriff Dewey Riley is on the case and is trying to keep retired reporter wife, Gale Weathers-Riley, from getting into the investigation and a new cast of Woodsboro teens appear to be targeted by the killer, including Sid's cousin Jill Roberts. As the bodies mount and the killer closes in on Sidney and Jill, the survivors must figure out what the rules of this generation's horror are and try to figure them out before they end up on the chopping block.

Scream 4 really impressed me with it's frank and honest skewering of today's horror conventions and cliches while also thrilling me and surprising me with it's intense violence and shocker of an ending. Kevin Williamson, despite being out of the horror loop for many years, still has his finger on the pulse of what is expected at this juncture of the game and he gives them all a good jab with his satirical pen. Films like Saw are dissected as "torture porn" and The Ring is lampooned when someone mentions "little Asian ghost girls". The big dig of course comes at the industry of making remakes, something that has hit it's peak just recently. Scream 4 acts as both a sequel and a semi-remake in that regard as it becomes obvious that the killer is not content to simply make another sequel, but to recreate and re-stage Stab as his own masterpiece. Which makes Jill the new Sidney, her ex the new Billy, and so on and so forth. It is clever and allows the filmmakers to do remake-type things without actually making one. It also becomes a goldmine of references for long-time fans as we see repeated set ups and dialogue which reference past entries. The greatest moments of comedy and terror are given to the remake spoofing, particularly in a scene where Hayden Panettiere's Kirby, a chic movie-buff, tries to out-guess the voice on the phone by listing every remake that has been released in the past decade. The new actors are all game and their characters are fun and likable, and yet none of them overshadow the three survivors who have yet again returned to run for their lives. David Arquette's Dewey shows the most dramatic change as we see him more mature and in charge of the entire town's safety. There are fewer goofy Dewey moments and much more of Dewey as a grown-up. Likewise, Gale's brashness has cooled somewhat and she is less interested in sensationalism than she is with helping solve the crimes (though it wouldn't Gale if she wasn't a little interested in making this a new book). Lastly is Sidney, who has changed dramatically from the last outing. No longer does she run and hide or wait to find a weapon when faced with Ghostface, rather she runs into the fray and grapples with him head-on. She also has a weariness to her (that many confused with 'phoning the performance in') that is realistic for someone who has faced the same trials three times before and now is being faced with the nightmare for a fourth time after what seemed like an endless reprieve from terror. Together, these three characters are what hold the series together and to have any films without them would weaken those entries. While other series are about killers and deaths, Scream is ultimately about real people and how they grow and change. That is what gives them their strength.

Welcome to the Final Act

2012-01-04T13:41:00.000-05:00

I'm much more fuzzy headed today than I was yesterday and I can't decide if that has to do with me being tired or with me being cold. It is particularly cold today at school, and I always blame that on our poorly insulated cinder block walls and windows leaching out all the heat. My desk is right next to the outer wall and it feels like an ice chest over here. I've been passing out earlier and earlier these days too, so I shouldn't be tired...but yet I have the itchy eyes and slow wits of a guy who hasn't slept enough. Maybe its a combination...my body is cold so it wants to hibernate. At any rate, it is uncomfortable and it makes for something of a slow day. On the up side, I am now over halfway finished with my freshman semester exam and I wager I will have it finished by Friday (just in time to go home and doctor up some hefty review sheets for my freshmen and sophomores over the weekend...just what I always wanted). It's my third round of semester exams and it is starting, finally, to feel routine. Speaking of third entries, today I am going to talk about the third film in the "Scream" franchise which was also the concluding chapter until this year's fourth entry...and in many ways it still is a final entry in single story. Kevin Williamson has said he always envisioned "Scream" as a trilogy when he began working on the first part and Wes Craven found the idea of a horror trilogy compelling. Most franchises go to part three and then immediately to parts 4, 5, and 6 fairly quickly before they run out of steam, never focusing on making a cohesive whole and more-so wishing to repeat the formula as the first films so it would be fascinating to see how a horror trilogy would conclude. Let's see now where the story of Sidney Prescott would end in Scream 3.

Tragedy strikes in Hollywood during the filming of Stab 3, the third film based on the Woodsboro killings, when Cotton Weary, formerly accused by Sidney of raping and murdering her mother, and his girlfriend Christine are brutally murdered by a new Ghostface killer. At first, this appears to be yet another copycat killer like at Windsor College, but the killer's victims all have a connection to Sidney Prescott and his single drive is to find her and bring her out of hiding. Add to that the wrinkle of him leaving a photo of young Maureen Prescott at each crime scene and the fact that he admits to having been the one to actually kill her (unlike Billy and Stu from the original massacre), suddenly this "sequel" seems to be taking a strange turn. Meanwhile, Sidney has been living in seclusion in the California country side and is living and working under a fake name so that no one can ever terrorize her again. However, her own restless thoughts about her mother and eventual knowledge of a new killer finally force her out of hiding and into the path of the madman in order to face her past and her future.

Scream 3 in concept was very ambitious and perhaps the most risky of the three films to make up to this point because of the massive success of the first two films and what the creators were trying to do to up the ante in this installment. In classic trilogies, like The Godfather and Star Wars, the past and it's slow discovery in the present has a great deal to do with the structure of those tales and how they eventually play out. So too was Scream 3 structured, once again focusing on Sidney and what she does and does not know about her mother. The idea that the killer in this film could be a mastermind of the first film tantalized and teased fans anxiously awaiting the release of the film and, at least as far as the filmmakers were concerned, that promise was fulfilled. However, due to creating much of this backstory for the third film and the fact that it all managed to seem more "movie-like" than realistic like the first two, fans didn't take to this installment as they did to the first two. Add to that the fact that it was written by Ehren Krueger and not Kevin Williamson (based on bits of his treatment), that seemed to be the nail in the coffin for this installment and would forever cement it as the weakest of the series. I think that misses many points however, as the film also brilliantly skewers the politics and process of making movies in Hollywood (just as the first film skewered horror film cliches and the second film poked fun at sequels). Since the movie-within-the-movie, Stab 3, covers a completely fictional story that returns to the hometown of Woodsboro and the actors who are playing Sidney, Dewey, and Gale are along side the surviving trio as targets and suspects, the film becomes a high-octane house of mirrors and illusions that repeats portions of the first film and still allows for surprises. Highlights include a chase scene between Sidney and Ghostface through the set of her home in Woodsboro and Jenny McCarthy's big scene where she complains about playing the girl who gets killed second to the actual killer who plans to make her the second victim. It is self-reflexive almost to the point of parody which I found clever but others found cloying. In fact, the film was mandated to be tamer than the first two because it came out just after the Columbine killings so the emphasis was always meant to be more on comedy than horror. In many ways, I think Scream 3 is a fitting conclusion to the original trilogy despite its slightly odd missteps. It effectively breaks many of its own rules and furthers the characters of Sidney, Dewey, and Gale as. If you've watched them all up to this point, give this one a whirl too. "Scream" is still better than most of the horror out there even on it's worst day.

Sequels Suck

2012-01-03T13:40:00.001-05:00

I'm pretty proud of myself for getting in at least one more post between Christmas and today, our first day back to school after the long winter break. This year we were off for a whopping 17 days this year thanks to a calendar goof (our district calendar authors did not allow for the federal holiday yesterday and thus were forced to take it). I don't think anyone has broken the bad news to the kids yet, because no one has complained about it yet...but because we took an extra day and still must get in our 180 days, their last day of school has moved from May 31st to June 1st. A huge change I know (and yes that is sarcasm) but at the end of the year, an extra school day is like cruel and unusual punishment to them. I'm not worried really, I have my last two exams classes that day and I predict a large majority of my annoying students will simply not come that day (look at my tears, I'm so sad about it)...but the whining that they will let loose when they are told will most definately ruin my day on the day they finally break the bad news. Today has been fraught with annoyances though, largely due to the fact that they installed new copiers while we were gone. I am the first to say that our old copiers weren't up to snuff, but this new machine is so different and slow that I am missing our old jam-a-minute giants. Normally this wouldn't bug me, but since I had to copy several sets of quarterly assessments (at 10-20 pages a pop) I was not happy to be the first to get an error message and to spend 45 minutes down there waiting for the job to finish. However, the kids are being pretty good today (a blessing) and I think we all got our batteries recharged nicely over break and we are ready to face the long stretch before spring break (12 weeks and counting) that looks to not be littered with delays and snow days this year (it only just snowed on Sunday for the first time here...which is very unusual). Anyway, as we head into these last weeks before the semester ends and we gear up for the second half of the year, I got to thinking about part 2s in film. People typically acknowledge that sequels stink in the film world aside from some rare exceptions (that are usually held up as templates for good sequel making)...and the horror genre is no exception. In fact, aside from notable sci-fi franchises and James Bond...the only series' from America to pass the 2 or 3 mark are those tried and true horror franchises. So when Bob and Harvey Weinstein hit one out of the park with their incredibly risky Scream in 1996, they immediately saw "franchise" in their futures and rushed a second film into production. Lucky for them, Wes Craven was keen to continue and Kevin Williamson had already written a 15 page treatment for the sequel to "Scary Movie" (the original title of Scream) when he submitted his final draft. The key survivors were onboard too, and with the success of the first, they now had their pick of actors to portray the new victims of Ghostface. Was the film any good or should it be filed away with all those other lesser sequels to horror originals. Let's find out as we look into Scream 2.

If one thing about life is certain, pathos brings about avid interest and fortune for those willing to capitalize on it. Such is the case of the story of Sidney Prescott who has been unwillingly thrust into the limelight following her fight to the death with Billy Loomis and Stu Macher, her boyfriend and friend respectively, who had terrorized her on the anniversary of her mother's death. Thanks to constant media coverage, a bestselling book about the case by Gale Weathers titled "The Woodsboro Murders", and a new film based on the book called Stab, Sidney can't seem to escape her tormented past. When two students from her college are murdered at a sneak preview of the new film, Sidney finds herself again tormented by a masked killer and a voice on the phone who could literally be anyone. As the body count rises and the list of suspects grows longer, Sidney, Randy, Gale, and Dewey must examine cliches of movie sequels that the killer is following and figure them out to try and survive.

Scream 2 was a film that first disappointed me in theaters because my 8th grade mind felt it was too different from the first film. I was expecting a repeat of what made the first film so successful, which does happen, but Craven and Williamson delivered so much more than I was expecting that I originally felt that they got it wrong. Only years later when I viewed the film again, did I realize that they got everything right...again. Scream 2 is one of those rare sequels that not only meets the original at it's own game, but in many ways surpasses it. The opening scene with Jada Pinkett Smith and Omar Epps acts not just as a thrilling start to an engaging ride, but it also acts as an excellent piece of meta-cinema that asks the question "Take a really good look at what we're being entertained by." The scene feels like a party, with audience members cheering and howling at the screen as they are entertained, much in the way we were, watching the first story that we all know so well. However, things take a sick turn when one of them is stabbed repeatedly and then stands on stage for all to see before she dies. Suddenly, no one is cheering or clapping...they are shocked to stunned silence wondering if what they're seeing is real or a publicity stunt. There is also a heavy emphasis on the different stages of the world, whether it is a movie theater stage or a dramatic theater stage, and how action plays out across them in similar ways. Scream 2 is, in many ways, the most intellectual of the "Scream" series, and I think that is probably why it lost me when I was 14. I was only seeing the forest and not the trees. Now I can appreciate all the surface and deeper meanings of Scream 2. The performances should not be overlooked in this analysis as each returning actor brings a sense of depth and experience to their characters that feels natural, and once again as though they are real people dealing with a real scenario. It should also be noted that the film, like Wes Craven's New Nightmare, faces head-on the question of whether violent movies lead to violent actions and comes up with a very compelling answer tied to the new killer's motive. I shant give it away, but I will say that I did not see it coming the first time. If you liked Scream, chances are you will like Scream 2 even more so why not give it a whirl.

What's Your Favorite Scary Movie?

2011-12-30T21:19:00.000-05:00

Well, we've come once again to the end of another year and I've had a lot more time to reflect on things this week than in years past thanks to a combination of having no distractions and absolutely nothing to do. I'm starting to wonder where my friends have all gone. No one is around, because they all have better places to be and so here I am, spending the week leading up to New Year's with no one but my cats to keep me company. If there was ever a time I felt more like an old maid, I cannot remember it. I have enjoyed playing with my Christmas presents, particularly the new Zelda game. I am so close to beating that. I also got a new vacuum, which is amazing compared to my ratty old thing...my carpets haven't looked this nice in years. I'm not sure if I should be excited about cleaning my carpets though...I don't think its normal. Anyway, today as I was watching a film I'm quite happy to now own on Blu-ray, I got to thinking about late post-Christmas December and certain things that have become traditions based on years past. There's one tradition that started back in 1996 when a film was released in late December that would have usually come out in the summer or in the "dump months" of January or Feburary and it got me doing it for years to come...watching horror films before New Year's Eve. That little film was a Little Engine that Could in terms of movies...fighting the uphill battle that was being a horror film in the 90s (when horror was really in the pits) and coming out at a time when family films and dramas were dominating the release dates leading up to Christmas. And yet it took the country by storm as word of mouth spread until it was the number one movie in America...and to think I might have skipped it entirely if that word of mouth hadn't reached my ears. It ended up being one of the best times I ever had at the movies and was probably the last horror film to really scare me in the theaters. So let's listen to the sounds of terror as we examine Wes Craven's ultimate masterpiece, Scream.

"What's your favorite scary movie?" the voice on the phone asks Casey Becker moments before her parents come home and find her and her boyfriend Steve brutally murdered. The killings rock the town of Woodsboro, California to it's core as the sleepy village has only once before been hit by such a tragedy...the murder of Maureen Prescott a year before. Maureen's daughter, Sidney, hasn't dealt well with the loss of her mother and the new killings are suddenly bringing all those old feelings of terror back to her. To make matters worse, the killer of Casey and Steve seems to have turned his sights on young Sidney and her friends and seems to want to make her the star of this sick situation that seems to have come right out of the horror movies. Even more frightening is the prospect that the killer had something to do with Sidney's mother's death, and that he could be someone she knows. So as the body count rises and the killer closes in on Sidney, she has to make a choice as to whether she is going to succumb and become a victim or to fight back and become a survivor.

If you strip Scream down to it's bare essentials, it reads just like the score of slasher films that came out of the 70s and 80s and doesn't do much to set itself apart from those. However, it was one of the first horror films that not only used the cliches we are so familiar with in horror films, but kept us aware that it knew these rules and cliches existed. The famous opening scene with Drew Barrymore as the helpless and hapless Casey begins very much like it could be reality, with Casey and the killer discussing real movies like Halloween and Friday the 13th rather than just generically talking about unspecific horror moments or making up fake titles. This tells us that "this is really happening, in your world" and when Casey makes the horrible mistakes that all horror movie victims seem to make that end up getting her killed...it is not because the writing dictates that she must...but because the killer (who is VERY aware of horror rules and conventions) leads her down a path that traps her and forces her to fall back on those fatal avenues. Likewise, it is the killer's careful construction and planning that turns the finale house party into a bloodbath where no one can escape and anyone could be next. People who only focus on the cliches of Scream really miss the point because they aren't looking at how the killer toys with and traps his targets into the cliches and they then cannot escape the inevitable. Afterall, it isn't as though someone hears a strange noise and goes to investigate alone...rather, someone goes to get a beer (something very natural at a party) and while she is isolated from the remaining guests, she is dispatched. That could (and sometimes does) really happen. The performances in Scream are also a contributing factor in making the film credible and realistic because the actors are so convincing. Neve Campbell has made a career of being Sidney Prescott because she gives Sidney a soul and a uniqueness that feels grounded in reality rather than playing her like some character from a movie. Rose McGowran, Skeet Ulrich, Jamie Kennedy, and Matthew Lillard also hold their own as the memorable and unique individuals that make up Sidney's friends. David Arquette and Courtney Cox play the obligatory adult characters who are also involved and no one could ever say that they didn't do their parts as Dewey Riley and Gale Weathers respectively. There is a reason these actors keep getting asked to revive their characters in the sequels...because they are good and the characters are good. I don't know if horror in America would still be alive and kicking if Scream hadn't given it a much needed shot in the arm (or...if someone else had made a similar movie...I don't know if horror would have gone in the same direction) but thank god it did. From that moment on, you could always count on a horror film or two to be released on December...and you could also count on a few more than usual showing up on tv leading up to New Year's. That is the stuff traditions are made of, my friends.

25 Days of Christmas Movies, Day 25: Fitting in With Family

2011-12-25T09:55:00.000-05:00

In my experience, I've found that those people who have close families and who participate in family traditions tend to be the happiest at the holidays. That may be a gross generalization, but then again it may be true. I know, from personal experience, that my family enjoys Christmas much more when we are together and are repeating the traditions that we have participated in over time. This can be a blessing and a curse for people who are just beginning to join a family who has been entrenched in their own holiday traditions and plans so long, because it makes the newcomers feel like outsiders. As you might imagine, the final film to be covered today is about this very subject and I am so pleased to conclude this year's 25 days of Christmas movies with it. It is a film about the importance of family, but also about learning to welcome outsiders into a close knit family. Now, without futher ado, let's celebrate Christmas by visiting with The Family Stone.

Meredith Morton is a successful Manhattan executive who is somewhat uptight and conservative. This is in strict contrast to her boyfriend Everett Stone, who comes from a very liberal and eccentric family and who is constantly trying to get her to lighten up. This Christmas, Everett is taking Meredith home to meet his family so that he can propose with the family ring but his younger sister Amy, who has already met Meredith, has already taken to bad-mouthing her to the family. When Meredith arrives, she already has two strikes against her and, because she feels like an outsider, she decides to stay at the local Inn which is another strike against her. Meredith asks her sister Julie to come to visit as well to help her cope, and Everett finds himself oddly drawn to her. After a disastrous dinner discussion on nature vs. nurture and sexual orientation sends Meredith packing, Everett's brother Ben finds her and comforts her at a local bar...beginning an attraction between the two of them. It appears that there are going to be plenty of surprises this Christmas wt the Stone household, and it may test the strength and resolve of the family.

The Family Stone is one of those great comic dramas that feels sincere and thus gives genuine laughs and dramatic highs and lows. It really feels as though you are peeking through a window at a unique and tightly-knit family and how they react to someone who they feel is a usurper. It is always a hard thing to accept new people in a family, and the members of the Stone family all have their own way of dealing with it. Sybil, the mother (played by Diane Keaton), puts on a mask of friendliness while constantly attempting to be sure that Everett (Dermot Mulroney) is making the right decision (and also is hiding the fact that she knows that cancer is about to kill her). Kelly Stone (Craig T. Nelson), the father, takes a more quiet and restrained approach because Sybil is the real leader of the pack, but his influence is felt in all the corners of the family. Amy (Rachel McAdams) reacts with open hostility to Meredith (Sarah Jessica Parker) in a way that only a younger sibling can, and is the most resistant to change because it scares her. The differing reactions and levels of resistance are nuanced and do indeed feel real, which is why I enjoyed the film so much. And what better season to have this kind of new introduction, than at Christmas time when family is key? It is a wonderful story that steps outside of the normal template of "family is important" and is a great film to watch on Christmas Day to remind us that just because someone isn't a part of our family, that doesn't mean that they cannot be. And thus, I conclude the Third Annual 25 Days of Christmas Movies and I wish all of you a Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays. I hope that you all have a magical yuletide experience and that you are surrounded by those that love you.

25 Days of Christmas Movies, Day 24: An Understated Humbug (Archive Post)

2011-12-24T14:45:00.000-05:00

I woke up with a ulcer flare up today, so I'm not in the best of moods today...which is a shame because today is our Christmas Day since Dad and I are driving home from PA tomorrow morning so that we get back to his place at a decent hour. However, I will not be revealing my gifts here today (because that just doesn't go with the whole Christmas tradition) and will reveal the loot tomorrow so that I'm not getting ahead of anyone. Anyway, since I am in a little bit of pain and have no idea what to write about today, I decided to pull up an archive post of a film from last year I really enjoyed watching and hope you will enjoy reading about it again....now let's travel back in time a year to last Christmas...five, four, three, two, one:

Another snow day today which means we have only one calamity day left before we have to start making them up...and tomorrow is our last day of school before break and a lot of non-educational activities along with early releases from several schools in the district. So if we have a delay...we'll be there for like no time at all. And just think, if we hadn't had our block schedule this week I could have gotten all my classes quizzed and done for Xmas. Now, if we have school tomorrow, I will have to play catch up with two classes with a lot less time than usual...especially if there's a delay. I'm so glad I didn't start Act III of Caesar yesterday with my classes, otherwise I'd be real behind in January with half of them. Its enough to drive you insane I think. On the upside, I got the class list for our school's variety show done and can get that hung up on the walls tomorrow if we're in school. Anyway, its got me feeling a little Scrooged right now, something I don't want to feel the day before break starts. I'm sure it will all work out, but until it does its gonna be stressful. Speaking of Scrooge, I watched a real classic of Christmas today and one of the highest rated adaptations of Dickens' novella which features George C. Scott as that mean old mizer Ebeneezer Scrooge. Let's look at the 1984 television film A Christmas Carol.

We all know the story...a greedy and cold old man, who makes no secret his dislike of Christmas, is visited by his deceased business partner and three ghosts who show him the true meaning of Christmas. Its a touching, humorous, frightening, and sincere look at the human spirit and one that is so well-written that it comes as no surprise that it has been adapted so much and so often. I mean, if you turn on your television at Christmas at any random time you're very likely to find some of the more common adaptations and sometimes even one or two that you've never heard of. But this one is different because, despite its limitations in effects for being a television production, it features wonderful performances from its cast...particularly from Scott as Scrooge. Scott plays all the lines and beats that we are familiar with from our Scrooges, but Scott plays him with a fair amount of inner amusement at the hardships of others and with an understatement commonly seen in his acting. This is a Scrooge who is just as frightening to people when he speaks calmly and softly as he is in the rare times that he raises his voice. He delivers much of Scrooge's lines dry and with mild sarcasm rather than loud BAHs and grumps. This makes his Scrooge more of a real person and less of a caricature of a mean old grump. This also makes Scrooge seem more contemptible at the start and more believably changed at the end than most. The film also follows the book very faithfully and is sure to delight literature purists. See it this Christmas...its on instant watch on Netflix if you have it.

25 Days of Christmas Movies, Day 23: The Nativity...with a Twist

2011-12-23T19:09:00.000-05:00

There are so many reasons to celebrate Christmas. Spending time with family, giving and getting gifts, thinking about what we're thankful for...and of course celebrating the birth of Christ. As many are aware, Christmas is meant to commemorate the date of Jesus's birth in the manger to Mary and Joseph (as it is told in the Bible)...and as fewer know it was set for the 25th of December in order to overshadow the already existing pagan holiday of Yule (which is where we get our Christmas tree and wreath traditions). However, despite the commercialization of the holiday and the focus on giving and getting gifts, many circles still find the time to memorialize the birth of Jesus (regardless of whether or not it was actually on December 25th) by staging plays and pagents about the Nativity. In merry old England, the schools even get in on the act by staging annual Nativity plays; which brings us to today's film. It is the story of a teacher who is trying to produce the best darn Nativity play ever, though it may just blow up in his face in the process. However, don't let me spoil the surprises here...why don't we all head down the road to the primary school and watch Nativity!

Paul Maddens, a former drama school graduate, is a frustrated teacher working in an under-performing primary school in Coventry, England called St. Bernadette's. Every year they compete with Oakmoor private school in the staging of their annual Nativity Play. Oakmoor always puts on a much better show than St. Bernadette's, largely due to their director Gordon Shakespeare, who is also an old drama school alum and had worked closely with Paul and Paul's ex-girlfriend Jennifer Lore. This year, despite his objections and having failed in his first and only attempt at staging a Nativity play several years back, the principal of St. Bernadette's, Mrs. Bevans, appoints Paul to be this year's director. To add insult to injury, Mrs. Bevans appoints her nephew, Desmond Poppy, to be his production assistant in the hopes of inspiring Poppy to grow up. Shortly after writing his script, Paul has a run in with Shakespeare (who is posturing madly about this year's play) and Paul, in a desperate attempt to save face, mentions that not only is he back in touch with his ex, but she is now a Hollywood producer who is coming to film St. Bernatette's Nativity play. Mr. Poppy overhears and spreads the word to the other teachers and the community. Now, with everyone thinking that the Nativity play is going to become famous, Paul must keep the lie going by producing the best show possible and trying to convince someone from Hollywood to actually come to see and film the play. With the performance date racing toward them and the problems of the show mounting, Paul begins to wonder if he will still be employed when all the excrement hits the fan.

It's not often I get to view a new holiday-themed film that is entertaining. I usually find that today's Christmas films are obnoxious and/or cloying, but Nativity! really surprised me. It was witty, suspenseful, hilarious, and had surprisingly good original music for Paul's Nativity play. Not being familiar with the British custom of doing Nativity plays in school (here that is not acceptable due to the separation of church and state), I was surprised to see how seriously they took it and also how common place religion and school seemed to be. I'm not against the separation, mind you, but it was refreshing to see a school environment that was able to meld education and religious topics seamlessly and naturally together. The enthusiasm of the community it producing the play was also a nice touch, though the enthusiasm was a bit misplaced given that many of them felt that the children should be paid to be filmed by Hollywood. The music was very charming and I found myself humming the songs once the film was over. Also of note are the two performances of Martin Freeman as Paul and Marc Wootton as Mr. Poppy who appear as a very natural and charming odd couple. Freeman is always a class-act as the straight man, and Wootton acts as a perfect foil to him. I know that many people do not enjoy British humor, but if you can get into it I really think you will find Nativity! to be an enjoyable and uplifting experience for your holiday film enjoyment.

25 Days of Christmas Movies, Day 22: Trapped at the Airport

2011-12-22T14:59:00.000-05:00

Well, today was nice and low key. I woke up, had a leisurely breakfast, did some chores, did some errands, and now I'm just running out the clock until I have to leave for Dad's house to get ready for the final holiday exodus to PA to visit Mommom and Uncle Mike. It's rather nice to have nothing to do before the holidays, because it gives you time to think and contemplate the holidays. I gotta say though, I do love that Dad is driving to PA and not me. Holiday travel is something that just drives me batty when I have to be the one in the driver's seat. I would much rather relinquish my command and save myself the headaches. However, it does put me in mind of those who will be flying into forbidding climates this season and how many people can get trapped at the airport due to flight cancellations. This brings me to today's film, which I just watched for the first time last night and which made me cringe with pain at how awful holiday flight can be. So let's get in line and find out what happens to the Unaccompanied Minors.

It is Christmas Eve and all the flights going in and out of Hoover International Airport have been canceled due to a huge blizzard that is raging outside. This inconveniences several people including the passengers who are waiting to depart for Christmas destinations, Oliver Porter (head of passenger relations) who is taking his first vacation in years and has to cancel, and several unaccompanied minors who are flying to meet various family members for the holidays. At first the children are confined to a dungeon-like room for UMs (unaccompanied minors) but five of them, Donna, Spencer, Grace, Beef, and Charlie, escape for various reasons. After Donna steals a motorized cart, Beef makes the emergency equipment room his own personal playground, Grace abuses the sky lounge, and Spencer racks up a food tab he cannot pay...all the kids are taken back to the UM room to stay as punishment while all the other (well-behaved) children are moved over to the hotel lodge down the road. Knowing that his sister is alone and expecting Santa Claus to show up, Spencer bands the remaining UMs together and together they set off on an adventure to find the hotel and give Spencer's sister a real Christmas. However, Oliver and Zach Van Bourke (UM guardian for the airport) are on their tails every step of the way to try to keep them confined. It is now a battle of wills to see who will succeed.

Sigh...this is another routine holiday comedy that incorporates slapstick violence and a kids vs. adults situation into a basic "trapped in the middle of holiday travel" plot. It's not very clever nor are the characters remarkable...in fact, the character of Oliver only exists to make these rather spoiled and rotten kids look better by comparison. These are some really awful kids too...they are whiny, insubordinate, and have this tremendous sense of entitlement that really annoys me. So, I guess you could say they are perfect representations of children nowadays...unlikable and rude. True, they do eventually learn to work together and do unselfish things, but they could have taught themselves those lessons without being complete asses to authority figures who are simply doing their jobs and trying to keep something like 50-60 kids in line who are unsupervised and antsy at the thought of having to spend Christmas somewhere other than with family and friends. Perhaps it is just the teacher in me, but I found myself siding with the adults almost everytime. Only toward the end, when Oliver really goes too far in trying to punish these children for what they've done, did I change my mind. For the most part, I just wanted to give all of them a good, hard smack. Kids will get a kick out of this film though, and I suppose that is who it is made for. However, I will not be sitting through this film again in the near future. Its too much like working with my students.

25 Days of Christmas Movies, Day 21: A Die Hard Double Feature (Archive Post)

2011-12-21T17:14:00.000-05:00

I don't have much headspace today for an original post, so I'm breaking out another archive post for you guys. I will add that I'm happy to say that Christmas in WV was a success and I received a great many things I wanted...I am also happy to report that my gifts were well liked and at least one illicited a squeal of glee. I had a really FAT day yesterday too...I mean I ate so much food that I went over my calorie count by something like 1000 calories. However, I am happy to report that I am back on the wagon today and that it was a one time incident in celebration of the holiday (I think its ok to overeat one or two days at Christmas). Anyway, today I decided to post some archives of two posts on my favorite holiday action flicks. So sit back and re-experience Die Hard and Die Hard 2.

"Yippie Kay Yay, Motherfucker!" - Those of the immortal words of Detective John McClane...one of action's premiere characters and the star of the surprise hit of 1988, Die Hard. Most people probably don't think of Die Hard as being too Christmassy, what with the explosions and blood squibs blasting out our surround sound speakers, but the film and its first sequel both take place on Christmas Eve...allowing the film to transcend preconceptions of what can happen in a Christmas movie, or what a Christmas movie can actually be. Families all over the USA have written to movie magazines when polled on their favorite holiday films, and have said that Die Hard is one that they watch every December, sometimes even on Christmas Eve. You may be scratching your heads and wondering why, but honestly few violent action films have ever truly been as FUN as Die Hard manages to be, and I think that is the reason for it becoming a holiday mainstay (besides its Christmas Eve setting). This fun is due to director John McTiernan's handling of the material. Yes its violent and yes its upsetting that terrorists would hold a bunch of people hostage on Christmas Eve (Alan Rickman's Hans has some truly cold and heartless moments) but at the same time, he has McClaine cracking wise, winning against insurmountable odds, and has cast several very amusing secondary characters such as Arguyle (De'voreaux White), Sgt. Al Powell (Reginald VelJohnson) and Holly McClaine (Bonnie Bedelia) that we are rooting for in the process. McTiernan once said that the film was so dark that he wanted to be sure to put the joy back into it, the fun if you will. This is why you hear the Ode to Joy in the score periodically. Needless to say, this is one of the best action films of contemporary times and its one I always see every December.

Its time for another holiday sequel to follow this wonderful original, and it of course features our favorite everyman action hero John McClaine. Yes friends, tonight I'm viewing Die Hard 2 which truly does, though you may not believe it, take place on Christmas Eve. Yes, yes, I know that this film is yet another example of a sequel that simply repeats the formula of its predecessor almost to the letter...terrorists in an isolated area in total control vs. John McClaine on Christmas Eve with some fat headed obstinate cops thrown in for good measure...oh and Reginald VelJohnson, Bonnie Bedelia, and William Atherton reprise their roles as well. Talk about convenience right? Its almost too perfect...the kind of perfect that only the movies can do. There are a lot of people who really hate Die Hard 2 because it merely repeats its formula and does little that is new or different...they also hate how the writers manage to conveniently reunite characters from the last film in ways that would never happen in reality (so they say). Oh, and they think the airport control plot is much too complicated to be realistic. I think these people are missing the big picture here...in the same way that people missed the big picture with Home Alone 2: Lost in New York (oddly enough, also from Fox). Audiences wanted more of the same...and then when they got it, they criticized it for being the same. Frankly, I think that while part 2 shares a great deal of common factors with part 1, it offers enough new suspenseful situations for us to be involved in to make me enjoy the film as a popcorn action film. I think its fun and plausible (aside from the icicle death in the 3rd act...which I'm sure is possible, but my mind wants to reject it anyway) and a fair enough diversion as a sophomore sequel. Sure the 3rd and 4th films are better, but you could do a lot worse as far as action films are concerned (Van Dahme or Segal anyone?). Bruce Willis can just about carry any film anyway. (Watch for Robert 'T1000' Patrick as one of the terrorists in a gun battle)

25 Days of Christmas Movies, Day 20: Billy...it's me Agnes

2011-12-20T08:40:00.000-05:00

Ah...so here were are in the home stretch. Only five more days until Christmas Day and for me that also means only five more days of Christmas movies until its time to hang up my tinsel for another year. This year has been more fun than the previous years for me because I have gotten to experience so many more new films that I have never seen before, and so I hope it has also been as rewarding for you to read. Today I am falling back on my small cache of Christmas horror films again mostly because, in an hour, I will be without internet for 24 hours. You see, I am headed to my brother-in-law's family cabin this morning to spend a bit of early Christmas with mom, sis, Ross, and nephew and will be there till tomorrow. It's out in the boonies and there is no cell phone nor internet service there. So I'm a little pressed for time to meet today's deadline. So I'm reaching into the dusty bin of my memory to throw something into today's box fairly quickly...forgive me if it's not up to my usual standards. Anyhoo, this film is a remake of one I have covered twice before in my 25 Days posts and I suppose it was inevitable that it would eventually be covered here. It is the story of the importance of being home for the holidays...even if you have to kill to make it happen. So, without further ado...let me wish you a Black Christmas (2006).

Billy Lenz is an unappreciated child who's mother is embarrassed by him because he was born with yellow skin. Mrs. Lenz falls in love with another man and kills Billy's father and locks Billy in the attic. This is not without it's problems, however, as the new husband is impotent...forcing Mrs. Lenz to rape Billy so she can conceive a daughter, Agnes. Several years later, when Agnes is about 9, Billy escapes from the attic and disfigures Agnes before brutally murdering his mother. Then he makes Christmas cookies from her flesh before he is caught and put in an institution. Flashing forward to 2006, the old Lenz house has been converted into a sorority house where every Christmas Eve the girls perform a morbid memorial ritual where they open a gift for "Billy", who they remember as if he were simply a ghost story or urban legend. This Christmas Eve, however, Billy has decided to escape and come home for the holidays. So as the girls begin falling victim to the killer one by one, the survivors must band together and try to survive.

You know something...if the Black Christmas remake had transpired in the order in which I have summarized it (and without the stupid incest angle which adds nothing to the plot) it might have been a more entertaining movie. Instead, the film opens with a poorly handled redo of the original's garment bag murder and then begins in the present with bickering girls and red herrings galore. Only when the girls open Billy's present do we get to see the gory backstory...for 20 whole minutes...and then come back to the story where Billy is escaping and yet we have seen people already being murdered and so it couldn't be Billy and....see, it's just a pacing mess. The film makes it very clear that Billy is the killer and then it throws unnecessary and unconvincing red herrings at us, such as Eve, the creepy homely girl with a glass eye who could be Agnes but isn't, and a cheating boyfriend who really has no motive but the music and film angles tell us otherwise...and it just doesn't work. Then in the finale, when a twist is revealed, it's much too late and feels more like the creators trying to have their cake and eat it too. The flashbacks to Billy's first spree are excellent...but could have been shorter and much more focused on Billy's abuse and final snap, instead of wandering around with infidelity and incest. The characters are also abysmal with none of the girls demonstrating anything resembling a unique personality. We don't even know which girl is going to be our final girl until the end when we still don't care about her or the girls who have died already. Normally I would say this is a nice switch, because too often you know who the survivor is just but watching the first lineup, but here it would have shown some thought to character and individuality. I suppose it could be seen as a satire on conformity within sororities...but it's much too clumsy and unaware of itself to be that. If I could sum up the remake of Black Christmas, I would say it is a horror film with five bad ideas for every good one...and there are good ideas at work here. I just wish there had been more of them.

25 Days of Christmas Movies, Day 19: A Nutty Little Ballet (Archive Post)

2011-12-19T20:16:00.000-05:00

What follows is a repeat post from 2009...largely because I have nothing new planned for this evening. I did, however, rewatch the film below last night so I guess you could say I have done my viewing work.

"As promised, I plan to discuss Tchaikovsky's "The Nutcracker"...but wait, I can't discuss it yet...I haven't even gone to the theater to see it yet. It doesn't actually start until later tonight when the dancers and sets are ready for places. What is this madness????? Actually, for those of you who might not be aware, The Nutcracker ballet has been adapted to film numerous times in both theatrical and television versions and if you know me (since I am a movie lover) you know that I've definitely seen at least one of them. In fact I'm going to be discussing a version called Nutcracker: The Motion Picture which was released theatrically in 1986. This production was very much a filmed version of a stage production which was produced by the Pacific Northwest Ballet of Seattle, Washington in 1983 and was so popular that it was decided that the production would ban entertaining movie. This version differs greatly from other versions as it omits the Sugar Plum Fairy (who has an entire dance written for her) and The Kingdom of Sweets and replaces them instead with a harem run by a sultan who resembles Uncle Drosselmeyer greatly. Also notable was that the production's sets and costumes were designed by Maurice Sendak (author and illustrator of "Where the Wild Things Are") and its staging stays much truer to E.T.A. Hoffman's original fairy tale (which was much darker and ominous). Also interesting was that the production was staged with two Claras. One who represented Clara as an actual child, and another who was meant to be 'Dream Clara' and would dance and be a part of Clara's dream world. Clara also seems to share a strange love/fear relationship with Drosselmeyer which adds another aspect of depth to the proceedings, especially when the Drosselmeyer sultan shows a desire to compete with the Nutcracker Prince for Clara's affections and nearly causes their demise at the end of the film as they freefall away from each other...causing Clara to awaken in her bed as the curtain falls.

It is a sumptuous and lively production and will always be one of my favorites to see every year, even though one cannot watch it on DVD as yet. You can, however, see it here on Hulu.com. I haven't seen the Columbus production since I was small, so I can't say if it will move me the same way this one does...but regardless, there's nothing like seeing The Nutcracker live on stage at Christmas...but with this version, you get pretty close."

25 Days of Christmas Movies, Day 18: How Santa Makes it All Happen

2011-12-18T16:24:00.000-05:00

Today was a pretty good and productive day. I left around 8:15 to make sure I made it to the church on time...oh wow, didn't plan that pun. Seriously though, I had to make sure I was at the Methodist church by 8:30 so we could be ready to perform our Christmas cantata there...and then again at my church at 10:45 to do it again there. Thus ended my last comittment before Christmas, and so I celebrated by going to a movie. Then afterward I finally bought my grandmother's gift and concluded my shopping season. But back to the movie...there are several that I've been meaning to see for quite a while and today I finally got a chance to see a film I'd been putting off for several weekends. It was animated by the same studio who produced the Wallace and Gromit claytoons and, lucky for me, it was a Christmas movie too. I think this is actually the first time that I've posted a newly released film in my lineup, so this is kinda cool for me. Anyhoo, have you ever wondered how Santa gets all of his work done? I mean, many films have explained it away by citing magical reasons, but even for the most believing of audience members has a bit of a problem with this logic leap...thus giving us part of what makes today's movie a fantastic experience. However, let's not get ahead of ourselves...we need to summarize first. So let's hop over to the North Pole and visit Arthur Christmas.

It is December 24th, 2011 and Santa is putting the finishing touches on this year's mission. However, it is not just Santa who works to make Christmas happen for every kid in the world, it is also his army of highly trained and specialized elves who come along for the ride in the S-1, a flying spaceship-like craft that hovers over the Earth with a reflective stealth surface that makes it look like the sky. The S-1 positions itself over cities and the elves and Santa drop down and drop presents in homes across the city in a mass invasion that takes only minutes to complete. The whole operation, however, is not run by Santa but by Santa's heavily organized and intelligent son Steve, who hopes to become the new Santa at the end of this Christmas. Also in the family is Grand-Santa, the current Santa's father who thinks things should be done the old-fashioned way with a sled, reindeer, and going down the chimney. And then there is Arthur, who is something of a spaz and a klutz who works in Letters and no one expects much of. Arthur, however, seems to be the only one in the family who thinks about the children as evidenced by his careful replies to children who write to Santa Claus. So when a present is not delivered and it looks as though one child will be left behind this Christmas, it is Arthur who decides that something should be done to prevent this travesty from happening. So while Steve ignores the problem as an expected margin of error and Santa goes to bed in order to ignore the problem, Arthur, Grand-Santa, and a wrapping elf named Bryony head off in the outdated sleigh to deliver the gift. Will Arthur succeed or will this end up exposing the existence of Santa and destroying Christmas?

This was a film that I really wasn't looking forward to at all from the teasers, which just seemed annoying and lacked the wit usually associated with Aardman Productions. However, when it began raking in the positive reviews at Thanksgiving, my interest was piqued. As is often the case, the trailers were not representative of the finished product. I was enchanted by this tale of a Christmas that was in danger of being ruined for one little girl and by it's characters, particularly Arthur and Bryony who were delightfully positive and yet adorably spastic. I also enjoyed their portrayal of Santa and his family. In most stories about Santa, regardless of whether or not he is the protagonist or a secondary character, he is portrayed as perfect and without faults...but here the real Santa, his top son next in line, and his retired father are all portrayed as selfish and flawed which makes their individual journeys so unique and also keeps us emotionally invested. It ends up making the whole film more complex and fun to watch as a result. I actually found myself talking back to the film due to the revelations of the plot and interactions between the characters because I was so invested. It really was a fantastic experience and I look forward to see it again next Christmas (as I intend to buy it and put it in my regular rotation) and I recommend that all of you go and see it before it leaves theaters this holiday season. Take your family, it's worth it.

25 Days of Christmas Movies, Day 17: Holiday Shopping Hell

2011-12-17T19:29:00.000-05:00

I ventured out to get my last gifts for this season and yeck...remind me not to wait so long to finish up next year. It was bedlam, with cars and people all over the place, in places they shouldn't be. I nearly hit three or four pedestrians who stepped out in front of me at the last minute at Target and then couldn't help bumping into a few people while I perused the racks a JCPennys. I'm sure it was much rougher on other people, one does have to consider that I only had two gifts to buy today and they must have had dozens. Though, after today I can safely say that I am not going to enter any store until well after Christmas and I would like to add that there is a reason I do most of my shopping online. This experience forms the basis for choosing today's film which feels like a greatest (or worst, depending on how you think about it) hits of last minute shopping at Christmas with a healthy helping of physical comedy thrown in to put it over the top. If anyone has ever had to go to a store on Christmas Eve or tried to nab a hot product or toy on Black Friday, you can probably see some of your own experiences in this film as well as a few of the horror stories you might have only heard about. However, I don't want to dissect the movie here and now...so let's jump right in and experience the madness of Jingle All The Way.

Howard Langston is a hard-working Dad who often forgets that he is a father. His job demands his attention be spread to many different areas and given to many different people and it happens so much that he often sacrifices the two people he doesn't feel he needs to impress, his wife Liz and his son Jamie. However, when Howard misses one too many of Jamie's events during this holiday season, his wife and son make it very clear that he has very few chances left to convince them that he wants to be a good father and husband. Jamie offers Howard his final chance to impress him by telling him that he wants a Turbo Man action figure and Howard promises that he will get one. Liz is thankful that Howard is being attentive and then asks him if he got the toy. Howard is confused and knows he has not purchased the toy, but he lies and assures her he has. She is relieved, considering that it is "the" toy to own this holiday season and, since tomorrow is Christmas Eve, they should be impossible to find. This starts Howard on a day-long adventure where he is attempts to find the elusive Turbo Man, and is thwarted in each attempt by either his fellow shoppers or an equally resourceful mailman named Myron. What then transpires are a series of misadventures that will test Howard's resolve and his love for his son.

Jingle All The Way is one of those films that is a really novel idea inspired by real events that is undermined by overt slapstick humor and an unrealistic finale. It's a real shame too because it could be a much more enduring classic in the vein of Home Alone. Ironically enough, it is the popularity of the former that inspired so many of the slapsticky, stunt heavy films that followed that didn't nearly resonate as well with the populous. There's some good stuff here though, particularly the satire of the madness of the holiday shopping season. It veers toward the surreal and grotesque of course, with store clerks gleefully egging these people on and laughing in Arnold Schwarzenegger's face, who plays Howard. There is also the comic timing of Schwarzenegger, who proves again that he really can make us laugh. I enjoy just about everything in this movie aside from the jerry-rigged slapstick which feels like an afterthough. Yes, the scenes in the stores should be violent, but they should be violent in a way that makes us afraid for our protagonist's safety rather than humorous...which would fit the satirical element of the film much better. Afterall, the writer wrote the film to comment on the people who had been trampled trying to get Cabbage Patch Dolls and Mighty Morphin' Power Rangers for their kids and making the violence in the stores cartoony robs the satire of its strength. Although, if someone REALLY wanted to satirize the shopping season, they ought to make the protagonist one of the store clerks who has to fend off the hordes of rude and thoughtless shoppers that force them to be at work earlier in the day and later in the day every year because they HAVE to get the doorbusters. Having the protagonist be a rather poor example of a father doesn't really give the audience a very sympathetic character to follow...because all the crap he goes through is only happening because he wasn't more aware of his family life to begin with. I am being a little hard on the film right now, I admit, because it is a suspenseful and amusing (if not as hilarious as thinks it is) little romp that reminds us why we all should try to get our shopping done as early as possible so as to avoid "the horror...the horror!"

25 Days of Christmas Movies, Day 16: Evil at Christmas

2011-12-16T12:39:00.000-05:00

As you guys know from reading my past years posts on Christmas movies that I am a big fan of Christmas horror films. I find it perverse and macabre to mix the the white purity of snow and the joy of Christmas with the suspense and gore of the horror film. It just tickles me...and I also get amused at the people who get bent out of shape over it when a filmmaker decides to make a Christmas horror movie. Its as if horror can only happen outside of the month of December...which simply isn't the case given the suicide rate and the crime rate around the holidays. On that note, I bring you yet another dose of Christmas horror that shows the first ever psychotic Santa Claus. Years before Silent Night, Deadly Night, another nut in a red suit stalked the snowy streets looking for fresh victims and did so with more altruistic motives. It has been largely forgotten though, because of having no real distribute and little press. It finally resurfaced on DVD in 2000 from Troma Entertainment, who specialize in sleazy and gory entertainment, and fans of it rejoiced. Is it worth the fandom it has garnered or is it simply a piece of trash? Let's find out as we ring in the holiday season with Christmas Evil.

The film begins on Christmas Eve in 1947 in a quiet suburban home. Little Harry Stadling is convinced that Santa Claus is real and his belief is renewed each year when his father comes down the chimney and places gifts under the tree while his mother has them all watch quietly from the stairs. Harry is enchanted and loves this tradition until he is irrevocably traumatized when he witnesses "Santa" sexually groping his mother beside their Christmas Tree. From that moment on, Harry punishes himself for seeing the act and also makes it his mission to become the new Santa, a better Santa. As part of this mission, he begins working at a toy factory and tries to convince them to work harder at making better quality toys. This fails and he finds himself becoming a pushover for his coworkers. One of them even gets him to take his night shift so he can go off and drink. Harry's only joy is watching the neighborhood kids and checking them off on his Naughty or Nice list. After being pushed around too long Harry finally snaps and begins to actually think he is Santa and that he must rid the world of shoddy toys and naughty people. First he steals toys from work and gives them to a children's hospital, then he leaves a bag of dirt for a naughty boy near his home. Finally, he kills three parishioners of a church because they make fun of him as they exit services. Thus begins a chilling night that only Harry's brother Phil seems to know how to end.

Christmas Evil is one of those films with a lot of good ideas and not a very good whole. I loved the idea of a crazed man thinking that he really is Santa and dispatching of 'naughty' people, but that was not mined enough. One thing the film does right is that it spends most of it's time developing Harry as sympathetic and misunderstood so that we can understand how his problem finally reaches this peak. But it spends virtually no time setting up the other characters, Phil in particular, that have to be affected by Harry's antics. The supporting cast are mainly jerks or Harry's family (who are very good people) and this hurts the film. Also, the killing only happens twice so it's hard to feel really frightened when Harry is around. Add to the fact that Harry does some really wonderful things dressed in the suit and you come away from the film confused about how you should feel. Are we supposed to root for him for ridding us of assholes at Christmas, or are we supposed to be horrified that he is killing people dressed in a Santa suit? I'm guessing its the former, rather than the latter, in which case the filmmakers shouldn't have structured the narrative around the murders the way they did. Indeed, the film seems to just jump around randomly once the killings start and by the time the ending occurs, we aren't really sure who is who. I won't be adding Christmas Evil to my regular rotation despite the artful handling of the sympathetic protagonist, I just think Silent Night, Deadly Night is scarrier and better.

25 Days of Christmas Movies, Day 15: Misundrerstandings at Christmas

2011-12-15T12:41:00.001-05:00

Ooofah! Yesterday was the longest school day I've had since the spring musical and frankly, I think its too early in the year yet for me to be that busy. I held the second round of auditions for our annual talent show last night and had a whopping 27 acts to auditions before the night was over, which kept me at the school till 6pm. I was glad to have such a fantastic turn out, considering that over the two days we had 35 acts try out which is a record for as long as I've been here. The disappointing thing was that I had to cut nearly 12 acts for time's sake and because some of them simply didn't impress as much as other acts. I know there were a lot of disappointed kids today but hopefully this year's show will be one of our best ever due to the sheer number of excellent kids who did try out. I suppose disappointment is part of the holidays just as much as happiness is, because for every child or adult who gets a Christmas wish there are several who do not. That makes for a fitting transition into today's film because it is about disappointment and not getting what you want for Christmas...however it is also realizing that you got what you didn't realize you needed. It is a film about romance and laughing at life's bum-raps, but also one about appreciating family and togetherness at the holidays. It is also notable for being one of the films that launched Sandra Bullock into stardom. So let's take a ride on the rocky train of love and find out what happened While You Were Sleeping.

Lucy Moderatz is a lonely token collector for the Chicago Transit Authority who is constantly working for other people who have families to spend holidays with. Lucy has no family to speak of and so her boss and co-workers see it as fair to depend on her to cover for them when they cannot work. As it is approaching Christmas, Lucy is again asked to cancel her plans so that she can come in to work on Christmas Day and she is dreading it. The only bright spot of her day is a single business man who stops at her counter everyday to drop off a token and ride to work. She slowly develops a strong crush on him and finds herself looking forward to their brief exchanges each day (though they never speak or interact aside from money changing hands). On Christmas Day, the man shows up and gets mugged on the platform and then pushed onto the tracks where he is struck unconscious. Lucy dives in after him and saves him from being run over by the train, then she rides along with him to the hospital. They won't let her in to see him but a nurse overhears her musing to herself that she wanted to marry him and thinks that Lucy is his fiancee. When the family of the man, Peter Callahan, shows up they are told that she is his fiancee and they immediately make an effort to make her feel wanted and welcome in their family. Amused and charmed by their eccentric and loving antics, Lucy allows herself to keep up the illusion while Peter stays in a coma because she realizes how much she has needed a family to be a part of. Complications arise, however, when Peter's brother Jack questions the validity of her story...and when Lucy finds herself falling for Jack.

While You Were Sleeping is one of those comedies, like Shakespeare, whose plot rests solely on the conceit that someone could clear up all the misunderstandings and misconceptions if they simply explained the truth. If you can't buy the reason why they can't, then the plot quickly crumbles into unbelievability and the audience loses interest. Luckily, Bullock makes Lucy so likable and sweet that we are rooting for her not to reveal the truth about her connection to Peter...and the added element of a weak-hearted grandmother in the clan helps keep her guilt from letting her fess up. It sails along on it's plot concept effortlessly and with a buoyancy that almost makes you wish it would never end. The actors playing the Callahans are also a delight, combining annoying and endearing qualities into their characters that make them a wonderful family and one whom anyone would feel honored to be a part of. This isn't just a film about a woman falling in love with a man, it's about a woman falling in love with a family and wanting to be a part of it...discoving what was really missing from her life. That, my friends, is a great reason to watch this film at Christmas.

25 Days of Christmas Movies, Day 14: The Best Christmas Carol (or so they say)

2011-12-14T12:38:00.000-05:00

Yesterday was a real bear for me. You guys know that I lost my carefully written blog on The Nutcracker and had to rewrite it quickly and haphazardly. But you don't know that I was at work late because I had to oversee our talent show auditions from 3-5 (a whole 45 minutes of which I spent waiting for the partners of a particular group who was auditioning, only to find at 5 that they could not make it) and then a choir cantata rehearsal from 6-8:45 (Wayyyyyyyy longer than it should have been) so by the time I got home I was weary and yet not yet ready to go to bed. In fact, when I finally went to bed an hour later I still wasn't ready to sleep yet and thus spent much of the night tossing and turning. So this morning I woke up tired and grumpy, not the best way to start the downhill side of the week before break. But today has been somewhat easy and relaxing, due to showing a film in my English classes and my assumption that even if tonight's round of auditions and rehearsals runs just as long it won't be any worse (especially since we now have only two more days till Christmas Vacation). I really didn't even want to write this blog today, but since I finished a film I'd been wanting to cover in this blog since the first of the month I figured I should stay on schedule. Last night I received, from Netflix, one of the best-reviewed and best-loved versions of Dickens' immortal Christmas classic. I wanted to see what all the fuss was about and I figured that you can never have too many versions of "A Christmas Carol" in 25 Days of Christmas Movies. So without further ado, let us take in the Alastair Sim version of Scrooge (aka A Christmas Carol in the UK).

(I'll skip the summary for you)

This was a very good film and, unlike many versions of Carol, manages to keep a simple and subtle look and feel to it that keeps it modest. Alastair Sim makes an excellent Ebeneezer Scrooge and shows a truly nuanced and well-tiered change from unbearable miser into lovable 'born again' Christmas lover. Also nice are the additional details worked into the flashbacks in the Christmas Past segment where we see much more of Scrooge's rise to power and how it could almost be compared to the backroom dealings of the mafia. He meets the Devil (metaphorically) in the form of a new business partner named Mr. Jorkin and this is the man who helps shape him into the insufferable grump who we begin the tale with. We also are treated to a scene of Scrooge watching his sister die in childbirth and making him promise to take care of Fred, his nephew, for her. Christmas Present is fairly standard, as is Christmas Future...though there are a few additional bits at the beginning which set up Tiny Tim and the remainder of Cratchet's family before Scrooge is introduced to them by Christmas Present. This film is also notable for being one of the first adaptations to retain the book's original ending where Scrooge had Christmas dinner with his nephew and surprised Bob Cratchet the next day (a first and I think the only time until Zemeciks' version that retained this ending). Overall, I enjoyed it and could see why it is considered a classic...however I'm not sure if I agree that it is the best one out of all of them. There are so many good points from all the adaptations that to say this one, with it's low-rent effects and hammy 50s acting from all but Sim, is the best seems more like nostalgia talking than actual aesthetic appreciation. Still, there are worse films you could find playing on TV at Christmas and this is certainly a wonderful old-school Christmas film that everyone can enjoy.

25 Days of Christmas Movies, Day 13: More Nuts to Crack

2011-12-13T14:35:00.000-05:00

I'm aggravated...I typed a full two paragraphs for this blog entry today and then it was all erased when I tried to save it and was informed that I had been somehow logged off from another location. So here I am starting over again and in a way, that kinda makes sense for this post. In 1986, a film version of one of the most popular Christmas ballets was made and released theatrically to lackluster reviews and poor box office performance. It took 7 years for another producer to take the bold step of adapting the ballet for film again so, like this blog, it became a do-over. So without further ado, let's take a second chance on The Nutcracker.

It is Christmas eve and the household is bustling with activity. The servants have locked the main ballroom off from the rest of the house and are busily putting directions on the walls, on the tree, and preparing for the big annual Christmas party that evening. Marie and Fritz, the children of the house, are all a-tizzy trying to get a glimpse of the room before the guests arrive. Finally, the party begins and the house is filled with music, dancing, and liveliness. The fun increases when Uncle Drosselmeier and his Nephew arrive and begin passing out toys. Fritz is given a toy horse to ride on and Marie is given a fancy, hand-carved Nutcracker. The Nutcracker begins getting more attention than Fritz's horse so Fritz destroys it out of spite. After fixing it with a handkerchief, Drosselmeier places the toy into a little toy bed to rest and the children are sent off to bed. Unable to sleep, Marie creeps downstairs where she finds the Christmas tree and the presents under seige by mice! To add insult to injury, Marie begins to shrink down to mouse size and finds herself terrorized by the mice. Luckily, her Nutcracker comes to life and fights for her honor. Once he is victorious, he takes her on a magical journey to the kingdom of sweets to meet the Sugar Plum Fairy.

While the first theatrical Nutcracker film focused on the popular Pacific Northwest Ballet, this version was based on George Balanchine's famed New York City production that has be come a yearly tradition for many. The producers must have felt that using the basis of an already popular production was a sure fire win for them...sadly that is not the case. The '86 version's shortcomings aside, it was miles more entertaining than this version. One of the problems with turning the Balanchine version into a film is that you take it, warts and all. This production was choreographed a little easier so that more children could take part and play the pivotal roles, such as the Nutcracker and Marie. This means that the dancing isn't nearly as spectacular as we expect for a film production, where money is no object and so the best talent can be brought in. It seems a shame too, when other productions are much more challenging and feature more show stopping moves. The production design is also without much style or uniqueness and seems less like a film and more like a stage production that has been filmed, taking some of the pop out of visuals that no doubt looked fantastic on stage. There's no distinctiveness to it and it seems almost generic. I'll admit that for the first time since I was very young, I fell asleep during this ballet and that is not a good sign. The '86 production is much more distinctive and lively and makes for a better film, and it's a pity that it is not available on DVD and this one is. Ah well, at least this dull version can do one thing...it can encourage people to go and see a live production on stage.

25 Days of Christmas Movies, Day 12: An 80s Visit to Toyland

2011-12-12T13:33:00.000-05:00

Before baking this weekend I decided to hunt around on my Netflix instant queue for something Christmassy to get me in the mood and lo and behold, I found a TV remake of Babes in Toyland that was made in the 1980s. Intrigued by this, and surprised that Drew Barrymore was in it, I decided to watch it and wow...talk about films that are different! But this isn't where I usually evaluate movies, this is where I introduce them. So imagine a film that begins in present day Cincinnati, Ohio during the Christmas season that then transports it's main character to toyland to interact with the Mother Goose characters we met in the Disney version. Its a little strange, a little fun, and a little bad and so I decided to share it here today in order to show just how different remakes can be. So without further ado I give you Babes in Toyland.

Lisa Piper is an 11-year-old girl from Cincinnati, Ohio who has been forced to grow up very quickly due to her mother being single and having to help out around the house with her big sister Mary, who works at a local toy store to help make ends meet. Lisa doesn't have much use for Christmas and toys, preferring more practical things like a new blender for the kitchen and time off for her mother. One night, when Lisa's mother is stuck in a snow storm, Lisa rushes to the toy store to warn Mary and Jack, the boy who Mary likes, that the blizzard is coming and they rush off. A bad twist of fate sends Lisa down a hill where she hits a tree and suddenly finds herself descending into Toyland, a colorful village populated by toys and nursery rhyme characters. Lisa immediatly becomes a nuisance to Mr. Barnaby, the town villain, who is trying to marry Mary Contrary to get her property, much to the dismay of Jack Be Nimble who loves her. Lisa tells Barnaby where he can stick it and so Barnaby, now unable to manipulate Mary into marrying him, sets into motion an evil plan to capture all of Toyland. It is then up to Lisa, Mary, Jack, and Georgie Porgie to save the day so that Toyland can have its toys ready for Christmas. If they don't succeed, it may be the end of Christmas for everyone.

This loose adaptation of the original operetta bears little resemblance to the original work and indeed, only includes two songs from that. The rest of the songs were written by Leslie Bricusse, who also worked on Scrooge. It is a strange franken-production that calls to mind more similarities with The Wizard of Oz than it does with Toyland. I almost wonder if the producers weren't trying to remake Oz and simply couldn't get permission (since at the time, Disney was making Return to Oz) and so they did Toyland instead. The celebrity cast really surprised me as well, as I was expecting to only recognize Barrymore...imagine my surprise when Eileen Brennan (Clue), Richard Mulligan ("The Golden Girls" and "Empty Nest") and Keanu Reeves showed up as leads...who sing! Yes friends, Keanu sings (at least according to all the sources I checked...no one was listed as having been dubbed for this film) and that alone was worth sitting through it. I really enjoyed the first part of this film, which was set in Cincy and looked like it was made with a decent sized budget...but once we got to Toyland I found my attention waning and the similarities between it and Oz grew too frequent to keep me from being distracted. That isn't to say that this isn't fun...it's certainly a better all around experience than the Disney one I wrote about last week and at least it has the definate Christmas connection, but it's not the best thing you'll ever watch. If you do watch it, do so on Hulu or Netflix where it can be streamed cheaply...do not pay.

25 Days of Christmas Movies, Day 11: Hard Times at the Holidays

2011-12-11T18:47:00.001-05:00

So I worked myself hard yesterday baking enough cookies for several boxes of assortments for all my co workers. I made a box for everyone in the department and my two math friends, and the leftovers I popped into a platter for the school secretaries. I suddenly feel both thoughtful and generous, and I suppose that is what Christmas is all about. Thinking of others and giving...and I suppose it doesn't hurt that giving away all my cookies removes the temptation for eating them since I'm watching my figure now (and getting excellent results I might add!). Back to the baking...I spent 5 hours on my feet mixing and measuring and taking things out of the oven and at the end of it I was so tired I was passing out before 10 last night, which is unheard of for me on a Saturday night. And as I sat there, falling asleep contentedly after a heavy day of cooking and preparing for the last week of school, I started thinking of people who aren't as lucky as myself and others in the middle-class bracket. There are people out there who are struggling to just keep their financial lives together let alone afford to buy gifts. And I thought of a film I just watched a few nights ago that I feel fits those late night ponderings of mine nicely. It is the story of a woman who cannot muster any Christmas spirit simply because her life has gotten so bad this year that she cannot focus on it and an angel who tries to win her back by showing her what could be worse. It was a well-reviewed but largely unseen live action film from the Mouse House in the 80s, and I am pleased to revisit it here for you. So lets go and experience One Magic Christmas.

Ginny Granger is the mother of two and wife to Jack Granger, a dreamer and a factory worker. They are solidly in the middle of working/lower class and things seem to keep getting worse. Jack has been out of work since June, the family has to move out of their house (which is company owned) by January 1st, and Ginny is forced to work at a local grocery store (a job she hates and which keeps her from her kids) in order to make ends meet. Stress is added to her plate by her children, who keep asking if Santa is coming this year and manage to keep breaking things in the house, and Jack, who wants to take out a loan for a bike shop. Ginny sees all of this as foolish and loses her temper quite often, feeling bad about it afterward but not understanding why her family doesn't understand why they simply cannot be frivolous at this time. One night, Abbie, Ginny's daughter, goes out to mail a letter to Santa asking him to make things better for her mother. As she drops it in, an angel named Gideon takes it back and tells her that she must get her mother to mail it in order to make her mother better. This is easier said than done, though, since Ginny simply refuses to indulge Abby's belief in Santa and Christmas. Gideon, realizing matters are dire, begins to set in motion events that will test Ginny's beliefs and her strength.

Wow, this may have been the most depressing Christmas I ever saw. You get to witness the demise of a family's finances and security on Christmas Eve and you are treated to some doozies of worst case scenarios. It's a wonder someone watching it doesn't start hating Christmas as much as Ginny does. However, that is sort of the point...to see people at their lowest so that we can see the holiday persevere and bring them back up from the dumps. Very much like It's a Wonderful Life, an angel comes to intervene in a person's life to bring them back into loving Christmas...and he can't show the positives of the holiday, no of course not, he has to bring the protagonist to her worst so that she can see what COULD be missing rather than what is. I won't ruin the surprises, and there are many, but I will say that this angel does way worse things to Ginny than Clarence did to George in It's a Wonderful Life. Oh, special mention should be given to Mary Steenburgen, who plays Ginny to subtle perfection. She isn't the average Scrooge at all. We see her bounce back and forth between tempers and remorse for hurting her loved ones. It all seems so real and true to life that I began to forget I was watching an actress in a part and really believed I was seeing a working class mother at the end of her rope. She hates the holiday and hates herself for being impatient with her family...it was one of the most subtly nuanced performances I've ever seen. Harry Dean Stanton is also good as the angel Gideon who isn't all smiles and sunshine like Clarence Oddbody, but rather he is melancholy and genuinely sad by Ginny's lack of faith. It is a nice change from the usual overly-happy and "rah rah...CHRISTMAS!" as these characters tend to be. I'm not sure if One Magic Christmas is going to be your cup of tea given the very dark factor of it, but it is certainly different from what else you will see during the holiday season and will definitely make you thankful for what you have.

25 Days of Christmas Movies, Day 10: Pageants and Problems

2011-12-10T16:17:00.001-05:00

Last night I got to do something I don't often get to do in my little town...I got out to see a play. Our community theater decided to do one of my favorite short plays which is based on one of my favorite children's books regarding the Christmas season. Several of my theater kids were in it too, and they were all fabulous...which made me so proud. Watching them in the play reminded me of how that book used to be a family tradition. My mother always read it with her elementary school kids and would talk about their reactions, and one year I was even in the play as a major character. This was a part of Christmas and a part of childhood...and it wasn't until yesterday that I remembered that there was also a movie based on this popular book and I thought, wouldn't that be perfect for for my blog this year? So here it is, The Best Christmas Pageant Ever.

The Herdmans are the worst kids in town. They fight, bully, smoke cigars (even the girls) and cuss their teachers. Every one of them is a terror and they make life unbearable for kid and child alike all over the town. In fact, the only place where one can feel safe from them is at church, which is what Charlie Bradley says when being asked what he likes about Sunday School. This upsets his teacher, but not his mother Grace who completely understands since Leroy Herdman made Charlie black and blue last year in school. Soon afterward, Mrs. Armstrong...the unofficial leader of everything Christmas related...ends up with a broken leg and all of her duties have to be passed off to other women, including the unwanted annual Christmas Pageant. The honor ends up falling to Grace, who not only insists that her children and her husband participate but who also insists that this will be their best Christmas Pageant ever. That is, until Charlie makes a big blunder. When Leroy Herdman steals his lunch dessert for the umpteeth time, Charlie brags that he gets all the dessert he wants at Sunday School. Guess who shows up at Church next week just in time to hear about the Christmas Pageant? Suddenly, Grace is having to deal with the usual Pageant problems while also trying to herd the Herdmans who take over the show in a matter of minutes. Will this be the best Christmas Pageant ever or will it be an unmitigated disaster?

The Best Christmas Pageant Ever is always best experienced in its original written form where you can supply all the reactions and sarcasms in your own mind that make you laugh the most. When it gets dramatized you have actors making performance choices that either match what you always imagined, or don't. I suppose this is true of any book, but with comedy it's particularly dangerous. It somewhat like hearing the same joke again. If you don't hear it exactly right, it won't make you laugh the same way. Such is the case with this film. It is good, because the source is good, but it doesn't quite reach greatness due to that constant comparison to how you first reacted to the source. Many parts still are riotous, however...such as the pageant rehearsals and Mrs. Armstrong's conversations with Grace over the phone. Also, the performance of Loretta Swit (best known as Hot Lips Houlihan from M.A.S.H.) is an excellent mix of sweetness and sarcasm and is perfect for the role of Grace. Overall, it is a cute and short little telemovie that is always fun to watch, especially as we get nearer to Christmas because...despite being heavily rooted in satire and slapstick...it is a film that really contemplates the true meaning of Christmas and what it means to everyone. I think that's worth more than a few poorly timed punchlines.

25 Days of Christmas Movies, Day 9: An "Animated" Carol (oh the puns!)

2011-12-09T12:13:00.001-05:00

Today is probably one of the strangest schedules that we've had yet at school this year, due to an assembly that had to be held in the auditorium. Whenever the auditorium must be used and the whole school is attending, it means that the school is split into two groups. Then one group goes to the assembly while the others go to their classes and then they switch off. I lucked out today, because the assembly took place during 5th period (which is my planning period on Friday), so I had no students to be responsible for nor did I have to hold an hour period with those students. I did, however, get affected by the modified schedule in the morning...where our first four periods suddenly became 15 minutes each. That's just enough time to take role, tell the kids what to expect on Monday, and then watch them scurry out as the bell rings. Thankfully, the day has passed quickly and without much annoyance and everywhere you can see people getting psyched up for Christmas (which means, teachers are more lethargic from exhaustion and students are squirrelly knowing that break and presents are within a week's grasp). A week from today I will be one period away from Christmas freedom, and I couldn't be more excited. Speaking of Christmas, I have another "Carol" for you today, this one the most recent of the versions available...having just been released in 2009. It tells the same familiar story of Scrooge while also adding in a special visual flair that could not have been achieved before now. Without futher delay, let's dive into Robert Zemeckis' motion-captured A Christmas Carol. (I'll do you a favor and skip the summary)

We all know the story of Scrooge and how his life is saved by the timely intervention of three spirits on Christmas Eve. His story has never been as fast-paced and action-packed however. Zemeckis and company have taken Dickens' book and translated it almost perfectly to the screen, even keeping elements that are often cut out...like Christmas Present's urchins, Want and Ignorence. However, in addition to those wonderful literary elements, we are treated to a great deal of action sequences where Scrooge is whisked around from here to there and violently tossed about in order to fully utilize the visual capabilities of the motion-capture animation medium. Where Scrooge might be gently transported to the past in previous versions, now he is dragged and thrown by Christmas Past (in this version, a candle and flame) into the different time periods. What used to be a somber tour with Christmas-Yet-To-Come, is now a riotous chase through London as Scrooge is nearly killed several times by a demonic horse-drawn herse. These moments tend to be a little jarring for one expecting a more sublte film experience like the Alastar Sim or George C. Scott versions and I can see why. It does not feel like a classy film for these reasons, or at least what we think a classy film should be, which is a shame because it turns off people who would have really loved how close to the source the film was. However, to punish the film for making potentially dull scenes exciting is not fair in my eyes which is why I've taken to liking this Carol and include it as one of my favorite versions due to it's dark visual style and adherence to the source. It is the version I have always wanted to see and missteps only in that it moves a little too fast between scenes, making me wish the brisk 90 minutes was closer to 120. Kids will love this Carol and visually it is the best looking of the versions so you can't go wrong if you add it to your family Christmas lineup.

25 Days of Christmas Movies, Day 8: TOYLAND!!!!

2011-12-08T12:24:00.001-05:00

One of my fondests memories from childhood at Christmas was imagining what Santa's workshop looked like. I remember feeling like I got a pretty good look at it in Santa Claus: The Movie, but I still couldn't be sure. Afterall, that film portrayed it as a workshop that simply made old-fashioned toys...so where did those Ghostbusters that Santa got me come from? Certainly he doesn't go to Toys R' US or the Mall, that would just spoil the mystique. I asked my mother and she said that Santa went to Toyland for that stuff, because that's where toys really come from. This was good enough for my blind faith and I went on believing in a Toyland for several years after...so you can imagine my delight when as a young child I came across this Disney film from 1961. It had music, bright colors, wild dances, a massive battle, and it prominantly featured Toyland...and it was just how I pictured it. Now imagine my surprise in finding that this film is listed among others on a full on list of Christmas movies...I never knew it had anything to do with Christmas. So without further ado, let's take a trip to Mother Goose Village and watch Babes in Toyland.

All the citizens of Mother Goose Village are very excited today because, after what seems like much too long, Tom Piper and Mary Contrary are finally getting married. To mark the occasion, a celebration is given to the happy couple and features, among other celebrities, Little Boy Blue, Simple Simon, Bo Peep and her Sheep, and Jack-Be-Nimble. The only person who doesn't attend is Barnaby, the Crooked Man who lived in a Crooked House. Barnaby is jealous and enraged at Tom for stealing Mary and her generous inheritence away from him, so he arranges for Tom to be kidnapped and thrown into the sea. Then, after ensuring that Bo Peep's sheep are stolen and taken into The Forest of No Return and Mary cannot make any money off of them, Barnaby makes his offer of marriage to Mary. Bo Peep, Boy Blue, and Willie Winkie, seeing how distraught Mary is, venture into the Forest of No Return to find them. Mary and Tom, who are reunited by gypsies, then must set out to find them and rescue them from the forest...which turns out to be the outer border of Toyland. A great chase ensues to see who will come back from the forest intact...our cheerful leads or the evil Barnaby.

Surprise, Babes in Toyland really has nothing to do with Christmas aside from a winter finale and references to Christmas when the children are helping the Toymaker in his workshop in scenic Toyland. Otherwise, this film makes me think more of Spring and Summer than anything else with it's bright floral colors and references to the warm ocean and lemonade. Still, considering that Toyland acts a a huge production floor for Santa and the toy shops of the world, I suppose I can count it by a very thin margin. As for the film itself, it is a decent if cloying adaptation of Glen MacDonough's famous operetta, with new lyrics by George Burns. Performances by the veteren cast are fine, with Ray Bolger and Ed Wynn carrying much of the weight as Barnaby and the Toymaker respectively, but the young protagonists, especially Mickey Mouse Club Favorite Annette, are rather bland and lifeless. Annette especially seems to have only two expressions, mild surprise and dreamy wistfulness. Her voice and look fits the part, but paired with actors who are much more willing to give into the silliness of the piece, she tends to look emotionless and lifeless. I can't really recommend this film as one that adults, as well as kids, will enjoy...but I can say that if you have little ones in the house they will certainly enjoy this colorful musical. You grown ups, however, will probably just need to grin and bear it.

25 Days of Christmas Movies, Day 7: This is Halloween (The First Archive Post)

2011-12-07T12:16:00.001-05:00

Ok, this isn't really an archive post so much as a repeat of a film from two years ago. Before I leap in, can I once again reiterate how stressful the month of December can be? Try this on for size, in a week where I lost sixth period to a sophomore field trip to the vocational school and Friday morning is sacrificed for an assembly, the Good Lord decreed that we needed another interruption this week to keep things exciting. So there was a non-emergency lockdown for a half an hour at the tail end of 3rd period today (eating up the last 7 minutes of 3rd and taking 23 minutes of 5th), when I have one of my rowdy bunches. Keeping 27 kids in a dark room away from a door and being able to tell them nothing about the situation (because I honestly didn't and still don't know why we were on lockdown) is like trying to herd cats. They were up, down, quiet and loud and overall annoying. The only thing that made it bearable was the fact that I had finished my lesson for today and I do not have a 5th period because I am assigned to hall duty, so I didn't really lose any momentum in class unlike other teachers who had to then rush through the remainder of 5th period in order to cover everything. Thank heaven for small favors. It did put me in the mood for Christmas though, because Christmas means two whole weeks of not having any professional cares or worries. It's nice to get a break from the daily grind, which is what a highly important Christmas figure gets in the film I am revisiting today. Of course, unlike my break which I am craving, his break is forced on him by the star of the film who desperately wants to understand and be a part of Christmas, but doesn't quite get the difference between it and other holidays. So without further ado, I bring you one of the best "dark" Christmas films, The Nightmare Before Christmas.

The film begins at the end of October 31st where all the citizens of Halloween Town are celebrating yet another successful years of scares, spooks, and spills...well all the citizens except their Pumpkin King, Jack Skellington. Jack has slowly grown bored of the Halloween shtick and longs for something more to fill his lonely heart, but he isn't sure what. He walks through the forest late that night and on into the next morning and is surprised to come across a clearing with strange trees, each with a door corrosponsing to what we know as holidays. There is a door shaped like a Jack-o-lantern, a heart shaped door, a four leaf clover door, a firework shaped door, and even an egg shaped door. Jack ignores these other doors and focuses in on the most festive and colorful one, which is shaped like a fully trimmed Christmas tree. Jack opens the door and finds himself whisked into Christmas Town, a snowy wonderland populated by elves and run by Santa Claus. Jack is amazed at the bright and cheery world where no ghouls or goblins ever appear to ruin the joy of the eternal Christmas within and he finds himself growing light with joy himself. Obsessed with recapturing the feeling he feels in Christmas Town, Jack returns to Halloween Town on a mission to recreate the magic. He finds himself stumped however by not understanding what it all means and finally decides that to really 'get' Christmas, he must take it over and run it himself. He orders "Sandy Claws" (as they call him) kidnapped and then sets about "Making Christmas" with all the other ghouls of Halloween Town. Only one citizen, Sally, can forsee that Jack's Christmas is going to be a disaster and with Jack distracted by the preparations and Santa held captive by the evil Oogie-Boogie, it looks like this may be the last Christmas ever.

I've known a lot of people who didn't take to the movie, which isn't surprising. A truly discriminating viewer will notice plot holes here and there. They might also wonder why the leader of Halloween Town is such an emotional sap rather than being someone fearsome and ghoulish, and they also might be put off by the techniques of stop-motion animation. Whatever the reasons, these people just don't care for this movie. I'm not going to tell them they're wrong...that will be as silly as someone trying to convince me why I shouldn't like it as much as I do. I would like to say that I'm not one of those emo kids who brought it back...no, I liked it way back when I was 9 and it was new. It was something a little different and a little dark, which was nice next to all the bright and happy animated musicals that the Mouse House was producing at that point. Oh yes, this dark little fairy tale is definitely a musical...with wonderfully clever tunes written by (and in several instances) sung by Danny Elfman. The story, I think, is rather ingenious. It first invents the idea that every holiday inhabits its own world where its preparations take place for an entire year, and we are first shown Halloween Town, where everything is dark and spooky and it is run by Jack Skellington...and then we are shown it's antithesis in Christmas Town...where he becomes enamored with the secular trappings of the treasured winter holiday. It is a sweet and sour fairy tale that appeals to many ages, and it still popular today...rightfully so...due to it's excellent design, grand performances, and expert direction by Henry Selick. Watch it again, or for the first time this Christmas and giggle as holidays collide.

25 Days of Christmas Movies, Day 6: Appreciating the Little Things

2011-12-06T11:50:00.001-05:00

If there is any theme that filmmakers love exploiting at Christmas, it is the theme of sudden realizations that one's life is empty, incomplete, or better than one gives it credit for. Reevaluating one's life is the 'it' thing to do at Christmas in fiction, and thematically it makes perfect sense. What other time of the year (besides Thanksgiving) is fully dedicated to encouraging family gatherings, giving and being thankful, and sharing love? Also, since it is the end of a year and close to the start of a new one, it fits with resolutions for the next year as well (The Clean Slate effect as I like to call it). Many many films are about appreciating life and making the 'right' choices regarding it. If Kevin McCallister hadn't realized that he both needs and loves his family, Home Alone loses it's point. If George Baily doesn't realize that his life is necessary to the survival of other people's lives, It's a Wonderful Life is merely a public service announcement for suicide and if Scrooge doesn't realize that his life is riddled with mistakes, then A Christmas Carol cannot effectively be dramatic. Such is the case with a Nicolas Cage film from 2000 that explored such ideas as not realizing that one's life is empty and that a better life is possible if one makes important sacrifices...and of course, all centered around the holiday season. So let's examine an alternate reality as we visit with The Family Man.

Jack Campbell, a single and wealthy Wall Street hot shot, thinks that he has it all. He is in the midst of putting together a billion dollar merger and has ordered an emergency meeting on Christmas day to ensure its success and he has no wishes to give up his life for love, family, or any of those sorts of mundane things. In his office on Christmas Eve, he is surprised to hear that his former girlfriend, Kate, tried to call him after many years. After reminiscing a bit, he walks into a convenience store where a lottery contestant, Cash, barges in saying that he has a winning ticket. The store clerk believes that Cash is lying and refuses to give him his winnings. Cash pulls out a gun and is about to shoot the clerk before Jack offers to buy the ticket from him, thus averting disaster. He and Cash settle their business deal outside and he arrogantly offers to help Cash before going to sleep in his penthouse. When Jack awakens on Christmas Day he is shocked to find that he is living in suburban New Jersey, married to Kate, and the father of two. Confused and bewildered, Jack rushes into New York City to find out what has gone wrong and finds that none of his work colleagues or friends recognize him. Running into Cash on the street (who is driving Jack's Ferrari), Cash explains that Jack is experiencing an alternate reality meant to teach him a lesson. Forced now to deal with family pressures and sell tires, Jack finds himself failing miserably at the job of husband and father...and yet, he comes to love and enjoy it. Will Jack decide that this is the life he wants to keep or will he choose to go back to the life he originally had?

The Family Man has the seeds of many famous and not so famous story ideas wrapped up inside of it. One one hand, it is very much like It's a Wonderful Life because it is about a man who experiences an alternate life to help him put his own life in perspective. On another, it is like A Christmas Carol because it is about a man who is selfish who is shown how to be a nicer and kinder man during the Christmas season. Either way, it is an oft-used story device where someone who isn't living 'correctly' is show how to do so through supernatural intervention. It isn't wholly original, but it does include a few very interesting wrinkles. For instance, in those other stories, people who had existed have disappeared or been destroyed because of the decisions a character has or is about to make. In The Family Man, Jack holds the life of his children in his hands because if he goes back to his old life, he eliminates them from ever existing. That's a lot of responsibility for a man. Also, it also poses the question that, if Jack decides to go back and fix these issues, is there any guarentee that Kate will still be interested? These elements make The Family Man a little more memorable and original than other variations on the same theme...but it doesn't elevate it to greatness either. It is simply a nice, enjoyable but ultimately forgettable film. I still enjoy watching it, but if you're going for a 'lesson learned at Christmas' theme...there are better places to look.

25 Days of Christmas Movies, Day 5: It's a Wonderful Life...Again...

2011-12-05T12:11:00.001-05:00

There are few Christmas movies out there that are true staples of the year, and personally I always feel that until they are watched, it is not yet Christmas. Those include A Christmas Story, National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation, and It's a Wonderful Life. Regarding the latter, I cannot think of a single film that is more associated with classic Christmas entertainment than that one film. I personally cannot open a single present until James Stewart has made me weep like a woman when he realizes how important his life really is. It probably comes as a shock to you then, that It's a Wonderful Life was something of a flop during it's release. Reviewers called it overly sentimental and trite and audiences didn't exactly show up in droves to see it, letting it finish 6th during release. For many years, It's a Wonderful Life simply disappeared from public consciousness and was largely forgotten. During it's absence from popular culture, television executives at ABC and Marlo Thomas (of TV's "That Girl") decided to resurrect it for the small screen in a colorized and true to the original TV remake. The project was very personal to Thomas and gave her an opportunity to give the film a more feminist swing, while also exploring more of the back stories of the people of Bedford Falls. The result was a ratings success that was aired and re-aired on television for years until the original film found new life and success on the airwaves. The question is, does the film hold up or was it simply a case of people thinking it's good because they aren't familiar with the original? Let's find out as we find out that It Happened One Christmas.

Mary Bailey has had a very intense roller coaster of a life. She has always cared about what happens to other people before looking after herself, which has caused many of the hardships in her life. When she was young, she saved her brother Harry from drowning and in doing so rendered herself deaf in one ear. She planned to go off to see the world when she graduated and then had to take over the Building and Loan Business when her father passes away so that it won't be closed. She gave up her honeymoon money to keep the business open when the Great Depression struck and she allowed herself to live in poverty in order to fix up an old house that her husband George loved. It all is constantly getting to Mary but she manages to rise above it until the one Christmas Eve that a payment to the bank examiner goes missing and the town's evil landowner, Mr. Potter, seizes the opportunity to finally shut Mary down. Mary realizes that with her life insurance and no money, she is worth more dead than she is alive. So Mary heads to the bridge on the edge of town with plans to hurl herself into the river and commit suicide. Luckily for her, her guardian angel Clara is there to try to convince her not to. Mary is then taken on a magical journey to let her decide whether her life actually means something or if she should simply not exist.

It Happened One Christmas is the kind of remake, like Psycho and The Omen, that changes very little in an effort to hold on to the elements that made the original a classic (with the only irony being that It's a Wonderful Life) was never considered a classic until after this. It repeats scenes and dialogue down to the letter and punctuation and only reverses the gender of George and Mary and changed Clarence the angel into Clara. Other small changes include more details in the section regarding when the boys go to war and the hyphenating of Mary's last name to include both her maiden and her married name (an anachronism for the time period). The story is still a good one, however, and the film's only shortcoming is the inevitable comparisons to the original, especially since it is nearly word-for-word identical. Naturally, anyone wanting to experience this story for the first time should always begin with the James Stewart original, but this one offers plenty to enjoy as well including good performances by great actors and a similar but different experience of a familiar tale. And, if you're a complete Scrooge about any remake of It's a Wonderful Life, you can at least appreciate this film for bringing it back into the public consciousness so that it could become a classic instead of the forgotten gem it seemed destined to become.

25 Days of Christmas Movies, Day 4: The Story of an Elf

2011-12-04T14:38:00.001-05:00

Rudolph has movies based on him, Santa has his own films and televisions shows, Frosty has a franchise, heck even Jack Frost has made several appearances on film but who ever focuses on Santa's Elves? Yes they are always there as background characters in films about Santa and Christmas, but rarely does one lead up a feature. Which is why it was probably refreshing when a Christmas film was released in 2003 that actually tried to explore what it meant to be one of Santa's helpers and also what it meant to have Christmas spirit in today's world. It was a refreshingly uncynical look at Christmas that also shook an admonishing finger at cynicism, which is rare in our modern world where sarcasm and cynical minds are abound. It is unfashionable to be optimistic today and a film about an Elf trying to teach the world about the importance of Christmas spirit was certainly what was needed. So without further ado, I present a modern Christmas fable...Elf.

Buddy the Elf has always known he was different. When he was in school he stood a head taller than most of the other elves, and then two, three, and four heads. He has never been comfortable in the tiny bed that all the other elves had no trouble sleeping in, and he never was able to make toys nearly as fast as the other elves. This Christmas, however, he recieves a deep shock...he is actually a HUMAN! He was left at an orphanage when he was just a baby and crawled into Santa's sack one Christmas Eve and was then raised by the elves as one of their own. Buddy, convinced he does not belong in the North Pole any longer, discovers the whereabouts of his father and heads off to New York City to find him. He has the hard realization, however, that the city is not as friendly to elves as the barren North Pole was, and he finds that his father wants nothing to do with him. However, Buddy's innocence and joy eventually begins to win over those around him and he discovers that he has a destiny...to bring the Christmas spirit back to New York City.

Elf is adorable, there's really no other way to describe it. It is like a storybook come to life, complete with Christmas cliches and references to works long past (like the stop-motion animated animals of the North Pole) and a childlike innocence that is as infectious as the enthusiasm Will Farrell has for playing Buddy. He sheds much of his sarcastic and cynical masks for this one and it makes Farrell intensely likable in the role, and also charmingly awkward. Buddy constantly looks out of place, even when he finally dons human clothes for the first time. It is not until the conclusion, when Buddy has found where he really belongs, that Buddy finally looks at home in the world he is in. It is a classic fish-out-of-water story that is funny and surprising in many ways. I had written off Elf as a useless Farrell vehicle many years ago despite fan praise and hadn't really wanted to see it until recently when putting together the line up for this year's posts and I am happy to say that it completely won me over. If there was one thing that seemed awkward to me, it was using "Gimbels" in the story, which hasn't been in operation since it closed in the 80s, making the story impossible to occur now due to that fact and yet impossible to be in the past because of the level of technology on display (tiny cell phones, engines, and such). That one caveat aside, this was a terrific film and one that should certainly go into the family Christmas rotation. It deserves it's praise and will warm the cockles of your heart just in time for the holidays.

25 Days of Christmas Movies, Day 3: A Holiday to Remember

2011-12-03T14:22:00.001-05:00

If there is anything that goes together with Christmas more than presents and decorations, it's a classic Christmas vacation. Most people are off for several days at Christmas and so that makes it a perfect time to take a trip someplace else. Of course, it also is one of the most expensive times to head off on vacation because of that fact. For this reason, people have been looking for cheaper ways to vacation including using discount hotel sites, association discounts, and even home swapping where people save on accommodations by swapping their home with someone who is heading in the opposite direction. It is on this conceit that Nancy Meyers built a modern romance classic that just so happens to be set at Christmas. Christmas actually takes a bit of a back seat in this film, though it does provide the idea for the major inciting incident. But let's not miss the plane preparing for the discussion of this film, its time to take The Holiday.

Iris Simpkins is a society column editor for The Daily Telegraph in London who has unconditionally loved her friend Jasper for years and has never seemed to be able to get him to really care for her. Just before Iris's Christmas holiday, she discovers that she has been assigned the unwanted task of writing up Jasper's wedding announcement and sinks into a deep depression. At the same time, in Los Angeles, Amanda Woods, a trailer editor, discovers that her live in boyfriend has been cheating on her because he finds her cold and unavailable. She kicks him out and then makes a conscious decision to take her first vacation in years. She manages to send Iris a message about swapping out her home for Iris's at a particularly low point for Iris (who is about to commit suicide by breathing gas from the stove but then snaps out of it because its a stupid idea). They agree to trade homes and soon they are off on their own vacation adventures. Iris falls in love with Amanda's posh L.A. home and Amanda is slowly charmed by Iris's quaint country village (and her equally charming brother Graham). Each woman soon discovers the things that are missing from their lives and finds that they must each make a very important choice about how their lives will continue from this point on.

My synopsis for The Holiday really doesn't do it justice because it forces me to not reveal some very important plot points for those of you who haven't seen it and thus makes the film seem very thin. However a lot of things occur to these characters with in the simple plot that it certainly justifies its 2 hour plus runtime. You become invested in these two women and their journey of self-re-discovery (can I do two dashes in one word?) and that is what drives the film, so it is a very character centered story rather than a plot centered one. And each story has it's own wrinkles and eccentricities too. For example, Iris's tale feels like it is going to be a standard rom-com plot, but in fact it is more about helping an elderly screenwriter that she meets who lives down the street and he is the one who helps her realize she doesn't need Jasper. Amanda's story is even more difficult to sell because it is a romance story about a woman who doesn't really feel any emotion and who finds it difficult to begin (and she has her own trailer voiceover telling her so). It keeps the film lively and inspired, particularly for those who might have grown tired of standard rom-com cliches. It is a wonderful film for celebrating love and happiness, and what better time of year than Christmas to acknowledge those attributes of the human spirit?

25 Days of Christmas Movies, Day 2: A Terrifying "What If?"

2011-12-02T12:15:00.001-05:00

It's day two and it is cold! I mean really, the entire building feels like an ice box because of the poor insulation between inside and outside (its mostly glass and cinder blocks between me and the cold outside). I suppose it doesn't help that I'm wearing a short sleeved polo today, but that's what we're supposed to wear on Fridays (it's Spirit Friday and we have to wear school colors or staff shirts...this happens to be both). One saving grace of today is that it is Friday and thus, tomorrow I get to sleep in. Yay! I have been craving a lazy morning since Monday (darn you Thanksgiving break...giving me a tantalizing break from early mornings and then snatching it away) so this is much needed. I even have some plans for the weekend too, such as lunching with a friend, seeing a movie, possibly heading to Columbus for Holiday Hop, and doing my Christmas shopping (including shopping for my Secret Santa person, for which I had a fabulous theme idea for last night that I shan't reveal here...lest I be found out!). Speaking of Santa, I watched an truly interesting film last night about Santa Claus. No, I don't mean the jolly red-clad elf we all know from the Coca-Cola box...I mean the REAL Santa, the one who was hidden away in the ice for millenia to stop him from murdering children. You never heard that story? I hadn't either before I viewed last night's film, a film which reminded me of equal parts Gremlins and The Thing. I know Christmas horror isn't the most popular of things to write about, and yet I love it because it gives us a break from the usual heartfelt and warm Christmas movies. Will this be one you enjoy? Let's find out as we examine Rare Exports: A Christmas Tale.

The film begins 24 days until Christmas and follows a group of British scientists whose leader has demanded that they drill into the ice in Finland and dig out what he says is a "sacred grave" will be the most important discovery in the history of mankind. Nearby, two local boys watch the whole endeavor, curious. As they leave, they leave the hole they used to break into the fence wide open. One of the boys, Pietari Kontio, asks his friend Juuso if he is ready to see Santa this year, to which Juuso replies that Santa is all a hoax. Pietari, dismayed by this, begins to research Santa Claus and finds, in some rare texts, that the original Santa Claus was a demon who punished naughty children rather than rewarding good ones and that the legend has become twisted and made more into a fairy tale. Pietari begins to suspect that the sacred grave must be the resting place of the real Santa and he has been trapped under the ice ever since angry villagers trapped him there hundreds of years ago. Christmas day approaches and Pietari's father, a local reindeer herder, finds that all the reindeer that they had been hoping to herd and sell this year have been mysteriously killed and the men at the dig site have been killed. Pietari becomes convinced that Santa has been revived and is wreaking havoc across the land. Things take a turn however, when his father catches what appears to be the spitting image of Santa (you know, if Santa enjoyed biting off ears and looked evil) and decides to sell him back to the scientists to recoup the profits lost from the dead reindeer.

Rare Exports could honestly be a PG-13 horror film if not for all the full frontal old-man nudity in the film. It had a charming child protagonist, a tame and yet creepy horror premise, and a delightfully action-packed fantasy finale that reminded me of older horror films that were child appropriate, like Poltergeist and Gremlins. There wasn't nearly as much comedy in this film as there was in those others, but there is still a decent amount of lightness to break up the dark of the story. I found myself equal parts enchanted by the fantasy elements and biting my nails from suspense. And, despite the ridiculousness of the premise, I found myself really believing that I was seeing the REAL Santa Claus in this film (because of how sincerely they sold the idea) and it was not pretty. In fact, the filmmakers wisely do not show Santa until the end and even then, his visage is shrouded in mystery. If I had one criticism about the film, it is that it is too short. The climax and falling action occurs too quickly and I would have liked to see a more-extended fight to the death or action sequence rather than the truncated ending that exists. I do like the resolution tag, though, which darkly lampoons the commercialization and industrialization of things that are necessary for Christmas. Reindeer, it seems, are quite an industry as are Christmas Trees, wreaths and all the other paraphernalia associated with the holiday. I won't ruin the surprise, but needless to say the wit displayed at the end is very sharp. Even if you don't enjoy Christmas horror, this could be a great film for you as it is much tamer and less horrifying than most...and you'll get points for watching a foreign film. It's win, win!

25 Days of Christmas Movies, Day 1: A Singing and Dancing Miser

2011-12-01T12:12:00.001-05:00

Welcome, fellow blog readers, to the Third Annual "25 Days of Christmas Movies"! It's really hard for me to believe that it has been three years since I started this animal and that I'm still going strong, and its even harder for me to believe that there are people still reading. I kid, I kid. I'm really excited and pumped up for Christmas this year and I can't wait to write down all the new, strange, and heartwarming (not necessarily in combination or order) films for you to read about. I'm also pretty excited that I have essentially two weeks left until winter break, but that is neither here nor there. I don't know about you guys, but getting ready for Christmas seems to get harder and harder each year. I've already decided that I'll be doing the majority of my Christmas shopping online this year in order to cut down on things like annoyance and sales tax (god bless all those wishlists my friends and family members post on Amazon.com) and I'm cutting out a lot of the holiday foods I like too thanks to counting calories (though I am definately keeping track of all the calories I DON'T use up each day so I can stock pile them for Season's Eatings). With all these things swirling around in my head, its a wonder I don't turn into something of a Scrooge...lucky for me and you that I adore Christmas even with it's busy-rush-rush warts. Speaking of old Ebenezer, you'd be amazed at how many film and television version of "A Christmas Carol" exist...over 30, maybe more. It's like the little novella the could, and until recently I wondered why (with such great source material) there hadn't yet been a big-budget musical version of the tale in theaters. Apparently I just didn't look hard enough as there have been several produced for television and one feature-length theatrical film released in 1970. It features, among other things, a singing and dancing Scrooge which seems perfect for the ending but just doesn't seem right in one's head regarding the beginning of the tale when Scrooge is a grouch. This film version has accumulated it's share of controversy too, with varying opinions on it's casting, score, and direction and so I felt it was only fair to make this my first film this month. So without further ado, experience Scrooge, a musical.

It is Christmas Eve in 1843 London and everyone is gearing up for the holiday season except for Ebenezer Scrooge, who grumpily sings a song called "I Hate People" to drive that point home after being asking for the umpteenth time to "have a heart" about Christmas and charity. Even Scrooge's assistant, Bob Cratchet, is getting into the spirit as he takes his children around to different stores to buy the elements of their Christmas feast in a lively number called "Christmas Children". Cratchet's children learn the value of getting a lot for a little and appreciating what you can get rather than what you'd rather have. Scrooge heads home after being lampooned by street urchins in "Father Christmas", where they tease and taunt him for being such a sour puss, and encounters his dead buisness partner Jacob Marley. Marley, surprisingly animated for someone so long dead, informs Scrooge that if he doesn't change his ways he will be damned for all eternity for his selfishness and greed. What follows is a fantastic (and surprisingly musical) journey into Christmas past, present, in which three ghosts show Scrooge what it truely means to live life to the fullest. (Can you believe I actually repeated this well-known plot as though I'd never seen it before?)

Really, we all know the story of Scrooge and his three ghosts but do we know it so well when it is put into song? Actually yes. I'm not going to say that I was bored by Scrooge, because really the source is one of the best pieces of literary fiction that exists, but I did find myself waiting anxiously for my favorite parts to arrive. The fact of the matter is that this version, despite being a musical, is one of the most uninspired versions of "A Christmas Carol" I've ever seen. For a long while I thought I was looking at footage from an older version of "Carol" that had been spliced together with a few awkwardly worded and paced songs. Indeed, there is nothing here that you can't get from more famous and better presented "Christmas Carols". However, there were aspects that I did enjoy and made me perk up a bit when they occured. I loved their interpretation of The Ghost of Christmas Past who is always the most loosly adapted character. This Ghost has been a candle flame, a cherrub, a thin woman, and even a disgruntled cabbie and I really appreciated that she was a very prim and straight-laced old Victorian woman (which made Past's little quips about Scrooge's life seem all the more witty since they were coming out of Aunt Bea's mouth). The Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come also has a shocking moment when he reveals his face to Scrooge, leading to the film's only completely original (and thus, most interesting) scene where Scrooge is sent to Hell to be the Devil's personal clerk (as Cratchet had been to him). It is a wonderful addition that I truely enjoyed (save for the strange design of the set) and one that I feel more "Carol's" could benifit from. Another inspired scene was at the beginning of the passage about the Future where Scrooge hears the towns people singing a rousing song to him titled "Thank You Very Much" and he doesn't realize that they are singing to his coffin. It really made me sympathize for the old goat in a way that section never had before (not that I never felt anything there, it was just never as profound a feeling as this). However, given the film's bland direction and unmemorable music, I can't say I will be making Scrooge a regular in my holiday rotation. However it is certainly different to see Scrooge singing and dancing. Give it a whirl and you might be one of the few who decides that this Scrooge is the best Scrooge.

Post-Thanksgiving "Blahs"

2011-11-29T12:26:00.001-05:00

I don't enjoy these three weeks that are sandwiched between Thanksgiving and Christmas. A lot of people think that it is because I simply don't want to be at work and would rather been sleeping in. While part of that exists in my mind during this time, it's no larger than my want for weekend days during other parts of the year so I can't honestly admit to that. The real reason these weeks stink, as a teacher, is because of the huge amount of programs, events, and scheduled interruptions to the schedule that always happen during this time. At our school alone we have one day next week that will see no sophomores during the morning periods because of a field trip to a vocational school, another four days (two this week and two next week) that remove half of the juniors from the building for two days apiece and send them off to diversity training, interim grades are due this Thursday, and then to cap the festivities on the 16th (our last day before break) we have an early release day and our annual holiday assembly to ensure that nothing gets done before we leave for break. The weather can be uncooperative and can dish out delays and cancellations (we had a non-weather related 2 hour delay today due to a power outage) which causes massive scrambling to speed up and edit what needs to be covered. Oh, and the students also believe that once it's Christmas season that they aren't expected to do anything and many of them get excused absences for early vacations, which makes the last weeks before break fairly difficult. I've given myself a benchmark to hit in each of my classes (Homecoming: Odyessy started in the Freshman classes and Act III: Crucible completed with the sophomores) and I'm hoping to hit it before the 15th. I think I can do it, but I can't leave anything unfinished before break because otherwise it will be forgotten immediately. I guess we'll see.

Tomorrow is the last day in November which means Thurdsay will be the first day of "The 3rd Annual 25 Days of Christmas Movies". I've been searching around for weeks to be sure that I have plenty of new films to discuss this year, though you can expect to see a few repeats from years 1 and 2 simply because those tend to be my favorites, however I would like to try to keep those to a minimum or to not have any at all. Heck, there are enough versions of "A Christmas Carol" alone to fill the days leading up to Christmas so I'm optimistic. I'm Netflixing bunches and bunches of new films to share with you and hopefully you will see some that you enjoy enough to add them to your viewing rotation. I'm looking forward to it myself, because it will get me into the holiday spirit and help me rise above these post-Thanksgiving "blahs". For the rest of you...enjoy what is to come. It's gonna be a good month :)

Thanksgiving is Better with Peanuts

2011-11-22T12:12:00.001-05:00

Ah the age old days of holiday specials for families...we've seen Halloween and Christmas represented on this page, but what about Thanksgiving? Thankfully, unlike films based around Thanksgiving, there are plenty of television shows and specials which have dabbled in Turkey Day. It comes as no surprise then that Charles Schulz's iconic cartoon characters from his "Peanuts" comic strip would get in on the act. It is a light and un-cynical little short that talks up the virtuous side of Thanksgiving without lingering any on the revisionist history that came about later on (namely, the real story of how "nicely" the Pilgrims treated the Native Americans and how well that group has been treated by white Americans since). It might gloss over aspects that are unpleasent, but it is still an great example of wholesome and cute programing that doesn't feel dumbed down. Come with me now and gather round the table with A Charlie Brown Thanksgiving.

Charlie Brown is not having a very good Thanksgiving. First, he is tricked AGAIN by Lucy into trying to kick a football and then falling down AGAIN when she pulls it away. (Lucy coyly says that some traditions are worth keeping at the holidays.) And then he is horrified to discover that Peppermint Patty has invited herself over to his home for Thanksgiving Dinner since her own father is out of town. Charlie Brown isn't sure what he's supposed to do, because he and Sally are planning to go to their grandmother's home for dinner. Linus suggests that rather than calling Patty back and disappointing her (especially since she has also invited Marcie and Franklin to dinner as well) that Charlie Brown simply have two dinners. Paniced about not knowing how to make Thanksgiving dinner, Linus wisely suggests that he simply make what he knows. So Charlie Brown, Linus, and Snoopy set to work making a Thanksgiving feast of popcorn, buttered toast, pretzel sticks, and jelly beans. When Patty, Marcie, and Franklin arrive, Patty is shocked and then outraged at the spread and demands to know where's the turkey, the mashed potatoes, and the cranberry sauce? Charlie Brown leaves, mortified, and Marcie chastises her for her rude behavior, reminding her that Charlie Brown did his best considering he did not actually invite any of them to dinner. Patty realizes her mistake and begs Marcie to apologize to Charlie Brown. Marcie does so, allowing Patty to apologize herself. She realizes now that it is meant to be a holiday for gathering with loved ones and giving thanks...not about kind or quantity of food.

A Charlie Brown Thanksgiving is a delightful little show full of classic "Peanuts" wit and humor. The characters interact and collide in holiday appropriate ways and they all learn something by the end, which is the best way to do an animated holiday special. Sure, we already know going in that someone is going to learn something about "the meaning of Thanksgiving" and how we have to "be thankful for what we have" but it's more about figuring out how the show is going to give us that lesson. It was wise of the writers to not have Charlie Brown have this realization (otherwise it would just be a repeat of the Christmas episode) but rather Peppermint Patty, who is traditionally more ignorent of her surroundings and unaware of how her actions affect other people. Marcie also has an excellent role as the person who makes the message clear to Patty, a reversal of her usual subserviant behavior regarding Patty. The interaction of Snoopy and Woodstock is also up to the high "Peanuts" standards, with slapstick and friendship equally on display (a particularly touching moment is when Snoopy and Woodstock share a turkey and break the wishbone, with Woodstock taking the biggest part of the bone). It is an excellent short and you should definately watch it this season if you can find a station playing it. Watch it for the first time, or share it with those uninitiated. It's old fashioned holiday fun for the whole family.

It's Time to Play the Music, It's Time to Light the Lights, It's Time to Meet the Muppets...

2011-11-20T10:28:00.001-05:00

This is a really special post for me because this is the first time I am privileged to bring you, my handful of loyal readers, an advance review of a brand new film. As you may or may not know, I am a HUGE Muppet fan. I grew up watching the films as a child in the 1980s and 90s and then I became a fan of "The Muppet Show" when it was being played on Nick at Nite back when I was in elementary school so I was cautiously optimistic when Disney announced they would be making a new Muppet film that was co-written by Jason Segal. I say "cautiously" because I had only seen two of Segal's films up to that point, I Love You, Man (which I thought was delightful) and Forgetting Sarah Marshall (after which I wished I could forget the image of Segal's penis) and so I didn't know if he was the best one suited for a revival of Kermit and Co. However, after reading how Segal was an even bigger Muppet fan from me and after seeing the first trailer for the film which was a delightful fake-out (leading to one of the best advertising campaigns for a film in recent memory), I was hooked. So imagine my surprise and excitement when I was granted a free ticket to see a sneak preview of the new film this weekend? I couldn't wait and I promised myself that I would share my thoughts and feelings on the new film with you, my readers. So let's have no more delay...ladies and gentlemen, The Muppets.

Gary (Jason Segal) and Walter (Peter Linz) are two brothers living in Smalltown, USA who have been virtually inseparable since they were children despite the fact that Gary has grown up as a perfectly normal looking human being and Walter looks more like a fuzzy yellow puppet. Because of his small size and odd texture, Walter has never fit in with the other people in Smalltown and so Gary has always taken it upon himself to take care of him. One fateful night, when Walter is rather down, Gary shows him a video of "The Muppet Show", and suddenly Walter sees a place where he belongs. He becomes the world's biggest Muppet fan and when Gary decides to take his girlfriend Mary (Amy Adams) to visit L.A., Walter tags along so he can finally see Muppet Studios. What Gary, Mary, and Walter find however, is that a crooked oil company executive, Tex Richmond (Chris Cooper), is planning to tear down the studios and the Muppet Theater so he can drill for oil. The trio decides to go see Kermit the Frog, now in retirement, to see if he can stop this sale. Together with Kermit, they set about reuniting the estranged Muppets so that they can put on a show to raise the money needed to save the property from destruction.

I never imagined that anyone would ever make a decent reboot of the Muppet film franchise, much less make a great one. However, Segal and co-writer Nicholas Stoller (Forgetting Sarah Marshall) and director James Bobin (Flight of the Conchords) seem to have done the impossible. They have created a Muppet movie that is reverent and respectful of what has come before (with corny jokes and squeaky clean wit) while also being relevant (providing the kids of self-referential jokes and pop culture references that the Muppets became famous for on their television show). One of the biggest running gags in the film is how out-of-touch and behind-the-times the Muppets seem in this day and age. Rashida Jones as a television network executive bluntly states this several times to our intrepid heroes and they look on completely uncomprehending. It is the same kind of comment that cynical internet site commentators and teenagers made when the film was first announced and the fact that Segal and Co. understand this and write it into the script for the film only strengthens the concept of underdogs fighting to get to the top. We may think that the Muppets are old news and out of style now in 2011, but that doesn't stop us from desperately wanting to see them succeed. The performers, both puppet and human, are all perfectly placed and suited for the film. Amy Adams and Jason Segal are just cute and odd enough to fit right in with the crew of Muppets without sticking out as "those humans who are in scene with the Muppets". Peter Linz has created a new Muppet character who is worthy of the weight that the film puts on his shoulders. Essentially, Walter has to carry the movie by being sympathetic and relatable and without being annoying (as new characters invented to drive a sequel/reboot tend to be). I can imagine seeing him again in the future, and hopefully there is a future. Chris Cooper is also a delight to see as he gleefully chews the scenery as the villain who cannot laugh maniacally. You can tell that Cooper is having a great time letting his hair down and slumming it with the Muppets. Rashida Jones (Parks and Recreation) is also a delight as the executive who's heart is also eventually won over by the Muppets. To round it all out, as is true with other Muppet films there are a slew of cameos from old favorites like Whoopi Goldberg, Alan Arkin, and Mickey Rooney along with newer sensations such as Selena Gomez, Zach Galifianackis, and Neil Patrick Harris. There are many more cameos for those with a keen eye for spotting them, which will promote this film's re-play value.

Also on display is some excellent music (music so wonderful that I simply had to buy the CD) that is a combination of old-favorites from the Muppet cannon as well as new songs specially created for the film. Songs that fans will remember fondly include "The Rainbow Connection" (which is the subject of it's own send up early in the movie and then is treated reverently near the finale) "Mahna Mahna", "Together Again" (in an improvised and short state), and "The Muppet Show Theme". Each song is used absolutely perfectly, and in ways I shant spoil here, you do need to actually go and see the movie you know. The new songs are also infectious and should become classics in their own right if the film and soundtrack prove to be hits. The opening number in particular, "Life's a Happy Song", has been stuck in my head since leaving the theater yesterday and I've played it twice on my iPod since. It is an excellent introduction to the tone of the film. It is whimsical, has a great beat, is full of corny jokes and has a bit of a chance to make fun of itself in every verse. Another great new song is "Pictures in My Head", which is sung by Kermit the Frog shortly after he comes into the film. In it, he sings of how he and the other Muppets have lost track of each other and how he regrets their parting of ways. The Muppets are no longer friends he sees or hears from and are now just images in his mind. I'll admit, the scene was handled so well that I teared up just a bit. Other new songs include "Me Party", sung by Mary and Miss Piggy and "Man or Muppet", which is a hilarious and touching moment for Gary and Walter. Also on display are some wonderful old and new hits you've heard on the radio including "Me and Julio Down By the School Yard", "We Built this City", and Cee Lo Green's "Forget You" (which is hilariously performed by chickens, and which I think should have been called "Cluck You" on the album). All of the music combines together marvelously to create a rich tapestry reminiscent of the smattering of styles seen on "The Muppet Show".

To wrap things up, The Muppets is a fun, funny, and touching film that is like a love letter to fans of the troupe as well as an invitation to those outside of Muppet fandom to come and see what they've been missing. It is one of those rare musical comedies that is just right for every age and I truly believe that it will be THE family film to see this holiday season because it has been made with everyone in mind. Adults will laugh at the wit and sly humor while the kids will marvel at the songs and the slapstick. At our screening yesterday the audience applauded not once but twice at the end of the picture and it was quite a grab-bag of personalities and backgrounds. I can't believe I'm saying this about The Muppets, but I really think that this is going to be on many "Best films of 2011" lists and will be a must own when it is released on DVD and Blu-ray. You owe it to yourself to go with your family or friends to see The Muppets this holiday season and enjoy one of the best times you will have at the cinema this year. (****)

An Update and Something New

2011-11-16T11:26:00.001-05:00

Alright, I have several things to update you on today before I launch into today's full blog post but let me assure you that I have neither forgotten nor neglected you, my readers. I made a decision that there weren't enough Thanksgiving films to really do a whole month or even a whole week, so I've just decided to do one a week and thus not run out of material (or get burned out on blogging, its win-win). So first thing, I just finished watched the entire film of Home For the Holidays and was surprised at the dramatic material. Yes it was funny to see Holly Hunter as Claudia fighting and clashing with her parents and siblings (Charles Durning, Anne Bancroft, Robert Downey Jr., and Cynthia Stevenson respectively) and it was amusing to see Cynthia Stevenson get hit with a turkey carcass, but I was surprised at the poignant emotions on display. There was the pressure of living up to family expectations, the thought of being betrayed by a loved one, the tendency to want to baby parents as they grow older, and feeling as if no one in your family understands who you really are. It's really a deep film that goes beyond a simple "Lets get a bunch of family members together for Thanksgiving to fight and then resolve it" plot and evolves into a much richer tapestry of what it really means to be part of a family. Claudia has a great line toward the end where she says "Joanne, we don't have to like each other...but we're family." And I think that sums it up...no matter how much you may clash, you will always be bound by the ties of family.

Ok, now onto updates two and three. I decided, after a long time of wondering and wishing I could do it, I decided to start writing a novel. Its going to be short and it isn't going to be hugely profound, but I am hoping that it lives up to what I want it to be...funny and sincere. It is semi-autobiographical in that the character is largely based on me, but many of the side characters and situations are mostly manufactured to make a funny point. I'm very excited about it and I am simply hoping to complete it. To say I finished a novel would be a great achievement (no, I'm not yet even contemplating publishing). Finally, I got a big surprise on Monday evening and I'm sure that this will be a great bit of news to anyone who's a Muppet fan. I managed to snag a free ticket to a sneak preview of The Muppets, the new Muppet film with Jason Segal and Amy Adams, in Columbus this weekend and I am planning to bring you all the goods in an exclusive advance review here on The Life and Times of a Midwestern Movie Addict! I am very excited about this and I can't wait to write all about it...I suddenly feel just like a real film critic! Also, I just really LOVE the Muppets and I've been waiting for this release all year long. So if you want to know how the new film is and how it stacks up against previous Muppet films, check back here for the scoop on Sunday.

Now, onto today's film...or should I say advertisement? Or should I say faux advertisement? There are only so many levels of cheekiness I can go through before I have to just say what it is I'm talking about right? Today's post is perfect for today's blog because it involves a (very) short subject that deals with the Thanksgiving holiday, but not in the usual warm and fuzzy or family centric way. When Robert Rodriguez and Quentin Tarantino created the exploitation film opus Grindhouse, they wanted to make it as authentic an experience as possible. To do this, it required a double feature that looked and sounded like it was filmed cheaply and handled poorly, so that it would be full of nicks and scratches. They also knew that the true exploitation experience would require more than 'bad' films, it also needed 'bad' trailers before and in between that were in the same vein. So, gathering together such directors as Rob Zombie, Edgar Wright, and Eli Roth, they commissioned these men to make trailers for movies that don't exist. Roth's trailer was one of the most popular as it depicted an 80s slasher film that finally addressed one of the last missing days from the legions of 'holiday horror' films. We had New Years, we had Halloween, we had Christmas, we even had April Fool's Day and Friday the 13th...but until now we had never had Thanksgiving. In this film (rather, in the trailer) we see the small city of Plymouth, Massachusetts besieged by a killer who dresses as a pilgrim and chops victims heads off with an axe. According to Roth, he does this because he had a pet turkey when he was a child which he then watched his father kill at Thanksgiving for the meal. This sent him over the edge mentally and made him into the murderous killer of the film. Also is the film are Judy and her family and friends who are targeted by the killer and made to suffer on this day of thanks. Thanksgiving was everything I ever wanted in a slasher film based on a holiday and more. It uses familiar images and traditions to both create suspense and to give the killer a great many clever ways to kill someone. I admit, I reacted strongly when he unveiled the 'main course' on the dinner table at the end and it was a person who had been roasted and trussed up like a turkey (complete with stuffing and meat thermometer) and I thought it was great when the killer decapitated the Turkey in the big parade, who then runs around (like a turkey with it's head cut off...har har.) The taglines are wonderful too ("Prepare to have the stuffing scared out of you", "White meat, dark meat...all will be carved", "You'll go home for the holidays...in a body bag") in both their punnyness and overall corniness. I loved this trailer and would definately pay to see the movie if they ever make one (Roth keeps saying how he wants to, but I'll believe it when I see it). If you enjoy the satire and artistry that it took to make this trailer, you should watch the whole Grindhouse film...it's a hoot and a half for people who get it.

Family...Can't Live With Them, Can't Kill Them

2011-11-08T12:22:00.000-05:00

Ahhhhh, I am feeling refreshed after taking a week off to focus on things other than blogging. One, I caught up on some sleep this weekend (the extra hour Saturday night really helped)...two, I caught up on a backlog of grading...and three, I started thinking about what I wanted to write about this month regarding Thanksgivng movies. Would you believe that there aren't that many films that are set at this festive holiday of feasting and giving thanks? There are scads upon scads of them based on Christmas, but few that really hit at Thanksgiving. I guess that's because, financially, studios would much rather produce films set during that much more colorful and festive time (and then release them at Thanksgiving so they can play all through the season). I really don't think storytelling has anything to do with it, because television shows have been making great Thanksgiving episodes for years...usually centered around the idea of family squabbles coming to a head over the dinner table. Oh the irony, fighting and bickering on a day when we're supposed to be thankful for what we have. There was one film that took this long-mined sitcom staple and fashioned it into a respectable film that is both humorous and dramatic. It was the second directoral outing of Jodie Foster, who had proved her leadership skills with Little Man Tate, and though it used the title of a famous Christmas song, it chose the less-used Thanksgiving setting. Now let's grab a turkey leg and head Home for the Holidays.

Claudia Larson is doing fine as a single-mother and making a decent living as an art restorer. All of that changes however when she is let go from her job due to budget cuts. Already planning to go home for Thanksgiving, Claudia must then prepare herself for breaking the news to her family...especially her mother who is already critical of her being a single-mother. Claudia also is dealing with the maturing of her daughter, Kitt, who has decided to stay home from the holiday gathering to have sex with her boyfriend. Upon arrival, Claudia's stress is compunded by her uppity sister Joanne, Joanne's two spoiled children, and her gay brother Tommy. If the whirlwind of personalities wasn't enough, there is still a holiday to get through. You can feel safe in assuming that before the meal has ended, tempers will flare, tears will flow, and food will be snubbed. Sounds like a typical family Thanksgiving to me.

I have a confession to make...I have not actually seen this film all the way through. I know, I know, why am I writing about it then? You have to understand that finding Thanksgiving movies to write about is very difficult because there really just aren't very many of them. I will say that I have seen the very beginning of this film up to where Claudia finally has to confess to her mother that she lost her job. It's a pretty hilarious film up to that point because the humor all stems from situations that we have all found ourselves in at some point I'm sure. Who hasn't had to admit something disappointing or embarrassing to an overbearing parent? Who hasn't felt harried and stressed at a holiday? Who hasn't recieved horrible news at a holiday? Seeing the world beat up on Claudia is part of the fun...and also part of why we can also emphathize with her. I am planning to finish the film before the big day this month, because I have been wondering what happens to her ever since catching the first bit on television years back (my Netflix is just now catching up). So I'll make you a deal...once I've finished the movie I will post my reaction here and decide if my initial impression of it (a funny and dark film) still applies. Stay tuned!

Happy Halloween!: A Deadly Domicile

2011-10-31T12:39:00.000-04:00

Haunted house movies are probably one of the leading staples of horror stories and films outside of the masked killer. How many times has someone written about the dark and dreary old house that everyone avoids? Hundreds of times? Thousands? Heck, if we count all the variations (the deserted mansion, the abandoned hospital, the creaky old school, the ghost ship, the ghost train, the dark spaceship (yes Alien and Event Horizon are haunted house movies)) there might even be millions. Haunted buildings are versatile because there are several accepted and established rules for what a possessed or haunted place can do to the people who are hapless enough to wander inside. Perhaps too, that is why haunted houses are almost a constant in horror stories and films for children. It is very easy to write a scary (but not life-threatening) situation that features kids who are menaced by the ghosts of a building. Ghosts, beyond being able to knock things over and possess objects and people, are usually understood to to be dangerous. Indeed, stories where ghosts have the ability to rip people to shreds tend to be harder to believe and require greater explanation behind their power. There is one horror film for children, however, which finds a way to make a haunted house dangerous and life-threatening by giving the ghost possession of the house rather than simply the ability to appear inside. It mixes horror movie thrills with light and witty humor to create a tale that is sure to thrill and entertain older children who are looking for a meatier film than the usual Halloween fare for children. Now let's cross to the other side of the street and take a look inside the house that everyone tries to avoid...the Monster House.

DJ Walters has developed an unhealthy obsession with his elderly neighbor Mr. Nebbercracker. It seems that Nebbercracker is a mean old man who terrorizes the child population of DJ's street by taking any and all toys and belongings that happen to end up on his lawn. The day before Halloween, when DJ's parents take a trip out of town, his friend Chowder accidentally knocks his new basketball into Nebbercracker's lawn. When DJ tries to get it back for him, Nebbercracker comes rushing out of the house and shakes DJ screaming "Do you want to die?". Suddenly, Nebbercracker keels over from a heart attack and is taken away by an ambulance. After being put to bed by his babysitter, Zee, DJ begins recieving calls from Nebbercracker's house. He asks Chowder to help him investigate the house and, following a ding-dong-ditch, attempt by Chowder, the house springs to life and tries to eat them. Following that, Chowder and DJ stay up all night trying to catch the house in action and manage to save Jenny Bennett, a girl going door to door to sell candy. Together, the three kids decide that they must stop the house before Trick or Treat that evening or otherwise "It's going to be a bloodbath".

Monster House might very well be one of the best horror stories ever filmed for children. It has excellent suspense, a good cast of characters, and just enough action and humor to keep it from being too scary for anyone who isn't under 8. It might frighten younger viewers (who would probably be more comfortable with Ichabod and Mr. Toad or Casper) but it should have just enough of the macabre to keep those who are 'too old for that' interested. Make no mistake...this is a horror film. The comedy within is fairly light with the emphasis on the build of suspense and the attacks on the people who dare to approach the house. The film also has a decent mystery at it's core, as the children try to discover why the house is coming to life and terrorizing people now...and who it is that is making the house do what it does. This isn't going to scare anyone over the age of 12, but it will provide thrills and a good time for those post 'trick or treat' moments. Check it out, I think you'll enjoy it. And thus, we come to the end of Halloween week and my focus on "family friendly" Halloween films. Over the next few weeks you're likely to see more Fall-themed programing films here, focusing on those that take place around Thanksgiving. It's almost the holiday season folks? Are you ready? I know I'm not.

Spooky Sunday: A Friendly Ghost

2011-10-30T16:22:00.000-04:00

Film versions of television shows and cartoons are hit and miss. For ever The Fugitive there is a Starsky and Hutch and so on and so forth. These adaptations are not easy to praise or slam either, for one person's trash is another person's treasure (I for one adore Bewitched though I realize it is much maligned...probably because people were paying attention to Will Farrell and not actually watching the movie). However, there are some adaptations that manage to be largely well-liked in the overreaching community if not considered classics, and one of those is a spooky yarn that takes place during Halloween. It also features one of the cartoon and comic book world's most beloved characters (with one of the most hummable theme songs) and some terrific genre vets doing what they do best. Now lets head over to Whipstaff Manor and have a Halloween party with Casper.

Carrigan Crittenden, a neurotic and spoiled heiress, has just inherited an old mansion from her dead father. The house appears to be condemned and worthless, but when Carrigan attempts to burn the deed her lawyer Paul "Dibs" Plutzker snatches a page from the fire that mentions buried treasure. Interest in the house renewed, Carrigan and Dibs head to Friendship, Maine where they discover that the house is haunted by a lonely ghost named Casper, who only wants to be friends, and his three loud and obnoxious ghost uncles: Stretch, Stinkie, and Fatso. The uncles chase Carrigan and Dibs out of the house, which infuriates Carrigan and sets her on a quest to find a way to rid the house of the spooky squatters. Unknowingly aided by Casper, Carrigan finds Dr. James Harvey who claims to be a psychiatrist for the dead. Together, James and his daughter Kat are invited to come and stay at Whipstaff until he has gotten the ghosts out of the house. Casper then begins to form a friendship with Kat and the two of them begin to uncover the mysteries of Whipstaff. Meanwhile, Carrigan plots to destroy the house until she finds the treasure within.

Casper was one of those great 90s movies for kids that had great visuals, fine effects, and a fair amount of wit. The story is a little been-there-done-that, but it fits the character of Casper well. Christina Ricci is touching and sincere as Kat and you can see how the two of them would quickly become friends...both characters are lonely and misunderstood and are isolated by the interests of their adult counterparts. Bill Pullman is a delight as well as Dr. Harvey, Kat's father and wounded soul trying to find a reason for living now that his wife has passed away. The ghost effects are realistic and lifelike, making them look real while also playing at a cartoony aesthetic so as to mesh well with the image of Casper as it is so well known from comic books and cartoons. Some elements of the story are a little underdeveloped, such as the bully and boy Kat meets at her new school and the backstory on Casper's father, but the core of the film (Kat and Casper, and the Uncles and Dr. Harvey) is very strong. If anything, Carrigan is the most disposable character in the film (played by the fabulous Cathy Moriarty). She is clearly the villain of the film, though she is really only needed to have a reason for Harvey and Kat to come to Whipstaff. The film might have done better to have the Uncles as the main villains and to have had the Harveys simply inherit the house themselves. These are small gripes however and should not prevent anyone from trying this one on for size, especially for a Halloween viewing. You'll laugh, and you may even shed a tear.

Shrieking Saturday: Another Collection of Shorts

2011-10-29T14:44:00.001-04:00

As you've already seen this week, television specials make up a great deal of the Halloween programming for children and families out there...many of them from yesteryear. The 1970s and 1980s were some of the most prolific decades for making these specials and also where some of the most memorable shorts and specials come from (not discounting anything from earlier decades of course). Some of my absolute favorites were the specials that were shown on The Disney Channel in the 1980s, because these were the ones I grew up on watching every year...and two of these I want to discuss today. The first is a live-action special that focuses on classic monsters and Halloween traditions to imagine a world where Halloween might not exist and the second is a clip-show by Disney that showcases some of their scariest moments in their animation while also offering up some new items as a treat. So lets all become kids again and watch The Halloween That Almost Wasn't and A Disney Halloween.

The Halloween That Almost Wasn't (aka The Night Dracula Saved the World) begins on the night before Halloween as Igor is preparing for the return of his master, Dracula. Dracula awakens and surprised Igor, who is watching television coverage on rumors that Halloween might be canceled. Dracula, enraged by this, calls an emergency meeting of all the other famous monsters including: Warren the Werewolf, The Mummy, Frankenstein Monster, Zabaar the Zombie, and The Witch. He demands to know who began the rumors and berates them on becoming more comic than frightening. He also says that every single one of them can be replaced if need be. The Witch then defiantly steps forward and admits to having started the rumors and to wanting to retire. Apparently she hates being a witch because no one likes her the same way they like the other monsters...and she holds all the cards because without her annual flight across the moon, Halloween does not occur. Dracula has no choice but to give in to her demands (which include her face on t-shirts and advertising material as well as a nightly disco dance among others) or to give up Halloween. He and the other monsters then endeavor to force the Witch to do her job.

This special has a lot of comedy in it and much of that is a credit to its stars, Judd Hirsch as Dracula, Mariette Hartley as the Witch, and Henry Gibson as Igor. These three leads drive the film and its core and keep us engaged, because they all seem to enjoy the fact that they are hamming it up as famous monsters. The sass of The Witch and the arrogance of Dracula juxtaposed against each other are wonderful components that keep the film moving, with gentle Henry Gibson trying his best to act as peacemaker but also as a loyal servant to Dracula. This movie always made me giggle as a child due to these three and their interaction. The effects and scenery are a little low rent, but the actors and the story told help to elevate them above their technical limitations. This is a wonderful film for children and might be a little pandering for adults, but you might forgive it for the three leads and their performances.

In A Disney Halloween we don't see a story being told for a half-hour but rather we get a compilation of clips and other material from two other Halloween programs made by Disney, Disney's Greatest Villains and Disney's Halloween Treat along with newly animated material to create a 90 minute feature that celebrates the holiday, showcases Disney's best and scariest villans, and even shows us a few lesser known shorts featuring familiar Disney characters. I always loved watching this special because it was 90 minutes and therefore more than just a taste of something, and also I loved getting to see all my favorite evil characters and spooky scenes. "A Night on Bald Mountain" is packaged next to a scene of Madame Mimm, "The Old Mill" thrills along side "Donald and the Gorilla", and many others. My personal favorite is the finale which features the 1952 short "Trick or Treat" where Donald Duck faces off against his nephews and a Witch he has offended on Halloween night. Of course, other famous moments are shown here too...such as "Lonesome Ghosts" and "Pluto's Judgment Day"...and that makes this such a treat to watch. It is wonderful for children to watch because it alternates between spooky and whimsical and it also will entertain adults who remember these classic shorts from their youth. This is another full length film that makes a perfect repast for post 'trick-or-treat' family time. Either way, you can't go wrong with these programs.

Frightening Friday: A Legend and a Buffoon

2011-10-28T13:38:00.002-04:00

Family films geared toward Halloween are often whimsical and heartfelt, featuring tales of coming to appreciate one's differences and also to accept the wonder and magic of Halloween. However, they can also be a gateway drug. Yes friends! (spoken like a minister) I am speakin' NAWT of cocane, NAWT of mary JAwana, NAWT even of the sweet sweet wine the Lawd asked us to remember him with....I am speakin' of FEAR! Yes, an addiction to suspense and fear ladies and gentlemen! Ok ok, enough of the playacting (though I did enjoy it)...but yes, many of these films geared toward children are simply Horror films diluted down and made more palatable for younger and more impressionable minds. The writers and directors who make these films use the same suspense set ups and chase scenes that are popular in R rated scary movies, but they use no gore or death (usually) and typically surround said scenes with jokes and gags to lighten the mood. It was something I never really thought of before, but G and PG rated films were training me to enjoy Horror movies as I got older. This was certainly the case with today's movie, which no one in their right mind would ever call scary, but which gave me a bit of a suspense thrill a few times when I first saw it...even though it was labeled a comedy for all intents and purposes. It had gags, jokes, puns, and a dimwitted protagonist that we all know and love to help dilute the terror, but at its core it was a ghost story come to life. So let's take a walk into the woods while we visit Ernest Scared Stupid.

The film opens in the town of Briarville, Missouri in the 19th century and a little girl is being chased by an unseen beast through the woods. Before the monster can claim the girl as prey he is trapped by the townsfolk and wrapped in many chains and ropes. It turns out that the monster is a troll named Trantor, who has been turning the children of the town into little wooden dolls in order to use their souls to make more trolls. However, elder Phineas Worrel has the troll sealed into a freshly planted tree so that he cannot wreak any more havoc on the town. Trantor promises, in a curse, that not only will one of Phineas's descendants release him from his prison. He also promises that all of Phineas's descendants will get dumber with every generation. Fast-forwarding to the present day, we see that half of Trantor's prediction has come true in the form of Ernest P. Worrell...America's favorite fool. Ernest is well-meaning and childlike in his innocence, which makes his stupidity bearable for many of the adult members of the town. Ernest works as the local garbageman and has been somewhat negligent in his duties lately in that he has not emptied the trash from Old Lady Hackmore's front lawn...he is frightened of her and thinks she is a wicked witch. Lady Hackmore is also afraid of Ernest because she recognizes him as a descendant of Phineas and knows he will be the one to release the troll upon the town. Ernest scoffs at her warnings and proceeds to take his young into the woods to make a treehouse. As fate would have it, the tree they pick is Trantor's tree and Ernest does in fact unwittingly set free Trantor from his resting place. Trantor then begins to prey upon the children of the town, slowly gathering the five souls he needs to create an entire army of trolls. It is then up to Ernest and the surviving children to find a way to stop Trantor before he can complete his objective and save Halloween in Briarville.

Since this is an Ernest movie and relies of a lot of base-level humor, this was destined to get mixed to negative reviews upon its initial release. That didn't stop me from dragging my mother to see it however, because it combined two of my favorite things...Ernest and monsters. I didn't care that the humor was juvenile or that the film was largely predictable, I just wanted to see the stars of the show. On that level, the film is a success. It features plenty of fine moments with Ernest and even a bit of dramatic acting from the old dog by the time the film reaches its conclusion, and the monster is rather well designed and frightening. In fact, there were a few times in the film when I jumped as a child with the suspense getting paid off in a well-timed scare. By the end of the film, my cravings for the macabre were satisfied and my funnybone had been tickled, and that qualifies it as a success in my eyes (at least as far as young viewers are concerned). I think this is still a fine film for children, but keep an eye out that they don't try to repeat any off the cartoonish violence...getting one's hand shut in a dumpster for real would hurt. This would be a perfect treat for an 'after trick-or-treat' repast, which is how we often used it. Try this one on for size and roll your eyes when all those bad jokes hit you and make your kids giggle...it won't be too painful ;)

Thrilling Thursday: A Handful of Specials to Chill Your Blood

2011-10-27T16:29:00.000-04:00

So I've already lamented on the fact that they simply don't put enough original Halloween programming on television anymore, particularly on series'. But did you know that at one time studios used to commission short works to be shown only on Halloween? Sure, everyone has heard of the "Charlie Brown" cartoons and the Rankin/Bass stop motion and animated shows for Christmas (cause Christmas is the only holiday that really gets any original programming produced anymore)...but they used to make cartoons for Halloween too. Really, I'm not lying. Today I want to talk about two of my favorite Halloween themed specials that aired back in the 70s and were still in rotation when I started watching television in the 1980s. In fact, Halloween wasn't complete until I watched them (on the tape we recorded them on when they were aired...yes friends, we had a Halloween tape and two Christmas tapes full of TV specials we snagged from The Disney Channel). The first deals with a witch who loves to party and the second deals with a favorite Seuss character that we all love to hate...so without further ado let's pop in the old video tape and look at Witch's Night Out and Halloween is Grinch Night.

Witch's Night Out starts with a fairly dated, but catchy, disco theme song (seriously, I watched this days ago and I can't get the damn thing out of my head) that signals the era of animation fairly quickly. Then we are introduced to several monochrome colored characters in a picturesque and contemporary small town. The two lead children, Small and Tender, are excitedly preparing for Halloween while the adults, Rotten, Malicious, Nicely, and Goodly, are wishing that it wasn't so juvenile and decide to throw a party for the grown-ups in the scary old house across town. Meanwhile, in the scary old house across town, a Witch is pacing back and forth waiting for someone to call on her for some Halloween magic. It seems that she is feeling washed up and useless now that no one seems to need Halloween magic anymore (she's a bit like Norma Desmond in Sunset Blvd.). However, when she overhears Goodly and Rotten planning their party downstairs, she gets excited and starts making her own plans. Later that evening Small and Tender are disappointed that everyone recognizes them behind their masks and are sad that they weren't able to scare anyone. After being read a bedtime story by their babysitter Bazooey, both children wish they had a fairy godmother to turn them into the monsters of their choice. This apparently is 'the call' the Witch has been waiting for and she flies to their aid. This sets in motion a breezy adventure for the four of them (The Witch, Bazooey, Small, and Tender) that promises to be a night of "magical mischief".

Witch's Night Out is the kind of story that would never be produced today because execs would probably call it boring, simplistic, and pandering. What they would miss is the level of wit present in the writing and the fact that this story is probably more timely now than it was in 1978. We have shuffled Halloween off into a corner where its either only for kids, or only for people who like Horror, and have forgotten that it is about having fun and being someone else for a few hours. However, it doesn't beat the idea over your head...rather it allows the viewer to figure it out through character actions and what happens to them. It also have some tremendous one-liners that are perhaps too precious for today, but cracked me up back then. For example, any of the jokes related to Small calling the Witch a fairy godmother are priceless. The voice work is solid as well, with Gilda Radner providing the voice of quite possibly the most friendly Witch in the world. It is an excellent toon for kids and fun for adults too.

Watch Witch's Night Out in Family | View More Free Videos Online at Veoh.com

Our next short was built as a sequel of sorts to one of the most famous holiday shorts, How the Grinch Stole Christmas, and yet it has an identity of its own. It begins on a typical Fall day in Whoville and the people are out enjoying the day happily...that is, until one of them gets a whiff of the dreaded 'sour-sweet wind'. The veteran adults of Whoville know that this means the start of another Grinch Night, a night when the noise from the creatures awakened by the sour-sweet wind gets the Grinch of Mount Crumpet riled. When that happens, everyone must lock themselves indoors and not venture out, because the Grinch intends to break into Town Hall and hold the Annual Grinch Night Ball...with himself as the sole guest. So the Grinch hops into his Paraphernalia Wagon and begins his journey down to Whoville. Meanwhile young Ukaraiah Who, who was on his way to use the Euphemism (bathroom), gets blown away by the sour-sweet wind to Mount Crumpet where he runs right into the Grinch. Ukaraiah then decides that it is up to him to stall the Grinch as long as he can, and thus try to prevent the destruction the Grinch will undoubtedly cause.

Believe it or not, Grinch Night was my first introduction to the Grinch and the Whos of Whoville. When I found out that there was a Christmas movie featuring the Grinch I was so excited to see it...I had no idea that Grinch Night was a sequel or that it was even considered an inferior one. However, I think this cartoon has plenty of lovely merits of its own. First, that same Seuss wit is present that is there in all of his books and films making this highly amusing. Also, the animation is fairly good (if a little less detailed) for its time and has a polish to it that is missing from the earlier film. There is a fairly good message embedded in the film as well, a message about looking fear in the eye and realizing how little power it really has over us when we shed some light on it. It is great for young ones, if not the best for older children. If you can find them together on Youtube, these make a delightful double feature for the holiday.

Weird Wednesday: The Scary Half

2011-10-26T14:16:00.001-04:00

In the 1940s, when World War II called on everyone to ration and sacrifice, everyone including Hollywood felt the pinch. Walt Disney, who had not seen financial success with a film since Snow White in 1937, was not exempt and found himself scaling back his filmmaking to accomidate rising costs and lack of resources (and also because the Army had commissioned the making of many propaganda films and Disney was already stretched thin with many of its animators fighting in the war). The first film he released during this time of cutting costs was Saludos Amigos, a package film featuring a central theme and several short subjects that addressed it. It was centered on Latin America and the life and culture there. This was followed by several package films in quick succession (because they were easier and cheaper to make), those included: The Three Caballeros (another Latin American themed film), Make Mine Music (a musical anthology focusing on familiar songs, similar to Fantasia), Fun and Fancy Free (which featured adaptations of "Bongo" and "Jack and the Beanstalk"), and Melody Time (another musical anthology). Then in 1949, Disney released its sixth, final, and probably best remembered package film due to the constant showing of "the scary half" every Halloween on The Disney Channel from the early 1980s onward. It is this portion of the package film, The Adventures of Ichabod and Mr. Toad, that I wish to examine as today's family friendly Halloween tale. The segment is based on one of Washington Irving's most famous stories and features one of the most frightening Disney Villains to ever see film. So let's take a drive to Tarrytown, New York and take in The Legend of Sleepy Hollow.

The segement begins as the first segment, The Wind in the Willows, ends and narrator Basil Rathborne relinquishes his duties to the next narrator, Bing Crosby. Crosby congratulates Rathborne for choosing a fantastic character from English literature to examine, but then rebuttals by saying that America has it's share of great characters too. From this simple statement, he segways to his personal favorite...Ichabod Crane, who features heavily in the story The Legend of Sleepy Hollow. The book for the story opens and we are transported to the lovely world of New England, circa 1820. The threes are black barked with orange, red, and brown leaves signifying that Autumn is at its peak, animals are lethargic, and the river slowly leads us upward toward the small village of Sleepy Hollow where we are introduced to Ichabod Crane, the new schoolmaster of the village. He is tall, thin, and funny looking with his huge feet and large nose (indeed, he is described as a scarecrow). However, there seems to be something facinating and different about him which makes the townfolk take notice and immediately begin wondering who this new man is. Ichabod takes to his newfound popularity with ease and becomes a prominant figure in the town, working with many womens groups. Several of the women want to wed Mr. Crane, but he only has eyes for one girl...Katrina Van Tassel, daughter of the wealthy landowner Baltus Van Tassel. It is unknown whether Katrina returns Ichabod's affections, but she certainly enjoys egging him on whenever Brom Bones, the town hunk, is around. Brom seems to be the only one who dislikes the schoolmaster, since they both share the same ideal woman, and after Katrina has worked them both to a frenzy of desire (and Ichabod has managed to keep coming out on top despite Brom's efforts to the contrary) Brom takes matters into his own hands. It turns out that Ichabod is very superstitious of spooks and spirits, so on Halloween night at the Van Tassel's annual party Brom tells the local legend of The Headless Horseman...a spirit who rides every night from the woods to the old bridge at the edge of town looking for his lost head. The story goes, that unless riders cross the bridge before the Horseman reaches them, he will take their head for his own. Ichabod then has to make the long ride home in the dark alone. Will he find that there is really a ghost or will it turn out to be just a story?

This is an awesome animated short. It is simple, effective, suspenseful and sincerely frightening once the third act kicks in and Ichabod finds himself facing down a murderous spirit. Bing Crosby is equally effective as a narrator and as the sole voice of the speaking characters in the piece, most of which speak only when necessary...allowing the film to become close to 'pure cinema' (all visuals, no words). I feel that even without Crosby's narration and the few lines of dialouge and song, you'd still understand what was happening in the film which speaks to its strength. The animation is top notch as well, with the Fall colors popping in the daylight scenes while the shadows devour the world in the film's nighttime climax. The songs too are catchy and memorable, with standouts being "Ichabod Crane" and "The Headless Horseman Song". To this day, when I watch the film, I have the latter song stuck in my brain for days to come and I always chuckle at its final message "You can't reason with a headless man"...kills me. For any of you with small children, I will say that this film scared me green when I was a kid and I always found it difficult to watch the end without covering my eyes...however there is nothing on display but some healthy suspense and a few good jump scares so you need not worry about tucking the kids in early. In fact, I'm certain that my healthy love of all things macabre comes from early exposure to this (don't take that as fact however...my sis had the same exposure and she hates scary things, but still loves this). So if you have young ones who are ready for a little dose of fright, toss this one in the DVD player (or turn it on on cable) and watch them start to squirm when Ichabod enters those dark woods alone. They'll thank you for it later.

TooooOOOOhhhhs Day: A Tree of Souls

2011-10-25T13:38:00.000-04:00

When I think of Ray Bradbury, I usually think of his more adult-centered work like Fahrenheit 451 and "A Sound of Thunder". But you'd be surprised how much young-adult work that Bradbury has done in the past, like his haunting but older-kid friendly Something Wicked This Way Comes and "The Magic White Suit" which is something of a fairy tale. It just goes to show how versatile an author can be. In 1972, Bradbury wrote a fantasy novel geared toward children and young adults that celebrated the best kid-holiday of the year and also endeavored to educate those young minds that would eventually devour the tale. It was dark like most of Bradbury's work, but it was also touching and informative in a way that only the best young adult work can be. In 1992 he would write and adapt a feature-length television movie of the novel for which he won an Emmy Award, and it is this film that I want to talk about today. It isn't as well known as other cartoons based around Halloween (like It's The Great Pumpkin Charlie Brown) but it holds a revered place in the hearts of many who were raised at the time. So lets hop on an "October kite" and fly through the centuries of Halloween history as we climb The Halloween Tree.

The film opens to the voice of a narrator describing one small town's preparations for Halloween night. Four friends busy themselves preparing for Trick or Treat, each one giving his or her costume a unique flavor: Jenny is a witch and attached a broomstick to her bike, Ralph wraps himself in his father's bandages to become a mummy, Wally dons fur and a horned mask to appear as a monster, and Tom Skelton wears a classic skeleton costume. Each of them travels to a predetermined meeting place and are disappointed when their friend Pip (described as their leader and the greatest boy who ever lived) doesn't show up to meet them. They hurry to his house to find it looking sad and undecorated and in time to see an ambulance leaving the driveway. The children are distraught until they see what looks like Pip, only transparent, running off into the woods. They follow him to a creepy old mansion and there they meet the old and decrepit Mr. Moundshroud. It turns out, Pip has a debt to be paid to Moundshroud (which is unspecified but it is implied that it is Pip's soul) and Pip is avoiding paying by evading the clutches of Moundshroud. When Pip escapes again, the kids find him climbing a massive tree full of jack o' lanterns to try and reach a pumpkin which looks like him. Pip escapes into a whirlwind and Moundshroud, against his better judgement, agrees to let the kids join him on an adventure through the centuries so that they can uncover the four mysteries of Halloween. What then begins is an adventure through time and space which transports them to Ancient Egypt, England, France, and Mexico as they discover secrets they never knew existed.

Wow, if anyone can write an educational fantasy it is Bradbury. The tidbits and historical facts he crams into this teleplay's scant 73 minutes is astonishing, considering that he also needs to tell an engaging story. And what a story it is. Here we have an intelligent and non-pandering tale about the history of many of our Halloween traditions, but also one which dabbles into how we choose to cope with loss/tragedy, how we stand up for our friends, and how short our time on this planet is. The Halloween Tree covers all of these topics and more, and it never feels like it is trying to educate. This is the sort of kid-friendly Halloween programing that has been lost over the years because themes like these would seem too dark or serious for young ones now. Indeed, the fact that one of the main children is essentially 'dead' for the running time is enough to steer some parents away from this tale, let alone the walking dead, the gargoyles, and the frank way it depicts certain aspects of the way cultures deal with the dead. It is not a 'cheery' tale at all, but it is a 'sincere' one and I think it deserves respect on that alone. Now that I've seen the film, I am very interested in reading the book on which it is based. I can guarantee that this film is going to make my yearly rotation, particularly if and when I ever have children of my own, and I highly recommend that you make it one of yours.

Moaning Monday: It's Just a Bunch of Hocus Pocus

2011-10-24T13:39:00.000-04:00

I can remember a time when film studios and television networks really got into Halloween. I mean, sure, we always get the obligatory horror film (or films) that are released in October but I can remember when studios used to make Halloween programing for all ages, not just teens and adults who can get into an R rated movie. When I was little, 20-22 years ago, I remember how much there was that was Halloween related for kids. The Disney Channel would play all of their more macabe offerings, like "The Legend of Sleepy Hollow" and "Child of Glass" while Nickelodeon would have Halloween themed episodes of their regular shows and "Nick or Treat" where you could win prizes by answering the phone at the right time. It was a great time to be a kid and really amped me up for the excitement of Halloween night when I'd dress in a costume I'd spent all month getting together and trick or treat in our neighborhood (which was one of the best for trick or treat). Nowadays, Halloween has changed. Costumes have gotten more masculine or feminine centric (scary/butch costumes for boys...sexy/cute costumes for girls, no exceptions), fewer and fewer networks promote Halloween (and Halloween episodes of shows aren't nearly as good...including the king of Halloween themed episodes, The Simpsons), and trick or treat isn't even on Halloween night anymore (and usually, people carpool their kids around "nicer" developments rather than let them walk in their own neighborhoods "cause the candy isn't as good there"). Hell, it even ends before the sun goes down. I know much of this is a reflection of the times (it isn't as safe out there...poverty is more widespread)...but I still get ticked off that when I buy a big bowl of candy for trick or treaters and none show up because I'm not a choice trick or treat neighborhood (and then I'm stuck with that fun sized candy till March). Gimme the old days...in fact, if I had a time machine, I'd gladly skip Halloween now and travel back to Halloween then, when it meant something. But enough of my soapboxing...I'm here to discuss my own personal brand of Halloween programming. This week I will be writing about a film a day that is both perfect for Halloween (since it is coming up a week from today) and is appropriate for ALL AGES (so as to not leave out those little ghosts and goblins). Now settle in while we focus on my first choice for this week (and one of my favorite witch movies), Hocus Pocus.

The film opens in 17th Century Salem, Massachusets where teenaged Thackery Binx is awakened from his sleep by a whoosh as something passes by his window. He hears a strange female voice singing in the yard and looks across the room to see that his little sister, Emily, is gone. He follows the voice outside to see Emily running across the field to the woods beyond. Thackery sees a plume of purple smoke in the distance and realizes that his sister is in danger. He, like everyone in the village, knows that deep in the woods reside The Sanderson Sisters...a trio of ugly, old witches. They mean nothing but harm to children that pass their threshold, and so Thackery sets off to rescue his sister. He is too late, though, and is only able to watch as the witches suck the lifeforce out of the young girl. The lifeforce rejuvenates the witches and they grow younger before his eyes. Yet Thackery still calls the lead witch, Winifred, a hag. So as punishment, the trio turns him into a black cat. Shortly afterward, the villagers break into the house and capture the witches and hang them. Three hundred years go by and Max Dennison, a new student at Salem High School, finds himself wanting to impress Allison, a girl from his English class. After hearing the tale of the witches and learning that her parents have access to the sisters' old house, he convinces her to go with him and his kid sister Dani to investigate the old house. To further show off, Max lights the Black Flame Candle, a magical artifact said to revive the dead on Halloween night. Suddenly, the three kids and Binx the cat find themselves facing down the revived Winnie, Mary, and Sarah Sanderson and must keep their spellbook away from them until morning. Otherwise the witches will be free to live forever and to kill all of the children in Salem.

That description might not sound kid friendly, but let me assure you that this is one of the funniest Halloween movies ever churned out by Disney. It didn't do well in the theater given the fact that it had some dark subject matter and that it was released in the summer rather than in October where it belonged...and yet the comedy in this never fails to amuse. Certainly the central witches, played by Bette Midler, Kathy Najimy, and Sarah Jessica Parker, provide the majority of the belly laughs but the kid actors are also game. Omri Katz and Vanessa Shaw play very likable teen heroes while a young Thora Birch steals almost all of her scenes as the precocious Dani. Sean Murray is also effective as the sarcastic cat, Binx, who provides a lot of the exposition and humor on for the good guys since he has been alive for 317 years (he has a lot to say about the world we live in). Few elements in Hocus Pocus don't work, from the random but perfectly placed musical number in the middle, to the more suspenseful and horrific elements that certainly cement this film among the pantheon of horror flicks for kids (I mean, they kill a kid at the beginning...that's pretty dark for Disney). Yet the horror is done with such goofiness that it is impossible for any but the really young to be scared by any of this (indeed, I think they'll laugh more at Midler's over the top, bravura performance than they will quiver in fear at the sight of her) so there is no reason why this movie can't fit in at an elementary age Halloween party or on your 'suitable for trick or treaters' loop that you might play on your TV while handing out candy. Hopefully, "I put a spell on you" with my words and you'll head right out and snag this delightful little gem to enjoy this Halloween season (I love when I can work in a terrible pun).

A New Dimension of Fear (oh the puns)

2011-10-19T13:44:00.000-04:00

By 1982 the horror/sequel boom was in full swing with Friday the 13th and Halloween already having had successful returns to the box office and several more original films were cementing themselves on the public consciousness. Paramount knew that Jason had been a success once, so naturally he could be again if he were somehow resurrected. The un-killable monster angle had worked for Halloween so why couldn't Jason be similarly impervious to wounds that would kill a normal person? But wait! We don't want to simply do another rehash...that won't work at all, they must have thought. So this film, rather than changing the formula (because why fix what isn't broken?) adds a gimmick. When Part 3 opened, it opened in "bone-chilling 3D"...hence it's title Friday the 13th Part 3 3D. Would the gamble pay off? Let's see shall we?

When we last joined our heroes, Ginny Field had taken Jason out with his mother's machete at the end of Part 2 and had gone off with her boyfriend Paul to safety. The opening credits then retcon (or rewrite) the ending of the previous film to show Jason rising up from the floor and wandering off into the woods to heal. Later that evening, he happens upon the owners of a grocery store and dispatches of them while stealing some of the husband's clothing (this would then become Jason's standard outfit for the remainder of his life...fun fact). The next day, despite the police cars and sirens about the place, Chris Higgins and her friends head up into the woods around Crystal Lake to spend the weekend in her parents' cabin. But before you can say mass-murder, the kids (and some rather out-of-place bikers) begin ending up at the business end of several sharp objects. What Jason doesn't count on is Chris, who is resourceful and has a history with the large brute that she plans to reconcile.

More of the same, is probably what I would write about Part 3...and that's exactly what it is. The teens here, while still played by likable actors, are even more generic and non-descript than the ones who went through the meat grinder before them. They are interchangeable and forgettable with a few exceptions including Chris, Shelley (her prank obsessed friend), and Vera (Shelly's fiery tempered blind-date). It's a shame too, because once again we have actors employed who seem like they are dying (no pun intended) to be more than just machete fodder. Nonetheless, the film does have a few things going for it. One, this is the legendary film where Jason receives both his plain workman's outfit and where he receives his trademark hockey mask. The mask was simply a design decision, something unusual that they could put on Jason and set him apart from other masked killers. They couldn't have guessed that this mask would forever become the 'face' of the series and that it would be immediately associated with Jason forever after. Second, this film does feature one of the most unexpectedly tough Final Girls of the series. Chris spends much of the movie simpering and whining about her troubled past and then, when push comes to shove, she manages to be more than a match for Jason and throws just about everything she's got at him. Three, and this is a minor thing, but the idea to use 3D in a slasher film was a great one. It's a shame, however, that the technology was such that the majority of the effects are stupid gags like yo-yos flying toward camera and fake scares skittering at eye level. Few of the 'real horror' effects are turned into 3D gags (though the scene where Jason reaches toward camera and walks toward it is pretty chilling). At this point, you know whether Friday the 13th is a series that is worth watching or not for you so I'm not going to make any pleas about watching them. However, if you happen to catch this one on TV...try to watch the chase scene at the end. It's worth the price of admission.

One Good Slice Deserves Another

2011-10-18T14:09:00.000-04:00

If there's anything that is a constant now in the film world, it is this...if a film is financially successful and obviously a genre picture (action/horror/scifi/comedy) you can usually expect a sequel within a few years. It's kinda like death and taxes...but it wasn't always that way. Before the 1980s most successful films were stand-alone successes and sequels were usually only made for low-budget drive-in fare (such as the myriad of films in the Universal Monsters category). Sequels just weren't considered viable. However, all of that changed with the advent of the slasher film. Suddenly, studios realized that they could repeat their financial success with a horror film by simply copying the basic formula of the first picture (Robert Shaye, producer of the Elm Street films and owner of New Line Cinema often equated it to the recipe for a good fast food cheeseburger...low substance and cost, but high customer satisfaction and turnaround). This was particularly true with the Friday the 13th series, where each film was a pale variation of the last featuring a checklist of formula points: Isolated location? Check. Eight to ten hormonal teens? Check. Plenty of sharp and blunt objects? Check. Final girl? Check. Villain? Check. However, the first sequel proved to be a bit of a challange for the filmmakers because they didn't yet realize what they had...so they essentially did a remake of the first film. What they didn't count on was their soap opera caliber writing would yield a franchise villian that would become as famous and beloved as the Universal Monsters before him. So check out the birth of Jason Voorhees as we venture into Friday the 13th Part 2.

One year has gone by since Alice survived the attacks of the deranged Mrs. Voorhees at Camp Crystal Lake. She is trying to paint and move on with her life...however an unseen stalker cuts her healing short one night when she finds Mrs. Voorhees' head in her icebox and (shortly afterward) an ice pick in her skull. Five years go by and a Counselor Training Camp has been set up on the other side of Camp Crystal Lake, regardless of the warnings from the locals who are still shaken by the tragedy of "Camp Blood". The new counselor's-to-be at the camp soon share their tales of Jason Voorhees, the grown up son of Mrs. Voorhees who witnessed his mother's beheading and now stalks the woods waiting to kill any teenager who happens to wander into his stomping grounds. Legend soon turns to fact as one-by-one the teens disappear and soon only Ginny Field, a plucky psychology students, is left to face off against a masked assailant.

Friday the 13th Part 2 is an excellent repeat of everything that worked well about the first film, minus an entire cast of likable kids. In the original, the characters and the actors who played them did a fine job of setting themselves apart from one another and being individuals (well, as much of an individual that one can be in a 90 minute horror film). In Part 2, however, the majority of the characters are simply rehashes of characters from the first film. The only characters who really stand out are Ginny amd Mark (a wheelchair bound adonis). All the rest are copies. The performers are game, however, and seem willing and up to the task of being the newest victims. That brings us to Jason, who is the only popular franchise villain (aside from Mary Lou in the Prom Night movies and Tiffany from Bride of Chucky) who was not introduced in the first film of his series. He was an afterthought and a motive for Part 1 to even exist (Mrs. Voorhees killed everyone for letting her son, Jason, drown in the lake) and was rewriten as a "boo!" moment in the finale of Part 1 (much to original writer Victor Miller's chargin). Suddenly, he is not only rewritten again as a hulking drowning survivor...but now he is also as murderous as his mother. It is a hard logic leap to make, considering that they would have dragged the lake and recovered the body almost immediately...AND if no body was found, they would have done a forest wide search and found poor Jason alive and well, traumatized and offering Momma no reason to get back at anyone. But hey, this is horror writing, not Shakespeare...and so here Jason is, all grown up and pissed off having survived living off the forest for something like 27 years. He is wild, silent, and fast as he chases the hapless Ginny through the forest. I don't think the filmmakers believed that there would be a Part 3 at this point so his mystique isn't fully established beyond "mongaloid mountain man". He doesn't even have his trademark hockey mask here, using a simple burlap sack instead. It still works as a scary image, and makes him more like the Universal Monsters of old, generic and nondescript. In this way, Jason may be the most effective horror villain ever accidentally created. If you liked the first, you'll enjoy this one as well. If you didn't, I'd say keep away. It's more of the same from here on in.

Kill 'er mommy! Kill 'er!

2011-10-13T12:35:00.000-04:00

There are certain mediocre films that, due to public consciousness and popularity, can actually achieve classic status after their time. Many of these are sci-fi or horror films that had one eye-catching original film and then a vast set of diminishing sequels, like the film I wish to discuss today. In the late 1970s, Sean S. Cunningham, who had not achieved much success with his more family-oriented features, saw John Carpenter's Halloween and was amazed at how effective this low-budget chiller was (and also how financially successful it was). He took this 'slasher' concept and decided to make his own version. This was going to be a real scary movie, but also be shocking and graphic in a way that Halloween wasn't. The script by Victor Miller then began as "The Long Night at Camp Blood" but Cunningham insisted in a title change that reflected Halloween...and horror history was born. So let's pack our bags and head to camp as we go through Friday the 13th

In the summer of 1958 at Camp Crystal Lake, two teenagers are savagely murdered by an unseen killer while making love...causing the camp to be shut down. Over the years, numerous fires, accidents, and various other instances of bad luck at the property have caused the locals to believe that the camp has a curse on it. Despite this, the Christie family is insistent on opening the camp back up and putting it to work. Finally, in the summer of 1980, Steve Christie looks to be the first person to have the camp open in over 20 years and he has brought in seven teenaged camp counselors to help him bring the place up to code and then interact with the campers when they finally arrive. However, a sinister atmosphere seems to hang over their efforts. A snake is found in one of the cabins, a crazy old man preaches that they're all "doomed", and an unseen presence is watching and waiting in the shadows...waiting to strike out at anyone who goes off alone. One-by-one the counselors begin to disappear until only one is left to fight for her life in the "long night at camp blood".

You know, for a horror film that received nothing but negative reviews (and a letter writing campaign championed by Siskel and Ebert for indecency in films) and has one of the worst reputations...this is one solid little thriller. By no means does it achieve the heights of Halloween, but it certainly creates quite a bit of suspense in many of the stalking scenes that has not been matched in its myriad of sequels. What
Friday the 13th does so well, even though it is a body-count film that is a blatent rip off of the earlier film, is to rise above it's filmmakers' expectations. They were making a cash-in that they hoped would be successful...but what they managed was a marvelous whodunnit with gross-out effects and a killer who actually has a legitimate motive. The fact that Friday the 13th recieved some of the worst press of all the slasher films from the 80s (including the much more nausiating The Burning) has given the film and it's series a stigma that has been very hard to shake (and has been so embraced by its fan base that nothing "classy" could ever really be made and be called Friday the 13th). It is that stigma that has kept historians and fans from really examining it as a valid suspense film...and indeed, it is suspenseful and scary. There are 3 gore effects in the entire film and those are even more tame than most people think. Yet, the way the film taps into the idea of summer camps as being sinister (indeed, who didn't hear a story at their camp about how a tragedy had cursed the place for years to come?) and plays that for all that it's worth. 9 times out of 10, even though I know Halloween is a better film, I'll find myself more anxious to turn on Friday the 13th because of its rollercoaster pace and likeable characters. It isn't for everyone, but it is certainly a film that gets less than it deserves due to it's more well-reviewed cousins.

It's Good to be the King

2011-10-04T15:29:00.001-04:00

Hah! Fooled you! You thought I was gonna talk about Mel Brooks didn't you? Ok, I'm not going to go on and on over my own cleverness (or lack thereof if you prefer) but I did feel the need to be a little silly today on account that I got terrible news yesterday. A treasured colleague and friend from Theater West Virginia was taken from us before her time Sunday night and all of us who knew and loved her are still reeling. I was pretty depressed when I found out, especially since I hadn't spoken to her in a long while and know I never will again, and so I tried to think of a way that I could honor her memory while also trying to keep myself from dropping into that unpleasent dark place known as despair. I remembred that she was always smiling and always joyful, so I tried to find some films to watch that would make me feel the same way and it actually worked. One of those is the one I intend to write about today. I'd like to say first that I don't want to 'dedicate' this to her...only because this film is considered something of a bomb and I don't think she'd like being associated with a dud that I enjoy. But, it still seemed appropriate because she was someone who always made me smile, like this film does. So lets get a little silly with the highly improbable King Ralph.

Tragedy has struck in England! Apparently, after a freak accident during a huge family photo, the whole royal family has been wiped out. Naturally England is finding itself if deep despair and panic because they are without a monarch. The committee at Buckingham Palace finds themselves working day and night to locate any heir to the throne, no matter how small or obscure he or she may be, and they eventually find one in Ralph Jones, an American lounge singer. As you can imagine, the palace officials are not pleased and many would-be userpers to the throne are already sharpening their knives for the new king. Ralph himself is rather shocked and dismayed by the news, as he finds royal life to be confining and restricting. However, he is trying to make the best of it and to be the king that England expects him to be. However, when he falls in love with a former stripper and offends a rival country, he begins to feel the pressure closing in on him.

King Ralph is saved from being completely abysmal (in my eyes) by two things...the actors involved and the respect that the film eventually gives to the office of the monarchy...I can already see your eyes rolling so bear with me. If there was ever a contemporary film and television actor who always gave 110% it is John Goodman. Whenever I see him, he is giving the roll his all whether he is being dramatic in The Babe or comic in Arachnophobia. Even in King Ralph, whose material is about as far from high drama as one can get, Goodman shows wonderful range. His reaction to losing his job before finding out he is King of England is one of the most sincere moments in the film where he shows frustration and desparation at the same time. He actually sounds like a man who knows what it feels like to be at a loss. Likewise, Peter O'Toole and Richard Griffiths as Ralph's advisors are equal parts funny and sincere as they manage to rise above the script's shortcomings and portray their characters as three-dimensional people rather than stuffy British characters. Now as to the respect it gives the monarchy...Ralph makes a quite impassioned speech at the end of the film that both talks up England and the commonwealth, but which also gives great creedance and respect for all the crown represents to England (despite the fact that the royal family has little power anymore). To me, that elevates the film a bit more in terms of message and quality. If you haven't seen it, I can't promise you'll like it but it is cute. And it makes me smile, just like she did. For what its worth.

Don't Get Mad, Get Everything

2011-10-03T12:42:00.001-04:00

Sometimes, you need a certain kind of movie to perk up an otherwise dull evening. Of course, its hard to tell what that movie will be until you choose it. You might be in the mood for a scary film, or maybe you want something silly and stupid. Perhaps you are interested in indulging in nostalga and watching something mediocre from your childhood, or perhaps you want something that will make you think. Friday night, for some reason, I needed to see a chick flick...and not just any chick flick. I needed one that was about getting even. Before you ask, no I had not been spurrned by someone and no I wasn't acting out any aggression at anyone specific...it was just what I was in the mood for. That's kind of the beauty of having a lot of fiction in the house, because I have a film for every mood. But I digress...Friday night I needed a time waster that I'd seen a lot (because I was gonna be running back and forth from the kitchen and wouldn't mind if I missed something in it) but also something that I'd chuckle at and would keep me energized. So I decided on a classic chick power film from the mid-90s that starred the fabulous Bette Midler, Goldie Hawn, and Diane Keaton and showcased them getting back at the men who had done them wrong. Ladies and gentlemen...I present The First Wives Club.

Annie, Brenda, and Elise are three old college friends from the 60s who are suddenly reunited by the tragic loss of their friend Cynthia, who had committed suicide following a messy divorce from a husband she gave her best years to. Coincidentally, the three friends are each going through similar breakups. Annie's husband is leaving her for their marriage counselor after years of her continued support for his buisniss, Brenda's husband has divorced her for a chippie from his department store despite the fact that Brenda has been instrumental in the lifestyle he has become accustomed to, and Elise's producer/husband has left her for a younger actress and is now demanding allimony, despite the fact that Elise was the one who produced her films and allowed the husband to take the credit. Alone they feel defeated and unappreciated, but once they come together and see that this isn't a problem confined only to their personal lives, they become energized and empowered as they plan to carry out justice on their wandering and unappreciative men.

The First Wives Club is a fairly predictable affair. You already know from the cover that these women will be mistreated by men, come together to gain strength, and eventually get back at the men who so richly deserve their retribution. However, to dismiss The First Wives Club on that criteria alone is to miss the point. The film knows that it is a predictable chick flick and that it's men exist to be characters we love to hate...however, it is the journey that is important. Finding out HOW these women will get revenge on their husbands is what drives the suspense and the jokes in the movie. Also, the powerhouse performances of all three leading ladies is certainly a joy to behold as they laugh, cry, and yes...sing all before the closing credits roll. Also of note are Maggie Smith and Sarah Jessica Parker in smaller the but plot important rolls of a New York sociallite and Brenda's husband's chippie respecitvely. There are wonderful lines (given to us from the original novel by Olivia Goldsmith and the sharp screenplay by Robert Harling (who wrote the play and screenplay of Steel Magnolias) that are constantly quoted ("Don't get mad....get everything"..."I say this to you out of love, friendship and the spirit of true sisterhood...you are FULL OF SHIT!") and then there is the inspired musical number that closes the picture, a rousing cover of Leslie Gore's "You Don't Own Me" that almost convinces me that Club could have been a musical comedy. But I digress again, if you haven't seen it or if you haven't seen it in a while, get off the fence and pick it up. It would be the perfect film for an evening of wine and girl power.

Who knew the end of the world would take so long?

2011-09-27T14:38:00.000-04:00

There are action movies and then there are Michael Bay movies. Something really separates the men from the boys on this one...though I'm not really saying that Bay's movies are more like men than boys here. Rather there is a huge, slightly emotionally manipulative, highly illogical feel that comes with watching one of Bay's movies. Granted, there's a reason he still is making movies...because sometimes you want something big, emotionally manipulative, and highly illogical to take your mind off of things. From his first film, Bad Boys, to his latest, Transformers 3: Dark of the Moon...you can sense that there is a boy directing these films who is pretending to be a man (and I mean that in the nicest way possible). Such is the case with one of Bay's biggest and longest productions, where he depicts a world about to be destroyed by a global killer asteroid and throws together a grab bag of personalities who are hell-bent to stop it. This film was meant to be biblical in both scale and in topic, so its appropriate then that it is called Armageddon.

The film opens with a narration about the first time a 'global killer' hit the Earth. The resulting shockwave and dust cloud decimated the population of life on the planet and plunged the planet into an ice age lasting several (hundred? thousand? million?) years. Flash forward to present day (read: 1998) and a similar asteroid finds itself hurtling toward Earth. The big bad rock will hit the planet in 16 days, preceeded by several small meteor showers that destroy large portions of famous world cities, and the government quick cobbles together a plan to save the planet. They will send two space shuttles to the surface of the beast where the two teams will drill into the asteroid's core and deposit a nuclear device capable of cutting the beast in half and sending it harmlessly around the edges of the planet. They must find a team who are capable of working under these conditions, however. Enter Harry Stamper and his motley crew of oil drillers. It seems Stamper had invented a drill for quick, undersea drilling (similar to the conditions in outerspace) and said design was stollen by the government. They now need Stemper to tell them why it won't work...which eventually leads to him and his team having to go on the mission themselves. What then transpires is a 12 day crash course in astronautics and finally the mission itself which proves to be more arduous and dangerous than any of them could have ever expected.

You know, for a movie about the urgency of the end being near...Armageddon certainly takes its sweet time. This is one of those disaster movies that seems to think that it has enough character and emotional development to last 2 and a half hours when it's really more of an hour and 45 minutes to 2 hours worth of story. Yes, there are some very good action set pieces....each one building upon the last....but there are too many of them. There's a threshold of acceptability in an action/disaster film for allowing things to go wrong in order to increase suspense and raise stakes...but Armageddon takes this to an extreme. Every 5 minutes, something fails or goes wrong, leading me to wonder if this isn't the worst planned space mission in history. Granted, they do throw it together fairly quickly...but they could still have someone check that Mir's fuel pump isn't gonna blow up the day they need it or that the nuclear bomb has several failsafes on it. Just sayin. Is Armageddon fun? Sure...but like most things that overstay their welcome...it is a bit too much fun and in the end (when it FINALLY does end) we're more anxious to leave the party than we are to stay (though I'll admit, I cried toward the end due to the emotional manipulation). Do with that what you will?

Dirty Deeds, Done Dirt Cheap

2011-09-25T19:46:00.000-04:00

Ah, finally motivated to write a whole fresh blog post for today. I'm feeling very good today actually, seeing as I had a very relaxing weekend of solitude and films, actually got some festering chores done, and finished a script I was working on. It wasn't an original work sadly, rather it was a remake of Brian De Palma's Dressed to Kill...see 2010's De Palma A'la Mod for info on that fabulous film...and I'm very proud of it despite the fact it will never be produced. However, it is the first written work I have finished in years and I'm suddenly motivated to finish more...particularly the original works that I started so long ago. I'm currently waiting for my friend Will to finish reading it, but he keeps gushing about how much he loves it. Anyway, I decided to write about a film I took a very special liking to when I saw it this summer because of the amazingly witty script and the way I found myself relating to the main character (gender differences aside). I'm sure you've all heard of it and its about time I talked about something contemporary, so let's go have a day with the girls while we get down and dirty with Bridesmaids.

(Note: not using posters anymore because of that nasty Photobucket problem). The story begins with Annie, a thirtysomething woman who is working at a jewelry store to repay her debts after losing her shirt, and her boyfriend, from opening a bakery that failed. She also is in a horrible relationship with a man who makes her feel like crap and she lives with two horrible roommates who are as stupid as they are ugly. So when Annie's oldest friend Lillian announces that she is engaged and wants Annie to be her Maid of Honor, it is almost too much for Annie to bear. However, not to admit any flaws or failings, Annie presses on to try and be the best Maid of Honor she can be and plan Lillian's wedding to be perfect. Along the way she meets the other bridesmaids: Rita, a married mother of three boys who is unhappy with her marriage and family and needs some distractions from that. Becca, Lillian's newlywed friend from work who is almost too bubbly. Megan, a tough and overweight firecracker who is man crazy and up for any extreme experience. And then there's Helen, Lillian's new best friend who is perfect and beautiful and who seems to be angling to bump Annie from both her standing as Lillian's best best friend and her position as Maid of Honor. What then transpires is a madcap adventure that sees the best laid plans fall completely apart making us wonder if Annie, and her friendship with Lillian, will survive.

Being single and wondering how to make my life better aren't the only things I felt I shared with Annie upon watching this movie. I also found myself relating to her hidden talents for cooking and creating, which I have but I don't utilize much beyond my own kitchen because I'm too scared to try to branch out in the scary unsafe professional world. And then there was her skewed and cynical perspective of the world, which isn't totally me, but which I could completely understand given the current global climate. Then there were the supporting characters. Lillian reminded me of several of my best friends and the chemistry between Maya Rudolph (Lillian) and Kristen Wiig (Annie) was tremendous (owing much to the fact that they really are friends). Seeing them together made me pine for my friends who live so far away (or who leave town every weekend....you know who you are) and that I don't get to spend as much time with as I'd like. The other bridesmaids were hilarious as well, with the scene stealer being Melissa McCarthy as Megan (who also ends up giving Annie her third act pep up speech that she so desperately needs). There was so much that was good about this movie, and I've already watched it three times this year (which is unheard of for me). All of you should too, particularly you mother. Trust me, you won't stop laughing. Oh, and one last thought...it was a stroke of brilliance for this film to utilize "Hold On" by Wilson Phillips....excellent song!

Quick Update

2011-09-24T20:02:00.001-04:00

Ok...this goes to show how often I read my own blog to see how it looks. But it has come to my attention that you can't see a frackin' thing on it because of all the Photobucket crap all over the screen. So I've gone back and deleted all the posters and pictures from the blog and the majority of those have disappeared. I've also gone back to Google Adsense because I'd like to see if I can make a few cents (so click on some of those ads please). Hopefully my blog will be more readable and user friendly now...and of course, not frickin ugly. OH! And before I forget, I'm a huge Janet Evanovich/Stephanie Plum fan so when I heard that they were finally making a movie of Miss Plum's first adventure, One For the Money, I was totally stoked. Now the official trailer has been released and I couldn't be more pleased to see that it is following the book very closely (and the actors, whom I had doubts about - particularly Miss Heigl - are actually fitting my visions of how they would be). I don't expect the film to appeal to everyone (especially being released in the dead zone that is January), but I am hopeful that it will give some people a few chuckles. So here is the official trailer for One for the Money:

"Why are there so many songs about rainbows...?"

2011-09-22T14:32:00.000-04:00

This week has been an especially draining one for me, mostly because I think I've finally realized that...despite my skill...I really don't want to be a teacher for the rest of my life. What's equally draining is that I have no idea what I'd do instead. I mean, I have a degree and a license I paid good money for (well, and that dad paid taxes for) but it really only qualifies me to teach. So I guess I've felt a little trapped this week...and of course, having some already difficult and uncooperative classes doesn't help. So I've reached into my shelves this week for some movie comfort food...films that are colorful, funny, and just make me feel good. This week, in honor of their glorious return to the silver screen come November, I decided to revisit my old friends, The Muppets. And what better way to talk about The Muppets than to discuss their first movie. So let's get "movin' right along" as we watch The Muppet Movie.

When the film begins, we are introduced to Kermit the Frog as he sits and plays his banjo in a swamp. His life is changed, however, when an agent approaches him and shows him an add in Variety that is asking for frogs wishing to become rich and famous. After a second and a half of soul searching, Kermit takes off on his journey toward fame. Along the way he meets a terrible stage comedian, Fozzie Bear, and they decide to make the long road trip together in "a bear's natural habitat - A studebaker". Their trip is not a smooth ride however as they attract the attention of villanous Doc Hopper, the owner of Doc Hopper's French Fried Frog Legs and who's obsession with Kermit becoming his mascot drives him to near insanity. The frog and bear also meet Dr. Teeth and his band The Electric Mayhem (consisting of Animal, Janice, Sgt. Floyd Pepper, Zoot, and Lips), Gonzo the Great, Scooter, Sweetums, and the love of Kermit's life...Miss Piggy. What follows is a rollicing adventure across the country as the Muppets race to Hollywood trying to become famous and trying to keep Kermit from becoming food.

There's something enduring and timeless about The Muppet Movie, in that it feels like it could have been made today. Perhaps that is because The Muppets are still just as popular now as they ever were, or maybe it is because the charactaristic punny humor of the Muppets feels like something that never gets old. Or maybe it's just my nostalga talking. However, whenever Kermit and Fozzie pass a literal 'fork in the road' and Kermit says, in typical dry straight-man fashion "I don't believe that", I can't help but breaking up in fits of giggles. I think The Muppets are one of the few troupes of characters that, throughout their careers, has carte blanche to be completely and utterly silly. This could explain their enduring popularity and longevity. Everyone knows who they are and everyone can appreciate their ever so innocent, and yet sneakily sarcastic and dry, humor. I suppose that's why puns such as the fork in the road and Animal's "BIG scene" work even today. Heck, there are even some groaners that only work because The Muppets are in charge, like "Myth, MYTH! - Yeth?" Classic comedy that includes puns, running gags, and musical numbers are what makes this film and all of those in the Muppet Cannon so enduring. I suppose it is a comfort to know that, even as we refine and change our tastes in comedy, the old tricks never go out of style.

Quick Update

2011-09-19T19:26:00.000-04:00

I just spent an entire weekend watching the Star Wars movies again...having just got them on Blu-ray this weekend. I also made my first batch of hollendaise sauce ever to put over fried pork chops last night for dinner, which was an adventure. We're in Week 5 (Week 4 by the calendar) and I'm still getting the hang of taking care of block classes every day, but I'm coping. I just wish I didn't see complete disdain on every one of my students' faces. It wears on you when you're blamed for the limitations of your subject (something I have little to no control over). Oh the plus side, I've never had a class that ran too short and I am impressing my colleagues, which is good because I'm hoping to get good recommendations for if and when I even decide to move on from my school.

Something of film-related interest...the latest trailer for The Muppets went online last week and boy is it a hoot. It is a full-blown spoof of the trailer for David Fincher's version of The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo and I gotta say, at this point it really doesn't matter if the movie is good or not. With advertising like this, I have to see the movie (of course, I'm sure it will be great...I mean, its the friggin' Muppets).

Have a look below and try not to laugh:

Totally Super Galactic...its, like, ORBITAL!

2011-08-29T13:58:00.001-04:00

Ok, there are many films and television shows from my childhood that had not successfully stood the test of time. Mighty Morphin Power Rangers makes my head hurt (though on a dull summer day and you might catch me playing with my old Zords...and then I'll deny it and say I was dusting), "New Kids on the Block" are more campy than cool, and the non-Disney renaissance films from other companies all have the tangy odor of aged cheese. Does that mean I can't enjoy these elements due to nostalgia? Certainly not...rather, I embrace the slightly embarrassed "Oh my god, did I watch this?" feelings when I go back to revisit something I thought was amazing as a child. It is this 'duel-mindedness' that I think helps me to still appreciate my inner-child's memories while also indulging my palate in new experiences. However, this blog isn't about philosophy...its about movies and I have a humdinger of a film for you today. It seems caught in a sort of time warp where the 80s bled into the 90s and at the same time, revived the 50s. Its an odd amalgum, one made even more strange by the pairing of classic animation styles with brand-new computer animated elements. Even today, it remains a curiosity of the time and one wonders why the movie was even made...still, it was a modest success (mainly on video) and certainly lit up my Saturday afternoons a time or two. So lets go back into the past...and through doing so...zoom into the future as we visit that Furture-iffic family in Jetsons: The Movie.

The film opens in a darkened industrial plant and sinister music plays as unseen creatures skitter around in the dark and sabotage the complex equipment held within. Then, with enough enthusiasm to erase memories of the dark opening, we are greeted to a widescreen and stereo sound version of the famed "Meet the Jetsons" opening from yesteryear. We meet George, Jane, Judy, Elroy, Rosie the Robot, and Astro the Dog and in the space of 30 seconds, we know everything we need to know about our protagonists (well, everything that will matter over the course of the film anyway). George heads to work for what seems like will be a normal day, but his life is suddenly changed when his boss, Mr. Spacely, promotes George to Vice-President and overseer of the Spacely Orbiting Ore Asteroid. Little does George know that Spacely is merely hoping for George to be a proxy, a figurehead who pushes a button at the plant and takes the blame for the continual problems it seems to keep having. After limited protest from his family, George moves them all to the plant to take over the operations. Of course, soon everything begins falling apart and it is up to the Jetsons to discover what is causing the glitches at the Plant and fix them.

I have to preface this paragraph with the statement that I am about to ask a serious question and intend no snide, rude, or ironic tone....I wonder what the producers were thinking when they decided to make this film? I can assume that, the suits at Universal who had had decent success with An American Tail and The Land Before Time, saw the onslaught of animated fare flooding the cinemas and saw that their slate was rather light in terms of recognizable animated fare. Having recently established a partnership with Hanna Barbara that extended even to the Universal Studios theme parks (Elroy Jetson starred in an interactive show at the park for quite some time), it probably seemed like good business to dip into their wide well of source material to make a feature. Add to that that the late 80s had seemed to embrace some of the more wild elements of the 1950s and absorbed them into its own culture soup, and the fact that The Jetsons were a decidedly retro vision of the future that fit right in to that 50s asthetic, and I suppose it must have seemed like a great idea. Indeed, the colorful images in the trailers and the promise of the exploits of a rather famous cartoon family in a big feature certainly worked on me enough to convince my mother to take me and see the film. However, there was perhaps too much 80s in the film and not enough of a homogenous and timeless mixture. Universal did in fact replace the voice of the original Judy Jetson, Janet Waldo, with that of pop-star Tiffany and inserted a number of songs in the film that Tiffany would perform (pushing the 80s meter up even higher) and filmed at least one music video for one of those songs, "You and Me", that played during the film and featured imagry that looked like it had exploded from the mind of A-ha. Reviews of the film equated it to nothing but a hour-long television special that had been expanded to film and it dropped off 43% in box office revene after its first weekend and the Jetsons movie was largely forgotten until video where it was indeed successful. What had looked like a perfect storm, creatively, for Universal backfired and the studio shyed away from animation for a long while (with rare releases like We're Back: A Dinosaur's Story becoming equally forgotten at the box office) and wouldn't have the success of their 80s efforts until Shrek in 2001. Is Jetsons: The Movie better forgotten? Maybe...it certainly doesn't offer anything we haven't seen before and adds nothing new or revolutionary to the realm of animated film. At the same time, it certainly isn't the death of animation either...its merely an average performer among greater brothers and sisters. If you're babysitting a 4 year old, you could do a lot worse than the late 80s and early 90s charms of Jetsons...but its not for grown-ups unless grew up on it.

I Love those Plumbers...

2011-08-20T09:52:00.000-04:00

The early 90s were a magical time for a child because it seems that every film idea that was based on a 'kid' property was being made. The Ninja Turtles were tops at the box office for several years in a row, the Transformers had already been a minor hit in the 1980s and Disney was still churning out quality product (and were now entering their Renaissance) but it wasn't long before film companies began developing films based on video games. It was a great business idea for sure, many game franchises had been big sellers and were well established with both children and adults for several years thanks to Nintendo and Sega and animated programs such as "The Super Mario Bros. Super Show" had already shown that licensing out these characters for filmed work could be successful. And so it came to be that 1993 saw America's first theatrically released movie based on a video game...and it would naturally be based on one of Nintendo's first and best loved franchises. So lets get tangled in fungus as we examine the oddity that is Super Mario Bros.

The film opens with a shot of Brooklyn 65 Million Years ago (which is the first joke) and shows how dinosaurs lived there before a meteorite struck the Earth and killed them all...flash forward to 20th century Brooklyn and we see a strangely dressed woman dropping off an egg and a chip of mineral at a nunnery before running back to a dark tunnel where she is attacked by Koopa, a tall blond man with an evil glint in her eye. 20 years go by and we are introduced to the Mario Brothers...Mario Mario, the oldest and most wise, and Luigi Mario, the younger and more idealistic brother. The two run a floundering plumbing buisness and find themselves skunked at every turn by the Scappelli buisness...a nationally franchised company run by mobsters. When checking their messages, Luigi is struck by the beauty of Daisy...a graduate student of paleontology who is currently overseeing a dig near the river where Scappelli has accidentally uncovered fossils due to excavation. The Mario Bros. help Daisy fix a sabotaged pipe in the dig and before they can blink, Daisy is kidnapped by two odd looking men and dragged off into the caverns below. The Marios make chase and soon find themselves in another dimension where humans have evolved from dinosaurs, not mammals. It appears that the impact of the meteorite way back when resulted in a dimensional tear that created the Earth as we know it today and another world where a Manhattan-like city is surrounded on all sides by vast desert. It seems that the President/Ruler, King Koopa, has discovered that there is a mammal world that mirrors theirs and plans to use Daisy (who hatched from the egg seen at the beginning) and her meteor shard to merge the two worlds and overtake the Earth...and only the Mario Brothers can stop him.

In terms of adaptations...Super Mario Bros. is about as far away from the source material as you can get. The filmmakers have transformed the bright and colorful Mushroom Kingdom full of strange looking mushroom and turtle monsters from the video games into a dark, dystopian world full of strangely costumed human actors reminiscent of Blade Runner and for many fans that was the first straw of many. Goombas didn't look like goombas, but rather were de-evolved dinohumans with tiny heads, Koopa was a man rather than a large spiked-crossed-between-a-turtle-and-a-dragon, Luigi was not as old as Mario, tall, or mustached, and the script was full of oddly-placed one-liners and strange jumps in logic. Needless to say, it is known as one of the worst video game adaptations...which is saying something among all the dreck that exists from that category (to date...none of them have higher than a 35% rating on rottentomatoes.com)...and yet I think many of those fans are missing the point. Yes, Mario Brothers could have been a bright and colorful film reminiscent of Speed Racer and could have been full of puppet goombas, koopa troopas, and a large animatronic King Koopa and yes it could have followed the story of the games closer with Mario falling into a pipe and emerging in a world where he had to save a princess....but how interesting would that have been? Rather, I mean, how filmic? What motivation would Mario have to save a princess he doesn't know from a terrible monster other than he's a nice guy? I can't think of many Brooklyn plumbers that would...and that's what the writers and designers must have thought as well (with a heavy dose of economic logic thrown in...who has the money for all those goomba and koopa puppets?) because they invented a story of their own and grafted the basic elements of Mario onto it (because lets face it, that's what Mario is...very BASIC elements which is perfect for a game but not for a film). So we didn't get to see how clever the screenwriters could be by creating good reasons for Mario to bonk his head on a block, grab coins, and slide down a flag pole...but we did get to see a clever use of mushrooms, bob-oms, and fireballs (yes, those flamethrowers were shooting classic Mario fireballs). Is it a great movie? Hell no...is it even a good movie? Hardly...its more of an interesting curiosity of 90s filmmaking that is diverting enough to not be turned off...but which you won't remember after a few days. In short, the perfect popcorn film for a weekend evening or a drunken gathering with friends. So lets lay off this movie for being the worst game adaptation...I think Uwe Boll's movies have a corner on that market.

Murder is an Art...

2011-08-15T20:25:00.000-04:00

Hollywood has very few genres that they still throw money at, regardless of the product they're selling, and one of those is the serial killer thriller. Ever since The Silence of the Lambs burned up the box-office and the Academy Awards, Hollywood has been trying to recapture lightning in a bottle. There has been some success, such as Seven and Saw, then there are minor triumphs like Red Dragon and American Psycho, but like most genres that Hollywood often goes back to the well for there are more disappointments than there are failures. Of course, like all genres, the films that interest me most are the under-appreciated or underrated films. The ones that are very good and yet never got the recognition they deserve. One of my absolute favorites stars one of my absolute favorite actresses alongside another powerhouse actress...which already makes one wonder why it wasn't more successful the year it was released. However, thanks to being released alongside several other films of the same type, it fell by the wayside when it was released. Now, thanks to the magic of Blu-ray the world can now rediscover this suspense yarn. But before I gush too much, I'd better tell you something about the film first. Strap in chaps, we're investigating the Copycat.

Dr. Helen Hudson is currently at the top of her game in the field of criminal psychology. She is one of the leading experts in the study of serial murderers and what makes them tick, and she is such an expert that she is often brought in as an expert witness for the prosecution. In fact, she recently helped put a serial killer named Darryl Lee Cullam in prison, but her life is shattered when Cullam escapes from prison and attacks her in a public restroom. Although she survives, this sudden exposure to the realities of being a victim so traumatizes her that she retreats to the confines of her San Francisco apartment and becomes an intense agoraphobic. Meanwhile, a new serial killer is stalking the streets of San Francisco and is currently baffling Inspector Mary-Jane Monahan. Soon Monahan is knocking on Helen's door and asking for her professional insight and Helen reluctantly agrees, immediately discovering that the killer is copying famous serial killers from the past. Unfortunately this is exactly what the copycat wants and soon he sets his sights on Helen. Its up to Monahan and Helen to catch this killer, or Helen may very well be next.

On the surface, Copycat looks and feels like a Silence of the Lambs clone...which is perhaps why audiences chose to ignore this film, especially after the gruelling and groundbreaking Seven was released only months before. The film certainly has those Silence moments that it hits...a tough cookie cop trying to find a killer and her only way of catching him is by seeking advice from an isolated expert who can't leave the place he/she sleeps. Of course, what audiences missed was the many differences that made Copycat stand on its own. First is the opening scene in the restroom where Sigourney Weaver (Dr. Hudson) is attacked by Harry Connick Jr. (Cullam) which shows that the film is not afraid to shoot for the unexpected in that it seems as if the woman we thought was our heroine might be killed off before the opening titles. Then there is the aspect of agoraphobia imprisoning Helen within her own home which presents an obstacle to the investigation since she cannot look at crime scenes other than through photographs...but also invites and interesting look into 'invasion of personal space' when the killer begins to send her emails and phone messages and effectively spoiling the only space she feels safe before he physically invades it...and Helen is powerless to do anything about it because she is too afraid to leave. Then there is Holly Hunter's Inspector Monahan, who presents a much different investigator from other films. In other films, the cops never show any real issue with having to kill their suspect if it comes down to it, but with Monahan, we see a cop who detests killing. She even chastises her partner Ruben Goetz (Dermot Mulroney) for "shredding" a test target when he could easily hit the gunman's shoulder. This is a shot she puts into practice twice in the film, with good and bad results. The decision not to kill unless completely necessary doesn't make her a better cop...but it does make her more complex. The killer, who I shant reveal here, is also different than many Hollywood serial killers in that he doesn't look 'weird' or 'creepy' and manages to function perfectly well in the real world which ties him much better to real-world killers like Ted Bundy. Its a change that people often don't accept as they believe that killers always look strange or creepy, even though history shows us that this is often not the case. All in all, Copycat is a suspenseful and solid serial killer film that is equal parts frightening and informative and deserves to be seen and given its due.

Don't Mess With Texas...

2011-08-13T21:49:00.000-04:00

Ok ok...I did have a several week period where I was too busy to write here on the blog (namely during production week for Sound of Music, the trip to Universal right afterward, and then a visit to my sister's place in Nashville right after that) but the last two weeks I've had no excuse to get back into the writing game. To be honest, I just forgot about the blog because there was so much going on. But don't worry friends, I am back and here to bring you another slice of madness courtesy of my every so eclectic and bizarre tastes. Tonight I'll be bringing you a taste of terror from the 1970s that is regarded as one of the granddaddies of the still-vital slasher craze. At a time when the youth of America were living free while conservative elders looked on disapprovingly and doling out restrictions and punishments to these crazed teens, one director decided to use the traditional American family as the base for a tale of terror. What began then was a franchise of notorious reputation and a title that was many times more sensational than the original work. So lets go back in time to 1974 and take in the case files of The Texas Chain Saw Massacre.

It is a hot and sticky August day when Sally Hardesty and her invalid brother Franklin travel across the back roads of Texas to visit their grandfather's grave. It turns out that several of the local cemeteries have been robbed with graves dug up and corpses either posed in sickening sculptures atop the graves or missing parts entirely and Sally and Franklin want to be sure their grandfather hasn't been touched. Following that, Sally and Franklin convince their friends Pam, Jerry, and Kirk (who are along for the ride) to come with them to visit their grandparents old house. Along the way they pick up a strange hitchhiker who confesses to having worked at the local meat packing plant before attacking Franklin with a knife. As if this weren't enough, the kids find themselves running out of gas and with no filling station nearby. When two of them investigate a gasoline motor sound they find a cute little white house in the middle of nowhere...however on the inside of the house they find a much more sinister aesthetic on display. Chicken bones hang from the ceiling, furniture and lamps are constructed from in human skin and bones, meat hooks hang next to large man-sized freezers in the kitchen, and a large man in an apron and a mask made from human skin is lurking with a hammer and a chainsaw. One by one this...Leatherface...kills the teens until only one, Sally, is left. She then must survive the longest night of her life as she runs from Leatherface and his demented family...and there are still more surprises to come.

The Texas Chain Saw Massacre was meant to be a shocker and it sounds like one with a title like that...it was such a nasty title that many critics reviewed the film without even actually watching it. Its rather comical to read some of them as they decry the amount of gore and violence in the film...when in fact there is very little blood or offal in the film. Yes, people are hung from meat hooks and one scene features murder by chainsaw, but otherwise the film is more frightening based on what is felt in the atmosphere and what is implied by what is shown. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that the family that is preying on these youths are practicing cannibals who have prayed on the passers by for years...but they never once put a piece of human flesh in their mouths. It is also implied that the chainsaw is the preferred weapon of choice for Leatherface, even though he only uses it to kill once. What is more unsettling than the non-gore of the film is the fact that the conservative family is actually trying to kill and swallow up the young and beautiful free spirits of the new generation. Family values that once stood for good in the 1950s now are twisted and perverted to encourage murder. Others have commented on how the gritty look of the film makes it feel like a documentary (indeed the promotional materials and the opening prologue proudly proclaim that the story is true) though I don't agree. A documentary never plays like a linear story with no comments from talking heads or commentators and so its quite clear that the filmmakers are telling a story rather then documenting truth. However, the gritty feel does intensify the sense of dread and nausea that the viewer feels due to the fact that its simply harder to watch. When you watch the film you feel like you're there in the heat and dirt and grime, and that is what makes horror effective. The franchise hasn't lost steam yet and yet another filmmaker is dipping into the well for another go at the story...which shows just how well this little shocker still manages to scare us.

Eight Legs, Two Fangs, and an Attitude

2011-07-09T21:41:00.000-04:00

When you ask a group of people what gives them the heebie-jeebies, you're likely to find several staples. There's usually someone who's afraid of the dark (a category I fall in, and if you make fun of me I'll cut you), someone who fears death, a person who can't stand public speaking, and then there are always a handful of folk who get the willies from creepy crawlies. Insects, snakes, and rodents are top runners in that category, but most people tend to dislike one group of crawlies in particular...the spider. Despite the fact that spiders do nothing but rid the world of surplus insects and tend to regard us as big, scary bipeds...thanks to our own natural fears of things that are low to the ground and multi-legged and the help of the media, we tend to think that spiders are always up to no good. Then in 1990, long-time producer turned director Frank Marshall gave us a new reason to hate spiders. So ignore that crawling sensation on your leg for a second and stick with me as we explore the fear of Arachnophobia.

In a remote portion of Venezuela, photographer Jerry Manley gets a very brief introduction to Dr. James Atherton before being bustled into a helicopter and whisked off to a sink hole in an unexplored tepui of the rainforest. He has arrived to help photograph potentially new species of insects and spiders that Atherton hopes to find in this sinkhole where geography has left the area unchanged for millions of years. Upon arrival they discover spiders that aren't like any spiders ever seen before though, with innards more like worker bees or soldier ants (spiders are highly solitary and cannibalistic and to find a colony-like mindset is highly unusual). One of the male mating capable spiders doesn't take kindly to his brethren being taken captive and he stows away in Manley's napsack where he proceeds to bite and kill Manley (with a fast acting and highly toxic venom). The body is sent back to Manley's hometown of Canima, California with the spider hidden in the crate (they don't notice it at all) and it manages to get dropped by a bird near the barn and home of Dr. Ross Jennings, the new young doctor of the town who happens to have arachnophobia. Soon the spider mates with a domestic house spider and produces a brood of large house spiders who act like worker bees and are just as deadly as their father. As people begin dying around the town, Ross finds himself wondering if the thing that gives him the most fear is actually causing these deaths.

Like Jaws before it, Arachnophobia takes a slightly over-the-top 'what if?' scenario and fashions it into a thrilling man vs. nature yarn that is equal parts terrifying and witty. Indeed, part of what makes Arachnophobia fun to watch today is its incredible sense of humor. It understands that it is ever so slightly ridiculous (what are the chances of a spider this deadly existing, surviving, and breeding here?) and so it allows itself to joke a bit at itself and its type of movie (the 'small town besieged by a monster' movie). However, like Jaws, its premise is based largely in fact. There are actually great white sharks that are 25 feet long, and they have been known to attack people (though not in that volume)...likewise, species of spider, animal, and insect are introduced into American environments all the time from overseas shipping and have a nasty habit of messing up the surrounding ecosystem (such as the gypsy moth that has decimated parts of the Ohio forest, or the Burmese pythons that are thriving and eating prey in Florida). Marshall takes a very realistic approach to the whole film (nothing looks stylised or artificial) and that lends the premise a surprising amount of realism. Afterall, there is a reason people are still terrified by this film. The comedy is also special, when Jeff Daniels as Ross Jennings quips "Respect is good, but I'd rather be feared" is a classic, and all of the scenes with John Goodman as Delbert McClintock, the town exterminator, are hilarious (with at least one showing his versatility...when he gets very realistically frightened going into the climax). It simply is an all-around good thriller and if you haven't watched it in a while, its time to pick it up again. And if you're squeamish of spiders and creepy crawlies...this film may end up being what Ross calls "Therapy."

The Most Dangerous Game...

2011-07-01T09:34:00.000-04:00

I can remember some of my first experiences playing board games. Often, my sister would ask me to play with her when she had nothing to do...and she was fond of cheating. I used to be terrified to play Clue because I thought you could be killed any second of it...my sister was playing two-player Clue with me once and when she got bored with it she told me she had killed me in the Billiard Room. It wasn't until much later that I was able to actually read the rules and find out that not only could I not kill people in the game, but that you couldn't really play the game with less than three people. We also enjoyed playing Rings on Your Fingers (which no one remembers) and Ghosts (which some people remember) and they were great ways to waste time. I even remember my imagination getting away from me at times and actually believing in the consequences that the games sometimes dished out. Of course, that fascination with the fantasy world of board games wears off after a while and as you grow you tend to become more interesting in games of skill or trivia rather than ones that take you back a space for falling into a dark pit. But what if a board game really offered consequences for every role of the dice? What if moving five spaces put you in mortal peril? That was a question that author and illustrator Chris Van Allisburg decided to answer in his picture book, Jumanji. In it, a bored brother and sister find a jungle themed game in the park and take it home only to find that when they play it, the jungle dangers described in it actually manifest themselves in the room where they're playing. With a premise like this, it should be no surprise that Hollywood would eventually come a-callin. Then in 1995, the film version of Allisburg's book hit theaters with an expanded plot and an unlikely lead. Would the adventure be worth it? Let's roll the dice and find out...

The film opens in 1869 with two young boys trying to quickly bury a large chest in the ground. As they drop the chest in the ground, jungle drums begin to pound and both boys quickly cover the box and hurry off into the night. Flash forward to 1969. The town of Brantford, New Hampshire has sprung up around the woods where the chest was buried. Alan Parrish, the only son of the richest man in town, is on his way home from school when the local bullies chase him to the site of his father's new factory extension. There, he hears the same drums that scared the boys 100 years ago and he digs out the chest. Inside he finds an ornate, carved board game called Jumanji. He takes it home and begins playing it with his friend, Sarah Whittle. They soon find that this is not a normal game as they are attacked by bats and Alan is actually pulled into the game. Sarah runs away, frightened beyond her wits, and we flash forward again to 1995 where Peter and Judy Shephard have moved into the old Parrish mansion with their Aunt Nora, who plans to turn it into a bed and breakfast. Soon however, Peter and Judy are hearing Jumanji's drums and it is not long before they begin unleashing the game's dangers on the unsuspecting town. They also release Alan from his imprisonment inside the game and together, with Alan's old friend Sarah, they must finish the game to end its destruction.

There have been many mixed reviews of Jumanji, the film, largely due to its stylized effects and the choice of its male lead, Robin Williams, who was largely known as a comic actor and not an action-adventure man. In hindsight, however, this shows Williams at the beginning of a run of several more 'serious' films for the versatile actor and would get him more dramatic exposure akin to his turn in Moscow on the Hudson several years before. Here he plays someone who has spent many years of his life trapped in the deepest, darkest jungle fighting for his life and raising himself and that natural caution and fear comes through brilliantly from Williams. He also has the markings of someone who never fully grew up and who still has the mind of a child, and who could argue that Williams can't play that? It was really a stroke of genius in casting Williams as the older Alan Parrish, despite what little experience he'd had in the genre before. On the side of the effects, I do have to concede a little to the naysayers. The CGI jungle animals do not look nearly as sophisticated as the rampaging dinosaurs from Jurassic Park only two years before, but I think the effects designers deserve a little more credit than they got. No one had ever tried to do realisic looking CGI animal fur before, and so the programing shows its limitations there. As for the scaled or skin textrued animals, like rhinos and elephants, those look much better. However, another aspect of the design is often over-looked. These animals are supposed to come from a vision of the jungle where everything is out to kill you and therefore should look stylized and menacing...like from a really old comic book or serial. I've always felt that Jumanji's creatures were meant to reflect an illustration coming to life, rather than real animals you'd see in a zoo. Yes, we should be able to tell that monkeys are still monkeys, but they need to have a look of intent and malice on their faces that real monkeys simply don't get. So cut the movie some slack there. As for the other performers, Bonnie Hunt's turn as the older Sarah Whittle is one of my favorite parts of the whole movie and Kirsten Dunst and Bradley Cooper as Judy and Peter are also extremely sincere in their performances. These four are the core of the film and they carry it and give it a human soul amongst all the effects-driven chaos. It is that reason that the film still works for me as a solid adventure story, because you care what happens to the people.

Doc Hollywood...but with Cars

2011-06-20T21:59:00.000-04:00

If I had to think of one piece of modern technology I couldn't live without, my mind tends to wander to my iPhone or my plasma TV first...mostly because they're newer and I use them a lot for my own enjoyment. But when I think of something absolutely essential in my life, I really have to say that my car is the most useful and necessary thing I own. I mean, think about it. I live in America, which is set up as a very sprawling, un-centrally-located, pedestrian unfriendly country (you can't just walk or bike anywhere and everywhere like in Europe) which means I need to drive to most of my daily destinations. I also have to drive to see any of my close friends...they're spread out all over...and I have to drive to reach places that are more exciting than where I live (like an amusement park...or a shopping mecca). So my car and I are fairly inseparable when you really think of it, and yet I take it for granted very easily. If it breaks or needs work, it comes as a shock and suddenly my entire life has to be rearranged so that I can get from point A to point B. So our cars need a lot more love than we tend to give them on a regular basis...and what I'm getting to in my round-a-bout way is that the Pixar movie Cars is equally taken for granted as a less-remarkable film in their repertoire. Its unfortunate too, because Cars is still first-class entertainment.

Lightning McQueen is a racing rookie who has taken this year's Piston Cup season by storm. He is fast, cocky, and looks to be in the running to be the new champion. However, due to his own overconfidence he blows his easy victory and ends up in a three-way tie with The King, the current and soon to retire champion, and Chick Hicks, the racer who has lived in The King's shadow for years. Oh, did I mention that they're all talking cars? Yes, it is a world run and populated by cars and car shaped geography...but that is really beside the point. Due to the tie, all three hopefuls are called to Hollywood to race in the tie-breaker to end all tie-breakers and McQueen is determined to get there first. However, due to making his mack truck, Mack, drive all night and the actions of a bunch of punks, McQueen ends up separated from his truck and lost on historic Route 66. He ends up in a town called Radiator Springs...a ghost town that is barely surviving...and due to driving faster than he can actually think, he tears up the town and the road. So as punishment, McQueen is forced to repair the road. At first he is resentful and arrogant towards the small town folks...but soon he finds himself growing to love the townspeople (cars?) and their little town.

So if any of you ever saw that Michael J. Fox movie called Doc Hollywood, you will find that this movie is remarkably similar. A big time city go-getter ends up stranded in small-town hell after a run in with the law and is trapped into community service. Suddenly, due to the personal touch of the town and its people, the go-getter has a change of heart and begins to wonder if he really wants what he started off wishing for. It wasn't even a new story then, but then Pixar has always found their best material from slightly familiar situations that are given unfamiliar twists. With Cars, it is simply substituting cars for people that makes the tale much more original. Suddenly, things like 'taking a drive' and 'racing' are given completely different meanings due to the fact that it isn't the operators that we are identifying with, but rather the machines themselves. These machines that we take so for granted in our lives live to be driven and to fulfill that purpose, and it is from that purpose that they achieve happiness. For some it is racing, for some it is providing gasoline, and for others it is for changing tires. Perhaps our own cars have these kinds of feelings too...they live only to serve man and to convey him from point A to point B. They get this right so often, maybe we should give them a little more appreciation than the majority of us do.

Nature vs. Man...but Man started it!

2011-06-14T21:34:00.000-04:00

We do love our films where nature tries to wipe us out, don't we. We have disaster movies, like Earthquake and Volcano which don't really have an antagonist with a mind but rather just mother nature going about her normal everyday business...and going a little nuts. Then there's the deliciously more exploitative 'when animals attack' movies that at their best (The Birds, Jaws) are genuinely frightening and at their worst (The Swarm, Kingdom of the Spiders) are at least a campy good time. Then there are the ones that fall somewhere in the middle. They fall just short of greatness but don't quite descend into all-out 'so bad its good' territory. These are films like Piranha, Them!, and tonight's early-80s opus which hit the scene as a response to Jaws...ok, I'll say it...a ripoff of Jaws (but that doesn't mean that its bad). It features some of my favorite horror elements...animals and lesser humans disappearing first, a tough as nails policeman, and the 'what if?' element of a stale urban legend. It all cooks up into a tasty low brow little bit of entertainment called Alligator.

The films opens with a family of three (mom, dad, and daughter) visiting Gatorworld in Florida and enjoying the gator wrestling. The daughter enjoys it so much that she decides she simply must have a baby alligator for a pet. Her father isn't crazy about the idea however and, one day while the girl is at school, he flushes the gator down the toilet. 12 years pass and not only has the alligator survived in the sewer, but he has grown to gargantuan size due to eating the discarded test animal corpses that a pharmaceutical company has been experimenting on with a growth hormone. Soon people begin disappearing and world-weary detective David Madison is brought in to find out who or what is causing this. When the gator's presence and size has been confirmed the officials attempt to destroy it...but the gator has other plans. He breaks up out of the sewer and begins terrorizing the city of Chicago openly. It is up to him and reptile expert Marisa Kendell, the girl who lost the alligator originally, to stop it before it can kill again....and again...and again.

Alligator is a very simple tale despite its many plot developments. There is a back story for both creature and scienteist, an evil pharmaceutical president responsible for the chaos, and several others who weave in and out of the story in many ways before it concludes...which makes the film feel bigger and longer than it really is (or has any right to be). I suppose we can thank writer John Sayles for that. He took this project relatively seriously, while still having fun with it, and that is what helps it raise itself above being merely a Jaws knock off. Sure, it was made purely to compete with Bruce the shark, but that doesn't mean it has to stink. So Sayles, director Lewis Teague (who would go on to do Cujo and Cat's Eye), and their cast take it upon themselves to actually try to make a good movie...and they do succeed. It isn't ever going to resonate like Jaws did...but it really doesn't have to. All it needs to be is a quality production about giant animal mayhem...and it succeeds and in some places, exceeds expectations. See it once, and you'll never think about alligators in the sewers the same way again.

Welcome to Fright Night...

2011-06-02T08:32:00.000-04:00

There are but two days left in the school year (one exam day and one teacher work day) and I couldn't be more excited. It's warm outside, the days are longer, and there will be no more 5:45am wake up times until late August. It doesn't get better than this, and in celebration I've decided to share one of my favorite scary films to watch in the summer...and ironically enough one that is being released in remake form this August. I only hope the new version can capture the fun and thrills of this 1980s throwback to what, at that time, was a dead genre...the vampire movie. Now I can already hear you groaning out there, saying "Oh god please...no more Twilight or True Blood!" but I'm not going there with this one. This film, from way before vampires were so 'in' that we wanted them 'out' again, doesn't have sexy, sympathetic, and lovable vampires for us to relate to. No, instead we have a sexy (I guess its just the nature of the beast, pun intended) and wholely evil vampire that we never relate to or feel sorry for. We only are afraid of him and want him to die. Throw in a dash of Rear Window witness-next-door action and you have the kind of thrill ride that only the 80s could grow. So let's sink our teeth into the scariest (and most fun) night of all, Fright Night.

Charley Brewster is "so cool" according to his friend 'Evil' Ed Thompson...yeah right. He is mediocre in school, shunned by the popular kids, and seems to always be having some kind of klutzy accident. Plus, his girlfriend is frustrated with him and questions his devotion due to his love of horror films. So he's pretty much the average kid that we all either were or knew in high school. However, all of that is about to change when Charley notices his next door neighbor moving in after dark. Puzzled by this, he watches even closer and sees the movers loading a coffin into the basement. Certain that there is a reasonable explanation for this, Charley keeps watching his neighbor...who he finds later to be named Jerry Dandridge. One night, Charley watches Jerry seduce a young woman in the upstairs room of the house and is horrified when he sees him sprout fangs and bite her on the neck. Yes, it seems that Jerry is a vampire who is intent on feeding on the population of Charley's town...and in order to secure Charley's silence he is willing to menace Charley's friends, family, and even Charley himself. So Charley does what any self-respecting horror fan would do...he seeks help from horror has-been (and star of Charley's favorite program "Fright Night") Peter Vincent. Can Charley convince Peter that the situation is real before Dandridge can put the bite on him (I'm so full of puns today)?

Fright Night is the simplist of self-reflexive horror tales (what if a vampire moved in next door to someone who loved horror movies?) and turns it into a tour de'force of entertainment by employing top-shelf talent and an amazing visual effects artist to make sure we're all taking the horror seriously. The lead teenagers are all better than average actors with William Ragsdale's Charley leading friends Amanda Bearse (girlfriend Amy) and Stephen Geoffreys ('Evil' Ed) against the dangerous vampire. Each actor is very sincere and 'mistfitty' enough to be believable as an average teen, but also savvy enough to be believable in taking on a challange such as the one presented to them. However, the veteren actors are what give the film its weight. Roddy McDowell as Peter Vincent steals every scene he's in with a 'hammy actor' presence that is never so pretentious as to be unlikable, and he manages to give his character a visible arc from coward to brave vampire killer in the limited screen time that is devoted to him before the finale. Then of course there is Chris Sarandon as Jerry Dandridge who is indeed sexy and dangerous all at the same time. He's the kind of man that you would say "Don't bite!....hard (winks)" to. And yet, he is not too vain to allow himself to get made up with some pretty wild prosthetics by the end so that he looks truely horrifying. This is definately a more dangerous looking vampire than those yahoos from Twilight...and is more in line with something that we've seen in Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Speaking of those great effects, let's give a hand to Richard Edlund...the man who started with ILM and left to form his own company, completing the effects for Ghostbusters, Alien 3, and numerous others. His makeup effects and puppetry work are some of the best I've ever seen in an 80s horror film and gives the movie a very high-budget look that mixes well with its more low-budget themes. All in all, it is a horror classic that deserves a remake that lives up to it (and I hope it does...cause the remake bashing (and the crap remakes that cause the bashing) need to end). You should definately watch this movie...its not too gory and its got some fun humor that puts it in league with something more like Scream than The Texas Chainsaw Massacre.

Mary Poppins Behind the Iron Curtain

2011-05-25T12:28:00.000-04:00

I've just been a Julie Andrews state of mind this past week, I started with Victor/Victoria and then came Thoroughly Modern Millie, and now I'm taking a look at one of Julie's many attempts to distance herself from musicals and her family-oriented typecasting that occured after Mary Poppins and The Sound of Music. It was a thriller by the master of suspense, Alfred Hitchcock, and was one of the many that was released after people began to murmer that the old man was beginning to slip on quality. He had followed up the critically loved The Birds with the critical disaster (unfairly labeled I say) Marnie and then decided to go back to his international espionage roots with a picture that would star Andrews and new hearthrob Paul Newman as a couple who were thrown behind the Iron Curtain during the Cold War and into a plot that could endanger their lives. Not unlike Foreign Corrospondant, this film would deal with the hard feelings between East Germany and the United States and the government officials who are trying to keep and steal secrets from each other. It would not be as well recieved or remembered, but some still think of it as one of Hitch's merely 'good' films. So grab your spy book and your German translator, we're going behind the Torn Curtain.

Professor Michael Armstrong and his assistant (and fiance) Sarah Sherman begin their story on a cruise ship that is on its way to Copenhagen and a physisist's convention. They are trying to stay warm (the heat is broken) when they have a conversation about their relationship. Sarah resents Michael for not wanting her to come on the trip with him and she also thinks that they ought to be married at this point, but Michael keeps waffling on the date. When they arrive in Copenhagen, Michael recieves a secret communication in a book from a book shop and immediately books a flight to East Berlin...but he tells Sarah that he is merely going to a different location to continue his work on a missile project. She decides to follow him and is horrified to discover that he has gone behind the Iron Curtain and plans to share his work with the East German government, which would make them a leading power in the field of weaponry. Sarah then has to make the choice of whether to stay with the man she loves and thought she knew or to go home and leave him behind. She also must be sure that Michael really is defecting to East Germany and giving his secrets to them, or if its merely a clever ruse to gain information that can help him.

Torn Curtain is an odd duck. For the first half we are treated to a nicely paced 'suspicion' plot that revolves around Michael acting strangely and Sarah trying to figure out if he's really changed or whether he's going there as a spy. It probably would have resonated more with its audience if they had stuck to that model...but Curtain throws us for a loop when we arrive in Berlin. The focus suddenly shifts off of Sarah's suspicion and onto Michael's struggle. It turns out he IS only defecting to spy and he is trying to keep himself from getting killed, while also trying to keep Sarah from hating him. We are treated to his action sequences and his inner conflict over whether to tell Sarah what he is really up to...and Sarah gets pushed off to the sidelines. Its an interesting shift that quickly reassures us of Michael's innocence, but it changes the drive of suspence from 'what is he really up to?' (which is interesting enough to drive to the conclusion) to 'will they get out alive' (which is fairly standard and doesn't provide many thrills because we KNOW they will because they are the characters we love). Its not a bad movie at all, but definately not as good as holding out the interest in the plot as long as some others. There were, of course, much on-set drama that may have led to the uneven feeling of the film. Paul Newman, according to Hitch, was very difficult to work with and had his own ideas as to how the story should unfold (and there are equally strong voices who say the same thing from Paul Newman's side) and with such strong opinions involved in the same movie it was bound to hit some blocks. Also in the cards against it was the falling-out between Hitch and longtime composer collaborator Bernard Herrmann and so the audience was treated to a highly different score, tonally, than what they were used to from a Hitchcock picture (and allegedly, it was a very hastily written score at that). But still, its not as poor as something like Topaz (apologies to fans of that) and it still makes for a very exciting watch. The bus sequence alone is worth the price of admission.

Flappers, Banjos, White Slavers...Oh My!

2011-05-23T17:44:00.000-04:00

Well, isn't it lovely outside? Summer is in the air and I can't help but feel infected by it. I'm beginning to get hyper and anxious for school to be let out, and I have some super plans for passing the time. There will be some trips, I'm starring in a local musical, and I have the annual summer Zelda Playthrough to look forward too hehe. Gotta love it. Anyway, in celebration of my mood and the choice of next year's spring musical at school, I decided to look at one of my favorite Julie Andrews musicals. No, its not Mary Poppins or The Sound of Music but rather one of her lesser known films that is famous only for the Tony-award winning show that is based on it. It is a madcap adventure about a small town girl who comes to the big city with hopes of marrying for money instead of love (preferably the boss she works as a stenographer for) and her brushes with the wealthy and the white slavers of the 1920...and its funny too. So let's get ready to Charleston with Julie and the gang as we revisit Thoroughly Modern Millie.

It's 1922 and Millie Dillmont has come to New York City to find a rich man to marry which, afterall, is the modern way. She does away with her curls and dons beads and a flapper dress faster than you can say 'boop-boop-a-doop' and immediately runs into Miss Dorothy Brown, a wealthy and lovely girl who has come to the city to live with the poor and middle classes and to discover 'how the other half lives'. They live in the Priscilla Hotel (for Single Young Ladies) where the fiendish Mrs. Meers kidnaps all the young girls who have no family and sells them into white slavery, and somehow they keep accidentally thwarting her evil plans through dumb luck. Soon Millie meets Jimmy Smith, a devil-may-care dreamer who doesn't work and doesn't have much money (making him out of the question as a suitor)...and she finds herself falling for him. At the same time she finds employment for the rich and attractive Mr. Trevor Graydon, a manager at the Sincere Trust bank. Also in Millie's circle of friends is Muzzy Van Hossmere, a wealthy and crazed party gal who used to work in Vaudiville and now holds fabulous parties at her stately mansion. Romance, suspense, laughs, and surprises all wait in the wings as Millie makes her way through the crazy and madcap 'modern' world.

If there was ever a film that was tricky to summarize and cover all the bases, this is the one. There isn't really a set story in this film so much as it is a chronicle of Millie's adventures in and around New York City in the 1920s...which allows for plenty of references to 20s films and comic opportunities. Millie's continual silent-movie-esque mental comments to the screen are laugh out loud funny at times, and Mary Tyler Moore's characterization of the self-centered yet sweet Miss Dorothy is a true highlight performance...and what can one say about Carol Channing as Muzzy, except that there isn't enough of her. Its a little long for the story its trying to tell, but one expects that from Roadshow musicals...this one has an Overture, Intermission, and Exit Music which add to its 2 hour and 30 minute run time. And of course, if we didn't have this film, we wouldn't have the smash hit stage musical version (that our school will be performing this time next year)...so I can forgive it for its little foibles. If you've never seen Millie, I definitely recommend it for a quiet evening (or a lazy afternoon)...its sure to put a smile on your face....OH! and those only familiar with the show should enter with no expectations...this is not that show, its its own animal.