GUEST REVIEW OF ALICE IN WONDERLAND

Hi there.

Brett Weiner is a very funny man, an old friend and someone who I frequently engage in hyperactive gchat sessions bitching about major motion pictures.

He also has seen a special early screening of Tim Burton's ALICE IN WONDERLAND, which I feared will be a overdone CGI disaster. His review confirms my fears, with fantastic nerd rage. This is his review.



ALICE IN WONDERLAND: REVIEW
by Brett Weiner

There is a moment near the beginning of Tim Burton's new Alice in Wonderland that serves as a metaphor for the execution of this film: Alice's mother chastises her for not wearing the proper attire. Alice responds by saying her deceased father wouldn't care. It should be a savage attack, twisting a knife in her mother's heart. Instead, Alice delivers it as if she is asking about the weather.

The dresses and the design are where Tim Burton's interest lies in his adaptation of the Lewis Carroll classic. Sadly, the theater where I saw the movie had problems with the 3-D projection, blurring background details and creating flicker in the shadows. I had to focus on the other elements of the movie: plot, character, and emotional depth, or the gaping black abyss where they should have been.

Alice (a torpid Mia Wasikowska) returns to Wonderland (called “Underland” for some reason) at the age of 19. She spends most of the movie wandering around a wasteland of naked trees, because the Red Queen (a shrill Helena Bohnam Carter) took over, apparently by wreaking havoc at a picnic of the White Queen (Anne Hathaway) with her dragon-like jabberwocky. Alice meets familiar faces, such as the Cheshire Cat (voiced by Steven Fry) and the Mad Hatter (Johnny Depp), who offer no commentary or innovations upon their appearance in the iconic 1951 animated version. The plot hits all the requisite Hollywood moments but without any motivation. The film is like a child mimicking the motions of an adult - it almost looks right, but there is nothing underneath the surface.

At one point the Hatter utters film's most clever line, telling Alice that “You're not the same as you were before. You were much more... muchier. You've lost your muchness." The same could be said for Burton. When a tertiary character with single digits of screen time has the most emotionally compelling moment by being reunited with his never-before-seen family, something has gone completely wrong. The Cheshire cat, a creature of mystery and riddles, becomes a teleporting comrade-in-arms. Depp's Hatter, who varies between lisping wimp and Scottish warrior, is a bold choice. Sometimes these types of choices create icons, like Jack Sparrow. This time, it creates a jumble of eccentricities. There is no logic to it.

Logic in Wonderland? Yes. Lewis Carroll's book is an examination of logic, math, language and how to twist them into paradoxical abstract concepts. Burton's movie is completely lawless, and throws any higher thoughts out the window. But Alice's dresses sure are lovely.

To be fair, there are a few elements that work. Burton has a deft hand at creating humorous moments and Tweedledum and Tweedledee (Matt Lucas) are delightfully moronic. And the production design is, well, Burtonesque.

As the movie meanders on, Alice somehow learns to become independent by following other peoples' wishes and the climax comes in the form of a war between the armies of the Red and White Queens. Staging a battle in Wonderland is like building a water slide in an art gallery; it may be fun, but you are missing the point.

John August, the writer of Burton's Big Fish and Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, had his own Alice in Wonderland project, based off a critically acclaimed videogame released by American McGee. August stopped working on it due to the writer's strike and Burton's version going into preproduction. I wish I lived in a universe where the reverse was true.

RATING: * Star (out of five stars.)

OMG TWITTER

That's right, the answer to laziness isn't persistence, it's switching to new technology. We're tweeting, people, at http://twitter.com/ADMovieBlog

Still going to write full reviews, when I have the time/energy/focus, but until then, check out the 160 character reviews.

AVATAR: * * *

PERCY JACKSON: *

UNCLE BUCK: * * *

MOON: * * * *

I WATCHED THIS MOVIE SO YOU DIDN'T HAVE TO: THE MUMMY 3

THE MUMMY: TOMB OF THE DRAGON EMPEROR REVIEW

For all of it's many, many flaws, INDIANA JONES AND THE CRYSTAL SKULL got one thing right: how to reunite characters after many movies and make it mean something.

You remember: Karen Allen walks out of the tent, and she and Ford share an honest to goodness moment of memory and fondness, and you think, hey, they nuked the fridge but maybe this movie will turn out right after all! Well, that didn't happen, for well-documented reasons involving monkeys, fire ants and aliens, but at least you cared about Indy and Marian, if even if their son was a bit of a LaBouf.

Strange, then, to watch THE MUMMY: TOMB OF THE DRAGON EMPEROR, a movie that gets the ancient archeology curse thing right, but can't even manage a bronze in the give-a-shit-olympics when it comes to the family dynamic between Rick O'Connell (Brendan Fraser), Evie O'Connell (Maria Bello) and their son Alex (Luke Ford.) Of course, let's be fair: Fraser, who I usually like, has never been worse; Bello, who I usually love, is saddled with an impossible accent; and Luke Ford, who I have never seen before, can out douche LaBouf any day of the week. I cared more about the characters in TRANSFORMERS: REVENGE OF THE FALLEN.

Which is stranger because, damn it all, I still really like the first MUMMY movie. I like dumb adventure movies. I know this movie got bad reviews, but I'm it's prime audience. I'm willing to set my brain on hold to be entertained.

See, Stephen Sommers, writer/director of THE MUMMY, can't make a good movie but he can make fantastic trash. Energetically if not expertly acted trash, full of hokeum, usually dumb, but delightfully silly and fun nonetheless. Maybe it's because he didn't know he was making a comedy. THE MUMMY RETURNS, his follow up, did stink something terrible. Maybe because he was trying to make a comedy, or something, who knows. (Thankfully, he returned to form with G.I. JOE, where he thought he was making a real action movie, and made yet another small miracle of campy explosion-fest).

Ah, but the reins of the MUMMY "series" were handed over to Rob Cohen, who, after making DRAGONHEART, THE SKULLS, XXX, DAYLIGHT and STEALTH, still gets work as a director. (Truth in criticsm: FAST AND THE FURIOUS 1 was alright). I fully understand handing over a series to a new director for a reboot, but what exactly in those previous films convinced Universal that he was the man for this job?

Because sure, the acting's terrible, and I wasn't willing to be much on the writing... but isn't it strange how bad this movie looks? Oh, the location work is fine, there are some nice shots of the himalays and the tomb-raiding stuff is neat. The practical action scenes are competent enough, guns going bang-bang and such.

But the digital effects are horrifically bad. WOLVERINE bad. LEAGUE OF EXTRAORDINARY GENTLEMEN BAD. And it this movie wasn't cheap, either, it cost some 150 million dollars. The best thing a digital effect can do is be hidden (FORREST GUMP); the next best thing is to pass for real (LORD OF THE RINGS); or look fake but in a stylized way (SPEED RACER); if all else fails, it can look fake, but at least look fake with some wit (THE MUMMY.) THE MUMMY 3 fails all of these tests. Not one digital moment looks real, we are constantly aware of actors on set looking at ping pong balls that represent Yetis, Mummys, Skeletons, Etc.

Oh, for a return to the days of practical effects. For 165 million you could pay an army of guys in mummy suits to slouch around all day. Alas, here every time the movie flexes its financial muscle, we get awful CG dragons, ice effects, friendly yetis who wouldn't pass muster in a Sci-Fi creature feature and the single worst computer generated decapitation I have ever seen.

So when the effects fail and the writing's already pretty bad, all we're left with is the characters and the actors who play them. Hear! Brendan Fraser scream every line he's been given, even when the situation doesn't call for it! See! Maria Bello remind everyone why she does dramas, and not action movies! Cringe! As Luke Ford makes dick jokes about his machine guns! Stare blankly! As Jet Li manages to get top billing for a role where he's a digital clay soldier for 80% of his screen time! Shake your head! As Michelle Yeoh is hired, but no one remembered to write her a real character!

All that's left to report, sadly, is the still funny John Hannah, as the simpering comic relief who gets saddled with a Yak for a sidekick. When his plane crashes, Yak inside, someone says "What is that awful smell!" Hannah moans "The Yak Yakked!" It's a bad line, but give the man credit, at least he's trying. No one else bothered too.

I got this movie for 2 dollars on Black Friday. That's $1.50 too much.

RATING: * Star (Out of Five)

P.S. I will say this. At least the Jet Li didn't end up being an alien from the "space between space". And no one hides in a fridge to outlive a nuclear blast. That's something.

CRAZY HEART: REVIEW

CRAZY HEART is a quiet, beautiful film. It has Jeff Bridges in his finest hour, playing Bad Blake, a musician who use to be somebody and now is a nobody who plays bowling alleys and bars. He's still given free hotel rooms and food by the people who run the bowling alleys, but no free booze. You see, it's a specific clause in his contract: No Tabs at the bar.

That doesn't stop Bad Blake from getting free booze. Not in the ways you think. And yeah, he's a drunk, but not in the way you think. He doesn't make big scenes. He stumbles off stage during a gig, vomits, sits, then goes back and finishes the set. It ain't pretty, but as he mumbles, "Bad Blake's never missed a gig." Bad Blake also pretty much survives by writing music for Tommy (Colin Farrell singing country, yes, Colin Farrell), who used to be his pupil and is now selling out country arenas. Ah, well.

CRAZY HEART is pretty much WALK THE LINE, only it feels more real than WALK THE LINE, which is interesting when because WALK THE LINE is based on a true story and CRAZY HEART is fiction. But CRAZY HEART feels more like how it would really happen with the story of the washed up alcoholic genius singer/songwriter who might get it right this time. Because alcoholics either get worse or they get better. The problem is, of course, not exactly when they get worse, because if they get worse, they get worse. The problem is, even when they get better, it doesn't mean that life waits around to greet them with a smile when they get out of rehab.

I'm making the film sound like an epic downer. It isn't. CRAZY HEART has a lot of sorrow, but also a lot of humor and truth. And what sorrow there is wistful sorrow, the better kind of sorrow. Better because wistful is more interesting, at least to me. The idea of "Ah, well..." has a lot more gas in the tank than "Oh, no" or the ever popular "Why me, Lord?"

There's a lot of nice touches and little twists on this well-worn story. Yes, Blake meets a girl (Maggie Gyllenhaal) with a son, but there's more to her than you would think. Yes, Tommy has bypassed Blake in popularity, but he's actually a nice guy; who often gives credit to Blake and offers to cut an album with him. Yes, Blake has an old friend who looks after him (Robert Duvall), but he's not an enabler or a lecturer, he's a bartender who knows well the risks and rewards of booze. Yes, Blake's alcoholism leads to disaster, but not in obvious, scene-causing ways. Blake's biggest mistake, when it finally comes, could really happen to anyone. The problem is, it happens to him right after he's ordered a double whiskey at lunchtime.

There's a scene between Blake and his bartender in a fishing boat where they discuss mistakes. Listen to the dialogue. Blake has a son that he's never seen in years, who he finally called, and the call didn't go well. Blake thinks that his own gesture is too little, too late. Bartender disagrees: "For 25 years, you stepped wrong, and you were wrong, and he was right. But now you've stepped right, and he's in the wrong, and you're in the right." Blake isn't sure. Bartender is. The point is which of them is right, the point is it's an actual discussion.

Nothing much happens in CRAZY HEART. Nothing much has to, when you have actors this good, writing this good and amazing original music, produced by T Bone Burnett. It never steps wrong, never sounds a false note, and actually takes the time to let you listen to the music. Let me be clear: nothing really happens in this movie. Sure, interesting characters live, breathe, change and think; but there's no epic romance or plot twists or plot, really. If it sounds boring, well, I can't help you, but I can warn you. Me, I found myself caring deeply about what happened to this washed up old man.

There was a movie released in 2006 called ONCE, about an irish singer songwriter and the girl that makes him want to be a better man. But no real plot to speak of. CRAZY HEART is the country version of ONCE. That's not just high praise, it's the truth. And I don't even like country music.

RATING: * * * * * (out of 5 Stars)

P.S. The soundtrack is mostly original songs sung by Jeff Bridges and Colin Farrell. It's really, really good. Really.

HOLIDAY MOVIE MADNESS: HOLIDAY HARDER

Today's all about Scrooge, comma, Ebenezer.

"A Christmas Carol", the story, is really about Scrooge. The myth of Scrooge only works if we (a) truly believe his misanthropy and (b) believe he may not be redeemable and (c) still want to pull for him. It helps if the ghosts are neat and Tiny Tim is more than a tearjerking puppet, but basically, if you have Scrooge, you have a show.

Of course, what if you have two movies where the Scrooge is quite good, but the takes are quite different?

Therefore, here are two different takes on the story, one with a modern day -circa 1988- Bill Murray, the other with Muppets. Have at thee!

SCROOGED



SCROOGED works on so many levels that it comes as a shock that it almost completely falls apart. Strike that. Reverse it. SCROOGED has such a bad critical reputation as a flop and a turkey that it's a shock to see how good it is, right up until the end. And even then, it's pretty good.

What SCROOGED does right is to re-invent A CHRISTMAS CAROL for today, or at least, today circa 1988. It is hard to age well when your movie is set "now", but SCROOGED manages to become a pretty good capsule for everything wrong about the end of the Reagan era. Bill Murray plays Frank Cross, aka Scrooge 88', television executive and a real sonofabitch. Scrooge 88/Frank doesn't hate Christmas, in fact, he loves it. "It's cold and people stay home and watch TV. These idiots are going to be at home watching TV for me tonight!"

Frank's entire career is riding on a (somewhat implausible) live broadcast of "Christmas Carol", starring Buddy Hackett, Mary Lou-Reton, and for no good reason, John Houseman as himself, as the narrator. When Frank's boss asks what how the show will appeal to the dog and cat demographic (really), Frank comes up with doormice. When they can't get the little antlers onto the doormice, Frank suggests using a stapler. In short, Frank's a real bastard, and Murray's performance is the key to what success the movie has.

A critical shot at the beginning of the film gets the message through. Murray's about to unload on his staff at a meeting, for he has found their television promos wanting. Right before he opens his mouth, he pulls open a drawer at his conference table that contains nothing but a mirror. He looks at himself.


He then smiles and winks at himself.



Then he shoots his staff a look, which we see reflected in the mirror.



This whole shot takes about 3 seconds. But in that 3 seconds, you get a miserable man, forcing himself to be amused at what he does, followed by a look of such reptilian disgust that you either want to leave the room or slap him, and then leave the room.

So we have a fantastic Scrooge. Do we have a movie? Yes, to a point.

Director Richard Donner's career has been made of muscular, competent action pictures (LETHAL WEAPON, et al). So he may have seemed like an odd choice for a dark Christmas comedy. But recall that most of his movies have a wicked sense of humor (SUPERMAN and MAVERICK). And he knows how to handle effects; the scene with the Jacob Marley character is particularly impressive.

So most of SCROOGE is handled nice and dark, and yet somehow Christmas-y at the same time. The whole picture is bathed in an eery chill, you can feel the cold temperature and terror as Frank's life spins completely out of control. The score is early Danny Elfman, which means it's creepy while having some wit. And the way the story is restructured is mostly succcessful, with some nice curveballs. (One nice twist is that there's no time frame on when the ghosts will appear, so we don't get the usual "at the strike of one!" predictablility.)

So with all the praise going around, what's the problem? Other than unnecessarily splitting the Bob Crachit character between two people (Bobcat Golthwait and Alfre Woodward, both good but without much to do), the whole thing starts to fall apart in the third act. The first two ghosts are funny, creepy and present events that seem more or less real. The future scenes are heavily styilized, in terms of acting and production design. We go from sets designed to look like real places to sets that look like rejected Tim Burton houses. The characters in Frank's life, represented in the future by the same actors with poor age make-up, suddenly play their roles in very heavy-handed ways. Even the unstoppable Karen Allen, who was the best thing about INDY 4 and a lot of other movies, and who is mostly great here, comes off wrong. Had the rest of the hauntings been over the top, it might have worked, but they weren't and so it doesn't.

But nothing in the third ghost scenes prepares us for the finale. After having the bejesus scared out of him, the movie ends with Frank basically having a mental breakdown on National Television. It's not funny, it's not sad, it's not heartwarming. It's just kind of awkward, and it fills the ending with an ambiguity that I'm not sure was intentional.

And then, instead of dealing with the fallout from his live national speech, the movie basically turns into a sing-a-long, with Murray talking into the camera and all the ghosts (including the cadaver of Marley) appearing on a piece of scenery to cheer him on. It's all so very strange, not strange wonderful, just strange strange.

Yet, for all the implosion of the ending, SCROOGE retains great power, and has great laughs. Even as it stumbles across the finish line, it still is one of the few re-tellings of CHRISTMAS CAROL that actually finds new threads in a very well-tread story. I cringe at the ending, but I still rewatch the movie almost every year.

Anyway, how bad can a movie be when it starts with a fake trailer for THE NIGHT THE REINDEER DIED, with Lee Majors as the only man who can save Santa's Workshop from Terrorists? Also, Robert Goulet shows up for a "Cajun Christmas" special, which involves him singing while trying to get away from a hungry alligator. Nice.

RATING: * * * * (out of 5 Stars)

A MUPPET CHRISTMAS CAROL

It is odd that a movie retelling of a classic tale with Muppets can be so faithful to the source material that it basically plays like the same story, only with Muppets. Don't look at me like that. THE MUPPET SHOW managed to have lots of re-telling of classic stories, only to stand it on its head at odd angles. Even MUPPET TREASURE ISLAND had a musical number that involved hula skirts, and Tim Curry making strange un-pirate like demands.

But the only real change that MUPPET CHRISTMAS CAROL makes to the source material is to add a unnecessary yet indispensable narrator. Unnecessary because the story is simple enough it doesn't need one, but indispensable because the narrator is Gonzo, who despite all appearances claims to be Charles Dickens. Accompanied by Rizzo the Rat, Gonzo pretty much sticks to the script, but the fact that the script is being performed by a fuzzy blue weirdo is what gives the movie a lot of its mirth.

Michael Caine is Scrooge, and while he doesn't do anything majorly different with the role, he stands out by being... well, Michael Caine. When the man wants to be good, he can be. And here, he is terrific, treating Kermit and the other Muppets more or less as if they were real actors. The better Muppet movies are distinguished by actors who don't act as if they're in a Muppet movie, and Caine is up to the task.

Missing, however, is the Jim Henson sense of the absurd that drives this material over the top. MUPPET CHRISTMAS CAROL is warm, cute and, unfortunately, a little heavy on the sap. Kermit, in particular, is pretty much wasted as Bob Crachit. He's nice without that subtle wit and occasional temper that makes Kermit a special soul. Here, he's pretty much a gentle pushover. Don't get me started on how they use Ms. Piggy.

The biggest mistake the movie makes, however, are the musical numbers. They're bad. They're pointless. Most of them don't advance the plot one whit. The one exception is "Marley and Marley", which is not only propels the action, but is fun and creepy.


Fortunately, the Ghost of Christmas Present segment is done well, with a giant friendly Fraggle-Rock style giant Muppet. And credit where it is due: the movie actually handles the hardest chapter of "A Christmas Carol", the Ghost of Christmas Future, better than most versions. It doesn't get cute or over the top, but merely shows a cold and desolate future ahead. Even Dickens/Gonzo is put off, telling the audience that "We'll see you for the finale."

The finale, unfortuantely, is yet another trecale-y song. But that's what the fast forward button is for. A MUPPET CHRISTMAS CAROL remains a pretty-good version of the classic tale, featuring Michael Caine and Muppets. If that sounds like fun to you, then it is! If it doesn't, well, I can't blame you.

RATING: * * * (out of 5 Stars).

P.S. The Fullscreen version of MUPPET on DVD is the "extended version", which features an additional song that is notable because (a) it involves no Muppets whatsoever and (b) it is the most unnecessary of all the songs in the movie. Stick with the Widescreen cut, where you not only have the whole image, but you don't have to sit through three minutes of some woman singing to young Scrooge about she's no longer in love with him.

Holiday Movie MADNESS! Part Two

The madness continues, with more reviews for this holiday season. Notice I didn't say which holiday. You'll see.

I hope to get to SCROOGED, ELF and others as we mosey along, but for today we have the original MIRACLE ON 34TH STREET and MONSTER HOUSE.

Also, the wonderful Jenn Jarecki has a blog called Millie at the Pictures and she has published a write-up on 2012. It's more critical than mine, however, I find little in it that I can disagree with, and I share her desire for a disaster movie script with a bit more respect for the audience. Of course, we're the ones at a disaster movie, so maybe the first step is having the self-respect to not go to a disaster movie. It's a cycle, really.


MIRACLE ON 34TH STREET: REVIEW (1947)


The miracle isn't that Santa Claus is real, and working at Macy's. The miracle is that this movie works at all, and so well.

Even in 1947, the premise was as cloying as a hallmark card. The new Santa at Macys claims he's the real deal, and his ideas are so radical--"If Macy's doesn't have it, I'll send you to someone who does!"-- that they instantly capture the imagination and the wallet of all New Yorkers. And more importantly, they capture the imagination of little Susan Walker (Natalie Wood), who has been raised to believe in practical things, like taxes, realistic dolls and zero imagination. But after one visit on the lap of Santa, real name Kris Kringle (Edmund Gwenn), and she starts to wonder... what if...

Just writing that paragraph, it sounds all awfully syrupy and too cute. Somehow, it's not. It becomes wonderful and life-affirming, even though it the point of highest action occurs during a state competency hearing.

Maybe it's the economy of storytelling. Like CASABLANCA, made 5 years earlier, the movie moves fast and takes little time to get on with it. It takes a mere 10 minutes to get Kringle off the street and into Macys, and another 10 to set off the central conflict of the film, which is to basically make a believer out of an agnostic child. Also, a snippy faux-psychologist decides that Kringle should be locked up, because he hates him. And joy. And puppies. The point is, there are few scenes establishing things we already know, almost every scene propels the movie forward.

Maybe it's because, for all the talk of faith and belief, the movie stays grounded in realism. If you were to hire someone as Santa and later realize the address he gave is the North Pole, you call a doctor. That's what the people at Macy's do. On the same note, if you were a judge running for re-election, and face with the concept of declaring that, as a matter of law, there is no Santa Claus, you might balk at the prospect. That's what this Judge does here, when a small matter of whether an old man should be committed becomes a referendum on Christmas Spirit.

Maybe it's because for all of its Capra-esque sentiment, there's a healthy verneer of cyncism coating the whole thing. When Santa starts sending customers to other stores, the head of Macy's sneakily--and wisely-- embraces the tide of good will, correctly guessing that the people who think well of Macy's, even if they're not buying something today, will buy something tomorrow. And the Judge's political advisor, Charlie (William Frawley, who played 'Fred' on I LOVE LUCY), has a speech that sounds like the GLENGARRY GLEN ROSS, CHRISTMAS EDITION: :

"All right, you go back and tell them that the New York State Supreme Court rules there's no Santa Claus. It's all over the papers. The kids read it and they don't hang up their stockings. Now what happens to all the toys that are supposed to be in those stockings? Nobody buys them. The toy manufacturers are going to like that; so they have to lay off a lot of their employees, union employees. Now you got the CIO and the AF of L against you and they're going to adore you for it and they're going to say it with votes. Oh, and the department stores are going to love you too and the Christmas card makers and the candy companies. Ho ho. Henry, you're going to be an awful popular fella.... "

But mostly I think the movie works because of the performances. Maureen O'Hara and John Paine are pretty bloodless as a couple, but they play their archetypes well- the pragmatic realist versus the idealistic dreamer, although in this case it's the Parade Producer who is the realist and the Property Attorney who is the dreamer. Young Natalie Wood is very effective as the little girl, who is bright and thoughtful and sensible, as supposed to Tim Allen's hateful son in THE SANTA CLAUSE. The Judge and his advisor Charlie are pitch-perfect. But the best performance is Kringle himself, who somehow manages to embody the very soul of the season without any Santa Pyrotechnics. No cookies, no milk, no reindeer, no elves, and while he does wear the suit, he wears it in black or white. Just thoughtful good cheer in the shell of a carefully santizied version of a mentally ill man.

Spoiler Alert: It is very likely that Kris Kringle is not Santa Claus, but an old man living a delusion. However, as his doctor points out, he's not hurting anyone, and in fact makes the lives of everyone around him happier for doing so. The only time he lashes out is against the truly hateful psychologist, and even then, it's a mild smack with a cane. Only a jury of Scrooges would actually vote to convict this old man.

MIRACLE ON 34TH STREET wasn't revolutionary, mind blowing, or epic. It was a simple story, well told, worthy of being retold. That's enough to qualify as a Christmas gem. Just stay away from the remake.

RATING: * * * * (out of 5 stars).

P.S. Also, the 1947 trailer is hilarious: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0IZr_SvCcXc


MONSTER HOUSE: REVIEW (2006)

MONSTER HOUSE is a perfect little creepy movie for Halloween. A pity it was released in Mid Summer 2006, and that it is currently December, thus making it a holiday movie out of joint. But, alas, Black Friday is when it was on sale at Walmart, so here we are.

An 80's throwback made with modern animation techniques, MONSTER HOUSE concerns a... well, a house that our hero DJ is convinced is alive. And evil. And is hungry. And tonight is Halloween.

It wasn't always this way. First, he was first afraid of his neighbor, Old Man Nebbercracker (Steve Bushemi), who was a cranky coot who literally scream, "You kids stay off my lawn!" One day DJ ventured a little too far, and Nebbercracker pitches such a fit that he keels over on his precious lawn, heart attack.

In a different movie that you've seen before, this little scare would become a heartwarming story about judging strangers, and that the only thing to fear is your own fears. DJ would feel bad, bring Nebbercracker some cookies, and learn some life lessons. But this is a movie called MONSTER HOUSE. In this movie, the only thing to fear is a giant freaking house eating you.

I'm usually a sucker for great animated movies and a terror towards mediocre animated movies, but here my love for drawings that move is neutral. The animation is fine here, but there is nothing about the story that couldn't have been done live action, except for the house, which would have been digital anyway. That isn't a complaint, just a comment. The kids' reactions play well, but I'm sure the live kids would too. The action never really leaves the neighborhood, and the inside of the house could have been a set. It's done well, but the animation neither adds nor detracts for me. Except for the house itself.

Fact: a movie called MONSTER HOUSE would be a bit of a rip-off to come all this way and not have there be an actual house that is a monster. Well, the house IS a monster, and it is one hell of a terror. A giant man-eating house may sound silly, but it plays like the better books of Stephen King, and more importantly, it just looks scary.



Show me a person who is not afraid of being eaten by a giant moving house, and I will show you a fool. DJ, after making the requiste rounds of trying to get adults to believe him, decides to take on the house with his best friend Chowder (Sam Lerner) and token girl Jenny (Spencer Locke), who they befriend after rescuing her from the house. Less lucky are some of the other adults, most of whom get chomped up in scenes that are easily as scary as anything in most horror movies. I'm not quite sure how Sony thought this movie would do well with kids of all ages, as it probably sent most of them running for the aisles in terror. But I'm glad they agreed to produce it anyway, since it has a wicked sense of humor, genuine scares and some sequences of real imagination.

The movie peaks at about 3/4ths through when the kids get swallowed but go down the wrong pipe and are still alive. With an actual trip inside the belly of the beast, the movie provides some insight into how the house came to be, and pulls off a neat trick by showing that you can a) plausibly explain why a house came to be haunted with malevolent evil and b) find pathos in such a situation. Neat.

Alas, that leaves the last act, a shrieking action climax where our hero must literally throw a lit stick of dynamite into the mouth of the house. The humor and spookiness drains away, and all that's left is basically a suburban variation on the ol' slay-the-dragon routine. It's not a fatal blow, but for a movie this clever, you'd expect more of a neat twist.

Still, for about 70 of it's 90 minutes, MONSTER HOUSE is good, scary fun. If there is a shelf for fun, overblown movies about suburban kids going on impossible adventures, it belongs right between MONSTER SQUAD and THE GOONIES.

For some of you, what I just said amounts to heresy. And yes, maybe MONSTER HOUSE is not as over-the-top and loony as those movies. But the effects are better, and there's less racism and homophobia. So, you know. That's a fair trade.

RATING: * * * (out of 5 stars)

Christmas Movie Madness: Part One

Merry Damn Christmas, Everyone.

It's November 28th, and, through restraint, I've managed to watch only four Christmas movies before December. Already, with this much Ho Ho Hoing , I feel duty bound to inform you that not all Christmas movies are created equal, and more importantly, NOT ALL CHRISTMAS MOVIES AGE WELL. This may sound obvious, but how often do the words "Holiday Classic" get thrown around? They were even thrown at the Jim Carrey HOW THE GRINCH STOLE CHRISTMAS, which, as well all know, was a real piece of shit.

Anyway. Four Christmas movies before December. More to come after that. Here is my report on movies 1 and 2:

DISNEY'S A CHRISTMAS CAROL (2009)


At this point, it is harder to do a relevant CHRISTMAS CAROL than it is do a relevant HAMLET. This because, unlike HAMLET, everyone actually remembers what happens in CHRISTMAS CAROL. Scrooge hates everyone. Scrooge gets the bejesus scared out of him by his dead partner. Scrooge is visited by three ghosts. Scrooge feels nostalgic, self-pity, joy, sorrow, terror and guilt; respectively. Scrooge decides to buy a giant turkey, help a handicapped child and generally stop being a rotter. High fives are exchanged all around in the afterlife.

It's a story that's been told by Albery Finney, Patrick Stewart, Bill Murray and Michael Caine. Of these arguably Patrick Stewart was the most successful, although Michael Caine was accompanied by a a gaggle of muppets, which counts for something.

And what does Robert Zemeckis, who created WHO FRAMED ROGER RABBIT, THE POLAR EXPRESS and to a much lesser extent BEOWULF bring to his helming of the story? A digital Jim Carrey, digital Gary Oldman, digital Bob Hoskins, some 3D snow, a truly creepy vision of London ghosts and not much else.

I understand the appeal of putting Jim Carrey into a classic retelling of a tale (profit must be had), but it was a mistake to put him as scrooge. For Pixar's wonderful UP, they dug up Ed Asner, who is not only a good actor but has a voice informed with the scars and wisdom of age. Here, we have Jim Carrey doing a very credible old man impression, which sounds uncannily like Jim Carrey doing a very credible old man impression. They also cast him as all the ghosts, perhaps it would have been wiser to follow through and have Carrey play Bob Crachit, Marley, etc.; and then gotten a great older actor to play Scrooge. For my money, I'd love to see a digital Morgan Freeman, Jack Nicholson or even Anthony Hopkins tackle scrooge. You could still use Carrey to get in the kids, but the performance would be something other than a nice trick. Hell, they could have even gone with digital Bob Hoskins, who is easily the most believable 'digital' version in the film, in his small roll as Fizzwick. (Previously, this role has been tackled by Fozzie Bear.)


If Carrey gets the 'a for effort but c for achievement' award, Gary Oldman gets the 'WTF mate?' award for least convincing digital performance. His face is immoblizied, his movements lifeless, and ultimately makes for a poor Bob Crachit. This is hard to believe and harder to write, because I used to believe Gary Oldman could do anything, and in the past, he usually has. He even makes for, here a particularly terrifying Jacob Marley, in a scene sure to terrify children of all ages. Strange that of all the roles, Bob Crachit is the one to take him down.

Unlike HAMLET, all versions of A CHRISTMAS CAROL can be judged by two standards- do you believe in Scrooge's redemption, and do they get you in the Christmas Spirit or not? Sure, SCROOGED had its problems and MUPPET CHRISTMAS CAROL is as light as a feather, but both movies achieve these humble goals. Most versions of CHRISTMAS CAROL do. Zemeckis's version, for all its tricks, is ultimately a hollow re-run of an often told story. I went to be propelled into the Christmas Spirit in IMAX 3D. I got my 3D, but no Christmas spirit.

Finally, is there a more worthless role in any CHRISTMAS CAROL than Tiny Tim? Every line out of the little cherub's mouth is a pithy notable quotable, and then he gets to upstage himself by dying and leaving behind naught but a little crutch to propel Scrooge's pity. It's the biggest flaw of the story, and it is particularly glaring here.

I have and will continue to defend Zemeckis's POLAR EXPRESS to the ends of the earth, as it was exciting, funny, sad, triumphant and haunting. None of those words apply here. It's not as bad as BEOWULF, but lord, it ain't very good.

RATING: * * (out of 5 stars)


THE SANTA CLAUSE (1994)


I loved Tim Allen as a kid. So did most of America. I recall believing HOME IMPROVEMENT being the funniest live action sitcom on television.

Have you seen that show recently? With the exception of Tim Allen's assistant Al Borland (Richard Karn), that show was a laugh-free zone. Every single episode boiled down to Tim Allen being an idiot, and his neighbor pointing out that he's an idiot, and Tim Allen trying to make up for being an idiot. I formally apologize to my parents for making them watch it.

I also formally apologize for making them take me to see THE SANTA CLAUSE twice. This was a made for TV movie that somehow got released in theaters, and kids, who loved Tim Allen and continue to love Santa, flocked to it and helped it make 140 million dollars, domestically, in 1996 dollars.

Did I really fall for this tripe? Did I think the phrase "We're your worst nightmare- elves with attitude!" was clever? Did I not pause for a moment to consider how deeply creepy the premise is? Not so much that Tim Allen can become Santa Claus, but that the way he replaces Santa is by KILLING HIM. Okay, okay, so he just calls out "Hey Buddy!" and Santa falls off a roof and dies.

To back up a moment, if you were lucky enough to avoid this movie in the theater: Tim Allen accidentally kills Santa, puts on the dead man's pants, and because he fails to read the fine print on a business card, forms a contract to become the new Santa Claus (he didn't read the Santa CLAUSE, see? See?) He then walks up a magical ladder, suffers an animatronic reindeer's farts, falls for his brat son's guilt trip and becomes Santa Claus for the evening. This entails insulting some small children and generally being an ass. Later he ends up at the North Pole. Santa's Workshop, which resembles a cheap set, is a place where nothing, nothing ever happens.

The Elves claim to be 200 years old, but look uncannily like smarmy children. Allen has the following exchange with a tiny child actor who, in real life, couldn't be older than 13:

Scott Calvin: You know, you look pretty good for your age.
Little Elf Judy: Thanks, but I'm seeing someone in wrapping.

Part of the problem is Allen's smarmy, not funny. jokey persona and is occasionally racist and at the very least insipid. But give the man a little slack, he's also up against a screenplay worthy of Chevy Chase. (It was written by the same brain trust that came up with SPACE JAM) The story sets up Allen as a toy-maker who is divorced, but still wants his son to have a happy home and believe in Santa and the spirit of Christmas. If they had gone all the way and made him a real louse, or a scrooge, or at least some kind of hurdle, they might have gotten something out of this. Instead, we basically have a nice guy who gets the best job in the world, whose biggest trouble is convincing his insufferable son Charlie (Eric Lloyd) to shut up about the fact that he's Santa.


It's hard to identify exactly what it is about little Charlie that made me consider infanticide. Maybe it's his petulant whiny bleating, his little doe-like eyes that well up at the smallest obstacle, or the fact that he often proclaims "you never let me do what I want!" In any case, he's an annoying brat who doesn't listen to anyone, and pretty much spits on all the people trying to take care of him. To be clear, Charlie needs to fall off a roof.

The film's lone moments of wit come from the ever-dependable Judge Reinhold, who plays Charlie's stepdad Dr. Neil. Not only is Dr. Neil actually a nice guy who seems relatively sane, but he gets the best line in the movie, which concerns an Oscar Meyer Weenie Whistle. The movie also gets a little mileage out of a Christmas Eve visit to Dennys, which is inexplicably filled with Japanese Businessman on one side and, more plausibly, divorced fathers and their children on the other. Had they stuck with the concept of a divorced Dad trying to make a merry Christmas with his son, this movie could have worked. Well, they would have also had to eliminate the whole "Kill Santa" element.

There was a movie released in 1985 called SANTA CLAUS: THE MOVIE. It's a train wreck of good intentions and bad screenwriting, which then rolls over a bus of over-acting by John Lithgow and Dudley Moore. However, for all of its faults, it at least got the basic concept of Santa Claus right. THE SANTA CLAUSE thinks its clever because there's an elf that resembles Q of the Bond series, Comet farts a lot and Tim Allen keeps making cracks about the fact that Santa was murdered because he fell off his roof. Because really, what is Santa Claus, if not some jerk who picked up a dead man's pants and didn't read the fine print?

Sometimes, a film becomes more than the sum of its parts. This time it works in reverse. Even though it's probably just a collection of mediocre claptrap, I firmly believe that when you put it all in perspective. THE SANTA CLAUSE is of the worst Christmas Movies out there, and yes, I have seen GRINCH and SANTA CLAUS CONQUERS THE MARTIANS.

RATING: * Star (out of 5)

Coming soon... looking back at MIRACLE ON 34TH STREET (Original) and ELF. Much better movies.