The Cheap-Arse Film Review #12- "WHITE CHRISTMAS." (4 WEEKS OF CHRISTMAS: WEEK 4)

NAME: WHITE CHRISTMAS

RATED: U

RELEASED: 1954

WRITTEN BY: NORMAN KRASNA, NORMAN PANAMA & MELVIN FRANK, WITH MUSIC AND LYRICS BY IRVING BERLIN

DIRECTED BY: MICHAEL CURTIZ

STARRING: BING CROSBY, ROSEMARY CLOONEY, DANNY KAYE, VERA-ELLEN

GENRE: CHRISTMAS MUSICAL

BOUGHT FROM: CEX

PRICE: £1.00

This review isn't late, I just thought it'd be more appropriate to hold it off until Christmas Day. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

First, to get it out of the way- yes, I've changed the page design. I'd been contacted by a few regular readers (God, how my ego loves being able to write that...) who had expressed a problem with viewing the page the way it was previously. For some of them it was simply that white text on a black background gave them a headache, and for others it was actually causing problems with their browsers, for whatever reason. So I decided that, rather than put off people who clearly wanted to be here, I may as well give another template a go. I was never really married to the old design anyway. When I first set this up, it was more a case of thinking, "Yeah, that's alright," and starting to write. But after a while I noticed it looked a bit, well... Emo. So I probably would have ended up changing it anyway, this just made me pull the trigger faster.

Now, with that out of the way, I'd like to open this review by talking about two things I love, but society, or at least most of the people around me, think I shouldn't, that being Christmas and musicals. I love Christmas. Admittedly, I don't love the lead up to Christmas. I don't see how anyone could love that, not without having something genuinely wrong with them. But I love the day, I love the gift giving (mostly the recieving if I'm totally honest), the food, the telly (good or bad, because even if it's bad you can bond with the family by moaning about it together), having an excuse to see friends and family you don't really see that often. All of it. And that really does seem to bother some people I know. One friend in particular who really hates this time of year, and who doesn't need much prompting to go off on a rant about how it's just another day and how anybody who does enjoy it is a moron, always shoots me a very distinctive look whenever I'd try to say something positive. For the longest time I couldn't figure out what that look meant, but recently I figured it out- he's looking at me with pity.

Yes, I'll conceed that alot of what comes with Christmas is crass and exploitative. And yes, there's a case to be made for all those people you don't see very often not really liking you all that much and only doing it out of some kind of obligation they feel. But speaking for myself and myself alone, I stagger through life pointing and sniggering behind the back of all existance, and it just feel nice to have one day a year off from all that, to just let out a deep breathe, go "AHHHHHHH," and allow myself to just get lost a bit in the happiness of people around me. It helps that almost everyone in my family also loves Christmas, on a level above even me. How much do they love it? The air freshener in my toilet is currently "Mulled Wine," scented.

Think I'm joking?


Smells quite nice, too.

As for musicals, I suppose I don't have to go into too much detail about why I wouldn't shout about loving them from the rooftops. Basically, I live in a part of the world that has a very, shall we say, basic grasp on the concept of masculinity. Case in point, in 1997, an British movie came out called "The Full Monty." If you're not from the UK, there's still a very good chance you've heard of it as it was one of those movies that managed to cross social and cultural boundries and become at least a minor hit in several other territories. However, in case you haven't, the plot is essentially six out-of-work steel workers from Sheffield decide to become strippers. Along the way there are twists, turns, tears, laughs. In all honesty it's quite a formulaic and shamelessly manipulative movie, but it had a big heart, a fantastic cast and a great soundtrack that somehow managed to make both Tom Jones and Hot Chocolate relevant again, however briefly. I was 15 at the time of it's release, and I really wanted to see it. However, I kept putting off doing so. Why? Because the people I went to school with, mostly the boys, but some girls too, had decided that all this film was about was six men getting their cocks out, and if you wanted to go and see it, you must like looking at other men's cocks, therefore you had to die. Simple as that. It's difficult to describe now, but at the time I was legitimately afraid to go and see it, for fear that word would get back to the wrong people and something bad would happen to me. And I know what you're thinking, you're thinking something about being you're own man, not bowing to peer pressure, standing up for what you believe in, blah blah blah. These are the thoughts of people who have clearly forgotten what it was like to be 15, and how utterly soul-destroying it can be to feel outside the pack, especially when you're already are little bit and are scrambling desperately for a way in.

And anyway, I'm talking about it, so I obviously went to see it eventually, didn't I? I went with my Dad, we both laughed and agreed it was a good film. And then I didn't tell a soul I'd seen it, and even denied seeing it when asked if I had for fear of falling into some sort of trap, until I was 18. THREE YEARS! Three years it took me to think the coast might be clear on that one, and maybe we'd all grown up enough to not be so bloody judgmental and small-minded. And you know what? Some people still gave me a funny look! As if to say, "Well, that explains a few things..."

What can I say, other than "Welcome to Romford?"

No sooner had I put the disc in my player and selectrd a language than I'm informed over the Paramount logo that this is the first movie presented in "VistaVision." I have no idea what that is. I hope to God Windows isn't involved, because I would like this disc to work properly, and not ask me things like, "Are you sure you want to stop the movie?" or "Are you absolutely positive you want to pause things here?" After the opening credits sequence, we are told that it is Christmas Eve in the year 1944, and we see a song-and-dance show being performed and watched by soldiers amongst the ruins on a city, as explosions in the distance light up the sky like lightening. Straight away it's quite an arresting contrast that pulled me in, on account that it wasn't what I was expecting. I was expecting things to be all happy-go-lucky and jolly straight from the get-go, but instead we ge something (comparatively) a bit darker. And this mood remains when Bing Crosby takes the stage, playing Bob Wallace, and performs a stark, somber version of the title song. It's been said before by men much more knowledgable about these sorts of things than me, but despite whatever failings he may have had as a human being, Bing Crosby had a fucking amazing voice. I'm tempted to use a tired cliche and say it sounds like silk, but I don't think that's good enough. He very much had a man's voice, it managed to sound like it had a bit of boom to it even when he was practically whispering, but when it comes time to do duets later in the movie, he's doesn't overpower his partner. He's very giving with his talents.

Wallace finishes the song, then starts to say a few nice words about his regiment's Major General, Thomas F. Waverly (Dean Jagger), who suddenly appears on stage to hold a field inspection before telling all his boys, in his own way, how proud he is of them, and how much he'll miss them. They respond to this by singing a rousing rendition of "The Old Man," in unison (a song that's much more heartfelt than the title implies, I feel like mentioning), pausing when enemy planes drop bombs overhead, and then scattering to defend themselves when those bombs actually start hitting the base. As you can tell, all of this is actually quite grown up, which wasn't unusual for musicals of that time. They were mostly family pictures, there's no denying that, but they were family in the sense that there was something in them for everybody and they were allowed to invoke a wide range of emotions. It's only in fairly recent times thanks to Disney's adoption of the genre that it's come to be associated with children.

In the attack that follows, Wallace is nearly killed by a falling wall, only just being saved at the last moment when another soldier, Phil Davis, pulls him out of harm's way, injuring his own arm in the process. In the medical tent not long after the attack, Wallace tells Davis that he owes him his life, and that if he ever wants anything, all he has to do is ask. Does Davis want something? Why of course he does- he's written a song that he would like Wallace, who it's been established is something of a mnor celebrity in the world of music outside the army, to perform. Not only that, but it's a duet, and he'd like to become Wallace's partner, which, after some resistance and alot of arm-based guilt-tripping, Wallace agrees to. This all feels fairly convenient if I'm totally honest, even for a movie. He even has the song on him, tucked inside his uniform. Were this film to be remade today, there's prbably be a twist ending that revealed that Davis actually set the whole this up in order to convince Wallace they should team up. It would probably be some morality tale about people's desire for fame at all costs, and in the end Davis would be left on stage alone when his partner abandons him, a broken man. Directed by the bloke who did, "Step Up." Starring Justin Timberlake Chris Brown.

Davis is played by Danny Kaye, who was the third choice for the role after Fred Astaire passed on the script and Donald O'Conner couldn't perform due to illness. Now, there's not really that much shame in being someone's second choice. My entire dating philosophy is built around this belief. But knowing you weren't even that, I could see that playing on somebody's mind. If it plays on Kaye's mind at any point though, you can't tell, because he enters a spirited performance. He has good chemistry with Crosby, their voices compliment each other, and he shines during the moments he's allowed to take the spotlight on his own, especially when dancing. Sure, part of me wonders what Fred Astaire would have brought to the role, but to be honest with you, he's not missed all that much.

So anyway, they go on the road, and their act is a massive hit, so massive they eventually become producers and put on their own stage musical that runs for two years. It's after one of the performances however that we begin to see that the relationship between the two has become slightly strained. Davis attempts to set Wallace up with a dancing girl, which angers him. He says that Davis has been trying to hook him up with women for months, and he doesn't understand why it's that important to him. What an ungreatful prick. I would kill, kill, to have a friend whose mission in life it seemed to be to get me laid. I think most of the guys reading this right now would, too. Davis could be my mate any day of the week, I'd love him like a brother. He isn't just trying to pimp out his friend though, he has his reasons, one decent (he believes Wallace is either miserable, or "happy for the wrong reasons," and meeting a girl will bring him out of his funk), one selfish (he'd like Wallace to meet someone so he'll have something to do other than work, which will actually give Davis a little time off, even as little as 45 minutes). It's a scattershot, fast-paced dialogue-heavy scene, and both men manage to keep the energy up right until Wallace sadly admits that there might be some truth to what his friend is saying, but the sad truth is most of the women you meet in their line of work aren't the kind you start relationships with. Hmmm, I wonder if he'll meet a nice woman who appears just that little bit too young for him who also works in showbusiness who is the kind of girl you start a relationship with...

They the travel to a local club to audition an act, Betty (Rosemary Clooney) and Judy(Vera-Ellen), The Haynes Sisters, to come on the road with them after recieving a letter from their brother, the absolutely brilliantly named, "Freckle-Faced Haynes, The Dog-Faced Boy," asking them to. It turns out both Wallace and Davis served with this man in the army and are doing it as a favour to him, even though they don't believe any of his siblings could be attractive enough to be worth bothering with (YAY causal fifties sexism!). As it turns out, not only are they attractive, but Wallace, whilst watching them perform their trademark number, "Sisters," finds himself instantly smitten with Betty. I don't blame him at all either, she really was a striking looking woman in her youth, with big animated eyes and a pinball smile that lit up her whole face. She's talented too, a decent actress and dancer with a very good voice. Infact, she's so luminous that her co-star, Vera-Ellen, suffers when being compared to her. Unlike he fresh-faced on-screen sister, she photographs quite old, which is strange because I think her character is supposed to be the younger of the two. I was also going to complain that she doesn't do any of her own singing (Trudy Stevens and Rosemary Clooney herself provide the singing parts), but in all honesty her character doesn't really sing that much, instead focusing on the dancing side of things, where she more than holds up her end of the deal, especially when she and Davis dance together to, appropriately, "The Best Things Happen When You're Dancing."

With both men impressed with what they've seen and Wallace already in love, they agree to meet the sisters after their act. Seeing that Wallace is clearly into Betty, he conspires to get them alone together, asking Judy to dance and kicking off the previously-mentioned number. However, the second they're alone, Betty can't help herself and tells Wallace that her brother hadn't sent the letter that brough he and Davis there, but instead it had been her sister's doing. Rather than be angry about it however, Wallace finds this to be slightly amusing, as it confirms his belief that all people are constantly working angles, that "everybody's got a little larceny in them," which actually manages to piss Betty off, as she tells him that's a terrible thing to think about people. Personally I would have just been happy that he's not more annoyed, as I think he'd be perfectly within his rights to be, what with the brotherhood he shared with the other men in his regiment being so shamelessly exploited. They go on like this for a while (as their two counterparts comment on how well they seem to be getting along), before deciding that, since they chances of them meting again are quite remote since they're both leaving town tomorrow, there's no point in continuing this argument. They then toast and smle at each oother in a manner that's far too cosy for to people who just had such an intense disagreement.

After Davis and Judy have finished dancing, Betty comes to collect her sister so they can do thier final performance, only to be informed by one of the club's waiters that the Sheriff's in the manager's office with a warrant for their arrest, due to the fact that their landlord is trying to scam them out of money. Davis, who had been told by Judy that the pair had planned to go to Vermont for the month to spend the holidays in the snow and was now seeing whatever chance he had of pairing off his partner going up in smoke, decides to help them out. There's some wonderfully funny dialogue in this scene, the best being Davis' response to what he would get out of helping them- "45 minutes all to myself." His plan is also superb in it's own way- sneak the girls out with his train tickets, and he and Wallace drag up and perform the girl's number, miming over a record of them singing and doing their full routine. Well, I say "drag up," but that aspect is very lackluster. The best they manage is some shorts and some tiara-looking things. I was going to suggest that maybe that was as far as you could push that particular angle in mainstream American movies in the 50s, but then I remembered "Some Like it Hot," came out in 1959 (although, to be fair, that movie was lightyears ahead of it's time in almost every way). It's still an amusing scene though, due to the fact that two grown men more than old enough to know better swanning about with feathery fans can't not be funny on some very base level. After that, they get on their train, with Davis convincing Wallace to buy two tickets to Vermont instead of where they wanted to go originally. Wallace eventually discovers he's been duped by his partner into going where the Haynes sisters are heading, and after initially being miffed about it, they all meet up in the club car, and suddenly all is forgiven. They then sing a song about snow, entitled, imaginatively, "Snow," where they take turns singing about how much they're looking forward to reaching their destination and seeing all the (have you guessed yet?) snow. In my opinion this is the worst song in the film. It goes nowhere, and it goes on forever. I also refuse to buy that four grown human beings could get that excited about snow. Sadly, the truth is, when you grow up, snow is no longer something you get excited about. Snow is nothing but an inconvenience. And, inconveniently, after all that singing, they get to Vermont and are greeted by... no snow. It's apparently unseasonably warn (hello, Al Gore). So what do they do? Start singing about snow again! It's not here, folks. Get over it.

They arrive at the local lodge, only to discover that it's owned by Thomas Waverly, the guy's old regiment leader, now retired (although he still rides around in a jeep, seemingly for the louls). The girls had expected to perform there as the floor show, but found out the second they arrived that their show had been cancelled, and that the lodge itself was on the verge of going out of business due to lack of custom, due to lack of... do I really have to say it? I don't want them to start singing about it again. Wanting to do good by their old chief, Wallace and Davis decide to try and save the lodge by bringing their entire stage show there, all the sets and performers included, to open on Christmas Eve. I don't know how they'd fit an entire broadway production into a hotel floor show, but just go with it. They convince Waverly it's a good idea, inbetween him throwing out some wonderfully-gruff yet good-natured putdowns, and suddenly we're off into rehersals!

The first big performance is heralded by a black chalkboard with the name of the number they're about to run through on it. On of those words, though, is a word that can make the the stomach of even the most vaguely liberal person in the room fall into their big toe.

That word is, "Minstral."

Thankfully though, it's not that kind of Minstral show. I kept looking to see if any of the background dancers were in black-face, but I don't think they were. All it is, is a crisp song-and-dance number with some comedy thrown in, performed by women in flowing dresses and men in ludicrous tuxes. I guess the lack of the words "Black & White," does away with all that. Everyone shines here, Crosby and Kaye seem to be have the time of their lives, Vera-Ellen does some great dancing, and Clooney seems to be having a ball getting throwing down and trading sung quips with the boys, and also looks drop-dead gorgeous.

Inbetween other rehersal-based performances, there's some main-and-sub-plot action going on. The romance between Betty and Wallace continues to heat up whilst they bond over working together, to the point where they actually kiss.For some reason I was suprised when they kissed each other.Most modern films make a big deal aboutt kissing and try to make it this big, climactic thing. But here, even though it's interrupted, it's treated as what it actually is in most cases, that being the start of something, rather than the goal. ALso in that scene, Wallace and Betty perform "Count your Blessings Instead of Sheep," the ballad that got this film it's lone Oscar nomination for Best Song. The fact that, of all the songs in this film, this was the one the Academy liked really perplexed me. I mean, it's not a bad song, don't get me wrong, but it's a very slight one, very much in the shadow of some of it's more robust, showstopping siblings. The only thing I can think of is, since this is a Jukebox Musical, this may have been the only song in the film written specifically for it.

Also, we find out that Waverly, missing the Army, has sent a letter to a friend of his there with some pull, looking to see if he could have him called back up. He recieves a reply that Wallace reads to im, in which his friend gently breaks to him that his survices will not be required any time soon. I've really not talked enough about Dean Jagger's performance as Waverly. As previously stated, he's excellent when verbally cutting Wallace and Davis down to size, but here he shows another side of he character- he's too strong to show how disappointed he is at being turned down, but you can see it all over his face. He's a strong-man trying desperately to hide the fact that his heart is broken and he feels like he's been forgotten, and he does it masterfully. Wallace, wanting Waverly to know that he's still appreciated, decides to try and get as many of the surviving members of their regiment together for the opening night, by putting out an appeal on the Ed Harris show. This is where the conflict in the relationship plot is amped up, when the lodge's busybody housekeeper listens in on that call at just the moment when the person on the other end of the line suggests they comedown and film the show to be broadcast live, thus gaining Wallace and Davis a boatload of free publicity, and just so happens to ang up before Wallace sets the guy straight. She then tells Betty about it, who, convinced the boys are just working and angle and only helping their old friend for selfish reasons, decides she no longer wants to be in the show.

Now, y'see, I've said this before in other reviews, but films keep coming back to this, so I suppose I'm going to have to keep addressing it- maybe it's me, but even if that was the case, even if he was going to have the show broadcast from the lodge, I don't see why that's something to get so angry about. They'd still be doing a good thing, putting on a show that'll hopefully pack out their old friend's place of business with paying customers. Would getting a little something for yorself out of the barguin invalidate that? I honestly don't think so. It's just this weird morality thing that crops up all over the place that states that all acts of kindness have to be selfless, and I don't buy into it. An act of kindness is still an act of kindness, whether you're alone when it happens or in a crowded room. Just my two pennies worth.

Anyway, off my soapbox and back to the movie. Seeing the aftermath of the seeming lover's tiff between Betty and Wallace, Judy telly Davis she believes the reason Betty's suddenly gone cold is because she's dedicated her life to looking after her sister and wouldn't want to settle down with anybody until she was setled down, too. This leads her, in a rather predatory manner, to try and convince Davis to pretend they're engaged, so she wouldn't feel obligated to be alone anymore. Danny Kaye is hilarious in this scene. It's obvious through the whole movie that he has a real gift for comedy, but this scene may be his tour de force, as he tries to weasel his way out of having to do this, the thought of even pretending to be engaged to someone almost paralysing him with fear, describing himself as, "... not the marrying kind... I'm not the engaging kind either... I'm more the, "I don't mind pushing my best friend into it, but I'm scared stiff when I get anywhere close to it myself"-ing kind." However, when reminded that they'djust be ding it for their friend/sister, and obviously thinking about that mythical 45 minutes alone, he agrees to it, although he wants no public annoncement and no kissing, uless it's absolutely necessary.

The nex scene is the per-show party for the cast and crew, and when it becomes obvious that Betty and Wallace are still having problems, Judy talks Davis into reluctantly announcing they're engaged. Judy congratulates them, andlater that night Judy not-so-subtly starts mentioning that, now she's engaged, she doesn't ave to feel responsible for her anymore, and she can do whatever she wants. Betty takes this as permission to, literally, fuck off, leaving the lodge, and causing the show to be one performer down. Davis and Judy come clean about their sceme, and about ho they're sure they accidently drove her away, and so Wallace heads to New York, where Betty's gone, to try and bring her back. When there, he sees her in her new stage show, performing a very pointed song called, "Love, You Didn't do Right by Me." It's another great song, and Jesus Christ does Clooney look smoking performing it, all white gloves and purple satin dress. This woman was amazing. I think I'm developing a crush on a dead person. Wallace trys to convince her to come back, and he seems to be making some headway, until they're interrupted by somebody informing Wallace that his cab to the Ed Harris Show has arrived, and Betty, getting the wrong end of the stick again, goes cold. Thankfully the truth is finally revealed when when she sees his appeal to the other soldiers of his regiment, and returns to the lodge just in time to perform.

Waverly, who's been tricked into wearing his own uniform, shows up at the barn to be greeted by his old men, standing to attention andonce again performing "The Old Man," as he tears up. It's a shamlessly sappy moment, but the look on Jagger's face is so heartbreakingly real that you can't help but be slightly moved by it. He then gives them one last dressing down, before declaring, "I've never seen anything look so wonderful in my whole life." It really is... lovely. There's no other word for it. Lovely. The show goes off without a hitch, it finally snows, the two couples declare their love for each other, we get one more rendition on "White Christmas," and that's all she wrote.

As musicals go, this was a very good one. Not the best I've ever seen, but it has alot going for it.Most of the performances are quality, the script is loaded full of great lines, it's beautifully shot and most of the songs are at the very least hummable. It has flaws though, two in particular that stand out above the rest. Firstly, it's a bit too long, five minutes under two hours, and this was from a time when films didn't really have closing credits, so this is 115 minutes of almost wall-to-wall story. I don't really know if that was the normal running time for musicals of that era, but I can't help but think it must have been something of an epic for it's time. And when I say it's too long, I don't mean they should be hacking out whole chunks of narrative. 15 minutes would have been fine, and honestly there were a few things here that sem a little indulgant and could have been cut. Towards the end there are a couple of numbers that just don't advance the plot in any way shape or form, particulary the "Choreography," number. It's actually a vert clever piece, in that's it's Irving Berlin's pointed critique of modern dance, and his fear that it would lead to the death of the old-time song-and-dance performer. I can see the point he's trying to get across (even if I'm not sure I agree with it), and everybody involved seems to be having a blast, especially Danny Kaye. But it just feels so tacked on, and at odds with the message of the rest of the movie. It's like the people involved in making this had a message they wanted to articulate, and the almost didn't care what movie they said it in.

The second complaint is bigger. Infact, it could make or break what I do with this film. Some of you may have noticed it already reading this review. If you have, well done, I didn't until I was about an hour into my first viewing. The fact is, this movie doesn't really have much to do with, you know...

... Christmas.

I mean, yes, it starts on Christmas Eve, it ends there, and it's bookended by performances of the title song, but that doesn't really make it a Christmas movie. Most of the way through, it's just your typical musical love story. Christmas is barely even mentioned. Infact, I'm convinced you could have eliminated the all references to this holiday altogether, and it would have had no effect at all on the quality of the end product. It's very misleading, to the point where I'm convinced it wasn't originally going to be a Christmas film at all, but was made so just for marketing reasons.

I would bin a comedy for not being funny. I have binned a horror movie for not being scary (amongst other things...). By that logic, I should bin a Christmas movie for having almost nothing to do with Christmas. Can I? Can I actually do that?

FINAL VERDICT

KEPT!

No, I can't. Because this movie works on two levels- as a Christmas film, it's pretty much an utter failure. However, as a musical, it's nothing but a complete success. And it's that superiority in one area that allows it to rise above it's faults in the other, in my opinion. so there was have it. My little Christmas present to myself.

Until next week, I'm The Cheap-Arse Film Critic, and Mery Christmas to all, and to all a good night.

The Cheap-Arse Film Review #10- "CHRISTMAS WITH THE KRANKS" (4 WEEKS OF CHRISTMAS: WEEK 2)

NAME:CHRISTMAS WITH THE KRANKS

RATED: PG

RELEASED: 2004

WRITTEN BY: CHRIS COLUMBUS, BASED ON THE ORIGINAL NOVEL BY JOHN GRISHAM

DIRECTED BY: JOE ROTH

STARRING: TIM ALLEN, JAMIE LEE CURTIS, DAN AYKROYD

GENRE: FAMILY CHRISTMAS COMEDY

BOUGHT FROM: A BOOTSALE

PRICE: £1.00

Tim Allen. He's never been, in my opinion, a particularly funny stand-up, I can think of few other actors who have made a career of cynically turning out Christmas movies the way he has, what with this and all three "The Santa Clauses" (which I can't review because, sadly, I've seen them all. Don't judge me, I have alot of young relative who inexplicably like me and want me to watch movies with them. I think I might have even seen the third one in cinemas), and quite alot of his non-holiday movies have been, putting it kindly, not very good ("Jungle 2 Jungle," "The Shaggy Dog," "Joe Somebody"). He's not a trendy man to like.

But I do anyway. Pop culturally speaking, he's played a part in alot of things that have made me the man I am today, for better or worse. For a start, there's "Home Improvement," which was one of the few shows my entire family would sit down and enjoy together. I loved that show growing up, and whilst I can admit that it doesn't hold up today, like alot of the shows I loved as a kid (although I still think "Boy Meets World" was a work of underappreciated comedy genius), when it's on, I'll still sit down and watch a bit of it with my Dad, who still really likes it. He's also been a big part of three films I absolutely love, that being the two "Toy Stories" and "Galaxy Quest." I know this is the second time in as many reviews that I've mentioned that movie, but my love for it truly knows no bounds, and if you're a sci-fi geek and you've not seen it, you should be ashamed of yourself, because it's wonderful. And I know there will be some people out there who'll sniff at me mentioning, "Toy Story," where he of course voiced what would become one of Disney's most beloved characters, Buzz, Lightyear, because there are still some people out there who don't consider voice acting to be proper acting, which is ignorance in the extreme. Let me put it to you this way- remember when they turned "Aladdin" into a TV show? They couldn't get Robin Williams to provide the voice for Genie on a weekly basis obviously, so they replaced him. They picked a great replacement, that being Dan Castellaneta, the immortal voice of Homer Simpson himself. And he fucking worked it, man, he poured his heart and soul into that role. He did a brilliant job. And yet every time Genie opened his mouth, you found yourself hit by crushing disappointment when you realised you weren't really hearing Genie's voice, you were hearing somebody trying hard to sound like him. Now close your eyes and imagine another voice coming out of Buzz Lightyear's mouth when he says, "TO INFINITY... AND BEYOND!"

I rest my case. Tim Allen, little bit of a legend.

The first thing I notice about this movie whilst scanning the box is that it's written by Chris Columbus. Again, much like Allen, mentioning Columbus' name can inspire more hardcore cinephiles to foam-mouthed fits of rage. And I'm up there with them to a agree, because as a director he's mostly known for sentimental dross like "Stepmom," and "Bicentennial Man." He didn't ruin the first two "Harry Potter," movies, I'll allow him that, but he did ruin, "Rent." Yes, he also directed "Home Alone," a movie I spent the entire of my last review gazing fondly back at like I lost my virginity to it, but I get the feeling my postman could have directed that script and it'd still have made $200,000,000 (he did however direct "Adventures in Babysitting," which, to give The Devil his due, is a great movie. See, I'm fair)(I meant Chris Columbus and not my postman, just so that's clear). As a writer though, I think he's sometimes unfairly judged. So caught up in the venom of hating his directorial efforts are some people, that they've forgotten he's responsible for the scripts to "The Goonies," "Gremlins," and, "Young Sherlock Holmes." Hell, I bet some of them didn't even know to begin with. So I didn't instantly see his name in the credits here as an indicator of the movie's quality. I also noted that the script was based on the novel, "Skipping Christmas," written by John Grisham. I've heard of this book, but I can't say I've read it, so unfortunately I'm not going to know if the movie deviates from the source material at any point. Hopefully somebody'll yell, "OBJECTION!" That would help me out a bit.

The film opens with Luther Krank (Allen), and his wife Nora (Jamie Lee Curtis) sitting up in bed, looking upset and disappointed. And no, I'm not going to make any of the more obvious jokes here, because you've probably already made them, at least in your heads. As it turns out, they're depressed because their daughter, Blair (Julie Gonzalo) is going to Peru as part of the Peace Corps and will miss her first ever Christmas with the family. Now, maybe I'm just a cold-hearted bastard, but whilst I can understand them being upset, the level of their unhappiness is just alien to me. Seriously, from the way her mother is acting, you would thing that someone has died, especially after Luther returns to the car after being drenched in the rain and conversing with an umbrella-selling Santa to find his wife in tears after Blair called her from the plane, which felt to me like a real dick move on the daughter's part, as she must have realised how destroyed her mother was watching her go. And all she apparently wanted to say was she missed them. However, it's during this scene that Luther notices a window advertising Caribbean cruises, and after cruching some numbers at work (we never find out really what he does for a living, incidently), he discovers that said cruise costs over $3000 less than they spend celebrating Christmas.

Following this, he decides to inform Nora of his plan. Strangely, he leads up to telling her by looking at her like, well, like he wants to have sex with her. Then, upon leaving the room after cryptically informing her that he has an idea, Nora takes this to mean that he, well, wants to have sex with her, and starts excitedly unbuttoning clothing. This is really the only scene in this movie where Curtis gets to shine. I don't know why she doesn't get cast in more comedies, because she's a really gifted comedic actress. Take the 2003 remake of, "Freaky Friday," for example. It's... okay. It's not horrible, but it's not particularly great, either. But Curtis was, franky, a revelation in that movie. She's so fucking funny, and she's clearly having so much fun playing a young girl trapped in an older woman's body. She completely stole the show from Lindsey Lohan, whom Disney were clearly hoping this movie would do for her career what the first one did for Jodie Foster's, and she managed to convince alot of people, including quite a few critics, that they were watching a better movie than they actually were. That folks, is talent. She also seems to be getting more attractive the older she gets, which must confound the age-obsessed decision makers in Hollywood (seriously, if that place were a person, it would probably have been arresed by now after questionable images were found in it's hard drive). But here neither of these pluses are exploited to their full potential. Yeah she gets to mug and react, and there are pratfalls and the like, but you get the impression that she's not bringing much of herself to the role. She's just playing a part and turning in a performance that any vaguely talented funny lady could have done just as well. You could swap her for, say, Goldie Hawn, and there'd be no noticable difference in the end result. Plus she's cursed with dowdy clothes and bob haircut that makes her look alot older than she is. We do get to see her in a bikini at one point though, and all I have to say is, she still has very good... genetics.

Incidently, I just realised I don't own, "Trading Places," on DVD. That's going to have to change.

After telling his wife to put her clothes back on, Luther, who has changed into an absolutely hideous Hawaiian shirt (which I thought were the height of fashion when I was 16... I was strange), suggests that, that instead of spending the money they usually do on the holidays, especially since they're almost certainly going to have a lousy time without their daughter, they take the money and go on a cruise instead. It's a full boycott, no lights, no tree, no decorations of any kind, no presents (bought or excepted, which makes no sense, because how does not excepting a gift from someone save you money?), no Christmas Dinner, no annual Christmas party, even giving money to charity isn't allowed. "We skip Christmas," is the way he puts it to her, and, after being initially cold to the idea, she eventually comes round and decides to go along with it. The next day he writes a letter to everyone he works with, informing them that he's, quote, "skipping Christmas." Okay, so, the original novel this movie is based on is called "Skipping Christmas," and Luther as used that very term, or a slight variation there of, twice in about five minutes, if that. So why isn't this movie called, "Skipping Christmas," again? It's a great title, short, gets the point across without spoiling too much, rolls off the tongue and still has the word, "Christmas," in the title. Whereas, "Christmas with the Kranks," sounds, frankly, slightly unpleasent.

Anyway, it's not long after the office is told of this plan that we discover that the rest of the town is insane. No, really, they're insane, and take the fact that that the Kranks won't be celebrating the season or decorating their house as some kind of personal afront. The first glimpse of this we get is when a really creepy guy comes up to Nora to ask her if she'll be placing her usual Christmas cards order from his shop. She tells him she won't be needing any this year, and heads off on her way. Is that the end of it? No, of course it's not. The guy then follows her to the restaurant she's having lunch at with her two friends (played by Felicity Huffman from "Desperate Housewives," and one of the aunts from, "Sabrina the Teenage Witch") just to tell them this. He then sits down at a table near them and stares evil daggers at Nora, seemingly along with all the other customers.

Now, granted, I can see their point is some respects, especially with The Kranks not giving any money to charity. They're saving three grand, that can't stretch to buying a calender from the police or giving some change to some carollers? But where they totally lose me is with their borderline facist attitude towards anybody who doesn't want to make their house look as gaudy as possible (I say that as a man with a light-up snowman just outside his front door as I type this...). I mean, what if someone in this neighborhood is devoutly Jewish, or Muslim, or any faith that doesn't allow the celebration of a Christian holiday? Do they get run out of town for the month of December? The movie actually kind-of addresses this, when the Carollers show up and are informed that The Kranks aren't doing Christmas this year. "Are they Jewish?" one of the Carollers asks, before being told they're not. So, would it be okay if they were? And because thay're not, they're expeced to have to tow the line even though they don't want to? WAT?

The angry mob (and there's really no ther way to describe them) is lead by Vic Frohmeyer, played by Dan Aykroyd, along with his rat-faced son, Spike (Erik Per Sullivan). It's a glorified cameo, like most of the work Aykroyd does these days, but I still relish every chance I get to see him perform, and he does the best he can with what he's given, which isn't much, his character's a cartoon, rallying crowds of people around the Krank's house and demanding they "bring out Frosty," a large plastic snowman they usually mount on their roof every year, so that he and the other residents can put it up for them. We get to see Frosty a little bit later when Luther and Nora hide in their basement to escape the carollers, and Jesus Christ is he creepy, with a smile that could only say, "When you sleep, I'm going come into your bedroom and force live rats down your throats." I wouldn't put that on my roof. I'd fucking burn it.

As all this is going on, we're treated to evidence that skipping Christmas (see, I'm saying it now!) is turning Luther into a selfish creep. First he takes the money they'd surely normally give to charity and starts using Sunbeds, then he decides, for no reason I can think of, to have Botox treatment administered to his face, making him look like a Volcan and causing him not be able to eat or drink without either just falling out of his mouth. I'll admit this is a funny bit, and has Allen in his element for the first time in the whole movie, but I didn't laugh that much. And that's because I'd already seen almost this entire scene in the trailer. I can't have a go at the movie for that, because that's not it's fault, but I hate it when the people in charge of putting together trailers spoil things like that. Okay, I get it, you want to show the funniest bits to get people to want to see the movie. I get that. But don't give away nearly the whole thing. It's like foreplay. Tease me a little bit. Make me want to come back for more. Then give me the gratification.

The Kranks somehow whether the storm, which has now grown to include nuisance phone callers with children chanting, "WE WANT FROSTY!" on the other end of the line, and make it to Christmas Eve, the day before the cruise... and Christmas Day, obviously. They're finishing off their packing, when they recieve another call, this time from Blair. And guess what? She's not in Peru! She'll be back at home by nightfall, and is looking forward to spending a good, old-fashioned Christmas with her family and enjoy their annual party! And she's bring her new fiance who her parents have never met before with her! AND IT'S HIS FIRST CHRISTMAS IN AMERICA!

Oh bugger.

So of course now the movie turns into a race against time, with Luther and Nora running around trying to get things they way they should be for Blair's arrival, with the vindictive townspeople hampering their every attempt, such as the local Christmas Tree salesman charging Luther $75 dollars for what is esentially a twig, and Nora being run down in the supermarket so she's prevented from getting the last ham. Seriously, what is with these people? First they're offended that this family chooses not to partake in Christmas, then when they decide they do want to, their lives are still made a living Hell. It's like these people think they own Christmas. The only person who's nice to either of them during this time is a creepy man with silver hair (and that's all this town seems to be made up of, creepies and crazies) who knows everybody in town, even though nobody knows him. We later find out his name is Marty. Nora invites him to the party out of sheer desperation, and he accepts.

The town finally bands together around the family when Luther nearly kills himself attempting to put up Frosty (whose smile changed from sinister to cheerful once the Kranks announced they were having Christmas after all), and Frohmeyer gives them all a speech about how they should do it for Blair, who they all love. Never mind that this man nearly died because for all you know he was caving into peer pressure, he's still a jerk, so do it for his daughter. Everybody lumps in, getting the party together, the cops go to the airport to pick up Blair and Husband-To-Be (I forgot to mention, one of the cops is played by Cheech Martin. This movie actually has a really good cast), and before you know it, the perfect crime has taken place. It even turns out that Marty can fluently speak the native tongue of Blair's Fiance's homeland, and helps him feel at home by performing a song with him, along with everybody else. But even after all that, Luther can't bring himself to propery thank anybody, and still tries to talk Nora into going on the cruise tomorrow. "Luther, everyone out there sacrificed their Christmas Eve to help us," she tells him. "I thought maybe that might effect you, maybe have you start thinking about putting others first, instead of yourself... but I really don't think that's possible."

Okay, I've not done this for a while (well, four reviews), but... THREE THINGS! 1) Yes, they may have helped him out on this night, but I don't think Luther's in the wrong about still being angry at the entire town for they way they've acted towards him over the last month, 2) I'd be annoyed if I'd spent alot of money on something I now couldn't do too, and 3) Why does Nora think Luther is incapable of being a selfless human being? If this film's to be believed, this family have spent 22 previous Christmases together, and they were perfectly normal, loving gatherings. Infact, they were so good, the very thought of one not happening that way was enough to reduce Nora to floods of tears. So he's clearly not been selfish around this time of year before. It's just this one year. That's this film's major problem, there's no character development, just character happenings. We're not told why everbody in the town is so into Christmas, they just are, we're not told what's turned Luther into a selfish prick, he just now is. And then when he's not again, he's just, well, not.

And all it takes for him to prove he's not is to do one thing, which is to give the cruise tickets to the elderly couple next door. It's established at the start at the movie that Luther and the old man don't get on, for whatever reason, and that he also hates their cat. Very strangely, the old man asks Luther early on in the movie if he's still working for, "The Man," and he even calls him "Old Man," despite the fact that he must be a good ten years older than him. He's written to sound almost like a hippy, and, I'm sorry, but I'm not buying it. I've known a few older hippies in my time, and this guy's not one of them. But anyway, they're hostile towards each other, but all that changes when Luther sees the man and his wife celebrating Christmas Eve alone together through their dining room window. The selflessness of this act is compounded by the fact that the man's wife is gravely ill with cancer, so they can spend maybe their last Christmas together doing something they'd never be able to do normally, and even offers to look after their cat whilst they're away. Following some hijinx with a burglar being thwarted by Marty (who turns out to be the Umbrella-selling Santa from the beginning of the film in a clever twist I didn't see coming. Bravo), Luther is hugged by his wife, who's just been called by the people next door and told what he's done for them, and they discuss the possibility of skipping Christmas (THERE IT IS AGAIN!) next year.

To be fair, this wasn't a horrible Christmas movie. I've seen far worse over the years, and will probably see alot more in the years to come. And were this actually Christmas Day, and I was sitting on my sofa following dinner, totally over-fed and more than a little bit tipsy, I might even find this to be acceptable. But it's just, and this is me trying to verbalise an abstract concept, so this might not make that much sense, but...

... you know when a movie feels... flat? Like there's no... bounce to it? Let me try to explain, and I really do mean try because I'm not 100% sure what I'm getting at here- movies that have bounce to them usually do so because at least a few of the people involved in making them believed in them. You can sense the creativity and ambition that went into them. You can see it up on the screen. And they don't have to be good movies either, bad films can have bounce, too. All of Ed Wood's movies have bounce. "Going Overboard," has bounce and little else. This movie, however, has no bounce. It feels flat. It's just a product, just another Christmas movie churned out around this time of the year every year, and almost everybody involved put in the bare minimum of effort they could get away with, from the cast to the director, right down to, yes, the writer (and after I said all those nice things about your past scripts, Mr. Columbus...). It feels cold, because it has no soul. And as such, It has no place in my collection. I'll put up with alot if you haven't noticed already, but I won't put up with a lack of bounce.

FINAL VERDICT

WRAPPED UP FOR CHRISTMAS FOR MY DAD!

I think he'll appreciate this, because unlike me, he has read the book, so if nothing else we'll have something to talk about on Boxing Day.

Until next week, I'm The Cheap-Arse Film Critic, and you're looking at a guy who told someone today to staple antlers to a mouse's head to further my career. How many of you would try something like that?