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 #11- "SANTA WHO?" (4 WEEKS OF CHRISTMAS: WEEK 3)

NAME: SANTA WHO?

RATED: U

RELEASED: 2000

WRITTEN BY: DEBRA FRANK & STEVE L. HAYES, FROM A STORY BY ROBERT SCHWARTZ AND AN UNPUBLISHED STORY BY CHAD HOFFMAN

DIRECTED BY: WILLIAM DEAR

STARRING: LESLIE NIELSEN, STEVEN ECKHOLDT, ROBYN LIVELY, MAX MORROW, TOMMY DAVIDSON

GENRE: FAMILY CHRISTMAS COMEDY

BOUGHT FROM: A BOOTSALE

PRICE: £1.00

I'm quite OCD. I used to say I was very OCD, until I met people who were very OCD. Mine manifests itself in my desire to have everything ordered and listed, in a way only I understand if at all possible. That's part of the reason I decided to cover only Christmas movies for the month of December, and also the reason I've somehow managed to convince myself that all the movies I've covered so aren't just the first Christmas movies I found at a bootsale and thought to myself, "These'll do." I've talked myself into believing they're connected, beyond the fact that they all take place over this particular holiday. It goes like this- "Home Alone 4," was the latest in a line of increasingly dminishing sequels to a film originally directed by Chris Columbus, who adapted John Grisham's novel, "Skipping Christmas," into "Christmas with the Kranks," that starred Tim Allen, the undisputed King of the Chrismas movie, having also starred in the three "Santa Clause," movies, thus bringing us round to this week's movie, which also features the jolly fat bastard as a main character.

All very tenuous, I'm sure you'll agree. Even the way I am, I can admit that last one is really reaching. However, in researching this movie, I discovered it shares a more direct connection with one of the other movies I've covered over these last three weeks. Something eagle-eyed readers may have already noticed (I've always wanted to type that...). For the rest...

... the screenplay for this movie was written by the same two people responsible for "Home Alone 4." My first response to discovering this was, "Oh merciful Jesus please say it isn't so." But then I talked myself back from the edge with the knowledge that, unlike with that movie, on this one they're not really alone, instead working from a story provided by two other people, one apparently working from an unpublished prose story written by the other. So hopefully this has provided them with a little bit less rope for them to hang themselves with this time. I suppose there's really only one way to find out.

The film opens in an orphanage, with a little boy with the thousand-yard stare of a heroin addict writing a letter to Santa. "Dear Santa," his letter begins, "you are the greatest. All I want is a happy Christmas with a family who loves me. Love, Peter Albright." No sooner has Young Peter written this than he's informed that his father will not be picking him up from the school over Christmas this year. Wow, that "No," was delivered in record time, wasn't it? Before he runs off to his room, he sees one of the Nuns, Sister Greta, take his letter and burn it on an open fire. At this point it's hilarious to me just how many Christmas movies are based around tragedy and heartbreak, even the ones aimed at children. But then, I suppose it's better than having to sit through some day-glow, happy-happy-joy-joy nightmare that has a perma-grin like The Joker just disfigured it all the way through. And brief respite from the misery is given when we see a familiar, white-gloved, red-sleeved hands scoop up what I presume is the burning remnants of Peter's letter as it floats out of the chimney. So Santa did get Peter's letter? So he will get a family that loves him for Christmas?

Well, no. The next time we see Peter, 25 years have passed, he's now played by the fully-grown Steven Eckholdt, and he's working as a reporter for a local TV network news show, his job at the moment seemingly to pester people attempting to walk down the street with questions like, "What's the best thing you've got today?" and "Did you spend much money today?" (answered with, "A migrane," and, "No, I stole this!" respectively). While this is going on, we're treated to cliched visual representations of the nastier side of Christmas- kids arguing over toys so violently that they get destroyed (the toys, not the children), people loaded down with bags walking into each other, people stealing other people's cabs. The point of all this seems to be to show us that Peter has a very low opinion of Christmas, which would be fine were it not for the fact that, after showing us, the movie then feels the need to tell us that Peter doesn't like Christmas, many, many times over, first with him asking is he could cover a different kind of holiday story this year, such as taking a look at the suicide rate for December (lovely in a U-rated movie. "Daddy, what's suicide?"), then just by having people outright state that he doesn't like it. I believe at one point he's even refurred to as a Grinch. Is all that really nessessary? This movie is aimed at children, not people with Alzheimer's.

Peter's complaining about wanting to cover serious news gets him sent to a toy store dressed like Santa with a fantastically un-hidden hidden camera in his hat in order to find out what Christmas is like, "through the eyes of Santa." Whilst there he spies a pretty woman with a clipboard loitering around the toy store Santa set, and after a couple of predictable come-ons involving Christmas lists and wrapping paper, we find out that he and this woman, named Claire (Robyn Lively), are already dating, or at the very least have something causal going on, as they're supposed to be meeting up for dinner later. He's then assaulted by an odious child, which somehow leads to the real toy store Santa getting injured and taken out on a stretcher, leaving the position empty and Peter having to be the emergency sub until a new one can be found. The best bit of this is when Claire's boss comes up to her, and I'm sure she calls him, "Mr. Lesbian." She probably doesn't, but I'm going to pretend that she does.

Following this, we finally get to The North Pole and see Santa's elves, lead by head elf Max (Tommy Davidson), preparing for the big day in three days time. This is also where the first disappointment of the movie happens, brought on by the elves themselves. They're too tall. As far as I can tell not a single one of them is played by a midget or a dwarf (and no, I'm not going to use the term "little person," because I actually think there's some truth in the notion put forward on the "This Is Spinal Tap," DVD in-character commentary that calling someone with these afflitions a "little person," is actually a really nasty thing to do). They're all just regular sized people in garishly-coloured trousers with funny pointy hats. Infact, in the next scene, where Max finds Santa (Leslie Nielsen) in order to get him prepared for Christmas, I believe he may actually be a little bit taller than him. That's just wrong. Couldn't he just... stoop a little bit? Or couldn't Nielsen stand on a box?

At least this scene is a nice one, with Santa wearing a suit that he hasn't worn for a while ("Judging by the flared cuffs I'd say the early seventies," Max says, in what is without question the movie's funniest line), and, having found some letters in it's pockets that he'd forgot about, wonders how many more children's wishes had gone unanswered on his watch, and wonders if it's time to pack it in. Facially speaking, Nielsen is a great Santa. He's got the smile, the youthful twinkle in his eyes and looks awesome in the beard. He's also got a great voice for the part, warm and friendly, and great at throwing a "HO! HO! HO!" when allowed to do it properly. From the neck down, though, is where things start to go wrong. Putting it bluntly, he's not fat enough. I wouldn't call him thin, because he's not, he's clearly got a bit of middle-age spread going on, but it's not enough. In my opinion, Santa should be practically spherical, a great big ball of a man with a belly that children could bounce up and down on giggling (Lord, this got Freudian quickly...). If I could put his head on John Goodman's body, it would be perfect. As it stands right now, I've seen worse, but I've definitely seen better too.

Back with Peter and Claire, we see that he's now in her house and is spending spending some time wit her young son, Zack (Max Morrow, which sounds more like the name of a super hero than an actor, lucky kid). It soon becomes obvious that these two don't really get along. Actually, it's more that Peter just really doesn't like kids and Zack, being a smart kid, has picked up on it. "Is this gonna be about you again?" Zack asks him when he starts to tell a story about the show that's on the TV. "Another story where all you do is talk about yourself?" I like this kid, he's already more like the Kevin from the original "Home Alone," movies than these two writers could recreate in, "Home Alone 4." Peter's dislike of children is one of his most unpleasent character traits, incidently. Later in the film, Santa ends up spending the night at Peter's place after he and Claire have a bit of a fight over his commitment issues, and when Santa asks him why he's reluctant to be with Claire, he says it's because he doesn't want an "instant family." "Wow," Santa says, "you're a massive cock, aren't you? No wonder Daddy didn't love you." Actually he doesn't say that at all, but he should have.

The kid goes up to bed, Peter and Claire have their meal (Chinese takeout, which she comments is "very... easy to clean"), and then he starts pestering her for sex. Claire's reluctant, saying she wouldn't want her son to wake up in the morning and find him still there, to which Peter's answer is he doesn't have to be there when he wakes up in the morning. And get this- she goes along with that! So not only has he convinced a woman to sleep with him, but he's also convinced her that him sneaking off not long after they've done the dirty deed is a good thing! For all the negative things I've said about Peter, I will give him this- he's obviously a Playa. Of course he doesn't sneak off afterwards, as he fell asleep not long after they were done, and the next sequence is full of (supposedly) hilarious hijinx as he tries to sneak out of Clair's house without Zach seeing him, and failing. What does it say about a children's film when the zaniest moment up to this point is built around a botched bunk-up?

Claire and Peter later have a conversation about their relationship, during which we find out that they've been going out for a year. God, I hope the previous night wasn't just the first time they'd had sex round her place, but rather the first time they'd have sex period. That would be gloriously pathetic. She complains that he's not connected to Zack in all that time, he makes a joke about sending him to boarding school (see what they did there?), and then slinks away without comitting to anything either way. One thing that always bothers me about movies like this is that the fictional women put up with far more shit from their boyfriends than most real ones would. If a guy acted like this around any of the women I know in reality, they'd be kicked to the curb so fast they'd think they were in "American History X."

Peter's day then gets worse when Santa falls on his car whilst he's on the phone. Seriously. Santa had decided to go for a ride in his sleigh in order to clear his head and do away with any doubts he was feeling, only to then get caught up in some snow clouds, with the resulting turbulance causing him to fall out and onto Peter's car. Having not been paying attention, Peter just assumes he hit him, which is strange, because I don't think the car was moving at the time. I'm not even sure the engine was going, but hey-ho, I shall perservere. Peter gets out to check on the person he "hit," and as we fade out, Peter practically chants to himself, "I hate Christmas, I hae Christmas, I hate it..." Alright. We get it.

When we come back, Peter has seemingly dragged this corpse back to Claire's place, where a wet towel has been placed on his head. Yeah, that's an awesome way to treat what we can only assume is massive head trauma. Whilst giving him the once over (why is nobody calling the hospital?), they discover that his beard is real and he has candy canes and cookies in his pockets. There's a joke in there, but I'm not going to make it, because it's wrong. Yes, too wrong even for me. So Santa comes to and, as the title of the movie has probably already given away, he's got amnesia. He's a total blank slate. So again, instead of seeking out medical attention for this obviously badly injured man, Peter sets about trying to "refresh," his memory, theorising that because he's in a Santa suit, he must be there to apply for the job of toy store Santa by going the extra mile and turning up at Claire's house instead of waiting at her office with everybody else. Yes, that makes total sense. He then goes about pressuring his girlfriend, or whatever she is, into hiring him for the job. Then he runs off to cover a story, leaving her to deal with this mess. This man needs to be kicked hard in the face. Oh, and somehow Zack knows this Santa is the real Santa, and tells him so. "Santa who?" Santa asks. Oh look, they got the title of the film in the dialogue. How fiendishly clever.

After the reveal that the story Peter had been called to cover was the appearence of a hurd of reindeer and a sleigh seemingly from nowhere, Claire escorts Santa to her office so he can try out for the toy store job. There's a slight sinister undertone to these scenes if I'm a little bit honest, as Nielsen seems to be playing Santa in this part of the movie less like someone with no memory and more like a man with genuine mental illness. He walks down the street with Claire, his arm in hers, not really understanding what's being said to him, and clearly being made nervous by the things around him. You actually lose a bit of sympathy for Claire for subjecting this poor man to this. I think the problem might be that Nielsen is actually too good an actor for these sorts of scenes. Yes he made his name in screwball spofs like "Police Squad," and the "Naked Gun," movies, but it's easy to forget that he's a classically-trained actor with real pedigree.

So anyway she takes him to try out for the part of toy store Santa, and he's horrible. His amnesia is so severe that he can't even remember how to go "HO! HO! HO!" Instead of bellowing it in a voice filled with joy and love for the season, he says it in a low, husky tone that makes it sound like he enquiring about multiple prostitutes for the evening. In most movies he'd instantly get the job anyway because, well, that's what needs to happen for the plot to advance, so I'm reasoably surprised to see that he's originally turned away because he's so fucking creepy. Of course this is just a momentary setback, as he ends up in the position when yet another Mall Santa is carted off on a stretcher. This film has a real Yuletide bodycount going on as well, I've noticed. I'm almost tempted to call it subversive.

Peter decides to run a story on Santa, saying that he's selflessly dedicating his life to making children happy at Christmas whilst having no memory of his own past, and hoping that he'll find somebody who knows who he is, which of course brings out all the crazies and people desperae to be on television. And a man who claims to be the Easter Bunny. Claire accuses Peter of exploiting him, and I'm really in two minds about that. Yes, there is a self-serving nature to Peter using this guy for a story, but at the same time there's a chance some good could come out of it, so in the end, does it really matter? I mean it's not like they know he's the real Santa, do they? And it's really not his fault that half the city seems to be insane. The only thing I can't help but think is, were I a parent, there's no way I would allow my children to sit on the knee of a man who claims to have no memory of his past.

While all this is going on, we finally get to see what's going on at the North Pole with the elves, and predictably, it's total chaos. They've managed to pinpoint his rough location, and Max decideds to lead, for want of a better word, an elf task force in order to bring him back, because if they can't find him, Christmas would have to be cancelled, and as Max says, "That's not an option." So, how do they get to the city Santa's stuck in (which inciddently I don't think has been named yet. I think we're just supposed to assume it's New York)? Do they magically fly like the big man himself? No, they catch a plane. From The North Pole. And when they touchdown on American soil they find themselves hassled by customs security over the contents of one of their bags. At first I thought this might be a sly dig at the difficulty of flight travel in a post 9-11 world, but then I remembered this movie was first broadcast in the year 2000. Plus one of the security guys in an Indian dude with a thick accent who people have a hard to understanding. Haha, casual racism. They find the tracer they gave Santa in his sleigh, and decide the only thing they have left to do is search the city. "This city, Max?" one of the elves asks. "But it's so... tall!" Well... so are you. Okay, you're not giants, but it's been established that you're not tiny, either. I'm probably shorter than these guys. Am I a dwarf?

While this is going on, Peter is discovering that sharing an apartment with Santa may not be the best thing for him, what with his psycholgical hatred of all things Christmas. The old man drives him insane asking him to teach him Christmas carols, waking him up in the morning singing them at the top of hil lungs, seemingly driven by sub-concious desire to reconnect with him inner Christmasosity (Yes, I just made that word up). The police are also now involved with trying to find out Santa's true identity, and after a hypnosis session where he reveals that his wife is called "Mrs. Nick," the place he lives is "dark and cold," and he's surrounded by children, "or maybe little people..." (this movie seems fairly determained that these regular-sized human beings are especially short), Zack, sick of being the only person in the room that really knows what's going on (and again, it's not explained how he's figured this out, we're just supposed to believe that all children have some in-built Santa-Sense), makes a run for it with Santa and tries to make him remember who he is by taking him on a one-stop tour of all thing's Christmas related, including watching Christmas movies ("What's this one called again?" ""It's a Wonderful Life."" "So why's he trying to take his own life?")(Second reference to suicide within 49 minutes, for anybody keeping score out there), and taking him to see his reindeer and sleigh. Eventually Peter catches up with them, and after telling Zack of for running off, pretty much tells him that he's nuts and that "there's no... proof he's Santa." Zack then points over to a large group of children sitting round Santa and say, "What more proof do you need?" Like that's the ultimate proof or something.

The non-elves, as I've taken to calling them, are continuing their highly ineffectual search for Santa, and finally spot him on a giant TV screen. Only now they have competition, as a couple see a "Santa Who?" ad on TV and are convinced that he's their Grandfather who's been missing for 10 years and was last seen around this time of year wearing a Santa suit. I hope these two are brother and sister and not husband and wife, because if they are and the missing man is randfather to oth f them, then that's just... disgustng, really. Peter, who has now sudenly become unsure about whether he believes Santa is real or not after seeing the spontanious act of love showered on him by the children earlier, is actually reluctant to believe their story. "You're telling me that Nick has been running around in the same Santa suit for 10 years?" he asks. Wow, the writers actually had the sense to realise that some people might find that a little hard to swallow and had one of the main characters express this. Well done. However he soon becomes swayed when the information passed on about him by his married grandchildren conveniently matches up with what they got out of him when they hypnotised him, so he reluctantly goes along with it. He tells Santa about this, and after yelling at Zack again, is told by Claire that they clearly don't have a future together because he's still traumatised by his childhood and won't let them in. She seriously got all that from a grown man refusing to believe that a man with no memory might be Santa and telling her increasingly annoying son so in a semi-forceful manner.

Santa and Peter both have bad dreams, and end up in Peter's kitchen discussing them. Peter talks about seeing his letter be burned, and Santa says with a name like that she must be Polish or Scandanavian or something, and people from that part of the world have a custom of burning letters to Santa believing they get to The North Pole faster that way. "Maybe we both need to remember who we used to be," Santa says. I have to give it to Leslie Nielsen, he's one of those actors who can take a prety corny line and make it sound like Shakspeare. So Santa is reuntited with his "family," gives away his costume and says goodbye to Peter, Claire and Zack. He even shaves his beard, which is weird to see, as he goes from being Santa to Frank Drebin in the blink of an eye. Not long after this though, Peter finds the letter he wrote to Santa all those years ago, and suddenly, HE BELIEVES! I means it's not like anybody else could have written a letter like that, could they? Like Santa himself said, it's a pretty standard thing for an orphan to want. But anyway he calls Santa on his cell phone (Santa has a cell phone?), and convinces him to meet him at the toy store in 15 minutes. He also calls Claire and Zack, who undistandibly don't want to see him, but all is forgiven when he tels Claire to tell Zach that he believes him. Santa saves Zack when the Sleigh he's sitting on nearly falls from where it's situated, Santa's reunited with his non-elves and has a renewed sense of purpose, gets his sleigh and reindeer back, and Peter gets what he's always wanted- a family that loves him to spend Christmas with.

AWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW.

Much like "Christmas with the Kranks," I can't sit here and say it's the worst Christmas movie I've ever seen. It's better than "Home Alone 4," that's for fucking sure. I suppose if you have young kids, it's a decent enough destraction, as they won't notice just how unlikable the main character is, or how rushed the ending feels. And in a strange way it's nice to see Leslie Nielsen get to play something a little bit out of the box he's been placed in. There are a couple of scenes here where he gets to stretch his dramatic muscles, and those scenes make me want to see him do more work like that. But with all that said, were this on television on Christmas Day, and it were a choice between this and any other film currently playing at that time, I wouldn't chose to watch it. Not unless it was already on and I was too fucked to reach for the remote, anyway.

FINAL VERDICT

BINNED!

I was going to give this to my sister, but I decided she made out pretty well from me this year as it is and thought sod it. Also, I just noticed that Boulivard Entertainment have misspelt "Leslie Nielson," name on the front of the box. Good to see them keeping up their usual level of consistancy.

Until next week, I'm The Cheap-Arse Film Critic, and you ain't gonna shit right for a month.

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?

The Cheap-Arse Film Review #9- "HOME ALONE 4." (4 WEEKS OF CHRISTMAS: WEEK 1)

NAME: HOME ALONE 4

RATED: U

RELEASED: 2002

WRITTEN BY: DEBRA FRANK & STEVE L. HAYES

DIRECTED BY: ROD DANIEL

STARRING: MICHAEL WIENBERG, FRENCH STEWART, MISSI PYLE

GENRE: FAMILY CRISTMAS COMEDY

BOUGHT FROM: A BOOTSALE

PRICE: £1.00

I make no apologise for having nothing but fondness for the first "Home Alone," movie. and not being able to resist the temptation to watch at least a little bit of it if it's ever on. Yes it's formulaic and over-sentimental, it's moral is at best confused, and some people will never forgive it for bringing Macaulay Culkin to the world's attention (although he's had the last laugh over his detractors, because he's now regularly having sex with Mila Kunis and they're not). But I can forgive all that, because the scenes of him outsmarting Harry & Marv, torturing them with a variety or frankly genius homemade traps makes it all worth wild. Thoses scenes are the inside of a little boy's mind, and when I watch them I'm eight again, designing intricate death traps in the back of my Math's book when I should be learning my time's table. It's probably that movie's fault that to this day I'm convinced I'm numerically dyslexic. The second one I don't have the same affection for. It was alright, but even back then as I was watching it, I can vividly remember thinking, "This is the same movie as the last one." Plus he wasn't home, and since he was in a hotel he was never really alone either.

All of which makes it strange that I had no idea this movie existed. None whatsoever. I knew there'd been a third one, because it actually got a theatrical release, and I also remember one monthly movie magazine giving it three-out-of-five stars, at which point I decided never to buy another issue of that magazine again (I was a pretentious little wanker during my teenage years, but I never regretted that decision for a second, and still don't). I also know the third one, like "Halloween 3," didn't follow the exploits of the original cast and characters, but instead introduced us to a new kid, played by a new actor, and four new bad guys attempting to find a lost microchip, and also like "Halloween 3," this apparently resulted in something of a backlash from people who were angry not to see the continued adventures of Kevin McCallister up on the big screen. The fact that anyone could care that much is both funny and infuriating to me, but amazingly the people resposible for this seem to have listened, because Kev's back (although they'll have to make do with the small screen).

He's not played by Macaulay Culkin, because that would be strange. Inspired, but strange. Instead we get Michael Wienberg, and his casting has inadvertently opened a whole new can of worms. You see, maybe I'm wrong, but the Kevin in this movie seems significantly younger than the one we saw in "Home Alone 2." So do his brother and sister (actually they look younger than they do in any of the movies). Infact, so do his parents. So, if you're going to be literal-minded about things, this must surely mean this movie takes place before the events of that movie. So even though this is called "Home Alone 4," it's actually, "Home Alone 2," chronologically, which would make "Home Alone 2," now the new "Home Alone 3." I don't know where that leaves the original "Home Alone 3." Floating off into outer space trapped in The Negative Zone, maybe.

From the second I press play, it's obvious that nowhere near as much effort has gone into this as went into the first three. For a start, there's no real opening credits, the "Home Alone" logo just falls into view, with the "4," tagged onto it almost like it's an afterthought. Then the movie begins, and I noticed just how cheap the production value is. Yes, I get it, there's absolutely no artistic ambition here at all. I'm not saying there was much in the previous films, don't misunderstand me here, but the well has totally run dry on this one. It is now just about tacking the "Home Alone," brand onto anything and trying squeeze every last nickle, dime, penny, dollar and pound out of anybody that still remotely cares about it. A similar pillaging is happening with the "American Pie," franchise. The difference between those movies and this one however, and I can't believe I'm about to type this, is that I think the DTDVD "... Pie," movies may be of a higher quality than this. At the very least they still look a little bit like actual movie. This has the kind of look and feel to it of an early-ninties sitcom. Most TV shows today would be ashamed to look like this. It's descended from a bloodline where the first film alone raked in over $200,000,000 domestically and was once ranked as one of the highest grossing films of all time. You're telling me they couldn't afford slightly higher quality film stock?

We first meet Kevin when he's lying on his bed watching a video of his family celebrating last Christmas together, which we discover, once his Mother walks in and starts talking to him, actually was their last Christmas together as a family, as his mother and father are separated and in the process of divorcing. Not exactly cheerful stuff for a family Christmas movie, but then "It's a Wonderful Life," was all about suicide, so I can't say anything really. It does screw up my timeine though, as Kevin's Mum and Dad are still very much together in the second one. Maybe they get back together at the end... oh, who am I kidding? Of course they will. It almost goes without saying.

They talk about the split a little bit, Kevin asking if it was either his or his sibling's faults. We later find out that his parents split about eight months ago, which makes the fact that he seems to be asking these questions for the first time here odd. It becomes apparent in this scene that not only does the Kevin in this movie look alot younger than the last time we saw him, but he acts alot younger than in any of the other films. One of the fun things about the first film's script, and Culkin's performance, was that Kevin was portrayed as a kid with a vocabulary and understanding of the world around him way beyond his years, who would occasionally get excited about something and turn into a little boy again. They try to invoke a little bit of that on occasions, such as here when he spouts a cliche-filled monologue to his mother about the effects of divorce on children that he claims to have heard on TV, and later when, after being given a high-tech miniature plane by Natalie, his father's new girlfriend, he tell's his father, "I think she's trying to buy my affection." But other than that he's just a generic nine-year old, the kind you'd find in any movie like this. We don't even get a scene of him talking to himself in the mirror.

We see a little bit of his homelife when his brother and sister pretty much attack him unprovoked and sit on him. His brother at least sort of has a slight reason for doing it, as he apparently had plans that night that he can't take part in because he's got to babysit. His sister, on the other hand, seems to be doing it for no other reason than it's something to do. Their mother sees this happening and, instead of marching over there and pulling the little shits off their poor brother, just casually says, "Get off him." And when they don't, when they just sit there and have a conversation with her for a couple more seconds, she makes no further effort to make them. Jesus Christ, no wonder this kid misses his Dad.

And speaking of his Dad, here he comes to save the day! He privately tells his soon-to-be-ex-wife that he plans to marry Natalie, which she seem none-to-pleased about, and would like the kids to spend a couple of days with him over Christmas to get to know her better. To me, this isn't an unreasonable request, although I'll admit it's kind of sprung on her at the last minute. Her reaction to this however is akin to him asking if he could sacrifice one of them to Satan so he could sell his soul to him. She says he has to ask the kids if they'd like to go with him. The first two turn him down for really selfish reasons, like they'd fall out of the loop if they were away from their friends for two days, but Kevin reluctantly does so because he says he wouldn't want the family to be totally separated over Christmas.

Now surprisingly, this scene got an emotional reaction out of me. However, that emotion was anger. When Kevin is considering his father's offer, his Dad tells him that some kind of Royal Family will be staying with him and and Natalie soon and that he'd have a Crown Prince to play with. For a start, this is total bribery. Very strange bribery, because if his girlfriend is rich enought to hobnob with royalty, then why not just say how many cool toys they have waiting for him when he gets there? But this isn't what pissed me off the most. What got me was when Kevin looks over at his mother, she looks back at him with a look on her face that says, "Please don't do it." And when he decides to stay with her, she shoots him a smile as if to say, "Good boy, you made the right choice." It was as if she was telling him that wanting to spend Christmas with his father, a man he clearly adores, was a bad thing to want to do, and that in spurning him he had got his mother's approval. Talk about emotionally scarring this poor kid for life, now everytime his Dad wants to do something with him, all his Mother has to do is give him a sad look and he'll say no, because obviously Daddy is a bad man, and if he does anything with him, that makes him bad too!

Wow, I actually don't know where that came from. And before anybody says anything in the comments section, my parents have been happily married for over 20 years.

His Dad leaves clearly disappointed, and then their mother goes off with their sister to some kind of dance thing, leaving Kevin in the care of his brother. Knowing he'd spend the night torturing him, Kevin asked if he could be left home alone, and when his mother said no, he countered with, "You've done it before!" For my sins, this drew a small chuckle out of me. So they're alone together, and as expected Kevin is subjected to a list of humiliations, the most painful of which being when his brother slams a garbage can lid down on his hand as he's taking out the trash. When his mother comes home (without her daughter, it's worth noting), she finds him sitting on the stairs clearly upset, telling her that he hates his brother and never wants to be left alone with him again. Does she ask him what's wrong and what he did to him? No, she just chuckles and say, "Awwwww honey, I know he picks on you," in a highly patronising tone. And when he, not unreasonably in my opinion, says he wishes he was an only child, his mother acts all disappointed and tells him to go up to his room and think about all the things he does have, instead of the things he doesn't. WAT? This kid has been abused all night, and because he dares to be angry about it, you're sending him to his room? Oh Kevin, did you ever back the wrong horse.

Luckily, he realises this, and decides to take his Dad up on his offer, catching a cab to their place. Logically this makes no sense, because when he arrives it seems like this is the first time he's ever been there (again, this has taken eight months?), so how did he know the address? But that could have been overlooked if him getting there had been any fun. If this had been done with the spirit of the old movies in mind, we'd have had a sequence of Kevin ordering the cab, possibly altering his voice to sound like an adult as he did it, sneaking out of the house to get catch the ride, and then giving the driver some elaborate story about why a kid would need a cab anywhere at this hour. But with this movie, the next time we see Kevin the cab's already outside Natalie's place. He even pays with his piggy bank. The closest thing to an explaination we get is that the driver seems to have some kind of Eastern European accent, and being a forigner he's obviously an idiot and will fall for anything (that's the movie's seemingly zenophobic attitude, not mine).

As expected, the house is a mansion, and Natalie is indeed rich. Kevin manages to just catch the two of them after they've arrived back from some kind of charity fundraiser and are happily spending the night necking on the couch. He's instantly welcomed into the house, and to the film's credit, initially at least it doesn't portray Natalie as some awful shrew. She seems like a nice woman, who genuinely wants her fiance's kids to like her. And how could Kevin not when he sees his room, an electronic day-glo Wonder World of toys, video games, huge TV screens and a truly awesome looking gaming chair. It's every nine-year-old's dream. Actually fuck that, I want that room! She also tells him that the mansion is a "Smart House," and gives him an electronic key with which he can open or activate anything with just a few words. Gee, I wonder if that'll come in handy later?

It's around this point that we're introduced to the film's antagonists. In a strange move for a movie that seems to be at least half-heartedly pandering to nostalgia geeks, they decide to bring back only one of The Wet/Sticky Bandits, that being Marv, here recast with French Stewart, and give him a wife to act as his sidekick, named Vera, played by Missi Pyle. You'll probably be aware of both of them from previous TV or film work. Stewart played Harry, the most eccentric of a group of aliens disguised as a normal human family on the sitcom, "3rd Rock from the Sun," and had the distinction of being possibly the funniest character on that rare thing- the sitcom where almost all the characters were pretty amusing. Missi I've been a fan of for a while now. She played the alien love interest Laliari in one of my all-time favourite sci-fi films, "Galaxy Quest," and was also the hideous potential shemale Fran in "Dodgeball: A True Underdog Story." Unfortunately she's also in "Big Fish," one of the few Tim Burton movie I don't like, but it could be worse, she could have been in "Planet of the Apes." She's attractive in a quirky way, and not afraid to take prat-falls or bury herself under mountains of make-up to get a laugh. I'm amazed she's not been called the new Lucille Ball yet, It seems like there's one of them every five minutes (I think it's Anna Faris' turn this week). To be honest, seeing them in this movie is a bit depressing, but I suppose bills need to be paid.

French Stewart's portrayal of Marv is strange, but I don't think that has much to do with him, as he's really playing Marv in name only. To explain- if you cast your mind back to the exploits of The Wet/Sticky Bandits from the first two movies, you'll remember that Marv was the comedy relief of the pair, the goofy idiot who who came up with those names after he started flooding people's houses and created a glove out of double-sided tape so he could easily steal change. Whereas his partner, Harry, was the grumpy, surly, slightly more serious straight man, the brains of the outfit, if such a thing even really existed. However, in this movie, Marv is suddenly all gruff and serious, constantly befuddled by his wife's ditziness. He acts... well, like Harry. If I had to take a guess at what happened, I'd say that in the original version on the script, this character was supposed to be Harry. Then Stewart was cast in the role, and it dawned on them that, even here, trying to pass this guy off as a character previously played by Joe Pesci wasn't going to fly, so they switched it to Marv at the last minute, and couldn't be bothered to do rewrites. Either that or the writers didn't know which character was which. That's entirely possible, too.

So they're staking out the place, with the intention to not rob it, but to get the lay of the land so that they can kidnap the Prince that had been previously mentioned and collect the ransom. As part of the staking out process, they decide to break into the house when they think it's empty in order to get the lay of the land, so to speak, doing this by using one of those voice keys (how did they get one of those, I wonder...) to open the back door. Only the house isn't empty, because Kevin is there, as he's been left home... alone. He literally flushes the pair of them out when he draws them into his bedroom's bathroom and pelts them with water from the power show. And I mean POWER shower, that thing's coming at them like six hoses. Eventually they ride the wave down the stairs, and Marv finally gets a good look at Kevin. "YOU!" he exclaims. "Hello, Marv," Kevin sarcastically replies. I can't really do justice to how surreal a moment it is when two characters who've met each other before meet again when played by two different actors. It's like that old comic book blurb, "Together again... FOR THE FIRST TIME!" I also for a second thought this stunt might be another sly wink at the audience, what with one of The Wet Bandits getting drenched and all, but I think that might be giving all involved too much credit there.

Marv and Very swiftly depart, leaving Kevin to try and explain to his Dad and incoming Step-Mother why the entire first floor of their home is now a paddling pool. He tells them what happened, and calls for their butler, Prescott (Erick Avari), to back him up, as he's in charge of all the cameras in the house and must have seen what happened. He, however, claims to have seen nothing, and accuses Kevin of treating the house like one big toy. It's this scene, and the one later where Marv says they have an "inside man," on the property, that's supposed to make us think that Prescott might be in league with the villains. He's also been nothing but hostile to Kevin since he got there. So it won't be him then, it'll be Molly (Barbara Babcock), the kindly irish maid who's adores Kevin. Mark my words.

Wanting to find evidence to back up his story, Kevin goes into Prescott's private quarters where the monitors are, and a place that he'd been sworn out of not too long ago, to try and find a tape of the event. Which he does, only to find the cameras had been turned off at the crucial moment. Then Prescott walks in on him sitting in his chair, Kevin screams, and... suddenly Kevin's not screaming anymore, and he answers Prescott's question about what he's doing there in a calm manner? Okay, this is a TV movie, and that's clearly where an ad break would have gone, but couldn't they have smoothed out the edit even a little bit? That cut is really jarring. "Didn't I warn you what would happen if I ever caught you in here again?" Prescott asks. "Not specifically," Kevin replies, to which he's then informed, in as sinister a manner as is possible in a U-rated movie, "Trust me, it won't be pleasent." Okay, there's where the scream should have gone. Kevin's then saved by Molly, further proof that she'll be the bad guy.

Kevin's Father and Natalie discuss ways in which the can help Kevin adjust to the changes that are going on in his life, as they've decided that the events of that morning were him acting out. They decide that the best way to do it would be to trim the tree together, something that's alien to Natalie, as she's always had other people to do it for her. Again, this doesn't mark her out as a horrible person, just one that's lived her life in a bit of a bubble. By this point I was actually slightly impressed that the movie seemed intent on not going the easy route with their relationship. Everybody seems to be having a good time during the tree-trimming montage, laughing and smiling. And even when Natalie recieves a call for her to be somewhere, she doesn't kick up a stink when Kevin's Father says he'd like to stay home with his son, and her leaving doesn't spoil anything. Genuinely refreshing, and something I wasn't expecting. Of course, a chink in the armour appears the next day when the guys come downstairs to find their tree totally redecored by the professional tree trimmers that Natalie says she forgot to cancel, but even there, it could just have been a genuine mistake. The tree looks nicer now anyway. And all is forgotten when Kevin is allowed to open another present to find a fully-functioning spy kit. Wow, what a conveniently useful gift!

It's at this point that Kevin's Mother, missing him, decides to drop by the mansion along with the rest of the family. I like how in this scene Kevin's siblings now like him because he has cool toys. There's an awkward meeting between the Mother and Natalie, but that's to be expected, and again, neither woman is really portrayed as being better or worse than the other. The closest we get to that is Natalie's reaction to a story told about Kevin's bear, that being that he's going to be having so much fun playing with the Prince that he won't even miss it. She also expresses concern that the kids might break a garden sculpture with Kevin's toy plane, but after everything that's happened already I don't think that's an unreasonable concern, and almost immediately after she says that the plane bumps into the window, so she's not worrying about nothing.

Natalie and Kevin's Father leave him at home with the help whilst they go to the airport to pick up the Royal Family, and Kevin soon finds himself once again face-to-fact with Marv and Very, this time disguised as waiters for the party that's being thrown for the guests arrival. After locking Prescott in walk-in freezer (remember when you used to be able to do that to the butler in "Tomb Raider?" That was awesome), he then stalks his prey, who pretty much do themselves in- Vera gets in the sack that Marv intends to capture the kid in, and then even demonstrates how he'd lower him down from the window. Using the house's technology, Kevin manages to send both of them flying out the window, with Marv also getting a grappling hook up the arse for good measure. It was with this scene that I realised one of the big things that's wrong with this movie, and that's the fact tha Kevin doesn't really have to work or think too hard to beat these two. In the first one, it was fun watching him make his plans and put his traps together, because it helped illustrate how clever he was, and that's one of the big fantasies of a little boy, that if push came to shove, he could prove he's smarter than any adult in the room. Here, the house is already wired up to a computer, so he doesn't really have to do much. There are a few traps later on, but they're nowhere near as creative as past ones. One essentially involves tying a cooking pan to a piece of string and swinging it at them. Give me a blowtorch and a scolding hot doornob any day of the week.

The Royal Family's plane gets snowed in wherever it is that it's flying from, which bums Natalie out because now her party isn't going to be as special. She asks Kevin's Dad if it would be okay for her to announce their engagement instead to make up for it, which he agrees to. The announcment is indeed made, and everything seems fine, until in the aftermath of Kevin doing battle with Marv and Vera, Prescott gets released from the freezer and literally slides out of the kitchen and into the main hall like a human ice cube, knocking people over and sending things flying as he goes. Kevin again tries to explain to them what happened, and again they don't believe him. It's later revealed that he managed to record Marv talking with his spy equipment, so why he doesn't just play them that, I have no idea. In any event, he finds himself back where he was when he first decided to take his Dad up on his offer- sent to his room. Whilst there, he phones his Mother, who's tearfully watching "It's a Wonderful Life" (lucky cow). We later find out that it's supposed to be a family tradition for them all to watch this movie together over Christmas. I was unaware of that. I always thought the only Christmas tradition this family had was child abandonment. Later, whilst lying in bed, Kevin is visited by Natalie. At first she expresses concern for him. Then she says this: "If you ever pull a stunt like that again you'll be out of this house so fast your head'll spin. So your father's getting divorced, boo hoo, everybody's parents get divorced, that's life, you'll get over it. But you're not going to get between your father and me. He wants you in his life, and I think that's admirable, but if you want him in your life you better not cross me, understood?" Aaaaaaaaaand she's a cartoon villainess. Well there goes this movies one attempt at something close to complexity.

So Christmas morning comes, and Kevin's Dad and Natalie have to leave to pick up the Royal Family again, leaving him with the help once more. Seriously, at this point, if Kevin was just doing this to fuck with them, they have nobody to blame but themselves, because they keep leaving him. Yes, there are other people there, but they've proven themselves to be totally impotent in the face of this boy. Just put him in the fucking car and take him with you! It's a limo, there's room!

Marv and Vera recieve a call from their insider telling them to come back to the house. Literally seeing them coming thanks to his telescope, Kevin locks Prescott in the wine cellar and gets ready to defend the house, only to discover that he wasn't their informant, but instead it was... yep, Irish Molly. Who's also exposed as Marv's mother, just for kicks. They lock Kevin in the basement with Prescott, and they have a chat, where amongst other things Prescott reveals that he really didn't see what wet down that first day, because he was using his alone time to take a crafty nap, as Natalie works him practically 24 hours a day. He and Kevin share a laugh, seemingly become instant friends, and... oh, I get it now! This is that scene from the first two movies, where Kevin is initially scared of the Street Salter/Weird Bird Lady, but then talks to him/her to discover he/she has a heart of gold, and even gets helped by him/her in times of great need. Believe it or not, I find the fact tha the people remembered to include this scene almost comforting. A "Home Alone," movie wouldn't be the same without it.

They talk about how they're going to escape from the cellar, and Prescott eventually remembers he has a cell phone on him. Really, you just remembered that? In any event, instead of using it to call the police, he gives it to Kevin, who uses it to call his Mother's house three times before that battery dies. These two, geniuses. They then discover a Dumb Waiter (i.e. one of those food lift things) hidden behind some boxes, and Kevin uses it to escapes the Cellar and once again attempt to fend off his nemesises (nemesi?). I should really go into detail about this sequence, but to be honest with you, it's really nothing special. There's one creative trap set up, when Kevin rigs a pair of fake legs up to poke out from under his bed that, when pulled, causes a bookshelf to fall on the person doing the pulling. Other than that it's one uninspired stunt after another.

So Kevin defeats that Bad guys, his Mum and Dad show up after they become concerned following the calls he made, the police come and take everybody away, Natalie and The Royals arrive, and then it seems like all the vaguely nice people get to have a happy ending- Kevin's Dad literally out of fucking nowhere decides he still loves his wife and wants to return to his family (hey, my timeline holds up!), Prescott quits his job, The Royal Family decide to spend Christmas with Kevin's so their son will have someone to play with, and Kevin gets not only his family back, but snow for the holidays. And what does Natalie get? She gets to cry and hyperventilate into a brown paper bag.

To say this film is the worst in this series is putting it mildly. The acting's nowhere near as good, with the exception on Stewart and Pyle who work harder trying to squeeze laughs out of the material than is strictly advisable, the script seems to have been written by two people with only a passing notion of what came before it, and it looks cheap, as already mentioned. But none of that was really bothering me. To be honest with you, I didn't really know what was bothering me until I got half-way through my second viewing, and then it hit me- WHERE'S THE FUCKING "HOME ALONE," SCORE?! None of the signature themes are used anywhere. Even people who hate these movies will happily admit that the score is iconic. Hell, as a kid I really had no clue how important music was to the overall structure of a movie, and even I would sometimes find myself humming the instrumentals from these. How could anyone forget the happy one that goes, "Da-d-d-d-daaaaaa-d-da-d-d-d-duuuuu, da-da-da-da-doooooo" of the one just before The Bandit's show up that goes, "Da-d-d-dum, da-d-d-dum, da-d-d-dum, da-d-d-dum, DA-D-D-DUM, DA-D-D-DUM, DA-D-D-DUM, DA-D-D-DUM, DA-D-D-DUM, DA-D-D-DUM, DA-D-D-DUM, DA-D-D-DUM, DA-DADA-DADA-DUM, DA-DADA-DADA-DUM, DA-D-DA-D-DA-D-DUM-DUM!" I can't, obviously. But the people behind this did.

So, I suppose you're thinking, "Binned then?"

Well actually, no, you'd be wrong.

"Kept then."

Nope, not that either. It's...

FINAL VERDICT

WRAPPED UP FOR CHRISTMAS FOR MY MUM!

She'll like it, all she'll see is a cute little boy.

Until next week, I'm The Cheap-Arse Film Critic, and Merry Christmas ya filthy animals.