The Muppet Christmas Carol, 1992 – ★★★★

My partner recently has been keen to try and get me to watch more movies that are classed as ‘common shared experiences’ that somehow passed me by, and with this being the festive season, that can only mean one thing…The Muppets Christmas Carol.

I had seen grabs of this film over the years, my cousins grabbed it when it first came out on VHS and I saw a chunk of it then, I saw clips of it over the years and thought it looked fine enough. But the fact I hadnt actually seen the whole thing from beginning to end before made my partner recoil in horror as it was pretty much an annual tradition in their household when it first came out (Though, she still maintains that ‘Muppets Treasure Island’ is in fact, the best Muppets movie…A fact I find hard to dispute.)

And so, ‘The Muppets Christmas Carol’! an adaptation of the Charles Dickens novel but slightly more sanitized for children and much MUCH more Muppity! and…its actually pretty good fun! I dont think its *quite* as good as the Alistair Simm version for my money, but I really enjoyed this retelling.

The muppets humour, I initially thought would be quite jarring, actually gels remarkably well here. With some great aside gags and subtle multi layer bits amid some surprisingly toned down chaos given the Muppets remit.

We watched the ‘Full’ cut of the film with a deleted song and scene or two readded in, and I think that really helps the flow of the production (clocking in at 89 minutes) Having not seen the more widely available cut, I cant comment comparitively. But having seen this, I feel like it hits most of the key points pretty spot on, and it flows between the acts effortlessly and enjoyably.

The direction work is rock solid, surprisingly probably one of the best looking adaptations of a christmas carol from a visual aspect, the cast/muppet direction is near perfect with some fantastic placements and some near perfect dialogue drops really pushing this thing up.

The cine too is a real step up too, with some striking and memorable compositional choices, strong colour use and incredible effects for the time (the fade up to white transition effect to allow for scene changes in the christmas past segment is a personal favourite) its incredible really how they were able to really bring the muppets (full body) to life in this one. Though, I do feel the ghost of christmas past puppet from this film will live on in my nightmares for the foreseeable.

The editing is rock solid, no complaints from me, it really seems to fully understand the assignment.

In fact, the only issue I have is with the performance of Scrooge himself. Not to diss Michael *one punch* Caine here…his performance as the Miser is superb…when he’s BEING miserly… during that time he comes across as wonderfully cold, and slowly warms emotion into his physical performance and delivery. I cant fault him there…no, I have a problem with his ‘good scrooge’ performance. Problem for me is, I just didnt fully go with him on how he chose to play it.

For me? I feel like the ‘revelation’ final act for scrooge should bring with it a layer of giddy mania, the idea that he’s just been struck by the bolt of lightning resolve that he’s going to be good, the possibilities that brings with it and the fact that the future is very much in his hands. I feel like a performance like that requires a ‘racing thoughts’ type play. i want my scrooge bouncing off the walls, dancing down the street and alive behind the eyes with the feeling that he still has time and world to make his own…

Caine…for me, doesnt deliver that. He still looks fairly dead eyed for most of the big closer and having a bit of a pep in his step and a slight smile isnt convincing me of anything, letalone the power of 3 hauntings and a dead child having hit him like a freight train. His performance in that finale screams ‘yay…christmas.’ and not ‘OH MY GOD! IM A CHANGED MAN! THE WORLD IS INCREDIBLE AND I LOVE EVERYTHING!!!’

And thats a shame, because it does rather leave a subdued ending on my plate, and not one that really won me over…Also; WHO in their right mind decided to give MICHAEL *Jellied Eeels/My old mans a dustman’ CAINE. a musical number?! jesus…

In either case, despite Caines final play and the fact the script does sand off some of the harsher edges of the christmas carol novel, I still had a really good time with this most muppity festive offering. I absolutely would watch it again, I think its very likely going to wind up in my ‘top 3’ adaptations of Dickens famous work. and god bless us everyone!

source https://letterboxd.com/tytdreviews/film/the-muppet-christmas-carol/

Dr. Who and the Daleks, 1965 – ★★★

1963-1970 Was kind of the ‘Wild West’ of ‘Doctor Who’ (The famous british science fiction TV programme about a mad alien with a shapeshifting time travelling box who rocks up on alien worlds, fights tyranny with intellect and romance over brute force and cynicism and then heads off to the next adventure)

See, the show was a little slow going in establishing its own lore, with the concept of regeneration (initially known as ‘renewal’) not existing until 1966, the Doctors race being named ‘The Time Lords’ not existing until 1969, and the doctors homeworld ‘Gallifrey’ not being named until 1972. You would think these would be more up front reveals. But the show was far to busy having fun and messing with the audience over the years to really bother with lore. ‘Lore is for big walleys’ as Terrence Dicks once famously quipped.

But in 1964/65 two things were certain, ‘Doctor Who’ as a show was a phenominon that captured the nations youth, and the biggest threat to the galaxy…were ‘The Daleks’.

The ancient pepperpots have been around now for well over 60 years, but their history (and more importantly, their copyright status) even to this day, is murky to say the least.

This is because the Daleks were created by Terry Nation, who ensured via negotiations with the BBC that the rights to the Daleks as creatures/designs and all of the stories that Nation would pen for the series between 1964 and 1975 were his to own and do what he pleased with.

So, when the opportunity to make a big screen outing for the timelord presented itself (via unscrupulous means I might add) Nations eyes turned into dollar signs, and the guy handed the reigns to the worlds first ‘Doctor who’ movie over to two chaps who, at best, had maybe half watched half an episode of one of the poorer William Hartnell era episodes.

Nation leased the rights out to adapt the Daleks first outing (Titled: ‘The Daleks’) to the big screen…But due to not wanting to step on the BBC’s toes in doing this deal, a number of things had to be changed/tweaked from the original show to make it work.

I realise im getting quite fact heavy in this review, but please do bear with me, its kind of important.

So ‘Doctor who’ the TV series, by this point in time had been running for around 2 and a bit years. William Hartnell played the first on screen incarnation of the Doctor alongside the doctors Grandaughter Susan (a 15 year old played by Carol Anne Ford). The story explains that while attending a human school in the 1960s, Susans teachers Ian and Barbara become concerned that shes acting a bit *too* odd for a teen girl of that time…So they follow her back to a junkyard, where its revealed the doctor has a time machine, he traps Ian and Barabara inside, and most of the first season is based around the doctor (half heartedly) trying to get ian and Barbara back to 1963, having many adventures along the way (Including ‘The Daleks’)

THIS adaptation of the story is set on earth in 1964/65 as we are introduced to the VERY much human ‘Dr. Who’ (Im not joking…his last name is ‘Who’ and he is a ‘Dr.’) a somewhat eccentric, but warm grandfather figure who is currently sharing a house with his two daughters ‘Barbara’ and ‘Suzie’.

While whiling away the hours reading advanced physics books (and comics) we’re then introduced to Barbaras boyfriend, Ian. whos basically just doing a half hearted dick van dyke impression for most fo the runtime.

While waiting for Barabara to get ready to go on a date, ‘Dr. Who’ decides to take Ian into the back garden to show him his greatest invention to date…’TARDIS’ (not THE Tardis…just…TARDIS…) a time/space travel machine that ‘Dr. Who’ himself has built out of bits of string and tiny pieces of eggshell seemingly…Naturally the entire gang wind up inside TARDIS, Ian falls on the ‘GO’ lever…and they wind up on a mysterious alien planet thats been largely petrified.

And what follows is a VERY truncated adaptation of the original BBC serial, which ran for 7 episodes between 1963 and 1964 totalling just shy of 3 hours of television. I mention this because the films FULL runtime is 76 minutes. with a good chunk of that going into opening titles and credits.

And thats kind of the crux of the issue this film has really…the original television serial (in my opinion) was ABSOLUTELY over long, flabby and EXTREMELY repetative…the core idea is decently solid, but its largely a runaround with a few good moments sprinkled throughout.

The film adaptation however? goes WAY too far in the other direction, oversimplifying the story into a MASSIVE hodge podge of bizarre and confusing key plot beats that have basically just been hot glue gunned together without ANY thought for continuity, pacing or storytelling.

There are multiple points in this film where the plot holes are significant enough (and glaring enough) to pull you clean out of the action, key scenes in the TV series are just wholesale lifted into this version, but without the adaptation required to make it make sense. The original televised serial was quite literally an alagory for the nazi movement, with the Thals playing the part of the persecuted minority and a (somewhat heavy handed) but fairly well balanced take on racism.

This movie dumbs that down to ‘Daleks = Bad, Thals = good’ and the entire racism/nazi comparison is airlocked pretty quickly. a key scene in which Ian tries to coax the thals into fighting back against their abusers, in the TV series, is a fairly blunt, but well executed shorthand for ‘stand for something or fall for anything’ in this movie, that same scene is played with NON of the context applied meaning a largely pacifistic race of people just suddenly turn into Sylvester Stallone in ‘Cliffhanger’.

The characters are streamlined down to the basest of elements. Ian, Barara and Susan in the TV series have depth, warmth, character. They can be complex, have feelings that go against the grain and we learn to warm to them as they express their humanity (or in susans case, wanting of humanity and belonging) over the various adventures we go on with them. Hell, even ‘The Doctor’ in the TV series starts as a grumpy and border sociopathic alien figure, but over time, softens into a still quite grumpy, but ultimately lovable figure.

Here? ‘Dr. Who’ is an abscent minded professor type who just basically says whatever comes to mind and bumbles around looking for solutions to random problems. Ian is prat falling all over the place and has ZERO character beyond playing a ‘dummy dumb dumb’, Suzie is a precocious child genius and nothing else, and Barbaras personality here is SO thin, I actually forgot she was even in the movie, as she only really has 2 scenes of relevence and note, and the rest of the time she just sits in the background.

The pacing is jagged and uneven, the tone is weird and offputting, it feels like ‘Home brand’ doctor who…and worse still, ‘Home brand’ doctor who that doesnt really understand why the show was successful.

The key selling point of the movie is of course the Daleks themselves, who get a very lavish redesign, but even with the full push of the Nation estate behind them, even they dont escape unscathed, their voices here, while easily identifyable, are slow and sluggish. making short scenes in the TV version PAINFULLY long in the movie redux. While I personally loved the redesign, they dont really get to do a whole lot here, and the decision to replace their ‘extermination’ gun ray effects with just a ploom of smoke I feel really knocks them down in terms of how menacing they can be.

What DOES save this film however is the direction and cine, which is rock solid, with previously ‘broom cupboard’ sized sets, being replaced with grand soundstages, lavish neuvo art deco set designs and a real sense of scale to proceedings. the knock on effect is that the actual props themselves look BEYOND cheap and poor quality. But for grandness, this one cant be faulted honestly.

Compositions are distinct, vibrant and decently experimental, particularly with the Dalek form. we have a pretty coherent production visually, even if the script fails to match it in quality.

The edit is a bit all over the place, not *quite* incoherent, but certainly heading that way. cuts are a bit scattershot and there are moments where shots are either WAY too brief or WAY too long before the cut mark. which is a real shame. it feels rushed, and very much in need of one more pass to tighten it up.

As for the performances? Peter Cushings ‘Dr. Who’ is unrecognizable. the man transforms into the role and it took me at least a couple of watches to realise that he actually was THE Peter Cushing and not just some random actor CALLED Peter Cushing. I feel like he nails the brief of what was asked of him, giving a very sincere, if not a tad doddery performance. The problem is, the brief that was provided to him was VERY much against how the character ACTUALLY should be. In short, he’s fine. Its the script thats wrong.

I actually feel sorry for the supporting cast in this, who’ve been transformed from meaty, somewhat interesting characters into NPC’s for most of the runtime. flat, dull, lifeless…they did nothing for me…The dalek operators certainly add a menace to proceeding. but that delivery is just SO jittery…it really quite put me off.

The score by contrast is fun, light and engaging…Though, it really doesnt say ‘Doctor Who’ to me…it says more ‘Generic early 60s sci fi movie’ like…its quality…but it feels ill fitting in these circumstances.

The first Doctor who movie is a bit of a minefield honestly, while I enjoyed seeing an alternate take on the TV series. the idea with reinventing a character is to try and take them off in an interesting and new direction…Something this production really quite fails to do.

Its a fine enough generic sci fi flick, something to happily kill 70+ minutes…But I feel like this had the potential to have been SO much better than what we ended up with. As it stands its very much ‘Nice video, shame about the song’ pretty…but lacking the spark that really makes me love it.

source https://letterboxd.com/tytdreviews/film/dr-who-and-the-daleks/

Santa Claus, 1959 – ★★★

Caught the MST3K ‘riffed’ version tonight given the season, and its about as daffy as it ever was. I think the riffing absolutely helps add enough to the film to make it significantly more watchable. without it, the whole movie seems almost ‘fever dream’ esq…elongated scenes of weird WEIRD dialogue delivery choices and other oddities…this is a strange and not particularly well made movie…I have the unriffed version on my shelf and will likely review that one more in depth in future…But for now, I can say the MST version IS better than the unriffed version…But yeh…this is only a click or so off ‘Fun in Balloon Land’ level weirdness.

source https://letterboxd.com/tytdreviews/film/santa-claus-1959/

Die Hard, 1988 – ★★★★

Well, a storm hit the UK today knocking my Internet out, and given my entire physical media collection (and player) are still boxed up due to a recent move I was stuck watching live TV tonight. And I timed it perfectly to catch ‘Die Hard’

Honestly not much to say that hasn’t been said already, it’s a much loved action thriller that’s deservedly praised for having a nice level of self awareness and charisma about itself, without fully going all in on the tropes that defined 80s action movies.

Bruce Willis and Alan Rickman absolutely delight across the runtime, it looks great, it’s written well, and the supporting cast understand the assignment.

The only solid criticism I have for it, is the first act is a bit lumpy and slow going. Great moments, just unevenly paced and it falters a bit until the heist actually starts going. But from there on in, it becomes a riot…quite literally.

As for the debate as to whether its a Christmas film or not? I’m honestly still on the fence. It’s a film that relishes the fact its a film set on Christmas eve and embraces Christmas music and the day itself for self aware snarkery (which is very much appreciated) however, the core themes and values one would associate with a ‘christmas’ movies are absolutely absent. If it wasn’t for the film itself reminding the audience that the film took place around christmas time, we’d really be non the wiser.

My gut tells me this is an unconventional christmas movie, but it IS a christmas movie…that being said, you won’t find it in MY top 5 christmas films anytime soon because of its lack of actual festivities barring puns, graffiti and a few choice needle drops…you guys do what you want is where I’m at with this one.

Great film, would recommend catching at least once. Yippie kai yay

source https://letterboxd.com/tytdreviews/film/die-hard/

NoAngels.com, 2000 – ★

A deathly dull Mockumentary from the lens of Charles Band featuring a gaggle of the ‘surrender cinema’ stable ‘NoAngels.com’ is the story of several women’s determination to launch an adult website during the apex of the 2000s ‘dot com’ Craze. And…that’s really all there is to say about this one.

I’m not entirely sure what the point of it was truthfully, the idea of a scripted fake documentary is *generally* that the story is more engaging than anything that could happen naturally…but here, it’s *too* straight cut, with only the occasional, incredibly painful planned shot and the clearly fake ‘drama’ pulling you out of a dreary piece about half a dozen girls going to the club and talking ‘branding opportunities’

The film gets SO fed up with itself, that half way in to the movie it becomes an advert for the ‘hustler store’ and ‘surrender cinemas’ self branded adult toy merch.

The pacing is chronically slow, the direction and cine are jittery and painful…not helped by the fact this was shot in DV wide-screen. But hasn’t been upscaled for streaming platforms. Meaning the copy on full moons streaming service and dvd is a ‘widescreen’ print for 4:3 tvs that hasn’t been recropped to ACTUALLY be widescreen for the digital release. Meaning the entire film has a huge black void surrounding it (a common issue for the less fondly remembered full moon titles…)

The characters arnt interesting, the softcore is basically non existent, the film seems to have lost the point of its own existence before it even really got started and the sound mix is atrocious. With thin tinny vocals that can BARELY be deciphered, getting hard mixed with random music, some copyrighted, others randomly incidental, but all super low quality.

I wasn’t expecting much from this going in, but even I was surprised how little titillation is ACTUALLY present in this movie and just HOW DULL it really truely is. Am absolute waste of 72 minutes. Don’t bother unless your a die hard ‘surrender cinema’ fan…and even then, I think you’ll struggle.

source https://letterboxd.com/tytdreviews/film/noangelscom/

The Wizard of Oz, 1939 – ★★★★

When I say ‘They dont make them like they used to’ this is the film im specifically referring to. One of the first films to utilize technicolor and what a marvel for the age it really truely was. The 1939 ‘Wizard of Oz’ is a marvellous family film that, while almost certainly dated in some of its less politically sound choices, is nontheless an enjoyable, colourful ride through the wonderful world of ‘Oz’.

What astounded me the most was really how fresh this film STILL feels almost 85 years since its release. while I cant say it looks ‘fresh’ in the face of modern 4k digital CGI and animation, it DOES look fresh from a live action perspective, and moreso; I feel like even modern audiences would find something to latch onto with this.

The scripts…imperfect, I think thats fair to say, its a little slow burn, but manages to keep the audience holding on by way of its VERY unusual aesthetic and imagery. I feel like the film overruns by about 10-15 minutes. Which, by chance is exactly how long (roughly) the sequence where Dorathy is captured by the wicked witch of the west and has to be rescued by the tin man, scarecrow and Lion takes. I’d have honestly been happy enough with a final confrontation with the wicked witch in the emeral city. But! the film feels the need to complicate itself at the final hurdle…which was a bit of a shame.

However, outside of that, we have a really solid time. The scripts dialogue choices are solid with plenty of quotable moments, most of which have been absorbed into modern media via cultural osmosis. The characters are a little basic, but well defined, the land of Oz is a spiriting place filled with curiosities and intreague. the act structuring up to the 3rd act is pretty straightforward and interesting.

Tonally, its campy fun. plenty of fun little musical numbers and because the characters are especially vibrant and animated, it leads to a number of semi slapsticky encounters which I really enjoyed.

The direction, for the time, is remarkable. Honestly; this is an incredible work showcasing the real potential of colour film, and the use of technicolour here REALLY takes things to the next level. I was amazed by the practical effects, the creativity that came into the city and worldbuilding and the costume design, all of which felt grand and intricate.

The cine too was rock solid, with some incredible ‘in camera’ effects, glorious rich and deep colour and surreal compositions that to this day continue to inspire film makers ranging from Tim Burton, to John Waters. compositions are significant. Its an incredible work.

Not to mention the astounding performances from Margret Hamilton, Judy Garland and our anthropomorphic trio. Who are all firing on all cylinders giving performances that very much defined their careers (which is incredibly bittersweet when you know the hardships that these actors went through in order to produce this film)

The musical elements are delightful, memorable and instantly reciteable. hits that carry on reinventing themselves WELL into the modern age. the incidental music is standout and distinctive to.

In short, barring some pacing issues and moments where this film gets a little TOO simplistic at times. I had a ball with this, I have fond memories of watching and rewatching this film on TV as a child on bonfire nights and around christmas time. and given it had been 22 years (at least!) since I last saw this. It felt surprisingly like slipping into a well worn and appreciated armchair.

If you’ve NEVER seen this before, I dont know how you’ll take it, but i’d like to think you’d love it. If you HAVE seen this before, and its been a while, go fix that.

Also; Toto was euthanized 3 days later…

source https://letterboxd.com/tytdreviews/film/the-wizard-of-oz-1939/