Scrooge

****1/2 (out of 5)

Most people have a favorite film version of Dickens’ A Christmas Carol. The 1938 version with Reginald Owen, the underrated Mr. Magoo, the 1970 musical with Albert Finney, the Muppets with Michael Caine, the 80’s-tastic Bill Murray version, or the recent Jim Carrey in the Uncanny Valley rendition. And more.

I enjoy aspects of each of the above films, excepting the Jim Carrey abomination. A favorite Marley here, a favorite Ghost of Christmas Past there. But overall, the 1951 version with Alastair Sim as Scrooge is my favorite. His Scrooge is tall and gaunt, drooping of shoulder and sunken of eye. He is effectively cold and grumpy as well as warm and joyful as the story requires.

The living Jacob Marley is played with a smug self-satisfaction while his dying self and ghost are somber, sad, and insistent. His ghost’s scream is truly startling, and his voice nearly breaks with desperation as he wails that mankind was his business. The build-up to his appearance isn’t as effective here as in other versions, not as spooky, but he is a proper Marley nonetheless.

The three Ghosts of Christmas are played with authoritative dignity. Any humor comes from the situation or from Scrooge himself. The Ghost of Christmas Past is older and reminds one of a holy man. The Ghost of Christmas Present is expansive and hearty, and the black-robed Ghost of Christmas Future is shot from odd angles that accentuate his mystery.

Scrooge goes through his usual travels through time and space. In this version he seems to spend more time in the past than in others, showing more of his business shenanigans, and the actor playing the young Scrooge is a reasonable facsimile of the elder. The Scrooge who sees himself lonely at school until his beloved sister Fan arrives, his betrothal and subsequent separation from Alice, and his presence at Fan’s death, is in utter anguish. It is made clear to the audience how Scrooge’s heart hardened over time, and it’s difficult, at least for me, to keep one’s eyes dry.

Scrooge’s travels through the present include the usual. A visit with the Crachit’s and Tiny Tim that here vividly evokes a tightly loving family, and with Scrooge’s nephew in a scene that makes his Christmas party seem more alive than I recall in other versions.

The true test for me, though, is how well one of my favorite scenes is depicted, the revealing of Ignorance and Want. This was unspeakably unsettling to me as a youngster. Who are these children? Why are they huddling under his robe, why is no-one taking care of them? As an adult I find it powerful and sobering. This film’s Ghost of Christmas Present is stern and direct in his warning, and the children look wasted away. The Ghost’s mocking reply to Scrooge’s wondering why no-one cares for them, “Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses?” echoes around Scrooge as he despairs. Well done.

The Ghost of Christmas Future needs to freak the audience out. In this regard this Ghost does alright. Needs more something…height? A skeletal hand rather than one of flesh? The visit with the Tiny Tim-less Crachit’s is devastatingly sad, especially when Bob Crachit’s composure breaks. An exceptional scene. However, the scene where the help sells Scrooge’s belongings is interminably long. Sims’ Scrooge is terrified at this point, and his collapse in the graveyard is convincing.

Scrooge’s awakening is a goofy delight as he inadvertently frightens his weary housekeeper. Sim’s comedic timing and facial expressions abound with manic joy and a lightness of spirit, as they should. Scrooge telling a random child to purchase a turkey for the Crachits is made delightful by Sim’s rambling and the child’s naturally skeptical responses.

His visit to his nephew’s sees Sim’s Scrooge asking for forgiveness with warmth and contrition. The singing of “Barbara Allen” adds to the tenderness of the scene. Scrooge’s prankish deception of Bob Crachit is rushed but the film ends appropriately with Scrooge and a healthy Tiny Tim walking hand-in-hand.

A good version of A Christmas Carolentertains. A great one can be deeply moving. This is a great one.

Rise of the Guardians

Rise of the Guardians, with its foundations in author William James’ children’s book series The Guardians of Childhood, worked its magic on my son and nephew, ages 7 and 8, respectively. Both gave it an A and spent the rest of their evening playing a mash-up of Rise of the Guardians, The Avengers, Star Wars, Skylanders, Mario, and countless other stories. This was after a lively debate over whether Jack Frost is real. These are two highly imaginative and still-innocent boys, and it was a joy to hear them talking and playing.

For me, while charmed by its premise, that Santa, the Tooth Fairy, the Easter Bunny, and the Sandman are real and protect the world’s children from darkness, it did not transcend above typical children’s fare. It came close at times to mining deeper emotion and themes, especially in regards to Jack Frost’s back story and anything to do with the Sandman. But then it would descend back into becoming enamored with frantically-paced visual effects and cutie-patootieness. Even as a kid I was not one for excess cutie-patootieness.

Thankfully every now and then the action slowed down and the details in the animation could be seen in all their intricate gorgeousness, and the characters had room to develop. These are icons of childhood and should resound deeply in the audience’s minds.

Alec Baldwin voiced North, an imposing Santa with Russian accoutrements. That’s fine but I thought Santa Claus was more Dutch/Germanic sort of Scandinavian in origin? No matter. He’s been living in the Arctic Circle so OK. I did like how he used Russian composer’s names as swears (“Rimsky-Korsokov!”) because hey I do that too. Yeti’s were his main assistants, the elves were fairly useless and both were standard-issue comic relief.

Although it seems many of our holiday and legendary mascots come from Anglo-Saxon/Northern European origin this did not deter Hugh Jackman in voicing the Easter Bunny as an Australian on steroids who says very Australian-y things. Isla Fisher voiced the hummingbird jewel of a guardian, the Tooth Fairy, as a lively sprite of a being who grew on me as a character. Captain Kirk (Chris Pine) sorta generically voiced Jack Frost, the erstwhile star of the show and supposed hottie of legend, bearing a marked resemblance to Zac Efron and random boy band dudes. Jude Law voiced the Boogeyman, called Pitch Black (put 1/3 Maleficent, 1/3 Voldemort, & 1/3 Loki in a blender), a guy with an obligatory I’m-talking-with-a-British-accent-so-I’m-the-bad-guy manner. An effective bad guy who scared the crap out my son for most of the movie.

The Sandman, a legendary figure I found a bit creepy as a child, was without voice, communicating in facial expressions and images. A softly benign entity, he embodied more ‘wonder of childhood’ than the other characters. He, along with the Boogeyman’s legion of nightmare-bringing horses, were enchantingly depicted.

The heroic figures from legend band together to prevent the Boogeyman from afflicting children with fear and nightmares, recruiting the mischievous and ambivalent Jack Frost along the way on the orders of the enigmatic Man in the Moon. Logical leaps, hyperactive cuteness, and plot lines/dialogue that seemed warmed over from other films prevented this from being as entertaining for me than for the boys. But then again, it wasn’t a poorly made film, and I’m not the target audience.

Random Thoughts:

• The movie didn’t cause the boys to doubt the existence of Santa, the Easter Bunny, or the Tooth Fairy. Whew.

• It also didn’t cause them to believe the Boogeyman is real. Double whew.

• Two teen girls, one dressed head-to-toe in what appeared to be homemade Captain America-themed gear, *loudly* proclaimed their love for the movie as we exited our seats, “Jack Frost was so cute!”, “Pitch Black was awesome!” They were there with boyfriends who I didn’t hear a peep out of. In the parking lot things got louder. And there was skipping. And riding piggy-back on each other. They couldn’t have been more clear about their excitement even with a 76-trombone parade.

I would see kids in schools who *seemed* to be attention-seeking in proclaiming “I’M DIFFERENT!!” which is great, congratulations. Peers weren’t usually thrilled with these proclamations. And so the cycle of bullying went on and on. Not blaming victims here, no-one deserves cruelty, just thinking about an oft-repeated pattern. I hoped they didn’t get beat up too much.

• I being a dork immediately researched the origins of all the legendary figures after the kids went to bed and found a big mess. So much lost to the mists of time. It was amusing that academics have arguments and “controversial” theories over these origin stories, being a former academic I understand how people can get hepped up about these things.

Lincoln

Warning: I loved this film and there will be gushing.

What has Steven Spielberg wrought? Remember when Schindler’s List was being made and there was controversy about a director of blockbusters tackling serious fare? Now he is perhaps better known to younger generations for his filmic lessons in history than for Jaws. I believe that the better of Spielberg’s movies always plumbed the depths underneath their blockbuster veneers but that’s a matter for another blog entry.

Here we have Lincoln. A Spielbergian masterpiece. Spieibergian because there are few other directors who can wring more emotion out of a shot than he. A masterpiece because the humble figure at its center reins in some of Spielberg’s tendencies to go unrestrainedly for the sentimental.

Lincoln in profile, in silhouette, his stooping but solid yet fragile walk framed from behind. Tenderly rendered scenes between him and his beloved son Tad. Lincoln, lit as though from a heavenly source when characters around him are in darkness, but not so much as to detract from the story, the moment, or his common humanity. Lincoln the icon. Lincoln the man. Spielberg strikes and maintains balance between the two.

Some have questioned why this film is called Lincoln when it deals mostly with passage of the 13th Amendment. May I be so bold to say that they have missed the point. Lincoln, by all accounts and as depicted here, was a man who would not have brooked a film that centered too much upon him. To paraphrase Dickens mankind was his business, and a film that expands its focus to matters that affect the common people further reveals Lincoln’s character.

Daniel Day-Lewis disappears entirely, he has won Best Actor in the history books no matter who the Oscar goes to. It was interesting to contrast Lewis to James Spader and Tommy Lee Jones. The latter excel in playing specific types of characters, or are only offered certain roles, while Lewis is more a chameleon, save that his characters consistently convey great intensity. There is merit and worth in both “types” of acting as shown in this film. We expect Jones to be irascible and strong and Spader to be ambivalent and slippery. Would Lewis be as satisfying as them if he were in their roles? I doubt it, I don’t know. Was he perfect as Lincoln? Without question.

Sally Fields has the near thankless task of bringing an unsympathetic historical figure to life in a few scenes, but no worries she’s a pro. Her Mary Todd Lincoln burns with pain, grief, worry, intelligence, and love. Sufferers of migraines, chronic pain, and trauma, behold how her pinkie trembles as she holds her head, her veins so taut under the skin, how tightly wound her muscles are around her frame. Where’s the Sally Fields Mary Todd Lincoln movie?

Were there missteps? It’s a wordy film. There are a lot of ‘Lincoln as icon’ shots. But only one scene took me out of the movie. After Lincoln’s death there is a close-up of a candle’s light, and within this light he is shown giving a speech. In his quest to convey emotion Spielberg sometimes goes too far. For me, this was too much.

There are scenes I’m sure historians will quibble about and that’s fine. I believe the film could have been longer to widen the scope further. Many movies address historical events most impactful to African-Americans from a white perspective. The decisions made here, some heightened and some subtle, include the African-American experience, but this is primarily a white man’s story. This does not decrease the legitimacy or importance of this film, but it does underscore the need for films from multiple perspectives.

This film will likely become required viewing in history classrooms across our nation. I hope this does not prevent students from seeing its underlying hope for America and humanity, and the unfathomable character of our greatest President, Lincoln.

Random Thoughts:

-I cried and cried. It took effort not to sob aloud during the film. I sat in the theater bathroom stall afterward, shaking from restraining my emotion, just letting the tears roll. Why so much emotion?

*That it was ever a hotly debated question that slavery needed to be abolished. This alone is enough to make me despair for us all.

*In the past year I have visited Ford’s Theater and the site of Lincoln’s death, the Lincoln Museum in Springfield, IL, and his grave. I was moved beyond words in all of these places by Lincoln’s generous spirit, his melancholia, and his leadership.

*I have seen myself decline into a state of chronic pain and despair from which I’m only recently emerging and can identify with some of Mary Todd Lincoln’s struggles. She had so much more loss than I have had, and thinking about her pressures as First Lady and her suffering in an age without adequate medical or mental health is staggering. In one scene Lincoln asks her to take the liberal rather than selfish view and I thought, she’s giving all she can and more, “selfish” or not.

*Have we ever really got over this period in history? Might things be different now if Lincoln led Reconstruction? I don’t know. I was especially haunted by the latter question while touring the Lincoln Museum. We seem so divided right now I sometimes fear there’s an internal crisis building. As the credits rolled I prayed to God to bless our nation. Did the Civil War only delay the inevitable?

*Roger Ebert once said that it’s not tragedy that moves us most, but goodness. This is true for me.

-Fact: Elizabeth Keckley was more than ‘servant’ to Mary Todd Lincoln. She was a confidante, a lifelong support to Mrs. Lincoln. To what extent Mrs. Lincoln could reciprocate given her struggles isn’t clear, although her reliance on Ms. Keckley is certain. Where’s her movie?

-Fact: Thaddeus Stevens and his African-American ‘housekeeper’ were a common-law couple. And this was one of the worst kept secrets in DC at the time. Where’s their movie?

-On a lighter note, can we moviegoers stop getting up in arms about who’s playing national icons? So Lewis and Jared Harris (a doppleganger for General Grant; Moriarty in Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows) are Brits. So what. They’re the right men for the job. Robert Downey Jr. makes for an engaging albeit unconventional Sherlock. That’s OK too.

Star Trek Into Darkness Trailer and Mild Insanity

A teaser trailer for the new Star Trek: Into Darkness is out, and a headline from the website Pajiba said it would Cumber my Batch and Zack the H-ll out of my Quinto. I found this hilarious because I have a serious weakness for the clever double-Entendre.

For you non-geeks Benedict Cumberbatch, Sherlock from the British version, is the big bad, and Zachary Quinto plays Spock.

Did the trailer do as promised? Not sure. Not enough Zack to get my Quinto going. I had an odd crush on Spock as a girl so my Quinto would like more Zack, please.

It hit all the required elements of a trailer nowadays, British bad guy VoiceOver, beloved characters in peril, stuff blowing up, general public gaping in dismay yadda yadda yadda. It was great!

I adore Benedict’s voice so yay but he’s never really Cumbered my Batch. He reminds me of an inquisitive ferret (sorry Ben!). He was a sorta fine looking evil ferret in this trailer, though. Consider me Batch-curious at this point.

But now I think about the films I’ve recently seen and wonder…

The Hunger Games Lenny’d the Effie out of my Kravitch. Would a man say hey that movie really made my Peeta Glimmer?

The Avengers thoroughly Joss’d my Whedon six ways ’till Sunday. Would a man say it turned his Johanssen Scarlett?

Will Lincoln clothe me in immense power and make me Proclaim my Emancipation?

Will The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey pull a Gandalf on my Bilbo and leave my Middle-Earth pining for Aragorn?

Did Taylor Lautner’s abs Break my Twi-Fan sister’s Dawn during Eclipse Part 2?

Did Tom Cruise into my Mom’s heart during Rock of Ages?

Someone please stop me I could do this all day. Did I mention a few posts ago that I tend to get loopy when I don’t feel well? This might be Exhibit A.

Return to Cranford: An Unanswered Question

Contains mild spoilers. My Mom and I pondered on this:

What happened to the Buxton’s plot device, er, I mean dog, Napolean?

Some theories:

1) Master Harry’s family killed it for food while the baby cried and cried and cried.

2) Lady Ludlow’s son and his Italian mustache boyfriend took it back to Italy with them where they all lived happily ever after.

3) The elder Mr. Buxton stabbed it to death with a ceremonial dagger in an elaborate ritual to make Peggy’s greedy idiot brother his son instead of William.

4) The Old Biddies smothered it with their lace to punish Peggy and William for their public depravity, having been shocked at how she allowed him to brush crumbs off her skirt. I can hear Miss Mattie’s sister saying that one does not permit one’s husband to brush one’s crumbs, even in one’s private bedchamber, until after one year of marriage, if at all, ever. “That is the way here in Cranford.”

5) The pastor accidentally ran it over with his carriage and felt bad until he recalled his humiliation when the dog interrupted his church service.

6) It died unexpectedly of (fill-in-the-blank).

7) Handsome Peter got bored of Cranford and took it back to India with him. Disappointing Peter is an actor he hired to fool Mattie & the Old Biddies.

Return to Cranford

Like Cranford, also watched with my Mom, Grandma Sloth.

If Cranford was like being welcomed for a fortnight Return to Cranford was like being rushed through tea. Very much a sequel but still full of charm and people unexpectedly dropping dead. The humor & characterization is a bit broader, a beloved character from the first series is barely featured, and events more contrived, yet there is still humor, (rushed) romance for young and old alike, adorable youngsters in peril and Old Biddies who dither about in their bonnets.

I must single out Imelda Staunton. Whether sharply warning her fellow biddies to avoid looking out a moving train’s window lest it fray their optic nerve or getting twitterpated by a traveling magician (the always magnificently hammy Tim Curry) she made Grandma Sloth & I just howl.

The acting is still top notch, with new additions like Jonathan Pryce with an unfortunate beard, young’uns would know him as Governor Swann from the Pirates of the Caribbean series. Also Tom Hiddleston AKA Loki, who shows up with blonde curly hair so we know he’s not evil but his Cranford character has Daddy issues too.

To continue with this hair theme some dude showed up with fluffy Fabian hair and an outrageous mustache. He was supposed to be Italian. I mention him because he threw up and had no lines. All the poor dear had was his crowning glory.

Most distressingly, however, is that there was an exceedingly distinguished and attractive (by any standard) older gentleman introduced at the end of the first series named Peter. In this series he is played by an ?attractive? (even by British standards) random dude as zany comic relief. What the frack, Cranford?Grandma Sloth & I were not satisfied with this new Peter. One should not switch Peters mid-series.

We were very satisfied with Emma Thompson’s real-life husband Greg Wise, who played the dashing Willoughby in Sense & Sensibility. He had a small role in this series but was very diverting when on screen. Brava, Emma!

Yes there were younger women in this & they were wonderful but this is my review so that’s all I’ve got to say about them.

I do so much enjoy these BBC productions. I think in another life I was some old biddie back in the day saying things like ‘poor dear,’ doing my sewing, and listening to the men talking in their accents which I may have mentioned before I could happily do all day long.

Cranford

Watched this with my Mom, Grandma Sloth. A brief review.

Excellent entertainment for both rabid and casual Anglophiliacs. Set in a charming 1840’s village getting dragged into modernity. Humor, romance, & tragedy all delivered by the most capable of actors such as Dame Judi Dench & Imelda Staunton (Dolores Umbridge from Harry Potter). Cute guys and sturdy men who I could listen to all day. Men with British accents, and a Scot and an Irishman if you like that kind of thing which I do & this is my review so there.

One positively luminescent woman, a heartbreaking child and a very gossipy yet funny (& heartwarming) Old Biddy Committee. A five-part mini-series that originally aired on BBC 2 in 2007 and then aired on PBS in America.

Sentimental & emotionally manipulative? Yes. But top shelf sentimentality & emotional manipulation.

If you’re in need of gentile, well-produced entertainment please to enjoy. Excellent for a sick day.

Long Time No Posts

For posterity’s sake, I am recording here that my dearth of posts has been due to feeling like crap. I’ve seen probably less than 10 movies since July and after seeing each have not been able to eke out a review beyond a few words. My head often hurts with loud noise and light and my thoughts are a bit fogged. There’s more to it but that’s enough of that for now.

After a few weeks of low to no pain it’s returned, and I’m not feeling very useful. As a diversion I’ve started writing reviews again, and hope to get somewhat caught up. I saw Argo and that deserves a thoughtful review, at the least.

Pain and vertigo tend to make me loopier than usual, not to mention taking a plethora of meds, so you’ve been warned.

While I like knowing that my reviews are floating around the Internet I truly write them for myself so that I remember my thoughts and feelings about a film.

With this out of the way I will return this blog to its regularly scheduled programming.

Journey 2: The Mysterious Island (2012)

***1/2 (out of 5)

Directed by: Brad Peyton

Screenplay by: Brian Gunn, Mark Gunn

Story by: The Gunn’s, Richard Outten, some hack named Jules Verne

Can you pop your pecs? There was much debate on the car ride home about who in the extended family could pop their pecs. This is a movie for kids. No more, no less. My tween girl and young son enjoyed it, as evidenced by their obsessive talk on pecs popping. For those unfamiliar, a man who can alternate the flexing of their chest muscles is popping their pecs. According to one character this is a sure way to a woman’s heart. Or was it pants? Something like that.

This movie just wants to please its target audience, and falters when it tries too hard. Sean (Josh Hutcherson) is snide and mopey, as much as a kids’ movie allows, around Best Stepfather Ever Hank (Dwayne Johnson). Sean and Hank experience a rapprochement over Jules Verne and code breaking which naturally means they need to go to an uncharted island to find Sean’s grandfather. You know Grandpa’s going to be British because he has the fanciest name, Alexander (Michael Caine). There’s an attempt at some depth with Hank being the kind, involved but rejected father figure and Alexander being the family-abandoning, remote but hero-worshipped father figure but then OMGOSH LOOK AT THOSE HUGE BUGS!!

I’m not sure what to think about Luis Guzman’s Gabato, the man so desperate for cash to send his daughter to college that he agrees to fly Sean and Hank to an uncharted place. Gabato’s not as brave as the other men, and although he can fly a plane through epic storms he doesn’t seem to have other skills except for falling down and making I’m scared faces and noises. Occasionally funny, but why did the comic relief have to be the one with the brownest skin? I think that’s a legit question, one to think about discussing with the kids.

Kailani (Vanessa Hudgens) is Gabato’s beloved daughter and Sean’s love interest, a token tough girl who still needs rescuing every now and then. Do I need to mention that her outfit involves PG-13-friendly cleavage and short shorts? Didn’t think so.

This is breezy action-adventure for the younger set, the actors involved seem determined to deliver a good time. Dwayne Johnson AKA The Rock is charismatic and likable here, just as he always is. There’s something about him that makes me want to root for him, and I hope he has a long and fulfilling career, whatever that means to him. And no I’m not referring to his pecs.

Thoughts on Colorado

“And can it be that in a world so full and busy the loss of one creature makes a void so wide and deep that nothing but the width and depth of eternity can fill it up!”– Charles Dickens (1812-1870)

I’m keeping in mind that there was one shooter, but many responding to help. One who went to the theater with ill intent, but many who went with friends and family to enjoy a night’s entertainment. A few who post snarky comments about the tragedy in an attempt to gain attention, but hundreds (thousands?) who post closely-held thoughts and feelings for those impacted. Thinking like this keeps me from wanting to barricade my children from the world, from the unthinkable. Thinking like this keeps me from despairing in my own sadness and anger, and keeps my thoughts on the those who died, who survived, who are suffering, and who are caring for them. May they all find comfort, may they all find peace.