LukeStay.com

DrChocolate sees the movies I can’t afford to see in theaters (apparently including movies I’d rather gouge my eyes out than sit through) so this site can stay current.

Time to get crucified. Any sort of credibility I may have built up with those of you who don’t know me and read Luke’s site and my hyperbole ridden reviews is probably about to dry up. My wife is a fan of the Twilight series, and because I make her sit through such manly fare as Blackhawk Down and because she indulges my penchant for B-movies I have agreed to see the Twilight films with her. Really, New Moon isn’t nearly as bad as you think it would be and it’s miles better than Twilight, which had some fun style but was ultimately clunky and hollow. Additionally, I’m going with a two pronged approach for this review: one addressing the movie itself; second, I’m going to frame that review with my thoughts on the Twilight phenom/backlash itself.

First, the movie: again, it’s not as bad as most of you’d probably imagine. It’s actually entertaining. However, it is by no means a great movie either – just an entertaining one. The trio of actors is functional enough, with the strangely gorgeous Kristen Stewart being the best, despite the frustrating vacillation of her character. All three of the leads are attractive, but in an odd way, each with their own appealing imperfections (Pattinson’s shovel face, Lautner’s caveman brow, Stewart’s general awkwardness) – which to me was smart casting. Their non-traditional beauty makes them interesting and out of the CW-casting-call ordinary – it serves them well during the thin times in the movie. They’re always watch-able and Stewart has good chemistry with both love interests making the love triangle a little more intriguing. Michael Sheen (who’s never less than perfect) steals the movie as he delightfully chomps his way through his scenes as the head of an aristocratic vampire family; Dakota Fanning is pretty game as a sadistic vamp too. With its fair share of contrivances and conveniences the plot is thin (I haven’t read the books) but apparently this is the set-up book in the series, which always means a thinner plot. Overall, it’s not great, it’s entertaining, and I’ve seen far worse movies far more deserving of the derision and hatred that is piled, unremittingly, upon this franchise. That leads me to my next point.

In all honesty, I find the abject hatred of this franchise rather unfortunate. Why? Because I think the hate is almost solely because of the fan base. Teen girls and moms. There’s a thinly veiled misogyny in the contempt for this series. Because it is adored and loved by teen girls and moms it must be awful. Right? Unfortunately, that’s sort of endemic in our critical society. Anything beloved by girls is trite and not of value (look at the user ratings breakdown on imdb.com – I’m positive a large portion of the 14,000+ voters who rated it a 1 did not, in fact, see the film). Think about if for a second. Titanic suffered a similar, vitriolic backlash. While a better movie than New Moon, there was a massive backlash against it once teen girls embraced its romance. Leo Dicaprio suffered the same fate. Guys in my age group, late-20s to early-30s, despised him at the time, almost solely because girls loved him and his Jack Dawson character. Now, not so much; he’s actually embraced by males my age. Why? He’s now made manly movies like Blood Diamond and The Departed and dates supermodels. He’s not in “girly” flicks anymore. New Moon suffers a similar sexist fate. I’m not a card carrying member of NOW and I’m not saying it shouldn’t be viewed critically, where we still might find it very lacking, but rather it shouldn’t be outright dismissed because of its target demographic and fan base. Boy-driven entertainment hasn’t proven to be any better lately than this franchise. The Transformers series is equally vapid and convenient, maybe more so. It is built around simplistic, hackneyed stories and is stuffed with things to make pubescent boys and college age slackers squeal, not the least of which is the ridiculous Megan Fox. They are the boy equivalent of Twilight yet receive almost none of the ire. I admit that the obsession with Twilight is disconcerting and may speak to some larger societal concern, but obsession again is not reason to disregard something. Have you seen ComiCon and cos players lately? If we treated those unhealthy obsessions they way we do a Twilighters fixation we’d have to dismiss Star Wars, LOST, Halo, comic movies and any number of other manias ranging from the good to the awful. If I where to dismiss female-friendly fare out of hand I would miss out on a few things I really have a fondness for. The smart, touching and funny Love Actually. The effervescent pop of the Spice Girls (honestly, reevaluate this girl power act and you’ll find some irresistible pop hooks and savvy song construction). So You Think You Can Dance, while manufactured and manipulative, with its subtext of dance education has help reinvigorate a discipline that has previously suffered a cultural dearth in this country. I just don’t think you can invalidate entertainment solely on judging the fan base; regardless of whether it is done consciously or not.

In closing, is there more worthwhile entertainment out there than the Twilight series? Yes, of course. Is there worse than this? Plenty (The Christmas Carol, the remakes of The Wicker Man and Friday the 13th). Should you see it? I don’t know, I’m afraid many of you have already made up your minds and my review and gender treatise won’t do anything to sway your opinions. Overall, it’s a reasonably enjoyable, if tame and simplistic, movie with some fun moments and performances, but it’s not deserving of the effusive praise nor the raging revulsion heaped upon it’s mild shoulders.

DrChocolate sees the movies I can’t afford to see in theaters and reviews them, so this site can stay more up-to-date.

For roughly the past fifteen years I have read Dickens’ A Christmas Carol on Christmas Eve, finishing the fifth stave Christmas morning, matching the stories timeline. I adore the book and am more familiar with its perfectly told tale than probably any other story or book. Additionally, I absolutely love a number of the cinematic adaptations, namely The Muppet’s Christmas Carol (shockingly the most accurate version I’ve come across) and the stellar 1984 TV version with George C. Scott. I tell you this in order to properly frame the following review.

Your opinion of this film will probably hinge on your patience for Jim Carrey and your tolerance for Robert Zemeckis’ elastic-faced, doll-eyed motion capture animation. Unfortunately, my level for both is very low. I find Jim Carrey tedious and this form of animation off-putting and awkward. Due to my love of the source material, however, I decided to put aside my prejudices and see this new iteration.

Casting Jim Carrey as Ebenezer and as all the Christmas Ghosts is the first problem. His Ebenezer is neither good nor bad per se, but it’s a regrettable creative decision to introduce Scrooge as a pitiable, pathetic loner rather than the decisive, hard-as-nails hermit he is in the book. It instantly lessens the redemptive impact of the climax. It’s when Carrey appears as the Ghost of Christmas Past where things really begin to go south. Apparently, Past is a gay Irishman in the midst of an asthma attack. It’s an overwrought and distracting performance that detracts from Scrooge’s melancholy journey into his disregarded past.

That gets to the heart of my issues with this movie. So much of it is overwrought. Each performance seems to be set at eleven with most actors doing nothing more than excitedly declaring their lines at full volume; it is the utter opposite of the multi-faceted performances from Where the Wild Things Are (read my review here). The only performance with any nuance and subtlety, which is not surprising considering his track record, comes from Gary Oldman as Bob Cratchit. (Cratchit also appears to be a hydrocephalic, rendered with an inexplicably large gourd.) The only emotion in the film comes from Oldman’s performances, who also does a bang up job as the ghost of Marley.

Often the animation is spectacular, but too often it is spectacularly over the top. There are certain sequences that are visually arresting, such as Scrooge lighting a match in the dark, Marley’s appearance, and when the specters transition from showing Scrooge one scene to another. Yet too often the movie devolves into Lucas-like “looky what we can do with computers” shenanigans; it’s as if Zemeckis is sitting next to you in the theater, elbowing you constantly in the ribs, going “Isn’t what we did there so cool?” There is a particularly mindless “action” scene with the Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come (who is terrifyingly imagined as a shadow that flits in and out of solidity) that is a major misfire and is completely disconnected from the rest of the film. In addition, the filmmaker’s insistence on interjecting juvenile “humorous” bits serves only to jarringly disengage the audience from the narrative as well.

Disney’s A Christmas Carol fails in finality because it does the polar opposite of the book – it does not conjure any sort of Christmas spirit or magic, or even joy. It arrives emotionally inert and aesthetically overstuffed. Do yourself a favor, avoid this raging disappointment and rent one of the more faithful and emotionally superior versions previously mentioned. Not recommended at all.