El Camino Christmas (2017)

A Christmas movie with a fairly impressive cast of well-known names that attempts to do something different. Sounds good, right? But let's not beat around the bush here. It isn't.

Luke Grimes stars as a young man, named Eric Roth, who wanders into the town of El Camino, looking for his estranged father. A series of unfortunate coincidences lead to him being put in the cells for a night, then being freed by one officer before being aggressively pursued by another, and this leads to him ending up in a liquor store that is surrounded by police, who all believe him to be a dangerous criminal holding others hostage.

Here's the cast involved in El Camino Christmas - Grimes, Tim Allen, Kurtwood Smith, Dax Shepard, Vincent D'Onofrio, Michelle Mylett, and Kimberly Quinn. There are some other people onscreen, but that covers the core names I wanted to mention. Because that isn't a bad cast list at all, particularly when it comes to a non-theatrical Christmas movie. It's also worth saying at this point, lest I forget, that none of the cast actually do a bad job. Seriously. They're all good in the roles that they're given.

Which makes it obvious that the problems stem from the talent behind the camera. Director David E. Talbert also wrote and directed the poor Almost Christmas so I already know that he's not my go to guy for festive fare. But blaming him alone wouldn't be fair. In fact, blaming him for being unable to elevate the horribly hackneyed script isn't fair at all, despite my disappointment with his previous Christmas movie.

Writers Theodore Melfi and Christopher Wehner should share the blame. The latter has nothing else to his credit at the moment, but Melfi started this cinematic year so well with his work on Hidden Figures. Which means I have to make this unusual statement. If I was a teacher, viewing a final project that Melfi and Wehner had worked on together, I would be forced to give that project a low mark and then keep the pair separated for the rest of the year, allowing me to see how much better each one can do without the influence of the other. Someone obviously thought this was a cool idea, a Christmas movie that has all of the characters and a dash of the spirit of the season with the minimal of festive trimmings. They were wrong.

There's no rule saying that a Christmas movie has to have all of the familiar elements in place to succeed. It just takes more work to make that happen. More than just a script that seems to be winking at viewers and assuring them that something is coming along in time for the finale that will make everything preceding it worthwhile. Which would be okay IF something did come along to make it all worthwhile.

Technical competence and that solid cast explain my fairly generous rating. Not one to make a high priority, even throughout December.

4/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing.
It also costs nothing to like/subscribe to the YouTube channel attached to the podcast I am part of - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCErkxBO0xds5qd_rhjFgDmA
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews
Or Amazon is nice at this time of year - https://www.amazon.co.uk/hz/wishlist/ls/Y1ZUCB13HLJD?ref_=wl_share 

Christmas Inheritance (2017)

Yes, it's time for another bright and breezy Netflix Christmas movie. This time it's the tale of a young heiress (Ellen, played by Eliza Taylor) who, desperate to prove to her father that she can do more than just be photographed partying and being sociable, ends up in a small town, with no credit cards, only $100 to her name, and forbidden to reveal her true identity. She finds herself most often in the company of a young man named Jake (Jake Lacy) and ends up helping him, in return for her room and board, while she sees how he tries to help others.

Written by Dinah Eng, who currently only has this and Reluctant Nanny in her list of credits, and directed by Ernie Barbarash (who has a much more varied background in his filmography), Christmas Inheritance checks a lot of the boxes that you want checked in this kind of thing. It's also, like most of these movies, simple enough to watch with one eye as you wrap presents, yet also fairly engaging and enjoyable.

The leads help immensely. Lacy was already familiar to me, after his stint on The Office, and he does just fine here, being the typical Christmas movie male lead who has an appeal that starts to show under a thawing exterior, appropriately enough. I don't think I have seen Taylor in anything before this. She's a lot of fun in a role that you can easily picture being given to someone like Reese Witherspoon or Emma Roberts, for two very different interpretations. Taylor falls in between the two nicely, not as cloyingly sweet and nice as the former and nowhere near as cool and potentially scathing as the latter. And you have Andie MacDowell not being too annoying in a supporting role, as well as Neil Crone (playing Ellen's father) and Michael Xavier (Ellen's shallow boyfriend).

The comedy isn't ever hilarious, but it's more gently amusing than some other examples I could name, and the plot hinges on a conceit that never feels entirely believable, but when has that ever been an issue when it comes to Christmas movies? If I can put up with films that have Santa, elves, annd magic sprinkled throughout them then I can put up with a little stretching of plausibility.

I realise that a lot of these reviews will feel like I am just saying the same thing over and over again. That's the downside of watching so many Christmas movies. They operate on familiarity and predictability. They often work with the exact same set of tropes (even if they try to disguise things with the framing narrative). So if you ever get fed up of reading similar sentences in my December reviews . . . imagine having to sit through all of the actual films.

6/10

Here is a large selection of Christmas movies to enjoy.
And American elves can pick the same set up here.

A Christmas Prince (2017)

Written by Nathan Atkins, from a story he worked on with Karen Schaler, and directed by Alex Zamm, A Christmas Prince is mildly enjoyable seasonal fare that benefits from a few welcome faces filling out the cast, including Rose McIver in the lead role. It also seems to be the next in a series of films from Zamm that mixes seasonal romance with Royals and non-Royals (he has previously given us A Royal Christmas and Crown For Christmas).

McIver plays Amber, a young woman who spends her workdays editing and reworking magazine articles for little or no thanks. That may change when she is tasked with a sudden, quite substantial, assignment. She has to travel to a fictional country (I didn't note it down, but it's one of those movie countries that feels like America or the UK, but isn't, but is full of English-speaking, white people) and get the scoop on an alleged playboy Prince (Richard, played by Ben Lamb). That might prove difficult for most journalists on the case, but things become surprisingly easy when she is mistaken for the new tutor to young Princess Emily (Honor Kneafsey) and finds herself able to work on her story from a privileged insider position.

Despite the fact that it took me a good ten minutes to realise that McIver is the actress I have enjoyed recently while I watched episodes of iZombie, I was enjoying A Christmas Prince from the very beginning because of her presence. When my memory finally made the connection I started to warm to the whole thing even more, safe in the knowledge that this wasn't someone I was able to tolerate. No, this was someone I really liked. Which is a good thing, because the rest of the leads prove to be more of a mixed bag. Lamb does fine in his role, I suppose, but his character is exactly as you think he will be, and doesn't necessarily tally with the playboy image that is being reported. Kneafsey has to alternate between being a young bossyboots and being quite sweet, with the bossiness overdone initially, making her quite difficult to warm to. Alice Krige is fine as the Queen, Sarah Douglas is the stern head of the staff, essentially, and Theo Devaney and Emma Louise Saunders are fairly enjoyable as the "baddies".

Despite the lack of major surprises in the plotting, the script does at least make the expected beats and obstacles a bit more interesting than they could have been. The third act tries admirably to keep things tense, and the fact that viewers should be rooting for McIver means that it doesn't all feel too silly as she takes part in a standard "race against time" finale. Zamm does what needs to be done, no more and no less - we get lovely shots of snow-covered scenery, we get fun shining from the faces of people engaging in snowball fights, we get a number of "dawning realisation" reaction shots, and it's all paced well, and with plenty of ornaments and Christmas trimmings in almost every scene. Like so many films of this kind, you wouldn't really consider it for viewing at any other time of year, which is absolutely fine. It's not made for those other times. It is made for now, made for Christmas, and it works very well in that regard.

6/10

Here is a large selection of Christmas movies to enjoy.
And American elves can pick the same set up here.

Fanning the flames.

I was asked recently why I had left my blog to gasp and die. And I wasn't sure of my answer, even as I was verbalising it. I know that there were times when it started to feel like an obligation. I know that there were times when it felt like adding a teaspoon of water to a sea already rising up enough to send us all into the kind of environment we once mocked when Kevin Costner starred as a merman. And I decided that not writing about movies would give me more time to actually watch movies. You can watch movies without necessarily sharing your opinion of them with others, right?

But that itch has been growing in recent weeks. A small, glowing ember has been fanned into some small flames that may well lead me back here on a more permanent basis. I no longer have the NEED to blog daily, but it's starting to feel like I have the desire again.

That is down to a mix of a few different things.

First, I am still trying to watch as much as I can on Netflix, Amazon Prime, MUBI (no idea why it took me so long to give that streaming service a try), and also SHUDDER.

Second, I am still as big a shopaholic as ever, thanks to Arrow Films, Powerhouse/Indicator releases, Eureka!, and numerous other labels, both big and small. I have been acquiring some great reading material, from booklets enclosed in lovingly-packaged releases to the selection from the impressive Spectacular Optical. And Dark Bunny Tees is still my clothing supplier of choice (all gift cards greatly appreciated). I am not bankrupt yet, but it often seems like it's not from a lack of trying.

Third, I have been enjoying the world of podcasting. Yes, I caved in and joined a few good friends to assault your ears with Raiders Of The Podcast. We're on Twitter (as Raiders Of The Pod), Facebook, and many places were you can quench your podcast thirst. I even do a daily Instagram for movie-related goodness. And my Letterboxd allows me to keep track of all my viewings.

Fourth, last, and by no means least, I have had some wonderful cinema experiences lately. The kind of experiences that make you want to wax lyrical about the power of the moving image. Films like Blade Runner 2049 (okay film, amazing time at IMAX), Thor Ragnarok (blockbuster of the year? maybe), mother! (messy, not an easy watch, and quite brilliant), and 70mm screenings of both Dunkirk (Nolan has won me round again) and Lawrence Of Arabia (gold-plated classic).

I make no promises (or threats, depending on how you view my ramblings). Let's just say . . . . . . . maybe meet up here again tomorrow?

Adam Sandler . . . . . . . in his defence.

Okay, let me be clear on one thing here, right from the start. Adam Sandler is very probably far too busy enjoying his millions and millions of dollars to worry about how the general public, or perhaps just those who are more vocal online, have decided to loathe him. So to think that he needs, or even wants, any defence is pretty ridiculous. Despite some people now labelling him as one of the very worst things about modern mainstream cinema. This small article is just my own way of letting off some steam and hashing out some thoughts. Yes, it's like almost every other article/review on this blog.

Adam Sandler is, at the time of me writing this post, 49 years old. And he's been trying to make audiences laugh with his onscreen antics for just over 2/3 of his laugh. Despite appearing in a variety of movies  - such as Going Overboard, Mixed Nuts, Airheads and Billy Madison - and the American institution that is SNL, Sandler REALLY managed to strike gold with Happy Gilmore, a golf-centric comedy that used his angry manchild schtick to great effect. This was the film that, as far as I can tell, started to get him known internationally. The next film didn't do much for his profile, although Bulletproof is a fun action comedy, but it was only a couple of years later that The Wedding Singer paired Sandler up with the adorable Drew Barrymore, an onscreen pairing that would eventually lead to us also receiving 50 First Dates and Blended (for better or for worse).

But outwith that somewhat winning romcom formula, Sandler has spent his time mixing his projects up more than many could have ever expected. He has created an ensemble of friends that he likes to work with (as you can tell from watching the Grown Ups movies, That's My Boy, Pixels, Jack And Jill, I Now Pronounce You Chuck & Larry and many more), but he has also taken occasional dramatic turns (most notably subverting his comedic angry outbursts in the superb Punch-Drunk Love, although I also recommend checking out Spanglish) and has taken on strange, albeit high concept, fare such as Click and The Cobbler. Does any of this make up for the awfulness of Eight Crazy Nights? No, but I'll always have The Waterboy so it's all good. Oh, I'd better mention Just Go With It so that I can link to my review. 

A few things happened over the past year or so that made me think about just how I, in contrast to some other fine folks, view Adam Sandler (and, believe me, I have actually seen most of his filmography - and I even find You Don't Mess With The Zohan hilarious . . . . . . because it is). The first major incident was when Rose McGowan brought a LOT of attention to a casting note that read as follows: "Please make sure to read the attached script before coming in so you understand the context of the scenes. Wardrobe note: Black (or dark) form-fitting tank that shows off cleavage (push-up bras encouraged). And formfitting leggings or jeans. Nothing white."
I don't work in Hollywood, or any part of the film industry, so I don't know if this is a common occurence. McGowan was highlighting the disparity between the genders and the constant differing standards placed on women who are all fighting for roles that can often be little more than eye candy. I ain't going to argue with that. All I will say is that a) Adam Sandler makes movies in which gorgeous women seem to have fallen in love with Adam Sandler, which should let you know what the role involves right there, and b) I think casting notes have sometimes specified what people should wear. I am not saying that either of these things SHOULD be, please bear that in mind. I am just saying that they are. Unless they actually aren't, and if that is the case then feel free to correct me, and pelt me with rotten veg, and so on and so forth.

The second main "Sandler scandal" occurred when about a dozen Native American actors walked off the set of The Ridiculous 6 due to their displeasure of certain aspects of the movie. As well as my not working in any part of the film industry, I am also not a Native American. So I can't say what feelings would well up in me if I saw the bad, broad jokes peppering the script of The Ridiculous 6. All I can say is that, when I finally saw it, I didn't think it was as bad as many people were expecting it to be. Oh, it had a certain air of awfulness. But I never felt that Native Americans were actually the butt of any of the jokes (beyond some juvenile character names). Of course, I can say that from a privileged position. But I have often said that I have never been offended by my own race (the Scots) being depicted in broad strokes for comedic effect. Scrooge McDuck, Braveheart and Begbie don't exactly give us a broad range of idols. And that's after the years spent washing my brain out after realising that The Krankies were actually husband and wife.

That incident allowed people to further bemoan Sandler and loudly announce that the deal he made with Netflix would result in a selection of movies they would never watch if their lives depended on it. And, really, it's that strange palpable loathing of Sandler that got me thinking. Why DO people now seem to hate him?

Yes, he's been reworking his style for a number of years now. The law of diminishing returns comes into effect when you take so many trips back to the same well, but the exact same criticism could be levelled at Bill Murray, Ben Stiller, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Robert Downey Jr, Steven Seagal, Quentin Tarantino. I like all of those people. Well, apart from Seagal (and even he managed to give us some good stuff before he got too lazy to even hire convincing stunt doubles).

He works with the same people again and again, and a number of his movies feel like they were just made as an excuse for everyone to have fun and maybe have a paid holiday. Yep, and if only every movie star was so lucky. The same thing could be said about Burt Reynolds, at his peak, Steven Soderbergh, numerous Samuel L. Jackson movies (doesn't he make movies depending on where he wants to play golf, or am I misremembering?), Brett Ratner, etc.

He goes for the easy gags. Yes, he totally does. And, you know what, sometimes the easy gags are still funny. And many comics will go for the easy gags if they want to get a laugh.

His movies are offensive. Well, you know, comedy sometimes offends. Particularly when people seem to be on the prowl for something to be offended by. If you're offended by the very fact that Sandler still gets big bucks for his comedy then that's something I can understand. I don't agree, but I understand it. If you're offended by the content of his movies then I just don't get it. Oh, I am sure there ARE some offensive gags, especially considering the level of humour that Sandler and co. always seem to aim for, but I do think that there's an even quality to his movies that just sets up everyone to be the butt of at least one broad gag.

Ah, maybe I should actually try to make a point here. If there is even a point to be made. Remember way back in that first paragraph when I mentioned that some people now cite Sandler as someone they can hold up as the worst of mainstream cinema? Or, at the very least, he's often thrown into conversations now as a figure who can be held up to represent all that cinephiles hate.
I absolutely understand why Sandler isn't for everyone. He specialises in marketing dumb, and that usually ends up with films that are either smart and hilarious or just, funnily enough, dumb. When he fails then his films end up in the latter category. And many would say that he fails with every new addition to his filmography, certainly more often than he succeeds. But viewing him as the evil one who will herald the end of decent comedy movies as we know them is akin to calling Michael Bay the man who killed action cinema. Neither claim is true. Neither claim is remotely close to being true. And sometimes such hyperbole will spur me to write something. Even if I could have used this time to enjoy a rewatch of Hotel Transylvania.

One last thing. I tend not to let personal morals affect my movie viewing choices. That allows me to watch Polanski movies, Chaplin flicks, and many more films that would otherwise be off the table if I only watched films by, or involving, people who were all upstanding members of their communities. I would just add, however, as the final exhibit in this rambling, unnecessary, even unwanted, defence of Sandler that I have never heard or seen anything about his offscreen personality that makes him seem like anything other than a down to earth, sweet, caring guy who loves his family, loves his friends, and loves being allowed to be silly for a career.

Which is where I can end this post, as I am sure anyone who read this far will be grateful to see.

Oh, and I'll always love this

Jessica Jones (2015)

Over the past few days, and for at least a few days ahead, you will no doubt have seen/will see plenty of online critiques of Jessica Jones, the latest Marvel TV show helping to build an enjoyable, cohesive, superhero universe on Netflix that complements the recent cinematic output from the comic book powerhouse. Would it be able to compete with the great success of Daredevil, the previous show that premiered on the streaming service?

Dare you to miss Jessica Jones

For the relatively uninitiated, the titular character is played by Krysten Ritter. The main villain, a man who can use mind control to make others do his bidding, is a man named Kilgrave, played with superb charm and menace by David Tennant. And Rachael Taylor and Carrie-Anne Moss play important, supporting female roles. Oh, and fans of comic books may also like seeing Mike Colter as Luke Cage.

From timelord to mind ruler

I am not going to be breaking down elements of this show. I haven't read the source material. I don't want to comment on each episode individually. If you're after that then you can browse at least three dozen other websites (at a conservative estimate).

No. After watching all 13 episodes of Jessica Jones in record time (for me, anyway), I was compelled to praise it for a depth that I hadn't at all expected. Daredevil was about the dangers, and moral quandary, of vigilante justice. It also generally kicked ass, and had yet another astonishing performance from Vincent D'Onofrio, a man who can probably deliver astonishing performances in his sleep.

Jessica Jones may be equal in the kicking ass stakes, almost, and may benefit immensely from that Tennant performance, but the most impressive thing about it is that, both overtly and in so many layered ways, it's about consent and control. It's there at the forefront, of course, with a villain who can make people do exactly what he wants them to. But that's almost irrelevant when the series starts to show more of the supporting characters and their relationships with one another.

Living, or just surviving?

Jones herself, for example, likes the feeling of self-control she can get by slumming it as a private eye, allowing her to seek out information that other people will use, while also helping her to keep a low profile. Jeryn Hogarth (played by Moss) is a powerful lawyer who quickly shows a very controlling, indeed ruthless, personality. She's involved in a bit of a . . . . . . . . complicated situation with her love life, and as things develop we get to see more and more instances of her trying to control those around her and keep them acting in her own best interests. Wil Traval plays Will Simpson, a man who first encounters Trish Walker (Taylor) in a violent scene before looking to create a, to put it simply, better second first impression with her later on. He apologises profusely, seemingly very sincere while always having the excuse that it wasn't actually him in control of his own actions. But what part of that provides full justification for the actions of the people onscreen, and what part of it is a very handy get-out clause for anyone who knows how Kilgrave works? Even the main villain, as shown in the most interesting backstory sequences, spits out pathetic, wheedling lines like: "what's the point in having ears if you don't listen to me?"
That may not sound like a particularly interesting piece of dialogue, but it sums up everything the show covers - as does the episode title itself, AKA 1000 Cuts.
And that really is just the tip of the iceberg - a mass made up of guilt, resentment, debated responsibilities, more apologies, obsession, and lots and lots (and LOTS) of emotional manipulation.

Jessica and "Patsy"

While it's decidedly not aimed at kids, and really don't just let your kids sit down to watch this (although I'd say teens won't be too scarred by anything here), it's impressive that this show has such a strong, yet flawed, female lead, and addresses issues that we've previously seen dressed up and romanticised in the likes of Twilight and 50 Shades Of Grey.

AKA Badass

There is plenty more to dig into here, and I am sure that better minds than my own have already started on that, but this post is here just as an attempt to encourage anyone to watch the show. Whether you like "superhero" fare or not, this is well worth your time. And I hope the continuing relationship between Marvel and Netflix delivers more of this fascinating content.