Status update on my reviews

Just popping in to say that I hope and trust that everyone had a good Christmas. If you didnt, I am deeply sorry. That is if you celebrated.

I have been busy of late and I have watched two movies in the last two days but havent written them up as of yet. I will just wait until the new year since it is a day away now.

I wish you all a Happy New Year and look forward to bringing you new reviews very soon.

Thank you for stopping by and reading these reviews. I enjoy doing this very much and hope you enjoy reading them as well.

Ran out of Time

I planned to write a review for a Christmas movie every day until Christmas but as you all well know, it has gotten busy of late, with shopping and meeting with family and more shopping.

I hope you have enjoyed my reviews of Christmas movies, got a little insight into them and to how I watch films during the holidays.

I'll resume my reviews on the 26th of Dec. (hopefully).

I wish you all a Merry Christmas and I hope it nice and safe and that you are with the ones you love.


Merry Christmas!

The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes-The Blue Carbuncle

I am going to deviate from reviewing a film to reviewing something else that has been on my mind since Sunday, and that is an episode, a Christmas episode of The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes called The Blue Carbuncle. It was developed by Granada Television, released in 1984. The episode was directed by David Carson. It is based upon the written work of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. It stars Jeremy Brett and David Burke. The story concerns a “blue carbuncle”, basically a large blue gemstone, which has bad luck attached to it as anyone who comes in contact with it inexplicably dies. It comes into the hands of Countess of Morcar. From the looks of it though, it has taken her husband and she is a husk of the woman she once was. It gets stolen and stashed in a goose that a commissionaire named Peterson brings to Sherlock, played by Jeremy Brett and Watson, played by David Burke. The only other evidence is the carbuncle itself that comes from the goose and a hat. Naturally, Holmes solves the case but that is all I’ll tell you. No spoilers here.
I had happened upon Jeremy Brett’s portrayal as kid but didn’t know all that at the time. Then, with the recent movie adaptations of Sherlock Holmes with Robert Downey Jr. and the even more recent concurrent shows Sherlock with Benedict Cumberbatch and Martin Freeman from BBC and Elementary with Jonny Lee Miller and Lucy Liu on CBS, my curiosity has been rekindled toward adaptations and the stories themselves as I have a deductive/researching philosophical mind. Certainly not on par with Sherlock but I do use some of his methods. This story is one that has a few red herrings and really throws you for a loop as to how Sherlock and John figure it out. It is also interesting that it is a Christmas episode and really brings you into how the Greatest Detective would even celebrate such a holiday since he is above natural convention. Jeremy Brett is exceptional as Holmes, some have said the definitive actor who has portrayed  the character most accurately. Having only seen 4 adaptations and only read some of the stories, I will say that his is pretty spot on though each actor brings their spin on the character which makes Holmes so amusing to play for an actor, I would think. Essentially, all the things you want to say and do, superheroic but flawed. David Burke is the best Watson to Brett’s Holmes. Burke plays is cool and doesn’t overshadow Brett’s performance; compliments it in fact with a wit and stride that a normal person would being exposed to such a great mind.
If you can find it, I suggest looking at it because it might bring in to this world of Sherlock Holmes.

Home Alone

I watched a movie called Home Alone, directed by John Hughes, released in 1990. It stars Macaulay Culkin, Joe Pesci, Daniel Stern, John Heard and Catherine O'Hara. It is a story about the McCallister family that flies to Paris for Christmas vacation but leaves behind one of their kids, Kevin, and he stays home alone. While doing so, he has to fight off two terrible burglars, played by Joe Pesci and Daniel Stern. It is a pretty funny movie, so many kids came up watching this as part of their lives but I was in that in between time so it really didn’t resonate with me. Other than the fact that I spent quite a bit of time alone when I was a kid because both my parents worked. Like many John Hughes movies, it had comedic elements but also some pretty dramatic elements as well. Kevin kind of gets lost in the family and spat upon so when he wishes that they were gone and gets his wish, he enjoys it for the most part until it becomes more and more time; especially when he is annoyed by the burglars, though to be fair, they are the best burglars. Kevin sets cartoonish traps for them that could actually do some real damage to a person but comes off harmless in this movie. It can be quite terrifying that they would want to kill Kevin as well but he is smart enough to stay alive. It is an interesting movie because it examines what it would be like to have Christmas alone. For some people, that is not a luxury. Even alone, it can be stressful and somewhat depressing. His parents, played by Catherine O’Hara and John Heard are genuinely shaken when they realize that Kevin is not with them and try everything to get back to him so he isnt alone. That is interesting because it also shows you how distracted one can get trying to have a Christmas in the first place. Initially, his parents kind of ignore or are seemingly mean to Kevin so it is fascinating seeing this true spirit coming out in them.
Overall, it was a good movie but I feel like it doesn’t hold up for me personally. I think Macaulay Culkin is pretty cool and this is a pretty cool legacy movie for him to be remembered for (and the multiple sequels that followed not so much) and its pretty funny for the family but there are so many others that I prefer that I have reviewed so far.

It's a Wonderful Life

I watched a movie called It’s a Wonderful Life, directed by Frank Capra, released in 1946. It stars James Stewart, Donna Reed, Henry Travers and Lionel Barrymore. It is a story of a man, George Bailey, played by James Stewart, who gives up his own life to help out others but when things get to be too much, he contemplates suicide on Christmas Eve. He is being watched by a guardian angel, Clarence, played by Henry Travers that saves George’s life but ultimately shows him what the world would be life if he were never born, as per George’s pleading. It is a movie that has been parodied a lot since release and has been a staple of Christmas since falling into public domain, some TV stations showing all day marathons. This movie has a lot of different opinions about how terrifiying it can be or how cool it can be. I personally find it to be an interesting movie because there have been times when some of us have wondered what the world would be like if we hadn’t been born. Think about all the lives that weren’t touched (or in George’s case saved) by not being there. Showing an alternative to even the small town of Bedford Falls, where the story takes place when George exists versus the Pottersville that George doesn’t exist in, shows how much one person can make a difference. I will admit that it does have a dramatic flair and there are some comedic bits in it but overall it is very dramatic. I mean, the main character wants to commit suicide, quite unheard of in 1946 and in a “Christmas” movie, no less. Then again, it just brings a kind of reality to the seasonal affective disorder or how things generally get around Christmas time, which I feel like should be applauded because this ultimately is an uplifting movie if you stick with it.
The acting is superb. Jimmy Stewart is really on point here as being the sympathetic George Bailey and how sensitive he is to other people and how he wants only to make their lives better. Donna Reed is amazing as well as his wife, again being very sympathetic a character and believable as someone that George would fall in love with because she is smart and beautiful. Lionel Barrymore is the absolute worst person in the movie as Mr Potter, George’s boss and the main banker in the movie. Henry Travers is great as Clarence because he plays it very unassuming and generally big hearted, not really overacting at all or diminishing any of his scenes.
Overall, this is a Christmas classic and for good reason. It has many of the ups and down of a Frank Capra movie and it engages the audience just enough to get you hooked. It might also make you think about our own life and how much you matter or at least matter to someone else. This is important because that is also the power of movies.

Batman Returns

I watched a movie and it is called Batman Returns, directed by Tim Burton, released in 1992. It stars Michael Keaton, Danny DeVito, Michelle Pfeiffer and Christopher Walken. It is more a story about the “villians” of Batman’s rogues gallery, Penguin, played by Danny Devito and Catwoman, played by Michelle Pfeiffer and how they become who they are and how Batman fights them. It is darker (is that possible) that the 1989 Batman that came before it. It is a complex plot actually with many characters and how they interact with one another which I think turned a lot of people off when it was originally released. I saw this as a kid and it really didn’t resonate with me as much as the 1989 Batman for some reason. There is something off about this movie that kind of points to less creative control by Tim Burton and though the premise is great and it shows off more of Gotham and the Batman mythos on film, it still comes across as a bit over the top and not as memorable. The score is done once again by Danny Elfman who puts his usual spin on the strange music that is Batman and it fits nicely with the atmosphere. Devito is an interesting Penguin, as he is literally a freak and not just a deranged criminal as was in the comics and TV show of the 1960’s. He is also not very sympathetic despite being abandoned by his parents and mocked by society. Devito just makes you hate Penguin, which is fine but maybe too much. Michelle Pfeiffer is an interesting Catwoman and gets into the role completely. Before her transformation as Selina Kyle, she is quite mousy and you really believe how nerdy and awkward she is. She certainly didn’t need to be pushed out a window by the ruthless Max Schreck, played masterfully by Christopher Walken. Then again, it was just the push she needed to open up and become that person. Her costume is pretty interesting and put together in a unique way that hadn’t been featured in the comics yet (as far as I know) and having her “claws” actually come out of her glove and sticking into Batman’s body armor when fighting was a nice touch. Keaton is really toned down in performance in this one which is apparent but it is still solid as hell.
Overall, I think this movie is fair but you can already see a decline in quality and performance, on everyone’s part, trying to recapture the furor that was the 1989 Batman. It stands alone as a great and dark Batman film but when put against the others, it kind of sticks out terribly. Like I said, the concept of making the “villians” a main plot point was risky and they took that risk. It did establish some tropes that carried over into the Batman books but I think they had too many plot threads and not enough tied up.

Trading Places

I watched a movie called Trading Places, directed by John Landis, released in 1983. It stars Dan Aykroyd, Eddie Murphy, Ralph Bellamy, Don Ameche, Denholm Elliott, Jamie Lee Curtis. The story is that Winthrope, played by Dan Aykroyd, is a well-to-do gentleman who works for the Duke Brothers, played by Ralph Bellamy and Don Ameche, in the commodities trade market. Everything is going great for Winthrop until he runs into (quite literally) Valentine, played by Eddie Murphy. Valentine ends up getting arrested on trumped up charges by Winthrope but one of the Duke brothers makes a bet with the other to see if Winthorpe can make it without his well-to-do stature and bail out Valentine and replace him for Winthrope, disgracing him in the process to accompany his fall. Will Winthorpe make it back up to where he was? Will the Duke Brothers get their come-uppance?
I haven’t seen this film before and I must say that it was quite enjoyable. As a John Landis fan, I was impressed with the film but I certainly wouldn’t call it one of his best. There are little Landis things in it (close up gun pointing in sync, a poster of See You Next Wednesday, a gorilla, the use of music as leitmotif, cameos) and it is great. The music is done by Elmer Berstein, which is masterful in conducting, since a majority of it is classical Mozart. The part where the Duke Brothers make their wager, it reminded me of Job, initially, like God and the Devil making their bet that a holy man would denounce God if all this misfortune fell upon him. It was a bit creepy in some ways because I imagine this how some people actually would be. Though to be fair, Ralph Bellamy and Don Ameche were perfectly cast as the greedy antagonists. Aykroyd really showed a lot of range in this film as being a sympathetic character even as a pawn in an elaborate scheme, especially when he hits rock bottom and figures out a way to get even that didn’t involve murder or violence. Eddie Murphy was at the top of his game here as well, flush from Saturday Night Live and gaining momentum though he still was toned down compared to later roles such as Beverly Hills Cop or 48 Hours. I felt like Jamie Lee Curtis was somewhat under-utilized even if she did take in Winthorpe and helped him in the end but still, there seemed like there was much more potential for her in some way that wasn’t used. Denholm Elliot plays Coleman the butler to Winthorpe and Valentine and is well cast as a sympathetic character as well because it seems he has done this before and this was the breaking point for him after seeing so many people go through this “experiment”. Paul Gleason was also perfectly cast as the ubiquitous Clarence Beeks as he played a smug government agent and that is just what he was made for.
Overall, I thought the movie was well made. It had some genuinely funny moments (some of the third act on the train seemed to be ad libbed in some scenes) and some great tension. It was surprisingly short so there isnt a long back story on anyone which works since this is a comedy and it doesn’t need to get bogged down in all that. The characters were well represented and you actually learn about the commodities market as well, at least in simplified terms. Check it out.