The pairing of Vince Vaughn and Reese Witherspoon in a comedy about family (not to be mistaken for a family comedy) is about as appealing as a peanut butter and tuna fish sandwich. Separately, they’re fine. Together? Not so much.
And thus the joyless experience of watching Four Christmases begins.
What’s it about? San Fancisco couple Kate (Witherspoon) and Brad (Vaughn) are completely enfatuated with each other. They’ve been a couple for three years now, and each Christmas they find an excuse to avoid visiting their respective parents (all of whom are divorced) so they can take an exotic vacation for the holidays. Thick fog grounds their flight to Fiji, and while attempting to reschedule their flight at the airport the two end up on the local news. All four parents just happen to be watching the same newscast, causing their cell phones to ring and ring and ring and ring. and now Kate and Brad must spend quality time with relatives they really don’t like.
First on their list of visits is Brad’s white trash father Howard (Robert Duvall) and his UFC-enthusiast brothers Dallas (Tim McGraw) and Denver (Jon Favreau). Brad is beat up his brothers. Zaniness ensues.
Second is Kate’s mom Marilyn (Mary Steenburgen), a cougar-type who’s never met Brad and can’t keep her eyes off of him. Marilyn and sister Courtney (Kristen Chenoweth) delight in digging up Kate’s past (She was fat! The other kids taunted her! They thought she was a lesbian!). Inexplicably, Kate takes a pregnancy test, only to have to retrieve test applicator (Thing you pee on? Pee reader? I have no idea what the actual term for it is) from a bratty neice in the inflatble trampoline emporium known as a Jump Jump. Oh, and Brad and Kate somehow get chosen to portray Joseph and Mary in Marilyn’s boyfriend’s (Dwight Yokam) church play. Wacky and zany mix-em-ups ensue.
Next it’s on to Brad’s mom’s (Sissy Spacek) house, where Brad is still uncomfortable that his high school buddy (Patrick Van Horn) is now Mom’s live-in boyfriend. A game of Scattergories ensues. It’s not that zany, but it sure is unfunny.
By this time Kate and Brad have seen other sides to their significant others, and their three-year infatuation with each other has come to a screeching halt. (In regular relationships, this happens much, much, MUCH sooner.) Kate visits her dad (Jon Voight) without Brad as Brad visits his father again. Lessons are learned.
What’s good about it? The movie is 82 minutes. And there are some funny lines here and there.
What’s bad about it? This is one of those soulless, mean-spirited Christmas movies marketed in a way that makes you think you want to see it. The Christmases in this film are a mere excuse to tie four family visits into one day (it could very well have been called Four Easters or Kate and Brad are so unlikeable, as are all their extended family members. The pregnancy test was an invitation to raise the stakes, but it is dismissed with such nonchalance that you’re scratching your head as to why it was even introduced (other than a reason to have Witherspoon chase her neice in a Jump Jump).
What’s worse, THE MOVIE HAS NO THIRD ACT! The movie, while humorless, follows a standard story arc, and at the point where Kate and Brad learn that Nobody’s Perfect and Like It Or Lump It, Your Family Is All You’ve Got, you expect their newfound knowledge to be put through one more test that will make or break the relationship. Instead, [SPOILER ALERT] the film does the “one year later” thing and you see them on New Year’s Day with their newborn baby, and somehow they avoided not telling any family members about the pregnancy. And lo and behold, a news crew ambushes them because their bundle of joy is the first newborn of the year! And the cell phones ring and ring and ring and ring AGAIN!
So apparently Kate and Brad didn’t learn ANYTHING. Perhaps they would have if there was a third act.
A good friend of mine recommended I take a look at The Baxter, Michael Showalter’s 2005 comedy about a putz who tries to win back his fiancee from her high school sweetheart. She noticed that I had not posted about The Baxter, and I told her I was hesitant because I really did not like the film. (She was okay with it–she watched The Devil Wears Prada per my recommendation and hated it.)
The film feels like a big inside joke, like you need to be part of the New York improv/sketch comedy scene to enjoy it (writer/director/star Showalter is part of Stella, along with Michael Ian Black and David Wain; Black and Wain have small parts in The Baxter.) Elizabeth Banks is the fiancee, Justin Theroux is the old boyfriend, and Michelle Williams is the girl Showalter wants to be with. With the comedic pedigree behind The Baxter, you would think the film would actually be funny. The only bright spot is a cameo by Paul Rudd, who can’t help but infuse energy into any film he’s in.
Clint Eastwood has become one of Hollywood’s most prolific directors; since 2003 he’s directed five films (including Changeling) and he still has another one–Gran Torino–coming out in December. His recent films have been real showcases for actors, and Changeling is no exception. Angelina Jolie plays Christine Collins, a single mother in 1928 Los Angeles whose son goes missing. The LAPD, in need of some good PR, recovers her son…only it’s not her son at all. (He’s three inches shorter.) When Christine persists in refuting the LAPD’s claim, she’s thrown into a mental hospital against her will.
This is an exhaustive, heart-wrenching drama that’s not easy to watch. Jolie’s performance is Oscar-worthy, and Eastwood’s direction is deliciously spare and restrained. But Eastwood’s got to lighten up. With Mystic River, Million Dollar Baby, Flags of Our Fathers, Letters from Iwo Jima and now Changeling, Eastwood has become the King of Despair. Doubtful if Gran Torino will buck the trend.
I LOVE Casino Royale. Hands down, it’s the best James Bond film. Rebooting a franchise is always a risk, and Casino Royale gave James Bond a certain gravitas that the prior films (obviously) lacked. It was dark. It was intense. And Daniel Craig’s Bond was a bit of a sociopath (after all, he’s a killer).
Quantum of Solace, however, is a much weaker sequel (the first in the series, really; this one’s a continuation of Casino Royale, not a standalone story). The Villain? Weenie. The Girl? Uninteresting. The Action? More of the same, but far less exciting. This may also be the only Bond film that had locations that I don’t want to visit: Haiti? The Bolivian Desert? Russia? Blech.
The film is watchable, but it definitely is missing something. And coming in at around 105 minutes, Quantum of Solace is probably the shortest of 007’s adventures. I wonder, however, what wasn’t good enough to make the final cut.
My life is kinda’ busy right now. I make no apologies for having plenty to do. I refuse to write a “sorry I’m such a terrible blogger” post, but I will say that I’ve seen a lot of movies lately but do not have the time to write full-blown reviews for each one that I’ve seen. (I might be busy, but I can always make time to watch a movie.)
So here are some quick reviews on the stuff I’ve seen of late (in no particular order).
This is one of those films where you’re led to believe you’ll be watching a comedy because of the insane things people do and say. However, The TV Set, while expertly acted (particularly by Sigourney Weaver as the executive from Hell), is more informative than entertaining, cautionary than humorous. David Duchovny plays a TV writer struggling to get his dramedy The Wexler Chronicles produced. The network loves it, but wants changes. And more changes. And then some more changes. PERFECT FOR: People who love behind-the-scenes types of movies.
I had somewhat high hopes for Appaloosa; Last year’s 3:10 To Yuma was my top movie of 2007. Sadly, Ed Harris’s second directorial effort lacks the heart and intensity of Yuma. Harris and Viggo Mortensen are Virgil Cole and Everett Hitch, hired guns given charge of the town of Appaloosa, New Mexico, to rid it of rampant crime at the hand of Randall Bragg (Jeremy Irons, who seems terribly out of place despit his best to muffle his British accent). Renee Zelwegger shows up as a two-bit hussy masquerading as an old-fashioned kind of girl, eyes always fixated on the nearest alpha male. Some interesting moments, but stoic performances from Harris and Mortensen (a deliberate choice, I’m sure) make Appaloosa watchable, but not memorable. PERFECT FOR: Western fans.
Bigger, Faster, Stronger follows director Chris Bell as he tries to make sense of the widespread use of steroid use in America, and in the process upends everything you thought you knew about it. While much emphasis is places on how steroids have (artificially) built up America’s heroes (like Arnold Schwarzenegger and Sylvester Stallone), the film also tells the very intimate story of his own family–Bell’s older and younger brother are both on steroids. The scene where Bell’s mother discovers her sons’ steroid use is heartbreaking. “There is a clash in America,” Bell says, “between doing what’s right and being the best.” Bigger, Faster Stronger is not only educational, but highly entertaining. PERFECT FOR: People who want to like Michael Moore but can’t stand his smugness.
I’m not a big Oliver Stone fan; I don’t mean that I don’t like his films, it’s just that I haven’t seen any. Barring half of 1991’s JFK (I was bored and confused. But I was only 14 at the time), my exposure for Stone’s liberal agendas and conspiracy theories has been minimal at best. Sure, I know where he leans, politically. But his films? Haven’t a clue.
I was eager to see W. because I am not a fan of George W. Bush and have, admittedly, been caught up in the election hoopla. (I myself lean to the left in a state so red it glows at night.) I’m an Obamaniac, to be sure, and what better way to sit in the choir seats and be preached to than a scathing expose on the complete incompetence of our 43rd President?
There were two big surprises about W.: 1) It’s kinda’ dull; and 2) If the film is anything, it’s a sympathetic (yet incomplete) portrait of man who, according to the film, had to become the most powerful man in the world to break out from the shadow of his father’s political legacy.
What’s it about? Uh, George W. Bush.
The film goes back in forth in time from the early 2000’s when Bush (Josh Brolin in an Oscar-worthy performance) and his team–including Colin Powell (Jeffrey Wright), Donald Rumsfeld (Scott Glenn), Karl Rove (Toby Jones) George Tenet (Bruce McGill), Paul Wolfowitz (Dennis Boutsikaris), Condoleeza Rice (Thandie Newton) and Vice President Dick Cheney (Richard Dreyfuss)–as they contemplate, argue and ultimately decide to have the US invade Iraq; to various defining moments in W.’s life in the late 60’s (drinking!), 70’s (drinking!) 80’s (drinking…and then getting sober…and helping Dad (James Cromwell) with his Presidential campaign) and 90’s (running for Governor of Texas!).
What’s good about it? Brolin’s performance is spot-on, and the scenes of Bush & Co. debating the feasibility of a war with Iraq (with Powell being the wet blanket) are fairly engaging. I also admire Stone’s willingness to portray W. as a tortured soul (his rocky relationship with George Bush Sr. is the sole dramatic force throughout the film).
What’s bad about it? For starters, I must admit I’ve never been a fan of biopics. I like my films to have a first, second and third act; biopics don’t work that way. Mostly, they’re Stuff Happening. And while some people’s lives are larger than others, there’s no real narrative thread to drive the story. W. is no exception. The film, clocking in at around two hours, is about a half-hour too long. We know the basic storyline, so why do Stone and writer Stanley Weiser drag it out for so long?
The film also shows W. drinking. All. The. Time. Booze is everywhere. He’s a boozehound. I get it. There are also a plethora of scenes where people eat that usually feature W. talking with food in his mouth.
Perfect for: Bush fans. All eight of them who are left.
Okay, so only one sister goes wild in Black Narcissus, Michael Powell and Emeric Pressburger’s 1947 film about nuns in the Himalayas. But the entire film has a wild undercurrent of unease that sucks all the nuns in; some fight the current with all their might and some surrender completely to it.
While made in 1947, Black Narcissus feels revolutionary in some ways; the film doesn’t feel like an oldie, thanks in part to its breathtaking cinematography and art design (the film deservedly won Oscars for both). It feels new and fresh, and had it been made today, I don’t think much would have changed.
What’s it about? The film starts briefly in India, where Sister Clodagh (Deborah Kerr, The King & I) has been assigned to lead of group of sisters to start a school and clinic in the Himalayas. The Palace of Mopu was donated by a rich general, who housed his concubines there.
Clodagh does not get to choose her fellow sisters for this assignment, which include Sister Briony (Judith Furse), the strong,no-nonsense nun; Sister Phillipa (Flora Robson), the anguished soul; Sister Honey (Jenny Laird), the perky and compassionate one; and Sister Ruth (Kathleen Bryon), the one who’s a couple beads short of a rosary.
Upon arrival at Mopu, Clodagh instantly locks horns with Mr. Dean (David Farrar) a Brit who lives down the mountain. Dean is there to help, but often his methods clash with Clodagh. But there’s a subtle–yet never consummated–attraction between Dean and Clodagh; Dean is a bit of a louse at times, and Clodagh frequently calls him on his crap. Their relationship never even rises to flirting, but Ruth senses something illicit is going on between the two and jealously obsesses over their platonic relationship.
Life at Mopu is hard; the wind blows incessantly, as if there will never be calm to Clodagh and the sisters. Clodagh catches herself reminiscing about her life prior to becoming a nun; we get glimpses into a life that seemed so full of hope and optimism, contrasted to what Clodagh has now become: stoic and unsure of her ability to lead the sisters.
Sister Ruth becomes and increasing concern for Clodagh. Ruth’s deterioration into madness is the juiciest part of the entire film, and what she does to defy the sisters isn’t really that boundary-pushing, but is nonetheless shocking.
What’s good about it? The cinematography–as I mentioned before–is absolutely beautiful. Kerr and Farrar’s performances are solid, but it’s really Bryon’s Sister Ruth who steals the show. She’s not only crazy, she’s down right frightening.
While the film is (obviously) steeped in Catholicism, Black Narcissus isn’t really about religion. It’s not a pick-me-up type of film. It’s one of those films where people learn from their failures. Sister Act this ‘aint.
What’s bad about it? The film is on slow burn, so if you’re expecting Lots of Stuff Happening At Once, you’ll be disappointed.
Perfect for: Deborah Kerr fans, cinematographiles, and anyone looking for a film with right amalgamation of drama, suspense and artsiness.
While Alfred Hitchcock made some pretty good thrillers like Rear Window and Marnie (and the labyrinthine Vertigo, which on repeated viewings still eludes me–this is not a bad thing), he is best known for Psycho. It’s a shame, in a way, that many elements from this film are often parodied–the Ree! Ree! Ree! from Bernard Herrmann’s iconic score; Norman’s mother, to name a few–because this film is an effective piece of horror/thriller cinema. Narratively, it messes with the viewer in ways that few movies have. And psychologically, you’ll never want to stay in a motel off a main highway ever again.
What’s it about? Marion Crane’s (Janet Leigh) love for Sam Loomis (John Gavin) temporarily blinds her when she steals $40,000 cash from one of her employer’s clients. Marion and Sam meet up in hotels for midday lovin’ sessions–she’s in Phoenix, he’s in California–but that’s not enough; Marion wants to marry Sam, but Sam–strapped for cash due to his low-paying job and an ex-wife whose alimony payments are nearly breaking him–feels they should wait.
Marion leaves town, with the $40k, en route to Sam. The strange thing is that we see her second-guess herself every step of the way. The fear of getting caught–and possibly, the fear of getting away with it–tear at her from the beginning.
To avoid the cops, she travels on the old highway. The weather gets bad, so she stops at the Bates Motel. Norman Bates (Anthony Perkins) runs the motel while his invalid mother stays trapped inside the house nearby.
Norman and Marion have dinner together. It is then that Marion realizes three things: 1) she needs to own up to her mistake and return the money; 2) Norman’s got some serious mommy issues; and 3) He’s not the kind of guy that you want to have dinner with. Alone. She’ll turn around and head back to Phoenix in the morning. But tonight she’ll unwind with a nice, hot shower.
What’s good about it? Where to begin? Psycho is more than just a slasher film, it’s a movie that gets under your skin. The performances are all solid, particularly Perkins, whose Norman is off-putting right from the beginning, even though you don’t know why. (Who the hell does taxidermy as a hobby?…Oh, wait. I think I answered my own question.) And what Hitchcock does about 45 minutes into the film is shocking and unforgettable. And Herrmann’s score is wonderfully, richly, dark and foreboding.
The film is also impressive because it was made for only $800,000 (the equivalent to $5 million in today’s dollars) and became a huge box office success (adjusted for inflation, it grossed about $200 million.) Proof that effective storytelling can be done without a massive budget, if done well. (Hithcock shot on black and white even though he’d been shooting his movies in color for about five years.)
What’s bad about it? Nada.
Perfect for: Anyone who really wants a good freaking out this Halloween.
I had seen Alien on tv before and didn’t think it was that scary. But in 2003 20th Century Fox rereleased the film in a handful of theaters, and so I went; more because I was such a big fan of its sequel Aliens. The theater was large and there was hardly anyone in it. Perfect for any big-screen viewing, but especially appropriate for Alien. So to really get the heebie-jeebies, Alien is best when viewed alone. In a dark room.
What’s it about? In the distant future, the space ship Nostromo heads back to Earth. The ship delivers mineral ore and is manned by a crew of seven. The trip is long, so the crew is in cryo-sleep. (No sense in aging when you’re millions of miles away from Earth, right?) The ship receives transitions from Mother, a computer that communicates with The Company back on earth.
The crew is awoken mid-journey because Mother has orders for them to check out a life form on a nearby planet. So Dallas (Tom Skerritt), the ship’s captain, and crew members Lambert (Veronia Cartwright) and Kane (John Hurt) put on their space suits and check out the signs of life Mother says are out there.
While on the planet, Kane discovers life: giant egg-like pods, with something moving inside. One of the pods opens, and the creature itself latches on to Kane’s face. And so the trouble begins.
Warrant officer Ellen Ripley (Sigourney Weaver) refuses to let Kane back on the ship because it violates The Company’s quarantine policy. She is overruled, however, by Ash (Ian Holm), the science officer. And so the trouble worsens.
The parasitic creature attached to Kane’s face has acid for blood (the crew finds this out the hard way). There is no way to remove it without killing Kane. A few days later, the thing falls off Kane; he seems to be fine. It’s only a few hours later that the crew of the Nostromo realize that something inside Kane will wipe them out. And so the trouble turns into terror.
What’s good about it? Like my favorite scary movies, this one’s on slow burn. And just when you think things are good, they’re not. Not even close. There’s an unnerving eerines right from the beginning, thanks to Jerry Goldsmith’s restrained score, which is so sparse, it doesn’t give you the luxury of knowing what’s going to happen next (as many horror movies do). The production design is genius–this is not the pristine future of Star Trek or Star Wars; this is a grimy, working-class type of outer space. The cinematography is fantastic; while released in 1979, the film has a look that indicates it could have been made this year. Great performances from an exceptional cast, particulary Holm and, of course, Weaver, who became the star of the Alien franchise. And, of course, expert direction from Ridley Scott, who at the time had only one prior feature under his belt.
Oh, and it’s scary as hell.
What’s bad about it? If your tolerance for language and gore is low, skip this. There are some shocking scenes of violence that are messy and disturbing.
Perfect for: Sci-fi fans, horror fans, and those with strong stomachs.
The problem with so many supposedly scary films is that they resort to the same, tired tactics. Gore does not necessarily equal scariness, nor does a loud jolt of music when The Monster pops out of nowhere. The best scary movies are ones that don’t pander to the lowest common denominator, that take their time developing character and plot. And while I only recently saw The Orphanage, I would have to say that it’s one of the better–if not the best–horror/suspense films I’ve seen in a long time.
What’s it about? Laura (Belen Rueda) and her husband Carlos (Fernando Cayo) have moved into the orphanage where Laura once lived before being adopted. Their son, Simon (Roger Princep), is also adopted and has HIV.
Laura and Carlos are prepping the orphanage so that they can take care of a few special needs kids. A visit from a social worker named Benigna (Montserrat Carulla) bothers Laura greatly, due to the fact that the social worker is asking questions about Simon and not the kids who will live with them.
Simon’s a lonely boy and already has two imaginary friends. But soon he’s made new imaginary friends, particularly with a boy named Tomas.
Laura hears noises in the house and eventually believes that the house is haunted. At a party with lots of guests (and in the daytime, no less), Laura has a violent run-in with “Thomas.” That same afternoon, Simon goes missing.
Time passes, and still no leads on Simon’s whereabouts. Laura and Carlos hire a clairevoyant (Geraldine Chaplin) to help them figure out if the ghosts in the house can help find Simon.
More stuff happens. But it’s so eery and suspenseful, I want you to have the same chills up your spine as you watch the story unfold.
What’s good about it? The gore is used sparingly (in only two scenes, really) and the film doesn’t resort to cheap tactics to get you to squirm in your seat. The story is compelling with lots of genuinely scary moments. Reminicent of The Others, this is a ghost story that doesn’t rely on special effects to wow you. The pacing is great; the cinematography is lush and effectively creepy when it needs to be. The score is very, very good. But probably the weirdest thing about The Orphanage is that, in a way, it’s a feel-good horror film–when was the last time you smiled after getting the crap scared out of you?
What’s bad about it? The film is rated R, but it’s one of the tamest R’s I’ve ever seen. (A scene with an automobile accident is what made it too intense for PG-13.) But if you couldn’t handle The Others or The Village, you’d probably be best skipping this. Oh, and if you couldn’t tell by the trailer, the film’s in Spanish. So if you hate subtitles, suck it up! If you love scary movies, this one is too good to pass up.
Perfect for: fans of intelligent horror films (yes, there is such a thing).
Seeing how Halloween is coming up, and seeing how I love scary movies (but am rarely scared by them), and seeing how this is my 50th post (in less than five months of blogging, no less), I’ve decided to start a new series of reviews (similar to Batmania that I did this past summer) that celebrates what I think are some of the best scary movies of all time.
Wait Until Dark, based on the play by Frederick Knott (who also wrote Dial M for Murder), is a delectable game of cat-and-mouse. In one corner, you have a blind woman who’s still getting used to living in a world of darkness. And in the other, you have a man who’s full of darkness, eager to destroy the lives of those around him–even those who are his accomplices.
What’s it about? Audrey Hepburn (who was nominated for an Oscar) stars as Suzie, a blind woman who’s being conned by three scam artists looking for a doll hiding a stash of heroin. Alan Arkin plays Roat, the enigmatic ring leader who’s two steps ahead of his accomplices (Richard Crenna and Jack Weston).
Suzie’s husband (Efrem Zimbalist, Jr.) became the unwitting caretaker of the doll when Lisa (Samantha Jones) gives the doll to him at JFK airport. The doll goes missing, Lisa is murdered, and Roat moves in for the kill, devising an elaborate scheme to get Suzie to believe her husband is responsible for Lisa’s death and that finding the doll is the one thing that could clear Suzie’s husband’s name.
Suzie’s bratty neighbor Gloria (Julie Herrod) keeps sneaking into Suzie’s apartment (she’s big on playing tricks on the blind) and eventually helps Suzie figure out what’s really going on, leading up to a heart-pouding climax.
What’s good about it? The play, of which the movie is based on, is one of my favorites. The movie tries to add a bit of scope–like the prologue in Montreal which is not in the play–and it takes a while for things to get rolling. But hoo-boy, once things have been set in motion, the tension builds and builds.
Hepburn’s Suzie is one of those characters who you wish nothing bad would happen to, while Arkin’s one of those characters who’s evil just to be evil, oddly reminscent of Heather Ledger in the Dark Knight (although Arkin’s performance is far more subdued.)
What’s bad about it? It’s a good 35 minutes before things really start going. Be patient.
Perfect for: Audrey Hebpurn fans, anyone looking for a good scare without coarse language or gratuitous violence.
Halloween is probably my favorite holiday. That’s not saying that every Halloween has been whiz-bang fun. But I love dressing up, I loved the (not really) scariness of ghosts and black cats and bats and witches. I loved Halloween as a kid (although growing up in Northern Canada meant trick-or-treating in sub-zero weather and a good 8-12 inches of snow in the ground, plus having to wear your snow suit under your costume). Now, as an adult, I love seeing how excited my niece and nephew get about the holiday.
I recently watched It’s the Great Pumpkin, Charlie Brown with my nephew. He liked it, although near the end when Linus mistakes Snoopy for the Great Pumpkin he got a little freaked out and wanted me to turn it off. He’s only four, so we can only hope that with subsequent annual viewings he’ll face his discomfort with a Santa figure in a Halloween special. (It may be a while until he graduates to The Nightmare Before Christmas.)
It’s been a while since I myself had seen it. As an adult, I obviously see it differently than I did as a kid, but that it also in part because the way I see the Peanuts comic strip has changed. When I was young I absolutely loved Charles Schulz’s strip, but as I grew up my tastes became more refined and I embraced Calvin & Hobbes and The Far Side. As an adult I look at the comics page in the newspaper and wonder why today’s comics are not funny at all. Has my sense of humor changed so radically since I was a kid (yes), or have comics just never really been that funny to begin with (YES)?
I feared that watching The Great Pumpkin with an older set of eyes would result in disappointment. I am happy to report that the special still retains a sense of wonder and innocence. After all, Peanuts itself is seeing childhood through an older set of eyes, and while The Great Pumpkin is not really funny, there’s a magic to it that invokes those same feelings I had about Halloween as I did as a kid.
What’s it about? Linus (voiced by Chris Shea) is anxious for the arrival of the Great Pumpkin, the aforementioned Santa Claus of Halloween. None of his friends nor his sister Lucy (Sally Dryer) believe in the Great Pumpkin and think Linus is stupid for doing so. Instead of going trick or treating with the neighborhood kids, he waits in the pumpkin patch for the Great Pumpkin to bring presents and peace and goodwill to all men.
Meanwhile, Snoopy as the World War I Flying Ace’s plane/dog house is shot down over France. Stranded in enemy territory, Snoopy must make it to safety without being caught by the Germans. (This makes much more sense when you’re watching it.)
What’s good about it? I have always been a fan of the design and animation of the Charlie Brown specials. The animation itself isn’t perfect–this, like A Charlie Brown Christmas, has some choppy editing–but that’s why it’s so appealing. Unlike the crisp and luscious style of Sleeping Beauty (which I recently reviewed), The Great Pumpkin is hand-made and sloppy, but no less lovingly crafted. And at a running time of about 25 minutes, The Great Pumpkin knows not to overstay its welcome.
What’s bad about it? The cruelty of the other children towards Charlie Brown (Peter Robbins) would leave massive emotional and psychological scarring if he was a real kid.
What’s it about? San Fancisco couple Kate (Witherspoon) and Brad (Vaughn) are completely enfatuated with each other. They’ve been a couple for three years now, and each Christmas they find an excuse to avoid visiting their respective parents (all of whom are divorced) so they can take an exotic vacation for the holidays. Thick fog grounds their flight to Fiji, and while attempting to reschedule their flight at the airport the two end up on the local news. All four parents just happen to be watching the same newscast, causing their cell phones to ring and ring and ring and ring. and now Kate and Brad must spend quality time with relatives they really don’t like.
What’s it about? Uh, George W. Bush.
What’s it about? The film starts briefly in India, where Sister Clodagh (Deborah Kerr, The King & I) has been assigned to lead of group of sisters to start a school and clinic in the Himalayas. The Palace of Mopu was donated by a rich general, who housed his concubines there. 
What’s it about? Laura (Belen Rueda) and her husband Carlos (Fernando Cayo) have moved into the orphanage where Laura once lived before being adopted. Their son, Simon (Roger Princep), is also adopted and has HIV.
What’s it about? Audrey Hepburn (who was nominated for an Oscar) stars as Suzie, a blind woman who’s being conned by three scam artists looking for a doll hiding a stash of heroin. Alan Arkin plays Roat, the enigmatic ring leader who’s two steps ahead of his accomplices (Richard Crenna and Jack Weston).
What’s it about? Linus (voiced by Chris Shea) is anxious for the arrival of the Great Pumpkin, the aforementioned Santa Claus of Halloween. None of his friends nor his sister Lucy (Sally Dryer) believe in the Great Pumpkin and think Linus is stupid for doing so. Instead of going trick or treating with the neighborhood kids, he waits in the pumpkin patch for the Great Pumpkin to bring presents and peace and goodwill to all men.
