KWIF: Splitsville (+4.5)

 KWIF=Kent's Week in Film. A good week...in film at least. Sigh.

This Week:
Splitsville (2025, d. Michael Angelo Covino - in theatre)
Intolerable Cruelty (2003, d. Joel [and Ethan] Coen - DVD)
Hennessy (1975, d. Don Sharp - amazon)
The Omen (1976, d. Richard Donner - hollywoodsuite)
Tank Girl (1995, d. Rachel Talalay - amazon)
Fixed (2025, d. Genndy Tartakovsky - netflix)

---

Every time you go to the movie theatre to see a new film, it's a gamble. Even if you've seen the trailers, read some reviews, are familiar with the actors or filmmakers... you still don't really know what to expect. Will it be worth my time and money? Will I feel good afterward, or bad, or regretful, or bummed out? Little can truly prepare you for seeing a film you've never seen before. It's always a leap of faith.

Of course, attending a screening comes with baggage that can give you expectations. You may already be in a film's pocket if you're a fan of the screenwriter, or director, or composer, or star, or co-star. You may just be amped up to see how a moment you saw in a trailer plays out in the rest of the film, or you may have seen photos that have you curious about the set design or costuming. A film reviewer may have planted a seed of a shining moment that you're already curious about, or there may already be a meme bouncing around the internet you're eager to contextualize. The film excites you, but the unknown...it still holds you back. 

Do I even dare? 
I could stay home and rewatch my favourite show or movie, or scroll the socials and feed my brain its precious dopamine in empty, hollow bites.
Going to see a movie, it's a crap shoot, a roll of the dice, outcome unknown.

All this to say, in deciding to see Splitsville, a comedy from a writing team/director who I have had no prior experience with, and starring the same writing team/director, as well as an actress I dislike (Dakota Johnson) filled me with incredible trepidation. I've been to the theatre many times this year excited to go see the latest directorial effort from a favourite, or partake in whatever superhero fare is churned out like a good little nurd... but trying something so untested, even if it did come highly recommended, riddled me with angst. It happens to me frequently, and I've bailed on seeing many a film in the theatre because I didn't know what I could expect.

But I know my anxieties have me missing out (and not just on movies, but events and social engagements too). It's a whole thing.

Splitsville has reminded me why its good to take these gambles, to try out things that are unfamiliar or different or challenging (a second Dakota Johnson movie this year? Come onnnnn...) because, hot damn was it ever a delight.

(I could just end it there, since the purpose of these posts on this blog is not to sell the film to a non-existent audience, but as a future reference for myself to come back to, to refresh/trigger my stupid brain on what I thought or felt about a film)

From writers Michael Angelo Covino and Kyle Marvin, Splitsville is a screwball comedy about open marriages. I'm tempted to say satire, but I don't think either Covino, Marvin, or the characters in this film are ever truly interested in exploring the topic seriously.  We have Carey (played by Marvin, WeCrashed) who is married to Ashley (Adria Arjona, Andor), and she wants a divorce. Ashley declares her infidelity and her desire to be free of the marriage and Carey, well, he's having none of it. He, quite literally, runs away from the conversation. Oh boy does he run.

Taking solace at his best friend's cottage (ahem, "cottage"...more like a luxury waterfront estate), he learns that Paul (Covino) and Julie (Johnson) are in an open marriage and that it really, really works for them. Or so they say. While Paul is away Julie and Carey have a fling.

Carey returns home, where Ashley is engaged in another affair, but Carey declares his cuckolding terms, there are no rules, she can do what she wants. And she does with many, many guys... each of whom Carey winds up befriending and soon there's a commune of ex-lovers hanging around the abode.

But the emotional stakes start warping as Paul's marriage falls apart, mostly due to possible fraud and criminal charges Paul is facing as a result of some business deals. Carey and Julie find themselves more emotionally invested than they, or their partners, could have anticipated.

And it only gets sillier and messier from there.

"Screwball" comedies are about toying with the expectations of the romance genre. In the olden days, screwball comedies would upend the gender norms in relationships for comedic effect. Now days, it's the norms of relationships themselves that are shaken and stirred, and Splitsville is an incredible example of that.

What had largely taken hold of comedy for the first two decades of the new millennium, has been either gross-out humour or cringe comedy, and I keep forgetting that those times have largely passed. Gross-out and cringe have fallen out of favour but nothing has really taken its place.  It would be fantastic if there was a resurgence in screwball, but even then, it might be too much of a good thing.

Covino and Marvin have crafted a wild script, and both, as actors, are willing to forego any and all pride in their performances. They remind me of Jason Segel in that regard. Marvin, as our central protagonist (though props for giving Johnson and Arjona top billing), is a likeable sort-of schlub who's not a total pushover, just mostly one. But he's endearingly likeable in his very unfiltered emotional reactions to things. Paul is more caustic, the guy hiding everything under a veneer of importance and pretension, but his armour is finally penetrated in the third act.

Arjona's Ashley may not be the funniest written character in the film, but she's the main vehicle in which the comedy is built around. She's by no means a straight man, but she's got to be the un-self-aware gateway for everything in this film to happen, and she delivers. 

Johnson I've bristled against for years, but like a proper beard oil, Materialists kind of softened me up... and repeated half-ironic viewings of segments of Madame Web on cable have further just softened what I used to find immediately repellent. It's possible that she's found her groove and is taking the roles that best suit her somewhat detached demeanour, or maybe it's that the roles are being tailored more to play into her sensibility, or it could be that she's just evolving as an actress and showing that she can manoeuver more broadly in what used to be a very limited range. In any case, she's really fun here.

But it's all about the relationships. It's Carey and Ashley, and Carey and Julie, and Paul and Julie, and Carey and Paul, and, well, just a little of Paul and Ashley, and every pairing is uniquely comedic. It's so well crafted.

Splitsville is not for everyone, no comedy is. We saw two elderly women walk out after about 25 minutes, following what was, hands down, the funniest fight scene of the decade, and a top-ten all-timer. They took a gamble, just like I did. I won, they did not.

---

This deep into Coen rewatch territory and we hit the charming Intolerable Cruelty, perhaps the most inconsequential film in the Coens' repertoire. It is a screwball comedy (there's that term again) starring George Clooney (Peacemaker) as Miles Massey, perhaps the uncontested best divorce attorney in the country. He has saved as many fortunes as he has taken in proceedings. Gold digger Marylin Rexroth (Catherine Zeta-Jones, The Phantom), who married her wealthy magnate husband solely because she though him an easy mark for an expedient and fruitful divorce, butts up against Miles in court and loses.

But Miles, hitting middle age and quite lonely, is intrigued by Marylin, and the two flirt vivaciously and floridly with one another, the patter quick and all too easy. Marylin trains her sights on Miles, and it's unknown whether it's romantic interest, his money, or revenge. (Why not all three?)

But confusing the picture, months later, Marylin comes to Miles for a pre-nup. She's met a wealthy, folksy oil-man (Billy Bob Thornton, The Man Who Wasn't There) and she confounds Miles with her actions. She's a gold-digger, so why would she want a pre-nup? All part of her devious plan.

Miles, despite being a shark, is chum in the water as far as Marylin is concerned, and she's famished. She's looking for full meals and wanting to eat him up for dessert.

Intolerable Cruelty is, intentionally, frivolous. It is the Coen Brothers in full pastiche mode. They're not genre blending like they so often do, and the weirdness/non-sequiturs are kept to a minimum (it's only Miles' wheezy, past-his-expiry-date boss that one cocks and eyebrow at). This, if anything, seems like a play at mainstream success, at doing something the average people might like. After all, Clooney was one of the biggest leading men at the time and this on-screen pairing of attractiveness seemed long overdue.

What I think sunk Intolerable Cruelty's mainstream success was the lack of mainstream instincts on the Coens' part. I mean, the "best friend/sidekick" characters here are play by Paul Adelstein (who?) and Julia Duffy (of Newhart fame?) rather than an rising star comedian or improviser, as you would normally see. Their instincts are to cast character actors in as many roles as possible (instinctual, yes, but budgetary constraints also yes) and when Miles calls a surprise witness and in walks... Jonathan Hadary (Private Parts) as Heinz, the Baron Krauss von Espy.  Now don't get me wrong, Hadary fucking delivers in spades, but the reveal that it's not, I dunno, Nathan Lane or someone kind of lessens the impact at first.

But whatever, a trivial delight is still a delight.

---

Hennessy came to my attention by way of the Quentin Tarantino/Roger Avery podcast "Video Archives", where they explore Tarantino's VHS tape collection that he acquired from the now defunct video store where the two film-obsessed directors first met and became friends. A lot of the films Tarantino and Avery explore are, well, junk...or junky, at least. They're often lower budget or off-studio releases all from the 1980s or earlier, although they do sometimes cover actual studio release that may not have garnered the respect (or at least attention) at the time. 

I get intrigued by films by listening to conversations about them, and Tarantino and Avery have a particular way of being enthused by film. What they get out of films is not what the average reviewer or film snob does, which I think is part of their enduring appeal. They see merit in the outcasts. I've watched more than a few films that I never would have heard of because of the podcast (less so now that they've put it up behind a paywall), like the Russian monster/fairy tale The Amphibian Man, or the Italian gangsters of the Milieu trilogy.  

In most cases if I was intrigued by one of these oddball films and I couldn't watch it, I would simply forget about it, but not Hennessy. It was not available streaming anywhere, and it did not seem to have a DVD release of any consequence, but it remained something I was keeping an eye out for, even long after I had forgotten why. All the memory that remained was an effusive "Go, Hennessy, Go" from Roger Avery that was permastuck.

The film came up as available on Amazon Prime when I was cross-referencing roles played by the stunning Lee Remick while watching The Omen, and I was ready to drop The Omen mid-movie and jump into Hennessy I was so excited (but timing was not in my favour, so I finished The Omen).

Starting the film at the first available opportunity, I was reminded of what Hennessy was about, but only after the first 20 minutes. It opens in Northern Ireland, still deep in the Troubles at this time, and conflict and resistance is still very, very active, but some people, like Niall Hennessy (Rod Steiger, Duck,You Sucker) are wanting to move past it, raise their family, live their lives. But an accidental and tragic conflict winds up taking the lives of Hennessy's wife and daughter, leaving the man with nothing but hate left for both the IRA and the English.

He ventures to London (though after the very public funeral of his family and other victims of the incident, eyes are very much on him) where he finds residence with the wife of an old (deceased) acquaintance (Remick). She doesn't know what Hennessy is up to, and, at first doesn't ask.  

It's a tense film that is a dog and cat and mouse chase, where the IRA and British Intelligence are both aware that Hennessy's presence in London cannot be good news. For the IRA, whatever actions Hennessy might take would bring immense attention upon them that they do not want. Ultimately, it's discovered, Hennessy plans to bomb the Queen as she opens the next session of the Parliament.

The film uses archival footage of the Queen's opening of Parliament in 1970, and used with permission, though perhaps not as was originally understood. It's remarkable how seamlessly it fits in the film, such that one might think the scenes were legitimately part of the production.

It's a really, really decent thriller that is only more impactful by its obscurity. It's anonymity means that its events haven't been spoiled (well, except all I've said above) and it's full of surprises. Hennessy's quest is one of quiet, calculated rage, and, much like my recollection, you do kind of feel a "Go, Hennessy, Go" spirit, just as much as you know he should definitely not be allowed to succeed.  It's pretty sharp.

---

The Omen opens in Rome with a priest being transported in the back of a car. In voiceover we hear his thoughts about a stillborn baby. He is rehearsing what he has to say to the father of the child. The father is US diplomat Robert Thorn (Gregory Peck, Pork Chop Hill). Robert is told by the chaplain that at the same time his child died, another woman died giving birth, but that baby survived. He implores Robert to take the baby and pass it off as his own, no one else besides them being the wiser. Robert, already wrestling with shock and grief, eventually concedes to the plan to gaslight his wife for eternity.

Jesus Hucking Christ.

For a few years Robert and Katherine (Lee Remick, Hennessy) and their child who they named Damien (well, there's your problem right there... was "Damien" already a name with evil connotations or does the name Damien only have such connotations because of this film?) appear to be a happy family, although Damien does seem a little...off from other children. Robert is appointed as ambassador to the UK. 

On Damien's fifth birthday, the Thorns throw a big upperclass party, but the party is sullied by Damien's nanny hanging herself dramatically ("Look at me, Damien, it's all for you!"). Photojournalist Keith Jennings (David Warner, Tron) is on the scene, and when he examines his photos later, it appears that photos of Damien's nanny have some kind of line extending from the back of her neck.

More weird events happen. A seemingly disturbed priest starts harassing Robert, trying to convince him something is amiss with his child, and Damien freaks out wildly whenever he approaches a place of worship. A new, very creepy nanny turns up out of nowhere, and the Thorns question it, though not deeply, and suddenly there's a large rottweiler hanging around the house all the time.

Characters in the film present a series of prognostications that eventually come true that tip Robert off to the fact that his adopted son may be the Antichrist himself, but Robert, along with photographer Jennings investigate the myth of the Antichrist and the sign that he may be here. Certainly there's a large network of worshippers who have infiltrated the church and other elements of society.

The Omen is told very old school, where Katherine is but a wife and mother with no agency or capacity for decision making. Before her accident she's already gone a little nuts because of Damien's behaviour, and has detached from the child. Remick does what she can with the role, but I really dislike that Robert, for all his love and infatuation with his wife, does not see her as an equal.

What I do like about The Omen is the wrestling with the idea of having complicated feelings around one's children...I just wish it explored it more. I don't think this script was really wrestling with parenting. It seems to be built out of the desire to tell an Antichrist story through the eyes of a parent, and not tell a parenting story that happens to involve the Antichrist.

It's a solidly acted, decently engrossing film that, while pretty tame by today's standards of horror, creates a pretty ominous (omenous?) atmosphere that persists straight through to the end of the film.  The hanging sequence was a big shock and still pretty visceral an experience to watch. The other deaths in the film have aged in a way (whether it's the special effects or editing) that they're amusing now, but also very likeable the way that outdated effects can often be. You get what they were going for and the effect is probably the best it could be given the tools at the time.  

I know there's a bunch of sequels out there, and this hasn't really inspired me to pursue them, though the third Omen film stars Sam Neill as an adult Damien which is a bit intriguing.

---

A pre-production teaser poster for Tank 

Girl from when before Lori Petty was 

 cast in the role?

Tank Girl was both critically lambasted and a box office bomb at the time of its release. A stab-in-the-dark comics adaptation (back when Hollywood was regularly flirting with comics adaptations, as opposed to a decade later when they were the dominant concern from the studios), it was always a gamble. The Tank Girl comic had very little name recognition outside of the alt/indie kids crowd of the early-mid 90's, which for director Rachel Talalay and script writer Tedi Sarafian meant there was a bit of a blank slate as far as what they could do with the character when transporting to a product for a mass audience.

And the result is a weird, weird film that's taking inspiration from the comics of Alan Martin and Jamie Hewlett, but bringing its own sensibilities that aren't just the writer and director, but also the influences of Courtney Love, who assembled the film's pretty rad soundtrack, and production designer Catherine Hardwicke (who would become a notable film director herself), among the other hands in this eccentrically flavoured pie. The film feels very scrappy, a labour of...well, maybe not love, but certainly deep affection and a desire for everyone involved to prove themselves. The film has energy, vitality, even if it's absolutely bizarre (for many, prohibitively so).

I liked the film when it came out. Quite a bit. I bought a VHS (or maybe a Laserdisc?) of the film, I enjoyed it that much. I had the soundtrack, which I listened to frequently. It's a timestamp of the mid-90's for me and returning to it was like an acid trip flashback, a portal to a very different time.

Astonishingly, much of the film still inspires within me the same zeal for it I had back then, even though I have not seen it in at least 25 years. The film's opening with Devo's updated rendition of "Girl U Want" playing over Hewlett's drawings of Tank Girl in vibrant four-colour pop art fashion. It's still delightful and captivating.

The film is set in a post-apocalyptic future. Everything is desert, and it's totally governed by Water & Power, a corporation monopolizing both water and power. At its head is Kesslee, played with utter conviction by Malcolm McDowell. There's no reason for McDowell to be so locked into this character, but as I said, it's a pretty scrappy production and he's delivering an exceptionally delightful shouty, evil villain that completely fits the playful tone of the film. Kesslee seems to have taken Darth Vader's leadership seminar, and has a penchant for murdering his lieutenants with one of my favourite po-ap/sci-fi devices ever: a portable device with two dozen needles on one end and an accordion water bottle on the other end that sucks all the water out a person, desiccating them in seconds. In the first on-screen use of the device in this film, Kesslee grabs the bottle from the back of the just-killed underling and drinks the freshly extracted water. It's a truly phenomenal sequence.

The titular Tank Girl is actually Rebecca (Lori Petty, Point Break) a rebellious, horny, ADHD-addled survivalist who finds herself captured after her whole commune is killed by a Water & Power raid.  She defies her captors at every turn, and Kesslee, certain she has information she needs about a band of resistance fighters called the Reavers, tortures her, except Rebecca seems to kind of get off on it. This egg's already cracked, boys.

In prison she meets Jet (pre-stardom Naomi Watts at her mousiest), and, well, Rebecca kind of forces her to be her friend, but the alternatives for Jet are non-existant.

The fist two acts of the film are so full of life, vibrant neons decorate scavenged costumes and ramshackle or industrial sets, and the process of world building and discovery are and absolute blast. The film is hyperactive, cutting in inserts of comic book effects or animated sequences in a very Liquid Television fashion. It's all so early 90's MTV, it hurts so good.

Eventually Tank Girl and Jet Girl find their respective namesake vehicles and venture out into the wastes where Rebecca learns a young girl from her commune is still alive, so she makes it her mission to save her. In the process they meet the Reavers, a squad of genetically modified ultimate commandos that were the result of an experiment blending human and kangaroo DNA. The prosthetics were designed by Stan Winstson and on the budget for the film, the effect is pretty remarkable, buuut also a bit unappealing. Also, Ice-T is one of the kangaroo men which was a very weird statement for 1995 and even more weird today.

The third act sags and drags as it tries to tighten all its narrative threads together. In hindsight the right answer was probably to have sort of Mad Max-style roving adventure in the wastelands, as the necessity of dealing with kangaroo men mythology and the heroic narrative of saving a precocious child and destroying the villain take focus away from the most appealing aspects of the character of Tank Girl. But Petty's inspired performance that's part Pee Wee Herman, part Lucille Ball. 

I don't really see a world where Tank Girl is a commercial success, but the impact is clearly there. The evolution of Harley Quinn as a character seems to point directly to this film, both Kaley Cuoco's animated rendition and Margot Robbie's big-screen rendition seem to mirror most of Petty's attitude and playful, manic spirit, and the 2020 Birds of Prey feature feels like a superhero pivot of Tank Girl's aesthetics. 

---

...and finally...

---

There aren't many films that I've not finished watching. I could probably count the films on one hand that I've started but not completed (the last one I can recall is the 2019 rendition of Hellboy). I never thought an hand-animated feature from Genndy Tartakovsky would be one of them.

I really liked Tartakovsky's work on Dexter's Lab and The Powerpuff Girls, but I've flat out loved Primal, Clone Wars, and Samurai Jack, shows where the animation does most (or all) of the talking. (I'm utterly indifferent to the Hotel Transylvania series, mainly because it's Tartakovsky working in CGI animation as opposed to cel animation). His latest film, Fixed, is a passion project he's been pursuing for some time, and in a traditional animation style, it should be something worth getting excited about.

*Should.*

But the conceit of Fixed is a ribald comedy about a dog having a "one crazy night" adventure as he tries to flee having his beloved testicles neutered. 

I'm not prude. I watched and delighted in eight season of Netflix's Big Mouth, which is as in-your-face about all the taboos of sex and sexuality that you could think of and so many more that you couldn't (and sometimes wish you hadn't). Fixed's approach to canine sex and sexuality is so...basic... in comparison. It's a film that feels like it was made in the shadow of American Pie not Sausage Party.  When you think of it, Tartakovsky's better known for his action set pieces than his comedy, and almost all his comedy is meant for a younger audience. So is it any wonder that when he tries to venture into "adult" humour it comes off as tepid and juvenile?

I watched just a pinch over 30 minutes of Fixed and I had a couple little chuckles from Fred Armisen's "influencer" weener dog Fetch, Beck Bennet's pompous Borzoi Sterling, and Idris Elba's Boxer Rocco. But the film hangs on the central performance of Adam Devine as Bull, a pudgy blue pit bull mutt, and the performance lacks inspiration, but then so does every comedic setup.

The animation is, not unexpectedly, fabulous. The character designs are stunning to look at and I probably could have continued watching the film in its entirety only for the animation had I not had more pressing concerns pulling me away after the first act, and I just don't feel the need to go back and finish it.

I never did get to see that wild and crazy night, but nothing I saw up to that point would lead me to believe that there was anything particularly wild or crazy forthcoming.

The humour is attempting to be outrageous, to surprise or stun the audience into a laughing reaction, but its sense of what is outrageous is so lacking, and the comedic structures feel at best dated, at worst unrefined. A predictable will-they/wont-they (they will) romantic entanglement with Kathryn Hahn's prize-winning Afghan Honey has no juice, we know the beat its going to follow (and Honey's attraction to Bull makes no damn sense, as much as Hahn's vocal performances tries to sell it). 

Fixed is broken, and it's disappointing.

T&K's XMas (2024) Advent Calendar - Day 24: Finding Mr. Christmas Finale + Happy Howlidays

Back on Day 3 I covered the first five episodes of Finding Mr. Christmas, Hallmark's "reality" competition show where they pit ten objectively handsome men against one another to perform embarrassing "Festive Faceoff" challenges before giving them an actual challenge that will show off the goods for what they need to bring to a Hallmark movie.

I didn't know at the time how long the series was going to be. I was expecting ten episodes. Thank the merciful Hallmark deities (we worship at the altar of commerce) it was only eight. 

When we picked up episode six, it was Blake (the sweet-talkin' cowboy), Hayden (the blue eyed Australian who lost his dog), Jonathan (the tall, dimpled track star), Ezra (the tall former marine-turned-model with dead, dead eyes) and Elijah (the guy who acted in Hamilton for five years, people!).

The "Star Quality Challenge" of episode six found the hunks acting against Rachel Boston in an emotional "break-up" scene (it's a Hallmark movie-style scene so it's the kind of scene that follows "the complication" where the woman thinks she can't see the guy anymore and tells him she can't and they have to act all emotional). Hayden brings some real emotions to the scene by having Rachel stick his (not-dead-but-taken-by-his-ex) dog's squeaker in her pocket, while Ezra thinks about his dead sister, and acts decently. Blake's is just rough stuff all around, and Jonathan stumbles for a good 20 seconds forgetting his line before getting back into it and doing a fine job. Elijah is pretty good but not great. Jonathan's stumble sends him home (as in competition there's no "retakes" apparently. Sigh) even though Blake was by far the worst.

Episode seven finds the four remaining mens having to do a dance with the dance instructor (Witney Carson) from Dancing with the Stars. They also surprise the boys with their sisters being in attendance for some reason (except Elijah, whose pregnant girlfriend shows up). The dance starts off with a waltz then leads to an uptempo choreographed dance. Blake pulls a Jonathan and messes up almost immediately, but they reset and he does just fine.  Hayden does surprisingly well. Ezra is a lumbering, awkward giant and is by far the worst dancer of the night.  Elijah, who you may have heard, SPENT 5 YEARS PERFORMING IN HAMILTON, nails that dance to the fucking floor. It's a no brainer, Elijah is our winner...except he's not. Blake's stumble sends him home, and ... Ezra wins...? Ohh nooo....

Going into episode 8, and it's down to Elijah, the most experienced actor of them all, Hayden who has acted before and was a children's entertainer, and Ezra, who looks good in a tight shirt and tighter shorts, but has no charisma on camera at all and the sloping, lifeless eyes of a serial killer. Ezra should have been eliminated at least three times by now but keeps sticking around. The conspiracy theory that this whole show is a farce, that they had already chosen their leading man, but, I guess for channel filler, built a competition show around "selecting" him only to realize that, oops, there are far more talented guys than him that they need to try and convincingly eliminate...well, it's seemingly bearing fruit. 

This final episode had no bullshit "Festive Faceoff" it was just the men competing in a three-scene challenge. Scene 1 was with Jonathan Bennett, Scene 2 with Melissa Peterman (LEGEND!) , and Scene 3 with Nikki f'n DeLoach, ending with the big climactic kiss. Bennett was hamming it up in his scene, Melissa was supposed to improv and if she did we didn't see it, and Nikki is a freaking pro and nailed her scene every time.  Elijah got caught squinting in the sunlight in scene 1, his timing was off in scene 2 and did a weird Breakfast Club end-scene fist raise while kissing Nikki, which was a bad choice. Ezra was palpably awful in each of his scenes, but did a little better with each second take, so, as "director" Ali Liebert said, he took direction well (to go from "awful" to just "really bad"). Hayden was good in all his scenes, and if we were basing the winner on this challenge alone, Hayden would have been the winner....

But they weren't basing it on the challenge alone, but the whole competition would come into play in the decision. But if that was the case, Elijah should be the shoe-in and sweet, simple Ezra being ousted. But, appallingly, Elijah is eliminated first. Is it because he's black, or short. Which prejudice got him eliminated?  Down to just Hayden and Ezra, still seemed like a no-brainer that Hayden should win (especially with the outside-the-show knowledge that the winner's movie was called Happy Howlidays, and co-starred dogs). But no, Ezra is announced the winner and suddenly Happy Howlidays went from being a thing I was very curious to see to something I dreaded watching.

---

Happy Howlidays, d. Terry Ingram (Three Wise Men and a Baby) - Hallmark/W Network

The Draw: The winner of Finding Mr. Christmas + doggos.

HERstory: Mia (Jessica Lowndes, 90210) is the webmaster of Seattle's tourism board (despite clearly living in Vancouver, do they know she's remote working from another country?) and she's too busy to fly home to Florida for Christmas, she says (but really she just don't wanna). She's a "hot mess" because she wakes up next to a spilled bag of Lays in bed. Guess she got Layd, oh ho ho!  One day, walking home in the rain, sans umbrella, because she lives in Seattle without an umbrella, she finds a dog trapped in a fence. She frees the dog, he follows her home, and she lets him stay the night. She doesn't know how to care at all for a dog, she barely knows how to care for herself! She steps in dog piss first thing in the morning, and also finds her feather pillow cushions have exploded.

She takes the dog to a dog rescue center run by Max (Ezra Moreland, Finding Mr. Christmas) and the two are like fire and water... well, more like tar and toilet paper. They are the bitterest of enemies for no apparent reason, and Max refuses to take in the dog, or something. Max's dog, though, hit's it right off with Mia's stray. Mia takes the dog to a dog park, and her stray runs off (we suspected she was just going to let the dog go and leave it there, alas) and finds Max's dog and the two are just so pleased with each other. Mia takes a video, before Max interrupts with a curt "don't take pictures of my dog without permission". They bicker some more. Mia posts the supremely uninteresting video of two dogs playing at a dog park to the Tourism Board social media and it goes viral (like herpes).  Everyone loves this dog pair, so now her boss wants a campaign around it. So Mia's stuck with the dog for a while. She names it Russell, even though it's a curly haired herding dog of some type and not a Jack Russell. Whatever, movie. 

So Mia needs Max's dog to keep her job or something so they spend time together even though they really dislike each other, but it's good for the dogs I guess. I dunno, this movie is bad, and boring. Turns out Max used to have two dogs, but his ex took one of them when she left for L.A. And now Max and his dog are both sad (not that you could ever tell Max was sad with Ezra's dead eyes and the childlike smile that comes out of nowhere all the time for no reason).  Ezra "helps" Mia "dogproof" her home (she wound up stepping in piss each morning a bunch more times and Russell continues to wreck the place until Ezra spruced it up for Christmas and then Mia let Russell sleep in her bed) and I guess they start to like each other, or at least the movie wants us to believe that something is happening. They get caught in the rain, and at Mia's place she gives Max a dry shirt to wear, but not before catching a peek at his marines/model body and gets reeeeal thirsty. Then mom and dad show up.

Turns out Mia used to be a doctor but she's disillusioned with the US medical system after a woman died in the waiting room because they didn't insurance. It's a big, bold, dark topic to bring up, and do absolutely nothing with. Mom and Dad are both doctors as well and want to retire and hand their practice over to Mia, but she's not into it. Instead, she wants to use her social media spike to help save Max's failing dog rescue. Oh and Max's ex shows up, with Max's old dog, and I guess Mia gets jealous? It would be "the complication" if a) it weren't so predictable and b) either of these actors could sell it as a complication. There's no investment and no stakes in these performances. The big charity fundraiser barely raises enough momney (with a major donation from Mia's Mom and Dad), and Mia decides she wants to be a veterinarian (speaking of not being able to afford health care) and Max resolves the whole thing with his ex and they kiss in Vancouver. The End.

The Formulae: There's no freaking Christmas in this at all, and if there was I was too busy wincing to notice. The biggest formulae was the arrival/complication of The Ex returning.

Unformulae: Hallmark movies never insinuate sex. They've gotten steamy a few times, but Hallmark leading characters do not get horny. Mia quite clearly gets the horn for Max's hot bod when she sees him with his shirt off (there's more expression in his nipples than his eyes, that's for sure).

True Calling? You expect with a film with a pun title that it will be fun. This was not fun. There was no funny. This was the absence of fun and funny. There was no romance either. There was no investment in these characters, and even the dogs weren't really that cute (though clearly the best performers in the film). So yeah, there's dogs, but no, the title doesn't work at all for this heaping pile of doggie doodoo.

The Rewind: The scene where Max's sister is tallying up the money. It's not a lot of money but she's going back to the calculator for each bill she puts down. Like, not sorting the bills into piles or anything, just...lay a 20 down, add 20, lay a 5 down, add 5. Just...no wonder the rescue is going under. These kids don't know how to manage finances at all.

The Regulars: Lowndes is a Hallmark and off-Hallmark seasonal romance movie regular, but can't say I've ever seen her before.  Mom Alison Araya is a Hallmark semi-regular, and Dad Christopher Shyer was just in Three Wiser Men and a Little Boy among a few others. (At one point the three of them were sitting around a table and it was Hallmark's Meghan Fox sitting with Hallmark's Julianne Moore and Hallmark's Peter Gallagher).  Also Jonathan Bennett puts in a little cameo and brings the only bit of life into this dull-as-dog piss movie for about 85 seconds. 

Ezra we met in Finding Mr. Christmas, and while we knew already that he was a terrible actor, we weren't quite prepared for how truly godawful his performance would be. He seemed to be thinking about every movement he had to make and was plenty awkward in doing so. He barely had a scene where he had to say more than one line at a time and it was quite noticeable. I've mentioned a half dozen times how lifeless his eyes are, for as otherwise good looking as he is, this is a real vitality killer on screen.  He seems like a sweet kinda simple person in the reality show, but he's no performer.   

How does it Hallmark? Real bad. Even by bad Hallmark movie standards, this is real bad. If not the bottom of the list, then real, real close. This was about as enjoyable as waking up and stepping in dog piss with socks on.

This was an abysmal failure and shame on Hallmark for putting Ezra through this, and subjecting its audience to it. I don't know if Hayden's green card was last-minute rejected, but this film seemed tailor made for him. Max's story is his bloody backstory. His ex took off with his dog, for fucksake! (Unless Hayden's backstory on FMC was *gasp* made up!?!)

And maybe the filming of the movie would have clashed with Elijah's baby's due date, or if he got cast in something else?  There had to be some reason they didn't go with either of these handsome, charming actors and instead went with the tall, generically handsome lug.  Ezra would be the perfect Dick BF in one of these movies for the two scenes they would need him for, but he should never have been put in the lead.

How does it movie? pfft.

How Does It Snow? It rains pretty good.

---

As an experiment, this felt like a huge mistake, and you would think Hallmark, after watching the dire results of Happy Howlidays (in the hands of one of their most experienced director's no less) that they would realize this was not a good idea. Alas, apparently they've renewed Finding Mr. Christmas for a second season. I will not be going through that again. It's the holiday season, one should not willfully endure this kind of pain and suffering...not twice anyway.

T&K's XMas (2024) Advent Calendar - Day 6: The Finnish Line

 2024, d. Dustin Rikert - Hallmark Channel/W Network

The Draw: It was requested, by my Finnish brother and frequent reader GAK. He's taken some (many) of my requests on his excellent radio programme, so it only seems fit that I return the favour and watch a Hallmarkie about Icelandic people pretending to be Finn.

HERstory: The film starts with the tale of a dogsled race in Finland, of fierce competition, of injury, leading to romance between a competitor and a nurse. Little Anya Kivelä has heard this story from her dad many, many times, and to her, it's been a story about missed glory. Her father had been an amazing sledder, but this defeat was his legacy.

Now grown up and following in her late father's path, Anya (Kim Matula, Fighting With My Family) is set to compete in the great 3-day, 300 mile Joulurauha ("Christmas Peace") race. Unbeknownst to her, she is competing against the very man who beat her father all those years, ago, a total blowhard jerkwad named Monty White. He constantly tries to belittle and infantilize her, but she can give as good as it gets. Anya is strong, driven, passionate, resilient...she is sisu. 

Supporting Anya is her associate and best friend Elyse (Nichole Sakura, Superstore) who is ready to elbow-dagger any reporters who dare get in Anya's way. Anya really dislikes reporters because of the way they had treated her father and his story.  So of course, when she gets in a bit of a bind, who comes to her rescue but a tall, dark and rugged reporter who happened to be a former sledder, Cole Olsen (Beau Mirchoff, Desperate Housewives), and his best sledding dog in tow [why is that important to mention, he said without a hint of foreshadowing?]. They have an immediate playful rapport, but...not flirty?

[I don't know what the rules are for travelling with one's five dogs cross-continent but it seems weird that they can just arrive with their dogs the day before the trials without any quarantine period or anything]

Anya's Finnish cousin Lavi (Benedikt Karl Gröndal) is her and Elyse's host and guide while in Finland, and he is also the race's lead veterinarian (he says there's not conflict of interest but there totally is).  He and Elyse are both yammering goofballs and they're a delight to watch. It's clear there's chemistry there (moreso than with Anya and Cole, at least to start).

Not Finland

During the qualifying time trials, Anya gets screwed over by a dirty kick to her sleigh from Monty, and in making up the time to qualify for the actual race, she pushes her lead dog too hard. He'll be fine, just in 4-6 weeks of recoup time. They visit the very un-goat-like Joulupukki in Rovaniemi (Santa's hometown) as Anya reluctantly wishes for a new lead dog from Santa. And Cole, of course, is there to offer up his best girl for the job, they just need to convince the race head that it's allowed.  Anya promises that Cole will do a big write-up profile on her in his sports magazine with millions of readers (what's this now?) which will promote the race, which has been sagging in international attention of recent years. Anya's stuck with Cole... good thing he's so uncharming and ugly and untalented. 

Apparently in Finland?

An actual Joulurauha, played by an actual Finn.

They spend the next five days trying to figure out how to get the pack to accept a new lead, and eventually figure it out. It's not a well oiled team but it will have to do.  They also take a horribly entertaining green screened ice bath that's clearly a set, and then cut to them a clearly non-functioning sauna. There's chemistry, maybe, but very little steam, both metaphorically and literally.

Not Finland

It's a Sauna, but is it Finland?

[If I'm missing out on describing all the explicitly Finnish things in this movie, it's because my mind is a sieve and everything seems to just pass on through with little filtered remains left behind].

Actually Finland

The three day race goes up and back down Finland (it's mostly bad green screen and red-line express, but a handful of grey-looking snowy vistas are spliced in between). Anya's team does fine, but she can tell they're starting to find their groove.

Making joulutorttu, but probably not in Finland.

During one of the stopovers Lavi sets up a big gathering of Anya's extended Finnish family and Anya does some baking with her aunt(?), making joulutorttu (I've had many times back in my gluten-ingensting days), and eventually Cole joins in, because Hallmark. Elyse asks Lavi to take her out on a date, and Lavi gets nervous and bashful and curses his Finnish charm and good nature for leading her on.  

The race the next day, Anya comes in second. She is psyched. Things are really starting to work, even if she screwed up a couple of things mid-race. That Monty guy is getting under her skin though.

Not sure if this is Finland...

The quartet of Anya and Cole and awkward Lavi and Elyse head to an ice castle restaurant which is a really neat environment. Later Elyse and Lavi make friends again, and Anya reads Cole's manuscript for a book he's writing. She likes it so she gives him some very personal insight into her motivations, and then she sucks his face real hard.

Finnish kissing, but not in Finland.

Monty gets into Anya's head before the final race, but she sucks it up big girl style and vows to take him on full force. Midway through the trail, Monty has had an accident, injured his leg and his sleigh is stuck between the ice and the rocks on the edge of a cliff. Anya helps this jerk out and nearly falls off the cliff, but with the help of Monty and another sledder she is saved and they all start off on their race again. Monty's injured leg means he's not going to win so he roots Anya on because they came to an understanding. Anya passes everyone and wins the race, but gives the spotlight back to Monty to tell the tale of derring-do.

The best green screening in the movie...also not Finland.

Lavi admits he was shy and does really like Elyse and she jumps him. Anya learns from auntie grandma that Cole is the almond in her oatmeal, and they go running to each other beneath the northern lights to suck face semi-obscured from camera.

The end.

The Formulae: I always forget to mention dead parents, but yeah, there's dead parents in this one. Or not in this one, as it were. 
I don't watch enough of the Hallmarkies that take place in other countries, but I'm certain there's formulae in how they explain the Christmas traditions of that country in a very primary and nuance-free fashion.
Oh, the  secondary male and female characters hooking up, total formulae.
There's a baking sequence, but not a montage.

Unformulae: So, Anya is pretty much all business. She's dedicated to her sport, and Cole is kind of a pleasant but also complimentary distraction that isn't much of a distraction at all. We don't see that much from the usual Hallmarkie. Basically, Anya's the lead dog, and Cole is happy to follow and support. It's pretty great change of pace actually.
Dogs, but not dogs being cute, just dogs being dogs and sometimes doing their job. It's pretty cool.
There was, like, some action happening in this film, with the racing and the big climactic cliffside sequence... again, a bit of adventure is not the typical Hallmarkie's forte.
And, like, actual winter weather. People wearing winter gear because they actually needed it. I'm sure it was late winter/early spring in Iceland when they shot it, but still looks so wintery, which is such a rare treat for a Hallmarkie.

True Calling? I guess, since it's set around race, set in Finland. (Theoretically it's set in Finland. It was primarily shot in Iceland...likely because they already had the crew for the Icelandic-set Chabert/Polaha joint The Christmas Quest).

The Rewind: Oh, some of the greenscreen shots of Matula "racing" are freaking hilarious. I delighted in every janky backdrop (there was even a janky greenscreen backdrop for the odd reindeer-drawn sleigh ride, where it's just one reindeer pulling a sleigh with two passengers and moving at walking speed since a handler walks with the reindeer...so...whaaaa?

I also had to go back and find out if that dude's name was GAK, but it Jaak. Boo.

The Regulars: Matula made her Hallmark debut with Ghosts of Christmas Always in 2022 and Checkin' It Twice in 2023 and she's a real spunky lead.  She doesn't seem to cave to the romance-obsessive female lead characters, and she's got a pretty great sarcastic wit.  Most of the other performers are Icelandic so they don't have Hallmark credits, and Mirchoff and Sakura are new to Hallmarkies, but are welcome back any time).  Gröndal, who played Lavi, was so much damn fun with really great comedic timing. He also had the best Finnish accent of all the actors (whose Finnish accents didn't seem to ring true to my Thunder Bay-born ears).

How does it Hallmark? Honestly, it was a tad light on Christmas and romance, so not great on that front which are basically the two fronts you want in a holiday romance... but it was heavy on winter and good vibes with two charismatic leads with two very entertaining, charismatic supporting players who we care about just as much, so hard to complain. Plus, the script was largely pretty tight, with surprising moments of maturity and self awareness, not often found in the more juvenile, traditional Hallmarkie.

How does it movie? Lady Kent likened it to a Disney adventure movie, and she's not far off. It's not really getting all the details 100% right, but I don't think it was ever really trying to. It's got quite a lot of laughs and smiles throughout (and the shoddy green screening was just part of the fun for me).  I really had to convince Lady Kent to watch it in the first place, luring her in with the promise of dogs (honestly not of the dogs) and she had to begrudgingly admit that it was surprisingly watchable, maybe even enjoyable. It did need more Christmas and lean more into the romance though.

How Does It Snow? So. Much. Snow. And real snow. Almost unreal how much real snow there was.

Going for a Reindeer sleigh walk...but in Finland?

T&K's XMas (2022) Advent Calendar: Day 11 - A Royal Corgi Christmas

 A Toast to HallmarKent
2022, d. Clare Niederpruem - Hallmark

The Draw: Corgis!

That's not even the dog that played Mistletoe
Mistletoe was a Cardigan and that's a Pembroke

HERstory: The Isle of Comfrey, where "playboy" Edmund, the estranged prince, bought his mom the queen *another* corgi for Christmas. Well, actually he won him in a poker game.  He's an untrained, year old pup, so good thing the family have that "corgi wrangler".  Oh, but that posh twit Carrington is a "Royal Corgi Handler...corgis with bloodlines that go as far back as your own.  At a year old the dog is unable to be trained, at least by Royal standards," he snootily remarks.  (The corgi wrangler is also snogging the princess on the side and he has an inferiority complex about it).  At a really, really sad press junket the Queen is holding for the purpose of - unbeknownst to Prince Edmund-- announcing his ascension to King, "Mistletoe" (what he named the Corgi) runs amok and hauls the runner off the buffet, knocking all the food to the floor (why was there food there anyway? Are press conferences typically catered with ham?), and the video of it becomes a viral internet sensation.

Across the pond, Cecily (Hunter King, Nailed It!) is a dog trainer and author (a book on dog training called "DOG-MA: How to parent your pup") promoting her book on a talk show.  It's implied that she recently went through a break up (a story point given very little weight but is meant to be a big emotional underpinning of Cecily's character). Her gay bff and/or press agent (oh, manager...) is a royal watcher, and sees "Mistletoe" as a big opportunity for Cecily to promote her... training?  (Oh, wait, it's to promote her "Rover Rehab" charity where they train and socialize adult dogs).  But from Edmund's perspective, if he can turn his corgi around then he maybe will prove himself King-worthy to mumsy (don't ask me how this plan makes any sense).

Arriving at the "castle" (the ugliest castle I've ever seen, which just may be a superimposed cardboard cut out in wide shots)  Cecily is brought to Mistletoe who's barking away while Edmund's fencing trainer is clearly letting him win because that was some shitty fencing, even from my untrained eye.  Cecily's first encounter with Edmund is basically "oh good, you're here, fix my dog, don't talk to me. C-Ya!"  Cecily's like "But this is your dog, you have to be part of it"... but he's already gone.

Cecily meets Carrington, the Royal Corgi Handler, who snootily shits all over Cecily "the youtube trainer" to her face and ah-ah-ah's her attempt to pet the royal corgis Juniper and Holly. Cecily explains to the family that she doesn't train dogs, she trains people to train dogs, and Edmund's like "Not me" and she's like "Yeah you" and he's like "Nuh uh" and she's like "Yuh huh, or I'm Audi five thousey.  Tah-tah."  The Queen's impressed.

First session of dog training proves that Edmund doesn't know shit about dogs.  It's reiterated over, and over, and over again that Edmund hasn't spent much time in Comfrey for the past decade, but he needs to become reacquainted with his country and people if he's to be king... "the least qualified monarch ever" he calls himself. Cecily has ideas on how he can endear himself to his people (and it sounds something like holding a charity event for Plover Plehab).  According to the princess (earlier in the film), talking to Carrington, Edmund already has a complex about people using him for his title or his money... I'm sure that's not going to come up again.  

Out on the streets with Cecily and Mistletoe, Edmund starts to meet and greet the people, including a little orphan boy name "Pee-tah" who just loves Mistletoe.  Edmund takes inspiration and delivers Christmas presents to the orphanage, and then plays some basketball with the kids.  It's weird.  Later Edmund asks Cecily to dinner...not a date, just going to dinner and having a nice time.  But dinner was reserved under the prince's name, so the paparazzo will be swarming.  So instead the prince and Cecily go to the kitchen and make "Comfrey Pie" and talk about Churro, the dog she lost after a breakup (no lament over the relationship), and then they dance. But oh no, the pie starts burning after 4 minutes.  Um, how hot is that oven? 

A corgi derby, with betting for charity. A Christmas ball.  An invitation to the Christmas ball.  Awkward feelings abound. Scheming and plotting from the Royal Corgi Handler whom we suspected all along would be scheming an plotting.  The misunderstanding (sigh).  The Queen retiring (at, like, what? 60?) and announcing a new... queen(not Edmund!). A reconciliation. Corgis corgis corgis. This is a bad, bad, bad, bad, movie

The Formulae: Baking time (not a montage though). Fake traditions - the Legendary Wishing Tree of Comfrey, where the royal family (and guests) tie a ribbon around the tree's branches (congrats to the set decorators for actually weathering some, but not enough, of the ribbons already on the tree).  Hot Chocolate (for the Queen).  A ball.  The blue dress. The bullshit misunderstanding where the dude gets all in a snit because he he's given a piece of information about the girl which completely changes his mind about her, because Hallmark people never understand how to put things into context.

Unformulae: There have been pet-based Hallmarkies, and Prince-based Hallmarkies...but has there ever been a pet-based, Prince-base Hallmarkie?  Probably. With the exception of someone using the words "corgi wrangler", there's nothing unformulaic about this.  Everything is predictable and completely telegraphed.  

True Calling? I guess there are royal Corgis, and it's Christmas, but the "Christmas" part is sooo shoehorned in.  It's very much like they did not have the budget to really do up the Christmas aspect.

The Rewind: I rewound to see what the title of Cecily's book was called.  It wasn't worth the extra seconds.  In a "movie" with corgis, that I didn't once rewind to see some fun/cute corgi action really underlines how terrible this movie is.

The Regulars: This is from the writer of Merry & Bright  and The Nine Kittens of Christmas (the most disappointing Hallmark experience I've ever had) so I shouldn't be surprised by how not great this was.  This is Hunter King's first Hallmarkie, and I just feel so bad for her, she seems better than this.   Surprisingly it's everyone's first Hallmarkie (save the writer and director).

How does it Hallmark? The romance is soooo forced.  Some might say obligatory.  All the emotional moments (dead father talk, parental issues, sibling issues, extended family issues) all ring very hollow.  There's no chemistry between any of the players here (no romantic chemistry, no sibling chemistry, no familial chemistry, no royal chemistry).  Nobody even seems *that* attached to the corgis (and the corgis don't seem attached to any of these people).  Comfrey is the worst fictional European territory.This is bad, even by bad Hallmark standards.  One of the worst ever. 

How does it movie? Audio quality bad.  Set decoration...so bad... certainly no "the Crown", is also no "Princess Switch"...it's not even "King of Queens".  It's real bad you guys. It's like dollar store posh.  The wardrobes, equally bad.  The bloody queen wears the same bloody outfit (which looks straight off the TJ Maxx/Winners rack) twice in seemingly as many days.  And there's no sense of royal decorum or formality. The queen's private secretary, Hobbs, totally has the hots for the queen and then makes the moves on her before the Christmas ball.  For serious? Or the royal line of succession is so informal as to surprise someone with the news that they're taking over?  I wish this was even fun bad but it's just so painful.

How Does It Snow? As if things couldn't get any worse... no snow. None.  At all.

Kid Flicks

The Nightmare Before Christmas - 1993, Henry Selick - DVD
Frankenweenie (Short) - 1984, Tim Burton - DVD
Hotel Transylvania - 2012, Genndy Tartakovsky - in theatre
Wreck-It Ralph - 2012, Rich Moore - in theatre
How To Train Your Dragon - 2010, Dean DeBlois, Chris Saunders - tv

The bane of many parents' existence is the prevalence of obnoxious children's programming in the household.  In Canada, the dedicated children's programming channel, Treehouse, is equally a parent's saviour (for times when you need to get stuff done, and need the kids out of the way) and nightmare (pretty much any other time you're exposed to it).  Some of the kids programming, like Yo Gabba Gabba, Octonauts and, even still, Sesame Street, is actually quite surprising, and casually engaging for even adults.

My household is a little more complicated, though.  With one television and two kids -- of different genders and seven years age difference -- it can pose a little more challenging to entertain both kids at once (or it should, but for some reason the 10-year-old still has no problem watching banal kiddie pap like Mike the Knight or Bubble Guppies).  As parents, we have to take a little ownership over what the kids watch and try to guide them towards quality entertainment, and in our situation, find something that will stimulate a 10-year-old boy that will also not be too advanced, frightening, violent, or challenging for a 3-year-old girl.

With the boy, he's always been cool with watching anything, so long as its a cartoon.  Live action stuff like Star Wars was never his thing.  As geeks, the wife and I have long had DVDs of cartoons we liked for him to watch: Batman The Animated Series, Justice League, Looney Toons, the Tick, Samurai Jack, as well he took a shining to the more mainstay Nickelodeon animated comedies, the children of Ren & Stimpy, like Spongebob and Fairly Odd Parents (the more palatable of the genre, the knock offs are atrocious and annoying).  As a result, though we've tried to reign our daughter into more age appropriate fare, we learned quickly that she could no only handle, but liked her brother's programming.

Both kids thankfully enjoy and can sit through movies.  The Pixar films are a particular hit with everyone in the house, but most other kid-centric films don't appeal as broadly.  So, it can truly be a crapshoot, a roll of the dice to find the winners that are not only worth watching, but worth watching again and again.  Outside of the mostly reliable Pixar, I've only found a handful of other movies that I like as much as the kids do.  Cloudy With A Chance of Meatballs is ridiculous but tremendously funny with a great voice cast.  The Muppets, including the latest Jason Segal effort, Muppets From Space and the early films all hold a nostalgic potency that the kids seem to tap into as well.  I haven't test run The Fantastic Mr. Fox on my daughter yet, but the boy said, after watching it in the theatre, that it was probably the best movie he ever saw (I wonder if that would hold up).

Sitting on our shelf for years, untouched and unloved, was The Nightmare Before Christmas.  I've had this movie in my collection since it first came out on DVD in 2000, and if I've watched it more than once (until recently) I would be surprised.  I was, in the 90's, a Tim Burton devotee, and as a result I was committed to loving Nightmare even though I'm not all that certain I was as enamored with it as others became.  It wasn't a flop, but at the time it seemed a disappointment at the box office.  However, within a few short years it became a monster cult hit, spawning an endless barrage of collectibles still found in record stores, comic shops and novelty boutiques.

I recall trying to expose my step-son to Nightmare a few years back but he was creeped out almost instantly, and I don't think we made it ten minutes into the picture.  To be honest, I don't think I'd watched it in over half a decade and at that point couldn't recall any details beyond the chorus to a few of the songs.  Recently, it the pursuit to diversify my 3-year-old's viewing regimen, I asked her if she wanted to watch it, and I sat, hesitantly watching her in the opening minutes, waiting for her to cringe and tell me she didn't want to watch any more.

It would seem I have a little goth in training, as she adored it instantly.  It's beautifully creepy in its design, with cheerfully morbid songs and an ominous joie de vivre that my little girl obviously keyed into immediately.  With this, his feature directorial debut, Henry Selik proved himself a stop-motion animation wizard, rapidly earning prestige and clout within the industry and with fans alike.  Working from Tim Burton's poem and with his lanky and lean character designs, the figures give wonderfully expressive physical performances, while an unprecedented number of head sculpts (about 400) gives lead Jack Skellington (voiced by Chris Sarandon with Danny Elfman subbing in for the songs) a richly emotive face, while other characters had some subtle traditional animation overlaid for lip synching.

Almost two decades later, Nightmare still feels very fresh and unique.  Stop motion animation is such a heady commitment and time consuming endeavor that Nightmare's modest initial returns didn't spawn the spate of imitators it would have were it a blockbuster.  Combined with it's gothic sensibility, it's borderline creepy aesthetic and its unusual holiday connection, as well as a soundtrack that was far more sinister than the usual Disney fare (although they paid for it, Disney scuttled it under their Touchstone Pictures masthead, when it could have used the Disney push... but then the traditional animation brand was still riding its Lion King/Little Mermaid/Beauty and the Beast high, so they weren't willing to risk the brand on this unusual offering).

The film holds up as a holiday classic for two holidays, meaning parents can get a lot more mileage out of it.  It maintains a holiday movie sensibility but by splitting the difference between Halloween and Christmas it actually separates itself somewhat from both, meaning it can be enjoyed outside of any festive spirit.  It's soundtrack has maintained a classic sensibility, the songs having a compounding infectiousness that may not appear so catchy at first but certainly digging into the ear after multiple exposures.

It's obviously not going to catch every kid's interest, but those that do key into it will love it deeply.  If there's any negative to The Nightmare Before Christmas, it's that it is not long enough.   At a meager (but wonderful) 75 minutes, it seems over as soon as it starts if you're trying to occupy your kids while you go off and do something else.

The 2000 release of the DVD (and subsequent Blu-Ray releases) for The Nightmare Before Christmas contains Tim Burton's 1984 live-action short film (roughly 30 minutes) Frankenweenie, naturally the source for the 2012 animated feature of the same name.

Using black and white film, shooting with a low-budget, delightfully retro 50's sensibility and a style reflective of a hybrid Twilight Zone and Leave It To Beaver, Burton tells the story of a boy, Victor, whose dog, Sparky, is unceremoniously killed.  Though wallowing in grief, he learns of the wondrously restorative capabilities of electricity in science class, and spares no effort in attempting to revive his best friend from his mortal slumber, an effort which does not go unnoticed by a suspicious neighbour.

When Sparky is fully revived in a grade-school interpretation of the science lab from the classic Frankenstein movie, he unintentionally gets up to no good, riling up the neighbourhood and causing a panic.  This leads to another homage to the classic Frankenstein, with the neighbours taking up arms and chasing after the dog, only to unwittingly trap Victor and Sparky in a mini-putt windmill set alight.

It's a charming short with quality performances from child star Barrett Oliver (D.A.R.Y.L., Cocoon, The Twilight Zone The Movie) as Victor, Daniel Stern and Shelly Duvall as his parents and characters actors like Joseph Maher and Roz Braverman as the neighbours, and even kid supporting actors like Jason Hervey and Sophia Coppola in the mix.  Burton's natural flare for off-beat children's stories shines through, but filtering it through the peachy-keen 50's aesthetic lessens most of the darker edges.  It's that same retro-50's filter that gives this nearly 30-year-old production a timeless feel, as it adopts the vibe wholeheartedly rather than doing so through an 1980's filter.

If anything, it's overlong for a short feature, which makes me wonder exactly how padded out "Tim Burton's Frankenweenie", the new animated feature, must be.  (I believe David has a review in the pipeline).

This year has seen a curious trend in spooky children's entertainment, as if Hollywood has only recently caught on to the fact that kids like creepy things too.  David covered Paranorman recently, though it was released in August.  Frankenweenie came out in time for Halloween, preceded by Hotel Transylvania, a monster mash of a film, meant to be more of a comedy than fright fest.

The titular hotel in the picture was started by Count Dracula as a refuge for all monsters to come, to be free from the oppression of human society and to relax in the assurances of both security and camaraderie of fellow monsters.  Upon the celebration of his daughter, Mavis' 118th birthday, all of his monster friends have arrived at the hotel, but amidst the joyous occasion Dracula frets as his daughter seeks to establish her independence and venture out into the human world for the first time.

Dracula does manage to trick her into staying home, but the human world comes knocking on their door in the form of a young backpacker, Jonathan, who is both completely freaked out and equally enamored with the hotel and its denizens.  Disguised as a distant relative of Frankenstein by Dracula so as not to freak out his patrons and friends, Jonathan becomes the hit of the festivities and the object of Mavis' affections.

It's a cute plot that's equal parts parental anxiety and teenaged romantic comedy, but it's hindered by a painfully high number of puns and obvious gags involving the various monsters traits.  Featuring a script from British sketch comedy wizard Peter Baynham and Saturday Night Live/Late Night With Conan O'Brien alum Robert Smigel,  and featuring the voice talents of a largely ex-SNL cast, including Adam Sandler, Andy Samberg, Molly Shannon, David Spade, Jon Lovitz, and Chris Parnell, the film should have been far more amusing.  It is pretty sharp at times from a storytelling standpoint, but the overall tone of the humour and proceedings seems dumbed-down to juvenile levels.  Given how successful Cloudy With A Chance Of Meatballs was at being absurd but hilarious and romantic and sentimental, there's no reason Hotel Transylvania, with all its talents, couldn't have replicated that same sensibility.  Sandler, for his part, commits to one of his less annoying voices in his cinematic career, doing a hybrid of cliche Dracula and Triumph The Insult Comic Dog (actually it was mostly the latter... I wonder if there's a "for me to poop on" outtake or ten somewhere).

In a valiant but unsuccessful effort the film features a half dozen original songs.  It's definitely a preferable route than plugging in the kid-approved hits of the day, but also futile as they all sought to replicate those very same hits, to largely painful degrees.

The name that initially sold the picture for me, however, was director Genndy Tartakovski.  Tartakovski's brilliant resume, including the Powerpuff Girls, Dexter's Lab and the first (and best) animated stab at Star Wars: The Clone Wars, was the main draw.  My daughter has discovered Tartakovski's Samurai Jack, a favourite of my step-son's as well, and I hold that show as the epitome of animation at the point where art crosses entertainment.  I was hoping some of Tartakovski's more unconventional influences and inspirations would come out in Hotel Transylvania, like they did in most of his previous work, but it's a fairly straightforward directorial effort.  The only scene that had any particular impact was a sweetly framed sequence of Dracula walking down the steeply-pitched roof to join a moping Mavis.  One stand-out composition was far less than I was expecting out of this (from what I've heard, however, Tartakovski was a late arrival on the project, its sixth director).

Given that I had really no preconceptions and no expectations from the film, I was neither disappointed nor pleased.  It was moderately entertaining, well animated, but overall a forgettable experience.

Getting away from all the creepiness, yet, still focussing on supposed bad-guys, Wreck-It Ralph is a kid-flick in the vein of Toy Story, wherein it builds a world for our playthings unknowingly in our midst.  In this case it's the shared world in the arcade, where video game characters can interact not only in their own game, but with any game.  Like Toy Story, the characters "come to life" after the arcade has shut down and there's no people to notice them.

But Wreck-It Ralph isn't so much about the world it inhabits, but the characters that inhabit it, which would actually be disappointing if the story and characters weren't so involving.  The titular Ralph is the bad guy in a vintage Donkey Kong/Rampage hybrid  arcade game called "Fix-It Felix Jr.", but after 30 years, Ralph is sick of being the bad guy and sets out in search of a gold medallion of his own, if not to be the hero, then at least be seen as less of a bad guy.  Of course, by abandoning his game, in the real world, they think the machine needs to be put out to pasture, so Fix-It Felix Jr. has one night to find Ralph and bring him back before they're unplugged.

Ralph, however, is a catastrophe waiting to happen and, true to his name, he kind of wrecks everything he touches, whether it's his intention or not.  When he winds up in the cutesy "Sugar Rush" racing game, he meets Vanellope Von Sweet, a glitchy character within the game who is similarly deemed an outcast by the other game characters.  The two characters naturally forge an uneasy friendship, Vanellope's playful, precocious, sarcastic nature continually sitting uneasily with Ralph's surly, patience-free, singularly focused demeanor.

To continue explaining the ins and outs of the film would take some time, as it's not so easily summarized.  For what's ostensibly a family movie, it's surprisingly dense in its structure, with moments building upon moments, and keeping virtually everything relevant.  Though it may seem like it at the time, there's truly no fluff in the film.

Wreck-It Ralph features a seemingly endless array of sight gags and gamer in-jokes, many of which I -- a very minor dabbler in video games -- picked up on, but I'm sure there were even more that I didn't.  Thankfully these types of jokes, unlike Hotel Transylvania, were laregely unobtrusive, and mostly set deep in the background.  They certainly weren't key to enjoying the film, which I think is its brilliance, that it could make a movie about video games, fill it with nuances that only gamers could appreciate, and yet make it accessible to almost every viewer.

The central story is about what it means for Ralph to be a bad guy, and the film very, very quickly takes the black and white of good and bad and plays with its shades of grey.  A formidable moment that kickstarts the third act finds Sugar Rush's monarch, King Candy (voiced with gleeful, lispy aplomb by Alan Tudyk) having the unfortunate job of convincing Ralph that in being a good guy and helping his friend Vanellope, he's actually going to do her more harm.  Then, upon returning to his own game, Ralph sees the effect of his quest for heroic redemption, the end of his own game.

The main voice talent is perfectly cast.  John C. Reilley provides the precise awkward voice for a gigantic, disheveled ape-man, while Sarah Silverman is the only person who can make being an incessant annoyance endearing and cute (well, perhaps Kristen Schall).  Jane Lynch playing the tough as nails sergeant from a Halo-esque shoot-em-up provided the perfect amount of edge and balls, but also just the right hint of fragility, while Jack McBrayer's puritan, high pitched, mid-western drawl is perfect for a beloved 80's video game handyman hero in the Mario vein.  That the cast largely recorded together as well makes for a noticeable impact on the repartee between characters, particularly Ralph, Vanellope and King Candy (though I don't know how anyone kept from giggling when Tudyk did his thing).

The animation, quite frankly, is some of the best I've seen with regards to attention to detail, and I'm not talking in the design of the worlds (although the central hub is brilliantly conceived, while the landscape of Sugar Rush is a thorough delight) but in the nuance of movements and the shifts in pixellation between games, and those moments where we see what's happening in-game from an outside perspective.  The animators, and the director, obviously know their gaming history and put their knowledge to good use.

And then there's the soundtrack, which blends video game sound effects from across the ages and old 8-bit style compositions with modern composition techniques to wondrous effect.  It's hard to pull one's self away from the visual stimulation of the images on screen, and even more difficult to remove one's self from the story to notice, but at times I found myself smiling only to realize that it was the score that was triggering it.

I'm more impressed with Wreck-It Ralph in hindsight than I was after first viewing.  Not to say that I disliked it, far from it, but I wasn't as enamored with it as early reviews seemed to imply I should be.  Yet, in thinking about the film, and writing about it now, I find myself flat out impressed by it.  Where Pixar let us down with the tepid mommy-issues story in Brave, Wreck-It Ralph (though a Disney proper film and not a Pixar effort) truly is the heir to the Pixar throne.  All that John Lasseter, Brad Bird, and Andrew Stanton built, designing wholly unique worlds amidst our own and populating them with characters worth investing in and seeding their movies with the broadest range of emotions and excitement, from empathy and humour to suspense and even mild horror, Wreck-It Ralph truly carries that torch.

Speaking of Brave (and to a lesser extent, Hotel Transylvania) and the whole "parental issues" subgenre of kid-flicks, How To Train Your Dragon is ostensibly of this ilk, and yet transcends it in ways Brave just couldn't see fit to do, by actually giving the main character a journey that wasn't so much about their parents but about them.

In HTTYD, Hiccup is the scrawny, wimpy son of the leader of a Viking clan, and though he's been given the role of apprentice to the weapons smith, he's aware how big of a disappointment he is.  The town they live in is occasionally attacked by dragons, and the culture takes great pride in the hunting and killing of dragons, as well as dying by them too.  During one such attack Hiccup manages to injure a fabled Night Fury in flight, and the next day, upon coming face-to-face with the wounded creature, finds that the killing spirit is not within him.

Naturally the two bond, as Hiccup studies the Night Fury, "Toothless", and learns more about their nature than any viking past.  Simultaneously, Hiccup is forced to participate in dragon-fighting training, but using his newfound knowledge of dragon whispering, Hiccup soon bests every captive dragon his trainer has, without ever having to use a weapon or harm the creature.  By the time his father returns from a hunting party, he's a celebrity, but naturally it's completely misunderstood.

The film develops the characters and their relationships nicely, including the kids, who are quite apparently born and raised amongst a warrior community.  The dragons equally have a mix of different races, each with their own nuances, and individual dragons with their own personalities.  There's a lot of emotion (a surprising amount for warriors, I would assume) throughout, all of it well earned.  Hiccup's path to hero, not just amidst his people, but amongst the dragons as well, is a wonderful tale with plenty of depth, humor and heart, as a well as a surprising amount of intensity and a respectable amount (for a kids picture) of the viking brutality in tact.

(Side note: I did find it odd that this Norse-god loving clan spoke with Scottish accents, save for the kids who spoke with conventionally North America accents, and yet, it kind of worked for the film.)


Of all of these, my 3-year-old is most enthused with The Nightmare Before Christmas.  She was about as enthused with Hotel Transylvania as I was, and while she liked Wreck-It Ralph, I'm not sure that it resonated with her like Iron Giant or Monsters, Inc. has.  I don't even think she stayed and watched all of Frankenweenie, while How To Train Your Dragon, she watched somewhat passively (though she mirrored my wife's comments that Toothless looks and acts very much like our black cat).

The 10-year-old, well, he's harder to read.  He tends to avoid Nightmare when it's on, and I think he really enjoyed Hotel Transylvania in that it seemed targeted specifically to his age group.  He seemed to assume that because Frankenweenie looked old (ie. 1950's old) that it was old (which it is) and seemed to dismiss it, only somewhat retaining interest because he knows there's a cartoon of it out there.  Wreck-It Ralph, well, he stayed through to the end credits, so I imagine he liked it, but he's not always the most forthcoming with his response to seeing a movie (I think the biggest responses I have seen out of him were the aforementioned Fantastic Mr. Fox and an arms-up-high, "AWESOME!" for John Carter).  He saw How To Train Your Dragon in theatres two years ago, and seemed to enjoy it, but he poo-pooed reading the novel series when suggested to him, so I guess he wasn't that enamored with it.