Grumpier Old Men (1995) - Jack Lemmon and Walter Matthau movies, with Jack Lemmon and Walter Matthau, or one or the other

"This restaurant is sitting on top of one of the biggest and best worm beds in all of Wabasha county."

Director
Howard Deutch

Cast
Jack Lemmon - John Gustafson Jr
Walter Matthau - Max Goldman
Ann-Margret - Ariel Truax Gustafson
Sophia Loren - Maria Ragetti Goldman
Daryl Hannah - Melanie Gustafson
Kevin Pollak - Jacob Goldman
Burgess Meredith - John Gustafson Sr

While I've watched and reviewed "Grumpy Old Men" with Jack Lemmon and Walter Matthau, having seen it

once or twice before, I've never seen its 1995 sequel "Grumpier Old Men" before until now. 

I wasn't ever really persuaded to watch it even though I enjoyed the first movie, and Lemmon and Matthau reprise their roles. Honestly, it struck me as just another sequel made only to recapture the first movie's lightening-in-a-bottle all over again. The first movie pairs Lemmon and Matthau late in their careers. Plus, with Burgess Meredith being added in amidst the duo to steal the show, the first movie is really well-balanced with a truly solid chemistry that's difficult to reproduce. But the writers and producers certainly tried with "Grumpier Old Men." 

I kept the intention to "watch it one of these days" in my mental to-do list mainly out of curiosity. I knew I'd eventually get to it. So, now I can scratch it off that list. 

In this sequel, Walter Matthau's Max Goldman is still a bit of a frump with enough dapperness to carry him around bachelorhood. 

Jack Lemmon's John Gustafson Jr is happily married to Ariel Truax Gustafson (Ann-Margret) from the previous movie. And the two are still neighbors. 

The two old men still fight. But the fighting words they sling at each other seem a bit more intended as ribbing rather than actual fighting words. Their friendship, not as ornery as before but still salty enough for the title's sake, needs to be smoothed around the edges. In other words, they've mellowed out just enough to be noticeable. 

Max's son, Jacob (Kevin Pollak), is now engaged to John's daughter, Melanie (Daryl Hannah). 

And John is enjoying married life with Ariel. John's father, John Gustafson Sr (Burgess Meredith) is alive and kicking. And fishing still remains a central pastime for John and Max, and whoever else in Wabasha, Minnesota is into fishing. The elusive catch of all catches, the infamous fish called "Catfish Hunter" remains at large in the local fishing hole. Yeah, Catfish Hunter is back!

However, things become sour when news that the bait shop from part one, a connecting social point for the fishing enthusiasts in the area, is going to turn into an Italian restaurant thanks to newcomer, Maria Sophia Coletta Ragetti (Sophia Loren) and her elderly mother, Francesca "Mama" Ragetti (Ann Morgan Guilbert). 

Sophia Loren and Walter Matthau in "Grumpier Old Men."

Max and John take their sites off each other and shift their grumpiness onto these soon-to-be Italian restauranteurs. 

They first try to put an end to the restaurant with childish pranks. This just backfires on them. Ariel becomes upset with John for his antics towards the new folks in town and it puts a bit of a strain on their relationship. In fact, she forces him to go and make amends much to the dismay of Max. 

The antics also backfires in Max's face as he and Maria begin to fall for each other. 

Even so, thanks to their antics, Max and Jacob end their engagement because of their respective dads. 

Amidst all the tangled problems between everyone, John Sr dies. 

Shortly after the funeral, Max and John really begin to consider everything that's going on and think that the best course of action ought to be towards mending relationships, encouraging their kids to marry, and welcoming the restaurant. After all, who doesn't like Italian food? In fact, maybe there's room for some compromise? 

The movie starts off well with some good laughs. Its pace picks up nicely from the previous "Grumpy Old Men." 

Overall, it feels more like a TV series pilot special running at 101 minutes. As always, Jack and Walter are fun to watch, and they still carry that long lasting chemistry. By this time, it comes naturally. 

Even so, I wanted to see more Burgess Meredith. I kept looking forward much more to his lines and screen time. Burgess's dialogue that gave me the most laughs. And then, in the middle of the story, he disappears. When he shows back up, he's dead. So, I didn't like that. No, sir. I didn't like that at all. 

In one scene when Melanie is worried because her little girl, Allie (Katie Sagona) swallows a quarter, 

Jack Lemmon and Burgess Meredith.

John Sr. says, " Relax. Kids swallow quarters all the time."

"Really?" Melanie replies.

"Sure. If she craps out two dimes and a nickel, then you can start worrying."

In another scene, John Sr reads a bedtime story to Allie.

 "And then the Mama Bear said, 'Somebody's been sleeping in my bed, too.' And finally, the Baby Bear looked and he said, 'Somebody's sleeping in my bed, and the bastard's still there!' But Goldilocks had a Remington semi-automatic with a scope and a hair-trigger."

"That's not the way it goes!" Allie remarks. 

"And that was the end of the Three Bears."

So, Burgess struck me as the best part of the movie. Otherwise, "Grumpier Old Men" tries to be different enough from part one, but it also tries to mimic the style and charm of part one. 

Somewhere in the second act, the movie starts to fall apart. The comedy wanes, the story begins to drag, and the plot starts feeling like it forgot where it needs to go. It starts floundering to the point where I wanted it to finally end. 
The plot is basically Walter Matthau refusing to accept the concept of a girl who's out of his league. And it pays off well for him in the end. Since John manages to marry in the first movie, then Max deserves a shot at marriage. It's a standard case of the sequel not being as good as the first.

It starts off as entertaining, begins to trip over itself in the middle of the second act and then seems to make things up as it goes along. By the end, it's not authentic. It's disjointed. 

The stars are fun to watch, but still I waited for something exciting to happen. It has its funny lines, most of which came from Meredith. That's not to say I didn't get some laughs from Lemmon and Matthau/

And as much as I love Walter Matthau, I couldn't take any sincere interest in his character's romantic pursuits. It certainly wasn't for me. Of all the Lemmon and Matthau movies, this one unfortunately falls the flattest.  

Moby Dick (1956)

"From hell's heart I stab at thee; for hate's sake I spit my last breath at thee. Ye damned whale."

Director 

John Huston

Cast
Gregory Peck - Capt. Ahab
Richard Basehart - Ishmael
Leo Genn - Starbuck
Orson Welles - Fr. Mapple
James Robertson Justice - Capt. Boomer
Harry Andrews - Stubb
Friedrich von Ledebur - Queequeg
Mervyn Johns - Peleg

I've reached a point in life where I think it would be a loss for me if I don't read some of literature's most renowned and respected books. Life is starting to feel short.

At the moment, I am on a Charles Dickens kick. You see, after taking an online Hillsdale College lecture on "A Christmas Carol" last December (the only Dickens story I've read in its entirety so far) I started a Dickens reading list for 2026 as I hadn't ever tried to read a novel of his aside from "A Christmas Carol" since high school. 

Back then, I tried to read a couple books by Dickens which were on an assigned reading list but never could get past the first few pages.

To begin with, back then I had to pick a book each month and submit a book report at the end of each month. Unfortunately, I am a terribly slow reader and finish a book in a month seemed impossible to me. So, I had to read as much as I could in a month and finish the rest on a wing and a prayer. Somehow, I managed. I'm still slow, I humbly admit. How people read so fast, I can't figure it out. 

While trying to read Dickens back in high school, I complained of too many characters and how difficult his stories were to get into. 

Now, with "A Christmas Carol" as my starting off point since I've read it several times already, I'm now working my way through "Oliver Twist" and will continue from there. I want to give Dickens another chance. He deserves another chance. 

Last year, I got through five books. Two were audio books and three where actual books. My general routine now has developed into read one actual book and listen to an audio book at the same time. So far, it's working out well. And man! Is "Oliver Twist" a long book to get through. But I am proud to say I am pulled in. Once I finish it, I'll move onto "A Tale of Two Cities." 

So, with that said, I've had some weird intrigue with Herman Melville's "Moby Dick." I've never read it, and to be honest, I'm kind of intimidated by it. I've heard comments that it's hard to read, it's long, it's a thick book, it's difficult to get into, it's too deep, it's boring etc. My personal interest in whales and whaling is somewhere between minimal and non-existent. Honestly, I was never even that interested in seeing Shamu at Sea World when I was a kid.  

If all they say about the book is true, then I'll start the book by familiarizing myself with the plot first. I checked out the 1956 movie "Moby Dick" from my local library. And after watching it, I listened to Ben Shapiro's (yes, that Ben Shapiro) "Third Thursday Book Club" commentary on the book. Say what you will about Ben Shapiro, his insight into novels is great and engaging to listen to. 

Gregory Peck as Capt. Ahab in "Moby Dick."

I think my curiosity about "Moby Dick" comes from the general theme boiled down to man going up against God, and the biblical themes that run through the story. Plus, it's such a renowned and highly praised novel that I just needed to see what it was all about, even if I never end up reading it. 

If I looked into all the themes and symbolism packed within and discussed it all, this would be a critique half the length of the actual book. This is the movie adaptation of the novel, so I'm going to critique that. 

With "Moby Dick" or any movie that's based on a book, I'm not terribly concerned how much a movie follows a book as long as it respects the source material. Peter Jackson's "Lord of the Rings" films certainly respect the source material (Tolkien's books) though the movie does take a few liberties with the stories. 

Andy Serkis's upcoming movie "Animal Farm" based on Orwell's book clearly doesn't follow the book nor does it look like it'll respect the source material. I can't wait to rip that mess apart!

Though I haven't read "Moby Dick," based on what I know of the story, the movie certainly respects the source material. And from what I read, it follows the story rather well. Besides, Herman Melville didn't make the movie. Anyways, this isn't a book report. It's a commentary on a movie. 

I would think the plot of "Moby Dick" is familiar with just about everyone. 

So, in this movie, a sailor who asks the audience to call him "Ishmael" (Richard Basehart) because that's his name decides to join the crew of a whaling ship called the Pequod. I think he's a schoolteacher in the novel, if I'm not mistaken. He befriends a harpooner named Queequeg (Friedrich von Ledebur) just as they're both about the sail under the seriously obsessed Capt. Ahab (Gregory Peck) who is fixated on hunting down an elusive white whale called Moby Dick. It's the same whale that once took his leg. So, Ahab is out for revenge! 

The voyage progresses with all the usual whaling work and general sea life of whalers. Ahab and his whaling crew encounter other ships along their way which are overshadowed by Ahab's hellbent determination, fueled by a desire for vengeance, to kill the white whale. 

All the while, Ahab's mind frames this quest as a cosmic struggle of man against evil. 

After a long period, when all seems lost and hopeless in regard to finding Moby Dick, the Pequod catches up to the mammoth whale. 

They chase it for three days until the whale smashes the Pequod's smaller boats and ultimately attacks the ship itself, killing Ahab when he's caught in his own harpoon and dragged under the surface of the frothy sea. 

When Moby Dick crashes headfirst into the side of the Pequod causing it to sink, all the crew except Ishmael are killed. He's rescued and lives to tell the salty tale. 

I think the movie certainly simplifies the novel's plot, condenses the backstories of the characters, and quickens the pace. It would have to or I'd still be working my way through the movie. I'm speculating a little based on what I know about the length of the novel and what sort of themes and topics it goes into. However, I wasn't bored at all with the movie. 

The movie tries its hardest to wrestle with the major elements of the story, in respect to the source material, so that it strikes a chord with the audience. 

Ahab's chase is ultimately for immortality which is the battle of all human battles. He wants greatness and will die trying to snare it with his harpoon.  

Gregory Peck doesn't just act with his voice; he acts also with his eyes. He is bloody fantastic in this role! He captures Ahab's flaming determination straight down to his hard gaze and intensity. 

Peck's performance is solid, intimidating and as uncompromising as the sea itself - relentless!

He gives Ahab a moral seriousness or gravity just by the look on his face. It's an amazing performance. 

Director John Huston is no small name among the lexicon of famed directors. He has quite a list of titles on his resume - "The Maltese Falcon," "The Treasure of the Sierra Madre," "The African Queen," "Moulin Rouge," "The Man Who Would Be King," and "Annie" to drop a few titles.  

In this case, he gives this book adaptation a surreal and vast atmosphere that has an impressive immensity to it. There's definitely a biblical taste underneath it all. The sea tale is told with seriousness without the need of any swashbuckling flair. The entire picture, especially the effects, are accomplished masterfully. It still impresses 70-years later. 

I also have to single out Orson Welles as Father Mapple. He delivers one of the most intense sermon scenes in classic cinema. His sermon centers on the story of Jonah. It's not hellfire and brimstone though he warns sinners rather than rage against them. 

Gregory Peck would later play Father Mapple in the 1998 mini-series "Moby Dick" starring Patrick Stewert as Capt. Ahab and Henry Thomas as Ishmael. 

When it comes to the book, many comments on the Book Club insisted the book is boring, especially the parts describing the whale species. Shapiro recommends reading the first 150 pages, skipping the middle, and then continuing onto the last 150 pages. Maybe? 

The movie, though, is fantastic - the beginning, the end, and the middle. I can't yet say for sure, but if I ever decide to crack open Herman Melville's book, I suspect I'll be glad I watched the movie first. I don't normal carry such a sentiment. In this case, I think that's how I'll likely feel.  With it's acting, effects, atmosphere and visuals, "Moby Dick" needs to be counted among my personal favorite flicks!

Grumpy Old Men (1993) - Jack Lemmon and Walter Matthau movies, with Jack Lemmon and Walter Matthau, or one or the other

"What makes two men spend most of their lives fighting?"

Director
Donald Petrie

Cast
Jack Lemmon - John Gustafson Jr.
Walter Matthau - Max Goldman
Ann-Margret - Ariel Truax
Burgess Meredith - John Gustafson Sr.
Daryl Hannah - Melanie Gustafson
Kevin Pollak - Jacob Goldman
Ossie Davis - Chuck
Buck Henry - Elliott Snyder
Christopher McDonald - Mike

With my annual Christmas movie binge out of the way until next Christmas, I can resume my thread of Lemmon and Matthau movies. I have a few more to go. 

My last highly unqualified Lemmon/Matthau movie critique was aimed at "The Front Page." After they filmed that, the guys teamed up in Billy Wilder's 1981 movie, "Buddy, Buddy." Well, I had already reviewed "Buddy, Buddy" in 2021 for a thread I christened "Video Rental Chicken Fat." 

I'm not watching "Buddy, Buddy" again nor do I need to say anything else about it so I'm jumping to the next movie of theirs — the 1993 comedy "Grumpy Old Men." 

I should mention that Jack Lemmon and Walter Matthau both appear in the 1991 Oliver Stone movie "JFK" but don't share screen time together. That means "Grumpy Old Men" marks their first movie together as a pair in 12 years. 

In this movie, divorcee John Gustafson (Jack Lemmon) and widower Max Goldman (Walter Matthau) are next door neighbors somewhere in frozen Minnesota. Once upon a time, they used to be buddies. Now, they're bickering geriatric rivals. Grumpy. Old. Just like the title says. Plus, they're constantly pulling some pretty mean pranks on each other to keep the animosity flowing. 

Well, their feud reaches atomic levels when a gorgeous English widow, Ariel Truax (Ann-Margret), moves into the house across the street. Shwing! 

John and Max's hormones rev up into overdrive as they both compete for her attention and hopefully romantic affection. They awkwardly flirt with her. They go out of their way to embarrass the other. They make complete asses of themselves in the process. Now, that's comedy. 

As Max and John duke it out for Ariel's attention, their grown-up children, Melanie Gustafson (Daryl Hannah) and Jacob Goldman (Kevin Pollak), put up with their respective dad's constant complaining and bickering. 

The duel of the dads doesn't discourage their children from having a genuine and long-time friendship as they both try their best to get their dads to make amends and be the pals they used to be. Max and Melanie secretly had feelings for each other since childhood but they never quite got the kickstart they needed. 

On top of all this, the movie throws in Burgess Meredith as John Gustafson Sr, John's dad, and it's a perfect comedic trio between Meredith, Lemmon and Matthau. 

Off the bat, I thought the few sexual innuendos and that particular scene between John and Ariel that tries to be charming but fails is just too off-putting. I'll have to deduct points for that. Gross! 

If alternate universes exist, I hope there's a version of this movie out there in the whatever-verse that also stars Carol Burnett because I just wish Lemmon and Matthau made more movies with her after "The Front Page." What could have been.

As I mentioned in my review of "The Front Page" in which Burnett co-stars, I think she makes a great addition to the two. If the writers had thought of it, I'm sure she could have fit somewhere in this movie.

Still, "Grumpy Old Men" is a fun film, plain and simple. It's as though the writers gave Lemmon and Matthau briefly explained the story to them in a sentence or two, told them what their respective characters are like, and just let them go at it. By 1993, who would be presumptuous enough to give Lemmon and Matthau direction on how to be funny?  

The movie definitely channels the chemistry and comedic stye that makes Lemmon and Matthau funny in their second movie together, "The Odd Couple." Lemmon and Matthau continue to work impressively well off each other, tattered a bit from age but still in working order. Now, it's taken to the next level. 

"Grumpy Old Men" focuses on the quarreling and irritation each one inflicts on the other without the character quirks their respective characters had in "The Odd Couple." 

That's all this movie has to support it, save for a good supporting cast. In other words, there's no old grimy Oscar Madison and old squeaky Felix Unger. The movie takes all Lemmon and Matthau can offer by 1993 and uses as much as it can. The movie would work just as easily if it were titled, "Lemmon versus Matthau." 

By this period "Grumpy Old Men" introduced a new generation of movie goers to the chemistry and comedy of these guys. The thrill of the movie is watching Matthau and Lemmon play off each other. Unfortunately, it doesn't feel as genuine as some of the previous movies of Lemmon and Matthau. It's lacking a little bit. 

Burgess Meredith, by the way, is absolutely perfect as a supporting character. Never have I seen a performance of Burgess Meredith I didn't like whether on the series "The Twilight Zone" or the 1960s series "Batman," orespecially in the "Rocky" movies. I also title-drop "Clash of the Titans" while I'm on the topic Burgess performances. And now "Grumpy Old Men." 

Burgess Meredith in "Grumpy Old Men."

And the whole package pays off in the end. It's funny. I wouldn't say "Grumpy Old Men" is Lemmon and Matthau's most solid comedy, but I wouldn't hesitate to place it in fourth place following "The Odd Couple" followed by "The Fortune Cookie" followed by "The Front Page." I think that's a solid position for a comedy! 

Though Lemmon and Matthau were slowing down as far as energy goes by this time, their old age works to the films advantage. Afterall, "old men" is in the title. They pissed each other off in "The Odd Couple." Now they do it again as old men. 

The premise of a love interest is a nice and simple way to get these two characters and long-time friends to fight it out. The plot conjures up Norman Rockwell's piece "The Rivals" painted in 1922, which depicts two young boys meeting by chance at the front gate of a girl's house, one carrying flowers and the other carrying sweets, and glaring at each other in good ol' fashion male competition. Men let everything slide—unless there’s a woman involved.

Of course, the outcome in "Grumpy Old Men" is who Ariel will end up with, if anyone. For a comedy the premise is delicate and relatable. So is the outcome. 

This is a satisfying comedy about a rivalry burning as hot and heavy as the joints of these old characters will allow. It manages to stand as endearing for the most part. The pranks are clever. The insults are satisfyingly cynical, the reactions are hilarious. It's funny. It could even work as a live action origin story of Statler and Waldorf from "The Muppet Show." Now there's an idea! "Grumpy Old Men" has found a place in pop culture. I often hear it referenced here and there. And it spawned a sequel! I'll get to that later. 

Remember the Night (1940)

"Look when court reconvenes, I'm going to try my best to put you in jail for a good long time. That's my business, but you haven't been convicted yet, so I don't see why you shouldn't enjoy Christmas like the rest of us."

Director

Mitchell Leisen

Cast

Fred MacMurray - John Sargent
Barbara Stanwyck - Lee Leander
Elizabeth Patterson -as Aunt Emma
Beulah Bondi - Mrs. Sargent
Sterling Holloway - "Chilly" Willie Simms
Willard Robertson - Francis X. O'Leary
Charlie Arnt - Tom
Tom Kennedy - "Fat" Mike
Georgia Caine - Lee's mother

Believe it or not, it's still the Christmas season. As Candlemas approaches on February 2, I suppose it’s coming to a close as I post this.

Back in Christmas of 2024, which feels too long ago, my wife and I made it a point to check out a handful of not as popularized Christmas movies, "Christmas in Connecticut," "The Holly and the Ivy," "The Lemon Drop Kid," "It Happened on 5th Avenue," and "The Shop Around the Corner." There's one other Christmas movie Iv6e wanted to add to that list but never did until now. It's the Christmas romance movie, "Remember the Night" directed by Mitchell Leisen and starring Barbara Stanwyck and Fred MacMurray. 

In this movie, Barbara Stanwyck plays shoplifter Lee Leander who's arrested after lifting some jewelry just days before Christmas. 

Her prosecution falls upon Assistant District Attorney Jack Sargent (Fred MacMurray). However, the sentimentality of the holiday season may soften the hearts of the jury and lead them to decide not to acquit. So, to ensure a fair and impartial trial, Jack postpones it until after Christmas. 

However, that same softness of heart that Christmas is notorious for entices Jack to post Lee's bail. He had overheard her complaining to her attorney about spending the holidays in jail. To prevent that, he asks the bondsman, Fat Mike (Tom Kennedy, not me) to post bail. 

Fat Mike does that and then brings Lee over to Jack's apartment thinking he wants to, ummm, show Lee a good time...so to say. 

Of course, Jack is a gentleman and a man of integrity so that wasn't his actual intention. Fat Mike just has a filthy mind, I guess. Seriously, Mike? Fat and perverted!  

Anyways, Jack finds that he and Lee have some things in common, like both being Indiana natives. He also can't help but feel bad that Lee doesn't have a place to spend Christmas. 

As Jack is going to be driving to visit his family for the holidays, he offers to give Lee a ride to her mother's place as it's on the way. 

So, the two take a little road trip during which they park to rest in a random field for the night. They're then arrested for trespassing, and are hauled off to a cantankerous Justice of the Peace. They flee from his office thanks to Lee's expertise at evading lawful trouble. 

Jack drops Lee off at her mother's house, but she wants nothing to do with her daughter. As far as she's concerned, Lee is a hopeless case. 

So, Jack decides to take her to his family's place for Christmas. Lee is warmly welcomed by Jack's family. As they love having her around, she learns a lot about Jack. 

As expected, a romance forms between Lee and Jack though once Christmas is over, the trial will still have to commence. 

"Remember the Night" is like a Hallmark Christmas movie before Hallmark movies were a thing. And I've seen so many Hallmark Christmas movies, plus a bunch of Christmas movies from Great American Family that I recognize recycled plots faster than I can process the shame of admitting to it. I’m not proud of it or anything. My wife loves those Hallmark and Great American Family flicks. And this classic flick feels like one of them. However, despite what seems like a rather comedic premise, it doesn't have the gingerbread trauma, the kind that one feels when the poor local cupcake shop is threatened with closure due to financial troubles, that Hallmark movies have. 

Nor does it beat the audience over the head with tinsel demanding they feel the tidings of comfort and joy. Rather, it comes across as genuine... somewhat. 

"Remember the Night" has that Christmassy tenderness with a hint of raw feeling to it when compared with other holiday romance films. 

I appreciate romantic comedies like this with a premise that consists of a budding romance between a fellow and a dame in which some sort of duty over love gets in the way. It's quite a workaround that gives the audience something to ponder. 

"Remember the Night" is a perfect example of such a romance. Other movies such as "The Lady Eve" (1941) and "Ball of Fire" (1941) have a similar law or love premise. 

"Bluebeard’s Eighth Wife" (1938) and "Meet John Doe" (1941) also have similar plots but with reversed roles in which the male leads are boggled down by their misdeeds while romance is on the horizon. 

"Remember the Night" also reminds me a bit of "Roman Holiday" with Audrey Hepburn and Gregory Peck in that it's a romance that isn't really "supposed" to occur. 

The chemistry between Fred MacMurray and Barbara Stanwyck hits the audience as soon as they're on screen together. Their respective performances give the story enough screwball comedy elements that doesn't get in the way of the story's subtle melancholy tone because despite how much the audience wants to see these two characters hook up, there's that pesky legal matter that can't just go away. 

Though she's technically a criminal, Lee is still a genuinely sympathetic character. Something is clearly at the root of her poor decisions, and her mother doesn't have any hope for her own daughter.

It's worth mentioning that Stanwyck and MacMurray would go one to star in "Double Indemnity" in 1944.
"Remember the Night" may not have the emotional impact that "It's a Wonderful Life" has, or the triumph of something like "White Christmas," or the glorious conversion of "A Christmas Carol," it works well to deserve an annual slot in the Christmas movie rotation. It has its own little conversion premise worthy of some appreciation around the holidays. 

Check out my commentary on other generally unheralded Christmas films! 

Tapawingo (2024)

"I was just walking home from school and the harassment began."

Director
Dylan K. Narang

Cast
Jon Heder - Nate Skoog
Kim Matula - Gretchen
Jay Pichardo - Will Luna
Sawyer Williams - Oswalt
Amanda Bearse - Ramona Skoog
John Ratzenberger - Tom Roan
Gina Gershon - Dot

George Psarras - Glenn Gratton 

Paul Psarras - Ben Gratton
Billy Zane - Stoney Tarwater
Chad Dukes - Nelson Tarwater
Jacob Tyler Kemp - Philip Tarwater

I think the 2004 movie "Napoleon Dynamite," directed by Jared Hess, is overall an original funny movie despite my initially trying to figure out what the point of it was. As I mentioned in my previous comments about "Napoleon Dynamite", the movie's appeal comes the relatability younger audiences find with the story and characters, especially when it comes to the awkward quirks of teenager and high school life. The humor, the quotable lines, and the likeability of Napoleon and the other characters makes it appealing. 

While I found the pacing a bit weird and the general plot of "Napoleon Dynamite" attempting to help his buddy, Pedro, get elected as student body president over at Preston High School tacked on in the middle of the movie, "Napoleon Dynamite" is a film about how loyal this odd teenage kid, played by Jon Heder, is to his friends. But the biggest take away for me is its quirky humor and memorable characters.  

I bring up "Napoleon Dynamite" because I couldn't help noticing that the 2024 movie "Tapawingo," written by Brad DeMarea and Dylan K. Narang, and directed by Dylan K. Narang is similar in style and tone. Even the movie's deliberately eclectic, retro synth-pop sounding soundtrack, mixed with a little jukebox variety of rock tunes is similar to that of "Napoleon Dynamite." Plus, "Tapawingo" also stars Jon Heder in the lead role.

In this movie, Heder plays Nate Skoog, a 30-something year old guy living in a small Midwest town with his protective mother, Ramona (Amanda Bearse) and works a dead-end job in a mail room. He regularly attends his tornado watch class and is a devoted reader "Mercenary International Quarterly" magazine which he checks out at the public library. He's also a little miffed that Ramona's new boyfriend, Tom (John Ratzenberger) is inching his way into his life as he moves in with Ramona.

Jon Heder and Jay Pichardo in "Tapawingo."

The mundanity of Nate's day-to-day life changes when his boss asks him to pick up his son Oswalt (Sawyer Williams) each day from school. So, he gets into his car - something between a hot rod and a dune buggy or go-cart - and gives Oswalt a lift. 

At Oswalt's request, he drops him off at Gretchen's (Kim Matula) house as he's tutoring her. She's a 

the non-conformist type, to say the least. But she still wants good grades!

Nate is instantly smitten by Gretchen and her subversive demeanor and no-crap attitude. 

Meanwhile, Nate takes it upon himself to protect Oswalt from his bullies, seeing it as an opportunity to utilize his mercenary knowledge and tactics. 

He convinces his buddy and fellow "mercenary" Will Luna (Jay Pichardo) to assist in taking down Oswalt's bullies. 

He also seeks the aid of two awkward brothers, Glenn (George Psarras) and Ben Gratton (Paul Psarras) who pride themselves in being experts in fighting and combat. They're both all too eager to help. It's an opportunity to show off their skills and tactics, and do some good.

And these aren't just any bullies. They're the town's notorious family of bullies, the Tarwaters. 

What starts as Nate's simple warning leads to a huge confrontation Nate isn't completely prepared for but takes on anyways. It's a matter of principle, and love. 

Very much to its credit, "Tapawingo" has a much more solid storyline compared to "Napolean Dynamite." I should mention both movies are unrelated despite similarities in style.  

The film blends quirky humor with sincere small-town charm as this unhopeful crew takes on a crew of tough guys who are much too sure of themselves.

It also has an abundance of deadpan humor, dark with a mundane absurd element that's hilarious to watch because the characters are sincere and take themselves seriously which brings laughs. The whole situation is depicted believably as everyday life in this town. 

Though it's a comedic style very similar to "Napoleon Dynamite," I found myself laughing much more with "Tapawingo." I hate to keep comparing the two movies, but I couldn't help think "Tapawingo" would have made a great sequel. The characters could have easily been pulled out from Preston, Idaho, where "Napoleon Dynamite" was filmed. "Tapawingo" even utilizes similar wide shots and camera angels. Nevertheless, even as it is, it's an appealing comedy. And I liked it better!

The "dark" element flows from the seemingly failed ambitions and emotional detachment save for

Kim Matula as "Gretchen" in "Tapawingo."

Nate's concern for Oswalt. There's also social rot with Gretchen's general rebellious disdain, and the Tarwaters overall callous demeanor they share as a family. 

They strike me as a more frustrated family in this smalltown who are forced to be the way they are because there's not much else for them to amount to. 

Nate and the rest of the characters have the same issue, but deal with their frustrations differently. 

Nate's enchantment over Gretchen, is hilarious. Plus, there's some elements to all of it that I didn't see coming!

John Ratzenberger and Amanda Bearse, both of whom have a very noteworthy acting career, fit their supporting roles perfectly within the tone of the movie. 

Also, Billy Zane stars in this movie as one of the Tarwaters, which cracks me up. It's obvious he's enjoying his role in the movie. 

I was pulled in fairly quickly watching this. It flows satisfyingly well with a welcomed comedic plot that knows what it wants to do rather than trying to find its footing as the story is rolling. It doesn't seem made up on the spot. 

To me, the plot morphs its way to something a little similar to "West Side Story" (or, I guess, "Romeo and Juliet") minus the singing and the pretty feelings. Instead, it's more like "The Bodyguard."

It's slightly predictable but certainly not as much as I thought it would be. I still had to watch it all play out. I wasn't disappointed either even as the movie culminates to a shrug. 

There's a satisfying satirical feel to it. 

Heder is great in this role as he doesn't try to sell the jokes. Rather, he puts the humor in his character's general disappointment in life, living with his mom, and keeping restrained with his mom's boyfriend intruding into his adult life. He uses his signature deadpan delivery hilariously well. And then Gretchen enters his life which gives him something to hope for.

"Tapawingo" is a comedy that deserves to catch on and acquire a large following, even if it slowly obtains all that over time.    

The Man Who Invented Christmas (2017)

"Write on over all obstacles." 

Director
Bharat Nalluri

Cast
Dan Stevens – Charles Dickens
Morfydd Clark – Catherine Dickens
Jonathan Pryce – John Dickens
Ger Ryan – Elizabeth Dickens

Justin Edwards – John Forster
Christopher Plummer – Mr. Scratch/ Ebenezer Scrooge
Miriam Margolyes – Mrs. Fisk
Simon Callow – John Leech
Anna Murphy – Tara
Donald Sumpter – Mr Haddock

Watching the 2017 movie, "The Man Who Invented Christmas" is a welcomed change of pace after sitting through eight versions of "A Christmas Carol" this year. 

Oh, by the way, I finally did have the opportunity to watch the 1938 version of "A Christmas Carol" with Reginald Owen which I mention in my last post. 

I wrote up a quick review, but readers will have to wait until next Christmas to read it. 

I've already set up a sequel post to my last, "Tidings of Comfort, Joy, and Too Many Christmas Carol movies: The Multiverse of Scrooges" and my thoughts on Reginald Owen as Ebenezer will be thrown into that. Stay tuned! 

I've seen this biographical movie, "The Man Who Invented Christmas" back in 2018. With Scrooge's holiday redemption fresh in my mind, again and again, this seemed like a suitable film to comment on next. 

In this movie, Dan Stevens plays Charles Dickens. The story begins four years after publishing his last novel, "Oliver Twist."  

Like most brilliant writers, he's going through financial difficulties and mounting debts. So, he needs to write another novel and he wants to write a story set at Christmas. 

However, his publishers aren't thrilled at the idea of a Christmas novel. And Dickens will likely not meet his publication deadline before Christmas. With that being the case, he decides to self-publish.  

Dickens struggles as he goes through the writing process for what will ultimately become, "A Christmas Carol." 

Dickens pulls inspiration for his holiday redemption story from people and experiences he encounters or lived through in his younger days. The movie is a depiction of the process Dickens undertook to give the world the best Christmas ghost story ever told. 

"The Man Who Invented Christmas" is the story behind the sweat and frustration that ultimately led amazing and unforgettable holiday specials like "A Flintstones Christmas Carol," "A Muppet Christmas Carol" and that one with Mr. Magoo.  

It's an engaging and fascinating movie which is kind of remarkable as it's all about a guy writing a book. To make it as engaging as it is, is a respectable accomplishment. 

It's also a believable illustraion of Charles Dickens's methods which involves him engaging with his imaginary characters all inside his head. Meanwhile he has to address his unrelenting self-doubts. Writers can be a frustrating and frustrated bunch. 

Dan Stevens and Christopher Plummer in "The Man Who Invented Christmas."

The first thing to talk about so I can get it out of the way is the title, "The Man Who Invented Christmas." It sounds clever. It's not, though. 

Some of my Catholic acquaintances don't like it because, obviously, Charles Dickens didn't invent Christmas. It's a misleading title for sure.

Obviously, it isn't implying that Charles Dickens actually came up with the whole concept of Christmas as a holiday - the day celebrating the birth of Jesus Christ. And I really don't believe it's a malicious title. It sounds awkward though. It either needs something to clarify it, or it needs to be tweaked. 

Either way, I see where the title is coming from. 

First, the movie is based on Les Standiford's 2008 non-fiction book "The Man Who Invented Christmas: How Charles Dickens's A Christmas Carol Rescued His Career and Revived Our Holiday Spirits." 

I think that title explains the purpose a lot more but still doesn't quite make sense as far as the word "invented" goes. How does that relate to Dickens rescuing his career and reving our holiday spirits?

I think the real implication is that "A Christmas Carol" did play a part amidst many other traditions and customs before and after its publication in shaping how the modern world treats and celebrates Christmas and the Christmas season. 

I'll add here that one of the joyous perks of being a Catholic is that the celebration of Christmas doesn't end on December 25th. There are 12 days of Christmas following Christmas day, mind you. The liturgical calendar celebrates the Christmas season all the way to February 2nd, the Feast of the Presentation of our Lord in the Temple. 

Eight days after Christmas, January 1, is the Feast of our Lord's Circumcision. And the 12th day after Christmas is the Feast of the Epiphany. So, the celebration and glad tidings carry on when the rest of the world whines about being exhausted and takes all the decor down December 26th. It's disappointing to see people shedding Christmas as soon as possible after the 25th.  

As far as England goes in the 1840s when the film takes place, and the decade when "A Christmas Carol" was published, Christmas didn't have the celebratory status and morale quite like it does today. Keep in mind, Catholic readers, that the Church of England was the guiding moral compass of England. That's not to say Christmas and the Christmas season wasn't important in Victorian England. People had their wassailing among the leaves so green, and their feasting, and all that. 

The elements in Dickens's story really hammered in ideas such as generosity toward the poor during the holidays outside of government poor laws and workhouses. There wasn't quite the emphasis during the era on spending time with the family around Christmas, nor widespread consideration that the season is a time for generosity and charity. 

I guess its celebratory status back in Dickens's day depended on regions and classes. Industry workers certainly didn't get a day off on Christmas, I don't think. No wonder Bob Cratchit was thrilled that Scrooge finally gave him a day off on Christmas. That one small act of generosity on Scrooge's part, I like to think, is what prompted Heaven to send the spirits in that very night to nourish that small ounce of selflessness so it could grow and flourish within old Ebenezer. 

No doubt Dickens's book helped give the Christmas holiday such elements that can be shared across classes and social statuses.

"A Christmas Carol" made quite a lasting impact where all these things are still synonymous with Christmas. 

So, again, I can see where the title is coming from. There's even a line in this movie when Dickens's publisher says in so many words that Christmas is not really an important holiday, and there's not much of a market for Christmas books as hardly anyone actually celebrates it. I don't think that was quite the case in Victorian England, and the proof is in the pudding. My apologies for the cliche but it seems to fit. Still, Dickens's book certainly has a place behind modern Christmas inspirations. 

I sympathize with those who are bothered by the title. The Church has known for centuries how to celebrate Christmas. Some Catholic customs are still very much practiced to this day. For instance, it was St. Francis of Assisi who began the tradition of the nativity scene. Look it up! It's quite a heroic story, actually.  

Perhaps "invented" is the wrong word because it gives Dickens way more attribution than he actually accomplished with his book when it comes to the origins of Christmas. Even with all that, he didn't invent anything except the story itself as far as Christmas is concerned. 

Maybe "The Man Who Changed Christmas" is a better title? Well, no as that basically sounds lame. Reawakened Christmas? Maybe. Or "The Man Who Wrote Christmas?" I know, "How Dickens Saved Christmas Before Ernest Did!"  

Anyways, aside from the title, the movie is enjoyable. I particularly found it engrossing as I who would never dare even think of comparing myself to Charles Dickens, can relate to the writing process seen in the movie. Though I have started a few books here and there, I've never yet had anything published...let alone actually finished. 

The way Dickens is consumed by his own thoughts, considerations, and the people around him who inspired characters in his story is something I could connect to. Plus, the difficulty of where to take one's own story, and most importantly how to end them, is so spot on thanks to the movie's writing and Stevens's acting. 

Personally, I think the best way to come up with ideas isn't to sit at a desk and stare at a monitor, or typewriter, or blank sheet of paper. It's going out, listening to the public, experiencing things, and actually using it all as writing tools. 

You know, I once sat in a diner in Council Grove, Kansas during breakfast one morning with my wife and not only listened to all the small-town banter around me, I also wrote down topics of conversation and phrases I eavesdropped on to save for later.

The movie is almost ideal as an instructional film in writing a novel. I've scrolled through a number of fiction writing courses with lessons in understanding your character and their goals and wants, or what'll happen to them so they'll develop through the story. I also recall lessons in pulling inspiration and ideas from personal experiences and things that you know. So, the writing process isn't as far-fetched in this movie despite all appearances and eccentricities. 

From what I read, the movie stays pretty well on track as far as accuracy is concerned. I admit the only source I'm using to compare facts versus fiction is historyvshollywood.com. 

It seems, based on this one source, that the majority of what's depicted in the movie is spot on at least as far as the major details are concerned. It's even accurate when it comes to showing how long it took Dickens to write the story. Six weeks. 

One liberty the movie does take occurs when Dickens revisits the Warren's Blacking Factory while he's an adult, where he was sent as a child to work. It was a miserable and scarring experience for him; one he's clearly haunted by in the film. However, according to "Dickens's Victorian London: 1839-1901," the building was torn down in the 1830s. But another source, liamofarrell.com claims it was demolished in the 1860s to "to make way for Charing Cross railway station and the railway bridge, built in 1863."

Anyways, I loved this movie for both its performances, and on a more personal level for its relatability.  While I am certainly not even close to Dickens when it comes to writing, I've had my own struggles in the art of book writing. I've started a few. I've also never finished a single one. Not yet. Time is running short. But like every other novel writer, I understand the stress, frustration, the journey through self-doubting and the hang-ups on details and getting it all just right. 

The best part of Dan Stevens's performance as Dickens is his ability to jump from one emotion to another so fluidly. He's burdened by financial hardships in one scene and then acting silly for the sake of children in the next, then screaming in absolute frustration at this one book of his later on after swimming in his own thoughts and imagination for a bit too long. 

The real drawtakes place when Dickens and Ebenezer Scrooge (Christopher Plummer) converse through the movie trying to figure each other out. Dickens tells Scrooge what he wants to put him through, while Scrooge antagonizes him. Their on-going confrontations culminate as Dickens tries to think of an ending to his story. The resolution drops on him as he imaginges Scrooge in a lonely empty grave while Scrooge relents to his creator's will, lamanting that he doesn't want to die alone. I find it an iconic scene that arouses a bit of sympathy for Scrooge. It's the moment Dickens's character realizes he's wasted so many opportunities more priceless than money. 

It's not solely the historical accuracy, or any lack thereof that makes or breaks this movie. It's watching the writing process. Sure, Dickens was suffering financially and did have a few pieces flop before embarking on "A Christmas Carol." But the aftermath of having a book, let alone several books, withstand decade after decade and still be just as renowned and respected is simply amazing for lack of any better words. 

Tidings of Comfort, Joy, and Too Many Christmas Carol movies: The Multiverse of Scrooges

I don't tire of watching my personal favorite film adaptations of "A Christmas Carol," based on the novel by Charles Dickens, every Christmas season. The two personal favorites of mine are the 1951 version "Scrooge" with Alaister Sim, followed by the 1984 film "A Christmas Carol" with George C. Scott. The latter is a close second. I'll also throw in "A Muppet Christmas Carol" from 1992 in there as the movie, even though it being a Muppet version, treats the source material with the respect it deserves. Plus, Michael Caine does put on an alright performance as Scrooge. I wouldn't call his rendition fantastic, but I enjoyed it all things considered. Also, back in my Catholic high school days as a boarding student at St. Mary's Academy boy's dormitory, we used to watch "A Muppet Christmas Carol" on the night before heading home for the long Christmas holiday. Fond memories, indeed. 

I admit publicly that "A Christmas Carol" is the only work of Dickens I've read from cover to cover. I tried getting through a book or two of Mr. Dickens back in high school and never could get past the first few pages. But I promise I will give him a second chance sooner than later. 

According to the vast pool of truth and accuracy known as Google, there are "hundreds" of 'A Christmas Carol' movie and TV adaptations, with estimates ranging from "over 100 to possibly 400-plus." I believe it. 

I wanted to pick out a few older versions between as early as I can find up to 1971 (that's a nice and even span, isn't it) that I hadn't seen before to check out how they compare. Well, all but one I haven't seen, but I'll explain later.

Marley's Ghost (1901) - This is the earliest adaption of "A Christmas Carol" I can find. It stars Daniel Smith as Ebenezer Scrooge, and it's an early genre known as a trick film. This very early genre, developed by French filmmaker Georges Méliès, was developed to show off and wow audiences with novel special effects they had never seen before, primarily as motion picture was still in its early stages. 

Méliès's films are a real cavalcade of trick photography that still impress with their special effects. With, perhaps, his most iconic and notable film being "A Trip to the Moon" (1902), he's a true magician when it comes to trick film. 

This 1901 adaptation of Dickens's story is directed by British film maker Walter R. Booth. Not only is it the earliest film version of "A Christmas Carol" I could find, but it's one of the first film adaptations of a Dickens story. There is another from 1901 titled "The Death of Poor Joe" which was inspired by the book, "Bleak House." However, I wouldn't say it's a film adaptation of "Bleak House."  

I can't really critique this Christmas Carol movie much as only part of it is known to survive. I found it uploaded to YouTube with the subheading, "The Most Complete Version." 

The film begins as Ebenezer Scrooge and his clerk, Bob Cratchit, show someone the exit in Scrooge's office. 

Just after he leaves, it looks as though Cratchit asks for the day off on Christmas. Scrooge appears annoyed and stunned he would dare ask for the entire day off. But he agrees and Cratchit is clearly thankful for Scrooge's unexpected show of generosity, albeit reluctant. 

The story cuts to Scrooge encountering his old business partner's face appearing on his door knocker, followed by his paranormal visit and warning. 

The Ghost of Christmas Past shows up for a brief visit to show Scrooge a few quick glimpses of his own past. 

The Ghost of Christmas Present shows Scrooge how the Cratchits celebrate Christmas, followed by a visit to his nephew Fred's place to show Scrooge how happy and merry he is along with his wife and friends despite their lack of wealth. 

Finally, the Ghost of "Christmas that Might Be" appears. The last shot is Scrooge's tombstone. The entire movie as I watched it is only six minutes long. 

When it comes to silent movies, especially earlier ones, the emotion relies entirely on body language, exaggerated actions, and facial expressions. 

"Marley's Ghost" certainly lives up to its genre. While the special effects are approaching 125 years, they're still a wonder of motion picture magic. Despite its age, the movie still manages to impress. If I have to gripe about one thing, the movie seems to the same actor dressed in the same bed sheet depicting all three Spirits of Christmas. I won't fault it for that, though. 

I don't know how much of the movie is missing aside from the final scene of Scrooge's repentance. Sometimes these lost films find a way of resurfacing if they still exist. It would be fantastic if any missing footage that might still be out there and is hopefully not beyond restoration - old film is rather volatile - will sometime be rediscovered.

A Christmas Carol (1910) - This silent movie, which has a run time of approximately 20 minutes, is directed by J. Searle Dawley and produced through Thomas Edison's Studios. It stars Marc McDermott as Ebenezer Scrooge along with Charles S. Ogle as Bob Cratchit and Harold M. Shaw as Scrooge's nephew, Fred. It's the only other silent film version of "A Christmas Carol" I could find. 

As I mentioned, emotion and feeling in silent movies depends on body language and facial expressions. Without words, this silent film nails it in conveying all that through the actors' visible cues, especially when the charity workers (two are normally depicted in Christmas Carol movies, but there are three in this version) ask Scrooge for a donation for the poor and needy before he kicks them out of his office. Their jovial demeanor is quickly exchanged with shock and dismay all clear in their gestures. 

When Scrooge's nephew, Fred, pays him a visit, he comes with a small entourage - presumably his wife and friends. They all enter the office clearly filled with happiness and merriment. However, Scrooge gets up, walks past his nephew, bows to the women and opens the door to show them the way they came. They walk out slowly, looking at each other confused at their merry wishing being met with rejection. Their smiles are completely gone. 

What I appreciate is Scrooge's demeanor maintaining business-like professionalism - man who still possesses and practices proper English manners while "keeping Christmas in his own way" - instead of flying off the handle like someone who can't control his emotions. That's how I think Scrooge to be. He's a man of business with no time for spending money on passing frivolities. The depiction of a Scrooge irrationally flying off the handle with fits of anger doesn't fit the demeanor of an English businessman. 

When Fred and his crew leave, he grabs his cane and raises his hands in frustration since no one but his clerk, Bob Cratchit, is the only one who sees him. 

Later, when Scrooge is home sitting in front of his fireplace, keen eyes will notice that Scrooge's fireplace mantel is tiled with scenes of Sacred Scripture. In the novel, Dickens describes Scrooge's fireplace as "an old one, built by some Dutch merchant long ago, and paved all round with quaint Dutch tiles, designed to illustrate the Scriptures. There were Cains and Abels, Pharaoh's daughters, Queens of Sheba, angelic messengers descending through the air on clouds like feather-beds, Abrahams, Belshazzars, Apostles putting off to sea in butter-boats, hundreds of figures to attract his thoughts." 

After Scrooge sees Marley's face in the front door knocker when coming home, he sees the face of his dead partner again within these tiles. 

"...And yet that face of Marley, seven years dead, came like the ancient Prophet's rod, and swallowed up the whole. If each smooth tile had been a blank at first, with power to shape some picture on its surface from the disjointed fragments of his thoughts, there would have been a copy of old Marley's head on every one." 

This detail in Dicken's story I haven't seen attempted in many movie adaptations. The 1984 film with George C. Scott and directed by Clive Donner includes this scene with Scrooge seeing Marley's face in the fireplace tiles. 

The movie that captures this particular scene best is the 1999 movie "A Christmas Carol" with Patrick Stewart. It's worth checking out. So, kudos to this early rendition for including this important detail. 

The three Spirits of Christmas, who appear in their forms as more-or-less described in the original book show Scrooge those familiar screens like images depicted on a screen rather than throwing Scrooge into the middle of the scenes as is often portrayed in movies. In other words, Scrooge sees all his visions of the past, present, and future without leaving his bedroom. It's a marvel of early special effects. 

I'm wouldn't be surprised if Disney's 2009 movie "A Christmas Carol" with Jim Carrey, directed by Robert Zemeckis maybe took a little inspiration from this rendition. As in that film, the Ghost of Christmas Present does show Scrooge what he wants him to see in a similar manner. I'm speculating, though. 

For a movie from this era, the details are well done. And the focus is clearly on Scrooge as far as what he's done, what he's lost, and what he can do. It depicts these points wonderfully well without any dialogue. Each part of Scrooge's development into a redeemed man is tied together with Scrooge attempting to make sense of what he just witnessed, and why he witnessed it. Of course, the movie is likely relying on the audience already knowing the story before they watch.

One thing this movie does differently than any other film I've seen is that Scrooge is shown by the Ghost of Christmas Present that his nephew Fred is struggling financially. At the final scene of the film, Scrooge makes Fred his new business partner. 

Scrooge (1935) - This version of Dicken's story is a short one with a run time of 78 minutes, so it breezes through the story.
Ebenezer Scrooge is played Sir Seymour Hicks. He was no novice when it came to playing Scrooge as he portrayed the famous convert many, many times on stage prior to the film.
Many integral parts of the story are left out. For instance, the film doesn't include the two fellows who visit Scrooge at his lending office seeking money for the poor. When Scrooge is shown his past, we only see him deny an extension to a poor young couple begging for more time to repay their loan. This leads to his fiancé leaving him as she witnesses his cold heartedness and greed in this exchange. However, the Ghost of Christmas Present still uses Scrooge's own words against him when asked whether Tiny Tim will live. "If he is to die, then let him do it and decrease the surplus population." Scrooge doesn't say this line earlier since in the story he says it to those two charity workers seeking donations.
In the present, Scrooge only sees how his clerk, Bob Cratchit, keeps Christmas despite his low salary. While Scrooge is initially visited by the ghost of his old business partner, Jacob Marley, his ghost remains invisible to the audience as Scrooge is the only one who sees him.
Despite the shorter run time, this is a darker version of the story. And Hicks plays Scrooge with heaviness on the anger and disdain for Christmas and those who celebrate it. He's more a heartless grump than he is a conceited miser.
It's not a completely terrible rendition, but with its quick pace, it doesn't grab me emotionally as later versions. And it doesn't bother to inform the audience on why Scrooge has this disdain for Christmas in the first place. The movie just goes through the motions. Every version of the story I've seen seems to add their own little twist or scene in an attempt to stand out among the others. This version, not so much. If the audience knows the story already, then the movie makes sense. 

Scrooge (1951) - I intended to watch the 1938 movie "A Christmas Carol" with Reginald Owen as Scrooge, directed by Edwin L. Marin, and produced by MGM. 

However, I couldn't access the '38 version without having to pay. I didn't want to do that. So, despite my best efforts, I will just have to wait until it becomes available. 

Instead, I'll include this British version from 1951 starring Alastair Sim which I make a point to watch yearly at this festive season of the year. It's generally regarded as one of the best film adaptations among other adaptations. It's also often included on lists and such of the best or most loved Christmas movies out there. 

Sim's performance is definitive. He gives Scrooge a transformation that feels a lot more credible, genuine, and emotional. Other depictions are generally cut and dry, just giving the audience what they expect. Other Scrooges are stock images of selfish old miserly men turned jolly. 

Sim's Scrooge is tightly reserved and self-contained as the novel describes him. He's proud, and possessing what Dickens says in his book, an "improved opinion of himself." 

He treats Christmas with more mockery rather than having actual disdain for the holiday. It's a day that dupes the poorer people into blowing cash on fanciful frivolities rather than on what they need. Why bother? 

Scrooge in this movie leans more into sarcasm, cynicism, self-importance, and impatience, rather than angry outbursts at everything Christmas which makes him resemble the everyday difficult man. Scrooge is much too involved in business and wealth. He's a "tight-fisted hand to the grindstone, Scrooge...Hard and sharp as flint, from which no steel had ever struck out generous fire, secret, and self-contained, and solitary as an oyster." That's his flaw. Based on other films and series I've watched based on other Dickens's books, that seems to be how Dickens generally portrays other wealthy English characters. It's kind of like mudslinging. Again, I haven't read nearly enough of Dickens works to know that with absolute certainty.

Despite Scrooge's sins of greed and selfishness, he is still an English man of business from the Victorian era. He still maintains his proper demeanor lest flying off the handle in bouts of anger as Scrooge is often depicted, might hurt business. He thinks highly of himself and less of others. That doesn't necessarily mean he shouts and yells at everyone. He's cynical of others and that's how Sim depicts him.  

Scrooge's transformation in this movie is the most genuine compared to other versions I've seen. He goes from defensive and disenchanted, to ashamed and remorseful, and finally undeservingly giddy that he still has time to better himself even in the winter of his life. 

Plus, the film best depicts the opposite transformation from Scrooge's youth to his finding love, to his business ventures, to his miserly ways showing the audience how he succumbed to the world's offerings, made his choices, and became the man he was. 

I love Sim the best as he reminds the audience that even this "covetous old sinner" is still a human. He doesn't just go through the familiar actions and act as the stock character seen over and over again. His Scrooge is the most genuine and believable. 

Thanks to Sim's comedic background, he acts with such vivid expression especially when it comes to the repressed pain and regretful decisions the Ghosts bring back to the surface. His Scrooge often looks away, mutters to himself, laughs at odd moments, glances around the scenes as if he's looking for a reminder on how to be a human being. He faces his shadows of the past with looks of shock and disgust at himself. It all makes his redemption that much more joyous and uplifting, especially when he accepts Fred's invitation to Christmas dinner. 

The only other actor who has a genuine and believable transformation is George C. Scott's performance in the 1984 movie. Scott's Scrooge treats Christmas with a similar mockery as though it's a silly holiday that fools all the dimwitted poorer people rather than having grouchy hatred for the holy day. 

  

Scrooge (1970) - "No man is a handy candidate for hell."  This musical version of "A Christmas Carol" starring Albert Finney, gets a lot of attention each Christmas season. It's often listed up there with Sim, Scott, and the Muppets. I had never seen it until now. 
Albert Finney does make a great Scrooge as far as appearance goes. Otherwise, it's a weird casting call. 

His is the stock portrayal of Scrooge I don't particularly care for. There's a sequence in the first act of him going from client to client looking for their payments on Christmas Eve, taking an obvious joy in the presence of his clients at the misery he's causing. 

And though he's just depicted as mean and miserly, the movie really puts him through hell. In fact, it even sends him there and back...literally. 

The songs, written by Leslie Bricusse, are mediocre to forgettable. They might compliment scenes here and there, but I barely remember most of them. Although Scrooge's rendition of "I Hate People" is certainly comedic whether it's intended to be or not. 

The only song that's catchy - a real ear worm - is the final number, "Thank You Very Much." It's sung during a vision of the future before Scrooge realizes he's dead. Yet all of his neighbors gather in the streets to celebrate that his death have relieved them of their debts. And one of those debtors' dances on Scrooge's coffin as it's carted through the streets of his London neighborhood. "Thank you very much! Thank you very much! That's the nicest thing that anyone's ever done for me," they sing. It's catchy. It's sung again when Scrooge is reformed and forgives those debts. 

What I didn't like about this particular scene is that Scrooge doesn't know he's the guy in the coffin when all his debtors first sing this. He thinks they're singing his praises as he smiles and dances along. It would have been a much sharper scene if he just stood there and was forced to take it, watching everyone celebrating his passing while rejoicing at being free of their debts.

There's a heavier setup to really convey to the audience who Scrooge is and what his London neighbors think of him even before the song I just mentioned. This is especially seen as young street urchins follow and taunt Scrooge singing, "Father Christmas, Father Christmas!"

Careful precision is made to make this an impactful story. Jacob Marley's 

(played by none other than Sir Alec Guinness) introduction is magnificently unsettling. 

Marley is not only determined to change Scrooge, but he also takes delight at watching his old and still living business partner struggle and cower when he's inches from his own potential torment that's awaiting him unless he repents. I think I loved this version of Marley's Ghost the best as Guinness depicts the ghost as going through the motions of what being alive is like, but can't honestly enjoy any of it, not even the capability of enjoying a chair. All his actions are mere simulations of basic human actions like walking and maintaining eye contact. It's pretty clever, actually. Marley doesn't hold back in what he presents to Scrooge to start his night of redemption...his dark night of the soul. 

The Ghost of Christmas Past is depicted as a proper English woman instead of glowing old man blended with the appearance of a child. When Scrooge first lays his eyes on the spirit, he says, "You don't look like a ghost." 

"Thank you," the spirit replies. 

It was a liberty the movie made that didn't make sense. 

The film seems to gloss over the story starting with the Ghosts of Christmas Present and Future. It reserves it's time for that big song and dance finale, "Thank You Very Much" following the Ghost of Christmas Future sending Scrooge to Hell to be tormented gleefully by Jacob Marley.  

And while in Hell, Marley mockingly appoints Scrooge as Lucifer's clerk just as Cratchit was his clerk. He even gives Scrooge a cold office with his own ponderous chain of restraint. 

Finney's Scrooge goes through the emotions a lot more vigorously - sadness and regret, fear and trepidation, and happiness and merriment.

One thing the movie does which I haven't seen other movies do is show Bob Cratchit in the future visiting the grave of his Tiny Tim. And Scrooge has to watch his clerk sit there at Tim's gravesite. It's an emotional scene indeed, which I appreciate a lot more than having Cratchit talk to his family about visiting the cemetery. 

As forAlbert Finney, I loved and hated his performance. I loved it in that even though I obviously know the story, I was still invested in what he was going to go through. And when the ghost of Jacob Marley told Scrooge what he was about to go through whether he liked it or not, I wanted to see him go through that spiritual ringer. The ghosts really hold up his stupidity and callousness for him to see. They're much more forceful than other adaptations. And each ghost lays it on heavier than the last, until the third ghost kicks him down into hell. It's a Styrofoam hell, which makes sense because that's where Styrofoam belongs and was probably born. What I didn't like was the movie's depiction of Scrooge. It was too generic and typical.

A Christmas Carol (1971) - Alastair Sim returns to the lead role of Scrooge in this animated version of the story. This made-for-TV Christmas special aired on ABC on December 21, 1971. 

It even won an Academy Award for best animated short film the following year. And not only does Sim return to voice Scrooge, but actor Michael Hordern reprises the role of the Ghost of Jacob Marley. Hordern plays Marley in the 1951 film starring Sim. Plus, this adaptation is narrated by English actor Michael Redgrave. 

Sim gives a very similar performance as he did before. Like his role in the 1951 movie, he portrays a Scrooge that is businesslike and properly English even in his miserly ways. He's more cynical than prone to moments of angry outbursts. He convinced that he's the only one who sees the Christmas season for what it is - a waste of money and a waste of time.    

As the novel describes Scrooge "with an improved opinion of himself" after he dismisses the charity workers, Sim depicts that well through voice acting this time. 

When called out for being cross by his nephew Fred, Scrooge replies, "What else can I be when I live in a world of fools such as this." That certainly describes perfectly how Scrooge sees himself amidst everyone else. He's better than the rest. Smug and cynical. That's Sim's Scrooge once again. 

However, it's the animation that drives the scenes, the emotions, and the tone. There's a dark and expressionistic animation style with sharp angles and a lot of shadow that makes it rather nightmarish. 

The animation looks more deliberate rather than fluid. Yet, at the same time, gestures and motion are emphasized with some exaggeration. 

The whole experience focuses more on the psychological turmoil of Scrooge rather than making the experience real, even for an animated film. It's Disney-like in that the movie makes it a point to show off its animation style. In fact, the movie is very stylized. That expressionist and traditional style conveys the Scrooge's fear and emotional change much more than the voice acting.  It's something different than other movies, and an entertaining experience. 

∾

At this point, with so many adaptations of Dickens's story, I wonder what movie writers and producers are trying to go for with new movies based on Dickens's story. My guess is they want to see who can make the darkest and scariest, or most touching rendition that will outdo the one before. What else? Now, film adaptations of "A Christmas Carol" are so numerous with new adaptions haunting us year after year, each new movie is just another attempted challenge at coming up with slight tweaks for audiences to experience as Scrooge wakes up redeemed, enlightened, and ready to teach us all the exact same lesson we apparently keep forgetting.

Anyways, one of the perks of being a Catholic is that while Christmas shamefully ends on Dec. 26th for the secular world, the Christmas season begins on Dec. 25 and lasts through January. 

I've written about some other Christmas movies! Click on the link to read what I got to say about them. dontfastforward.blogspot.com/search/label/*Christmas%20Movies

So, Merry Christmas all! "Glory to God in the highest; and on earth peace to men of good will."