Don't fast forward this one: My 'Ebenezer' trailer reaction

Johnny Depp as Ebenezer Scrooge in the upcoming film "Ebenezer" scheduled to come out November 2026.

A trailer dropped a few days ago (July 23rd) for yet another film based on Charles Dickens's "A Christmas Carol." This time, Johnny Depp takes on the role of Ebenezer Scrooge, adding his name to the long list of actors who have portrayed the cynical and miserly moneylender who famously disdains not only Christmas but also the joy and selflessness that come with the holy day.

I have a bit of an obsession with movie adaptations of "A Christmas Carol" and which movie best captures Dickens's story. 
Just last Christmas, I even took an online course from Hillsdale College on "A Christmas Carol" to better understand the story and Dickens's purpose in writing it. The course was free! I recommend it.
When I first watched this trailer, I paid more attention to Depp's depiction of Scrooge than anything else.

From reading the book nearly every Christmas, I don't think the character of Ebenezer Scrooge is the kind of Victorian English businessman who shouts and yells like an emotional basket case in an attempt to convince people he doesn't like Christmas. Scrooge simply carries himself as a prideful businessman who considers himself superior to those wasting money on Christmas frivolities. He's cynical about Christmas and those who are foolish and irresponsible enough to celebrate it.
To rant and yell and go out of his way to make others miserable wouldn't benefit him as a man of business. He's more interested in working to put money from other people's pockets into his own... as it were, sir. Who would do business with a constantly irate and unstable old man? 
Depp looks like he's playing the stereotypical Scrooge who's just angry and hates Christmas. To me, that doesn't make much sense for the character. It's not a faithful translation of Dickens's Scrooge. However, this version looks like it'll explore a side of Scrooge perhaps not previously depicted. After all, the trailer says, "The name you know...the story you don't." Ok, I'm curious where this'll go. 
If you want to see a fantastic and accurate depiction of Scrooge, check out the 1984 film "A Christmas Carol" with George C. Scott as Ebenezer Scrooge. Of course, it goes without saying that Alastair Sim's classic performance in the 1951 film "Scrooge" is also truly outstanding. Sim captures Scrooge's pride perfectly.
I discussed the 1951 film last Christmas in a post where I shared my thoughts on several cinematic versions of "A Christmas Carol." You can check out that post in the link below.

As for Scott's film, I'll get to that review next Christmas, as I have another post in the works looking at a couple more movie versions of the story that I want to comment on. 

By the way, I'm excited about another post I'm currently writing covering various film versions of Dickens's other famous novel, "Oliver Twist." 

I'm hoping to finish that post by December. But I'm getting off topic now. 
Anyway, this upcoming film looks darker and more terrifying than previous adaptations, especially considering that Ti West is directing this movie.
West has quite a few horror films on his résumé, including "The House of the Devil" (2009), "The Innkeepers" (2011), "V/H/S" (2012), "The ABCs of Death" (2012), and the slasher film "X" (2022), along with its prequel "Pearl" (2022) and the third and final installment in the trilogy, "MaXXXine" (2024). And now this horror director is directing, "A Christmas Carol."
There's been a recent surge in the horror film genre of turning otherwise innocent intellectual properties into slasher movies, such as, "Winnie-the-Pooh: Blood and Honey," "Mickey's Mouse Trap," "Popeye the Slayer Man," and the slasher take on "How the Grinch Stole Christmas" titled "The Mean One."
I wouldn't be surprised if Ebenezer has a horror twist of some kind in this upcoming movie.
Based on this trailer, it looks like the filmmakers may be turning up the paranormal tension and scares.
Maybe the ghosts will put ol' Ebenezer through a torturous ordeal the likes of which haven't been seen in previous film adaptations. Something will surely need to distinguish this version from the many others, lest it become just another adaptation of "A Christmas Carol" tossed into the annual online debate over which version best captures Dickens's novel.
Despite my reservations, I admit I'm a sucker for a good scary movie. While I hope Ti West's film truly respects the source material and the reason Dickens wrote it in the first place, the trailer has certainly piqued my curiosity. I'm just as interested to see how Johnny Depp approaches Scrooge. There seems to be a comedic element to his performance. Maybe audiences will see Scrooge for the fool he is while Scrooge continues to see himself as the only sensible man in a city full of fools. All in all, I'm looking forward to it despite my doubts. I can thank this obsession of mine for that.

For more Christmas Carol commentary, click the link here - Tidings of Comfort, Joy, and Too Many Christmas Carol movies: The Multiverse of Scrooges

The Secret of My Success (1987)

"I'm sorry, Mr. Foster. We need someone with experience."

Director
Herbert Ross

Cast
Michael J. Fox - Brantley Foster
Helen Slater - Christy Wills
Richard Jordan - Howard Prescott
Margaret Whitton - Vera Pemrose Prescott
John Pankow - Fred Melrose
Fred Gwynne - Donald Davenport
Gerry Bamman - Art Thomas
Carol Ann Susi - Jean
Drew Snyder - Burt Foster
Elizabeth Franz - Grace Foster

Michael J. Fox's 1987 not-Back to the Future movie, "The Secret of My Success," is a film I'd never seen before. I only watched it because my wife and I have a movie night together a couple of times a month. We searched the long and seemingly endless corridors of streaming services, as we often do, looking for something we either haven't seen before or that at least one of us hasn't seen in years.

So, on our last movie night, I picked this flick completely out of curiosoity as it has Michael J. Fox alongside Helen Slater. 

I wanted to like this movie. I wanted to. It's a movie about intelligence, determination, working for something, and the American dream. I'm all for that!

The part that I hated was how empty it unintentionally makes it all seem. 

The story follows Brantley Foster (Michael J. Fox), fresh out of college. He moves out of his parents' house on the Kansas farm to find a successful career in finance in New York City. 

Of course, finding that dream job is met with a lot of companies turning him down for lack of experience. However, before leaving Kansas, his mom gives him the name of his uncle, Howard Prescott (Richard Jordan), whom Brantley has never met. So, in dire need of employment after being turned down multiple times at interviews, Brantley pays his uncle a visit at his huge office building.

After some begging, Howard hires Brantley to work in his company's mailroom.

In no time after starting his new job, Brantley starts deceiving the corporate higher-ups in an attempt to work his way up the corporate ladder undetected. 

He juggles this deception with inserting himself in the middle of office politics, business rivalries, and a budding office romance with Christy Wills (Helen Slater), who is a financial genius just like he is. But as she's so well established in the upper ranks of the company, Brantley finds out his uncle has put her close to himself for a specific reason.

So, Brantley has to keep this daily charade going, meandering under the pseudonym Carlton Whitfield so his uncle/boss doesn't catch on. Brantley just needs to weasel his way upwards and implant himself into a permanent, well-paying, upper-level position. And, as expected, comedy ensues.

Fox's comedic performance is entertaining and hilarious. He gives his character charisma, which makes him likable even though he's really a big liar. He's not just telling white lies. These lies are big friggin' lies with bells and noise makers hanging off them. I think the audience is expected to overlook Brantley's serious flaws because he's young, charming, inexperienced (albeit book-smart), and energetic. That's Michael J. Fox for you. His reactions go from being skittish and apprehensive to simply going along with whatever mishap falls in his way so long as he reaches his goal. It's a bit reminiscent of his character Alex Keaton from the sitcom "Family Ties." So, I see why he would be cast as a young, fearless, ambitious financial know-it-all.

It's an underrated performance, but I understand why that is. The movie crumbles all around Fox.

His role, and the story in general, is a comedic take on the American dream. And within this particular dream is a contrast between hard work and manipulating the system.

Underneath all this white-collar "success" is nothing but crap: adultery, deceit, empty and unfulfilling materialism, and the sad, stupid justification that a person has to do whatever they've got to do to make it in the business world. It all seems empty.

I admire the hard work and determination Brantley undergoes, albeit comedically, to bypass the standard "experience needed" job requirement, which those just-out-of-college jobseekers have to work around any way they can to get through the front doors of the working world. But his success is all founded on unsavory tactics sprinkled with comedy to make it palatable.

The movie is definitely a product of its day. The 1980s was a decade where financial success seemed within reach. The economic uncertainty of the 1970s morphed into an optimistic period thanks to market expansion. This was the Reagan era. People wanted the big offices. Women also wore big hairdos with lots of Aqua-Net. Ambition was high.

If Gen Z could only understand the satisfaction and payoff of hard work and dedication. They seem to have a habit of recording themselves crying (literally) at the prospect of working and needing to make sacrifices in order to support themselves and earn a living, and then share it on social media to garner likes and sympathy. "Soft" isn't a big enough word. But I digress.

So, in the most general way I admire Fox's character's determination to really make something of himself despite the stumbling blocks that fall in his way. No excuses. Eye on the prize!

However, the success Brantley achieves seems empty and not very glorious despite the glitter. It's satisfying seeing him win while the greedy corporate suits are knocked down several pegs and get a taste of humble pie. But what will he do with it once he gets his financial success? Will it improve him in any way? It doesn't appear like it will. 

Of course, Brantley wins the love and affection of Christy. Even that romance begins with lies and other unsavory ways.

The chemistry between Michael J. Fox and Helen Slater isn't there. It's more awkward than charming. Together, they look like a teenager and a mature career woman who has seen more things than a respectable lady should. This romance felt very forced. It didn't work.

Michael J. Fox and Helen Slater prove that

charisma isn't always transferable.

As this flick came out in 1987, a much less noble characteristic of the '80s was the idea that a meaningful relationship starts with sex sooner rather than later. And this is supposed to be admired and applauded.

I walked into this movie having only heard of it, but I didn't look into it beforehand to see what I'd be getting myself into.

I'm not bashing the pursuit of success, nor the attainment of it. I respect anyone who works hard and reaps the rewards of their hard work, even if they become millionaires, billionaires, or now that it's apparently obtainable, trillionaires.

The corporate white-collar world is a world that has replaces the soul with just about anything else.

So, the movie's depicted definition of success seems souless.

By the third act, the movie desperately tries to get the audience to laugh, but the comedy has dried up by then. So, the movie resorts to slapstick-style humor to get laughs. All I could think about at that point was how much the third act drags on. Nothing about this flick feels original. Rather, it feels more like a plot written thirty years earlier and then rehashed with a style and tone suitable for the decade.

"The Secret of My Success" has a good portion of entertaining comedic moments. It's also interesting to watch this right now as a photographic look at what corporate America was like back in the 1980s albeit in a satirical way.

Despite Michael J. Fox's more-or-less enjoyable and funny performance, it's rather harsh for a movie to ask audiences to like a character who goes from boyish and ambitious to depending on lies and deceit to succeed. Brantley comes from a Midwestern, probably Christian, background, too. It's not stated as such, but it can easily be interpreted that way since his farming parents aren't terribly excited to see him scurry off the farm and head to New York City in order to find ultimate success in the financial world. And this is what he so quickly resorts to. 

I can't say I'd recommend "The Secret of My Success." Again, I wanted to like it. In the end, the movie's definition of success felt dishonest, icky, and superficial. It also ran out of jokes! What kind of comedy runs out of jokes? 

All in all, this flick succeeds at nothing. 

Fiddler on the Roof (1971) - Correcting my personal cinematic blindspots

"Without our traditions, our lives would be as shaky as... as... as a fiddler...on the roof!"

Director
Norman Jewison

Cast

Chaim Topol - Tevye
Norma Crane - Golde
Rosalind Harris - Tzeitel, Tevye's oldest daughter
Michele Marsh - Hodel, Tevye's second daughter
Neva Small - Chava, Tevye's third daughter
Molly Picon - Yente, the matchmaker
Paul Mann - Lazar Wolf
Leonard Frey - Motel Kamzoil
Paul Michael Glaser - Perchik
Raymond Lovelock - Fyedka (An Orthodox Christian)
Elaine Edwards - Shprintze, Tevye's fourth daughter
Candy Bonstein - Bielke, Tevye's fifth daughter

Tutte Lemkow - the fiddler

I fancy myself a movie critic. For two years, I even got paid for it. And yet, I carry with me many a cinematic sin. There are a lot of movies one would think a guy calling himself a movie critic would have seen at least once before. I won't go into what movies that perhaps I should have seen at least once before. But one of those missed titles is the 1971 musical, "Fiddler on the Roof," written by Jerry Bock and directed by Norman Jewison.
Well, it was a missed title. It's not anymore. Hence, this post.
In the midst of my wife and me catching up on a variety of musicals over the last couple of years, "Fiddler on the Roof" is a film I've had my sights set on for a long time. I've been curious about what it was all about. Only now am I getting to it. My wife gifted me a copy for Father's Day, and I was very grateful. Thanks, again, Sweety!
Now that I'm publicly confessing my negligence in movie watching, I admit I had never seen the musical "Oliver!" before either. I finally watched it for the first time a month or two ago. I'm saving that review for another long-term movie post project I'm working on regarding film adaptations of Dickens' "Oliver Twist." That'll come sooner or later.
So, "Fiddler on the Roof" is set in a small Jewish village called Anatevka located somewhere in Imperial Russia in 1905.
The story follows a Jewish milkman, Tevye (Chaim Topol), who lives with his wife, Golde (Norma Crane), and their five daughters. Though poor, Tevye is a devoted family man trying to keep his family

Chaim Topol as Tevye in "Fiddler on the Roof."

well cared for while ensuring the family's Jewish traditions are preserved. He even sings about tradition!
Those customs and traditions he holds dear, desiring their longevity, have been a long-standing moral guide for the lifestyles not only of his own family but of all the Jewish folks in Anatevka.
However, as his three oldest daughters—Tzeitel, the oldest (Rosalind Harris), Hodel, the second daughter (Michele Marsh), and Chava, the third daughter (Neva Small)—start eyeing suitors who propose marriage yet don't quite hold the same values, morals, or convictions as Tevye, he has to weigh each of their requests for his daughters' hands in marriage against those values and traditions he sang about earlier in the movie.
The local matchmaker, Yente (Molly Picon), pairs the local butcher, Lazar Wolf (Paul Mann), with Tzeitel.
Despite the huge age difference between Lazar and Tzeitel, Tevye agrees to the arrangement. But you know who doesn't agree to this? Tzeitel! He's much too old. And she has her heart set on Motel Kamzoil (Leonard Frey), the local tailor and Tzeitel's childhood friend. And though he doesn't have great wealth, he's devoted to her, which makes him a much more suitable match.
Tzeitel begs her father not to make her marry Lazar, even despite the agreement he made with him.
Of course, he's got to tell Golde about it, and that's a whole big dream sequence with singing and dancing.
Two other suitors narrow in on Tevye's next two eldest daughters. And like any good father, he finds these guys questionable. 
Perchik (Paul Michael Glaser), a Jewish student from the university in Kyiv with strong Bolshevik political views, proposes to Hodel just before he heads back to Kyiv to work for the festering Russian revolution.

Soon after that, a young man named Fyedka (Raymond Lovelock), an Orthodox Christian, falls in love with, and proposes to, Tevye's third oldest, Chava. Of course, being Christian really goes against her father's Jewish grain. With each relationship, Tevye is more reluctant to give his blessing. With Fyedka and Chava, he's really not happy about it. 
All the while, Anatevka faces looming persecution from the Russian Empire, and the townsfolk are threatened with exile from their beloved homes. 

Tevye carries this internal struggle between tradition and change amidst a backdrop of relentless social and political upheaval. This is especially true as his own daughters wish to marry into lives not quite fitting within those Jewish traditions. And with each daughter, that respective lifestyle deviates farther and farther from those traditions.
The emotion from Tevye is keenly felt—both the joys and the anguish—thanks to Topol's memorable performance. I don't toss out the term "memorable" haphazardly. That's the best word to describe his acting in this movie. His fear, happiness, anger, and sadness (dare I call them crosses?) hit the audience pretty hard. I really felt sympathy for Tevye. But above all, he struggles to do what he thinks is pleasing to God despite his personal thoughts and feelings. Many a time in the movie, when being asked to do or give something he initially doesn't want to, he glances towards Heaven, sometimes with a comment, or rather, a question.

In one scene when the local bookseller tells him about expulsions of Jewish people happening elsewhere in Russia, Tevye looks to God and says, "Dear God. Did you have to send me news like that - today of all days? I know, I know we are the chosen people. But once in a while, can't you choose someone else?" There's a welcomed handful of these humorous conversations he has with God. 

Aside from Topol's performance, and of course the well-remembered songs, it was the actual fiddler playing on the roof that made me think. I was curious what he represented and how that representation played into the story.

"A fiddler on the roof. Sounds crazy, no? But here, in our little village of Anatevka, you might say every one of us is a fiddler on the roof trying to scratch out a pleasant, simple tune without breaking his neck," Tevye says to the audience, breaking the fourth wall. "It isn't easy. You may ask 'Why do we stay up there if it's so dangerous?' Well, we stay because Anatevka is our home. And how do we keep our balance? That I can tell you in one word: tradition!"

Sure, I guess that sums it up.

I don't know much, if anything, about Jewish traditions and their adherence to tradition.As an old-school mackerel-snapping Papist myself, also known as a Traditional Roman Catholic, the premise of tradition works for me.
So, the premise of keeping balance while living a Catholic life within a fallen, corrupt world strikes some sensitive chords. The world changes while we live in that world, but we work hard not to be "of" that world. But this is a story of a Jewish village. So, the fiddler seems to be the image of their endurance as the world around them changes and tries to tear into them.
The roof is like earthly life. The fiddler is the richness and beauty of religion, family, and human flourishing all wrapped together. It's all balancing on faith against the winds of change. Stability isn't possible when trying to keep up with the constant changes of the world, which ceaselessly blow in different directions.
There's certainly a hint of "social progress" in the story. There's also a strong melancholic tone underneath the joy and beauty and all that. The premise isn't so much whether customs should change. Rather, Tevye struggles with whether people can remain themselves while the traditions that define them seem to slowly break away little by little. The story doesn't really answer that question, which is why it's such a fantastic movie. Well, there's a lot of other factors that make it fantastic, of course. There's the amazing songs that have seem to last through the decades. Topol's amazing performance, once again. The turmoil. The depictions. The emotion. The storyline. I can't resist keeping it in my stockpile of personal favorite films from now on. 

City Lights (1931)

"Tomorrow the birds will sing."

Director

Charles Chaplin

Cast
Charlie Chaplin - The Tramp
Virginia Cherrill - the blind girl
Florence Lee - her grandmother
Harry Myers - the eccentric millionaire
Allan Garcia - his butler
Hank Mann - the prizefighter

When it comes to how great a storyteller Charlie Chaplin is, two movies come straight to my mind. The first is "The Kid" from 1921 and this one, "City Lights" released in 1931. Both are silent movies.
These two movies demonstrate perfectly well how meticulous Chaplin is when telling a story. No detail goes unnoticed as he ensures all elements fall into place with the right pacing, and at the right time. 

As I mentioned in my review of "The Kid," because of his artistic creativity and careful dedication, movies like "City Lights" hit all the right emotional chords with an almost flawless balance of comedy and drama.
In "City Lights," Charlie Chaplin falls in love with a flower girl (Virginia Cherrill) he happens to stumble into while out and about in the city.Of course, he buys a flower from her, and then figures out she's blind. 

Through a simple yet creative way only Chaplin could have thought up, she mistakes him for a wealthy man though she can't see. Determined to help improve her circumstances despite his own lack of resources, he navigates through various comedic misadventures, unlikely friendships, and personal sacrifices to help her obtain a better life, and her eyesight.

Between "City Lights," "The Kid" and his other amazing movie, "The Gold Rush" from 1925, I can't honestly point to any of these and say that's Charlie Chaplin's greatest movie. It's one hell of a toss-up. But I do lean heavily towards "City Lights" as being his greatest film achievement. 

I guess when all three films have been picked apart, analyzed, criticized, praised and considered thoroughly, it all depends on how each emotionally tugging story hits its audience. 

Virginia Cherrill and Chaplin in "City Lights."

Among the unique aspects of "City Lights" is that it's a silent movie that was filmed and released when all the other movies hitting theaters at the time had already gone to talking.
This detail has been written and discussed long before I was born.
In the book "Chaplin's Films" author Uno Asplund writes, "[City Lights'] triumph was obvious. Once again Charlie, in a 'silent', had quelled the uproar of the talkies all around him. City Lights offered what was perhaps his most original story-line, constructed round the blind flower girl with pathos and romance, tenderness and feeling. The film is not excessively sentimental, and his audiences smiled through their years. City Lights is one of Chaplin's greatest films - none of his later productions were to reach the same heights." (Asplund 155)
The film withholds its strongest emotional impact until the final scene - right where it needs to and where it's most effective. It's as though the story saves it all for that final sweet moment. I mean, it's not void of emotion until the end. The real touching salvo is saved for that last scene. It's hard, even for the most impassive of audience members, not to get a bit misty in that final scene. 
And like "The Kid," Chaplin's musical score fits satisfyingly well. It tells the tale just as much as the pictures do. The score is a mix of the uncaring determined busyness of the city which dissolves into a soft and romantic score that slows city life down to focus on something meaningful and fulfilling. But the city's fast-paced way of life inserts itself from time to time into that romantic interlude. The city finds a way to insert itself into people's otherwise happy lives and merry pursuits.
"City Lights" stands out because Chaplin is stubbornly brilliant, and that brilliance stands out in this movie specifically. 

As I previously mentioned, he released this silent movie when talkies were booming, trusting that his pantomime artistry could outlast talking pictures.

In his book, "My Autobiography," Chaplin says, "A good silent picture had universal appeal both to the intellectual and the rank and file. Now it was all to be lost. But I was determined to continue making silent films, for I believed there was room for all types of entertainment. Besides, I was a pantomimist, and in that medium I was unique and, without false modesty, a master. So I continued with the production of another silent picture, City Lights." (Chaplin 325) 

The film balances slapstick comedy with real emotional weight, as the Tramp’s devotion to the blind flower girl feels completely sincere.

Harry Myers next to Charlie Chaplin.

Chaplin also states in his book that the plot of the movie originated as a story about a clown who loses his eyesight after an accident at the circus. 

This clown takes care of his little girl who, unfortunately, is a sick and timid child.
The doctor warns the clown not to let his daughter know about his blindness until she's old enough to understand lest the worry wreaks havoc on the poor kid's health. So, the clown does his best to hide his blindness from her all while constantly bumping into things and tripping over everything else. That luckily makes her laugh as she thinks her dad is just being silly.
"But that was too 'icky.' However. the blindness of the clown was transferred to the flower girl in City Lights," Chaplin says. (Chaplin 325)
"City Lights" is a confident movie. Chaplin trusted his expertise, talent, expression, music, and carefully constructed depictions and emotions. That confidence shines in every scene. It's a movie about selflessness, lonliness, and dedication. The final scene is one of the most emotionally moving scenes in any movie before or since. 

"City Lights" is substantial proof that silent movies, even those from nearly a century ago, can withstand time and film evolution, and still come forth as an impactful experience for modern audiences in 2026.  

1) Asplund, Uno. Chaplin’s Films. Translated from the Swedish by Paul Britten Austin, A. S. Barnes, 1976, p. 155.

2) Charlie Chaplin. My Autobiography. Simon and Schuster, 1964.

Limelight (1952)

"If anyone else says, 'It's like old times,' I'll jump out the window." 

Director

Charles Chaplin

Cast

Charlie Chaplin - Calvero
Claire Bloom - Thereza "Terry" Embrose
Sydney Earl Chaplin - Ernest Neville
Marjorie Bennett - Mrs. Alsop
Nigel Bruce - Postant
Norman Lloyd - Bodalink
Snub Pollard - Street Musician
Buster Keaton - Calvero's partner
Charles Chaplin III - a clown

Gerith Von Ulm's unauthorized biography of Charlie Chaplin, published in 1940, is titled, "Charlie Chaplin: King of Tragedy." 

The comedian/ clown, Chaplin, fitting the role of a "King of tragedy" is certainly apparent when watching a lot of his movies. The tragedy in Chaplin's comedies could fill volumes.  

I can't speak for Chaplin himself, but it's pretty clear the tragedy he wrote in his 1952 movie "Limelight" is truly his own. That tragedy would be watching himself moving slowly towards obscurity or irrelevance, at least in his own mind. 

As the late Carrie Fisher said decades after Chaplin's death in 1977, "Fame is obscurity biding its time." 

Like most Charlie Chaplin movies, especially "Modern Times," "The Great Dictator," "Monsieur Verdoux," and "A King in New York," there's a lot to pick apart when it comes to "Limelight."

I've been anxious to comment on this movie, along with a small handful of his other films, -"City Lights," "A Woman of Paris," and maybe "Modern Times." We'll see about that last one. 

"Limelight" is a fitting title for this movie. It's about an artist living in the aftermath of his art. It's about nostalgia and the desire for the old days. 

The story is set in London sometime after World War I. Chaplin plays "Calvero" - an aged entertainer who was once well-known around England. But that respected past is now just fond memories and bad dreams. Calvero is now a struggling alcoholic, aging as he watches himself slowly fade into the footnotes of the entertainment world. 

After returning home to his apartment building one evening, sloshed, stumbling and trying not to bump into the landlady, Mrs. Alsop (Marjorie Bennett) as he's behind on rent, Calvero saves a young girl, Terry Embrose (Claire Bloom) as she tries to kill herself by filling her apartment with gas. 

Charlie Chaplin and Claire Bloom in 'Limelight.'

He rescues her, takes her up to his apartment to get her away from the gas, and calls a doctor. 

They become acquainted as she convalesces in his apartment. Terry tells Calvero that she has always wanted to be a famous dancer.

As she recovers from her attempted suicide, Terry claims she can't feel her legs and can't walk. 

Calvero soon becomes a source of inspiration and stronger self-confidence to return to the dancing she loves. 

While he builds her up, Calvero begins finding his owns sense of purpose. 

Her health improves, and so does her career. But Calvero struggles to reclaim the popularity and success he once had during his theater days.  

After spending time with Calvero, the inevitable happens. Terry falls in love with him despite the difference in their ages. 

She also tells him about a period in her life when she worked at a stationary store, and a handsome young composer named Ernest Neville (Sydney Earl Chaplin) would stop in to purchase blank music sheets. 

She was obviously interested in Neville but didn't pursue any sort of involvement. She would, however, sneak him a few extra music sheets at no charge. 

Calvero thinks this Neville would be a perfect match for Terry. He wants her to live a truly happy life, and she won't find that living with him. 

After years go by, Terry finds well-deserved success as a dancer. Calvero, meanwhile, has disappeared as he believes he can't have the success he once enjoyed. He tried to recapture it but failed when he attempted a return to the stage only to be met with terrible reviews. 

Working as a street musician, Calvero runs into Neville. The two had met at one of Terry's rehearsals during which time Neville recognized her, but she didn't really let on that she recognized him, too. Anyways, he tells Terry where Calvero is, and she tracks him down to do one last benefit performance. 

Calvero agrees and is reunited with an old comedy partner of his, played by silent film comedian, Buster Keaton. Together, they do a hilarious musical sketch that's worth waiting for.  

The benefit performance is a huge hit, but no one expected the tragedy that followed. 

If I could sum up the point of this movie in one word, that would be "longing." The movie is called "Limelight" after all. What celebrity doesn't yearn for the limelight, especially when it starts to cease shining on them and leave them in their own memories and nostalgia to stew in. 

In the book, "Chaplin's Films," author Uno Asplund writes, "In its own way Limelight can be regarded as Chaplin's film about himself, if not in its outward action at least in the thoughts, feelings and places it presents. In it he finds expression, in his own inimitable way, for his love of his art and of the world of the stage which the old variety artist Calvero says he hates but which is nonetheless indispensable to him." 1

If this had been Chaplin’s last movie, it would have been a perfect way to close out his acting career.

But it's not his last. He went on to make "A King in New York" because he was mad at America for, basically, kicking him out of the country. The U.S. did just that in 1952 while Chaplin was sailing to the U.K. for the premier of "Limelight." 

"A King in New York" feels like a movie made by a jilted boyfriend getting back at his ex-girlfriend for dumping him. My biggest fans surely remember everything else I said about that flick. 

Buster Keaton and Charlie Chaplin.

With "Limelight" it's as though Chaplin is writing his own eulogy...perhaps. 

Calvero is Chaplin thinking of himself as a great entertainer, which I wouldn't deny that he is, put aside by the world in exchange for some new faces. Sometimes time can be a person's best friend. There's no such thing as an old joke if you've never heard it before. I think Groucho Marx said that? I can't remember where I heard that before.

Daniel Taradash,  President of the Motion Picture of Arts and Sciences in 1972, said as much about time when Chaplin received an honorary Oscar. 

"Time is Chaplin's oldest and dearest friend," he said.

By 1952, Chaplin had been the subject of public outcry for a scandal or two, and his public image of innocence was already tarnished and smeared in the papers. 

Chaplin's best days as a movie maker and comedian were behind him by 1952. "Limelight" has a couple sequences in which Calvero has a reoccurring dream where he's doing a stage performance which ends with him looking out into a completely empty theater. Later, through a speech about faded applause and forgotten performers, Chaplin's fear of becoming irrelevant pops out.

So, to build up his significance, he has to keep performing. 

Then Terry comes into his life. She's youthful. She's the fresh new face audiences want. She's artistic rebirth. 

There's even a scene in which Calvero is giving one of his bedside lectures to Terry and while doing so he points at his head telling her what his father used to tell him, "Here lies the greatest toy, the secret of all happiness." 

He saves her physically. Terry, in turn, keeps his hopes of gaining one last chance at significance alive and ignited. Terry tries to convince Calvero that he still matters. I think it's a really safe and accurate assumption that Chaplin wanted to believe he still mattered, if he didn't already believe that in 1952. 

And by the end, Calvero dies to the sound of a packed theater, vibrating with an ovation. 

"Limelight" packs in a lot of Chaplin. It doesn't just star Charlie, it also stars some offspring of his. Sydney Chaplin who is Chaplin's son with his second wife, Lita Grey, plays Neville. Chaplin and Lita's other son, Charlie Chaplin, Jr., plays a clown seen on stage during the charity performance rehearsal.  

And his young children Michael, Geraldine, and Josephine, whom he had with his fourth and final wife, Oona O'Neill, play the children seen in the beginning of the film. 

And it's worth pointing out that when Chaplin first steps into frame in the opening scene, his character is drunk. It occurred to me that playing a drunk was something Chaplin was well known for back in his Vaudeville days. Audiences loved watching him play a drunk when he was performing in music halls with the Fred Karno Company. 

It's a routine he was so good at, he ended up doing this schtick in his 1916 film short, "One AM." His whole performance there is nothing but acting drunk. He also pulls out his drunk routine in his 1922 movie, "Pay Day." 

It's a creative homage to a routine that fueled his career to the height that it gained, and a well-played start to this movie about Chaplin's longing for his past. 

As for his co-star, Claire Bloom, this is her third movie. In a recent episode of the podcast, "Chaplin Talks," hosted by Charlie Chaplin's grandson, Spencer Chaplin, broadcast January 14, 2026, Bloom discusses her experience working with Charlie, and how she got the role in "Limelight." 

In the interview, Bloom comments that she and Chaplin's wife Oona resembled each other quite a bit. 

"I think the film in many ways, though it wasn't said, is dedicated to her and her love for him," she said in her interview. 2.

"Limelight" is a movie full of exposition of sorts in which Chaplin preaches to the audience through dialogue that's spoken like an artist worried about growing old, the label of obscurity, and where an artist goes when the audience isn't looking anymore, at least not like they used to. They're looking to new, untarnished faces for their entertainment. 

Nowadays, Chaplin is past the nostalgic phase as there's no one alive who watched his movies on the big screen during his peak of popularity back in the 1910s, 1920s and 1930s. He's an historical figure now in the entertainment category. He's a trivia question. He's a founding father of cinema. Despite any fears he may have had, he hasn't faded into obscurity. 

But by the end, Calvero accepts the fact that he already fulfilled what he was meant to do. The limelight is always going to fade out at some point, even on the greatest of entertainers.

1. Asplund, Uno. Chaplin’s Films. Translated by Paul Britten Austin, A. S. Barnes, 1976, p. 179.

2. “Claire Bloom on Limelight: Remembering Charlie Chaplin.” Chaplin Talks, hosted by Spencer Chaplin, YouTube, 14 Jan. 2026, YouTube video 

I LOVE YOU DADDY

The Odd Couple II (1998) - Jack Lemmon and Walter Matthau movies, with Jack Lemmon and Walter Matthau, or one or the other

"You still maintain that pain in the ass quality that drives me berserk."

Director
Howard Deutch

Cast
Jack Lemmon - Felix Ungar
Walter Matthau - Oscar Madison
Jonathan Silverman - Brucey Madison
Lisa Waltz - Hannah Ungar
Mary Fogarty - Flossie
Alfred Dennis - Morton
Alice Ghostley - Esther
Peggy Miley - Millie
Rebecca Schull - Wanda
Florence Stanley - Hattie
Estelle Harris - Peaches
Ellen Geer - Frances Ungar-Melnick
Doris Belack - Blanche Madison-Povitch
Richard Riehle - Sheriff of Santa Manendez

After recycling the comedic formula from 1968's "The Odd Couple," the movie that made Jack Lemmon and Walter Matthau a duo, and inserting it into the movies "Grumpy Old Men," "Grumpier Old Men," and especially "Out to Sea" - the last movie I reviewed - Hollywood writers and producers evidently arrived at the conclusion to just make a sequel to "The Odd Couple." Since Jack Lemmon and Walter Matthau were still alive at the time and still had their chemistry, it was best they get on that task while they could. The result was "The Odd Couple II." 

It's a sequel I somehow didn’t even know existed until years after its release. Back then, I was attending a Catholic boarding school and didn't have a lot of knowledge about what movies were coming out and basically whatever else was going on in the world. But being the huge fan of the first movie, and a fan of Lemmon and Matthau, one would think I would have known "The Odd Couple" had a sequel written by Neil Simon. It was released 30 years after the original and is directed by Howard Deutch who also directed well known pictures such as "Pretty in Pink," "Some Kind of Wonderful," "The Great Outdoors," and the aforementioned "Grumpier Old Men." 

When I first heard about it, I thought it was a joke. But no, it's real. 

This time Felix Ungar (Jack Lemmon) and Oscar Madison (Walter Matthau) are back in each other's hair because Oscar's son, Brucey (Jonathan Silverman) and Felix's daughter, Hannah (Lisa Waltz) are tying the knot. 

Oscar is living down in Sarasota, Fla., still working as a sportswriter. Brucey is still living out in California as referenced in the first film. 

Despite his chagrin over the engagement, Oscar flies out to California and runs into none other than Felix at the airport. 

So, they share a rental car to drive out to fictional San Malina for the wedding. 

During their road trip, they go through their usual bickering as luggage is lost, cars are destroyed, arrests are made, weird people cross their paths, and more arguments ensue. 

"The Odd Couple II" starts off like the original movie. The first half is clearly trying to recapture the humor and feel of the original film. It's the portion of the film when the familiar jokes and call-backs from the part one are carried out, such as another restaurant scene with Felix obnoxiously clearing his throat. Once all that's out of the way, it starts trying to be its own movie. 

Felix and Oscar start trying to get past their differences to find something they both have in common. They've managed to raise relatively good children. That realization is apparent but nothing about it has depth. And they're about to become in-laws. Who would have thought?  

It concludes on an all too familiar Odd Couple scenario. 

While it's fun to see Lemmon and Matthau reprise the characters that made them a comedic pair and then put these characters in a car together driving along California roads rather than going back to Oscar's New York City apartment, overall, the movie doesn't feel as organic as the 1968 movie. For instance, Felix's hypochondria feels more forced than before. That's not to say Lemmon isn't funny in this sequel. He is. I got some laughs out of his performance. Matthau's performance is, well, Matthau. He plays Oscar Madison with the same lax and care-free demeanor audiences saw in Lemmon and Matthau's last couple of movies together. He's playing Oscar again with all the same mannerisms and habits Oscar had back in 1968. Funny enough, the sloppy aspect seen in the first movie isn't quite there as much. He's more careless than sloppy, save for a poorly packed suitcase. Maybe Oscar learned and retained a little something about order and cleanliness from Felix when he invited him to stay at his apartment and then tossed him out.   

But Oscar's negligent qualities seem spot on. And the conversations they have in the car from "how long has it been" to "is your daughter anything like you" is some of the best dialogue in the movie 

Thankfully, the film's dependence on nostalgia doesn't stick around for long. That can be fun for a while before it starts feeling repetitive and lazy.

Also, the emotion in "The Odd Couple II" is much thinner compared to the first. Oscar and Felix's friendship is really tested in the first film. The annoyance and the comedy of the situation play out way more organically. It's easily convincing. And it appears effortless. 

In the sequel, the whole thing is more overplayed for laughs since anything they needed to figure out, they already did back in '68. But they still annoy each other. Isn't that hilarious?

Nothing between the characters of Felix and Oscar is really tested in part two. Their friendship certainly isn't tested like it was before. The movie is just a nostalgic trip, and not much more than that. 

The story does touch on aging, loneliness (the first movie really touched on that, too) and regret of past decisions. The key word is "touch." The story doesn't dig deep into these topics. Had it done so, that would have likely made "The Odd Couple II" more interesting and memorable. 

The difficulty with a continuing premise from the 1968 movie is how to get Felix and Oscar back together in a new situation that lasts long enough for them to drive each other crazy with all that hilarity like before. They're certainly not going to be roommates again. A road trip is a good enough premise to accomplish that. But where would they go? And why would they go together after all these years? The marriage of Oscar's son and Felix's daughter makes the sequel its own movie, putting Felix and Oscar in a completely different scenario where they're forced to be in each other's company over a long enough period of time. 

Having their kids marry seems like a plot to a T.V. sitcom. It's an easy setup to get Felix and Oscar back in each other's lives and in close quarters where the bickering and intolerable habits can resume. 

There's a running joke where Felix and Oscar keep finding themselves in situations that lead to their arrest. They don't actually break the law so the police chief, whose desk they keep finding themselves sitting in front of, is forced to let them go each time. But he quickly gets sick of seeing both of them. And as this keeps happening, they both drive the local police chief crazy. That's a nice touch to add to a third party to the already odd couple.

There's no way part two can be as memorable or as sharp as the original. Still, this sequel gives audiences a side of Felix and Oscar the first film didn't go into. I got a few laughs from Lemmon and Matthau, but it doesn't have the natural comedic flow that makes the first a fantastic comedy. The comdey comes in waves. It tries to give us the same thing we've seen before, but in a different premise, and then shifts to give us something new.  

Of course, by the end, Felix and Oscar realize they're stuck with each other for the rest of their lives. It's a creative touch as "The Odd Couple II" is Lemmon and Matthau's last movie together. As they play Felix and Oscar in this final performance of theirs together, it's a bittersweet experience. 

This sequel gives audiences one last opportunity to watch them slip back into the characters they're most associated with.

Regardless of its weaknesses, it's still enjoyable seeing where this odd couple would be 30 years later. 

Out to Sea (1997) - Jack Lemmon and Walter Matthau movies, with Jack Lemmon and Walter Matthau, or one or the other

"We're not working. We're dancing and cavorting."

Director
Martha Coolidge

Cast
Jack Lemmon - Herb Sullivan
Walter Matthau - Charlie Gordon
Dyan Cannon - Liz LaBreche
Gloria DeHaven - Vivian
Brent Spiner - Gil Godwyn
Elaine Stritch - Mavis LaBreche
Estelle Harris - Bridget

Jack Lemmon and Walter Matthau's 1997 comedy "Out to Sea" feels more like a new adventure comedy spin-off of "The Odd Couple" because it centers on a Felix Ungar & Oscar Madison-esque pair of characters who meander onto a cruise ship, find romance, and hilarity ensues. 

All the while, the movie tries not to be "The Odd Couple" while modeling itself with the same general comedic formula. 

"Out to Sea" was released after "Grumpier Old Men" and has become a much-too-forgotten movie. 

It's a fair attempt for Lemmon and Matthau to do a picture that's different enough from their previous films but ends up being similar in comedic style to their last two. 

The comedy and plot of "Out to Sea" reminds me of early comedy shorts with, say, Laurel and Hardy or any other comedian or comedy team finding  themselves in a whole new scenario in each short. 

Lemmon and Matthau play their usual comedy duo routine in a setting that's new to them. In this case, they play brothers-in-law who hop aboard a luxury cruise working as dance hosts. Well, maybe it's not all completely new. They also play brothers-in-law in "The Fortune Cookie." 

Jack Lemmon's character is the cautious one who misses his late wife. Walter Matthau is the sleazy, flirty old man always taking the easy way. This trope also goes back to "The Fortune Cookie." So, once again they're basically playing opposites. 

In this movie, Herb Sullivan (Jack Lemmon) is talked into going on a cruise with his compulsive gambling brother-in-law, Charlie Gordon (Walter Matthau). Charlie, however, doesn't tell Herb that he signed them both up to work as dance instructors on a cruise so they can get on for free. He simply tells Herb that it's a "free cruise." 

Of course, he waits until the ship sets sail to let Herb know they need to work. And if they don't work as dance instructors, they'll have to shell out a few thousand for the cost of the cruise ticket. If they can't pay, then they'll get kicked off. Charlie claims he's trying to do Herb a favor because Herb's wife, Susie has passed away and Herb misses her dearly. 

To add insult to injury, Herb and Charlie have to stay in a cramped cabin. 

They both work under the strict supervision of the head entertainer Gil Godwyn (Brent Spiner) who isn't really impressed by either of them, especially with Charlie. 

The two men meet a couple women aboard the ship whom they take an interest in.
Herb meets Vivian (Gloria DeHaven) who is on the cruise with her daughter and her daughter's

newlywed husband. They hope Viv will find a man on board and start dating once again. She works as a book editor and is under the impression that Herb is actually a doctor rather than a dance instructor.

Herb falls for Viv but is still emotionally tied to Susie. So, he has conflicted feelings even after Viv falls for him as well. Wait! Jack Lemmon's character is emotionally tied to a wife who's no longer in the picture, and that's getting in the way of a potential romance! Where have I seen that before? 
Charlie, meanwhile, meets up with Liz LaBreche (Dyan Cannon) during a poker game with a couple of well-to-do, uppity gentleman on the ship. 

He fast-talks his way through the game and wins a sizeable amount of cash off one of the men 

Charlie is under the impression Liz is also very well off. She's sailing with her mom, Mavis (Elaine Stritch) who has a sharp sarcastic tongue and sees right through the kind of person Charlie is. Of course, Liz isn't all she appears to be.
Both men pursue their newfound romances. But when the truth comes out that Herb isn't really a doctor, and Charlie isn't well off as he tries to make himself appear, the budding relationships start to crumble.
Meanwhile, Gil is completely frustrated with the two and wants them off the ship. He's also working to get a promotion from the ship's owner, Ellen Carruthers (Rue McClanahan). 

Once again, Matthau plays the careless risk-taking irresponsible yet lovingly rogue character similar to his role as Oscar Madison. This contrasts Lemmon's role as a gentle, cautious, and more timid character who doesn't want to go along with what Matthau has up his sleeve. 

Brent Spiner with Jack Lemmon and Walter Matthau in "Out to Sea." 

The chemistry is there, and is as strong as always. There are some genuinely funny scenes. And there's some emotion, especially with Herb's inner struggle to find new love while letting go of his deceased wife. I can't tell if it's overplayed or underplayed. I admit I did not feel much while watching these old comedians try to find love, tell some lies, and then win the hearts of the ladies regardless. 

I like this movie better than their previous "Grumpier Old Men" as "Out to Sea" is steady in its comedy from beginning to end. It flows well and has a respectable and funny supporting cast. Brent Spiner is ridiculously fun to watch. Spiner gives the movie a nervous, tightly wound energy that plays perfectly against Matthau's shambling looseness.

You can tell that Charlie wants to slap this guy and then call him a dumb schmuck. 

I'll be honest. I was less interested in the romance and how these two guys would manage to win the hearts of their respective ladies. I was more interested just watching Lemmon and Matthau play off each other in a scenario original to them. 

The movie also stars Gloria DeHaven whose first film appearance was in Charlie Chaplin's 1936 movie, "Modern Times" in an uncredited role. "Out to Sea" is her final film role. First appearing in a Chaplin masterpiece and then capping her movie career with Jack Lemmon and Walter Matthau is a superb full circle. 

"Out to Sea" is truly a respectable comedy that manages to get enough laughs. It's certainly not as great or even as memorable as "The Odd Couple" or "The Fortune Cookie." It succeeds as Lemmon and Matthau are effortlessly funny off of each other. Their chemistry is just as strong as it is in those previous movies of theirs. They're the primary reason to watch this movie. 

And they pair up one more time in the next movie of theirs I'll be commenting on soon.