Wednesday, December 24, 2025

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 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 to 1971 that I hadn't seen before and see 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 dead when all his debtors first sing this. He thinks they're praising him, and he smiles and dances along. It would have been a much mor sharper scene if he just stood there and forced to take it, watching everyone celebrating his passing. 
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.  He 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. 
This would be a great version if it didn't include the songs which aren't very memorable.
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 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 seen indeed, which I appreciate a lot more than having Cratchit talk to his family about visiting the cemetery. 
Albert Finney is an odd choice for Scrooge. 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. But his depiction of Scrooge was more 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. https://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."


Sunday, November 16, 2025

Kotch 1971 - Jack Lemmon and Walter Matthau movies, with Jack Lemmon and Walter Matthau, or one or the other


Director 

Cast
Walter Matthau - Joseph P. "Kotch" Kotcher
Deborah Winters - Erica Herzenstiel
Felicia Farr - Wilma Kotcher
Charles Aidman - Gerald Kotcher
Ellen Geer - Vera Kotcher


Now that October is over, and my annual horror movie commentary thread "extravaganza" that I share over at 1000daysofhorror.blogspot.com is all done, I'm now getting back to all my other stuff. My other stuff includes this thread of Jack Lemmon and Walter Matthau movies. Those movies include works with both of them acting together, or one or the other. 
The 1971 movie "Kotch" stars Walter Matthau and is based on Katharine Topkins's 1965 novel. It's unique as far as Lemmon and Matthau movies go as Jack Lemmon sits in the director's chair for this flick, directing his old acting buddy, Matthau. It's also Lemmon's directorial debut. It's also the only movie he directed. 
The movie also stars Deborah Winters, Charles Aidman, Ellen Geer, and Lemmon's wife Felicia Farr. Lemmon does have an uncredited role as a sleeping bus passenger - a performance I completely missed. 
In this movie, Walter Matthau plays Joseph Kotcher - Kotch for short. He's a grandfatherly fellow, mild-mannered and more than willing to share with others what life has taught him regardless of whether anyone wants to listen or not. 
He's also not going to sit idlily as his own son, Gerald (Charles Aidman) and his daughter-in-law, Wilma (Felicia Farr), whom Kotch lives with, treat him like he's a burden. 
Their living situation reaches a difficult point when Wilma insists Gerald put Kotch in a retirement home. 
Kotch initially checks out the retirement home but has no intention of staying. The tests that the home's psychiatrist conducts to consider his mental and cognitive state put Kotch off. 
Instead, he decides to go travel someplace else on his own. He's an adult, so he doesn't think he needs to tell anyone. 
He befriends a young pregnant girl named Erica Herzenstiel (Deborah Winters), whom he met earlier when Gerald and Wilma hired her to babysit their infant son, Duncan. 
Her parents kicked her out because she became pregnant out of wedlock and also decided to quit school for a hairstyling job in San Bernadino. 
Feeling bad, Kotch offers Erica a little money so she can survive a little longer, especially since she's pregnant. She reluctantly agrees to take it promising to pay him back as soon as she can. 
Kotch follows through on his escape plan, hops on a Greyhound bus and travels afar staying in motels and seeing the sites. 
Walter Matthau as 'Kotch.'
After a long excursion, Kotch returns home on Halloween night. 
Erica informs him she can't repay the money he gave her claiming she's come into some serious issues. 
Kotch also learns she was let go from her hairstyling job as she didn't have a license. So, Erica is back looking for work. 
Feeling pity, Kotch offers Erica a job as his personal housekeeper as he goes to live on his own. 
She doesn't accept at first, but after spending the fall season by herself, come Christmas time she thinks it's the best option she has. 
The film centers on this unlikely friendship. Kotch, in the winter of his life and refusing to be thought of as a burden, becomes the support Erica needs. Her parents kicked her out. The father of her baby is unreliable. The two have something in common.
His fatherly role over Erica renews in Kotch a feeling of purpose. This way, he can maintain his dignity. 
Erica, meanwhile, doesn't have to face this unexpected life change all alone. Someone cares. 
In Joe Baltake's book, "Jack Lemmon: His Films and Career" Lemmon is quoted as saying in regards to this movie, "I was drawn to 'Kotch' first by the character and the individual spirit of the human being. I was fascinated by it. It raises a lot of questions that I think need to be raised, but I was not trying to make any kind of statement about old age. I merely wanted to do a nice little drama about a character who happens to be old." (Baltake, 193) 
Even in the closing chapters of his life, Kotch once again has to find his place in the world. He may have lived in the right place before the story begins, but new journeys can call someone in an unexpected moment regardless of their age. 
On the topic of directing Matthau in the lead role, as opposed to acting opposite his comedy partner, Lemmon says, "Walter will take direction well, I found, unless something goes totally against his instincts. But I directed him mostly by leaving him alone. He's so inventive that when I was editing the film, I found he never did the same thing twice, and I wanted to kill him because it was almost impossible to cut." (Baltake, 193) 
On the flip side, in regard to working under Lemmon, Matthau says, "He's a fantastic director because he has a most unique ability to communicate with the broad spectrum of personalities on the scene, a man with a magnificent command of all the integral parts of a script. He has taste, talent, and imagination. And being an actor, he has the added advantage of understanding an actor's problems." (Baltake, 194) 
To its credit, the movie doesn't try to saturate the audience with sentimentality. The plot and acting speaks for itself, and the audience is free to take whatever emotion is there. It gives the audience considerations to think about as well. 
Walter Matthau and Deborah Winters
The film opens with scenes of Kotch and his grandson enjoying the day. It certainly sets the mood. 
And though the movie doesn't wash the audience with emotion, Matthau's performance carries much sympathy and heart. Kotch knows people don't want him around. He copes with these difficulties by diving into his past when times were better...when he wasn't old. 
Still, despite a great performance from Matthau, it was hard not to seem him through his makeup and grandfatherly appearance. Rather, I kept seeing Matthau playing a sympathetic old man. 
That's not to say Matthau is a bad actor. I have never seen a Matthau performance I didn't like, though some I like better than others. I enjoyed his performance in this role as he makes Kotch someone worth rooting for. 
The comedy is light, while the emotion flows naturally. One scene in which Kotch is undergoing a Rorschach test at the retirement home from a serious psychiatric nurse who looks as though she hasn't cracked a smile since elementary school, he feels like she's unimpressed with his answers. When she turns to answer a phone for a few moments, he sneaks a peak at her notes about him so far. "Unimaginative? Literal?" her notes read. His answers have all been one-word answers. Now that he has some insight into her opinions, at the next ink blotch where she asks what he sees, Kotch responds, "An inexperienced spermatozoon, about fifteen years old, asking directions to the nearest fallopian tube." Why not crack a joke? He won't be staying anyways. The scene cracked me up. The time was perfect, and the delivery of that line alone was comically unexpected. 
I had to let this movie stew a bit before sharing my thoughts. 
"Kotch" is a modest and underappreciated film with a solid theme of independence, compassion and connection between generations. Plus, there's a subtle pro-life message that I can definitely get behind. 
Matthau gives the role his all. He depicts a tender character who's not gruff, wisecracking and who doesn't succumb to any mistreatment around him. 
Instead, he seizes upon an opportunity to do one last remarkable thing unselfishly. He's not making up for any past misdeeds or sins. He wants this last chapter of life to be meaningful. Of course, he succeeds and is happy in his small corner of life. 
I think "Kotch" nicely complements Matthau and Lemmon's career together, even the parts of their work together after this movie's release. By 1971, Lemmon and Matthau had starred in two movies together - "The Fortune Cookie" and "The Odd Couple." Their next picture together would be, "The Front Page" in 1974. 
"Kotch" is a well-made depiction of concern and empathy which can come about in even unlikely situations. There's always room to improve and grow, even in the final stages of life. 

Saturday, September 13, 2025

The Front Page (1974) - Jack Lemmon and Walter Matthau movies, with Jack Lemmon and Walter Matthau, or one or the other

Director

Cast
Jack Lemmon - Hildebrand 'Hildy' Johnson
Walter Matthau - Walter Burns
Susan Sarandon - Peggy Grant
Vincent Gardenia - Sheriff "Honest Pete" Hartman
Carol Burnett - Mollie Malloy
Austin Pendleton - Earl Williams
David Wayne - Roy Bensinger
Allen Garfield - Kruger
Charles Durning - Murphy
Herb Edelman - Schwartz
Harold Gould - The Mayor
John Furlong - Duffy
Jon Korkes - Rudy Keppler
Cliff Osmond - Officer Jacobi
Paul Benedict - Plunkett


"Journalists. Bunch of crazy buttinskies with dandruff on their shoulders and holes in their pants. Peeking through keyholes, waking people up in the middle of the night to ask them what they think about Aimee Semple McPherson. Stealing pictures off old ladies of their daughters that get raped in Oak Park. And for what? So a million shop girls and motormen's wives can get their jollies. And the next day, somebody wraps the front page around a dead mackerel." - Hildy Johnson ('The Front Page') 

If "The Odd Couple" is the movie that Jack Lemmon and Walter Matthau are most remembered for, "The Front Page" should be the second movie they're remembered for. 
I feel like their usual roles are reversed a bit in Billy Wilder's 1974 comedy "The Front Page," the third movie Lemmon and Matthau appear in together. 
In "The Fortune Cookie" and "The Odd Couple," Jack Lemmon's character is somehow at the mercy of Matthau's character. However, in this movie, Matthau's Walter Burns is at Jack Lemmon's Hildy Johnson's mercy. Matthau is the pain in the backside this time. 
"The Front Page" is based on the 1928 play also titled "The Front Page" by Ben Hecht and Charles MacArthur.
It's the third film adaptation following "The Front Page" from 1931 and "His Girl Friday" from 1940 with Cary Grant as Walter Burns and Rosalind Russell as Hildy Johnson. 
The movie is set in 1920's Chicago. The twenties, by the way, is my favorite decade as I've mentioned in my commentary of Milos Forman's movie, "Ragtime." So, that's an added perk. The movie as an atmospheric feel similar to the movie "The Sting" which came out the year before. 
Anyways, in this movie Hildy Johnson (Jack Lemmon) is about to quit his news reporting job at the Chicago Examiner as he's getting hitched to his fiancé, Peggy Grant (Susan Sarandon). He's the best reporter the Chicago rag has got. Hildy's departure comes at the great chagrin of his editor, Walter Burns (Walter Matthau). To add salt to Walter's wound, Hildy is taking on a new gig (besides marriage) in advertising. 
"You mean you're going to be writing crap like 'I'd walk a mile for a Camel', or 'Quick, Henry, the Flit'," Burns says at the news. 
Hildy replies, "You bet! For 150 bucks a week!"
"Hildy, you're a newspaper man! Not some faggot writing poetry about brassieres and laxatives," Burns says. 
This departure falls right as a big story involving the hanging of Earl Williams (Austin Pendleton), a scrawny wimp of a leftist dweeb with Communist sympathies, is about to explode. Williams had previously been inserting propaganda demanding the release of murderer anarchists Sacco and Vanzetti into a fortune cookies. 
Walter Matthau, Jack Lemmon and Susan Sarandon in "The Front Page."
Well, somewhere in the process, Williams had "accidentally" murdered a police officer. 
Now, he's on death row waiting for his turn at the gallows. 
As Hildy is saying adios to the newswriting business, Earl Williams escapes prison the night before his execution. 
Not only does he escape, but he also secretly makes his way right into the courthouse next door to his jail. Even more specifically, Williams crashes into the courthouse pressroom where Hildy is sitting by himself after he and his old press buddies have one last hurrah! The rest of the reporters scamper off like a pack of hungry wolves to find Williams. 
Hildy can't resist this whopper of a story in the last few moments of his journalism career. 
It's just him and Williams, and a typewriter. 
Well, Williams's romantic fling, Mollie Malloy (Carol Burnett), an "angel of the pavement" to put it nicely who lurks around the press room to yell at the reporters, barges in to find Williams there with Hildy in the pressroom. 
Hildy dials up Burns to tell him what just landed in the palm of his hand (not referring to Mollie, of course). He gets to writing the biggest story he's ever written all while trying to hide Williams from the police as well as trying to make it to the train station with Peggy to catch a train to Philadelphia for their wedding and honeymoon. Peggy, growing more and more ticked, is willing to catch that train on her own if Hildy doesn't shake a leg.  
I'm biased when it comes to my love of this movie as I was once a news reporter for a paper in Junction City, Kan. I had a few reporting stints before then, but the JC paper is where I really fell into place. 
I'm comfortable in a newsroom. There's something about providing people with news and information that appeals to me. So, "The Front Page" is a movie I love. Plus, having Jack Lemmon and Walter Matthau in it makes it perfectly cast. 
Carol Burnett stars alongside Lemmon and Matthau. As far as I'm concerned, she's one of the best (if not the best) female comedian! And if Lemmon and Matthau had a third member to their unofficial act, it would and should be Carol Burnett.  
In an interview with Conan O'Brien, Burnett said of her performance in this movie, "I was terrible in it. I was just awful." 
Sorry, Carol. Maybe I don't know good acting from bad, but I enjoyed watching you play off Lemmon and Matthau. Maybe there was more your character could have done. Or you could have shared more screen time with them. The chemistry is there. At least it could have been a jumping off point to more projects with them. 
Watching her play against Matthau and Lemmon still feels like a true golden movie moment. She's a perfect addition to Lemmon and Matthau. 
Austin Pendleton and Carol Burnett along with Jack Lemmon. 
Speaking of Matthau, his performance as a gruff editor is spot on. Editors don't care about the personal problems of their writers. A writer could have a story on deadline and wind up comatose in a hospital or unconscious in a ditch. It's in an editor's nature or mindset to hound the writer regardless to get the story done. Don't die now. There's space in the paper that needs filled.
During my stint at the paper, I once had to take a story home to work on it as my wife was heading out for the night and I needed to watch the kids. I still needed to finish a big feature I was working on. I was already passed deadline. So people were waiting for me. Right in the middle of things, my poor wife hit a deer. She was ok. And our newborn who was with her was also ok. But her car wasn't. My editor was sympathetic but frustrated as hell because my feature needed to land on the front page. And the paper needed to be put to bed. 
I finished my story with a lot of sweat on my brow and some choice words muttered under my breath. Mea culpa. 
Anyways, Matthau captures the nature of a newspaper editor wonderfully. They're a bunch of cold, heartless, self-righteous know-it-alls. Cigarettes and booze were invented with news writers in mind first because they work for editors. 
Editors! Their paychecks get them out of bed and the minute hand keeps them going. 
Once, someone pointed out some grammatical errors on this platform. I told this guy "Sorry. I'm a writer. Not an editor."
"Well, why don't you get an editor?"
"What! And take the fun out of blogging?"
The lines and back-n-forth jargon and yelling between Walter and Hildy holds the comedy as Walter schemes to keep his best reporter on. 
"You'd wreck my marriage just to keep me on that crummy paper of yours," Hildy tells Burns.
And the best line Lemmon delivers - "I wouldn't cover the last supper for you if they held it in the pump room of the Ambassador East." 
The supporting cast of news writers are some yellow journalists with a matter of fact, what ya see is what ya get demeanor. News writing is second nature to these clowns, except for Bensinger (David Wayne) who's the dandy storyteller of the bunch. Woo, woo!
You've seen "His Girl Friday" right? Of course you have! I just watched it last night before finishing this post. So, let's compare. 
Vince Gardenia as Sheriff "Honest Pete" Hartman fits the role well. The character is a real stooge for the mayor (Harold Gould). Gardenia matches the kind of character Hartman is - a yes-man who thinks he's a master at hiding his corruption concerned at hiding his corruption and is more concerned at being useful for the mayor than for the taxpayers. 
Gene Lockhart plays the same character in "His Girl Friday", but his depiction is less unlikeable. He isn't as much of a buffoon, though he's still a buffoon, as Gardenia's portrayal. 
"The Front Page" has a lot of humor but with just enough energy to make it entertaining. 
"His Girl Friday" tells a ever-so-slightly different story with Hildy being played by Rosalind Russell, a former wife of Walter Burns and still working as his reporter. So, there's more of a romantic plot. However, "His Girl Friday" has a lot more energy behind it, and just enough humor to hold it up. 
Cary Grant's performance as Walter Burns in "His Girl Friday" goes from his being the jerk of jerks (you know... a typical editor) to likeable (also, typical editor for some fluke reason). 
Matthau in the same role pulls off that same sort of performance with not as much energy as Grant. He makes up for it with hilarious gruffness and a hard exterior. 
Walter Matthau and Jack Lemmon are just as much of a perfect cast for this story as they are in "The Odd Couple" and their later comedy "Grumpy Old Men." 
The image of Jack Lemmon sitting in front of a Royal manual typewriter pounding out a story with sweat glistening his brow, a cigarette dangling from his lips, liquor bottles staggered in front of him, and his tie and collar undone while Walter Matthau looms over him, saying "atta boy, Hildy" is iconic. Their chemistry carries on in their respective performances as a hard-shelled selfish editor and a reporter who'll get the story any way he can.
Lemmon and Matthau are a raucous version of Laurel and Hardy, sort of, in this newsroom comedy. I could easily see Walter telling Hildy, "Well, here's another nice mess you've gotten me into." Instead of crying, Hildy would shout back, "Listen, you lousy baboon. You better start wearing cast-iron shorts because the next time I see you, I'm gonna bury my shoe up your ass, so help me."
No one else could fit this scenario as well as these two guys. "The Front Page" is an underrated classic. 

Tuesday, August 26, 2025

Superman (2025)


Director

Cast
David Corenswet - Clark Kent / Superman
Nicholas Hoult - Lex Luthor
Rachel Brosnahan - Lois Lane
Nathan Fillion - Guy Gardner / Green Lantern
Edi Gathegi - Michael Holt / Mister Terrific
Isabela Merced - Kendra Saunders / Hawkgirl
Anthony Carrigan - Rex Mason / Metamorpho


Superman movies of recent memory, starting way back in 1983 with "Superman III" and including "Supergirl" from 1984, up to today have been met with many unfavorable reviews. 
When news of another Superman movie broke, I heard the same comment from various people. "Another one?" 
With James Gunn in the director's seat after directing other comic-based movies "Guardians of the Galaxy" vols 1 through 3 and "The Suicide Squad," it definitely drew in a ton of attention. 
Some friends of mine say they like "Man of Steel" from 2013 better than this new movie. I haven't seen that since its release. All I remember thinking about it was that it started off slow. I'll have to rewatch it and refresh my memory. 
So, in this new movie, Superman (David Corenswet) once again goes up against Lex Luther (Nicholas Hault), while also facing the evil wrath of fake news and a little cancel culture along with finding himself and coming to terms with who he is.   
Like the 2022 movie, "The Batman" with Robert Pattinson, a lot of audiences seemed to gush over this new Superman movie, treating it as though "Superman" has reached the pinnacle of cinematic art. "Superman" and "The Batman" are, evidently, the greatest of comic book movies to date, so some fans believe.
But, for me, "Superman" is just... alright. I don't see it (nor "The Batman") as being so much different from previous comic book movies. I don't see it as having such depth and highly insightful insight into this well established and largely appreciated comic book character as some claim it does. There really isn't any of that in this movie. 
While I was generally entertained by James Gunn's "Superman" just as much as I enjoyed my popcorn, I wouldn't get so high on its fumes to call it a cinematic masterpiece nor even a great movie. 
But there were some things I did like, such as Lex Luthor's room of brain-controlled monkeys writing mean Tweets and TikToks about Superman. Take your criticism, Gen Z! 
However, that's not to say "Superman" is a terrible movie. Like I said, James Gunn's "Superman" is simply o.k. 
I live in a small town, and the nearest movie theater only shows one film each Friday, Saturday and Sunday. So, "Superman" arrived a bit later than everywhere else. And the theater was only showing it in 3D. I don't care about 3D at all, and my few experiences watching new releases in 3D have been very underwhelming. The theater I went to had the 3D setup perfectly. 
The flying scenes in the movie were great and best experienced in 3D. This movie nailed the shots of Superman in flight. Seeing these shots in 3D was amazing and probably the best parts of the movie for me. Shout out to the Murphy Theater in Stuart, Neb., for a great 3D experience! 

When he's not flying in this movie, it seems Superman spent a lot of time healing in some way. There are one or two moments with Superman fighting to save Metropolis. Otherwise, he's constantly being tortured and beat up, laying down to get better, or coming to terms with himself. Even Lois Lane has a scene where she's questioning Superman to the point of nearly berating him and then criticizes him for getting up to leave and not taking her verbal thrashing.  
Also, Superman's adoptive parents, Jonathan (Pruitt Taylor Vince) and Martha Kent (Neva Howell) aren't portrayed as wise as they've previously been portrayed in past depictions. 
Instead, they're much frumpier, coming across as more country bumpkins than common sense, learned and sensible people. 
In one scene after Superman discovers what his true parents from the planet Krypton really intended for him to do while on Earth (that's a big twist in the film so I won't spoil it), Jonathan Kent tells Superman that the role of parents, referring to Superman's real parents, isn't to tell their kids who they are. Personal choices determine that. That's kind of true.
Well, I think that's a bit too watered down when it comes a parent's role. Sure, we have free will and all that. 
Still, the role of parents is to tell their children who they are. Educate them. Guide them. If that isn't the case, then what's a parent's role? 
Granted, Superman doesn't have to be like his real father from Krypton. But his real father will always be a part of him and continue to have some influence. 
I think Richard Donner's 1978 movie sets the standard for what a Superman movie ought to be. Hollywood has certainly deviated from that thanks in large part of Hollywood's left-leaning political mindset. 
Superman is a figure of Americana who has been lifted up in American pop-culture as being a symbol of American strength, righteousness and morals. Superman is super! So, he fits right into the American way of life. He needs to maintain his stand for truth, justice, and the American way.
In this movie, Superman, "the man of steel" isn't as "super" as we've previously seen him. He's a little too lacking in that major detail. Oh, he's still the man of steel. Despite that, Superman gets pummeled more times than I've ever seen him get pummeled. The moment he appears on screen right at the beginning of the movie, he's knocked down for the count. It's that scene in the trailer where Superman crashes into the ice and snow, and then whistles for Krypto the Superdog to save him. 
In fact, everyone and everything with a red cape in this flick seems like a dunce. Krypto is an annoying pain in the rear. And Supergirl (Milly Alcock), who shows up at the end of the movie, is a bratty drunk girl. Oh, spoiler. Sorry!
I took a lot more interest in the rest of the "Justice Gang" - Green Lantern (Nathan Fillion) and especially Mr. Terrific (Edi Gathegi). There's also Hawkgirl (Isabela Merced). She's a part of things, too. Hawkgirl got annoying real fast, though, as she screeches like a hawk in practically every shot of her flying through the air. I get it. She's a girl hawk representing both girls and large birds within the bird community. Did she need to screech like one (a hawk, I mean) in every scene?  
Anyways, Green Lantern, Mr. Fantastic and Hawkgirl acted much more "super" and really took care of business when Metropolis was under threat. Even Green Lantern, in one scene, calls out Superman for being weak. That's not the word Green Lantern uses, but that's pretty much his point. 
I don't know, nor do I care, how many people were involved with the script, but the plot feels like many writers had their fingers in it all trying to pull it in different directions. And the whims of different writers all found their way into the story. In other words, "Superman" borders on convoluted. 
James Gunn doesn't make Superman that interesting. He doesn't dive into what makes Superman an remarkable hero. Instead, he relies on the hope that audiences already know all about Superman's story and then takes this iconic hero in his (James Gunn's) own personal direction, leaving Superman's greatness to the past. 
He also tosses in a bunch of his own style of humor on top of a lot of plot points and action. I'm not above humor and campiness, even in a Superman movie. I enjoyed that style of humor in "Guardians of the Galaxy" vols. 1 and 2. 
And Superman has to be a bit campy because a character as powerful as he is would certainly appear more frightening for audiences without any of it, more so than what the IP intends. Check out the movie "Brightburn" which shows how terrifying a character like Superman can be if he were to use his superior powers to dominate the entire world. It was produced by James and directed by his brothers, Mark and Brian. 
In this case, the humor was inserted in places where it doesn't belong, and distracted from any necessary insight into Superman's motivations and desires in this story.
In one scene where Lois Lane and Superman are making up after an argument earlier in the movie, as they talk and have a serious moment, Gunn decides to include a giant monster in the background attacking Metropolis while Green Lantern, Hawkgirl, and Mr. Fantastic fight it off. As they're in this serious moment, the audience can see this huge monster in the background destroying everything. It's also destroying a golden moment for the audience to gain any understanding into Superman and Lois. 
Gunn does delve into Lex Luthor's (Nicholas Hoult) motivations, that being jealousy (I guess) of Superman. That's about all the audience gets in regard to character exploration. 
Thankfully, the politics in this new movie is very minimal. There's some slight social commentary referencing the current political climate. But this isn't a movie about all that, especially illegal immigration. You know, because Superman is from another planet and crash lands in the American Midwest rather unexpectedly.  
At least audiences still cheer Superman on for reducing crime. That depiction certainly doesn't reflect today's reality. Reducing crime in our major cities isn't met with the same enthusiasm these days, at least not from one political side that revels in taking to wrong side of insanely dumb arguments. I digress, though. Now, here I go bringing politics into it. 
In another scene Superman and the Justice Gang attack a giant monster unleashed on Metropolis by Lex Luthor and his goons as a distraction while Lex infiltrates Superman's Fortress of Solitude. While the Justice Gang attack this thing, Superman is more interested making sure they don't kill it but rather take it to some space zoo or something to study it. Meanwhile, he's trying to make sure civilians clear the area, which they don't because they're stupid, and even swooshes down faster than a speeding bullet to rescue a random squirrel. That's were Green Lantern calls Superman out for pussyfooting around the situation. What did James Gunn do to you, Superman?     
To be fair, I enjoyed "Superman" as much as I enjoy any other Saturday night popcorn flick. I just don't see what there is to gush over. For me, the best Superman movie is "Superman II" from 1980. In fact, I prefer it over the first Superman movie. That's another discussion for another time.  
The worst is still "Superman IV: The Quest for Peace" but that's also another post for another time. 
Audiences need to know the story behind Superman when coming into this movie as it starts in media res. 
What I did like about the movie, other than the spectacular shots of Superman flying, was the acting. The casting choices are great, especially Nicholas Hoult as Lex. He did a phenomenal job and really put in a convincing performance! Rachel Brosnahan as Lois is also fantastic. And, despite my issues with Superman's portrayal, David Corenswet in the lead role did really well with what he was given to work with. 
James Gunn's "Superman" is mediocre. It did pull me in and kept me invested, albeit disappointed at times. At least it's not worse than "Superman IV," so there's that but that's not saying much. 
Otherwise, if this movie indicates the direction Superman is going, then he needs to turn around and go back the way he came. He needs to be that symbol of strength and integrity. He needs to get back to standing for not only truth and justice but the American way because compared to the rest of the world the American way is still magnificent and truly ideal. Simply put, Superman needs to be super again.   

Tuesday, August 19, 2025

Scavenger Hunt (1979)


"Play to win!"

Director
Michael Schultz

Cast
Vincent Price - Milton Parker
Richard Benjamin - Stuart Selsome
Cloris Leachman - Mildred Carruthers
Roddy McDowall - Jenkins
Tony Randall - Henry Motley
Cleavon Little - Jackson
Meat Loaf - Scum
Scatman Crothers - Sam
James Coco - Henri
Ruth Gordon - Arvilla Droll
Robert Morley - Charles Bernstein
Richard Mulligan -Marvin Dummitz
Richard Masur - Georgie Carruthers
Arnold Schwarzenegger - Lars

The 1979 comedy "Scavenger Hunt" is a movie made in the midst of a subgenre trend I call "chase and race" flicks. I don't know if that's the right term, but that's what I call them.
These "chase and race" movies are generally comedies with a cast of big-name actors, maybe some celebrity cameos, and a story involving characters divided into groups racing for an ultimate prize or goal of some kind. 
Movies such as "It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World," "The Cannonball Run," "Midnight Madness" and "Death Race 2000" are perfect examples of these chase and race comedies. 
"Scavenger Hunt" has all the elements of a chase and race movie, beginning with its star-studded cast being divided into groups and then competing against each other. 
The reason "Scavenger Hunt" jumps out at me and why I wanted to watch and review it, is because of a 1983 Milton-Bradley board game also called "Scavenger Hunt." 
My family owned this game during my youth, and I remember enjoying it. So much so that a few years ago, I ordered the game online and didn't have to pay much for a complete copy.
My kids and I play it from time to time, and they enjoy it, especially my daughter. So, "Scavenger Hunt" has come full circle in my family. 
It's a fun game in which players need to strategize in finding a variety of random items such as trombone, a comic book, a wooden Indian, a birdcage, and other various objects located in different parts of various houses in a neighborhood. Players use cards to maneuver through front yards and rooms, find the items they selected in a particular order, and then race back to their own house to win. The game requires players to make a list of their objects in the order they're picked before game play and then find those objects in the order they've listed them. 
Cloris Leachman, Richard Masur, and Richard Benjamin in "Scavenger Hunt." 
It's worth mentioning that the box art is designed by one of my favorite comic artists, Jack Davis. His caricature artwork was and still is found in practically every issue of MAD Magazine. That's a big plus for me!
I had never heard of the movie "Scavenger Hunt" until I was looking into another movie for a previous post on this blog and stumbled upon the title. 
Of course, I was intrigued. I wanted to know if the board game is based on the movie, or the movie is based on the board game. The answer to both is no. But the game does have enough similarities to the film, aside for the title, to make me wonder if the game which was released in 1983, takes some inspiration from the movie. 
For instance, my kids and I spotted most, if not all, of the objects from the game within the movie. And the center of the movie's plot centers around a board game creator. Also, the characters are given a list of objects which they have to fund in order, if I'm not mistaken. And the characters have to return to a house to finish the hunt. The similarities are there. 
In this movie, Vincent Price plays Milton Parker who's an immensely wealthy game inventor. While playing an electronic game with his nurse, he drops dead. Or, rather Milton Parker passes "Go" for the last time! 
No sooner does he croak that his relatives come barreling to his estate in the hopes of getting at least some inheritance. 
Parker's lawyer, Charles Bernstein (Robert Morley) informs them that Parker's Will states that his $200 estate will be given to whomever wins a scavenger hunt. The rules to this scavenger hunt are all laid out in the Will. 
The beneficiaries will have to form five teams, with each team given a list of 100 items they'll have to find and bring back to a partitioned section outside Parker's house. 
Each item on the lists are worth different points, ranging from five points up to 100 points, depending on the item. 
They can obtain their respective items through any means necessary except purchasing. So, aside from buying the items, anything goes!
Each team has until five pm on the day of the hunt to get as many points as they can. Whichever team has all their items unloaded in their team section and scores the most points by 5:00 will inherit Milton Parker's estate. Let the laughs ensue!
There's a lot of slapstick action followed by more slapstick action. It starts to get exhausting to watch, leaving the audience with an eagerness to see the movie hurry up and end. 
The movie has its funny moments, got some laughs out of me, and has a cast that make the general experience of watching "Scavenger Hunt" engrossing. But none of the celebrity cast manage to save the movie, not even the legendary Vincent Price. He's only on screen for a few minutes at the beginning of the movie. As for the comedy, the humor is thin and repetitive. 
Speaking of cameos, Arnold Schwarzenegger shows up for a cameo as a body builder named Lars. That's a trip!
It's constant movement from start to finish that's all combined into one confusing cluster of cinematic catastrophes. I couldn't keep up with what teams found what objects, or what their schemes were, or what subplots the movie was jumping to. 
The dialogue is just as jumbled as the comedy. The flow shifts around so much, the movie ended with me slack jawed and glassy eyed. There's no room for anyone to pause a moment and catch their breath. 
Its nearly two-hour run time didn't help in that regard. There's just a lot packed into that near two-hours with insane dizzying scene after scene of non-stop goofiness as if it doesn't want the audience to pause from laughing, even for a moment. 
Even the final scene with all the points being counted dragged on. 
"Scavenger Hunt" is an unforgettable film but largely for the wrong reasons. At least the board game allows players to take their time. 

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,...