Mainlining Christmas

Yeah, we probably should have gotten around to this last year when it was relevant, but trying to prioritize the seemingly infinite number of streaming holiday movies is an exercise in futility. By the end of last year it became clear Carry-On was something of a hit, at least to whatever extent that term means for streaming, so... well... here it is now. Cutting to the chase, I liked this one despite a plethora of pretty serious issues. It's the sort of movie that has dozens of things wrong with it but a handful of strengths redeem the experience. In this case, those strengths mostly boil down to Jason Bateman and Danielle Deadwyler elevating this from a tedious unnecessary throwback to '90s suspense flicks to... well... a pretty entertaining unnecessary throwback to '90s suspense flicks. The premise focuses on a TSA employee who dreams of being a cop getting targeted and blackmailed by powerful forces who are attempting to get a chemical weapon onto a airplane on Christmas...

Novocaine is, at least on a surface level, a high-concept action/comedy about a timid man physically unable to experience pain turning his disability into a superpower in order to rescue his girlfriend after she's taken hostage by a group of bank robbers. I say "surface level," because the movie's focus is fixed as much on the character journey of its protagonists as on the comically brutal sequences you'd expect from that premise. Though before we get into that... Okay, first of all, I like this movie overall - I'd give an at least tentative recommendation. However, part of me is a little uncomfortable with the premise. CIPA, the condition the movie's hero supposedly has, is real (though the film conveniently leaves out details such as the inability to sweat and associated health issues). You can read about it here - it's terrifying. The movie does pay lip service to some of the more frightening aspects of the rare condition (the possibility of bleed...

A rare example of a Christmas movie set in June, A Different Kind of Christmas is a 1996 TV dramedy starring Shelley Long (Diane from Cheers) originally airing on Lifetime and supposedly based on a true story about a district attorney whose mayoral candidacy and relationship with her son are strained by the reappearance of her estranged father, Santa Claus. Well, kind of. He identifies as Santa Claus, both professionally and in his personal life, however this isn't a Miracle on 34th Street situation. He knows what his legal name is, he realizes he isn't immortal, and he has a firm grasp on reality. At the same time, it's more than a professional gimmick: he wishes to appear "as Santa" at all times. In a sense, it's who he's decided to become. If you've seen enough documentaries about professional Santas this won't seem all that unusual: the role often elicits a degree of commitment you don't get from conventional parts. Hell, some have gone fur...

This one flew under the radar last year, despite having an impressive cast that includes Danny DeVito, Andie MacDowell, and Wilmer Valderrama (Fez, from That '70s show). This is also a bit unusual, in that it's an English language Italian remake of the 2022 Italian language film, Improvvisamente Natale . The original doesn't appear to be available in the US at present, but it's going on the list of foreign Christmas movies I'll check out if I ever get a chance, especially because the remake is surprisingly good. I say "surprising" for a couple reasons. First, remakes of this sort don't have a great track record - usually, whatever was interesting in the original gets watered down, with the finished product generic and childish. Second, on paper the premise doesn't instill confidence: a family throws a summer Christmas for a young girl who's upset her parents are planning to separate. When I said this "flew under the radar," I may have...

I want to start by acknowledging this is a bad movie. Very bad, in fact. Painful at times. But as bad as this was, it's nowhere near as bad as its reputation implies. This is a film with a 3% on Rotten Tomatoes which holds the record for the most Razzies "won." And... yeah, like I said, it's bad. I didn't like it, I didn't find it particularly funny, and I wouldn't want to watch it again. But after one viewing, it's not even my least favorite Adam Sandler holiday movie (though honestly that review seems so unnecessarily mean-spirited I'm inclined to rewatch Eight Crazy Nights to see if I was being too harsh, or at least as penance for some of the more hyperbolic statements). But based on what I remember, this is in line with other live-action Sandler films I've seen (many of which were also directed by  Dennis Dugan). Jack and Jill is bad. I don't particularly care for Adam Sandler as a comedian, and there is a laundry list of choices in t...

In terms of holiday credentials, "Catch Me if You Can" is appropriately evasive. In a real sense, it both is and is not a Christmas movie: it leverages the holidays in interesting ways and returns to them throughout the movie, but the holidays don't shape the the tone, narrative, or theme the way they might in a romantic comedy or drama with a similar structure. They're a supporting player here and they clearly serve a purpose, but they're not the core of the movie, nor do they occupy the bulk of its runtime. But we'll get to that. First, this is based on the (allegedly) true story of Frank Abagnale, Jr., a conman and forger who wrote a popular (and suspect) autobiography about his life. But true or not, it makes for a gripping, funny, engaging adventure in the hands of one of the best directors of all time. Apparently 1941 didn't sour Steven Spielberg on Christmas forever, so here we are. The movie is driven forward by the various cons and tricks Frank (...

Before I even attempt to describe this 1929 silent German film, it's worth noting this movie is - in my opinion at least - bonkers in ways no movie with synchronized sound I've encountered approaches. The plot seems to be largely pulled from its source material, a pair of plays by Frank Wedekind detailing the life and death of Lulu, a fictional woman whose sexual charisma and liberality seem to bring about destruction. What makes this more than garden-variety misogyny is the fact that while Lulu certainly isn't blameless, virtually every turning point leading to a character's death, destitution, or corruption is instigated by a male character. The film examines the way society blames women for roles it forces upon them. It's not really Lulu who's responsible for the majority of what occurs, but rather those around her. Or at least that's my interpretation. I find silent pictures harder to analyze than the talkies we're all more familiar with due to the i...