Yep, I loved The Descendants as much as you did, Andy (although my theater experience was thankfully not as painful as the one you described...the only sour notes for me were the EIGHT trailers adding a full 20+ minutes to the films running time ). Clooney is superb, the photography is gorgeous (and blissfully free of Teal & Orange bullcrap), and the mellow Hawaiian soundtrack was the perfect accompaniment to the films low-key sense of drama. I hope we won't have to wait another seven years(!) for Alexander Payne's next film.

Scrooge (1970) 7 of 10
=Yes, Andy, I watched my nice regular DVD version complete with the Overture I like so much. (The lush orchestral arrangement of "You" and "Happiness" is absolutely lovely). I've found that because I regard the script to be the weakest of the major Dickens adaptations I've seen, that it's usually best for me to see this first at the start of the Christmas season and save the versions I find superior like Sim and Scott for later. This way the flaws I see in the script stand out less and I can appreciate the things I do like better, such as the atmospherics and the cinematography and some good performances.

=Yes, Andy, I watched my nice regular DVD version complete with the Overture I like so much.

Never said I didn't like the Overture.

I can select the Overture on my PC's networked hard drive, pipe it through the speakers, and then put on the Blu-Ray with very little effort. I'll take THAT over the blurry, patently inferior transfer of the standard def DVD any day.

I've found that because I regard the script to be the weakest of the major Dickens adaptations I've seen,

I'm not directing this at you Eric, but I've grown to believe that many viewers' favorite Christmas Carol movies are the ones they grew up with. The Sim version is very good but I also find it dated and his performance as hammy and theatrical as Finney's (if not more so given that it's not a musical), yet the critical consensus -- mostly from viewers older than my generation -- is that it's far and away the "gold standard" for its adaptation. I'm not sure I'd agree with that. For its fidelity to the source? Maybe, but in terms of a movie on its own? Sim is so hammy in it that my wife made me turn it off last year when I put on the BD.

I still think it's a fine film and I own the new Blu-Ray (which btw has a much better transfer than the original one), but I don't think it's head and shoulders beyond many other fine CC movies that followed. For me it's probably more that it was the first one that really did the story justice on-screen and baby boomers always think of it first.

BTW not that you would be interested necessarily, but I would avoid the '35 SCROOGE Blu-Ray which comes from a cut-down print (in addition to the fact that it's not that great in the first place!).

I don't doubt what you say on that point, Andy, that people gravitate toward what they're more comfortable with, though I'm a partial exception in that "Scrooge" was really the first film version of the story I was exposed to as a child and the first time I caught Sim on TV as a child I found the "Christmas Past" sequence overly long and laborious. It wasn't until I was reintroduced to Sim at about 15-16 that I reassessed it and changed my mind, and it was chiefly because I'd come to realize that things like the long Christmas Past segment were it's chief assets. Plus, the grittier B/W quality lent it a more "documentary" style quality in contrast to the over-glossiness of the 38 MGM version (which itself has its own script problems).

OTOH, I have found that i generally have no use for versions of the story made after Scott's in 84. I saw Stewart's version once and wasn't impressed and haven't bothered with any other screen versions since. Each year, I give myself time only for MGM-38 (more because it's a fascinating look at MGM's style of production in that era), Sim, Finney and Scott plus the great Focus On The Family Radio Theatre adaptation that utilized the script from Sim and most of the features from that version simply because, as they noted, they found that the Sim script managed to flesh out the story and expand on the themes of Dickens so beautifully that it was at times hard to tell where Dickens ended and the Sim script began.

There are a couple flaws in Sim's version, though I'd never call his performance "hammy". Reginald Owen's in the 38-MGM and Finney's would tend to fall more in that category from the film versions I've seen. Just my take.

Of course what this gets back to is the remarkable ability for us to enjoy so many different versions of the story. It's so obvious that for so many, one is never sufficient!

I agree Eric! I should see the '38 version again, been a long time.

Scrooged (1988): 3/10

Wow...time has not been kind to this rancid cup of eggnog. I haven't seen this since I was a kid back in the late 80's, and seeing it as an adult today, it's the worst kind of overblown, tacky, soulless big budget comedy that could only exist in the 1980's. For every Ghostbusters or Beetlejuice that clicked, there seemed to be half-a-dozen high concept stinkers like this. Bill Murray mugs up a storm, but even taken as dark satire, there's a shocking lack of mirth on hand, replaced with painful slapstick and a totally bogus "redemptive" finale that rings hollow. The fake TV programming at the beginning of the film is pretty much indistinguishable from the actual movie they inhabit, and the end result is a dark, twisted, cold lump of coal lining my Netflix stocking. Bah, humbug.

Monterey Jack wrote:Scrooged (1988): 3/10

Wow...time has not been kind to this rancid cup of eggnog. I haven't seen this since I was a kid back in the late 80's, and seeing it as an adult today, it's the worst kind of overblown, tacky, soulless big budget comedy that could only exist in the 1980's. For every Ghostbusters or Beetlejuice that clicked, there seemed to be half-a-dozen high concept stinkers like this. Bill Murray mugs up a storm, but even taken as dark satire, there's a shocking lack of mirth on hand, replaced with painful slapstick and a totally bogus "redemptive" finale that rings hollow. The fake TV programming at the beginning of the film is pretty much indistinguishable from the actual movie they inhabit, and the end result is a dark, twisted, cold lump of coal lining my Netflix stocking. Bah, humbug.

I'm not a fan of the movie either. I do like it more than you MJ, but I think most critics got it right back in '88 saying it was soulless and something that probably sounded much more appealing in concept than execution. Even when I saw it in 8th grade I wasn't crazy about it.

You can only imagine how ego maniacs like Murray and Donner failed to get along on-set if the reports were correct!

I've never actually seen Scrooged. I do know that the idea was hatched when Art Linsen was in a meeting with studio executives, and had a sudden epiphany when he realized A Christmas Carol was in the public domain, and he suggested "How 'bout a modern take on the Scrooge story!"

To justify picking FSM's TV Omnibus set as my free selection when making a big order from Screen Archives, I got two of the TV movies in the set from Warner Archive.

The Phantom Of Hollywood (1974) 7 of 10.
-The story is a so-so take overall on the "Phantom Of The Opera" theme and at 73 minutes is a bit too short to be properly developed. But the value of this production of course is its up and close and personal view of the MGM backlot in decay and being destroyed. It's fascinating to see the juxtaposition of shots of the decrepit backlot with scenes from vintage MGM movies, and I also was fascinated to recognize right away a street that I had just seen on an episode of "Combat" a few days before.

The Deadly Tower (1975) 5.5 of 10
-Kurt Russell effectively breaks out of his Disney rut with his chilling performance as the Texas Tower sniper, but the production itself has way too much the whiff of agenda sermonizing, and when I discovered that a deliberate effort was made to puff up the role of the one Hispanic police officer who took Whitman down (even to the point of altering the ethnicity of his wife into a fellow Hispanic so we could get a lot of nonsense about racial discrimination) while zapping from existence his partner who was more likely the one who gunned down Whitman, I could only shake my head in amusement at how this technique of altering what was compelling enough history to tell an interesting and chilling story for the sake of meaningless agenda stuff is not a phenomenon of recent decades.

Pirates Of The Caribbean: On Stranger Tides (2001): 5.5/10

Meh. Certainly less funereal and dreary than the unendurable third film, and Penelope Cruz is fetching in her pirate wench duds, but the series is really coasting on fumes at this point. Watching Depp's limp-wristed mincing now is like meeting a really good Jack Sparrow impersonator as a Disney theme park...it's damn close, but no cigar. At least I could follow the plot this time (sort of), and it's not 165 bloody minutes long, yet it's curiously joyless and routine, an easy paycheck for everyone involved but a slog for the viewer.

And the 10-second-long Judi Dench cameo...huh?

Amistad

I don't why I never went to see this when it was first released, but I finally gave it a look (based on the recommendation of both Andy and another friend).

Wow -- this may well be Steven Spielberg's BEST film! I found it more powerful than Schindler's List, and far, far more dramatically potent (and narratively cohesive) than Saving Private Ryan. The cast is superb, and I admired the willingness of so many "name" actors to participate in an ensemble piece, with no one specific star.

Spielberg depicts the utter, unimaginable horrors endured by African slaves with a visceral candor (again far-exceeding -- to my mind -- his similar efforts in other historic films). The art direction is superb, and the authentic New England locations (Providence, Mystic Seaport) well-utilized. Januz Kaminski's photography is some of his best, and I'd say the look of this film is overall inspired by Ridley Scott's The Duelists (and why not, since Scott's film is still probably the best-looking 19th century period piece to date?).

John Williams' score is introspective and understated -- yet powerful. His lengthy cue over the final trial scene is especially impressive (and I was amazed at his ability to follow and musically compliment Anthony Hopkins' lengthy monolog).

An extraordinary film, which I should have gotten 'round to seeing long before now.

Amistad is one of Spielberg's most underrated "serious" films. I don't know why critics turned their noses up at it back in 1997, aside from the sour taste left behind by that summer's The Lost World.

Have seen a lot this week. New column is now posted, here are some very brief comments (the digest version):

DONT BE AFRAID OF THE DARK 6.5
This movie almost gets to where it wants to go, but doesn't quite make it. A few fun scenes, but quite obviously it was shot for a PG-13 audience seeing as kids would probably be the only ones scared by it. The creatures are seen too early and often, and it could've used some playful instances of dark comedy, which it seems to be crying out for. On the plus side: good performances and atmosphere. Not bad, just not what it could've been.

COLOMBIANA 6
Typical Luc Besson Euro-trash thriller looks great and Zoe Saldana looks even better. Apparently this began life as the Professional sequel we'll (I'm guessing) never see. It's pretty routine but watchable if you're in the mood for it, or Saldana.

FINAL DESTINATION 5 5
What else? Routine, as every one of these films has been. I'm guessing it was probably more fun in 3-D too.

STRAW DOGS 4
Unnecessary remake of the already-overrated Peckinpah film. Decent first hour before it all goes to hell in the second half. Pass.

APOLLO 18 1
What a piece of crap. Quickie Dimension cheapie is fun for about 10 minutes before astronauts take off for the moon and find "space spiders" in moon rocks. They should've combated them with Tang. Painful.

I'm surprised you didn't mention Marco Beltrami's score to Don't Be Afraid Of The Dark, Andy, as it's one of the composer's best efforts to date...spooky, melodic and all-around effective. It pisses me off that any piece of crap written by Hans Gregson-Jablonsky gets a CD release, but this film's soundtrack album got cancelled at the last minute.

Monterey Jack wrote:I'm surprised you didn't mention Marco Beltrami's score to Don't Be Afraid Of The Dark, Andy, as it's one of the composer's best efforts to date...spooky, melodic and all-around effective. It pisses me off that any piece of crap written by Hans Gregson-Jablonsky gets a CD release, but this film's soundtrack album got cancelled at the last minute.

I didn't really find myself having an opinion one way or the other on the music -- I'm glad it was orchestral and it was moody enough, but at the same time, I found that if anything the film had too much music and was overscored in certain places. I feel your pain though, I don't much pay attention to what newly-released film albums are being released these days, but that's just ridiculous it didn't get a release. Certainly was better than anything from the Media Ventures crew.

Beltrami in general I'm not a huge fan of, but I know some folks like his stuff (I did like his music for SOUL SURFER earlier this year, which was lovely). I do like him generally more than Desplat, whose music has nearly always left me cold. (I was going to go on a rant here, but why bother? It's Christmas!).