“Home Alone” (1990)

 Home Alone

Brief Description:

8-year-old Kevin McCallister defends his suburban Chicago home from a home invasion by a pair of robbers after his family accidentally leaves him behind on their Christmas vacation to Paris.

(from Wikipedia)

Date: 1990

Genre: American Christmas comedy 

Running time: 1 hour 14 minutes 

Cast: 

Macaulay Culkin (Kevin)

Joe Pesci (Harry)

Daniel Stern (Marv)

Roberts Blossom (Marley)

John Heard (Peter)

Catherine O’Hara (Kate)

Devin Ratray (Buzz)

Hillary Wolf (Megan)

Angela Goethals (Linnie)

Michael C. Maronna (Jeff)

Gerry Bamman (Uncle Frank)

Terrie Snell (Aunt Leslie)

Jedidiah Cohen (Rod)

Daiana Campeanu (Sondra)

Senta Moses (Tracy)

Kieran Culkin (Fuller)

Anna Slotky (Brooke)

John Candy (Gus Polinski)

Larry Hankin (Officer Balzak)

Jeffrey Wiseman (Mitch)

Ray Toler (Uncle Rob)

Virginia Smith (Aunt Georgette)

Matt Doherty (Steffan)

Kristin Minter (Heather)

Ralph Foody (Johnny)

Michael Guido (Snakes)

Billie Bird (Irene)

Bill Erwin (Ed)

Gerry Becker (Officer #1)

Alan Wilder (Scranton Ticket Agent)

Hope Davis (French Ticket Agent)

Kenneth Hudson Campbell (Santa)

Jim Ortlieb (Drugstore Clerk)

Director: Chris Columbus

Production company: Hughes Entertainment

Wikipedia page

Setting/Aesthetic/Feel: 5/5

First off, I LOVE the homey Christmas aesthetic!!! The lights, the snow, the decorations, the families coming home for Christmas Eve... I LOVE ALL OF IT. It’s amazing. 

Also, although I am not a fan of how mean they are to each other, the big family dynamic of rush and getting in each others’ way as we try to get stuff done, is pretty accurate... ;P 

Characters: 3/5

I just mentioned how I am not a fan of how mean they are. Yeah, I’m not a huge fan of the characters of the film. Kevin’s mother is decent (though she was unfair about the punishment) and his father is decent (though he has his not-so-shining moments too). Kevin himself is a cute kid, even if he’s a bit of a schemer, and has his not-great points (I hate how he talks back to his parents). But after all, the kid is 8 and his family doesn’t treat him very well. Hate Uncle Frank, and why doesn’t Aunt Leslie stand up to him? As for the kids, they’re basically all brats with poisonous tongues. AND I HATE BUZZ. What a horrid, horrid elder brother. And of course Marv & Harry deserve everything they get... I liked Old Marley though. 

Plot: 4/5

Personally, I think the whole forgotten-at-home side of the plot is very realistic. Specially since they counted in the neighbour kid as Kevin initially. I enjoy the way the plot layers Kevin’s adventures and those of his family/mother as they (try to) come home. The part of Kevin being an adult are oddly inspiring. And the comedy side of the story is great... I enjoy seeing what Kevin has planned next through the whole climax! Finally, the ending is pretty awesome. :D 

Theme/Message/Topics: 4/5

I ADORE the church scene. “This is the place to be if you’re feeling bad about yourself.” I would have liked that to be more fleshed out but being it’s a secular film, I was just pleased and surprised that scene was there at all! I also really love the message about courage... The message about family could be a bit stronger but it’s okay. 

Kevin: How do you know?

Marley: I don’t know. I’m just afraid he won’t.

Kevin: No offense, but aren’t you too old to be afraid?

Content: 1/5 (high)

Some drinking + smoking, lying & stealing. Several uses of language: h**l, d**n, d**il, s***, c*ap, a**, probably more. Mostly happens during the climax with the robbers. Kevin flips through a Playboy & mentions no one is wearing any clothes. Buzz mentions nude beaches and girls armpit shaving. There are 1 or more pictures of a bikini-clad model in Buzz’s room. Mentions of Fuller wetting the bed; 2 brief scenes where Kevin is shirtless with a towel wrapped around his middle.

Violence: 3/5 (medium)

Lots of slapstick violence—burning, hitting, getting a nail through your foot, etc. There’s no blood but there is burn scars. It didn’t bother me the second time I watched the film but the first time it did. Threats of violence against Kevin by Marv & Harry (“gonna kill him,” “gonna bite all his fingers off,” etc). Old Man Marley is rumoured to have murdered his family and kept their bodies in his garbage cans, where they’ve mummified (false); he also has a bloody hand wrapped up.   

Overall: 2/5

I love the Christmas theme. And the film is really funny. But I hate the family, and most of all the content is definitely not family-friendly as I was lead to believe it would be. 

“The Hoodlum” (1951)

The Hoodlum

Brief Description:

Vincent Lubeck is a hardened criminal by his early twenties. His mother begs for him to have a second chance, and against the better judgment of the prison warden, Vincent is paroled. His family does everything they can to set him back on his feet. Will Vincent choose to change, or to return to his crimes?

(possibly written by me, possibly taken from Tubi, IMDb, or Wikipedia and edited by me. I forget)

Date: 1951

Genre: American film noir crime drama

Running time: 1 hour 

Cast: 

Lawrence Tierney (Vincent Lubeck)

Allene Roberts (Rosa)

Marjorie Riordan (Eileen)

Lisa Golm (Mrs. Lubeck)

Edward Tierney (Johnny Lubeck)

Stuart Randall (Police Lt. Burdick)

Angela Stevens (Christie Lang)

John De Simone (Marty Connell)

Tom Hubbard (Police Sgt. Schmidt)

Eddie Foster (Mickey Sessions)

O.Z. Whitehead (Mr. Breckenridge)

Richard Barron (Eddie Bright)

Rudy Rama (Harry Hill)

Raymond Bond (Old Man)

James Conaty (Parole Officer W.D. Allen)

Bill Coontz (Gang Member)

Russell Custer (Police Officer)

Rudy Germane (Guard)

William H. O'Brien (Morgue Attendant)

Gene Roth (Prison Warden Stevens)

Director: Max Nosseck

Production company: Jack Schwarz Productions

Wikipedia page

Watch on Archive

(watched on Tubi, where the CCs are wildly inaccurate, by the way!)

Setting/Aesthetic/Feel: 3/5

I haven’t watched many 1950s New York style crime films, so I enjoyed this one. It was also more domestic and focussed on ex-cons, which was a new setting for me. 

Characters: 2/5

The only one I liked was Mama. Poor Mrs. Lubeck! I felt her broken heart. I may or may not have cried during her passionate outburst at the end. Also the Warden. He was very interesting and human. 

John was too harsh with Vincent, and he snapped at the end. I liked Rosa, until she went stupid. Eileen, same. And Vincent I HATED. Oh, I rooted so hard for him at the beginning!! But he just utterly destroyed everyone around him. He was selfish and hateful. He was horrid!!! 

Plot: 2/5

Like I mentioned above, I appreciated the part that it focussed on ex-cons. I was hoping for a big character showdown where the MC finally triumphed even if he went bad a few times. Nope. Instead he broke his mother’s heart, destroyed his brother, and murdered the woman who carried his baby. Indirectly, perhaps, but still 100% his fault. There was no sad, somber note to carry away. I was just frustrated. To be honest, I’m writing this weeks after watching the film, so I may have forgotten some stuff, but I doubt anything could make me feel different about this. 

However, I really liked the themes of the film. Rosa’s and Vincent’s rooftop conversation = food for thought. And it was rife with subtle messages about Vincent and his reasons for being a criminal. Also, Mrs. Lubeck had some great lines, and the scene ranting about the city dump was SO good. And the death scene was epic though. If that had happened sooner, I think Vincent’s life might have been turned around… 

Romance: 1/5

I hate romance triangles. I hate how Vincent led on Rosa and Eileen at the same time. I hate how Rosa fell for him. I don’t understand how Eileen fell for him. WHY do girls always chose to give their hearts to red-flag men who carry their red flags like semaphores??? 

Theme/Message/Topics: 3/5

This was the only part of the film I actually liked. 

A) The theme of how hard it is to come back and rebuild your life after prison or conviction. Even if Vincent had tried—which he did, for like 2 days—he was, as he truthfully pointed out, treated badly. He was always suspected, he was spoken of in very unkind ways, he was shunned… He had a point about how unforgiving society was towards him. 

B) Very subtle but I appreciated how they showed why Vincent was a criminal. Lack of confidence. Seeking self-assurance. Again circling back to how he was treated.

Also, B.2, it was shown how Rosa’s platitudes were so useless.

C) How Forgiveness must be tempered with Justice. And how you can’t save everyone, and must protect others sometimes from people who prove to be bad over and over until they evidence change.

D) How easy it is to be seduced and drawn into paths of evil. 

Stevens: The only extenuating circumstances in Vincent Lubeck’s case is that he has not killed anybody… yet. 

Rosa: Is it so… so difficult to adjust yourself, Vincent? 

Vincent: I came out just like I went in, only smarter. I learned a few things. 

Rosa: It’s better to forget those things. Start with new plans.

Vincent: Forget what? That I was behind there when I’d get out? Life wouldn’t be planned for me and I’d go walking around just like anybody else? When you get out they won’t let you forget. They’re still pointing a finger at you, “something different.”

Rosa: Why don’t you stop yelling, “I’m an ex-con, what are you gonna do about it?”? The only finger pointing at you is your own.

Vincent: Don’t hand me that. Make a mistake once and you’re dead. The cops are always after you, people don’t want you around, everybody wants to play warden. “Keep them locked up, keep them penned in, don’t let them free!”

Content: 1/5 

At least one kiss (stolen, by the way), maybe more. Also a scene with at least one woman in a low-necked dress. Can’t remember anything else, but the main problem of the film is that Vincent decides to steal his brother’s fiancée. That’s the stolen kiss. It continues for most of the movie—she fell for him early on—and eventually she gets pregnant and begs him to marry her. He tells her plainly he had no intention to from the beginning and she means nothing to him. She suicides. Also in the end John tries to kill Vincent, although he loses his nerve finally. 

Violence: 3/5

I remember a shootout where several officers die, and there’s probably other mild violence. 

Overall: 2/5

I’m not sorry I watched it, and it made me think about a lot of stuff. But I can’t really recommend it…

“Hollow Triumph” (1948)

 Hollow Triumph

Also known as The Scar

Brief Description:

On the run from the law and the big-time gambler he just ripped off, thief John Müller assumes a psychiatrist’s identity with unfortunate results.

(from Tubi)

Date: 1948

Genre: American crime drama thriller film noir

Running time: 1 hour 22 minutes

Cast: 

Paul Henreid (John Müller / Dr. Victor Emil Bartok)

Joan Bennett (Evelyn Hahn)

Eduard Franz (Frederick Müller)

Leslie Brooks (Virginia Taylor)

John Qualen (Swangron)

Mabel Paige (Charwoman)

Herbert Rudley (Marcy)

Charles Arnt (Coblenz)

George Chandler (Artell, Assistant)

Sid Tomack (Aubrey, Manager)

Alvin Hammer (Jerry)

Ann Staunton (Blonde)

Paul E. Burns (Harold)

Charles Trowbridge (Deputy)

Morgan Farley (Howard Anderson)

Thom Browne Henry (Rocky Stansyck)

Jack Webb (Bullseye)

Henry Brandon (Big Boy)

Director: Steve Sekely

Production company: Bryan Foy Productions

Based on: Hollow Triumph by Murray Forbes

Wikipedia page

Watch on Archive

(watched on Tubi)

Setting/Aesthetic/Feel: 4/5

Good 1940s feel, with an unusual setting in psychiatry. As for aesthetic, it was dark, gloomy, bitter, hard, and sharp, with crescendos of passion for Müller and Evelyn. 

Characters: 2/5

Ok, so I didn’t love Müller from the beginning. He wasn’t good to Marcy! But I was rooting for a second chance/new life/redemption arc when he met Evelyn… and then promptly lost all liking when he decided to murder a perfectly innocent man to save his own skin (item: because he’d robbed another man). I was also not crazy about Evelyn, because she was so hard, but I felt sorry for her with her obvious rough past and really wanted a new beginning/redemption arc for her too. She was a very interesting character, anyways. As for Frederick, he was the only one I truly felt sorry for. 

Plot: 2/5

I already said a lot about the plot above, specifically what I disliked about it. There was action, but mostly it was just Müller using his brains and people to figure out how to stay safe. Like I said, I did like the addition of the 1940s psychiatry, because that was a new thing for me. 

Romance: 2/5

Why in the world did Evelyn fall for him?? She knew better—but she chose to do it. And it didn’t work, and it just broke her. 

Theme/Message/Topics: 3/5

A sobering real life answer to the popular romantic “love the bad boy and redeem/change/fix him” trope.

A reminder of how you can run and scheme as hard as you can but evilness is always punished—“hollow triumph,” indeed.

A warning about becoming bitter and expecting no good from life.

And more lightly, an interesting perspective on how unobservant and self-centred the average person is. 

Content: 4/5 (medium)

Besides the above: kissing & hugging; language?? 

Violence: 4/5 (low)

Off-screen violence.

Overall: 2/5

A very sobering film, but not one I enjoyed or will watch again. Worth one shot though, I think. 

“Mickey’s Christmas Carol” (1983)

Mickey’s Christmas Carol 

Brief Description:

On Christmas Eve, tight-fisted businessman Scrooge McDuck is visited by the Spirit of Christmas Past, the Spirit of Christmas Present, and the Spirit of Christmas Yet to Come. Is there any chance his frozen old heart will change, and that he can escape the frightful destiny that awaits him?

(written by me)

Date: 1983

Genre: American fantasy drama Christmas animation family TV special

Running time: 25 minutes 

Cast: 

Alan Young (Scrooge McDuck—Scrooge)

Hal Smith and Hannes Schroll (Goofy—Marley)

Wayne Allwine (Mickey Mouse—Cratchit)

Eddie Carroll (Jiminy Cricket—Ghost of Christmas Past)

Will Ryan (Willie the Giant—Ghost of Christmas Present)

Pete (Ghost of Christmas Future)

Clarence Nash (Donald Duck—Fred)

Patricia Parris (Daisy Duck—Isabelle)

Dick Billingsley (Tiny Tim)

Hal Smith (Ratty)

Will Ryan (Moley)

Wayne Allwine (Otto—Beggar)

Wayne Allwine & Will Ryan (Weasels)

Director: Burny Mattinson

Production company: Buena Vista Distribution

Based on: A Christmas Carol by Charles Dickens

Wikipedia page

Watch on Archive

(watched on DailyMotion)

Setting/Aesthetic/Feel: 3/5

It was very Disneyfied—much more so than I expected. Not a bad thing, but still not the Christmas Carol feel. 

Characters: 4/5

Scrooge was good, although his Scottish burr was an unexpected twist. Mickey acted like Mickey playing to be Crachit, which is accurate, haha! And Goofy/Marley drove me crazy, but Jiminy and Willie were cute little (or huge) spirits. Pete was horrid though. 

Plot: 3/5

This film was quite different from the book, from Crachit doing Scrooge’s laundry to Scrooge dreaming of falling into hell (a disturbing moment). I wasn’t a fan of that, although Goofy’s mess-ups did add a bit of humour to a tense scene. 

Theme/Message/Topics: 2/5

I really didn’t find any good theme to this—just an implied “be nice to folks.”

Overall: 2/5

I wasn’t a fan and probably won’t be rewatching. 

“The Teddy Bears’ Christmas” (1992)

The Teddy Bears’ Christmas 

Brief Description:

Sally would like her very own teddy bear and asks Santa Claus for one. Her brother, Simon, teases her about her letter to Santa, whose existence he is a little skeptical about, and at the same time tries to find out what it is she wants. But for her, it is a secret between herself, Santa, and Simon's teddy bear, Ben. When Slurp, the family dog, eats the letter, Ben sets out to find Santa himself even if it means to go unteddy…

(from Christmas Specials Fandom, edited by me)

Date: 1992

Genre: American animated family Christmas TV special 

Running time: 24 minutes

Cast: 

Jonathan Crombie (Ben)

Stuart Stone (Wally)

Kylie Schibli (Sally)

Ryan Lindsay (Simon)

Samantha Rushforth (Betty)

Jim McNabb (Santa)

Director: Paul Schibli

Production company: Lacewood Productions

IMDb page

(more information here)

Watch on YouTube

Setting/Aesthetic/Feel: 4/5

I watched this specifically because I adore The Secret World of Benjamin Bear and this is one of the three movies that inspired the show. It didn’t quite have the setting and feel of SWBB, but it was close. I liked the warm Christmassy aesthetic. 

Characters: 4/5

Again, I watched this show because of SWBB, and I was delighted to find it a backstory about Ben, Wally, Simon, and Sally!! Wally doesn’t show up much in SWBB, but the others are important characters and I was happy to see Ben as a very young teddy. Wally reminded me of Howie. <3 I also liked how Sally & Simon were similar to Max & Eliza but still quite different. And Betty was sweet. I can’t remember if she shows up in SWBB, but I wish she did if she doesn’t!

Plot: 2/5

I didn’t have a synopsis for the film when I watched it, so I didn’t expect Santa and I was not a fan of that part. The mall Santa turned out to be the real deal and I was disgusted at what I expected to be a sweet, heartwarming, sappy Christmas film to become a mere Santa propaganda. It wasn’t even heartwarming anymore because Ben didn’t get to work everything out—I wish he had, it would have been so much more interesting. The Santa bit felt like a cop-out. Up till then, though, I liked seeing Ben’s journey and I’m particularly aggrieved because the plot could have been super well and been a great teddy film à la SWBB—which was what I was expecting. 

Theme/Message/Topics: 2/5

See the Santa rant above. 

Content: 4/5 (low)

Mild euphemisms; some slight sibling fighting.

Overall: 2/5

It wasn’t what I expected but mostly, it could have been so much better. I will check out the other two films though.

“The Berenstain Bears’ Christmas Tree” (1979)

The Berenstain Bears’ Christmas Tree 

Brief Description:

It's Christmas Eve in Bear Country and the Bear Family has everything but a Christmas Tree! Papa Bear and the cubs set out on an adventure to find the perfect Christmas Tree but run into some trouble.

(from YouTube)

Date: 1979

Genre: American family Christmas film

Running time: 25 minutes

Cast: 

Ron McLarty (Papa / Narrator)

Gabriela Glatzer (Sister)

Jonathan Lewis (Brother)

Pat Lysinger (Mama)

Director: Mordicai Gerstein

Production company: Perpetual Motion Pictures & The Joseph Cates Company

Based on: the Berenstain Bears series by Stan & Jan Berenstain

Wikipedia page 

Watch on YouTube

Setting/Aesthetic/Feel: 2/5

Again, it’s the old vintage dull paper feel which I’m not a super big fan of. Also, it’s the old Bernstein bears so everything looks silly and super irrealistic. I didn’t hate it—I just don’t love it. 

Characters: 2/5

Sister & Brother were funny, but Papa was an idiot, of course. The other animals were kinda cute or funny though. 

Plot: 1/5

The whole point of the film was to show Papa was stupid and should obey Mama. Not a fan. I did enjoy seeing the tribulations the bears went through to find a good tree, and the rhyming narration got kinda fun.  

Theme/Message/Topics: 2/5

There was a heavy message of “Christmas is about others”… not exactly the whole message but better than I expected. 

Overall: 2/5

Just not a fan, and feel like I wasted my time. 

“Babar & Father Christmas” (1986)

Babar & Father Christmas

Brief Description: 

In this delightful, fully animated holiday tale, Babar’s children Arthur, Pom, Flora and Alexander write a letter to Father Christmas to ask him to visit Celesteville at Christmas.  But their letter never arrives, because it is stolen by Babar’s arch-enemy, Rataxes the Rhinoceros, who wants all of Santa’s toys for himself! When Babar sees his children so disappointed, he decides to make a journey in search of Father Christmas.  Secretly followed by Rataxes, Babar’s adventure takes us from Paris all the way to the North Pole, to the very toy shop of Father Christmas himself! Can Babar save Christmas for Celesteville?

(possibly written by me, possibly taken from Tubi, IMDb, or Wikipedia and edited by me. I forget)

Date: 1986

Genre: Canadian Christmas family TV special

Running time: 24 minutes

Cast: Laurent de Brunhoff (Narrator)

James Bradford (Babar)

Louise Villeneuve (Celeste)

Rick Jones (Zephyr / Lazzaro / Podular / Mice)

Les Lye (Rataxes / Father Christmas)

Kemp Edwards (Arthur)

Courtney Caroll (Flora)

Amie Charlebois (Pom)

Kai Engstad (Alexander)

Director: Gerry Capelle

Production company: Atkinson Film-Arts and MTR Productions

Based on: Babar & Father Christmas by Jean de Brunhoff 

IMdb page

(additional info)

Watch on YouTube

Setting/Aesthetic/Feel: 3/5

This was a very old Babar movie, much more like the books. The aesthetic was still somewhat similar to the TV show, though. It had a nice vintage feel. I don’t have strong feelings about it. 

Characters: 3/5

Babar was very nice, as was Celeste. Rataxes was just a bumblehead instead of being any fun, and Zephyr + Arthur + the kids were very different from the TV show, much less interesting or amusing. I liked the Professor and his secretary though! It would have been so fun to see more of them. 

Plot: 3/5

I would have liked this a lot more if it wasn’t all about Santa Claus. It was a cute story of Babar travelling and searching for him, but then it began heavily selling the S.C. line and Babar even got magical powers or something at the end when he dressed up as Father Christmas. I was hoping for a heart-warming family movie about the true meaning of Christmas—more along the lines of How the Grinch Stole Christmas or even Miracle on 34th Street. 

Theme/Message/Topics: 1/5

None aside from that Santa exists and gives presents… bleh.

Overall: 2/5

I didn’t hate it until the end. But I wouldn’t watch it again. It was pretty boring and there wasn’t any redeeming features at the end.

“The Monster Walks” (1932)

The Monster Walks

Brief Description: 

The late Mr. Earlton’s monkey hates his daughter, Ruth, and Ruth is terrified of him. She has left home for a while, but due to her father’s sudden death she has returned with her fiancé to read her father’s will. Everything is left to her… but if she dies, who will get it? And is the monkey out to get her?

(possibly written by me, possibly taken from Tubi, IMDb, or Wikipedia and edited by me. I forget)

Date: 1932

Genre: American horror

Running time: 1 hour

Cast: 

Rex Lease (Ted)

Vera Reynolds (Ruth)

Sheldon Lewis (Robert)

Mischa Auer (Hanns)

Martha Mattox (Mrs. Krug)

Sidney Bracey (Wilkes)

Sleep’n’Eat a.k.a. Willie Best (Exodus)

Director: Frank R. Strayer

Production company: Action Pictures

Wikipedia page

Watch on Archive

(watched on Tubi)

Setting/Aesthetic/Feel: 3/5

Good horror movie setting—a thunderous rainstorm and a draughty house. But it felt a little forced to me, since it was only focussed on in “scary” moments and ignored the rest of the time.

Characters: 2/5

I wasn’t fond of Mrs. Krug sometimes but overall she was sweet to Ruth. Ruth was a nice, brave girl if slightly flat and one-dimensional (clearly only meant to be the damsel in distress). The uncle was creepy, Wilkes was weird, Hans felt off, Exodus was the stereotypical “funny stupid black character.” The doctor [Ted] was a nice guy with some character though. 

Plot: 2/5

I thought this was supposed to be an exciting mystery with narrow escapes. Instead, it’s clear who the baddies are from the beginning and what they’re trying to do, and it takes the good guys what feels like an inordinate amount of time to figure it out. Also the ape was NOT scary so I don’t see why he even figured and I felt very cheated. I felt like the whole thing was supposed to be creepy but it just came off silly and weak and dirty. 

Romance: 4/5

Ruth & Ted had a sweet relationship, and I loved how careful he was of her and how he believed her and looked after her without belittling her. 

Content: 2/5 (high)

Illegitimacy; inter-family murdering and attempt to murder; perhaps adultery??

Violence: 3/5 (medium)

Animal mistreatment; two on-screen strangulations. 

Overall: 2/5

I was looking for something to “tickle my brains” and give me some suspenseful animation. Instead it just felt cheap and vulgar and flat.