How the Grinch Stole Christmas&nbsp;

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.

6 December 2022

“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

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.

“Franklin’s Magic Christmas” (2001)

Franklin’s Magic Christmas

Brief Description:

In this delightful holiday special, Franklin and his little sister Harriet embark on an arduous Christmas journey, to find help for their injured Grandpa, from Faraway Farm back to Woodland. Franklin is convinced that “being a big brother is big trouble” until this festive adventure reminds our hero he is very lucky to share this magical Christmas memory with his very special little sister.

(from YouTube)

Date: 2001

Genre: Canadian family Christmas TV special

Running time: 55 minutes

Cast:

Noah Reid (Franklin)

Richard Newman (Mr. Turtle / Great-Grandfather)

Elizabeth Saunders (Mrs. Turtle)

Bryn McAuley (Harriet)

Joyce Gordon (Grandmother)

Eric Peterson (Grandfather)

Luca Perlman (Bear)

Kristen Bone (Beatrice / Young Grandmother)

Mari Trainor (Dr. Bear)

Donald Burda (Mr. Bear)

Chris Wiggins (Mr. Collie)

Araby Lockhart (Mrs. Collie)

Director: John van Bruggen

Production company: Nelvana

Based on: Franklin & Harriet by Paulette Bourgeois & Brenda Clark

Setting/Aesthetic/Feel: 5/5

Okay, I love the Franklin aesthetic & setting. It’s so homey and wholesome and sweet! The farm was delightfully old-fashioned and the woods added a wonderful element of a cozy snowy setting.

Characters: 5/5

I love Franklin. He’s such a sweet, responsible boy. Of course in this film he acts up a little but honestly, as the oldest of 9 siblings, I get him. I have often felt like him. XD I would have loved some apologies and understanding but overall his arc was well done. Harriet was adorable and I was so happy they made her realistic without making her a brat (except when she sneaked out lol). And both the parents and grandparents were awesome, even if they were a tiny bit oblivious to Franklin & Harriet’s issues.

Plot: 4.5/5

This was what I call a mild Christmas story—It would still have been a (great) story if it had been set at any other time in winter. So I appreciated the mix of Christmassy elements like carols and decorations while also being a simple winter tale. As aforementioned, I loved the old-fashioned element brought by Grandma & Grandpa (particularly with the flashback) and the plot of the story was natural and flowed well.

Now, I was skeptical about whether this was really magical or not, which is why I tried the film. There was only a hint of what might be called magic. I see it as fantasy or imagination (I mean, we have talking turtles, why not flying reindeer?) The basic plot is that the reindeer lost his bell and shows up whenever it is rung, and he flies. At the end it’s hinted that the reindeer belonged to Santa and Franklin sees him + the reindeer flying. Harriet + Franklin call the reindeer magic once, but that’s all. Overall, I didn’t have much of an issue with that part, although of course I would have liked it better without.

Also, I loved the part when Franklin & Harriet sang Twinkle, Twinkle, Little Star—the real poem! So unique and beautiful. <3

Theme/Message/Topics: 5/5

The theme was loving siblings + understanding them and taking care of one’s family.

Content: 5/5 (low)

Besides the magic/Santa lines, a little bit of temper from Franklin, as mentioned above, but nothing very shocking/bad.

Overall: 4.5/5

This was a very sweet, wholesome, and unique Christmas movie that could be enjoyed any time of the winter and probably by the whole family with maybe a fast-forward or two at the end.

5 December 2022

“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)

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.

4 December 2022

“How the Grinch Stole Christmas” (1966)

How the Grinch Stole Christmas

Also known as Dr. Seuss’ How the Grinch Stole Christmas!

Brief Description:

The Grinch is a surly asocial green creature with a heart “two sizes too small” who lives alone in a cave atop Mt. Crumpit, located above the village of Whoville. He especially hates Christmas and has always been annoyed by the town's Christmas celebrations. One Christmas Eve, he finally decides to stop Christmas Day from coming to Whoville by disguising himself as Santa Claus, his dog Max as a reindeer and, in a reversal of Santa's visit, stealing all presents, decorations, and symbols of Christmas. Once loaded, he plans on dumping the bags of stolen goods…

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

Date: 1966

Genre: American Christmas family comedy

Running time: 25 minutes

Cast:

Boris Karloff (Grinch / Narrator)

June Foray (Cindy-Lou)

Dallas McKennon (Max)

Thurl Ravenscroft (Singer)

Director: Ben Washam & Chuck Jones

Production company: MGM Television

Based on: How the Grinch Stole Christmas! by Dr. Seuss

Setting/Aesthetic/Feel: 2/5

I am not a fan of dull-bright, papery, over-colourful aesthetics. They're okay in a book—I love Dr. Seuss—but too much on screen.

Characters: 3/5

I hate the Grinch, okay?? He's just abusive towards that poor dog and that was all I could focus on. He’s so not like that in the book! Max was cute and pathetic and funny, though.

Plot: 4/5

Very similar to the book, which I appreciated. I just hated actually seeing the Grinch at his two-sizes-too-small self.

Theme/Message/Topics: 4/5

I liked the theme (same as the book) and seeing how the Grinch changed drastically after his heart sizing up.

Content: 4/5 (low)

As I mentioned, the Grinch was very abusive to his dog. The poor thing was always running away, trembling, cringing. It bothered me very much.

Violence: 4/5 (low)

My siblings thought all the Max antics were hilarious and weren’t bothered by the violence.

Overall: 3/5

I love the book. I was not a fan of the film and don’t plan to watch it again. Sorry. 🤷🏻‍♀️

EDIT: I may, after all, watch it again. Took me 2 tries to like the book. The TV special deserves the same second chance. Expect an update Christmas 2023!

2 December 2022

“Sherlock Holmes: The Case of the Christmas Pudding” (1955)

The Case of the Christmas Pudding

Brief Description:

John Norton, convicted of murder, swears vengeance on Holmes before his execution. The prison is secure, but Holmes is certain Norton will carry out his threat…

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

Date: 1955

Genre: British mystery TV episode

Running time: 27 minutes

Cast:

Ronald Howard (Holmes)

Howard Marion-Crawford (

Watson)

Eugene Deckers

(Norton)

June Rodney (

Mrs. Norton)

Richard Watson (

Prison Governor / Warden)

Sacha Pitoëff (

Constable Smith)

Director: Steve Previn

Production company: Guild Films

Based on: The Sherlock Holmes Series by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle

(more info)

(watched on Tubi)

Setting/Aesthetic/Feel: 5/5

I love Ronald Howard as Sherlock Holmes. I think he best brings to life Sherlock’s character and looks—although Basil Rathbone shows Holmes’ intensity perhaps a little better. Anyways, the Victorian England feels are top notch and there was a distinct Christmassy feel as well, which I enjoyed.

Characters: 5/5

I already mentioned I loooove Sherlock. Watson is a bit more inept than in the books, older and plumper, but he does play an excellent sidekick to this Sherlock, and I love how he, in the end, shone… ;) The constables + warden were very like the books too, and Norton was nicely scary. I felt so sorry for Mrs. Norton though!

Plot: 5/5

A short story but well done and definitely interesting. The dénouement is always a surprise and I like how it tied in one of the original Sherlock stories. I could definitely see this one going down in the original stories.

Content: 5/5 (low)

I remember none.

Violence: 5/5 (low)

A shooting (non-lethal) and someone knocked out. No blood, no real violence.

Overall: 5/5

I adore the 1954–1955 Adventures of Sherlock Holmes series and this is one of my favourite episodes! <3 Such a great short Christmas film.

9 November 2022

“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

(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.

“Night of Terror” (1933)

Night of Terror

Also known as He Lived to Kill and Terror in the Night

Brief Description:

A maniac is roving a countryside, murdering various people and leaving them with newspaper clippings about him pinned to their bodies. The police are at an absolute loss. Inside Professor Rinehart’s home, all attention is focussed on his nephew’s experiment: he has invented a solution to keep people alive without breathing and he will test it out by being buried alive the next day, before the critical eyes of other scientists. But tragedy strikes and murders within the home begin to mount… has the maniac decided to eliminate them all?

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

Date: 1933

Genre: American horror

Running time: 1 hour 2 minutes

Cast:

Bela Lugosi (Degar)

Sally Blane (Mary)

Wallace Ford (Hartley)

Tully Marshall (Rinehart)

George Meeker (Arthur)

Gertrude Michael (Sarah)

Bryant Washburn (John)

Mary Frey (Sika)

Director: Benjamin Stoloff

Production company: Columbia Pictures

Wikipedia page

(IMBd page)

Watch on Archive

(watched on Tubi)

Setting/Aesthetic/Feel: 1/5

I’ve watched several 1940s horror movies and became rather blasé about them because they were very mild. Well, this one was a horror movie and no mistake. The aesthetic was shadowy and dark and creepy. For a horror aesthetic, it was good, I suppose, if you like horror. I don’t. So personally, 1/5.

Characters: 1/5

No one was likeable in this film except for Degar and Sika, and she was in contact with demons, so not very nice in that respect, while he was a liar and was cast as the villain for half the movie, which drove me wild. I don’t like spooky guys. Also he didn’t look one bit Indian—he came across as a German wearing a turban and pretending to be a Ram Dass type of fellow.

Mary was stupid and flirted with the journalist when she was engaged to Arthur. I did like how she stood up for Sika and Degar though. The journalist [Tom Hartley] was loud and rude and forced himself on Mary. The police sergeant [Rinehart] was obnoxious, stupid, and pigheaded. (Sharp-tongued, snappy men in uniform aren’t appealing.) Moses had some of the horrid “stupid-funny black character” stamp, although he wasn’t as bad as some I’ve seen.

I hated Arthur. The aunt and uncle were racist. The scientists were the only indifferently okay ones. And the taxi driver was nice. And I suppose Prof. Rinehart was decent.

Plot: 1/5

A insane serial killer is roving around a house, coming in and out, climbing all over it, killing about five people, and NO ONE does anything about it?! No locking doors and windows, setting guards, calling for a manhunt, NADA ZILCH ZERO?! I know horror movies exist on dumb characters, and I know in real life we’d not know it was horror and probably be dumb too, but Y’ALL. This is downright excessively dumb.

That plot point aside, the mystery was well done in that I couldn’t figure out who did what. However, I thought the whole buried dead alive thing was pretty ridiculous to focus on when people are dropping like flies thanks to a homicidal maniac. (Also that ending is hilarious cheap comedic fright stuff.) And I got tired how overdone the deaths were and how no one cared at the end, and I was really bugged by the first scene because I didn’t need to see a sweet romance being ended by both people being murdered—that scene was super creepy and also HOW DID THEY NOT NOTICE HIM? Maybe I’m just more paranoid than most folks…?!

I know, horror isn’t my thing, okay?

Romance: 1/5

Bleh. I don’t find guys of Hartley’s overconfident stamp appealing. He was straight up wrong in the way he treated Mary and it’s not romantic. I don’t care if “deep down she did love him,” right then she BELONGED TO SOMEONE ELSE and also KEPT TELLING HIM TO QUIT and he wouldn’t. Apparently no doesn’t mean “no,” it means “chase me harder.” I’m not a feminist but I do know a gentlemen should back off when asked to. Fitzwilliam Darcy, anyone?

Theme/Message/Topics: 0/5

No theme. Except maybe that racism is wrong.

Content: 2/5 (high)

A few euphemisms (“d*rn,” etc); smoking; a seance; racist comments against Indians; mockery of a black man; 3 on-screen kisses, two unwanted by the girl. Hartley also gives Mary a bunch of compliments, one being slightly racy for the time.

Violence: 3/5 (between low and medium...?)

No on-screen murders but plenty of “backed up in a corner screaming” shots and several off-screen murders. Plenty of horror. Lots of scary shots.

Overall: 1/5

Yucky and dumb. I wasted an hour on this stuff?

7 November 2022

“Union Station” (1950)

Union Station

Brief Description:

When a young secretary alerts police about two shady characters on her train, they discover the men have kidnapped her employer’s blind daughter. The father is convinced to reluctantly cooperate with police. But the ringleader will do anything to get his money and keep his freedom…

(probably written by me, possibly taken from Tubi, IMDb, or Wikipedia and edited by me)

Date: 1950

Genre: American mystery film noir crime drama romance thriller/suspense

Running time: 1 hour 20 minutes

Cast:

William Holden (Calhoun)

Nancy Olson (Joyce)

Barry Fitzgerald (Donnelly)

Lyle Bettger (Beacom)

Jan Sterling (Marge)

Allene Roberts (Lorna)

Herbert Heyes (Murchison)

Director: Rudolph Maté

Production company: Paramount Pictures

Based on: Nightmare in Manhattan by Thomas Walsh