Music and Philosophy: Book Review

Douglas Adams Existential Philosophy: The Restaurant at the end of the Universe

Introduction

For my book review, I chose the second book of three in his six part series, The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe. I could write a book on all the philosophical messages in this series but I chose this book because it touches on the subject of music and Adams philosophy on music. His books are all existential works if one is willing to look past all the science fiction and comedy that they are known for. Like Doctor Who, the laughs and the science are merely vehicles to convey philosophical points. Restaurant has many various philosophical messages that I will discuss in this paper but I will start with his critique of Music and the arts, specifically the case of Hotblack Desiato.

Music: Hotblack Desiato

“The Universe…1) Area: Infinite: bigger than the biggest thing ever and then some. Much bigger than that in fact, really amazingly immense, a totally stunning size, real, ‘wow, that’s big’ time. Infinity is just so big that by comparison, bigness itself looks really titchy. Gigantic multiplied by colossal multiplied by staggeringly huge is the sort of concept we’re trying to get across here…6) Art: none. The function of art is to hold the mirror up to nature, and there simply isn’t a mirror big enough—see point one.” (Adams, 1980)

            The above quote sums up Adams view of reality—a cynic, a critic, but hopeful and hilarious. There is no music-technical theory in this work and so neither will there be in this paper, only existential question and attempt to answer. Hotblack Desiato is the creator of the ‘plutonium rock’ band, Disaster Area, from the Gagrakacka Mind Zones. The band is “generally held to be not only the loudest rock band in all the Galaxy, but in fact, the loudest noise of any kind” (Adams, 1980). Essentially, Disaster Area is the polar opposite of John Cage. Part of the bands artistic style is to, at concerts, fly autopilot spaceship into a star, which then explodes. Their songs also reflect this, they “mostly follow the familiar theme of boy-being meets girl-being beneath a silvery moon, which then explodes for no adequately explored reason” (Adams, 1980).

            The music is so loud that the band remotely controls their instruments from a ship orbiting a different planets while the audience is typically situated in a concrete bunker thirty-seven miles from the stage.

            Is this music? Is this art? What is Douglas Adams trying to say about music? To begin with, when Adams is talking about Hotblack Desiato & Disaster Area he also mentions that the band is seen as one of the worst in the history of the galaxy and that because of this, they are also one of the most popular. It is clear what Adams means by this—it is a critique of what society declares as good and popular. This view of Adams is similar to Danto’s idea that in order to judge art properly, one must be educated about art, the history of art, various creative forms and styles, and the  artists own background. This is also similar to a much older concept dating back to the days of Plato, who said that to truly be a philosopher; one must be at least thirty years old so that they will have had enough life experience and education. Funny enough, this is the typical age that people graduate with a PhD. Adams is simply suggesting that the public at large does not understand what good quality music is. Adams concept of Disaster Area is also a critique of the first days of metal and punk, which were beginning to creep up when he wrote this account of Desiato. Music that is extremely loud and includes random explosions

            The band’s performances are certainly artistic, the audience has found the perfect way to listen to the music, albeit it is 37miles away in a concrete bunker, but there is a specific perspective to listening to Disaster Area. I therefore conclude that at the very least it is sound art—and the spaceship crashing into a star and then the star exploding, though expensive and a bit excessive, is still a statement, a statement on what, I’m not sure but regardless, the performances of Disaster Area are art. The next issue to tackle is whether or not it is music. It is at least musical and it is widely accepted as music. With the limited description of the band and everything that we have learned over the semester, I would say that the stylings of Hotblack Desiato are in fact music. I would say it is bad music but that is just my opinion and the opinions of most of the fictional galaxy of Adam’s works. I can safely say that Adams does like classical, jazz, and rockabilly as indicated throughout the rest of the series.

This all being said, I am not fully convinced that Disaster Area’s sound-art is music, it is a question, which should have further debate. We have discussed the question of how long can pauses in music be before it ceases to be music as well as silence as music, which we determined as not music—but what about volume? Does music cease to be music at a certain volume? Should there be a limit on how loud music can be to be considered music? If the answer to these questions is yes, then at what point is music too loud to be classified as music?

The Dish of the Day: An Ethical Quandary

This next philosophical endeavor is unrelated to the field of music, however, since this is a book review for a philosophy class, I feel that this, being the other philosophical statement in this book should be examined While the main characters are at the restaurant (at the end of the universe), they are asked if they would like to meet the dish of the day—to meet the meat. People got so tired of the bickering of animal cruelty that they genetically engineered a bovine like creature that is specifically bread to be eaten. This animal wants to be eaten; its only purpose in life is to be consumed. This raises a huge existential and ethical question. It goes back to the problem of ignorance with the question ‘is a slave a slave if they don’t know they are enslaved?’ Essentially, it refers to the main philosophical message of the Matrix film series, which goes back to Plato’s Cave.

Douglas Adams has this great way of introducing a potential solution to a problem but adding something extra. As it stands now, the argument for the exploitation of animals, is, as we have said in class, they are failed humans and therefore have less intrinsic value than people have have and therefore, humans can do whatever they want to them. This argument is founded on the principle that animals, though sentient, are not as self-aware and intelligent as people are. If people could prove that a certain species of animals say, chickens, for example, actually wanted to be eaten and that furthermore, people could prove that chickens are meant to be eaten by people and that is their sole purpose in life, the debate, at least in the case of chickens would be settled. However, the problem with the ‘dish of the day’ scenario is that the bovine-like creature depicted in The Restaurant as the End of the Universe is in-fact relatively close to the average intelligence of a so-called higher-thinking being such as humans. This animal can not only express its intense desire to be killed and eaten, but also can articulate this in a very sophisticated manner and therein lies the conflict.

We are left with the question of is it any more or less ethical to kill and cook (actually in the books scenario the beast kills itself after assuring the patrons that it will be very human about it) an animal if it can articulately express how much it desires to be dinner but at the same time, is also as intelligent as a typical person without a survival instinct or a will to live. Is it ethical to kill anything for consumption in the first place especially when it is not necessary to ones actual survival? The book actually makes the joke that vegetables are extremely intelligent but have no way of expressing it so in fact it is more ethical to eat the beast that wishes to be eaten. What do you think?

Conclusion

            Douglas Adams was a wonderful man who is certainly missed. His works were all very philosophical as well as having socio-political significance. Like Monty Python, which he worked with, all the meanings are done with satire and laughs and like Doctor Who, which he also worked on, the vehicle used to get these messages across is science fiction. I believe that comedy and sci-fi both work well to convey certain ideals, which is why novels and shows like these are so successful. We may never have a decent definition of music or art but we will continue to ask these questions because, as Adams pointed out repeatedly, philosophers constantly ask these questions knowing they will never get answers, and that is why they all still have jobs.

In Loving Memory:

Douglas Adams

March 11^th, 1952 – May 11^th, 2001

Sunday, December 18^th, 2011 3:40 PM

Edited: Wednesday, December, 21^st, 2011 12:10 PM

References\Citations\ Bibliography

Adams, Douglas. The Ultimate Hitchhiker's Guide: Five Complete Novels and One Story. New York: Gramercy, 2005. Print.

Bowie, G. Lee., Meredith W. Michaels, and Robert C. Solomon. Twenty Questions: an Introduction to Philosophy. 6th ed. Australia: Thomson/Wadsworth, 2007. Print.

Colfer, Eoin, and Douglas Adams. And Another Thing--: Douglas Adams's Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, Part Six of Three. 1st ed. New York: Hyperion, 2009. Print.

Hamilton, Andy. Aesthetics and Music. London: Continuum, 2008. Print.

Hardcastle, Gary L., and George A. Reisch. Monty Python and Philosophy Nudge Nudge, Think Think! Chicago, IL: Open Court, 2006. Print. Popular Culture and Philosophy.

Hinman, Lawrence M. Contemporary Moral Issues: Diversity and Consensus. 3rd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2006. Print.

The Matrix. Prod. Andy Wachowski and Larry Wachowski. Dir. Andy Wachowski and Larry Wachowski. By Andy Wachowski and Larry Wachowski. Perf. Keanu Reeves. 1999.

Newman, Sydney. "Doctor Who." Doctor Who. Prod. Verity Lambert. 1963-2011. Television.

Film Reviews: Christmas Edition 18: Twilight Zone: Night of the Meek

In memory of

Rod Serling

December 25^th, 1924 – June 28^th, 1975

(That’s right, born on Christmas)

Today’s Christmas film review is on a fantastic story from Rod Serling: The Twilight Zone: Night of the Meek. This is episode 11 of season 2, I also watched the remake of it from the 1985 reboot of the show which is season 1, episode 30.

Night of the Meek is about a depressed and drunk man, named Corwin, who is right above the poverty line and is a Santa Claus at the local department store. He gets depressed when he sees the world and all its problems and wishes there was a real Santa Claus so that the poor children of the world would get gifts on Christmas. The wealthy, or for that matter, the well of children really don’t need a Santa Claus, their parents typically get them most of what they want—this is Corwin’s philosophy. All he wants to do is give the poor of the world a great Christmas.

After being fired from his Santa job, he stumbles upon a back full of trash one second and the next full of gifts—the bag will give whatever is asked for in the hands of Corwin. Corwin, overcome with joy, begins to hand out presents to everyone in the slums. The police are called in because it is assumed Corwin has stolen all of the gifts from somewhere, perhaps the very department store he worked for. The bag quickly goes back to being full of trash and in the end, Corwin pulls out the gift that the manager of the store who accused Corwin of stealing, asked for.

When the night is almost over and Corwin has handed out presents to everyone, he asked if there was anything left for him. However, he got the greatest gift of all, to be the world’s biggest gift giver, he only wishes he could do it every year—and sure enough he gets his wish.

I love the original version of this—in fact, the first time I saw it, it made me cry. The ending when Rod Serling gives a little speech is beautiful. The remake is great too but I recommend watching the original first. I give the original a 5 out of 5 and the remake 4.5 out of 5.

Music and Philosophy: Final Musings of the Semester

This is the final official music and philosophy blog of the semester. I do plan to continue with the blog however even after the semester is over, so if you are still interested in music and philosophy, check back once in awhile.

I agree with what Johnson said at the end of class today about blogging and I wish I had blogged more often—I just get a bit absentminded every now and then. I hope everyone saw the blog posts not directly called music and philosophy but included music and philosophy. They are all under the Music and Philosophy blog page. In addition, I hope you all checked out the existential blog post about music and zombies—the link can be found on the same page as the rest of the MP stuff. I will miss the class and all the fun conversations and unfortunately, I will not be in Lit and Phil with Johnson but I will certainly be in his Epistemology class next fall as well as Paul’s existentialism class. Like with the other holidays, I will leave you with some Christmas music suggestions. There are so many in various genres so I will just list a few:

The Heavy metal version of Must be Santa by Paincakes

O Tannenbaum and Christmas Time Is Here by Vince Guaraldi

There are so many others but I need to post this blog so I can go to dinner and pack.

“So much time and so little to do. Wait, strike that…reverse it.”

Music is like art, music is a type of art so I guess music is art, not like art….what I mean is that both terms are hard to define and pin down. We know that a cookie is not music. The cookie could be used to make music but the cookie itself is not. Like with art in general, I think the best way to define music is have an open definition to allow for future innovations but at the same time a definition that can conclusively say what is not and should never be music. I think I started a good framework of a definition like this in my last QA, which is also accessible on this blog, again simply go to the music philosophy page. I will also post my book review today or tomorrow for whoever is interested.

Thank you all for the great discussions and a great semester. I look forward to seeing any of you in my classes in the spring. I can easily say you are all creative talented thinkers and artists of various kinds and I wish you all a wonderful break, a safe journey to and from, and a Happy Hanukkah, Happy Yule and Winter Solstice, Merry Christmas, Happy Kwanzaa, and a Happy New Year!

Feel free to continue checking out the blog. I plan to work more on the philosophy side over break, talk more on art, zombies, politics, film, books, and anything else I think I should post.

Goodnight and Good luck

Dasvidaniya

Film Reviews: Christmas Edition 17: A Christmas Carol 2009

“If I could work my will every idiot who goes about with 'Merry Christmas' on his lips, should be boiled with his own pudding, and buried with a stake of holly through his heart!”

So my final verdict of the various versions of A Christmas Carol I have seen, in order from my favorite and what I consider the best, to the worst:

1984, 1970, 1938, 2003, 1951, Muppets, 2009

I finally watched the 2009 Disney version of A Christmas Carol. By now, I have nothing to say about A Christmas Carol, but plenty to say about this version

This version was hailed for being verbatim—word for world from the original dialogue. This is somewhat true; it is not 100% verbatim, close, but not fully. There are also a few things thrown in that did not happen in the story.

What follows is a list of everything wrong with Disney’s A Christmas Carol 2009.

First off, the main complaint that the movie was made too zany and silly is true—well, it is not very zany, but it does have the Disney feel. Also like Disney, all the children’s faces, except for Tim’s, are like fat little Cherubs and because of the CGI, I got to say, I found most of the faces really creepy and disturbing because normal people don’t look like that. Another thing that I really did not like was when the spirits and Scrooge would be traveling thru the air—I do not know, maybe it is because a few minutes before, I had had a poptart and some Coke, but those scenes made me slightly nauseous. I didn’t feel like I was actually going to vomit, but I definitely did not like how these scenes made me feel.

The best part—the real WTF moment of the film, is when Scrooge is listening to the business men casually talking about his death and one of them clearly just did some cocaine—I am not even kidding. Now I know that this was common and not even illegal at the time but what the hell was the point of putting that in there? It is completely unnecessary to the film in every way. I know that the kids watching the film will be totally oblivious to this most kids don’t know what cocaine is and it is only for a brief second but this is a kids movie, so who was it for? I understand putting subtle adult humor in kids films so that the parents will be able to enjoy it more, but this wasn’t humorous it is just “oh look, that guy just did cocaine”, I mean it is really out of nowhere.

Another thing that is totally unnecessary is the Ghost of Christmas Yet To Come chasing Scrooge around the poor parts of London and then zombies come out of nowhere while he is being chased by Death, and then he shrinks for no reason! What the heck is going on?

Furthermore, the Ghost of Christmas Present dies in a really creepy way: while he is still laughing he starts to turn to dust even when he is just bones and eyeballs, he keeps laughing.

I will give the film some credit, it certainly had a few creative ideas—most of them I thought sucked—but it was creative. Jim Carrey actually does a good job portraying Scrooge; of course, he portrays practically half the characters as well. I did not like how when the ghosts would mock Scrooge for things he had said, they would imitate his face or the faces of others—it was somewhat stupid. I also feel that Zemeckis took the description of the Ghost of Christmas Past excessively literal because he looks like an actual candle. Again, creative but I did not like it. Or how the Ghost of Christmas Present traveled around with Scrooge in a spirit form of part of his house—just stupid.

I feel that even though the CGI made it easier to do many things, I think this version would have been better if it had been live action or even animated.

Overall, it is not that bad of a film—it is not my least favorite adaptation of A Christmas Carol, just the one that has the most things wrong with it and the most things I thought were bad. Therefore, in the end I give it 2.5 out of 5 for A Christmas Carol adaptation and 2.9 out of 5 as a film in general.



I guess at this point I should briefly mention another A Christmas Carol I recently watched—the 2003 version.

Not much to say about this one. Patrick Stewart plays Scrooge and he does a fairly decent job. This version is unique because like the 2009 version, it starts with Marley’s death just like in the book. I thought the affects were shoddy but the scene transitions were nice. Marley’s spirit was also different this time and I liked the portrayal of Scrooge and Isabelle’s love story. Scrooge is shown as a more sympathetic character from the beginning, more bitter and rude than an ass. The Ghost of Christmas Present showed Scrooge a prison which I have never seen in another version—I really liked the 2003 version’s Ghost of Christmas Present as well as The Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come and the scenes about death.



Film Reviews: Christmas Edition 16: It’s a Wonderful Life

In memory of

James “Jimmy” Stewart

(Wonderful actor, winner of an Academy Award, Lifetime Achievement Award, and Brigadier General in the USAFR)

May 20^th, 1908 – July 2^nd, 1997

“Boys and girls and music…why do they need gin?”

Like with A Christmas Story, It’s a Wonderful Life is a timeless Christmas Class—more timeless I might add, released in 1946 and still doing very well. However, unlike A Christmas Story, It’s a Wonderful Life is only shown on one channel once a year on Christmas Eve.

There are few things to be said about this movie that haven’t been said before, but I’s still like to give a review for those who love the film and would like to hear someone else’s ideas about it and for those who have yet to see it. Trust me, there are people who have not seen it, one being my girlfriend until last night when we watched it together and she fell in love with it.

First, I know this story is getting a bit old, but I wanted to again, make fun of Fox news for calling The Muppets a communist propaganda film. If any film should be called out for its potential anti-capitalistic ideals, it is It’s a Wonderful Life. The main antagonist is like a real life Scrooge who never got visit from spirits but actually spends and enjoys his money. Mr. Potter is the wealthiest man in Bedford Falls. He owns more than half the town, is without a doubt a bastard— he is cruel, conniving, only concerned with profits, and disregards the intrinsic value of human life. Not to mention the fact that the world where Potter owns everything is a world of vices and anger.

This beloved classic that was made during the 40’s right after WWII, arguably one of the most greatest times in America being united as one, is more anti-capitalistic than a the Muppets who are technically owned by Disney, one of the largest corporations in the world.

FYI, I do not think The Muppets or It’s a Wonderful Life are communistic propaganda

It’s a Wonderful Life is a fantastic movie. Despite it being over two hours and over fifty years old, it draws the audience in and is quite an affective film.

 For those of you who have not seen the film, it takes place on the day the main character, George Bailey (James Stewart), is thinking about taking his life. This day also happens to be Christmas Eve. Angels up in Heaven are deciding what they should do about it and decide to send Clarence, an angel who has yet to receive his wings. However, Clarence is simple minded but also innocent and faithful. Joseph, the head angel shows Clarence the important highlights of George’s life in a series of flashbacks.

The flashbacks show the audience that George is the most selfless person most of us have ever met. He constantly sacrifices his own wants, hopes, and dreams for the betterment of others—starting with when they were children, saving his younger brother’s life but in the process losing hearing in his left ear.

George is a tragic character, the protagonist of the story, we, the audience, feel sympathetic for him at every turn. George since, childhood, has always wanted to get out of the small town and travel, see the world, go to college, build and invest in things. He is a man brimming with ideas and hopes of the future, an intelligent man who sacrifices everything for those less fortunate. He never leaves his hometown or even state, let alone the country, he never goes to college, he never gets to fulfill any of his ideas, and he does not even get to go to war to fight the Nazis due to his bad ear. He does get to build things however. With all his talent and ingenuity, George builds a whole community of quaint little homes that are worth twice what it cost to build.

He feels like his life has been meaningless especially since he never achieved even half of his dreams. Then, at the height of his revelry, when his brother is returning home from war a hero, tragedy strikes. Clarence comes down to stop him from throwing his life away. After Clarence convinces George that killing himself would only make matters worse, George decides it would have been better if he had never been born, and so Clarence shows George exactly that: a world where he was never born.

George then realizes, as the title suggests, that it really is a wonderful life and the ending of the film could not be any better.

James Stewart does a wonderful performance as always. There are a few things wrong with the film however—I only critique this film because I love it. There are a few scenes where it is clear there is something wrong with the editing, sometimes it feels like you may have missed some lines of dialogue. In addition, the concept of angels is a bit inaccurate but it is creative so that makes up with it. Another problem is that several of the child actors are not convincing at all but then again, they are children. Overall, however, this film is really good. The background music is beautiful—I mean really aesthetically pleasing, the film itself is aesthetically pleasing with some innovative (for the time) film work to look out for. It is a great family film and is an existential film. A classic, heartfelt, film and a Christmas tradition for most. You can catch it on NBC Christmas Eve, Saturday, December 24^th, at 8:00 PM eastern (a week from today).

I give It’s a Wonderful Life 4.9 out of 5 stars (only for the reasons listed above, personally, it is a 5, and is close enough to not really matter).

Zombie Movie Review (27) of the Week: Aaah! Zombies! (aka Wasting Away)

“Look at me! Look at the crazy zombie!”

I absolutely love this film. I think it is brilliant, I think it is creative, and I think it is artistic. This movie has two names, Aaah! Zombies! and Wasting Away. To my knowledge, the real name is the first one, which is what it is called on my DVD copy as well as the films official website. However, imdb has it listed as Wasting Away. This title does not even make any sense.

Anyway, the film is so great because it is from the zombie’s perspective—that is right. This has never really been done before and it is quite a creative concept.

The movie starts out with a government conspiracy to cover up a chemical that was intended to turn soldiers into super soldiers. However, it instead kills them and then brings them back as zombies. One soldier tries to stop the cover up and in doing so is hit by the truck carrying the shit and one of the barrels falls off and rolls next to a container of soft-serve mix outside of a bowling alley which is where are lead characters, Mike, Vanessa, Tim, and Cindy, are hanging out.

Tim works at the bowling alley and is letting his friends hang with him before it opens for league night. Mike is hungry and decides to mix soft-serve ice cream with beer from one of the kegs also near the chemical drum. The ice cream ends up green but does not deter our young friends from eating it quite quickly, dying, and coming back.

The film creatively shows us the world from the zombie’s perspective in color while the rest of the world’s perspective is shot in black and white giving the message that both groups are not seeing the full picture, the world of the living, especially.

The film comes up with several other creative concepts such as drunks being able to understand zombies, and the rest of the world appearing to move quickly because zombies are so slow physically and mentally. The movie does pay tribute to good old Romero by having slow zombies but also by mentioning Romero’s zombie films and agreeing with most of the world, including Romero himself, that the worst of his zombie flicks is Land of the Dead.

Aaah! Zombies! is almost a pure comedy but towards the end gets dramatic and serious which adds depth to the film and it really is touching. After this, it gets right back into being a comedy again and the mood transitions are flawless in my opinion.

Because the film, takes new stance on an old concept, by showing it to use through different eyes, (even if this perspective only applies to this form of zombie) it has some existential undertones.

The acting is great despite the film going for a sort of b-movie feel. I already mentioned how wonderful the cinematography is. Overall, the film is flawless and is one of the most amazing things I have ever seen. I know this review is short but I really did not want to give anything away—it is just a masterpiece you have to see for yourself. My roommate could not stop laughing when I showed him this flick.

Final thoughts: this film to my mind is perfect, it was successful in everything it sought out to achieve and it was executed beautifully. If you love zombies, you are sure to love this movie. It is sold at FYE, which is where I picked it up, I would not be surprised if Newbury Comics sold it, and of course, there is always good old Amazon. This movie gets a 5 out of 5 unrelated to Romero ratings.

If you are new to the sight, please check out my Zombie Movie Reviews page for more…well…zombie movie reviews.

As always, comments are always appreciated.

Film Reviews: Christmas Edition 15: A Christmas Story

In memory of:

Darren McGavin

(The “Old Man” who also played the title character on the short-lived but brilliant Kolchak: The Night Stalker)

May 7^th, 1922 – February 25^th, 2006

 “You used up all the glue—on purpose!”

Today the Christmas film review is one that I feel is safe to assume 9 out of 10 of you reading this may have seen. It is came out in 1983 but that is not the real reason most people have seen it. I say this is because for as long as I can remember, every Christmas, TNT puts on a 24-hour marathon of A Christmas Story. That being said, there is no real reason for me to do a review of this film—even the trailer gives away practically every memorable and favorite moment of the film. However, I still want to do a review because I really like this movie and I figured, why the hell not?

For those of you, who know the plot and what have you, feel free to skip down to my opinions of the film.

The film is a period piece taking place in the 1940’s. It focuses on a nine-year-old boy named Ralphie who only wants an air rifle for Christmas. The piece follows the family dynamics and childhood troubles of a typical kid growing up in the 1940’s around Christmas time.

Everyone has their favorite scene or clip: the lamp, the soap, the fight, the dogs, Santa, the flagpole, etc. In addition, everyone has their favorite quotes from it—most people and quote the entire movies dialogue, verbatim and have the timing down pat.

There are several reasons why I love this film. One is that even before it was on TNT, we would rent and watch this every year and so it became a part of our traditions. My dad really loves this movie and saw it in theatres when it first came out. The reason he loves it so much is, even though he grew up in the 60’s and not the 40’s, the film reminded him of the happy times at Christmas that he had as a child. His Christmas’s were similar to the one in the film because they never had a lot of money growing up.

Though the film has not much really going on and there are, few messages there are some things to take away from the film. It is the little moments that you remember, sitting by the fire and\or TV with the dog and parents during the holidays—those are the things you remember most, those are the really important things. This film ends with one of these moments and though it is a straight up heartwarming comedy from the get-go, that last scene, could make someone cry.

The movie gets most of its value from nostalgia but there are not things wrong with it that I can pick out, even the kids are decent actors. The cinematography is also really good, The only thing I can pick out is that certain scenes it is obvious that the actors, usually the kids are having a very hard time not laughing, but I don’t really see that as something that takes away from the film.

Because of all this, the only reason to give this movie a bad review is if the person reviewing it simply does not like it. That being said this film no matter what at least warrants a 3 out of 5 but I give it a 5 out of 5.

Brad Jones (aka The Cinema Snob) has a really funny review of A Christmas Story in which he lovingly rifts on it. However, just to be polite, I warn you that anything that the trailer did not give away, his video does. It is worth watching however:

http://thecinemasnob.com/2010/12/26/the-big-box-a-christmas-story.aspx

Film Reviews: Christmas Edition 14: Charlie Brown

In memory of

Charles M. Schulz (the writer of, and real-life, Charlie Brown)

November 26^th, 1922 – February 12^th, 2000

Bill Melendez (director, animator, and original voice of Snoopy)

November 15^th, 1916 – September 2^nd, 2008

Vince Guaraldi (fantastic and innovative jazz musician)

July 17^th, 1928 – February 6^th, 1976

I love the Charlie Brown specials but I especially love the Christmas specials. We grew up with the first one on VHS, and would watch it every year. This is one of my dad’s favorite Christmas specials. When he was a kid, this was his first introduction to Christianity. His parents were Christians but never practiced. Before Charlie Brown, my dad was pretty much a cynic when it came to Christmas, just like most of the characters in Charlie Brown.

A Charlie Brown Christmas (1965)

“Everything I touch gets ruined…”

This is the greatest Charlie Brown special, let alone Christmas special. It is also the first Charlie Brown animation. They had only six months to write a special and they did a fantastic job. The biggest concern was how the comic strip would translate into animated film. At first, most of the people thought it looked bad but they ran it anyway and it was a huge success. I love the animation style even though there are so many continuity animation errors but I would rather keep those than have it digitally re-mastered with all of them fixed. One of the greatest things and creative things about Charlie Brown is that all the characters are voiced by real children. No one before had ever done this and I cannot think of any examples of anyone doing it since. Yes, it has religious overtones so if you are into Christmas for the spirit and the feelings, or purely for the capitalistic consumerism that Christmas has become you probably will not like Charlie Brown—though you may still appreciate it from an aesthetic perspective and its other messages. The other main message of the special as well as most every Charlie Brown special is anti-consumerism. This is huge message in A Charlie Brown Christmas—so you will probably especially hate A Charlie Brown Christmas if you work for Fox news. The only reason the conservative never called the Peanuts gang communists is that there are messages of what Christmas is really about which is the birth of Christ.

It is heartfelt, heartwarming, speaks about the true meaning of Christmas, and it very creative. In addition, the background music is done by the great jazz artist Vince Guaraldi who does a fantastic job. I may be biased for growing up with it but I give it 5 out of 5 stars.



It’s Christmastime Again, Charlie Brown (1992)

“Hockey stick!”

This special is not as great as the first one but it is still Charlie Brown, and it is still brilliant. This episode is less centered on a single plot like the first but it still has that whimsical feel to it. Unfortunately, Vince Guaraldi had died before this one was made but everyone else was still alive, kicking, and producing wonderful child-hood animated adaptations of the brilliant comic strip. The first one was still in the early days of Charlie Brown so not all the characters were present. However, in It’s Christmastime Again, Charlie Brown, the rest of the gang makes an appearance such as the fantastic Woodstock, Peppermint Patty, Marcie, and Franklin. This time the episode it again, featured around the Christmas play, but it is mostly animated adaptations of original panels from the comic strip strung together to make somewhat of a plot, but really, plot is absent from this episode.

As far as twenty minute animated children’s Christmas specials go, I give this a 4.5 out of 5.



I Want a Dog for Christmas, Charlie Brown (2003)

“Happiness is a warm puppy next to you”

Sadly, by this point, Charles Shultz has passed away. However, I Want a Dog for Christmas, Charlie Brown was still written by him since most of the material, like the last Christmas special, is from the comic strips. Although, unlike It’s Christmastime Again, Charlie Brown, this one has more of a plot and instead of being around twenty minutes long like the last two, this one is around forty minutes.

The plot it that Rerun, Linus and Lucy’s little brother, who this is the first time he has appeared in a Christmas special, wants a dog for Christmas because he really loves Snoopy. And who doesn’t love Snoopy? Snoopy is amazing and can do anything!

At first, I was hesitant about watching this because it is new and two members of the team the created the animated escapades of Charlie Brown are deceased. In fact, it is really quite good, considering. It still has that old Charlie Brown feel to it and the style is only slightly noticeably different. It is funny, warm, and classic Peanuts. I give it 4.25 out of 5 stars.

Film Reviews: Christmas Edition 13: Elf

“Make work your favorite”

I rather hate myself right now. I just re-watched Elf for the first time since I really got into film and was thinking it would be a great film to rift on because it is a stupid movie and I have not done a Christmas review where I tear the film to pieces yet. Unfortunately, I discovered that Elf really is not that bad and that it has several good points.

The main problems with the movie is it is zany, silly, the film itself seems to have ADHD (and I should know since I have ADHD) and many things do not make any sense. Now this movie is not a great movie or creative film, the best example of that is The Santa Clause. However, it is not as bad as The Santa Clause 3 which I think is terrible.

The premise is that one year while Santa was making his yearly rounds, during his last stop at an orphanage, a baby escaped from his crib and headed for Santa’s bag to get a teddy bear inside. The baby ends up being taken back to the North Pole and an older elf volunteers to raise him…like an elf but since he is human, he is not the best at doing certain elf things—sort of like a reference to Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer. The movie makes several references to famous and classic Christmas films. When he is around 30, he finds out he is a human and Santa explains to him that in more or less words, he is a love child. Stop and think about this folks, a Christmas movie….a kid’s PG Christmas movie, where the title character in which the whole movie revolves around is a love child. Personally, I think it is fantastic because, A) this has never been done before in a Christmas movie and 2) it teaches kids a bit, about how real life is.

He walks from the North Pole to New York in about 24 hours. This is one of the stupid things about the film—it is vastly unrealistic. Some would argue that since it is a movie with Santa, it is already unrealistic; however, I am talking about everything else being equal to our universe. Just because he was raised by elves does not make him magical like an elf. I can buy him being able to create toys and make decorations out of anything in a small amount of time. What I can’t buy is a human that for thirty years has ate nothing but sugar and fat and is not diabetic, a human that can walk over a thousand miles in only one day, and a human that can make a pile of perfect snow balls in under five minutes.

He goes to New York to reunite with his dad, who is married and has another son. Buddy’s (the main character), mom died years ago and all he has left is his dad.

I love how the trailer makes you think the movie is about some crazy person who believes he is an elf rather than a movie where he really did live at the North Pole.

I really like a few things about the film. The romantic-comedy subplot tangent is really sweet. In addition, the girl is played by Zooey Deschanel who I absolutely adore. I love her voice, and in this movie she sings, I like her acting style and I think she is wicked cute and bloody gorgeous. I also like all the references to other great Christmas movies. There is a scene where Buddy is on a bridge that is reminiscent of It’s a Wonderful Life, Buddy’s dad is a Scrooge type character with his boss being even more like Scrooge, and the movie makes fun of Rankin and Bass in good fun. I like the overall message of the film about faith and hope and all that jazz, yeah it has all been said hundreds of times before and in more creative and artistic ways but this is still good. The film also does have its laughs and whimsical moments.

However, a lot of the\whimsy goes out the window due to the over zany and silly nature of the film that really can take away from all its good points. In addition, I am not a big fan of Will Ferrell, I do not hate him I just do not like most of his movies. My favorite movie with him is Stranger Than Fiction but you can’t really call that a “Will Ferrell movie”

In the end this movie is hard to rate as it has its good points and its bad points. I am going to settle for a 2.8 out 0f 5 stars.

Music & Philosophy: “Question and Answer”‘s

First, I want to share with you all a hilarious, but possibly deep, clip of a type of art. Since most of use in the class have, are, or will be in Johnson’s Art and Philosophy class. This is another clip from the show Spaced. Except instead of Tyres, I’m showing you brian:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RhUMRgZjKr8

Hello all. This may or may not be the last Music and Philosophy post. I feel as though it will not be because I do plan to keep it on my blog and to add posts when ideas strike me—so at the very least, it will be less frequent. There may also be another post before the end of the semester so look out for that. If not I wish you all a good break and a safe journey. Recent forecasts predict snow on the days of travel so be careful. I have enjoyed the class and encourage you all to read other sections of my blog you find interesting. I welcome comments and constructive criticism. This post will be, as the title suggests, the Q\A’s from the semester all in one place if anyone is interested. Some of it will be repeated things from the posts and things said in class but a lot of it, if memory serves, is not.

I tried putting all my QA’s on one post but it was way too long, so I am putting them on the Music and Philosophy page under the first post. Just scroll down if you are interested.

Film Reviews: Christmas Edition 12: Prancer

In Loving Memory of Theresa Stevens

“He will continue to make glad the heart of childhood”

Prancer is a movie that tugs on my heart. Not necessarily, because it is just that good, but because I have some really good memories related to this film. For me, this film has high nostalgic value. It is funny how certain memories can become solidified forever.

The first and last time I remember ever watching Prancer all the way thru was when I was very little. The movie is as old as I am so I could have watched this every year—I do not remember. What I do remember is that this was before any real stress in life, at a time where innocence reined supreme, when the month of December seemed longer than October and November put together, and Christmas Eve crept by like a year. It was before our household got an edition and I am pretty sure it was after my sister was born. In our old living room, Prancer was playing I think rented from blockbuster back when there were still blockbusters and when all movies were on VHS. My grandmother was babysitting me and I remember watching with her while she was backing her famous oatmeal-chocolate-chip-cookies. This is one of my most brief, memorable, and happiest, simple moments of my childhood. I am actually starting to tear up because it has only been a little over a year since my grandmother died.

The movie is about a young girl whose dad, played by the great Sam Elliot no less, is an apple farmer. They are not a poor family per se, but they are close to the line. Jessica, the girl, is the portrait of wide-eyed innocence where Christmas does seem to take forever, anything is possible, and even though her mother died, still has glasses of whimsy on.

The film starts out with a Christmas play done by Jessica’s class or grade, I am not sure which. Now I don’t have a problem with this exactly, however, it got me thinking, what do the non-Christian children do—they either feel left out for deciding not to participate, or they participate in something that they feel is irrelevant to them. I am not saying that schools should not put on nativity plays; I am just saying that alongside that, perhaps they could put on a play about Judah Maccabee. I know it is a long and bloody story, but if the Rugrats can do it than so can an elementary school. It was just a quick thought I had

Anyway—after the play, while Jessica is walking home, she stops by a section of road where people are hanging up Santa in his sled as well as the eight reindeer. Jessica is naming them off but when she gets to Prancer, the plastic reindeer falls to the road and breaks in two. This confused me when I was a child. I thought that the plastic deer was a literal representation of the actual deer and it came to life after falling, since it fell, that explains why its leg it hurt. After watching this with older eyes, I realize that this is magical foreshadowing of events to come.

Sam Elliot wants to kill the deer because A) the first time he sees the deer he notices the wounded leg and he is of the mind set of putting it out of its misery and 2) unaware it is the same deer with the bum leg, he wants to shoot the deer that is eating the little trees on his property.

There is a side plot in which Jessica needs $15.00 to pay for a bog of oats to feed Prancer. She earns the money cleaning up, what appears to be the music room, of a wealthy old recluse and in the end Jessica helps the woman to remember what Christmas cheer it and helps her to get out of the house and become a part of the community again.

Jessica tries to get a letter to Santa explaining where his reindeer is by giving it to a fake Santa at the mall, which even she knows is fake, but figures he could help her. It turns out he is friends with a newspaper columnist who ends up doing a column on Jessica’s story.

At this point, I would like to talk about this column and the quote I gave at the beginning of the review. The quote is from an editorial written in 1897 answering a girl’s question of whether or not there is a Santa. It was titled “Yes Virginia, there is a Santa Claus”—this is also the title of the editorial in Prancer making reference to this wonderfully written piece which I will post at the end of this blog for those interested.

The movie is not my favorite but it does have that nostalgia going for it. It is not a bad film either. In fact, it is pretty well done. The acting on the children’s parts are better than average, the story is original, the deer is real and sounds just like Comet in The Santa Clause, meaning that the automaton reindeer sounded accurate, I like the films message about childhood and belief and faith in things (another parallel with The Santa Clause), and the cinematography is effective as well. Overall, I give Prancer 3.75 out of 5 stars. It is also a great pick for family movie night.

“Yes Virginia, there is a Santa Claus.

He exists as certainly as love and generosity and devotion exist, and you know that they abound and give to your life its highest beauty and joy. Alas! How dreary would be the world if there were no Santa Claus! It would be as dreary as if there were no Virginias. There would be no childlike faith then, no poetry, and no romance to make tolerable this existence. We should have no enjoyment, except in sense and slight. The external light with which childhood fills the world would be extinguished.

Not believe in Santa Claus! You might as well not believe in fairies. You might get your papa to hire men to watch in all the chimneys on Christmas eve to catch Santa Claus, but even if you did not see Santa Claus coming down, what would that prove? Nobody sees Santa Claus, but that is no sign that there is no Santa Claus. The most real things in the world are those that neither children nor men can see. Did you ever see fairies dancing on the lawn? Of course not, but that's no proof that they are not there. Nobody can conceive or imagine all the wonders there are unseen and un-seeable in the world.

You tear apart the baby's rattle and see what makes the noise inside, but there is a veil covering the unseen world which neither the strongest man, nor even the united strength of all the strongest men that ever lived could tear apart. Only faith, poetry, love, romance, can push aside that curtain and view and picture the supernal beauty and glory beyond. Is it all real? Ah, Virginia, in all this world there is nothing else real and abiding.

No Santa Claus? Thank God he lives and lives forever. A thousand years from now, Virginia, nay 10 times 10,000 years from now, he will continue to make glad the heart of childhood.”

—Francis P. Church

Also, a sequel came out a few years ago and I am not sure how to feel about that because in my experience, sequels to classic Christmas movies usually suck. I haven’t seen it so I can’t really comment but if I do you can count on me reviewing it.

Film Reviews: My Name is Khan

 “My name is Khan, and I am not a terrorist”

I just got done watching one of the greatest movies I have ever seen and that is saying something. There is so much I want to say about the film I just hope to remember to say everything. In addition, I really do not know where to start…I guess with some sort of introduction. Sorry, I am still thinking about the film and trying to organize these thoughts.

Ok, My Name is Khan is a Bollywood film, and like all Bollywood films it is a longer than the average film (clocking in at 2 hours and 41 minutes) and has at least one musical montage and one scene where someone is dancing, even if it is for a few seconds. However, the length is not problem—and this is coming from someone with ADHD. You hardly notice 3 hours have passed by because the film is so compelling and entertaining. Every minute of this film has you either laughing, crying, or clenching your fists. For those of you, who do not like subtitled movies, fear not, the movie is primarily English; however, at least a third of the film is not.

The film follows the exploits of a Muslim man with aspergers (a higher functioning type of autism) in much the same style of Forrest Gump, except this is much better (and I like Forrest Gump), named Rizvan Khan. Most of the film does not take place in the present but rather in linear flashbacks following important events of Khan’s life that led up to his trek across the country. He is trying to meet the President (Bush) to say to him “Hello. My name is Khan, and I am not a terrorist”. I know when I do these reviews I usually have a less obvious quote from the film; however, this is the most important line in the whole film. He seeks to do this because his wife told him to. The reason his wife told him to do this is after a hate crime that I will not give away, his wife, angry, depressed, and distraught, yells to him to go tell the President he is not a terrorist.

This all is related to the events of 9/11 and all that followed.

The flashbacks are of Khan as a child and the wonderful and important lessons she taught him, his coming to America to work for his brother, falling in love with a hairdresser, and being the best father he could be.

I guess it is easier to talk about bad films because there is always so much to complain about. I thought I would have more to say about this movie and I do have more, I just thought the review would be longer.

There are so many messages and themes going on but none of them distract from each other. There is the theme of course of understanding the mentally ill and that they are still people not to be feared and that in some cases they are better people than the rest of the world. There is the message of tolerance and acceptance of those who are different because of race, religion, etc. This all relates to the main overarching theme of being less judgmental, more tolerant and understanding, and less hateful. Another message is to help ones fellow human being when he\she need it.

The music in the movie was more often than not effective. However, there were times that it just felt out of place. The cinematography is brilliant. The use of camera angles and lightly worked well. Also the acting was wonderful, even the kid actors did good jobs. Especially, Shah Rukh Khan (Rizvan Khan) who does a tremendous performance of someone with that type of aspergers. It is a realistic and positive portrayal of a someone who has this developmental disability.

Now I want to go a little off track and talk about some of the more serious aspects and messages of the film and greater detail. If you would like to just know how I rate the film, just scroll down to the end.

There is one thing I would like to talk about—the thinking that Islam is the most violent religion in the world. At one point in the film, after 9.11, a teacher actually says this to her class. I would like to take a moment to debunk this myth.

Nowhere in the Quran does it say to kill innocents by the thousands. My point is that it is not part of most sects of the religion to support the wholesale murder of people regardless of those people’s beliefs and opinions. Islam is a branch of the same tree that Christianity and Judaism are branches of. Allah is just another word for God—the same God I might add, that is referred to in the Tanakh (the first half of the Bible) as well as in the Gospels (the second part of the Bible). Like all religions, Islam has its extremists. In fact, if one really wanted to define the most violent religion on Earth, I am sad to say that it would be my own, Christianity (in general). Christianity is not supposed to be a violent religion, but a religion of peace, just like Islam and a great many other religions. However, people blinded by their own petty opinions of people use the name of God, and passages for the Bible to justify the horrible things that they do. Just as the terrorists of 9.11 did this, so have countless Christians. I can even paint a picture of events and groups fronted by Christians. Off the top of my head I can think of: The Holocaust, the Crusades, the Salem Witch Trials, the Spanish Inquisition, the witch hunts of Western Europe, the Ku Klux Klan, the Christian Fundamentalists who blow up abortion clinics and murder doctors who perform abortions—just to name a few. I am ashamed to call myself a Christian when people calling themselves Christians to horrible things like these. It is so hypocritical to be so hateful and violent and then call yourself a Christian. An old Christian hymn is titled “They Will Know We are Christians by our Love”. My point is that just because people do things or say things in the name of their religion, does not mean they speak for every member of that faith or for the original meanings, intents, and purposes, of those groups. They certainly do not speak for me.

I hope the above paragraph did not offend anyone. If I have gotten any facts wrong, please leave a comment on this page and I will fix it post haste. If I have offended anyone who is a member of the violent groups for calling you ignorant, arrogant, or hypocrites, that is just my opinion of you. What else would you call someone who claims to be a member of a faith that professes love and peace who goes out being cruel to people?

I am more concerned with potentially offending the people I am trying be on the same page with. So if I have, tell me ASAP. It is possible I phrased something badly so that even though my intentions are good, what I have said could be perceived as bad

The film was fantastic. It had thrills, chills, scares, drama, comedy, romance, and even a bit of action. Like I said the film made me cry, laugh, and clench my teeth. The film has everything, from several socio-political messages and invoking several emotional states to great acting and cinematography. With its length and its plot, it is more like an en epic tale than a film! I have fallen in love with this film and will be purchasing it the next chance I get. I give this film 6 out of 5 stars—and do not tell me that is impossible, I do not care—the movie is just that awesome. Thank you Hawa for showing this to us.

Film Reviews: Christmas Edition 11: The Grinch (2000)

“Bleeding hearts of the world unite”

Many people have mixed feelings about this film and it is typically hated or loved. I am in the love camp. After re-watching this film for the first time in a couple of years, I noticed so much that I never did before. This film actually has a lot going for it.

Most of us know the story of the Grinch. We have read the book, seen the half hour animated special by Dr. Seuss himself, but this is something far different.

The film is extremely creative and inventive. The Grinch could never make it as a feature-length film all on its own, and so the creators of the movie would have to be really imaginative.

The movie gives us the Grinch’s back-story—why he is the way he is. It all expands on the Whos themselves and it is really quite good.

The Grinch was Dr. Seuss’s version of A Christmas Story with an added theme of anti-consumerism. The film is still both of these things but expanded.

It starts out with the Whos specifically Cindy-Loo-Who and her family. Turns out, the Whos actually were the happy little consumers obsessed with gifts and decorations that the Grinch always thought them to be. The Grinch, at his most basic, is just a bitter, angry cynic who views the world thru jaded glasses (somewhat appropriate since he is green and all—trust me, the pun was accidental).

Cindy is unsure of what Christmas is all about and so the movie gets into Charlie Brown territory (esp. concerning the commercialization of Christmas but also about the quest for the true meaning of Christmas). She is depressed by the thought that Christmas is only about buying presents and after a run in with the Grinch who seems to be not as nasty as everyone thought, decides that if she can get the Grinch to be part of the town’s Christmas festivals, that maybe she can understand what Christmas is actually about.

When then see into the Grinch’s past and he did not have the best of childhoods. I am not entirely convinced that the reasons given are good enough for running away but they are certainly good enough excuses for hating Christmas. Besides, at least we are given reasons why the Grinch is the way he is.

The movie makes the Grinch a likable and character that the audience sympathizes with and in actuality; he is not the real villain. He is an anti-hero of course, but the real villain is the mayor. The Grinch has he is reasons for being the way he, the mayor is just a bully and a jerk.

Out of this comes the potential subplot of racism. It is very subtle and only touched on briefly but it is there, adding even more socio-politically redeeming value to it.

Like this actual movie, people have mixed feelings also about Jim Carey, I among them. I admit that I feel several of his movies are completely stupid but those feelings aside, I do recognize he is very good actor. I think is does an excellent performance as the Grinch and really fleshes out the character past what Seuss had wrote but at the same time, stays true to the character Seuss described.

There is another problem that people have with turning Dr. Seuss books into live action movies—the atmosphere. Dr. Seuss really had a brilliant, whimsical, warped universe where all his books take place, which everyone who likes Dr. Seuss loves. These concepts do not always translate when limited by our universes laws of physics especially when special effects can only go so far. However, I think the film does a fairly decent job at this.

The movie is pretty funny with some jokes and references only the adults in the audience will get making it a great candidate for family movie night. The film does have redeeming value such as what Christmas is really about and what it is not about, as well as a touch on racism and accepting and loving people that are different even if we do not understand them. The effects for the most part are good and the acting is great. Furthermore, the movie is narrated by Anthony Hopkins!!!!

I really do enjoy this film and I therefore give The Grinch 4.5 out of 5 stars for fun, entertainment, and the messages it has. As far as a Christmas movie goes, it gets 4.8 stars for it reminding us that Christmas is not about “stuff”

On a side note, The Grinch is a thousand folds better than the live action movie of Cat in the Hat, which I really do not like.

One last thing, I noticed today that someone found this review by searching on Google for where the Grinch lived so I thought I’d give a direct answer in case others come looking: The Grinch lives in the whimsical universe created  by Dr. Seuss—more specifically he lives in a cave near the top of  a mountain called Mt. Crumpit located in the small town of Whoville. I hope this answers your question.

Film Reviews: Christmas Edition 10: Jim Henson Specials

In Memory of:

Jim Henson

September 24^th, 1936 – May 16^th, 1990

I just got done watching all the various Jim Henson Christmas specials including A Muppet Family Christmas, It’s a Very Muppet Christmas Movie, A Muppets Christmas: Letters to Santa, Jim Henson’s The Christmas Toy, and Emmet Otter’s Jug-Band Christmas. I already did a review of the other Henson Christmas movie, A Muppet Christmas Carol.

I love the Muppets, the only reason I gave A Muppet Christmas Carol a bad review was because it did not really work as a good Christmas Carol variation in my opinion.

I’ll start with the Muppet specials (thought they all are muppets) with the oldest one first.

A Muppet Family Christmas

Trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VpumOp9XOe4

I am in love with this special. Like most Muppet films, this one is a musical. The music is of course Christmas music. However, there is also a plot. Fozzie decided to take the gang to his mother’s farmhouse for Christmas. His mother was planning to take off for CA and she rented out her house to Doc and Sprocket from Fraggle Rock. However, her plans change when the gang shows and her house is full of muppets along with Doc and Sprocket who decided to stay. Kermit is worried about Miss Piggy because she is running late and there is a terrible blizzard heading their way. This special is has all the muppet characters in it—I mean practically all of them except for Yoda. The Sesame Street gang come for carols and stays the night and there is a visit from the fraggles. If you grew up with Henson, you will love this special. It has all of your childhood characters and even makes jokes about their nature. With the Sesame Street group for the 1-6 year olds, the fraggles, for the 7-10 year olds, and the Muppets for the 11+ group. It is wonderful. In addition, there is something else that may make you cry, an appearance from Jim Henson himself.

5 out of 5 stars.



It’s a Very Merry Muppet Christmas Movie

Trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1Uf_oqCdDw

Unlike A Muppet Family Christmas, this is a full-length movie. The movie came out in 2002, which is the last time we see the muppets at their studio. This means since The Muppets came out in 2011 which is about them coming out of retirement, they have only been retired for nine years.

I am surprised that Fox did not call the Muppets communists when this movie came out, or at least call NBC communists, seeing how they produced this movie. Like in the Muppet Movie and The Muppets, the villain is an evil capitalist. This time however, it is not a fast-food restaurant chain owner or an oil-baron, but a bank manager\real-estate agent played by Joan Cusack.

The movie is pretty fun and heartfelt, keeping with classic Muppets traditions such as adult jokes the kids won’t get, zany ‘shenantics’, cameos, and breaking the fourth wall (breaking the fourth wall is a term in film used to describe scenes where the characters suggest that they are in a film). In addition, all the Muppets are true to their characters.

The film opens up with a talking snowman voiced by Mel Brooks who also played the evil Nazi scientist in The Muppet Movie. However, he is kicked off set and thus makes fun of the Rankin\Bass Christmas films.

Like always, the Muppets are behind on their rent but this time, because of the evil capitalist, they may lose their theatre for real.

The plot of the movie is modeled on It’s a Wonderful Life and Kermit has the experience of seeing a world in which he has never been born. This world is a bit funny but mostly scary and sad. It also refers to The Muppet Movie, thus adding a great deal of continuity. I said that in A Muppet Family Christmas, the only well-known Muppet not to appear was Yoda, however, he makes up for this by having a brief cameo in this movie.

God is played by Whoopi Goldberg who also has a cameo as a taxi-driver in A Muppets Christmas: Letters to Santa.

The film also makes fun of The Grinch with very scary looking Whos.

The movie is fun, entertaining, great for grown up first and second-generation fans, and true to the Muppets.

4.25 out of 5 stars.



A Muppets Christmas: Letters to Santa

Trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HRizth6K0zA

There is not much to say about this one. The plot is lacking and it is very straightforward. The film starts out with a few of the main muppets waiting in line outside the post office for it to open. It is the day before Christmas and they are delivering their last minute Christmas cards and a letter to Santa from a girl in their apartment building. However, due to some crazy stuff, three letters to Santa end up in Gonzo’s backpack and since it is too late to mail them they have to go to the North Pole to hand deliver them to Santa.

It has some really funny and clever moments in it. It is fun and entertaining—well, of course it is, it is the Muppets.

4 out of 5 stars.



Jim Henson’s The Christmas Toy

I absolutely loved this and by the end, I was literally crying! I remember watching this when I was a kid and I must have watched it all the time because I remember it like it was a regular series or show or something.  It certainly inspired Toy Story as Pixar clearly ripped off most of their ideas from Henson. I am okay with this though since Henson and the person who created Pixar were good friends and in fact, if anyone reading remembers this, Henson gave Pixar its start on Sesame Street with the whole desk lamp and rubber ball skits.

The Christmas Toy is a special about how toys come to life when people leave the room. However, if a toy is ever caught by a living person (or cat), they will essentially be dead, frozen forever, never able to come to life again. Rugby, the stuffed tiger does not fully understand what Christmas is and does not know that it is every year. He was the special Christmas gift from last Christmas. The toy from the Christmas before is Apple, the doll. Rugby thinks that he is meant to be wrapped in the box downstairs and does not understand that there is a new toy waiting to unwrapped, a space toy to be precise, Meteora, queen of the asteroids, an action figure.

The special is so heartwarming and brilliant. It is a must-see. 5 out of 5 stars.



Emmet Otter’s Jug-Band Christmas

Trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lGGgxMmWkI8

This is another short Christmas special from the wonderful Jim Henson. Originally, a children’s storybook by Russell Hoban, Henson adapted it for television six years later. It is sort of part new twist of the Gift of the Magi part fun, and part life lessons.

The Otters are a poor family, just mom and Emmet, Emmet’s father died a few years back. They both want the other to have a great Christmas this year even though they have no money. Fortunately there is a talent show going on in which the winner receives $50.00. I am not sure when this is taking place, it is at least the 70’s but it looks like it could be much earlier. In addition, I do not know how animal currency works but it appears that $50.00 is a whole lot of money.

The ending is great and though there is not much to the story, it is still good. 3.9 out of 5 stars.