Pee-wee's Big Adventure (1985)

I've written in some of my earlier reviews that I'm a bit biased towards things I grew up enjoying. For example, when it comes to entertainment, my generation had it a lot better than the youth of today. Look at the schedule of Saturday morning cartoons from between 1986 and 1996, and I'd bet that most of the shows that aired during that period are better than most of the shows marketed towards kids nowadays. And I'll admit that Saved by the Bell was really lame even back when it was popular, but I'd almost rather watch it than The Suite Life of Zack and Cody or whatever other crappy sitcoms the Disney Channel is churning out.

But out of all the kids shows that have ever aired, I doubt there is one that will ever be able to match the sheer madcap insanity of Pee-wee's Playhouse, starring the one and only Pee-wee Herman. If you haven't heard of Pee-wee's Playhouse, you're really missing out. There's no real way to describe the show, other than it looks like what would happen if you watched Howdy Doody during an acid trip. It ran as part of CBS's Saturday morning programming block from 1986 to 1990, and I loved every second of its bizarre surrealism.

I didn't realize until I was a teenager, however, that the character of Pee-wee had existed for some time prior the debut of Pee-wee's Playhouse. The creation of comedian Paul Reubens, Pee-wee's origins can be traced back to 1977, during Reubens's tenure as a member of the Groundlings comedy troupe. But the character's first significant appearance didn't happen until 1980, when Reubens began The Pee-wee Herman Show. A live stage show starring Reubens, the late, great Phil Hartman, and other Groundlings alumni, The Pee-wee Herman Show became so popular that one performance was broadcast on HBO.

While Reubens — or more accurately, Pee-wee — enjoyed plenty of exposure thanks to The Pee-wee Herman Show and his appearances on Late Night with David Letterman, he would hit officially hit the big time with Pee-wee's first movie, Pee-wee's Big Adventure. And not only was it Pee-wee's first movie, but it was the first feature-length movie to be directed by Tim Burton and scored by Danny Elfman. And let me tell you, Pee-wee's Big Adventure is just as crazy as you'd expect it to be.

As you can more than likely surmise, the story revolves around Pee-wee (Reubens), a childlike man who absolutely cherishes his tricked-out bicycle. Such is Pee-wee's love for his bicycle that when it goes missing, he goes off the deep end and becomes an emotional wreck. He immediately suspects Francis Buxton (Mark Holton), an annoying rich kid who has long coveted the bike in question, but Pee-wee ultimately has no proof that Francis is guilty of any wrongdoing.Desperate to reacquire his beloved possession, he seeks the help of a dishonest psychic that tells him his bicycle is in the basement of the Alamo. Not willing to wait for any other leads, Pee-wee hitchhikes across the country, hoping to be reunited with his bicycle.

If you grew up during Pee-wee's heyday in the latter part of the '80s, then you've probably already seen and loved Pee-wee's Big Adventure. That would make reading this review the equivalent of me preaching to the choir. But the uninitiated among you who have yet to see it are really missing out on a fun, surreal movie that isn't quite like anything else.

But how has the movie managed to hold up so well over the last twenty-five years? It may be due to the nostalgia factor. The movie is a total relic of the '80s, a kitschy piece of retro pop culture that could have only been made back then. And that's what's so fantastic about it. I can't speak for anyone else, but every time I watch Pee-wee's Big Adventure, I feel like a little kid again. It makes me remember just how much fun it was to watch this movie when I was little, and I enjoy that. There's also the fact that it's a good movie, plain and simple. It's a movie whose creative elements all effectively gel together to create an hour and a half of pure silly entertainment.

Let's follow my usual routine and begin with the direction. At the helm is Tim Burton, making his debut as a feature film director. You can definitely see his involvement, as it has the distinct style that you'd expect from Burton's work. Pee-wee's Big Adventure doesn't have the same gothic feel of his future movies, but it still has the same energy, the same passion. Burton injects the story with a particular sense of whimsy that makes even the most ludicrous of scenes believable. I honestly do not think anyone other than Tim Burton could have directed this movie; it just wouldn't have been the same otherwise.

It does help, though, that he manages to get a fantastic score out of Danny Elfman, who at the time was known primarily as the leader of the experimental rock band Oingo Boingo. Pee-wee's Big Adventure marks Elfman's first orchestral score, but he sounds like he'd been at it forever. His music here perfectly adds to the almost childlike fantasy feel the movie has.

But Burton's direction and Elfman's score are only parts of what makes Pee-wee's Big Adventure so great. Another element is the script, penned by Paul Reubens himself, Phil Hartman, and Michael Varhol. The script is loaded with silly non-sequiturs, wacky characters, and some of the most entertaining nonsense imaginable. It's really a series of skits interconnected by the thread of Pee-wee's search for his bike, but Reubens, Hartman, and Varhol handle it perfectly.

The last element that makes the movie what it is is the wonderful cast. Though the focus of the movie is obviously Pee-wee, the supporting characters all make a strong impression as well. Judd Omen and Diane Salinger are likable in their tiny roles as an escaped convict and a truck stop waitress that Pee-wee meets during his exploits, and Mark Holton is deliciously sleazy as the greedy, immature Francis. You want to reach through the screen and strangle Francis as soon as you see him, so Holton was obviously hitting the right notes with his performance.

My favorite performance from the supporting cast, though, came from Elizabeth Daily as Dottie, a bike shop clerk who pines for Pee-wee's affection. She's sweet and charming in the role, and though her screen time is sadly limited, Daily really adds a lot to the movie.

However, the entire movie is carried by Paul Reubens. Had his performance been bad or even mediocre, then it would have completely ruined the entire movie. But Reubens doesn't disappoint. He's hilarious, serving as the master of ceremonies in this outrageous cinematic circus. It almost doesn't even feel like an actor playing a character, but like Burton managed to catch a childlike lunatic in a grey suit on film. (Maybe that's why the cast roll call in the credits lists not Reubens, but "Pee-wee Herman as himself.") Reubens is having a heck of a lot of fun, and it's infectious.

Pee-wee's Big Adventure actually may not appeal to everyone. Gene Siskel actually gave it a zero-star review when it was released. But the sheer insanity of it is amazingly delightful. I mean, how many other movies have you seen that climax with a chase scene that includes Santa Claus, Godzilla, and Twisted Sister? None, that's how many. Pee-wee's Big Adventure is the only one that I know of. I absolutely love it, so I'll gladly give the movie four and a half stars on the Five-Star Sutton Scale. And if you're curious, yes, I do know what you are. But what am I?

Final Rating: ****½

Dead End Drive-In (1986)

I was goofing around on Wikipedia a while back, reading their article about exploitation movies. You would probably be surprised at just how many different styles of exploitation movie there are. Most people are at least a little familiar with "Blaxploitation," which gave us classic movies like Foxy Brown and Shaft. And slasher movies could probably be thrown into the mix as well. But then there's the other ones, the ones you'd almost have to go out of your way to find. There's the "women in prison" movies, Nazi-themed movies like Ilsa, She Wolf of the SS, "sexploitation" movies like Faster, Pussycat! Kill! Kill!, "rape and revenge" movies like I Spit on Your Grave, and so on. Exploitation movies are such a broad concept that we could honestly be here all day citing examples.

One of the ones listed on Wikipedia that really caught my eye, though, was "Ozploitation." I initially thought it had something to do with weird parodies of The Wizard of Oz, as dumb as that may sound. But instead, it's a term used to describe low-budget, B-grade action, comedy, and horror movies produced during the revival of the Australian film industry during the '70s and '80s.

While Mad Max and its sequels are perhaps the most famous Ozploitation movies out there, there are plenty more to be had. Some of them took direct inspiration from the dystopian future that Max Rockatansky called home, the title of one of them being enough to make me want to sit down and review it. So let's dig into the 1986 flick Dead End Drive-In.

As the 1980s became the 1990s, a series of catastrophes have left the world's economy in ruins. Australia has been hit especially hard, with social unrest leading to a country where lawlessness and gang warfare have become the status quo. It's gotten to the point where the Australian government has come up with what they feel is a solution to their problems.

But first, let's meet Jimmy "Crabs" Rossini (Ned Manning), who's borrowed his brother's '56 Chevy so he and his girlfriend Carmen (Natalie McCurry) can go to a local drive-in theater. Because the unemployed get in at a reduced rate, Crabs tells the box office clerk he doesn't have a job so he can save a few bucks. But just as the young couple are about to have a go in the backseat, someone steals two of the car's tires. Mr. Thompson (Peter Whitford), the drive-in's manager, is unable to help, and they're ultimately forced to spend the night at the drive-in.

Crabs and Carmen wake up the following morning to discover that the drive-in is actually something of a shanty town called home by hundreds of people that live out of their cars. Throw in the electrified fences surrounding the premises and the police stationed at the gates, and it quickly becomes apparent that the drive-in is a prison for society's unwanted. Its prisoners are satisfied living a passive, lazy existence where they're fed a steady diet of junk food, drugs, rock and roll, and nightly movies. And while Carmen quickly assimilates into the population, Crabs is unwilling to give up his life beyond the drive-in's fences and begins planning his escape.

I don't think I'd be wrong to assume that you've probably never heard of Dead End Drive-In. I myself hadn't actually heard of it until recently, when I accidentally stumbled upon it while looking up drive-in theaters on Google. I thought the premise sounded intriguing enough, and so into my Netflix queue it went. And you know what? It wasn't half bad. It's got its fair share of flaws, and I doubt I'll ever think of it again once I finish writing this review. But I can't say that I hated it. I actually kinda liked it.

At the helm is Brian Trenchard-Smith, the director behind such classics as Leprechaun 3 and Leprechaun 4: In Space. But let's not hold those movies against him, because Trenchard-Smith actually does a respectable job with Dead End Drive-In. He never lets the movie become boring, as every scene really helps build momentum. It's obvious the movie didn't have a very high budget, but Trenchard-Smith makes the most of what he's got with some cool production design and great cinematography from Paul Murphy.

I also thought that the acting was top-notch, especially from the lead actor. The whole movie would have been negatively affected had the actor playing Crabs put forth a bad performance, but Ned Manning is great. He's guilty of a little overacting at times, but Manning is likable in the role. He's good enough that he makes you want to follow him, to see if he'll be able to get out of the situation his character is stuck in. You can't really go wrong with that.

Outside of Manning, there aren't really too many major players. The whole movie centers around Manning and his character, and the supporting cast doesn't get a whole lot of time to really shine. But that doesn't mean they don't contribute.In the role of the movie's antagonist, Peter Whitford is a lot of fun. His character is a sleazy prick putting on a "nice guy" façade, and Whitford is great at it. Natalie McCurry is also good as Crabs's girlfriend Carmen, providing the movie with an intriguing balance to Crabs's quest for freedom. There's also a good performance from Dave Gibson in a super-small and thankless role. His biggest scene comes when he delivers a monologue about why he enjoys living at the drive-in, and Gibson doesn't disappoint.

If there are any flaws to Dead End Drive-In, they come from the script written by Peter Smalley. Granted, there are some elements that work, like its social satire. The drive-in is an odd mirror of society, becoming a little world of its own. The cynical people living within its electrified walls are provided with everything they could want, and allow themselves to become complacent, far more satisfied to continue living their shallow, apathetic existence because there's nothing outside for them. The whole thing doesn't fly too well with Crabs, who would far rather have a life of freedom in that crappy outside world than live in captivity in the drive-in. I'm sure it was far more relevant back in the '80s, but it works.

There are other parts that don't work, though. Again, I go back to the social satire. After a while, Smalley really starts to hit you over the head with it despite the fact that the satire hasn't really advanced anything. And then, towards the end, he introduces a group of Asians who are dumped into the drive-in. Everyone but Crabs immediately goes into a racist fury, organizing against those who they feel have encroached upon their territory. The movie was rolling along pretty good, then Smalley introduces that and things take a really odd turn. It feels like it's only there to make sure that Crabs is the only likable character in the whole movie.

And it doesn't help anything that the anti-Asian subplot has no payoff at all. They're brought in, an Indian man gets harassed in the restroom, there's a "white power" rally at the concession stand, and then boom, we hit a climax full of explosions and a car chase. It's like they wanted to keep the movie under an hour and a half, so Smalley just chopped twenty minutes worth of script out of the end.

I also didn't like how the movie spent so long focusing on Crabs investigating the drive-in's inner workings. The whole thing was obvious within the first fifteen minutes, and the movie just keeps going along anyway. It was time that could have been spent on either Crabs's escape plan or life inside the drive-in.

But Dead End Drive-In isn't too bad a movie when looked at as a whole. I honestly can't say that I didn't enjoy it. It's not a great movie or anything, but it's an hour and a half of dumb yet endearing fun. Chances are that it'll forever stay in obscurity (at least here in the United States), but if you're a fan of movies like Mad Max, you might end up feeling the way I do if you stumble across it. It'd at least make for fun watching on a lazy Sunday afternoon when you have nothing better to do.

Final Rating: **½

Night of the Living Dead 3D (2006)

In the decades since it was released in 1968, George Romero's Night of the Living Dead has become one of the horror genre's most beloved and enduring classics. It was a groundbreaking movie that redefined how people view zombies. But unfortunately, thanks to a mistake made by its original distributor, the movie almost immediately lapsed into the public domain.

Because of that, anybody with the means has been able to release the movie however they see fit. Whether it's a plain DVD release of the movie, an alternate edit, a colorized version, or a parody with new audio dubbed in for comedic effect, it's been done. Romero even wrote and produced his own remake in 1990, with Tom Savini in the director's chair. And thanks to its copyright status, anyone else wanting to do their own remake is free to do so.

And another remake is exactly what we got in 2006, when independent filmmaker Jeff Broadstreet culled together a cast and crew to create his own version of Night of the Living Dead. And to make sure his movie got some attention, he made the movie in 3D. And just like the 3D effects themselves, the movie proved to be completely unnecessary.

If you've seen either of the prior iterations of Night of the Living Dead, you know the setup for this one. But let's do this plot synopsis thing anyway. As the movie begins, we're introduced to quarreling siblings Barb (Brianna Brown) and Johnny (Ken Ward) as they travel through some winding country roads to a cemetery out in the middle of nowhere. They'd planned on attending the funeral of their aunt, but when they arrive, the cemetery is abandoned. I'll give you one guess where this is going. Yep, zombies attack.

Johnny is dispatched and ends up taking the car with him, leaving Barb to run aimlessly through the woods for help as day turns into night. Help does arrive in the form of Ben (Joshua DesRoces), who rescues her from some zombies and takes her to the presumed safety of a remote farmhouse owned by the marijuana-farming Cooper family. Both Ben and Cooper family patriarch Henry (Greg Travis) think her story about flesh-eating corpses is a little wild, but they'll soon find out how right she is when zombies surround the house.

The original Night of the Living Dead is widely hailed as one of the best horror movies ever made. The 1990 remake is actually pretty good, too. But this movie is crap. If you watched a video of people peeing of a DVD of the original movie for an hour and twenty minutes, then you'll have more or less seen this movie. Even the director has said that it was pretty much an attempt to make a quick buck by remaking a public domain horror movie. Though even if you forget that it's a remake and judge it on its own merits, it's still lousy. The 3D is never really put to any creative use, the acting is lame, and the special effects are awful.

At the helm of this sinking ship is Jeff Broadstreet. His prior directorial credits include such titles as Sexbomb, Area 51: The Alien Interview, and Dr. Rage, so you should be able to guess what kind of movie this is going to be based on those titles alone. I haven't seen any of his other movies, but judging by this one, Broadstreet seems to have no idea how to make a horror movie. There is no tension, no suspense, nothing scary to be found at all. Instead of the frightening atmosphere that Romero and Savini gave us in their versions of the movie, Broadstreet chooses to make a dull, uninspired movie that is a real chore to get through.

Broadstreet's direction probably could have been saved if the gore effects were decent. But they're practically nonexistent. Everything gory happens off-screen or in the shadows, rendering it completely ineffective. Though considering the movie looks like it was made for peanuts, decent gore effects probably weren't in the budget.

The only reason to even watch the film at all is that 3D gimmick the movie saddled itself with to sucker in some paying customers. But wouldn't you know it, Broadstreet screws that up too. You'd think that a 3D zombie movie would have blood and guts flying at the screen, but since there's no blood or guts to be found, we're stuck with characters pointing things at the audience. Broadstreet doesn't even bother to get creative with it, with the height of the 3D gags being a character waving a joint around like he's offering the viewer a hit. It's unimaginative, and the fact that the movie's big selling point is not exploited to its fullest potential is disappointing.

The writing doesn't do the movie any favors, either. I say that because first-time writer Robert Valding has contributed a script so banal that I think it could cause cancer in lab rats. I can forgive all the stupid weed humor, since it was apparently thrust upon him when he got the job. But couldn't he have at least, you know, tried? Did his characters have to be so damn stupid? The characters do nothing but sit around and talk. Do they board up the windows and doors to try and defend themselves? No. Do they go on the offensive against the zombies? No. Do they even try to hide from the zombies? No. The zombies are secondary.

It wouldn't be so bad if the characters actually showed some smarts. The Cooper family actually watches Romero's original Night of the Living Dead on television at one point, yet seem completely oblivious to the fact that the army of flesh-eating corpses outside the house could quite possibly be zombies. They all just sit around and have lengthy discussions about nothing. It's like an episode of Seinfeld, only with zombies, bad actors, and no funny jokes. It's pathetic. Throw in a climax that comes completely out of left field, especially in its attempt to actually explain how the zombie plague began, and you've got a script that would make good toilet paper.

And it's all topped off by the embarrassing acting, which is made up of a bunch of people you've never heard of and will probably never hear from again. The cast feels like they were a bunch of understudies from a local dinner theater that were rounded up and thrust in front of the camera at the last minute with no preparation at all. It's as if they hadn't even read their lines until just before Broadstreet called "action." Probably the worst offender is Brianna Brown, who delivers her lines with as little emotion as possible and perpetually looks like someone farted in her face prior to each take.

What really surprises me about the cast, though, is that they somehow managed to rope Sid Haig into this mess. Yeah, the same Sid Haig that memorably played Captain Spaulding in House of 1000 Corpses and The Devil's Rejects. Surely the paycheck couldn't have been good enough to justify being in this awful thing. Did he lose a bet or something? He pops up in the movie's third act as a mortician whose only requirements are to be creepy and deliver some lame exposition before taking a trip to Crazy Town. And though the role is thankless and the character is unwanted, Haig still puts forth as good a performance as he can. He's too good for this movie, and I hope he knew that when he agreed to be in it.

There's a type of movie out there called "the mockbuster." Primarily made by Hollywood film studio The Asylum, mockbusters are low-budget knockoffs of mainstream blockbusters meant to trick rubes into thinking the movies are related to one another. Even though The Asylum had nothing whatsoever to do with Night of the Living Dead 3D, it really feels like the kind of movie they'd make. Everything about the movie is lousy and uninspired, like they weren't even bothering to really try making a good movie. The truth is that it's so bad, it's is an embarrassment to anyone who calls themselves a fan of horror movies. I'm going to give it one and a half stars, and ask that you ignore it like I should have. If you have to watch the movie, make sure you just go with the 2D version. Those cheap red and blue glasses will give you a headache, and they just make everything look purple anyway.

Final Rating: *½

Santa Claus Conquers the Martians (1964)

I'll freely admit that I prefer the quirkier Christmas movies over the more traditional ones. I'd pick A Christmas Story before It's a Wonderful Life, National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation before Miracle on 34th Street, and Scrooged before any other version of A Christmas Carol. But of all the wacky Christmas movies I've seen over the years, the wackiest is definitely Santa Claus Conquers the Martians. Yes, you read that title right.

This little gem from 1964 boasts some of the goofiest acting, lamest special effects, and one of the most preposterous concepts for a story ever captured on film. It's also become some of a cult classic, especially after it was featured on a 1993 episode of Mystery Science Theater 3000. And let me tell you, folks, the movie is a whole lot of dumb.

Mars isn't doing so hot. Children all across the planet are parking themselves for hours on end in front of their televisions, doing nothing but watching Earth broadcasts all day and night. This especially worries Kimar (Leonard Hicks), the king of Mars, whose own children are so addicted to Earth's TV shows that they've stopped eating and sleeping. When he consults Chochem (Carl Don), an ancient Martian sage, Kimar learns that the planet's rigid structure has effectively robbed children of their childhoods, causing them to have midlife crises during adolescence. The only solution is to bring Santa Claus into the mix and teach the kids of Mars to have a little fun.

So instead of creating a Santa of Mars's own, Kimar figures he'll come here and kidnap ours. Why have a copy when you can just go get the real thing? He and a crew of fellow Martians all pile into a spaceship and head to Earth. But believe it or not, finding fat bearded guys in red suits is pretty easy around Christmas. Not knowing just where to find the real Santa Claus, the Martians ask two siblings, Billy (Victor Stiles) and Betty Foster (Donna Conferth), for directions and are quickly pointed towards the North Pole. To show their appreciation, the Martians kidnap Billy and Betty to make sure they don't tell the cops about their nefarious plans.

The Martians successfully kidnap Santa and head back to the fourth rock from the sun. They even set him up in his own automated workshop to crank out gifts for the good boys and girls of Mars. He's all too happy to help out a planet in a bind, and things start going swimmingly. But this doesn't sit too well with Voldar (Vincent Beck), a villainous Martian who thoroughly hates the idea of Santa Claus and Christmas and all that other stuff. He hates it so much that he'll kill Santa Claus if he has to, as long as Mars stays the way it was. Will he succeed, or will Santa Claus truly conquer the Martians?

That is the actual plot of the movie. I am not kidding. If it sounds too insane to actually be real, don't worry. I've seen the thing and I can barely comprehend any of it. Santa Claus Conquers the Martians is, without a doubt, one of the most insane, stupid, and downright silly movies I've ever seen. The fact that somebody actually came up with the concept, turned it into a script, and went on to produce it as an actual movie is mind-boggling. What kind of drugs do you need to take to think up a movie where Santa Claus is kidnapped by Martians? It had to be some trippy stuff, in the very least.

I'm not even sure where to begin reviewing this movie. The whole thing is such a mess that I don't think that I can actually break it down and single out just what went wrong. It's a movie made for children, which makes it harder to really knock the movie. It's almost too easy a target, you know? And for all I know, Santa Claus Conquers the Martians was supposed to be intentionally inept. I mean, there's no way to take a serious approach to the movie's concept. It would have made for a heck of a sci-fi parody, but it looks like they played it straight. And playing it straight means they ended up with a movie that's "so bad it's good." The characters are awful, the production looks unbelievably cheap, the special effects are laughable, and the acting is pretty much what you'd expect (i.e. it sucks out loud).

The movie was directed by Nicholas Webster, who'd spend pretty much the rest of his career as a television director. I'm actually quite happy about that, because it means we wouldn't see him directing any more feature films. The movie is just plain dull to look at. Beyond the climactic scene where the Martian and human kids team up to defeat Voldar, which feels like what would happen if the end of Requiem for a Dream was a bad Christmas movie from the '60s, you kinda get the feeling that Webster simply didn't care.

It doesn't help anything that the movie looks like it has a budget of whatever loose change the producers could scrounge together at a given time. I'm just amazed by how awful everything looks. For one thing, it's apparent that nobody thought to hire a proofreader for the movie, since whoever did the credits apparently thinks "costume" is spelled "custume." (Though I can overlook the scene where a newspaper headline spells the word "kidnapped" with one P, since it's a less egregious error.)

And another thing, the Martians all look like really stupid rip-offs of The Great Gazoo from The Flintstones, only with hoses and wire coat hangers instead of antennae. (That's really saying something, since the movie came out a year before Gazoo's first appearance.) And a lot of the time, it appears that the lights are causing their makeup to melt off. Pay close enough attention, and you'll notice.

I also thought it was odd that the Martian technology looked like poorly-made knockoffs of what you'd find in Adam West's Batcave, but perhaps the stupidest things are the polar bear and the robot at the North Pole. The polar bear is very obviously a guy wearing a ugly bear suit, and the robot costume is basically a cardboard box for the torso and a metal wastebasket for a head. I've seen a lot of cheap-looking things in movies before, but these absolutely take the cake. They're right up there with creating flying saucers by hanging pie plates on fishing line. It's apparent that the movie had a low budget, so I can't really fault it if those lame costumes were all that could be afforded. But come on, couldn't they have found something more convincing within their financial constraints?

I feel like I should also point out the movie's horrible theme song, composed by Roy Alfred and Milton Delugg. Titled "Hooray for Santa Claus," the song is so annoying, so nerve-grating, that you'll hate yourself when it gets stuck in your head for hours after you hear it. It's bad enough that the chorus of off-key children brought in to sing it aren't even singing at all, instead shouting the lyrics. That doesn't get old quickly, not at all. But the dumbest thing about it is the lyrics. Despite the fact that the song's chorus spells out Santa's name numerous times, it's apparently supposed to be pronounced "Santy Claus." I don't know why that bugs me so much, but every time I hear the song, it annoys the hell out of me.

Let's move on, or else I'll never get this review done. Up next is the script, credited to Glenville Mareth working from a story by Paul Jacobson. How they came up with the idea for this, I have no clue. But either way, this script is awful. Even when you try to excuse it as a movie made for kids who won't care either way, it's still unbelievably stupid. The characters are all pretty terrible, the dialogue is preposterous, and the whole thing is one bizarre scene after another.

Even the names of some of the characters show just how lazy this script is. I can forgive the cardboard box robot being named "Torg" (an apparent play on Gort, the robot from The Day the Earth Stood Still), since that isn't so bad. But Kimar, his wife Momar, and their children, Bomar and Girmar? The names are short for "King Martian," "Mom Martian," "Boy Martian," and "Girl Martian." That's either incredibly lazy writing or an extreme lack of creativity, perhaps a little of both.

And to tell you the truth, nothing in the movie really makes any sort of sense from a narrative standpoint. The script is basically the movie equivalent of watching a friend who is intensely drunk ramble incoherently for an hour and a half. You have no clue what they're talking about (and they probably have no idea either), but you just can't let yourself look away.

And last on my list is the acting, which is pretty darn horrible. For example, the children, both the ones playing humans and the ones playing Martians, are awful. Their performances are wooden and contribute nothing whatsoever to the movie. The adults don't fare much better, though. As our designated villain, Vincent Beck is hammy and over the top. Watching him is like watching Snidely Whiplash audition for Adam West's Batman TV show. If he'd tied Santa Claus to some train tracks while twirling his mustache, he would have been complete.

John Call fares a little better as the titular Santa Claus, though he's still no great shakes. He actually plays Santa as if he's been sneaking a few sips of gin between takes. I don't have a problem with a happy Santa, but Call's Santa comes across as a little too happy. It's like he never quite grasps the gravity of any bad situation. Got kidnapped by aliens and essentially forced into slavery? Why, that's no problem at all. Narrowly avoid being murdered via being shot out the spaceship's airlock by Voldar? It was all a harmless misunderstanding. Most of Call's silly performance is probably due to the writing, so I can accept that. But he's at least fun, so I can't complain. Call is overshadowed, though, by the really good performance of Leonard Hicks. He plays the role rather stoically, and is actually pretty likable. Hicks is believable in the role, and his commitment is commendable.

But the quality of Hicks's performance is counterbalanced by just how awful Bill McCutcheon is. McCutcheon appears in the movie as Dropo, the movie's designated comic relief. The thing is, though, is that he's the least funny comic relief ever. Whatever the opposite of comedy is, Dropo is it. McCutcheon plays Dropo as if he were a horrific cross between Gilligan and Ed Grimley, with the stupidity cranked up to eleven. I honestly hated, hated, hated, hated, hated every second he was on the screen. Dropo is so annoying and McCutcheon's performance is so terrible that I desperately wanted to jump into the movie and beat him like he was that broken fax machine from Office Space.

So that's Santa Claus Conquers the Martians. I don't really know what else I could say that Mystery Science Theater 3000 and other online reviewers haven't. It's an awful movie, most definitely. But it's inoffensive and actually kinda charming in a weird way. I couldn't help but find myself being entertained by this thoroughly ludicrous movie. If you love crappy B-movies, you owe it to yourself to hunt down both the movie and the corresponding MST3K episode. Hit Netflix or YouTube or somewhere like that as soon as you finish reading this if you haven't seen it. And if you think you're tough enough, I dare you to go the whole movie without wanting to stab Dropo. I say it can't be done, but try to prove me wrong. 

Final Rating: *½

Home Alone 2: Lost in New York (1992)

I'm a sucker for Christmas. I always have been. Something about it just makes my inner child go absolutely crazy. And I'm a sucker for Christmas movies, too. No, not the ones like It's a Wonderful Life or Miracle on 34th Street. I'm more into the kooky ones. My all-time favorite is A Christmas Story, with others like Gremlins, Die Hard, Scrooged, and National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation coming in close behind. And though I don't know if I'd call it a personal favorite, but if you read my review earlier, you'll notice that liked Home Alone quite a bit.

A whole bunch have people must have liked it too, because it made a boatload of cash on its way to becoming the most popular movie of 1990. It made enough money that Twentieth Century Fox thought they'd capitalize on that success with a sequel. Titled Home Alone 2: Lost in New York, it was released in 1992 to mostly negative critical reaction and box office grosses that, while impressive, were less than those of its predecessor. And the truth is that Home Alone 2 is a rather underwhelming attempt to catch lightning in a bottle a second time.

Christmastime has come back to suburban Chicago, and the McCallister family has once again gathered to take another Yuletide vacation. And this time around, they're taking extra effort to make sure that young Kevin (Macauley Culkin) is not left home alone again. But thanks to a case of mistaken identity at the airport, Kevin gets separated from the group and ends up on a plane to New York City while the rest depart for Miami.

Armed with a set of credit cards accidentally left in his knapsack by his father, Kevin decides to make the most of the mistake. He checks into the ritzy Plaza Hotel, sees the sights, and pays a visit to Duncan's Toy Chest, the swankiest toy store in Manhattan. But little does Kevin know that the Wet Bandits (Joe Pesci and Daniel Stern) have also arrived in New York City after breaking out of prison. Their plan: to rob Duncan's Toy Chest of every dime they've got.

Kevin just so happens to overhear their scheme, and knowing that the store plans to donate all of its Christmas profits to a local children's hospital, Kevin just isn't going to stand by and let it slide. So that's when he decides to orchestrate his own plan, where he will lure the Wet Bandits away from the toy store to his uncle's house, which is in the process of being renovated. There, he's set up an all-new array of booby traps to put the crooks through the ringer.

Anyone who has seen Home Alone 2 knows that it's an utterly shameless attempt to duplicate the first movie. All the elements are there: Kevin gets in trouble for causing a ruckus while taking up for himself. The McCallisters end up sleeping in and get to the airport late. Kevin gets separated from his family during the chaos, and ends up encountering the Wet Bandits. I don't know how he managed to run into them, out of the millions of people in the sprawling metropolis that is New York City, but for the sake of convenience, let's run with it.

Anyway, along the way, he has a series of comic misadventures that includes using props and old gangster movies to make people think he's got company, and he makes friends with a friendly elderly person that he initially thought was really creepy. By the end of the movie, as Kevin's mother rushes to be reunited with him, he beats the utter crap out of the Wet Bandits with household objects before they get arrested.

Even the last few seconds of Home Alone 2 is a callback to the end of the first movie. (Then again, there's a lot of gags from the first movie that are recycled for the sequel beyond the simple formula.) The only real differences between the two movies are that we've moved from Chicago to New York, and that in the sequel, Kevin has run afoul of a hotel concierge who suspects him of using a stolen credit card. Other than that, they're practically the same movie with different settings. It's a real shame.

Returning to the director's chair is Chris Columbus, who does nowhere near the job he did on the first Home Alone. The warm Yuletide feeling from the first movie is nowhere to be found, leaving Home Alone 2 darker and more hollow. It seems like when they decided to do a lame remake and pass it off as a sequel, they forgot to add the Christmas spirit. Sure, there are all kinds of attempts to cram a bunch of saccharine holiday sentimentality down our collective throats, but it all feels artificial and unauthentic. There's some fantastic cinematography, but outside of that, Columbus's work feels like he was on autopilot for the whole thing.

It doesn't help anything that, while watching the movie, you get the impression that John Hughes didn't know what he was doing during the writing process. It's like he took the script from the first movie, put it in New York, made the traps much more dangerous, and said "okay, that'll do." It's hard to watch a frame of the movie without thinking that you've been there, done that. It's not even a good rehash, either. I mean, did we need Kevin to lure the guys to a house? Putting the traps in a toy store would have been a lot cooler. And did Hughes really need to do another subplot where Kevin makes friends with another creepy elderly person? And did he have to do it so badly? The whole thing is so abysmally done that I'd rather just go watch the first movie, because a lot of Home Alone 2's jokes were more successful there.

And I can't talk about the writing without talking about the various traps that Hughes came up with. I said in my Home Alone review that the different household objects that Kevin utilizes against the Wet Bandits would have put them in the hospital. Since the vast majority of rehashed sequels try to do things bigger than their predecessors, Home Alone 2 does the same thing. Only instead of just hurting the Wet Bandits, these traps would have killed them. Kevin would have straight-up murdered these guys if this movie took place in real life. Yes, it is possible for slapstick violence to be excessive, and Home Alone 2 proves it. Because when you think of family entertainment, you think of guys being electrocuted, attacked with fire, and smacked in the face with bricks. If it wasn't a comedy, you'd almost swear that they'd turned that frightening commercial from Scrooged into an actual movie.

And rounding us out is the cast, the majority of which, like the first Home Alone, is disposable. Even Catherine O'Hara, who I thought did a respectable job in the first movie, doesn't really seem to be trying as hard. I also thought that Eddie Bracken and Brenda Fricker, who play the proprietor of Duncan's Toy Chest and a homeless woman that Kevin befriends, are a little bit stiff in their roles. They're definitely trying, I'll give them that. But their characters are so extraneous and unnecessary that I just couldn't get into their performances.

I must also admit that I was a bit surprised to see Tim Curry, of all people, turn up as the Plaza Hotel's concierge. I know he's slummed it before (have you seen The Worst Witch?), but come on now. He is a lot of fun, though, playing the role in such an over-the-top way that I wish he'd been in more scenes. Though with Rob Schneider playing his sidekick, maybe it's a good thing his scenes were so limited.

But just like the first movie, nobody is watching Home Alone 2 for any of the ancillary actors. We're watching it for Macauley Culkin, Joe Pesci, and Daniel Stern. I noted in my review of the first movie that Culkin had a certain charm that helped him carry the movie with ease. But that same charm is missing from Home Alone 2. It feels like he's just going through the motions, hoping that people will be satisfied with a half-assed performance. I could also argue that Pesci and Stern are guilty of the same crimes, but at least they still manage to be funny. They manage to make you overlook that they're just doing more of the same, so I can't hold that against them.

In a nutshell, Home Alone 2: Lost in New York is a knockoff of its predecessor that copies everything but the heart. Sure, it's a guilty pleasure. I can't argue with that. But that doesn't change the fact that Home Alone 2 is just not as good as it could have been. It has both its good qualities and its bad qualities, but I can't justify giving it anything more than two stars. And before you ask, let's just pretend that they never made Home Alone 3 or 4, okay? The less said about them, the better.

Final Rating: **