Scrooge 2: Mickey’s Christmas Carol Blu-ray Review

November 27, 2014 | Rachel's Reviews

I have the day off work today so I figured I would post a couple reviews, watch some holiday movies!

Now for one of my favorite Christmas Carol versions and the best animated version to come out, Mickey’s Christmas Carol. This is an animated short (about 20 minutes) that was released in 1983 with the rerelease of The Rescuers. It was the first theatrical appearance of Mickey Mouse in 30 years. (I would like to see another Mickey appearance soon!).

Originally it was a radio play by Disneyland Records and you can tell because the script is very well done. Scrooge is a bit of a smart-allick here and a lot of the witty dialogue helps temper the scary moments while still keeping the tension, and basic redemption effective.

Trailer:

The cast:

Voice actor	Character	Role
Alan Young	Scrooge McDuck	Ebenezer Scrooge
Wayne Allwine	Mickey Mouse	Bob Cratchit
Hal Smith	Goofy	Jacob Marley’s ghost
Eddie Carroll	Jiminy Cricket	Ghost of Christmas Past
Will Ryan	Willie the Giant	Ghost of Christmas Present
Will Ryan	Pete	Ghost of Christmas Future
Clarence Nash	Donald Duck	Fred, Scrooge’s nephew
Patricia Parris	Daisy Duck	Isabelle (“Belle” in the novella)

Scrooge- Given they already had a character named Scrooge McDuck who is famous for skiing on his gold this was a no brainer. Alan Young is wonderful as Scrooge and gives a lot of humor to the lead vocal.

Differences- Obviously the biggest difference is we have our Disney characters anthropomorphized as the title characters of Christmas Carol. They pull a lot from Fun and Fancy Free and Ichabod and Mr Toad which I guess is understandable given they have a lot of characters that fit a Victorian era.

It’s interesting they went the Victorian route. A lot of the other cartoon versions such as Smurfs or Flintstones take the story into their worlds, but I like that it feels of period.

The introductory scene is fairly standard featuring Mickey as Cratchit, Donald as Fred (Donald just makes me smile every time I see him), and Rat and Mole as the benefactors.

Scrooge’s response to them is classic.

“well you realize if you give money to the poor they won’t be poor any more and if they aren’t poor any more than you won’t have to raise money for them and you two will be out of a job. Oh please gentlemen don’t as me to put you out of a job”

That is very clever and gives Scrooge a sarcasm and humor I don’t recall as pronounced in many other versions. I also like his next line:

“You work all your life to get money and people want you to give it away”. It is interesting because if his life work were painting people wouldn’t expect him to give those away for nothing but a life work of money is.

There is no ‘let them die and decrease the surplus population’ which is perhaps a bit harsh for this version so good choice.

With Past played by Jimminy Cricket. Their initial interaction is very good.

Scrooge says “I thought you’d be taller”

Jimminy “If men were measured by kindness you’d be no bigger than a speck of dust”

Scrooge “Kindness is of little use in this world”

So that becomes a theme of the program. Is kindness of any use? Later from Present we hear of ‘generosity’ and Present tells Scrooge he’s never given anyone a reason to be generous to him. That’s an interesting take on the message of Christmas Carol. The world is good and full of light but we have a responsibility to accept that light.

With Past we go right to Fezziwig’s (no childhood or other scenes) and it is mainly to introduce to Belle played by Daisy (and I think the only time Daisy is not with Donald). We then get to his counting house and I like that Scrooge is sentimental when he first see’s it, even excited.

This is before he see’s himself foreclose on Isabelle’s honeymoon cottage for being an hour late on the payment. It is dramatic enough to quickly explain to kids a complicated economic process of mortgages while getting the core emotion right.

Present takes him to see the Cratchit’s only (no Fred) and Scrooge is immediately taken with Tiny Tim. The Cratchit’s poverty is shown in a quick yet effective way with a turkey the size of a canary. That’s simple for kids to understand.Makes the point about suffering and poverty without dwelling on it too much for kids.

Present leaves him in front of the Cratchit’s house and he asks Future what will happen and Scrooge’s ‘Oh no. Spirit I didn’t want this to happen” is a very well delivered line.

The finale is very effective with Scrooge falling into the grave and pleading for change but I don’t think too scary for kids.

Strengths- Some may want to discount a Mickey Christmas Carol as more of a lark but I actually think it is a good adaptation, and it is great way to introduce small kids to the story. All the voice work is tremendous, and I like Scrooge’s sarcastic attitude. He gets the most glee out of his money and jingling the coins together than many other Scrooge’s. Mickey is of course great as Cratchit and the ghosts are all effective.

The script is the real standout. It’s very sharply done and teaches a lesson about kindness and generosity without getting to heavy handed(ignorance and want aren’t shown, no decrease surplus population). Instead of Scrooge being a bad man (not caring if people die) he is merely someone who isn’t allowing people to be kind to him, not allowing others into his life. It’s a slightly different take that I like.

As I said the finale is very well done. Crazy Scrooge is very good with him coming back to get his cane to be fully dressed in his pajamas. They do a good job throughout of painting a complex picture in one dramatic moment (like the honeymoon cottage bit tells kids exactly what they need to know quickly so it doesn’t feel like a mean-spirited film).

Weaknesses- I honestly could have seen this be a feature film. A few scenes could have been fleshed out even more. I could have seen Scrooge look in on Fred playing games in present or Scrooge as a child in the past segments. (Muppets does both very well).

Goofy is maybe a bit of an odd choice for Marley. He’s so loveable and silly it is hard to picture him as a bad guy. Perhaps a Disney villain might have worked better? But I suppose it helps relieve some of the scares for little kids.

The music is kind of a corny Christmas song but it works.

Certainly one of the best and that’s not just nostalgia talking, and like I said my favorite animated version.

30th Anniversary Blu-ray- (Some say online they clip off the top and bottom for wide screen. I did not notice a dramatic difference)

The recent blu-ray release of it is gorgeous. The HD looks bright, clear and beautiful. It includes 5 animated shorts that are very entertaining.

1. Yoldelberg- 2013 but done in the style of Mary Blair for the program Mickey Mouse, which I am intrigued to watch. Paul Rudish animates it beautifully.

2. The Hockey Champ- 1939, early Donald teaching Huey Louie and Dewey how to play hockey. I love Donald!

3. Pluto’s Christmas Tree- 1952, Pluto battles with Chip and Dale as they tease him from inside Mickey’s Christmas tree.

4. The Art of Skiing- 1941, The first of Goofy’s ‘how to’ series.

5. Corn Chips- 1951, Chip and Dale try to steal popcorn from Donald and it gets out of control. I didn’t realize Chip and Dale were a part of so many shorts?

As you are watching the blu-ray you can also pause for sing along segments of our favorite carols. It would be nice if they had a behind the scenes or other bonus features considering its a 30 year anniversary blu-ray but all in all I’m satisfied with the restoration and blu-ray.

Scrooge 1: Christmas Carol: A Musical 2004

November 26, 2014November 26, 2014 | Rachel's Reviews

I mentioned in my last post I would like to organize these Scrooge reviews but the truth is they will end up being jumbled up because I get access to them at different times depending on when they air, are available from the library and other opportunities to watch come up.

So I had the 2004 musical version called A Christmas Carol: A Musical on my DVR and gave it a watch last night. It was my first time viewing this version. I’ve decided to not give grades for these movies but to just make note of the differences, strengths and weaknesses in each adaptation. So, let’s talk about what makes this version special!

2004 A Christmas Carol: The Musical

The trailer:

In this version we get a musical in the style of Oliver! Music is by Alan Menken with lyrics by Lynn Ahrens and it is very solid songs.

Kelsey Grammer as Ebenezer Scrooge
Jane Krakowski as Ghost of Christmas Past/Lamplighter
Jesse L. Martin as Ghost of Christmas Present/Sandwich Board Man
Geraldine Chaplin as Ghost of Christmas Future/Blind Old Hag
Jason Alexander as Jacob Marley’s Ghost
Edward Gower as Bob Cratchit
Linzi Hateley as Mrs. Cratchit
Jacob Collier as Tiny Tim

Scrooge- Kelsey Grammar, he’s pretty good although the hunched over, old impression feels like something that would work better on the stage. His singing voice is very good.

Differences-

Opening sequence which is usually at the counting house is at the stock exchange.

Singing throughout not just the occasional song

The Jacob Marley scene is unique. Instead of just Jacob you have an array of ghosts that do a number similar to Tevye’s Dream in Fiddler on the Roof.

They also integrate the story of Dickens father going to the debtor prison as part of Scrooge’s story. There is a scene in a courtroom where Scrooge’s father tells his son after being convicted ‘save your pennies. Make your fortune and keep it’.

We see Scrooge working in a shoe factory as a child which no other version had done which I’ve seen and that actually makes sense.

They use the Cratchit’s less than other versions and have Scrooge’s mother say the ‘God Bless Us Everyone’ line.

Other differences are you see Marley die which I don’t recall in other versions. Scrooge actually seems upset by this.

This is the only version I know of where Ghost of Future is a woman and not a grim reaper type.

All of the ghosts are seen in earlier scenes interacting with Scrooge. Ghost of Present is very well played by Rent’s Jesse L Martin who has such a great bass voice. He is a showman who puts on a play (which he had invited Scrooge too earlier) as part of his demonstration to Scrooge

Christmas Past is played by Jane Krakowski of 30 Rock fame and she shows Scrooge a book with the memories that they dive into, which is a unique take

Another difference is Scrooge refuses to give Fezziwig a loan just before his girl Emily (Jennifer Love Hewitt) breaks up with him. That was a very effective scene with Scrooge’s mentor realizing how cold his pupil has sunk.

Strengths- The music is a strength. I didn’t like every song but for the most part they are solid musical numbers that have the Menken flair (lyrics aren’t always great but it’s tough to be original with Christmas music).

All of the singing is excellent. Grammar has a lovely voice as well as Martin, Krakowski, and Gower. There is also a good chemistry amongst the cast. They all felt like a community, supporting one another (or not in the case of Scrooge). I surprisingly thought Jennifer Love Hewitt was effective in her brief scene as Emily.

The special effects with the ghosts, and various changes to the story with Scrooge’s father and refusing Fezziwig’s loan were interesting and effective. Also I thought the unique Ghost of Future was good. Nice to see some dialogue and personality in that character.

Weaknesses- Jason Alexander is miscast as Marley. I don’t know if it is just weird for me seeing George Costanza as Marley or if his performance is that off. It just didn’t quite gel.

Another issue is the makeup is very badly done and the lighting makes characters look kind of gaunt and pale, even Martin who is supposed to be alive and boisterous had sunken eyes and an emaciated look about him. It lessened the effects of Ignorance and Want because everyone already looked like them.

The finale is moving and it is nice to see Fran again but I missed the desperation and real intensity the scene normally has. It felt more like an inspirational group number than a pleading call for mercy.

Overall, I enjoyed the version. It has it’s technical issues with the makeup and lighting, but I thought the songs were good, performances pretty good and the changes in the story for the most part worked and were interesting. So, if it is on your dvr give it a watch.

Scrooge Month Introduction!

November 26, 2014December 9, 2014 | Rachel's Reviews

I am excited to announce to all of you my next project. Consider it my Christmas gift to all of you wonderful readers. I have always loved Charles Dicken’s Christmas Carol. I see it at our local theater, Hale Center Theater Orem, every year and watch as many film versions as I can. This year I figured let’s hunt down some more unusual one’s, as well as the favorites and blog about it. This should cover everything from silent movies to animation to Muppets. I’m really excited!!

I won’t go through the basic plot for each review because they are all basically the same, but I will note different choices in each version, talk about the leads and each strength and weakness.

If you live under a rock and don’t know the story of A Christmas Carol it is about a Victorian banker named Ebeneezer Scrooge who has allowed his heart to grow hard over a fear of poverty. Dickens father was sent to debtor’s prison and it was a great fear of his and all of the Victorian era. You can get a real sense of this gloom in his novel Little Dorrit (if you like Christmas Carol I highly recommend reading it). Scrooge has allowed himself to turn fear into coldness towards his fellow humans. This is demonstrated through his hatred and disgust of Christmas. He has a beleaguered clerk Bob Cratchit who remains positive despite everything. Bob has a son named Tiny Tim who is on crutches and in failing health.

Scrooge also has a nephew of a sister who died in childbirth. Seeing his cheerful nephew is painful for Scrooge because of his sister’s memory. It is another event that has made him bitter and cold. One Christmas Eve Scrooge gets a visit from his departed partner Jacob Marley. Jacob was selfish and cold like Scrooge but he feels sorry for his friend and arranges a way for him to be rescued from purgatory. Scrooge will have to be visited by 3 spirits- the ghost of Christmas past, present and future.

Through seeing his past and what made him bitter, the present and what he should be grateful for, and the future that is to be dreaded, Scrooge is humbled and decides to change and embrace Christmas and joy in life.

Honestly I’ve yet to see a version of this story that I haven’t liked on some level. It just moves me (yes even Smurfs and Tori Spelling…). I love the story because it is about seemingly lost causes and the fact there aren’t any. Everyone has potential for redemption and hope.

I personally see that redemption through Jesus and His great gift at Christmas but even if you are not Christian the message of hope in Christmas Carol is something to share and never forget.

So consider this my gift to all of you and my attempt to spread some hope during the holidays!

Bah Humbug!! 🙂

I am not sure what order I am going to do the posts or how I will group them but here are the films I plan on taking a look at over the next month. It will probably depend on how soon I am able to get a hold of different versions.

I’d love to hear your favorites!

Family Movies I Like that Others Do Not

November 23, 2014 | Rachel's Reviews

A popular post on these type of movie blogs is ‘movies everyone likes but I don’t’ or vice versa. You can check out my blogging friend Animation Commendation for his highly controversial picks (Wall-e and Up overrated! Outrage!). He is focusing just on animation and I have decided to just post about the films I like others don’t. As I said in my post Jerks, Trolls and Critics my goal in my writing is to be an advocate for film . It is not to tear down what other people love.

So I want to use this post as a chance to advocate for films that I believe are underrated by critics and fans in general. These movies are far from perfect and I can understand why people don’t like them but for whatever reason I found something to enjoy while watching them. Call it nostalgia, call it low expectations but I like the following films that a lot of others don’t like.

In no particular order.

Pirates Who Don’t Do Anything-

Veggietales are kind of like the Christian fundamentalist cousin of the animation world but you know they are done pretty well. The music is always fun, voicework good and the colors bright and colorful.

Pirates was the first time they tried to do a non-biblical tale (previously they had done Jonah as a feature film as well as their many direct to video films about Daniel, Moses and other stories).

This film could entertain kids of any faith as it focuses on finding heroes and makes a person a hero.

Tomatometer- 39%. I’d give it a C+ it’s certainly not top tier animation but I still find it entertaining.

The Other Side of Heaven-

I admit this one is easier for me to like because it is about a member of my faith, John Groeberg who went as a missionary to Tonga and had some amazing experiences.

This was also the only film we were allowed to watch on my mission for the Mormon church and having served a mission like Groeberg I relate too it.

So maybe it isn’t for everyone but it’s pretty well made and acted. I would think the story would be inspirational for those of other faiths but hard for me to know.

But this is my list and I like it so it makes the list!

Tomatometer 29%. I would give it a B

Lord of the Rings-

Ralph Bakshi’s Lord of the Rings has developed a bit of a cult following over the years and I think it is deserved. It is not perfect and Peter Jackson’s version is definitely better but this is pretty good. The animation is strong in parts and weak in others but scenes like the ringwraiths in Bakshi are really well done with a style I haven’t seen in other movies (kind of looks like a hologram)

They pack a lot into the film especially if you like the extended version of the Peter Jackson films and it can feel rushed but I still like the animation and the story is so solid at it’s core that it just works.

Our friend the Nostalgia Critic did a fun compare/contrast between the Jackson and Bakshi’s versions.

Strong language warning

Tomatometer 50%, I would give it a B-

Cinderella 3-

John Lasseter, over at Pixar, says they never do sequels unless they have an idea. That was the problem with most of the made for video sequels of the 90s and early 2000s. Most of them are a repeat of the original but with a new character (usually a child of our leads such as Bambi 2, Fox and the Hound 2, Lady and the Tramp 2 etc). Then there are one’s that continue the story but in incredibly trite and stupid ways. (Pocahontas 2, Brother Bear 2, Cinderella 2, and Hunchback of Notre Dame 2 are the worst examples). Finally there are sequels that are clobbered together from animated series that came after the movie and these are usually passable, on the Saturday morning cartoon level (Atltantis 2, Lilo and Stitch 2, Lion King sequels, Aladdin sequels etc).

But out of all of them The Little Mermaid sequels are passable but my favorite is Cinderella 3. Cinderella 2 is just her wedding and it sucks but 3 they actually have an idea.

Through a variety of circumstances Lady Tremaine finds the Fairy Godmother’s wand, which she then uses to turn back time and make it so Anastasia’s foot fits the slipper instead of Cinderella. The Prince now has to marry Anastasia and things seem pretty dire for our heroine.

The animation is on the Saturday morning level but it is passable and the songs are okay. It’s not great but I enjoyed seeing Lady Tremaine back up to no good and just found it very clever.

Tomatometer is actually high with only 7 reviews at 71% but I still say this counts because the sequels are so generally disregarded and looked down on.

Tomatometer 71%, I would give it a C

North Avenue Irregulars-

I suppose this is probably more forgotten than disliked but I’ve been wanting to make a shout-out to it so here goes.

It is the kind of movie almost never made today. A live action comedy starring A list talent for families. The story is silly and your enjoyment will probably depend on your taste of slapstick but it makes me laugh.

It was a dream team of comedic women with Barbara Harris, Susan Clark, Karen Valentine, Cloris Leachman, and a long list of faces you will recognize when you see them.

Edward Herrman is a nice foil for the ladies as the Reverend Hill who decides to take down local gambling syndicate using the ladies as the spies and detectives.

It has a pretty high tomatometer of 75% on 11 reviews but I still think it’s one that is easy to criticize but I like it. Great opening credits sequence too.

Tomatometer 75%, I would give it a B-

Disney’s Christmas Carol

Readers of my other blog smilingldsgirl.com kn0w The Christmas Carol is one of, if not my favorite stories ever written. I make sure to see it at the local theater every Christmas and watch as many versions as I can. There’s everything from Alastair Sims, George C Scott, to Bill Murray, Muppets, and Mickey Mouse.

I think what I like about the story is it is about lost causes and how anyone can change their lives if they embrace Christmas (and for me Christ) and decide to be a better person. It’s a story about redemption and I just love it.

When I heard that Jim Carey was being cast as Scrooge you can imagine my concern with a ham like him taking on my favorite character in literature. However, he plays it surprisingly straight and there are only a few antics when soaring through space. The spirits are done very well and there is a ton of the actual script taken from the novel, which is cool.

Some don’t like the stop motion animation but it doesn’t bother me. It’s a style just like any other and I can go with it. I wouldn’t say this is my favorite version but I still like it.

Tomatometer- 54%, I would give it a B

Cars 2

I wonder sometimes if people really hate this movie or if they just are mad at it because it’s not Up, Wall-e, and Ratatouille. Don’t get me wrong. It has major problems but is it really one of the worst movies ever made? While I’m not rushing out to buy the blu-ray I thought it was fun, decent level kids movie and an homage to the spy flicks their parents and older siblings get to watch.

As I said in my Planes: Fire and Rescue review, the world of the Cars and Planes movies is nutty and does not stand up to much examination. I guess there are car sex or car eggs hatching baby cars in this world? But then they run out of parts which is strange. Evidently some models are worthy of saving and others are not?

See how fast you can go down the rabbit hole with this world? So I suggest just going with it and not diving too deep. Just enjoy it as an homage to spy movies an leave it at that.

The other beef with this movie I hear is people don’t like Mater. I’m not sure why because I find him funny, as funny as a car can be at least…

It’s beautifully animated and the voicework is all good. The plot is actually pretty convoluted and complicated involving natural fuel. (Wouldn’t a world of just cars actually like the world to be poluted, that is their life sustaining liquid like we have water, they have oil…Again over-thinking it!

Overall I think the bad buzz is overrated and this movie is an ok, fun time at the movies.

Tomatometer- 39%, I would give it a C

Atlantis: The Lost Empire

We’ve talked a lot about this movie on the blog. I am aware I am in the minority on it. I thought it was a fun adventure movie with a wildly creative made up world that engaged me the way other good B Summer Adventure movies have like Indiana Jones, the Goonies, National Treasure etc. I liked the language and culture they created and the troop of explorers was fun and diverse.

The animation is gorgeous especially once they get to the Lost City and we have the blue crystals and their power. It has a bit of a steampunk feel and all in all I liked it. I thought it was a fun action adventure, treasure hunting story with a good, exciting ending. It all just worked for me in the spirit of those B adventure movies. So there you go!

Tomatometer- 49%, My Grade A-

Where the Wild Things Are

This is a movie you either go with and love or hate. I love it. It takes Maurice Sendak’s children’s story of a boy sent to bed without any supper finding a land of wild things and turns it into a brilliant movie.

It is the only film I’ve ever seen that captures the brooding quiet nature of childhood. Some say that makes it depressing but I remember being that kid. I remember hearing things in school like global warming or war and puzzling at how this could be. To me it was amazingly refreshing to have a kid who isn’t perky but a real person with all moods. His behavior when he meets the Wild Things is so authentic to what a kid, especially a boy, would do and I love it!

It’s a brilliant film in how it gives our character an opportunity to confront himself and his mother and realize they are both imperfect but trying. What a beautiful moment that is?

The puppets were the perfect choice as opposed to CGI. It makes it feel real and palatable and the voicework is PERFECT!

I broke down the movie in more detail on my Where the Wild Things Are Defended post.

Tomatometer is high because of people like me- 72%, My Grade A+

Space Jam-

To be honest I am really surprised the Space Jam tomatometer score so low. This is one of the few spots we can see our Looney Tunes friends on the big screens and I think it is charming. All the characters like Bugs, Daffy, Yosemite Sam and more are there in this live action/animation combo. Bill Murray is pretty funny and Michael Jordan is one of the better athletes turned actors (need I mention Shaque in Kazaam?)

I guess the plot follows a similar underdog theme but is anyone watching this for the intricate plot? No. They are watching it to see Bugs, Daffy and others tell good jokes and have a fun time and I think that’s what they get out of it.

Give it a watch through I bet you will agree it’s an entertaining flick.

Tomatometer- 35%, I would give it a B-

Follow that Bird-

Again this is probably more underrated than disliked. It has a very high tamotometer score in fact but I wanted to give it a shoutout anyway. Follow that Bird is the first Sesame Street movie and it is a real gem. Some people might discount it as a only a movie for little children because it is from Sesame Street but if you do that’s a shame because it is very clever and heartfelt.

Big Bird finds out he should be raised with a family and is adopted by the Dodo family making his new name Big Dodo. Despite having everything with the Dodo’s he isn’t happy, so he runs away. The rest of the film is part roadtrip and part our yellow bird finding out who his real family is.

It’s a lovely message for kids, there are lots of laughs and real heart too. I love all of the Muppets movies but this one will be close to the top for sure . I need to do a list of my favorite Muppet’s movies soon. What are your favorites?

Tomatometer- 91%, I would give it an A

Soul Surfer-

Another Christian film critics were incredibly tough on. It tells the true story of Bethany Hamilton who lost her arm to a shark while surfing and how she made it back to compete in the pros with one arm. I will agree that the special effects are not great and it does look pretty obvious where they cut off Anna Sophie Robb’s arm in post-production.

However, if you can get over the technical flaws there is a lot to like . Bethany is an amazing person. In fact, at the moment she is on The Amazing Race and tearing it up there. I thought at first she was stunt casting to get sympathy but she has been up for every challenge. She does with one arm what others struggle with 2. Everything from rock climbing to balancing tasks she’s been up for and she’s done it all in such a pleasant and happy way. I like her even more than I did after this movie.

The supporting cast is strong with Dennis Quaid and Helen Hunt as her parents and Carrie Underwood as a youth minister. Aside from the arm special effects the rest of the surfing shots are well done and the story didn’t play out exactly as I thought it would and it is an exciting moment when she gets back on the surfboard.

Doesn’t reinvent the wheel but what it does it does well and I enjoy watching it.

Tomatometer- 46%, I would give it a B-

American Tail Fievel Goes West

Most people like the first American Tail but are tough on this sequel. I would agree it is not as good but I still enjoy it.

This one is not directed by Don Bluth like the original but Steven Spielberg is a producer.

In part 2 we get the Mousekewitz family deciding to leave New York for the promises of the West (streets weren’t paved with gold I see!). Fievel idolizes Wylie Burp the sheriff of the west who is brilliantly played by the great Jimmy Stewart in what I believe is his last role on screen.

On the way they meet a conniving cat who is trying to get them out there as cheap labor. Our friend Tiger voiced by Dom DeLuise again shows up and we also get Amy Irving, John Cleese and Jon Lovitz.

In the end, it’s a pretty entertaining story with twists and turns. I enjoy the homage to the western and hearing Jimmy Stewart as Wylie.

The music by James Horner is also wonderful and I particularly love Dreams to Dream.

Tomatometer- 40%, I would give it an A

So that’s my list! What do you think? Seen any of these? Do you hate them or think they are pretty good? I’d love your thoughts. Thanks for reading my ramblings.

In Defense of Mary Sue and Gary Stu

November 21, 2014November 21, 2014 | Rachel's Reviews

As I’ve been doing reviews I keep hearing the same criticism about characters ‘he’s a Gary Stu” or for a girl “she’s a Mary Sue”. I have to admit I always thought this was a way of describing a boring, uninteresting character in a story. Turns out the official description is:

“(fandom slang) A fictional character, usually female, whose implausible talents and likeableness weaken the story”

So this is basically what we call in Mormon circles a “Molly Mormon”. Someone who is so perfect it doesn’t seem realistic. Well, as someone who has been accused of being a Molly Mormon on occasion I suppose I have a unique perspective on this topic. In fact, I have a little bit of a defense of this much maligned character in stories.

First of all, implausibility is completely in the eye of the beholder especially when we are talking about morality. For example, being a virgin to some may be seen as impossible or as an ‘unrealistic’ character trait in a story but amongst me and my unmarried Mormon and Christian friends it is very common.

What personally annoys me much more than a character that is ‘too perfect’ is the tendency in especially modern novels to tag on negative traits because the authors are afraid of being accused of Mary Sue’s and Gary Stu’s. I can think of less examples of this in movies than in books but you will frequently have a novel where a character has an affair tagged on to their story because ‘no marriage is perfect’.

For example, a book called the Fair and Tender Ladies by Lee Smith drove me crazy because it was about a sweet girl named Ivy who grew up, learned and had a happy family. At the end of the book she is standing in a field and a man comes up to her and she sleeps with him in the field. The message in the book is ‘now she is fulfilled’ . Groan. It ruined it. Another book with that message which ticked me off is The Awakening by Kate Chopin. A lot of feminists love it but I hated it. She is living a perfectly happy life but it’s not ‘enough’ and she has to leave her family and have meaningless flings and suddenly her soul has all of this purpose and meaning.

Give me a Molly or Mary Sue any day over this kind of ‘modern’ character. Even the ultimate Gary Stu, Superman (who is basically supposed to be a Jesus type) was all ‘modernized’ and made a wounded conflicted character in Man of Steel and I hated it. Where was the fun? It was so bleak and violent and in the end so off putting. It was not a more complex character just a boring, obvious, everyday character without any of the cheeky fun of the comics. He even rings the neck of Zod which was so out of place given the Messianic imagery throughout the film. Give me the original cheesy Christopher Reeve version any day over that modern dreck.

So I hate the opposite of a Mary Sue but let’s talk about the trope itself. It is often said the Mary Sue is ‘annoying’ in the story. Again, that is totally relative. Like beauty, annoyingness is in the eye of the beholder too!

First of all, it entirely depends on the kind of story that is being told. For example, if I am watching a B summer action movie I don’t want my hero to be all conflicted and complex. I want him to save the day! Let’s think about Indiana Jones. He is handsome, charming and he always figures out the clues that others have spent generations toiling over in a manner of minutes. Do we care? No, because he’s Indiana Jones and we want to see him fight Nazis, jump over cars, and find the Holy Grail. That’s what made the 4th Indiana Jones movie so obnoxious (one of the many things) is they kept bringing up all of Indiana Jones frailties, how old he was, and that he wasn’t the same guy as before. Also, they pushed the trope too far. In the originals Indy always got beat up bad but would save the day . In the 4th he survives a nuclear explosion in a fridge…Too far!

Other examples of this type of character are Ethan Hunt, Jack Ryan, Jack Bauer, James Bond, and McGyver. They are our heroes and we want to see them prevail and not be ‘realistic’. Sure their talents are implausible and they are charming in the way no man is in real life, but it’s perfect for the type of movie we’ve signed up for. That’s why I didn’t mind Milo in Atlantis because it was this type of action, treasure hunting B summer movie that such a character works well in. The same is true in Goonies. Do we care that the kids find a ridiculous treasure easily under the city? No because it’s a fun adventure with a charming troop of hunters. I thought the troop surrounding Milo was a lot of fun and so I enjoyed the adventure. The mythos, language and lore they created also compensated for a less interesting lead character. I didn’t miss or need Milo to be anything more than what he was.

The same is true with Hercules. I enjoyed the stuff around Hercules enough that I didn’t need him to be all dynamic and crazy. Megura, Zeus, Hadeus, Pain and Panic, the music was all fun enough for me to enjoy the picture. I recognize that isn’t the case for a lot of you but again what annoys one doesn’t annoy another. What charms one drives another nuts. I was okay with Hercules being an unrealistic guy because he’s a demi-God. He’s supposed to be that way. Like Superman, Hercules just have to have a modicum of flair and personality so that all around him can shine.

There are also dramatic characters that could be described as ‘unrealistically perfect’ that I are considered classics. For example, Atticus Finch in To Kill a Mockingbird doesn’t make a wrong move the entire movie or book. He is always loving, kind, honorable and virtuous but I have never heard anyone say that he was a bad character. He is typically thought of as one of the greatest characters in English literature. Sometimes we need a character to stand up for right and truth consistently in a story. I feel like now writers would make Atticus an alcoholic or tag on some other vice to make him more “relatable”. What a shame that would be.

Another example of a Gary Stu that I love is in Christmas Carol. Bob Cratchit is an implausible character in many ways. Few men would put up with such treatment and certainly Tiny TIm is a rare angel on earth but they are needed in order for Scrooge to see the error in his ways. Sometimes an ultimate contrast is what a story requires for the plot to move forward. If Tim was just kinda sweet and kinda nice than Scrooge would have written him off but his goodness has an effect. From the moment he see’s Tiny Tim, Scrooge begins to change.

Both Atticus and Tiny Tim are trying to teach us something within the story and they do it very effectively. So maybe next time you see a ‘Mary Sue’ trope you can stop and say ‘what is the author trying to teach us here?’. Maybe it will work, maybe not?

The truth is all characters are ‘implausible’ because if we wrote about real life it would be very boring. Most of us do the same routine every day interrupted by moments of clarity. A good screenwriter must make craft a tale that is not simply moments but a story and sometimes Gary Stus and Mary Sues are needed for the particular story to progress.

At the very least saying a character is a ‘Gary Stu’ is kind of like saying he is boring or food is gross. It doesn’t really give me any information. Why is he implausible? Why are his traits unlikely and why do they weaken that particular kind of story? I will probably still disagree with you but at least we will understand each other’s perspectives better.

On the Wikipidia article on Mary Sue’s they have an interesting passage about how the fear of the ‘Mary Sue’ label is making some authors hesitant of including female characters at all. “Smith interviewed a panel of female authors who say they do not include female characters in their stories at all. She quoted one as saying “Every time I’ve tried to put a woman in any story I’ve ever written, everyone immediately says, this is a Mary Sue.” Smith also pointed out that “Participants in a panel discussion in January 1990 noted with growing dismay that any female character created within the community is damned with the term Mary Sue.”

For example, I did not respond to the character of Pocahontas. I didn’t find her interesting because she doesn’t really grow and for the type of story they are trying to tell I found her selfish, a poor listener and stubborn in an uncharming way. She also preaches to people when she talks instead of having conversations. This makes her less relatable and her actions predictable. You see how that is a more fleshed out description than just attaching some label?

I think that fear is what causes writers like Smith to tag on the adultery or other flaws so they have a defense against the Mary Sue label. That is not good! The fact is most people I know are probably Mary Sue’s so they exist and are real. Let’s have stories about these people too!

So, I say think about the story you are watching. What genre is it and are the character tropes and types appropriate to the story being told? You can still dislike the movie if it doesn’t do those things well but at least it won’t be an automatic Gary Stu or Mary Sue?

Then if a character rubs you the wrong way, if you find them annoying, think for a second about why. Is it their voice, actions, mannerisms? What? Let’s dig a little deeper than Mary Sue or Gary Stu.

I mean after all Jesus was the ultimate Gary Stu and he changed the world so let’s be a little more open minded when it comes to these things and not just stick a highfalutin label on things.

Sincerely your friendly neighborhood Mary Sue or Molly Mormon or whatever you want to call me… 🙂