WHY DO I OWN THIS?: Radioland Murders (1994)

The overwhelming majority of films George Lucas has had a hand in shows his love of the retro aesthetic. It’s evident in the boomer nostalgia of “American Graffiti,” the classic serial homages in “Star Wars” and “Indiana Jones,” and even in the fairy tale settings of “Willow” and “Strange Magic.” So it’s not surprising Lucas would have an interest in the vintage radio programs of the thirties and forties. What is surprising is that Lucas convinced a major movie studio to spend 15 million dollars on an extended love letter to the beyond-antiqued format of radio. Conceived by Lucas around the same time as “American Graffiti,” its premise retro even then, “Radioland Murders” would simmer in Development Hell until the early nineties. Unsurprisingly, a screwball comedy homage about the magic of radio would fail to connect with Generation X audiences. After bombing at the box office, “Radioland Murders” would fade quickly from memory. So why do I own it?

The year is 1939 and a brand new radio station is opening in Chicago. WBN is having its share of problems on opening night. All the scripts are being re-written at the last minute, from a writer staff that is over-stressed and underpaid. The owner is determined to impress potential sponsors. Head writer Richard Nederson and assistant director Penny Hendersen are married but are planing on divorcing, which only adds to the stress of the situation. The night gets harder for everyone when people begin dying. A trumpet player dies of an apparent poisoning. One of the directors is found hanged. Soon, it becomes apparent a murderer is afoot. And Richard is being framed for the crime.

Not content being a homage to one bygone genres, “Radioland Murders” is also a throwback to the screwball comedies of the thirties and forties. Drawing a lot of inspiration from Abbott and Costello flick, “Who Done It?,” “Radioland Murders” manages to successfully capture the particular atmosphere of that time and place. There's fast-paced dialogue, belligerent sexual tension between the male and female leads, lots of broad slapstick, and a murder/mystery plot resolved in the goofiest way possible. Contributing largely to this aesthetic is an excellent production design, which is probably where most of that budget went. The costumes, as well as the look and feels of all the sets, perfectly capture the appearance of forties cinema.

George Lucas spent most of the eighties more as a hands-on producer/idea-man than an actual director. That wouldn't change with “Radioland Murders,” as actual directorial duties would be handled over to British slapstick specialist Mel Smith. Smith seems to be in his element here. “Radioland Murders” is pretty amusing, for the most part. Scott Michael Campbell's Billy, the station's pageboy, is constantly being abused by the various circumstances in the film, a good contrast to his endlessly upbeat attitude. The foley man, played by an entertainingly eccentric Christopher Lloyd, is constantly up to weird business in a dark room. A big sequence devoted to Billy Barty singing “That Old Black Magic” goes nicely off the rails. One of the funniest scenes has the scripts for a soap opera and a jungle adventure show being mixed up, the actresses rolling with it without pause. Not all the slapstick works. The big physical gags tend to overstay their welcome. A scene involving a fire hose and another where Brian Benben swings off a huge sign are a little too much.

A big reason why “Radioland Murders” works is its extremely game cast. Brian Benben has the exact quality ideal for this type of comedy, goofy but never mugging, relatable but never boring. He also has nice chemistry with Mary Stuart Masterson, who similarly seems like a spitfire, brassy broad right out of the time period. The supporting cast is peppered with recognizable names. Michael Lerner is hilarious as a no-nonsense police detective, unaware of how ridiculous he has. Bobcat Goldthwait brings his nicely high-strung act to the role of one of the writers. Jeffrey Tambor is amusingly ridiculous as a philandering director. Dylan Baker got some laughs as an inexperienced detective way out of his element. Stephen Tobolowsky has a nice dry streak suited to this material. Aside from familiar faces like Ned Beatty, Michael McKean, and Corbin Bernsen, the film also includes cameos from actual radio stars like George Burns and Rosemary Clooney.

Why Do I Own This?: We finally reach the point in the existence of Film Thoughts and my Why Do I Own This? column where I'm covering stuff I bought specifically to review for this blog. Back in 2015, I did a George Lucas Director Report Card and I originally planned it to be more ambitious. I wanted to also cover “Red Tails,” that “Clone Wars” animated movie, and, yes, “Radioland Murders.” As usually happens, I ran out of time and ended up cutting a few reviews. This kind of thing happens all the time, if you hadn't guessed.

Ultimately, though, I don't regret owning “Radioland Murders.” Yes, it's not a super memorable movie nor is it an overlooked masterpiece. However, it is a pretty amusing throwback to a long ago format and genres nobody thinks much about anymore. It is a fluffy and pleasant experience that can be easily enjoyed. Onto the “Keep” pile it goes! [7/10]

WHY DO I OWN THIS?: Mannequin (1987)

In my previous “Why Do I Own This?” entry, I discussed “Date with an an Angel” and accurately described it as a rip-off of “Splash.” While I connected those films with humanity's long history of wanting to fuck fantastical creatures, the magical girlfriend genre is a long-running as well. The idea of some loser having his life turned around by an extraordinary female – a fundamentally sexist premise that lives on in the Manic Pixie Dream Girl – is a a concept that dates back to at least “Bewitched.” For whatever reason, it was an especially popular premise in the eighties. Aside from the aforementioned films, you also had “Weird Science,” “Xanadu,” another former WDIOT entry “My Stepmother is an Alien,” and even animated series like “Video Girl Ai.” Released the same year as “Angel” was “Mannequin,” which brought things full circle by updating the story of Pygmalion, perhaps the original magical girlfriend story, for the eighties. Despite being among 1987's worst reviewed film, “Mannequin” achieved a certain level of box office popularity. I also, for some unknown reason, own the DVD.

Jonathan is a young man with artistic endeavors. However, his obvious talent is not enough to keep him employed, Jonathan cycling through a series of odd jobs. Among these is painting and assembling mannequins in a factory, Jonathan becoming especially fond of one mannequin. After he saves an old lady who is the owner of a failing department super-store, Prince & Company, Jonathan is reunited with the mannequin... Who is actually a resurrected Egyptian princess named Emmy. Anyway, the two fall in love and inspires Jonathan to put together fantastic displays in the store window, bringing up business. This is bad news for Illustra, Prince & Company's rival that was conspiring to buy the store.

Even by the standards of gimmicky, high-concept romantic-comedies, “Mannequin” is egregiously stupid. Just look at Emmy's back story, which is hastily explained during the opening scene. Her wish not to marry a dung farmer was answered by the gods seemingly by sending her soul all throughout history. How this led to her being in a mannequin body, who can only interact with Jonathan when no one else is looking, is never explained. It's pretty evident that writer/director Michael Gottlieb thought up the concept first and then tagged on that cheesy opening scene to provide the vaguest of explanations. If this was the film's only bizarre leap of logic, that would be one thing. Yet “Mannequin” also asks us to believe that a spiffy display window would be enough to boost an entire store, which is otherwise depicted as always empty, from failing to successful within a few weeks.

Supposedly, Gottlieb was inspired to write “Mannequin” after he thought he saw a mannequin in a shop window move. Instead of writing the obvious horror movie about that premise, he instead decided to create a film cynically devoted to exploiting the teen girl market. This is why the non-intimidatingly boyish Andrew McCarthy stars as Jonathan, while Kim Cattral plays a centuries-old princess/mannequin as a teenage girl. Neither performer is bad and both commit fully to the material. It's just that “Mannequin's” script is so dumb that no actor could emerge from it and make a good impression on the viewer. The film's strictly mercenary roots are evident in other ways. A good twenty percent of the run time are montages, devoted to Jonathan and Emmy dressing up and goofing around the oddly empty mall. Despite its century-spanning timeline, the film's scope is utterly restrained to this stationary location. (Presumably because stereotypical teen girls like shopping?) 

When not devoting screen time to its male protagonist having lots of implied sexy sex with his mannequin girlfriend, “Mannequin” indulges in some truly pedestrian slapstick. The film's physical comedy gags are large and broad. Jonathan is swept up onto a giant swinging sign, his bottom shocked repeatedly by a sparking cable. An attempted date with his ex-girlfriend ends with Jonathan using a waiter's toupee to put out a fire. A car vs. motorcycle chase concludes with the large vehicle jumping a ramp and being stuck between an alleyway. While these moments are aggressively wacky, they all feel utterly lifeless. There's no chaotic energy injected into these gags, resulting in the comedy seemingly hopelessly toothless and limp.

About the only thing “Mannequin” has going for it is a bizarre collection of supporting characters. The film's group of sidekicks and antagonists are all exaggerated cartoon characters. Such as James Spader as Richards, an underhanded and weaselly corporate stooge that is especially underhanded even by the standards of James Spader characters. Or Felix, the mentally unhinged security guard that pursues McCarthy for most of the film. Actor G.W. Bailey mugs furiously in the part, a completely insane man who keeps dogs named after action heroes, treats his feeble job like its a war. His obsession with exposing Jonathan's mannequin love extends far beyond the normal boundaries of a night watchmen. The most extreme character in the film is Meschach Taylor's Hollywood, a flaming gay man. Hollywood is not a flattering character, a textbook Gay Best Friend and embarrassingly flamboyant stereotype. Yet Taylor is clearly having the time of his life in the part, goofing it up in a way that's far more entertaining than the film around him.

While rightfully doused by critics, “Mannequin” is another one of those random turkeys that somehow scored an Oscar nomination. Starship's love theme, “Nothing's Going to Stop Us Now,” was a number one pop hit and would be nominated for Best Original Song at the 1988 Academy Awards. Director Gottlieb would gift the world with other similarly high concept comedies like “Mr. Nanny,” “A Kid in King Arthur's Court,” and “The Shrimp on the Barbie.” (Which was so bad, even Gottlieb took his name off it.) At least he didn't direct the film's misbegotten sequel, 1991's “Mannequin: On the Move,” which is supposedly even worst. Kristy Swanson and William Ragsdale's careers never really recovered from that one. As for the original “Mannequin,” it's a really special kind of dumb. Too brainless to be genuinely good but far too shallow in its goals to be an off-beat cult item, it's a truly bad movie.

Why Do I Own This?: I don't know, you guys. Sometimes I just buy stupid bullshit for no reason. [3/10]

WHY DO I OWN THIS?: Date with an Angel (1987)

In southern France, there's a 30,000 year old cave painting of a human woman and a half-man, half-bison creature getting cozy. In other words: Pretty much from the moment humanity formulated myths, certain people have dreamed about fucking magical creatures. I guess it's just human nature to not be romantically satisfied with other people. This is a proud tradition that carries through most myths and religions in history. The ancient Greeks especially loved it. The concept remains in our pop culture to this day, in material ranging from pornographic novels to a Best Picture winner. In 1984, Ron Howard's “Splash!”  was an especially popular and family friendly riff on this concept. In 1987, “Date with an Angel” would take more-or-less the same premise but trade a fish tail for feathery wings. This film is not especially well regarded or even remembered but, for some reason, I own it.

Jim had dreams of becoming a musician but, now, he's engaged to marry Patty, the daughter of a rich cosmetics company executive. He's not happy with this situation but tells himself he loves Patty. His friends drag him off to a bachelor party and he awakens in a drunken stupor the next morning. That's when a beautiful woman falls from the sky into his pool. She's is quite literally an angel, sent from heaven. Upon setting an eye on her, Patty immediately assumes Jim is cheating on her. The angel, who cannot speak and doesn't understand how the mortal world works, gets involved in lots of shenanigans. Naturally, Jim really does develop feelings for her soon enough.

“Date with an Angel” is a very dumb romantic-comedy. It's one of those films were problems could be resolved if only the characters stopped and talked to each other for a minute. Upon seeing Jim with Angel, Patty jumps to the conclusion that he's having an affair. Never does she actually allow him to explain what happened or let him show her the obvious evidence, like Angel's wings or her heavenly glow. Eventually, Patty's behavior grows more manic and ridiculous, swinging a rifle around and wearing her underwear outside her clothes. Jim's friends perform bizarre and frequently illegal stunts, like dressing up as terrorists to attack Patty's party. Or when they kidnap Angel and attempt to put her on display, an unambiguously criminal act that the film treats as a wacky antic. Most of this shit is in the movie to pad out what's a pretty thin premise.

Writer/director Tom McLoughlin, previously of clever eighties horror flicks like “One Dark Night” and “Friday the 13th: Jason Lives!,” was obviously way more interested in the fish-out-of-water antics an angel landing on Earth presented. Angel doesn't speak, only communicating in high-pitched, bird-like vocalizations. She's baffled by human food but, thanks to some gratuitous product placement from Wendy's, soon discovers a love of french fries. Better are the gags that result from people being shocked by her appearances, her wings and behavior often confusing or shocking people, such as a man in a church. Or how her angelic abilities, like a kinship with animals, gets Jim out of a jam with Patty's dad. This stuff, which also includes a singing telegram dressed as a ladybug, is odd enough that it at least inspires some baffled chuckles.  

The biggest star in “Date with an Angel” is Phoebe Cates as Patty. Cates, an angelic beauty herself, thoroughly embarrasses herself with the increasingly broad and gross slapstick the film insists she partakes in. She's not really the star of the film though. That duty falls to Michael E. Knight, an undistinguished performer best known for a long stint on “All My Children.” Knight has some okay comedic chops, displayed when looking away from a bathing Angel. Yet Jim is mostly a fairly bland character. Emmanuelle Beart plays the Angel. It's easy to see why Beart was cast in the part. She is striking and captures a child-like sense of innocence well enough. She still can't distract from how weird the character is though, with her shrieks and wing-related pratfalls.

Why Do I Own This?: “Date with an Angel” received negative reviews. Roger Ebert compared it unflatteringly to “Teen Wolf Too.” Its box office was even worst, the film barely grossing over a million dollars against a six million dollar budget. Tom McLoughlin hasn't directed a theatrically released film since, though he's become a prolific director of television films. But when I saw the director of two horror movies I liked made a rom-com with a really strange/dumb premise, I decided I had to track it down. This is also one of those movies my dear mother considers “sweet” and she watched it often during my childhood. So that's why I own this totally forgotten, oddball motion picture. I doubt I'll ever watch it again. [5/10]

WHY DO I OWN THIS?: We Wish You a Turtle Christmas (1994)

This is what a pop culture phenomenon the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles were in the nineties. People paid good money to watch actors dressed as crude facsimiles of the characters sing songs. Following the utterly shocking success of the “Coming Out of Their Shells” live musical stage show, a pair of VHS sing-along tapes were released in 1994. The first was “Turtles Tunes,” a collection of public domain songs and original numbers sung by the Ninja Turtles. The second was “We Wish You a Turtle Christmas,” which similarly had the reptilian martial artists putting their spin on seasonal melodies. Forgotten for years, the internet would pick up these tapes and make them so-bad-they're-good, “can you believe this stupid bullshit?” cult items. “We Wish You a Turtle Christmas” is supposed to be pretty terrible which might make you wonder why I own it.

The thin plot of “We Wish You a Turtle Christmas” revolves around the ninjas going out on Christmas Eve to get their Master Splinter some gifts. The residents of New York City and various shopping establishments are apparently unfazed by the sight of six foot tall, heavily muscular turtles dancing and singing near them. Of course, the plot is merely meant to facilitate the various songs. In-between the numbers, there's some light banter. Along the way, a street corner Santa and a group of children join the Turtles in their singing.

And what songs they are! The opening rendition of “Deck the Halls” is done as a reggae number. “Over the River and Through the Woods” is rewritten to be about the Turtles' sewer abode. Michaelangelo, for unexplained reasons, launches into an opera-esque rendition of “O Little Town of Bethlehem,” which is now about Manhattan. Once Splinter is presented with his gift, he puts his own spin on “12 Days of Christmas.” The tape wraps up with the Turtles and a bunch of kids singing “We Wish You a Merry Christmas.” There are two wholly original numbers too, including an utterly cringe-inducing rap song about wrapping gifts. Truly, you have not lived until you've seen the Ninja Turtles butcher these Christmas classics.

As hilariously misguided and utterly jaw-dropping as these songs are, it's not the main thing that makes “We Wish You a Turtle Christmas” so hilarious. Did I mention this was a live action production? The Ninja Turtle suits the actors wear aren't even up the standard of “The Next Mutation.” The animatronic mouths barely move, a thin strip of black fabric visible behind their massive teeth. The performers clearly have difficulty moving in the outfits, much less dancing. The Splinter costume has a weirdly over-sized head. Apparently two actors did all the voices. This is evident, as three of the four turtles have weird Brooklyn accents. The voice performers chatter over the end credits, even after the words disappear.

Why Do I Own This?: The easiest answer to that question is: How could I not? I own “Turtle Tunes” too. If you think this one is bad, ooh boy, you should check out that cinematic masterpiece of sight and sound. When I spotted both of these quote-unquote films in a flea market bin of VHS tapes, two dollar price tags on each, there was no way I could resist. Knowing fully both were suppose to awful, I happily took them home. This duo currently resides in my collection and you can take them when they're pried from my cold, dead fingers.

But I digress. “We Wish You a Turtle Christmas” is completely baffling and beautifully so. The only time I wasn't laughing through the twenty minute runtime was when my jaw sagged open in disbelief. I can recall renting this as a kid and happily eating it up. It's amazing what a child will uncritically consume, when compared to how hilariously perplexed an adult may be. I'm going to give this thing a positive review and have no regrets about that. Obviously produced cynically as a cheap way to cash in on a then red hot fad, time and perspective transforms “We Wish You a Turtle Christmas” into ironic enjoyment. May you have a truly Turtle Christmas as well. [7/10]

WHY DO I OWN THIS?: Beauty and the Beast: The Enchanted Christmas (1997)

I grew up as a Disney Kid. My mom loved the animated features put out by the studio and passed that love onto me. In the mid-nineties, when the studio started to crank out direct-to-video sequels to its theatrically released animated classics, my Mom was more than happy to scoop them up. I guess we were both pretty naive, assuming these follow-ups would always be up to the quality of the originals. We learned after a few years and stopped buying them by the time “Hunchback of Notre Dame II” came out. Eventually, Disney itself realized that the cheapie sequels deluded the reputation of the originals and quit making them. Nevertheless, I can recall buying “Beauty and the Beast: The Enchanted Christmas” as a kid and happily watching it. It was only the fourth DTV sequel the studio made and the concept still had some novelty. But I'm a grown-up now, ostensibly. So why do I continue to own this film?

The ending to “Beauty and the Beast” made a sequel difficult, as the prince is no longer a beast by the end. Though Disney briefly considered having Gaston's brother turn the prince back into a beast, the solution they ultimately arrived at was more concise. “The Enchanted Christmas” is neither a prequel nor a sequel but takes place in the middle of the original's story. Still locked in the castle, Belle decides an extravagant Christmas party will ease the Beast's pain. In fact, he hates Christmas, as that was the night he was transformed. Belle, with encouragement from the castle staff, decides to go ahead with the celebration anyway. Forte, the evil pipe organ that wants everything to stay the way it is, attempts to interfere.

“The Enchanted Christmas'” status as a interquel creates a big problem. In the second half, there's a scene where the Beast feels Belle betrayed him, locking her in the dungeon again. Later, during Forte's final rampage, the magical rose central to the Beast's curse is nearly crushed. If you're watching this movie, odds are good you've seen the first one. So you already know that the Beast will forgive Belle, that the rose will be fine. By setting this follow-up before the first one's end, Disney ripped away any suspense the story might've had. Beyond that, “The Enchanted Christmas” is quite repetitive of the original. Both feature a scene of Belle going into the woods, being endangered. This time by thin ice on a lake, instead of wolves. Both revolve around Belle charming the Beast, melting his heart. Both feature the couple dressed in evening wear while dancing in the ball room. Disney sure was determined to replicate the things people liked about the last one.

Surprisingly, Disney talked all the primarily players from the first movie into returning for this sequel. Even Angela Lansbury as Mrs. Potts and Jerry Orbach as Lumiere return. That certainly goes a long way to making this sequel seem more legitimate. Naturally, the sequel also introduces quite a few new characters. The quality of these new additions vary. Tim Curry, naturally, hams it up to wonderful levels as Forte, the evil pipe organ. Bernadette Peters puts on a convincing French accent as Angelique, the castle decorator/tree topper. Less endearing is Paul Reubens as Fife, the clarinet that is Forte's sidekick. Fife's antics are aggressively wacky and shouted. Jeff Bennet also shows up as a talking axe, who speaks with an exaggerated Jewish accent. Which is certainly, well, an interesting decision.

Curry, as you'd expect, is a highlight of the movie. His big musical number, “Don't Fall in Love”  involves hypnotizing the Beast with pulsating musical notes. It's the sole song that makes an impression. Otherwise, the songs are drippy. Both “Stories” and “As Long as There's Christmas” feature overwrought melodies. Both songs pile on the bombast, attempting to grab a molecule of the emotion that made the first one so good. “A Cut Above the Rest,” a number for Lumiere and Cogsworth, is forgettable and does nothing to advance the plot. The animation, at the very least, looks alright. It's not theatrical quality but does look better than the animated TV shows Disney was also producing at the time. Aside from the decision to create Forte solely through primitive CGI. That was probably a mistake.

Why Do I Own This?: As I mentioned above, my Mom definitely bought the VHS of this film when it was new. I can only recall watching it once but it, nevertheless, resided in our Disney collection. When we made the leap from VHS to DVD, she felt the need to upgrade this one anyway. And when I moved out, it somehow ended up in the box of DVDs that went to my place. So, the answer to why I own this is simply “inertia.” “The Enchanted Christmas” is, truthfully, among the better direct-to-video spin-offs Disney pushed out in the nineties. This means its still a totally mediocre affair that stands up poorly to the original. It is pretty heavy on the Christmas atmosphere and only becomes unbearably saccharine once or twice. Do you think I can get away with wrapping this up and gifting it to Ma on the 25th? [5/10]

WHY DO I OWN THIS?: Delirious (1991)

John Candy was a wonderful comedic performer that rarely found vehicles truly deserving of his talent. He prospered in wacky supporting roles in movies like “Stripes” or “Spaceballs.” His leading parts tended to fluctuated more wildly in quality. There's a reason you never hear anyone talking about “Who's Harry Crumb?” or “Armed and Dangerous.” Or, for that matter, “Delirious.” The movie was another of many flops, grossing not quite six million against an eighteen million dollar budget, that plagued Candy near the end of his life. The critics were no more fond of the film than audiences were. So, once again, I ask the titular question: Why do I own this apparent stinker?

In “Delirious,” Candy plays Jack Gable. A nervous and easily frustrated man, Gable works as a writer for “Beyond Our Dreams,” a popular daytime soap opera. Gable has got some problems. He's got an unrequited crush on Laura, one of the actresses on the show. The show runners are constantly rewriting his script and threatening to replace him, especially with his attempts to introduce some new characters. A stressful day concludes with him getting hit in the head by a trunk latch. Gable awakens within the soap opera's universe. Soon, Jack realizes the characters have mistaken him for Jack Gates, the bad-ass new character he hoped to write into the show. Later still, he discovers he can manipulate the universe's events simply by rewriting them.

The troupes and conventions of soap operas are well-trotted ground as far as parodies go. You don't have to travel far to find something making fun of the overheated melodramas and nonsensical plot twist the now dying format is notorious for. It would seem the filmmakers behind “Delirious,” including director Tim Mankiewicz who previously wrote several Bond movies and a couple of Richard Donner's films, where at least partially aware of this. “Delirious” is a somewhat indecisive parody of soaps. The first half is more about Jack responding to the ridiculous soap opera characters. (Which, in a joke that really hasn't aged well, includes a transvestite auto mechanic.) Its only in the second half, when characters suddenly start undergoing massive changes, that the parody aspect comes into focus. There's at least one good gag there, with a character getting super-advanced cancer out of nowhere. It's also sort of cute that the character with amnesia can't remember that he has amnesia.

Another reason I suspect this was by design is because “Delirious” seems more focused on its main character's ability to rewrite the world around him. This also ends up producing the film's too-few big laughs. John Candy rescues a girl by transforming himself into a hyper-competent martial artist. Later, he teleports a surprise cameo out of the film and sends him to Cleveland. After a night of drunken writing, Jack discovers that he's written his high school crush and some egregious typos into the soap opera world. These scenes also play to John Candy's strengths far better than the broader gags. Candy is funnier when reacting with shock and bafflement to his own decisions than he is during excessively wacky gags like a dramatic horse rescue going wrong or a blindfolded driving scene.

“Delirious” has a large supporting cast, most of whom work pretty well. Mariel Hemingway plays Jack's love interest. Mariel is given glasses, a unibrow, and a klutzy streak in an attempt to ugly her up. It doesn't work, of course, but Hemingway at least seems able to play off Candy. Most of the actors playing the soap opera characters happily go over the top. Emma Samms purrs every line as Rachel/Laura, the show's femme fatale. A young Dylan Baker gets some of the film's biggest bits of physical comedy, as the scheming brother struck by sudden illness. Raymond Burr, in his final film role, is nicely dry as the family patriarch. I like how he inherits a running gag about late cablemen. Disgraced SNL player Charles Rocket gets one or two funny lines two, as the guy in the eye patch. There's also a mildly funny cameo midway through, which I won't spoil.

Why Do I Own This?: So “Delirious' really isn't that funny. The film's few good jokes are bordered by quite a few lame gags and clunky moments. Candy is amusing and leads a decent cast but the material is not up to the same snuff. The movie choosing to veer into sincere romantic-comedy near the end, getting serious after eighty minutes of gaggy comedy, is a really poor choice.

So why do I own this one? As has been the case in the past, I blame misplaced nostalgia. I saw it on TV a few times as kid and even had a copy I recorded off television. I'm not sure why I was fond of it, as the film doesn't really hold up that well. There's another one for the discard pile. At least it's better than “Wagons East,” which I also recorded off TV years ago. Even as an impulsive teenager, I had the foresight not to upgrade that one to DVD. [5/10]

WHY DO I OWN THIS?: Ghost Dad (1990)

We finally live in a time when some women feel like its possible to come forward about the sexual assault and violence they've suffered, even when the responsible party is a beloved pop culture icon. Since this has begun, a few stock reactions have cropped up. I recently saw a brilliant comic mocking one of the most common reactions, the “I never liked this person anyway” reaction. Which will make the following statement from me read as especially insincere but: I always thought there was something off about Bill Cosby. As a stand-up, I frequently found his material amusing. Yet the wholesome, family man image he projected, most obviously on his sitcom, always struck me as somewhat insincere. I guess I never got over the bullshit he put Lisa Bonet through. If I've never been much of a Cosby fan, why do I own “Ghost Dad,” which is not even regarded as an especially good Bill Cosby movie? 

If the title didn't tell you enough, let me lay down the plot of “Ghost Dad” for you. The film follows Elliot Hopper. A recently widowed father of three, he's frequently not at home because he's so busy working. He's so absent that he forgets their birthdays and records their bed time stories to tape. One day, on the way to work, Elliot is picked up by an insane cab driver. Soon, he ends up careening off the edge of a bridge. Hopper awakens as a ghost, believing himself to be dead. He soon learns he can briefly make himself corporeal and goes about trying to return himself to the land of the living.

On the surface, “Ghost Dad” has some things going for it. Behind the camera was Sidney Poitier. Yes, that Sidney Poitier, the Academy Award winning actor who previously directed half-decent comedy “Silver Streak.” The film was co-written by S. S. Wilson and Brent Maddock. This same team had a hand in creating nostalgic favorites like “Tremors,” “Short Circuit,” and “*batteries not included.” Those movies overcame their high concept premise to become decent. “Ghost Dad” does not achieve this goal. Every expected gag is pulled off in as excruciating a manner as possible.

So we get a ghostly Cosby attempting to pass a physical exam, utilizing a skeleton during an x-ray and stealing another man's pee. In jokes right out of a “Casper the Friendly Ghost” cartoon, people react in frightened, exaggerated manners to Cosby's shenanigans. Such as when he wraps himself up like the Invisible Man, makes it look like his youngest daughter is lifting a large trash can or helping his budding magician son pull off outrageous tricks. Most cringe worthy is when he uses his ghostly abilities to torment the sleazeball interested in dating his daughter. Yes, there's even some fart and poop jokes. The non-ghost jokes the film cooks up, like a man having a woman's name, are equally uninspired.

Being a movie about a dad who is also a ghost was not enough of a log line for “Ghost Dad.” The  film follows the standard family movie narrative of a workaholic father who, via fantastical circumstances, learns to make more time for his kids. (Connecting this film with fellow high-concept family movie and previous “Why Do I Own This?” entry,  “My Stepmother is an Alien,” the dad in both films is a widower.) At one point, he chastises his children because he's afraid of loosing his job. Even though he's, you know, dead and his job should be a moot point. In fact, the tension over his job is one of the primary motivators of the plot. Copper has to go through some ridiculous hoops to keep his job, even though he's a fucking ghost. The film's commitment to corny bullshit is confirmed in the last act, when the script wimps out and undoes Copper's ghost status.

When over fifty women accused him of rape, it became impossible to enjoy anything Bill Cosby has ever done. That he frequently played the role of a wise family patriarch just makes everything he did more uncomfortable. “Ghost Dad” is an especially awkward watch. Copper becomes a ghost because he hitches a ride with a devil-worshiping cab driver. The scene builds until Cosby declares himself to be Satan incarnate. Later, there's a scene where Copper's female neighbor, unaware of him being undead, attempts to coax him into a romantic encounter. Yeah, that was unpleasant. Aside from the shitty script, Cosby's in-retrospect status as a monstrous human being makes the ending, where he declares his undying love for his teenage daughter, even harder to swallow.

Why Do I Own This?: There's absolutely no excuse for me owning this stinker. So why do I? Well, you may recall a previous column where I reviewed “King Ralph.” The easiest way to grab that film was in a four pack. And what where the other movies in that set? “Pure Luck,” “For Richer or Poorer,” and “Ghost Dad.” Apparently “shitty, high concept comedies” was the connecting theme in that four film collection. Even if it didn't start a serial rapist, “Ghost Dad” would still be a really shitty movie. The script is garbage and the jokes are limp. [4/10]

WHY DO I OWN THIS?: My Stepmother is an Alien (1988)

You've heard the story before. A screenwriter comes to Hollywood with a dream. He writes a science-fiction/fantasy film, dripping in magical realism, that functions as a dark allegory about childhood abuse. A studio purchases the script, proceeds to rewrite it, and completely sucks out the soul. What ends up on theater screens is a dumb-ass, aggressively wacky family-comedy starring Dan Aykroyd and Kim Basinger. Selling out art for mass appeal bullshit is just what Hollywood does, right? I'm referring to the backstory behind “My Stepmother is an Alien,” a mostly forgotten motion picture from 1988. Despite these facts, for some reason, I own this movie.

The movie's plot is pretty much encapsulated in its title but I'll expound further anyway. Dr. Steven Mills, a widower with a thirteen year old daughter, is a scientist attempting to establish contact with extraterrestrial intelligence. During a freak lightning storm, he manages to broadcast a radio wave into another galaxy. This ends up disturbing the gravity on an alien world. Those aliens send Celeste, a female agent, to establish contact with Mills and undo the gravitational shift. Celeste looks humans but is grossly misinformed about Earth culture. Her robotic handbag provides her with other worldly powers. Celeste quickly seduces Mills, marrying him after one day, who then teaches her about being human. However, the alien agenda is not as peaceful as it seems.

Given the title and the time it was made, “My Stepmother is an Alien” is pretty much exactly the kind of movie you'd expect. This is a stock-parts fish out of water comedy. Most of the gags are based around Celeste misunderstanding human culture and generally acting weird. Her premiere scene has her barging into a party, eating cigarettes instead of h'dourves, throwing around nonsensical pop culture references, and somersaulting out the door. After marrying Mills, she makes a massive breakfast, including three types of cheeseburgers and a whole ham. She tries to pay for groceries with a thousand dollar bill. You get the idea. Even though this is pretty much a kid's movie, the filmmakers decided to also depict Celeste learning about sex. So she gets a crash course in intercourse by watching a porno. We are then greeted to an extended scene of Kim Basinger writhing around in a barely there nightie. The raunchy stuff is just as corny as the rest of the film's humor but feels very out-of-place, considering the otherwise deeply childish tone.

If you aren't attracted to this movie by the sight of Kim Basinger in lingerie, you're probably here for the goofball sci-fi elements. These scenes provide this broad movie with their broadest moments. Celeste's handbag is a character onto itself, with a robotic eye emerging from it that talks and moves around. Bag, voiced by an extra bitchy Ann Prentiss, has the ability to do just about anything. She levitates the dog onto the roof. Any plot useful objects can be summoned from inside Bag. Naturally, a big conflict in the plot is from Jessie, Mills' daughter, uncovering Celeste is an alien. This climaxes with Celeste floating her onto the ceiling, revealing her alien agenda. Jessie then immediately changes her mind about Celeste after she saves her from a rogue car, phasing her through the vehicle using some subpar special effects. (You can see the crumbs of the screenwriter's original vision here and in these scenes alone.)

“My Stepmother is an Alien” got the green-light presumably because Kim Basinger and Dan Aykroyd were still pretty big names in 1988. Aykroyd presumably signed on because of his real life interest in extraterrestrials. Aykroyd brings a little of his trademark nervous buzz to the part. He's likable and all smiles. However, there's little room in the material for Dan to express himself much. Basinger certainly tries to elevate the material. She's willing to play along with the big, silly gags. However, the part is so thin and underwritten, that Bassinger has no chance to make Celeste seem like a real person. In the bit parts, I couldn't help but notice Tony Jay as one of Celeste's bosses and Harry Shearer doing a pretty good Carl Sagan impersonation over the phone. Also, Jon Lovitz plays Aykroyd's brother, a sex starved nerd. Otherwise known as a Jon Lovitz part. 

Why Do I Own This?: I actually have a concrete answer! When I fished the movie out of a Best Buy cheap bin, I was going through a pretty big “Buffy the Vampire Slayer” phase. The film was the second screen role of Allyson Hannigan, otherwise known as Willow. She plays Jessie and actually gives a decent performance, even if she can't save some of the dialogue she's given. Yet this is not the movie's only “Buffy” connection. The film was also an early role for Seth Green, who would play Hannigan's werewolf boyfriend on “Buffy.” Amusingly, Green plays Hannigan's homecoming date in two whole scenes. It's pretty cute to see this pop culture couple together in an earlier iteration.

At the time of purchase, I was fairly sure I had seen “My Stepmother is an Alien” as a kid. Upon watching it, I realized I hadn't seen it. I'm pretty sure I was confusing it with “Stepmonster.” I don't exactly regret owning the movie. It's not very good but is mildly interesting as a curio for fans of “Buffy” and “Ghostbusters” and, I don't know, “L.A. Confidential.” The creature effects aren't too bad, I guess. It's the only sci-fi movie where Jimmy Durante is an important plot point. This one probably doesn't need to be in my DVD collection but I can't quite bring myself to get rid of it either. Blame my obsessive hoarding. [5/10]

WHY DO I OWN THIS?: Santa with Muscles (1996)

Once again, my “Why Do I Own This?” column forces me to consider the career of Terry “Hulk” Hogan. Not his career as the Man Who Took Down Gawker with a Racist Sex Tape. Nor his career as perhaps the most iconic pro-wrestler of all time. I'm talking about that brief period in time when Hulk Hogan was allowed to star in movies. Due to his all-American face antics inside the ring appealing primarily to kids, most of Hogan's movies aimed for the primary school crowd. After the doldrums of quasi-hits like “Suburban Commando” and “Mr. Nanny,” Hogan's acting career more-or-less bottomed out with “Santa with Muscles.” The yuletide kiddie comedy is widely considered one of the worst Christmas movies of all time. Even as a kid, when I could reasonably consider myself a fan of Hogan, I missed this movie existing. Despite all this, for some reason, “Santa with Muscles” resides in my DVD collection. Good God, why?

The Hulkster stars as Blake Thorn. A bodybuilding millionaire who has built his fortune on diet supplements and narcissism, he goes on a crazy motorcycle-and-paintball trip with his cronies. Their riotous adventures ends up attracting the police. Blake ducks out of the high speed pursuit and into a shopping mall. By the way, it's close to Christmas, though the snowless California December makes that hard to guess. Blake grabs a Santa Claus suit as a disguise. He then bumps his head and catches that type of amnesia that only exist in movies. Blake wakes up believing himself to be Santa Claus. He heroically foils a robbery before becoming the defender of an orphanage threatened by a mad scientist.

In many ways, “Santa with Muscles” is a typically dumb kids movie. The script is so loaded with cliches, that you wonder if the writers put any effort into it at all. The entire premise hinges around a bump on the head causing amnesia, the laziest kind of story set-up you can think of. A scrappy hero coming along to protect an orphanage from an evil land developer is another sappy, cliché story idea. Naturally, Hogan's Santa Claus landing in an orphanage allows him to have cutesy relationships with the little kids. Including an adorable, lisping little girl who likes to sing songs in the pews. Upon regaining his memory, Blake finds his cold heart has been entirely thawed by the ragamuffins. Many of the action scenes are goofy and comedic, functioning on the simplest form of slapstick. All of these are cliches of the highest order, coughed back up with minimal effort.

At the same time, “Santa with Muscles” is also a really weird and, occasionally, interestingly stupid movie. Ed Begley Jr.'s bad guy is introduced ordering his henchman to torture another man. The aforementioned henchmen each have an odd gimmick. One guy is a doctor that knows kung-fu, another wears a beekeeper outfit and sprays methane gas. The sole female has electric superpowers. The quartet drive around in an ice cream truck, for unexplained reasons. It almost seems like “Santa with Muscles” was trying to be a superhero movie of sorts, as one of the orphans designs Blake a costume and a utility belt. (She's inspired by her favorite comic book hero, named Mega Man presumably because the screenwriters were unfamiliar with Capcom.) Things get even weirder when one orphan mentions magical fairies living in the church. This precedes the heroes discovering a secret cavern located under the building... A cave full of a rare type of hugely valuable crystals... Crystals that explode when struck or stepped on. I really didn't see that insanity coming.

In “Santa with Muscles,” Hulk Hogan essentially has to play two separate characters. This stretches Hogan's limited acting abilities far past their breaking point. In his early scenes, as the narcissistic millionaire, Hogan acts broadly. He coughs up list of asshole life rules, like a less murderous/more tanned version of Patrick Bateman. After receiving his bump on the head, Hogan begins playing Blake as a slightly clueless defender of the innocent. The highlights of Hogan's acting include a stilted television interview, which is less amusing and more genuinely awkward, and a singing scene. Yes, the Hulkster sings an insipid pop song with the little girl called “Angel Baby.” Hogan's singing abilities do not inspire much awe.

As in “Suburban Commando,” “Santa with Muscles” packs its supporting cast full of talented performers, in order to make up for Hogan's limited star power. Ed Begley Jr.'s performance as the bad guy, a germaphobe who eventually walks around in a space suit, is manic and goofy. He certainly acts circles around Hogan. Steve Valentine happily hams it up as Doctor Blight, the kung-fu kicking doctor who swings his stethoscope like a nun-chuck. Character actor Don Stark appears as Lenny, the mall elf who becomes Blake's unwitting sidekick. Though initially hoping to simply steal Blake's millions, Stark's Lenny always comes around to the ways of love and charity. Clint Howard gets the film's sole intentionally funny line, as a beat cop incensed by Blake's “Santa fraud.” Lastly, future star and sex symbol Mila Kunis appears as the snarkiest of the orphans. It's clear to see Kunis' talent, even when cracking lame jokes about comic books. She has a likable energy and clearly loves performing, even at this age.

Why Do I Own This?: I own “Santa with Muscles” mostly because I enjoy having a movie called “Santa with Muscles” on my DVD rack. Is it a terrible, incredibly stupid movie? Absolutely. Yet, as obviously bad as the film is, there's something weirdly endearing about how dumb it is. There's a lot of weirdness in this dumb-ass kid's movie, which contrasts in an interesting way with its sappy elements. Calling it one of the worst Christmas movies of all time is understandable but not entirely fair. There's probably holiday stuff out there equally dumb but lacking this film's half-witted moments of oddball inspiration. [5/10]

WHY DO I OWN THIS?: Ghost Rider (2007)

Out of Marvel's library of superheroes, Ghost Rider seems like an odd choice for a film adaptation. The flaming skull headed biker is well known but has never been a universally recognized figure. Truthfully, the vengeance-minded wraith is deeply rooted to the decade that birthed him. Ghost Rider arose out of several mid-seventies fads. The character combined Evel Knievel stunt riding and the demonic horrors of movies like “The Exorcist” and “The Omen.” For bonus points, it threw in some iconography that wouldn't be out of place on a Black Sabbath album. Yet a “Ghost Rider” movie had been in development since the early nineties, before the massive success of “X-Men” and “Spider-Man.” When that adaptation finally roared into movie theaters in 2007, it was greeted with negative reviews from critics and “Ghost Rider” fans. The film is generally regarded as a misfire for everyone involved. So why do I own it?

“Ghost Rider” also has its roots in an even older story: The Faustian bargain. Johnny Blaze is the son of a motorcycle stuntman, who rides his chopper through flaming rings at state fairs all across the country. When his father is diagnosed with incurable lung cancer, Johnny is approached by a strange man. The man claims to be the devil and offers to heal Blaze's dad... In exchange for his soul. The boy agrees. His father's cancer is cured but the old man dies anyway. Thirty years later, Johnny Blaze is a hugely popular stunt rider in his own right. That's when the devil comes calling, tasking Johnny with tracking down his demonic offspring Blackheart and the scroll of damned souls he's after. To accomplish this goal, Blaze transforms into the Ghost Rider.

Ghost Rider is a very silly movie. The film revolves around imagery that looks fine on a comic book page but appears deeply goofy in live action. Ghost Rider looks bad ass in four colors. In flesh and blood, when created with somewhat dodgy CGI, a biker with a flaming skull looks funny. It doesn't help that the script sticks Ghost Rider with goofy one-liners, such as when he discourages a police helicopter from pursuing him. In the comics, one of Ghost Rider's trademark moves is to drive his hell-cycle up the side of a building, leaving behind a flaming trail. The movie replicates this without dialing back the ridiculousness. Ghost Rider's enemies, a trio of fallen angels representing different elements, also border unintentional comedy. They all dress in draping leather trench coats. The wind spirit's hair is always blowing in the wind. The water spirit is always damp. Thanks for giving us those visual clues, movie.

Some of “Ghost Rider's” goofy aspects are grating. Director Mark Steven Johnson – who already had one mediocre Marvel movie under his belt with “Daredevil” –  adds numerous melodramatic flourishes. Crash-zooms and whip pans are often utilized, drawing undue attention to themselves. Yet some of “Ghost Rider's” silliness is kind of endearing. A scene where Ghost Rider fights off some rowdy crooks in a holding cell is the definition of cheese ball, pulpy fun. How the Rider grabs his trademark chain and his spiked studded leather jacket are mildly amusing. One scene even has Ghost Rider giving some cops the bony, middle finger!

The action scenes are often ridiculous but in a creative way. Such as the unique ways Ghost Rider uses his red hot chain whip to dispatch his demonic enemies. The script lays down important plot points, like the Ghost Rider's penance stare ability and Blackheart's natural lack of a soul, in a very heavy handed fashion. You immediately recognize that these story points will be important latter. Yet that awkwardness is sort of endearing. The film almost feels like it was written by a kid. And I mean that as a compliment. By the time two generations of Ghost Riders – one on flaming motorcycle, one on flaming horse – ride through the desert to the ominous chords of “Ghost Riders in the Sky,” the film has fallen on the right side of ridiculous. And, if nothing else, the melted demon chrome of the Hell Cycle is awfully neat to look at.

Starring as Johnny Blaze is Academy Award winning thespian Nicolas Cage. Cage is a huge comic book fan. He took his stage name from Luke Cage and named his son Kal-El, for goodness' sake. Cage was determined to be a superhero or supervillain, his name getting attached to characters like Superman, Scarecrow, Green Goblin, and John Constantine. Yet Ghost Rider, a character he has tattooed on his body, was the only superhero Cage would actually get to play. Cage is, to put it simply, the perfect actor for “Ghost Rider.” He imbues the movie with a number of unnecessary quirks. Johnny Blaze chugs coffee, eats jellybeans by the handful, and loves monkeys and the Carpenters. Cage overdoes it with the wild facial expressions and crazy hand motions. It's a ridiculous, over-the-top performance and perfectly suited to the material. “Ghost Rider” lives and dies based on how crazy Nicolas Cage is acting at any given time.

“Ghost Rider's” supporting cast also occupies this borderland of enjoyable stupidity and blockbuster tedium. Casting Peter Fonda as the devil in a motorcycle movie is an amusing in-joke. Fonda hams it up nicely, growling with a weird, quasi-Southern accent. Wes Bentley plays Blackheart, Mephisto's felonious son. Bentley has admitted that he made this movie during a long period of heroin addiction. It's easy to see the controlled substances influencing his wide-eyed performance, which abandons any sense of good taste for overstated glowering. Sam Elliot trots out his well-worn cowboy act as Blaze's mentor, to mildly amusing effect.

On the other end of the spectrum is Eva Mendes. As Blaze's love interest, Mendes seems to actively look down on the material. She has no chemistry with Cage and steps through her comedic scenes with absolutely no grace. In her defense, Mendes' part is pretty shitty, a standard love interest who is imperiled in the last act. Donal Logue, as Blaze's short-lived buddy, pushes the comic relief shtick a little too far, often coming off as annoying. And each of the actors playing Blackheart's henchmen are terrible. All of them affect odd accents and overact under their modest make-up.

Why Do I Own This?: “Ghost Rider” was made near the end of the period when Nic Cage was a genuine box office draw, before the IRS came calling for his pyramids and dinosaur bones. His star power is probably why the movie made 228 million worldwide. “Ghost Rider” is clearly a deeply flawed film, possessing a goofball tone and a deeply hacky script. Having said that, I still find myself enjoying the movie more often than not. It's not good in any traditional sense. As overcooked, comic book trash, it's fairly entertaining. The film doesn't elevate the superhero genre. In fact, Johnson's film contributes to its childish reputation. Yet the fun I have with “Ghost Rider” was more than enough to justify the five bucks I spent on the DVD. My proudest purchase? Nah. But I'm all right with this one stinking up my collection. [7/10]

WHY DO I OWN THIS?: The Incredible Mr. Limpet (1964)

When I was a kid, I went through a weird Don Knotts phase. At the time, I don't think my appreciation was based on anything more then thinking this scrawny guy with the funny voice was amusing. Looking back, I suspect I related to Knotts' archetypal role as a frustrated nerd, attempting to succeed in a complicated world. Naturally, as someone who also loved animation and was interested in the ocean, I was drawn to “The Incredible Mr. Limpet.” Even as a kid, I found this one to be a bit boring. If “Mr. Limpet” couldn't occupy a child, what are the odds of it entertaining an adult? Which raises the question: Why do I own this?

Henry Limpet doesn't have much going for him. He wishes to serve in World War II but his bad eye sight marks him 4-F. His wife doesn't care for Henry's bookish, withdrawn ways. She seemingly prefers Limpet's braggart buddy, George, who recently enlisted. Henry's greatest passion is fish. He studies the history and evolution of fish, sings songs to his fish tank, and even wishes about becoming a fish. In an unlikely twist of fate, that last desire comes to pass. After falling off the dock, Limpet is transformed into a fish. His life only gets stranger from there.

It's easy to see why a kid would drift away during the first twenty minutes of “The Incredible Mr. Limpet.” The human focused scenes of the first third are goofy, disposable stuff. Limpet's wife is a shrew, clearly totally disinterested in understanding or emphasizing with him. His buffoonish best friend, who considers himself a top secret Navy officer even though he's a simple machinist, constantly snipes at Limpet. A lot of the comedic gags here are very silly, such as Limpet placing a pet goldfish in the office water cooler or allowing the fish tank to overflow while zoning out. Through it all, Don Knotts' easy going, totally genuine charm keeps the viewer invested. He makes the silly script a lot easier to swallow.

Once Limpet makes his incredible transformation, the film perks up considerably. This was the first of many voice over roles for Knotts. He's a natural at it, making a cartoon fish as lively a character as his flesh-and-blood counterpart. Limpet's adventures in the sea are not uncommon for family flicks of the day. Henry befriends a hermit crab, which he names Crusty, soon after becoming a fish. He later rescues a female fish who immediately invites him to the spawning ground. (This may sound edgy for a family flick from 1964 but consider the decidedly unsexy way fish reproduce.) The two fish later claim to love each other, even though an earlier scene established that marine life doesn't even understand first names as a concept. A pivotal climatic scene involves Limpet loosing his glasses... Even though I'm pretty sure fish don't have to worry about astigmatism. Though all very silly, the script is fleet-footed enough, keeping the audience invested in this nonsensical business.

Even stranger, that admittedly nutty premise is not the weirdest thing about “The Incredible Mr. Limpet.” The film eventually becomes a piece of propaganda for a war that was over two decades before it even came out. As a fish, Mr. Limpet can make a deafening, sonar like noise. Still determined to serve his country, Limpet uses this ability to help the U.S. Navy uncover German U-Boats. This plot turn leads to a lot of comical hand grasping among the military officials. Limpet also manages to piss the Nazis off so much that they design torpedoes specifically to seek him out. (Leading to a rather inevitable Limpet mine pun.) This also leads to a montage of Limpet fantasizing himself as a war hero, marching in a parade and being on magazine covers. Yes, he's still a fish. It's a pretty weird, unexpected turn for a goofy kids movie.

Why Do I Own This?: “The Incredible Mr. Limpet” is as goofy a flick as you're likely to find. It's handful of songs – yes, this is a musical of sorts – are all rather forgettable. The film ends on a bizarre, rather unpromising sequel hook, where Limpet is apparently training porpoises to be more intelligent. Despite these flaws, Knotts' charm keeps the movie afloat. The animation is lively, cartoony but colorful for its time. It's not too surprising that the film would become something of a cult classic over the years, even prompting talks of a terrifying looking remake at one point. “The Incredible Mr. Limpet” isn't the proudest addition to my DVD collection but I hardly regret owning it. It's not too bad at all. [7/10]

WHY DO I OWN THIS?: The Santa Clause (1994)

Recently, I was having a conversation about movies that were clearly conceived as titles first and screenplays second. “The Santa Clause” came to mind immediately. The premise, of a deadbeat dad becoming Santa Claus, is staggeringly high concept. The film came out when I was just a kid and I remember the trailers and TV spots vividly. As people my age are prone to do, “The Santa Clause” is sometimes regarded as a nostalgic, holiday classic. Even as a kid, I never much cared for this one. I think I rented it, watched it once, and have rarely returned to it. It certainly isn't a perennial Christmas favorite in my house. And yet, for reasons I will soon explain, the film resides in my DVD collection. If I'm not a fan of “The Santa Clause,” why do I own it?

Meet Scott Calvin, a successful toy company executive, a recent divorcee, and father of six year old Charlie. Scott isn't a fan of his ex-wife's new boyfriend, a psychologist, and worries about the effect the hyper-rational man is having on the boy. For one example, Charlie is beginning to doubt the existence of Santa Claus. While staying with his dad over the holidays, the boy witnesses Santa first hand. After investigating, Scott sees him too. The gift giver falls from the roof, seemingly perishing. Scott is convinced to put on the suit and soon finds himself assuming the duties of Santa Claus. Over the next year, Calvin slowly transforms into the symbol of Christmas, his ex-wife increasingly disturbed by his seasonal obsession.

“The Santa Clause” hit theaters in 1994, around the third or fourth season of “Home Improvement.” This was around the time, one assumes, that Tim Allen's star power was at its highest. Slotting the stand-up turned Tool Man into a family-friendly holiday comedy like this made a lot of sense financially. The film's box office success proves that. However, Allen's sarcasm heavy comedy style seems like an odd fit for a Christmas movie. At the beginning, Scott Calvin is an asshole. He constantly undermines his ex-girlfriend's new boyfriend in various mean-spirited ways. Weirdly, Judge Reinhold doesn't play the character as a bad guy. He's actually rather reasonable, if a little stiff. Yet we're meant to sympathize with Scott. Allen's character is often overly curt with his son as well. When he's forced into the Santa position, he grumpily goes through the motions, irritated and grouchy. This is rather at odds with the saccharine tone the film is going for.

In truth, “The Santa Clause” raises some unsettling questions. This is, one must admit, a Christmas movie that begins with Santa Claus falling to his death. The elves, upon meeting Calvin, seem unaffected by the previous Santa's passing. Does the Claus position change hands often? Does it always happen via violent death? Upon donning the suit, Scott's body undergoes a drastic transformation. He puts on weight and grows a beard. That's weird but the way his personality is assimilated by the Santa persona is far creepier. Calvin becomes naturally jolly and develops a love for everything Christmas-y. This is lousy screenwriting – the protagonist overcomes his problems through outside influences, instead of personal growth – but also odd. This is less like a clause and more like a curse, passed from one victim to the next. Weirder still, the film runs with some of these disturbing connotations, when Scott essentially kidnaps his son. Even though the police pursue him, the ex-wife ultimately doesn't press charges. In fact, she grants him anytime visitation rights!

“The Santa Clause” begins with sardonic one-liners but quickly gives way to typical holiday movie schmaltz. When visiting the North Pole, the protagonist meets a legion of elves, played by child actors in make-up. They drink perfect hot coco and are gifted magical snow globes. The production design is admittedly impressive but the story rushes into this development, leaving the characters and audience confused. Even though he just got the gig, the elves are loyal to the new Santa. One especially lame sequence is devoted to them donning jet packs and rescuing the guy from police custody. (Even though, I must point out again, he actually did commit the crime of kidnapping.) By the last act, all the farting reindeer and fat jokes have disappeared, replaced by an undistinguished message about the magic of Christmas and forgiveness.

Why Do I Own This?: I actually have a good answer to this question, for once. The film was, at some point, gifted to me by a relative. And not a distant relative either but the type that came to visit frequently. The type that would actually check to see if I kept the gift she had given me. Essentially, I've been guilted into keeping a film I don't especially like. Hopefully, I'll still find a covert way to make the DVD disappear, some day. As for “The Santa Clause” itself, it's a mediocre flick. I suspect nostalgia, and frequent television screenings, plays the biggest role in whatever reputation it has as a December classic. Thankfully, I don't own any of the two dire looking sequels, so I won't have to review them at any point in the future. [5/10]