Film Review: The Comic

"The Comic"
** (out of ****)

[Click here to read my updated review written in 2021]

Harry Langdon. Larry Semon. Charley Chase. Billy West. "Fatty" Arbuckle. What do these names have in common? At one time all of these men were popular comedians during the silent era. Today they are forgotten. Only a select few remember them.

Why is that? Why do the names Charlie Chaplin, Buster Keaton, Laurel & Hardy, W.C. Fields and Abbott & Costello live on (somewhat) today? What separated their comedy from the others? Was it all a matter of some random person deciding what to preserve and what not to? The Keystone Cops (Kops) were popular back in the day. After a certain period of time, does "funny" really stop being "funny"?

You may think these thoughts as you watch Carl Reiner's "The Comic" (1969) starring Dick Van Dyke as a fictitious silent screen comedian, Billy Bright.

As the movie begins the audience learns Billy Bright has died. Some thought he was already dead. Bright is a forgotten name in the movie business, evident by the lack of attendees at his funeral. While being eulogized, Bright, lying in his casket, narrates his story to us.

Bright was a baggy pants comic on vaudeville with dreams of becoming the new king of comedy on screen. His first job was working for a Mack Sennett like producer named Frank Powers (Cornel Wilde). Given a minor role in his first two-reeler, Bright deliberately ignores his direction and improvises, making himself the star of the comedy.

He suddenly develops an interest in his leading lady, Mary Gibson (Michele Lee, who resembles Mary Tyler Moore). Mostly because she lets him do all the talking and listens to him praising himself. The two get married and start their own production company, on the same day as their wedding. This, according to Bright, is his wedding present to her. They begin to make two or three comedies a week. Bright says they are all masterpieces.

But then his star begins to fade. His wife divorces him. He begins drinking heavily. He refuses to adapt and make sound pictures. And soon he is forgotten.

In Bright's version of events he was too nice of a guy. He was pushed around by people that weren't as smart as him. The movie's humor stems from Bright's narration as the action on the screen tells a different story. We are dealing with an unreliable narrator.

Theoretically "The Comic" should been a loving tribute to the silent era and the great comedians of the past time has forgotten. Or, it could have been a biting satire on the movie business, dishing out gossip on what was going on behind the scenes. It could have even been a combination of both. Instead it is neither.

The first problem is the Billy Bright character. He is not sympathetic. Having an unlikable character as the star takes away from the movie being a tribute to the silent era. It doesn't provide us with an opportunity to bask in nostalgia, as we think of the "good ol' days" when slipping on a banana peel and a great pie fight were all the rage.

We really don't get a sense of how popular Bright was. Was he a beloved public figure? Instead of showing his fame, the movie takes away valuable screen-time showing clips of his comedies. Which, to be honest, I didn't find particularly funny. Wouldn't it have been better if the movie focused on Bright's creative process instead? How did he come up with his gags? It would have shown audiences the work that went into making movies and would have helped flesh the character out a bit more. Some clips could have still been shown, showing the final result of all of his hard work. 

The one good thing about showing the clips is we get to see Dick Van Dyke doing a lot of slapstick comedy. Van Dyke was a vocal admirer of Stan Laurel (see him on Gary Moore's show doing an impression) and this provides him with an opportunity to show off his pantomime skills.

As fun as some may find that to watch the movie could have also spent more time establishing the time period. Use some period music, instead of the terrible score by Jack Elliott. The music played over the opening credits sounds like it belongs in a horror movie. Maybe even shoot the entire movie in black & white, not just the silent movie clips. The costumes don't even look appropriate and look a bit modern (by 1969 standards). The make-up isn't very good either as we see Bright and his frequent co-star, "Cockeye" Van Buren (Mickey Rooney, in perhaps a nod to Ben Turpin) in old age.

In fact nearly everything about the movie seems second-rate at best. It has a made-for-television quality to it.

Supposedly the screenplay by Reiner and Aaron Ruben (the two worked together on the Sid Caesar television show "Caesar's Hour" in the 1950s) was based on real comedians. Some have suggested Buster Keaton was the main source of inspiration. However, Billy Bright's attire recalls Harry Langdon and his gestures and facial expressions remind us of Stan Laurel (who was inspired by Langdon).

"The Comic" was Carl Reiner's second movie as a director. This may account for some of the flaws of the movie. Reiner had been in the entertainment business as an actor and writer, working along side Sid Caesar and Mel Brooks, but may have been inexperienced as a director. He agreed to some strange editing choices. I suspect a lot of good material didn't make the final cut.

I wonder how this material would have been handled in the hands of a director like Peter Bogdanovich. Bogdanovich is a great admirer of Hollywood's past, directing several movies that play as homages. While Bogdanovich may not be considered as funny as Carl Reiner, he may have been able to tap into the more dramatic elements of the story. Incidentally, Bogdanovich directed and released a documentary this year on Buster Keaton called "The Great Buster" (2018) which I recommend.

There is no doubt Carl Reiner and Dick Van Dyke had good intentions for "The Comic" but those good intentions don't translate into a screen success. Which is unfortunate. 

Film Review: The Star

"The Star"
** 1\2 (out of ****)

Let "The Star" (2017) guide you to the true meaning of Christmas.

It seems to me Hollywood has run out of ideas in regards to Christmas movies. A lot of popular Christmas movies made in the 1980s & 90s are secular in nature. The movies revolve around Santa Claus and young children eager to see if they will receive their favorite toys from Ol' Saint Nick. In the old days (1950s & 60s) Hollywood would make epic religious blockbusters, which some people still watch on Christmas and Easter.

But in modern times "Christmas movies" have become romantic comedies (?) which take place in the month of December and air on the Hallmark Channel. They all mostly revolve around single 30 something year old women looking to find love. Then there are the "Christmas movies" that center on the difficulties of dealing with family around the holidays and the pressures of traveling.

Neither of these scenarios scream Christmas to me. Christmas movies shouldn't be about commercialism, finding a boyfriend, or hating to spend time with your family. To me a Christmas movie should be sincere but make you feel good. It should be about expressing good will toward your fellow man. It should be about embracing your family and loved ones. It should have characters wanting to become better people. And, if you are in a religious mood, it should be about the birth of Jesus Christ.

That brings us to the animated movie, "The Star", a well intended but ultimately flat, Christian themed movie devised to introduce children to the true meaning of the holiday.

In order to appeal to children "The Star" advances its religious theme with a light touch. It features talking animals and has plenty of silly, slapstick humor. Children won't feel as if they are going to church but will learn a bit about religion.

To me this is bit like having your cake and eating it. I admire what "The Star" wants to accomplish. I wanted to recommend the movie. I think in theory an animated religious movie could work, see "The Prince of Egypt" (1998), but "The Star" is trying to juggle a very delicate balancing act. You have to create kid friendly characters that are funny and interesting and could still serve as vessels for the religious aspects of the movie. How do you create slapstick hi-jinks and incorporate a religious message that is handle in a serious way?

Director Timothy Reckart, an Academy award nominee (for best animated short film) centers his story on a donkey named Bo (Steven Yeun). Bo's life lacks meaning. His sole purpose is to grind grain while he is tied to a mill. Bo wants to do something important and have others realize he is a somebody. Bo and his best friend, a dove name Dave (Keegan-Michael Key) want to join a royal caravan. But how can Bo escape?

While that is being figured out, Bo and several other animals and humans, including Three Wise Men, have noticed the appearance of a shining new star in the sky. Bo believes it is a sign he must join the caravan. The Three Wise Men believe it signifies the birth of a new king.

Of course the star does signify the coming of Jesus and appears after Mary (Gina Rodriguez) is visited by an angel. The angel informs Mary she has been chosen to give birth to the son of God. Now Mary must explain to her fiance, Joseph (Zachary Levi) that she is pregnant and carrying the messiah.

The movie, rightly or wrongly, glosses over any debate or discussion the characters may have had concerning if this is true. Joseph never doubts Mary's explanation. I wonder though what will children think? Will they understand how Mary became pregnant? The movie doesn't offer a kid friendly explanation.

In order to keep children's attention the movie attempts to create action by having King Herod (Christopher Plummer) eager to find out who the "new king" is. In order to do this, Herod sends a Hunter (Lex Lang), with his two vicious dogs; Thaddeus (Ving Rhames) and Rufus (Ggabriel Iglesias), to follow the Three Wise Men, and kill the baby. This will also serve as a test for Bo and create a morality tale. What is Bo's true purpose in life? What are the things we should place value on?

Movie-wise "The Star" lacks interesting characters. It is not in the tradition of Disney / Pixar movies that are able to entertain adults and children with fully realized characters and humor all can enjoy. Even some Dreamworks movies are able to do this as well.

The voice-over work is hit or miss. Zachary Levi for example had a much better character in Disney's "Tangled" (2010) as Flynn Rider. Here he isn't given much material. The human characters are secondary to the animals. Which is fine but if these characters are meant to entertaining the children the jokes are very funny.

On a religious aspect, the movie does a fairly decent job incorporating the major elements of the Nativity story but naturally takes artistic license with many things.

I was not wowed by "The Star". I can't really imagine children will enjoy it either but it may be good to have them sit down once and watch it. Compared to "The Greatest Story Ever Told" (1965) or "King of Kings" (1961) "The Star" will be much more easier for them to take in.

Film Review: Monsieur Verdoux

"Monsieur Verdoux"  **** (out of ****)

Charlie Chaplin's "Monsieur Verdoux" (1947) is a killer comedy.

By the time Chaplin released this dark, rich, cynical comedy the silent era ended 18 years earlier. However, this was Chaplin's second full fledged talking movie. He no longer played his lovable downtrodden man of the people, The Tramp. To remove himself completely from that character Chaplin truly takes things in a new direction.

In "Monsieur Verdoux", which the opening credits state was based on an idea by Orson Welles, Chaplin plays the title character, who goes by many aliases, a Bluebeard.

The opening credits described the movie as "a comedy of murders". While that may sound dark, and it is, Chaplin's comedy has always had a hint of darkness to it. Chaplin had a gift for finding the humor in tragedy. The best example is the silent comedy "The Gold Rush" (1925). One of the major themes of that movie is hunger. In a famous scene Chaplin's Tramp is so hungry he resorts to eating his shoe. The scene is played for laughs but the undertone of it is dramatic. Here is a man so hungry he has no other options and must engage in desperate tactics.

Not surprisingly "Monsieur Verdoux" is similar in that the character's motivation for his actions is to provide for his family, so they may never go hungry. Hunger was always an important theme in Chaplin's work due to his own impoverished childhood. Desperate times call for desperate actions.

We learn Monsieur Verdoux worked as a banker. After 30 years of employment, the Great Depression hit. Verdoux was one of the first on the chopping block. For the past ten years he has been married to a paraplegic. The two also have a son. For the past three years Verdoux has led a double life, marrying women, with small amounts of wealth, and killing them. Some he has let live since he has not been able to get his hands on their money. Whatever money Verdoux does get, he invest in the stock market.

This is Chaplin's best attempt to create sympathy for Verdoux. Verdoux doesn't kill for the sport of it. Chaplin even goes as far as to make the wife literally dependent upon him. Who could hate a man like that?

Chaplin also presents Verdoux as a man of sophistication. Even his Tramp character had an air of refinement about himself. In one scene he sits by a piano and plays Liszt's Hungarian Rhapsody No. 2. When we first see Verdoux he is in a garden, pruning. Chaplin plays Verdoux as a soft-spoken, mild manner man. Can this suggest even "good" people are capable of "bad" things? Is Chaplin making a comment on the duality of man?

The movie begins to explore these conflicting thoughts of "good" and "bad" when Verdoux meets a woman who has just been released from jail. She is simply credited as "The Girl" (Marilyn Nash). Verdoux finds her standing in the rain and offers The Girl shelter by inviting her to his apartment. This is all a pretext as Verdoux really wants to conduct an experiment on her and test out a poison he has created. Before The Girl can unknowingly drink the poison the two engage in a discussion of life and love. Verdoux is bitter about life and emphasizes the bad. The Girl champions the good in life and proclaims life has meaning and speaks of what true love is. These two characters become the conscience of the movie. However, to further illustrate his point, one has to admit, both characters make good arguments. Neither is completely right or wrong.

By the end of the movie one can take the position, what you put out in the world will come back to you. This is presented at two points in the movie. One has Verdoux admonish his son for playing too rough with their cat. Verdoux rhetorically asks where did the boy get such a mean streak. An intended joke given the character asking the question. However, it is what he says next that stands out. He tells the boy to remember violence begets violence. 

The other moment comes when Verdoux, now much older, runs into The Girl, who's fortune has changed. She offers to buy Verdoux a meal as a way to repay his kindness to her. It is something she had never forgotten. Here is it not violence that begets violence but kindness that begets kindness.

But Chaplin's true intentions for "Monsieur Verdoux" is to argue the crimes of one man fail in comparison to the actions of nations. Yes, Verdoux killed people but countries have turned murder into business. Bear in mind the movie was released in 1947. World War II was over. Technology played a very big role in the war, especially with the atomic bomb, which was dropped in 1945. There is a lot of money to be made in war and making weapons.

It is definitely a timely message and works alongside the themes of Chaplin's prior movie, "The Great Dictator" (1940) which ends with a plea for peace and warns technology is dividing us (funny how some things never change). But, the parallel between Verdoux's actions and the business of war doesn't flow smoothly to me. The third act of the movie could have used a rewrite. I feel Chaplin is reaching a bit to tie everything together. Maybe the comparison could be made but it doesn't flow as naturally as it should have.

Some of the ideas may be "heavy" but "Monsieur Verdoux" is not without laughs. This is a Charlie Chaplin movie after all. While Chaplin does play a murderer, we never see his Verdoux actually kill anyone. When Verdoux does go in for the kill the camera fades to the next scene after suggesting the fate of his victim. When the camera stays on Verdoux it shows his failed attempts and thus where Chaplin inserts comedy into the story.

The wife we see the most onscreen is Annabella (Martha Raye). She is presented as somewhat dimwitted. A easy-go-lucky woman that enjoys several drinks now and than. Mostly now. For however dimwitted she may appear she is smart enough not to trust Verdoux with her money. With this wife Verdoux is a sea captain named Bonheur. Annabella is also gullible and freely gives her fortune, which she won playing the lottery, to anyone that asks and falls for every get rich quick scheme. But she never falls for Verdoux's tricks. Each time Verdoux tries to end her life and unexpected twist happens. The best sequence involves them alone in a canoe. These sequences allow Chaplin to go into his physical comedy and at age 48 he could still knock himself around.

Another sequence is the already mentioned one between Verdoux and The Girl. It doesn't have laugh out loud moments but as a director Chaplin keeps building anticipation as the audiences hangs on The Girl's every action. Will she or won't she drink the glass with the poison that Verdoux has disguised as a glass of wine. We laugh at the dark nature of the situation as we watch Verdoux's anxious behavior.

The movie ends on a bittersweet note. Verdoux has been sentenced to death. This isn't much of a surprise as the opening shot of the movie is of Verdoux's tombstone. Verdoux at this point faces his fate head on. As he leaves his prison cell, heading for a guillotine, a beam of light strikes Verdoux's smiling face. Is it the Heavens shining on him? Either way Verdoux has found peace.

"Monsieur Verdoux" was a critical and box-office flop when released. Audiences didn't want to see their beloved Chaplin as a murderer and they were not in the mood for his comments on the business of war. It was too soon after the war. The movie did end up receiving an Oscar nomination however for Chaplin's screenplay. Many have warmed up to the movie over the years. With hindsight I believe it was Chaplin's last truly significant film. "Monsieur Verdoux" is worth a second look.

Film Review: A Madea Christmas

"A Madea Christmas"  *** (out of ****)

Guess who's coming to (Christmas) dinner in "A Madea Christmas" (2013).

I'm not knowledgeable enough on the work of director Tyler Perry to give an in-depth analysis of the meaning of his movies and the common themes flowing throughout them. However, I have been exposed to enough to know I have problems with his movies and storytelling.

"A Madea Christmas" was the eight movie to feature Perry's female alter-ego Madea, an elderly, loud, sassy, brash, sometimes violent, so-called truth teller.

In some ways Perry's approach to the character reminds me of classic comedies starring the comedy greats such as Chaplin, Keaton, Laurel & Hardy and W.C. Fields. In those movies, as in the Madea movies, the formula is similar. We have an established character that remains consistent movie after movie. This allows the audience to identity with the character and create a relationship. Then we take that character and put them in different situations which the audience knows, by now, will cause major conflicts. For example, we know Laurel & Hardy are inept at any task given to them no matter how big or small, so, lets make a comedy where they are police officers. Because of our preconceived notions of the characters we laugh at the very idea. We just know something terrible will happen and crooks will be able to outsmart the two.

So too has Perry created a character in Madea that his fan base knows. A relationship has been established. Perry now can have fun creating new scenarios to place the character in which will result in maximum conflict. That seems to be some of the thinking behind "A Madea Christmas".

Madea (Perry in drag) finds herself on a road trip from Georgia to Alabama after her great niece, Eileen (Anna Maria Horsford) becomes heartbroken and suspicious when she learns her daughter, Lacey (Tika Sumpter) will be not visiting her for Christmas. Lacey is a school teacher in a small town that is going through a lot of financial difficulty thanks to a construction company that has built a damn which has affected crops grown by farmers.

This has an effect on the school's funding causing a Christmas jubilee to be cancelled. The townspeople are not willing to accept this. You can take away our jobs but you will never take away our jubilee!

This however is only part of the reason why Lacey will not be home for Christmas. Lacey also got married without telling her mother. Not only did Lacey get married but she married a white man, Connor (Eric Lively). Eileen may have looked pass her daughter not telling her about the marriage but will not be able to accept her only daughter marrying a white man.

The conflict will escalate when Eileen and Madea unexpectedly arrive at Lacey's house and find out that Connor's parents, Buddy (Larry the Cable Guy) and Kim (Kathy Nnajimy) will be staying at Lacey and Connor's home too to spend Christmas with them. How will Eileen react?

Perhaps this reverse "Guess Who's Coming To Dinner" (1967) scenario was meant to serve as a Christmas reminder of the theme of forgiveness and love thy neighbor. But Tyler Perry really doesn't have anything interesting to say about race relations. Madea and Connor's parents cannot understand Eileen's objections over their marriage. I suppose the deeper question to ask is, did Perry address this topic because it is a topic of controversy within the African-American community?

Perry takes on racism from a different angle when it is subtly implied one of the townspeople, Tanner (Chad Michael Murray) is a racist and explains why he does not like Lacey. This sub-plot is too subtle and again Perry really has nothing to say on the subject.

"A Madea Christmas" was made for two reasons. One was to place the Madea character in a situation that audiences know will make the character uncomfortable. Without knowing much about the character, one can assume, Madea doesn't like children. Christmas time presents a perfect opportunity for Madea to be surrounded by children. Hence why we get a completely unnecessary sequence involving Madea working at a department store, insulting customers and at one point, playing Santa. Why do this? Because in theory it should be funny.

The other objective for "A Madea Christmas" is to promote a Christianity theme and place an emphasis on the religious aspects of Christmas as oppose to the secular event the holiday has become. It is possible to celebrate Christmas and take all the religion out of the holiday. How many people celebrate Christmas but don't go to church on that day to celebrate the birth of Jesus? How many people will have decorations of Santa and Frosty the Snowman but not a Nativity scene? So, it is possible to take religion out of the holiday.

Tyler Perry and "A Madea Christmas" want to fight back. Many times religion is brought up in the movie and characters are outraged in one sequence when the Christmas jubilee will be turned into a holiday jubilee.

As a "bad Catholic" it is refreshing to see a movie about Christmas mention Jesus Christ. But, as strange as it may seem, doing so could be off putting to viewers.

This is the third Tyler Perry movie I have seen, coming after "Acrimony" (2018) and "Madea's Family Reunion" (2006). "A Madea Christmas" is my favorite so far. On a purely entertainment level, it was the most fun I've had watching a Tyler Perry movie but the movie does have flaws.

I don't like Perry's dialogue. It is neither naturalistic or poetic. Perry is too forceful when trying to make a social point. He leans in to hard. And then there are the characters and Madea in particular. Perry works a lot with stereotypes. What else to make of Madea. There are only two possibilities. Either Perry is perfectly aware of this and uses it as an opportunity to get laughs or the character comes from a good place in Perry and he truly believes there are people out there like this. In the end it really doesn't matter because the character always becomes larger than the movie and it out of place. I sense Perry wants the character to serve as a moral conscience hence why some believe she is a truth teller but whose truth is she telling?

The most enjoyable performance is Tika Sumpter's. This is the first time I have seen this actress and hope to see her in many more projects. It would be nice to see her in something that requires more of a range of emotions.

Devotees of Tyler Perry seem to view "A Madea Christmas" as a mix bag. They imply newcomers to Perry's work probably wouldn't like. Naturally I had the exact opposite reaction. I believe this movie is one of the more mainstream and easily accessible Tyler Perry movies I have seen. Than again, that may be exactly why Perry fans don't like this movie. Maybe they feel he sold out for commercial appeal. Surely Madea's truth telling wouldn't allow Perry to do that, would she?

Film Review: The Muppet Christmas Carol

"The Muppet Christmas Carol"  *** (out of ****)

It sometimes seems Hollywood has an insatiable desire to "revitalize" classic movies or novels by providing us with countless, unnecessary remakes or "re-tellings" or "re-imaginings" or whatever it is they like to call it. Charles Dickens novella "A Christmas Carol" is a story that has endured the test of time despite Hollywood's best intentions.

Over the years there have been various film adaptions of Dickens' story. One of the earliest known existing one dates back to 1901, a British film entitled "Scrooge, or, Marley's Ghost". A slightly better known film version may be the one released in 1935 called "Scrooge" starring Seymour Hicks in the title role. It too was a British production.

For American audiences, many know the 1938 version starring Reginald Owen as Scrooge in "A Christmas Carol". This was my personal favorite adaptation of the story as well as a family favorite. Every Christmas I watched it with my grandmother. There are movie buffs however that would argue the best version of the story was the 1951 production starring Alastair Sim as Scrooge.

While these may be the best known adaptations, it hasn't stopped there. There have been musical adaptations, one starred Albert Finney, a TV movie starring Patrick Stewart, several animated versions, one even starring Mickey Mouse, and a very good one directed by Robert Zemeckis in 2009 with Jim Carrey. And to this ever expanding list we can add "The Muppet Christmas Carol" (1992), the first Muppet movie released after the death of Jim Henson.

"The Muppet Christmas Carol", surprisingly, is a rather straight forward telling of Dickens' tale. That is part of the problem. Why am I choosing to watch this particular version? Because it is kid friendly? So was "Mickey's Christmas Carol" (1983). Because it has Muppets? I suppose. Is that such an appealing attraction? Do you children even know who the Muppets are?

In its attempt to appeal to a younger audience "The Muppets Christmas Carol" adds humor to the story, supplied by The Great Gonzo (as Charles Dickens) and his sidekick, Rizzo the Rat (as himself). However, because of this the sentimentality and rich emotions the story provides aren't as prominent.

Our story begins on Christmas Eve with Dickens (Gonzo) and Rizzo serving as narrators of the story. They follow Ebenezer Scrooge (Michael Caine), a wealthy money lender with a particular dislike of Christmas. On this day Scrooge will reject a Christmas dinner invitation from his nephew, Fred (Steven Mackintosh), whom Scrooge feels is poor and hapless. Scrooge will insult charity collectors (Dr. Bunsen Honeydew and Beaker) refusing to donate to the poor and throwing them out of his office, and will eventually relent in giving his employees, consisting of Bob Cratchit (Kermit the Frog), the day off for Christmas.

But something more spectacular will happen on this day. Scrooge is visited by the spirits of his deceased business partners, Jacob and Robert Marley (Statler and Waldorf), who warn Scrooge his must change his ways or he will suffer the same fate as them, burdened to wear heavy chains as symbols for their sins. Scrooge will be greeted by three other spirits throughout the night, the Ghost of Christmas Past, Christmas Present and Christmas Yet To Come. Each will show Scrooge the error of his ways and lack of generosity towards his fellow man.

"A Christmas Carol" can be a dark story, a tale of a fallen man, in desperate need of redemption. A story of class struggle and death. To lighten the mood for children, Dickens and Rizzo fill the void. Dickens has already written his story and as such appears precognitive to Rizzo, who is mystified by this, allowing for moments of humor between the two.

To also lighten the mood songs have been written for the movie by Paul Williams, who wrote the song "Rainbow Connection" for the first Muppet movie, "The Muppet Movie" (1979). None of the songs here are memorable or catchy except perhaps for a duet song by the Marley brothers.

Academy award winning actor Michael Caine is the human we see most on-screen and does a moderate job playing the character. Caine is a great actor. One of my personal favorites. He is a better actor than Reginald Owen or Alastair Sim but their interpretations of Scrooge are far more memorable and delightful bringing more personality to the character. It also helps those actors were able to feed off of other humans whereas Caine is acting opposite Kermit the Frog. It presents a completely different dynamic for an actor, creating a new mindset.

Because Caine is a great actor he fares better than most playing against the Muppets. His approach is different than others because he plays serious and allows the Muppets to be humorous. He doesn't try to much them in their silliness. Caine's interpretation of Scrooge is as serious as other actors and I suppose he takes it as far as the material will allow him. We must keep in mind the target audience is children. How interesting it would be to see Caine play the character in a dramatic all human version.

I find the crux of the film adaptations of "A Christmas Carol" involves the relationship between Scrooge and Tiny Tim (Robin the Frog). Tiny Tim serves as the turning point for Scrooge to mend his ways. It is always a dramatic moment in any of the human adaptations. Here though it misses something and doesn't tug at your heartstrings the same way. It is like that for many of the dramatic moments in the story.

While the dramatic moments aren't as powerful there is also a lot of good holiday cheer missing. "The Muppet Christmas Carol" can't find that ever so delicate balance providing entertainment adults and children can enjoy blending heartfelt moments and humor. It comes close but doesn't hit the bullseye.

"The Muppet Christmas Carol" was directed by Jim Henson's son, Brian. Following this movie, Brian would direct one more theatrically released Muppet movie, "Muppet Treasure Island" (1996) and the huge mishap, "The Happytime Murders" (2018), featuring muppets with an adult edge to them. The puppeteers on the movie are those that have long been associated with the Muppets including Frank Oz, Dave Goelz and Steve Whitmire among others. They each deserve credit for their work.

Children may find some enjoyment in "The Muppet Christmas Carol" but I think may enjoy "Home Alone" (1990), "How the Grinch Stole Christmas" (1966) and "Elf" (2003) just a bit more.