dalbrech

The whole plot..a updated version of Christmas Carol in which the Scrooge character is someone in the media intent upon exploitating the Holiday for business purposes,and gets their comeuppances...was already done,and done much better in Scrooged with Bill Murray. Tori Spelling is not very good as the Carol of the title. Spelling has actually done some good work in a few Indie films,she is not without talent....but every time she gets some cred from her work in small indie films she throws it away on garbage like this. The whole Bill Shanter/Star Trek bit was about as funny as a funeral. Attempts to modernize the Dickens classic are a dime a dozen,and this is one of the weaker efforts. All in all,a waste of time.

This film is a good example of how not to make a sequel. That Bob Clark who did such a perfect casting "A Christmas Story" should have blown this vital aspect of the film is beyond understanding. Charles Grodin is just terrible as the Old Man. Kieran Culkin who plays Ralphie is not quite as horrid,but is still a sad comparison with Billingsly in the original.One wonders if he was not cast because he was the brother of another kid actor who had a huge Christmas hit. Only Mary Steenburgen as Mom does a decent job,and even she is not quite as good as Melinda Dillon did in the original. In addition to the casting mistakes,but other wrong decisions were made.Showing the Bumpasses for no good reason is a prime example.They were so much funnier left to the imagination (except for he dogs) in the original. All in all,Bob CLark should have known better.

This film has become one of the classic examples of 60's exploitation schlock. It is ineptly made on every level, but that is one of it's charms,and one reason why it is such a unintentional laugh riot. I won't describe the plot..other reviews have done that for me except that scenes that are meant to be seriously scary become drop dead funny instead. The acting is over the top,production values minimal,and the "gore" at the end hopelessly fake. But ,once again, that is why the film is so funny. "Carnival Of Souls" is a film made about the same time,on a similar small budget,but it's creators had talent and imagination and they made a classic horror film under almost impossible conditions. George Romero was to do the same a few years later with "Night Of the Living Dead". "Brain That Would Not Die" in not in the same universe as those two films, but achieves, however unintentionally,a sleazy immortality of it's own,and the film has a cult following. However, I find it incredible that some people try to defend this film on a serious level. Seen as a serious horror movie, it is a total failure. Seen as a Ed Wood style laugh riot, it is a classic. I was torn about what rating to give it, I decided on "1" because I judge movies a lot on how well the filmmakers achieved their aim, and the makers of this failed on almost every level. BUt if you are looking for a evening of drop dead laughs,I would recommend this film in a minute,particularly if you can get the MST3K version. Mike and the Bots make the most of all the material this film gives them.