tqnohe

I have always loved this little holiday book. It was so wonderful to see it rendered on the big screen.

All in all it stays true to the Chris van Allsburg's book. Even the artwork. I had no heartburn with its "fill" material. I did enjoy the other children added to the story. I liked the ghost hobo with his hurdy-gurdy (that's the instrument he was playing). I liked the scene with the train sliding across the ice. I could have done without the children crawling through the workshops.

I wish Jumanji had been so carefully preserved. I can't imagine that van Allsburg recognized Jumanji once that appeared in theaters.

If you have read this book and loved it, you should see this movie; you will love it.

A story I love, an attractive presentation. What more can you ask?

Let's see if this film has all the necessaries of a modern film.

1) Classic title 2) Dad is an idiot 3) New script bearing no resemblance to the original. 4) Male lead cannot droll without instructions from female 5) Children are out of control 6) The man is incurably stupid 7) Mother is a wise saint 8) Father has no clue about his own home (have I covered that already??) 9) Large families result from irresponsibility

I saw and loved the original. I held no illusions that this would be nearly as good. In fact I knew it would require some updates. The world of the 1950s when the original was made and the 1920s when it was set are dramatically different.

The story is weak, the comedy is poor, the new plot is bigoted.

In the original, Clifton Webb play an efficiency expert Frank Gilbreth. In fact, Frank Gilbreth's principles are still taught in course on efficiency in industry. He was a real person. And a competent one. His son John Kenneth Gilbreth, went on to become one of the world's leading economists. To this very day.

In this one, Frank Baker (Baker's dozen ... get it? Hit me over the head with a joke why doncha?) is a small time football coach who is so inefficient that he can't get breakfast on the table and wipe up a spill at the same time. And it's hard to imagine his wanna be drop out son becoming anything but a bum.

The scene from the original where the woman from Planned Parenthood came to the door to humorous results was morphed into the yuppy neighbors, the Shenks, essentially scolding anyone who has or wants more than two kids. Tina is so obsessed with having only one that Bill is portray as sexually frustrated ... he ain't getting none lest she conceive again.

I grew up in a family of 13. While my Dad was not the modern hands on type, he was aware of where things were and how things worked. He could cook and do the laundry and get us off to school on time. And he worked hard to be able to pay for us all to go to Catholic school. He had to be efficient; every 18 months or so, Mom was squeezing out another sib.

We were well behaved. We had to be. If not, 13 children turn into the unruly mob shown in this stupid film. I knew other families like ours. From nine to fifteen kids. They were all self disciplined families. I cannot tell you how many people, my sister-in-law included, who have asked me if it was "that way in your house." People came out of this movie thinking that large families are rude and out of control.

If a PG-13 movie can be soft porn, this is it. This film has no discernible plot, no characters worth remembering, extremely poor acting. The only thing it does have is Halle Berry strutting around in leather, snapping a whip at anyone who comes within 30 feet of her.

Sharon Stone's character's comment (oh yes another soft porn element -- Sharon Stone!) that she was pushed out as soon as she turned forty caused me to choke on my popcorn. Her bio claims that she was born in 1958, making her 46. But that woman looked to me to be every bit of 50.

Oh and I should not forget the last soft porn element: the extended catfight.

This one should go straight to late night on Skinemax.

My rating: 1/2 out of 5 (every effort even bad one deserve some credit).