Roger Ebert’s Favorites

I meant to have this up by Christmas day, but unfortunately I got very sick, and wasn’t up for writing anything. Also, I would have a spoiler warning, but it seems there is no need since everyone has seen this movie before. As many have noted before me, everyone has livedthis movie before. It effectively captures the experience of being a child during Christmas time, while also adding elements that are plausible or desirable, which fit in perfectly. This is one of those great movies that should not work, and yet it does. The plot is loosely connected, the protagonist’s goal is unimportant, the pacing is odd, and there are interruptions (daydreams) periodically – and it still works well.

There are flaws, however. I am always bothered when family films, particularly those clearly inviting children to watch them, contain elements that may not be appropriate for children, and this movie does have that. A lot of the jokes are rather weak, which would be bearable if the jokes kept coming constantly, but the film is actually pretty slow. It is difficult for me to stay focused on the film since it has a pace that is bordering on too slow for me and my ADD. The unconventional structure also makes it hard to stay into, but that can only be prevented to some degree since the nature of the story is purely a child’s Christmas experience. I also have issues with the film purely because I can’t totally relate. I didn’t want a gun as a kid, nor did I get bullied, or get bad grades, or lie much really.

Still, I understand why this is a Christmas classic. It’s just not one of my favorite Christmas classics.

Boy, is this a tricky one to review. I saw this movie for my first time this past Thanksgiving night on Netflix, and I had no idea it was a Thanksgiving movie until I started watching! I love coincidences like that, but in movies, coincidences have to be handled very carefully (segue, segue, segue). Planes, Trains, and Automobiles does a remarkable job at playing up the absurdities of its continuous coincidences, and making the disastrous circumstances as funny as possible. From a writing standpoint, it is a very well-built film, which is uncommon for a movie that is essentially a series of things going awry. The acting from Steve Martin and John Candy, who were on top of their game in this film, is perfect. The film also has some great attention to detail, cool shots, fun cameos, and a very nice ending.

The problem that I have with it, however, is that it requires laughing at the suffering of the protagonist. One could argue that laughing at the pain of others is the essence of comedy, but as Mel Brooks said, “Tragedy is when I cut my finger; comedy is when you fall into an open sewer and die.” In other words, if something bad happens to you, it’s tragic from your perspective, but funny from mine. Similarly, in television, film, and other media, it is easier to laugh at the suffering of those with whom we do not identify. Since this movie made me empathize with the main characters, it was difficult for me to laugh when they were suffering because I “felt their pain.” So, I found the movie kind of uncomfortable.

Regardless, I am impressed with the film and its ability to take a rather common kind of comedy story, and make a special one of a very high caliber. It’s just what one would expect from John Hughes.

A Christmas Story Review

Planes, Trains, and Automobiles Review

Roger Ebert's Favorites