In this Movie List from The Film Magazine, we are looking at these movies in particular. The films that have spoken to us as a culture, have lasted long in our public consciousness, have been present for many a warm Christmas memory. These films are all under one hour in length – you can find our feature length selection in our 50 Unmissable Christmas Films list – and must be exclusively festive in nature. These are the most important, the most memorable, the most beloved, the 10 Best Christmas Short Films.

Follow @thefilmagazine on X (Twitter).

10. Frosty the Snowman (1969)

Rankin/Bass are one of the most famous animated short producers in film history, their contributions to seasonal fare living long in the public consciousness of those in the United States and beyond since their releases more than fifty years ago. The animation of this production house was so beloved that Jon Favreau famously fought for it to be paid tribute to in his 2003 Christmas film Elf (a unique aspect of this contemporary live-action film that separates it from many of its competitors). Rankin/Bass’s legacy is one that continues to find fondness generation after generation.

Frosty the Snowman was the final animated short made for (and released on) television that Rankin/Bass released in their most popular decade, the 1960s, and the first of a few Rankin/Bass films to make this list.

Based on the song of the same name by Walter E. Rollins and Steve Nelson, this 1969 version of the seasonal tale is harmless and fun, animated with all the soft lines and wholesome glow of the best Rankin/Bass films. It tells of a snowman and a small girl being pursued by a magician for the snowman’s magic hat, and aside from a few slightly scary scenes offers all the warmth and heart of the season.

Recommended for you: 5 Reasons ‘Elf’ Is a Gen Z Christmas Classic

9. Olive, the Other Reindeer (1999)

This uniquely animated Christmas musical released by Fox Television and Flower Films just before the turn of the century is as star-studded as it is lovely.

Based on the 1997 children’s book of the same name by Vivian Walsh and J. Otto Seibold, which in turn was based on the misunderstanding of the lyric “all of the other reindeer” as “Olive, the other reindeer” in the Christmas song “Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer”, Olive, the Other Reindeer follows Drew Barrymore’s titular Jack Russell Terrier who travels to the north pole to help pull Santa’s sleigh when it is discovered that Blitzen is injured and unable to fly.

Nominated for an Emmy for Outstanding Animated Program, the seasonal short is stylish and beautifully brought to life by the voice actors, with the type of story that will bring plenty of smiles to faces, especially at Christmas. There’s even a song by Blitzen’s cousin Schnitzel, voiced by R.E.M.’s Michael Stipe. What more could you need?

Michael Fassbender in X-Men: First Class (2011).

Much like Magneto and metal, Michael Fassbender has no problem attracting big name directors. Having already worked with Quentin Tarantino, Ridley Scott and Steve McQueen, the Irish actor could soon be adding David Fincher to his list. Fassbender is currently in talks to star in assassin thriller The Killer, according to The Hollywood Reporter. The film is being made for Netflix and is expected to begin filming in September.

The Killer will be Fincher’s second feature length film in collaboration with the streaming service. The first was last year’s Mank, a biopic following Citizen Kane writer Herman J Mankiewicz. Sam Sewell-Peterson in his review for The Film Magazine described it as ‘a technical triumph with a towering turn from [Gary] Oldman’. Its critical praise from multiple outlets has no doubt secured the film numerous award nominations, including Best Motion Picture, Best Director and Best Actor at the 2021 Golden Globes.

In November 2020, Fincher announced he had signed a deal at Netflix for another four years at least. This came off the back of his previous efforts with them, including executive producing successful series ‘House of Cards’ and ‘Mindhunter’. It seems for now that Netflix is the perfect home for the director.

The Killer will reunite Fincher with Andrew Kevin Walker, who wrote the screenplay for Se7en and was an uncredited script doctor for Fight Club. Both are some of Fincher’s most popular films from his early days, so that news will likely excite long time fans who have been less-enthused by the director’s more recent efforts.

The story for this new film will be based on a French graphic novel of the same name, written by Matz with art by Luc Jacamon.

According to THR, Fassbender would play the lead character, an unnamed assassin ‘who begins to psychologically crack as he develops a conscience, even while his clients continue to demand his skills.’ Fassbender is known for his cold blooded portrayal of Magneto in the X-Men franchise and played an assassin in the ill-fated Assassin’s Creed adaptation, so he seems like a good fit for this role. This will follow a recent slew of box office duds and critical failures for the actor, including The Snowman, X-Men: Dark Phoenix and Alien: Covenant. Hopefully this and the recently wrapped Taika Waititi (Jojo Rabbit) feature, Next Goal Wins, will see a resurgence of success for him.

No release date is known, but if filming is expected to commence in September then it will likely hit screens sometime in 2022.

During its original run, the So Bad It’s Good series featured reviews of 7 movies that met the mark of being so bad that they’re kind of fun to watch. As a bad movie connoisseur, I [Jacob Davis] feel like a natural fit for the position, and I hope to live up to the expectations set by the existing reviews. But, before continuing such an exhilarating legacy, I want to outline my personal beliefs about what it means for a film to be “so bad it’s good”.

In order for a film to be “so bad it’s good”, it must meet two self-evident criteria.

“So bad” refers to the fundamental aspects of filmmaking (cinematography, editing, writing, acting, sound design, mise-en-scene) failing to align with the viewer’s standards for quality. This will be relative to a viewer’s experience with “bad” movies, since the films with the widest releases are going to meet some level of industry standard. If Attack of the Clones, The Emoji Movie or The Fanatic falls into an individual’s canon of “bad” movies, it’s safe to say that they are either selecting relatively well-known films, or that they have little experience with the true dregs of cinema. 

There are certain rules that do have to be followed when telling a story through film – even the most bland Hollywood movie is going to be competently edited, keeping the viewer’s senses of time and space in a logical order. Films like The Snowman or Slender Man are so memorable because of their poor editing. Entire scenes are missing from the films, which cause characters to leave abruptly and the pacing to be ruined entirely. Films can certainly break rules, but if the action is indecipherable or the film moves between medium, frame sizing or style without reason, it’s going to turn out wrong. Improper editing is frequently featured in the field of “so bad it’s good”. 

“It’s good” is contingent upon the viewer’s subjective enjoyment of the film and is dependent upon that enjoyment being derived from its poor quality.

The pleasure may come from making fun of it, or marveling at the audacity of the filmmakers to commit these images or ideas to screen. The filmmaker’s apparent intention is paramount when deciding whether or not a film is “so bad it’s good”. The Toxic Avenger or Thankskilling may be terribly conceived and constructed, but they come across as intentionally bad films that aim to mimic the B-movie style (poorly), rather than being a consequence of naivety, ignorance or arrogance. Additionally, these particular films show how problematic social elements (like casual sexism being intentionally played for laughs) can interfere with enjoyment. It’s fun to rip on movies with bad morals that come from a place of genuine belief, but it’s not so fun when the rest of the movie is amoral.

There’s a lot of value in watching these films…

Deconstructionists point out that in the dichotomy of “presence” and “absence” we tend to place a greater value on presence. In film, the “presence” of “good” filmmaking can be found in the classics – Citizen Kane, 2001: A Space Odyssey and Vertigo are go-to examples for how to properly use the medium of film to tell a story. Of course, we’re so used to seeing films that generally follow the guidelines of “good” filmmaking that it can become difficult for anyone to be able to discern “good” from “bad” on their own. This is the value of “absence” in filmmaking – when you watch a movie that blatantly sucks, it’s easier to pick up on the qualities that distinguish it from a “good” movie.

The Room is the quintessential “so bad it’s good” movie. Anyone who watches it can pick up on the miserable ADR, sudden bursts of pointless and self-aggrandizing narrative, and absolute ignorance of its visual storytelling. Afterwards, watch some famously “bad” movie like 2019’s The Fanatic. You’ll notice there’s a difference in the composition of images, the use of space and framing, or the fact that John Travolta’s words match his lip movements at an appropriate audio level. Details like this are taken for granted in “good” films, and can be lost on a public that still can’t differentiate between the Oscars for Sound Mixing and Sound Editing.

“So Bad It’s Good” will dive into the “what”, “how” and “why” of the film’s badness and enjoyability in order to determine whether or not a film qualifies for the titular honor. I’ll highlight key scenes, negative motifs, and speculate on what – if anything – could have made the movie “good” instead.

Edutainment has never been so awful, and I hope you gain something from this series.

Director: Gillian Armstrong
Screenplay: Robin Swicord, based on the novel by Louisa May Alcott
Starring: Winona Ryder, Gabriel Byrne, Trini Alvarado, Samantha Mathis, Kirsten Dunst, Claire Danes, Christian Bale, Eric Stoltz, Susan Sarandon

After a decade-long slog through the backwaters of American Independent Cinema (both in front of and behind the camera) Greta Gerwig finally broke her way into the public consciousness with her first solo directing gig – the irreverent Lady Bird. A hit with critics and audiences, the announcement of her next directorial project, Little Women, was received with great enthusiasm all around. “Little Women” is an incredibly precious story to girls and women across the world (evidently so as Gerwig’s adaptation will be the fourth film based on the Louisa May Alcott novel) and for good reason. The story of four sisters seeking their own destiny during the American Civil War is a significant piece of feminist literature prior to the Women’s Suffrage era; up there with the likes of “Pride and Prejudice” and “Jane Eyre”. So, despite the genuine and pleasant anticipation for Gerwig’s version, it has some big shoes to fill. Standards have not only been set by Alcott’s novel but also by previous adaptations, all of which have Academy Award nominations (and a few with wins). The 1933 and ’49 versions are typically popular with our grandmothers’ generation, but the beloved 1994 movie was an experience shared with mothers and daughters of the millennium. This version, a Gillian Armstrong directorial effort, is to many the definitive version.

Watching Little Women in many ways transcends the act of enjoying a movie – you almost feel like a time traveller, witnessing the change and transformation of the principal characters throughout their lives. This is of testament to the fact that Gillian Armstrong’s work is an example of extraordinary filmmaking: individual elements exceeding expectations to then be combined into an outstanding single artwork. Not only is it a viewing experience, but it can act as a tradition. Even though most of the film’s action takes place across all the seasons of the year, Little Women has come to sit amongst the likes of It’s A Wonderful Life and The Snowman as typical Christmas viewing; a true testament to its hearty appeal.

Little Women follows the lives of four young sisters as told by the second oldest – the wild and headstrong Jo March (Ryder). Meg (Alvarado) is the eldest sister, followed by Jo, Beth (Danes) and finally Amy (Dunst/Mathis), the youngest. Their father is away from home serving as a chaplain amongst the Unionist troops, leaving his daughters and their “Marmee” (Sarandon) to fend for themselves in a world dominated by poverty, classism and sexism. In the face of all this adversity, the March girls are still given an outspoken and loving upbringing that makes them unafraid to chase after their dreams. In their world of pomp and circumstance, these sisters remain faithful to their parents’ teachings of the equality of all people and the utmost importance of compassion, and often challenge the expectations of female behaviour at the time. The witnessing of these young girls transforming into little women is overall heart-warming, often bittersweet and finally triumphant as Jo, Beth, Meg and Amy experience all the trials of growing up in a story that still resonates with young, contemporary audiences.

What impresses me the most is how enthusiastic this adaption is, especially in remaining faithful to the tone of the book. For a modern reader, it is very easy to smirk and sneer at the March girls who often get excited at the prospect of an evening in, reading “The Bible”. More often than not, Hollywood can hardly resist putting a modern edge to supposedly out-dated stories in an attempt to make them more palatable, but Anderson’s version boldly showcases the lives of four Christian girls whom wholeheartedly believe in the Tenets they were raised with. Without embarrassment over these sisters’ funny old-fashioned ways, the film is able to fully immerse the audience into a different time and place, creating an unexpected empathy. We can believe these girls would give away their much-anticipated Christmas Breakfast to cold and hungry refugees, and we can believe it is because of their massively compassionate hearts (with only a little bit of a sanctimonious air). This faithfulness allows us to appreciate the struggle women endured at the time – a varnish of fourth-wave feminism would get in the way of not only the story of the March girls but also the origins of Women’s Suffrage as a whole.

The stunning fidelity to Alcott’s semi-autobiographical tale is achieved by the incredible characterisations of the March girls (and the other principal characters) alongside the fantastic performances used to deliver these most beloved personages. It goes without saying that the casting of this movie is phenomenal with many of the actors validating their A-List status through this movie alone. Trini Alvarado perfectly embodies the fine line many eldest siblings tread, playing a character constantly outraged and aggravated by the antics of younger sisters whilst also having the maturity to shoulder responsibility from their parents in times of strife, especially to bring happiness to the younger ones. Kirsten Dunst and Claire Danes wow audiences with incredibly dedicated performances despite their young ages (Danes was 14, Dunst was 11), both perfectly embodying their respective characters to such an extent that its difficult to see where Danes and Dunst end, and where Amy and Beth begin, to the point that you could unfairly label Dunst as precocious/annoying and Danes as too quiet. Those who make that mistake would miss the enjoyably spoilt, materialistic nature of the baby of the family, as Kirsten Dunst’s Amy causes you to flash back to all the times you threatened to murder a troublesome younger sibling. Then of course we have Winona Ryder as Jo, in the role she was seemingly born to play. Ryder proves that she is the unchallenged star of the show, creating a Jo who is fierce, outspoken, headstrong, emotional and compassionate. It’s simply an inspired performance with Ryder’s Jo embodying the woman who girls of the nineties dreamed of becoming. We can credit Ryder with one of the most real characters ever seen on screen as she throws herself entirely into Jo’s tempers and passions; creating a tangible, empathetic protagonist. This movie may possibly be the only time audiences see the true extent of the rage of a teenage girl and it is fantastic. Most importantly, she doesn’t use Jo as a vehicle of contemporary feminism, instead staying true to the aspirations of the characterisation in the novel, leading to a message that is able to speak to women of all ages, including those who are yet to discover the film. And then, of course, there’s Christian Bale who embodies every girl’s adolescent crush in the character of Laurie.

Despite the film being literally stuffed with outstanding performances and hugely emotional scenes, it does suffer with pacing issues. Like Tolkien’s “The Hobbit”, filmmakers have often struggled with adapting the works of Alcott – the actual novel of “Little Women” only provides the plot of the first hour of the film, for example. The rest of the runtime is made up by “Good Wives”, which is often published alongside “Little Women” as a sort of Part Two within one book. However, as the original novel of “Little Women” works as a self-contained story in its own right, the film does seem to climax prematurely, and it could be said that it then has a much slower separate plot tacked on to the end. There are many memorable and wonderful moments after the first hour mark admittedly, but the change in intensity is jarring, itself made prominent with the swapping-in of the more forgettable Samantha Mathis as a grown up Amy. There is enough charm to keep audiences hooked but the tension of the first hour is certainly missed.

Beyond the power of the narrative and the story, Little Women proves to be a truly sumptuous watch. My personal recommendation is to watch the film during the lazy nights of Christmas and New Year’s Day, underneath a throw with a hot chocolate: man or woman, brothers or sisters. This movie deserves to become such an annual tradition as every element is executed to the highest possible standard of the industry.

It is universally acknowledged that Thomas Newton was absolutely robbed at the 1995 Academy Awards with his musical score being as instantly recognisable as the likes of John Williams’ blockbuster compositions. Even his shortest pieces invoke multiple themes and emotions including Christmas, mischief, romance and grief. Listening to the music alone is almost as enjoyable as actually watching the film.

Little Women is equally pleasing from a visual standpoint, with aspects such as hair and wardrobe achieving stunning yet historically accurate period pieces, boasting authenticity as one character’s dress becomes a hand me down, passing to their younger sisters; such attention to detail is a sheer delight to see in any movie. The pièce de résistance is, however, the set design and location shooting – the interior design of the March home was based on the layout of Orchard House, Louisa Alcott’s childhood home, and Craigdarroch Castle in all of its original glorious woodwork provides the setting for Engagement and “Coming Out” Parties. To have watched the film to death on VHS and then to experience it on a 4K television was amazing. After 20 years it was the first time I could appreciate how beautiful this movie actually is and the immense amount of hard work that was poured into it by all departments.

At this point it is blindingly clear that Little Women was filmed with an almost reverent love; anything less and I don’t think the movie would have been able to bestow such an authentic message. Just like a real family, there are countless struggles and trials that are dealt with humility and honesty. The countless families that have dealt with grief and loss are able to see themselves within the March sisters and revel in the reflection of the love they see in their own lives. My favourite aspect is the depiction of friendship between a man and a woman: Winona Ryder and Christian Bale perfectly show the loving and selfless, giving and taking of a relationship without sexual undertones, the likes of which often cheapen such depicted relationships in film. It is true that a romantic element comes in between Laurie and Jo, but it smashes expectations and clichés, and is even quite courageous in its approach.

Little Women is a truly unique movie, arising out of the decade of action blockbusters with a surprisingly huge amount of warmth. A faithful adaption and stunning period piece. The popularity and the importance of Alcott’s novels means continued adaptions are certain, but so long as filmmakers aim to reach the lofty heights achieved by Gillian Armstrong, any future attempt should do this beloved book justice.

20/24

10. Alien: Covenant

For as beautiful as Alien: Covenant was to look at, it was equally as uninspired in its modes of storytelling. The movie, which is the 2nd of several pre-Alien franchise movies, felt long and bland, but worst of all it detracted from the mythos set up by of the original Alien film. Like many sequels or universe movies released in the past few years, Covenant explained too much of what made the franchise’s predecessors so engaging, and in doing so stained the near 40 years old classic series; a truly unforgivable achievement by what was a generic, boring movie.

9. Justice League

Described as “one of the largest blends of bad ideas put to screen in 2017” in our review, Justice League was a movie that suffered from all the problems of the other DC movies of the current generation (Wonder Woman excluded) – it felt long, disjointed and boring while doing very little to actually create a reason to care about it – and did so with such little conviction that it drained all life away from the feature, leaving us with a stripped carcass of a film summed up by its incredibly poor and extensive use of CGI that we likened to Playstation 2 level graphics. Look out for the particularly woeful manner in which Henry Cavill’s moustached face was reconstructed to be clean shaven; it’s laughable, really.

8. The Book of Henry

Colin Trevorrow, who was hot off the success of 2015 mega-hit Jurassic World, seemed to be taking the comfortable indie route to his latest franchise blockbuster, but his gross mishandling of a story too “out there” to be conceived accurately on screen tanked so hard with critics and audiences that the filmmaker was hastily removed from his spot as director on Star Wars Episode IX and replaced by J.J. Abrams. The Book of Henry was simply all over the place, not readily assigned to any one, two or even three genres, and seemed to struggle to come to terms with its own elaborate poorness.

7. The Snowman

“How could a film helmed by Tomas Alfredson (Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy; Let the Right One In), based on a solid crime novel by Jo Nesbø and starring Michael Fassbender turn out to be such an ineptly made mess?”

Stephen Porzio’s guest review of The Snowman summed it up best, with the adaptation facing criticism across the board for its sheer abandonment of logic and overall terrible sense of poise. The film, which starred a plethora of talented actors, was just the latest 2017 failure for Fassbender whom had already endured a poor year with Assassin’s Creed and Alien: Covenant.

6. Baywatch

How could a film featuring the comedy chops of Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson and Zac Efron be such an unfunny mess? More so, how could any film starring The Rock tank so hard off the back of its lack of quality that it ended up being a box office flop? In modern day Hollywood, a box office of as little as $177million for The Rock is about as rare as you’re hoping your super old shiny Poke’mon card is. The major problem with Baywatch was that it offered little more than a slow-paced, overly long buddy cop film that aimed for 21 Jump Street but couldn’t even lay a scratch on the original Baywatch TV series.

5. The Mummy

Playing more “like a bad Mission: Impossible movie with zombies” [review] than anything like Brendan Fraser’s The Mummy, Universal’s proposed introduction to their newly founded Dark Universe was such a disaster that follow-ups featuring the likes of Johnny Depp as the Invisible Man have been scrapped and the trademarked name expunged. The film’s biggest issue was its swing away from its titular character and towards Tom Cruise, whose performance failed to capture any of the superstar actor’s trademark charm (false or otherwise), leaving a film with seemingly little direction and a production that chose to point fingers of blame in the aftermath. Was it Cruise’s all controlling power that ended the promise of the Dark Universe, or was the film simply never good enough to begin with? Perhaps we’ll never know.

4. The Circle

“The Circle is […] best described as an almost insulting modern recreation of 1984, featuring some below par acting, average photography and a screenplay that missed the mark in quite a tragically glorious fashion.” – Review

By far the worst film of director James Ponsoldt’s career, and one of the biggest missteps in recent times for the likes of actor-producer Tom Hanks, lead actress Emma Watson, and a supporting cast including John Boyega, Karen Gillan and Ella Coltrane, The Circle was an incredibly poor Netflix original film that banked on its star power and delivered a confused, at best juvenile, message of equality that assumed we, as viewers, were stupid at every turn.

3. The Emoji Movie

To have an animation film such as The Emoji Movie be met with reviews criticising it for being, of all things, “dismaying”, explains more of how far away from a good movie this release was than any other criticisms we can offer. Who makes a children’s animated film that leaves its audience in distress? Not to mention one built on an intellectual property that boomed in popularity some 2 years before the film’s release.

2. Geostorm

What if the bad guys hijacked the weather?

This is the premise of the latest garbage release from actor-producer Gerard Butler, a man who seems insistent upon force feeding us the same poor quality types of film we always think he’ll somehow move past. How much more good grace can a career defining performance in 300 hold?

1. Fifty Shades Darker

So many people went to see the insultingly bad first Fifty Shades movie that the cast were contractually obligated to return to the franchise for its sequel. Even under a new director – one with Glengarry Glen Ross under his belt – lead stars Jamie Dornan and Dakota Johnson were unable to capture anything even closely resembling sexual chemistry, leaving the woeful content of the screenplay to speak for itself. No-one wanted to be there and that much was clear. Fifty Shades Darker is the worst film of 2017.

So there you have it, the 10 worst films of 2017 according to us here at The Film Magazine. If you have thoughts on the list or have predictions for what may feature in 2018, make sure to leave a comment below or tweet us @thefilmagazine.

[DISPLAY_ULTIMATE_SOCIAL_ICONS]

The Snowman (2017)
Director: Tomas Alfredson
Screenwriter: Hossein Amini, Peter Straughan, Søren Sveistrup
Starring: Michael Fassbender, Rebecca Ferguson, Charlotte Gainsbourg, Jonas Karlsson, J.K. Simmons, Val Kilmer, Toby Jones

What the hell happened? That is the major question I asked myself after I left my screening of The Snowman. How could a film helmed by Tomas Alfredson (Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy; Let the Right One In), based on a solid crime novel by Jo Nesbø and starring Michael Fassbender turn out to be such an ineptly made mess?

My suspicion, based on the finished product alone, is that the shoot suffered set-backs, causing a botched edit. The studio may have been unhappy with the original cut, ordering re-shoots and hiring another editor to reshuffle the film. This would explain why Val Kilmer’s words don’t match the movement of his lips (nor does it even sound like the actor), why Fassbender’s hair looks different one scene to the next and why the film has two credited editors.

Set in Oslo, Norway, The Snowman centres on alcoholic cop Harry Hole. Following an extended bender – the opening of the movie sees Hole waking up from a drunken stupor in a children’s playground – the detective returns to his job to find out various women have gone missing. The only noticeable link between them is a freshly built snowman at each crime scene. Teaming with the ambitious but inexperienced Katrine Bratt (Rebecca Ferguson), the two try to find the culprit. Could the crimes be linked to Arve Stop (Oscar-winner J.K. Simmons adding top-layer creep), a governor trying to get Oslo to host a Winter Olympics?

On the brief positive side, the first few scenes of The Snowman are nicely moody. The Norwegian setting looks great and when the editing doesn’t feel cut-up and disjointed, Alfredson’s natural flair for shooting icy environments (as evident in his previous work) is on display. Helped by incredible DP Dion Beebe (a part of Jane Campion’s underrated In the Cut, an adaption of a whodunit done right), he stages a handful of striking moments. In one of these scenes, we see a flock of birds obscuring a patch of land. Gunshot fire causes the birds to disperse and as they do, a mutilated, dis-articulated corpse is revealed, resembling a real-life version of the famous Anatomy of a Murder poster.

The problem is that these well-executed moments are suffocated by an array of problems, most of which are caused by a failure to adhere to basic ideas regarding story and scene construction. The whole point of pairing two mismatched cops is to present them as being awkward at first with a respect and care for one another grown out of that (Lethal Weapon; 48 Hours; Seven; ‘True Detective’; ‘Mindhunter’). In The Snowman, Fassbender and Ferguson’s characters carry out practically separate investigations. Harry Hole doesn’t tell his partner the murderer has been sending him messages or that he’s travelling to Bergen to follow up on a lead. Meanwhile, Bratt has her own agenda which she fails to fill Hole in on.

To be more specific of this overarching problem; why would the film show the baddie sneak into Hole’s apartment and replace his medication with mysterious pills if the movie was never going to mention it again? Wouldn’t it have been exciting if the new tablets had altered Hole’s behaviour in some way? Perhaps by impairing his judgement.

Then there’s the simple filmmaking problems. Harry Hole’s ex-wife (played by Charlotte Gainsbourg, who along with Ferguson and Chloe ‘Snowy’ Sevigny form a trifecta of actresses worthy of more) enters the detective’s apartment as he is listening to music. When he notices her, he takes his headphones off. There’s then a cut to another scene. When we return to Harry and his ex, she is straddling him awkwardly and he’s in the same position on the ground with headphones in. Why would he put them back on?

To compound the nonsensical there is the introduction of Kilmer’s also drunken detective. He’s in conversation with Irish actor Adrian Dunbar’s character. Yet, everytime Kilmer speaks, the film cuts to the back of his head in a clumsy attempt to hide the redubbing. Maybe the Batman star didn’t want to be in The Snowman? I wouldn’t blame him.

5/24

Written by Stephen Porzio

You can support Stephen by subscribing to Cold Coffee Press and following Cold Coffee Press on Twitter – @ColdCoffeePr3ss

Make sure to pay particular attention to the debutante at number 5…

Polish language production Botoks hitting the number 5 spot and earning close to £800,000 (actual: £792,957) in its opening weekend is an achievement nobody could have seen coming. The flashy, adult piece surrounding the intertwining lives of four hospital staffers has been a huge success in Poland where it has earned upwards of £6million since its release in the country at the end of September, but with very little promotion – the movie doesn’t even have an English-language plot description on imdb – and a distributor (Phoenix Productions) as little known as the movie itself, this is undoubtedly the biggest domestic box office surprise of 2017.

Botoks is an 18-rated film – an age rating that typically draws much smaller audiences than lower age ratings – and is presented entirely in Polish. The director, Patryk Vega, is known in the nation for similar types of work, yet nothing he’s released has ever had such mass appeal, especially overseas as is the case with this picture. To describe Botoks’ performance as a phenomenon would be putting it lightly, and while its presence in the top 5 seems sure to be only for one week, its achievements must be seen as an important moment for film distributors in the UK, as film goers of Polish heritage have truly established themselves as an under-represented audience that could be seen as a demographic in of itself, with films regularly released via British-based distributors in much the same way that Bollywood films have been for the past 10-20 years. Botoks could be a game changer, not only in terms of film distribution in this country regarding Polish films, but also in terms of the UK’s cinema ties with the European Union after “Brexit”, as it seems unlikely that popular cinema chains will be happy at seeing box office returns of this size disappear from their profit sheets in the years to come, and even less likely that Her Majesty’s Revenues and Customs – charged with taxing cinemas, ticket sales and so on – will be happy losing their cut of the profits too. Botoks may very well be one of the example used in arguments for maintaining freedom to work between EU citizens and UK citizens, as well as keeping international taxes low, in the post-split environment. Only time will tell.

Elsewhere in the top 5, the big news was of course the debut of The LEGO Ninjago Movie at number 1. The movie, which is the 3rd of the Lego branded animation movies – following The LEGO Movie and The LEGO Batman Movie – earned £3,642,038 in its opening weekend, just over half of the total claimed by Blade Runner 2049‘s disappointing debut last week, beating the Denis Villeneuve directed sci-fi (which sits at number 2) by around £500,000 in this week’s chart. It’s a box office return much lower than Lego would have expected given the form of animated movies in the UK this year, and marks a significant drop-off for the series of over 50% from the debuts of its previous instalments.

Oct 2017 – The LEGO Ninjago Movie – £3,642,038

Feb 2017 – The LEGO Batman Movie – £7,906,468

Feb 2014 – The LEGO Movie – £8,051,140

The answer as to why this drop-off has occurred most likely comes from the franchise adopting a much less popular intellectual property, Ninjago, to base the film upon, though franchise fatigue could also be to blame given that it is the second Lego branded movie of 2017.

At number 3 in the chart is the debuting The Snowman which, despite poor reviews, pushed ahead of Kingsman: The Golden Circle (in its 4th weekend) to earn £1,377,909 from a $35million budget. With the film yet to debut in the US, and international sales racking up at around £6.5million, it seems the film has a long way to go to break even despite the star power of the Jo Nesbø name and Michael Fassbender as the lead.

Here’s the top 15…

1. The LEGO Ninjago Movie – weeks on release: 1 – weekend: £3,642,038 – total: £3,642,038
2. Blade Runner 2049 – 2 – £3,098,872 – £12,184,828
3. The Snowman – 1 – £1,377,909 – £1,377,909
4. Kingsman: The Golden Circle – 4 – £1,347,964 – £21,781,664
5. Botoks – 1 – £792,957 – £792,957
6. The Mountain Between Us – 2 – £484,243 – £1,761,281
7. The Ritual – 1 – £424,352 – £424,352
8. IT – 6 – £413,359 – £31,748,050
9. Loving Vincent – 1 – £274,036 – £274,036
10. The Party – 1 – £234,985 – £234,985
11. Victoria and Abdul – 5 – £224,175 – £8,993,612
12. Die Zauberflote – Met Opera – 1 – £213,605 – £213,605
13. Goodbye Christopher Robin – 3 – £206,597 – £2,288,085
14. Despicable Me 3 – 16 – £119,250 – £47,191,580
15. Captain Underpants – 12 – £72,455 – £8,100,263

Despite closing in on Halloween, IT seems to be falling quickly out of the chart, this week clocking in at number 8, making less than £500,000 for the first weekend of its 6 weekend run. The film may last through October 31st, but the likelihood of it pushing £35million seems unlikely. Even so, at £31-33million, IT is working week after week to further establish itself as one of this year’s biggest hits – both in the UK and internationally.

Similarly, Despicable Me 3 is working only to further certify its spot as one of the year’s most profitable films in the region. Now 16 weeks into its run, it seems that this may be have been the final week on the chart for the Illumination Entertainment animation, but having grossed over £47million, it’s currently the number 3 film of the year behind Dunkirk and Beauty and the Beast.

Victoria and Abdul has performed similarly as well given its relatively small production, dropping out of the top 10 for the first weekend of its 5 week run but pushing the £9million mark, while American funded The Mountain Between Us starring Kate Winslet and Idris Elba seems likely to barely touch £2million despite a heavy promotional push in the UK in the build-up to its release.

Two independent debuts – The Party and Loving Vincent – have failed to blow away audiences it would seem, despite their original and enticing premises. The former, The Party, features a stacked cast for the director Sally Potter’s 9th feature-length film in a 40 year career, while Loving Vincent has brought particular attention for being the first and only oil-painted animated movie in history. With each of their runs looking likely to barely touch £500,000, their stories contrast those of Victoria and Abdul as well as the less-successful but still impressively performing Goodbye Christopher Robin. 

With the chart seeming set on saying goodbye to long-standing inclusions Despicable Me 3 and Captain Underpants, next week’s chart should be interesting in terms of what replaces them and with what level of success. A similarly as intriguing story will come from Blade Runner 2049 as it attempts to make up its £130-150million budget despite suffering a 50% drop-off on its opening weekend despite not coming out of the gates as Sony may have expected. I’ll be back next Wednesday, but in the meantime make sure to subscribe to us on YouTube to get first access to our weekly box office chart videos (posted each Tuesday).