Home Movies A-M Movies N-Z News

Christmas with the Kranks (2004): 5/10


Poster (c) Revolution Studios

Have you ever heard of Ben Affleck? I'm sure you have, but if I ask you the same thing next year, I'm sure you won't know who I'm talking about. It's primarily from his October release Surviving Christmas, which grossed about as much as the latest Uwe Boll movie. That flop is the reason why Christmas with the Kranks is so awkwardly titled. Instead of Skipping Christmas, like the John Grisham book on which the movie is based, the law, or MPAA (what's the difference?), or someone, made Revolution Studios change the name. Directed by Revolution bigwig Joe Roth, it's a movie that Sony thinks is necessary for post-9/11: how the spirit of Christmas can cure even the most insane of individuals. The Christmas portrayed here isn't even close to the Christmas displayed so beautifully in
The Polar Express. This is the annoying "ho-ho-ho Santas on every roof" type of Christmas that everyone despises so. Therefore, it's hard to get a palpable feeling out of Kranks. But, it could have been worse. I could have been watching Surviving Christmas.

Luther and Nora Krank (Tim Allen and Jamie Lee Curtis) have just become empty nesters in their northern American town (at least I think so-everyone seemed to have a "Minnesota Nice" accent). Their Christmas-obsessed town has not only depleted their wallets, but also, finally, their spirits. The Kranks decide to skip Christmas and take a Caribbean cruise instead. This upsets the town, especially Vic Frohmeyer (Dan Aykroyd), the so-called ringleader of the street for its annual Christmas contest. Then, about halfway through the movie, something "surprising" (i.e. shown in the trailer) happens which causes a reversal of the skipping of Christmas. Will the Kranks be able to pull it off?

Roth (having directed such other gems like America's Sweethearts and Revenge of the Nerds II: Nerds in Paradise) is quite possibly the worst director in the history of filmmaking. Not only could he find a director to do this (so he had to resort to it himself), but the way he changed focus-he must have done it a dozen time. What he did was let the focus go from one character to something else for a few second, then slip back. He tries to do it on the sly, but fails miserably. It's almost condescending to the audience, like we can't figure out what in the shot is important for us to look at. He, obviously knowing what to expect from the results, doesn't seem to really care about the movie. Instead of trying to make the movie realistic, all of the sets are obviously Hollywood backlots. I suppose that the town's supposed to be Anywhere, USA, but that doesn't mean it has to look like every other town in films.

Chris Columbus, writer of the script, is known for writing (and/or directing) overlong movies with sappy endings. Kranks satisfies one of the two, and with a 94 minute runtime, you can guess which. The Kranks are such crazy characters (as evidenced by their names, too) who go on such crazy adventures (or as crazy as they can be for PG), that they suddenly become sane because of The Christmas Spirit. It's that type of baloney Christmas sentimentality that really bugs me about many movies. But on a completely different note, the movie did have its moments (especially during its "raunchier" moments), but the thing was that it was constantly entertaining. I never felt bored, or really upset by it (until, of course, the last ten minutes or so, when it went all Hallmark on me). The movie did have a bit of satirical wit through it, although not as sharp as it could be or wanted to be. But still, it's kind of remarkable for satire in a PG movie.

Both Tim Allen and Jamie Lee Curtis annoy me. Allen did annoy me here in Kranks, but for some reason, I really liked Curtis's over-the-top performance. After her fluke success in 2003's Freaky Friday, I suppose she isn't really struggling for work (unlike Allen), and can have more fun with these kinds of roles. Aykroyd (when's the last time he's had a 'real' role?) does what he needs to do, but, seriously, get this guy better roles! He's better than this! The movie could also do better than it did, but it's a diverting diversion, nothing more.

Rated PG for brief language and suggestive content.

Review Date: November 29, 2004