It was Thanksgiving, and we found ourselves counting the minutes until we could get home. To pass the time, without having to talk, we went to the movies. And saw this turkey.
Here is a collection of reviewers comments, from Wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas_with_the_Kranks#Critical_reactionCritical reaction
Rotten Tomatoes ranked the film 58th in the 100 worst reviewed films of the 2000s, with a rating of 5%,<3> while Metacritic gave it a 22/100 approval rating.<4>
Roger Ebert of the Chicago Sun-Times rated the film one out of four stars, calling it "a holiday movie of stunning awfulness that gets even worse when it turns gooey at the end." He added, "The movie is not funny, ever, in any way, beginning to end. It's a colossal miscalculation."<5>
Carla Meyer of the San Francisco Chronicle observed, "Christmas With the Kranks boils down to a scene in which a canned ham rolls from a supermarket parking lot onto a busy highway. Filled with overly processed situations it tries to sell with manic energy, Kranks is canned, hammy and rolling as fast as it can . . . Grisham and Columbus' touches can be seen in the nonconformist male lead and icy slapstick, respectively. Roth's contributions are evident in the film's staging problems and overall lack of joy to the world . . . Scenes of Curtis and Aykroyd, so great together in Trading Places, inspire the bittersweet feelings that can accompany the holidays. Or more specifically, the bittersweet feelings that can accompany the sight of talented actors paying bills from last Christmas by doing a junky film."<6>
Steve Persall of the St. Petersburg Times graded the film C, calling it "an agreeably dumb addition to megaplexes" and "a TV movie wandering onto theater screens." He added, "Sometimes Joe Roth's movie is funny; often it isn't. Always, it's played with sitcom predictability by Tim Allen, who doesn't know any other way, and Jamie Lee Curtis, who used to know better."<7>
John DeVore of the New York Sun said, "The Christmas film is a genre as old as screwball or noir, and it has given us some of the finest moments in cinema . . . But for every treasured classic, there are dozens of crass train wrecks like Christmas With the Kranks, a new film that should make Scrooges of even the most die-hard Yuletide junkies . . . is high-concept, low-brow piffle; it's pure, triple-X emotional pornography . . . The members of the cast should be ashamed, as all of them could have done better - and have in the past."<8>
Scott Foundas of Variety called the film "an agreeable, if snowflake-thin stocking stuffer" and added, "At its best, Christmas With the Kranks . . . makes some smart observations about the way a holiday rooted in generosity and kindness has been twisted into a consumerist nightmare of traffic snarls, checkout lines of biblical proportions and neighborly one-upsmanship."<2>
Yep. It was this bad... and worse. I recall Entertainment Weekly even made some political comparisons. Conservatives will love it because it enforces the idea that we should all celebrate Christmas and that we must all conform. Liberals will hate it because it enforces the idea that we should all celebrate Christmas and that we must all conform. This is pretty much how my in-laws are. Conservative "Christians" who think Christians should be calling all the shots and non-Christians should really just shut up and go along with what Christians demand. Well, their type of Christians. I don't think my in-laws consider the DU type of Christian a real Christian because hate isn't valued among liberal Christians.
Even without the political ideology (which I am forced to contend with whenever we have to deal with my in-laws), Christmas With the Kranks is two hours of my life I can never get back. And I will feel cheated of those one hundred and twenty minutes while on my death bed.
On a different note, apparently the director, Joe Roth, was part of the ACLU battle to take forced Christian prayer out of public schools. Consider the source, Wiki, naturally:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_RothRoth was born in New York City, New York, the son of Lawrence Roth, a foreman at a plastics plant.<1> In 1959, Roth's father volunteered his son to be a plaintiff in the ACLU's effort to abolish prayer in public schools. The case, filed in New York, wound its way through the system, finally reaching the U.S. Supreme Court in 1962. The Court ruled that such prayer was unconstitutional under the First Amendment, in the landmark case of Engel v. Vitale.<2>