Okay, I read this and generally agree with it, but I have to ask one thing:
The Polar Express as "the greatest Christmas movie ever made"?
I really hope that particular paragraph was steeped in sarcasm that I'm not just picking up on. After seeing that film two weeks ago I'm convinced that its relationship to quality entertainment is akin to the relationship between matter and antimater. (Though Santa Claus Conquers the Martians beats even it, gaining the status of "entertainment black hole" )
There was no sarcasm intended in that statement, and I stand by it. I've never seen a movie that captures the excitement of Christmas from a child's point of view the way "Polar Express" does. Not one of the greatest films of all time, but a Christmas classic.
As for "A Christmas Carol," the George C. Scott version is widely agreed upon by many critics to be definitive, and The Muppett version follows the book more closely than most versions, including "Scrooge," the Albert Finney version, which is also quite good. Admitttedly, there is no Rubber Chicken factory in the book, but other than the obviosu changes to make it a Muppett movie, it follows the source material very accurately. Too bad the same can't be said for "Muppett Treasure Island."
Now, I want to say one last thing about the clock system: people are a under a misconception that we have ap roblem with using clocks instead of stars. We could rate movies with waffles, I don't care.
It's the numbering system, whcih has never been clear to us, and in particular the amibiguity of what a "Six clock" movie is. "Little Women" is a classic example: you won't find a major critic in the nation who didn't give that movie four stars. It's a masterpeice. But because it's not a genre buster, it apparently doesn't rate six clock, which leaves it with empty clocks, which to me implies that the reviewer thought it could have been better, which is simply not the case.