Change Your Image
insigniumdoomster
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Eden (2021)
Eden is a very dark series in deceptively vivid colours, and so deep that it's worth watching it with an attentive eye.
What Andy asks Hedwig in the third episode is perhaps the most essential question in this series. It can be paraphrased as:
"Who hurt you?"
All the colours of Eden hide the answers, and it's not only Hedwig who withholds theirs. Almost every big character does, and many others. The series isn't forthcoming either. In almost every case it's either revealed through off-hand comments or just hinted at.
Hedwig is the one that ends up missing one night and thereby sparks the plot of the series. The people of Eden, the Australian beach town which the series gets its name from, start search parties to look for her. Our part as viewers is to see the events unfolding through the eyes of the different people who saw her that day.
This doubles up as a study of the characters we get to follow. The aforementioned Andi, surname Dolan, is a famous actor with a drug problem, who is as lonely as he is good at keeping people away from him. Scout, who is Hedwig's best friend, who loves Hedwig as more than a friend, who Hedwig berates for not taking her along. Ezra Katz, the detective with a drinking problem, a sick mother, and who is said to have kind heart. Cam, the too-nice-for-his-own-good drug dealer who Hedwig places her trust in. Chief of Police Lou Gracie, who finds that love isn't always accepted, and many others.
Each of them are portrayed almost exclusively through the show-not-tell method. The observant viewer will get much more out of their characters, and consequently of the town as a whole, than those who approach the series more casually. As an example of the lengths the series goes to, make note of what Chief Gracie drinks. It's always water, and he is shown quite a few times doing so. Except in the single meeting he has with Detective Katz when he drinks a beer. Katz is a dried up alcoholic so this spite from Gracie shows just how he really feels even if he's otherwise cordial towards him.
Chief Gracie is also an excellent example of Eden's dark shadows. There is so much shame, particularly related to sex. Gracie is gay and if this was discovered then he would likely loose his job, likely more. His need for secrecy is absolute and with the norms of Eden being cult-like one could see why. In fact, there is much of what people say and do, especially their sense of morals, that seems to point in the direction of a cult. More than likely the town used to, or perhaps still does, house one. One that hurt the entire Eden at some point, and which we're now only seeing the echoes of. Perhaps this relates in some way to the title of the town and series?
Eden can be seen as a somewhat experimental crime series, colourful to the point where it touches on the psychedelic from time to time, which has vibrant and rich characterisations of the people in it, and whose beauty indicates that it's all a bad thing that happened in a dream. But the undercurrents, if one picks up on them, are darker than in most any other series. It's brilliant, full of carefully considered connections and dialogue, but also a series which has the potential to stick with you. It doesn't seem like most viewers pick up on it, but Eden should come with severe trigger warnings..
Del amor y otros demonios (2009)
A movie based the famous novel, but which reduces the original tale to a mere love story, and even that part is severely altered.
Of Love and Other Demons is based on the famous novel of the same name, by Gabriel García Márquez. His authorship has earned him the 1982 Nobel prize in literature, and while he didn't pen this novel until twelve years afterwards (and thus it had no influence on him getting the laureate) it is still one of those books whose story feels revolutionary and inspiring. It is one of those books that one, in giddy exhilaration, simply wants to share with the whole world. Unsurprisingly, someone wanted to share it by putting it on the big screen.
Unfortunately, while the adaptation is largely faithful to the original story, its faithfulness is is only relevant to the final half of the book simply because the film ignores nearly everything from the first half. In the book, the first half introduces the characters, gives us their positions in life, and the relationships between them. These things are essential, but excluded from the movie. Also, as I am now going to try to introduce the plot, I would like to mention that by doing so I will, due to the movie's discarding of the first half of the tale, be presenting spoilers to those who would prefer to read it first.
Somewhere - presumably in a Spanish colony in the New World, which we can guess from the language spoken and that 'the world', likely referring to Europe, is said to lie on the other side of the ocean – there is a young lady with long red hair. She is accompanied by another young woman, a slave. The red haired one we eventually learn is the daughter of a local Marquis. We get to see glimpses of the Marquis and his wife, but they are otherwise anonymous - which is rather odd since their strange personalities actually play a major role in why things turn out the way they do. The daughter of the Marquis is bitten by a rabid dog, her slave companion helps her home and tends to the wounds using medicinal plants. The local bishop hears of the bite and draws the conclusion that the young girl must be possessed. Why? There is a why but the movie decided to skip that part too, despite how centrally important it is to understand the remaining plot. (Also, the young lady is noted to do things which one would otherwise only expect from someone with an African cultural background, i.e. slaves, but these lines lead nowhere because the movie leaves out yet another essential part of the introduction.) In any case, the bishop thinks she might be possessed - Heaven knows why! From the movie, I'd blame it on early onset dementia. - and she is sent to the local convent to be treated by the nuns. To treat her, on the bishop's behalf, a young priest is sent, named Cayetano. Slowly a love blossoms between the two.
And that is what this movie boils down the tale to, a love story in unusual circumstances. This is utterly insufficient in light of how much of the original tale that is devoted to connecting this tale and its surrounding tragedies to the time period in which it takes place. The historical commentary of the book roars, deafening the love story, and presenting us with what the title depicts as 'other demons.' These 'other demons' - power, superstition, envy, cruelty, elitism, to name a few - are every bit as important to this tale as the "demon" of pure affection. Unfortunately, all of this was left out, and since the love story is so deeply entwined with what never made it to the manuscript, it is also left in a severely crippled state.
Perhaps the historical commentary was left out to make the movie more palatable? Not unlikely as they did the same with Sierva María. (Who? Well, in the book the red headed young lady actually had a name.) In the movie she is portrayed as being around twenty years of age. The odd thing is that while she moves and behaves like a young lade of that age, her lines often sound like they are made by a much younger girl. If the bishop has Alzheimer then perhaps she has a developmental challenge? No, the reason is that in the book she was twelve when it all began (but turns thirteen around the time she was sent to the convent), and while the movie tries to make her seem older so that the inappropriate love story becomes less inappropriate (the recent focus on the child abuse scandals in the Catholic Church might be the reason for this), they didn't change her lines correspondingly. The wooden enactment of the character doesn't help either.
The movie has it's good sides too. Especially the camera-work and scenery deserves praise, surpassing nine ot of ten big-budget Hollywood productions. Much of the acting is quite good as well. It's just not enough to save the movie. It leaves out so much that it requires the potential viewer to read the book first in order to know what is going on. And when the story in itself is just an inferior version of the book, why watch it at all afterwards?
Scape (2010)
A strange version of a strange ride: Morrowbie goes to Oregon.
Scape is about a man named Morrowbie Jukes, who stumbles into a camp for the dead-alive diseased. The sick must not leave due to the danger of contagion and so they are put under guard. A single guard, who likes to hide in the forest and shoot at whoever tries to escape. The guard considers Morrowbie to be one of the inhabitants and so tries to keep him inside as well. Now he has to enlist the help of Gunga Dass, one of his former servants, to escape and get back to his wife.
The movie is based on Rudyard Kipling's short story called The Strange Ride of Morrowbie Jukes, although with a few alterations. Now, Rudyard Kipling was one of the really great authors of the 19th century, and the early 20th century for that matter – come to think of it, ask literary analysts to list the twenty most influential authors of the modern age (ca. 1700 to ca. 1900) and I'm pretty sure Kipling will be mentioned at least in every other list – which means that Scape has to hold a proportionally high quality to live up to its origins. Alas, it does not, not by a long shot.
But before I go into my arguments of why Scape does not satisfy the strict criteria set by the short story, I should point out the limitations of its creators. Let's begin with the $50.000 budget, which is less than that of many low-budget splatter movies. With this kind of money you can't afford to do much more than to run around in the woods in costumes, and that is exactly what happens in this movie. The people behind the camera have little experience and the director/screenwriter has only made one movie previously – that one's a low budget horror named The Shiftling – and Scape does indeed have the feeling of an amateur production; despite this the acting was mostly good enough or better. In particular I'd like to praise the role of Morrowbie Jukes, the protagonist, as portrayed by Ben Furmaniak; people have gotten paid far more for far worse, and I am sure that he's talented enough to land roles in larger productions should he care to. The camera work was also surprisingly good for the kind of production this is. It won't be praised as a work of genius but the cameramen show that they have done their homework, with one of them actually ending up landing a job in Pixar.
In other words, this movie has qualities above what it should have had, all things considered. The problem is, it just wasn't enough to make the movie work.
My primary complaint occurs to me because it is a long while since I read The Strange Ride of Morrowbie Jukes and so my memory of it was patchy at best. So I was hoping the movie would help me fill those gaps, but it did not. I had to pause after fifteen or twenty minutes or so and re-read the short story. Afterwards the story of Scape made more sense, though still not entirely. Now, when you have to read the story which a movie is based on to understand it then that movie has a fundamental flaw, but Scape takes it yet another notch for the worse. You see, they have changed the story in a few, yet profound, ways.
First of all, the original story was set in India while Scape is set in a forest along the Oregon Trail. This poses several problems for the story, the most important of which is the camp of the living dead, or 'the dead who did not die but may not live' as the story calls them. In India these camps did exist as a place to put people suffering from contagious diseases or who at some point seemed to be dead but then were revived. This has never been a normal institution in Oregon and so its existence would require some explanation; none is given. Another problem is Gunga Dass, Morrowbie's former servant who is clearly from India. What he's doing in 19th century USA is not accounted for. Other issues include the British soldier and the gunman, but to address them here would be too revealing as plot is concerned.
The background story of Morrowbie was also changed. He used to be a rich man, but now he doesn't seem to be. (Although the movie does seem to be a bit inconsistent with regard to this, so – who knows? – he might be rich after all.) And it used to be the case that he entered the camp while in a fever daze, while the movie just has him gathering wood and thus stumbling into it. But worst of all is that the movie does not deal meaningfully with these changes, it just drops it in there, and when you go to the story for explanations you'll find that it doesn't explain anything after all because it has been altered.
Finally, the movie throws in a Halloween-esque chase sequence where the appropriate tropes are misused, sometimes badly. The most annoying bit was the lack of intelligence in the characters. Every couple of minutes the chase could have ended, but then the characters would chose the worst alternative in order for the chase to go on; it's like watching Pit and Pat do The Hunger Games.
So, in essence it is the plot which ultimately lays waste to this move. It's like a broken vase that has been glued back together poorly, with mismatching bits added and gaping seams; it could have been lovely again, but in the end turned out in a ways where one regrets using up all that glue.
Eeeee Eee Eeee: The Movie (2010)
Coming soon, to a worst-of list near you. Perhaps also to a best-of-the-worst list. Yeah. Most likely.
This is the official, licensed movie of Tao Lin's novel 'Eeeee Eee Eeee'. Let me repeat the words official' and 'licensed'. Okay, once more in capitals: 'OFFICIAL', 'LICENSED', as in having the movie rights as sanctioned by the author himself! I'm making a real fuss out of this, I know, but once – erm, if you ever watch this movie you're going to be in utter disbelief of that statement.
Why? Because this is an... no, the term 'amateur' does not suffice in describing this production. It's more like a rehearsal, I guess? Yeah, 'rehearsal' is a much better term. A rehearsal where no one, absolutely no one – neither actors, director, or editor – could be bothered to take the production seriously. Yet, at the same time it is more than a home video that somehow found its way onto Amazon's DVD-R publishing. Because it's the OFFICIAL, LICENCED movie adaptation of a fairly famous novel!
'Eeeee Eee Eeee: The Movie's cast are the employees of Queens Library, NYC. It seems doubtful that most of them even know what the movie is about and they are openly reading from the scripts. If they mess up their lines, they just go again without stopping the camera. Loud music occasionally obscure the dialogue, wigs fall off and are put back on during the take, Andrew's dog (in the novel) is replaced by a mechanical, barking toy chihuahua, and so on... The utter lack of anything connected to what is generally considered to be 'good' filmmaking is so in your face that it's impossible to take the movie seriously for a single second. The IMDb list of goofs needs just a simple copy/paste of the script, supplemented by the complete description of more or less every action taken during the whole film. This is incredible in the sense that you'll have difficulties believing your senses. - Oh! I forgot to mention the still backgrounds and the green screen... Maddening! But you get the point. Moving on.
How could this have happened, you ask? Why did this become reality? Well, Tao Lin, the author, is himself a filmmaker who started a production company named MDMAfilms (together with a Megan Boyle); the name was the obvious choice when making documentaries while high on MDMA, which is what they do, and filming everything with the camera on a Macbook. Lin is clearly an eccentric man, a very eccentric man, and somehow I guess this... makes the film seem more appropriate to his idiom? At least the film actually makes some sense when considering the book, but more on that in a bit. First, let us finally deal with the plot.
Andrew is best described as a socially inept person, often being compared to a people with high-functioning autism or Asperger syndrome. The movie does little to promote this view, but the novel is at least pretty firm on this point. He works at Domino's Pizza, has a dog, a friend named Steve, and a potentially fictitious girlfriend/love interest named Sara; he regularly talks to bears who invite him into holes, observe the doings of depressed dolphins, and, for some reason, the hamsters are sad. Joanna is also there, whoever that is, and she needs a ride home together with her pizza, resulting in u-turns. Makes sense, all of this, does it? Hm? No? Well neither does the movie. Neither does the novel, for that matter – or perhaps it does, just no one has been able to properly decode it yet.
The great twist to all of this is that this might actually be the perfect movie for the novel. Yep, you heard me. The movie might be intended to be exactly as poorly made as this! Again, focus on Andrew's lack of social comprehension. Then let's turn to the novel – which seems to be made out of several related, but not necessarily coherent short stories – because it at times makes a fuss out of Andrew's attempts at authorship. Not unlikely this is supposed to hint to that Andrew himself wrote 'Eeeee Eee Eeee'. Thus, making the film look like it was made by someone who does not understand the thoughtrealms of other people, might just be utterly brilliant. Yep, again, you heard me. This might be a brilliant movie!
So, there you have it: The worst movie ever might be better than one would expect. I'm not going to be the final judge of that, though. See for yourself if you like, and then decide. Just be aware of this disclaimer: May induce mental pain (from shocking disbelief) and hearing problems (others in the room will be yelling "what the [...]" repeatedly).
PS. My mind is now so far blown that I'm starting to see talking bears as well. PPS. Is it normal for bears to be named Toby? I hope so...
The Exorcist in the 21st Century (2012)
Portrait of a current-age exorcism that contains only what the camera captured, allowing it to avoid judgements beyond those added by the viewers.
Seldom does one come across films that are as misunderstood and misrepresented by the critics as The Exorcist in the 21st Century. While nearly every critic claims that it states a for or against opinion on the topic, it actually wastn't supposed to do either. To quote the website dedicated to the documentary (theexorcistdoc.com): "The goal of the film is to delve into this mysterious world and let people decide for themselves what to believe." Whether or not it succeeded is a different matter, but I think that question could be answered by simply looking at the critics once more. Their (erroneous) claims of the intentions of the creators behind the documentary goes both ways depending on the mindset of the critic in question, thus forcing us to conclude that the film did as intended: The Exorcist in the 21st Century is placed on neutral enough ground that the critics see whatever bias their own biases allows them to see.
(There is, however, a likely reason for the behaviour of the aforementioned critics. Documentaries that try for an unappraising approach to a given subject are rare, very rare. It is likely that they were so accustomed to being fed someone else's opinion that they never expected this documentary to be any different.)
The concept combines the belief in the possession by malignant souls with the belief in a deity who permits their eviction. In other words there must be a possessed and an evictor. The sufferer is a lady named Constanza who says she has been infested with demons for fifteen years. To finally bring about an end to this she has contacted Father José Antonio Fortea, one of the few exorcists sanctioned by the Catholic Church. We are introduced to two very real lives, both of which are much to regular and everyday to ever tempt Hollywood, but then again most lives are just like that despite their occasional dislocations from the average.
The documentary ends with what everyone expects from it, an exorcism. This includes not just the sermoning and the opposition by the possessed in its simplicity, again as Hollywood would have presented us. Our mimicry, with the eyes in particular, are windows into our minds where our thoughts attempt to leak through, occasionally opposed, yet unopposed at other times, and once in a while there will escape an impulse from those bonds that attempt to bind it internally and then give us a glimpse of what is hidden deep inside. Unlike with Hollywood's simulation of life there are real lives behind the mimicry herein, and the richness of a life lived cannot ever be emulated better than reality itself can provide it. What I am trying to say is that this is perhaps the most important part of the experience of watching this film: The depth of the individuals involved and the following deeper understanding of those actualities which are linked to a real- life exorcism.
I see only one negative side of the documentary and that is the inclusion of a disagreeing commentator, although he is present but in a few brief occasions. It is defended with that he is a part of the Catholic Church and that his presence is there to give insight into the disagreements within the church on the subject of exorcisms. I felt that it conflicted with the social-anthropological nature of the overall movie by forcing debate rather than letting the debate rise within the viewer on its own volition.
In brief, I would recommend watching this documentary with the awareness that it was never intended to influence you beyond showing you what happened. I would also recommend ignoring the aforementioned commentator and focus on interpreting the happenings the camera captured, instead letting your own thought processes and curiosity lead your evaluations. On a whole I would claim that this is exactly the kind of documentary which is truly valuable when attempting to gain insight into the workings of exorcisms. Now that so many other documentaries have presented the pro/con debate in countless ways it is truly refreshing to see for oneself what all the fuzz is about.
V kruge pervom (2006)
An excellent filmatization of one of the most important novels of our time.
In 1968 a book called 'В круге первом' was published, its English title was 'In the First Circle' (sometimes just 'The First Circle'), and it has since become not just widely acclaimed but accepted as one of the most important novels of the 20th century. Its author, Alexandr Solzhenitsyn, was himself a prisoner in a sharashka (a Soviet prison for scientists where they were forced to ply their trade for the benefit of the state) and as such it is not far-fetched to call this an autobiography. With regard to this miniseries, it should hold the same historical accuracy as the novel since director Gleb Panfilov is assisted by the author himself. The author even insists on narrating it himself. This does indeed seem to be history repeated as clearly as by a photograph - well, except for the portrayals of Soviet leaders, which seem to be viewed through the lens of the prisoners.
The plot concerns itself with the inmates of Mavrino, a sharashka near Moskow, and also others who concern the place, Josef Stalin included. This place is labeled by Solzhenitsyn as 'the first circle', a reference to the topmost layer of Hell as presented in 'Divina Commedia'; in both places the inhabitants remain untortured yet eternally restrained in hopelessness and prevented from even glimpsing heaven. I do not think it unlikely that this is also an allegory for the Soviet state and its imprisonment of its own people.
The miniseries contain many characters, so many that I'm sure most producers wouldn't even dream of including all of them in such a small series as this. Yet, the huge gallery and their individual functions and sentiments are essential in what makes the novel into a great one - they provide a spectrum of viewpoints and opinions that all play a part in explaining why that small community functions the way it does, and how it relates to the greater Soviet - so Panfilov had to include them when the story was set into motion on a screen. Unfortuenately, a gallery of such size needs a good introduction so that the viewers can put them to memory, and here the miniseries fail. This issue alone makes the first two episodes into a laborious experience. Fortunately this is the series' only fault of note. Also, knowing the names of each individual is not really necessary; the series focus on their experiences, thoughts, and philosophies, and the lack of a name does not hinder the viewers perception of these.
The novel and the series are alike down to the very details. (The series does contain elements from the novel's original manuscript, which was censored before it was allowed to be released, and it remained censored until 2009; in other words, most who already have experienced the novel would have experienced the censored version and thus find the story somewhat altered.) Watching the series is of course a different experience than reading the novel, a visual experience does differ from a purely mental one, although the content is the same. Thus I would claim the series and the novel complement each other while each contains the whole story by themselves, therefore they can be equally well enjoyed together as alone. The experience is in any case as profound as can be expected of such an important work.
Le moine (2011)
A few reasons why Le Moine may disappoint readers of The Monk, and why one still has to read the novel.
This review contains a good deal of lesser spoilers. The reviewer leaves the most profound apologies for this, but it seemed impossible to present the necessary sentiments without it.
--------------
The year of 1796 saw the first printing of The Monk: A Romance, then signed anonymously by M.G.L., and was heralded as a great book by the newspaper critics, despite the highly controversial sentiments found therein. It is quite accurate to describe the novel as the Breaking Bad of the era, although here it is the demonical allure of lust which governs the descent of Ambrosio, the protagonist monk, from chaste to villain; from a servant of God to a lustful and violent sinner marked for permanent residency in the pit of fire.
Yet, the tide of the literary criticism soon turned to infamy and few of the contemporary books set so many voices aflame in anger as The Monk did. Meanwhile the second edition had been printed, and this time Mathew G. Lewis, in pride of his work, signed not only with full name, but also his position in the House of Commons. This in turn meant he and his family would feel the full force of the public's discontent. And thus we come to an essential point in the comparison of novel and movie: Due to this discontent, Lewis decided to revise the novel, milden it to a niveau more acceptable to the public, and when the fourth print saw the light of day in 1798 it was this revised edition which was found on its pages. In short, it is important to know that there are two versions of The Monk, one highly provocative version and one very different version whose changes borders on censorship.
It seems to this reviewer that the movie was based on the second and less provocative version. In fact, it seems like the movie further censors the tale, now to the point where there is not much to get upset about. Where the original tale featured nuns who torture and starve a young woman, Agnes, and her newborn child to death - and this point was hugely important to Ambrosio's fall in the book - it is reduced to a small scene of incarceration where the young woman's death is made unimportant. Where the original tale featured the monk's all-night ravishing of Antonia, a girl of fourteen which he had drugged by diabolical intervention, the movie features a version of the scene where Antonia smiles and welcomes him into the bed for a brief tryst (still under diabolical influence, mind you). Where the original tale presents Ambrosio, the monk, as having a healthy mind and his vices as being solely the work of his lusts, the movie provides him with auditory hallucinations of diabolical voices, thus insinuating that the blame must be placed on his delusional mind rather than the corruption of his soul, a point which makes his deeds more easy to swallow by today's audience. For the brevity of this review I'll stick to these examples, they provide more than sufficient evidence towards the point I try to make: Le Moine is not in any way a decent representation of what this book has meant for Gothic fiction and modern literature.
Yet, this is not the reviewers most prominent issue with Le Moine. Let again an example serve as illustration: Mathilda is the temptress of the tale, who on film as well as paper serves as the one who creates the situations where Ambrosio's integrity is tested and inevitably where his desires is the victor. In the book she is eventually revealed as being a spirit in service of Lucifer himself. Now, this is a hugely important connection if one is to understand the tale, but the movie neglects this. Thus, to understand the deeds of Mathilda and why she did it, you have to read the book. Likewise it neglects to explain the importance of the aforementioned death of Agnes, as well as the murder, the incest, and several other of the misdeeds and their relation to Ambrisio's gradual perversion of his soul. To figure out why the tale works as it does, to be able to follow the red thread with all the necessary information to do so, you have to read the book. And here comes my problem: If the movie still requires people to read the book then the movie should reflect the book quite closely, but Le Moine does the exact opposite when it changes the tale into something entirely different than the tale of the book. It's not just absurd, it is pointless and renders the movie both redundant and, in this reviewer's opinion, quite annoying.
This is not to say that Le Moine is without virtues. As pointed out by others, the mood is wonderful, the acting resembles perfection, and the scenery and costumes places us perfectly into the era as described by the book. In fact, the faults pointed out herein are of a kind that many would ignore for the simple enjoyment of the movie. However, if one has read the book in all it's strength and all it's intensity, then Le Moine comes across as too flat since it lacks the true brimstone of the original; and for those who want all the answers, to truly understand the movie, then it is necessary to face the confusion of reading the very different tale from the book.
Vertshuset den gyldne hale (1989)
A children's advent calendar which turns to absurdity due to its incoherent plot
'Vertshuset den gyldne hale' translates to The Golden Tail Inn, and it is on that inn which this mini-series takes place. It is one of the Norwegian televised advent calendars for children, and naturally it consists of 24 episodes, one presented each day from the first of December to the twenty-fourth. NRK, the Norwegian broadcast company and also for decades the only Norwegian TV-channel, have been producing these televised advent calendars since the 70's. They are hugely popular with the Norwegian audience - so much so that just about every Norwegian child follow even the re-runs. Vertshuset den gyldne hale had a lot to live up to, and despite some good ideas it falls miles short of the expectations.
A Norwegian televised advent calendar is intended to be a pleasant family moment, steeped in tradition and with the cozy feeling one associates with reading Mother Goose in front of the fireplace. They are supposed to be so simplistic that even the youngest children can enjoy them, while at the same time holding a nostalgia which makes the parents want to be kids again. That list is, in other words, set pretty high.
Even so Vertshuset den gyldne hale had higher ambitions than this. This time deaf children were to be included in the audience, and so all speech was to be accompanied with the appropriate sign language. In fact, several of the actors are deaf and so speak solely in sign language. Yet they fail in this goal as they do not always translate the sign language to speech and not everything that is said is translated to signs, which utterly defeats the purpose of this otherwise fantastic idea.
Furthermore, they struggle with the 'cozy' bit as well. They try their luck with counting down the days by having 24 rooms in the inn and housing one more guest for each day. They deal with traditional subjects each day, mostly the baking and consumption of biscuits. And then there is the daily rubbing of a crystal ball where we get to view a segment of a separate story, something which the children can look forwards to while the main show is running. This potentially atmosphere of pleasant days waiting for Christmas, is ruined by a messy script and unpleasant characters. Especially Viktor, the proprietor of the inn, is a very Grinchy person who throws tantrums and is grumpy most of the time. Yet, unlike the Grinch, Viktor is on no path towards bettering himself, and, again unlike the Grinch, there seem to be no comedy about this character.
And now for the truly worst part about the series, the script. I watched this series as a child and I did so again this year, fifteen years later, and I still have no idea what is going on half of the time. Occasionally whole episodes go by where I am left wondering what happened. In particular I'm abhorred over the script of the episodes viewed in the crystal ball. Not only does it make less sense than Plan 9 From Outer Space, amongst the properly random plot is thoughtlessly presented things which should never be shown on children's television. Amongst other things a child is taken forcefully by a life-guard from a swimming pool and locked into a toilet because the child didn't know where to find her clothes, and another time there are children being strapped down by a mad dentist. Not to mention the suicidal illusionist which keeps repeating "I want to die!" This is truly one of the most unfortunate things I have ever encountered on a screen. Thankfully it only saw one re-run and there are no plans to release it for todays children to see.