Orson Welles’ 1941 masterpiece Citizen Kane is oft described as the greatest movie ever made. I can only assume that the people making that claim have never seen Star Wars but I will concede, that even without a lightsaber in sight for the near 2-hour running time, Citizen Kane is a remarkable achievement.

I’m hardly an expert on the movies of the era, but it’s easy to believe the Citizen Kane must have been ground-breaking on several fronts. It’s still pretty unconventional by modern standards. As impressive as his work behind the cameras undoubtedly is, Welles is also magnetic on screen and is convincing as the eponymous Kane at every stage of his life (except as a child because clearly that was a different actor).

Obviously I’d still rather sit through Star Wars but, as well as being a technical tour de force, Citizen Kane remains surprisingly entertaining for a movie that is so acclaimed.

Score for Christmasishness

Not at all a Christmas movie, but it is quite possible that the scenes featuring Kane’s childhood are set at Christmas because it’s snowing and then it is actually Christmas in the following scene, although conceivably that scene could have been set at a different time, so the snow scenes may have nothing to do with Christmas. Two Christmases are juxtaposed to highlight Kane’s development from childhood to young adulthood and the beginnings of his media empire. And there is a party scene later on which probably isn’t set at Christmas but possibly might be. Really though, the Christmasishness of the movie hinges on whether those childhood scenes of him sledging are set at Christmas. I’m not really convinced that they are so the film isn’t really very Christmas(ish) at all. But Christmas is referenced at least twice, and there is definitely a Christmas tree on screen at one point, albeit briefly, so it’s not the movie with the most tenuous link to Christmas that I’ve ever included in my annual countdown.

Despite the fact that Arthurian legend seems to be the perfect source material for a Hollywood epic, there really aren’t too many King Arthur movies that spring to mind. At least not good ones. And much as I love Monty Python and The Holy Grail, it is a damning indictment of the general failure to bring the Knights of the Round Table to the silver screen, that that is quite possibly the best.

Given the relative lack of competition, Disney’s 1963 offering The Sword in the Stone is certainly not the worst cinematic interpretation of the Arthurian myth, albeit it really has very little to do with the legends most people are familiar with, focussing predominantly on the adventures of a young Arthur before he became King. And, given his accent in the movie, before he became British.

The pulling of the sword from the stone is really the final act of a movie that is mostly about Arthur being turned into animals by Merlin, for reasons that aren’t especially clear. He does needlessly break the heart of a squirrel though, in a bizarrely cruel section of the film.

I think I quite liked this film as a child, but as an adult I find it hard to find to the same level of enjoyment. It’s not one of Disney’s best efforts, though it remains difficult to think of too many King Arthur movies that are superior.

Score for Christmasishness

The Christmas credentials kick in around the last ten minutes of the movie, when we can quite clearly see some of the characters enjoying a Christmas meal. The actual pulling of the sword from the stone also takes place on New Year’s Day. In London, rather than Camelot. I’m not sure how well Arthurian Legend ties in with the introduction of Christianity to the British Isles, but The Sword in the Stone isn’t really meant to be an accurate historical depiction of anything. Although one imagines if King Arthur did exist and he didn’t celebrate Christmas, he may well still have enjoyed a winter festival of some description. Probably not in London though.

Of all the movies in the Rocky franchise, Rocky III is probably my third favourite. It’s hard to beat the original Rocky which is just a great film, while it’s also impossible to ignore the iconic status of Rocky IV, objectively bad though it may be. Rocky III definitely paves the way for the bombastic nonsense of its immediate successor, but it does, just about, retain some semblance of the more grounded approach of the first two movies.

Ultimately it is the silliness which probably endears it to me the most though. The wrestling match between Thunderlips (played with unashamed glee by Hulk Hogan) and Rocky is, depending on your point of view, either a highlight or the first signs that the franchise has begun to lose its way and frankly either viewpoint has merit.

The music too, is a strength of Mr Balboa’s third outing – Eye of the Tiger is probably synonymous with the whole franchise, but, as far as I’m aware, it only actually features on the soundtrack of Rocky III.

Ultimately though, the main reason that Rocky III will always have a place in my heart is that it introduced the world to the incomparable Mr T. He may not be the greatest actor in the world, but it’s hard to deny that he owns every scene he’s in and pretty much steals the movie. It is quite probable that, without this film, we would never have had The A-Team and my childhood would have been the poorer for it.

While it doesn’t quite enjoy the critical acclaim of some of the other movies in the franchise, or the unadulterated madness of the fourth Rocky film, Rocky III is easily one of the most enjoyable and I pity the fool that disagrees.

Score for Christmasishness

This is the fourth Rocky movie to make the cut for my annual festive countdown and its by far the most tenuous. But there is a brief scene, about five minutes in, that shows Rocky and his family celebrating Christmas as part of a montage which is meant to depict him enjoying the high life and losing the metaphorical ‘eye of the tiger’. Blink and you’ll miss it, but it is there and it looks like everyone is having a lovely time. Also right at the end of the movie, as Apollo is about to take on Rocky for the infamous ‘closed doors’ fight, we see a poster behind Apollo’s head advertising a fight which either took place or is due to take place on December 16th. Which is not to say that it is December 16th at any point during the story, but when the Christmasishness is as dubious as this, I’ll take any supporting evidence I can find.

2013’s About Time has all the hallmarks of a Richard Curtis film, and that is almost certainly because it is a Richard Curtis film. Which is both a good thing and a bad thing in equal measure.

Curtis can be relied upon to inject his movies with plenty of humour and there is no doubt that there are moments that are genuinely laugh out loud. However all of things that I don’t like about Curtis’ movies are also there in abundance, notably the massively overprivileged characters who don’t seem to have the slightest idea how privileged they are. Also it’s more than a tad oversentimental. And, as is so often the case with Curtis, there is an unbelievably stupid character in the mix, who isn’t especially funny.

Notionally about time-travel, but clumsily so, it’s really as much about the notion of happiness as anything else and even there it’s neither subtle nor indeed especially enlightening – frankly if the charmed lives of the characters don’t result in happiness then there really isn’t much hope for the rest of us.

Domhnall Gleeson and Rachel McAdams are perfectly charming and make the most of lead characters that could run the risk of being insipid in lesser hands. Bill Nighy does what Bill Nighy tends to do quite well, though barely seems to have to try. The real plaudits should go to Tom Hollander though. Saddled with another Curtis trope of an exceptionally rude character, who, bizarrely, everyone seems to tolerate, Hollander not only succeeds in making him plausible, he pretty much steals every scene he’s in.

Perhaps ironically (perhaps not) About Time is about 30 minutes too long. There’s a good film hiding in there somewhere, but it’s hiding pretty well.

Score for Christmasishness

The main character discovers his ability to time travel on New Year’s Day and his first act is to travel back to the preceding New Year’s Eve party, a party that we revisit a couple more times during the movie. There is also a brief Christmas scene at the end of the movie. The party, in particular, is a recurring motif and so we see Christmas decorations sporadically throughout the movie. About Time is therefore more than Christmas(ish) enough to earn its place in my annual countdown.

2018’s biopic of Dick Cheney, Vice, is an interesting movie. I’m not sure if it’s a good movie, although it undeniably has some incredible performances from the actors and possibly the most talented hair and make up team in the world. You can still recognize Christian Bale, Amy Adams, Sam Rockwell and Steve Carell, but they do look alarmingly like the real-life people they are playing and this is all the more impressive given that the timeline of the movie covers a period of slightly over 40 years so we see them playing the same characters at different points in their lives.

Vice is hardly a flattering portrayal of Cheney and the Bush administration but it really isn’t covering any new ground especially. What is more interesting is the way in which the story dispenses with a lot of narrative conventions and frequently breaks the fourth wall, but writer/director Adam McKay has already used this bag of tricks in The Big Short and what was innovative in that movie, is less so in Vice on the basis that we’ve seen it before.

Ultimately I think Vice succeeds more than it fails, but it is very much a mixed bag. There is a very funny mid-credit scene in which the movie accuses itself and rebuts accusations of liberal bias.

Score for Christmasishness

There is only one scene that really qualifies this as a Christmas(ish) movie, which occurs about 40 minutes in and lasts for around 3 minutes. But it is a Christmas party in the White House and it does serve quite a significant narrative function. And it does look very Christmassy. Also, shortly before that, we see very brief footage of Mr T on TV with a Christmas tree in the background. Mr T’s only function is to let us know that it is the 1980s at that point in the movie, which you kind of already know because it’s explicitly mentioned elsewhere. But it’s in the mix so it counts.

1944’s The Curse of the Cat People is notionally a sequel to the 1942 horror movie Cat People. And it does help to have seen the first movie, to fully appreciate this one, but they are quite different, although equally bonkers.

Cat People should really have been called Cat Person, given that the central character, Irena, is the only character who is afflicted by the issue of sometimes being a cat. And of having everyone think she is mad. Including the least ethical psychiatrist in the world, who very much gets his comeuppance, and the worst husband in the world, who very much doesn’t. Indeed even though he is quite clearly unfaithful to his troubled spouse, with his colleague, Alice, he seems to somehow walk away from the whole thing unscathed with his new love, while Irena meets a most unfortunate end.

In The Curse of the Cat People, the aforementioned husband, Oliver, and Alice are now happily married and have a child. Oliver appears to have added being the worst father in the world to his skillset, and his daughter, Amy, makes friends with the ghost of his dead first wife, who is no longer afflicted by sometimes being a cat, now that she is dead. Amy also makes friends with a mad old woman, who thinks her own daughter is dead, even though she isn’t dead and still lives with her.

It’s all pretty weird but quite a lot better than it sounds. Although it really has nothing to do with cats at all.

Score for Christmasishness

The second half of the movie is set at Christmas, complete with tree, snow and carol singers. And it’s pertinent to the narrative. I think. To be honest the plot didn’t make much sense, but, insofar as I understood it, Christmas did seem quite important. So it’s fairly Christmas(ish) if not exactly full of cheer. Plenty of dysfunctional families though, which seems quite appropriate at Christmas…

I didn’t really expect to enjoy 2015’s Daddy’s Home, but surprisingly didn’t hate it. It even made the cut for last year’s Christmas countdown. But I really only watched that movie to prepare myself for the sequel, the imaginatively named Daddy’s Home 2, which I knew would eventually find its way into an iteration of my annual advent calendar.

And so it did, for it is today’s movie of choice.

And if my expectations for the first movie were low, then they were completely rock bottom for this one. And in truth, it is not a great movie. But, quite possibly because I expected it to be so bad, I actually did find elements to enjoy.

I may even have enjoyed it slightly more than its predecessor, although that isn’t the highest of accolades really. But when you dispense with the idea that the plot is going to make even the tiniest bit of sense, then there are some funny moments.

Score for Christmasishness

It is a Christmas movie. The fact that it is a sequel to a non-Christmas movie is the only reason I’d even dare to call it Christmas(ish), but the entire plot centres around a dysfunctional family getting together for the holidays, and it’s hard to see how the movie would work if it wasn’t set at Christmas. So full marks on the Christmas score, though if I were judging on any other criteria I would be significantly less generous with my verdict.

2011’s Bad Teacher is not as funny as it promises to be and also boasts a fairly predictable plot. But if you lower your expectations enough, then it can be a fairly diverting, if unmemorable, 97 minutes. If nothing else, it’s worth watching for Cameron Diaz’ performance as the eponymous educator and it’s credit to her efforts that you find yourself rooting for a character that has almost no redeemable features.

Jason Segel is also likeable, if underused, and if Justin Timberlake is profoundly irritating throughout, it’s actually because his character is meant to be irritating.

It’s probably just as well that a talked about sequel never got made, and no surprise that a spinoff TV series was axed almost before it got going; there is barely enough material to make this one mediocre film stretch out for its modest running time.

Still, I didn’t hate it.

Score for Christmasishness

As with a lot of movies that are set in schools, this one spans the academic year, and as most years include Christmas, then a Christmas does pop up in this too. It covers the school Christmas dance and the main character’s own holiday experiences, including an unexpected Christmas dinner with the family of one of her students. It’s pretty Christmassy for about ten minutes or so. Which is more than some movies that make my annual list, so Bad Teacher more than deserves a place on this year’s countdown.

The 34th cinematic offering from Walt Disney Animation Studios was a strange choice, given the type of movies that had preceded it. Nineteenth Century French Gothic literature doesn’t automatically lend itself as source material to an animated movie aimed at children, and while there are certainly dark elements in other Disney movies, Victor Hugo’s The Hunchback of Notredame does seem to be particularly bleak.

Of course the 1996 movie does ‘Disney’ things up and we have talking gargoyles and a much happier ending that the original novel. But there’s only so much you can lighten this tale, and in particular, the main antagonist, Frollo, remains pretty unsettling by the standards of Disney’s usual fare.

I actually think it’s a pretty good movie for the most part, although the talking gargoyles are probably unnecessary. It’s not really for kids though.

The less said about the ‘straight-to-video’ sequel the better, although that is significantly more child-friendly and clearly not based on anything Hugo wrote.

Score for Christmasishness

It’s really got nothing to do with Christmas, but there is a bit at the start of the movie called ‘The Feast of Fools’ that is expressly mentioned as happening on January 6th. Which is potentially the twelfth day of Christmas, depending on how you count. It’s certainly close enough to make the cut given the tenuous reasons on which I’ve based the inclusion of other movies in my annual countdown.

2012’s DreamWorks feature Rise of the Guardians is a fun little adventure movie that doesn’t require a great deal of effort on the part of the viewer. Indeed, it’s all quite prosaic from a storytelling perspective, but it looks great, and has a voice-cast that is nothing short of stellar.

Really its USP is the fact that the eponymous guardians are the folkloric figures we all know and love from childhood – notably the ‘big three’ of Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy, but also the Sandman and Jack Frost. And the bad guy is the Bogeyman.

It’s an interesting concept that is quite probably underused, but Rise of the Guardians knows its audience and I’m pretty sure I’d have loved this as a kid.

Score for Christmasishness

This has to be the most Christmassy movie ever made to be set at Easter. Santa Claus is one of the main characters and we get the full works of sleigh, reindeer and elves. And the base of the eponymous guardians is his workshop. Also, because Jack Frost is one of the characters, we also get a lot of snow and ice to add to the Christmasishness. But the movie can’t quite get full marks because, when all is said and done, it is still set in April. Which is not Christmas.

I know, objectively, that 2012’s The Perks of being a Wallflower is not a bad film. Indeed there is quite a lot to recommend it, not least the performances of the lead actors. But I didn’t particularly enjoy it. I doubt it was aimed at me, and that’s fine, but actually ‘not being the target audience’ doesn’t often put an otherwise well-made movie straight into my bad books.

I think in the end, the problem I have with this particular offering is the fact that it wildly misses the point about being a misfit during adolescence. Not being part of the ‘in-crowd’ is just what happens to some people. You don’t need to have experienced trauma to find being a teenager difficult.

Which isn’t to say there aren’t children and young people who don’t experience the same issues, or worse, as the characters in the movie, but I still think we live in a world where that is not, thankfully, the majority. Plenty of kids just find school difficult because it is difficult and I think that could make for just as compelling a narrative for a movie like this, without the need to insert additional distress to explain the social awkwardness of the main character. Who, isn’t, when all is said and done, even that socially awkward really.

But I’m certain lots of people love this movie.

Score for Christmasishness

Despite the fact that I didn’t really like the film, I can’t knock its Christmasish credentials. It’s set over the course of a year so it’s only Christmas for a bit of the movie, but it is pretty Christmasish for that bit and includes a Christmas party complete with Secret Santa, a family Christmas dinner and a New Year’s Eve Party. And snow. So for the bit of the movie when it is Christmas, it is very Christmas(ish).

1995 teen comedy Clueless just happened to come out when I was still a teenager, so I was quite possibly its target audience at the time. I tended to be more into action movies back then, but I did see this a few times and I quite liked it. It also meant that when I re-watched it recently, I was able to enjoy it from a nostalgic perspective and not worry too much about being considerably older than the target audience, because if I am now, I wasn’t then.

Anyway, Clueless is a pretty good movie. It is definitely of its time, but it holds up pretty well today. I think. Although that could be because I am also of its time and I think I hold up pretty well today. Which is contrary to most of the available evidence.

Clueless is loosely adapted from Jane Austen’s Emma, which perhaps gives it a little more gravitas than many a teen comedy, but it mainly works because, while the movie is clearly mocking the overprivileged teens that make up the central characters, it does so affectionately throughout. We probably shouldn’t like Alicia Silverstone’s ‘Cher’, but the fact that she is so endearing in spite of herself, is really what gives the movie its charm.

And, perhaps unusually for a teen comedy, Clueless is pretty funny too.

Score for Christmasishness

Another one that takes place over a period of time that happens to include Christmas. Predominantly Christmas features as the backdrop of what looks like a pretty dreadful party. But it’s about 15 minutes of the movie, it definitely looks Christmassy for the duration and it contains several plot points that are pretty important to the narrative as a whole. Certainly Christmas(ish) enough for my purposes.

The Expendables franchise may not be everyone’s cup of tea but it could never be accused of pretending to be anything that it isn’t. An unashamed homage to the action movies of the 80s and 90s (with a cast that for the most part were the stars of those of movies and who had seen better days even back in 2010 when the titular mercenaries had their first cinematic outing), all of the Expendables movies are essentially a heady mix of gratuitous violence and cheesy one-lines, held together by the slenderest of plots. But if you liked that kind of thing in the 80s and 90s (as I did) then you’d probably find it hard to hate this franchise.

Arguably the best of the entries is The Expendables 2, which reunites the cast of the original (Stallone, Statham et al) with expanded roles for Arnold Schwarzenegger and Bruce Willis, following on from their cameos in the first movie. This time we also get Chuck Norris thrown into the mix and a scene-stealing performance by Jean-Claude Van Damme as the bad guy.

Score for Christmasishness

Given that Jason Statham’s character goes by the name of Lee Christmas, you could make a case for including all of the Expendables movies in my annual countdown, particularly as I’ve incorporated many a film for more tenuous reasons. Indeed I might well revisit the franchise for future editions of this annual nonsense. But The Expendables 2 stands out because there is a picture of Santa Claus painted on the front of the team’s plane. Given that there are no other festive references in the film, I can only assume the image is somehow linked to Statham’s character, but it does add extra Christmasish credibility to the movie so I’m giving it a slightly higher Christmasishness score on that basis.

Few actors divide opinion as much as Nicholas Cage. Is he a gifted actor, as indicated by his numerous awards or is he, in fact, a really bad actor?. Those arguing the latter case need look no further than 1994’s abomination of a comedy Trapped In Paradise. Which is not a good movie. At all.

In fairness, despite being a pretty decent cast on paper, few of the actors associated with this mess come out of it with much credit. But Cage is particularly bad and it seems almost beyond belief that the same actor would turn in an Oscar-winning performance in Leaving Las Vegas the following year. But somehow he did just that.

Trapped in Paradise though, is genuinely without merit. It isn’t funny, the characters are all largely unlikable and what little plot there is has more holes than a colander.

Score for Christmasishness

Bad though the movie undoubtedly is, there is no escaping the fact that it is pretty Christmas(ish). It’s mainly set on Christmas Eve, in a town not dissimilar to the Bedford Falls of It’s a Wonderful Life. There are Christmas Trees, Christmas jumpers, presents, and no shortage of snow. None of which makes the movie any more watchable, but if you are going to struggle through it, then this is the time of year to do so.

Danny DeVito’s 1989 black comedy reunites him with Michael Douglas and Kathleen Turner after their successful collaborations in Romancing the Stone and The Jewell of the Nile.

The War of the Roses is quite a departure from those earlier movies but none the less enjoyable for it. Having absolutely nothing to do with the actual War of the Roses, it’s instead about the disintegration of the marriage of a couple whose surname is Rose.

While the movie is pretty dark, outlandish and surreal, the build-up is subtle enough that by the time the ill-fated couple really start to let loose on each other, enough groundwork has been done for the events to make sense within the movie’s own internal logic.

Turner and Douglas have enormous fun as the warring spouses and, bleak though the movie ultimately is, it does have the decency to also be genuinely funny.

Score for Christmasishness

While certainly not a Christmas film, the narrative does feature two different Christmases, the first when the titular couple are still very much in love (albeit the early cracks in their marriage are beginning to show slightly) and later on we see a different, very awkward family Christmas, after the couple have notionally separated but still find themselves living in the same house. There are a few call-backs to the first Christmas in the latter and the two events serve as a poignant juxtaposition to highlight the different stages of their relationship. Both Christmases feature all the usual trimmings, and there is plenty of snow. A gift from the first Christmas also returns as a significant motif for the failing relationship towards the denouement of the movie. It’s not exactly a movie full of joy, but it is hilarious and certainly a bit Christmas(ish).

The original 1972 version of The Poseidon Adventure is infinitely better than the 2006 ‘reimagining’ of the story. It is still, fundamentally, a popcorn disaster movie, that requires a certain amount of suspended disbelief, and clearly the special effects are no match for the remake, but the advantage the original has over the subsequent version is that you actually do find yourself caring about the fates of the characters. Which is pretty key to enjoying a disaster movie in my experience.

There were some good actors in the remake and it’s probably not their fault that the script did them no favours, but even so, the combination of Gene Hackman, Ernest Borgnine and a superb Shelley Winters in this version is quite a high bar for any movie to compete with.

Score for Christmasishness

As with the 2006 version, this is set on New Year’s Eve, but the key difference is that it actually looks like New Year’s Eve. And a massive Christmas tree is quite pivotal in the plot as it serves as an escape route from the ill-fate ballroom for the survivors of the disaster. So it’s quite Christmas(ish) as far as disaster movies set on cruise ships go.

It’s pretty much accepted wisdom that every even numbered Star Trek movie is good and every odd numbered Star Trek movie is bad. It’s not actually true anymore, though it is a little more true when you only consider the movies starring the cast from the original series. I still think that’s both a little harsh on Star Trek III and perhaps a little over-generous to Star Trek IV. Although I do love Star Trek IV.

All bets have been off on the odd/even theory since the 2009 reboot, which was an odd numbered movie, both on it’s own terms and within the context of the Star Trek back catalogue and which was, frankly, brilliant. But the Next Generation iteration of the movies was also able to dispel the theory with the awful Star Trek: Nemesis, which was an even numbered movie.

Before that abomination though, the Next Generation had been pretty faithful to the odd/even rule, with the brilliant First Contact and the prosaic Insurrection largely sticking to the established pattern. But before any of that we had Star Trek: Generations.

Which was the seventh ever Star Trek movie and thus an odd number film.

And it too supports the theory that odd number Star Trek movies are bad. Although I do find it difficult to truly hate it.

Billed as the movie in which the original cast handed over movie responsibility to the cast of The Next Generation, it was a little underwhelming on that score. Hardly any of the original cast were in the movie, and they were done and dusted before anyone from The Next Generation even appeared on screen.

But if you wait long enough then you do get to see Kirk and Picard interact on screen for the first and only time at the denouement of Generations. It’s all too brief and concludes in the most unsatisfactory of ways, but if you are a fan of Star Trek, as I now am, having watched all of the series and movies (up to that point) in a strangely committed viewing effort between 2016 and 2018, then it was still pretty cool.

Ultimately if you only watch one Star Trek movie, then don’t pick Generations. But if you watch them all then I’m sure you’ll agree that it isn’t the worst thing with the Star Trek name attached to it. Not by a long way.

Score for Christmasishness

The Christmasishness of this movie all hinges on a kind of fantasy sequence, that makes a small amount of sense within the internal logic of the narrative (at least as much as anything else makes sense). In it, Captain Picard finds himself enjoying a Victorian Christmas with his entirely made-up family. It’s all a bit weird, but for that brief juncture, the movie is quite Christmas(ish).

Compared to the largely coherent Marvel Cinematic Universe, the DC Extended Universe has always seemed a bit shambolic and rushed. Which isn’t to say there haven’t been some good movies to come out of the project. My Christmas Eve entry for the 2019 iteration my advent calendar was the rather excellent Shazam, which is technically part of the DCEU, even if it mostly seems like an entirely standalone movie.

But there have also been some very bad movies within the DCEU, and few worse than 2016’s Suicide Squad.

Which really is, on every objective level, a terrible film.

Although I do quite like it.

If you’re prepared to switch your brain off from the outset and don’t really need the plot to make even the slightest bit of sense, then there are bits of the movie that are quite enjoyable. And to be fair to the cast, they do the best with what they’re given. Will Smith and particularly Margot Robbie almost do enough to save it from being completely terrible.

Score for Christmasishness

Though not a Christmas movie in any respect, a number of the characters have flashback scenes, and Will Smith’s Deadshot has one which is set around Christmas time, as he is visibly out Christmas shopping with his daughter. And it all seems quite festive before Batman rudely drops in to ruin his day and, presumably, his daughter’s Christmas.

2020’s Wonder Woman 1984 may not be as good as 2017’s Wonder Woman but it’s by no means the worst entry in the DC Extended Universe. Which may be faint praise, given some of the abominations that have been churned out under the umbrella of that particular franchise. But Wonder Woman was a great movie so not being as good as that movie is no great crime and there is plenty to enjoy in the sequel.

It’s definitely about 30 minutes too long, and, even within the context of it being a superhero movie, it does require a lot of suspending of disbelief but it works more often than it doesn’t.

Score for Christmasishness

For most of the running time, it has nothing to do with Christmas, but then, right at the end of the movie, after everything has been resolved, we see the eponymous character in a very Christmassy scene. It adds absolutely nothing to the story, but it is definitely there.

2019’s Jumanji: The Next Level is the sequel to 2017’s Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle, which is, in itself, both a reboot and sequel of sorts to the original Jumanji. It may help to have seen the previous Jumanji movies to enjoy the 2019 offering, but it’s not really necessary. The Jumanji movies know who their target audience is and they are unashamedly easy viewing from the off.

And it’s hard not to enjoy a movie that is so intent on entertaining you. I’m certain there are gaping plot holes throughout the narrative, but I don’t care. Jumanji: The Next Level achieves the perfect balance of retaining everything that was great about Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle without being a total rehash of that movie. It even manages to pay an homage the 1995 original at the end too. I don’t think it would reasonable to ask anything more of a movie that is, on paper, a sequel to a reboot.

Score for Christmasishness

All three Jumanji movies are a bit Christmas(ish) but Jumanji: The Next Level is the most Christmas(ish) of the three because Christmas is actually a plot device. The four main characters from Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle are reunited because they are home for the holidays. It’s never Christmas within the demonic titular game, but in the ‘real world’ scenes it is very much Christmas throughout the movie and explicitly so.