Skip to main content

Tell me, in all your calls has anybody ever impaled themselves?

Mixed Nuts
(1994)

(SPOILERS) The faintly desperate title says it all. Farces are deceptively difficult to get right, which is probably why so few writers try them anymore. That Nora Ephron should have deep-dived into this Christmas black comedy immediately after one of her most celebrated romcoms (and certainly the most celebrated she directed herself) only makes her errors of judgement look that much worse. Indeed, the only bits of Mixed Nuts that vaguely land are the ones with romantic twinge.

Much of Ephron’s writing here (with sister Delia) appears to mistake humorous for noisy, frenetic and laboured, compounded by a mismatch of comedy styles from the various cast members that rarely leads to anything creatively salvageable. Mixed Nuts is an adaptation of 1982 original Le père Noël est une ordure, itself based on a stage play, so one can merrily blame the French if one so wishes. Or simply a Hollywood machine that never seems to learn with remakes. One might commend Ephron for attempting to introduce an edge to Yuletide fare, but on this evidence, black comedy really wasn’t her forte (and let’s face it, the same year’s hit The Santa Clause opens with Santa being killed by the lead character, while a decade earlier Gremlins was one of the biggest Christmas movies ever, so twisted Christmas flicks aren’t that rare; Bad Santa remains one of the most enduringly popular).

To that end, Ephron cast by-that-point-increasingly-less-wild-and-crazy-guy Steve Martin – not content with their previous collaboration My Blue Heaven being a hot mess? – as lead character Philip, head of suicide-prevention hotline Lifesavers. He’s distinguished by an unsettling dye job (did someone persuade him it made him look younger?) and – ho ho ho, because he mans a suicide hotline, right – really bad people skills. At one point, fellow worker Rita Wilson tells him he isn’t good in person, but there’s precious little evidence he’s other than bad on the phone also.

It’s Christmas Eve and the team – which also includes Madeline Kahn, who can’t be bad in anything, but even she’s tested here – is facing eviction from Garry Shandling’s landlord. Shandling is awarded a good line (the title quote), but he’s only cameoing so there’s really nothing else for him to chew on. And what is it with characters buying Christmas trees in movies on Christmas Eve? That should ring instant alarm bells.

Also in the cast are pregnant Juliette Lewis and ex-con boyfriend Anthony LaPaglia, the former about as irritating as she is in every one of her movies that decade, the latter giving her a run for her money. They’re tenuously linked to the main action, as is Adam Sandler (he lives in the same building as the hotline). Sandler’s '90s shtick of gurning man-child was never my favourite, and he’s on particularly resistible form here… until he meets Liev Schreiber’s transgender Chris, who earlier called the hotline and managed to elicit the address from Philip. Sandler sings her a song that’s surprisingly sweet and amusing, for all it being in keeping with his goofy character. But then, the only half-decent scenes in the movie are ones featuring Schreiber (in his movie debut). The aforementioned, and one prior to that where Chris dances with Philip, and the overstrained, wacky hijinks abate for several minutes.

Other business involves Kahn getting trapped in a lift, a fruitcake changing hands, a trip to Rob Reiner’s vet – the effect of LaPaglia taking pet meds is, well… skip Mixed Nuts for Kramer doing likewise in Seinfeld episode The Andrea Doria – and a subplot concerning the Seaside Strangler. I’m tempted to give a backhanded credit for Shandling turning out to have been the Seaside Strangler all along, revealed after he’s been accidentally shot in the head by Lewis and his body has been disguised as a Christmas Tree (which may sound funny, but don’t be misled). Except that gets everyone off their criminal behaviour, and it isn’t as if they haven’t got form; a misunderstood instruction by Wilson early on (“Click! Click!”) led to Steven Wright’s depressive blowing his head off.

The climax finds Philip rediscovering his “help others” vocation when he talks LaPaglia down from a roof, so Ephron keeps her foot in the heart-warming festive fare camp, I guess. I’ve seen it suggested that all the characters are Christmas archetypes (hence Lewis giving birth at the end), but I shudder at the very thought of such analysis bearing fruit. Enough Christmas movies go great guns at the box office despite being abjectly awful that it may sometimes seem as if they’re a guaranteed goldmine (how else do you explain Surviving Christmas, Fred Claus or Christmas with the Kranks?). You only need one Mixed Nuts to evidence that even the public can’t be suckered every time, however.


Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

No matter how innocent you are, or how hard you try, they’ll find you guilty.

The Wrong Man (1956) (SPOILERS) I hate to say it, but old Truffaut called it right on this one. More often than not showing obeisance to the might of Hitchcock during his career-spanning interview, the French critic turned director was surprisingly blunt when it came to The Wrong Man . He told Hitch “ your style, which has found its perfection in the fiction area, happens to be in total conflict with the aesthetics of the documentary and that contradiction is apparent throughout the picture ”. There’s also another, connected issue with this, one Hitch acknowledged: too much fidelity to the true story upon which the film is based.

Another case of the screaming oopizootics.

Doctor Who Season 14 – Worst to Best The best Doctor Who season? In terms of general recognition and unadulterated celebration, there’s certainly a strong case to be made for Fourteen. The zenith of Robert Holmes and Philip Hinchcliffe’s plans for the series finds it relinquishing the cosy rapport of the Doctor and Sarah in favour of the less-trodden terrain of a solo adventure and underlying conflict with new companion Leela. More especially, it finds the production team finally stretching themselves conceptually after thoroughly exploring their “gothic horror” template over the course of the previous two seasons (well, mostly the previous one).

He’s so persistent! He always gets his man.

Speed (1994) (SPOILERS) It must have been a couple of decades since I last viewed Speed all the way through, so it’s pleasing to confirm that it holds up. Sure, Jan de Bont’s debut as a director can’t compete with the work of John McTiernan, for whom he acted as cinematographer and who recommended de Bont when he passed on the picture, but he nevertheless does a more than competent work. Which makes his later turkeys all the more tragic. And Keanu and Sandra Bullock display the kind of effortless chemistry you can’t put a price tag on. And then there’s Dennis Hopper, having a great old sober-but-still-looning time.

He is a brigand and a lout. Pay him no serious mention.

The Wind and the Lion (1975) (SPOILERS) John Milius called his second feature a boy’s-own adventure, on the basis of the not-so-terrified responses of one of those kidnapped by Sean Connery’s Arab Raisuli. Really, he could have been referring to himself, in all his cigar-chomping, gun-toting reactionary glory, dreaming of the days of real heroes. The Wind and the Lion rather had its thunder stolen by Jaws on release, and it’s easy to see why. As polished as the picture is, and simultaneously broad-stroke and self-aware in its politics, it’s very definitely a throwback to the pictures of yesteryear. Only without the finger-on-the-pulse contemporaneity of execution that would make Spielberg and Lucas’ genre dives so memorable in a few short years’ time.

The game is rigged, and it does not reward people who play by the rules.

Hustlers (2019) (SPOILERS) Sold as a female Goodfellas – to the extent that the producers had Scorsese in mind – this strippers-and-crime tale is actually a big, glossy puff piece, closer to Todd Phillips as fashioned by Lorene Scarfia. There are some attractive performances in Hustlers, notably from Constance Wu, but for all its “progressive” women work male objectification to their advantage posturing, it’s incredibly traditional and conservative deep down.

But everything is wonderful. We are in Paris.

Cold War (2018) (SPOILERS) Pawel Pawlikowski’s elliptical tale – you can’t discuss Cold War without saying “elliptical” at least once – of frustrated love charts a course that almost seems to be a caricature of a certain brand of self-congratulatorily tragic European cinema. It was, it seems “ loosely inspired ” by his parents (I suspect I see where the looseness comes in), but there’s a sense of calculation to the progression of this love story against an inescapable political backdrop that rather diminishes it.

What do they do, sing madrigals?

The Singing Detective (2003) Icon’s remake of the 1986 BBC serial, from a screenplay by Dennis Potter himself. The Singing Detective fares less well than Icon’s later adaptation of Edge of Darkness , even though it’s probably more faithful to Potter’s original. Perhaps the fault lies in the compression of six episodes into a feature running a quarter of that time, but the noir fantasy and childhood flashbacks fail to engage, and if the hospital reality scans better, it too suffers eventually.

They literally call themselves “Decepticons”. That doesn’t set off any red flags?

Bumblebee  (2018) (SPOILERS) Bumblebee is by some distance the best Transformers movie, simply by dint of having a smattering of heart (one might argue the first Shia LaBeouf one also does, and it’s certainly significantly better than the others, but it’s still a soulless Michael Bay “machine”). Laika VP and director Travis Knight brings personality to a series that has traditionally consisted of shamelessly selling product, by way of a nostalgia piece that nods to the likes of Herbie (the original), The Iron Giant and even Robocop .

That’s what people call necromancer’s weather.

The Changes (1975) This adaptation of Peter Dickinson’s novel trilogy carries a degree of cult nostalgia cachet due to it being one of those more “adult” 1970s children’s serials (see also The Children of the Stones , The Owl Service ). I was too young to see it on its initial screening – or at any rate, too young to remember it – but it’s easy to see why it lingered in the minds of those who did. Well, the first episode, anyway. Not for nothing is The Changes seen as a precursor to The Survivors in the rural apocalypse sub-genre – see also the decidedly nastier No Blade of Grass – as following a fairly gripping opener, it drifts off into the realm of plodding travelogue.

How would Horatio Alger have handled this situation?

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (1998) (SPOILERS) Gilliam’s last great movie – The Zero Theorem (2013) is definitely underrated, but I don’t think it’s that underrated – Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas could easily have been too much. At times it is, but in such instances, intentionally so. The combination of a visual stylist and Hunter S Thompson’s embellished, propulsive turn of phrase turns out, for the most part, to be a cosmically aligned affair, embracing the anarchic abandon of Raoul Duke and Doctor Gonzo’s Las Vegas debauch while contriving to pull back at crucial junctures in order to engender a perspective on all this hedonism. Would Alex Cox, who exited stage left, making way for the Python, have produced something interesting? I suspect, ironically, he would have diluted Thompson in favour of whatever commentary preoccupied him at the time (indeed, Johnny Depp said as much: “ Cox had this great material to work with and he took it and he added his own stuff to it ”). Plus