Funky music, holiday magic and a supersonic sleigh are all wrapped up in this CGI-animated family adventure starring William Shatner as the voice of Santa! Trevor is a true believer in the holiday spirit, so his skeptical best friend, Veronica, challenges him to show the world actual proof that Santa is real! Trevor and his friends embark on the adventure of a lifetime to catch Santa in action and reveal the true magic of Christmas. But they've got to find Santa before LeFreeze - a dim-witted monster who's carrying a serious 100-year-old grudge - and his snowman minions put Christmas on ice forever! Join the race to save Christmas in GOTTA CATCH SANTA CLAUS, the jolly, jammin', modern-day holiday classic destined to become a family tradition!
Writer:Steve Wright (story editor), Steven E. de Souza
Young boy wants to prove his friend that Santa Claus exists by capturing him. Meanwhile, an old enemy of Santa awakens from an ancient slumber with the same idea. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
Lance C (de) wrote: Hunger Games meets Maze Runner meets terrible editing meets a poor script.
Tash D (fr) wrote: A Horror film that fails on almost every front, not scary, not interesting, and just when you think the film is gonna take a risk, it curdles right back into schlock, go watch Grave Encounters, it does everything that Episode 50 did wrong, right.
Kimberly B (ru) wrote: I didn't read the book this movie was based on, but my husband did. He was appalled that John Malkovich was cast as the lead role, because in the book, apparently, the man is supposed to be a sort of Byronic type, and charming and attractive despite (or because of?) his lothario tendencies. Instead, we have Malkovich, who comes across as creepy and pathetic, not to mention physically repulsive. Also, he displays the emotional depth of a puddle. He comes across as a cipher in all his movies -- and not because Deep Things are going on inside him, but because he seems, at heart, to be a robot. Or an alien. Something with completely absent or frozen solid emotions. If this character is supposed to be seething with inner passion or desire or inner SOMETHING, Malkovich was not cast well, then. He is a pedophilic pod person. Not a tortured soul. That aside, this is chock full of depressing and horrible things, and I fail to see the point. The characters are all pretty much unsympathetic and unlikeable, esp. the main characters. I hated them both by the end. I do not see what connection his relationship with the student has with the tragic events that befall his daughter, except that the first caused him to be living with her. If we are supposed to draw a connection between his behavior (acting on impulse) and the behavior of the monsters who attacked the daughter (are they acting on impulse, too?), I think the comparison is faulty at best, if not downright offensive and repugnant.I don't know what this movie was trying to communicate, but I didn't much care for what I saw. Perhaps the book was better? they usually are. Or perhaps the book was just as depressing, pointless, and ultimately self-indulgent as the movie. I say: SKIP this one.
Aliendheasja F (jp) wrote: I'm a cartoon lover. and I always fall for Asterix. what more can I say?
Tom H (de) wrote: bad movie. but it also makes it amusing for all the unintended reasons.
Missy M (gb) wrote: good action/mystery movie, love this movie
Greg W (kr) wrote: first in the 80's cycle of psycho/slasher pics+holiday=$$$$
Garrett C (us) wrote: You know, one of the best things I've done this year is to buy a book called "Cult Movies" by a guy named Danny Peary. He wrote three of these books, and I own all of them. I like buying books that are more or less lists with commentary, since it gives me more films to check out. Peary's book is special though. I'd already seen almost half of the 200 movies that span his three books, but as I've been watching others and reading his commentary I've found myself learning a lot about the art of cinema that I never really get from my other favorite reviewers. Peary comes off as sort of half professor, half filmmaker, and half fun cult movie fan (and obviously I'm not half a mathematician). This means that his reviews reveal a real zealot's fondness for cinema, while still being almost completely detached enough to critique something for what it is without factoring in a reputation. Take this film for example. The film is by far one of the most successful foreign films ever made, and a highly respected one as well. Peary acknowledges these things, but he doesn't let the film get off easy. Much like another huge French cult comedy classic I saw recently (King of Hearts), Peary has a lot to say about how bad the direction is in this film and how much better it could have been with improvements. He argues that the director, Eduoard Molinaro treats his characters shallowly, which makes the comedy less effective. This is true. He also argues that the movie is clearly made for a straight audience (not an opinion you see a lot) since most of the jokes are at the expense of the gays, and that the characters are terrible in general. He rightly calls the plot trite, and issues one of his most frequent complaints on comedy films, which is that the director never lets the scenes run long enough for the gags to develop sufficiently. I have this problem just as much as Peary does. I've gotten to the point where I've realized that my dissatisfaction with a lot of comedy films that just aren't good enough is that they do not push the joke far enough for it to get funny. The dinner scene in this film is a fine example, since it has all sorts of potential to be hilarious (an example of a good version of a somewhat similar scenario is Peter Sellers' dinner experience in Blake Edward's "The Party"), but ultimately fails because as Peary states, it "dribbles to a conclusion before it really gets started." This is something else I love about Peary's books. The movies he surveys are not all great, in fact many of them through a sober lens of film criticism are downright awful. But there are many gems to be found in the cult movie canon even when the film isn't completely executed correctly. I generally enjoyed watching La Cage Aux Folles despite the issues with it. I'm just glad to have a new companion in Peary to take me through some of cinema's highs and lows that is teaching me so much about the art I never knew. Films like this are a fine representative of some of the "mixed blessing" movies in Peary's books. They have so much potential, but without the brilliant direction needed for a brilliant film they fail to achieve little more than mild cult appeal. There are many lessons to be learned here.
Luciano G (kr) wrote: If stupid things make you laugh then this movie is for you..
Terrence G (us) wrote: Before Bewitched there was this romantic comedy about a witch who falls in love with a mortal. A charming and intelligent storyline, along with a talented cast, make for an engaging film classic.
Luke T (nl) wrote: It may be directed by the Master of Suspense, but there is no trouble with Harry on this particular occasion.
Robert G (ca) wrote: I am not a Marilyn Monroe fan, in fact I would say I do not particularly like her. I do not see what everyone sees in her, I just thing she looks way to fake and made-up. But then again I do not go for the blond girls for the most part, I of for more brunette girls or even redheads. If it was my choice I would have made Jane Russell the star and Monroe the friend. Also Marilyn Monroe is a pretty bad actress to boot. But as far as Monroe movies go I would say this is my favorite of them. It has a good story, it is pretty funny. Marilyn Monroe's character is playing the guy for a fool, even says stuff that is down right offensive to his face. The movie is just fun, if your looking for a fun date movie is a great choice.
Ellie D (de) wrote: I heard this was the best of them, I didn't think so.
Pierluigi P (jp) wrote: If it wasn't for the corny propaganda... But anyway a great little thiller with some impressive set pieces. Hitchcock didn't need an overly constructed plot to make it work, injecting his finesse and humour at every step. Current action/adventure filmmakers should take note of this fine example of escapist cinema.
Jim H (gb) wrote: Just a little too cute?
Jesse O (ru) wrote: I don't think I've ever seen, and I may be wrong, but a film that combines femsploitation with some supernatural elements involving an Apache warrior out for vengeance on the family of the people that murdered him, which also happens to be the people that end up murdering Zoe. And it's, honestly, a really cool idea and the execution definitely works. That's the thing, the idea is nothing if the execution isn't there and it works as two revenge thrillers at one time. And the allegory here about the damage that men, in this case white men, have done to people with a rich heritage, the native Indians (I find calling them native Americans horribly offensive, because we're calling them by the nationality of the people that exterminated them in the first place) and violence against women. So it works as an allegory and a revenge thriller all at the same time. They also touch on Zoe and Dane's romance, but that's a little corny in comparison to everything else that's going on here. But it also highlights a change from what the villains in this film have been raised to think is the norm. So it's a more thoughtful revenge film than what one would normally expect from a low-budget horror movie. And, of course, the film is quite satisfying at making you hate these detestable assholes before finally meeting their grisly ends, it almost goes without saying. Though, of course, I'm sure there's some fringe group out there that were outraged at all these white people being murdered, not even looking at the fact that they're horrible human beings, but those people don't really matter, because they're idiots. The film was well-paced, I thought. They don't blow their wad early by cramming too much stuff in there, they let it all play out the way it should. I think that that might bother some people, in that they feel that there's not really much going on in between the murders. And I would say that that's a valid complaint, even I thought that at some points. It's clear that the film wouldn't have been as long if it was straight to the point, all killer no filler, but I don't think that the film would've been as effective if they didn't let its concepts and ideas sink in first before moving on. So while it is a valid complaint, I think it's one that would've ultimately hurt the movie from a 'storytelling' standpoint. I digress, this is a good movie. There's plenty of gore at the climax to satisfy horror fans and there's enough of a thoughtfulness to its characters and presentation that even casual horror fans can enjoy this. I wouldn't say it's perfect, but it's a satisfying and smart revenge thriller. It's Amazon Video Prime, so I'd definitely recommend it if you're a subscriber.
Noor H (ca) wrote: It was like watching ID channel but the disgusting parts weren't censored. Felt real, like I was there, however, again with bashing another culture.