My Movie Review on Arthur Christmas

Aloha, my good friends.

This is your jolly film, TV show, and episode reviewing bloke here with another film review, as well as the second installment of my "Christmas in July Jamboree".

And today, I'll be giving you all an analysis on Aardman Animation's "Arthur Christmas".

Here's the rundown of it:

Young Arthur is the 2nd child of is father, Malcolm, who takes on the role of Santa Claus and delivers presents to children around the world with the help of Arthur's tech-loving older brother, Steven.

Unwittingly, however, a child by the name of Gwen Hines is missed and hasn't been given her present yet.

With the help of his traditionalist grandfather and a gift wrapping elf named Bryony Shelley, Arthur travels the world to get to Gwen's house in Turlew, England and deliver her present before Christmas morning.

Will Arthur and the others deliver the present to Gwen in time? Or will she be the only child Santa doesn't deliver a present to?

Similar to “The Star”, “Arthur Christmas” was another Christmas movie I saw a while back, and wasn’t able to get around to reviewing right away due to other commitments. So, I thought it’d be a neat idea to review the film as part of my “Christmas in July Jamboree”.

How I saw the film was through buying a DVD copy of it. I heard so much about the film being considered one of the best Christmas movies around, so I immediately assumed it was going to be an awesome film. Reviewing the film as a whole also provided the perfect opportunity to analyze a film by Aardman, having been a fan of their stop-motion animated films. And just like “The Star”, I saw “Arthur Christmas” two times in preparation for reviewing it, because I wanted to be certain about what I thought of it.

As for what I think of this movie in words…

To tell you guys the truth, I was surprised to find that “Arthur Christmas” really wasn’t as impressive as I thought it was gonna be. I noted that it had some positives, but overall…it just wasn’t as great as its reputation made it sound.

On the flawlessly positive side, the music by Harry-Gregson Williams was excellent.

Considering the fact that this movie was Williams’s 3rd collaboration with Aardman, and the 2nd in which he created the score by himself, I think Williams proved himself to be quite a valuable collaborator for Aardman. He gave his score a brilliant sense of holiday spirit, perfect for a Christmas film. Not to mention his music carried a warmth that was instantly reminiscent of drinking hot cocoa with marshmallows, and it wasn’t without emotional depth either.

Everything else regarding the film, though…was polarizing.

The biggest reasons for why come from the direction by Sarah Smith, and the story by her & Peter Baynham.

The main thing I give props for regarding the plot is that it was definitely original. Santa Claus films certainly weren’t anything new, but I loved the fresh approach Smith and Baynham took for the overall concept. I only wish that how the two filmmakers went about creating and executing the movie in general was able to match the ambition.

In terms of the comedy, I found it to be largely lacking. In all the Aardman films I’ve often watched, I’ve noted that the company is normally able to make any humorous moment they come up with hilarious to the point of laughter, which is among the reasons for why I think the company is special. The humor that they incorporated in “Arthur Christmas”, though, was mostly cute  but not enough to be laughable. The only standouts come from the parts where characters end up in Turlew, Mexico by accident instead of Turlew, England. The worst part is that the gags felt forced at best. Also, while the film does try to be emotional and heartfelt, I felt that the filmmakers barely succeeded in accomplishing their goal. I can’t exactly explain it, but similar to the comedy, something about Sarah Smith’s direction caused each of the soulful moments in question to feel equally forced.

Meanwhile, the animation was also a mixed bag.

Don’t get me wrong, I think the animation was good in some areas. The biggest standouts were the environments and surroundings, which demonstrated excellent craftsmanship from the animators. But, it seemed like after a long period of time, one can't help but think Aardman is better suited for making stop-motion animated features more than entirely computer-animated ones. For a movie made under a 100 million dollar budget, it seemed like the animation carried too many obvious signs of being done by computer, with the human and elf characters in particular looking like they’re products of a cheap Saturday morning cartoon.

Finally, it all comes down to the voice acting, characters, and character development.

I can totally start by saying that there was some pretty decent character development throughout the film. Obviously, the characters who grew the most were Arthur, Steven, Malcolm, and GrandSanta, who each learned things that helped them to successfully develop.

In terms of outstanding vocal performances, the biggest standouts were James McAvoy as Arthur, Bill Nighy as GrandSanta, and Ashley Jensen as Bryony Shelfley. McAvoy portrayed Arthur with a warm sense of innocence and kindness, making him lovable like a teddy bear. Jensen gave her character marvelous energy with every line she said. And Bill Nighy...man, he gave his character tons of great flair, with GrandSanta's moments of eccentricity and feistiness being some of his best moments. It’s no wonder Nighy won an Annie Award for his work in the film, that’s for sure.

But, I did not enjoy the performances of Hugh Laurie as Steven and Jim Broadbent as Malcolm (the current Santa Claus). Heck, despite the two characters in question having good development, they were quite honestly my least favorites out of everyone!

Malcolm wasn't a very tolerable character because a lot of times...he just seemed too naive and stupid. I hated how Malcolm often looked like he had no idea what he was doing, particularly to where he hardly had much of a brain, and Broadbent's performance only seemed to fuel that impression all-the-more. Also, with the exception of the film's ending, Steve was extremely unlikable and mean, with everything that he did looking as if he was ruining the film. On the subject of Hugh Laurie, I will say that I have nothing against him personally. I think Laurie is an excellent actor & comedian, but his performance as Steven only seemed to make the character even more infuriating, and he gave little comedic flair.

For my final note, I'd like to point out that there was this one moment where, after the elves and Santa completed the deliveries, two elves were kissing. It was hard to tell whether the two of them were a male and female or both of the same gender, but to me, they looked to both be male! I normally don't make a big deal out of something like this in my reviews, and the moment was very brief, but it was so noticeable that I couldn’t get it out of my head! Along with that, Steve's assistant elf, Peter, seemed to be acting too suspiciously friendly towards Steve. Something about Peter’s behavior made me think the elf was gay and had a crush on Steve.

In the end, "Arthur Christmas" is a film that I would like to classify as 'cute, but not compelling'. It has its positives, but the negatives I noted ultimately weighed the movie down into something that’s far from worthwhile. The film as a whole is quite honestly perhaps Aardman’s worst film to date, and as the very first they made after cutting ties with Dreamworks, that’s saying something!

So, I rate "Arthur Christmas" 2½ out of five stars.