Christmas-themed movies have become so ubiquitous it’s hard to avoid the feeling that filmmakers have come to think of them as annuities for their retirement accounts. So it’s no wonder that the Farrelly brothers have waded into the territory for the first time, with their new comedy directed by Bobby Farrelly making its debut on Paramount+. And while Dear Santa doesn’t exactly qualify for entry in the filmmakers’ pantheon beside the likes of There’s Something About Mary and Dumb and Dumber, it should fulfill its goal of being trotted out annually for holiday consumption alongside the turkey and the eggnog.

Considering that the words “Santa” and “Satan” contain exactly the same letters, it’s amazing that it’s taken this long for someone to come up with the idea for a movie about an 11-year-old with dyslexia who writes a letter to Santa, only to find it answered by Satan thanks to inadvertent letter placement.

Jack Black, in his first collaboration with the Farrellys since 2001’s Shallow Hall, plays Satan, who shows up one night in the bedroom of Liam (Robert Timothy Smith, a real find) after the bespectacled tween has written what he thought was a letter to Santa. Satan, sporting horns and a burgundy leather-and-fur outfit and announcing that he’s there “in the naughty flesh,” doesn’t bother at first to inform Liam of the truth but instead offers him three wishes, in the devilish hope of stealing the little boy’s soul.

Liam’s first wish is for the romantic attentions of Emma (Kai Cech), his classmate with whom he’s besotted. Satan instantly grants it and it isn’t long before Liam is escorting Emma to a Post Malone concert, complete with VIP seats and backstage pass. This plot element provides the opportunity for an extended sequence featuring the superstar rapper-singer playing himself, which should help the film appeal to its desired teen demographic.

As with any deal involving Satan, things quickly grow complicated, here in the form of subplots involving Liam’s friend Gibby (Jaden Carson Baker) having to pretend to be a cancer patient and Liam’s concerned parents (Brianne Howey, Hayes MacArthur) having him see a child psychologist. (The shrink is played by the always funny but unfortunately underutilized Keegan-Michael Key.)

It should hardly come as a revelation that Black’s hardworking comedic efforts are the film’s saving grace. Adopting a deep growl that makes him sound like late-period Jack Nicholson, the actor is clearly having a ball with his colorful role, and the fun proves infectious. He makes the many bad jokes bearable and the decent ones even funnier with his typically manic, perfectly timed delivery.

And to be fair, there are a few decent ones in the screenplay co-written by Peter Farrelly and Ricky Blitt (Family Guy, Loudermilk), even if it inevitably includes bathroom humor in the form of Satan casting a gastrointestinal distress spell on Liam’s obnoxious English teacher (P.J. Byrne). “Every time a grown man sharts himself, a demon earns its horns,” a smug Satan informs Liam. There are several funny pop culture references that should please adults while befuddling the target audience, including a reference to One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest and Satan announcing that he’s staying at the “Redrum Motor Lodge.”

“You can probably guess my room number,” he adds.

Culminating in a maudlin ending that seems a bit much even for a film of this type, Dear Santa is the sort of forgettable holiday fare — much like the current theatrical misfire Red One — that will probably nonetheless live on forever on streaming services. And if no less a figure than Charles Dickens could resort to creating a Christmas story for some quick cash (look it up), why shouldn’t the movie studios?  

Swap, written, directed, and starring Dallas King, is a new film that has turned the tables on typical vampire movies. It could easilyhave been a trashy romance novel. Swap is a modern-day 70s exploitation film.

Check out the trailer below, then read on for the review!

Synopsis

New couple, Rad (James Eastwood) and Kyla (Jessica Lelia Green), are invited by Glory (Erin Anne Gray) to celebrate her engagement to Angelo (Dallas King), her mysterious new boyfriend. At Angelo’s secluded house, Rad discovers that Glory and Angelo are swingers looking to swap partners. When Rad tries to persuade Kyla to leave, her curiosity leads to a steamy encounter where she learns that Angelo is a 500-year-old vampire with sinister intentions.

I don’t watch many vampire movies but this one kind of stuck with me and left me confused. I couldn’t relate to the story because, in all honesty, it was a little repetitive to me. There are a great moments however. The story is different than your typical vampire fare. The acting is also pretty strong. You can tell everyone put their heart into making this. And there are moments int he film that really made me think.

Sexy vampires isn’t a bad theme, but I’m also very timid. I think the sex overpowered the film, and while the sex story sells to a lot of people, for me, it’s not so much. It’s a love-it-or-hate-it type of movie, although a slight grey area is locked deep away, and I found it. I wanted to see the bright side. I just couldn’t.

I enjoy a good horror movie sex scene that gets you killed by a slasher. With Swap, however, I felt like I was watching a Misty Mundea film. I felt like I needed a shower after because that’s how down and dirty it is.

To Be Fair…

I am a fair guy; I’ll give everything a watch one time. I am not big on modern horror outside of a few franchises. Maybe that was my problem with this, or maybe it was all the sex. Unfortunately, for whatever reason, it lost my attention. This is all just my opinion; as I said, everyone should give it a shot at least once. It may not be my cup of tea, but it will sell to fans who know what they like, and I can commend the hard work everyone put into this film.

In The End

I have no interest in sex horror. To me, this movie had so much potential, but just went in a weird direction. I’ll stay in the gray area for a while because, though the story was interesting enough, it made me feel awkward watching it. But in the end, this movie is going to be fantastic to a lot of people, and that’s perfectly fine.

What promised to be different was run-of-the-mill, in my opinion. It’s not that I wasn’t interested, but there was more sex than story, This is just one opinion, I always let people enjoy things; just because you have an opinion, it isn’t a rally to not watch this movie. See it for yourself.

Everyone is wondering if “Glicked,” the potentially record-breaking, industry-lifting pre-Thanksgiving combination of “Wicked” and “Gladiator II,” will be this year’s “Barbenheimer,” the record-breaking, industry-lifting summertime combination of “Barbie” and “Oppenheimer.”

Could be. Hope so. But it’s hard not to think that everyone is missing the point.

Because Hollywood’s future doesn’t depend on who’s going to see both films on the same day. It depends on who’s going to see “Wicked” in the same row. Sharing Twizzlers and a tub of popcorn.

Families.

Double-feature combos are certainly a novel and fun way to engage audiences and goose the box office, and I would never disrespect the Oscar-winning “Oppenheimer,” which did amazingly well with audiences given its serious biopic genre. For its part, “Gladiator II” certainly looks like a gas.

But it was “Barbie,” and now “Wicked,” that put a serious number of butts in seats: Universal Pictures’ musical adaptation earned $114 million at the domestic box office this weekend, leading the $55.5-million take of Paramount’s swords-and-sandals epic. And it will be “Moana 2” that continues to do so over Thanksgiving weekend, if its predicted $125-million opening comes to fruition. Not the R-rated, demographically targeted projects but the big, festive movies that the whole family can enjoy.

“Something the whole family can enjoy” used to be a selling point. Now, in a time of targeted demographics, when Hollywood has decided that an R rating is all but required for a film to be considered “important,” it’s become a joke. Calling something that is not made by Pixar/Disney “family friendly” makes it immediately uncool and definitely unsexy. For all that they love to tout the elusive “four-quadrant” productions, most studios are not going out of their way to make family-friendly films these days. At least not those that exist outside the MCU.

And yet “Wicked,” like “Barbie” and this summer’s big hit, “Inside Out 2,” has played to enormous audiences across all kinds of demographics, not to mention generations, and no doubt included loads of families. (Who, if early accounts are an indication, were prepared to sing along with many of the songs, to the consternation of those who were not.)

If Hollywood really wants to make a comeback, it needs to take this lesson to heart: If you want to sell a bunch of tickets and popcorn, families are the ultimate consumer group. For good reason.

Streaming may have taken over the world, but believe me when I say parents want to take their children, of all ages, to the movies. If your kids are small, it offers the rare opportunity to do something they will enjoy while you get to sit down, without argument or constant demands, for two hours. Bliss! If you like the movie, even better.

If your kids are teens or young adults, movies offer the increasingly rare opportunity to share an experience in which everyone is fully engaged — unlike with home movie nights, dining out or virtually any group activity, cellphone usage is prohibited in movie theaters. Although complaints about bad behavior in cinemas may be on the rise, it’s still likelier here than anywhere that you can experience the joy of movie viewing without feeling compelled to ask, after noting the illuminated phone and bowed head of your child, “Are you even watching this?” They are, because that is the only thing they can do. And then, at least for the drive home, you all have something to talk about that does not require you to explain how people used to navigate entire cities without the benefit of an app or them to show you what they mean by playing something on TikTok.

Once again you have, if only temporarily, a shared language. Amazing!

And more than any other patrons, families — by which I mean any group that includes at least two generations, the elder of whom is paying — see the moviegoing experience as an outing, which means snacks are a given.

Once you’ve gone to the trouble of finding the time everyone is free, arguing over seats, buying the tickets and getting everyone to the theater on time, a parent (or grandparent or aunt or older brother) is not going to draw the line at getting this one a hot dog and that one a slushy. Nope, this is now officially a mini-holiday, so pretzel bites and Skittles all around. (And with “Wicked,” purchasers can console themselves with how much cheaper even the most concession-heavy film experience is when compared with seeing the stage version.)

So why, in an industry struggling to sustain its bricks-and-mortar business model in a digital world, are there so few films the whole family can enjoy?

Once upon a time, there were four-quadrant films in virtually every genre. Oh, for the golden years of the “Harry Potter” franchise, which, in its first three years, overlapped with “The Lord of the Rings.” Long will I remember the wonders of 2005, which included family-friendly hits like “Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire,” “The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe,” “Batman Begins,” “Mr. & Mrs. Smith,” “Madagascar,” “Charlie and the Chocolate Factory,” “The Corpse Bride,” “King Kong,” “Nanny McPhee,” “Robots,” “Sky High,” “Zathura: A Space Adventure,” “Hoodwinked!” “Wallace & Gromit: The Curse of the Were-Rabbit,” “The Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants” and, of course, the enduring classic “The Adventures of Sharkboy and Lavagirl in 3-D.”

Our family practically lived in the cinema that year.

This is not an argument against sex, violence, mature themes or whatever bags the R rating for a given movie. That same year gave us “Brokeback Mountain,” “Memoirs of a Geisha,” “The Constant Gardener,” “Cinderella Man,” “A History of Violence,” “The 40 Year-Old Virgin,” “Wedding Crashers,” “Pride and Prejudice” and plenty of other fine, sophisticated, adult movies.

But with the notable exception of superhero movies, Hollywood seems increasingly willing to throw the baby, or at least the 8-year-old, out with the bathwater.

So while it’s clever to marry, and cross-promote, films as different as “Barbie” and “Oppenheimer” or “Wicked” and “Gladiator II,” let’s not lose sight of which films draw the bigger audiences. To paraphrase another movie that drew multiple generations to the multiplex: If you build it, they will come. Especially if they can bring the kids.