Directed By Eshom and Ian Nelms

Starring – Mel Gibson, Walton Goggins, Marianne Jean-Baptiste

The Plot – A rowdy, unorthodox Santa Claus (Gibson) is fighting to save his declining business. Meanwhile, Billy (Chance Hurstfield), a neglected and precocious 12 year old, hires a hit man (Goggins) to kill Santa after receiving a lump of coal in his stocking.

Rated R for bloody violence, and adult language

POSITIVES

– Winter wonderland. The world building in the film combines the folklore of Santa with the reality of the world we live in, granting us a hardened hero who mostly trades in the magic for a dose of hearty reality that really puts into perspective the kind of moves Santa would be making if he walked among us. Long gone are the vibrant colors and bright lights known synonymously to the Christmas season, and instead traded in for a grey, weathering cinematography and monotonous interior design scheme that visually conveys the way 2020 feels as a whole. The magic of Santa is still very much there, but seen in such small, miniscule moments of expression that are sparingly used to remind audiences that there’s still a lot of grit behind this grissel. Finally, the exposition used to flesh out the costs and business deals with keeping an operation going is a nice touch to fantasy skeptics like me who spend their time thinking out logic holes for characters who don’t exist in reality. It proves some thought went into every prominent aspect of characterization and world building throughout the film, further allowing us to immerse ourselves colorfully within it because of the grounded approach with no shortage of charms of its own.

– Straight approach. When you hear the plot and see the trailer for a movie called “Fatman”, you expect a tonal direction of comic consistency too idiotic to ever take itself seriously. In that respect you would be wrong, because this is very much a film that takes everything seriously, and one I actually appreciated for such because it instilled stakes and consequences to a child’s first idol, which like any celebrity feels destined to come into obsession cases of his own. The comedy isn’t sacrificed either. Instead, it’s preserved probably all for the stronger with the dedication to lines and conflicts that you laughingly applaud for the maniacal madness that envelopes the movie’s so-called “Bad children” that play smoothly into the black comedy aspect that films can never fully commit themselves to. This one finds a satisfying compromise somewhere in between humor and seriousness, and manufactures a Christmas movie that is truly unlike anything in the 70-plus year history of this subgenre.

– Stoic performances. This is a dual threat tug-of-war between Gibson and Goggins that offers ample time for both of them to show off the professionalism in their registries, and prove that every role deserves determination regardless of the lunacy of the plot. For Gibson, it’s a depiction of Santa that we rarely ever see, in that he’s the grizzled, weathered veteran of childhood pasts who bears the weight of those he has disappointed more than anything else. Gibson still maintains the power to captivate an audience after five decades in cinema, and is all the more powerful when he has a villain who brings out the best in him. In comes Goggins, who turns in another movie-stealing performance as this nameless assassin with his own historical ties to Santa. Goggins quick caustic wit with the tongue is his sharpest blade, spewing vitriol on anyone he crosses paths with, but it’s his skill as a marksman that makes him a literal threat, and one that brings to life a sinister smile in him that prove the fun he’s having in such a role. Neither man spare a single ounce of charisma in their respective roles, and give the movie’s small budget limitations a big screen captivity with their immensely productive presences.

– Equal ground. In addition to the sizzling charm of a duo of leads adding concrete value to the picture, the balance of characterization between them, and even a little child (Played by Chance Hurstfield) who brings them together is highly beneficial to fleshing out their characters. For the first half of the movie, the technique between cutting through each of their lives proves that the script invests value in each of them, allowing the audience to grow into them fully while keeping tabs on each of them on the road to this inevitable confrontation along the way. It eventually kind of refrains on the child aspect in favor of just Gibson and Goggins respective characters, but it feels necessary considering the kid is really only just the tie to bringing these two sides together, and nothing to the physical conflict that awaits them. It does a big service to the pacing that continuously keeps moving between deviating back and forth between them, and resides over an abundance of urgency in the forthcoming danger that weighs heavily on everything else that these two sides do before it comes.

– Intense musical score. Without question, my single favorite aspect of the production is the thunderously synth musical score from the Mondo Boys that feels like an occasional throwback to childlike adventure films of the 80’s. Their greatest work comes when Goggins road of trivial pursuit turns up right on Santa’s doorstep, and the echoing entrancement overtook my ears like an operatic entanglement that stood as proof for the powerful confrontation that I was promised throughout 95 minutes. It’s intentionally loud on volume for adding an unforeseen element of danger to what is transpiring in the visual capacity, and instills a memorable sense of identity for the Mondo Boys as one of the more experimentally gifted composers going today.

– Rating reservations. I can appreciate that this movie keeps a tight grip on its violence and gruesome imagery for the sake of keeping this tonally consistent property free from a single increment of satire. The action in the movie, while nothing special from a visionary perspective, is impactful and blunt with a fine degree of permanency from its limited use along the way. There are moments of gunfire scattered throughout, but nothing that exploits blood and bodies in an exploitative nature. It’s not something that this particular movie necessarily needs, instead choosing to keep the focus and panning of the camera firmly on the main characters, where I feel it rightfully belongs. In addition to this, the adult language is a constant throughout, but nothing ever feels desperate or meandering to include a dirty word for the sake of it. It’s read naturally authorative from mostly Goggins, allowing him the freedom as an antagonist to express personality however he and directors Nelms’ see fit.

– Hard to swallow pills. Most people only see Christmas movies as this one consistent feeling of sugarcoated happiness meant to sprinkle them with assurance, but I appreciated “Fatman” for the traditions it broke on its way to sprouting some hearty social commentary about the state of consumerism. This, and the grim encompassing is why I feel like the movie is getting such a bad word of mouth from audiences and critics who have seen it, but for my money I appreciate a film not afraid to break conventions, and do so while turning the camera on us to expose us for the greed that motivationally inspires kids and parents to low levels of desperation in contradicting morale to what the season is about. You have to dig a little deeper to spot what the brothers Nelms are dissecting, but it gives the cold, damp scenery plenty to chew on, and doesn’t lower itself for audiences in escapism cinema, whether they like it or not.

NEGATIVES

– Bonehead errors. It’s been a while since I could spot a truly sloppy element in post-production, but “Fatman” has repeated instances of wall-breaking mistakes that riddle its immersive factor. For continuity, the changing of scar tissue from the right to the left side of Santa’s body between the beginning and end of the film is not only obvious considering the camera placement of the respective sequences, but also care free considering the make-up variation between takes looks so different from what was initially depicted. There’s also signs revealing that the shoot took place in Ontario during sequences supposedly existing in North Peak. Military soldiers making themselves easy targets out in the open during the heat of battle. Sunlight existing in a geographic location in Alaska during a part of year when there’s no sun for 60 days. And just think, these are only the ones and most obvious that I chose to include, and only a fraction of problematic goofs that occurred throughout.

– Cringing dialogue. Even for a movie with as much going for it as its characterization has, “Fatman” can’t escape these encroaching instances of self-indulgence that is everything I feared about this film on initial trailer perception. I’m talking of course about the occasional line of dialogue that springs free a nagging Christmas pun, or obvious callback to Christmas caroling. One such line involves Gibson’s Santa expressing that he didn’t get the job just because he’s “Fat and jolly”. Not a necessarily terrible offense, but one whose desperation feels like it was pulled from the same films that it is trying to be anything but. Another offense is Chris telling an unruly child that he “Knows when he’s asleep, and knows when he’s been bad”. Probably not a big problem for the typical audience, but I feel like it doesn’t fit into this particular direction of Santa, whose cheerful familiarity has been exchanged for the grim embodiment as a result of a society that has turned their backs on him.

– Diminishing returns. I can rarely remember a time when my feelings towards a third act shifted so violently in such a short time span. During the final fifteen minutes of the movie, my interest went from careless for how long the promised conflict took to materialize, thrilled for a sequence of events that proved the movie had balls to test and push its audience to the brink of unpredictability, and disappointed for how it went back on its word in the final moments without ever cementing the rules instilled with its iconic character. It just sort of says “Well, because he’s Santa this is possible”, when in reality so much of the rest of the movie was enriched in realism that made him seem and feel like an aging workman living and breathing in a real world not far from our own. It took my grade down a whole point for the roller-coaster of inconsistencies that it supplanted, and left me with a bad taste for a movie that 80% of which I loved exceptionally.

My Grade: 7/10 or B-