Rating: MMMMM

Director: Edgar Wright
Starring: Michael Cera, Kieran Culkin, Chris Evans, Mary Elizabeth Winstead
Running time: 112 mins
Cert: 12A

Last night I was lucky enough to get into a free preview screening of Scott Pilgrim Vs. the World, the new film from director Edgar Wright, who also co-wrote the screenplay of this comic book adaptation. That’s Edgar ‘Spaced’ Wright. Edgar Shaun of the Dead Wright. Edgar Hot Fuzz Wright.

So those were my reasons for being OH SO VERY excited about seeing this movie – I hadn’t read the comic book or kept up with the pre-production gossip online, instead I’ve just spent a couple of months treasuring the lovely warm prospect of a new Wright film, and hoping that makes me laugh halfway as much as his previous collaborations with the glorious Pegg and Frost team. As I’m still utterly buzzing 12 hours after watching it, any fans worried that the hop across the pond may have meant a move away from the quirky, charmingly silly humour his previous British comedies were characterised by- well they can just start getting ridiculously excited instead.

As you’d expect from the trailer, we follow Scott Pilgrim in each of his visually awesome battles with the seven demented exes. Afterwards, we all agreed that Michael Cera was absolutely the perfect match for Scott’s dialogue, which was often very, very funny, but made hysterical by Cera’s faltering, understated manner. So many throwaway lines keep coming back to me that on paper just wouldn’t, but were perfect little moments that took me by surprise. I never want to see him in another Judd Apatow comedy- they’re not bad, but it would ruin the memory of him in this infinitely more quick-witted film.

The supporting characters in Scott Pilgrim’s world are far more hilariously drawn that I had any right to expect. You’re whipped into the quick-fire sarcasm of his bandmate friends, (who are endearing and are refreshingly not teeth-grindingly quirky as in so many indie flicks) and this made me more than happy to suspend my disbelief when all the really silly stuff kicked off. And boy does it ever kick off.
The action fits surprisingly well into the snowy Toronto setting, provided you’ve left enough of your cynicism at the door. Rather than realistic martial arts, expect instead to be left gawking at the comic book-capery it does so well. As far as I could see, no actual blood and gore will be strewn about in the final edit, which is entirely in keeping with the tone of the film and something I’m quite relieved about. Gore is all well and good in its place, but I felt the increasingly tragic zombifications towards the end of Shaun of the Dead really jarred with the slapstick at times.

Another thing we were agreed on was that the humour was far less exclusive than other slacker comedies, or indeed action comedies we’ve all seen recently. While the whole film is essentially both a very funny computer game AND comic book up on the big screen, with in-jokes to tickle die-hard nerds of either persuasion, none of this stops anyone else laughing. It didn’t matter in the slightest if you didn’t know where a pixelated gaming sight gag came from (for there are many) came from, it was still funny to me and every other person who can’t even play Mariokart successfully. There aren’t jokes for the lads, and token ones for their girlfriends, there is just joke after joke that will leave both sexes weak and spluttering at the memory long after.

Scott Pilgrim sets out to combine action, comedy and romance and does a damn fine job of blending the three throughout so that no aspects feel tacked on. Romance does however suffer slightly from a lack of screen-time- although Scott battles each evil ex for the love of the apparently too-cool-for-anything Ramona, I did wonder what exactly was so great about her that he would get beaten up seven times in a row. But the relentless action and humour didn’t leave me much time to ponder this, or the other issue that has since started to niggle at me. Will anyone else agree with me that maybe having our hero fight the exes for ownership of his girl is a little off-colour? Feisty though she is, Ramona falls victim to the ‘Bella Swan paradox’- the story revolves around her, but it’s largely the blokes who get to do all the fun action stuff. There is a wicked girly fight (calm down) but Buffy this ain’t.

The music gives the fight scenes some real fire power in my opinion, and is as integral to the film as the offbeat ‘kerpow!’ and ‘zap!’ animations that pop up at just the right moments to punctuate the very ordinary Toronto. To those literally-minded/boring people who may complain that this, and the action sequences are too zany and unrealistic, I will say that the weirdness of Scott Pilgrim’s world all comes directly from how teenage and 20/30-something slacker gamers might view things from a sideways angle. They spend days and nights solving puzzles, arming up and beating each level, a pattern which is seamlessly integrated (God knows how, it’s an utter miracle) into this story. The end result is gorgeous on screen, even to my pixel-blind eyes.

Although Edgar Wright was sitting RIGHT THERE in the cinema as I left the post-preview screening market research interview, there was something I just couldn’t bring myself to go up to him and say. So here it is:

“Edgar Wright, your television and film work has given me so much joy and will be forever embedded in my life. So much so, that a like, if not a love for ‘Spaced’ is an essential requirement for any boyfriends, past and future- I am completely incapable of sleeping with someone who hasn’t seen ‘Spaced’ and laughed like a fool with me at it.”

Ahem. While I can’t yet declare the same obsession for Scott Pilgrim Vs. the World, it has pretty much blown his previous films out of the water. The same amount of love and attention to tiny funny details has gone into the film that made ‘Spaced’ so infinitely re-watchable. If Edgar Wright does not become a very rich man there is something very wrong with the world’s film viewing public.

Rating: MMMM

Review of Disney’s return to traditional 2-D hand-drawn animation and to familiar fairytales, this new adventure based on the tale of ‘The Princess and the Frog’.

Director: Ron Clements, John Musker
Starring: (voices) Anika Noni Rose, Bruno Campos, Keith David, Oprah Winfrey
Running time: 97 mins

Disney’s latest fairytale adventure sees the House of Mouse return to their roots with a hand-drawn animated fantasy based on the well known tale, the story of a princess kissing a frog to find her prince. This incarnation of the story is set in New Orleans in the late 1920s and our heroine (and princess) is Tiana, a hardworking and stoic waitress who dreams of one day owning her own restaurant. She works two restaurant jobs to save enough money to purchase a property which she plans to revamp into “Tiana’s Place”. However, her life takes a new and different course at the arrival of the handsome and exotic Prince Naveen – who, after dabbling in the dark arts of voodoo is turned into a frog by the evil villain Facilier.  Before she knows it, Tiana finds herself  also transformed into a frog and she and Naveen are forced to begin a journey to make themselves human again.

From the get-go, The Princess and the Frog is a fun, dynamic and entertaining film. It has all the ingredients of the famed ‘Disney magic’, but has something that lifts it above the rest of the studio’s fairytale canon. Firstly, the film’s heroine Tiana is not only the first African-American Disney princess, but she is one of their few heroines who is NOT a completely passive female character. Tiana works hard to achieve and realise what she wants – which incidentally is NOT simply to marry the handsome prince of her dreams. She doesn’t believe in wishing for things, she knows that you have to strive for what you want in life, not wait for it to fall into your lap without your lifting a finger. And she does NOT need a man to swoop in and save her, she is capable of saving herself.

Secondly, the film’s romantic plot that builds between Naveen and Tiana is not the hackneyed (and frankly unhelpful and unrealistic) depiction of ‘love at first sight’, it is a mutual affection based on friendship, respect and love. Naveen is not the perfect dreamy Adonis put high on a pedestal, he has flaws enough himself and in the face of the inevitable happy ending, supports Tiana’s ambitions instead of forcing her to change (unlike Ariel’ staying human in The Little Mermaid). This realtionship dynamic comes as direct result of the film’s ‘road movie’ style direction – Tiana and Naveen must journey through the swamps of Louisiana in search of a cure to their amphibiousness and on this journey they begin to trust and learn from each other.

The Princess and the Frog has everything – the characters are likeable, fun and sympathetic (the trumpet playing alligator Louis and Cajun firefly Ray are both wonderful creations, the latter playing an astonishing part in the emotional tone of the film), the musical numbers are dynamic and entertaining, the film is warm, bright and original and boasts a lot of laughs, for both adults and children (some lines have real wit and there is a lot of subtle humour throughout the film). And for this critic, where the film succeeds most is in its pleasingly positive portrayal of girls, relationships and outlook on life. A beautiful and entertaining film. Well done Disney.

Rating: MMMM

Rating: MM

Review of James Cameron’s uber-blockbuster and long anticipated space adventure epic, Avatar.

Director: James Cameron
Starring: Sam Worthington, Sigourney Weaver, Giovanni Ribisi, Zoe Saldana, Stephen Lang, Michelle Rodriguez
Running time: 162mins

So, finally, after 10 years in the making and endless industry hype and speculation about the ‘pioneering technology’ behind James Cameron’s movie juggernaut, Avatar is finally with us. And is it worth the wait? Well, its sadly hard to tell. From the off, the visuals of the film are stunning and literally breathtaking in places, with sweeping and swooping camera angles presenting spectacular vistas onto the brave new world of Pandora. The creature design (while being at times somewhat laughable – some animals are just too weird to be convincing) is well produced, particularly the Na’avi people themselves, their skin and hair looking completely real. Similarly, the action sequences with their smoke, fire and explosions are also deployed with astonishing detail. If for nothing else, Cameron (or in fact Weta Digital, the effects house behind the Lord of the Rings trilogy) must be praised for the production value of Avatar – he has created an utterly real new world with exciting vegetation, wildlife and landscapes that need at least 4 pairs of eyes to really appreciate them.

However, the same cannot be said for the film as a whole. The first problem lies with the basic premise and plot of the film – one we have seen before countless times: indigenous population of resource-rich land is threatened by another greedy civilisation, one hell bent on taking the precious <insert valuable natural commodity here> from the native people. One member of the invading settlers becomes integrated within the native people (often becoming romantically involved with the most attractive female of the tribe), goes on an emotional and spiritual journey, eventually switching sides to fight against his old comrades – we all know the story, from films such as Dances With Wolves to Pocahontas. And this is perhaps the main fault with Avatar – the narrative trajectory is so familiar and predictable that for the most part the film is spent in anticipation of the next part of a story that we KNOW is coming. We know that Jake and Neytiri will fall in love 30 minutes before they do, we know that soon enough Jake will turn against his fellow marines – and this predictability has an intensely negative effect on one’s viewing experience, making it crushingly dull. Whole 10-20 minute sections of the film are completely needless, apparently there to enhance the audience’s engagement with the world of Pandora – with the result being the opposite. It must be said that with a more disciplined director and editor, a good 40 minutes could have been left on the cutting room floor, the probable result being a more dynamic and engaging film – parts are numbingly tedious, with an anticlimactic conclusion that comes 20 minutes too late.

Despite Cameron having successfully created an amazing and believable new world, the characters that inhabit it elicit little or no sympathy, even in their desperate hour of need. The sight of the tortured and homeless Na’avi people do not tug at the heartstrings the way that the hoards of Rohan women and children do in the final act of The Two Towers, and this has nothing to do with the Na’avi being strange blue alien creatures. The problem is posed by Avatar essentially lacking emotional depth and heart. For all the strained looks and pained faces of Jake, Neytiri and their tribespeople, it is hard to feel for them in the way the film suggests we do.

Cameron’s other major sin to be atoned for is his apalling script. The lines are clunky and stupid but their hackneyed sentiments are repeated, with most ‘one-liners’ being spoken twice or three times, effectively becoming very irritating mantras – “Get the hell outta there!!!” As with the predictable plot, the dialogue walks straight into pitfalls of cliche. Having said this, the actors do very well with the drivel they are given. Sigourney Weaver is as good as ever, as is Zoe Saldana as the beautiful Neytiri. Newcomer Sam Worthington is likeable enough in the leading man role of Jake Sully, but sadly lacks the charm and charisma needed to be convincing.

In conclusion, with all its promise, visual flair and attempts at being a ‘new film experience’ Avatar is disappointingly mediocre, demonstrating that looks alone do not make a good film. Despite its stunning surface, there is little underneath.

Rating: MM

Rating: MMMM

Review of new film from niche director Spike Jonze, his adaptation and big-screen realisation of one of the world’s most popular children’s books.

Director: Spike Jonze
Starring: Max Records, Catherine Keener, James Gandolfini, Catherine O’Hara, Forest Whitaker
Running time: 101 mins

Spike Jonze’s film, Where The Wild Things Are is under a lot of pressure, being the big-screen adaptation of Maurice Sendak’s 1963 picture-book of the same name, hailed as one of the most beloved children’s books of all time. But lovers of the book should have no fear as what Jonze has produced is an interesting, entertaining and thoroughly excellent piece of fantasy fare that while not necessarily following the book word for word (this is hardly surprising, given the length of the book and its limited word count), captures the essence and spirit of the source material. Jonze crafts a convincing and illuminating backstory for our hero Max, wearer of Wolf Pyjamas and soon to be king of all the Wild Things, introducing us to his mother (Catherine Keener) and hinting an element of dysfunctionality at play in the family unit – thus creating a believable and solid grounding for Max’s flight of fantasy and subsequent emotional journey.

A frustrated and alienated child, Max has a fight with his mother one evening and takes to the streets to escape his domestic troubles, perilously journeying by sea to a far away land of his imagination. For Max however (and the audience), this new world is completely real, presenting new joys and heartache not dissimilar to the ones he left behind. Once in the land of the Wild Things, Max stumbles upon some strange creatures with terrible teeth and terrible claws, most notably the statuesque Carol (voiced by Tony Soprano himself, James Gandolfini). The Wild Things, though wary of Max at first, soon accept him as a friend and elect him King, joining with him to build a massive structure where they can all live together (having destroyed their houses in a rather boisterous and violent game) as a rather unconventional and furry family group. However, as with the home environment that Max ran from, the Wild Things have their own personal problems and anxieties that hinder perfect social cohesion – Judith’s (Catherine O’Hara) constant downbeat mutterings paired with the possible romantic tension between Carol and KW (Lauren Ambrose) create a rather strained atmosphere between the Wild Things, which starts to effect Max’s role as King.

In Where The Wild Things Are, Spike Jonze has created a beautiful, enchanting film that explores the joys and tragedies of childhood convincingly, without condescension or pandering to purists. The story may have been altered a little, but those tweaks and changes only serve to make the spellbinding original story even more interesting and exciting. The acting from young Max Records is excellent, as are the voice talents who give the Wild Things their unique and charismatic voices, in particular James Gandolfini as Carol. In terms of cinematography, the film is also very well produced, the colour palette reflecting enough of the book’s illustrations with a few frames of lens flare that suit the tone of the piece (and link nicely with Max’s terrifying realisation that the sun will eventually die) very well. The Wild Things themselves, by virtue of being actors in big hairy suits, have a wonderfully physical presence, a masterstroke on the part of Jonze – a wonderfully palpable quality that CG creature design could not and probably never will be able to achieve.  Also notable and worthy of praise is the excellent soundtrack, provided by Carter Burwell with songs by Karen O (of indie rock band Yeah Yeah Yeahs fame) which perfectly suits the moments of joy, wonder and childlike fun presented in the film.

Where The Wild Things Are is entertaining, moving and beautifully breathtaking film about childhood, its joys, traumas and wonders – a must-see film of 2009.

Rating: MMMM

Review of the latest fantasy feast for the eyes from ‘maverick’ director Terry Gilliam.

Director: Terry Gilliam
Starring: Heath Ledger, Christopher Plummer, Lily Cole, Verne Troyer, Tom Waits, Andrew Garfield
Running time: 122 mins

Terry Gilliam is not known in the film industry for having the best luck with his projects; as documentary Lost in La Mancha proves, he has been unfortunate enough to have film sets and equipment float away following mass flooding on location. But Gilliam and show business as a whole was struck the heaviest of blows with the tragic death of Heath Ledger, the star of Gilliam’s latest film. The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus is a strange merging of worlds which sees a topsy-turvy olde worlde sideshow (the ‘imaginarium’) incongruously placed in contemporary London. Dr Parnassus (Christopher Plummer) is an aging monk, who with his daughter Valentina (Lily Cole) and other oddball characters, tries to scratch out a living by travelling around and ‘performing’ for the public. They are joined by Ledger’s Tony, who attempts to glamorise the show and generate more revenue for the group. From this point onwards, things spiral out of control (and comprehension), sending the characters into vivid and spectacular dimensions, requiring twice as many eyes to fully appreciate them.

It is sad to say that despite the legacy of wonderful performances that the late Heath Ledger leaves behind (Brokeback Mountain, The Dark Knight and even early work such as teen hit 10 Things I Hate About You), his final work on celluloid in Terry Gilliam’s latest film is not Ledger’s best. As Tony, the mysterious stranger who joins the oddball ‘family’ of a travelling sideshow, Ledger gives a bland and mediocre performance, a turn which lacks the spark he so clearly displayed in other roles. But Ledger can hardly be blamed for this, given that his character is so confusedly written, creating a role which (even in different circumstances) would be difficult for any actor to make sense of, even one with Ledger’s talent. Following his death, a trio of actors (and friends) Johnny Depp, Jude Law and Colin Farrell stepped in to play different aspects of Tony’s personality, a feature which works well and certainly adds to the character. This is surprising seeing as this element of the film is potentially problematic to say the least, but is instead one of the most successful parts of the film.

As for the rest of the cast, Christopher Plummer as the titular Parnassus is solid, as is newcomer Andrew Garfield as Anton. Music fans may be able to recognise Tom Waits in a bizarre turn as Mr Nick, the demonic foil to Parnassus. Verne Troyer of Austin Powers fame is similarly awkward, cracking wise with clichéd one-liners. However, plaudits must go to model-turned-actress Lily Cole who gives a surprisingly subtle and convincing performance as Parnassus’ daughter, the flame-haired Valentina, proving that she is much more than a doll-like face. But fundamentally, Gilliam’s fantasy opus is deeply flawed. Lord of the Rings director Peter Jackson once said that the key to great storytelling (and good filmmaking) is to strategically ask and answer a series of questions in the audience’s mind, and Gilliam, for all his wonderful ideas and creative talent fails to do this, leaving the audience asking more questions (arguably the location of any kind of plot structure) than the film is capable of answering. Instead of being taken on an adventure through breathtaking fantasy worlds, the audience is left floundering. The messy structure and lack of narrative rhythm make The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus a thoroughly strange experience – a visual masterpiece with a story that is virtually impossible to understand.

Gilliam’s moments of true genius (and these are many) are overshadowed by a sense of bewildering confusion. There is a certain amount of cruel irony in Tony’s speech to Parnassus, how he must meet the public half way between what they want and what he wishes to show them – if only Gilliam could live by his own character’s words. Once Gilliam marries his vision and creativity with well structured plot and narrative, we will surely have a masterpiece on our hands. Until that day comes however, we are left with a film that is as confusing as it is visually arresting.

Rating: MM

Director: Alex Proyas
Starring: Brandon Lee, Ernie Hudson, Rochelle Davis, Anna Thomson
Running time: 97mins

Simply put, The Crow is a revenge tragedy from the mid 1990s that is more famous for the tragic and untimely death of its star Brandon Lee (son of Bruce, killed accidentally by a faulty prop gun) than for the film itself. Based on James O’Barr’s original graphic novel of the same name, the film tells the story of Eric Draven, who rises from the dead a year later after he and his girlfriend were murdered (on Devil’s Night, the night preceding Halloween) to wreak revenge on their killers. Guided by a mysterious crow, Draven goes on a rampage of violence that boasts one grisly death after another, signing the bodies with his talisman’s winged outline. One by one he crosses them off his list, but is impeded along the way by the new resident crime lord who does not take kindly to the systematic slaughter of his associates.

The film draws on the gothic genre with references to Edgar Allen Poe and features a delicious show-down in a church, yet despite its dark tone and even darker atmosphere and palette, The Crow is essentially a story of love – a backstory of Draven and fiancée Shelly is told through flashback where they are painted beautifully as a couple very much in love, brutally murdered the day before they were to be married – there are touching and poetic moments throughout, including a scene where Draven tearfully retrieves his lover’s engagement ring from a white-trash pawn shop. The film also boasts an intriguing sub-plot in alienated young teen Sarah who turned to Shelly (when alive) as a surrogate parent after being more or less abandoned by her heroin addict mother.

Sadly, as with River Phoenix and his role as Chris Chambers in Stand By Me, the late Brandon Lee’s performance adds a further haunting element to an already dark film. Had he lived, Lee would arguably have built on the talent so clearly on display here. As Eric Draven, he gives a commanding performance with a great deal of presence and energy. The film is dedicated to him and his partner Eliza, and is a fitting tribute to a young actor so full of promise. Gothic, violent, dark and cool with a killer soundtrack to boot, The Crow is a cult hit that should rank among the best of graphic novel adaptations – and as the perfect Halloween film.

Review of the latest film of the Harry Potter franchise, sixth film Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince which sees Harry and Dumbledore unite to search into Voldemort’s past in an effort to discover secrets that will lead them to destroy him.

Director: David Yates
Starring: Daniel Radcliffe, Michael Gambon, Alan Rickman, Rupert Grint, Emma Watson
Running time: 153 mins

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince is the second film about the boy wizard to be directed by David Yates (his first outing in the franchise being film #5, Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix) with films #1 and #2 helmed by Chris Columbus, the third by Alfonso Cuaron and the fourth by Mike Newell. Interestingly, where the second film suffered with a lack of freshness by Columbus once more taking the reins, Half-Blood Prince also suffers.

But just where the film falls down seems on the surface hard to pinpoint. On the whole (with a few glaring exceptions) the performances are reasonably good, the production value and visual effects are faultless, the dialogue is acceptable and for those wishing to pick holes in the book-to-screen transition, there is little to criticise. Where the problem comes however, is in the film’s pace which lacks dynamism and any sense of rhythm. Some scenes concentrate heavily on the mystery surrounding the identity of the Half-Blood Prince (which Harry comes across in an old school textbook) while others neglect this part of the plot completely. Quidditch seems to feature heavily, which seems incongruous to the film’s advertised tone – the franchise getting darker as Voldemort’s power grows. It must be said that far too much of the film is given over to the pangs of teenage love and raging hormones – all of which are important elements in the source material but here take up far too many scenes.

Having said that the performances are fairly good, this is only true of the adult actors and a very small number of their younger counterparts. Daniel Radcliffe is as ever painfully hit-and-miss, with some scenes feeling cringingly awkward whereas others are fairly good (the scene involving the lucky potion Felix Felicis in particular) . In comparison, Jim Broadbent  is excellent as new Potions teacher Professor Horace Slughorn, as is Michael Gambon as the illustrious Albus Dumbledore. Rupert Grint continues to demonstrate brilliant comic timing and excellent performance skills in his reprisal of Ron Weasley. Sadly, as ever, Emma Watson struggles in her portrayal of Hermione Granger as she has done in the previous films. However, she fares better than Bonnie Wright (Ginny Weasley) who is extremely poor – her relationship and ‘blossoming romance’ with Harry withers on screen with a complete lack of chemistry. However, the two young actors as the young Tom Riddle (at ages 11 and 16 respectively), Hero Fiennes-Tiffin and Frank Dillane are superb, with the two performances maintaining a tension between sinister and eerie and a creepy seductiveness.

Other elements of the film are also good, the visual effects in particular – the inky thoughts tipping into the Pensieve are excellent, as is the fire wielded by Dumbledore near the film’s climax. However, there is an inescapable feeling of mediocrity running more or less throughout the entire film which cannot be evaded even by the aforementioned firy adventures of Harry and Dumbledore and their consequences. Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince is perhaps the weakest in the canon since the excellence of film number four – and sadly the curse of keeping the same director is set to continue with Yates at the helm of the franchise’s final instalments.

Rating: MMM

Review of Coraline first published in a May 2009 issue of Spark*, the newspaper of Reading University Students’ Union.

Director: Henry Selick
Starring (voices): Dakota Fanning, Teri Hatcher, Ian McShane
Running time: 100 mins

Given its excellent source material (based on Neil Gaiman’s widely acclaimed children’s book) and with The Nightmare Before Christmas director Henry Selick at the helm, it is easy to approach Coraline with high expectations, and gladly these are not at all misplaced. From its highly original and meticulously detailed opening title sequence to its well-paced closing scenes, Coraline is a thoroughly engaging and entertaining piece of gothic-tinged cinema for children. Having said this however, it must be said that in places, the film verges on being just slightly too creepy and sinister (arguably not surprising to those familiar with Gaiman’s work which often draws on elements of horror) to be appropriate for very young children, as there are jumps, shocks and certain details in some scenes which would not be out of place in the work of John Carpenter or early Sam Raimi. Also the general tone of the film is altogether more disturbing and unsettling for it to be recommended for a very young audience – in comparison with The Nightmare Before Christmas, Coraline is arguably much more disturbing. But the scare factor is just one of its many strengths.

The film boasts an excellent premise (to say more than very little of this would give away too much): a little girl discovers a doorway to another world and has to deal with the consequences when the two worlds she inhabits begin to collide. The film’s narrative and characterisation are very good, with Dakota Fanning being generally less irritating than usual as the voice of the eponymous heroine. Teri Hatcher does sterling work in the double role of Coraline’s Mother and ‘Other Mother’, as does Ian McShane as Mr Bobinsky. With Gaiman as co-screenwriter, it is no surprise that the script and storytelling is deftly handled and well paced. But it is truly in its visual style that Coraline excels. As previously mentioned, the opening sequence of stitching and textile work is fabulously detailed, as is the world in which the characters move – the light from Mrs Jones’ laptop on her face, the raindrops running down the windows and the eerie mist surrounding the house are just a few of the excellent visual subtleties at work in the film.

However, where director Henry Selick truly must be praised is in the stunning set-pieces which are nothing short of breathtaking (even more so as they have been achieved in stop-motion animation), inviting only a response of “wow” (this being only increased in 3D format, which for the purple tunnel connecting Coraline’s two worlds is well worth it). The garden scene in particular is nothing short of visually arresting, while the film’s climax involving a spider-web style netted sky and spiralling world is a sublime treat. With its highly original plot, visually stunning art direction, charming music and nice little touches here and there (Mrs Jones’ “I love mulch” mug, the piano that seemingly plays Coraline’s father), Coraline is a wonderfully entertaining, highly engaging animated noir that will leave you with a new-found creepy mistrust of dolls and buttons alike.

Rating: MMMM

Review of Twilight first published in January 2009 issue Spark*, the newspaper of Reading University Students’ Union.

Director: Catherine Hardwicke
Starring: Kristen Stewart, Robert Pattinson, Taylor Lautner, Peter Facinelli, Nikki Reed
Running time: 122 mins

Its the same old story: girl moves to new town, meets mysterious (and frightfully good-looking) boy, is fascinated by him, starts to fall in love, finds out he’s a vampire – oh no, wait. This is what Twilight essentially is, a teenage romance, where one of the couple happens to be a vampire. Seventeen year-old Bella Swan (Stewart) moves to the town of Forks, Washington to live with her father. There she meets the enigmatic Edward Cullen (Pattinson), to which there is more than meets the eye. The two share a mutual fascination with each other, however Bella soon learns that Edward is drawn to her by a deep yearning desire to drink her blood.

In the film’s characterisation of Edward, there is more of the ‘tortured soul’ of the vampire (first notably introduced on film by Neil Jordan’s Interview With the Vampire) as we see when Bella expresses her desire for Edward to turn her into a vampire (in order for them to be together), he responds by confessing his hatred for his kind, believing vampires to be “killers” and “monsters”
and wishing never to condemn Bella to a similar fate. The film deviates however, from conventional representations of vampirism by removing the hackneyed anti-vampire weapons of garlic, silver and sunlight, replacing these with “ripping them apart and burning the pieces” (this method is mentioned twice in dialogue and appears to be the only way to destroy the blood-suckers) Sunlight, the age-old bane of the vampire  has the effect of displaying Edward’s skin in all its iridescent glory and therefore bright sunny days are avoided by him and his family in order to remain inconspicuous. The scene where Bella and Edward lie on the forest floor, with Edward’s skin shining and glowing however, (despite purists’ argument that the moment remains faithful to Meyer’s novel) feels forced and artificial – the tinkling shimmering sound effects adding to the scene’s embarrassment.

Coming to Twilight with a knowledge of director Catherine Hardwicke’s previous film Thirteen, you could be forgiven for expecting a similar amount of adolescent sexual indulgence, given Twilight’s subject matter of vampirism. This is sadly absent, with the audience (as was evident from the mutterings of fellow cinema-goers) really wondering when anything of that nature was going to happen. Apparently we have to wait for further films in the franchise for anything remotely sexy to happen between Bella and Edward.

But when the films are as fun as this, I don’t mind waiting. The effects, action and wire-work are good, even if the jumping and flying around at times isn’t exactly subtle. The film’s principle stars are also very good, Stewart in particular giving depth to a role which in the hands of another actress could descend into two hours of looking nervous and tense. Luckily, her performance saves Bella from falling into the damsel-in-distress cliché. Bella is subsequently conveyed as a strong, intelligent young woman. In his early scenes, overnight heartthrob sensation Robert Pattinson (in his biggest role to date) seems to struggle, but as the film progresses he find his feet, giving a convincing performance and looking achingly gorgeous in the process – the moment where he steps out of his car (a Volvo, sadly) and puts on his Ray-Ban Wayfarers with a cheeky grin on his face is worth the ticket price alone.

Rating: MMMM

Rating: MM

Review of Igor first published in an October 2008 issue Spark*, the newspaper of Reading University Students’ Union.

Director: Anthony Leonidas
Starring: (voices)  John Cusack, Steve Buscemi, Sean Hayes
Running time: 87 mins

In the town of ‘Malaria’, the race of hunchbacked ‘igors’ are ridiculed as deformed and worthless beings, enslaved as assistants to the ‘evil scientists’ (apparently in abundance in this town) and forced to “pull the switch!” for their various malevolent inventions. One of these poor creatures is the eponymous Igor (John Cusack), the dutiful servant to the evil Dr Glickenstein (John Cleese) who doesn’t seem to fit the ‘evil’ cultural work ethic that abounds in Malaria. Naturally good-hearted Igor is accompanied by friends that he himself has created (in secret obviously), Scamper the immortal rabbit (a brilliant Steve Buscemi) and ‘Brain’ (the often hit-and-miss Sean Hayes). Together with these two trusty sidekicks, Igor embarks on a perilous adventure involving a potential coup-d’état, physics (and chemistry and biology) defying antics and saving the day right at the end.

In terms of voice talent, the cast is pretty impressive, ranging from A-listers John Cusack and Jay Leno to more offbeat personalities such as Eddie Izzard (wonderfully camp and gothed up) and John Cleese. Carving sympathetic, developed characters from essentially pixellated walking clichés must be a hard task and the actors pull it off well.

However, as an overall cinematic experience, Igor just can’t get past its overriding sense of formula. As someone who actually really likes childrens’ films (Horton Hears A Who! is clearly one of the best films of 2008!) and a generous helping of gothic-tinged cinema, Igor seemed like the perfect film for me. Sadly though, I couldn’t help but feel that it was punching above its weight, desperately trying to aim as high as Wall.E for entertainment value and engagement with the adults in the audience. However, Igor does in places boast a pretty funky jazz style soundtrack (making a great contrast with the film’s gothic noir look) and some really wonderful references and homages to Frankenstein. All in all, a fun night out for kids at Halloween, but for all its Tim Burtonesque influences, Nightmare Before Christmas this isn’t.

Rating: MM