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: MMMM

Review of latest animated children’s adventure fantasy from the Japanese anime maestro, Hayao Miyazaki – the story of a little fish who wishes to be a little girl.

Director: Hayao Miyazaki
Starring: (voices) Noah Cyrus, Frankie Jonas, Tina Fey, Liam Neeson, Cate Blanchett
Running time: 101 mins

Inspired by Disney’s animated classic A Little Mermaid, Hayao Miyazaki’s latest feature Ponyo is a fantasy adventure that like its muse, explores worlds both above and below the sea. Miyazaki’s tale is the story of Sosuke (voiced by Frankie Jonas, younger brother of squeaky-clean teen sensations The Jonas Brothers), a little boy who lives with his mother (Tina Fey) in a small cliff-top house by the sea. Sosuke’s father (Matt Damon) is a ship captain who is rarely at home, leaving Sosuke’s mother to run the household by herself.

One day, a lonely Sosuke is paddling in the shallows of a cove near his home when he comes upon what appears to be a little red goldfish. Playing with it happily, Sosuke names the fish Ponyo and makes her his pet. However, Ponyo’s father, marine wizard king Fujimoto (Liam Neeson) wishes to return his daughter to her underwater home – to ‘restore the balnce of nature’, which has been sent off kilter by Ponyo’s fraternisation with humans.

As with most of the Miyazaki canon, the enjoyment of Ponyo rests entirely in the audience’s suspense of disbelief – in this particular tale one must be willing to accept that a goldfish can turn into a girl and that said transformation is readily accepted by the protagonists. This kind of acceptance and engagement with the fantastic will be familiar to Miyazaki fans but may be something newcomers find hard to swallow. But swallow you undoubtedly will – the film is so beautiful, charming and unashamedly lovely that you really will believe a man can fly (or at least in this case, a fish can turn into a girl). As ever, Miyazaki presents a wonderful dramatic world, both convincingly natural and ethereal at times, using a bright and dazzling palette to create dreamy seascapes and fantastical creatures – the entity of Ponyo’s mother inparticular is nothing short of breathtaking, presenting a popular trope in Miyazaki’s work, the spirit world, seen previously in features such as Spirited Away and My Neighbour Totoro. Indeed, Ponyo draws on much in Totoro, both in theme, tone and age-range – Ponyo is clearly meant for a younger audience than Spirited Away or Princess Mononoke.

Much more satisfying than Miyazaki’s previous film, Howl’s Moving Castle, Ponyo is a gentle, beautiful story that is colourful, exciting, moving and entertaining. A sheer joy that proves that traditional hand-drawn 2D animation is still very much alive.

Rating: MMMM

Rating:

From celebrated director Jane Campion comes a biopic of nineteenth century Romantic poet John Keats, exploring his romance with Miss Fanny Brawne, beginning in 1818.

Director: Jane Campion
Starring: Abbie Cornish, Ben Whishaw, Kerry Fox, Paul Schneider
Running time: 119 mins approx.

Critically acclaimed for her early 90s period drama The Piano, New Zealand filmmaker Jane Campion has created a beautiful and heartbreaking film in her latest effort, Bright Star. Exploring the life of John Keats (Ben Whishaw) and his doomed love affair with Fanny Brawne (Abbie Cornish), the film is beautifully shot – Campion makes excellent use of colours, textures and lighting to a wonderfully romantic effect. One scene in particular in which Fanny reads one Keats’ love letters takes place in a wooded sea of violet-hued bluebells, the bright purples and swathes of green perfectly contrasting each other. Throughout the film Campion uses her pastoral setting very well, utilising the landscape, trees, woods and flowers to create a believable and stunning world for the characters to fall in love in.

And fall in love they surely do. After an initially frosty first meeting, the feisty Fanny Brawne enlists Keats to teach her about poetry and language. At first, Fanny is not much enamoured by the young poet but this feeling changes rapidly after she notices Keats’ anxiety and affection for his brother who lies seriously ill. The two then meet with quickening frequency and find themselves entangled in a passionate love affair that sets the wider community gossiping. However, with Keats’ own health in serious speedy decline, a dark shadow is cast over the lovers’ affair, one that even the strongest love cannot overcome.

The gentle and tragic story of Bright Star is very well directed with the exception of a few scenes which are too languorous – it appears that Campion was aiming to create moods of tension and repressed passion but instead these scenes simply run out of steam.

Consequently the second act is slow and needs more dynamism and drama to keep the film interesting. However, in terms of acting, Bright Star certainly excels. Abbie Cornish is very good as the headstrong Fanny Brawne, simultaneously eliciting sympathy whilst not being an instantly likeable lead heroine. However, as her love for Keats blossoms, so does our fondness for her, to the point that her sorrow in the film’s tragic conclusion is heartbreaking. Cornish’s performance in this particular scene is excellent – Cornish presents Fanny feeling the emotional pain physically and with an arresting intensity.

As Keats himself, Ben Whishaw is haunting, having a suitably poetic quality about him. He is at all times thoroughly convincing as the young poet, being attractive, quiet and possessing a certain beautiful melancholic air. The only problem with Whishaw’s portrayal of Keats is that the character could at times do with some angry passion to measure the tender embraces and pained looks that seem to dominate his relationship with Fanny.

Bright Star is a beautiful, gentle and tragic romance that combines wonderful production design with good storytelling to haunting effect.

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

Rating: MMMM

Review of animated post-apocalypse noir 9, directed by Shane Acker and produced by Tim Burton and Timur Bekmambetov.

Director: Shane Acker
Starring: (voices) Elijah Wood, John C. Reilly, Jennifer Connelly, Christopher Plummer
Running time: 79 mins

9 is set in the wastelands of a post-apocalyptic world, following a war between humans and machines. With human life all but extinguished on earth, the only survivors are the numbered cloth bag characters and sinister red lens-eyed beasts, which have more in common with the Terminator than our soft-bodied heroes.

The film opens with a confused 9 (Elijah Wood) apparently lost in the wilderness of what used to be a city. He happens upon fellow cloth-bag 2, who is something of an inventor, managing to fix 9’s broken voice box. The pair are then joined by half-blind 5 (John C. Reilly) but their meeting is cut painfully short by the arrival of the ‘cat beast’, a devilish mechanical feline who captures 2 and carries him off to its lair. What follows is a daring rescue attempt which accidentally brings about the reawakening of the huge machine ‘brain’ which appears hell bent on wiping out every last trace of life on earth. For an animated film with characters that are undeniably cute (their huge Bambi eyes are the clincher), 9 is in no way another computerised story for children.

Packed with moments that are unsettling, frightening and challenging, 9 cements itself as animated fare for adults, to the film’s credit – there are enough genuine horror devices to push the film’s 12A rating, one of which is a horrible dementor’s kiss type sequence that is truly disturbing. The film’s premise and story is highly original and fresh, told with clever flashback sequences that are part of the action and not merely exposition for its own sake. 9 also fundamentally has good storytelling, an element that more filmmakers should prioritise a la Andrew Lasseter and his team at Pixar. Acker presents the characters as rounded and unique (despite being numbered, not named) with neat touches such as 6’s striped asylum-like clothing linking his madman persona and a scene in which fat stooge 8 apparently uses a magnet to get high.

The voice talent is good, with an impressive set of actors enlisted to provide the dialogue, including Christopher Plummer as the aging 1 and Jennifer Connelly as the high-kicking 7. Yet the actors are given a script of such weakness that its cliché ridden holes threaten to bring down a film of such promise. The dialogue is terrible, composed of one hackneyed expression after another, which is disappointing indeed as the premise and plot of the film is original and fresh. However, the film is saved by its unique visual style and its wonderfully endearing cloth bag characters, a clever meeting of the organic and artificial, with their soft bodies and metal parts. Overall, 9 is a well paced, well structured piece of sci-fi animation, beautifully told with moments of terror and poignancy. Great stuff.

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

Review of the adaptation of  Roald Dahl’s children’s book Fantastic Mr. Fox which opened the 53rd London Film Festival on 14th October 2009.

Director: Wes Anderson
Starring: George Clooney, Meryl Streep, Bill Murray, Jason Schwartzman, Willem Dafoe, Owen Wilson
Running time: 87 mins

Fantastic Mr. Fox marks the mainstream breakthrough for director Wes Anderson, more famed for low-key cult hits such as Rushmore and The Royal Tenenbaums. In this adaptation of Roald Dahl’s beloved children’s book of the same name,  Anderson brings his usual eccentric, quirky style to the source material, delivering a film that succeeds on almost every level.

George Clooney voices the clever and charming newspaper columnist Mr Fox, who dreams of him and his family moving up in the world, quite literally, from an underground foxhole to a home inside a tree. Here he enlists help from real estate solicitor Mr Badger (voiced by Bill Murray) and subsequently settles into a lovely new home with wife Felicity (Meryl Streep), son Ash (Jason Schwartzman of Rushmore) and prodigy nephew Kristofferson (Eric Chase Anderson). However, after relocating the family to new residence, Mr Fox nostalgically remembers his thieving days as a professional poacher and pines for the life of danger and excitement he once led. Consequently, our hero hatches a plan for “one last big job”, aided in part by Kylie the possum to steal from the “nastiest, meanest farmers in the valley”, Boggis, Bunce and Bean. However, one heist leads to another and pretty soon Mr Fox, his family and neighbours land themselves in one big heap of trouble.

From the get-go, Wes Anderson’s Fantastic Mr. Fox is a fast-paced, charming and entertaining feast for the eyes and the heart. Visually stunning, the stop-motion animation used to create the world of the film and its inhabitants is flawless, perfectly capturing every nuance of the story (and the small changes in plot that Anderson has neatly added). In particular, the scene in which Mr Fox fights with the evil Rat (Willem Dafoe) is amazing (with the characters’ silhouettes illuminated by intermittent flashes of lightning), as is a shared moment between Mr and Mrs Fox in front of a waterfall. It is a testament to the charm of the film that where the animation could seem contrived and somewhat dodgy, there are instead endearing eccentricities – smoke being created from what appears to be a billowing mass of grey cotton wool.

Packed full of great comedy hi-jinks, character moments (where Owen Wilson’s Coach Skip explains the rules of cricket/rounders/baseball hybrid sport ‘whack bat’ is just priceless) and genuinely witty one liners, Fantastic Mr. Fox has all the ingredients of a truly excellent and entertaining film. The only minor drawbacks for this critic are the intertitles which appear throughout the film, far too fast for young children to be able to read in time and which more importantly, announce moments of drama which would be better left to the surprise of the audience. Sadly the use of these titles sells some moments of conflict and suspense rather short, and key set-pieces lose both their impact and poignancy.

However, this is a small price to pay in an otherwise perfect film. The voice talent is exceptional, the animation and visual style is great, the dialogue is superb. Those put off by the film apparently being ‘for kids’, for shame. Fantastic Mr. Fox is film that is (unashamed use of the pun) truly fantastic, and fantastic for all.

Rating: MMMM+

Reposting of my review of the new Disney-Pixar film Up, which I saw in June at Glastonbury Festival in the Pilton Palais cinema tent.

Director: Pete Docter, Bob Peterson
Starring: (voices) Edward Asner, Christopher Plummer, Jordan Nagai
Running time: 96mins

Up follows grumpy old-age-pensioner Carl Fredricksen following a life-long dream to visit South America, inadvertently bringing a new friend with him, in the form of the eager to help Russell – an 8 year old boy intent on helping Mr Fredricksen in order for him to gain his ‘assisting the elderly’ explorer scout badge. However, it is not the South American adventure section of the film which displays the usual Pixar magic; the portions of the film which take place in Mr Fredricksen and Russell’s home town seem to have a different quality to the rest.

The first meeting of Mr Fredricksen and his future wife Ellie is very well conceived and scripted with touches of physical comedy and charming characterisation – character development which is enhanced by a wonderful montage of Carl and Ellie’s life together (the couple’s families seated on either side of the church at their wedding is fantastic) from childhood sweethearts to elderly couple. This set-piece is heartbreaking, handling the highs and lows of their life with delicacy. Everything about Up’s presentation of the Carl-Ellie relationship is charming and delightful whilst never becoming saccharine-soaked and overly sentimental. Sadly as Ellie dies, Carl becomes a slightly bitter and grumpy old man, but remains endearing and likeable. He does typical old-person things with a familiar dislike of outside help (namely the ever-eager Russell and the prospect of living in a retirement home) which magically seem to maintain an element of freshness; Up demonstrates that characterisation can be thorough and well developed even with such limited running time.

As the action moves to South America (courtesy of the thousands of balloons attached to Mr Fredricksen’s house) the tone of the film shifts also, moving away from sweet and gentle and becomes more of a buddy comedy/road movie with the bickering Mr Fredricksen and Russell making an engaging (albeit slightly odd) pair – the sequences in which they pull the house along by a tether rope are particularly good. As the pair cross continents they meet an exotic wild bird which Russell names Kevin (despite later discovering Kevin to be a female with a number of baby Kevins) and a number of talking dogs – luckily these characters escape the usual Disney talking-animal schtick by ingenious collar devices which project what they are thinking through a speaker, a device which allows for some wonderful comedy, with the evil canine leader apparently having a voice hilariously incongruous to his stature and appearance. That the collars project what the dogs are thinking and not what they are saying means that with their ‘dialogue’ come random outbursts of typical dog behaviour, namely shouts of “SQUIRREL!!!” which are priceless.

With the film’s climactic final act come some excellent action sequences, involving planes and high-altitude antics all of which are well executed and visually impressive. However, as with the the early parts of the film, Up’s character-driven scenes steal the film, with the closing moments belonging to the now firm friendship between Mr Fredricksen and Russell. In all, Up is highly entertaining animated fun with a lot of heart and bags of charm.

Rating: MMMM