Wes Anderson is a very talented director. He seems to operate outside of Hollywood, but at the same time, exist so completely within it. His films are not independent in the traditional sense, but he has the status as one of the truest auteur filmmakers working today. His movies are also instantly identifiable as his having style, movement, and tone, that is totally his own. But I’m not huge on his movies. I always compare him to ballet, I know there is real talent going on, but I just can’t enjoy it that much. I get bored easily in Anderson’s world.
Fantastic Mr. Fox is more of the same. It was cute and the animation was fun, almost nostalgic, but it didn’t deliver as a great film for children or adults. This is film is based on the 1970 book written by the great Roald Dahl. Most great storytellers at one time or another sit down and read Roald Dahl’s novels, picture them in their minds eye and dream of a world so wonderfully crafted by the brilliant writer. Wes Anderson’s adaptation is not necessary bad, it just isn’t essential. James and the Giant Peach, by Henry Selick (who was also closely involved with this film), is essential. The two Charlie and the Chocolate factory are bland. Fantastic Mr. Fox probably exist somewhere in between.
The film follows Mr. Fox and his wife Felicity voiced by George Clooney and Meryl Streep, respectively. Mr. Fox loves stealing chickens, you could almost say he’s addicted, but his wife wants a better and safer life. He regretfully resigns to a quiet life in tree adjacent to three large facilities, which Mr. Fox subsequently decides to steal from. The plot is simple and the viewers know instantly that these farmers are not going to be happy about being stolen from. Notable voice overs also include Billy Murray, Michael Gambon, and Jason Schwartzman. I must mention that George Clooney once again proves that he is a wonderful actor, despite providing merely a voice-over. That is not to belittle voice over artists, but somehow Clooney was able to capture his charming, sarcastic swagger in the Mr. Fox character. If someone made a handsome little George Clooney fox, it might be this character.
Another thing to consider with every film is how much it costs. Not in judging how good it is, but because budget and revenue are the most important part of Hollywood. If a great film is expensive and does poorly, executives consider it a failure. Mr. Fox is not great and is budgeted at 30 million according to Wikipedia. It has only grossed 23 million dollars worldwide as of November 29th 2009. Now, I don’t know how this movie cost 30 million dollars, probably the actors and special effects you’d say. Well, Sin City is all special effects and all stars. That only cost ten million dollars more.
I further read on Rotten Tomato that Wes Anderson choose not to record in a studio, but instead said in a Rotten Tomatoes interview that “For this film we recorded all the voices on locations. We went out in a forest, we went in an attic, we went in a stable. We went underground for some things. There was a great spontaneity in the recordings because of that, I think.” Doesn’t that cost more money than a studio? I’m not sure, but I have to imagine it does. This film is okay and should be credited for its weird, almost antiquated animation. However, if you really want to see a very good film for all ages go out and see Where the Wild things.
Release Date: November 2009
Collin Says: C+
You’ll Say: C+
By Collin, on November 21st, 2009
The Twilight Saga: New Moon
There is good stuff somewhere in this movie. There really is. But why do females love this story so much? The central character is and lives only tooserve and worship her protectors. How strange. It could even be called misogynistic. The Twilight movies are curious. I’d watched the “Today Show” as they wheeled out Robert Pattinson and Taylor Lautner in front of screaming female fans.
These movies/books mean a lot to these girls/women. I made sure to catch a screening at a packed theater. Girls screamed and moaned as Edward Cullen, played by Pattinson, as he first enters the screen in slow-mo. It is a ludicrous scene, but it got a reaction. They screamed and uttered, “Oh my god” when Jacob Black, played by Lautner, disrobes to show his six-pack.
Now on a quick side-note, I almost echoed the oh my gods considering that Lautner looked like a little annoying pussy in the first film. I quickly dismissed him as a pathetic side character. Lautner explained that they were shopping for someone who didn’t look like a wussy adolescent for the sequels. He quickly put on thirty pounds of muscle, grabbed back his role, and subsequently became a sexual icon. Doing so at only sixteen, I’m impressed with such audacious behavior.
Anyway, movie reviews of films like this are tricky. Most of the story’s fans are going to show up anyway. What about the other five percent of people looking to catch a movie this weekend? Well, go to Precious would be my first thought. But if not, well, check this out.
It isn’t good, but there is definitely something about it. Something that taps deep into female sexuality. I think it is almost anthropological. I’d always wondered why vampires appealed so much to women. Who would want a dead penis inside them? When I listened closely to New Moon, I think I heard the word “protect” at least a dozen times. I also heard a woman on the radio explaining that a male vampire’s ability to “protect her against anything” made the idea of them sexually appealing. Stewart plays Belle who is always running from danger but is constantly protected from harm. It is also important to mention that Stewart really keeps these movies from being really bad. She gives her character an emotional vulnerability that resonates with both male and females. I think every woman has felt like her and every man has desired to comfort a girl like her. That might be what makes the movie work outside its fan-base.
There is a plot summary in here somewhere, but what really is the point? Yes, Edward tells Belle to piss off…again. Yes, Jacob is a werewolf. And yes there is trouble in vampire paradise at the end. A turning-point in the film is, of course, that Jacob is a werewolf. I don’t know how people get away with just ruining this element of the movie by including it in the trailer, as well as press-talks. It is supposed to a be a genuine surprise. The film might have been boosted to good if this actually shocked anyone. I can only guess they have to include it in the trailer because the rest of the film is a bit of a bore.
It might sound like I’m dissing this movie and maybe I am. Critics saying its bad really isn’t stopping anyone. I kind of like the two movies on some kind of bizarre level I can’t explain. Twilight movies are traditional fairy tales that just happen to be about vampires. It is kind of fun.
Let me first say how much I respected the trailer for 2012. The trailer that was shown in theaters at least. It had very little talking and gave very little information, aside from the fact that Earth would be destroyed in many ways. The trailer for 2012 was practically just a montage of CGI fueled mass destruction, the majority of which was focused on Jackson Curtis (John Cusack) narrowly escaping the collapse of LA in an airplane. That trailer was one of the most honest ones I have ever seen.
That being said, 2012 fully delivers as a disaster movie. The destruction of LA and Yellowstone Park are some of the best special effects I have ever seen. The scenes are also intense and exciting. There are many other scenes of destruction, all of which are done well, but I feel LA and Yellowstone are the crowning achievements of this film. Normally, like with director Roland Emmerich’s other disaster film The Day After Tomorrow, I can tolerate a movie with excellent action/special effects even if the plot/characters are ridiculous. However, I am happy to report that with 2012 I didn’t have to just tolerate the story because it was actually not bad.
The plot follows the normal rag tag group of survivors (mainly a split family) as they escape disaster after disaster trying to reach China; where humanity’s salvation depends on giant arks that would embarrass the Titanic. There is plenty of interesting yet disposable side characters, ranging from kooky conspiracy nut (Woody Harrelson) to pure hearted geologist (Chiwetel Ejiofor). The movie stays simple in terms of plot, which works because lets face it, if Earth were crumbling survival would be the only task at hand. There’s some light thematic material, which basically boils down to “do the right thing always” but it’s handled decent enough.
Roland Emmerich is, and will likely always be, a B movie director with A level spectacle. Sometimes he goes below the grade (the embarrassing 10,000B.C.) and sometimes he goes above (the semi-masterpiece The Patriot). With 2012, Emmerich has crafted a B movie that spits on all other B movies of its ilk.
Wes Anderson is a very talented director. He seems to operate outside of Hollywood, but at the same time, exist so completely within it. His films are not independent in the traditional sense, but he has the status as one of the truest auteur filmmakers working today. His movies are also instantly identifiable as his having style, movement, and tone, that is totally his own. But I’m not huge on his movies. I always compare him to ballet, I know there is real talent going on, but I just can’t enjoy it that much. I get bored easily in Anderson’s world.
Recent Comments