Fantastic Mr. Fox

Fantastic Mr. Fox is the latest film from Wes Anderson. It’s an animated film in the stop motion style that fans of Wallace and Gromit will find familiar, although Mr. Anderson brings his own tone and feel to the style that make this film unique.

I’ll summarize the plot by simply saying that Mr. Fox has a conflict with some local farmers. But what makes this film so enjoyable, and it is enjoyable, are the characters. Like all of Wes Anderson’s characters these are flawed, eccentric, and wonderful. They come to life through their eccentricities and you can’t help but be fascinated by their variety. Their happiness and sadness and anger and confusion are all palpable elements of their existence and they recognize all of these things as part of themselves. They aren’t one dimensional in the least.

The look of the film is, as I’ve described, a style of stop motion animation. It’s a little clunky in places, although that brings with it its own pleasures in a world where computer graphics are so hyper sophisticated that they often hide inferior storytelling. But, clunkiness aside, there are places in the film that are quite beautiful and others that are really energetic and compelling.

George Clooney is the perfect voice for Mr. Fox and Meryl Streep fits right in as Mrs. Fox. I believe my favorite character was Ash, the Foxes son, as voiced by Jason Schwartzman, one of Mr. Anderson’s go to actors. I found myself laughing and smiling nearly every moment he was onscreen.

I think this movie is an example of a movie that adults will love, and kids will enjoy as well, certainly more than Where the Wild Things Are, which seemed more approachable for adults with fond memories of childhood than for kids themselves.

I don’t expect this to become a huge blockbuster, but I think it deserves some attention, and I hope it does well at the box office. I think those who go to see it will enjoy themselves and I’d like to see more movies like this made; where as much time is spent on character and story as is on flash and special effects.

Drag Me to Hell

We just got home from seeing Drag Me to Hell at the movies. This is Sam Raimi’s return to the horror genre, and I thought it was a lot of fun.

Marcella and I don’t see too many horror movies, but since this was Raimi we thought we’d give it a go. It might surprise you to hear that it is rated PG-13 and not something harder. There isn’t any nudity in it, the violence is exaggerated and at some points even ridiculous, and the gore is gross-out gore, not bloody grim realistic gore. That’s not to say there aren’t a few splashes of blood thrown around for good measure. Still, it is almost a good-old-fashioned horror movie.

The premise is that a young loan officer named Christine, played by Alison Lohman, makes the unfortunate decision to turn down a loan request for an old gypsy woman, who then curses her with a curse that will result in her being dragged to hell in three days if she can’t find a way to reverse it. In the meantime the terror and frights increase in severity with each day as Christine struggles and despairs of finding a way free of the curse before being taken to hell.

The action—terror—attack sequences are shot with the usual frenzied-ness that is expected from a Sam Raimi film. There are plenty of places in the film where you know something is about to happen and you tense in anticipation, and there are the usual feints and surprises where he lets you off the hook for a moment and then turns the tables on you and makes you jump in your seat a few beats later.

He uses sound, in particular, to build and enhance the sense of dread and fright. I will say that I felt that the theater we watched it in may have cranked the sound a notch too loud. There were a couple of moments where I wasn’t just startled, but maybe annoyed by the sudden horrendous clamoring in the auditorium. Still, it gave the movie a fun thrill-ride kind of feel.

Without spoiling anything I will say that the “heroine” of the movie isn’t always above reproach. Her ambition gets her into the fix she finds herself in, and her fear and desperation lead her to take some less than noble actions that make you wonder at points whether she doesn’t deserve the curse she’s found herself stuck with. But then the film surprises you and addresses that too.

I recommend it. The film has no pretensions of being anything other than what it is, which is a straight-forward make you jump in your seat horror movie. You will laugh a little, and cheer a little, and gag a little, and you will definitely twitch a muscle or two no matter how hard you try not to. Give it a go if you are into this sort of thing.

Oscars: 81st Annual Academy Awards

Usually by this time I would have posted a couple of blog entries regarding the Oscars. At the very least I would have posted a list of the nominees and then a followup post with my predictions, but I’m running kind of late this year, and I’ve seen very few of the actual big contenders, although I have seen a few.

I’m not going to repost the list of nominees, but if you want to see them go here.

So, in quick form here are a few of my thoughts:

Actor in a Leading Role:
I think Mickey Rourke has the momentum. Unfortunately I haven’t seen the film. In fact, I’ve only seen one of the films represented in this category. The dark horse that it might be fun to see win is Richard Jenkins. One of those guys you’ve seen a million times, but never knew by name. I’ve heard it’s a terrific performance.

Actor in a Supporting Role:
Heath Ledger has a deserved nod, and I’m sure the sympathy vote. There’s a good chance he’ll win. The fun pick would by Robert Downey Jr. for Tropic Thunder.

Actress in a Leading Role:
Kate Winslet is my girl and she seems to be the one to beat. I’ve been a fan for a long time and she may finally pull it off. If someone other than Winslet is to win I would pick Anne Hathaway. Rachel Getting Married was a superb film and her performance was on the money.

Actress in a Supporting Role:
This is a tough category. I think both Amy Adams and Marisa Tomei have some momentum, but I might like to see Penélope Cruz go home with the Oscar. I don’t have a clear picture of this category however.

Animated Feature Film:
I expect Wall-E has this one locked up.

Cinematography:
I’m not sure I can call this. This might be a category where something like The Curious Case of Benjamin Button might get some recognition. I wasn’t a big fan of the film, but it did have some great technical work.

Directing:
Here is where Slumdog Millionaire starts to assert its popularity. I loved this film.

Best Picture:
Also goes to Slumdog Millionaire.

Well, those are the only categories I’ve got any comment at all for. We’ll see how things actually play out tonight. Don’t miss the show.

SlumDog Millionaire

Slumdog Millionaire is the latest film by director Danny Boyle with whom I am becoming more and more impressed. In this movie we are first introduced to a young man who is on the verge of becoming rich on the Indian version of “Who Wants to be a Millionaire”? Over the course of the film we are then shown sequences from his earlier childhood with his brother and another young friend that explain how he knows the answers to the questions he is being asked on the game show.

I found the most fascinating aspect of this film to be the portrayal of lives in poverty in India. As children these kids have an energy and a joy that they can’t help but let shine through, and yet you the viewer become so aware of just what a razor’s edge they walk as they are always on the brink of hunger or illness or violence.

The children are played by different actors and actresses at different ages, but all of them give terrific performances. As the movie alternates between the present and the past, the faces of the young actors at different ages become a seamless tapestry of three lives intertwined over time and wholly believable.

Things to note: there is violence perpetrated against children and adults in this film. These kids have it hard and they don’t always make it through without a scratch, and sometimes they are the perpetrators of violence against others.

Ultimately though the film seems to be about hope and determination and love…and I was inspired. This is a great movie. Check it out if you get the chance.

Rachel Getting Married

Rachel Getting Married is not a comedy.

Perhaps that’s a funny way to start a review, but I understand there has been some representation of it as such in the media. At the screening I attended there was an overhead conversation where somebody said, “I thought this was a comedy.” Well, no, it isn’t.

Rachel Getting Married is the story of a family in the days leading up to the marriage of one of their daughters. Rachel, the bride, is played by Rosemarie DeWitt. The other sister, Kym, is played by Anne Hathaway, and she is being let out of rehab just prior to rehearsal for the wedding.

As soon as Kym arrives home it becomes instantly clear that there are longstanding issues, and battles between the sisters and the rest of their friends and families. This is really the story of the whole family although the central figure is Kym as she moves from room to room and family member to family member trying to re-integrate herself into the thick of things, and simultaneously resenting the need to re-integrate. And at the same time the rest of the family tries to cope with the disruption that Kym represents to their lives.

There are arguments, hugs and kisses, and awkward moments aplenty to follow, but it soon becomes clear that there is one particular tragedy that everyone is dancing around and avoiding that eventually reveals itself. This tragedy is one of the central events in the lives of the characters we are now watching and their relationships with each other gravitate around this event.

Despite this tragedy, however, there is much love. I really cared for this family. They are a unique film family and yet completely recognizable. There is music constantly echoing down the hallways of their home, and even in the midst of the worst fights and arguments there is a feeling of love that permeates the home. This isn’t your typical hollywood film family and the movie was that much more touching because of it.

If I have one complaint about the movie it is a technical one. There are occasional scenes in the movie where a handheld camera is used and in a few instances I felt that the shaky, jerky camera work became distracting and pulled me out of the scene. Note that this wasn’t the overall effect of the movie, it was only in a couple scenes.

At the end of the film I was surprised to note that the director was Jonathan Demme. I hadn’t been aware of that going into the film. He is probably most recognized for directing Philadelphia and Silence of the Lambs, but I honestly couldn’t think of anything he had done recently. I was pleased to see that he was out there with this film that I felt to be more intimate than some of his previous work. It’s always nice to see a good director doing something a little different, and still growing and stretching.

The performances throughout the film are uniformly excellent. Anne Hathaway is getting the most attention, but there is certainly no need to stop at just her when looking for outstanding performances.

This is a terrific, small, intimate movie about people and a place that feels very real, and relationships that are genuinely touching. Highly recommended if you are looking for something different from typical overblown Hollywood fodder.