DAILY FILM DOSE: A Daily Film Appreciation and Review Blog: Family
[go: up one dir, main page]

Showing posts with label Family. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Family. Show all posts

Monday, 15 October 2012

Cinderella

While the spark of the Golden Age Animation was lost somewhere in the WWII years, 'Cinderella' still resonates as a marvellous example of classical Disney animation, a style and tone absolutely non-existent in today's animated films - a purity to its subject matter devoid of self-acknowledgement and no post-modern cinematic or pop-culture references whatsoever.


Cinderella (1950) dir. Clyde Geronimo, Wilfred Jackson, Hamilton Luske
Voices by: Ilene Woods, Eleanor Audley, Verna Felton, Rhoda Williams, James MacDonald

By Alan Bacchus

History could define four specific phases of Disney classical animation: the pre-war Golden Age of Animation (1937 to 1942), which included Snow White, Pinocchio, Fantasia, Dumbo and Bambi; the post-WWII films, from Cinderella (1950) to The Aristocats (1970); the post-Walt period of films conceived after his death, from Robin Hood (1973) to Oliver and Company (1988); and finally, the studio resurgence under the Jeffrey Katzenberg regime ― the pre-Pixar period, from The Little Mermaid (1989) to The Lion King (1994).

The Golden Age of Animation is still the height of Disney's artistic endeavours, a monumental creative output that put the "magic" in "the Magic Kingdom." Arguably there were lesser returns post-WWII; it took eight years after Bambi for Walt Disney to produce his next full-fledged animated feature, Cinderella, a return to the bread-and-butter subject matter. It's the well-known fairy tale about a downtrodden step-child of an abusive mother, who, with the help of the magical creatures of the land and a fairy godmother, usurp the destinies of her evil step-sisters to capture the heart of the handsome prince.

Uncle Walt always preferred the collaborative method of animation, assigning sequences to different animators, the effect of which made each film feel like a series of sequenced set pieces. In Cinderella this feeling remains. Of the memorable standalone scenes there's the action-oriented interactions of Lucifer the evil cat and the helpful mice; the dressmaking sequence, where the magical animals of the kingdom work together to craft the dress for Cinderella to wear to the ball; and, of course, the fairy godmother's transformation of Cinderella in preparation for the ball, including the memorable "Bibbidi-Bobbidi-Boo" song.

Cinderella features some of the most striking visual compositions of any of the Disney features; it was the most baroque of the Disney films up until then. The step-mother's castle is wonderfully Roman-esque. Inspired by the Neuschwanstein Castle of Bavaria, it became the most iconic of the Disney brand imagery. Disney uses this elegant but imposing extravagance throughout the film ― look for the expressive use of long shadows and other haunting noir and Gothic imagery to create the film's unique, brooding, Germanic feeling.

The special features of the Disney Diamond Collection include an alternative opening scene, a look back at the real-life inspiration for the memorable fairy godmother character, a more comprehensive making-of featurette and a short film based on a new CGI animated feature Tangled. It's a curious addition that shows the dramatic difference of animation styles between 1950 and today.

This review first appeared on Exclaim.ca

Wednesday, 27 April 2011

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part I

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part I (2010) dir. David Yates
Starring: Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, Rupert Grint, Alan Rickman, Ralph Fiennes

**1/2

By Alan Bacchus

Frequent visitors to this blog might be familiar with my continued frustration with this series. It might be my fault for not paying attention very closely. But with each successive film after the third episode of the series, the narrative plotting, character motivations and general themes have been like a car spinning its wheels.

It’s been six films now and 10 years, and yet I feel no emotional movement or stake in the jeopardy of these characters. In fact, the most surprising disappointment is the lack of character development for the three leads. I mean, hell, we’ve seen them grow up as kids into teenagers, and other than some minor arguments, cat fights and sullen sulking, these characters are as dull and boring as their child counterparts from The Philosopher’s Stone.

But let’s concentrate on this latest film. Lord Voldemort and his ‘Death Eaters’ have asserted their dominance and control over Hogwarts and placed a dark cloud over the entire world (Earth, I guess? Or just London? Or Britain?). Potter, who is still considered the ‘chosen one’ even though he exhibits nary an ounce of ingenuity, inspiration, or even leadership, has fled to safety using a potion that creates multiple identical versions of himself. While in hiding, a wedding takes place, which alerts Voldemort. This causes Harry, Hermione and Ron to flee to London, where they discover more secrets about the maguffin-like Horcruxes.

The Horcruxes have to be destroyed for some reason, which sends Harry, Hermione and Ron on a Tolkien-like quest across rural England. This leads to the Deathly Hallows, another maguffin-like trio of symbols (a wand, a stone and a cloak), which have to be found before Voldemort discovers them.

Of course, this is a silly summary of the plot, but having been confused by the previous films, it’s the only way to write it. In watching these films now, it’s too late to go back and try to understand who knows what and why, where everyone is and why, and who has what potion or instrument of magic required to kill Voldemort or Harry, so it’s best just to enjoy the eye candy.

Deathly Hallows Part I certainly has the best action of the bunch. In fact, we’re never in the stodgy old Hogwarts Castle (indeed that location has certainly run its course). Instead, we’re treated to some car chases and some gun/wand fights. We never really get a good hand-to-hand fight sequence, but I guess the magic of the wand replaces the need for fisticuffs.

The Potter/Hermione/Ron trio is still boring and dull, and the same goes for Voldemort and the baddies. As an aside, why doesn’t Voldemort have a nose? It’s truly grotesque to look at, and not like a cool bad-guy facial scar or other nasty disfigurement. It’s just plain ugly. As such, Voldemort has never been a bad guy to quietly root for or identify with.

SPOILER alert – there is a genuinely sad moment at the end when Dobby, the little troll-like house elf, dies. He's perhaps my favourite character in the whole series. Tear.

Apologies to all Harry Potter fans for this extremely cheeky review. I’m genuinely glad I’m the only one who doesn’t really get it.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part I is available on Blu-ray and DVD from Warner Home Entertainment.

Monday, 28 March 2011

Mousehunt

Mousehunt (1997) dir. Gore Verbinski
Starring Nathan Lane, Lee Evans, Christopher Walken

***1/2

By Alan Bacchus

I have to admit, I have a soft spot for this one. Have an open mind and dig into the vaults to find this film. Mousehunt is actually a hidden gem that defies expectations. And if you recognize the director, indeed, it’s the helmer of the Pirates of the Caribbean films and now Rango, as well as the decent remake of The Ring. So, for reasons I'll summarize below, Mousehunt got him the Pirates gig and jumpstarted his career.

Ernie and Lars Schmuntz are brothers whose father has just died and bequeathed to them the family business of string manufacturers. They are also in receipt of an old run-down mansion. Ernie (Nathan Lane), the responsible one who is now a successful chef, wants the house and business sold so he can claim his share of the money, and Lars (Lee Evans), the childish one, has a soft spot for Dad and wants to keep the house and run the family business.

Ernie and Lars move into the house together to determine whether they should keep it or sell it. On their first night they discover that a pesky mouse has made a home there as well. Ernie and Lars go through a multitude of scenarios to trap the mouse. As their frustration over the mouse’s resilience grows and grows, so does the grandness of their traps.

Meanwhile, a real estate speculator has discovered that the house is in fact a lost treasure from a Frank Lloyd Wright-type of architect named George La Rue. Instantly, their money pit makes them almost-millionaires. They decide to auction off the house to the highest bidder, which fuels their desire to clean it up and exterminate the mouse.

The bumbling duo eventually manages to excise the mouse only to have it miraculously return on the day of the auction. The finale is a madcap series of Rube Goldberg consequences that may or may not jeopardize their chances of selling the house and getting rich.

Mousehunt is a visual delight – a live-action equivalent of a Tom and Jerry cartoon mixed with Tim Burton sentimentality and the manic, madcap pace of a Coen Bros film. Admittedly, Verbinski’s influences border on outright theft, but the mash-up is very clever in the detailed mechanisms of the narrative. The film elegantly mixes its grand scale action and comedy with quiet moments of genuine sentiment. The 'big' scenes go way over the top to satisfy the kids, but it's the quick gags in the dialogue and the reflective moments that make the film a little gem. And watch for the wicked cameo from Christopher Walken.

If anything, the leads Lane and Evans are the weakest link. They seem to try too hard to be funny, too concerned with channeling Abbott & Costello or Laurel & Hardy instead of bringing their own comic personalities to the roles. And in that way, the humour often feels forced.

It’s easy to see how this became Verbinski’s calling card film. His compositions, production design, and editing, as well as his natural skill for crafting exciting action sequences, obviously caught the eye of Mr. Jerry Bruckheimer, who gave him the keys to the Pirates franchise. You should take a chance on this one too.

Monday, 29 November 2010

Fantasia

Fantasia (1940) dir. Ten people get credits, but really, it’s Walt Disney
Animation

****

By Alan Bacchus

It’s kinda hard to believe that Fantasia was made in 1940, and was only Disney’s third feature film (after Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs and Pinocchio). And since Pinocchio was released the same year as Fantasia, 1940, we can realistically say the film was conceived and produced after only having one animated film released. Snow White, of course, was a huge hit, but it was a narrative feature based on a fairy tale, with singing and dancing, a love story, a prince and a princess!

Fantasia is a non-narrative film, without dialogue, without singing, without any traditional characters all timed with classical music. In short, an experimental film in a time when there was no such word. It was cookie-cutter studio system at it’s peak. What a gamble, and what a success. Well not initially, the film was a financial failure, and took years before audience caught up to Disney's forward thinking.

It’s actually a slow start to the picture. A live action introduction, Deems Tayler, music critic, talking to the camera tells us exactly what we’re about to see, and listening to the warming up of the orchestra. The first musical segment, Bach’s Toccata and Fugue in D Minor, features an abstract piece of animation, which to audiences used to the rambunctious qualities of Disney’s work must have been shocked, or bored or both.

In fact, the majority of the eight sequences are abstract in nature. The Rite of Spring for instance tells an ambitious and the possibly controversial 'non-creationist' history of the earth, from the planetary formation to the evolution of dinosaurs into man. It, like every thing else in the film, is a delight to watch, imaginative and intellectually stimulating. One of the most most traditional or mainstream accessible segments is the Nutcracker Suite featuring Tchaikovsky’s marvellous, foot tapping compositions, along with a series of brilliant shorts showing the ballet dancers as mushrooms, thistles, blossoms and goldfish.

The Scorceror’s Apprentice is the celebrated piece, with Mickey Mouse battling the army of wooden brooms endlessly filling his water basin with water, thus causing a biblical-worthy flood.

The Pastoral Symphony by Beethoven offers a fun and delictable showcase of Greek and Roman mythology including blatantly nude female centaurs, and..ahem... Bacchus, Roman God of Wine, partaking in his debaucherous behaviour.

The varied animation styles and changing tones from comedic to dark, brooding and heavy to light and ethereal is what makes the film so special. But there’s no doubt we can see the German expressionism influence and prevailing gothic style of the 1930’s. Especially the big finale, the first part, set to Modest Mussorgsky's Night on Bald Mountain , featuring a dark demon giant, a Chernabog, summoning up the evil creatures of the dead to roam the earth, before being turned away by the sound of a Angelus bell and a procession of torch-bearing monks. The perfect composition work combined with the Ava Maria music makes for a heavenly finale and in fine Disney fashion, the triumph of good over evil.

It’s the first time on Blu-Ray for Fantasia, packaged with the 2000 revival version Fantasia 2000, a very minor film in comparison, a noble effort to use Disney’s inspiration and create a modern version his celebration of music. Unfortunately without the real Walt Disney at the helm, the ‘magic touch’ just isn’t there. The 1940 version is the real treasure here.

“Fantasia and Fantasia 2000” is available on Blu-Ray from Walt Disney Studios Home Entertainment


Fantasia | Movie Trailer

Saturday, 30 October 2010

How To Train Your Dragon

How To Train Your Dragon (2010) dir. Dean DeBlois and Chris Sanders
Starring the voices of: Jay Baruchel, Gerard Butler, America Ferrera, Jonah Hill and Christopher Mintz-Plasse

**

By Greg Klymkiw

There's nothing especially bad about How To Train Your Dragon, but there's also nothing especially good about it.

Each time I see a new animated feature on a big screen these days, the first question that courses through the rivulets of my brain is, "Haven't I seen this somewhere before?" The second is, "Uh, like, why did they make this?" The answer to the former is a quick and resounding "Yes!" The answer to the latter comes when I look away from the screen and/or up from a rousing game of "Bejeweled" on my iPhone and realize I'm sitting amongst several hundred little nippers and their surprisingly engaged parents. It's like what James Earl Jones says in Field of Dreams: "If you build it they will come."

Parents these days seem so starved for family entertainment that the studios just keep piling on one derivative 3-D digital delight after another. It's one of my familiar rants, actually. Why do today's parents keep dragging their kids to see this crap? There are so many other movies they could be taking them to.

When I was a kid, I saw every Disney release, to be sure, but most of them were classics from the Golden Age and re-released every seven or so years to capitalize on new generations of avid viewers. But these weren't the ONLY movies my parents took me to or that, when I hit the age of seven or eight, went to by myself. I saw the original Planet of the Apes and its multitude of sequels between the ages of 7 and 13. I went to all the Sinbad movies. I saw every John Wayne and Clint Eastwood western. Dad took me to see The Wild Bunch when I was 9. I remember making a deal with my Mom that if I had to sit through Mary Poppins, she had to promise to take me to see The Battle of the Bulge. Hell, I remember going to grindhouses as a kid and sitting through Hammer Horror films, motorcycle movies, war pictures and British Carry On sex comedies. And aside from Disney, I really don't remember there being that many animated movies being made, released or re-released. Going to the movies meant going to the movies - ANY MOVIES - so long as it wasn't pornography.

It's not like there AREN'T movies today that are similar to the abovementioned titles. There's plenty of action, fantasy, comedies and even straight-up drama for families to see. Why then, must audiences keep encouraging the studios to grind out these mostly empty and derivative bowls of treacle?

How To Train Your Dragon, as uninteresting as it is, at least has dragons in it. But, God help me, the story is appallingly familiar. A young Viking lad wants to battle dragons like his Dad. Dad doesn't think his son is ready to do so. Boy Viking makes his mark by downing a dragon but not killing it. Then (barf!) he discovers dragons are nice and he turns his former quarry into a pet. And, guess what? I'm sure this will surprise you. I know it surprised me (though in fairness, my attention drifted between the movie and "Bejeweled", so anything would have surprised me). Viking boy teaches everybody that dragons are not what they seem. Aaawwww, isn't that nice?

And aside from the annoying digital 3-D animation that will never hold a candle to traditional animation and the equally maddening cutesy-pie voice work from an all-star cast, the biggest problem with this picture, and so many others of its ilk, is just how goddamn nice it is. Makes me want to sing "Everything is Beautiful (In Its Own Way)" or worse, "Cumbaya".

Critics who don't know any better (most of them these days) and even audiences, always have this moronic knee-jerk comment about classic Disney - that it's trite and treacly.

Uh, sorry to disillusion, you all - classic Disney often borders on straight-up horror. It's deliciously cruel and perverse. That whale in Pinocchio can still scare the shit out of me. Bambi still kicks me in the stomach when the kiddie deer's Mom is shot. Dumbo separated from his mother, teased mercilessly by everyone and drunkenly facing those "Pink Elephants on Parade" all continue to knock me on my ass and give me the willies. It was even more intense as a kid. And don't even get me started on Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs - are we talking unrequited freak love, or what?

And what do we get now? We get mediocrities like How To Train Your Dragon - designed to make everyone feel all touchy-feely, but THAT, oh sensitive ones, is more falsely corrupt a message to shovel down our kids' throats. Classic Disney toughened the little buggers up AND entertained them, but all that this contemporary stuff does is teach lessons of conformity and understanding and getting along. And of course, that stuff is important, but it's also important for kids to know that prices are paid dearly on this Earth to even begin the process of understanding and healing, that evil and terror exists, that entertainment (and healing) should not always come easily.

When I think about the best work by Spielberg like E.T. or Joe Dante's deliciously nasty Gremlins movies, I think that THESE are the ultimate family movies. Spielberg rips your heart out and Dante microwaves gremlins until they explode. Now THAT'S entertainment! For the whole family, no less.

While some might wonder if the studios still make 'em like they used to, I can say that in the area of animation, the answer is a resounding "NO!" However, there are plenty of "adult" movies that are far better entertainment for kids than How To Train Your Dragon. I took my 9-year-old to see Vincenzo Natali's brilliant sci-fi thriller Splice. She not only loved the picture, it provided so much in the way of really intelligent and vital discourse between us. Another recent picture she saw and loved was Precious. This was perfect entertainment and of the highest order.

Look, at the end of the day, you'll see a lot worse than How To Train Your Dragon, but I'm picking on it precisely because it's so offensively inoffensive and middle of the road. It's hardly illuminating and leaves little room for any real discourse of substance with your child.

"Enough," I say. Enough with the touchy-feelie, already.

"How To Train Your Dragon" is available on homevideo in a handy Blu-Ray/DVD combo from Dreamworks, but do your kids a favour - rent or buy something like "Splice" instead.

Wednesday, 4 August 2010

James and the Giant Peach

James and the Giant Peach (1996) dir. Henry Selick
Starring: Paul Terry, Joanna Lumley, Pete Postlethwaite, Miriam Margolyes

***

By Alan Bacchus

I can’t believe it’s been 14 years since this movie, and 17 years since A Nightmare Before Christmas – a remarkable double-shot of painstaking, onerous, yet thoroughly delightful stop motion animated features from Henry Selick. While the stop motion animation holds up remarkably well compared to the best animation of today, the live action sequences and in particular the musical numbers back date the film to 14 years ago.

This time ‘round Selick adapts Roald Dahl’s classic children’s book ‘James and the Giant Peach’ for the big screen. Dahl’s story features a young boy James, saddened by the death of his parents in a violent storm, who now lives an oppressed life under the guardianship of his two nasty aunts Spiker and Sponge. Then a mysterious stranger appears with a solution to his problem, a bag of crocodile tongues which have the power to make his dreams come true. This comes in the form of a giant peach which grows in his yard, and which James uses to sail to New York City and complete the unfulfilled dream of his parents.

Selick employs both live action and stop motion in this time – live action to show the world of James at home on land, and in the real world, and animation once James is inside the peach and on his journey toward the big apple – a clever cinematic pun which may or may not have been intended.

The live action world doesn’t hold as well as Selick’s glorious animation process. The opening 20mins or so before James enters his peach fantasy world is adequate but not inspired fantasy stuff. Once James is on his journey, the film comes alive. James’ new friends, Old Green Grasshopper, Mr. Centipede, Mr. Earthworm, Miss Spider, Mrs. Ladybug, and Glowworm are distinct and quirky characters reminiscent of the skewed townsfolk of Nightmare’s Halloween town - and for fun, Jack Skellington even has a cameo as the captain of a sunken pirate ship.

Like Nightmare, the narrative is peppered with a dozen or so musical numbers, most of which are unmemorable, and at least from these cynical adult viewer’s eyes, don’t add much, and maybe even detract from the enjoyment of the picture. It unfortunately dates the film badly, back to the Disney classically animated period of the 90’s when everything was animated as a song and dance movie. Now, as evidenced by Selick’s Coraline and most of the CG animated films of today, these sequences of characters digressing into song and dance are rarity.

Selick/Dahl present a number of well-constructed and resonate themes which arc throughout the action. After being subjugated by his aunt via the peach James is allowed to become a leader, be responsible and commit his boyhood rite of passage. There’s also a bit of cold revenge in the here as well, as the second act climaxes with his confrontation with the evil storm marvellously transformed into the form of a charging rhinoceros.

Overall, while Nightmare exploded with action, comedy, music and that dark edge of Tim Burton, James and the Giant Peach is light, fluffy, satisfying but no classic.

“James and the Giant Peach” is available on Blu-Ray from Walt Disney Studios Home Entertainment

Saturday, 24 July 2010

Despicable Me

Despicable Me (2010) dir. Pierre Coffin, Chris Renaud
Starring: (Voices of...) Steve Carrell, Jason Segal, Russell Brand and Julie Andrews

*1/2

By Greg Klymkiw

They can doll these things up all they like, but most contemporary animated films are pretty much interchangeable and in spite of inexplicably over-the-top critical orgasms and astounding boxoffice, Despicable Me falls squarely into the been-there-done-that category. I can understand why most critics are raving about the movie. Most of them aren't what I'd bother to call critics - they're mere hacks (at worst) and/or glorified studio publicists (at best). What I don't understand is all the bucket-loads of family audiences filling the theatres for mediocre crap like this. Are these families that desperate for entertainment they can enjoy together that they'll succumb to almost any familiar, over-hyped picture, or are they merely that dull, unimaginative and stupid?

Despicable Me is a pallid reversal on The Incredibles, focusing upon a network of super-villains as opposed to the latter's world of Superheroes. One of the big differences between the two is that The Incredibles is made by a director (Brad Bird) who not only has a great sense of humour and storytelling, but a real appreciation for epic sweep and a true geek's affinity for the kind of derring-do that his fellow "losers" in the audience are also imbued with. Bird's film displays originality, genuine wit and thoroughly pulse-pounding action - action that is rooted in the dramatic beats, but is also expertly designed in terms of overall geography and pace. Despicable Me, on the other hand, is full of stale gags and a ho-hum plot. Most of all, the action sequences are frenetic, chaotic and have absolutely no sense of geography and/or dramatic resonance.

The plot, such as it is, deals with Gru (Steve Carrell), the world's Super-Villain #2 and his desire to unseat the young Super-Villain #1, an upstart by the name of Vector (Jason Segal). With the help of three cute-as-a-button orphans, Gru undertakes to become the most evil, heinous villain in the world. This dastardly curmudgeon is, however, transformed into a much kinder individual thanks to the charms of the orphans and his growing (ugh!) love for them.

Sound vaguely familiar? I thought so. It's a variation on virtually every contemporary animated movie.

For me, I found the whole affair so familiar that I genuinely can't remember much more than the dull plot. None of the jokes resonated with me at all. They were strictly dullsville. The opening sight gag involving the theft of the pyramids in Egypt is decent enough, but has apparently been screened in its entirety for months as a trailer.

Even though it's a family picture, would it have been so hard to shoehorn some delightfully, nastily, almost malevolent dark humour? It is, after all, a cartoon and that's the sort of humour both adults and kids love (a la the Bugs Bunny and Roadrunner cartoons from Warners). In the film's favour, we weren't inundated with endlessly annoying contemporary pop-culture references that are supposed to be funny and which, of course, are going to date all the pathetic animated films that do.

The look of the film is not without a few shreds of merit, but many of the gadgets and characters - while serviceable for the film's running time - don't last in the memory banks.

The vocal performances - while competent - are bereft of the sort of Cliff Edwards brilliance that knocks you on your butt and stays with you forever.

The pace, due to the frenetic nature of things, actually bogs the picture down. The Incredibles, for example, is twenty minutes longer and zips by so effortlessly, that one doesn't even want it to end. Despicable Me, on the other hand, inspires endless glances at one's trusty watch.

Other than being relatively inoffensive and reasonably watchable for its 95-minute running time, those are about the only things in its favour. Again, all I can ask is this: are audiences so starved for family-friendly material that they'll gladly watch any dung shovelled down their collective gullets? Frankly, there are any number of solid movies on the big screen and available for rent to watch at home that, while not "family friendly" in terms of being machine-tooled as such, families would be doing themselves and their kids a favour to avoid stuff like Despicable Me and see something else instead.

My own 9-year-old daughter loves the highly imaginative sci-fi horror picture Splice and has seen it several times on a big screen. It thrilled her, entertained her, stayed with her, provoked numerous helpings and most importantly, stimulated the sort of mind-expanding discourse that more kids would benefit from. Recent movies she watched on video included Oliver Stone's The Doors, the tremendously moving Al Pacino-Johnny Depp crime picture Donnie Brasco, a handful of Sidney Toler Charlie Chan pictures from Monogram and the classic Paul Newman-directed adaptation of Paul Zindel's powerful play, The Effect of Gamma Rays Upon Man-in-the-Moon Marigolds. The results she derived with those pictures were equally rewarding as the pleasure Splice delivered to her.

So why drag the kids to such unimaginative fare? I don't want to believe that these parents and their progeny are equally unimaginative, but as one animated picture after another with a similar pedigree continues to rake in big dollars, I can only assume the worst.

My esteemed colleague here at Daily Film Dose has already pointed out the utter uselessness of the Real-D 3-D technology and I'm happy to do the same. All the technology really does is point to the emptiness of the work itself and worse, it actually renders mediocrity even more mediocre - due to the fact that all the picture's colours are darkened and muted to a point where one wonders what the point of the technology is? My own daughter, usually removes her 3-D glasses and she's not alone. At a recent screening of Despicable Me, I saw a ton of kids do likewise. Now, when I do bother to suggest an animated or family friendly picture to her, my daughter wants to know if it's in 3-D and if so, asks if we can see it in 2-D. The point of this technology is obvious - it has nothing to do with aesthetic considerations, but is simply a pathetic attempt to rope audiences into seeing something that's completely mediocre.

And finally, that's pretty much what Despicable Me is. It's so mediocre it doesn't even have the benefit of being dreadful enough to elicit utter hatred.

Sunday, 28 March 2010

Diary of a Wimpy Kid

Diary of a Wimpy Kid (2010) dir. Thor Fruedenthal
Starring: Zachray Gordon, Robert Capley, Devon Bostick, Chloe Grace Moretz, Grayson Russell, Karan Brar, Rachael Harris and Steve Zahn

*

By Greg Klymkiw

This minor surprise hit is the sort of family film that makes me fear terribly for the next generation of children. If the title character is one that kids are supposed to identify with and in fact, do, then all of us oldsters are in for a rough ride in our august years when these brats grow up into bigger brats.

Not that there's anything wrong with upholding and extolling the virtues of a kid who is clearly an underdog, but the character of Greg Heffley (Zachray Gordon) is not only represented ever-so blandly by the generic young actor shoe-horned into the role, but is such an unpalatably dull and spoiled figure of boyhood that the film might be better titled "Diary of a Little Knob". And a little knob he surely is. That said, he comes from an entire family of knobs.

Living in a relatively affluent, bucolic, tree-lined suburb dotted with immaculate pre-war two-story homes, Greg is about to enter middle school convinced that childhood must be left behind n order to fit in, and most importantly to strive for acceptance based on beiing cooler than cool

Alas, he's a wimp.

We know this because the movie (and his character) tell us he is through clunky, all-over-the-map narration (striving to be clever with a myriad of animated comic book techniques, wipes and flashbacks, but falling short and feeling contrived). What's especially odd, however, is that Greg initially appears to be the unlikeliest candidate for wimp-dom. He's a fresh-faced, relatively articulate, seemingly innocuous and even sweet-looking young man. Granted, he's got a shorter, more slender frame than many of the jock-types, but he certainly qualifies as cute. Again, if the movie didn't keep telling us what a wimp he is, we'd have no reason to believe he actually is.

And, I reiterate, as the story progresses, he actually proves to be as big a knob as all the bullies are.

This, of course, is no surprise, since his immediate family are also knobs. The movie keeps telling us that this is the typical and ideal suburban family and while I admit that most suburban-types are, in reality, knobs, this does not appear to be the film's intention. Yet another reason why the movie fails miserably.

His big brother Rodrick (Devon Bostick) is an eye-liner-wearing wanna-be basement grunge-rocker who imparts advice to Greg about handling the transition to middle school and then insults his little brother by telling him what a wimp he is and playing one cruel practical joke after another on him.

His mother Susan (played by the abominable Rachael Harris, an actress reeking of TV-Q and not much else) is a shrill, professional working Mom who pays far more attention to her youngest child, an obnoxious and somewhat ugly toddler always sitting on the pooper. As well, she is quick to believe her eldest son when he fixes it so that Greg gets into trouble. Why she puts such faith in this lanky, head-banging poseur is beyond me.

Then there's his Dad Frank (embarrassingly over-played by the woefully untalented Steve Zahn) who secretly sides with Greg, but is ultimately so pussy-whipped and ineffectual that he's unable to do much of anything when Mom and Big Brother cut him down. Zahn's overwrought, eye-bulging, please-like-me school of acting inspires in us, the desire to bash his skull to watermelon-pulp with a baseball bat.

Once Greg comes to school we truly begin to realize what a cowardly knob he is. His friends include Rowley (Robert Capron) the amiable, childlike, Mama's Boy fatso with streamers on his pink bike, the drooling, buck-toothed, snot-eating Fregley (Grayson Russell) and a cute, earnest and bright young East Indian boy Chirag Gupta (Karan Brar). Any one or all three of these boys are much bigger wimps than Greg. They also happen to be far more engaging characters - so much so that when Greg tells us in the insufferable to-the-camera narration how ashamed he is of being seen with them, we like them even more and begin to detest the leading character with a passion.

When Greg meets Angie Steadman (Chloe Grace Moretz) a genuinely stunning and intelligent middle school babe who edits the school newspaper, reads Allen Ginsburg and extends an offer to Greg to help her out on the paper, we begin to detest our leading man-boy even more as he rudely rejects her advances. We get no real or believable explanation why he would do this, he just does. And all one can think is - what a knob!

Eventually, we write this loser off completely when he displays total and irredeemable cowardice and lands his best friend in hot water - betraying him further by not owning up to his guilt (and when he does, doing so with a backhanded apology).

By the time Greg owns up to all his mistakes, he's forgiven - but not by us. He's been such a knob that his turn seems sickeningly manipulative. It's also one of the more moronic plot details. And speaking of moronic plot details, the worst involves a piece of mouldy cheese that sits forlornly on the pavement of the school's play area. It carries an urban legend that anyone who touches it becomes - untouchable. During the climax, some bullies force Greg's geeky fat-boy friend to not only touch it, but take a few bites of it. When the rest of their classmates show up, Greg "bravely" grabs the cheese to save lard-boy the ultimate humiliation and himself becomes, the untouchable. The movie tells us he's learned a lesson, but we never really believe it. Besides, up to this point Greg has been such a supreme knob that the audience not only detests him, but so does the school populace. So big deal, he makes a sacrifice to take himself from pariah to bigger pariah.

The movie, while a mere 90 minutes, feels like an eternity. Aside from the character of Gupta, the sweet East Indian boy, the entire world of the picture is so white and affluent that it's impossible to feel much of anything for anyone. Yes, these worlds exist in real life, but they're populated by people so bland and average that if one is to bother making a movie about them, then part of that movie's perspective and/or mandate should be to examine how such a world perpetuates sameness and condemns diversity. Alas, it sticks to the status quo like a fly to fecal matter. And, of course, let's not forget that Greg, the main character, is a knob who ends up hurting people that seem far more likeable and engaging than he is.

By the end, one is simply drained, sickened and offended. This generic colour-free world is placed on a pedestal and our title character's plight is ultimately so inconsequential that the very cleanliness of the world the film creates makes us feel dirty.

interestingly (and happily enough to me), my own eight-year-old daughter was so bored and disgusted by this movie that she begged me to take her to see another picture immediately after it ended. I took her to see "Green Zone" which not only thrilled her, but inspired a lengthy discussion afterwards wherein she stated that a lot of the "bad people" hurting the Iraqi people seemed like Greg in "Diary of a Wimpy Kid". Delightfully, she cited the persnickety slime-ball American bureaucrat played by Greg Kinnear as seeming to be the Greg character from "Wimpy Kid" and what he'd be like when he grew up.

So much for traditional family values if they're anything like those on display in this abomination. "Diary of a Wimpy Kid" is family cinema of the lowest order. Take the kids to "Green Zone" instead - or, for that matter, ANYTHING else. And if you've already forced them to see it, try cleaning their palate with something worthwhile.

Wednesday, 24 March 2010

Fantastic Mr. Fox

Fantastic Mr. Fox (2009) dir. Wes Anderson
Voices by: George Clooney, Meryl Streep, Jason Schwarzman, Michael Gambon, Willem Dafoe

****

By Alan Bacchus

Upon seeing this film for a second time, which makes for an experience as glorious if not more than the first, I’m convinced ‘Fantastic Mr. Fox’ is Wes Anderson’s best film. In fact, it might be my favourite animated film since the Disney Golden Era of animation in the late 30’s early 40’s.

I get frustrated every year with each new Pixar release generating near unanimous critical praise and gobbling up loads of money. Despite the clever writing and technically proficient computer animation each and every one of these films (including the other studio knock offs) are the same - the same tone, same mix of characters, and even the same visual look. Which is a shame considering the creative possibilities open to the CG medium.

This is why ‘Fantastic Mr. Fox’ makes for a marvellous experience. Since Wes Anderson brings his unique auteur live action cinema perspective to a medium primarily operated by committee than by the creative mind of a single director we get a wholly unique animated film unlike anything we’ve seen before.

As written by Anderson and co-writer Noah Boambach, who would seem as the most unlikely pair of writers to do this type of children’s story, the cinema version of Roald Dahl’s story is perfectly enhanced by the feature film medium. In the special features Anderson admits, though he loved the book as a child, as a standalone film, the story doesn’t work and so even the Dahl family themselves acknowledged bookending the original material with new first and third acts were the necessary addition to elevate the story to a feature film.

Though its Dahl’s story, Wes Anderson’s thematic fingerprints are in the every corner of the story. Outside of the rambunctious action plotting, at core the film again brings up Anderson’s career predilections with the relationship of father to son. George Clooney is perfectly cast as the swashbuckling shit-disturber who just can’t help himself from being the sly fox he was born to be. While he’s selfishly expressing his own inner desires he doesn’t realize he’s alienating his teenage son who unfortunately just doesn’t have the same guile as his father. This connection further expands on the relationship between the Tanenbaum children to the father, same with Owen Wilson to Bill Murray’s characters in “The Life Aquatic” and the three brothers on the Indian journey in “The Darjeeling Limited”. And the fun comic robbery shenanigans perpetrated by Fox's family brings us back to the silliness of the heist plans in 'Bottle Rocket'.

Wes Anderson’s visual style and idiosyncratic tone is front and centre as well, and while his immaculately-framed tableaus seemed repetitive in his last few pictures under stop motion animation it feels as fresh and inspired as his early work. So if Wes Anderson gave up live action and only made stop motion movie, I probably wouldn't complain.

The texture achieved from stop motion technology is also a marvel, the real world feeling we get from the tedious frame by frame advancement of the animator’s models, cannot be replicated by computer. The last time animation felt this invigorated is 1993’s ‘A Nightmare Before Christmas’, another stop motion film authored by a live action feature auteur.

‘Fantastic Mr. Fox’ is available on Blu-Ray and DVD from 20th Century Fox (who else) Home Entertainment

Monday, 15 March 2010

Where the Wild Things Are (Blu-Ray)

Where The Wild Things Are (2009) dir. Spike Jonze
Starring: Max Records, Catherine Keener, Mark Ruffalo
Voices: James Gandolfini, Maureen O’Hara, Chris Cooper

***½

By Alan Bacchus

The 'WTWTA" DVD has the very rare quality of its Special Features actually complimenting the tone and thus enhancing the enjoyment of the main feature movie. While I like to see and read about the creative process of filmmaking, I prefer to experience this much later in the life of the movie after it's had time to breathe and establish itself in the context of cinema history. There are probably many more stories to tell about the making of 'Where the Wild Things Are', after all it took 3 years of publicized production and post-production difficulties bringing this picture to the screen. Without completely lifting the veil of the artistic process, we get a wonderful look into the unique filmmaking and production philosophy Spike Jonze applied to this story.

Jonze has avoided using the awful word 'featurette' in describing his behind-the-scenes footage, opting to call his short 3-5mins segments 'Documentaries'. For instance, the short doc 'The Kids Take Over the Picture' shows the literal childlike influence Jonze wanted to create around the set. By inviting the children of the crew to be part of the production Jonze admirably never allowed the crew lose focus of the big themes of the picture.

As for the movie... upon second viewing it holds up as a wonderful adaptation of a fantasy tale told with an admirable amount of creative restraint - a courageous work of art, a wholly unique experience, meeting and exceeding our high expectations. Under anyone’s else’s watch this film would have been turned into an fantasy extravaganza, replete which mondo special effects, overly designed fantasy worlds, fantasy creatures and Pixar/Disney sappy comedic tones. After all, it’s a familiar story, a troubled and lonely child retreats to his dreams where he finds a fantastical world of monsters, of which he makes himself king.

The actual book is only 19 pages, and only about one sentence per page, a very sparse jumping off point for Jonze and his co-writer Dave Eggers. The film version expands on the opening pages of the book, showing us the lonely existence of Max a rambunctious and imaginative 11 year old who is too young to hang out with his newly pubescent sister and who receives little attention from her newly dating single mother. As a result Max has his imagination to retreat to, and when his mother chastises him for standing on their kitchen table proclaiming himself a king, he runs away from home. His flight transforming him not unlike Dorothy in 'Wizard of Oz', into his own fantasy world of his subconscious mind.

Max finds himself in a world inhabited by giant beasts, or ’Wild Things’ as the title suggests. Max, dressed in his wolf pyjamas, plays the role of a king in order to convince the beasts not to eat him. He befriends their leader Carol (James Gandolfini), a volatile personality who is as innocent and congenial as he is on the edge of destructive violence. Over the course of the next few days Max explores the island and caroses with his new beastly playmates satisfying all the inhibitions and desires he couldn't express at home.

The joy of the film lies in Jonze’s steadfast determination to root the story in reality. His choice of using the Jim Henson Creature Shop ’old school’ designs is retro-inspired. His wild things are a seemless blend of old fashioned men in furry suits and carefully-used and near-invisible computer effects. But its the techniques of the past which have been obsolete for over 15 years now that adds the real-world organic quality.

It's just one aspect of Jonze’s remarkable ability to retain the simplicity of the story. While there’s little plot in the book there’s just as little going on in the film. Yet it sustains its 1 hour, 40mins running time admirably.

Jonze is in tight control of his tone - a melancholy sense of reflection. While the action in the story is generated from Max’s childlike imagination, it's told through the eyes of Jonze, the adult. His direction of the voice actors is inspired, favouring natural, understated voice cadence and dialogue over jokes, punch lines and all traditional template dialogue we hear in kids flicks. The characters are simple, so are the words coming out of their mouths, but the way the lines are read feels sophisticated and complex. Jonze’s camera work is typical of his style. Once again his favourite lensman, Lance Acord shoots the film handheld and natural without it feeling 'shaky'. Carter Burwell’s touching score, which Jonze said, was influenced by listening to Arcade Fire, finds completes the tonal consistency. And so this is how Jonze achieves his vision, an auteur sensibility which fits in perfectly with his two Kaufman films.

In addition, on the DVD there's a 22mins short film 'Higglety Pigglety Pop', another Maurice Sendak adaptation, from Oscar-nominated Canadian filmmakers Chris Lavis and Maciek Szczerbowski ("Madame Tutli-Putli") - a very idiosyncratic National Film Board of Canada short film commissioned specifically for the DVD. Like Wild Things, tonally it specifically stears away from the traditional children's picture, in this case something more in the company of Terry Gilliam's wild sense of imagination.

"Where the Wild Things Are" is available on DVD and Blu-Ray from Warner Bro Home Video


Tuesday, 9 March 2010

The Neverending Story

The Neverending Story (1984) dir. Wolfgang Petersen
Starring: Barrett Oliver, Noah Hathaway, Thomas Hill, Tami Stronach, Gerald McRaney

**1/2

By Alan Bacchus

With the DVD/Blu-Ray release of ‘Where The Wild Things Are’, which took direct influence from the 80’s era of creature fantasy films, Warner Bros has reissued Wolfgang Petersen’s semi-classic creature feature ‘The Neverending Story’ - an entirely German production, though shot in English, headed by Wolfgang Petersen, his first film since his breakthrough ‘Das Boot’.

Though based on a German novel relatively unknown in North America, it’s still a familiar set-up in the realm of fantasy. A young boy Bastian, whose mother recently died, lives a sad life with his father, ill-equipped to raise a boy on his own. Add to that the constant harassment by a trio of childhood bullies, means the only thing left for Bastian to fall upon is his imagination and love for stories. After being chased away by the bullies Bastian finds himself in a book store where he meets a kindly old curmudgeon who gives him a magical book to read entitled ‘The Neverending Story’.

As Bastian reads the story to himself we get to see the actions of the book’s heroes and villains play out in his imaginative brain. But as the story unfolds and intensifies Bastian gradually discovers he, himself, is part of the story and can affect the lives of the characters he’s reading about.

Bastian reads about the troubles afoot in the fantastical world of Fantasia, the force of evil called ‘the Nothing’ is growing like a plague on the land. Its saviour comes in the form of warrior boy Atreyu who is sent off on a mythical, Lord of the Rings-like journey to save the world from the Nothing.

If this summary sounds so very non-specific and fuzzy, so it is when watching the film. The film suffers most from its non-antagonist and imprecise needs and desires. Other than a black wolf which appears in two brief scenes the baddie in this story is a vague entity described as the ‘absence’ of good, that can only be described an entity as opposed to a person of flesh and blood. And so we’re never quite sure what the rules of this world are and what exactly Atreyu needs to do in order to save the world.

But even in 'Lord of the Rings', the machinations of the ring journey was tenuous at best, and really just an underdeveloped maguffin, yet the search for a ring manages to sustain a couple thousand book pages, and 9 hours on film. In this case, Petersen substitutes narrative comprehensiveness with a strong cinematic epic quality.

Conceptually the story within a story as dreamt up and realized by Petersen, is a magnificent fantasy world. Petersen uses the top notch effects of the day - physical make-up effects, scale miniatures, elaborate puppetry, matte photography, blue screen technology and optical effects – to create creatures and landscapes as magical as anything produced in the 80’s. While the effects are not completely seamless at all times (that flying dog looks a little wonky at times), the organic methodology is refreshing and can result in imagery just as realistic as today’s best CG. And under the Blu-Ray treatment, these visuals are stunning, and one of the best 80’s Blu-Ray upgrades I’ve seen.

And then there’s the famous theme song written by the film’s composer Giorgio Moroder which book ends the film. Not having heard the song for 25-odd years, with today’s ears, its a wunderbar synth-pop anthem, and elevates the film – at least for us children of the 80’s – to high levels of nostalgia bliss.

‘The Neverending Story’ is available on Blu-Ray from Warner Home Video.

Thursday, 26 November 2009

Monsters Inc

Monsters Inc. (2001) dir. Pete Docter
Voices by: John Goodman, Billy Crystal, Steve Buscemi,

***1/2

Alan Bacchus

Sure “Wall-E” is good, so is “Up”. I’m probably alone in the opinion that ‘Ratatouille’ was just OK, and that ‘Monsters Inc’ at least in my personal opinion is the best of the Pixar films.

Pete Docter’s alternate reality runs parallel to our own – a world inhabited entirely by monsters with the ability to move themselves into our own through doorways into children’s bedrooms. The monsters run a business of scaring little kids in the sleep, capturing their screams and using it as a source of energy. It sounds completely ludicrous and slightly sadistic, but Docter manages to make the world logical, consistent and magical.

Docter’s heroes James P. "Sulley" Sullivan (John Goodman) and Mike Wazowski (Billy Crystal) make a great co-protagonist pairing. Sulley is the company’s top scarer as maintained by a running scoreboard, a big burley blue beast tough on the outside but soft on the inside. His manager/business partner is a skinny runt of a monster, a giant great eyeball with arms and legs. Most of these Pixar films are essentially buddy pictures – two differing personalities clashing over the course of some kind of long journey - and on a level of physicality the shape and size of Sully and Mike make a great visual gag throughout the picture – like an animated Midnight Cowboy with Mike as Ratso Rizzo and Sully as Joe Buck.

In the Monsters' world, there’s one steadfast rule, do not bring anything over from the other side. And so when Sully accidently brings over a cute little girl from her bedroom, he and Mike find themselves on the lam and desperate not expose their rambunctious little secret. Much of the film plays out like a ‘Three Men and Baby’ dynamic as these two bumbling monsters try to coral the intrepid little baby. Along the way Sully’s nefarious rival discovers the secret and plots to use her for his own evil deeds.

For the betterment of the picture, emotional depth is kept to a minimum, with Docter concentrating on crafting the details of his doppelganger monster world. The film coasts along quite naturally on its consistently funny sight gags. Each monster is drawn with humourous detail - ie. the low level younger ladder climbing monsters with the teenaged hair cuts and braces, the CDA swat team monsters who emerge whenever there’s a security breech.

Even the little girl, who isn’t so much a character as a prop, or a maguffin for the main characters to chase after, is visual gag – a naĂŻve innocent running amuck through tightrope situations of imminent danger. Even in these moments, the gags are about physical movements, slapstick and comedy of errors.

In the special features of new Disney Blu-Ray edition, Docter describes how he was given freedom to create 'Monsters Inc.' outside of the usual communal collaborative process under John Lasseter’s direction. As the first non-Lasseter film, “Monsters Inc.” would seem to have opened the door for filmmakers like Andrew Stanton, and Brad Bird to make even more creative films within the walls of Pixar.

“Monsters Inc” is available on Blu-Ray from Walt Disney Studios Home Entertainment

Monday, 9 November 2009

Where The Wild Things Are

Where The Wild Things Are (2009) dir. Spike Jonze
Starring: Max Records, Catherine Keener, Mark Ruffalo
Voices: James Gandolfini, Maureen O’Hara, Chris Cooper

***½

By Alan Bacchus

After 3 years of publicized production and post-production difficulties bringing this picture to the screen which caused much gossip as to the quality of film it was all worth the wait. In fact, Where The Wild Things Are is better than we could have hoped and exactly the kind of idiosyncratic auteuristic picture we wanted from Spike Jonze.

The notion of Jonze adapting Maurice Sendak’s 1960's children’s book was certainly a risky choice, potential for both triumph and complete failure. After all “Being John Malkovich” and “Adaptation” were both phenomenally original films, but this story NOT a Charlie Kaufman script, but a sparse 19-page picture book, with a wide open canvas for adaptation.

The finished film is a courageous work of art, a wholly unique experience, meeting and exceeding our high expectations. Under anyone’s else’s watch this film would have been turned into an fantasy extravaganza, replete which mondo special effects, overly designed fantasy worlds, fantasy creatures and Pixar/Disney sappy comedic tones. After all, it’s a familiar story, a troubled and lonely child retreats to his dreams where he finds a fantastical world of monsters, of which he makes himself king.

The actual book is only 19 pages, and only about one sentence per page, a very sparse jumping off point for Jonze and his co-writer Dave Eggers. The film version expands on the opening pages of the book, showing us the lonely existence of Max a rambunctious and imaginative 11 year old who is too young to hang out with his newly pubescent sister and who receives little attention from her newly dating single mother. As a result Max has his imagination to retreat to, and when his mother chastises him for standing on their kitchen table proclaiming himself a king, he runs away from home. His flight transforming him not unlike Dorothy in Wizard of Oz, into his own fantasy world of his subconscious mind.

Max finds himself in a world inhabited by giant beasts, or ’Wild Things’ as the title suggests. Max, dressed in his wolf pyjamas, plays the role of a king in order to convince the beasts not to eat him. He befriends their leader Carol (James Gandolfini), a volatile personality who is as innocent and congenial as he is on the edge of destructive violence. Over the course of the next few days Max explores the island and caroses with his new beastly playmates satisfying all the inhibitions and desires he couldn't express at home.

The joy of the film lies in Jonze’s steadfast determination to root the story in reality. His choice of using the Jim Henson Creature Shop ’old school’ designs is retro-inspired. His wild things are a seemless blend of old fashioned men in furry suits and carefully-used and near-invisible computer effects. But its the techniques of the past which have been obsolete for over 15 years now that adds the real-world organic quality.

It's just one aspect of Jonze’s remarkable ability to retain the simplicity of the story. While there’s little plot in the book there’s just as little going on in the film. Yet it sustains its 1 hour, 40mins running time admirably.

Jonze is in tight control of his tone - a melancholy sense of reflection. While the action in the story is generated from Max’s childlike imagination, it's told through the eyes of Jonze, the adult. His direction of the voice actors is inspired, favouring natural, understated voice cadence and dialogue over jokes, punch lines and all traditional template dialogue we hear in kids flicks. The characters are simple, so are the words coming out of their mouths, but the way the lines are read feels sophisticated and complex. Jonze’s camera work is typical of his style. Once again his favourite lensman, Lance Acord shoots the film handheld and natural without it feeling 'shaky'. Carter Burwell’s touching score, which Jonze said, was influenced by listening to Arcade Fire, finds completes the tonal consistency. And so this is how Jonze achieves his vision, an auteur sensibility which fits in perfectly with his two Kaufman films.

“Where the Wild Things” is a kids film made for adults, which, unfortunately means it never ever had a chance to make the big bucks its Disney conpatriots exploit for their adaptations. Though it will not make $100million dollars at the box office, the film is a success, a great success. While children most will not be able to comprehend the dark and melancholic tone there’s no doubt Jonze’s film will last much longer than ‘Cloudy With a Chance of Meatball” or ‘Monsters Vs. Aliens”.

Wednesday, 2 September 2009

Hannah Montana: The Movie

Hannah Montana: The Movie (2009) Dir. Peter Chelsom
Starring: Miley Cyrus, Billy Ray Cyrus, Emily Osment, Jason Earles and Peter Gunn

***

Guest Review By Greg Klymkiw

If a middle-aged man wanders alone into a movie theatre full of 8-year-old girls and their mothers and plops himself down in the front row, is it fair to automatically assume he is a child molester? What if this gentleman grew up in a simpler age when the likes of scrumptious childstar Hayley Mills delighted not only little girls and their mothers, but little boys as well? And though one could never admit to one’s mates that he loved Hayley Mills, it was automatically assumed that all one’s male friends were equally enamoured with the joys inherent in the perky, sweet-faced adventures of “Pollyanna”.

Alas, for several years now, whenever I walked alone into a theatre showing the likes of “The Lizzie McGuire Movie” or the Lindsay Lohan remake of “Freaky Friday”, the looks of horror and disdain I would receive from the mothers of all the 8-year-old girls gave me a taste of what it must feel like to be of virtually any non-white racial persuasion walking into a Ku Klux Klan rally and receiving similar looks of utter hatred. This happens less, now that I am usually accompanied by my own daughter to such extravaganzas, but for a variety of reasons too dull to invoke here, I found myself alone at the theatrical screening of “Hannah Montana: The Movie” and once again I received the wary glares of Moms which said, loud and clear: “CHILD MOLESTER!”

It was, of course worth it, because I enjoyed myself very much. Having had the pleasure of watching every extant episode of the Disney series “Hannah Montana” on DVD (with my daughter, of course), I was primed for this big screen rendering of my favourite contemporary childstar Miley Cyrus and I was certainly not disappointed.

As everyone knows, the title character – much like Superman – has two identities. By day, she is normal kid Miley Stewart, but by night she is pop music sensation Hannah Montana. Somehow, by merely donning a wig, nobody – including characters that should know better - can seem to cotton on to the truth. Well, it worked for Clark Kent, so why not? In the big screen version of Hannah’s adventures, her widowed Dad and manager Robby Ray Stewart (Miley’s real-life Dad, country singing sensation Billy Ray “Achy Breaky Heart” Cyrus) is concerned that his daughter needs a break from her hectic life as a pop sensation. Her wildly erratic behaviour includes a public catfight with model/actress/host Tyra Banks over a pair of shoes in a swanky shop and an unexpected rift with her best friend Lily (Emily Osment), so Dad brings her back to their idyllic family farm in the sleepy White Trash hamlet of Crowley Corners, Tennessee. It is here where Miley finds herself re-connecting with childhood sweetheart Jackson Stewart (hunky, drool-inspiring Jason Earles), family and the simple joys of country life. Threatening her happiness is the muckraking celebrity journalist Oswald Granger (Peter Gunn) who is on to the Miley/Hannah ruse and is about to expose her to the world. Does everything work out happily? Well, it’s probably not a spoiler to say that it does. Why wouldn’t it?

This amiable, pleasant and wholesome family entertainment with its picture postcard photography is subject to derision from all those who purportedly know better, but the fact remains that it’s extremely engaging. Not only is the picture everything one would want to occupy the attention spans of kids, but it also fulfills the very necessary function of promoting family values of the highest order (Miley’s Dad is a single parent, but not because of divorce, but because her Mom died).

Miley Cyrus herself is terrific. In addition to being a talented comic actress, she’s got a great voice and truly shines during her musical numbers. She also proves that she’s got the right stuff to be a romantic lead. Daddy Billy Ray is an actor of – to put it mildly – limited range, but he’s perfectly pleasant in a down home corn pone way.

The movie also features a musical number that rivals (I kid you not!) Luis Bunuel in the surrealism sweepstakes – a barn dance replete with step dancing AND (I kid you not!!) hip-hop moves and set to the song (I kid you not!!!) “Hoedown Throwdown”.

To this day, I am unable to shake myself of the lyrics:

Pop it, lock it, Polka dot it, Countrify, then Hip-hop it

I believe the abovementioned poetry will be etched on my mind until my last breath.

Luckily, for those of us in the pro-Hannah-Montana camp, Walt Disney’s recent Blu-Ray release is a dream-come-true. It includes a gorgeous Blu-Ray transfer that captures the Tennessee locations and Miley’s exquisite, milky skin with equal perfection. There are deleted scenes and bloopers hosted by the amiable director Peter Chelsom (who, without talking down, manages a very kid-friendly approach to the material), several videos, the usual making-of shtick and an equally kid-friendly commentary track from the aforementioned director. The cherry on this sundae of extra features is a how-to video on the utterly insane Hoedown Throwdown dance. My child loves it (and no doubt yours will too). What awaits are hours, days, weeks, months and – God forbid! – years of pleasure dancing along to this feature. In addition to the Blu-Ray disc, the deluxe edition also includes a DVD disc for portable players so your kid doesn’t scratch the Blu-Ray all to hell and – God Bless! – a disc that creates a high-resolution digital copy for iTunes, iPods and/or iPhones. It’s a great package!

If you’re not eight years old or a Mom or a middle aged man who loves Miley Cyrus, the likelihood of you enjoying this movie is considerably lower than that of an Arab Muslim extremist wholeheartedly accepting Zionism. So do please enjoy. Or not!

“Hannah Montana – The Movie” is available on Blu-Ray from Walt Disney Studios Home Entertainment

Monday, 13 April 2009

FLY AWAY HOME


Fly Away Home (1996) dir. Carroll Ballard
Starring: Anna Paquin, Jeff Daniels, Dana Delany, Terry Kinney

****

The notion of a ‘family film’ usually either means dumbed-down cartoonish characters like “Alvin and the Chipmunks”, retread CG-heavy mythological fantasy pictures like “The Golden Compass” or Disney Channel exploitation like Hannah Montana –certainly not films that play to an age above the children who beg their parents to see them.

This is what makes “Fly Away Home” a marvelous gem to be treasured and rediscovered. In addition to having all the elements that would appeal to kids, specifically an independent young girl equaling or besting adults with hordes of cute animals playing with humans, the film is never "childish”. Director Carroll Ballard (“The Black Stallion”) executes his tone of awe-struck wonder and discovery with an artistic integrity comparable to “Days of Heaven”.

In the opening scene we meet Amy Alden, who’s just been in a car accident in New Zealand killing her mother. She wakes up half way across the earth in Canada, with her father, whom she barely knows, staring at her. Jeff Daniels, who plays her father Tom, is framed in a bold close-up, immediately expressing his warmth and compassion (a testament to Daniels’ marvelous acting skills which anchor the film). Anna Paquin, who plays young 12-year-old Amy, is a perfect match for Daniels. Fresh off her Oscar win for the "Piano", her performance is so natural its perhaps one of the most underrated child performances I’ve ever seen.

In Canada, Amy is forced to adapt to life in a new environment, with a new father and without her mother. Exploring the beautiful Eastern Ontario landscape she finds a group of neglected goose eggs, which she, unbeknownst to her father, weans into the world. When Tom and Amy discover that the government authorities have a law against domestically-raising wild birds, the duo take it upon themselves to find a way to get the geese on their natural migratory path. Tom’s knack as a hobbiest inventor and amateur pilot gives him the idea to teach the birds to migrate using his newly invented ultralight glider. Thus, Amy and Tom achieve the impossible, and fly with their adopted birds across the continental US to their migratory home in the south.

The metaphors in the recent Hannah Montana/High School Musical brand of Disney films rarely run deeper than grade school clique-ism, and so the distinct existential themes of “Fly Away Home” make it a fascinating film in the genre. Obviously the notion of the bird’s migration and finding a home far away echoes Amy’s displacement from New Zealand, and her replacement of her mother with her own maternal instincts for the geese are clear but never preached.

Caleb Deschannel whose cinematography received a deserved Oscar nomination has his stamp over the film. Deschannel who collaborated with Ballard on “The Black Stallion” brings same elegance to this picture. Same goes with Deschannel’s sense of wonder he elevated to mythic proportions in “The Natural” and “The Right Stuff”.

Alfonso Cuaron’s “A Little Princess” makes a good comparison as well – a film which got Alfonso Cuaron his “Harry Potter” gig. It’s an interesting comparison, because watching the Ballard execute his tone of awe and wonder made me think that he would have a fine choice as director of one of those movies.

"Fly Away Home" gave me a chance to look into director Carroll Ballard’s filmography. Despite a career of solid and successful films, including “The Black Stallion” (1979), “Never Cry Wolf” (1983), his output has been sparse. “Fly Away Home” comes after a 4-year absence from his last film “Wind” (1992). In all, Ballard only has six films in 30 years on his resume, an admirable career of quality over quantity. Oh yeah, he also happens to be the son of Sam Peckinpah’s legendary cinematographer Lucian Ballard, was classmates with Francis Coppola at USC, and shot second unit photography on “Star Wars”.

"Fly Away Home" is now available on Blu-Ray from Sony Pictures Home Entertainment

Saturday, 11 April 2009

MARLEY AND ME


Marley and Me (2008) dir. David Frankel
Starring: Jennifer Aniston, Owen Wilson, Eric Dane, Kathleen Turner

***

“Marley and Me”, with maximum mainstream accessibility, manages to encapsulate the joys and pains of family through the life cycle of man’s best friend. A sharply written, clichĂ©-free script from high profile screenwriters, Don Roos and Scott Frank, elevate the material above a mere dog-picture.

Owen Wilson and Jennifer Aniston play John and Jennifer Grogan, a pair of journalists living in Florida, opposite personalities, John the laidback procrastinator, Jennifer the type-A meticulous planner , yet lifelong partners destined to be together through thick and thin. In order to fill the gap meant for a baby, John gets a dog to start off their family. And why not the good old American dog – the golden lab. Marley, named after Bob Marley, is a terror from day one – chewing everything in sight, jumping on visitors, humping their legs, running off into traffic etc etc.

As time flies by Jennifer and John eventually get pregnant, thus changing their lives even more. The farther along into real life the more they realize they have to give up some of their dreams and aspirations – the inevitable compromise that comes with adult responsility. John’s dreams and desires to be a New York newspaper man like his single bachelor friend takes a backseat; Jennifer decides to become a stay-at-home mom thus sacrificing her career for the family. The consistency throughout their lives is Marley, who continues to get into trouble and make their lives hell. At one point John and Jennifer consider giving Marley away, a crucial compromise they are unwilling to make. In this moment they realize giving up on Marley is like giving up on one’s family – that important element of their lives which they had put ahead of everything.

In traditional animal pictures the humans are usually the secondary to the cute furry stars. We’ve seen too many inadequately drawn characters, essentially cardboard sieves designed to fill the space in between the scenes of dog rambuntctiousness. The first act feels like this. Frankel uses the first 30 mins to establish the puppy-cuteness we all need to see in a dog picture.

But then the human characters take over from the dog with surprising grace. Jennifer and John experience all the difficult moments suburban middle-class white Americans face. Marital discourse, family planning problems, the difficulties raising children, career anxiety and the financial pressures that go along with a big family. “Marley and Me” comes across as familiar but not predictable.

Expecting that the film will encompass the life of Marley, we know that we may have face Marley’s death. I won’t say what happens at the end but it’s a surprisingly emotional climax giving great perspective to the relationship of dog and man.

“Marley and Me” is available on DVD from Twentieth Century Fox Home Entertainment


Sunday, 22 February 2009

MADAGASCAR: ESCAPE 2 AFRICA


Madagascar: Escape 2 Africa (2008) dir. Eric Darnell, Tom McGrath
Featuring Voices by: Ben Stiller, Chris Rock, David Schwimmer, Jada Pinkett-Smith

**

Those wacky animals from the Bronx Zoo are back. When we left the last movie, Ben Stiller’s Alex the Lion, Chris Rock’s Marty the Zebra, David Schwimmer’s Melman the Giraffe and all the others were stranded on the African island, still hoping to get back to New York. In this adventure the bunch get stranded in mainland Africa for more fish out of water hijinks. While the first film offered a decent amount of laughs and giggles the well has likely run dry for the theatrical franchise.

In the opening we see a flashback to Alex’s brief life in Africa with his father, Zuba (voiced by the late Bernie Mac) and his eventual kidnap and placement in the Bronx zoo. In the present the four animal heroes – Lion, Zebra, Giraffe and Hippo (Jade Pinkett-Smith) – resurrect an old plane to be piloted by those shifty penguins in hopes of flying it back to New York. It makes for a fun sequence when the makeshift plane fails and plummets onto the mainland African plains in front of Mt. Kilimanjaro.

Alex soon encounters his father again,  thus reuniting his family. But Alex’s New York upbringing means he can’t adapt to the traditions of the African lion. He loses a fight for pride supremacy forcing his father to relinquish his title as King of the Lions. In banishment Alex and his pals decide to leave the sanctuary of the plains for the unprotected lands to find out why the riverbed has dried up. Naturally an ecological subtext is peppered into the comedy and family-values.

Interesting, knowing Etan Cohen, the comedically irresponsible co-scribe of “Tropic Thunder”, was the writer of this sequel my hopes were up that similar risks would be taken with the talking-animals genre. Instead it all feels stale and repetitive.

I remember the entry of those lemur creatures in the first film set to Reel2Reel’s dance number “I Like to Move it” was a pleasantly ironic bit of schmaltz. When the movie repeats it early in the opening act of this film it just feels overplayed. And the best characters of the first film – the conniving Penguins spies – have no gas or comic energy.

At $179million domestic gross, it’s a respectable success for a CG Animated film. So we may see a third one come along in a couple of years – or, at the very least, a straight-to-video knock off. In fact, there’s already a movie just with the Penguins released in conjunction with this sequel.

“Madagascar: Escape 2 Africa” is available on DVD and Blu-Ray from Paramount Pictures Home Entertainment. The Blu-Ray edition, other than the stunning CG clarity, includes more footage of the penguins, music videos and host of other kids games all in high-definition.



Wednesday, 6 August 2008

NIM'S ISLAND


Nim’s Island (2008) dir. Jennifer Flacket and Mark Levin
Starring: Abigail Breslin, Jodie Foster and Gerard Butler
Fantasy

**1/2

Guest Review By Greg Klymkiw

Family fantasy adventures based upon bestselling books continue to be cranked out as entertainment-starved parents continue to require motion pictures they can safely take their kids to, but also (presumably) enjoy as much as their progeny. While "Nim’s Island" is far from first-rate, it’s most definitely a solid ride with as much to recommend it to Moms and Dads as the kiddies. However, this recommendation and rating is extended, and I repeat – extended ONLY – to those requiring a family fantasy adventure based upon a book they may (or may not) have already read to their children. All others need not apply.

"Nim’s Island" ambles along pleasantly enough as it spins a yarn involving the cute, perky and (of course) precocious little darling of the title – Nim (Abigail Breslin) – as she and marine biologist Dad (Gerard Butler) live out their idyllic existence on a tiny tropical island in the middle of God-knows-where. Palm trees abound, fresh fruit sprouts from every nook and cranny and Nim’s pals include all the animals of the island including an especially flatulent seal.

When Nim is not gamboling about her island paradise, she reads voraciously. Her literature of choice comes in the form of the seemingly autobiographical adventure tales of the swashbuckling Jack Rover (also Gerard Butler). When her Dad disappears at sea whilst on a mission to survey marine life, Nim – using satellite email – sends cries of help to Rover. Believing the swashbuckler to be real, she suspects he’ll swoop in at some point to answer her pleas.

Unbeknownst to our heroine is the sad fact that Jack is a fictional character who exists – not only exclusively to the written page, but also as an imaginary character in the mind of agoraphobic authoress Alexandra Rover (Jodie Foster). Touched by the sincerity of Nim’s emails, the writer with the irrational fear of a world outside her home embarks bravely on a dangerous to take the place of her fictional character in order to rescue both Nim and her Dad.

Two things, and two things only, make this potentially hoary family fantasy palatable.

First of all, the cast is pretty first-rate. Abigail Breslin continues to amaze and delight – she’s an engaging young actress and as she matures and fills out, she’s becoming quite riveting – the camera clearly loves her and she has only one way to go – up, up and up. Gerard Butler, he of the firm buttocked King Leonidas fame in “300”, seems more at home as the Indiana-Jones-styled hero of his dual role duties, but he’s a terrific actor and it’s fun watching him prance about as a Daddy in second fiddle mode to Miss Breslin and her amazing farting seal. Jodie Foster manages to use her annoyingly pinched qualities to exceptional use. This tightly-wound, oh-so-serious actress who is as highly skilled as she is dull seems quite at home in her role as an agoraphobe and even manages to loosen up a tad in order to – you heard it hear first, folks – make us laugh.

The second reason to recommend the picture is its strict belief in family values. While Mr. Butler portrays a single parent, it is not the otherwise usual sort of pathetic baby-boomer characters who've messed up their children’s lives by being selfish and breaking up their families through divorce. No, Mr. Butler’s character is widowed, not divorced. This not only allows us to feel more for him and his child, but rejoice when he and Nim eventually become a full family unit with the appearance of the husband-less Jodie Foster.

If you’re looking for a shred of originality, you won’t find it here, but if you’re looking for a relatively pleasant time to kill time with the child you love, you can do much worse than “Nim’s Island”.

And how about those family values? Family values abound and prosper on “Nim’s Island”, and for that, we can all be just a little bit thankful.

“Nim’s Island” is available on DVD and Blu-Ray from 20th Century Fox Home Entertainment