Review - Fantastic Mr. Fox

When I think of Wes Anderson, one phrase comes to mind, "I don't get it". Every film I've seen of his has left me feeling bewildered. I know they're supposed to be funny, but they just come off as odd and confusing to me. So, when I saw the trailer for Fantastic Mr. Fox I wasn't that excited. In fact, the only reason I saw this film in the first place was because of the stop-motion visuals, and to the animators credit, they are excellent. But, can the same be said for the story?

The film opens with the title character, Mr. Fox, and his wife attempting a robbery, only to get caught in a trap. Unsure of whether they'll survive, Mr. Fox swears that if they get out of this that he will never steal again. Cut to a few years later; Mr. Fox is an unsuccessful newspaper columnist who struggles to provide for his family. He finds himself missing the time when he was a master thief and decides that in order to make a better life for him and his family he must pull one last job. Well, that "one last job" turns into another...and another...and so on, until finally the people getting robbed decide enough is enough and join forces to kill Mr. Fox.

The fact that you know what's going on in this movie is definitely a plus, and is pretty unusual for a film directed by Wes Anderson. This is probably because the film is based on the book by Roald Dahl (Charlie and the Chocolate Factory). That's not to say that the signature Wes Anderson quirkiness isn't here; it is, and in great quantities, it just doesn't overwhelm the movie like it does in his other films.

As for the animation, it is superb. Stop motion animated films, good ones anyway, are a rare occurrence, and because they take so long to make and are so expensive, it's really a treat when we get to see one as good as this. It's truly a unique type of animation, and one that's unfortunately not used enough in the days of computer animation. I highly recommend seeing this on Blu-Ray, as the visuals really benefit from the higher resolution.

Of course, any animated film is only as good as the voice talent behind it, and fortunately, the cast here is up to the task. George Clooney headlines as Mr. Fox, with Meryl Streep, Jason Schwartzman, Bill Murray, Michael Gambon and Willem Dafoe rounding out the supporting cast. There isn't one person here that phones in their performance. While Clooney more or less plays it like Danny Ocean from Ocean's 11, I didn't mind at all, considering this is a very similar role. I especially liked Michael Gambon as the lead villain, Franklin Bean, who manages to be menacing without being over the top.

Fantastic Mr. Fox may not be the pinnacle of stop-motion animated films, but it's certainly a solid entry, with a fantastic cast (no pun intended) and a good story that leads up to a rousing climax that's both exciting and funny at the same time.

My Rating - 7.5/10

"I'm here to fight for Truth, Justice...and the British Monarchy".

It was announced on Monday that British actor Henry Cavill (HBO's The Tudors) will be playing Superman in the upcoming  film directed by Zack Snyder (300/Watchmen). I am not against this bit of casting in the least. However, a lot of people on the net (fanboys) feel the idea of casting a Brit to play Superman is outrageous, saying that Superman is supposed to stand for "Truth, Justice and the American way". Have these people forgotten that Superman is from another planet? He's not even human, for god's sake, little own American.

Plus, are they forgetting how awesome Christian Bale was/is as Batman? He was British and Batman is an American, yet everyone praised Bale as The Dark Knight. So, I say what's the difference people? If you're gonna judge the guy for playing Superman at least wait until the actual movie is out and base your opinion on his performance, not because he happens to be of a different nationality - that's Nationalism folks, and it's just plain ignorant!

With Warner Bros. announcing that Superman has been cast, everyone is now asking who's going to be playing Lois Lane and Lex Luthor, not to mention General Zod, who's already been announced as the main villain in the film. While nothing's been confirmed, supposedly Rachel McAdams (The Notebook, Wedding Crashers) is a lead contender for the role. She's definitely got the look and the sass to play Lois Lane, and I think she'd do a great job in the role. However, I personally would like to see Mary Elizabeth Winstead (Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World) get the part. She has all of the above mentioned qualities and I really think that if she nabbed the role that it'd catapult her into super stardom.

As for Lex and Zod, not a lot of talk has been floating around as to who is being considered. I would actually prefer if Lex wasn't in the flick at all. He's been played to death and has yet to be done right. Kevin Spacey was good, but he was still playing the same Luthor that was obsessed with land for some reason. Maybe if they make Lex the rich, corrupt businessman that he's been for the past thirty years or so it'd be better, but we'll see.

Zod on the other hand I'm excited for. While I would have preferred to see a new villain (Brainiac, Darkseid, etc.) General Zod is still one of the best of Superman's rogues gallery and I can't wait to see who they choose for the role. It's got to be someone with a commanding presence and who can yell really well. A friend suggested Mark Strong (the bad guy from Kick-Ass) and I have to say he wouldn't be a bad choice. He's already playing Sinestro in the upcoming Green Lantern movie, and as pleased as Warner Bros. reportedly is with that film, it's not a stretch to think that they'd be willing to go with him as the villain in Superman as well.

What do you guys think? Who should be playing Lois Lane and General Zod? Feel free to post comments below.

Review - Black Swan

Let me start by saying that I liked Black Swan. As a straight up thriller I thought it worked on every level. You have suspense, creepiness, and a few jolt moments thrown in for good measure. However, that being said, I wouldn't put it in my Top Ten of the Year. Maybe it's because the film deals with ballet, a subject I care nothing about, or because every other critic in the world is heaping loads of praise upon it, therefore I went in with high expectations and was simply underwhelmed...but that wasn't exactly the case though. It's difficult for me to put into words, especially since there isn't much I can say about the film that I disliked, it's just...ballet.

Anyway, enough of that, let's get on with what made this film good: layers. There's a lot going on in this flick, and I'm sure that if you were to watch it a second time you'd pick up on stuff that went completely over your head. For example, the relationship between Natalie Portman and her mother is just plain fuckin' weird. You've got tension of all kinds going on here; creepiness, anger, jealousy...and sexual tension?

This has been a source of much debate on the Internet as to whether the characters have some sort of weird sexual relationship, and it'd be difficult for me to tell you a precise moment in the film where this is touched upon without seeing it again, but it was just a feeling I had when watching the movie that something else was going on besides simple jealousy between a daughter succeeding where her mother failed. Hell, you could probably write a whole essay - a whole book- on the bizarre relationship between these two characters, but I don't want to reveal too much and risk spoiling some of the best and most unsettling parts of the film, so let's move on to what everyone's talking about, Natalie Portman's performance.

It's true, she does a helluva job. She begins as a sheltered, somewhat naive young woman who desperately wants to get the lead role in "The Swan Princess". She eventually does, but the difficulty of playing a role that requires her to unleash her dark side begins to take its toll as she struggles against self doubt, the harsh realities of the ballet business, and the growing monster inside that is slowly taking control of her. It's a hard role to pull off, but Portman manages it splendidly. I think I can speak for almost everyone else when I say she's definitely a lock for the Best Actress Oscar.

While there may not be a whole lot going on visually speaking (most of the film takes place in dance rooms or apartment buildings) the direction of the film is superb. The movie takes a little bit to get going, but when it does things get really interesting. "Slow burner" is the phrase I would use to describe Black Swan. The film gets progressivly darker as Portman's character sinks further and further into insanity, finally leading up to the night of her big performance where the audience is treated to a spectacle of lights, bizarre hallucinations, and a great twist that will leave you going "ah wahhhh".  There are a lot of things being juggled here, and I wouldn't be surprised if Darren Aronofsky gets a surprise win for Best Director over David Fincher.

You know...as I finish this review, I think I've finally realized what my problem with the film was. It wasn't the fact that the main back drop of the story was a ballet, and it wasn't over-hype from the critics; it's that the film is genuinely unsettling and it simply made me feel weird, disturbed, and feeling as if my mind had been slightly molested - a "mind fuck" if you will.

So, if you were to ask me to describe the movie in one sentence, I would say that Black Swan is a slow burning "mind fuck" of a film.

My Rating - 8.5/10

"The Dark Knight Rises" gets sexy!

After waiting for years for some meaningful Batman 3 news, Warner Bros. finally announced today who will show up in the film as the villains. Anne Hathaway will be playing Catwoman and Tom Hardy (the English dude from Inception - he's the guy who says "You mustn't be afraid to dream a little bigger, darling") will be playing the steroid fueled Bane.

I for one couldn't be happier about this news. I think Hathaway is a fantastic actress and could bring a lot to the role, not to mention, she's definitely sexy enough to play the feline seductress. I wonder what the suit will look like, though. As long as we get some adequate cleavage exposure I'll be perfectly satisfied.

As for Hardy as Bane...awesome. I kind of feel Bane's gotten a bad rap from people whose only exposure to him has been from 1997's Batman and Robin, where he was shown as a Hulk-like monster who could barely form coherent sentences. The Bane in the comics, however, was a smart, calculating mercenary. Yes, he took steroids and became super-strong, but not Hulk strong. I for one am glad they've chosen Bane, out of all of the remaining villains in the Batman universe, he's one of the few who could fit into the realistic universe Nolan and Co. have created.

With two huge story lines in the same film, some have said that Nolan's juggling too much. I'm not worried, though. Nolan's proven that he knows what he's doing, and I have nothing but confidence for this film. July can't get here soon enough.

Review - The Social Network (One of My Top 10 Picks of 2010)

What can I say about The Social Network that hasn't already been said? "A Landmark Film", "The Defining Film Of Our Times", all of these statements are true. To keep it short, everything you've heard about The Social Network is true. The cast is phenomenal, the script is solid, and Fincher directs what will probably become (or possibly already is) a career defining film. Everyone involved is on the top of their game and there isn't a weak link to be found in any aspect of this movie.

I'll start off with the most striking element of the film, the acting. Rarely do you see a cast of this caliber. Everyone on display here is worthy of an Oscar, with Jesse Eisenberg giving what will no doubt become the performance of his career. As Facebook co-founder Mark Zuckerberg, Eisenberg displays acting abilities I don't even think he knew he had. The guy somehow makes you root for someone who is displayed as nothing but an asshole and who has almost no redeeming qualities at all, other than the fact that he's less douchey than the villains in the film, the two Harvard twins, Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss who give Zuckerberg the idea for what will eventually become Facebook.

Eisenberg's entire character can be summed up in the opening scene of the film, where in the span of a few minutes he manages to show himself as nothing but an egotistical, obsessed-with-status douchebag who blatantly insults the woman sitting across from him on their first date, insinuating that she doesn't have what it takes to get into a local fraternity. This scene, along with a tense exchange between Zuckerberg and the Winklevoss' lawyer, are two of my favorite scenes in the film and really showcase Eisenberg. What's really interesting about his character is that he doesn't change, he's still the same asshole in the end of the movie that he was in the beginning, the only difference being that he knows he's an asshole, whereas in the beginning he was sort of blissfully unaware.

On the supporting side you have Andrew Garfield and Justin Timberlake, two guys who play completely different characters in the film. Garfield plays Zuckerberg's friend Eduardo Saverin, the man responsible for creating the computer algorithm that becomes the basis for Facebook. Like nearly all of the other characters in the film he is obsessed with social status, but not to the point where he'll screw over his friend, which is what Zuckerberg ultimately does. The look that Garfield gives Eisenberg when he learns that his friend has betrayed him is enough to get him an Oscar nod alone in my book.

Then you have the third man in the equation, Sean Parker; creator of Napster, and played in the film by Justin Timberlake, someone who I never would have expected to have become a good an actor as he has. Timberlake is excellent here, portraying Parker as someone who is even more egotistical than Zuckerberg and who is described in the film, quite appropriately, as a "Wild Card". Parker is the extreme version of Zuckerberg; he party's, snorts coke, and is completely full of himself. He doesn't have to win, but I'd be very disappointed if Timberlake didn't get an Oscar nod. He's come a long way since N'Sync, and he deserves the nomination.

It's no wonder the actors are so damn good in the movie, they have a great script to work with. Written by Aaron Sorkin (A Few Good Men, The West Wing), the script flows incredibly well, and although it might not be 100% factually accurate, it makes for one hell of an entertaining movie. I predict an Oscar win for this one.

In the directors chair is David Fincher, who has yet to make a bad film in my book. Compared to most of his other films this is the least exciting from a visual standpoint. That's not to say that it doesn't look great, it does, there just aren't any super elaborate camera moves or special effects, other than the Winklevoss twins both being played by Armie Hammer. It's a seamless special effect, and one that has come a long way since the days of Back to the Future: Part 2, but it's nothing that's going to get the film a Best Visual Effects Oscar.

Anyway, getting back to Fincher, as I said before, the guy has yet to make a bad film.  Sure, some have been better than others (Alien 3 is probably his weakest film, but even that movie's pretty good when looking at it as its own movie and not as a sequel to Aliens) but when you take a look at his filmography you'll see that the guy has made some of the best, most original movies of the past fifteen years, starting with Seven and ending most recently with The Social Network. As with Sorkin, I think an Oscar win for Best Director is all but guaranteed for Fincher.

On the musical front, a lot of talk has been going around about Trent Reznor's score, and while I think it was good, I don't really know why it's getting the attention it's getting. The best part of the score is right in the beginning when Zuckerberg is running back to his dorm room after blowing it with his date. The score for this scene is absolutely haunting and gives a great sense of foreboding for the journey Zuckerberg is about to embark on. As for the rest of the score, it's really more subtle in nature and isn't really meant to be a hummable John Williams-like tune.

To sum up here, all I can say is see this film. I promise you will like it. I realize that's a pretty bold statement, but I can honestly say that while you might not have the same reaction to the film as I had, you won't be able to deny that the performances in the movie are outstanding and that the film itself is truly a masterpiece from a gifted filmmaker that shows no signs of slowing down.

My Rating - 10/10

"Look at the size of those webshooters!"

While I'm not really that excited either way over the new Spiderman reboot, I will say that at least it looks like they're going in the right direction. They've got a director hot off a critically acclaimed indie flick (500 Days of Summer, which happened to be one of my favorite films of 2009), Andrew Garfield's playing Spidey (a guy who's more than likely going to get an Oscar nod for The Social Network) and last, but not least, what looks like a pretty good take on the Spiderman costume. It's more or less the same as the old one, with some minor tweaks here and there (the gloves being the most different), but the big news about the costume are the artificial web shooters that appear on the gloves (or so I read on the internet, which we all know is never wrong).

Now, I've looked closely at this picture and I can't really tell if there are web shooters on his wrists or not, and to tell you the truth I could care less. I can remember back when the first Spiderman movie came out that many a fanboy were pissed when they revealed that Spiderman would appear in the film sans web shooters and would instead have the ability to shoot webs from his wrists organically.

I for one was not mad at all when they announced this. Honestly, I didn't care one way or another. The idea that a person would be able to shoot webs from his wrists at all, organically or otherwise, is pure fiction...so does it really matter how he does it? We're talking about a comic book film here, people. None of this shit is real anway. SO CHILL THE FUCK OUT!!! But you know how fanboys can be. If something isn't 100% faithful to the source than that means it's dogshit and isn't worth watching and that they need to bitch about it on any and all forums they can find.

Anyway, if they are going with the whole "he created the web shooters himself" thing, I think it'll be interesting to see how they pull it off. As for the look of the costume; I like it. It doesn't look like there's any fake muscle prosthetics or anything like that; besides, Spiderman was never a muscle bound hulk anyway - that's what super strength is for. Another thing about the costume that I like is the way it sort of shines.

I like shiny things...shiny things are purrrrty.

"Hold on to your butts".

Let me begin my first blog by saying that I'm sorry. For those of you who may have seen the title of this blog and thought it was some sort of fanboy argument over which is the better Star Wars film, The Empire Strikes Back or Return of the Jedi, then I'm afraid you've come to the wrong place. While this topic will no doubt appear on this blog at some point in the future, the origin of the title can be found in one of my favorite films, Clerks.
If you've seen Clerks I'm sure you'll remember the scene between Dante and Randall where they discuss the deaths of hundreds of innocent contractors who were killed when the Rebels destroyed the unfinished Death Star, and if you recall, this whole conversation began over a question, "Which did you like better; The Empire Strikes Back or Return of the Jedi?". One of the funniest scenes of the film came from a movie debate, a "Which one did you like more" question, which is what this blog is all about; movie reviews, debates and movie talk in general.

A stretch you ask? Perhaps...but it was either this or "Dave's Generic Movie Blog".

Now that I've gotten that out of the way, let's get on with what you'll be seeing in this thing...

The past couple of weeks have been a lot of catch-up work for me. At this point I've seen almost all of the films that will more than likely be nominated for awards this season, and thankfully they've all been good. In fact, two of them have found their way onto my Top Ten list for 2010. It's funny, after looking at my Top Ten list for last year, I've found it's practically identical to almost everyone else's.

Someone over at DVD Verdict brought up a good point. If you'll listen to the "F This Movie" podcast you'll hear them say that the reason everyone's Top Ten lists are the same is because there was such a lack of good films last year...and sorry to say, he's absolutely right. Here's hoping that 2011 will be better...but, with films like Season of the Witch kicking of the year, it's not looking good.

Ah well, at least M. Night Shyamalan doesn't have a movie coming out. He doesn't does he? God, let's hope not.