Le dîner de cons

Once again FilmWipe fans i am apologising.  I have been ill yet again.  I feel like Tiger Woods – I’ve denied the rumours on twitter that my illness is syphilis, however as time has gone it is looking increasingly likely that i’m lying.  All I need now is for my phone call to the syphilis sufferers of the Isle of Mann  to be released and then the game is over.  I would like to point out that I am not one of those people who is constantly ill or who has an allergy to everything (Secretly I’m Bubble Boy). Anyway, today I bring you a film that has been promised for your scrutiny for about a week Le Diner de Cons.

This cheeky French farce comes straight from the imagination of the genius Francis Veber and in all honesty is a weaker version of his 2003 film Tai Tois. It follows Pierre Brochant a wealthy publisher who every week organises a dinner with his friends where they each have to bring an idiot with them.  They get their amusement from degrading the person without them realising it.  Unfortunately for Pierre he had not encountered on inviting the kind hearted but utter buffoon Francois Pignon.  Due to pulling a muscle in his back he can’t attend the dinner.  However, Pignon turns up at his house.  What unfolds is an unforgettable evening where Brochant the limits of human endurance and acceptability are pushed to its extremes

The character of Pignon is superb.  The balance between tragic idiot and kind hearted fool is struck brilliantly.  You can see why people would like him or loath him. A mixture of obsessive modelling (the Airfix kind not lingerie), mild supidity mixed with a face and body that only Rick Waller can dream of.   He plays as the perfect comedy foil for Brochant.  Pignon single handedly manages to destroy his life in one evening of good intentioned boffoonary.  Possibly the most cringe worthy moment is when Pignon invites his tax inspector friend round to the house in order to work out where Brochant’s wife has gone.  The scene lasts for what feels like an eternity, slowly building in tension and humour until a shocking revelation ends the film in an unforgettable crescendo.

The acting is superb throughout the film.  All of the cast put in a superb performance.  However, particular plaudits are deserved for Jacques Villeret.  His performance as Pignon is what set the film apart.  From start to finish you can’t help falling for his portrayal.  The mix of tragedy and comedy in the performance is quite extraordinary. Rarely has such a fine comedy performance been seen in comedic cinema.

Francis Veber is possibly the finest director of comedy I have seen. While this film is not his best work it is still entertaining from start to finish.  As with all of his comedy films he develops fantastic characters that play of each from start to finish.  The difference between this and in my opinion his best film Tai Tois is that Le Diner de Cons has not got the same level of character development.  The constraints of the film being set in one day severely limit the ability for the characters to reach their full potential.

Without questions this is an excellent film that should be viewed by anyone with even the hint of a sense of humour.  If not still watch as you might just discover it.

8/10 – Hilarious

A Glorious Waste Of My Time

After you come back from watching Twilight: A New Moon, you brain – which due to the mind numbingly dull repetition of watching a group of homoerotic teenage vampires, brood and worry about whether their latest hair cut is “cool”,  has turned into a porridge so thick and tastelless even prisoners in a Vietnamese slave labour camp, would turn their nose up at it – might start to question what film would destroy my thin shroud of happiness and lead me to attempt suicide? I have the answer.  The Glorious 39.  Stephen Poliakoff has actually managed to make a  film which made me want to sandpaper all the feature of my face, so that I lost the ability to see or hear what felt like the longest 2 hours and 10 minutes of my life.  Even passing gallstones seemed more tempting than watching another minute of the horror show that I witnessed.  Franky nothing is more frightening than realising 10 minutes in that you’ve got another two hours of this turgid rubbish to get through.  Twilight should take lessons in order to create something comparably scary.

The film is set in 1939.  War is about to break out.  The aristocracy believe that they can negotiate a deal to get Britain out of the war.  Unbeknownst to Anne (Ramola Garai) – the adoptive daughter of the high ranking Keyes family – her relatives are part of this plan and are knocking off anyone who stands in the way of their plot.  After one of her friends dies mysteriously, she stubbles across a recording that implicates the government and eventually her family in his murder.  What makes the plot even more “exciting” is that strange things start happening around her and more people die.  The whole plot is framed around the present day meeting between the grandson of Anne asking the last remaining relatives of the Keyes family about what happened to his Grandmther.

Almost everything is hateable in this film.  The direction is probably the worst bit.  I have seen genital crabs with more talent behind the camera than Poliakoff.  He has obviously been taking lessons in direction from a blind gereatric man with ADHD.  Every single scene has a camera zoom that lasts for an eternity on someone or something.  In particular the final shot on an elderly Anne.  Poliakoff has the longest possible zoom on to her wrinkled face followed by a dramatic pause which serves as an opportuniy to fade into Anne as she is in 1939.  It is horrible.  Leprosy colonies are more pleasant sights than the end of the film. 

What is even more infuriating is that he has managed to turn a cast of vaguely decent cast into a group more wooden than the amazon rain forest.  It is not a slight on them that they’re generally awful (apart from Bill Nighy). By trying to replicate the style of language used in films of the era, he has lost any semblence of plausabiliy and more importantly has failed to create the illusion of 1939. 

Bill Nighy deserves to have his equity taken away and then frog marched to a Sushi Bar in London where he can eat a piece of Sushi laced with radioactive thallium.  He was awful.  It was obvious from two minutes in what was really going on with his character.  He was so bad he made me want to scoop my eyes out with a rusty spoon.  I used to like him as an actor.  Now, I wouldn’t swerve to avoid him if he was crossing the road in front of me. Bad, Bad, Bad.

One tiny ray of sunshine was Ramola Garai.  She was quite good and gave a suitably convincing performance.  The film was clearly a vehicle for her to launch her career.  But, in all fairness she grabbed the opportunity with both hands.  Without her the film would have deserved being burnt in a return to the good old days when anything rubbish was vilified and led to national outrage. 

Overall this is poor. I love British cinema.  However, if this is the best it can curretly do I think the UK Film Council might as well give up.  It is so dire that I wouldn’t infict it on my worst enemy.

1/10 – Nicht Gut

Taking Seconds From My Life

Before I begin this review properly I would like to apologise for the lack of a review yesterday.  The review of the French comedy classic Le diner de cons will be on its way to you soon.  However, I am going to bring my own musings on another film Taking Woodstock.  The eagle-eyed among you will have seen the headline and will guess how I feel about this film.  Unfortunately I am quite a big Ang Lee fan.  The man who brought the world classics such as Lust, Caution and Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon has not repeated his usual high standards. In fact he has created a disaster worst than his 2003 epic of misery Hulk. I feel cheated.  I feel like the master has decided not to treat me to an evening of cinematic excellence, and instead has pulled down my trousers and bummed vigorously for 2 hours (Not a pleasant experience).  Anyway sit back relax and watch as we probe away to discover why you should not watch Taking Woodstock.

The film follows Jake Teichberg.  He has gone back to his families loss making motel to help them try and survive.  With closure looming, Jake gets wind of the forced move of the Woodstock music festival.  As he has already got a license to host a music event he gets in touch with them, this results in him turning his small town in to the iconic music event.

Where do I begin?  The film is 1hr 50 minutes and you feel every single second of this, in particular the first half feels like you are pulling your teeth out with the most boring dentist in Beige Hospital.  Everything about it is dull.  I understand that Mr Lee was simply trying to set everything up for the second half.  However, he could have done this in a tenth of the time and still not have lost any of the quality of the film.

The second half is completely different.  The film springs to life.  The festival is on the verge of collapsing again.  The young people are destroying the family motel and Jake is on the brink.  The development from here to the end of the festival is actually quite good.  In particular the scenes involving the father rediscovering his happiness by spending time with a transvestite security guard and Jake’s journey into the world of drugs and music.

There are two exceptional performances in the film.  Imelda Staunton plays Jakes mother, a strict Russian woman who is obsessed with making money.  Staunton’s performance is spell bindingly and probably steals the show as she is so dislikeable that you end up enjoying every scene she is in.  The other great performance is Liev Schreiber, his portrayal of Vilma a transvestite security guard is priceless.  Frankly without him the film would have been devoid of any humour.  I put his small role down to the film being just about acceptable to watch.  and for achieving that he surely deserves a nod at this years Oscars.

The worst performance is sadly Jake, played by Henry Goodman.  He is wooden, uninteresting and is a disappointment to the acting profession. It is not because the character is like this, its because he cannot act.  At no point do you believe that he is Jake and throughout you’re fully aware that this is a young actor cutting his teeth.  He breaks the cinematic illusion and for that I not forgive him.  I also do not forgive him for having possibly the biggest nose I have ever seen in my life.  It is so large people in Austria ski down it in winter.  For half the film I spent my time trying to work out if there was a background, because his nose was in the way.  Get plastic surgery and acting lessons and then you might just be able too appear in something other than series 10 of I’m a celebrity, get me out of here.

Ang Lee.  I won’t rip you to pieces because you’re a great director but honestly this was poor.  Next time make sure you have actually got a plot line and vaguely decent script before you decide to make a film.

Overall it is alright but is not worth the money.  Wait until it is on itv2 in three years.

4/10 – Beige

Tai-Tois!

I am going to warn you that for today and tomorrow you’re going to be treated to reviews on French comedy.  I know what you thinking:  ”Miseur FilmWipe this is le horrifique.  The French are non humorous”.  Well my doubting army of followers I disagree with you.  I am not entirely sure about the horror that is tomorrow’s film Le Diner de Cons, which i am hoping is as funny as plot synopsis suggests (essentially it sounds like a cross between Lars Von Triers The Idiots and today’s film in question Francis Veber’s Tai-Tois!). But the film we focus on today is a comedy magnifique (for non French speakers among you that means magnificent film (if you’re stupid enough to have taken my French seriously then I will ask you politely to close down your computer and then book a trip to your local mental hospital)). Anyway lets focus on the here and now.  As I said today is Tai-Tois and you’re in for a treat.  Not only is this one of the funniest films to have come out of France in the naughties, but it is also a film that Hollywood producers should look at with a certain sense of trepidation.

The film follows Quentin (Gerard Depardieu), a kind hearted simpleton thief who inadvertently annoys every person he meets to the point that either consider killing him or themselves.  He finds himself in prison with Ruby (Jean Reno), a brooding outlaw.  Ruby attempts a solo escape but finds himself lumbered with Quentin.  What ensues is a race to find the other criminals that Ruby was involved with before he went to jail in order to find the person responsible for the murder of his lover.

The film is made by two of the best leading male performances in recent comedy history.  The pair play off each other wonderfully.  Reno is the straightest of straight men.  This contrasts superbly with Depardieu who creates one of the most lovably annoying and outlandish characters seen in film.  Earlier I mentioned Von Triers The Idiots, and frankly it is as if he stolen moments from that film but dramatically accentuated them.  The break out from the prison will leave your sides so split that you will be wandering if your liver is about to collapse on to the floor.

Conveniently writer/director Francis Veber also performed his acclaimed double act on tomorrow nights film.  He is clearly an ageing director of some talent.  Now in his early 70s (he is probably one of the few directors who gives Clint Eastwood a run for his money in the elderly stakes) Veber is still knocking out films like a girl from Essex fires out children in her attempt to overpopulate the world.    However, he is possibly one of the finest comedy directors still working.  His control over the film is remarkable.  His comic timing is exemplary.  This is the type of film that could quite easily have run out of control but he manages to stop it becoming silly and annoying.  The invention that he allows is second and his reminiscent of classic Hollywood comedy’s.

Overall I recommend this as one of the finest films that you can beg, borrow or steal from your local video store.  If you’re a Jean Reno fanatic (like me) then you will gobble this up like Richard Blackwood rediscovering food after his coffee enema.

8/10 – Enjoy

Lack of An Education

I feel bad about this loyal FilmWipe readers.  For the second night in a row of my long awaited comeback, I am going to talk about how much I have hated a film.  Don’t get me wrong this film is no Rudo y Cursi. There are actually moments that are actually enjoyable.  However, the plot made my eyes, ears and brain wish that I was being kidnapped by the SS and whisked of to Krackow for instant execution.  Every single predictable minute was as excruciating as sand papering my genitals and then squeezing lemon juice on to them.  I would guess that within 30 second of the film making itself clear I knew what exactly what was going to happen.  I will be h0nest I feel the need to give a bit of the plot of the way in this review to clearly explain what is so bad about this.  Anyway, sit  back relax and find out why you should avoid, avoid, avoid An Education.

The film follows Jenny (Carey Muligan) a school girl growing up in suburban 60s London, aiming to go to Oxford.  She is repressed by her father, Jack (Alfred Molina) who makes her work obsessively in order to fulfil the ambition.  One day she is caught waiting for a lift in the rain.  After waiting for a long time for a bus on a rainy day, she is offered a lift home by David (Peter Sarsgaard).  He chases after her for several weeks impressing her normally hard line parents enough to letting her go on trips with him.  He shows her a life she could only imagine.  However, things turn sour when he proposes.  This leaves Jenny in the position of trying to decide whether she stays at school and goes to Oxford or leaves and gets married.

The acting in the film is generally very good.  Carey Muligan is superb as is Alfred Molina.  The father daughter relationship between the pair is both gritty and yet touching and has certain element of truth in relation to the era.  However, I did not understand the rationale behind Peter Sarsgaard and Dominic Cooper’s (Danny) casting.  The pair are both excellent actors, but should have been playing each others role.  Cooper is young and charming.  His obvious chemistry with Muligan (exhibited only for a brief second) was so intense it made the remainder of the relationship between Jenny and David seem flimsy at best.  Similarly Peter Sarsgaard would have suited the role of Danny much better.  Also it would have made the characters relationship with Helen (Rosamund Pike) seem plausible.  As it was Rosamund Pike looked as if she was doing an impersonation of Gary Glitter by dating someone dramatically younger than herself.  It looked appalling on screen and detracted from the film as a whole.

The script was excellent.  Nick Hornby (Writer of High Fidelity and About a Boy) wrote an excellent script with some absolutely brilliant lines.   However, the overall plot was dismal.  The idea of the fallen school girl seduced from her path of academic excellence, drawn instead to a sordid life of fun that almost costs her the dream but instead through hard work and determination achieves anyway, has been done so many times it might as well have been a plot line written by Plato (It probably was).  It would have been more interesting to see Jenny lose her future as a result of this relationship.  Instead the disappointing attempt to play everything safe was both weak and expected.

The worst bit of the film had to be its ending.  After rushing through the reclamation of Jenny’s life  the film flips to Oxford where she is a student.  Here Jenny gives the most patronising sentence  about the last hour and half which is comparable to the ending of the new crossroads “it was all a dream”.  Rubbish.

Overall this is ok.  It is worth watching, but is more of a present for someone you don’t like.  Treat them to this and they will get the message.

1/10 – Tiresome

Rado y Cursi

Well after a disturbingly depressing few weeks FilmWipe365 is back with a bang.  My illness has gone (again I have not got VD as several people emailed so don’t worry you will not got a bout of te clap from reading this). If I had planned this better I would have reviewed the Korean film The Presidents Last Bang, however, I am lazy and heading to morbid obesity and didn’t think of this incredibly funny joke early enough.  I feel slightly ashamed to come back with this film.  It is like Robbie Williams 2007 return Rudebox – the first album in music history that made people want to get syphilis in their ears.  What makes the film worst is not the fact that you have to read another excruciatingly long review about how much I hated watching it, nor that I wish everyone involved with the film a short and painful career.  It is instead the fact that I was actually excited about watching it and instead had my hopes crushed much like David Furnish when he thought It’s a Boy Girl Thing would stop him from having to spounge off his sugar daddy Elton John.  Rudo y Cursi – the mainstream vehicle for Diego Luna and Gael Garcia Bernal  – is frankly the weakest film I have had the misforune to watch for sometime and actually left me begging to watch films of the quality of the Break up and Eight Legged Freaks.

The film follows the brothers nicknamed Rudo (Diego Luna) and Cursi (Gael Garcia Bernal) on their journey from the bannana plantations in rural Mexico to super stardom playing football for two of the nations biggest teams.  It all kicks off for them when Batuta (a soccer scout) breaks down near their town.  After helping to fix his car the brothers compete against one another to get him to represent them.  Cursi wins and leaves their provincial home for Mexico City.  He is a big success and finishes as top scorer in his first season, which gives him the opportunity to follow his real passion, music.   Rudo has it a bit tougher.  Several months after Cursi, Batuta gives Rudo an opportunity with a rubbish team.  He leaves his wife and children to follow his dream.  After stuggling to get a place in the team in his first season he fortunately finds himself in the top flight. The second season in football contrasts hugely for the pair.  Cursi has lost form due to his relationship with a tv star and is on the verge of being sent to a lower division club.  Rudo, is close to becoming the best goal keeper in the history of the league.  However, his gambling addiction has left him owing money to some dangerous criminals and in the game against Cursi’s team he is asked to throw the game.  He is left with the dilema of following his dream or doing what he is told.

Well after what is possibly the longest description of a film in review history, I will get down to business (I can hear the sense of relief).  Until Cursi leaves for Mexico the film is desperately dull. The film offers very little about the depressing poverty that the pair grow up in. In some ways this is good, however there is hardly anything interesting.  And when you do get a flash of something interesting you’re so bored that you struggle to notice it (such as the abuse by her boyfriend of the pairs mother).  Cursi on his own in Mexico city is abut as exciting as staring at a beie wll for 15 hours.  It is so difficult to stay awake only repeated attempts at self harm will stop you from seeing most of the film with your eyes closed. 

Personally the most excruciating aspect of the film is Rudo’s gambling addiction.  From about 2 minutes into him arriving in Mexico city you quickly guess where the story is going.  It takes about 40 minutes to get to the point that you had magically predicted.  It is so painful to watch that cutting off my penis, cooking it on an open fire and then sharing it with a small Mongolian family as I slowly bleed to death seems a tempting alternative.  There is nothing I  loath more than being able to predict what is going to happen.

If I had my way Radovan Karadžićy would not be the only one in the Hague waiting to serve trial for crimes against humanity.  Director Carlos Cauron deserves to be sentenced to a life punishment for what he has done to cinema.  Technically the film is ok.  However, as the boy genius who wrote and directed this horror show he takes full credit for the misery he has brought on the world.  The script is terrible.  Even his mum would struggle to tell him that this was any good.  The dialogue between characters is so turgid it makes watching paint dry genuinely seem quite exiting.  His direction does little to excite the senses.  Worst of all he manages to make two excellent actors seem like David Arquette.  This is quite a skill as David Arquette is so bad that even genital crabs seem like Oscar nominated actors in comparison to him.

Overall this should be avoided at all costs.  Even football thugs will be bored as you only see about 1 minute of football.  Save money and do something else.

1/10 – If I couldgive minus figures Iwould but I don’t want to give it the infamy.

The Men Who Stare At Success

As you have may have guessed from incredibly witty title to day I will be looking at the wonderful Men Who Stare At Goats.  Anyone with a phobia of goats should probably stop reading now as everything is about to get slightly agricultural.  That is not because the film is about goat herders and their wonderfully exciting lives sitting in the rain under a tent made out of misery.  Instead the film goes on an exciting path that I will treat you to in full in just a second.  I want to send out my apologies once again.  I have still not recovered from my life threatening case of man flu and am hoping to move off of my own life saving treatment (paracetamol) in the next few days.  This will lead to a whole new round of FilmWipe and my ever increasing Everest of a challenge to write 365 film reviews in a year.  Frankly, I have got about as much hope of achieving this as Richard Blackwood has of becoming the British Will Smith.  We all remember the coffee enema Richard and we all know where your future lies.  Collecting your weekly food ration from Bow job centre along with an extra side of syphilis thanks to all the bumming your going to have to do in order to earn enough money to pay someone to watch the betamax tapes of when you were vaguely famous.  Every day you’re not on television is a day that millions of people can sleep at night knowing that they were not driven to attempting suicide.

Anyway back to the film.  The film is about Bob Wilton (Ewan Mcgregor) a small town reporter who thinks he has the perfect life.  However, after a chance interview with a man who claims to have been trained to by the army to use his brain so that he has psychic abilities. Shortly after this Bob’s life falls apart. His wife leaves him which sparks his journey to Kuwait in order to gain an exclusive on the Iraq War.   Here he meets Lyn Cassady who reveals himself to be one of the key figures in this psychic army.  Together they go on an adventure across Iraq to complete an undefined mission in a hostile country.

The film is derived from a story written by the wonderfully bazaar mind of Jon Ronson.  He has gone for a strange but highly entertaining take on the Iraq war and manages to make a number of criticisms of the failings of the British and American invasions without turning it into a pandering demeaning festival of unintelligible drivel like Lions for Lambs.

The film itself is a treat.  The acting is absolutely superb.  George Clooney steals the show from start to finish.  Rarely has an actor clearly relished a role as much as Mr Clooney has done with this.  His portrayal of Lyn Cassady is undoubtedly one of the cinematic highlights of 2009.  He manages to mix the strange, disillusional, psychotic and authoritative with an effortless charm that carries the film from start to finish.  He also manages to drag Ewan McGregor kicking and screaming into giving a performance worthy of an actor of his unquestionable talent.

I will freely admit that I can easily lose interest in Jeff Bridges and Kevin Spacey.  This may partiallly be caused by their strange double act in K-Pax or (and this is purely for Bridges) his performance in Arlington Road made me want him to be involved in a fatal accident.  However, Bridges certainly redeemed himself in my eyes with his performance.  He is actually enjoyable to watch.  You forget the wilderness years where highlights included the lukewarm Seabiscuit and the equally unenjoyable The Moguls. Spacey on the other hand is someone I have always revered and thought a great deal of even if I have loathed many of his performances (Superman Returns and The Life of David Gale). It is difficult to see if he has managed to put his acting back into first gear or if he still stuck in reverse (Current highlights include adverts for airlines, seriously they are better than his film acting).  However, he is enjoyable to watch and should be celebrated as the creepy American who controls so much of British theatre.

Plaudits really need to be given to director Grant Heslov.  He successfully managed to keep a film which has the potential to be strange and annoying to be sharp witty and highly poignant (As well as being slightly strange).

Overall I recommend this to anyone, apart from goats.  Although if you are watching a film with a goat I think it is time to attach a pipe to the exhaust of your car, put the other end of the pipe in through the passenger window, close all other doors and windows, and sit back and relax as you speed away to a painless suicide.

8/10 Goatastic

 

 

Bronson

Well I am sure the first question that is on everyone’s lips is; “Where have you been Señor FilmWipe?” Well this is a fine question that is on everybody’s lips.  Unfortunately for you the fans I have been ill the last week and was unable to fulfil my duties as the UK’s number one film critic.  Or failing that the UK’s number 3567 film reviewer.  It depends on who you ask and whether I bribed them in advance.  Anyway, I am back (ish) it depends on whether my new found limited health will give me the opportunity to continue to provide you with reviews that will rival luminaries in the field such as Mark Kermode or at least say the things that they are too scared to say.  It is worth pointing out at this point I am not dying of a series disease, and despite various rumours on twitter I do not have leprosy it is simply a severe bout of flew. Anyway, today’s review is of Nicolas Winding Refn’s latest release Bronson and is another fine example of how one of Europe’s up and coming directors is carving a niche for himself in a crowded cinematic market.

If you do not know who Charles Bronson is, he is Britain’s most expensive criminal (this is due to all the damage he has caused while in prison).  The film follows  Michael Peterson – a slightly deranged youth –  who commits a robbery on a post office and is sentenced to seven years in prison.  However, after realising his limitations he seizes his time in prison as an opportunity to become infamous.  This leads to him develop an alter ego as Charles Bronson committing a number of violent crimes while inside that draw him to the public’s attention and result in him serving over 30 years in solitary confinement at her Majesty’s pleasure.

Refn takes the character of Bronson on a fascinating journey.  He decides to create these surreal scenes where Bronson is performing for a public on a stage.  He regularly is dressed as magician or as a mime artist/clown.  It is a delightful visual metaphor for Bronson’s repressed desires of how he would like to be and what he actually is.  What is brilliant about these scenes is the fact that you see the disintegration of any form of mental stability to the point that he loses any semblance of sense or reason.  By the end of the film you feel as if he has lost all control but has some how managed to find a balance between his artistic and violent sides.

It is very difficult to give an opinion of Tom Hardy’s performance.  There is no question that he creates a disturbingly wonderful character.  However, by trying to make him as real as possible (What I mean by this is the characters simpler side) at times you feel as if there is the odd moment of nonchalant acting.  This may be slightly unfair as it is a great performance and he does create what is arguably the ultimate cinematic anti hero.  It is quite an experience to watch a character who is so easily dislikeable for an hour and a half and yet actually care about what happens in the end.

Readers of my thrilling review of Refn’s Bleeder will know that I am a massive fan of his work even if it doesn’t quite hit the spot.  This is probably the best biopic (if you can call it that) I have seen since The Diving Bell and the Butterfly and is on a par with this wonderful French gem.  I will freely admit that his film doesn’t quite hit the highs of the Pusher series, although in all honesty very little does.  But it is still a development of such and is a man who is close to perfecting his style.  I would hazard a guess that within the next couple of  films he will probably become Europe’s most sort after directors.

Overall this is a good film that marks a landmark in the development of one of Europe’s brightest talents.

7/10 – Good but not brilliant

The Fantastic Mr Fox

As a massive Wes Anderson film you can probably guess where this blog is about to go.  If not you’re probably the stupidest person on earth and deserve an unfortunate death in a similar way to a snail.  Stamped on in the dark.  The Fantastic Mr Fox is possibly the finest animation to have come out in the cinema since Up.  Regular readers of this review will note that I wrote for an eternity about how amazing Disney Pixar’s latest release was.  However, The Talented Mr Fox even manages to trump this experience.  In all seriousness Anderson has probably created one of the finest pieces of animated cinema to have been released since Belleville Rendezvous and brings a welcome return of handmade animation – a particular favourite of mine.  Read on to discover why this film is so great and why you should part with you hard earned money to watch it.

Mr Fox is a bird thief.  However, on discovering his wife is pregnant he agrees to retire from this profession.  Jump forward 12 years and Mr Fox is a newspaper journalist.  His home is dysfunctional and his relationships with his wife and son are strained.  He decides to move above ground to a tree on top of a hill (luxury accommodation for local animals).  This places him in direct view of the local farmers and landowners Boggis, Bunce and Bean.  Mr Fox decides to carry out one last job and carries out a mega raid on all 3.  This angers them and leads to weeks of revenge which threatens to put the animal community at risk.

This film is fantastic from start to finish.  The animation is absolutely fantastic.  It is such a treat to see a film made with such an attention to detail.  Every second is a moment of joy on the eyes.  The sets have been beautifully made.  The characters wonderfully sculpted.  Even the recreation of the Little Theatre in Bath is further sign of the passion and dedication that was paid to the film.

The vocal performances in the film are something to cherish.  I am not normally someone who raves about actors performances in an animation but it is particularly worthwhile in this instance.  George Clooney is fantastic.  There a suaveness that is as easy to hate as it is to love.  Meryl Streep is also absolutley excellent.  Although in my opinion the scenes are often stolen by Willem Defoe as the rat.  His vocal performance is captivating.  It is also a pleasure to hear Owen Wilson tune with a brief role as a gymnastics coach.

What is enjoyable about the film is the way that Anderson puts his own mark on the classic story.  Everything is reminiscent of his other work.  The clipped use of language, a pastiche for classic objects and the slightly surreal dated world he creates.  Everything is very precise.  But it is theme of dysfunctional family life that has drawn the most attention.  Ash – Mr Foxes son is always constantly in the shadow of his dad and he developed a resentment towards him.  This feeling is made worst by the arrival of Kristofferson his cousin who is hugely talented and instantly courts the affection that he desires from his father.  Anyone who has seen The Royal Tenenbaums or The Darjeeling Limited will instantly pick up on the themes.  The film is a natural evolution from his other work and does as previously mentioned easily fits in with his work.  It is interesting to see how a director of this talent can spread his skills across different disciplines.

Overall – This is the best film of the year.  I say this a lot but I mean it.  You won’t find better! Like Paul McKena I will try and hypnotise you and make you go. Go! Go Now!! NOOOOOOOOOOOOWWWWWWWWWWW!!

9/10

Sex and Lucia

Well I thought I would be treating you to Nicolas Winding Refn’s last cinematic release Bronson and a review of this hilarious comedy (I am being sarcastic as anyone who knows anything about the film or the man will know that laughter isn’t really a word you could associate with it) will be arriving at your door tomorrow (Don’t worry! I am not going to stalk you and then jump out at you with a printed copy of the review).  Instead I am going to review Bronson’s saucy Spanish rival Sex and Lucia (The films have nothing in common and were released years apart from one another, I am just being silly).  For those of you who do not want to read about about a confusing piece of European art porn please overt your eyes now.  Anyone else I welcome you to my own Cirque De Freak and read a review that will blow your socks off.

The film follows Lucia a slightly strange stalker… I mean girl who lives in Madrid.  She has obsessed with writer Lorenzo.  She reveals her obsession to him after stalking him for a while.  This leads to an intense relationship between the two.  However, as he is writing his latest novel Lorenzo discovers that an intense one night stand he had many years before has resulted in a child, Luna.  He starts visiting a park so that he can secretly meet her.  There he meets his daughters a nanny, Belen – a feisty young woman who’s mum is a pornstar.  She is obsessed with her mums latest lover.  However, after meeting regularly she and Lorenzo develop feelings for one another.  This come to ahead during an evening of babysitting Luna.  During the evening the pair leave Luna unattended, she is mortally wounded by the dog in the house.  This leads to Lorenzo fleeing the scene and then watching as the grief rips his world apart.  The question is can he forgive himself in time to save his relationship with Lucia?

I will be honest.  On first viewing I didn’t really get this film.  I sat in my delightful jumper and thought that I had wasted another two hours of my life.  However, the film is a slow burner after a matter of me minutes of thinking about what had just happened (I am like Banana man) I realised what an incredibly good film I had watched.  The story is told in an intriguing manner.  Although this can be confusing at the time, however, once the pieces fall in to place it is a thoroughly rewarding experience.

A word of warning for all of you who may rush to your DVD store to hire or even riskier buy the film.  As Lorenzo is a writer the film is often told through a dream-like entry into his novel.  Admittedly what he is writing about is often the actual story but it can still be very confusing.  The worst bit about these flashbacks is the way that director Julio Medem identifies each one as an entry into the novel.  He over exposes each scene.  This becomes very annoying and highly annoying.  If you have even the slightest visual impairment (I include anyone with less than 20:20 vision) turn away during these moments or you will end up thinking that you’re watching The Ring rather a highly enjoyable Spanish romp.

The film has some excellent moments of melodramatic horror.  Considering this is not a horror film this can be surprising.  However, these moments are excellent and are reminiscent of some low budget horror films from the 70’s.  This is in a good way.

The role of Lucia is played by the fantastic Paz Vega (you may remember her from the easily forgettable but mildly enjoyable Spanglish and the wonderful Talk to Her.  She is absolutely terrific in the film.  She deals with the conflicting moments of her characters life extraordinarily well. The audience is drawn to her character throughout, this is in no small part due to Vega’s superb performance.

The cast is generally very good but it is worth looking out for Elena Anya who plays Luna’s nanny.  The beginning’s of a very talented actress are shown wonderfully in the film and she undoubtedly hogs the limelight every time she is in shot.

Overall director Julio Medem has done a reasonable job in pulling the story together.  as he is the writer it is fair to say that he created a wonderful script from a brilliant idea.  Generally speaking he pulls the film together brilliantly.  There are a few moments which are a bit clunky and irritating – admittedly these are few and far between – however this should not ruin the experience.

7/10 Spantastic