THE FANTASTIC MR. FOX - He's Fantastic Alright

I am deeply conflicted over Wes Anderson. RUSHMORE is my all-time favorite movie. I greatly enjoy BOTTLE ROCKET. THE ROYAL TENNENBAUMS annoyed me to no end. I sort of liked THE LIFE AQUATIC. And could not stand THE DARJEELING LIMITED. In a way, I feel the same way about him that I do about M. Night Shymalan -- the guy peaked early with a great film, and he's basically been trying the same trick again and again with diminishing returns.

So I approached THE FANTASTIC MR. FOX with great trepidation. Like almost everyone, I love Roald Dahl. And I love stop-motion animation. But, it's Wes Anderson, so I expected self-conscious dialogue, a 70s color-palette, odd suits and sportcoats, awkward, introspective characters with father issues, and a British Invasion soundtrack.

FANTASTIC MR. SPOILERS BELOW

And it has almost all of those things. What it also has, is a real sense of heart. And the film is absolutely gorgeous. Eschewing CGI is a wise choice, and the look of the film is old school and handmade. The fur on the characters ruffles as they move from frame to frame, making it quirky and charming.

But back to the story. Mr. Fox promised his wife he'd give up thieving after they share a near-death experience. But he loves stealing, so he gets back into it in secret. His son Ash feels like his hero dad doesn't appreciate him, a feeling only exacerbated by the arrival of Ash's cousin, Kristofferson, whom Mr. Fox drafts into his robbery plans. When the three farmers Fox has been robbing team up to kill him, it places all the animals in the valley in jeopardy. And it's up to Fox to pull off one last daring scheme to save them all.

All of this works remarkably well, which is odd, considering this is a kid's movie dressed up in the quirks of an indie director that include corduroy suits and a 70s color pallete, a made-up sport called Whackbat, some lifted/homage dialogue from REBEL WITHOUT A CAUSE, meditation, and folks constantly swearing by using the word "cuss" instead of actual cuss words.

We understand why Fox is driven to steal, his wife's frustration at that, his son's upset at feeling weird and like his father isn't proud of him, and Fox's realization that he's hurt everyone he loves. We cheer when Fox one-ups the farmers, react in horror when the animals might starve to death, and get choked up when Fox finally tells his son how proud he is of him.

There are nice moments of humor, especially with the "cussing" and a recurring joke with drugged blueberries taking out bloodhounds and a fat farmer.

This is a great example -- much like Pixar films -- of how a kids' movie can work for the whole family by having a simple story that's underlaid by sophisticated emotions and theme.

And it's cussing fantastic.

Blindsided by THE BLIND SIDE

The trailers for THE BLIND SIDE made it seem a little sappy. And by "a little," I mean "Hallmark Channel Christmas movie." But the girlfriend wanted to see it, and after some kicking and screaming on my part, I went.

I shouldn't have been so reluctant. Written and directed by John Lee Hancock -- a hell of a writer and a solid director -- TBS adapts Michael Lewis' book about the evolution of football in the wake of Lawrence Taylor, focusing wisely on the unlikely story of a rich white Texas couple adopting a poor black kid who grows up to become a pro left tackle.

I had absolutely no problems with the script or the film. All the moments that could be sappy weren't. The film takes its time getting to know the characters, so you feel the emotions they're feeling. This nicely sets up all the fear and uncertainty Big Mike has, and you root for the kid, enjoying the simple moments of fun with his new family and tearing up when he says things like he's never had his own bed before.

Hancock succeeds in making a film for the whole family, one that tells a nice, uplifting story.

And most surprising of all was Tim McGraw, playing Sean Tuohy. McGraw was so good, I didn't even realize it was him until I saw the end credits.

NINJA ASSASSIN - This Ninja's Just A'ight

Other than the folks at Silver Pictures, there probably wasn't anybody in the world as excited about the release of NINJA ASSASSIN as I was. I love ninjas. And assassins. So the two together? Forget about it.

SPOILERS SNEAKING UP ON YOU BELOW

NINJA ASSASSIN is the story of Rizo, a ninja exiled from his clan and seeking revenge. A Europol (I guess it's the budget version of Interpol) researcher named Mika thinks that ninjas are behind some of the recent political assassinations, but can't get anyone to believe her. Eventually, Rizo's former clan comes after Mika, and he must save her. The two team up to take down the clan.

The film, directed by James McTeigue, looks great. Ninjas come out of the shadows, there are several really cool shots, including a fight scene played out in shadows on a paper screen, and the action scenes are well-covered so you can actually tell what's going on.

What the story, from uber-writer J. Michael Straczynski and Matthew Sand is missing is good motivations for Rizo or Mika. Mika is a forensic researcher who thinks ninjas killed a former KBG agent, and she doggedly pursues it because... Well, we don't really know why. The script missed a great opportunity to personally stake her in the action. Perhaps ninjas killed her former partner or her boss. And nobody believes her ninja theory -- she's as seemingly crazy as Gary Busey in POINT BREAK. Similarly, the film stumbles over Rizo's motivation. He's in love with a female ninja trainee who tries to escape the clan; the clan kills her. Later on, after Rizo's first mission, he's asked to kill another female escapee. So he turns on his clan and flees. That's a very mediocre motivation.

What would have been better is if the film played up the rivalry between Rizo and his "brother" ninja. They both love the female ninja trainee. But she chooses Rizo. Rizo and his brother then fight over her; she's afraid Rizo will be killed. Brother is much stronger and faster; perhaps he's older. So she flees in order to spare him. Unfortunately, she's caught. And brother kills her out of spite. This would work better than the current version in the film, where brother kills her just to annoy Rizo. In the better version, after his love's death, Rizo flees the clan. Years later, when he and brother meet up again, they have real history between them -- they both loved the same woman.

There are also a number of smaller issues with the script, mostly logical ones. Ninjas are obviously highly secretive, managing to stay undercover for thousands of years. Yet there's a scene in the film where dozens of ninjas run down a major Berlin street, chasing both Mika's car and Rizo. In fact, Mika's car is studded with hundreds of throwing stars. That's not exactly low-profile.

The film also features a climactic showdown between Rizo and his adopted father, the ninja clan leader. Clan leader has a deadly ability -- he can basically teleport around, appearing and disappearing at will. An ability he uses to kick Rizo's ass. Until Rizo suddenly -- and out of nowhere -- learns how to do this and uses the trick to kill clan leader. An unearned and unsatisfying turn of events. Instead, the film should have gone back to something it set up earlier; clan leader forces Rizo to be without one of his senses for an entire year, starting with his sense of sight. Rizo learns to fight by sensing his opponent rather than seeing him. In the climactic battle, with his clan leader appearing and disappearing on him, Rizo should use that memory/lesson to wait and listen for the leader reapparing. If Rizo killed clan leader in that fashion, it would have been a great callback and a cool moment that paid off his years of training.

THE (Long and Winding) ROAD

I have a love-hate relationship with Cormac McCarthy. Well, films made from his books anyway. Seems like they'd be movies I love -- after all, most them are super-violent and depressing. ALL THE PRETTY HORSES was long and boring. NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN was 2/3 of an awesome movie, and then a super-frustrating ending that went literally nowhere (I suspect this worked fantastically well in the novel, however; but in a movie, you really don't want to see your protagonist die off-screen to random characters, or wait all film for a showdown between the sheriff and the bad guy that never comes).

APOCALYPTIC SPOILERS BELOW

Ably directed by John Hillcoat (who also helmed the equally fine THE PROPOSITION), THE ROAD was adapted by Joe Penhall. It tells the story of an unnamed father and son eking out an existence after an unspecified apocalypse. All animals are gone, food is scarce, and most of the remaining people have turned to cannibalism. Pretty much all the good folks have committed suicide in these bleak circumstances. But the father takes his son down the road towards the coast, seeking out signs of hope. Like all road movies, THE ROAD is episodic and picaresque. And it has its moments of utter despair, like when dad -- who's saved his last two bullets -- teaches his son the proper way to stick a gun in your mouth and fire it. But these are lessened by small moments of joy -- aiding an elderly traveler, drinking the last can of Coke in the world, coming across a bunker filled with food, sharing a bath and a haircut -- that manage to move the film out of the realm of slit-your-wrists (unlike some other great films that are too depressing to ever watch again, including HAPPINESS and REQUIEM FOR A DREAM).

There are some nice moments of sheer terror, like when the father and son stumble across a home with a basement full of still-living cannibal fodder and they have to flee as the cannibals come back; or a chase across a field of collapsing trees.

Ultimately, the elegant script manages to evoke a nice message -- that we have to accept not everything is under our control; which comes across just as the father is dying.

For a film in which there's so much blackness, you leave the theater uplifted. A nice touch.

AN EDUCATION - It Sure Is

AN EDUCATION, adapted by Nick Hornby from Lynn Barber's memoir, proves that your film doesn't have to have high stakes or amped-up drama to be engaging. It tells the story of Jenny (Carey Mulligan), a bright young British student with dreams of going to Oxford. She finds her plans in turmoil when she meets rich, charming, David.

AN EDUCATION OF SPOILERS

Eventually, with the blessing of her won-over parents, Jenny turns her back on school and decides to marry David. Which is a bit of a problem, being that he's already married. Having screwed up her shot at university by alienating a favorite teacher and mouthing off to the headmistress, Jenny is at a total loss for what to do.

The script does a fantastic job of painting these characters, from bright, eager, bored Jenny to her stick-in-the-mud father who wants the best for her to sleazy/charming David to her teacher (Olivia Williams) to the headmistress. They feel like real people with real problems, which helps sell the romance and allow us to be taken in by David just like Jenny.

Conflicts are natural and arise from the characters and the situations, rather than anything tacked on from the outside.

The film does a great job of showing Jenny's "education" in living life -- going to the symphony, fancy restaurants, art auctions, and Paris. We're seduced along with her and we feel like with David, she has a shot at an interesting life, instead of winding up a drone in academia or the civil service.

If the film has one small flaw, it's that at the end, Jenny tries to get back into school after dropping out, only to find her plans screwed up because she insulted the headmistress. So Jenny enlists the help of her favorite teacher to get her back on track. It's not clear what the teacher did (did she write Oxford? Convince the headmistress to let Jenny back in? Get Jenny whatever the British equivalent of a GED?) to restore Jenny's shot at Oxford and it seems very clear that the headmistress (a great Emma Thompson) isn't going to allow her back in after insulting her.

However, because there's tremendous goodwill for Jenny and her plight, and it is the last few minutes of the film, I was willing to overlook it.

So if you can, go check out AN EDUCATION, as it's a great little film.

THE STEPFATHER - Another Useless Remake

I saw the original STEPFATHER when it came out, so perhaps my memory's a bit hazy; but I recall it being good. And I was looking forward to the remake, despite my general reservations towards remakes. A crazy new dad who kills when his family disappoints him? Sign me up.

The new version feels more like a Lifetime movie than something that should get a theatrical release. The characters are all completely generic, from trying-marriage-a-second-time Sela Ward to her eldest son who keeps getting in trouble.

The biggest flaw is a fatal one for thrillers -- despite David Harris (Dylan Walsh) killing a slew of folks to protect the secret that he's a serial killer who's murdered before -- the film's just not scary for most of its length. There's nothing wrong with having a deliberately paced film with a slow build. That is, as long as it's scary once it gets going. But STEPFATHER doesn't. Walsh kills a neighbor, Sela Ward's ex-husband, and Sela's lesbian sister, none of which are particularly terrifying. This is due to a combination of factors -- one, we don't care about the characters, so we're not concerned when they die; and two, the scenes aren't particularly gripping in their shot selection or editing.

The film also misses a big opportunity by having the main character Michael (Penn Badgeley) start off sympathetic to David. Instead, the filmmakers should've opted for troubled Michael coming home from boarding school and immediately being suspicious of his new dad-to-be.

Similarly, Michael's girlfriend Kelly (Amber Heard) is the obsessively minded voice of reason, pooh-poohing all of Michael's suspicions. This is fine for a bit, because initially, Michael does seem a little crazy in what he's saying. But eventually, it gets ridiculous when Kelly comes up with every excuse in the book to explain away David's increasinly erratic behavior.

If you're going to remake a film, it has to do something different than the original or there's no reason to produce it in the first place. Here, the only difference is that the new version isn't very good.

GENTLEMEN BRONCOS - This Horse Needs To Be Put Down

The team behind NAPOLEON DYNAMITE fucked me again. I should've known better, but the trailers for GENTLEMEN BRONCOS showed two things that gave me hope it'd be a fun movie -- Sam Rockwell in dual, ridiculous roles, and a baked-in conflict that could drive the story (in a young writer finding his novella stolen and publicized to much acclaim by his author idol).

Unfortunately, GB is pretty much the same film as NAPOLEON DYNAMITE, down to the lack of plot, goofball characters (including a schmuck with a weird haircut, an annoying girl, and an odd Mexican guy), and impoverished/70s setting.

It tells the story of Benjamin Purvis, a teen who lives with his mom in a geodesic dome house (for some uknown reason), and who aspires to be a professional author. He attends a literary festival/workshop, where he meets his favorite author, Dr. Ronald Chevalier. The festival has a contest where a winning book will be published. Chevalier steals Benjamin's work and publishes it as his own. Meanwhile, Benjamin's friends Tabatha and Lonnie make an indie film version of his work. Benjamin eventually finds out Chevalier stole his work. A snake shits on Mike White, there's some unrelated gunplay, and that's about it.

The only funny parts of the film are the various versions of Benjamin's book in which Sam Rockwell variously plays Benjamin's version of the hero and Chevalier's much, much gayer version.

The premise -- that of a young author finding his work stolen and published by his idol -- is an interesting one, and it's full of conflict and potential drama. Sadly, Jared & Jerusha Hess opt for oddness instead of milking this conflict. We get two scenes with Benjamin and Chevalier post-plagiarism. In the first, Benjamin punches him in the face. In the second, the situation is resolved by Benjamin's mom -- she registered all his work since he was seven. The main character doesn't even solve his own problem -- it's solved for him.

The film also fails to set up Benjamin as a person with a goal. Why does he want to be published? What does that represent? This lack means that once Benjamin's story is stolen, we're not sure why that matters so much to him (other than the obvious reasons). With one simple bit of dialogue, Benjamin could've explained to his friends what being a published author represents; then, when we saw his book getting that acclaim for someone else, it would resonate more.

There are some more oddball characters, including a truly grotesque version of Pedro from ND, as well as Mike White's odd Big Brother-type character, who serves no real purpose in the film.

The biggest moment of dramatic tension comes during a bit of gunplay that's tacked on for no apparent reason and doesn't even come from the main story. Benjamin's mom (played by a sadly wasted Jennifer Coolidge) goes to a rich man's house to show her horrible line of dresses; he hits on her and Benjaim sticks up for her; then the guy starts shooting for some reason.

The film also fails because we see Benjamin's story and it's horrible. So to see it stolen and published is weird -- it's just as crappy (if not more so) than when he wrote it. And I'm not sure what Hess & Hess were going for in having it adapted into a bad video as well; having his story stolen/ruined once would be sufficient if they bothered to play it out properly.

For some reason that still escapes me, NAPOLEON DYNAMITE made a ton of money, really resonating with pre-teens and teens despite its annoying characters and complete lack of a cohesive narrative. GENTLEMEN BRONCOS follows the same formula with even less returns than ND.