Fantastic Mr. Fox

This is one of those situations where I can't really review this film as an average person. Fantastic Mr. Fox is Wes Anderson's new film. I love Wes Anderson's films. I can't help it, there's something about his films that just work for me. So I can only really review the film as a Wes Anderson fan, but I'll try my best to think of how other people might see it... I can't promise anything though!

To start. Fantastic Mr. Fox is based on a Roald Dahl novel, he of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory and The Witches fame. Well, he's more than that really he's a true cult novelist and he really is one of those people whose stories have touched millions (he sold over 100 million books) and when he died in 1990 the world really lost a unique talent. That said, I don't think I've read Fantastic Mr. Fox. I'm not sure because some parts of it did seems familiar, but I really don't remember... Actually I haven't read that many of his books at all but I appreciate the ones I have read and in particular the impact he's had on our culture.

But this isn't Roald Dahl appreciation hour... back to the film. Wes Anderson's style is all over this, of course he wrote the screenplay (with Noah Baumbach, his collaborator on The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou) so it was always going to be in his voice, as it were. But they aren't his characters or his story so it's a bit different from his other films. It isn't as quietly sad as some of them, but it is touching nonetheless. There are the charming, quirky characters that you'd expect and there are the beautiful set scenes that you could frame and put on your wall. Actually I wondering if I could get one framed... hmm... will have to look into that.

When I think about it, Wes Anderson was probably a great choice to direct this film. I had been sceptical as I wasn't sure what he was going to do with a children's story. Watching it, I remembered that Roald Dahl wasn't really a children's novelist in the traditional sense of the phrase. He didn't write stories about sweetness and light, he wrote stories to scare, disguist but also delight children. They were funny but they were dark, just like Wes Anderson's films...

So if you like Wes Anderson then you should definitely go to the film. If you don't know his films but you like Roald Dahl then you should definitely go to, I think it's a worthwhile adaptation.

If you're not familiar with either then I can't be sure... it's an interesting story and it's beautifully told but it's not entirely a kids film. The palette is somewhat muted so I don't know if it will necessarily be that engaging for younger children. It would probably be better for kids who would read Roald Dahl novels in the first place - so more for 9-14 year olds.

It'll be interesting to hear what adults think of the film... rottentomatoes.com reviews have all been positive so far, however there have only been 5 of them so hard to draw conclusions there. One thing they have been saying is that it's nostalgic and elegent. I find all Wes Anderson films like that but I suppose it's worth mention if you're not familiar with him.

Another thing worth mentioning is that it's filmed in stop-motion animation. I'm very accepting I guess, I don't mind if a film is full disney style animation, photorealistic animation, cel-shaded animation, live action, stop motion, combination... whatever, I just like films and the stories they tell. I have seen some comments though, from people who don't like the animation in Fantastic Mr. Fox. I think that's a bit sad in the sense that someone would dislike a film just because of that... but then again each to their own. I don't like watching dubbed films, so I guess that's a hang up I have. Fortunately I can just watch the subtitles... Personally though, I thought the animation looked great, the detail was incredible, that's another thing you get with a Wes Anderson film ;-)

Anyway, I really liked it and I hope you will too. I'm particularly interested in hearing from anyone who's not familiar with Wes Anderson or Roald Dahl. Let me know what you think of it.

8/10

Inglourious Basterds (2009)

There's only really two directors that I would say I'm a big fan of, Michel Gondry and Wes Anderson, in case you were wondering... but I do admire the films of Quentin Tarantino. They're always so stylish, so cool. I met him briefly once at a signing in HMV Dublin and he was just as cool as I expected, security were keeping us all moving but I'm sure if he could he would have had a chat with all of us.

But like I said, I wouldn't describe myself as a big fan. I haven't exactly enjoyed all of this films. They're all classy and they're all... cool but I didn't really like Reservoir Dogs or Kill Bill: Vol. 2 that much and to be honest... and I know this is some kind of blasphemy to some, but I wasn't that pushed on Pulp Fiction either. Parts of it were good... I should point out that I only saw it a few years ago, so long after I'd heard a lot of hype about it, and I thought the same thing as I did after I saw Taxi Driver; is that what all the fuss was about?

Anyway, this isn't a review of QT, it's a review of Inglourious Basterds, so I should really get on with it.

I knew going into Inglourious Basterds that it's a long enough film, this theatrical release is 153 minutes long. I know it's a thing that might put people off and I think that's important to know from the outset. Personally I don't mind relatively long run times, as long as I know in advance. In fact I check how long all films are before I watch them. It saves me the annoyance of thinking a film is over when it isn't; in the past this had spoiled my enjoyment of a film... not any more. I recommend this tactic. So now you know how long it is, don't complain if your bum gets sore or you have to go to the toilet. Drink less and go to a comfortable cinema. Actually, these days 153 mins isn't even that long... so perhaps I didn't even need to mention. But now you know.

None of this tells you about the film though and to be honest I think you're better off not know much about it. It's a lot more interesting plotwise than I thought it would be. I guess I'd forgotten that behind all the talking and all the style, QT always holds his films up with a strong plot. (I haven't seen Death Proof though, despite having a signed book of the script, so don't go moaning at me if it doesn't have a plot). QT keeps the action in bitesized chunks and it makes the length easier to... digest as it were.

So finally, what did I think of this one? I thought it was a good romp, great fun and it futher reinforced my belief that Brad Pitt absolutely deserves an Oscar. I've thought that since 1996 though... but he is just so funny in this, if I hadn't seen 12 Monkeys or Fight Club I would have said he should just do comedies. Not that Inglourious Basterds is a comedy. Nor is it a war movie. It's kind of a thriller, action, drama with some funny parts. QT has done a great job of melding together the different genres and balancing them so it holds your interest. It's worth mentioning Christoph Waltz too, well cast.

It's not really like any other movie I've seen recently so I don't know how to recommend it really. Obviously if you're a Tarantino fan you should see but if you're not... then I guess it really depends on the kind of films you like. I wouldn't say that it's a big crowd pleaser. I thought it was brilliant but I just don't know how other people will experience it. Course it could be one of those films that captures the imagination and everybody loves. Certainly I didn't hear anyone complaining as I was leaving the cinema and I always listen around on the way out. On balance I think I should recommend it to everyone... but just don't go in with any particular expectations.

The thing about QT is that I don't really think his films have a definite signature. I mean ok, some people say his storytelling is his signature, or his reference to pop culture, or his use of music... but the fact is, you can't have three signatures, certainly not if you don't use all of them in all your films... He's not like Wes Anderson or Michel Gondry, who both have a definite visual style. It's not a bad thing that he doesn't but it just makes it hard for me to be sure about him. That's why, even though I really loved Jackie Brown, Kill Bill: Vol. 1 and a number of other films he was involved in - (though not Hostel, let me make that clear... not Hostel) - I'm just not sure if I love QT. This film's taken him one step closer though. I'm not entirely convinced that it's a masterpiece but it's definitely one of the best films I've seen this year, it's a film that I'd be happy to watch again.

Oh, also, it's not particularly gruesome or violent but if you are squeamish you might need to look away once or twice. It really mainly plot and dialogue driven.

8.5/10

An afterthought: I had a look at a couple of negative reviews and I must say, I just don't see why some people are criticising it because it doesn't accurately portray WWII or the different sides of the war. I really don't get it. It's a film, a work of fiction. Ok, it takes one idea from reality, but that doesn't mean it then has some obligation to be a documentary. It's not even particularly about the war, it's just set during the war. You could have made this films about an epic struggle between cats and dogs if you wanted to. Actually....