Film Review: Hail, Caesar! (2016)

Early in Hail, Caesar!, Joel and Ethan Coen's farce set at an MGM-esque movie studio in the early 1950s, the narrator (Michael Gambon) refers to the films overseen by producer/fixer Eddie Mannix (Josh Brolin) as pieces of gossamer. It's a poignant phrase to describe the kind of shimmering popular entertainment being cranked out by the fictional Capitol Pictures, but it also feels like the Coens are lampshading how light and frivolous Hail, Caesar! feels compared to some of their other films. Much as Woody Allen ended You Will Meet A Tall Dark Stranger by invoking Shakespeare's line about sound and fury, or the Coens ended their own Burn After Reading by having J.K. Simmons acknowledge that the story didn't amount to much, the "gossamer" line feels like a pre-emptive apology for the film which contains it.

Film Review: Tomorrowland (2015)

In Brad Bird's Tomorrowland, the future isn't what it used to be. From an opening sequence set at the 1964 World's Fair to the depiction of the eponymous city, a metropolis which mimics the futurist aesthetic of the Disney attraction of the same name, the film is awash in nostalgia for a future that never happened. By being partially set in a world of jetpacks, hovering trains and boundless creativity, it hearkens back to the world we were promised by the science fiction of the '50s and '60s; an altogether neater world in which science makes the lives of every human being better.

Film Review: The Monuments Men (2014)

The core argument of The Monuments Men is one that is provocative in the abstract, though less than compelling as the driving force for a lavishly produced war drama. In telling the true story of art scholars who went to the European Front to find, identify and protect great works of art stolen by the Nazis, co-star, co-writer and director George Clooney reframes the conflict as not just being between conflicting ideologies. It was also a battle for history, and the Nazi effort to steal art - and, later in the war, to destroy it - was an attempt to rewrite the very history of the world. In that context, the efforts of the Monuments Men to protect the past seem important, even noble, rather than something flip or insubstantial when compared to the death happening around them.

Film Review: Gravity (2013)

Gravity, the latest film from director Alfonso Cuarón, opens with a bravura sequence in which the camera follows the actions of a trio of astronauts as they set about repairing the Hubble telescope. In an unbroken, twenty minute take we watch as the cocky yet assured veteran Matt Kowalski (George Clooney) and the jittery newcomer Ryan Stone (Sandra Bullock) float high above the Earth, talking to each other about their mission in-between banter with Mission Control. There's a loose, convivial feel to the scene, but it's also disquieting. As the camera looks on coolly, things start to go terribly, tragically wrong. Pieces of debris hurtling around the Earth start to pepper the shuttle and telescope, causing catastrophic damage and sending Stone tumbling into the emptiness of space. With limited oxygen and their transport destroyed, it falls to Kowalski and Stone to try to make it back to Earth alive before they suffocate or get hit by the debris again.

"Film" Review: 8 (2012)

You've probably noticed my use of quotation marks in the title of this review, and they are not there because I have suddenly forgotten how grammar works - though chances are that I never fully knew in the first place - but to denote that this is not a review of a film since 8 is not a cinematic work, but a filmed play. In fact, it's so uncinematic that you don't need to see it in a cinema: the whole play is up on YouTube (and you will find it embedded at the bottom of this post). Yet it stars some of the biggest stars in the world, was written by Oscar-winning screenwriter Dustin Lance Black (Milk) and directed by Rob Reiner. For those reasons alone it'd be worth discussing, but considering that it deals with one of the most important and controversial issues in American politics today, it almost demands to be written about.

Film Review: The Descendants (2011)

That The Descendants is the weakest film of Alexander Payne's career says far more about its creator than it does about the film itself. Since his debut, Citizen Ruth, Payne - alongside his frequent co-writer Jim Taylor, who only serves as a producer on The Descendants - have specialised in a particular brand of wry, acerbic comedy that has produced the great triumvirate of Election, About Schmidt and Sideways in relatively quick succession. The Descendants lacks the hard edge that made so many of Payne's previous work so distinct and funny, but that does not mean that it is without its own charms.

The American

You think you can escape history. You live for the present.


Anton Corbijn's second feature film opens with a scene of shocking violence. The act itself is not gratuitously or disturbingly violent, but it is nonetheless surprising because it sees the protagonist of the film (played by the effortlessly charming George Clooney) murder someone in cold blood. Not because they have betrayed him or pose a threat to his life, but because they are there. In one slyly subversive move it breaks a rule that most mainstream American films would never dare; it immediately makes us doubt, or even hate, the hero.

But is The American a mainstream film? Sure, it stars one of the biggest movie stars in the world and sets itself out as an action-packed spy thriller in that opening scene, when "Jack" - the film is coy about his real identity - barely survives an assassination attempt at the Swedish lakeside cottage where he is staying, but from that point the film shifts to being a more sombre, meditative film. It lures people in with a Bourne sensibility, then switches to an arthouse film about the weight of conscience and the effects that being a professional killer has on a man's soul.

After his brush with death, "Jack" flees to Italy, where his mysterious benefactor tells him to hide out in a small, isolated hill-top community until he receives further orders. Soon after, he is told that he must build a rifle with very specific requirements for "Mathilde" (Thekla Reuten) so that she may complete a job which "Jack" can know nothing about. As he sets about his task, "Jack" befriends a local priest (Paolo Bonacelli), who he has long conversations with about guilt and redemption, and begins a relationship with a prostitute (Violante Placido) that starts purely sexual, but quickly turns romantic. The combination of his spiritual and emotional awakenings consume him, and cause him to question the choices that have led him to this place.

Corbijn, who spent much of his career as a photographer and creative director for Joy Division, U2 and Depeche Mode amongst others before breaking into feature directing with his Joy Division biopic Control, evokes many great thrillers and European art-films of the '60s and '70s in his slow, rhythmic pacing and glorious photography. The film plays like a cross between The Day of The Jackal, The Conversation and L'Eclisse, but sadly lacks either the depth or mystery of the works it emulates. Corbijn certainly has the style down, but the film feels flat and lifeless.

Part of the problem is George Clooney's central performance. Whilst Clooney is a very engaging presence in most of his films, here he is required to play a stony-faced professional who keeps everything tightly inside. Whilst his stoic expression conveys this man's sense of ennui, he never quite convinces us that he feels any guilt or remorse. We know that he must do, because that is the nature of the story and the film is structured in such a way that the story must unfold that way, but we're never engaged with his journey in any meaningful way.

This in turn adversely impacts the way in which the film tries to generate tension in many of its action scenes, or non-action scenes as the case often is. The film is built around a series of anti-climaxes where we are led to believe that something bad is going to happen, in which scenes build towards what seems like a bloody climax, but which ultimately fizzle into nothing. This is a hugely effective technique when done well (The Sopranos spent six and a half seasons doing this brilliantly) but you need to feel something for the characters in the first place, so whilst the scenes are technically impressive, they lack the key emotional element that gives them their power.

The American is not without merit. It's intelligent, mature and concerned with weighty subjects, and it aspires to greatness, but all too often falls short. Admirable, but that alone does not make it great.

Up In The Air

A bout of heavy turbulence would probably be preferable to an existential crisis.


Ryan Bingham (George Clooney) is a man who is always on the move. Bingham is a corporate downsizer; he is hired by companies to fire their employees because "people will do crazy shit" when they lose their jobs, and bringing in a third party to carry out the termination seems the safest option. Ryan spends the majority of his time in airplanes, airports or hotels, rather than the apartment that he owns in Omaha, Nebraska, where his office is actually based.

His no commitment, no responsibilities lifestyle is put under threat by the arrival of two women in his life; Alex (Vera Farmiga), who shares Ryan's traveling life and as such is able to form a connection with him, and Natalie (Anna Kendrick), a young ambitious woman who is trying to institute a 'new media' termination process at his company. This would allow Ryan and his ilk to stay at home and fire people over the internet. Ryan believes that this would take away the aspects of the job which he considers noble, as noble as being a corporate downsizer-for-hire can be, and he and Natalie go out on the road so that she will be able to see what the job really entails.

I really liked Jason Reitman's two previous films, Thank You For Smoking and Juno, and Up In The Air combines the best elements of those films to deliver his most mature work to date. The film mixes the caustic, biting humour that typifies Thank You For Smoking with the well-formed relationships and emotional arcs of Juno. (Though without the occasionally grating Diablo Cody dialogue.) Much of the humour derives from Clooney's laconic voiceover (which starts off as the dominant voice of the film but which slowly fades out as the story takes hold) and its delivery of Bingham's philosophy, a misanthropic creed that sees all human relationships as excess baggage and values 'freedom', even if that freedom results in an existence of complete emptiness, and an obsession with loyalty schemes and minutaie over actual people.

Considering that it is a story about people traveling in planes, the film is solidly grounded by the dynamics of the characters. The development of Ryan's relationship with Alex feels very natural, largely due to the undeniable chemistry between Clooney and Farmiga but also because the writing makes it seem possible that these two characters could actually happen. The growing attraction between them, starting from a shared isolation and blossoming into a genuine connection, feels very real and makes for some of the film's most touching and warmly funny moments.

The key dynamic in the film, though, is that between Ryan and Natalie, since they spend the most time with each other. It is Ryan's exposure to Natalie's optimism and belief in love, even after she is unceremoniously dumped by her fiancee halfway through the film, that brings him to question his very existence and the meaning of his life. Plus, their sparkling exchanges result in the film's biggest laughs. Reitman make good use of natural Clooney's timing by contrasting it with Kendricks ability to deliver unintentionally biting dialogue in a believably naive way,

Clooney is just marvelous. With his customary charm turned up to 11 and his greying temples, he really does resemble the modern-day Cary Grant that he has so often been called. The way he defuses possibly tense situations, such as firing an employee played by Reitman favourite J.K. Simmons, is effortlessly cool. But it's his vulnerability that is most important to the film as a whole. Beneath the veneer of cool and platitudes you get a real sense that this is a man who has always been in control of his life facing a life-changing series of events. Clooney's performance perfectly captures the essence of someone trying to stay cool in the face of change, and without his steadying presence the film would not work.

But it does work and it does work very well.

Oscar Predictions: The Major Awards

And we're back with the live telecast of Ed's Oscar Predictions. Hope the adverts weren't too loud and annoying.

Having looked through the Technical Awards with an occasionally surgical, but largely slapdash, precision, I will now be considering the Major categories as defined by me and, judging by the way in which the ceremony is conducted, by the Academy. I'm not saying the Technical Awards aren't important, just saying that if Best Editing was so important to the Academy it'd be the last award they hand out.

As with previous predictions, for each one I'll say who should win, who will win, and who the dark horse will be for each category, since that allows me to hedge my bets and come away from the whole thing claiming I was all clever and shit.


Best Writing, Screenplay Based on Material Previously Produced or Published
Nominees:

District 9 (2009): Neill Blomkamp, Terri Tatchell
An Education (2009): Nick Hornby
In the Loop (2009): Jesse Armstrong, Simon Blackwell, Armando Iannucci, Tony Roche
Precious: Based on the Novel Push by Sapphire (2009): Geoffrey Fletcher
Up in the Air (2009/I): Jason Reitman, Sheldon Turner

I must not have been the only one surprised and delighted by the nomination for In The Loop. Armando Iannucci, Oscar nominee just seems really strange to me. Pleasant surprise aside, I' can't quite bring myself to believe that it'll win, despite how bizarre and wonderful such an eventuality would be. It just seems too caustic and too British to win through. This category is actually quite interesting since, without a serious Best Picture contender behind any of them (Precious, maybe, but District 9? Can't see it happening) the field is wide open. If I had to choose (and I kind of have to, given the nature of this enterprise) I'm going to plump for Up In The Air. It's attracted plenty of attention throughout awards season and Jason Reitman is already an Academy fave.

What Should Win: In The Loop

What Will Win: Up In The Air

Dark Horse: District 9


Best Writing, Screenplay Written Directly for the Screen
Nominees:

The Hurt Locker (2008): Mark Boal
Inglourious Basterds (2009): Quentin Tarantino
The Messenger (2009/I): Alessandro Camon, Oren Moverman
A Serious Man (2009): Joel Coen, Ethan Coen
Up (2009): Bob Peterson, Pete Docter, Thomas McCarthy

This category is very tight this year, as four of the nominees are Best Pictures contenders and, since Avatar's cliched, cheesy and downright awful script was rightly ignored, there isn't the sweep factor that usually allows the Best Picture winner to take the screenplay prize along with it. First, the films that definitely won't win: The Coens', despite writing a brilliant film, won't win because A Serious Man is too odd and personal to appeal to a broad selection of voters; and The Messenger won't win because it's a film that almost no one had heard of or was discussing as an Oscar contender prior to the nominations. That leaves Up, Inglourious Basterds and The Hurt Locker. I'd love for Up to win it, if only so Thomas McCarthy could get an Oscar and use the clout to get more films like The Station Agent and The Visitor made, but Pixar have always been bridemaids, never brides when it comes to the Original Screenplay award (Toy Story, Finding Nemo, The Incredibles, Ratatouille, and WALL-E were all nominated for the same award in previous years) and I can't see that trend ending with Up. So, Inglourious Basterds, or The Hurt Locker? I think that Inglourious Basterds will just pip it for having the showier, more loquacious script at the expense of The Hurt Locker's gripping and realistic writing, giving Quentin Tarantino his second Original Screenplay Oscar, after his win in 1995 for Pulp Fiction.

What Should Win: The Hurt Locker or Up

What Will Win: Inglourious Basterds

Dark Horse: A Serious Man


Best Performance by an Actress in a Supporting Role
Nominees:

Penélope Cruz for Nine (2009)
Vera Farmiga for Up in the Air (2009/I)
Maggie Gyllenhaal for Crazy Heart (2009)
Anna Kendrick for Up in the Air (2009/I)
Mo'Nique for Precious: Based on the Novel Push by Sapphire (2009)

Even if Vera Farmiga and Anna Kendricks weren't splitting the Up In The Air vote, Mo'Nique's had this award sewn up for months now. Her performance as Mary, the abusive, hateful mother of Precious is truly astounding; she creates a compelling monster who completely dominates every scene she is in, but it's the final scene of the film, in which she breaks down and lays bare the years of abuse visited on her daughter and the reason why she let it happen, is spellbinding. Mo'Nique takes us into the mind of a truly horrible human being and shows us what twisted logic led her to think that letting her husband sexually abuse their daughter for years was not only acceptable, but that somehow it was all Precious' fault. It's a brilliant performance.

Who Should Win: Mo'Nique

Who Will Win: Mo'Nique

Dark Horse: At this point, the rest of the nominees.


Best Performance by an Actor in a Supporting Role
Nominees:

Matt Damon for Invictus (2009)
Woody Harrelson for The Messenger (2009/I)
Christopher Plummer for The Last Station (2009)
Stanley Tucci for The Lovely Bones (2009)
Christoph Waltz for Inglourious Basterds (2009)

It's interesting that this year both Supporting Awards became foregone conclusions so early in the awards season, and that both will go to actors portraying villains. Unlike Mo'Nique, Christoph Waltz will be waltzing home with an Oscar for playing a villain who is, despite being a Jew-killing Nazi, actually quite charming. Hans Landa, the Jew Hunter, is a man who is very, very good at his job, and from the moment he enters a farm house and asks its owner for a glass of his delicious milk, the audience never takes their eyes from him. He completely dominates every scene he is in and maintains a delicate balancing act between being the embodiment of all that is evil in the world and being downright hilarious.

Who Should Win: Christoph Waltz

Who Will Win: Christoph Waltz

Dark Horse: Unless, during the ceremony, Brad Pitt takes Waltz out, I don't think anyone else is going to have a look in.


Best Performance by an Actress in a Leading Role
Nominees:

Sandra Bullock for The Blind Side (2009)
Helen Mirren for The Last Station (2009)
Carey Mulligan for An Education (2009)
Gabourey Sidibe for Precious: Based on the Novel Push by Sapphire (2009)
Meryl Streep for Julie & Julia (2009)

Up until a few months ago, if you had presented me with this list, I'd have said Carrey Mulligan without a moments hesitation. Whilst the rest of the nominees have either seniority on their side (Streep, Mirren, Bullock), or are in films that have real muscle behind them in other categories (Sidibe) none of them display the same insouciant charm and brittle fragility that Mulligan did as a schoolgirl seduced by an older man. That's what I would have said a few months ago, then The Blind Side made $244 million off the back of Sandra Bullock's performance, and suddenly things weren't so clear cut. Though I still think that Mulligan's is the better performance, Sandra Bullock is going to take home the statuette on the night. The Academy loves a comeback, and an Oscar would be the perfect cap to a year in which Bullock appeared in the two biggest hits of her career (The Proposal and The Blind Side) and gained some of her best notices, too. Though, when they talk about her success on the night, I think they'll skim over All About Steve. There's definitely a sense that it's Bullock's turn, whereas everyone else has either won Oscars in the past, or are young and talented enough to get a second crack a few years down the road.

Who Should Win: Carrey Mulligan

Who Will Win: Sandra Bullock

Dark Horse: Gabourey Sidibe


Best Performance by an Actor in a Leading Role
Nominees:

Jeff Bridges for Crazy Heart (2009)
George Clooney for Up in the Air (2009/I)
Colin Firth for A Single Man (2009)
Morgan Freeman for Invictus (2009)
Jeremy Renner for The Hurt Locker (2008)

In any other year, Morgan Freeman's performance as Nelson Mandela, a role that he's always seemed just perfect for, or Colin Firth's subtle, achingly sad portrayal of a gay man brought to the brink of suicide by the death of his lover, would be a shoo-in, but there's been a real swell of support for Jeff Bridges in Crazy Heart recently. It's not hard to see why, many people have compared his role to Mickey Rourke's role in The Wrestler last year, with his vulnerable, haggard old country star showcasing the sort of affable charm/hidden depths combination that Bridge's does so well. This is also the fifth time Bridges has been nominated, and there seems to be a sense that it's time he won to make up for the times he didn't. This is known as the Scorsese Factor. So, with all that in mind, I think it'll go to Jeff Bridges: Clooney and Freeman have already won in the past; Jeremy Renner, despite giving the best performance out of the lot, is still young and will have other chances; and they gave Sean Penn an Oscar for playing a gay man last year, so they don't have to acknowledge the existence of gay people for at least another decade. It's The Dude's turn.

Who Should Win: Jeremy Renner

Who Will Win: Jeff Bridges

Dark Horse: Colin Firth


Best Achievement in Directing
Nominees:

Kathryn Bigelow for The Hurt Locker (2008)
James Cameron for Avatar (2009)
Lee Daniels for Precious: Based on the Novel Push by Sapphire (2009)
Jason Reitman for Up in the Air (2009/I)
Quentin Tarantino for Inglourious Basterds (2009)

Now, some of you may have gleamed from the rest of this post that I strongly believe that Avatar will win Best Picture, and there's lots of reasons why it will win, some of which I'll list in a moment. Now, generally, Best Picture and Best Director are paired together; of the 80 films that have won Best Picture, 59 have also won Best Director. However, I don't think that this will be the case this year since, whilst Avatar will win Best Picture, Kathryn Bigelow will win Best Director. Given that Bigelow used to be married to James Cameron, director of Avatar, this could be seen as the highest profile divorce settlement of all time ("You take Best Director, I'll take Best Picture. You can have the china plates, I'll have the silverware."), but more importantly it just seems like the wheels of history have turned and brought us to a point where, finally, a woman will win Best Director. It's long overdue and I can't see the Academy missing out on this opportunity to right a wrong that has persisted for far, far too long.

Who Should Win: Kathryn Bigelow

Who Will Win: Kathyrn Bigelow

Dark Horse: Jason Reitman


Best Motion Picture of the Year
Nominees:

Avatar (2009): James Cameron, Jon Landau
The Blind Side (2009): Gil Netter, Andrew A. Kosove, Broderick Johnson
District 9 (2009): Peter Jackson, Carolynne Cunningham
An Education (2009): Finola Dwyer, Amanda Posey
The Hurt Locker (2008): Kathryn Bigelow, Mark Boal, Nicolas Chartier, Greg Shapiro
Inglourious Basterds (2009): Lawrence Bender
Precious: Based on the Novel Push by Sapphire (2009): Lee Daniels, Sarah Siegel-Magness, Gary Magness
A Serious Man (2009): Joel Coen, Ethan Coen
Up (2009): Jonas Rivera
Up in the Air (2009/I): Daniel Dubiecki, Ivan Reitman, Jason Reitman

The decision to expand the list of nominees to ten this year, rather than five - in response to very vocal criticism of the Academy over the exclusion of The Dark Knight last year -has certainly turned up some interesting candidates (who, last summer, could have foreseen that Peter Jackson wouldn't be nominated for Best Picture for The Lovely Bones but for that weird South African science fiction film about giant prawns?) but the award won't go to interesting candidates like the aforementioned District 9, A Serious Man, or Up (the first animated film to be nominated for Best Picture since Beauty and the Beast in 1991, and only the second one ever) or Academy-pleasers like An Education, The Blind Side Up In The Air, but to Avatar.

The monumental success of Avatar makes it pretty much a certainty that it will win Best Picture because, frankly, the film industry needs it to win Best Picture. So much time, money and effort has been spent developing 3-D and telling audiences that 3-D is the future that Avatar seemed to hold the entire history of cinema on its shoulders prior to release. Now that it has been released and, to the shock of pretty much everyone, become the most successful film of all time - unadjusted for inflation, of course - it only seems fitting that they should reward it for, if not changing the course of cinema history, at least offering concrete proof that 3-D is viable. Whilst I maintain, as I have throughout these predictions and elsewhere on the blog, that Avatar is not the best film that was released last year (The Hurt Locker was, naturally) I can't help but feel that Avatar deserves it. Regardless of what I feel about the film, its success is staggering, and James Cameron has, in the face of all the pessimism and jeers of the world, made himself King of the World again. Or the king of his own, bioluminescent world.

What Should Win: The Hurt Locker

What Will Win: Avatar

Dark Horse: The rest of them, but Up In The Air probably has the best chance of causing an upset on the night.

Right, that's your lot. Take your gift bags and piss off.

The Fantastic Mr. Fox

Hmm, replace 'Fantastic' with 'Functional', 'Frigid' or 'Fatiguing' and you'll be closer to the mark.



Mr. Fox (George Clooney) is a formerly wild fox who has settled into a quiet life of domesticity with his wife (Meryl Streep) and young son, Ash ( Jason Schwartzman). However, despite his family, friends and a steady job as a writer for a local newspaper (yes, he's an anthropomorphic fox who writes for a newspaper), Mr. Fox feels suffocated and yearns for his former life as a rascal and a roustabout, stealing chickens and harassing farmers. Drawn back into his old ways, Fox is soon on the bad side of Borris, Bunce and Bean, (one fat, one short, one lean) three of the meanest farmers you've even seen, and they want revenge against Mr. Fox and all his furry friends.

As I mentioned some time ago in this edition of Reasons to be Cheerful, Reasons to be Fearful, I am a massive, massive fan of Roald Dahl and, although it is not my favourite of his books (The Witches, by the way), I have an abiding affection for The Fantastic Mr. Fox and the combination of that source material with such an odd choice of director as Wes Anderson, whose work I generally like (Rushmore) and occasionally love (The Royal Tenenbaums), had me genuinely excited about the film adaptation. It seemed to promise so much, and when I sat down in the packed cinema, I waited with baited breath to see what bizarre concoction would usher forth.

Before I say anything else about the film and its, as far as I'm concerned, many, many flaws, I want to give it a chance to wag its tail proudly (before I shoot it off) and say up front that the animation is just terrific. Wes Anderson clearly has a deep love of stop motion animation (as demonstrated by its use in The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou) and that love translates completely onto the screen. It is clear that this medium, which affords the film-maker such complete control, is perfectly suited to Wes Anderson, whose films have always been meticulous in their design, and I was genuinely astounded by how well his style of directing, which makes great use of the sort of constantly moving camerawork that is really difficult to do in stop motion, was transferred.

The movement of the characters is idiosyncratic, veering from beautifully smooth to intentionally awkward, and the animation on the characters' faces during close-ups (of which there are many, this being a Wes Anderson film) is really quite special. We see every hair and whisker move minutely, providing perfect vessels for the film's talented voice cast. It is clear that this medium, which affords the film-maker such complete control, is perfectly suited to Wes Anderson, whose films have always been meticulous in their design.

The problem with the film does not lie with its looks or its voice, though, but with its soul, since it is completely bereft of warmth, even if it does have its own quirky (Please let it be noted that I shuddered when I typed that word. I hate the word "quirky". It's a word that is all-encompassing and completely meaningless, acting as a shorthand for anything odd whenever someone with a limited vocabulary can't think of a more apt word to describe it. Which is why I am using it. I am nothing if not a hypocrite) charm. Sure, hearing George Clooney's silky voice talking about the existential malaise of being a fox and the essential paradox of him wanting to be more than what he is yet fully aware that he is just a "wild animal", and there is something marvelous about Bill Murray playing a badger, but aside from these chuckleworthy moments there is nothing weightier to the film to keep the interest.

Perhaps "weightier" is an ill-advised word, I certainly don't expect great emotional heft from a kid's film, least of all one directed by someone whose work is renowned for its flippancy, but I can't think of a better way of summing up what is lacking from the film. The archness that so typifies Wes Anderson's live-action films feels out of place in a medium that is dependent on the likability of the characters and a sense of excitement or peril to engender good will in the audience. If you compare it to Coraline, 2009's other high-profile stop-motion feature film, its deficiencies become apparent. Coraline, whilst not as overtly stylised as The Fantastic Mr. Fox, manages to get the viewer more emotionally invested in the world of Coraline Jones and her friends than Fantastic Mr. Fox ever does by making the peril seem real throughout. At no point do you feel that Fox and co. will fail to win the day because Anderson can't do peril. This is apparent from his other films, and I have no problem with it in those films, but a kid's film does need to be scary and exciting, it can't just amble along making jokes aimed at adults rather than trying to be all-inclusive.

It is this last point that irks me more than pretty much anything else. The film has clearly been made by people who resolutely do not make films for children since both Anderson and his co-writer, Noah Baumbach, have both made numerous dramatic comedies intended for adult, arthouse audiences. The problem is that they apply that approach to a film that is, nominally, a film for children, and I found that a little cynical. There is not much difference between Anderson and Baumbach slipping in jokes for adults whilst the animation distracts the kids and the likes of Shrek. Sure, it's a smarter film than Shrek, but the underlying principle is the same. Had they had the courage to make it an animated film aimed at adults I probably would have liked it more.

Now, some may argue that that is what they have in fact done because the film makes so few concessions to children, that much of its target audience will probably be Anderson's hipster followers, rather than children, and that it is the studio that are pushing it as a kid's film, but I think that the substitution of 'cuss' for a variety of swear words in the dialogue indicates otherwise; if they were making a film for adults, they would have left the swearing in and if they were making a film for children they wouldn't have even used 'cuss' at all. They are trying to have their cake and eat it too and they do so in a manner that is completely contemptuous towards their audience. It's cynical, cynical film-making.

It is not without charm and it is not without wit, but The Fantastic Mr. Fox is considerably not. Anderson's auteurist vision gets in the way of the story, excising the peril and darkness of the original story and replacing it with an ironic tone and lackadaisical pacing that does not suit a family film.