Movie news on your iPhone today!
Advertisement
Sign in
Username   Password         Forgot password?
Wanna join? Sign up
Find movies you'll love

SpoutBlog on spout.com

  • Ridley Scott to Helm a Disappointing Alien Prequel. Today in Film Bloggery 07/31/09

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]

    I apologize for being such a negative S.O.B. this week, but at least it seems to help with other blogs‘ dry spells as far as comments go, so I’m going to continue my “concern trolling” today in order to announce my low expectation for this Alien prequel, for which Fox reportedly is now bringing Ridley Scott back to the franchise to direct. I have a general distaste for prequels, so I’m obviously biased. I admit this completely. But what could really be the benefit to this? So we can actually witness the back story of the xenomorphs? If this is to be like most villain origins, I anticipate finding out the aliens were all orphans and/or had lost a childhood love to disease.

    Okay, fine, I’ll end on a positive, hopeful note: if Scott can make the prequel less an explanation for why the xenomorphs are so evil and instead make an Alien film that’s basically Black Hawk Down in space (or is that what Cameron’s Aliens was?), I will totally be on board for this. I do like both Alien³ and Alien: Resurrection, so I guess I’m pretty much obligated to give this a chance.

    Check out the rest of the film blog reactions after the jump:

    • Scott Weinberg at Horror Squad looks forward to a prequel to his favorite film:

      Right here is where you’d expect me to flip out like a geek and rant loudly because A L I E N is my all-time favorite film and how dare they make a prequel and yadda yadda … but frankly I’m pretty thrilled that Ridley Scott is attached. Mainly because I think he’s an excellent filmmaker, but also because his hectic schedule may prevent this prequel from arriving any time soon.

    • Brad Brevet at RopeofSilicon is also eagerly awaiting the prequel:

      I, for one, am extremely excited about this as Scott’s Alien is my personal favorite in the franchise. Unfortunately there is no word on an anticipated production start.

    • Uncle Creepy at Dread Central feels that this will make up for those AVP spin-offs:

      I’m sure I speak for fans everywhere when I say — **** YES! Take that, Strause Brothers and your ill-working lighting rig! In your ass, Paul Anderson with your paper-thin storylines and your non-existent directorial chops! Your contributions to the years of collectively raping our dreams have come to an end. Mark my words; the Xenomorphs will be back with a vengeance!

    • Josh Tyler at Cinema Blend wishes even worse for one of the spin-off directors:

      Great news right? The only way things could possibly get better for the Alien franchise is if someone went back in time and shot Paul W.S. Anderson’s father. Since that’s not happening, be happy with this.

    • Kevin Coll at Fused Film brings up two good reasons this could end up a huge let down:

      This could be really good or really bad. Having the original vision there isn’t necessarily positive just look at Lucas with Star Wars and Lucas/Spielberg with the 4th Indy film.

    • Rob Hunter at Film School Rejects wants to know why this thing is happening:

      So what is there to be excited about here exactly?…By definition it will take place before Sigourney Weaver and the rest of the Nostromo’s crew unwittingly brought interstellar crabs on-board.  Since the crew (and mankind) had no previous knowledge of the aliens we can presume that either the two species had never before crossed paths, or if they did there were no human survivors from the encounter.  So doesn’t that mean the prequel would either not feature humans (unlikely) or feature humans that all end up dead (boring)?

    • Krystal Clark at ScreenCrave believes an Alien movie can’t be good without Sigourney Weaver:

      How are they going to pull this off? Will it be a crew of newbies that no one cares about? You can’t have Alien without Ellen Ripley, that’s why they brought her back in the previous films under such outlandish circumstances. I have a strange feeling about this.

    • Amos Barshad at Vulture suggests a title that would be consistent with the franchise, and it has us picturing Jane Curtin as the original alien queen:

      Ridley Scott will direct an as-yet-untitled Alien prequel…Okay, you know how the first one was just called Alien, and then the second one was Aliens? How about Alie for this one?

    • Lauren Davis at i09 speculates about what the basic premise will be:

      So, what is this brilliant idea? The new film will allegedly be a direct prequel to the original Alien, which means we may get to see what occurred on the derelict ship that Ripley and her crew discover in the first film. Or perhaps we’ll see shades of William Gibson’s idea for Alien 3, and trace the xenomorphs to their origin.

    • Louis Fowler at BloodyGoodHorror.com has seen the future and shares the prequel’s plot:

      I’ve used my crystal ball, nicknamed “common sense”, and read the screenplay already: spaceship encounters the alien, alien gets into the ducts, the lights go out, the spaceship’s inhabitants are offed one by one and a lone woman survivor takes him down. There, I saved you $10, two hours and countless wasted high hopes.

    • Jeffrey Wells at Hollywood Elsewhere thinks this is a “greed move-slash-brand reboot” but offers one good idea for the premise based on what little we know from the beginning of Alien:

      Honestly? I would love to see a subtitled film about a crew of 30-foot-tall life forms with elephant trunks dealing with an alien invasion. No humans, I mean. That would be very cool, very avant-garde. Joe Popcorn wouldn’t like it, of course, but a studio chief who looks to Joe’s wants and needs for movie inspiration needs to go on a sabbatical.

    • Devin Faraci at CHUD.com is somewhat positive but doesn’t want to see what happened to the elephant-like creatures:

      With Scott directing and Spaight writing Fox may very well have earned the benefit of my doubt. I still think we don’t need to see a prequel, and I hope (against all reason) that the Space Jockey won’t appear or be explained. But at least there’s real talent on this one, and not just a hack who Tom Rothman can push around.

    • Elisabeth Rappe at MTV Movies Blog wants some of that origin to remain a mystery:

      Naturally, no one knows what an “Alien” prequel will entail. The most popular theory holds that it’ll be the origin of the mysterious “Space Jockey” whose distress signal was so fatally answered by the crew of the Nostromo in the first film. Though I agree with the current fan consensus that Scott and Spaihts should go in a completely different direction, and leave the doomed pilot purely to our imaginations.

    • Rob Bricken at Topless Robot thinks this will be the least interesting Alien film yet, and it may even ruin the original for us:

      Let me tell you what this movie will be — an alien stalking that first spaceship, or, basically, a remake of the original Alien except everybody dies and it’ll saddled with an incredibly lame origin story that makes the whole franchise less interesting. No thank you, Ridley. Why don’t you just go ahead and work on a prequel to your Monopoly film instead. Tell us how Uncle Moneybags met the dog and thimble.

    • S.T. VanAirsdale at Movieline would rather see Scott revisit another of his films for a prequel:

      …it’s probably safe to presume it will unfold aboard the crashed ship that sent the Nostromo crew its “Beware! Aliens!” distress signal in the first place. And then they die. I mean, wouldn’t you much rather have a Blade Runner prequel, with Rutger Hauer’s fox fur, Elton John glasses and all that?

    • Alex Billington at First Showing offers the speculative idea that maybe this will actually be a Ripley origin story:

      I find it very interesting that instead of continuing on the Alien franchise with more sequels or spin-offs (like Alien vs Predator), Fox is simply just flipping sides, and going the opposite direction with a prequel next instead. However, it is exceptional news to know that Ridley Scott is on-board…As long as Scott can do the same thing all over again some 30 years later, I’m all for it. Let’s not forget that Scott and Sigourney Weaver have some interesting ideas for Ellen Ripley.

    • Vince Mancini at FilmDrunk thinks origin stories are stupid and wonders what happened to Scott:

      To put that in perspective, it’s basically like if Robert Plant agreed to sing for a Led Zeppelin cover band.  Somehow Ridley Scott went from being the guy who turned down both Alien sequels to the guy who’ll make prequels, movies about Monopoly - whatever studio execs want. (*whispers*) I think he might be a replicant.

    • Dustin Rowles at Pajiba also thinks something’s wrong with Scott:

      There’s no way he can top the original; he’s just kind of lowering himself down to the level of Paul W.S. Anderson and Jean-Pierre Jeunet and wallowing in their sloppy fourths…A few bad years behind the camera, and Ridley Scott has apparently lost his self-esteem. And his mind.

    • Mark at I Watch Stuff wonders if Scott will even be able to keep the gig after his upcoming cash-grab:

      Of course, this assumes he’ll still have a career after Monopoly: The Movie. Because Ridley Scott is making a Monopoly movie, and you’d think that would be enough of an indicator of dementia people would stop letting him use film cameras.

    • John at The Movie Blog agrees that prequels aren’t cool, but he’s more optimistic now that Scott’s at the helm:

      In general I do not like prequels… and it’s not just because the Star Wars
      ones were let downs. With prequels, you already know certain things will happen… and certain things won’t happen… which takes a lot out of a story for me…

      So will the heroes in this new movie kill the Alien race??? Well obviously no, so there goes any real mystery.

      Still… if you’re going to do an Alien prequel… this is the right guy to do it. I just don’t think they should be doing it at all.

    • Craig Kennedy at Living in Cinema is hopeful that Scott can do a better prequel than sequel:

      I’ve never wondered where the aliens came from or why they are the way they are or what they did before the Nostromo responded to what its crew thought was a distress signal, but I’ll give Scott the benefit of a doubt. Maybe he’s honestly reinvigorated by the idea of exploring what happened before the events of the original film.

      Besides, it could be worse. It could be another Hannibal.


    Originally posted on:SpoutBlog

  • 10 Must-See British Comedy Films

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]

    10 Must-See British Comedy Films

    The other day I took in a triple feature consisting of the following very different films: Shane Meadows’ Somers Town; the political farce In the Loop; and Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince. Two things each of these films did share are they all come from the UK (the last is a co-production at least) and they all were more naturally funny than Funny People, which I watched the next day.

    I’m not sure if it’s my inherent Anglophilia that causes me to appreciate the humor of Jim Broadbent in a fantasy blockbuster more than Seth Rogen or Adam Sandler in the latest from the reigning king of American comedy, but I did realize that I should probably be watching more British cinema, much of which is humorous whether labeled comedy or not, and less Hollywood comedies, most of which tend to be overwritten and forced nowadays.

    This isn’t to say I’m going to turn all blueblood snob and ignore the domestic stuff. I still enjoyed Funny People for the bittersweet tale(s) that it is, and I’ll continue loving Keaton more than Chaplin and the Marx Brothers more than any comedy group that has or will ever come out of Great Britain. However, I am looking to expand on my so-far limited familiarity with British comedy, which barely extends further than the must-see bunch listed below. So please leave a comment with any other recommendations you have for myself and anyone else interested.

    Blithe Spirit (David Lean, 1945)

    Lean’s adaptation of Noel Coward’s play about a man (Rex Harrison) haunted by the ghost of his first wife (Kay Hammond) is a supernatural twist on the American screwball comedies of the 30s and 40s (which have their roots in Shakespeare, so we can’t completely credit the U.S. for inspiring this film’s plot). That and the fact that it has spawned a number of awful copycats, most recently the Paul Rudd mistake Over Her Dead Body, makes Blithe Spirit a hard sell to young cinephiles, who might wonder how this is necessary, rather than redundant/obsolete, viewing. Besides proving that comedies can and should employ great-looking cinematography (Funny People somewhat does this, too), this film’s witty dialogue and scene-stealing performance from Margaret Rutherford as the eccentric medium maintain that it be a staple of the genre and of British cinema.

    A Fish Called Wanda (Charles Crichton, 1988)

    This jewel heist caper may have been co-produced in the U.S. and feature two American costars, but coming from a script by Crichton and John Cleese, it is undeniably a British comedy more than anything else. It’s funny, though, that the film’s sole Oscar went to an American (Kevin Kline), while it’s two BAFTA wins were for the British stars (John Cleese and Michael Palin). The “equal” (rather than sequel, since it’s the same cast in different roles) follow-up, Fierce Creatures, is also worth seeing, but hardly the masterpiece that this is.

    A Hard Days Night (Richard Lester, 1964)

    Fans of Richard Lester might cite something less obvious and famous, but this really is his most essential film, and it’s probably his most influential. The reason for mentioning it, though, is also to recognize the significance of The Beatles to British comedy of the past 50 years. Not only were they fans, they also contributed to the successes of many comic talents. Especially important was George Harrison, whose company HandMade Films produced such British comedy classics as Life of Brian, Time Bandits and Withnail & I. As for this great musical comedy, which is forever the measuring stick for all other films starring bands as themselves, it really works thanks to Ringo, and it’s a shame it didn’t lead to a better acting career for the drummer. Unfortunately, he’s almost as remembered for appearing in awful B-movies and cheesy children’s television as he is for being one of the Fab Four.

    Kind Hearts and Coronets (Robert Hamer, 1949)

    Everyone that recommends this classic satire of course begins by mentioning the performance(s) by Alec Guinness as eight separate characters, all members of the D’Ascoyne clan soon to be murdered off by a vengeful relative (Dennis Price). But there’s so much more to the film, and besides, Eddie Murphy may have ruined the credibility and appeal of multi-role performances for a large percentage of moviegoers anyway. “One of the ironies to the movie is its being known as a Guiness picture,” writes film historian David Thomson in Have You Seen…?, in which he recommends the movie by focusing on Douglas Slocombe’s cinematography, Hamer’s direction and subversive script cowritten by John Dighton (loosely based on a novel by Roy Horniman) and Price’s lead performance all before even mentioning Guinness.

    The Ladykillers (Alexander Mackendrick, 1955)

    Another film starring Alec Guinness, who is unfortunately primarily known in the States for playing Obi-Wan Kenobi in Star Wars than for his brilliant comedic roles, here he plays the leader of a gang planning to rob an armored car who masquerade as a band of musicians. It’s a testament for how great British comedy is, particularly in its tendency for social context, that even the Coen Brothers couldn’t sufficiently remake this film. Like Kind Hearts, Ladykillers was produced by the legendary Ealing Studios, out of which A Fish Called Wanda director Charles Crichton also rose to fame.

    Monty Python and the Holy Grail (Terry Gilliam and Terry Jones, 1975)

    Two of the greatest comedies of the 1970s were Mel Brooks’ Blazing Saddles and the Monty Python troupe’s Holy Grail, both of which poke fun at their respective nations’ most defining and identifying folklore. For Saddles it’s the American west, while Grail takes on Arthurian legend, and each coincidentally ends with a reflexive abandonment of setting and — more so in Grail — plot. The best Monty Python movie is arguably Life of Brian, yet Grail is certainly the most consistently funny and it’s definitely more significant to British cinema, in that it parodies such a distinctive part of the nation’s history.

    Shaun of the Dead (Edgar Wright, 2004)

    Like Blithe Spirit, this brilliant zombie movie owes a lot to the American screwball films, particularly the comedy of remarriage subgenre (though without an actual marriage), as well as later Hollywood romantic comedies. In fact, at its core the movie is more a parody of the romantic comedy genre than of zombie movies, as its often mistakenly labeled. The zombie subplot is merely an added obstacle and inconvenience, a la the undead invaders of Pride and Prejudice and Zombies. It’s basically His Girl Friday and Zombies, where Ralph Bellamy’s suitor role is substituted with the living dead (which may actually exhibit more personality). Wright and Simon Pegg’s script is additionally one of the richest, most layered pieces of comedic screenwriting of the past 30 years.

    Son of Rambow (Garth Jennings, 2007)

    After making their debut feature with the unavoidably disappointing yet still underrated adaptation of The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, visionary filmmaking team Hammer & Tongs (writer-director Jennings and producer Nick Goldsmith) gave us this little triumph that has been too undeservedly dismissed for being just another cute coming of age story (it also didn’t help having a plot similar to the bigger-starred Be Kind Rewind). Really, though, it’s a brilliant twist on films about rises to fame and movies set in the film industry. The funniest moment takes place during a party that’s every bit like the typical Hollywood club scene, except the coke is substituted with Pop Rocks. And as a French exchange student who becomes the star of school and an amateur sequel to First Blood, Jules Sitruk hilariously steals every scene he’s in.

    Withnail & I (Bruce Robinson, 1987)

    At times very dramatic and quite frightening, Robinson’s autobiographical cult classic is first and foremost a dark farce, one of the best of its kind thanks to Richard E. Grant’s riotous performance as the alcoholic “Withnail,” who goes on a “vacation by accident” to the country with his roommate and fellow unemployed actor (Paul McGann as the titular “I”). Besides a hilarious sequence involving a chicken and the duo’s lack of culinary skill, there’s not much that’s obvious comedy, yet laughter does come with nearly every line out of Grant’s pouty potty mouth. His Withnail is like the missing link between (or middle brother to) Midnight Cowboy’s Ratzo Rizzo and Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas’ Raoul Duke.

    The Wrong Trousers (Nick Park, 1993)

    They may be animated and fictional, but Wallace and Gromit are without a doubt the best comedy duo of the past 20 years. They’re both kind of each other’s straight man, with Wallace being the often oblivious and bumbling fool and his dog Gromit being his more knowing and practical foil. Gromit is also undoubtedly the most brilliant pantomime character/actor since Harpo Marx. While it’s worthwhile for W&G newbies to start at the beginning with their first short, A Grand Day Out, and while all of Park’s films (including Creature Comforts and Chicken Run in addition to the four shorts and one feature starring W&G) are must-sees, The Wrong Trousers is his funniest, if only for its introduction of “Feathers McGraw,” one of the most wonderful and hilarious animated villains ever created.


    Originally posted on:SpoutBlog

  • 45365 on SnagFilms & notes on LOREN CASS

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]

    45365, Bill and Turner RossSXSW-winning nonfiction film about their hometown of Sydney, Ohio, debuts today on SnagFilms, where it will be streaming for free for one week as part of Snag’s Summerfest, which brings festival films online for a limited time before their theatrical/TV/DVD runs.

    As a big fan of this film’s dedicated formalism,  I concur with AJ Schnack who, in an interview the Ross brothers, recalls his experience watching the film at SXSW “where the total immersion forced me to adapt to the film’s rhythms and language” and thus concludes that 45365 is the kind of film best “seen in theaters or at festivals.”  Knowing this before attempting to watch the movie on my computer, I decided to try to approximate a bigger screen experience at home with the Snag stream by connecting my computer to my TV, but unfortunately Snag’s full screen option shuts down for every ad break. So it’s not the right format for “total immersion,” but hopefully it will expose the film to a wider audience, who might be moved to catch up with 45365 when Seventh Art releases it theatrically further down the line.

    Also, 45365 on Snag would make for an interesting double online VOD bill with another film enjoying a similarly non-traditional release pattern, Loren Cass.

    Though going into its second week at New York’s Cinema Village, Loren Cass has been available on Amazon VOD and for rental and purchase on iTunes for awhile. Like 45365, it’s an impressionistic study of a life in a single American town that privileges imagery, mood and tone over narrative.  But where one of 45365’s strengths is its emphasis on the multitudes that the town contains (from 4H princesses to ex-cons), Cass views its city — St. Petersberg, Florida, circa 1996, then reeling from racially-motivated unrest — through the narrow, nihilistic gaze of aimless young adults united in wordless loneliness and the instinct to ameliorate their frustration through fistfights, parking lot sex, and all manner of self-destruction. Both apply a kind of Cubist deconstruction and reformation of their prevailingly influential DNA. In the case of 45365, it’s Americana. In the case of Cass, with its strict “no future” worldview, narration from members of The Circle Jerks and The Dwarves and soundtrack full of bands like Stiff Little Fingers, Husker Du, it’s punk rock, and particularly the surviving echoes of the punk impulse in a world that’s no longer scared of it.

    Cass‘ message and tone is much, much darker than 45365’s; as director/co=star Chris Fuller put it in an interview for FILMMAKER, “There are things about life that are ugly and unpleasant. The whole point of Loren Cass, in a nutshell, is to embrace that, celebrate the ugly things.” 45365 essentially goes for the opposite — it’s essentially about celebrating the beauty of the mundane rather than the potential horror. But both films are puzzles, asking the viewer to impose their own method of making sense of what’s on screen.  I suspect that if seen together, the darkness of one might lead to a deeper reading of the other.


    Originally posted on:SpoutBlog

  • Fantastic Mr. Fox Trailer Not So Fantastic. Today in Film Bloggery 07/30/09

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]

    Two trailers hit today for highly anticipated new films by hip auteurs. The first, for the Coen Bros.’ A Serious Man, is one of the most successful spots I’ve seen in a long time. Here’s a movie that has none of the Coens’ usual players and yet it’s unmistakably theirs (and not just because it looks like a repeat of another of theirs). Then there’s the trailer for Wes Anderson’s Fantastic Mr. Fox, a stop-motion animated kids’ movie based on a Roald Dahl book, which features a few of the director’s usual actors and some of his signature camera style, but which, to me at least, bears little resemblance to his previous work (and not just because it’s an animation). Honestly, this may be the first of his films I don’t have interest in seeing.

    I’m going to focus on the latter trailer primarily because it’s dividing bloggers, whereas everyone pretty much agrees that the Coens’ latest looks awesome. I’ve never been a big fan of stop-motion (though I do enjoy Nick Park’s films, go figure), because it usually creeps me out. Also, I’m typically against huge stars being employed for voice work in animated films, and I honestly can’t get past picturing George Clooney, Meryl Streep, Bill Murray, Owen Wilson, Willem Dafoe and Jason Schwartzman while hearing their voices, and so I had trouble paying attention to the animals onscreen that are supposed to be the ones speaking.

    I’m not alone in having no interest in this thing after seeing the trailer, but it seems some are still excited. Check out the rest of the film blogoshere’s reactions after the jump:

    • S.T. VanAirsdale at Movieline tries to figure out why he’s now “running away from” this movie:

      Maybe it’s because I feel like I’m in on Anderson’s enduringly ironic tone yet I’m being narrated to like a child. (“This fall! Forget super! Ignore incredible! It’s all about fantastic!!”) Maybe it’s the canned, mismatched musical accompaniment, from the first half’s generic indie jangle to the R&B soundtrack clashing with the intimate dialogue toward the end. Maybe it’s the disconnection of most of the images — some of which do look inarguably great — from any narrative context. (To wit, what’s with all the dancing? And why is there a lab?) Maybe it’s the radical shifts from cute to sexy to heavy to light to funny to “look how postmodern we are” winkiness. Or it’s just feels like the same old bundle of Andersonesque twee that the culture has been lugging around for the last decade.

    • Dustin Rowles at Pajiba agrees that it’s hard to separate Clooney’s voice from his face:

      It’s actually kind of jarring — as though I were watching a series of stop-motion animals performing Anderson’s Bottle Rocket script. It doesn’t help, either, that the voice cast is distracting — it’s hard — at least in this trailer — to get into the Mr. Fox character because he’s so obviously George Clooney. I just picture a guy in a sound booth with a martini and two women in short dresses draped around his arms. I don’t think that’s what Anderson was going for.

    • Mickey Pagels at The Playlist also complains about some of the voices:

      We’re not exactly sure what to make of it. It looks cute and offers a few light chuckles, but we’re not sure if this trailer was made for the Wes Anderson fans or for the people that plan on seeing “Aliens in the Attic” this Friday. George Clooney’s ‘Fox’ voice sounds more smooth Danny Ocean and less like that of a father/husband. In fact, many of the voices sound relatively phoned in. Bill Murray sounds bored as does Owen Wilson, whose cameo was advertised in the trailer.

    • Katey Rich at Cinema Blend also negatively comments on the voices:

      First of all, brace yourself for an onslaught of celebrity voices– Anderson regulars like Jason Schwartzman, Bill Murray and Owen Wilson, plus George Clooney and Meryl Streep as the leads– that don’t particularly match the animal characters they’re voicing.

    • Lane Brown at Vulture continues the voice work slamming:

      what’s up with the voice acting? George Clooney and Jason Schwartzman’s parts were apparently recorded at history’s least enthusiastic table reading, and Bill Murray sounds like he had a plane to catch. Still, it looks cute, we guess.

    • Alex Billington at First Showing isn’t entirely sold yet:

      I really want to like this, just because I love well-made stop-motion animation, but I can’t get entirely into it yet. It looks very quirky and very fun, literally like a Wes Anderson movie that was made live-action that someone decided to make a stop-motion version of separately.

    • Neil Miller at Film School Rejects defends the choppiness:

      The trailer gives the inclination that the movie could be a bit of fun, in the way that I find all of Wes Anderson’s films to be fun. The stop-motion animation has moments of cool and moments of choppiness, but who’s to say that isn’t intentional. Overall, I’m still jazzed for this flick — I always give Wes Anderson a chance.

    • Paul Tassi at JoBlo.com notes a division of interest among his coworkers:

      It’s already eliciting mixed reactions from the JoBlo staff, but I have to say I land on the side of “quirky and charming” rather than “weird and creepy.”

    • Kurt Halfyard at Twitch does see Anderson in this trailer, but not so much Dahl:

      Despite the stop-motion animation and talking animals, it is not very hard to identify all of the Wes Anderson trademarks (not to mention nearly every voice actor here as worked with him in the past) on display…but I do not see much of the sly-dark-humour that is the usual part-and-parcel with Dahl’s work.

    • Noel Murray at A.V. Club also sees Anderson and goes against the “grumbling” detractors:

      …from first glance it looks like Anderson’s ported his sensibility over fully into the animated realm. Whether that’s a good thing is an open question…To me though, this trailer looks charming and funny. Bring on the deadpan whimsy!

    • Sean at Film Junk continues the recognition of Anderson’s style:

      It certainly looks like his obsessive attention to detail and quirky sense of humour is a strong part of the mix, and with a voice cast that includes many of his usual collaborators, he’s not branching out quite as far as some might have previously thought. I suppose this could be good or bad depending on your point of view, but personally I can’t wait to see the final product.

    • William Goss at Cinematical adds some other comparisons:

      This tale of a sly fox (voiced by George Clooney, natch) taking on some grumpy farmers reminded me a great deal of Chicken Run, if it were inspired less by The Great Escape and more by Ocean’s Eleven, and while it does look perfectly family-friendly, it really does seem to be a Wes Anderson film through and through

    • Natasha VC at Defamer hopes this will make her love Anderson again, maybe even enough to write his films’ titles correctly:

      With Aquatic Life and Darjeeling Anderson’s once precious characters became irritating because they lost their spontaneity — whimsy is not a substitute for insight, you guys. But maybe Fantastic Mr. Fox will force Anderson away from the smug hipster trope and we’ll be able to fall in love with him again. Unless of course, there is a romantic subplot involving a pan-ethnic possum who shows Mr. Fox the true beauty in an mundane life. Booo!

    And now, the trailer:


    Originally posted on:SpoutBlog

  • LORNA’S SILENCE Review

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]

    LORNA’S SILENCE Review

    Whether or not you “like” their work, if you’ve spent any significant time this decade at film festivals (or reading the blogs that cover them), you’d be hard pressed to deny the impact that Jean-Pierre and Luc Dardenne have had on recent art cinema. With traces spottable in films as diverse as Berlinale winner About Elly, Darren Aronofsky’s The Wrestler and Jacques Audiard’s over-praised A Prophet, the Dardenne style (handheld camera kept close, hyper-naturalistic performances, real locations, a general hard-on for brutality wrapped in the mundane) has become the dominant style of serious movies about ordinary people. This is what happens when you win two Palme D’ors in less than ten years, I guess — other filmmakers presume that you’ve cracked the code. The dirty secret, of course, is that the audience for an actual Dardenne brothers film consists almost entirely of other filmmakers and critics, and neither group has done a sufficient job of persuading that this shouldn’t be the case. This decade’s key art film phenomenon is — ironically, considering the Dardennes’ preferred subject matter — virtually completely inaccessible to any sort of audience outside of the elite circle that made it a phenomenon in the first place. If you are reading this, you are probably part of that elite. If you are not reading this, you probably hear the phrase “Belgian film about poor people” and run as fast as you can in the other direction, and frankly, I don’t blame you.

    That said, the Dardennes’ follow up to the Cannes-winning L’enfant is of interest for two reasons: with a pulp kick giving way to psychological intrigue before the globo-political thesis kicks in, it’s more entertaining on a base level than “a Belgian film about poor people” has any right to be, and it reveals why the Brothers are not only worthy of emulation, but also why they do what they do so much better than their pretenders.

    Lorna (Arta Dobroshi), an Albanian immigrant who dreams of opening a cafe with her largely absent boyfriend, has married Belgian junkie Claudy (Jérémie Renier, nearly unrecognizable at about 30 pounds lighter than in his last stateside release, Summer Hours) to secure citizenship, which will allow her to get a bank loan. As part of a deal set up with taxi driver/low-level crook Fabio (Fabrizio Rongione), Lorna has agreed to make her newly-acquired Belgian citizenship useful by passing it on to a Russian stranger via another marriage. Claudy thinks he’s going to be paid 5,000 Euros to divorce Lorna so the second half of the deal can go through, but Lorna knows that Fabio really plans to kill Claudy and make it look like an overdose. When Claudy asks for her help in getting off heroin, Lorna tries to convince Fabio to spare Claudy’s life, faking domestic violence so that they can get a quickie divorce. At the point where Lorna is self-inflicting head injuries, it looks like Lorna’s Silence is on the road to a happy ending. It’s not.

    Formally, Lorna’s Silence is above repproach. There’s a pure beauty to the imagery here that seems antithetical to the concerns of most films made by Dardenne pretenders, an ease with color and a subtlety of light that seems distinctly related to classic Belgian painting. The Brothers also understand that sometimes a fixed camera doesn’t impede immediacy, but actually enhances it. Their visual minimalism is all about quiet control.

    Lorna’s emotional complexity is such that when I saw it first 14 months ago at Cannes, I interpreted Lorna and Claudy’s relationship — the heart of the film, the area where her silence most crucially comes into play — as a different beast than it seemed to be when I screened the film again last week. It’s clear that lonely, self-loathing Claudy would love for Lorna to be a real romantic and domestic partner, but Lorna’s motivations are much more ambiguous. Why does she suddenly becomes emotionally invested enough in Claudy to try to save his life, to the point where she literally throws herself mind and body to the cause, when everyone she trusts insists that a junkie’s life is expendable? Fabio suggests at one point that her show of basic human empathy is out of character with “the Lorna I know.” Something has happened over the course of the marriage to change her; on first viewing, I assumed that she had fallen in love, but the second time around I was sure it wasn’t as one-note as that. Indeed, the Dardennes’ project here seems to be emotional whiplash: when you suspect you have a character pegged you’re proven wrong, the moments of lowest spirit bump up against the highest, and there’s a dark humor to its deepest horrors.
    Also seemingly more complex on second viewing, and ultimately more difficult for me to reconcile, is Lorna’s ending. It’s because of the Dardennes’ commitment to speaks-for-itself naturalism that they’re able to make the point, without ever stating it in anything like literal terms, that the 21st century globalist dream of a middle class life in a Western country inevitably resolves in either death or madness. And then in the final scene, any pretense towards realism is thrown out the window, as a desperate Lorna finds and, thanks to a conveniently placed crow bar, gains access to a safe haven, all in about 30 seconds. At this point, Lorna has without question been driven by guilt and grief to some kind of madness, so it’s possible a psychotic break has occurred — in a film that often makes use of narrative ellipese to throw the viewer off the track of the narrative, it’s possible that we’ve switched from an objective view of her circumstances, to her fantasy. I’d like to believe that’s the case; I’d like to believe the Dardennes are too good to suddenly change the rules of their game at the last minute.


    Originally posted on:SpoutBlog

  • Alex Cox vs Universal on REPO CHICK

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    Repo Man  (1984)

    Today’s Venice Film Festival announcement included mention of a film called Repo Chick, directed by Alex Cox. The film is not listed on IMDb, but it would seem reasonable to assume that it’s a sequel to Cox’s 1984 cult classic Repo Man, no? As Cox writes on his blog, “It isn’t really; it’s a story of different characters in a different world” — but that hadn’t stopped Universal, the studio that owns the 1984 film, from issuing a cease and desist, claiming that Cox has made “an illegal sequel” to their property.

    Cox had decided to ignore the filing and continue work on the movie — there is apparently significant effects work to finish up in the month left before its Venice premiere — until receiving news that Universal had their own Repo action up their sleeves. They’ve apparently taken a Jude Law film called The Repossession Mambo off their shelf, finished two years ago and left mysteriously in their vault ever since, and have announced plans to rush it into release under the title Repo Men (according to this story, it’s actually Repo Men!, jaunty exclamation point required). Cox is convinced this is an attempt to confuse audiences, distracting them from his non-sequel to Repo Man with a non-sequel of their own. He writes:

    I still have a contract with these guys and - if they ever want to make a film based on my original work - they have to ask me to direct it. What fun that would be! … I’m sure [The Repossession Mambo] is an excellent film, which Universal accidentally forgot to distribute, and now are passing off, in their innocence, as the new Repo Man. Only a cynical person might see any attempt to catch the upward draft of Repo Chick, and give loft to a turkey.

    What do we think: dasterdly intellectual property violation or unfortunate coincidence?


    Originally posted on:SpoutBlog