[Rec]

The trend in horror to film from the perspective of a camera, as if the scenes unfolding before us were, in fact, real, is one that can divide audiences as much as excessive gore. Cloverfield worked because the story was interesting and the monster was fascinating. Also, the camera work wasn't entirely too hectic and thus motion sickness and vomiting wasn't an issue. The Blair Witch Project is the most famous example (and one I haven't seen at the time of writing), yet Paranormal Activity, and the ridiculous amount of money it has raked in, certainly can be called the most successful. But while the aforementioned films can be deemed good or bad almost entirely upon the camera work and scare factor, I think none in the genre is better than [Rec].

[Rec] is a Spanish horror flick from the minds of Jaume Balaguero and Paco Plaza. The plot, and setting, is fairly simple. Angela Vidal is a reporter doing a fluff news piece on a team of firefighters when a call comes in. When they arrive at the apartment complex where the call came from, they find no fire, but instead distressed tenants. That's when everything goes awry and the firefighters, the news team, and the tenants are sealed in the apartment to contain a virus that turns people into zombie like crazies. Like the rage infected Brit's from 28 Days Later, but in a more contained area. It's not so much the plot that makes [Rec] so interesting, but the way it is presented. Balaguero and Plaza keep the audience's perspective strictly inside the news camera, so the scares come from what you don't see (or what jumps in your face). And while some of the scares are of the cheaper variety, there is a building sense of dread throughout the film that makes it a truly effective horror film.

The writing isn't much different from what you'd find in an average horror flick, but it certainly isn't worse. There is the set up, the screaming and yelling required of the characters, and the scary shit happening in between everything. But the acting, for the most part, works because the actors seem like real people trapped in an awful situation. Or maybe they are just unknown actors speaking a foreign language. Either way, the characters felt genuine, so feeling bad when everything came crashing down around them was easier than most horror movies allow. And, as is inherent in handheld cinema, characters are allowed to act "on," because there is a camera in their face. That gives a lot of leniency to the actors.

Not to sound too repetitive, but the real effectiveness of [Rec] comes from the camera work and directing style. Balaguero and Plaza have the audience at their mercy, letting them see what is in front of the camera and having them guess at what is just out of frame. A big death at the foot of the main stairway and the films climax are truly chilling scenes and prove how skillful the directors are at their craft. [Rec] is a horror film, and a scary one, that proves that some of the best thrillers are coming from outside the U.S. And you can be sure the American remakes won't nearly match the originals quality (which is true for [Rec]'s shot-for-shot remake Quarantine).

Genre - Horror (3.75)

Screenplay (4)
Acting (3)
Production (4)
Directing (4)

Fantastic Mr. Fox

You've got to appreciate a year where two high-profile kids movies come out that test the limits of what we typically call a kids movie, even if that number is sadly low. Where the Wild Things Are was Spike Jonze's effort, and in my opinion, he knocked it out of the park. Wes Anderson, who has as much, if not more, indie cred than Jonze, takes his chances with the Roald Dahl adaptation Fantastic Mr. Fox. He, like Jonze, wants nothing to do with straight-up, conventional storytelling. So what do you get? A stop-motion, bright (in all of Fall's wonderful colors) motion picture starring a fox voiced by George Clooney.

Anderson is best known for his deadpan comedies, such as The Royal Tenenbaums or Rushmore, but tackling this Roald Dahl story shows he has more to him than oddball indies. Sure, Fantastic Mr. Fox feels like an indie film, looks like one, feels like one - and is certainly of the oddball variety - but it isn't what you'd typically expect from Anderson. Viewed as a kids film, this one may push the limits on conventions even more so than WTWTA did from earlier in the year. Anderson's script, penned with friend and writer/director Noah Baumbach, whose The Squid and the Whale is one of my favorite films, is filled with a twisted sense of humor that comes out mostly in the quick-witted dialogue. For example, the film doesn't shy away from cussing, but, as it is geared towards children, the film opts to use the word cuss, in all its many forms, as a substitute for any language parents wouldn't want their kid hearing. I may be quick to use the word genius, but that was one of the most memorable, and enjoyable, aspects of the film.

The visual work is also quite stunning, but not in the same way as WTWTA (sorry for the many comparisons, but these two films are some of the most exciting children's stories to hit the screen outside of Pixar). This is an animated film, and is a throwback to an animation style not often seen anymore, which is sad. As much as CG has changed the movie industry, and is necessary for many films, practical effects still, and rightly so, have a place in cinema. To see the "imperfections," which would equate to the hairs on the characters moving or clothing getting crumpled, is almost magical. Not everyone will be a fan of this style of animation, but I challenge everyone to try and see past the unconventional (damn, there's that word again) nature and appreciate it as more an art form than anything.

All the voice work is perfectly matched, and by that I mean the actors fit their character. Clooney does a great job as Fox, Jason Schwartzman could only play Fox's son, and Bill Murry makes me wonder if Badger was written with him in mind. Obviously, it was. It's Anderson and Murry. Duh. With an animated film, voice work may be the most important detail. If the animation is good, but the voice actors don't seem to fit, then it almost renders the animation useless. Luckily, it all works out here.

In the end, Dahl's story, and dark sense of humor, isn't lost in translation (funny right? Bill Murry was in a movie titled that. Totally unintentional). Anderson respects the source material, and as a result, makes an enjoyable, funny, and gorgeous film to watch. Maybe this is a new trend in family films, which I am now dubbing those films that appeal to both the young and old crowd, where conventions can be tossed and real, interesting film making can replace it. I guess we have to wait and see.

Genre - Animated (3.5)

Screenplay (3)
Acting (4)
Production (4)
Directing (3)