Alice In Wonderland

Tim Burton has never been a filmmaker that has had me excited when a new film of his is about to be released. For some, Burton is an off-the-wall filmmaker, with traces of artsy, independent flair to get them feeling like they're experiencing something just profound enough. Not too much though. Others recognize the artist in him, the one with the touches of gothic style, who isn't so much a fake, but rather a filmmaker that has sold out. That's how I tend to view Burton, realizing his potential and knowing how great an artist he can be. Just look to Edward Scissorhands and Ed Wood for shining examples.

But with Alice in Wonderland, Burton has made a film that is too similarly tied to his abysmal Charlie and the Chocolate Factory than his earlier classics. Which is a shame, because Alice could have been his ticket back to "artistic" success. Instead, anyone who saw the Disney version of Alice in Wonderland will essentially see the same film, only with an older Alice, darker images, and unnecessary 3D effects. The script offers nothing new to keep those familiar with the story interested, except maybe the inclusion Lewis Carrol's Jabberwocky. And to have Alice, now much older than when she first visited Wonderland, forget everything she knew about that world by blaming it on a dream only serves to make the film that much more like the Disney version. All this would be less egregious if Alice could simply recall the only dream she has ever had (the one about her first trip to Wonderland), instead of failing to recognize a single thing about Wonderland the moment she arrives.

Setting aside the screenwriting, which is the source of most of my complaints, let us turn over to the technical side. As to Burton's directing, there isn't much to say other than it looks nice. But there isn't anything particularly stunning about his work, nor any scenes that stand above the rest. Which, and this does tie back to the script issue, is likely due to everything in the story happening so damned conveniently that emotional weight is devoid in nearly every scene. It's hard to get into a film when everything is predictable and easy. But back to the technical stuff, like the 3D. This film was converted after the film had been shot, and the difference is noticeable. Blurry images, simple depth-of-field, and other problems detract from the 3D doing anything useful. Then again, I'm not the worlds biggest 3D advocate.

We can touch on the acting, which really amounts to how Johnny Depp performed. His Mad Hatter was an interesting character, and he did much better with it than he did with Willy Wonka. I did see hints of a darker, meaner Hatter, but we never really quite get there. Everyone does decent work, but nobody is all that stunning. The most interesting characters were those that were animated, like the March Hare and the Dormouse.

I'm still waiting for Burton's return to form, and hopefully I won't have to wait too long for it. His earlier work was his best, and I don't think it's crazy to want more of that. So Alice might not be it, and it may not be anything more than average, but at least it isn't terrible. Just lose the blockbuster urge and return to simpler times. That's my advice.

Genre - Fantasy (2)

Screenplay (2)

Acting (2)

Production (2)

Directing (2)

The House Of The Devil

The House of the Devil had me excited, more to see if Ti West's experiment succeeded, and less about the actual film. And I use the term experiment loosely, because the film doesn't feel all that experimental, but has qualities that differentiate it from other films of its time. While West certainly succeeds with his experiment, he has also succeeded in crafting a highly enjoyable and terrifying film, which, above all else, is the most important aspect.

At this point, those unfamiliar with The House of the Devil will be wondering what this aforementioned experiment is. Ti West, writer and director of some horror films you've likely never heard of (I haven't), has created an authentic 1980s horror film. Now, I don't mean he imitated or copied or drew inspiration from 1980s horror films, but has actually created one nearly two decades after the 80s. From the camera angles, the grainy video quality, the credit font, the pacing, the score, and just about everything else, The House of the Devil is a pitch perfect 80s film. In fact, it's better than many of the films from the actual decade. So experiment may be an appropriate term, because The House of the Devil doesn't feel like a movie made in 2009, but feels like something that came from the era of Friday the 13th and A Nightmare on Elm Street.

The story concerns itself with satanic cults, and the depraved and awful things they can do to innocent people, especially young, virgin college girls. But the film is actually more about Samantha, a young woman who is meant to "babysit" some elderly woman, stuck alone in a huge house in the middle of nowhere. West uses this time to build tension, slowly, which lends itself to some truly stomach clenching moments. Instead of jump scares - though there are a few - West builds upon a growing sense of dread, having the audience fear for Samantha's life, whose only foul was being desperate.

The acting is consistently solid, and the performance by Tom Noonan is quite good. He has a presence, and while he may not seem, at first, to fit, his role may be more essential because of this. And while Noonan deserves much of the credit, West managed to write characters with unique voices that seemed to be layered enough to be interesting. His script has us caring what happens to Samantha and her friend Megan. That is not an easy task, probably because it is so rare in current horror films. The teens in present day horror are all mean-spirited and obnoxious, so their deaths don't mean as much to viewers as characters we care about.

The House of the Devil is tense in all the best ways. It is a horror film that doesn't rely on jump scare tactics or excessive gore to sell the fear. This is a beautifully crafted film that belongs to another decade, but audiences now will have the pleasure of seeing it in this era, before it has a chance to age and gain a cult following. The House of the Devil is a stylistic throwback that anyone who experienced horror films in the 80s should see, but so should horror fans of the present. It's truly worth it.

Genre - Horror (3.5)

Screenplay (3)

Acting (3)

Production (4)

Directing (4)

Shutter Island

It's wonderful to see a horror film treated with so much respect, especially by a director as well-known and prolific as Martin Scorsese. And make no mistake, Shutter Island is a horror film, and a well-made one at that, which likely explains the mixed critical reactions. The mystery and thriller aspects to Shutter Island combine with the horror elements, creating a unique blend, but the film's horror roots cannot be ignored, and I'm glad Scorsese didn't shy away.

Based on the novel by Dennis Lehane, author of Mystic River and Gone Baby Gone, Shutter Island is an altogether different beast from previous works. Sure, the location is similar, but the tone is darker, the tension higher, and genre twisted. I say genre twisted, because Lehane is a writer with mystery backgrounds, which is prevalent in Shutter Island, but certainly not limited to. The film is no different, and perhaps more atmospheric than the novel it was adapted from. Scorsese embraces the horror, the paranoia, and audiences are treated to a glimpse into a genre they usually hold in disdain. This is a horror movie that takes it's time with the characters, lets the mood build and culminate in a final, game-changing twist. By the time of the big reveal, we've come to know these characters, whether they're wholly truthful or not.

As I've already mentioned, Scorsese treats Shutter Island with respect, framing scenes much like those of horror films, utilizing shadows, paranoia, jump scares, loud noises, and the score to create tension and fear. Combine that with the setting - a mental institution - and the apparent brutality of the doctors and their procedures, and you definitely have the workings of a horror flick...or thriller if you will. Shutter Island is a beauty, and whether you enjoy the story or not, it's hard to argue the film isn't gorgeous. Scorcese is a talented director, and Shutter Island proves this.

His cast is wonderful, from Leonardo DiCaprio to Mark Ruffalo to Ben Kingsley. Each of them brings their character to life, and I argue Kingsley does the most terrific job. I don't usually fawn over Kingsley's work, but he captivated me every time he was on screen, and I wanted more of him. But everyone does a fantastic job, especially in light of the twist ending, when you realize there is more to each character than you would have thought. And while the role is limited, Jackie Earle Hayley plays wonderful creeps, and his performance as a deeply trouble and violent patient resonated long after he appeared.

Shutter Island exceeded my expectations, which I'm glad to report. For a Lehane adaptation, it ranks close with Ben Affleck's Gone Baby Gone, and stretches far beyond Clint Eastwood's Mystic River. Judge for yourself, but this is a film worth seeing.

Genre - Horror (3.75)

Screenplay (3)

Acting (4)

Production (4)

Directing (4)

Food, Inc.

I love watching films that make my blood boil. I love it even more when those films happens to be documentaries. There is just something about real situations, however skewed an issue may be presented, that gets to me. Michael Moore is a figure whose work can be polarizing, yet each topic he's investigated has resinated with me. Health care, gun control, the Bush administration's incompetence. Food, Inc. is no different. This is a film that examines the current state of our food industry, how food is "made" and how the animals, and the crops we grow, are treated and mass-produced. And I'll be damned if it didn't get me angry.

For the record, I'm an unapologetic lover of all things meat, someone who has never given the briefest thought to vegetarianism and will suck down the flesh of animals until the day I die. But that doesn't mean I want those animals, with the flesh I so cravingly want, treated poorly. Wrangling chickens, throwing them into tiny crates, kicking them, this is not how a living being should be treated. The same goes for cows and pigs. Food, Inc. delves into the world of livestock "farming," showing just how broken the system is. It's no wonder we know so little about the food we buy, with the companies working so hard to hide it from us. Robert Kenner, the man behind Food, Inc. does everything he can to expose the industry for all its faults, hoping a more transparent system will emerge.

The film itself, which not only covers how animals are "made" into food, but also examines the wild and crazy world of corn, is well-structured and beautifully shot. Interviews are done with farmers who provide their animals to the big name companies, figures far more sympathetic than you might believe. There are also interviews with farmers doing things the old-fashioned way, what with grass-fed beef and outdoors and dignity. Viewers are treated to a glimpse of how things used to be, how things can be, if only we work to change how things are done now. Kenner lets the words and images of the people he interviews say it all, relying less on showmanship and entertainment.

Food, Inc. may not inspire an instantaneous change in viewers, but it should cause some critical thinking. There is hope for a new system, one with less hormones and cruelty and corn, but it is up to the consumers of the world to demand that change. Let Food, Inc. get under your skin, let it anger you, because that is exactly what is needed.

Genre - Documentary (4)

Screenplay (4)

Acting (-)

Production (4)

Directing (4)

In The Loop

In Burn After Reading, at the films finale, we discover that everything preceding it was a smorgasbord of chaos. The film is essentially one big joke, the end being the punch line. Some audiences were put off by this, while others appreciated what the Coen's were trying to say. I, for one, thought the film was excellent, and felt the ending lifted my spirits towards the movie, as opposed to leaving me feeling cheated. In the Loop is not Burn After Reading by any means, but the two do share a theme of political chaos, which lends each a certain hilarity that, I think, some will understand and others won't, which is a shame.

The chaos factor runs heavy throughout In the Loop's running time, and as everything becomes more and more tangled and confused, the more laughs there seem to be. The film portrays the political game as something so enormous and twisting, that is impossible to have everyone working within the system on the same page, saying the same things, doing what they are supposed to do. Which is likely fair, as governments, especially those of the featured Great Britain and United States, tend to be so sprawling in their reach that it's a wonder anything gets done properly at all. In the Loop doesn't follow so much a coherent story (though there is one), but instead follows characters caught in a machine, unable to escape, simply trying to survive. The politics are about war - whether going to or avoiding - yet every character in the film, all of them players in government or military, has their own opinion and thought of where their country stands. It's confusing and becomes much harder to follow the deeper it goes, but that is what makes the film so funny.

The writers, and there are a number of them, including director Armando Iannucci, do a brilliant job linking everything together, having the chaos build upon itself without it becoming too burdensome for the audience. The dialogue is quick and snappy, even when it is men and women screaming and swearing at each other. Peter Capaldi, Tom Hollander, and James Gandolfini each play their characters perfectly, some of them hapless idiots, other barking orders at anyone below their pay grade. While In the Loop is based off the British television series The Thick of It, the story seems to stand on its own, only a few characters crossing over, with most of the television cast playing different roles in the film.

Iannucci shot the film in a handheld, documentary style, with a considerable amount of improvisation by the actors, making the film feel more real. Again, this enhances the humor, if only because audiences can see the bits of truth about the inner-workings of government through this style.

This is a film definitely worth watching, a recommendation for those who find humor in politics, or in the everyday, chaotic bullshit of life. I'm glad the writers, who live and work in the U.K., spared no one in their skewering, giving both the U.S. and U.K. their dues. It's about time someone did.

Genre - Comedy (3.5)

Screenplay (4)

Acting (4)

Production (3)

Directing (3)

The Book of Eli

It seems as if there are more good ideas out there than good writing. You'd like to believe the two could go hand in hand, yet this isn't always (read: rarely) the case. Some writers are gifted with devising brilliant ideas, but when pen needs to be put to paper, there is a failure in communication. The brain does not supply the proper words, the words that would flesh a brilliant idea into a brilliant script, leaving a good idea ruined. The same goes for good writers, who know the craft inside and out, yet have trouble finding anything decent to write about. I don't know what the case was with The Book of Eli, but there was certainly a breakdown somewhere in there.

The Hughes Brothers latest film, their first since 2001's From Hell, starts out promising, but by the end credits, you can't help but feel a little disappointed. We meet the title character, Eli, played by the always great Denzel Washington, who is a loner, a man that keeps to himself and likes it that way. When post-apocalyptic thugs try and steal from him, though, he slices them to pieces without so much as breaking a sweat. It's an incredible sight to behold, especially if you are a fan of quick, brutal violence...and why shouldn't you be? Yeah, why not, movie watcher? So begins a great idea, having a man protect something as simple as a book, gifted with ninja fighting skills and seems invulnerable to bullets. But then they had to go and fuck it all up at the end, with one of the dullest, most stretched out twists cinema has ever seen. Shyamalan wouldn't have let that shit happen (ignore The Happening. Or The Village. Or Signs.). This was an idea that had promise, but was poorly executed.

For the most part, the writing works until the ending. We get some interesting hints as to why the "apocalypse" happened, and some cool fight scenes. There is a tonally odd, but entertaining, shootout near the films finale that had me hopeful, but that was actually the last of anything good about The Book of Eli. After that, we get mini-twists hard not to see coming, and a lot of empty, pointless filler. The actors do what they can, and are the best part of the movie as a whole. Washington does a solid job leading, and Gary Oldman is a wonderful villain, even when all the villain wants is a book. Mila Kunis isn't given a lot to do, but she performs admirably for what she is given.

So in the end, what you have is just another post-apocalyptic movie that promises more than it delivers. Not to say The Book of Eli is a complete waste of your time, but not something you need to rush to see. Or watch all but that last five or ten minutes and call it good. No, that's not an actual suggestion, but I wish the Hughes Brothers thought about that while filming, or editing, the film. But what are you going to do? Wait for the next post-apocalyptic movie to hit theaters. Sounds good to me.

Genre - Action (2.25)

Screenplay - 2

Acting - 3

Production - 2

Directing - 2

Avatar

I've been wrestling with Avatar for quite some time. Long before the movie was released, before a trailer had been seen, I had heard Avatar would change things, perhaps the movie industry as a whole. Then the trailers were released, and then the movie itself, as well as reviews and award shows nominations and wins. Suffice it to say, the hype on this behemoth of a movie was big. Like really big. And, in order to manage my expectations, I tried to ignore the hype, to keep a rational mind. So how did it shape up to the hype? To my expectations? Well that's rather complicated.

I have a feeling that this review may read more like a criticism of Avatar than a praising of it. But the grading Avatar get will likely not reflect what is said here. More on all that later. First and foremost, Avatar is nothing more than a big budget, popcorn sci-fi flick. In terms of story, that is exactly what James Cameron's latest is. And it's a big film, akin to a Michael Bay movie, only better shot, acted, and received. But both those men love big movies. This is not a criticism, only a reminder that something we enjoy isn't always something that is truly great. On the page, Avatar is nothing remarkable. It is a fun science fiction story. But when you examine the film from a technical level, that's really where it shines.

The computer graphics and the application of 3D is amazing. There is so much detail, the characters and environments of the Pandora world (where the film is set), is at times perfect, and at others, really, really good. And let me say right up front that 3D movies aren't really my thing. They seem too gimmicky, and too much focus is spent on this aspect, rather than telling a decent story. Avatar tries to blend these two aspects with a little more care than your average animation or horror movie might. The universe of the film is designed for 3D, and is not meant to showoff an effect every couple of scenes. The Na'vi, which are the native species of Pandora, become more life like when you see them emerge from the screen, as if you existed in their world. The trees and bushes and other assorted vegetation almost pull you in deeper, gently blowing into and out of the screen. Cameron knew what he was doing here.

But then we get to the story. Now, I know it sounds like I'm about to rip on the screenplay, or even the acting, but that's not what I'm here to do. If this were any other filmmaker's movie, and done in a more traditional, 2D style, Avatar may get praise for being a fun, entertaining waste of a couple hours. But that is a fair label, because it is exactly that. I had fun watching Avatar, from the very beginning to the very end. There are moments of intense action, when you may find yourself not breathing, or laughing at a joke, or all sorts of other emotional reactions you have when watching a good film. But the only reason these emotions are enhanced is because of the 3D. Sure, there is a lot of good world building, and some really inventive creatures and alien dialect to be found, but these alone do not a good movie make. I appreciate the story I was told in Avatar, but do not for one moment believe it will change my life, nor do I think it was the most original work of the year.

And a brief note on the acting. Sam Worthington does a terrific job, and I'd pat myself on the back for saying he will likely be the next great star, if not for so many people already having said it first. The rest of the actors each performed at various levels under the heading of "good," but I wasn't blown away by anybody else. It just had to be said.

At the end of the day, Avatar is a good watch, and something that should be seen in 3D. But I'm not yet sold on the need for 3D in movies, or at least not as a standard. Every once and awhile maybe, but not every movie needs it, and even a few really don't. Cameron's movie recently won a Golden Globe for Best Picture, an award I don't think it deserved. It's made a ton of money, changed the nature of 3D films, but that's about it. There are better movies and there are worse. Let's just not get too out of hand. If Avatar wins the Academy Award for Best Picture, I don't know if I'll be able to control myself. But I guess we'll have to wait and see how history views Avatar.

Genre - Science Fiction (3.25)

Screenplay (3)

Acting (3)

Production (4)

Directing (3)

Sherlock Holmes

This is an example of how to appropriately reboot a franchise. Or kick start one. Sherlock Holmes is definitely presenting itself as the first entry into a franchise, but movies featuring the character of Sherlock Holmes in the past haven't really been intended as franchises, or at least never took off. But that's likely due to Robert Downey Jr. not being available. I mean, the man makes this movie. He made Iron Man awesome, so why not the same with one of the most well-known, albeit fictional, detectives in the world?

I'll start by saying how tentative I was about seeing this film at all. I've only ever read The Hound of the Baskervilles, which I thoroughly enjoyed, but that is the extent of my immediate Holmes knowledge. The rest comes from reading about the great detective, and what I've gleaned from the television series House. Having known of this connection prior to watching Sherlock Holmes, it becomes readily apparent how much the character House was modeled after Holmes. The crass, intellectual, and deductive personalities are traits both characters share (and an addiction to drugs, which the movie mostly sidesteps). But nothing listed above was reason for how cautious I was approaching Sherlock Holmes.

When I discovered Guy Ritchie was going to direct, I worried that he would turn Holmes into just another one of his gangster flicks he is most well-known for making. And early previews only seemed to make this all the more likely, featuring almost nothing but fighting, explosions, and wild, intense action; all of which is fair, figuring the Holmes character was known to be a master of fist-fighting and martial arts. There was nothing of the detective using his brilliance, or even what the mystery at the heart of the story would be. But I was wrong here. Ritchie surprised me, giving Holmes the dark universe he belongs to, but allowing him to be first a thinker, and a fighter second. And, lets be honest, there were some pretty incredible action scenes in the film, so I'm glad someone like Ritchie was able to capture it well.

But, aside from some pretty excellent casting, I think credit is due to the writing team. Michael Robert Johnson, Anthony Peckham, and Simon Kinberg all did a terrific job writing the Holmes character. The screenplay isn't perfect, and probably could have used a little cleaning, but the mystery twists and turns, allowing Holmes to uncover the truth in his usual deductive and abrasive way. Giving Downey Jr. the role was about as smart a decision one could make, because it fits him so perfectly. He does an amazing job playing pretentious, self-centered characters like Sherlock Holmes and Tony Stark. Perhaps the sequel will give Holmes the chance to let loose and to face off against his archenemy Professor Moriarty in a battle of wits Vizzini would most certainly be jealous of.

Genre - Action (3.5)

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

[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)