Saturday 7 November 2009

FANTASTIC Mr. Fox

Not "The" Fantastic Mr. Fox as it says on my cinema ticket. Fools. Yeah, change of plan. The reviews of Dr. Parnassus and MJ will be going up tomorrow now. Thought that as I saw this today I'd review it whilst it's still fresh in the memory. I learnt a valuable lesson today though. Don't go see a family film on a Saturday evening. It tends to attract families. Noisy families. Bleh. Kinda obvious now I come to think of it but never mind. I'll stick to weekday afternoons from now on. The gits are at school. On with the review!


Well this is an oddity. You can pretty much tell that just by looking at it really. Mr. and Mrs. (Felicity) Fox are professional bird-catchers, but Mr. Fox promises his wife he'll stop being so fantastic at this particular job when Felicity finds out she's pregnant. Two years later (or twelve fox-years according to the film - I have NO idea whether this is true or not...) Mr. Fox has a loser of a son who thinks he's a great athlete and he writes a column in a newspaper, but he isn't satisfied with his life. When he hears about Boggis, Bunce and Bean, the meanest, craftiest farmers the land has ever seen, he just has to revert to his old ways and outwit them. They do not take kindly to his thievery and form an alliance in an attempt to kill him, his family and any of the other animals who happen to get in their way. Hence, a war ensues, and only the most fantastic can win! Yeah, I think I'll stop with the 'fantastic' references now. I'm starting to sound like Christopher Eccleston...


The Fantastic one himself. Oh balls.


Now, as we all probably know, Fantastic Mr. Fox is based on the legendary Roald Dahl book. I have read it on a few occasions, but not for a long time. Even so, I'm still pretty certain this is a very loose adaptation of the book. I don't recall Mr. Fox and the gang breaking into enjoyable little celebration dances in the book or Mr. Fox's "trademark" clicking and whistling. I'm fairly sure they had more than one son too and the other animals didn't play such a large part in the final revenge plan of Mr. Fox. Nor was the book so damn random and crazy. None of this really matters though. Straight adaptation of source material can be great (Watchmen!), but I often feel that if you are going to bother adapting a story you should at least try to do something new with it rather than retreading what has already been done before. Mr. Fox does exactly that, taking the core story of the book and then adding it's own personality to proceedings. It doesn't harm anyone, the original book is still there to enjoy if you prefer it, it just provides a new take on a classic story.

The first thing anyone will notice about this film is the stop-motion animation. Personally I think its great and gives the film a really unique look but I know there will be some people out there who will hate it. The fact that the animation hasn't been done as absolutely perfectly as you might expect with, say, Wallace and Gromit, gives it quite a rough and ready feel. This never spoils it or makes the film look bad though as the characters and environment look so textured, detailed and realistic that you don't care if Mr. Fox's hair position changes from shot-to-shot or the characters seem a little jerky. That's almost how stop-motion animation SHOULD be anyway. Do not listen to the nay-sayers, the film is gorgeous and a real strong point.

Unfortunately Mr. Fox does take a while to get going though. The first 20 minutes or so that set up the real action drag a little and it isn't initially as funny as it thinks it is. When the jokes occassionally fall flat it feels rather awkward. The constant clicking and whistling of Mr. Fox with no real explanation or pay-off starts to grate after a while, as does the constant use of the word 'cuss' to replace actual swear words. Your wishing the film to move on quickly and thankfully it does, the madcap pace later on really making up for the first act. And by the time you get to the last 25 minutes the film is on a roll with an enjoyable, action-packed finale that doesn't stop to take a breath. This is Mr. Fox at its best, fast paced and often rather crazy. If something doesn't quite work it doesn't matter too much as the film moves on straight away and you forget about it. The problems are still there but it does a good job of convincing you they're not.

Something to thoroughly praise the film for though is the all-star lineup that provide some superb voice acting and, as a result, really memorable characters. George Clooney (Mr. Fox), Meryl Streep (Felicity Fox), Michael Gambon (Boggis, Bunce AND Bean), Bill Murray (Badger) and Willem Dafoe (Rat) turn in some great performances, as do relative unknowns Jason Schwartzman and Eric Chase Anderson as Mr. Fox's son Ash and nephew Kristofferson respectively. In fact, Ash and Kristofferson really play off of eachother well throughout the film with Ash's jealousy of Kristofferson shining through due to Kristofferson being almost as fantastic as Mr. Fox himself, whilst Ash is hugely un-talented and "different." Cue a movie of character growth for Ash as he strives to become as awesome as his father. Meanwhile, Clooney's cocky but charming portrayal of Mr. Fox just works and Meryl Streep plays Felicity with real warmth and affection. The rest of the cast are all very entertaining too and it would have been nice if the film had given just a little extra screentime to some of the less-central characters.

As a whole then, Fantastic Mr. Fox is a pleasant and satisfying film with some great character to it and a good few laughs. It's a shame that it has a slow start really as this prevents me from being able to give it one of the top scores. As previously stated though, the final act is worth the wait and forces you to forgive early mistakes. Some mildly annoying habits throughout also pull the score down slightly but there is enough charm and wit to keep you entertained regardless. Fantastic Mr. Fox, then, earns a solid and respectable

7/10

Friday 6 November 2009

A Groovy Guide to the Scoring System

Right, if I'm going to be doing reviews on here I suppose I should probably define just exactly what my scores out of 10 mean, eh? But wait, I promised a review of Dr. Parnassus didn't I? Well fear not all you people who aren't reading this, that will finally come on Saturday (hopefully) along with an extra special little surprise! (Note: may not actually be that special. It depends if you care about This Is It. Oh fuck now I spoilt the surprise...) Ahem. Without any further ado, the Scoring System!

1/10 - Absolutely and agonisingly terrible. Consider suicide rather than watch this film. Don't worry, you will never see me give out this score unless they do a limited re-release of Twin Peaks: Fire Walk With Me in cinemas and Phil forces me to go and see it because he's a sadistic little git at times.

2/10 - Really, really bad with no redeeming features other than the fact that it's not Twin Peaks: Fire Walk With Me. Rest assured, if that film didn't exist a film scoring 2/10 would actually score 1/10. Think yourselves lucky 2/10'ers!!!

3/10 - Seriously not worth your time. There might be a tiny glimmer of hope in there somewhere but it's hidden under so many piles of shit that it's really not worth digging for. Avoid.

4/10 - Might be worth seeing with your mates if only to have laugh at. This is the point were a film is bad but almost enjoyable for various reasons. Terrible reasons, but still. Don't watch it on your own as you probably won't get a lot out of it (if anything) but rag it with your mates and you'll have a good enough time.

5/10 - Meh. It's watchable but you won't want to see it again. Some good things about it but unfortunately too many flaws to really be anything too decent. Shame. See it if you want but don't expect a lot.

6/10 - Good. If you have an interest in this particular type of film you'll probably get enough out of it to make a viewing fairly worthwhile. It's not gonna change your life but it won't exactly be a waste of your life either. Worth considering.

7/10 - Now this is more like it. The official point at which a film would be worth seeing again at some point and could maybe even earn itself a place in your DVD collection if it plays its cards right. An enjoyable film spoilt by a few things which let it down a bit but which ultimately is a satisfying viewing. If you have any interest in this type of film you should definitely go to see it.

8/10 - Pretty much a 7/10 but with less flaws, resulting in a better overall package. Thoroughly recommended!

9/10 - You need to see this film. Very little to complain about and the only things I can really think of are pretty minor niggles. Almost perfection.

10/10 - Heaven. Reserved only for the likes of Pulp Fiction, Fight Club and a few others. I doubt you'll see me score this unless I review one of my all time favourites. Hopefully a new cinema release will prove me wrong at some point though!

Additionally I will clarify that you will never see me giving '.5' marks. That would basically be scoring out of 20 which is absolutely RIDICULOUS. The scope is far too wide to really mean anything. I mean, how would you clarify the tiny little difference between a 15/20 and a 16/20? It's seriously not worth it. The only time '.5' should ever be used is when scoring out of 5. But if your giving half marks in that situation your scoring out of 10 anyway so you may as well just use a 1-10 scale you idiots.

And that is why I don't give half marks. OK?

See ya soon!