Film Review: Adventureland

Adventureland is the latest release from director Greg Mottola, following protagonist James Brennan (Jesse Eisenberg) as he works his mundane summer job at a fairground. Most people should be familiar with Mr. Mottola - he directed 2007's famous / infamous comedy Superbad. Many will be quick to draw comparisons between these two films, but in truth, Adventureland's tone leans more towards Judd Apatow's brilliant 1999 series Freaks and Geeks. In some ways this betters the film, but in others, it lets it down.

This is in part due to the personality of the characters and their actions. While Superbad seemed to focus on stereotypes like the sex, party and drink-obsessed teens, the awkward geeks, the not-so-bright policemen, etc., etc., Adventureland's characters are much more human in their portrayal. The story's key concern here is main character James's affections for co-worker Em (played by Kristen Stewart of Twilight fame), and how this relationship plays out (as in my other reviews, I don't want to say much at all about what actually happens so you can experience it for yourself). All of the characters involved have likeable traits, but realistic flaws to go along with them, and this aids how much we can empathise with the people on-screen - there's more emotional investment here than there is in Superbad (I'm not saying that I didn't like Michael Cera, Jonah Hill and company, far from it; it's just that it's easier to sympathise with someone like James Brennan (in Adventureland), who is going through some "relationship issues," than it is with Seth in Superbad, who draws hilariously-detailed penises all over his school work). The relationships, like that between James and Em, are played out in a more pessimistic fashion - human flaws provide great obstacles for them, and the cast aren't concerned solely with sex.

While this certainly works partly in the film's favour, it's at the expense of its "enjoyment" factor. Superbad is mostly a comedy through-and-through, yet this film takes itself a lot more seriously. The character development that's present is good, but while something like Freaks and Geeks had many episodes in which to build personalities, Adventureland is a bit over 2 hours long, and so the extra time spent creating better characters means there is less time for comedy, which is a great shame.

There are some characters who are clearly exaggerated, albeit not completely out of the realm of possibility. Bobby the theme park manager (Bill Hader - Knocked Up, Forgetting Sarah Marshall, Superbad; you know, he's in most of the films that have anything to do with Judd Apatow), his partner Paulette (Kristen Wiig) and James's childhood friend Tommy Frigo (Matt Bush) all come to mind when I say that. The scenes they occupy are generally hilarious, particularly Bobby's (he's absolutely insane) - the majority of his scenes caused roars of laughter from us watching. It's these side characters that provide the majority of laughs, among others. But these characters are just reduced to the sidelines, as the plot mainly focuses on more serious ones like James, Em, and Connell (Ryan Reynold). While it's good that the storyline is more serious than Superbad, it's annoying that there isn't enough humour in it, when the humour that is there is so good.

The atmosphere and setting everything takes place in are spot-on however - it's set in the 1980s like Freaks and Geeks, and everything looks completely genuine for that era. The soundtrack is fitting for the period also, featuring songs by Judas Priest, Lou Reed, and David Bowie, among others. It all adds up to create what's most likely a genuine feeling of 1987. It's sometimes just fun to look around at the general aesthetic of the theme park, the rides, and such.

A few parts of the film drag, such as where there are long, lingering shots of characters kissing, which are repeated several times throughout. I can't help but feel these sorts of unnecessary "meaningful" seconds could've been replaced with funnier...seconds. While it's good that Mottola opted for a more serious venture this time around, he could've afforded to put in some more comedy to break it up a bit - sure, we care about the characters, and what happens to them, but it would've been better if we had more fun along the way. Still worth watching though; the main storyline is sincere, most of the characters are great (particularly the co-stars), the period is portrayed well, and the laughs that are there are make it an uplifting watch.

7.5/10

Film Review: Inglourious Basterds

Let me get this out of the way first: this is the first Tarantino film that I've seen properly (i.e. all the way through), so I'm gonna be judging it as an "outsider" instead of by the standards of the rest of his catalogue.

Being a Quentin Tarantino film, I knew not to expect a straight-forward action film - but this is not at all how the film has been sold through its trailers. If you watch this trailer here (I'd advise not watching "Trailer 2" - it contains a surprising amount of spoilers), you'll see the fast cutting, loud music and gunshots-type stuff that you'd expect from any mainstream action trailer. But in the case of Inglourious Basterds, this is just false advertisement. There's probably less than 10 minutes of the Basterds actually killing Nazis, and of the nearly 3 hour-long running time, that's hardly anything. While yes, I definitely would've enjoyed the film more if there was a significant increase in the amount of activity on-screen, that's not to say it isn't good - it just might not be the film you expect it to be.

The Nazi-killing / shootouts that are there are great, and the film is incredibly violent at times; in the trailer, Brad Pitt's character mentions his men collecting scalps...and you'll see those scalps being collected (which caused some grimacing from viewers). Despite the title however, the Basterds who are doing all of this seem to be only half of the film's overall focus, which is a shame, considering that Lt. Aldo Raine (Brad Pitt) and others such as Sgt. Donny Donowitz (played by Eli Roth, director of the Hostel movies), are highly entertaining characters to watch. This changing of focus is the film's main downfall - it's split up into five "chapters," and I didn't find the plot or the characters engaging at all. There are frequent switches between characters, and some go missing for hours at a time. As such, there's little suspense brought about with regards to the storyline, and while it's often fun to watch, you never particularly care about anyone.

The film is entertaining though; there are a reasonable amount of funny moments, some even reaching that pedestal of laugh-out-loud humour. Mike Myers even appears in a reasonably large cameo with a brilliantly realistic approach to British accents and moustaches. The film would've benefitted from more of this comic relief however, considering its length. It's not exactly taking itself seriously (as you can tell by the style and the overly dramatic, sometimes Western-inspired soundtrack), and so could've provided a bit more of a break for the audience from the lengthy conversations.

What does happen during the 2 hours and 55 minutes Inglourious runs for? Well it's essentially people sitting around talking. This is where I'm surprised by Tarantino's writing - even though this is the case, at no point was I bored as such. It's a testament to the dialogue, considering that while some of the characters are played brilliantly (Christoph Waltz is amazing, and terrifying, as Hans Landa the "Jew Hunter"), you don't really engage with any of them. Tarantino knows what he's doing in this respect; he at least manages to keep you watching. Some of the twists he throws at you are not only surprising but hilarious (the main one I'm thinking about here occurs at the end).

The film's final scene is its greatest achievement, when it finally manages to reach that perfect mix of action, humour, suspense and general all-out craziness that it's been building towards, and what I'd been waiting for. I expected, or wanted the film to maintain this kind of atmosphere throughout, and looking back on the film as a whole, it's a great shame it didn't, as the last half an hour or so is truly fantastic.

Inglourious Basterds has been out for a month now, so if you're going to see it, you probably already have; I don't need to write much more here. I may have focused on the film's issues but don't get me wrong - I did have a good time watching it, and you probably will too. The dialogue, along with the humour and violence interspersed (albeit slightly sparsely) throughout make it a pleasantly "fun" viewing experience, just not as "fun" as it could have been. You'll probably love it if you're already a big fan of Quentin Tarantino; if not, just be sure not to go in expecting to see Nazis getting "owned" by Brad Pitt & co. for 3 hours.

7/10

Film Review: Mary and Max

I realise that my District 9 review read like a rigid English essay...I'm gonna go ahead and blame that on ten different English teachers over the years, forcing me to write in a structured, formal style... Well I don't like that, so I'll try my best to be a bit more laxed from now on...

You probably haven't heard of this film. It's an Australian claymated feature from a man named Adam Elliot, who has seemingly only been involved with animated short films prior to this. One of these films, Harvie Krumpet (which won the Academy Award for Animated Short Film in 2003), appears to have inspired Mary and Max. Similarities can be noticed, and some small things appear to have been intentionally carried over for those who pay attention, such as the book round Max's neck, which has the title "Faces" (Harvie Krumpet has a matching book reading "Fakts"). You can watch Harvie Krumpet on YouTube here - it's a great little film (a bit over 20 minutes long) that details the seemingly unending amount of misfortune in Krumpet's life. While, as I mentioned, there are some similarities between Harvie Krumpet and Mary and Max - they are only few, and don't impend on either's success as a stand-alone film, or make it seem that you're watching the same thing again.

And I've written all of that without mentioning what the film is actually about. In a nutshell, in what the opening states is a true story, we follow an exchange of letters between an overweight man with Asperger's syndrome who lives in New York (Max), and a lonely young girl in Australia who is bullied at school (Mary - if you couldn't guess). We switch back and forth between their lives and are witness to the events in them. That's it! I can't make it sound any more exciting without ruining anything, and I don't want to do that...

I was very lucky to catch Mary and Max at a one-off screening, and unfortunately, it doesn't look like the movie is going to see a general release in the UK anytime soon (however much it should). My "viewing experience" wasn't off to a good start...I missed the first minute or so, as it took me a while to find the cinema. My penance for this was: receiving a glare from the man I had to ask to move so I could get to my seat, knocking the person in front of him's head in my rush to stop being such an annoyance to him, receiving a glare from them also, and finally I was fortunate enough to get a loud TUT from the people behind me during the 1 second that I was in their way before sitting down. I can't say I'd have a very different reaction if I was in their position; I understand the need to be fully immersed in a film - but boy the British really do need to relax. I was in front of the screen for seconds! Possibly less than that. Anyway, these "troubles" were quickly forgotten - the film is immediately likeable.

The animation is part of the reason for this - it's got a fantastic style, and the character design is reason to smile in itself. I adore stop-motion animation, and there really isn't enough of it around (the only other film I've seen this year utilising the technique was Coraline, which was also brilliant). In fact, I think Wallace & Gromit, Chicken Run, James and the Giant Peach and The Nightmare Before Christmas pretty much sum up the rest of the feature-length stop-motion films I've seen. Mary and Max uses the method to great charm and comic effect. All the exaggerated expressions and such that you'd expect from a cartoon are present. It's an original style too; the characters are small and compact yet have enormous detail.

The other thing that makes the film so enjoyable, is the dialogue, a lot of which is provided via narration by Barry Humphries (Dame Edna). He describes the out of the ordinary things that happen in such a matter-of-fact manner that you can't help but laugh. It's a perfectly-suited narration that ties the film together nicely. The rest of the dialogue is primarily delivered by Max (Philip Seymour Hoffman) and Mary (Bethany Whitmore as a child, Toni Collette as an adult) themselves. Max is interested in a variety of eclectic things, and due to his Asperger's syndrome, finds it difficult to understand non-verbal expression in other people. He also takes everything literally; a woman at the doctor's surgery tells him to "take a seat" - he takes one of the chairs home with him. Needless to say, some of the things Max comes out with are equally hilarious ("Did you know that turtles can breathe through their anuses?" he asks the eight-year old Mary). Mary shares this child-like innocence (well...she is a child for most of the film), and in this way you can really care both for the characters themselves, and the bond between them. The voice-acting is superb throughout - every voice matches every face. I was particularly fond of Philip Seymour Hoffman's performance; after watching, it's hard to imagine any other type of voice come out of Max's character model.

There is a LOT of humour in the film, and most of it is, when it's not laugh-out-loud funny, a joy to watch ("Mr. Ravioli" is genius - you'll understand if you see it). Mary and Max is not entirely a bundle of laughs, though. While some may be quick to label it a children's film simply due to the animation style, they would be wrong. The film deals with themes like suicide, general death (of pets and relatives), Asperger's syndrome (of course), etc. There's not much that's really going to upset kids watching it, it's just that some of the subject matter will be a little beyond them. What the presence of these issues does is add a layer of depth and seriousness to an already spectacular film (I'm running out of positive adjectives). While the animation itself seems to be cartoony and quirky, the colour palette seems to reflect the darker moments of the film - Max's New York is a smokey black and white mass of buildings and fumes, and Mary's Australia, while using colour, consists of muddy browns and oranges.

My only slight gripe with the film is that it seemed to end rather abruptly - I was expecting rather a bit more. However, this isn't much of a complaint; I probably just wanted to watch more of such a marvelous film.

I've probably failed in my mission to make this a more informal review than my District 9 one. Doesn't matter. All you need to know is that Mary and Max is a touching, beautiful (visually and internally) movie that should move you and brighten your day. I have no idea if it'll be showing anywhere else in the UK or get a DVD release here, but the DVD and blu-ray come out on the 21st October in Australia, and in my humble opinion, it'd be well worth importing one.

9/10

Watch the trailer here. It has mildly annoying French subtitles, and it doesn't really do the film justice...it just seems like random clips stuck together. But hopefully you should get a feel for it. The clarity of that HD makes me want that blu-ray oh so much...

Winnie the Pooh in 2011

YAY! After rumours a couple of months back - John Lasseter has confirmed a new Winnie the Pooh movie is in production for 2011! I don't really want to use this as a place to recycle film news from other places...but this is a fantastic announcement. This will be Disney's second film (after The Princess and the Frog due out early next year) in its "new wave" of hand-drawn animated features, which were initially brought to a halt in 2004. It's great to see traditional animation finally making a return to the studio, and I'm cautiously hopeful that The Princess and the Frog will kick off a new generation of great Disney films, going on to include their 2010 release Rapunzel (a CG adaptation), and then this.

Interesting tidbits from the IGN article:

• It will be based on five stories from the book by A.A. Milne (in a similar fashion to Disney's original The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh being based on a few of Milne's tales).
• The artistic style used in The Many Adventures... will be retained.
• One segment will include Eeyore losing his tail, with the rest of the cast trying to find a replacement.
• Rabbit's "friends and relations," not featured in The Many Adventures... will make an appearance - they're not "as socially aware as the other residents of the Hundred Acre Wood."

It sounds like good stuff, and hopefully will be - nothing Winnie the Pooh-related that Disney's produced has been as good as their original film. I trust Lasseter - this just might be.

Click here for the original article over at IGN.

Film Review: District 9

PRAISE THE LORD - 2009 is the year we're finally given some good sci-fi. Sam Rockwell vehicle Moon was brilliantly atmospheric, Star Trek was a highly entertaining introduction to J.J. Abrams's new timeline for that series, and now we come to District 9. Produced by Peter Jackson and directed by Neil Blomkamp (a first-time feature director who created that famous Citroën C4 ad - you know, the one with the dancing car), District 9 seems to be the most "serious" of 2009's current science fiction offerings - it's also the best.
The "District 9" of the title refers to a refugee camp in Johannesburg, South Africa, built to house aliens who landed on Earth in 1982, malnourished and ill. Taking place in 2010, the film's opening scenes are presented in documentary style, utilising talking head interviews with the unhappy human residents of the city (some of which will be familiar if you saw the initial trailer), and a cameraman following protagonist Wikus Van De Merwe, as he heads a team going into the camp. This team aims to serve eviction notices to the aliens there, in an effort to relocate them to the newly-built District 10, kilometres outside of Jo'burg. Needless to say, this doesn't exactly go to plan - some conflict ensues, and Wikus ends up with fluid from an alien device sprayed into his face ("it's not a weapon, but it's dangerous," he assures viewers). The rest of the film documents Wikus's struggle with the effects of this fluid.

Wow. That was a horrendous amount of paraphrasing. I won't talk any more about the story so as not to spoil it. Let's try to move away from that...

Due to Wikus's circumstances post-alien-fluid-in-his-face, the film is no longer a "real" documentary about him and his team - a more straight-forward narrative arises, following different characters. Despite this, director Blomkamp still opts to use some of the same visual techniques of a documentary, such as the fast-moving handheld cameras that are getting more and more popular these days. It's not quite as manic as something like Cloverfield, but it puts us on a much more personal level with Wikus. Clearly though, we wouldn't care about him if he wasn't a convincing character to begin with - but he is; brilliantly so. Actor Sharlto Copley, who portrays him, has only starred in two other productions, one of which being the short film that gave birth to District 9 (according to a combination of Wikipedia and IMDb). This becomes more and more surprising as you witness his performance as a friendly man in earlier scenes (much of which was improvised), and then later on, as an incredibly desperate man, in a strikingly genuine manner. It truly is a fantastic portrayal that gets you properly engaged with Wikus (even in his very fictional situations). He's an authentically likeable character, and while you might sometimes morally question his actions, they're always believable enough that, unlike many other films, you won't be sitting there thinking "He'd NEVER do that!" Hopefully Copley will be recognised for this, as it'd be a great shame if we didn't see more of him in the future.

Not only does the handheld camerawork aid our sympathy for the characters, but it also dumps us right in the middle of the action, in every battlefield. And there is a lot of action. The firefights that occur during the course of the film's near-2 hour running time are intense, and take place involving some heavy guns. OH, the guns. The alien weaponry used in the shootouts are the sort of things you thought were confined to Insomniac games (Ratchet & Clank, Resistance). But they very much come to life here, and they really are the coolest guns I've ever seen in film. I'm not usually the sort of person who watches films to see explosions and bullets, but I would gladly have sat in the cinema for another two or three hours watching people be ripped apart with the alien technology. It's just more fun to watch when something original is being used to blow stuff up. This can't be said without mentioning the special effects - which are stunning. The close-up shots of the aliens are remarkably complex, and the practical effects on the guns and the gore are as realistic as you need. Instead of Star Trek, this sort of gritty realism is more reminiscent of near-future sci-fi like Children of Men, which isn't a bad thing at all.

While the story and its action clearly work on their own merits, the ideas therein present a message with regards to segregation and prejudice. The treatment of the aliens by the humans is nothing short of abysmal, from the residents of Jo'burg's derogatory reference to them as "prawns," to the military contractor's hastiness to open fire on them. Parallels can easily be drawn to racism and general human narrow-mindedness across the planet, and in this way, District 9 does succeed on another level. Like films before it though, people may well sympathise with the fictional "prawns," but whether or not this will change their attitudes in real life seems unlikely.

District 9 is an exciting, fast-paced film that makes you feel for its characters and think (a bit) about the real world. It moves so fast that you won't want to take your eyes off the screen, for fear of missing anything. Neil Blomkamp was previously set to direct a Halo movie, until both Universal and Fox pulled out of the project and halted it in its tracks. It seems hard to believe that, after seeing District 9, any major production company wouldn't want to put Blomkamp back in the seat for it. Banshees, Hunters, Warthogs, plasma grenades, etc. would look fantastic if done in the same lifelike manner (well, they do, in this 6-minute short Blomkamp directed to promote Halo 3). It was also recently mentioned that studios want "District 10" already. Whatever the man does next though, I can't wait to see it. A hearty recommendation from me.

9/10