IR: Tangled

Rapunzel has lived nearly 18 years in a tall tower, her 'mother' seems overly concerned about her chances out there in the big world. But Rapunzel wants to leave to see one thing: the beautiful lanterns that appear every year for some reason...on her birthday. Enter the tricksy Flynn Rider, on the run from the law and with something very valuable in his satchel...

Tangled was very sweet and entertaining. It follows the basic storyline of Princess and lovable criminal get together (Maid Marion/Robin Hood, Jasmine/Aladdin etc.) However it is fresh and bright and fun and a bit more grown-up and insightful into troubled mother/daughter relationships. Rapunzel herself is creative and self-motivated and sweet which I liked, because yay art and boo swanning about putting on make-up all day. It continues the current trend of self-satirising cartoons which try to twist the classic story-telling to show that it identifies what it is and humorously references this within the story. For example, the 'Mother' at one point spells out for us, “Fine, I'm the bad guy now” and male lead Flynn self-consciously tries on the smouldering handsome man look that in earlier Disney films would cue a smooching scene. The rest of the film includes lots more grood (great/good) parts, like when Rapunzel talks to a horse like he's a dog (who's a good horsie?! Yes you are!) and going to a pub called The Snuggly Duckling (I love ducklings! Awwww! Me too!).

There is no caption, only cute.

We cried a few times at the emotional bits, and laughed at the yay bits. Picked it apart a bit on the way home but nothing damning, it is a very fun film and I would happily see it again!

4 Stars

Since I missed out on the Princess and the Frog, this is the first Disney film I have seen in a while. And I gotta tell ya, they still got it.
This was a genuine solid piece all the way through. It had all the requisite stuff; action, cool animals, romance and a bona fide happy ending...plus one of the best female lead roles I have seen in a while. Rapunzel (Mandy Moore) is definitely up there with the best of the Disney Princesses with the added bonus that she kicks ass with her hair and a frying pan.
The supporting cast are all well done, but more on that in a mo.
We saw it in 3D which was pretty pointless. Hardly anything jumped out at you, literally...the most beautiful scene in the film (about half way through) was mostly not in 3D and the bit that was was the rubbish bit. Still, the whole thing is impossibly gorgeous in digimation, especially the aforementioned heroine and her teasy-squeeze Flynn Rider (Zach Levi off of Chuck- who knew? IMDB, thats who!). Speaking of which there is some serious fetish fuel in this movie- forget the hair, Rapunzel spends the whole film barefoot. Quentin Tarantino probably wants some of that action.

These little piggies had a massage.

The reason I say this piece is 'solid' and 'good' and not 'great' were the following: the songs, though up to a fair standard, felt more like filler than anything. They weren't bad by any means, but I every time the singing started I wished (and bear in mind I LOVE musicals) that they'd just get on with the plot. I remember studying musicals, and how the key to a good one is that a song number is an integral part of the plot rather than a decoration. Maybe I'm being unfair.
Next, Zach 'Flynn Rider and Chuck' Levi is an alright voice actor but...meh. There seems something a little lacking in his dialogue. In Disney heritage terms his character is closest to Aladdin, a lovable thief with a heart of gold. But there just wasn't the snap to his lines there was with Scott Wienger in Aladdin. Maybe its the direction. He brightens up in the third act but by then he's become more responsible. He doesn't quite make the loveable rouge thing work.
Finally, the plot.

Not as 'tangled' as you might think, schnah schnah!

Tangled is probably the most grown up of the Disney films I have seen because it HINTS that things are not always as easy, simple and carefree as they might seem. But crucially NOT ENOUGH. I want subversion and post-modernism, damn it! With Shrek now 10 years old and Disney getting the crap deconstructed out of it, we need the original to get smarter. Particularly in the relationship between Rapunzel and her 'mother', which seems like it might be interesting and ambiguous, but ultimately falls back on the wicked step-mother mythology the Bros Grimm immortalised back in 1812.
Like I said, I haven't seen Princess and the Frog, but going from Tangled it seems Disney are still a little behind the curve...but not by much.
See it, laugh, shed a happy tear and dream your dream.

3/5

IR: Megamind

When deciding what to watch tonight, Megamind was the obvious choice. The trailers promised a funny, clever hero vs villain story (or should that be villain vs hero?), and we weren’t disappointed! Trumping majestically in the faces of all the crap out there nowadays, Megamind was a well-thought out, twisty, heart-warming, fresh tale of an alien who lands on earth as a baby (like Superman), and decides to play to his strength of evil mastermindedness since the other baby who lands at the same time as him, Metroman, is hogging all the glory as the good-guy. Though he plays the part of the villain, Megamind is really just a huge softie who lives with his all-time best friend Minion and his puppy-like flying brains-in-jars. A spanner is thrown into his comfy routine, however, when he actually manages to kill Metroman and gains all the power he’s been longing for. He soon realises that power isn’t what makes him happy…
I loved this film and laughed out loud at a few bits, which Jim will tell you is rare. Megamind himself is a very cool and ingenious person who is very entertaining to watch, as well as fish-in-mech-suit Minion of course. The role swapping of good guys and bad guys is well thought out and I hope that some kids who watch it get a less 2-D* view of the world because of it. As love-interest lady says, you should be judged by your actions, not by your ‘book cover’.
There’s not much to criticise about it that I can see, I just really enjoyed it and would encourage all adults and children to watch it too.

4/5

*Ironically, we watched it in 2-D...as all good people should! - Jim

Britta and I traipsed over a mile of slippery ice and sat through some truly appalling trailers to see this (Yogi Bear, anyone?); thankfully, our journey was not wasted. Megamind is, like its predecessor, How To Train Your Dragon, much better, wittier and cleverer than you might expect.
Throughout the years we have seen many deconstructions of the superhero, particularly in the medium that spawned it: Watchmen, Empowered, Animal Man, Astro City and atop all of them, in my opinion, Alan Moore and Gene Ha's mighty “Top Ten”, which you can find out about here. A few films, like Kick-Ass (itself a comic book adaptation) and My Super Ex Girlfriend, have covered it too.
However, we have been rather less inundated with deconstructions of the comic book villain (Unless you count Wanted. Which I don't.) This makes a noble attempt, and manages to be accurate to the golden and silver age villains whilst being complete accessible and not really geeky. Megamind is played with charm by Will Ferrell, a bit of a hit and miss actor, and in fact all the voice acting is spot on, especially David Cross (Tobias off of Arrested Development) as Minion, Megamind's servant/best friend/surrogate wife.
With Roxanne (Tiny Fey) the film also does a good partial deconstruction of the hero's girlfriend/damsel in distress character.
The production design is incredible; I am actually terrified at the speed with which digital animation has progressed. The textures in this film are particularly mouth watering, from string to hair to metal to latex (especially the latex. It even had talcum power stains on. That, my friends, is research.). Megamind has the coolest gear since Batman...in fact cooler because Batman didn't have THE BLACK MAMBA (see the film), and Metro City feels like a real place, even though the population spend quite a lot of time keeping out of the way. On second thought, maybe that's because they know the procedure when a hero and villain like to play games in your town- keep away from the shock and awe, and live several stories under ground.
Also Metro City must have a very efficient council, because all the roads seem in a remarkably good state despite taking a continual pounding. Cars, also, the butt-monkeys of the action adventure, are smashed without thought.
In fact this was the one area I really could have done with deconstruction of...while Iron Man is going round smashing cars to bits acting the big hero, no super-hero film either straight or parody has addressed the issue of property damage and civilian casualties.
Enough of that. Megamind has a great script, a fun plot and interesting subtext (some that children...won't get) and spiffy animation. Go see it.

4/5

IR: Mary and Max

Mary Dinkle, an unhappy, lonely girl in Australia, decides one day to write to an American to ask where babies come from in that far off land. She picks at random and gets Max Horowitz, an obese man with Aspegers syndrome. The two form a faltering, unlikely friendship through their letters, and find in each other something that has been missing in their lives.

Having seen the trailer for this, I was very put off viewing it in its entirety because of the ugliness of the character and set design. It was only on Jim’s insistence that we watched it at all, him being a lot more generously tolerant of such things. Mary has tiny pebble eyes and no neck, and Max has sticking out ears and a waist as wide as he is tall, with his ‘back bosom’ constantly revealed. The film is mostly in monochrome, with a few objects in red and yellow and brown, making everyone seem pallid and dull. Despite all this, I was persuaded to watch, and here’s what I thought of it…
The plot itself is quite sweet, telling the story of a young lonely girl who randomly contacts Max because he is American, and she wants to know where American babies come from. The whimsy and idiosyncrasies remind me of one of my favourite films, Amelie, being very much about the two characters and their particular interpretations of the world and comforting habits. Mary is still finding out about life and has to rely on what people tell her, whereas Max is discovered to have Aspergers Syndrome, which makes him unable to read other people easily. They both share a love of chocolate and The Noblets, a cartoon about a community of creatures, who are envied by both for their abundance of friends. I did enjoy this interaction between them, which is done by post with frequent gifts being exchanged, and also their thoughts are explained individually by the narrator, whose opening sentence states that Mary’s birthmark is the colour of poo.
It was much darker than I had anticipated, chronicling near-suicidal meltdowns by both at different times of their relationship. Death and substance abuse feature heavily. However, I thought that this was well done and necessary for it to be a strong film, and it was an interesting insight into mental illness. The ugliness still irked me, but I got used to it and enjoyed watching Mary and Max. I have to admit it, it was a pretty good film after all.

4/5

Its great to see this just after Wallace and Gromit; the differences between the two films are so stark that it demonstrates just how worthwhile frame-by-frame claymation is as a medium, in this age of CGI. Mary and Max is grim, grubby and macabre, treading the line between black comedy and dramatic tragedy superbly. The sculpting and modelling team revel in the textures of grime and decay until you feel you could not only reach out and touch the picture, but would really need to wash your hands after you did.
The plot is rather tiring though, following as it does the unpredictable patterns of life rather than the traditional three act structure...I can truly believe the claim 'based on a true story', so often misappropriated, is completely true for this film. Certain scenes drag whilst others zip by too quickly. It feels more like a documentary than a feature film, which may well be the aim. The portrayals of what must be said are two very depressing lives are sensitive but humorous, and remind us, particularly in a sequence where Max is sent to a mental institution, just how far attitudes towards autism have progressed in the last 30 years (the film is set during the 70s and 80s).
The film is carried 100% by Barry Humphries charming, urbane narration, which makes even the most tragic observations gentle. The two leads (Toni Collette and Philip Seymour Hoffman) are great too, but it is definitely Mr. Humphries who shines brightest.
In conclusion- spectacular, virtuoso animation, some laughs and quite a few tears; a vision of hope in darkness, like the stars Max loves to count in the night sky.

3/5

IR: The Illusionist

M. Tatischeff, an aging magician down on his luck, travels to the UK to find work. In Scotland he meets Amy, a naive girl who is enchanted by his tricks. They travel to Edinbrugh together, and see what magic they can find.

The Illusionist is a very good film because it captures real life. People are ugly and annoying but not overly so, just like people in real life are. The main guy is a proper old-fashioned gentleman who is generous and polite but seems to have lost his path in life and now struggles to make a living with his magic act. He’s a very sympathetic character and we follow him as he travels from venue to venue, giving performances to small unappreciative audiences. A girl who is impressed by his magic tags along uninvited, pulling her weight with the housework but otherwise quite dependant. She spends most of the time asking for things to be given to her. If we are to believe that she absolutely believes in magic, then she is more blameless than I thought of her as I watched the film, since every time she asks for money and clothes, she doesn’t believe that she’s costing this guy anything. However, the reality seen from his point of view is that he has to go from job to crappy job to afford these luxuries, and she grows increasingly ungrateful and annoying, opening and taking a present without asking and discontent with the first pair of shoes she is given. We watch as the poor magician is increasingly worn down by this begins to tug her away from shop windows. Though, like I said, if she believes in magic then in her mind it’s all free and she wouldn’t understand if she wasn’t allowed something. Gosh I’m painting a rather bad picture of things aren’t I? This is just one side of it. The other side is that it’s friendly and charming and beautifully drawn, and clever in its quietness, and has so many small interesting visuals to look out for. The settings reminded me of the design in Monkey Island 3, since all the rooms are full of interesting things but you can tell which ones will be interacted with and which are just set design. It even has a kind of happy ending. I enjoyed it, but in the bittersweet sad way that I suppose it was intended. I’d recommend seeing it if this hasn’t put you off.

4/5

When I was young, my parents rented videos of Mon Oncle and Monsieur Houlet's Holiday (miss out the aitches, for a French effect). I adored them and though I haven't seen them much since, the charming slapstick poetry of Jacques Tati has stuck with me. That being the case I was even more keen to see the Illusionist, which I was already sold on seeing having been highly impressed with the team's previous work, the Triplets of Belleville, when I discovered it was based on a script of Tati's.
The film certainly has a lot of the master in it– M. Tatischeff the titular Illusionist is based not only on himself, but also on the caricature of him which used to adorn posters. The (near-silent) comedy is as bittersweet as can be and one particular scene, in which Tatischeff attempts to clean a car, is very reminiscent of the scene in Mon Oncle where the Uncle tries to work some of the futuristic devices in the kitchen.
The father/daughter relationship that develops between him and Amy provides the focus of the film; there are many speculations about the real-life parallels going on here, but you can find them out for yourself. Despite the obvious importance of the relationship, its not really what the film is about. It is in the last few minutes the true meaning becomes clear. Times are changing, and the old ways are dying. An old theme, but played with sincerity and class by animators and writers alike.
Speaking of the animation, I must say it's great to be able to compare this to Secret of Kells, which you will remember we saw last week.
While the animation in Kells was gloriously wild and eclectic, The Illusionist, like its predecessor, is about absolute, elegant control. From the rather stuffy, dignified grace of M. Tatischeff to the rolling rollicking of a permanently inebriated scotsman, the movement is pure perfection. Character design is another strength; it is truly a cast of snowflakes. Even the most fleeting of background characters has been crafted lovingly, and the combination of the grotesque and the beautiful is stunningly poignant. The locations and interiors too, have a personality that any live action production would have trouble matching. The whole film captures place and people in hyper-reality, pictures more real than what they represent.
All in all a highly worth while film, a beautiful elegy with a broken heart.

4/5

IR: Secret of Kells

The Village of Kells is preparing for a siege by the merciless Vikings. The Abbot is obsessed with building a wall to keep them out; his young nephew Brendan, however, is more interested in what the scribes tell him of the great ‘Illuminator’ Aidan, and his supposedly magical Book…

Secret of Kells is one of the most beautiful films I have ever seen.
The animation combines pitch-perfect story-book style characters with beautiful colour washes, and stylistic influences from everywhere. I was informed shortly before we went in to see it that it was based on Celtic mythology, so predictably there was quite heavy influence from there, but mixed in seamlessly were images from Art Deco, Mayan carvings, Chinese prints, African paintings, Scandinavian pottery and the art of Native Americans. But strangely what it spoke to me of more than anything was the art of the Aborigines, not just in actual imagery but in the way the film attempts to catch what something IS, the soul of it, rather than simply what it looks like. Everything is done with such inventiveness and imagination, a kaleidoscope of amazing clarity, intensity and purity. There were times where I began crying simply because of the beauty of the images I was looking at.
However, even this wonderful form could not survive without a good story…thankfully, the Secret of Kells has one. It is not in a conventional three act structure, but rather like a recounted legend. The themes that run through it, particularly those related to the power of writing and image making itself, are very strong. ‘The Book’, the mysterious and beautiful tome which the protagonist, Brendan, is fascinated with, is never named as a particular holy book or text. Although the real-life book is apparently the four gospels, in the film the Book is emblematic of the importance of written knowledge as a whole.
Also the spirit-girl Brendan befriends, Aisling (pronounced Ashleen) remains unknowable to the last and her relationship to the forest surrounding Brendan’s village avoids turning into a tedious and predictable man vs. nature subplot.
The film captures perfectly that difficult transition period from paganism to Christianity (although again the religion, despite having an Abbot, is never named).
Add to all this some very fun moments, a cute cat and some terrifying baddies in the shape of balrog-like Norsemen, and you have a pretty damn near perfect film.
Besides which, how can I not approve of a film whose director practically shares my young brother’s name?

5/5

Beautifully illustrated film, so much pattern and texture crammed into each frame, watercolour pools of hue and harsh ink claws. This story is all about the importance of art and it does itself justice. I really admire the style and ingenuity and constant creation, the never-ending forest and the myriad levels to the oak tree in particular. Everything is beautifully drawn and animated and even a humble bush is a well-thought out pattern of twigs and berries and leaves. The one art thing I didn’t receive so easily were the glowing ‘symbols’… they seemed out of touch with the rest of the art style and out of place like they were microscopic simple life forms, which kind of makes sense with the magnifying crystal and the spirits etc etc but still felt too futuristic. Also when he held the crystal to his eye it wobbled like a fried egg, which just looked like a cheap cartoon effect. But I did like the demon snake being like in the game ‘centipede’, and eating its own tail, even though it was glowing like the symbols.
The story felt very sad and made me tear up at one point, though it is very heart warming in places too. All of the characters were charming (save the baddies) and made me feel for their circumstance, just trying to live their lives but always in fear of the attackers. The final part was a bit lighter, with Main Boy coming back as Jesus, which was fun. The girl’s voice was annoying at first, but then it felt fitting as she spoke more and was more natural. It was a bit weird when she started singing out of the blue though, but I can forgive her because it was pretty nice in the end.
That’s all I have to say really. A touching story about a boy who does what he has to do to be brave and do the right thing, and his uncle who loves him very much but doesn’t quite get him. Sorry for all the spoilers but I would definitely recommend it!

5/5

IR: Jackboots on Whitehall

In an alternative history of WW2, the Nazis invade England by tunneling under the channel. With the army stranded in Dunkirk, its up to plucky farmers to save the day.

Jackboots on Whitehall was a huge disappointment. The 'animation' style was so vulgar that I actually spent most of the time not wanting to look at the screen, which isn't a good sign. The only ones which didn't make my eyes ache were the girls but hey I didn't pay £3.25 to look at dressed-up Barbies. I'm just so gutted that it was a bad film, it's such a let-down. At worst it was a pathetic wank-fest over the use of real models and at best it sometimes got maybe close to being a little bit (but not nearly enough) like Robot Chicken. The characters, save the aforementioned Barbie girls, were unanimously fugly, including our 'hero', all with dead glassy painted-on eyes (with off-puttingly crap 'blink' effects) and ghastly mouths that could only be in two positions, wobbling sickly when they talked and otherwise held in a disturbing open position. The characters were so unlikeable and un-charming that I didn't care whether the English, Germans or Scottish were victorious, so long as they all buggered off and stopped assaulting my eyeballs it was fine with me. Winston Churchill was a particularly grotesque man, although I am assured this is at least cannon with reality. The only thing I vaguely respected about the film was the opening title sequence with art depicting era-esque war comics, although that went on too long to enjoy. Oh, and the Nazi Barbies were pretty swish. But really, it was crap, and I would advise anyone and everyone to save their money and their aesthetic dignity by never seeing it EVER.

Rating: 1/5 (only because I'm not allowed to give it no stars)

I feel a bit bad criticising Jackboots on Whitehall, since it was obviously made with great love. The miniatures, clothes and vehicles are crafted beautifully, and this is the McHenry brothers first feature. But the editing is badly off, the story is bitty, the tone is very undecided and worst of all, the jokes are not nearly as funny as they need to be. There are some genuinely funny moments, but the general level of writing was sleep-inducing dull, relying on cultural stereotypes 70 years old that would seem clumsy for the lamest Carry On film. At its best, it is like one of the Adam and Joe Show Toy sketches they used to do (their version of Saving Private Ryan comes to mind) but to be honest, that just made me feel like I’d rather be watching an Adam and Joe toy sketch. Surprised that they got so many big named Brit actors involved. Plus the puppets, though designed with glorious grotesquery, have no character because they hardly move. Some queasy CGI has been added to make them blink and twitch their mouths, but its just off putting. I can't think of anything about the film which wouldn't be improved 100 fold by it being in live action.

Rating: 1/5