The King's Speech

The shy and stammering Prince Albert finds it impossible to speak publically; after seeing dozens of speech therapists, he is referred to the genial Australian Lionel Logue. However the progress he is making may be all too slow- his father in failing health and his older brother infatuated with a totally unsuitable American divorcee, it seems that the reluctant Prince may have to take the throne he dreads.

The Kings Speech was jolly good and comes confidently recommended. The film centres on the man who would become King George the 6th, at the beginning of the 2nd World War. The plot, however, deals little with the struggles of the country in this trying time, but focuses on the personal problem that ‘Bertie’ (as his family call him) faces with public speaking, suffering as he does from a stammer. His wife, played commendably by Helena Bonham-Carter, fixes him up with a last-resort speech therapist who has unconventional methods. (I say commendably, not because she was particularly good, which I suppose she was, but because she wasn’t terrible, as I feared she would be, having never seen her play anyone but her shrieking gothic self).

Jim has taken to calling her 'Helena Boned-Corset'.

The trust and friendship that is built, despite reservations from Bertie, between him and the therapist, is where the charm of this film lies. The best scenes are those in the therapist’s studio, where he has Bertie engaging in all manner of exercises, from dignified waltzing to swearing at the top of his lungs. All very amusing. Sombre at times, it has a solid story and a happy ending, and faithful lack of airbrushing.

4/5

Lauded everywhere already, and Oscar fodder it most definitely is, there is very little to say about the King's Speech you won't have heard a dozen times already. Its great, nuff said.
So I will instead lay a few random points down.

It is so refreshing to see Geoffery Rush cast off his pirate gear (though he was obviously having a good time) and do some proper acting. He is charming as Logue the speech therapist, although his accent does become more antipodean in the presence of his Aussie family...it could be the same accent-inhibiting allergy to tables that affected him in Pirates 3.

"Arrr, and ye know thys to be troo, oi...noo, sorrie, oi jost caant hold it, arrrrrr, where be me trailer? Oi'm off fer a coffee"

Look closely at a scene where King George 'Bertie' the Sixth and Lionel Logue walk through a fog bound park. Its almost all in one take, and it is gorgeous.

There are some surprisingly moving and profound insights into the King's upbringing. Although it never descends into Poor Little Rich Boy cliches it does tackle the paradox of power (the higher up you are, the more people will tell you what to do) and the harrowing real reasons behind speech impediments; bullying, persecution and abuse.

As a man who loves the sound of his own voice and positively welcomes public speaking, it took some very good tricks to put me in the shoes of the nervous, speech-hating King. But it was very well done, and not just by visuals; the subtle off-hand comments in the script about how many thousands will be listening, and how great he will probably be build up a real sense of apprehension and nerves that we know, as an audience, will only serve to worsen the King's worries.

I love the place they found to be Logue's 'office'. A big as a bunker, with a curved roof, all copper-oxide and bare stone. It was a truly unique and original set.

It pains me to say that among a cast of great actors, Timothy Spall, national treasure that he is, appeared to be slightly hamming it up. His portrayal of Churchill is rather too caricatured and he seems to be shoehorned in just because any World War 2 drama simply must have a Churchill.
Still, one could argue that Churchill himself was such a larger-than-life character it would be impossible to play him subtly. We shall never know.

Finally: Colin Firth. A speech impediment is a hard thing to act without making it ridiculous or comedic. And its hard to deliver lines when in fact, there is not line, just a terrible, confused pause from a character who just CANNOT get the words out. But Colin Firth proves once again just how awesome he is. He never slips into parody once, and it is hard to believe that it is in any way unnatural for him to stammer. Good on you, sir.

In conclusion, see the King's Speech. I recommend it every bit as much as I would recommend a hot bath, a cup of tea, a Joseph Wright painting or a favourite piece of music. It is just the tonic.

5/5

Tron: Legacy

20 years ago, ENCOM founder and computing wizard Kevin Flynn disappeared. His son Sam, heir apparent to ENCOM, is more interested in playing pranks on the board than managing the company. One day, he gets a tip off that his father may not be gone forever, and discovered something strange in the old arcade...

Tron Legacy was well received. We watched it in 3D, which I can’t say I noticed too much but on the other hand it wasn’t a bad thing. The glasses this time round were less cumbersome and didn’t want to reshape my nose so much. The best thing, as anyone who has seen the trailers will guess, is the visual element, which is sleek and shiny and glowy and sexy. This, as far as I’m concerned, is box ticked and movie on the ‘good’ pile. The plot, characters and other supporting film elements are all perfectly acceptable. The story, if you are so bothersome as to ask, is ‘blah blah blah GOES INTO AN AWESOME WORLD OMG (something about saving his dad and winning the girl and an evil-twin dad blah).

Seriously, you do not need to know anything except that this is awesome.

My favourite scene I think is when they go to a club owned by a man who is the lovechild of Alex from A Clockwork Orange and David Bowie, because his character is just so cheesy and charismatic (think Austin Powers but good-looking). I know I’m not doing this review much justice but Jim is the one who actually knows anything about the original Tron story so I am confidently leaving him to the serious analysis.

4/5

For a man whose favourite phrase when describing films with heavy special effects (like Hellboy II) is 'all icing and no cake', one might expect me to lean back and scoff snobbishly at Tron: Legacy.

However I think in this film its a case of 'all icing, just enough cake'. The cake consists of the goody characters; Flynn Junior, Quorra Kick-Ass and Terry Gilliam (actually Jeff Bridges although the two look so similar now I swear one day they will coalesce into a single entity) who are all thoroughly likeable and good to look at, in different ways of course and the story, which is enjoyable nonsense, and the sweet father-son sub-plot.

The icing is simply some of the most gorgeous costume, set and effects design in all of cinema history, nostalgic yet still futuristic, every skin-tight costume, glowing machine and ultra-cool cyberpunk background character guaranteed to make techo-fetishests like me drool. Plus we saw it in 3D and it was...well, it was fine. The only down side was watching trailers for awful upcoming 3D digimations, and I won't blame Tron for that.

Most of the old stuff was there, although I was deeply sad that 'The Bit', the flying eletro-puppy which spoke in binary ('Yes' and 'No'), only appeared as an ornament in Jeff Bridge's Ikea-decorated Zen apartment.

So, Bit, are you in the film?

Oh...well, that's a bit rubbish...

There were really only two gripes I had about the film...number one: the ISOs. In case you haven't seen the film (shame on you) these were artificial life forms which spontaneously sprung out of Flynn's virtual grid world. Apparently they held the key to absolutely everything, but were then made nearly extinct by Jeff Bridge's fascist alter ego Clu. They were also one of those sci-fi MacGuffins that is built up/explained just enough to make you ask questions but is too vague to actually answer them. HOW exactly were they the key? And what was Flynn planning to do with them? Harvest their organs and sell them? Nobody knows, and it is this central problem that leads most of Tron Legacy to not make an awful lot of sense. Just like the Matrix, I was niggled by the question of whether average workaday programs are sentient and if so, how this works and how they are different from the messianic ISOs.

Okay, so that was one. Two: I'm pretty goddamn sure Kevin Flynn was NOT a big hippy in the original Tron, and I am definitely going to watch it again so as to be sure. Jeff Bridges, as a friend of mine pointed out, gets a LOT of mileage from acting the big damn hippy, and he is charming in that mode, but it just doesn't fit. As far as I recalled Kevin Flynn was a cynical, sharp witted, jerk-with-a-heart-of-gold whose brilliance had given him a demeanour of swaggering arrogance. Sure, he has given up his fighting ways, but character continuity is important.

Anyway, my advice is this: watch Tron: Legacy, try not to think too much and bring a handkerchief for all that techno-drool.

4/5

IR: Monsters

Monsters left us feeling lifted and dumped at the same time. Lifted, because of the beautiful ending, but dumped because it could have been so much better. The plot is basically that a news photographer is given the task of escorting the newspaper bosses daughter home to America from Mexico, where she has been for some unexplained reason. Perhaps working, perhaps a holiday, we are not told.

The situation is that dangerous aliens have landed on Earth in Mexico, in what are now ‘contaminated zones’, not because of the aliens themselves but because of the gas that the military release there to kill them. Parts of Mexico are still safe (ish) and this is where most Mexicans live. Just as this photographer is given this assignment, the aliens are encroaching on land that has previously been safe and so this has to be sealed off. This land just happens to be the route home. Narrowly missing the last ferry, the pair decide to travel by land through the dangerous zones rather than wait six months for the route to be cleared.

Many of us would rather face aliens than this.

The best element of this film is the character journeys; both begin as unsympathetic characters but become, or reveal themselves as, better people. The man starts off having a drunken one-night-stand with a local girl and getting the lady’s passport stolen, and seems to be very mercenary in his views on getting paid to photograph dead children for the paper. By the end, he has put his camera to one side to engage in the world around him, and is revealed to have a son for whom he cares deeply. The lady starts off with her perfect privileged life all planned out ahead of her, but ends up valuing her experiences more than the cosy certainty that America can promise her.

The reason I say it could have been done much better is because the camera shots are often unimaginative and cheesy, showing us shots we’ve seen over and over before, and also the aliens are literally just giant octopuses with stompy spiders legs and light-up tentacles. How unimaginative. They weren’t completely awful, they did exhibit a few interesting features, but seriously, they had complete carte blanche to make them anything, and they fall back on giant sea creatures on land.

RUN! It's coming right for us!

To sum up; disappointing in areas but a beautiful ending, would recommend if you relish the prospect of criticising it for a long time afterwards with your friends as we did.

3/5


Monsters came highly recommended by a fellow film buff who had seen it in Edinburgh. Sad then that it turned out to be a film I admire much more than like...and most of my admiration comes from what I know about how it was made (on a shoestring, minimal crew, the director personally making all the impressive special effects) rather than the film itself.
Before I start my criticism, the good things: the footage itself is gorgeous, demonstrating the power and potential of high definition video. The central ideas are clever and carried with much more consistency of tone than those of its spiritual cousin District 9. The acting is fairly solid and the special effects really are amazing, blending reality and fantasy with truly remarkable skill. The story structure feels like a real sequence of events, even if the actual elements are rather staid (see below) and its presented well.
However, there are flaws, rather big ones, which I will now outline for you.


First: The Cliches.
Although Monsters had a fair few unique and original bits, there are far too many hackneyed plot points. Reluctant underling escorting the bosses daughter? Check. An unlikely love-or-hate chalk-and-cheese romance? Check. Friendly, partying locals? Check. Friendly, hard-working locals who haven't got much but are willing to let whitey into their homes to patronise them and their kids? Check. Shot where someone is dragged off by a monster into the darkness and then a pause followed by their mangled corpse and/or vehicle spat back accompanied by a loud and scary noise? You'd best believe it. None of these things on their own are bad devices, but I've seen every one of them so often its just predictable and boring. We KNOW from the get go that the main characters will turn out more than friends. We KNOW that the jungle guides are doomed to be eaten, and that man is the real monster. These are not surprises, and it is a shame a film with such an interesting set up gets so boring so quickly. The first few scenes, before our heroes actually begin their journey, are by far the most original.

Second: Treating the audience a bit like they a too dumb to notice a point.
Many films are guilty of this crime, but Monsters contains at least one instance that beggars belief, which I will share with you in brief: Andrew, our photographer hero, actually says 'There's a change in the vibe' at the VERY MOMENT when the music, pacing and feel of the film changes. THANKS ANDREW, WE NOTICED. And don't use the word vibe, this is not the 1970s or the early 1990s when it was ironically cool.

Unlike the Hammer-Man who was ACTUALLY cool.

This is only the worst of many such offences, which you can spot yourself. Gareth Edwards hasn't quite got his head round the fact that working with film means you can SHOW things, you don't have to spell them out, especially with the kind of crowd who want to watch this film.

Third: The central characters and their personal lives.
I feel harsh knocking the acting, or even the writing, since as far as I know the whole thing was improvised on a sort of road trip. But you can't forgive a piece of art or grant it special mercy because of its birth. I has to speak for itself. And so I shall say this: I did not like the main characters, I didn't believe their love story sub plot and I could only care slightly less about their boring problems. Fine, I know that at the first introduction Poor Little Rich Girl and Mercenary Photo-McKodak are supposed to be interestingly flawed, especially Andrew and his awkward drunken come-ons, but for my money they do not redeem themselves nearly enough throughout their road trip. I don't think they are evil, or that they deserve the mass of bad luck and difficulty poured on them by fate, but ultimately they are just rather unlikable. Sorry guys.

Fourth: The zero dirt factor. This is something that ALWAYS irritates me in films; that characters will go through seven kinds of hell, endure masses of physical hardship and still look like they stepped out of a hair advert. Now this was to a much lesser extent than its mainstream counterparts, but seriously, these guys sleep rough for what feels like a fortnight and yet they look fine. Would it kill you to do use a sweat spray or muss some hair? Or was their something in the actors contracts stipulating that they had to look good at all times?

50 bottles of this to be delivered every morning.

Fifth: The Monsters themselves and the final scene (SPOILER ALERT!)
I said the effects were brilliant, and they are. But as for the design...not so much. We have seen the titular monsters a dozen times before; they are wavey-tentacled vaguely aquatic octopus things. Everything from Halo to Cloverfield to certain niche anime series have things exactly like them, not to mention the obvious similarities to Great Cthulhu.
Anyhoo, we see them in all their glowy glory in the final sequence, towering and beautiful, apparently engaged in the act of mating which is far more refined in them than in humans. This truly heart-stopping encounter could provide a valuable insight into the creatures' true nature, making them a thing of beauty to be studied and not feared, maybe saving the lives of those who are in the way of the bombing and chemical poisoning being carried out by the military throughout the contaminated zones. And then Snappy McPictures DOESN'T. GET. HIS. CAMERA. Instead he decides to hold hands and sigh with Pixieboots Lotsacash, who LETS HIM.
Just one photograph could cause a cultural, political and scientific revolution, not to mention setting them up for life. Inexcusable. And seconds later I had to stifle a laugh as they went in for a kiss (gasp! Never saw that coming) and Samantha decides to chew Andrew's incredibly stubbly bottom lip. Maybe she was fantasising she was eating a baby hedgehog.

SPOILERZ OVER!

Despite the problems, what is most important about this film is that it shows real potential. Gareth Edwards and his crew will most certainly have an interesting future career, which I will watch carefully.

2/5

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

ID Mass Review 3: Pink Floyd- The Wall

Pink, a rock star, is feeling sick of fame and life in general. Spaced out in his hotel room, he thinks about his life, and the many events that have gone into shaping who he is.

Pink Floyd: The Wall is definitely an important film culturally, and should be watched by anyone of age who isn’t easily upset. I got goose bumps watching it but I’m glad I did. There isn’t one scene in this that isn’t strong and provocative, and much of it is symbolic and metaphorical. We follow Pink from childhood into adulthood and stardom, where he is increasingly troubled by his fathers’ early death in the war, his broken marriage, and the way things are going in England. Film is mixed with animation to powerful effect. The animation style is fluid and grotesque, ever changing between nightmarish creatures. The scenes of the film themselves are usually harsh but sometimes innocent and serene, such as when we see Pink caring for a sick rat. Mixed in with all this was the soundtrack which helped give everything an air of impending misery and doom. I wouldn’t say I enjoyed this film because I spent much of it with eyes wide open feeling very uncomfortable, but it was an interesting watch and there are some things that just should be seen, if only for the morbid fascination.

5/5

As a man whose father was a huge prog rock fan, I was brought up with the likes of Yes, ELP and Pink Floyd playing in the background.
However it was when I stumbled upon the timeless surreal animations of Gerald Scarfe on Youtube to songs like The Trial and Welcome to the Machine that I truly fell in love with the Floyd of Pink. When I read in the ID Fest brochure that the full version of The Wall would be on, I knew that it was that above all else I wanted to see. It did not disappoint.
The richness of detail and the richness of metaphor and meaning, guarantees you will be confused and engrossed from the word go. Phallic flowers, vaginal bats, swollen rats, mincing machines, plastic masks, marching soldiers, fascist rallies, grubby hotel rooms and blood-red swimming pools...the film packs about as much creepily iconic imagery into every scene as Ken Russell, and I doubt if even on the third viewing you could really get a hold on exactly where everything fits in in the landscape of Pink's troubled mind. In the toilets afterwards I heard two gentlemen discussing how Bob Geldof 'didn't mess it up'. They were quite right, he doesn't. There isn't a huge amount for him to do except look apocalyptic and burnt out, but he does it so perfectly that there is no point in complaining.
The thing the film is most akin to is the TV Series The Singing Detective, starring the marvellous Michael Gambon; like The Wall, it is much more about what is happening inside the characters mind, rather than what has really happened in their life.
There are scenes which seem a little out of place, such as the 'Young Lust' scene where shameless groupies do the nasty to get backstage passes (a bit of a wasted effort...turns out Pink isn't really in the mood for fans), but overall the quality is truly stunning. The aforementioned animations get the top prize though. I had the wonderful experience one sometimes gets on the big screen, the sensation that you are somehow falling into the image, when watching the marching hammers in 'Waiting for the Worms'.
It is a pity that,as David Gilmour said later, the album and the film marked the end of the bands ability to work together, because it was and still is an amazing piece of work.

5/5

ID Mass Review 2: Wallace and Gromit Curse of the Wererabbit

Its almost time for the Giant Vegetable competion at Tottington Hall and Wallace and Gromit are making sure that rabbits don't get the local people's prize veg by operating a humane pest control agency. But things go very bad when a Were-Rabbit starts terrorizing the town, and it may not be as easy to catch as its small cousins...

Wallace and Gromit the Curse of the were-rabbit was yet another feat of animation from Aardman Studios. I enjoyed the story and recognising all the references and jokes that they make, which had a few surprising adult ones (of a slightly sexual nature) that I wasn’t expecting in a film which would be seen by large young audiences. I don’t think anyone really minded however, I suppose either children are too young to get it, in which case it’s not a problem, or they’re old enough to get it, in which case they’re mature enough for it not to scar them.
This film, as you may have guessed, is a lot about rabbits. So it’s a shame for me that I didn’t like the way they did rabbits here. They looked too boggle-eyed and annoying for me to find them cute, and I think a lot of the sympathy in this film relied on them being so. And look away now if you don’t want a spoiler, but the ‘Wallace bunny’ (Hutch) was so irritating to look at that the ending was rather spoiled for me, being as I was resentful that my eyes were forced yet again to fall upon this failed attempt at adorableness. He looked like Dobby from Harry Potter, being all short and stupid and needlessly cheerful, and wearing an oversize jumper as a dress.
The aspects I did like, however, were the moments of humour and the trademark ‘wacky genius inventions’ throughout. Gromit’s portrayal of a sexy giant rabbit was rather amusing.
Most people will enjoy this a lot so don’t let my nit picking put you off.

3/5

Curse of the Were-rabbit is undeniable proof that there is ABSOLUTELY NO EXCUSE for people to make bad films, and especially not bad family films. Wallace and Gromit make a seamless transition into their first feature incarnation, which is chock full of mixed laughs...Britta and I were privileged (if thats the word) to be pretty much the only people older than seven in the audience, and so could appreciate which bits made them laugh. Predictably, it was mostly the jokes about burping and suchlike. In fact, I think they probably enjoyed the film more as a straight horror/mystery whereas a lot of the blink-and-you'll-miss-it gags were for adults. The film has some very nice references to things like the Gerry Anderson series and a lot of hammer horror and earlier Wolfman films, but of course the exquisite eye for details is one of the great strengths of Aardman. The film avoided Americanitis despite its joint venture with Dreamworks, and the Britishness is never compromised. One thing I very much liked on this front was the Vicar character, an affectionate but still quite mocking portrait of the C of E, particularly when he claims they are being punished by God for growing large vegetables.
The central partnership are as lovable as ever, with a consistency of character that few series manage to hold up. Their flaws get them into trouble, and their smarts and good old British grit bring them out again. The brilliantly over-complex heath-robinson gadgets are charming, there is plenty of cuteness in the form of rabbits (although the Wallace-Rabbit really hits the uncanny valley for me) and the photography is just beautiful. There is nothing to say about the animation that hasn't been said a hundred times but just for the record, it is perfection.
Take note, all those making films; you cannot get away with crap any more.

5/5