Movieblaze

Starring (the voices of): George Clooney, Meryl Streep, Bill Murray, Jason Schwartzman, Owen Wilson, Michael Gambon, Brian Cox, Willem Dafoe

Director: Wes Anderson

Writer(s): Wes Anderson, Noah Baumbach

Cinematography: Tristan Oliver

Original Score: Alexandre Desplat

Running Time: 87 Mins.

The film’s of Wes Anderson fall into that quiry category that transcend’s the boundaries of indie/mainstream film-making, he has a visual style as oblique as his scripts and it is fair to say his film’s certainly do not connect with everyone yet star enough big name talent to get him an audience. Like Spike Jonze and Michel Gondry he has crafted out a little niche in Hollywood where quirk has become a byword for success, both audience, critical and with enough box office clout to continue working within their own unique visions. True modern-day auteurs if you will.

So while on the surface it may seem a little odd that these men are tackling beloved children’s stories (Jonze long awaited Where The Wild Things Are will be out very soon) it is less unusual than it may seem when you really think about it, stories like Wild Things, and in the case of Anderson Fantastic Mr. Fox, are short stories spanning a very minimal number of pages yet with huge space for expansion to spin the story out at will and more importantly to realise the quirks of the quthor’s themselves on screen, the likes of which are limited to the page and your imagination.

This may well be the point of reading a book, the ability to visualise something in your own way, but surely material this ripe for realisation is best suited to minds who have a very clear strong visual sense whist respecting the author’s ideals, not someone who is simply going to play out the story step by flat step. So with this in mind the works of Roald Dahl really are the perfect stomping ground for visual masters, Henry Selick’s James and the Giant Peach being the best example to date. So it is no surprise to learn that a.) Fantastic Mr. Fox is of the same stop-motion style and b.) it really is, to use a cliche, “fantastic”.

Anderson’s whole body of work has revolved around the “family” aesthetic, addressing issues of broken family, missing parent’s, and sibling rivalry, and this is no exception, expanding on the classic tale of fox taking of the farmers, and making it a touching yet hilarious story. Regular Anderson collaberator’s are all present and correct, Wilson, Murray, Dafoe, but it is Clooney that is the film’s trump card, that he is American in a quintissentially British story makes no difference, for there is so much spark in his vocal performance, Streep is workable alongside him lending some warmth and as their son Ash, Anderson favourite Schwartman is great even if he is basically the foxy neurotic equivalent of himself.

In choosing to make the film in stop motion simply means that the director’s style can be applied so wildly, in showing many scnes from afar and with such originality. I feel almost ashamed at my initial response to the almost amateur look that was first seen in the trailers, it’s not that this look is fundamentally any different on the big screen, just that in the sphere of the world that is crafted overall it feels pitch perfect. There is more character in the twitch of Mr. Fox’s ears than in any number of CGI films.

In coupling this with the very witty script that does not pander to children (i.e. Ice Age) yet retains enough quirkiness to sit in the realms of keeping children hooked, as it should do given Fantasic Mr. Fox IS a childrens book. Credit must go to Baumbach and Anderson for retaining the quirks of the story so well, the puppetry of Boggis, Bunce and Bean is so great and while they are very very funny, Bean in particular oozes menace (helped no end by Michael Gambon’s dulcit tones). Some of the flourishes adopted in combining “set pieces” with fabulous character work make this a strong contender for animated film of the year alongside Pixar’s Up, yes I have to admit it really is THAT good.

VERDICT

Fantastic Mr. Fox truly is ”fantastic”, in that Anderson’s take on the Dahl classic retains the book’s spirit, yet spins out the story as a typical study of family, but what really takes the film somewhere special is in its quite frankly hilarious script and the thoroughly perfect realisation of the story through unique and almost retro looking stop motion.

Starring: Tobin Bell, Costas Mandylor, Betsy Russell, Shawnee Smith, Samantha Lemole

Director: Kevin Greutert

Writer(s): Marcus Dunstan, Patrick Melton

Cinematography: David A. Armstrong

Original Score: Charlie Clouser

Running Time: 90 Mins.

Given Saw VI comes with the tagline “the game comes full circle” you would be forgiven for expecting some kind of resolution to the drawn out escapades of Jigsaw and his random disciples that seem to/ grow by one in each film. However where you may hope the tagline will ring true giving the series a long overdue sense of closure, your gut feeling that yet another “story” (I use this word lightly) strand will be spun from the ever increasingly thin premise is more likely to be the unfortunate yet correct one.

Opening, as you would well expect given the strong sense of deja vu that the franchise now carries, with a trap where the trapped person/person(s) must do something horrific and give some sacrifice to save their own life, which then leads on predictably to a start point that picks up precisely where the last left off. Meaning we discover that Jigsaw’s latest accomplice/heir is continuing to set a plan in motion whereby yet another group of highly immoral people will be tested with much bloodshed and many lives gruesomely lost, or saved as was Jigsaw’s will.

So it is in this predictability that the Saw franchise finds is most prevalent flaw, acting as a checklist and falling into the monotony of the very best horror franchises (see A Nightmare on Elm Street, Halloween, Friday 13th), so there is the plan that drives the film, the Jigsaw of the moment (Jigsaw, Amanda, Hoffman or Jill) putting their plan into action, and the worst aspect of all as the films go on, the flashbacks that seem to be there to serve two purposes, firstly to enable the now iconic Tobin Bell to continue to appear and secondly to give the current plot some place in the back story of the past films.

This device has no become so hackneyed and managed to tie itself up in so many knots my love of the original is becoming tarnished very quickly, as most of that film’s plot has been so twisted to fit the needs of the never-ending sequels, this one included. Yes it is nice that rather than simple rehashes much like Halloween et al, that the film’s writers attempt to create a more complex mythology but this, as is proven time and again, isn’t neccessarily a good thing.

Since Jigsaw died in Saw 3, there have been successor’s dragged in and to a much wider degree with each installment. Amanda, followed by Hoffman followe by Jill to a larger extent this time, so more backstory begets more loose ends being created and more questions raised. Again Jigsaw himself appears in a handful of scenes setting up the main victim this time round but using Jigsaw in this way simply highlights how weak Hoffman is as a substitute, lacking the natural charisma or menace of Bell he is left to snarl and look worried…until the film’s close.

On the almost-plus side there is an attempt to introduce topical issues into the plot machinations with issues over healthcare and the financial crisis touched upon, but in the context of something this manufactured its hard not to be cynical and feel they have been used in the face of any other ingenuity rather than in any clever way or attempt to comment on society, there has been little evidence of cleverness in this series since its initial entry and with the prospect on a 3D Saw VII one can only imagine that will mean plot is substituted for spectacle to a much larger degree, for better, or most certainly, worse.

VERDICT

When the best endorsement I can find for Saw VI is that it sets up the next to potentially have a good nasty villain, there really is something amiss, despte its attempts to incorporate some social issues it simply ends up tying itself in knots with yet more flashbacks, and the fond memories of the original get more and more lost…

Starring: Melissa George, Michael Dorman, Liam Hemsworth, Rachael Carpani, Henry Nixon

Director: Christopher Smith

Writer: Christopher Smith

Cinematography: Robert Humphreys

Original Score: Christian Henson

Running Time: 99 Mins.

You will be unsurprised to learn that Triangle derives its title from the bermuda triangle, that legendary area of the ocean where many ships have been lost and strange occurances have…occured! Given Triangle features both a capsized yacht amidst a storm and a ghostly looking cruise liner that drifts into the stranded group of largely unknown, bar “star” Melissa George, actors path’s the similarities to such legend only appear to grow. But, like the film as a whole, the refernces are never made clear. Is this supposed to be what happens in the Bermuda Triangle? We never know because the infamous area itself is nevermentioned, that the yacht the group set sail on is called the Triangle is seemingly significant at first and then at once it is never explained either.

Make no mistake I do not expect every plot point sign-posted for me, heck, if every film did so we would experience a endless flurry of boring and obvious films, but if you write a script that wants to be as prolific as Memento, Fight Club or The Sixth Sense (which it is apparent Traingle aims to follow in the footsteps of) your pay of of concept must make sense upon the denouement, otherwise all that has come before is proven largely a total waste of time. Which is sadly what director Christopher Smith has achieved. 

His third feature following the gruesome yet tightly plotted Severence and Creep, Triangle proves his undoing, there is no escaping the blame for Smith both directed and wrote this dross. It starts intruguingly enough, with ex Home & Away actress Melissa George proving an excellent choice given that she looks stunning, yet possesses enough acting talent to convey the look of utter confusion the plot requires at times and the knowing flipside to that. Essentially she is required to take on a trio of roles, but not, now I would obviously refrain from spoilers in reviews but given none of it makes sense in the end it really doesn’t matter.

With the director’s past form in mind, it is to his credit that he has chosen to tackle something a little more cerebral, there is very little violence to be found for the gore-hounds expecting something akin to his previous work and there are no cheap shocks, the flip-side of this means the pace is very slow-burning, not a lot happens. While I was admittedly gripped in the first half hour during the build up, I found myself bored in the med-section and wishing for a pay-off that would make all the plodding plotting and elaborate set-up worthwhile, but alas while some ends are tied up, the overall feeling I was left with was not so much, was that it? But more what was that all for?

VERDICT

Traingle is a somewhat brave attempt at something more cerebral for director Smith, an intriguing opening that eventually loses any goodwill I had for all that follows and crucially  failing to put across the killer payoff it so badly needed.

In this post-modern world where style seems to take precedent over substance it should only really follow that looks should take the same hierarchy above talent. You need only look at the Best Actress category come award season and you can predict to see the same name’s time and again. It would seem we are spoilt by the wealth of male acting talent, yet when it comes to actresses only a handful of names spring to mind…

Mention their looks on the other hand and this is seemingly where the big money is and the abundance of “actresses”, maybe it is the fickle male species fault, looking no further than the stunning outer shell as opposed to judging on the often dire acting talent, point in case being the delectable Megan Fox who is now very much Hollywood’s woman of the moment.

Don’t get me wrong, using looks to sell something is as old as time itself and in film history you need only look at Monroe or Hepburn for evidence of this, but behind their faces was great talent, and icon’s in the making, does someone seemingly as vapid on the inside as Fox have the legs to be remembered in years to come…?

But dig a little deeper and there lies a very savvy woman, she is far from dumb and realises her talents as an actress are never going to let her live up to the “next Angelina Jolie” status she was once blessed/cursed with, in fact in response to be likened to a less talented Scarlett Johanssen she responds “I don’t want to have to go on talk shows and pull out every single SAT word I’ve ever learned to prove, like, ‘Take me seriously, I am intelligent, I can speak”, yet she also recognises she is not Meryl Streep, fully aware she is “not going to win an Oscar soon.”But she also admits that without beauty she would not be where she is now, proving she is a very tuned in and self aware woman, owed a lot more credit than that given her.

Yet she continues to prove she is that most post-modern of women, taking her image and toying with the audience using it to her advantage, that her next film, the knowing teen-horror Jennifer’s Body, is some indication as to how far Fox is prepared to go in her self-parody, playing a demon High School stunner who ironically uses her looks to draw in guy’s and suck the life from them.

So consider for one moment this, what is more false, the self aware actress with aspirations to entertain on the back of her critics, or she who craves award recognition amidst the pretentious awards season marketing machine where period dramas and endless biopic’s run rife?

Starring: Heath Ledger, Christopher Plummer, Lily Cole, Andrew Garfield, Verne Troyer, Johnny Depp, Jude Law, Colin Farrell

Director: Terry Gilliam

Writer(s): Terry Gilliam, Charles McKeown

Cinematography: Nicola Pecorini

Original Score: Jeff Danna, Mychael Danna

Running Time: 122 Mins.

Terry Gilliam is a visionary when it comes to film, a true auteur with an undeniable signature, which means that the likelihood is you will either love or hate his output and it is also the very reason he struggles to find the budgets needed to fulfill his visions. His ideas are big, his plots fantastical, fairytales of the post-modern era replete with all manner of creatures, eccentric characters and astounding imagery but often overlooked for these reasons is the heart to be found within, deeply personal and often very moving; this is the reason that I for one am very much of the side of his fandom.

True, Gilliam’s last efforts were chalk and cheese, The Brothers Grimm was very much tethered by studio interference into the director’s vision while Tideland felt a little too rampant for its own good, a comeback if you will to the studio interference that came before. So where does the infamous The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus sit? And is it deserving of more than just the “Heath Ledger’s last film” tag many have labelled it with.

As with all Gilliam’s tales I could not begin to explain the plot here and now, suffice to say it involves a travelling show caught in another era yet peddling its wares in modern day London, the troupe inhabiting this show are as eclectic as you would expect and each actor relishes their role, Troyer as Percy and Plummer as Parnassus are both stand-outs injecting the eccentricities with depth and heart, but kudos to everyone else for standing their ground amongst such a group of larger than life characters.

Entering this world comes Ledger, found hanging from beneath a bridge, he is saved and thrust headfirst into the wager Parnassus has going with Mr. Nick (the great Tom Waits) for the soul of his daughter. Despite being complex to explain, the plot really isn’t rocket science and it is great to see a film that not only has visual style in spades but has a plot that both works and compliments Gilliam’s style so well.

Ledger’s death whilst seemingly a curse on the production is covered exceptionally well by Law, Depp and Farrell, all great and full of pathos for their deceased friend and colleague. That the scenes work so well in context (as Tony enters the Imaginarium) is testament to Gilliam’s storytelling skills with the storytelling device never jarring or feeling forced.

But as ever it is in the visuals and scope that prove to be the film’s strength, and in a wealth of comedic touches that prove Gilliam will forever be a Python. Humour really is a key to keeping you hooked and while it is true some of the more surreal touches won’t be to everyone’s taste, but if you can approach with an open mind and prepared to enjoy something far and beyond the usual Hollywood fare you will be richly rewarded.

VERDICT

A wildly imaginative return to form for Gilliam, with material that plays to the ex-Pythons great strengths of visual flourish and thoughtful yet fantastical fairytales The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus rises from its tragic setback and proves a fitting farewell to Ledger…and friends!

Starring: Vince Vaughn, Jason Bateman, John Favreau, Faizon Love, Kristin Davis, Malin Akerman, Kristin Bell, Jean Reno

Director: Peter Billingsley

Writer(s): Jon Favreau, Vince Vaughn, Dana Fox

Cinematography: Eric Edwards

Original Score: A. R. Rahman

Running Time: 113 Mins.

Cast your minds back if you will to the early 90′s, two young men wrote and starred in a very funny film going by the name of Swingers, helping usher in the now abundant indie film scene its driving force, Vaughn and Favreau, were clearly destined for great things, things they achieved. Vaughan went on to find his biggest break in Weddng Crashers and earnt himself a place in Will Ferrell’s Frat Pack while Favreau turned out to be a rather great director helming Iron Man and its fast approaching sequel, not only helping reinvigorate the superhero genre but Robert Downey Jr’ career, and for that alone he deserves great applause!

So how my heart sank when I watched Couples Retreat, Vaughn and Favreau have appeared together many times and their interplay is never anything less than entertaining, despite how weak the film, The Break-Up being a prime example but here they really are scraping the barrel, and the saddest part is they actually put pen to paper to write the script, which means unfortunately there is no passing the blame.

The basic premise for Couples Retreat is as follows, four couples (made up of various low key, and some up-and-coming, actors and actresses) decide to partake in a trip to “paradise” when one of the couples decides they need to attend a relationship rebuilding trip, upon arriving on said paradise island all couples are forced into the “couple therapy” exercises and (shock horror) discover that there relationships aren’t so perfect after all, and guess what they all have a happy ending.

Which is where the film’s main (and there are many) problem lies, written as it is by Favreau and Vaughn, this should have been ground ripe for a proper grown up acidic comedy, full of proper observational comedy about how realtionships can go sour, wreaking some great black humour from it. But alas the film has been neutered down so far that when anything approaching slightly witty or funny seems about to happen, it is shot down with either a deeply lame joke involving tight speedos or worse still some of the sappiest, most cringe inducing lovey-dovey schtick seen in quite some time.

In fact the last time I saw a film with this level of unbearable cheese it was Four Christmases (where, once again, we had Vaughn and Favreau on-screen together as the only mild positive in an otherwise awful film).Quite frankly given the credential’s of the cast you have every right to expect something more, Bateman is usually a mark of quality even in the weakest of films and Akerman and Bell have both shown some great promise in their past roles, though the fact that the once great Jean Reno appears as  relationship guru should have really given the game away given his last film was The Pink Panther 2!

As it trundles to its close you could play join the dots with the plot, but just when you think it can’t get any more cringe-worthy…it does.

And that pretty sums the experience of Couples Retreat up, annoying characters and a script that could have been written by monkeys, the only positive I could gleam from the whole experience was seeing Vaughn and Favreau together again but even that is becoming stale fast.

 VERDICT

The byword for comic quality that once was Vaughn and Favreau feels long-gone, though their banter still retains a little humour it is lost amidst the rest of the awful dialogue and a setup seemingly good for one thing, cringe-worthycheese!

Starring (the voices of): Edward Asner, Christopher Plummer, Jordan Nagai, Delroy Lindo

Director: Pete Doctor, Bob Peterson

Writer(s): Bob Peterson, Pete Doctor

Cinematography: N/A

Original Score: Michael Giacchino

Running Time: 96 Mins.

There is very little denying that as a studio Pixar exude anything other than excellence, even there weaker efforts really don’t deserve to be classed as weak, it is only that they lay alongside a great many masterpieces of not only animation, but film, that they could be considered inferior (Cars and A Bugs Life). Lats year saw the release of Wall-E and with it a new bench-mark in both film-making and animation, leaving their next film Up with some rather large footprints to step in.

From Pete Doctor, he behind Monsters Inc., there is very little surprise that Up, Pixar’s 10th full-length feature, is superb in every sense of the word, the animation whilst not as mind blowing as that seen in Wall-E is so characterised it bears more like-ness to the classic Warner Brother’s cartoons of the 1930′s and 40′s than anything Disney (Pixar’s parent studio) have ever done.

Opening with a heart-breaking montage showing how Carl Frederickson (Asner) met his wife-to-be Ellie and their subsequent life together, etching out key moments in such a way that in only a few brief minutes you really get a feel for how special Ellie was to Carl, and vice versa, it’s is no surprise to learn this montage doesn’t end quite so happily, picking up with the now 70-odd year old Carl a slightly grumpy old man who wears a hearing aid and needs a walking stick to get around. It is at this point Russell enters the fray, the little round boy scout with aspirations to earn his final badge (to help the elderly of course!). Carl sends Russell on his way after a non-existent bird…

We then learn of the impending demolishment of Carl’s home, and this is where both the flying house that has been so prevalent on the posters comes in, as Carl takes flight (in his house!) to find the place Ellie longed to visit in SOuth America, but what do you know, Russell ends up along for the ride.

This kind of buddy pairing has become the staple of Pixar with very few of their tales not having this dynamic at the centre, the fact that every time it is used their is a freshness that over-rides the potentially stale set-up is to be commended. It is in taking the risk of having a pensioner as your hero that this is achieved, Carl is a hugely likeable character and Russell the perfect foil. It goes without saying that lessons are learned and their are strong messages to be found about family and friendship, thankfully they are not hammered home and remain subtle to the point where they can be poignantly heart-breaking.

The key to Up‘s success however IS Carl, everyone knows or knew someone like him, he is yours, mine and everyone’s Grandfather, or element’s of at least. The fact that his house flies is really irrelevant to the film’s heart. So that is the deep and emotional “stuff”. As you may, or may not know, Pixar’s mantra is that for every laugh there should be a tear, well the tears are well and truly covered, joyous, poignant, sad, however they are matched in Up with possibly some of Pixar’s funniest ever moments.

Painted with the zany edge that worked so well in Monsters Inc., Up is consistently funny and rather than say Disney films for example the humour does not simply come from the side-kick characters, as fully rounded as Carl and Russell are Kevin (a giant bird) and in a stroke of genius that simply made the film for me, Doug, a talking dog. Given this ability by his owner (and the film’s eventual villain) Doug wears a collar that translates his thoughts, so between the “I love you master” and “hello my name is Doug” comes the sudden realisation he has seen a squirrel.

And just when you think it wouldn’t get any better a whole pack of talking dog’s enter the fray… I could go on, but that would be to rob you of many of the great surprises, though I do feel obliged to say that Up contains the best “dog” fight scene since Wallace and Gromit: Curse of the Were-Rabbit! 

The only negative I could take from the experience was the seeming pointless-ness to the whole 3D aspect, rather than aid in the enjoyment, to me it often felt a slight distraction and in a film this good the need for any kind of gimmick becomes largely defunct.

VERDICT

Up is as funny as it is heart-felt, yet again Pixar have hit the movie jack-pot and crafted something truly special, only they could make a pensioner the animated hero of the year!

Starring: Tyler Mane, Scout Taylor-Compton, Brad Dourif, Malcolm McDowell, Sheri Moon-Zombie

Director: Rob Zombie

Writer(s): Rob Zombie

Cinematography: Brandon Trost

Original Score: Tyler Bates

Running Time: 105 Mins.

Halloween is pretty hard franchise to totally mess up, for as weak as the vast majority of sequels to John Carpenter’s seminal original were, right up until Halloween: Resurrection which was awful, they at least did not miss the point of Myers as an iconic boogeyman, at no point was any attempt to humanize him and never ever demask him. For quite frankly what would be the point, he is the ultimate example of “the other” the unknown entity that cannot be stopped, and therein lies the ultimate fear Myers as a character elicits despite the shallowness of the surrounding films other faults.

With this in mind cast yourself back to 2007, and Rob Zombie’s original ”re-imagining”, pretty much a film of two halves it reinterpreted the bulk Carpenters original whilst adding a whole other needless chunk of back-story, showing Michael as a child, in therapy and crying to his mother. As a fan of Zombie’s stylistic approach to horror, that grimy gritty-ness of the 70′s snuff films, I relished seeing what he would do with such a premise and character, and in fairness he at least tried to deepen the story and give Myers an arc, however in doing this he has totally robbed the character of anything fearful.

However as the original remake paced up towards the final act Myer’s became an unstoppable force again and Zombie gritty flourishes recreated the seminal film in his own way giving it, and the franchise new life with the whiny child from the earlier part of the film all but forgotten about…which is where Halloween 2 picks up and never recovers from a horrendously misjudged attempt to inject some psychological edge and reasoning to try and get the “family” back together.

The white horse we are told is a guiding light, and in context it becomes the voice in Myer’s head, escaping from the morgue van (in one of the films better scenes) he swiftly disposes of the police officer, and then proceeds to head to Haddonfield to “reunite the family”, something spurned on by dreams of his mother (Sheri Moon Zombie). In the meantime Laurie is also having dreams, most of which involve Myers killing people, whether these are premonitions or simply dreams is never made clear. Hugely problematic seeing as these dreams from both point’s of view are handled so badly and slow the film down to a crawl that you really wont care.

Shamefully Myers has been made the focus with all victims played as whingeing teens or self-infatuated egotist’s, which basically means you really have no empathy for any of them, and as Zombie takes more and more liberties with the character more of his menace becomes lost and when you see the bearded tramp like unmasked Myer’s you too will realise quite how misjudged Zombie is in taking this route. Missing the point so aborantly in opening up his protagonist you will be left questioning whether Zombie actually knows anything of the horror coda and what is scary, it certainly isn’t a Grizzly Adams man in a hoodie and a boiler suit.

Beyond recovery from the start, it is hard to gleam little in the way of positives from Halloween 2, Zombie is a promising director and yes he does have a great signature style but when the content is so messed up and lacking any understanding within the sphere he is working you wonder if there is any hope however one arc he does impress with is Loomis (McDowell reprising the role), though all the set-upb up is wasted in the close, building him up as a total bastard who is making as much money of other’s misfortunes, he begins to realise the error of his ways, sounds pretty basic but it works and for that, in a film this misjudged, on the whole you have to be thankful!

VERDICT

A misguided mess that serves only to prove that Zombie simply doesn’t “get” the genre he is working in and the iconic character he has at his disposal, the best thing about Halloween 2 is the poster!

Starring:Woody Harrelson, Jesse Eisenberg, Emma Stone, Abigail Breslin

Director: Ruben Fleischer

Writer(s): Rhett Reese, Paul Wernick

Cinematography:Michael Bonvillain

Original Score:David Sardy

Running Time:84 Mins.

Jesse Eisenberg is seemingly a fan of “lands”, following the fraught path of young love in Adventureland a few weeks ago, he now treads the even more fraught path of  zombie killing, oh and still finds time for a bit of love, in Zombieland from first time director Ruben Fleischer, remember his name folks, he is, on the evidence here, a director to get excited about.

But, for now, back to Eisenberg, so good in Adventureland (and just as good here) where that film was small and subtle this is big and loud, and (literally) signpost’s things on screen. Opening with Columbus explaining his rules to surviving Zombieland, a lay-to-waste America, he staggers from one zombie problem to the next, whilst his rules flash up onscreen. This kind of self-parody is not new but here it works like such a charm you feel like applauding, save though for the giant grin you will have when each of the undead are disposed of by way of Columbus’ Rule #3 Doubletap!

Rather than give any explanation for the zombie “epidemic” a slo mo riddled stylistic credit sequence simply relishes the opportunity to show heads explode and rotting flesh putrid with gangrene hang, as the zombies wreak havoc on their victims, rampant violence has never been such fun.

The charm of Zombieland lies largely in its brevity and acknowledgement that there really is little need for a plot with a script this self referential and characters this damn fun, Woody Harrelson is at his best here creating a character that belongs up on the pantheon alongside Jack Sparrow and Ash from Evil Dead with his larger than life banjo playing, seemingly indestructible, zombie killing pro, redneck, so many superlatives all deserving of their emphasis. Teaming Harrelson’s Tallahassee up with Columbus is a stroke of genius and their banter is some of the most entertaining this side of that in Shaun of the Dead.

Good enough to be mentioned in the same breath as that seminal rom-zom-com it is not quite a match and does lack some of the more subtle in-jokes,  but almost makes up for it with the stroke of genius cameo two thirds in, to spoil the surprise would be criminal but said cameo-er so self reverentially tears into his persona that it might just be one of THE scenes of the year.

The film only falters in the attempt at a romance between Columbus and Wichita, they are convincing once she drops the femme fatale act and there are some brilliant lines to be found in Columbus wooing attempts, “someones hair is in danger of being swept behind their ear” is a classic line when spoken in Eisenberg’s earnest tone, but the scene’s between them feel like they slow the pace down a touch too much when, call me a sadist, I’d much rather have had one more zombie slaying action scene. Thankfully it picks up on the close and ingeniously sets the climatic battle in an amusement park, quite frankly what beats the sight of Woody Harrelson aboard a roller-coaster shooting zombies on each turn…and that’s why everyone should see this film!

VERDICT

In ZombielandEisenberg’s knowing tone, Woody Harrelson on top zombie killing form, a (literally) killer script and one hell of a cameo add up to make Ruben Fleischer’s debut something special and one of the comedies of the year…I’d gladly return for a second trip!

Starring:John Krasinski, Maya Rudolph, Jeff Daniels, Maggie Gyllenhaal, Catherine O’ Hara

Director: Sam Mendes

Writer(s):Dave Eggers, Vendela Vida

Cinematography:Ellen Kuras

Original Score: Alexi Murdoch

Running Time:98 Mins.

Two things of note about Away We Go, firstly it is directed by Sam Mendes, and secondly it is the first film to be made under the “Green” aesthetic, one comes with all the connotations you would expect, whilst the other does not. So let me begin by saying this is not your average Mendes screwed up relationship study, in fact Away We Go is very much the antithesis to his other film that debuted earlier this year, Revolutionary Road, rather than digging deep into the breakdown of a relationship this is very much about embracing a relationship and, thankfully, not from the initial and expected starting point.

Opening with Burt (Krasinski) and Verona (Rudolph) discovering they are to be parents, they then set off around the U.S. in the hope of finding somewhere to settle down and raise their family, preferably somewhere they know people seeing as Burt’s ‘parents have, as they explain in a very funny scene, decided to jet-set across the world to somewhere “superb” as Burt’s father (Daniels) puts it. So what follows is essentially a literal series of episodes whereby the couple come to terms with pregnancy (not that they ever have issues about it) and try to bond with various siblings and friends.

That Away We Gosegregates itself so definitively with title cards reading “away we go to…” for each section reallydoes tramples on the criticism that its episodic, so I won’t even go there, in fact I like the structure because it stops the story from ever becoming boring (as it so easily could have done, given the ponderous nature of Mendes direction) and gives it a sense of character leaving each cast member their time to shine. Yes some most are too quirky to be true and would never be found outside of the realms of indie films but given they are played with such relish by the likes of O’ Hara, Daniels and Gyllenhaal simply add to the entertainment.

Of the main coupling it is Krasinski who comes off best, however like the quirky bit-parter’s he is just too good to be true, so nice and without any foibles, he sometimes makes the more believable Rudolph seem unsavoury…simply through her realism as opposed to his angelic niceness. This though is not a huge criticism, as were they not played in this way the film would have turned into something different altogether as their relationship is the lynchpin on which the film rests.

A late attempt to introduce some drama with Burt’s brother is ill conceived and serves very little purpose to the plot as a whole, slowing down the final third rather than ushering in a conclusion and you just know that the film was never going to end anything other than happy, a nice change for Mendes and a strong indicator of the films “green” sensibilities however given Mendes strong signature and without his usual cinematographer the directors signature style becomes all but lost meaning that this could almost be the film of a first time director. This fact has both its good and bad points, proving Mendes has range but given that I enjoy his films for their depth and signature, somehting missing both these feels a little like an experiment or time out for someone much more accomplished than the material makes available to him.

VERDICT

Nice, would be the best way to describe Away We Go, not the most enthusiastic reccommendation but a pleasurable experience of very little consequence none the less, feels like a leisurely break for Mendes while Krasinski proves a likeable lead.