The French Dispatch (5/5 Stars)

 

The masterpiece train keeps on rolling. That makes four in a row from Wes Anderson and the machine, an ever expanding cast of remarkable actors, production designers led by Adam Stockhausen, musicians led by Alexandre Desplat, costumes by Milena Canonero, etc etc. This time, Mr. Anderson, writer/director, spins an appetizer and three course meal of the fictional Ennui-sur-Blase, France in the form of a travelogue and three stories of the French Dispatch, a fictional satellite production of the fictional Liberty, Kansas Evening Sun.

This movie is delightful. I came to that conclusion about two minutes into the feature when the movie takes about a twenty seconds to film a French waiter stocking a tray with an assortment of apertifs, confections, and hors-d’oeurvres for delivery to Arthur Howitzer, Jr. (played by Bill Murray), editor of the title production. Like Wes Anderson’s best work, there is a loving attention to the detail here that most movies lack the ability to attempt.

The French Dispatch is in a newspaper but is not really news. It tells offbeat stories about curious people. It is a pleasant diversion about a small corner of the world that nobody in Kansas would likely visit. I believe that would be the whole point. There are many small things in life that lack formal importance, but as an antidote to the daily grind, are essential to living well. This idea is voiced with beautiful particularity in the third story by writer Roebuck Wright (played by Jeffrey Wright) when he is asked why he devotes so much space in his articles to the experience of dining. If you could have dinner with one person, living or dead, who would you choose? You could do much worse than a curated evening with Wes Anderson. (Actually you can choose this, but without the Wes, he curated a version of pullman dining on a British Train. https://www.belmond.com/trains/europe/uk/belmond-british-pullman/search-results. Tickets are around $600, give or take).

The danger of the Wes Anderson experience, as evident in his first fifteen years of making movies, is that his upper class tastes can come off as tone deaf or snooty. He has by and large avoided this pitfall in his last four great movies by focusing not on the rich people, but the servants, artisans, (dogs) that cater to them. It is a delicate balancing act to be sure. Since Wes Anderson is so very much rich himself (I highly suspect), to speak for the poor could easily come off as presumptuous and contrived. He avoids this by showing an unsurpassed appreciation for the artistry, whether it be a lobby boy attending to his duties in a hotel, a boy scout troupe leader searching for his charges, or a dog looking out for his master. Wes Anderson merely supposes, rightly I believe, that the people who curate his experiences care about their art in a manner that is separate and apart from the status of the ultimate consumer. Do such people like the celebrated police chef Nescaffier (played by Steve Park, yes that Steve Park from Coen Brothers’ movies like Fargo and A Serious Man), exist. They must. If they didn’t, how could there be so much beauty in the world?

To consider Wes Anderson’s movies chronologically, is to witness a writer-director become increasingly competent and confident in not only his distinct cinematic voice but the very tools of cinema. The French Dispatch is notable in its sheer amount of sets and cinematography techniques. To take one example, the first story, is a news article by J.K.L Berenson (played by Tilda Swinton) that turns into a lecture, which narrates a story of a psychotic inmate named Moses Rosenthaler (played by Benicio Del Toro) who might be a genius of modern art. The lecture is in color, but the story with Moses is in black and white, until of course, it isn’t. That is, Wes Anderson is not just using black and white because he wants to be artsy, he is doing it to make important scenes in the story “pop” with color. There are several of these moments in this movie whether it be a first glimpse of a fresco, the taste of a delicious apertif, or the blue eyes of Saorise Ronan, and the effect is undeniable. The realm of moviedom has not seen an artist with such innovative control of film, as a medium, since Oliver Stone was at the height of his creative powers in the early nineties (see JFK and Natural Born Killers). Add to this is Wes Anderson’s interesting use of foreign languages (In the second story, that concerns itself with insufferably woke university students, all the boys speak English, and the girls speak French with subtitles. To be clear, they are all speaking French, Wes is just being interesting) and his absolute refusal to shoot anything resembling a conventional action scene (a prison riot is shown in freeze frame, a car chase turns into a cartoon).

But more than anything, what is particularly impressive about The French Dispatch is the writing. The movie’s screenplay, which Wes Anderson wrote by himself, is based on four fictional articles by four fictional writers with four different styles. Each story, though all written by Wes, leaves a distinct impression of a unique artistic voice, each one a very good writer in their own regard. I ask you, could there possibly be a movie this year that is more “written” than the The French Dispatch. Have you ever seen a movie, more “literary”. Can we just give him his first Oscar ever for Best Original Screenplay right now?

If there is a criticism to be directed at this movie, it is that there is too much of it, at least in one sitting. I think this movie, or something like it, would make a very good TV show. That is, since each story could stand on its own, you could split the movie up into 30 minutes segments like say Documentary Now, thereby giving the audience a chance to catch its breath between stories. The French Dispatch is an appetizer and three entrees in a row. We need more time to comfortably digest. After all, I haven’t even mentioned Adrian Brody’s brilliant dissection of the economics of modern art, or Timothee Chalamet’s hair, or the fact that I got to see Lea Seydoux naked (worth the ticket price by itself).

Masterminds (4/5 Stars)

To call “Masterminds” a movie “based on a true story,” streches that line about as far as it can go. Truth may have provided the basic premise: in 1997 a man named David Ghannt, an employee of the Loomis Fargo armored truck company, stole $17 million in cash from the warehouse he worked at. Everything else seems entirely made up for laughs with a blatant disregard as to whether the audience would believe it had actually happened. In fact, the movie plays like they just assumed we wouldn’t care. It was funny so I really didn’t care.

Take one scene foe example: After the robbery, the plan is for David Ghannt (played by Zach Galifinakis) to immediately run away to Mexico. To help his escape, he stuffs $20,000 in cash into his underwear to the point where it noticeably bulges out in all directions. Also he needs a disguise. So he is given a platinum blonde shoulder length wig and yellow contacts with feline pupils. It’s pretty funny but I’m quite certain the real David Ghannt didn’t try to get through airport security in that manner.

The movie was directed by Jared Hess (Napolean Dynamite, Nacho Libre) and arrives in theaters a year late due to the bankruptcy of its parent company. Its delay has two main consequences. One is that it represents a too-late starring vehicle for Zach Galifinakis whose star power has ebbed significantly from its peak in the early 2010s. He hasn’t headlined a movie since 2013. On the other hand, it catches on the upswing the growing star of Kaitlyn “Crazy Eyes” McKinnon, who in a supporting part shows off her innate ability to be funny in every frame shes in. A year ago, before Ghostbusters and Hillary Clinton’s endless campaign (McKinnon plays Clinton on “Saturday Night Live”) my reaction may have been “Who is she?” but now it is “Oh it’s her!”

The movie would have you believe David Ghannt did the heist to win the love of Kelly Campbell, a former co-employee, here played by Kristin Wiig. Who knows if that is true, but it certainly makes Ghannt look more pathetic, a good move playing to the talent of Zach Galifinakis. The brain behind the heist is a man named Steve Chambers (played by Owen Wilson). Owen Wilson proves his stock utility as reliably affable. Steve Chambers apparently had the brilliant idea to make Ghannt do all the hard work, send him to Mexico, and then pay a hit man (played by Jason Sudeikis) to kill Ghannt. That sounds like pretty dark stuff. Owen Wilson plays him like you know it’s all really sad, but we got to do this, so let’s just get it over with and remain friends with everyone who is still alive. Playing Chamber’s wife is Mary Elizabeth Ellis (the waitress from “It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia), an actress adept at playing white trash and well suited to her role. She looks and sounds ridiculous. One of the first things Chambers and her do upon receiving their money is to get dental braces.

The only person miscast here is Jason Sudeikis. His hit man is ridiculous. For instance, upon purchasing guns, he decides to go for the 1700s musket that he has to pour gunpowder into. He’s that type of guy. The problem is Sudeikis neither looks nor acts anything like anybody actually tough. It’s too cartoonish and this character would have been better had someone like Liam Neeson or Danny Trejo been cast.

The movie, like many movies, perhaps leans too much on spectacle. Zach Galifinakis’ trip to Mexico is littered with many jokes that could be filed under the ‘funny hat’ category. It’s never not funny but also not particularly memorable either. And the climax of the story is too big to truly ground the comedy. The Chambers family in an act of profound stupidity, that is never truly mined for its great potential, throw a gigantic redneck party entitled “Neptune’s Conch” in their new McMansion. The FBI stake it out in one plotline and Zach Galifinakis in another plotline dresses like James Bond in order to infiltrate and rescue his now kidnapped love. This is one of those times when you wonder what these obviously talented people would have come up with had they not been given such a large budget to spend on gigantic spectacle. “Ghostbusters” earlier this year had the same sort of problem in its climax. The movie slipped into action movie territory upon the greased slide of easy money when it should have been reaching an emotional climax in that higher territory where the best comedy resides. In effect, the ending is weaker than the beginning or middle.

Still it’s a good movie. It tries to deliver laughs a minutes and much more often than not succeeds.

Inherent Vice (5/5 Stars)

I have waited too long to review this movie. As I sit down to write I am reviewing in my mind what happened where when and how and this is a huge mistake because I hardly had a grasp on that when I was watching the movie in the theater. But dig this: during the movie I did not care because like the best of Chandler-esque pot detectives (see The Long Goodbye and The Big Lebowski) this movie makes its money moment to moment not in the grand scheme of things and boy is this movie filled from top to bottom with moments. It’s stacked with jokes like the flattop of Flintstone proportions that neatly sits on Lietuenant Detective (and SAG member) Christian F. “BigFoot” Bjornsen’s fat head.

Inherent Vice was adapted from a Thomas Pynchon novel and directed by Paul Thomas Anderson. It is like a bonus movie from this guy in that his last two movies each took five years to make and market. Not only is this one coming to us within two years of his last (‘The Master’) but it is also a comedy and certainly the funniest P.T. Anderson movie to date. There has been an extraordinary amount of effort made here to include at least one visual gag in every scene. Some are very good like say the “welcome” “Doc” gets to the LA police department, Bigfoot’s son pouring him a drink, and the parking technique of his assistant. Roger Ebert once said of Steven Soderbergh’s ‘Ocean 11’ that it felt like a virtuoso classical pianist went down to the local honkytonk and started riffing on some ragtime melodies for fun. That’s what this feels like too. P.T. Anderson is slumming it with the low culture comedians. That’s probably why this movie will not be recognized for anything even though it should be on par with all his other high class movies.

Now for your reading enjoyment I will attempt to summarize the plot. May the gods of Imdb guide me! This movie is about Larry “Doc” Sportello a hippie private detective in the early 1970s of Los Angeles. I am assuming he got the nickname ‘Doc’ because he works out of a doctor’s office. One night Doc’s ex-girlfriend Shasta Fay Hepworth (Katherine Waterston) shows up needing his help. Her boyfriend, the married real estate devloper Mickey Wolfman, may be the target of a kidnapping plot by his wife and her boyfriend. Doc can’t turn this request down as that girl has a hold of him the way that certain women often do. Thus the convoluted journey begins where a murder at a whorehouse brings him in contact with Lt. Det. Christian F. “Bigfoot” Bjornsen (a perfect Josh Brolin), which necessitates the appearance of Doc’s maritime lawyer Sauncho Smilax, Esq. (Benicio Del Toro) and his current girlfriend Deputy D.A. Penny Kimball (Reese Witherspoon). The FBI gets in on the case and something called the Golden Fang, which might be a boat or something bigger leads the increasingly convoluted storyline through other bright character spots such as Dr. Rudy Blatnoyd D.D.S (a manic Martin Short) and Coy Harlingen (Owen Wilson). The conversation that Doc has with Coy is perhaps the low point of clarity in the movie since it takes place after at least an hour of hard to follow and might consist of codespeak. I don’t know I’m not sure because I probably would not know what they were talking about even if it wasn’t in code.

The confusing aspect of Inherent Vice is medicated quite a bit like the confusing way of The Big Lebowski is medicated: that is with lots of drugs and enough great stuff going on in the moment that the viewer does not necessarily need to have a big picture in order to enjoy himself. Perhaps the best self-contained ten minutes of the movie is the introduction and dispensation of Martin Short, a dentist who may or may not be one small cog in a vast conspiracy to get hippies on heroin and then sell them everything they need to get off of heroin (heroin apparently does awful things to your teeth). ANYWAY it is a manic creation of unbridled lust and hard drugs before we are informed in the subsequent scene that the dentist has broken in his neck in a trampoline accident. Of course it may not be an accident but we’ve already moved on.

I haven’t read the book but I get the feeling that it is an irretrievably unadaptable source and the fact that P.T. Anderson has made a good movie from it makes the adaptation itself extraordinary. He should at least get an Oscar nomination for the screenplay. The movie is filled to the brim with memorable characters but Josh Brolin’s performance is one flattop head above the rest. He too should get an Oscar nomination. Joaquin Phoenix does a wonderful job of holding his own among the nutcases. Oh and I forgot that the movie is narrated by a character that is kind of tangential to the whole thing. Someone explained to me that she knows everything via stoner ESP or whatever. It works just as well.

I liked this movie quite a bit and will probably have to see it again to get most of the jokes. I hope you see it at least once and don’t feel bad if you can’t entirely figure what is going on. I suspect nobody can, especially the hippies.

Midnight in Paris (5/5 Stars)

How to be an intellectual without being annoying about it.

There are two men in this movie that know an awful lot about Paris. One is, Paul, played by Michael Sheen. He’s the type of guy who would interrupt a tour guide, played here by 1^st lady Carla Bruni of France, with the words, “If I’m not mistaken, Rodin’s the Thinker was influenced more by his mistress than his wife.” First of all, he does not think he is mistaken and so is already disingenuous. Second, he is a jerk for upstaging the tour guide just in order to show off. I don’t know who influenced Rodin, but if Paul is right than he needlessly embarrassed the tour guide by making such a scene. If he is wrong than he needlessly made a complete fool of himself. All present should be annoyed. Than there is Gil Pender, played by Owen Wilson. He too is an intellectual, but his smarts show not by self-aggrandizing posturing but by a knowing wonder for the town. He keeps on bugging everyone to walk with him in the rain because as he says, “Paris is so beautiful in the rain!” The great thing about Woody Allen’s “Midnight in Paris” is that it understands so well the difference between these two ways of being a know-it-all. There is a difference between an intellectual who goes, “Wow! I can’t believe we’re in the same bar that Hemingway drank at! Hemingway was so cool and he drank so much! We’re going to have an awesome time here drinking and talking about Hemingway!” As opposed to an intellectual who lectures, “If I’m not mistaken, this is where Hemingway drank. His “Farewell to Arms” was okay but I felt in “A Moveable Feast” he was not as sure of himself. Also he drank way too much. That’s why he killed himself. You people should revere me because I am so knowledgeable about where we are.” “Midnight in Paris,” shows a vast familiarity with the 1920’s Lost Generation of Paris. It name drops excessively both from the well-known and not so well known people and places of the time and even includes quite a bit of French and Spanish, none of it in subtitles. But the movie never feels or seems pretentious. This isn’t an Honors English lecture. It is an inclusive party with old friends and one of the most enjoyable movies of the year. 

Gil Pender is a Hollywood hack screenwriter. It is good money but spiritually unfulfilling. He has a dream of moving to Paris and working on his novel because, well, all his literary heroes hung out in Paris and wrote novels. He visits Paris with his materialistic fiancé Inez, played by Rachel McAdams. There they bump into her parents on a business trip. The father refuses to enjoy Paris for political reasons. They also meet the pseudo-intellectual, Paul, who likes to label everything as romantic/surrealists/pre-new wave/etc/etc. One night, Gil chooses to leave the group and walk around Paris for no real reason but to do it. At midnight, a 1920’s car filled to the brim with flappers from the Rolling Twenties pulls up next to him. Before he knows it, Gil finds himself at a party where Cole Porter is playing the piano. A woman named Zelda starts a conversation with him. She is the wife of a guy named Francis Scott Fitzgerald. Zelda asks Gil what he thinks of the party. The bewildered/excited out of his mind/awestruck Gil doesn’t know what to say. “I know,” Zelda says, “this place is boring. We’re going to a better party. Want to come with us?”

What a trip! Not only is Gil meeting all his heroes, but also all his heroes are exactly as he thought they would be. Even better, they like him and are interested in the novel he is working on. Ernest Hemingway won’t read it himself because he is of the firm belief that a writer will either hate another's work or be envious of it and hate it all the more. But Hemingway will show Gil the manuscript to the only editor he trusts, one Gertrude Stein, played by Kathy Bates. As Gil enters the studio of Gertrude Stein she is critiquing one of Picasso’s new paintings with Picasso present and adamantly defending himself. “Gil,” Stein asks, “what do you think of Pablo’s new work?” Imagine that. Being asked to critique Picasso to his face. Having Stein read your novel. Drinking with Hemingway. Gil Pender spends a majority of the movie in a state of ecstasy. Owen Wilson, perfectly cast even at 40 years old, conveys a perfect sense of child-like wonder. There is a great shot with Gil back in the 21^st century, wide-awake in his bed and whispering to nobody, “I saw Hemingway. Gertrude Stein is reading my novel. I’m Gil Pender. I’m from Pasadena.” What is really amazing is that this is a Woody Allen movie. Allen has done over forty movies now and there has been such a consistent strain of pessimism and nihilism in his work. That has completely evaporated here and in its stead is gorgeous scenery, great larger-than-life characters, sharp and clever dialogue, and a protagonist who couldn’t possibly be enjoying himself more than he already is.

Standing at about 90 minutes, this movie is also a great example of story efficiency. It takes about two minutes to introduce all the real-life people and their different attitudes towards Paris. It takes another five to introduce the idea of nostalgia and the cynical view that it is an erroneous romanticization of the past to assume that it was a better time than it is now (This theme comes up again ironically when one of the 1920’s artists suggests that the real golden age of Paris was in the 1890s.) The literary figures show up at all the right places in all the right times. I especially liked who Gil explains his perplexing situation as a man who spends the night in the 1920s and wakes up in 2010. He says this to some 1920s surrealists and they see nothing strange about his situation. Salvador Dali, played nicely by Adrien Brody, seems far more interested with his new favorite word “Rhinocerous!” There is also room for a budding romance between Gil and one of the art groupies named Adriana, played by Marion Cotillard. Overall the movie, like all good comedies, is not too long but contains quite a lot. It moves fast, is consistently funny, and very romantic. And don’t forget Paris. It looks as good as ever. 

Cars 2 (4/5 Stars)

A Bait-and-Switch Sequel

Technically speaking “Cars 2” is a sequel to “Cars,” the 2006 movie by Pixar, but not really. If anything it is the feature length version of a series of Pixar shorts entitled “Mater’s Tall Tales.” These shorts starred a side character of “Cars” called Mater the Tow Truck (Larry the Cable Guy) telling grandiose stories of his daring exploits that took place all over the world and almost certainly never happened. The shorts were true cartoons, limited to fast paced joke telling and brilliantly animated action. If Pixar was being totally honest with us it might have named this movie, “Mater the Super Spy, Ka-Chow!” But here they are having it both ways. They get to cash in on sequel box office while at the same time telling a completely original story in a completely different genre. It’s sort of like a “bait and switch sequel.” It’s very clever of them.  

The first “Cars” was about a big-headed race car named Lightning McQueen (Owen Wilson) that got lost on the way to a big race in a small town called Radiator Springs. He gained wisdom by the simple folk there and gradually learned all about small town values. By the end of the movie he was a much nicer car. “Cars 2” is basically a James Bond movie and follows quite the same structure. It starts with a British spycar named Finn McMissile (Michael Caine doing a superb Michael Caine) infiltrating an offshore oilrig run by a car with a monocle named Professor Z. Professor Z is smuggling some sort of weapon, Finn takes pictures, Professor Z notices Finn, a chase ensues, spy car gadgets help achieve a daring escape, and all of this is before the opening credits. Later this plot line intertwines with an ex-CEO of Big Oil, Sir Miles Axelrod’s (Eddie Izzard) plans to put on a three race around the world Grand Prix to demonstrate his new alternative fuel, Allinoil. Lightning McQueen and his buddy Mater head on over to Tokyo for the first race. There Finn McMissile and his fellow spy Holley Shiftwell (Emily Mortimer) mistake the uncouth rust-covered Mater as an American agent with an elaborate cover. Several car chases later, Mater is embroiled in the spy world. Somehow and why Big Oil is sabotaging the Grand Prix and they have to find out what its all about.

So this is Mater’s story all the way and whether you like the movie or not perhaps will rest on whether you like the bucktoothed hillbilly Mater. I liked Mater. He had plenty of good one liners and on top of that is uncannily smart, at least about cars. A good example of this is why the British agents thought he was the American agent in the first place. The spies had this code set up for meeting the agent they had never met. One car would ask a question about why the old Volkswagon engines didn’t need some very technical thing. The answer is because they have a some kind of air-cooled engine block (I don’t remember the exact words, but it was very technical). Supposedly this question was chosen because a normal car would never know such an obscure fact. Well, Mater knows it and finds nothing strange about the question. He answers it without hesitation in breathless kind of enthusiasm typical of geeks with finally someone to talk too and then goes on to describe the cooling blocks of several other like cars from that time period. There are plenty of examples of this high level of car knowledge “Cars 2” and it suggests that the people who made the movie really love cars and know everything about them. I know absolutely nothing about cars and do not harbor any fond feelings for them. In fact a big reason I like living in NYC is that I don’t need a car here. My driver’s license actually expired almost a year ago and I haven’t bothered to renew it. What I’m trying to say is that I hate cars. But I do take vicarious pleasure from watching a movie that is in love with its subject matter. “Cars 2” definitely is. If you enjoyed Pixar’s “Ratatouille” without having any knowledge of French cuisine, than you should have a fun time watching “Cars 2” whether or not you know about cars. I suspect people who do like cars will love this movie.

Much of the humor and creativity in this movie (and there is quite a lot of it) has gone into creating our human world in a way that is totally inhabited by cars. They are doing everything that we do just in car fashion. This leads to some really clever spectacles. One of my favorites is the Popemobile inside a Popemobile. Another is when the cars go through airport security and have to take off their tires to go through the metal detectors. These little details fill the movie end-to-end. One weakness in the jokes however is that a person might have to be a world traveler to get them all. In the Tokyo segment, I would think that the viewer would have to be knowledgeable of Japanese TV shows, those compartments that people rent to sleep in, and the fact that you can get everything in a vending machine over there, to get the jokes about them. The same goes for the jokes that are ingrained into the scenery in Paris, London, and a coastal Italian city that looks a lot like Cinque Terra. If you were familiar with these places, I would think your viewing pleasure would be enhanced a great deal.

The same goes for the evil scheme that is being perpetrated by Big Oil in this movie. It reminded me of the water scheme that the last James Bond movie, “Quantum of Solace,” featured. Most people thought that scheme was totally lame. I loved it, but I think that was mostly because I had just read a book about water wars (Cadillac Desert) and had known the scheme was based on something that actually happened in Bolivia. I can see people having the same reaction to the evil plot here as well. Before seeing “Cars 2,” it might help to watch the documentary, “Who Killed the Electric Car?” the utterly baffling tale of how a “business” named General Motors designed and manufactured an arguably superior product only to go to rather extraordinary lengths not to market or sell it. With that knowledge, the scheme in “Cars 2” may not seem so unrealistic because it isn’t really. Similar things have happened. Pixar has once again done their homework. One thing that this scheme does get right in line with James Bond movies is the car equivalent of the bad guys. In this movie they are lemons, really bad working cars, bent on perpetrating an evil plot because they’re so bitter about their inferiority. Surely, if there is anything I’ve learned from watching James Bond movies, it’s that you shouldn’t trust people with physical deformities.

Not that Pixar is up on a soapbox here about environmentalism. This movie is mainly about car chases, jokes, and cool spy car gadgets. There is a subplot that deals with McQueen and Mater’s friendship getting strained by Mater’s spy stuff, but it isn’t heavy stuff. Unlike the last several Pixar movies, this one isn’t about to make you start crying in the theater. Apparently that level of pathos (as opposed to say intelligence, wit, or creativity) is now what solely defines a Pixar movie as its omission in this movie is the primary reason why it is scoring a completely uncalled for 33% on RottenTomatoes. It should be noted that audiences leaving the theater have given “Cars 2” a Cinemascope rating of A-. I would give it a B+ but yes that is far more accurate than the tomato rating. “Cars 2” is not a masterpiece but it is as good as any decent James Bond movie, a worthy comparison because it is the gold standard of the genre this movie takes place in. At the very least, “Cars 2” is a better movie than “Cars” was. 

Some extra thoughts on the ingenious marketing strategy of "Cars 2," and the meaning of the term "Bait and Switch Sequel."

What do people want when it comes to movie night? I would argue that it is different depending on when you ask them.

When a person is deciding which movie from many to see, they generally try to make the safest choice possible. This is especially true if you are choosing a movie for a group of people. You don’t want to be the guy who suggests an obscure movie that everyone ends up hating. A sequel from a very popular movie has at least a decent chance of being mediocre. If it is awful, then there is always an excuse. I thought it would have been like the first. The people with you will understand because they were thinking the same thing before heading into the theater. That excuse is not available when bringing people to see a movie that doesn’t have a track record.

But what will you have wished you had seen once you leave the theater. Well, supposedly you will have wished you had seen a good movie. Fill in your definition of that here. In the case of a sequel to “Cars,” I think I would have liked to see, at the very least, exciting action sequences I had not seen before and funny jokes I had not heard before or, in other words, a good original story. 

A “Bait-and-switch sequel,” is a movie that baits people into the theater by marketing something recognizable but than switches into an original story once the money has been paid and the people are sitting down. If all goes to plan it would be the best of both worlds, both in terms of box office and artistic credibility. So the rule: the “2” helps get people into the theater. It doesn’t help tell the story. Like “Cars 2” it should be used accordingly. 

Fantastic Mr. Fox (3/5 Stars) December 23, 2009

How quaint.

Wes Anderson directs this stop motion animated children’s tale based on Roald Dahl’s book Fantastic Mr. Fox. It had been my belief after watching Anderson’s first films like Bottle Rocket, Rushmore, and The Royal Tenenbaums, that someday Anderson would make an American masterpiece. Three not so great movies later, this one being the best of them, I have become somewhat disheartened. Wes Anderson may have a unique vision as a director, he may be one of the best art directors out there, but all of his stories lack that certain amount of passion that sets great movies apart from ordinary ones. All of the characters, whether real-life or animated as in this film, walk and talk with great reserve and sophistication. This lends to the movies irony and dry bone wit but it also takes away from the urgency of the problems and the weight of the plot. Actors in his movies walk around like robots and talk in whispers. (The special exception is Jason Schwartzman who can deliver Anderson’s muted lines with such precise intensity that they can sound somewhat purpose-driven.) Making everyone a stop-motion puppet doesn’t really help. What does help is an adapted storyline that involves a lot of guns, bombs, and very bad men. But still, the overall movie is somewhat forgettable. 

It must not take much time and effort from Actors to do an animated film. That must be why so many big names can be attached to a single film. Here we have George Clooney as Mr. Fox, Meryl Streep as Mrs. Fox, and Jason Schwartman as Ash Mr. Fox’s son. Filling in roles that have but a few lines are Willem Defoe and Owen Wilson. Most of these actors lend little to the parts more than their names. For instance this is perhaps the first time in a long time that I saw Meryl Streep perform in a movie and thought, “wow, anyone could do this role just as well as Meryl Streep.”

The idea of stop-motion animation plays to Anderson’s strengths. He has a great knack for filling in the sides of the movie screen with a lot of little details. Here, he recreates an entire world full of mean farmers, fox-holes, and plenty of other locations. He uses the camera a lot of differently than other stop motion animators also (Basically just Tim Burton) He uses much more horizontal pans and other camera moves I don’t know the names of. It’s at least interesting to witness if you are ever aware of that sort of thing.

The music in the film is also fine. I don’t know whatever happened to Mark Mothersbaugh, the great composer for Anderson’s first three films, but wherever he is, he is being missed. Anderson has such a reserved vision that he very much needs composers that are bold, actors (like Schwartzman) who are passionate, and storylines that have a lot of action in them. Here all he has is the adapted screenplay from Dahl. Schwartzman can hardly be used to his potential because he a stop-motion doll, and the composer though okay, has a boy’s choir sing the bad guy’s theme song. Someday Anderson may get all of his ducks in a row, but this isn’t the movie and I am starting to doubt it will be his next either.

Night at the Museum and Oscar-Talk 02/28/07

This is really good family entertainment. Not only is it a great idea, it's well put together and scripted. I say family entertainment because there really isn't a chance that anyone anywhere will be offended by anything in this movie. no one whatsoever. well, maybe monkeys. But because of that, it's also not as hilarious as great comedies. It's amusing is what it is, yes that's the right word. Amusing, and perhaps cute. (Owen Wilson) Listen kiddos put this into the DVD player when your parents are around. That way they won't get embarrassed or nervous those poor impressionable parents. 
I specifically liked watching Ben Stiller high tail it across the screen a bunch of times. Museums really are the best places to run around in.

Now let's get down to business. Oscars. I think they did a pretty good job this year. I only saw three of the five best picture nominees, but the three I saw were good enough to be there. But let's say this shall we: Let's ask this question. What were my favorite movies, as opposed to What do I think was the best movie. This way i'm truly voting for the movies that deserve to win.
The five best movies I saw this year were:
Little miss Sunshine (Finally a comedy made it to the best picture list!)
The Departed (Way to go Scorcese!)
Marie Antoinette (Perfect)
Casino Royale (The best bond I've seen)
The Prestige (The thinker of the bunch)(Director Christopher Nolan is now on my "see every movie he makes" list.)
I will probably buy all of these and watch them bunches of times. Although I love Scorcese and support his best director oscar, I would vote Little miss Sunshiine for best picture. The lead acting prizes I can't comment on because I haven't seen those films. I wasn't completely blown away by Jennifer Hudson, but then again I can't really think of anyone else for supporting actress. But my God, what the fuck happened in the Supporting Actor category! Alan Arkin! Are they insane! Not only was Eddie Murphy the best, far and away, of anyone else in the category, Alan Arkin shouldn't have even been nominated. I felt Greg Kinnear and Steve Carell put in better charachters than that guy did. He was the weak link in the movie if anyone was. This is such bullshit. It reminds me of when Morgan Freeman won for his do-nothing role in Million Dollar Baby, beating a very deserving Thomas Haden Church who had the role of a lifetime in Sideways. It begs the question of what the hell do they think they're doing. Listen if they want to give Arkin a lifetime achievement award then they should just do it. They shouldn't give him an Oscar for a sub par performance based on a long career. If I were Eddie Murphy I'd be heartbroken. Here's a huge salute to that guy, who was really slapped in the face this year. Hopefully he gets other chances.