Audiences typically fall into two camps when it comes to Wes Anderson movies: you are either under his awkward spell or are baffled that anyone likes his stuff. Both reactions are fair. As much as I enjoy some of Anderson's work, I never recommend it to a friend without preparing them for oddness. Personally, I find myself falling into neither category when it comes to Wes Anderson. I used to really look forward to his movies --- the one-two punch of Rushmore and The Royal Tenenbaums will do that --- but was disappointed by The Life Aquatic and had hoped for more from The Fantastic Mr. Fox. If I had to categorize my attitude toward a new Wes Anderson film, I think "the novelty is running out" sums it up best. It's a little strange, then, that I saw Moonrise Kingdom in the theater. I was on a family vacation and we wanted to see something that would be appropriate for anyone from my mother to my thirteen-year-old cousin. And we chose a Wes Anderson movie.
Yeah, it was an odd choice, I'll admit. But the main characters are right around the age of thirteen. Maybe this could appeal to the Twilight/Hunger Games generation.
…yeah, okay, probably not.
Moonrise Kingdom begins with Sam (Jared Gilman), a twelve-year-old Khaki Scout, running away from Summer camp in 1963, leaving behind only a letter of resignation. Sam was the least-liked member of his troop thanks to his incurable oddness, but he was an excellent scout. His scoutmaster (Edward Norton) can't find him and turns to the local police, Captain Sharp (Bruce Willis) for help.
Keep your mouth open. That helps you look for things.
This story takes place on an island, but that small area is apparently too large for these authority figures to track Sam down. Meanwhile, Suzy (Kara Hayward) has vanished from her home, leaving her lawyer parents (Bill Murray and Frances McDormand) and three younger brothers behind without an explanation. In fact, they wouldn't have noticed she was gone if she had not left a note explaining that she was borrowing her brother's record player for two weeks, without permission. As Suzy's parents start to look for her and enlist Captain Sharp in their quest, it becomes apparent that the two kids have run away together. And so begins an odd tale of tween romance amidst mediocrity.
They look so in love!
Since this is a Wes Anderson movie, discussing the acting is
almost a moot point.It’s not that they
do a bad job, by any means, but Anderson has such a strong hand in directing
his cast that their performances are always peculiar (to put it nicely).The hardest thing about Moonrise Kingdom is that the lead characters are children.I liked Kara Howard; her performance definitely
reminded me of Irene Gogovaia (lil' Gwyneth Paltrow) in The Royal Tenenbaums, and that’s not a bad thing.She was cold, distant, and not nearly as awkward
as her male counterpart.Jared Gilman wasn’t as
good, but he was definitely awkward as hell, in the tradition of other Wes
Anderson leading men.The more I think about his performance, the more I like the little things; it's hard to put a finger on what he was doing right, but it probably has something to do with how well he deadpanned his lines.
The classic look didn't hurt, either
I was glad to see Edward Norton having fun here. It's been too long since he's been in a movie I've enjoyed, and he sure played up the sincerity of this character to a goofy degree. Bruce Willis was decent. I've never thought of him as a subtle actor --- "yippe ki-yay motherfucker" will do that to a reputation --- and I don't think he benefited from extra awkwardness. He wasn't bad, though, and the moments where he seems most engaged (with Sam or through the CB radio) were pretty solid. I was definitely disappointed by Bill Murray and Frances McDormand, though. I love both actors, but neither had enough time to shine; Murray's depressed character had some great moments ("That's not enough" was a great line) and McDormand's performance showed promise, but neither character was developed much in the final cutting.
I know how you feel, guys
The rest of the recognizable supporting cast was pretty good. Harvey Keitel had a very bit part, and he was fun to watch. Bob Balaban played the omniscient narrator, and I think his performance sums up Wes Anderson's direction; he was odd and awkward, making you either hate or love his scenes. I enjoyed them. Tilda Swinton --- whose bandwagon I haven't jumped onto just yet --- was very good as Social Services, and I think she would benefit from a larger role in another Anderson movie. My favorite supporting character --- and an early leader for my annual "Best Bit Part" award --- was played by Jason Schwartzman. It's not that his role was terribly difficult, but he had some of the film's best lines and delivery. Plus, as an internet-ordained minister (because why not?), I love his willingness to marry people.
P.S.: Nice 'stache
The direction of Wes Anderson is hard for me to judge. I love the effort he puts into his films (story, script, set design, supporting material, etc.), and Moonrise Kingdom has the same depth of experience that fans are used to. All the book excerpts that Suzy reads? Written by Wes. You can also assume that any paintings or interesting fabrics you see in the movie were also made on his express direction. I don't think anyone can fault Anderson for the effort he puts into his movies, even if they dislike his work. Anderson works strangely with actors, though. This is a slow movie, filled with many pauses and very few visible reactions.
Example of a typical Anderson reaction shot
Your opinion about the acting will probably formulate your opinion on the film as a whole. If you like the tone and feel of other Wes Anderson movies, you will feel right at home in Moonrise Kingdom. If you're unfamiliar with his work, just imagine silly things happening to people who don't understand levity, and that will give you a basic understanding of what the acting is like. On the whole, I liked the acting and direction here, but it certainly is not for everyone.
If this doesn't make you smile, this film may not be for you
I should point out that this PG-13 movie is primarily rated that because of sexuality. I thought it was kind cute and (very) awkwardly believable, but my wife was absolutely repelled by the incompetent sexual fondling that happened in a particular scene.
Not surprisingly, it's the underwear dancing scene
It wasn't intended to be anything other than innocent and (maybe) realistic, but if you get uncomfortable when you see awkward sexuality, consider yourself warned.
Moonrise Kingdom is pretty enjoyable. I thought the pre-teen romance was handled extremely well and there were a lot of fun moments from the elders in the cast. Unfortunately, few of those elders had fully developed character arcs. That wouldn't matter too much normally, but the script spends a lot of time on the adults in the cast, with only Willis and Norton appearing to find anything close to closure. That is my main problem with this particular film. There is a larger problem with this movie, though, and that is how similar Moonrise Kingdom is to the last few Wes Anderson movies. The editing, storytelling, sets, title cards and acting are all unique among this year's crop of films, but they are nothing special when you compare them to Anderson's body of work. I love that Anderson leaves such a personal touch on his films, but I'm getting tired of him using the exact same unusual style for each movie. He is a clearly talented fellow, but needs to expand beyond the curious niche he's found if he hopes to continue developing as an artist. I'm not saying that Wes Anderson needs to genre-hop like Woody Allen (although comparisons between the two are natural), but I hope his next effort is weird and awkward in a different way.
For the record, my thirteen-year-old cousin declared that Moonrise Kingdom was the worst movie she had ever seen. And she's seen all the Twilight movies.
Bill Murray is one of the funniest actors in history, and his comedy seems effortless when he is at his best. For my money, his best is in Stripes. Why is that? Maybe it's because he liked working with Ivan Reitman, his director in Meatballs, again. Maybe he enjoyed the company and writing style of fellow Chicagoan and Second City alum Harold Ramis; this was their third film working together. Maybe Murray was tired of playing supporting roles and was finally ready to be a leading man. I don't really care why. I'm just glad this movie was made.
Career slacker John Winger (Bill Murray) has lost his crappy job, his crappy car, and his too-attractive-for-him girlfriend in the matter of only a few hours. With no real career options, his situation seems hopeless. By chance, though, John and his buddy, Russell (Harold Ramis), see a commercial for the US Army on television. Reasoning that the Army would get them into shape, give them a career path, and provide uniforms that seduce women on their own, the two sign up and are quickly sent off to basic training. Why would Russell go with this whim? Because his career teaching English to immigrants wasn't as exciting as he had hoped, I guess.
The reasons for their joining aren't terribly important (although, they do turn out to be poorly thought out). What is important is that the two join a cast of misfits in basic training, and Winger goes out of his way to regularly irritate their drill sergeant, Sgt. Hulka (Warren Oates). It turns out that Army training is hard and not terribly sympathetic to smart asses. Who knew?
As I mentioned earlier, Bill Murray is on the top of his game here. The chemistry between him and the rest of the cast is fantastic, particularly the banter between him and Harold Ramis. Murray can sometimes seem a little bored in film roles when he is not allowed to be weird, but he clearly had a lot of freedom in this film. I'm sure a lot of his lines were improvised, but his joke delivery here is great and the rest of the cast reacts perfectly.
Murray, about to give P.J. Soles the "Aunt Jemima" treatment
This was Harold Ramis' first substantial film role, but he did a good job playing the square to Murray's slacker. Warren Oates was even better as their ornery drill sergeant. He was basically playing the straight man to Murray, buy he also had a few little moments of his own. My favorites include his reaction after being blown up and his involuntary chuckle after Winger refers to him as a "big toe."
This movie had a lot of up-and-comers in it, too. Unfortunately, this was the last major film role for P.J. Soles; she wasn't a great actress here, but she played her part well enough (and didn't have to say "totally" for a change). Sean Young had a small and fairly charisma-free performance as Russell's love interest, but how many interesting characters would have fallen for Harold Ramis? This had to have been John Candy's big break; even though he had a small part in The Blues Brothers, he was really given a chance to shine in Stripes. If nothing else, he deserves recognition for his Three Stooges homage during his mud wrestling scene.
So...the Stooges hurt women?
John Larroquette and Judge Reinhold also had early career appearances in this film (it was Reinhold's debut), and both were funnier here than in any other movie I can recall. This is also one of career character actor John Diehl's biggest roles. He did a good job as the hopelessly stupid recruit. Bill Paxton and SCTV members Dave Thomas and Joe Flaherty have cameos in the movie; if you can't spot Paxton --- and it's pretty hard --- re-watch the mud wrestling scene.
This is perhaps the pinnacle of director Ivan Reitman's decade-plus run of entertaining movies. He has made movies with better stories and special effects, but there's a certain magic in Stripes that I can't imagine duplicating. Reitman's talent as a comedy director is knowing how to work with comedians and then cut their performances into a cohesive plot. He does that quite well here. Perhaps his greatest achievement in Stripes was getting the use of Fort Knox to film the exterior army base scenes. Would this movie have worked if there weren't real soldiers and tanks in the background? Probably, but that authenticity made the antics of Winger seem all the more ridiculous. Reitman also opted to include a couple of somewhat depressing dramatic scenes to balance the film out --- and they worked; the Hulka vs. Winger bathroom scene (the non-pornographic one) really makes a case for being a soldier.
Sure, the film loses some steam after basic training is completed. What do you expect? The drill routine during their graduation ceremony is all sorts of awesome; how can an Army movie follow that scene up?
HHHH-arrrmy training, SIR!
I'm not saying that the rest of the movie is bad, it's just nowhere near as amusing as the first hour. The magazine cover cut-aways during the final scene are funny, but a little too similar to the end scenes of Animal House (which Ramis also co-wrote) for my tastes. Essentially, my complains for Stripes can be boiled down to kind of imitating a successful comedy classic and a pacing problem...in a comedy. Shocking allegations, I know, but I take controversial stances.
Stripes is a comedy classic showcasing a lot of young talent that would heavily influence the rest of the 1980s and it showcased Bill Murray having fun. It doesn't get much better than this.
For fans of the movie that are curious about the Extended Cut, it doesn't provide much. Aside from an awkward scene with a topless P.J. Soles, every cut scene deserved its place on the editing floor. On a final note, I would like to point out just how far superior the primary movie poster (pictured at the top of this post) was to another poster that was made for the movie. What, they thought that the main draw of the film was going to be the heavily armed RV? Who approved this?
When reading up on the production of Scrooged, I learned that this was the first movie that Bill Murray starred in after Ghostbusters --- that's four years of his prime that he spent out of the limelight. Usually, when a comedian takes that long of a break, they never get their groove back (Dana Carvey, I'm looking at you). Then again, Bill Murray is an unusual guy, so it should not be surprising that his career has been just as odd.
Scrooged is an updated-for-the-80s version of Charles Dickens' A Christmas Carol. In fact, Frank Cross (Bill Murray) is a television executive that is masterminding a multimillion dollar live broadcast of Dickens' classic on Christmas Eve. If you know the story of Scrooge, then you know the gist of the story. Frank is an absolute bastard and a tyrannical boss, so his late boss (John Forsythe) reaches from beyond the grave to warn Frank to change his ways or be eternally damned. That evening, Frank is visited by the ghosts of Christmases past, present and future. But will he learn from his extra-special extrasensory night, or will he dismiss it as the effects from "Russian vodka poisoned by Chernobyl?" Obviously, since this is a Christmas story and it is based on one of the enduring Christmas classics, radioactive vodka (distilled from tear-soaked turnips) ends up playing an important part and Frank eventually mutates into the Toxic Avenger. Or he lives happily ever after and is forgiven by everyone for years of abuse after just one evening of sincere regret.
Like most movies starring Bill Murray, the focus of this film is definitely on him. However, this film has its share of of noteworthy supporting roles. In a normal movie, you would suppose that the romantic interest (Karen Allen) or the nemeses at work (Robert Mitchum as Frank's increasingly loopy boss and John Glover as his competition) would provide the bulk of the film's drama and depth. Here, not so much. All three did a decent job, but were nothing special. No, in A Christmas Carol (and, therefore, in this update), the key supporting characters are the Ghosts of Christmas Past and Present. Both are unusual roles, since neither has any character development and both basically just guide Frank through time and space while doing some narration, but both manage to steal scenes away from Bill Murray, which is quite a feat. David Johansen (lead singer of the New York Dolls) is perfect as the seedy, cigar-smoking, cab-driving Ghost of Christmas Past, and he clearly has a blast in every scene. Johansen would be the surprise of this movie if Carol Kane wasn't so awesome as the Ghost of Christmas Present. Making her into a physically abusive sadist might be an unusual take on the character, but Kane plays it up with such childlike glee that it's fun to watch her beat the living hell out of Frank.
Also worth noting is Grace (Alfre Woodard), who serves as the stand-in for the Bob Cratchet character and provides maybe the most emotional depth to the film; on the flip side of Grace's put-upon-but-still-valued role, Eliot (Bobcat Goldthwait) is the angry, unappreciated version of Bob Cratchet that decides that going postal will solve his problems. This movie has a lot of cameo appearances and bit roles, too. Miles Davis and Paul Shaffer play street musicians; Brian Doyle-Murray and his brothers, John and Joel Murray, play Frank's father, brother, and a random dude, respectively; Robert Goulet, Lee Majors, Mary Lou Retton, and John Houseman all played themselves; and even the television broadcast within the movie had stars like Buddy Hackett and Jamie Farr.
Juggling all those noteworthy actors was probably a task in and of itself, but director Richard Donner did a good job. Aside from finding recognizable faces for every important role (except for the Tiny Tim analogue) and getting them to fill their bit parts admirably, he also managed to do some pretty imaginative things with the special effects in the film. The Ghost of Christmas Future looked pretty cool with his "ribcage of the damned" and sometimes-but-not-always television face. The makeup on the deceased John Forsythe was pretty awesome, too. In fact, the only thing in this movie that doesn't look good is Frank's hair in the flashback scenes.
Apparently, "Scrooged" translates into
"Chief Attack Ghosts" in Spanish
I have two problems with this film, and the first deals with Bill Murray. I love Bill Murray. He's awesomely funny and has developed into a talented dramatic actor. That said, he basically plays himself in just about every movie until Rushmore. This can be a good thing; Murray is always funny, even in his bad movies, and he is let loose for a good portion of this film. Unfortunately, he and Donner decided that Frank Cross had to be unlikable at the film's start so that he could transform by the film's end. That sounds fine --- Scrooge isn't a nice guy, either --- but in execution, it's a little too much. There's certainly some black humor in Murray's quieter moments in the first quarter of the film, but when he's screaming, he's just screaming. The likable jerk that Murray plays so well doesn't show up in these scenes; instead, we are treated to Murray being mean and not deflecting anything with a smirk or self-deprecating joke. I like the rest of Murray's performance, but I think there are a lot of missed comedic opportunities in the "before" phase of this movie.
My other gripe has more to do with the source material than anything else, but I suppose you should shift some blame to the screenwriters, too. I'll be honest with you...I hate Charles Dickens. Well, maybe not the man, but definitely his writing. His style is overly wordy (because he was paid by the word), his characters are unrecognizable as human beings, and his plots are usually contrived. I will credit him with some pretty good high concepts, but that's the only way I have found to appreciate Dickens --- by stripping his stories down to their bare bones and then imagining a more amusing tale from there. [Steps off soapbox.] Personally, I find the emotional part of this story to be a little insulting. Frank is mean for years and then wins everyone over immediately? That seems far too saccharine to coexist in a film with moments of black comedy. I readily admit to being a soft touch with Christmas movies --- I'm a hot mess of tears, snot and giggles for the entire running time of It's a Wonderful Life --- but the happy ending to Scrooged is too abrupt, too shallow, and/or maybe too overreaching to move even an easy mark like me. "But it's the source material's fault, Brian!" Whatever. If they changed the story to modernize it, they could have tried to make it a little more plausible or a little more emotional.
Don't get me wrong --- I love me some Scrooged. I watch it every year and I laugh at all the same parts ("It's a bone, you lucky dog!" gets me every time, for some unknown reason), but this is a movie with some fundamental flaws to it. This might be the least heartwarming Christmas movie I have ever seen, but Murray's charm and the combination of Kane and Johansen always bring me back, year after year.
As a child raised in the losing tradition of Chicago sports (My name is Brian, and... I am a Cubs fan), the Bulls first three-peat was something special. When Michael Jordan abruptly retired in 1993, I was crushed. After a brief taste of the sweetness of victory, was I doomed to a lifetime of rooting for teams that will never win again? Well, in the case of the Bears and Cubs, probably. As it turned out, though, that was not the case for the Bulls. As everyone knows, Michael returned in mid-1995 and they began their second Championship three-peat in the 95-96 season. I had always assumed that the reasons for Jordan's comeback were a mix of him coming to terms with the death of his father and the fact that he really sucked as a minor league baseball player. It wasn't until I revisited Space Jam that I realized that it was, in fact, a documentary on what motivated Jordan to return to basketball.
With a name like Space Jam, it should come as no surprise that most of the movie takes place in spacethe land of Looney Tunes. You see, an evil (space) amusement park owner, Mister Swackhammer (voiced by Danny DeVito), realizes that his (space) park is just not fantastic enough to draw crowds any more. He comes to the conclusion that his (space) park needs the Looney Tunes as his star attractions. Not one to risk being refused, Swackhammer sends his underlings, the Nerdlucks, to Earth with ray guns to help "convince" the goofy cartoon characters. And, in case you were wondering where you can find the Looney Tunes, they live in the center of the Earth. This is a documentary, so you can consider that a science fact. Even when facing powerful ray guns, though, the Looney Tunes are still a clever and wacky bunch. Just when Elmer Fudd, Foghorn Leghorn, Daffy Duck and the rest were ready to surrender, Bugs Bunny pulled out a tried and true standard; he scribbled in a book that he had retitled (in pencil) "How to Kidnap" that all kidnap victims get a chance to defend themselves. The dim-witted Nerdlucks, who happen to top out at one foot tall, fall for the bit and let the Looney Tunes choose form of challenge. Seeing that their opponents are very small, with short arms and legs, the Looney Tunes choose basketball as the form of challenge.
Obviously, the Looney Tunes, with their anthropomorphic height of approximately three feet tall each, dominate the Nerdlucks in the game and avoid a life of (space) slavery. But wait...! The Nerdlucks have a trick up their sleeve; they attend some NBA games and somehow steal the talent away from the best professional players in the game. Who did they steal from? Charles Barkley (Hall of Famer), Patrick Ewing (Hall of Famer), Larry Johnson (two-time All-Star), Muggsy Bogues (the shortest player in NBA history), and Shawn Bradley (who was tall and, uh, gangly), all of whom were left unable to catch a pass or shoot the ball without their talent. With the "best" NBA talent in tow (more on that later), the Nerdlucks return to Lonney Tunes land and absorb their new talent, which gives them great strength, size, basketball skills, a new group name (the Monstars), and (of course) matching uniforms. It also gives them a theme song.
The next time any of these five rappers claim to be "hard" or have "street cred," someone should mention the song they did for a Bugs Bunny movie.
Anyway, to counter the Nerdlucks Monstars on the basketball court, Bugs and friends kidnap Michael Jordan to play on their side. He doesn't really want to, but the Monstars basically call him chicken, so it's on like Donkey Kong. Apparently, Michaels everywhere have a problem walking away from an insult that grave. I don't want to spoil the ending for you, but Michael rediscovers his love for basketball and his desire to humiliate Charles Barkley on the court.
With a cast so diverse as to include professional athletes, cartoon characters, aliens, and the occasional professional actor, you would be justified in wondering how good the acting is in this movie. But guess what? This is a documentary, so there is no "acting," just how things really happened. That said, I would like to point out that Sir Charles has such amazing conversational skills that he can make Dave Grohl extremely uncomfortable in a matter of moments. It is interesting to see Wayne Knight as Jordan's personal assistant, but it explains how he killed time between Seinfeld episodes. Bill Murray is as awesome here, in real life, as he was in his other hilarious 1996 movie, Larger Than Life, where he co-starred with an elephant. The athletes are a little awkward to watch on screen, trying in vain to time their punchlines, but they should not be judged too harshly, since the Nerdlucks stole all their talent. This was just one of many features made by director Joe Pytka (IMDB gives him a whopping total of seven directorial credits) and while he may not have won any Oscars for this brave foray into documentary filmmaking, he did get nominated for a Director's Guild of America award for the "Hare Jordan" Nike commercial.
Now, if you didn't know any better, you might think that this was a cheap knock-off of Who Framed Roger Rabbit? However, this isn't a movie with actors jumping around in front of a green screen and having their animated pals added in later. This really happened. Michael Jordan was kidnapped by Looney Tunes and later arrived at a minor league baseball game via a spaceship. Fact. And his house was just a normal suburban house, not a mansion. Fact. And young Michael, as a child, practiced what he would always get away with as an adult: traveling.
That's a good thing, because if this wasn't a true story, then some parts of this movie would just stick out as downright peculiar. I'll ignore the wisdom of having an accused child pornographer/closet dweller/urination enthusiast performing the theme song to a movie aimed at families. I'll pretend that Michael Jordan didn't play in a game with a final score of 78-77. And I'll look the other way as Lola Bunny, despite her gender and three foot height, manages to dunk. My problem is that the Nerdlucks identified Muggsy Bogues and Shawn Bradley as part of the NBA elite. What, were Will Perdue and Dickie Simpkins busy? Muggsy wasn't bad, but being the shortest guy in the league isn't a trait I would look for when trying to steal somebody's talent. Shawn Bradley, though...that's just a terrible choice. Honestly, I don't see a difference between his regular play and how he looked after his talent was stolen. But, truth is stranger than fiction, and we need to accept that these are the facts. With such ridiculousness inherent in the story, it was brave for Michael Jordan to risk ridicule by showing the world exactly what he went through and why he returned to basketball. He did it to keep the Looney Tunes, and laughter, here on Earth.
If this was just an ordinary children's movie, I would have to give it
Nevertheless, this is, perhaps, the greatest true story (that eventually became a partially animated movie) of our time.
I reviewed this movie (and posted a slightly altered version of this review) at the request of my friends at NoBulljive, the best Chicago Bulls blog on the interweb. Have a request? Let me know.
Have you ever really considered what a great logo the Ghostbusters have? It's simple, but is iconic enough so anyone that sees it can get the gist of it, regardless of language. Well, the occasional person might think it means "No KKK," but I think that's implied in most signage nowadays anyway.
Ray (Dan Aykroyd), Egon (Harold Ramis), and Peter (Bill Murray) are three parapsychological researchers with a grant at Columbia University. Their research focuses on extrasensory abilities (like ESP) and the scientific possibilities for spirits to exist on the physical plane. There are two great things about their work; it does not require hard results (Ray's reason) and is a great way to meet slightly gullible women (Peter's reason). The three lose their grant and are forced out into the real world for the first time, so they do what any of us would do in a similar situation. They purchase an abandoned firehouse and a used hearse, and open up a ghost capture service called the Ghostbusters. Naturally, their actions coincide with an increase in paranormal activity and it's ultimately up to these goofballs to save the world.
Despite that surprisingly brief synopsis, I (like my entire generation) am a big fan of Ghostbusters. It has a great cast, filled with some of the funniest people of the late 70s and early 80s. Harold Ramis and Dan Aykroyd were still very funny people (their funniness seems to have decreased proportionally to their increase in weight over the years), and the script (which they co-wrote) has some of their better contextual jokes. Ramis and Aykroyd have written some of the best subtle conversational humor in film history, and this script is full of it. Of course, there is a decent part of the film that was at least partially improvised; are you telling me that you think that someone wrote exactly what came out of Bill Murray's mouth in this movie? I'll take the high road and just call you an idiot. Even without Murray's fantastic improvisational talents, this is still a great script. It's a comedy, sure, but it's a sci-fi movie first. These guys could have gotten away with a plot that made absolutely no sense (Want proof? Watch Aykroyd in Nothing But Trouble), but they actually based this in science. Well, as much science as parapsychology has to back it up, anyway.
The plot and script are good, but a decent part of this film takes place with its supporting cast, so they are more important here than in other films. Luckily, the supporting cast is pretty great. Rick Moranis was funny as the socially awkward health food nut, Louis, but he was awesome once he was possessed by The Keymaster demon. Likewise, Sigourney Weaver is a good fit for Murray as his love interest, Dana, and she does a good job hamming it up once she is possessed by a demon named Zuul. Ernie Hudson primarily acts as a straight man for the group, but he does it without coming off as stupid or inept, which is especially nice in a comedy. Annie Potts has a pretty minor role, but she is able to provide some laughs and gives the movie a little bit of the New York flavor that we would see more of in the sequel. Last, but not least, William Atherton is completely successful as the short-sighted jerk who doesn't see the value of the Ghostbusters; like his weasel reporter role in Die Hard, Atherton does a great job playing a complete bastard.
This may look like an ensemble cast, but the film really belongs to Bill Murray. He uses Aykroyd and Ramis --- two generally funny guys, mind you --- as little more than props in his scenes...and it works! Murray's comic timing is at its best here, making even his blandest lines just a little funny. He isn't as wacky as his Caddyshack role, or as outgoing as he was in Stripes, but I think this is probably Murray's most well-rounded early work. This isn't his best acting role, mind you, but he is able to show charm, wittiness, boldness, cynicism, and a great talent for the understatement at different times in this film. If there is one actor that benefited the most from director Ivan Reitman's experience filming comedies, it was definitely Murray.
Having stated that, I feel a little weird saying that my main criticism of this film is its reliance on Bill Murray. That may not make a whole lot of sense, but let me try to explain. Dan Aykroyd and Harold Ramis were not new to comedies at this point and both had written and acted in several movies and on television. Both had worked with Murray before, too. And yet, their roles seem extremely two-dimensional. Yes, Aykroyd is occasionally a little funny, but it's mainly in response to something hilarious that Murray said. Ramis, on the other hand, is dry to the point of flaking. As a trio, they are fun to watch, but without Murray, these two can only hope to inch the plot forward with some vaguely scientific dialogue. Of course, there's something to be said for giving a star some room to work. I'm not trying to say that this was a bad choice, because it definitely works in this movie, but I just mourn the complete over-awesomeness that could have been if Aykroyd and Ramis had spent a little more time on their characters.
Looking at the movie as a whole, I think this is the best comedy/sci-fi blend ever (although Men in Black is pretty good). Even with some of the main actors contributing less than others, the acting is still great all around, with some fantastic bit parts and a good plot.
Roald Dahl and Wes Anderson...in retrospect, it's hard to believe it took this long for those two names to be connected. Dahl, the author of so many delightful, dark, and subversive children's books, seems to have delighted in writing legitimate literature for the young and the old. In his books, adults were often evil, and the world is full of evil, so it always seemed fantastic when things went right. Wes Anderson is perhaps the youngest genius director working in Hollywood right now. His films don't always work (I'm looking at you, The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou), but they are always worth watching. As the writer and director of his movies, Anderson pays an amazing amount of attention to detail in all his films, so much so that re-watching his movies can often be a revelatory experience. Anderson doesn't like telling safe or typical stories, so him basing a script on a Dahl book is a natural fit.
The first thing you will notice about this movie is the animation. Anderson wanted to capture the look and feel of the original King Kong, so stop-motion animation was used. However, unlike the claymation-style animation from Gumby or the original Clash of the Titans, this animation looks absolutely painstaking. The hairs on each animal move. Not all at the same time, or even in the same direction. They move naturally, which is extremely difficult to achieve through artificial means. The characters are far more expressive than you would think possible with this technology. The animation style changes, from the ultra-detailed work of the close shots to fast and loose two-dimensional shots used to pass time quickly and show off the cartooniness of the story. Nowadays, Pixar studios have the animation market cornered with their terrific computer animated films. The Fantastic Mr. Fox is a welcome reminder that animation comes in many shapes and forms, and can be just as amazing as the best that technology has to offer --- or even better.
That's just the animation, though. What about the story? This is the tale of Mr. Fox (voiced by George Clooney), a former chicken thief turned family man. Mr. Fox has sworn off the risky life of chicken thievery to please his wife, Mrs. Fox (Meryl Streep), and provide for his son, Ash (Jason Schwartzman). The movie conveniently skips over the twelve years where Mr. Fox kept to the straight and narrow and focuses on when he eventually starts stealing again. There are three mean farmers near the Fox household. Fox plunders them systematically until they decide to fight back. This movie doesn't pull its punches with the mean humans; they have might and machines, and are willing to use them. Fox's home is torn apart and the entire neighborhood is ruined, making Fox and his entire community homeless. That doesn't mean that Fox stops fighting, of course.
Wes Anderson adds quite a bit to Dahl's original story, partly to make it feature-length and partly to fit into his unique cinematic vision. The most notable change is the number of children, from four in the book to one in the movie. This sets up Fox's somewhat odd son, Ash, for a rivalry with his cousin, the athletic Kristofferson; Mr. Fox seems underwhelmed by Ash, while openly applauding Kristofferson. Then again, it wouldn't be a Wes Anderson movie without a strained father/son relationship, would it?
The voice acting here is fine, overall, but could be better. Clooney is excellent as Mr. Fox. Willem Dafoe is very entertaining as Fox's animal nemesis, the rat. Bill Murray does a good job with Mr. Badger; not good enough to cancel out Garfield, but still pretty good. Overall, though, it probably would have been better with voice actors. As it is, the cast is a blend of Anderson's friends, coworkers, and actors that he likes. That means that Adrien Brody, Brian Cox, Owen Wilson, director Garth Jennings, musician Jarvis Cocker, and Wes Anderson himself all make small contributions to the voice cast. Anderson earns loyalty from his actors unlike any other director today; that is why so many of the same actors work with him, picture after picture, even if their part is minute. That works wonders in an ensemble movie. This is animated, though, and that affection does not always show through. While the voice acting could have been better, it certainly could have been much, much worse (I'm thinking of Shark Tale as an example). The movie circles around Clooney's character, so that makes a lot of the shortcomings inconsequential; it's called The Fantastic Mr. Fox, not An Animal Ensemble featuring Mr. Fox, after all.
From a visual standpoint, this movie is superb. From a directorial standpoint, this movie is pretty awesome. But the story...well, it is ambitious, but doesn't quite hit a home run. Anderson's script calls attention to the anthropomorphic aspects of the characters, pointing out some of their odd behaviors, all while reemphasizing the fact that these animals are, in fact, animals. It's not quite metafilm, but it's close. The movie likes to step back and point out some of the oddities of animals acting like people, and that quality of self-awareness, while often funny, detracts from the story . It sometimes felt like Mr. Fox was giving me the old wink-wink-nudge-nudge, letting me know that animals don't really act like this. This isn't overt stuff, like Jimmy Fallon mugging the camera, but I noticed it. Anderson also takes the time to show the consequences of Mr. Fox's actions; Fox's selfishness (or wildness, I suppose) threatens the lives of his friends and family in the short- and long-term, makes his son feel inadequate, and might ruin his marriage. This is theoretically fine, but a little heavy-handed in practice. Do I need a realistic marital argument in a children's film about foxes? No, but I admit that it was written well. The fact that it was written, though, just feels like a case of wrong time, wrong place.
I was talking with a friend at work about this movie and he said "There's nothing wrong with Zombieland." I am going to have to wholeheartedly agree with that. Do you need to know anything more than that? Well, I guess I'm forcing my opinion out into the internet ether by having a blog, so I will go on, regardless.
Zombieland is set in the near future, when the inevitable zombie apocalypse has finally struck. This movie is different from most zombie flicks (excepting, of course, George Romero sequels) because we don't watch the zombies rise up. Zombies are a fact of life, and you have to "nut up or shut up," in the words of Woody Harrelson's character. While the plot doesn't do anything to surprise you, it doesn't let you down either. Basically, it's about zombies. And awkward young love. And zombies. And family. But especially zombies.
Jesse Eisenberg does a good job as the awkward Point of View character for the film. His character has many rules for survival in the post-zombie world, and they appear on-screen whenever appropriate, serving both as reminders and subtle jokes along the way. When you have an awkward lead male, he is obviously going to fall in love with any girl close to his age, so Emma Stone plays the part of the bad girl that he has a hell of a time trying to impress. Not that Emma has a lot of other non-zombies to choose from, but even after the apocalypse, it's still ladies' choice. Abigail Breslin plays Emma's little sister with her usual competence and Woody Harrelson plays a zombie-stomping bad-ass.
From those descriptions, I know it's hard to figure out which is my favorite character, but it's Harrelson. Generally overlooked for his work (possibly because people remember The Cowboy Way and Money Train), Harrelson is always good in his movies, and he performs with relish here. Yes, the script has a lot of good dialogue, but Harrelson's character could have been cartoon-ish in the hands of a lesser actor. Here, he's bigger than life and is truly getting the most out of living in a world with zombies. Jesse Eisenberg, who is sometimes unjustly seen as a low-rent Michael Cera, plays his usual awkward character here, but he has come a long way since Roger Dodger because he now has timing and delivery down pat. I'm also enjoying the development of Abigail Breslin; while she doesn't have a whole lot to work with here, nothing seems forced. Really, her character serves as a plot device to justify the cast traveling to a Disney-esque theme park, but on the rare occasions where Breslin is called upon to personify childish innocence and/or ignorance (the fact that her character didn't know who Bill Murray made me feel sooooo old), she delivers. Plus, she just seems like a lot more fun than Dakota Fanning, the only other credible actress in their age group. Emma Stone does a decent job, too, hitting all the right notes, but I didn't feel that her performance was anything special.
None of this does justice to the joy that is Zombieland, because I don't want to spoil the many small moments that make this fun and funny. There are a number of recurring character moments that really pay off, whether it be the one food on Earth that Woody Harrelson is craving, or the thing that scares Jesse Eisenberg the most. Here's a hint to that last one:
Come on! That is so awesome! This movie has a cameo by Bill Murray that is easily the best bit part I have seen in years. And you'll notice that I haven't even mentioned the inevitable violence of a zombie movie. Well, there are a lot of good zombie kills, too. This movie really has everything: violence, gore, humor (not stupid or gross humor...real humor), romance, emotional arcs for the characters, and Bill Murray being awesome. Yes, you can see the plot twists coming a mile away, but that's not always a bad thing in a comedy. Comedy is about setting up expectations and then meeting them...or not meeting them in a fun way. This film could have been a Shaun of the Dead knock-off, but it instead comes across as a fun adaptation of Max Brooks' Zombie Survival Guide. I can't believe that this is essentially Ruben Fleischer's first directorial work. And I mean that in the best possible way.
