Let me tell you about a disease which I call T.I.A.S. This acronym stands for Trailer-Induced Anticlimax Syndrome, and it’s a rather prolific illness amongst cinema releases. Remember Funny People? The trailer made it seem hilariously amusing. So much so, I had to consider whether my sides would literally split during viewing the film. As it turned out, the movie provided a bonding experience for each of my sides, which were in agreement about the lameness of the comedy, and solemnly remained united. Unfortunately The Men Who Stare At Goats was a similar experience.

It needn’t have been as far as the casting was concerned. If you cannot make a funny movie containing George Clooney, Ewan McGregor, Kevin Spacey AND Jeff Bridges, you probably cannot make a funny movie. Yet, it seems that this is exactly what director Grant Heslov has managed to do. Quite how he managed this is beyond me, but I’d attribute the calamity to a combination of unclear plot, un-engaging characters, and sluggish pace.

I won’t go into more detail. Don’t spend money to see this film, even though it looks good in the trailer. Remember, it has a serious case of TIAS. One star. If I was feeling generous, I’d give it ‘question mark out of five’ due to being bizarre. However, sometimes you can’t cover a cinematic turd with a blanket of weirdness.

In his latest cinematic escapade Wes Anderson, responsible for the tremendous Royal Tenenbaums and The Darjeeling Limited, directs the screen adaptation of Roald Dahl’s 1970 novel Fantastic Mr Fox. Featuring some pretty groovy animation and a stellar cast of actors to voice the characters, the film weighs in at a shade under ninety minutes long, and should manage to keep both adults and their children well-entertained.

My work in primary schools consistently reminds me that Roald Dahl is probably still the most popular children’s author. He was whilst I was at primary school, which is now comfortably a decade in the past. It would seem that the appeal of his humour and imagination have not faded with time. Alas, I cannot comment on the book’s relation to the film, because it’s one of the only books by Dahl which I haven’t dipped into. (I am deeply ashamed of myself for this oversight).

Nonetheless, I can comment on whether this film is good of itself. In fact, I have a few things to say on precisely that subject. The original animation is brilliant and could probably entertain in absence of any dialogue or sound. The plot is of course splendid, and the dialogue is quick and witty – laughs will be had. Meanwhile, the choice of actors is inspired. Yes, Anderson went for his usual favourites of Messrs Wilson, Murray and Schwartzman, but Messrs Clooney, Gambon and Dafoe make terrific contributions. It’s also as quirky a film as you’d expect from Wes Anderson.

Unless you are only located to a cinema which charges you two arms and a leg for the pleasure of viewing a film, you should probably exchange some dollar for a ticket to this flick. To summarise, the film is as fantastic as Mr Fox himself. I heartily recommend. It’s an absolute must-see for children as well. Five stars.

Tonight I give you a film review, of Heath Ledger’s last film no less. Sadly, he could have made a better one. His accent in this film is, I think, supposed to be English. Australian seeps in an awful lot, and I can’t stand dodgy film accents. It would have been an impressive performance were it not for this.

Anyhoo, ex-Monty Python member Terry Gilliam directs this flick. It concerns a strange chap named Dr. Parnassus (Christopher Plummer) who is immortal on account of a deal he once made with the devil (Tom Waits). Unfortunately, it turns out that the devil isn’t the right kind of man to make a deal with. As a result, Parnassus’ daughter Valentina (Lily Cole) is going to be handed over to said devil upon the imminent arrival of the daughter’s 16th birthday. This causes emotional stress for the doc, who must find some way out of the predicament. It is also worth noting that the doc can control people’s imagination, as can the devil, the two of whom are competing for people’s souls. Parnassus is backed up by a diminuitive colleague named Percy (Verne Troyer), a young chap named Anton (Andrew Garfield), and the mysterious Tony (principally Heath Ledger, but also Jude Law, Johnny Depp, and Colin Farrell). The only dubious acting is Ledger’s iffy accent.

Despite this, the main flaw of the film is that it makes no sense. A lot seems unexplained, and the ending doesn’t seem to properly account for itself. A film can be as well-shot as possible, but with an impenetrable ending it remains useless. At times, the film is a feast for the eyes. The imagination is obviously a fertile ground for laying on some interesting special effects. This is a superficial point to impress with, however. A Ferrari can look as good as it wants, but with a non-functioning gearbox, it’s essentially a load of pants. This film is much like the good-looking but non-working car.

Ultimately, Gilliam attempts to use quirkyness to distract the viewer from the nonsensical and incomprehensible plot. It comes across as merely pretentious. I give this two stars just because it is visually impressive at several points in the film.

It’s almost hard to believe that Surrogates, the new science-fiction film starring Bruce Willis, is adapted from a comic series which began only in 2005. It has the feel of a novel by Philip K. Dick, the creator of the stories behind Minority Report and Blade Runner. In this yarn, humans have voluntarily confined their real selves to the home and have opted instead to send out a ’surrogate’ version into the outside world. These surrogates don’t have to even take on the appearance, or apparently gender, of their ‘operators’. This has the convenient advantage of protecting the operators from physical pain, and allows them to persue hightened levels of gratification. Until someone invents a gun which can fry the surrogate and the operator at the same time.

Bruce Willis stars, and naturally impresses, in the lead role. He’s a disgruntled and ageing FBI agent who would prefer to see his actual wife rather than the fake version she sends out on her behalf. He still mourns the loss of his son, who died at a young age. Willis is supported by Radha Mitchell and Rosamund Pike, who neither impress nor disappoint. James Cromwell acquits himself well as the inventor of said surrogate technology.

The plot revolves around the invention, and utilisation, of this gun which can kill both the surrogate and its owner, and the mystery surrounding the unknown person who hopes to cause this damage. It has a few twists and turns here and there, and generally avoids predictability. Elements of it are not perfect, and flirt with complete implausibility, but it’s just a Hollywood film after all. I didn’t get the sense that this film was trying desperately to be profound about human nature, which is well and good because the film would have failed in this respect. Most importantly, the film is not boring, and it is not absurd. The scenario is a perceptibly real one.

There’s not a great deal which is particularly special about the direction of the film, and it does seem to borrow heavily from the visual style of Minority Report. That said, it would be easy to make this film cliched and pointless. It does deserve merit for providing entertainment in spite of the easiness with which it could have deteriorated into over-indulgent dross which demonstrates the eagerness of all involved to seem cleverer than they are. My viewing of this film was not ruined completely by the couple sat behind me, who were engaging in a ferocious and noisy exchange of salivary fluids. Surrogates is not flawless, but is definitely worth a viewing – four stars.

Some months ago I read a copy of The Picture of Dorian Gray by Oscar Wilde. I even wrote a little about it on the ol’ blog. The film came out recently, and I ambled down to the cinema with two of my housemates to watch it earlier this evening.

To summarise, Dorian Gray is a member of high-society whose wealthy grandparents have passed away, leaving him a lot of money and land. After having himself painted, and falling in love with his own reflection a la Narcissus, he begins to lead an increasingly hedonistic lifestyle (having been led astray by a certain ‘Lord Henry Wooton’). However, it is the image of himself on the canvas which ages and bears the scars of his selfish nature. As the portrait becomes increasingly gruesome, he grows increasingly mad. Debauchery and murder can prove exhausting.

Directed by Oliver Parker (who shot the recent St Trinian’s movie), Gray features stylish camerawork and scenery throughout. The film looks the part. The dialogue is convincing, but of course Oscar Wilde’s writing already offers a lot of tasty quotes. Lasting a shade short of two hours, it’s not a drag either. It therefore ticks the main boxes for entertainment. The acting let the film down somewhat. Ben Barnes, who played the title character, and Rachel Hurd-Wood, who played one of his flames, were particularly hammy. Colin Firth on the other hand, was excellent. He gave a creditable performance to a character who may have been tough to live up to. To be fair though, he’s like Marty Crane in Frasier – he gets all the good lines.

The most interesting aspect of the film is the plot. Obviously the premise is the same, but significant details are changed from the book. Characters are omitted, and in one particularly notable case, invented. I shan’t spoil anything by revealing what these changes are, except to say that the writers made a bold decision which proved correct in hindsight.

This was a gutsy effort. To really adapt a literary classic – to the extent that it takes on different meanings – and to invent new chunks of story for such a decent plot, is ballsy. Nonetheless, it is pulled off with as much class as the novel itself. By no means was the novel perfect, nor is the film, but they’re both rather impressive. I recommend reading the book (it’s only short) and then watching the film. If you’re inclined to dwell on issues of morality, it raises some interesting questions.

Three-and-a-half stars: a worthy flick.

And the award for worst film to have chosen to watch during the fortnight after your reasonably long relationship ended is…. 500 Days of Summer! Yes, it’s a film about the perils of love, and had I known this I may not have decided to watch it. Joseph Gordon-Levitt stars in a film based upon his character’s attempts to woo and sustain a romance with ‘Summer’, played by the insanely attractive Zooey Deschanel. The former used to be on Third Rock From The Sun, and has enjoyed a reasonably successful career thus far, whilst the latter is a singer with an increasingly prominent acting resume. 500 Days was written by Scott Neustadter and Michael H. Weber, and directed by Marc Webb, all of whom seem to be relatively new to the game according to the IMDB.

It is hard to criticise this film. Both Gordon-Levitt and Deschanel impress in their lead roles, whilst Geoffrey Arend puts in a humorous performance as the co-worker and friend of the main male protagonist. The soundtrack is chosen well, and just seems to match the mood and events of the film. The script is amusing, but serious, yet avoids hideous cliche despite dwelling on the pitfalls of love for the best part of two hours. However, the real commendations should go to the directors who included some clever animated scenes which add a fantastical element to the movie, whilst still evading pretentiousness. Not only were they clever, but they added to the feel of the film, and gave it something unique.

I’m not going to give this a perfect review though, as I was not left in a state of gaping-mouthed shock at the film’s amazingness. (Which has been known to happen, I hasten to add). It was very good in spite of potential to be so very bad, but nonetheless it was not amazing. However, because the film didn’t seem weak in any significant way, and did successfully manage not to descend into cringe-inducing cliche, it is a truly commendable effort. 500 Days of Summer is a film which can simultaneously achieve profoundness and funniness, and can strike a few chords which are familiar with anyone who has experienced romantic strife of some kind. It is creative, well-acted, and well-scripted, and everyone involved can raise a glass to their own work. They did well here, and I would recommend a viewing. Four stars.

Well, the director of this film needs no introduction but because I don’t give a monkeys, you’re getting one anyway. His name is Quentin Tarantino – you may have heard of him. Here’s his resumé: after directing Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction, both of which were terrific, Tarantino acquired a large following and built a reputation for himself as Hollywood’s greatest living director. Jackie Brown was less good, but no disaster. Kill Bill was a little over the top, and it was unclear exactly what Mr. Tarantino was trying to achieve – a problem which increased significantly in severity during Death Proof. Basically, at some point after Pulp Fiction, Tarantino began to disappear further and further up his own backside. Inglorious Basterds then, is a make-or-break film for Tarantino in the eyes of several moviegoers. Did he get lucky with Dogs and Pulp? Has he lost his touch?

Surprisingly, a lot of this film is in German, the premise being that Brad Pitt leads a group of special army people called “The Basterds” who are dropped in France to brutally kill Nazis. Some of it is also in French. Thankfully, this seems to be pulled off well, otherwise one could immediately dismiss Tarantino as an over-ambitious pillock. Anyone would struggle to create dialogue which matches the quality of wit from Tarantino’s first two films, but there are times during Basterds when it gets close. Thankfully, it is not as over-the-top as Death Proof, either by virtue of the script or the camera and production methods, but there are certainly tracts of script which are not particularly amazing.

The real gem is the acting. Brad Pitt once again displays his credentials as a comedy actor, but the show is rightfully stolen by the members of the cast who normally make German films. Daniel Brühl puts in a nuanced effort as a young Private whose military endeavours have been made into a film by Joseph Goebbels, who himself is memorably and amusingly portrayed by Sylvester Groth. However, all of these turns are eclipsed in tremendousness by a Mr. Christoph Waltz whose portrayal of a nasty little blighter named Colonel Hans Landa is refined, funny, and convincing. He can, and should, expect plenty more scripts to arrive at his desk after this great work.

Despite this, there are times during the film where I once again felt that Tarantino was being a little over-indulgent. Some of the scenes were too long, and even though the dialogue and scenery was interesting, they were not enough to prevent me glancing at my watch. I felt a distinct need to stretch my legs for most of the film. It could have been edited a little better, I’m afraid.

In summary, although this film is not amazing, it is certainly a good watch. It is funny, though there are funnier films, and it is clever, though there are cleverer. It is quotable, and certainly has a unique plot, but as I said, it’s not amazing. It perhaps moves along a little too slowly. Having watched it once however, I can foresee a time next year when I’d happily give it another chance. Three and a half stars.