Summer Wars

Title: Summer Wars

Director: Mamoru Hosoda

Released: 2009

Starring: Ryunosuke Kamiki, Nanami Sakuraba, Mitsuki Tanimura, Sumiko Fuji, Takahiro Yokokawa

Plot: Kenji (Kamiki) is a high school student with a gift for mathematics who also works as a part-time moderator along with his best friend Takashi (Yokokawa) for the VR World OZ which has replaced the internet for worldwide conectivity. However when an AI called “Love Machine” hacks Kenji’s account her is drawn into a battle with the entity before it takes over OZ.

Review: Following on from the success of “The Girl Who Leapt Through Time” Director Mamoru Hosoda here once more returns to give another unique spin on a fantastical subject, having previously combined High School romance with time travel for his previous film, this time he combines elements of a family reunion drama with a tech fantasy.

While it might have been enough to set the film within the virtual world of Oz which is introduced at the start of the film as this sprawling network of information were users create unique avatars which they can then use to interact with other people to play games, socialise or even conduct business there really is no limit to what you can do, all the while watched over by its guardian whales John and Yoko. This of course provides the perfect area for Hosoda to conjurer up any fanatical idea he can think of. Needless to say its rather fitting as we become ever more dependent on living our lives on the net that Hosoda would craft this story which really questions if perhaps with a more fantastical edge what would happen if the network contracted a virus that took it all out.

The other element to the plot concerns Kenji being invited by his friend and fellow student Natsuki (Sakuraba) to her great-grandmother Sakae (Fuji) 90^th birthday being held at her estate, were to his suprise he finds himself introduced to her family as her fiancé. This of course is the least of his worries though as its safe to say that Natsuki’s family are a colourful bunch to say the least as we soon get to discover aswell as how one of them is connected to Love Machine.

The world of OZ while essentially a white background with characters superimposed on the top so that they fly around the central structure of this world and yet its a world which perfectly works for this idea of a super information hub, especially once the battle against Love Machine starts as it becomes one which can be turned suddenly into any structure Hosoda needs and enables him to craft some truly exciting sequences such as showdown between Love Machine and Natsuki’s cousin Kazuma whose avatar King Kazma takes the form of a samurai rabbit.

While the majority of the film takes place in the virtual world we also get a sizeable portion spent with the oddball characters of Natsuki’s family who ultimately become key in beating Love Machine as they perhaps alittle to coincidently all come with either skills or access to resources that Kenji needs and leading to the slightly surreal scenes of a supercomputer suddenly being delivered let alone a ship being dumped in the koi pond to power it and yet somehow none of them are able to chase up a few fans to keep the computer cool leading to the ground instead filling the room with large blocks of ice, which seemed kind of strange considering everything else they’d put together on the fly.

Despite their usefulness the family group I felt could have benefited from losing a couple of members as while on one hand its amusing seeing Kenji trying to deal with this huge group while on the other we end up with several members feeling supplemental and underdeveloped. That being said they are still a colourful group of characters and help hold your interest when not in the virtual world. It can be assumed that the decision to have such a large family unit was derived from Hosoda’s own large family and this ends up just being one of those overly sentimental nods that just doesn’t quite play out.

The animation is unquestionably vibrant throughout with every character being animated it makes it only the more enjoyable to see what each character is doing on the screen, rather than just using looped animations that other productions might use for their background characters. The crispness of the animation is none the more clear than those in the virtual world which at times can feature hundreds of unique characters bringing back fond memories of “Paprika”. Again like our real world characters the avatars we encounter in this world come with their own personalities let alone distinct designs which of course only adds to the scenes when you have large groups on the screen. True a lot of these avatars are more simple designs than those belonging to main characters like Love Machine or Kazuma’s Samurai Rabbit avatar King Kazma.

An entertaining film which with its engaging visuals and colourful characters makes for a great companion piece to the likes of “Paprika” as Hosoda juggles multiple genres to craft a truly fascinating anime which reminds us that anime goes a lot deeper than giant robots, ass kicking schoolgirls and tentacle porn a stereotype which Hosoda seems more than happy to break.

Pretty Persuasion

Title: Pretty Persuasion 
Director: Marcos Siega 

Released: 2005 

Starring: Evan Rachel Wood, James Woods, Ron Livingston, Elisabeth Harnois, Adi Schnall, Stark Sands, Jane Krakowski, Michael Hitchcock, Danny Comden, Jaime King, Selma Blair

Plot: Kimberly Joyce (Wood) is a student at a prestigious Beverly Hills school for the wealthy along with her best friend Brittany (Harnois) and Randa (Schnall) who soon find themselves drawn into her scheme to take revenge on her teacher Percy (Livingston) after he humiliates Brittany. 

 

Review: I originally watched this film back when it was first released and while I certainly enjoyed it back then it hardly moved me. Of course returning to it now as an older and arguably wiser movie watcher it was great to see that it had actually improved with age. Essentially a reworking of “Wild Things” as Kimberly and her friends accuse their teacher of sexual assault, its clear from the start that Kimberly clearly has darker intentions than she is first letting on. 
 

Opening to Kimberly auditioning for a role on a generic teen soap which she hopes will finally give her the big acting break she’s been chasing despite living a life of luxury thanks to her wealthy father. Still its clear from these opening moments that she already has her ideas of where she wants to be and possibly how to get there especially when she shows the first hints of her ruthless side early on. Kimberly its clear is not one to hold her opinions as we see her openly verbally abusing her step mother at the dinner table with accusations of “fucking the family dog”, while her father seems more concerned with his dog than what she is doing. 
 

Perhaps because of the free reign she is given from the obvious lack of parental supervision, let alone her privileged background its equally obvious that Kimberly sees no limit to what she can achieve or who she has to use or destroy to get there. The most facinating aspect to her character though is how she can convince both Brittany and Randa to go along with her morally questionable plan to essentially destroy their teacher.

While the film might sound like a reworking of “Wild Things” which it essentially is, here though director Marcos Siega infuses the story with a vein of pitch black humour which brings to mind the films of Todd Solondz such as “Welcome To The Dollhouse” which this film certainly shares a similar tone with. At the same time Siega gleefully plays around with our perceptions of the characters almost as if he is determined to create a world in which all the characters are all flawed with the depth of said flaws being used as to how much the audience can side with them. Case in point being Perry who might be setup as a victim here, yet we see him in his personal life every bit the sexual deviant as he has his fiancée play the naughty school girl, reading out Kimberly’s disciplinary essay in what we discover later is his attempt to re-enact her seductive turn. Of course by the time we reach the court room Kimberly is selling it in a much more innocent light. 
 

This constant twisting of facts and reality is where the strength of the film really lies for while we might feel that we know what is going on, Siega it seems is constantly able to find a way to question a character or the direction the film is going to go especially as the film finds ever darker comedic veins to mine, though its hard to say if this as part of a deliberate attempt to provide further shocks or if he’s attempting to satire the privileged lifestyles of these characters. 
 

The assembled cast here are all great with Evan Rachel Wood giving a surprisingly mature and confident performance here as Rachel, easily able to switch between her various states of manipulation so that you never have any doubts about how she is managing to constantly convince people to follow her or allow themselves to be drawn into her schemes be it through blackmail or sexual manipulation regardless of gender as we see when she seduces the local new anchor Emily (Krakowski) to bring more sympathy for her court case and not even the media is resistant to her charms. 
 

Equally fun here is James Woods as Emily’s father who whole largely a supporting role attacks every scene with all pistons firing, spewing out profanity laced comments and projecting rage on all those who don’t meet with his own vision for the world. His money and status like so many around him only fuelling his own delusions of being untouchable so that he can rant freely about women, Jews and “beaners”.

The wasted member of the cast here though is Adi Schnall whose character with her innocent nature and certainly lack of expose to the lifestyle of her fellow students seemingly has been setup to provide some kind of moral centre to the film. Sadly due to the lack of development we get for her character she ends up becoming a missed opportunity, ultimately falling along the wayside as Siega instead chooses to focus his attentions on the ever more complex game which Kimberly is playing.

While Siega it seems certainly has a lot of things he wishes to cast opinion on from the central theme of false rape claims, he also chooses to give nods to high school shootings, racism, porn, teenage sexuality and the effect on children of being brought up under such privileged circumstances it does however mean that the film can feel like its going off in random directions as Siega attempts to find a way to tie it all togther which might feel alittle too disjointed for some tastes, especially with the ending being almost a sure fireway to ensure that everything that came before it is nicely tied up, even if its at the sacrifice of the original direction for the story and really only works thanks to how he has spent the rest of the film developing Kimberly’s character so that her final actions are easily to believe that she would choose to make them. 
 

While perhaps not as dark as the work of the aforementioned Todd Solondz this film still goes some way to providing that same dark humour fix. Yes a similar tale of student manipulation can be found with both the likes of “Election” and “Wild Things” but unlike those here we have a film which is not afraid to push things further still which while certainly not for all tastes is still a film worth giving a spin.

The Squid and he Whale

Title: The Squid and The Whale

Director: Noah Baumbach

Released: 2005

Starring: Jesse Eisenberg, Jeff Daniels, Laura Linney, Owen Kline, Anna Paquin, William Baldwin, Halley Feiffer, David Benger, Adam Rose

 

Plot: Set in 1986 Brooklyn where Walt (Eisenberg) and his younger brother Frank (Kline) attempt to deal with the fallout from their parents’ divorce.

Review:  One of a series of smaller independent films startng Jesse Eisenberg along with “Adventureland” released during the period in which his star was unquestionably on the rise, especially after the success of both “Zombieland” and “The Social Network” while at the same time this was one of the last films in the golden period for American independent cinema. This is also a film which when it was released there seemed to be a time were all everyone wanted to talk about was this film, over for it over the years seemingly become all but forgotten perhaps due to Baumback remaining so fiercely a part of the independent scene as he drifted into making mumblecore films such as “Greenberg” and the equally underrated “Frances Ha”.

Produced by fellow indie darling Wes Anderson, this semi-autobiographical tale would at the time be seen as a real breakout film for Baumbach, no doubt due to the fact that despite the plot hardly sounding like the most fun time, somehow manages to craft here a story which is both frequently funny as it is engrossing. Here the boys are shown growing up with parents who are both academics and writers. Their father Bernard (Daniels) a former big name writer, struggling to deal with his fading celebrity who now teaches while frequently critical and opinionated when it comes to the work of others in particular their mother Joan (Linney) who he is especially keen to critise as her own writing career starts to take off as his own remains seemingly stalled.  Walt meanwhile hero worships his father, frequently recycling his opinions to impress girls, while struggling to find his own area to excel in especially as he feels that he has to live up to his father’s legacy, regardless of the fact that he has been all but forgotten by most.

 

Once again channelling his brand quiet awkwardness Eisenberg once again gives us another great performance and one which never seems to carry across to his more mainstream films, which often feel like he is being forced to push the humour rather than rely on a more natural humour which is what he often does best as especially seen here especially as he plays Walt the wannabe academic. Often it feels like few opinions that Walt has are his own often rechurning his father’s opinions regards of if he has any reference for these opinions, disregarding Charles Dickens “Tale of Two Cities” as a minor work while raving about Kafka’s “The Metamorphosis” despite not having read either and yet when caught out by calling Kafka Kafka-esq he is somehow able to charm his way out of the situation. This pursuit of acclaim also sees Walt trying to pass off a Pink Floyd song of as his own for the school talent contest, which when he is caught out serves to highlight the increasing divide between his parents. His father’s influence however doesn’t just stretch to opinions as he soon starts questioning his relationship with his girlfriend Sophie (Feiffer) after Bernard promotes the idea of sleeping with other women while his still young to his son, while in many ways begrudging his own life choices.

 

Elsewhere Frank whose seemingly happy charting his own path with dreams of playing professional tennis seemingly takes his parents’ divorce the worst as he starts secretly drinking and more shockingly engaging on a campaign of public masturbation which the less said about is probably the better. Such extreme actions coming with no real kind of explanation though other than perhaps a feeling of being overlooked during the ongoing turmoil with this being his attempt at getting attention especially when everyone is seemingly caught up in their own issues to focus on this youngest family member.

 

Unquestionably it’s a great cast which Baumbach assembles here with Daniels really working his dramatic skills as he refuses to accept that he is ever at fault, while embarking on a relationship of sorts with one of his students Lilli (Paquin) which screams mid-life crisis and who more creepily Walt is also trying to pick up at the same time. Its interesting to think at the same time that this role at one point had been considered for Bill Murray making me wonder if the role would have been played any differently had he took the role, especially when Daniels plays the role with such a hair trigger that the smallest thing can seemingly set off Bernard as we frequently see throughout the film. Equally on fun form is William Baldwin as the new age tennis coach Ivan with the habit of calling people brother and whom Joan embarks on a relationship with while generally seemingly like divorce really works for her, especially when it seems like a continual stream of positives that she gets from the divorce.

 

Due to its short runtime and tight editing the film never drags while its catalogue of awkward situation and interesting interactions keep things interesting, while the believability of the characters ensures that it never feels too fantastical especially when dealing with a family as dysfunctional as this while perhaps in many ways making this a spiritual sibling to producer Wes Anderson’s “The Royal Tenenbaums”. At the same time the largely handheld shooting style gives the film as real fluid feel while adding to the indie charms of the film which deserves to be rediscovered rather than left to languish in its current seemingly forgotten status.

Elwood's Essentials #10 - Magnolia

Title: Magnolia

Director: Paul Thomas Anderson

Released: 1999

Starring: Jeremy Blackman, Tom Cruise, Julianne Moore, Melinda Dillon, Philip Baker Hall, Phillip Seymour Hoffman, Ricky Jay, William H. Macy, Alfred Molina, John C. Reilly, Jason Robards, Melora Walters

Plot: Nine interlinked stories play out over the course of twenty hours in the San Fernando Valley.

Review: Clocking in at just over three hours epic would certainly be the easiest way to describe Director Anderson’s follow up the critically acclaimed “Boogie Nights” which honestly is just one of those films I just didn’t get. Still on the back of its success he was given the opportunity to make any film he wanted with the head of New Line Cinema at the time Michael De Luca signing off on the film without even hearing a plot pitch, while showing so much faith in the director that even giving Anderson rights to the final cut. While it might from the end result seem like Anderson may have been taking the piss slightly considering its length, he had originally wanted to shoot something small and quick only for the script to keep growing as kept thinking of actors he wanted to write for.

Thankfully having been afforded such a generous runtime we truly get to know the mixed and varied inhabitants of Anderson’s vision of LA who include

• Police officer Jim Kurring (Reilly)
• Jimmy Gator (Hall) - Host of the long running game show “What Do Kids Know?” and his estranged daughter Claudia (Walters)
• Child quiz prodigy Stanley (Blackman)
• The grown up former child quiz prodigy Donnie (Macy)
• The terminally ill TV producer Earl Partridge (Partridge), his trophy wife Linda (Moore) and his nurse Phil (Hoffman)
• Pick up artist Frank Mackey (Cruise)

So what ties all these characters together? The simple answer is coincidence as established by the opening monologue which presents us with three cases of coincidence before moving onto the bigger (let alone more complex) example which is the film itself.....this is of course all before it memorably rains frogs!

Each of these characters get their time to shine while the links they all share slowly revel themselves be it through family bloodlines or just through chance encounter. By the end of the day a line can be drawn between them all while its simply staggering how Anderson manages to piece it all together and more interestingly is that no element of his plotting ever feels like a forced connection. Even without the connections between the characters this is still a fascinating film to watch for the stories on their own thanks to some pitch perfect casting.

As a result of such great casting which sees him reuniting with several members of his "Boogie Nights" cast, each of the cast truly embody their characters creating as an result a truly immersive experience as switch between these characters as their stories slowly develop from the Jim’s bumbling attempts at being a good cop only to frequently fail when not seemingly pretending he is on “Cops”. Elsewhere we get the almost the almost identical fates of Stanley and Donnie who both are blessed and cursed with being child genius’s and whose life stories might share more similarities than we first expect, as Donnie’s parents blew his prize money, while for the present day child genius Stanley it would seem that his father has equally similar plans for the potential prize money Stanley is set to win on the show. The plot threads involving this game show interestingly coming from experience gained by Anderson when he worked as an assistant on “Quiz Kid Challenge” while making me how much was actually based on what happened during this time.

Needless to say the standout here is Cruise playing essentially the kind of guy you would expect Tom Cruise to be much like Fight Club’s Tyler Durdan to be what Brad Pitt is like (only perhaps alittle less psycho) so of course it makes perfect sense to have him playing the sexist pussy hound, who has built his life philosophies around sport lays and being the alpha male. Ideals we see him peddling through his self-help groups with all the passion and conviction of a televangelist. The downside to his performance here through is that it does tend to overpower the film and will no doubt be the one character that most people remember from the film, especially when we get to see here Cruise clearly firing on all cylinders.

An emotional roller-coaster here Anderson manages to juggle sudden changes in mood and tone, as he crafts here a film which is frequently brutal in its tone as it manages to be humorous such Jims’ flustered attempts to ask out the terminally neurotic Claudia, let alone the incredibly surreal coffee shop date they ultimately go on or Phil ordering adult magazine over the phone in his attempts to track down his employer’s estranged son Frank. At the same time he is never afraid to counter these moments with something more powerful like Donnie’s drunken breakdown and appeals for love from a clearly uninterested bar tender or Stanley having his request to use the bathroom constantly ignored so that he is left to wet himself on live television.

At the same time the soundtrack provided by Aimee Mann perfectly suits the tone of the film, with Anderson bringing it to the forefront or pushing it to the background as required so that it’s never being used to establish any false sense of tone or mood, though at the same time including the surreal use of “Wise Up” which features the characters simultaneously singing along to the track in a scene seemingly homage by Richard Kelly’s use of “Mad World” in “Donnie Darko”.

While Paul Thomas Anderson might not on the top of my list of favourite director (I know shame on me), let alone the kind of director whose films are usually accompanied by a lot of deep thinking regarding their themes and ideas, here he gives us a film which even when watched without over analysing each scene it remains an immersive experience even with its weighty run time this is undeniably truly masterful film making which even those of who didn’t get his other films can still appreciate.

The Darjeeling Limited

Title: The Darjeeling Limited
Director: Wes Anderson
Released: 2007
Starring: Adrien Brody, Owen Wilson, Jason Schwartzman, Anjelica Huston, Waris Ahluwalia, Bill Murray

Plot: Three brothers Peter (Brody), Francis (Wilson) and Jack (Schwartzman) who having drifted apart since the last time they were together at their fathers funeral. Now reunited by the oldest brother Francis, they travel across India aboard the luxury train “The Darjeeling Limited” so that they can reunite with their equally estranged mother (Anjelica Huston) who is currently running a convent in the foothills of the Himalayas.



Review: Despite originally being a film which I originally had my reserves about seeing initially, after the first time I saw it I found myself as the end credits rolled with an uncontrollable urge to watch it again. Needless to say it has been a returning feeling every time I have watched this film and even now sitting down to write this review it has me already wanting to dig it out again.

Now don't let the exotic locale distract you as this is still very much Anderson's world, with the three brothers being unquestionably classic Anderson creations let alone equally as eccentric as each other, with Francis having survived a recent near fatal motorcycle accident now sporting a new lease on life (aswell as looking like a badly wrapped mummy), which he is determined to force on his brothers wether they want to embrace it or not, as he plots out a detailed itinerary for their trip, while also stealing their passports to prevent them from abandoning the trip early. Peter meanwhile is trying to deal with the fact his wife is pregnant with their first child, while fearing that his marriage is heading for divorce and to distract himself spends most of his time antagonising his brothers with his claims of being their fathers favourite, while furthering their irritation by keeping many of their father’s possessions for himself. Jack meanwhile is a hopeless romantic obsessively listening to the messages on his ex-girlfriends answer machine, while writing short stories which contain striking similarities to people in his own life.

Anderson regulars Wilson and Schwartzman are once again on great form slipping perfectly into their individual roles, with Anderson once again showing that he is one of the few directors who can capture their quirky charm, rather than turning them into more odd-ballish creations.  Brody meanwhile holds his own well with the strong chemistry between the three actors, being used to powerful effect, especially during the scenes shared solely between these three characters. Meanwhile fellow Anderson regular Bill Murray is reduced to a glorified cameo as an American Businessman who we see chasing after train in slow motion, only to be overtaken by Brody’s Peter in one of the numerous standout sequences to feature throughout the film. Still the inclusion of Murray in the cast really did ask the question as to why?

This film is a prime example of Anderson at his quirky best as the brothers make their way across India, dabbling in local medicines and engaging in unplanned misadventures, while generally arguing, occasionally brawling and even engaging in a spontaneous mace attack as they travel from place to place and occurring the wrath of the train steward (Ahluwalia) who holds little patience for anyone who’d attempt to disrupt the running of the train. What I really love about this film though is that even through the brother go through this journey together, by the end of the film they are none the closer than when they started, with their meeting with their mother being used instead to explain why these characters are like that they are. Equally a much criticised death of a young Indian boy, ensures that the audience is never truly sure of what direction the film is going in, especially with Anderson feeling no reason it would seem to take the most direct routes with his plotting.

Essentially made as a tribute to the films of Satyajit Ray, the film came largely out director Wes Andersons desire to make a film in India, having long held a fascination with the country, while at the same finding inspiration from the Indian documentaries by Louis Malle, as well as Jean Renoir’s “The River” and it’s a love which clearly carries across into the film in much the same way that Sofia Coppola’s (sister to co-writer Roman) love of Japan was evident in “Lost In Translation”. Here nearly every frame of the film is shot to truly capture the flavour of the country, from the panoramic beauty of the landscape to the bustle of the markets, Anderson makes sure that his love for India is truly captured on screen. However Anderson is not using this setting in a touristy way but more a backdrop for his story and seemingly takes every effort to avoid any of the usual clichés and stereotypes which typically dog any film set in such exotic climes and instead aims to surprise the audience, with scenes such as the first time we meet the stewardess Rita who speaks standard English and bares none of the usual cliché stereotypes of the dutiful female, especially when she engages in a spontaneous fling with Jack.

The soundtrack is once again classic Anderson as he combines the retro charms of “The Kinks” and “Peter Sarstedt” as well as using the less well known “Play With Fire” by “The Rolling Stones” to great effect, as he once again gives us a treasure trove of retro tracks, while flavouring with a selection of classical and Indian music tracks from the likes of Satyajit Ray and Ravi Shankar.

While perhaps a little too quirky for the uninitiated, especially with it’s ponderous (but never dull) plotting and especially with Anderson’s refusal to bide by any of the usual road trip movie rules, especially as nothing it ultimately learned by the journeys end and for those finding themselves in this group I would urge them to check out the equally great “Rushmore” for a more gentle introduction to Anderson’s world. However for the established fans, especially for those of you who loved “The Royal Tenenbaums” as he sets out to builds on similar themes which he explored with that film, such as abandonment, sibling relationships and more essentially the non working privileged class. This however is one vision of India your likely to forget anytime soon.

For more Wes Anderson related writing this month make sure you show some love to the nice folks over at "French Toast Sunday" aswell as for other fun film related writings.

Moonrise Kingdom

Title: Moonrise Kingdom
Director: Wes Anderson
Released: 2012
Starring: Jared Gilman, Kara Hayward, Bill Murray, Frances McDormand, Tilda Swindon, Jason Schwartzman, Bruce Willis, Edward Norton, Harvey Keitel

Plot: Sam (Gilman) and Suzy (Hayward) after a chance meeting become pen pals before plotting to run away together to the secluded cove from which the film takes its name from, all the while attempting to elude the search / rescue / capture party which has been launched to find them by Suzy’s parents (Bill Murray and Frances McDormand) and Sam’s Khaki Scout troop.



Review: I am truly of the belief that a great film is a lot like a great mix tape in that you enjoy the journey so much that you instantly want to watch it again as soon as it ends. This it is safe to say is once again the case with Wes Anderson’s latest film, who here  again teams up with Roman Coppola (son of Francis Ford, brother of Sofia and cousin of Nicolas Cage) to bring us his tale of star crossed lovers Sam and Suzy

After the shall we say interesting (read: essentially rewritten) take on the classic children’s book “Fantastic Mr. Fox”, a film which was greeted with decidedly mixed opinion, especially by those familiar with Roald Dahl’s original but not Anderson’s quirky film making style let alone willing to accept his reworked version of such a cherished story. Now back on more familiar ground Anderson’s latest film feels is in many ways his most accessible film since “Rushmore”, a film which finally helped myself to finally get what the fuss about Anderson’s work was about. Still while perhaps more accessible than some of this other films like “The Royal Tenenbaums” or “The Darjeeling Limited”, this latest film still bares all of his usual quirky trademarks such as his continual use of title cards, primary colours (this time fresh grass greens and Khaki browns) aswell as a new group of colorful characters to add to his ever expanding universe.

Interestingly this film also  features fewer members of his usual acting troupe whom have followed him from film to film, something especially noticeable this time around with the absence of Owen Wilson, who Anderson has been keen to note was not due to any kind of personal dispute when carrying out the promotion for the film. Still both Bill Murray and Jason Schwartzman are on hand to ensure that the familiarity is maintained, while like so many of the adult cast taking more of a backseat to the younger cast, while Bruce Willis and Edward Norton  are clearly relishing the freedom that comes working on an indie film, let alone getting to play slightly different characters than we are used to seeing them play, with Norton once more on amazing form as the bumbling Khaki Scout leader Randy. However it is the surprise sudden appearance by Harvey Keitel as the blustering head of the Khaki scouts while Tilda Swindon, appearing here as the appropriately titled Social Services, sadly despite giving another wonderful performance never makes the same impact of some of the other characters, let alone presenting the kind of threat expected from her character.

The real breakout performances here though are given by the two young leads, both making their debuts here, though you honestly would not believe it considering the amount of confidence, let alone believability they bring to their individual roles, processing real onscreen chemistry despite their two characters being seemingly so mismatched with Sam being a quiet and seemingly emotionally detached watercolours enthusiast, while Suzy’s loves resolve around her binoculars, stolen library books and kitten. Still like Sam she is equally detached from her parents and ultimately the perfect couple for Anderson and his enduring love for misfits. True their dialogue might not often be overly realistic, as is the case for so many of the child characters here, with Sam and Suzy often coming off as being brutally frank with their dialogue, while Anderson sacrifices realism in favour of individualism as especially the case with the Khaki scouts, which considering how amusing their conversations with each other are, such as deciding if they should arm themselves when hunt down Sam after he escapes from camp to meet up with Suzy and due to this I found it hard to fault Anderson’s decision here.

Once again Anderson brings us usual creative and visual flair to the film, with long time collaborator Robert D. Yeoman once again providing some truly stunning cinematography, which contains all of Anderson’s usual trademark symbolism and iconography and visual gags, while even managing to top the cutaway ship from “The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou” as he here gives us a cutaway tour of Suzy’s house which despite being a gimmick he’s used before is none the less effective here and only adds to the already playful camerawork which plays so prominently throughout with the frequent use of single shot sequences and long pans really immersing the viewer into the quirky world which Anderson has once more crafted here.

Sadly were the film fails is with it’s rushed final act, which has the feeling that Anderson had no real idea how to end the film and may go in some way to explaining the lack of develop that Swindon’s Social services, especially when the film seemingly wraps up things suddenly after such a minor chase sequence, that it almost feels like an afterthought. Luckily the journey to this point is so enjoyable that it almost covers for such a carless if ultimately predictable ending.

While perhaps not everyone’s tastes, this is Anderson once more at his most accessible, while the established fan base and indie cinema fans will no doubt lap this up, while the initiated may still struggle to see what the fuss is about.

For more Wes Anderson related writing this month make sure you show some love to the nice folks over at "French Toast Sunday" aswell as for other fun film related writings.

Stoker

Title: Stoker
Director: Park Chan-Wook
Released: 2013
Staring: Mia Wasikowska, Dermot Mulroney, Nicole Kidman, Matthew Goode

Plot: India Stoker (Wasikowska) solitary and privileged life is thrown into a tailspin by the death of her father Richard (Mulroney). Left with her estranged and mildly unstable mother Evelyn (Kidman), who upon meeting Richard’s charming and charismatic brother Charlie (Goode) at the funeral invites him to stay with them, unaware of the secrets he is hiding.



Review: There is always going to be a certain amount of hesitation whenever  one of the heavy hitters of foreign cinema decides to make a stab at the English speaking market, especially when there is the prospect of their style not translating to a Western audience, let alone the inevitable meddling from studio bosses. A fate which has sadly befallen many a great director with Guillermo del Toro’s  “Mimic” certainly being a prime example of such meddling.  Now Park Chan-Wook throws his directing hat into the international directing ring, after wowing us previously with his Vengeance trilogy, which included the soon to be (unnecessary) remade “Oldboy”, while he also showed us a lighter and more playful side with the sadly overlooked “I’m A Cyborg, But That’s OK” which he made for his daughter. Both showcased his visual flair with frequent love for unconventional plot points, such as the sign language sex scene in “Sympathy For Mr. Vengeance”.  Needless to say I was curious to see how his style would translate, while equally interested to see if his style would be forced to be toned back to suit a western audience. Thankfully Chan-Wook fans can rest assured that he has lost none of his visual flair in the transition from his native Korea, with this Hitchcock influenced tale.

Okay at this point I probably have said too much about this film, as this is certainly one best seen blind. True this is no easy feat these days were information is but a mouse click away. I will also state right now that there is a high chance of spoilers ahead so consider yourself warned.  So save yourself now and go watch what is possibly one of the more original and rewarding releases of this year and then come back to read the rest of this review or potential ruin some of the surprises.

Scripted by Wentworth Miller who is no doubt better known as an actor especially to fans of “Prison Break”, but here he proves himself equally capable as a screenwriter, while equally keen for his work to stand on its own merits rather than due to his star power, as seen by the fact that he submitted the script along with a prequel, "Uncle Charlie" under the pseudonym Ted Foulke stating that

“I just wanted the scripts to sink or swim on their own”.

Despite the obvious assumption from the title to assume that this is yet another vampire movie, thankfully it isn’t despite the intentional nod to the grandfather of vampire fiction, "Stoker" is in fact a psychological thriller with horror undertones, with the title also being a literal indication of the role Charlie’s sudden appearance plays. It is worth noting though that this film is not one for the inpatient movie goer especially seeing how the first half is certainly a slow burn as Chan-Wook slowly moves the pieces into place, before slowly revealing the truth behind the mystery which hangs over the family as paranoia runs high over who Charlie really is. Even more so as he worms his ways further into the family through India’s mother who soon warms to his obvious charms and pretentious cooking skills. Goode really embodies the role and easily carries off the air of mystery which constantly surrounds Charlie, while equally chilling when he reveals his true colours in the second half.  Equally interesting is how the film is almost entirely shot around the family home, with only a handful of scenes being shot outside of this location, ensuring that the viewer’s focus is kept with these three characters only occasionally bringing in a supporting character, when required to drive the story forward or add another angle to their characters. Thankfully they are interesting enough for this strategy to work, while such maintained focus only serves to crank up the tension further, as Chan-Wook teases out his final twist, which is only further highlights that the only thing which has changed with Chan-Wook making this film in the Hollywood studio system is the language his actors are speaking.

The cast here are all perfectly cast in their roles, with Kidman continuing her love of working with  creative directors, having previously worked with Stanley Kubrick, Lars Von Trier and Baz Luhrmann, it would only make sense that she would eventually make a film with Chan-Wook and while it might be more of a supporting role than you would expect from such a big name actress. Meanwhile Wasikowska continues to mark herself out as an actress to watch, as she perfectly embodies the disconnected nature of India who actively distances herself from her classmates, while perfectly portraying her slow decent into a much darker side, as Charlie’s influence over her and her mother becomes all the more present.

It is worth noting for the establish fans of Chan-Wook’s work that the violence here is actually kept to a minimum, though still maintaining all his usual flair as simple acts like Charlie slowly removing his belt of India icily looking down the sights of her rifle, still showcasing that even when he isn’t shocking us he is still scarily effective at making even the most simplist of moments visually stimulating, especially with his long standing DP Chung-hoon Chung also present here to ensure that his trademark inventiveness behind the camera is present. This visual flair is non the more present than with the scenes between India and Charlie, especially during the more erotically charged scenes such as a duet they share over the piano which positively crackles with (questionable) sexual tension, much like the shots of her masturbating in the shower after despatching of a would be attacker while replaying the event in her head. Like the occasional burst of violence scattered throughout the film, these moments are so sudden and often without warning that the viewer is given no chance to prepare for what they are watching, which only makes them all the more effective.

While perhaps not as good as some of his previous films perhaps due to it being the first film which Chan-Wook hasn't written himself, it is none the less a positive start for his first venture into the English language market, while certainly giving us one of the more interesting films of the year.