Grizzly

Title: Grizzly

Director: William Girdler

Released: 1976

Starring: Andrew Prine, Christopher George, Joan McCall, Joe Dorsey, Richard Jaeckel

Plot: When a giant grizzly bear starts eating the campers at a state park, it is up to park ranger Michael (George) to hunt it down.

Review: If ever there was an example of the importance of editing it would be this film. For here is a film which in its TV cut is a tepid and boring movie while in its uncut form, it’s actually quite watchable even though it’s lingering around the ass end of okay in this stronger form. Frustratingly it was the TV cut which I watched first, which left me wondering why I got so excited about watching it in the first place, a fact which I’m sure was more down the prospect of seeing a film with a giant killer bear, especially as I do love creature features and couldn’t remember actually seeing one with a killer bear.

One the last films to be directed by Girdler, who was tragically killed in a helicopter crash while scouting locations for his tenth film. This would be the first of his two ventures into the creature feature genre, while more surprisingly it would also become one of the top films of 1976. This success of course could have been largely thanks to the massive success of “Jaws” which inspired countless imitators in a trend which continues even now, as directors continue to try find new and ever more inspired ways to add to the already primal fear most people have regarding certain animals. None however have shown the balls that Girdler does here with this film which is essentially a straight clone of “Jaws”, even though it could be argued that Bruno Mattei came close with “Jaws 5: Cruel Jaws”.

From the start Girdler tries to make the revel of the creature a slow burn by shooting from the bears perspective (or bear vision if you will) and by having a stage hand swipe at thing with a bear paw glove. Unfortunately the big revel never really comes perhaps thanks to Girdler choosing to use a real bear, which needless to say isn’t the safest creature for you to put next to actors, so as a result the bear footage often comes off looking like wildlife stock footage than anything specifically shot for the film. The biggest failure though comes when any character is attack by the bear, which usually descends into shaky camera shots and what can only be described as watching someone getting bear hugged by someone in a questionable looking bear costume. Despite the real bear never seemingly being anywhere near the actors, Girdler used a length of green string and a kitchen timer to shoot the actors with the bear, with the bear believing that the wire was the same as the electrified fence used during breaks in filming, while the trainers also got the bear to mimic roaring by tossing it marshmallows (who knew that bears liked them) and adding the sound in post production. However now having seen the film it makes you wonder why they went to so much effort with the real bear, especially when it never seems like the actor and bear are ever in the same shot.  

This leads me of course to the importance of which version you watch, as if your stuck with the TV version, this will fast become a painful film to sit through, as each time the bear attacks it suddenly cuts or even on a couple of occasions just fades to black. The uncut version on the other hand is a lot more fun, thanks to the occasional bursts of gore that it provides making the bear attacks a lot of satisfying to watch as limbs are torn off and even a small child loses a leg, all scenes missing from the TV version which cuts out all of the gore and leaves only the half decent attack on the ranger station intact. Thankfully though if you’re stuck with the TV version, the cut segments can be easily found on Youtube which honestly are also the best parts of this film, which really do save it in many ways from being such a grind.

Plot wise as I stated earlier in this review, the plot is essentially a blow for blow remake of “Jaws” with changes being made to suit the setting, so hence we get Michaels concern over a giant killer bear in the park being thrown out by his supervisor, who’d rather keep campers in the park rather than close the park while they hunt the bear, while also flooding the park with amateur hunters by offering a bounty on bear all actions mirrored by the mayor Vaughn. Equally mirrored is Michaels actions to hunt the bear which see’s him forming a similar team to Brody’s with naturalist Arthur (Jaeckel) and helicopter pilot and Vietnam veteran Don (Prine) taking on the roles played by Hooper and Quint. It’s hard to say if watching the film with this prior knowledge adds or takes away anything from the film, but it certainly makes it a curiosity to say the least, especially in these times were Mockbusters are being so regularly churned out which essentially do the same as this film and in many ways perhaps making this film the earliest example of the genre.

While the plotting may be the same as “Jaws” sadly the characterisation is far from the mark as this film lacks any of the likeable characters of that film, much less any ones which are memorable enough to actually care much about with the exception of Arthur but that could be more so do with his bear skin wearing antics, much less the lack of real insight he brings to the hunt despite being the so called expert.

Unsurprisingly in the wake of the film success this film would get a sequel of sorts almost ten years later in the form of “Grizzly 2: The Predator” which originally started out as a completely separate film entitled “Predator: The Concert”. Written aswell by the same screenwriter as this film Harvey Flaxman the film was never finished yet various incomplete cuts of the film do exist and it was via a review of that film by my good friend and bad movie critic extraordinaire The Great White Dope over at “Mecha-Blog-Zilla” that I came to find out about this film in the first place in a piece which I highly recommend checking out like the rest of his blog, even if he is currently on blogging hiatus there is still a wealth of great reading to enjoy.

A flawed film with a handful of interesting moments if your watching the uncut version but mainly it will just make you want to dig out your copy of the far superior "Jaws", especially as its doubt this will have you afraid to back into the woods anytime soon.

Detention

Title: Detention

Director: Joseph Kahn

Released: 2011

Starring: Josh Hutcherson, Dane Cook, Spencer Locke, Shanley Caswell, Walter Perez, Organik, Erica Shaffer   

Plot: A killer dressed as the movie slasher Cinderhella is stalking the students of Grizzly Lake High School, leaving a group of co-eds to band together survive while serving detention.

 

Review: So once again I have found a film which makes me throw my hands up in despair, as I wonder how I can ever start to review it as if I thought “If…” was a tough film to critique, this one presented an equally daunting critical mountain to scale by the time the credits had rolled.
 

Unlike the aforementioned “If…” the issues presented by this film was less about the artistic directing choices, but more due to trying to figure out what it was exactly that I had watched, as director Kahn comes off here like someone has a heap of smart and witty things to say and show you, while at the same time too easily distracted to put them into any kind of logical order. As a result this film is the same sort of visual assault of ideas that “Southland Tales” took, yet in comparison even that film is more coherent than this one and yet despite the fact I’m still not sure I fully understood what this film was about I did strangely still enjoyed it.

The second feature film by Kahn after his forgettable debut and “Fast and Furious” on a motorcycle cash in “Torque”, he is no doubt better known for his work directing music videos and commercials, a field which has previously given us visionary directors like  David Fincher and Mark Romanek, with Kahn also bringing a level of visual flair to this low budget and self-financed horror-comedy which he choose to follow “Torque” with after being replaced by Vincenzo Natali (best known for “Splice” and “Cube”) as the director of the long mooted adaptation of William Gibson’s “Neuromancer”.

Opening with a “Clueless” style monologue / rant by the school’s most popular girl Taylor (woods)…well that is until she is suddenly cut short mid “guide to not being a total reject” by the films killer. From here we cut to Taylor’s opposite Riley (Caswell) a cynical social outcast, whose sees herself being only one place above rock bottom which is currently occupied by the girl who performed oral sex on the school’s stuffed grizzly bear mascot. Riley’s world is shown as an endless hailstorm of crap, as starts the day with a half-baked attempt at a pill overdose, misses the school bus and has her iPod stolen by a hipster mugger. Both of these scenes are peppered with the characters breaking the forth wall and laced with sarcasm and acid tipped barbs while generally setting you up for the randomness which follows.

It is after the opening monologues that things not only just weird but downright random as plot devices start to fly off on a whim, with fewer still actually being seen though to any form of completion let alone followed with any kind of logical sense. So while the film would have worked fine as high school slasher with elements of social satire, Kahn feels inclined to cram in additional elements and subplots including alien abduction, mutations and time travel none of which are properly worked into the plot and frequently dropped in at random and more often without warning, leaving the viewer disorientated and frequently struggling to keep up with the amount of elements being juggled at any one time.

Still when taken apart and viewed for its individual parts there is a lot of fun elements at throughout the film, like the 90’s obsessed Lone (Locke), the star football player who for some reason is turning into a human fly (a very unsubtle rip off of Cronenberg’s 1986 remake) and whose father made him wear a TV over his hand as a child in a scene every bit as surreal as it no doubt sounds. It only makes it more of a shame that with so many random ideas on show here that Kahn can’t seem to manage the same delicate balance of surreal imagery and coherent storytelling that the likes of Richard Kelly and Greg Araki have frequently brought to their films and seemingly what Kahn was aiming to achieve here, only to ultimately end up with a frequently confusing but none the less fascinating car crash of ideas.

The cast assembled here are all pretty much unknowns, yet bring plenty of energy to the film, especially in the case of Caswell who as Riley is well deserving of a spin off, if perhaps a more focused one, as she makes for the perfect lead with her balance of sarcastic jibes and general despair at having to endure with being berated on a daily basis by the so called popular kids. Elsewhere the rest of the cast play their roles well, though frequently come off more memorable for their character mannerisms than for their performances.

Judging by how under the radar this film is, with the only noteworthy releases before it’s DVD release being the handful of appearances at various film festivals with its showing at Frightfest being how I came to discover it originally were its highlighted genre hopping antics caught my attention. So now having finally got around to watching it I can testify that it is certainly one of the more unique films I have watched of late, while its heavy flaws prevent me from enjoying it more and yet I still feel compelled to recommend you give it a curious watch, if only to experience it for yourself. So if you’re feeling uninspired by your current viewing and craving something different yet not too out there, why not give this a watch.

Rushmore

Title: Rushmore

Director: Wes Anderson

Released: 1998

Starring: Jason Schwartzman, Bill Murray, Olivia Williams, Seymour Cassel, Brian Cox, Mason Gamble, Sara Tanaka, Stephen McCole, Connie Nielsen, Luke Wilson, Dipak Pallana, Andrew Wilson

Plot: Max Fisher (Schwartzman) a 15 year old student at the exclusive private school Rushmore, were despite being involved in every extracurricular activity going while academically failing every one of his classes. Things only become more complicated when he starts an unusual friendship with steel tycoon Herman Blume (Murray) who also has eyes for Miss Cross (Williams) a teacher at Rushmore who Max has been harbouring a crush for.

Review: Sometimes it only takes one film to completely change your opinion of a director, something none truer than with this film, for it was only after I saw it that I finally got what the fuss about Wes Anderson’s films was. Previously to originally watching it I'd written him off as being overrated based on my previous experiences with his work when I watched “The Royal Tenenbaums” and “The Life Aquatic”, both of which I now rate highly after returning to them with a new appreciation for Andersons work which this film gave me. It was with this film that I finally got it.

Easily the most accessible of Anderson's films to date and while it could be argued the same for “Fantastic Mr Fox”, the fact that Andersons’ version differs so much from the source novel, tends to be more of a distraction than some tend to care for. At the same time it still contains all the elements we now see as being the trademarks of his work making it little surprise that some (myself included) confuse it for being his debt which was instead the often overlooked “Bottle Rocket”. Based largely on the life experiences of Anderson who has admitted to sharing Max’s sense of ambition aswell as his lack of academic ability and a crush on an older women, while his co-writer (and reoccurring cast member) Wilson drawing on his own expulsion from school at fate which ultimately also befalls Max on his journey of redemption.  

Max really is the quintessential Anderson creation, as he speaks and acts with a mindset years beyond his age, while equally acting every bit the social climber, associating Rushmore as part of his identity even though he got in on a scholarship rather than his parents wealth and status like his fellow pupils. Perhaps because of this it would explain his needs to constantly lie about his background, telling people that his father is a brain surgeon rather than admit that he actually works as a barber. Also because of his mindset Max frequently seems more comfortable around adults than anyone his own age, with the exception his right hand man Dirk (Gamble) and perhaps because of this the unusual love triangle actually works better than you would expect, even if the chances of anything actually happening between Max and Miss Cross is solely in his head. Things of course only escalate when Blume becomes involved with Miss Cross leading to a tit for tat game of revenge between the former friends, as brakes are cut, bees crammed into closets and bicycles run over as each tries to top what the other inflicted on them.

It could be argued that if Miss Cross shot down his first advance that this would be a lot shorter film, but instead she tries to encourage a friendship between them perhaps because of how Max reminds her of her deceased husband. The friendship between Max and Blume is surprisingly more believable perhaps due to the curiosity which Blume has about Max, while for Max it could be equally seen as another aspect of his social climbing, especially when Max is seen taking notes when Blume tries to impart words of wisdom upon the Rushmore students at the start of the film, advising those students who don’t come from money to target those that do.

While their friendship and the effects of this love triangle has on it is largely the focus, Anderson is also keen to chart a more personal journey for Max as he is forced to find himself after his expulsion from Rushmore after an ill-advised attempt to build an aquarium on the school baseball field which forces him back into the public school system with Max’s journey climaxing in the production of his latest play. At the same time it is fascinating to see how Anderson manages to make us root for a character who we should really despise with his frequent lies and egotistical drive,  yet somehow we can help but root for him.

Undoubtedly though the strength of the film is in its casting with Schwartzman embodying the role of Max, a role which Anderson felt at one point could never be cast until a chance introduction by Schwartzman’s cousin Sofia Coppola, who would in turn benefit from the career revival which Murray’s casting received. Murray whose career had in many ways stalled in the wake of “Ed Wood” only to revitalise it with this film, which not only marked the beginning of his frequently collaborations with Anderson which has seen him appear in every film which Anderson has made since. Murray’s involvement in many ways would also play a key part in production not only by his agreement to work for scale, but also by writing to Anderson a blank cheque to cover several shots which Disney who produced the movie refused to fund.

While the film is largely carried by Schwartzman and Murray, with Williams appearing occasionally to stir up emotions in the two men vying for her affections, the film also features numerous colourful supporting characters, such as the surprisingly feisty Margaret Yang (Tanaka), a foul mouthed scot (McCole) and the pipe smoking Rushmore dean Dr. Guggenheim (Cox) who is frequently driven to despair by Max’s antics. These characters and the numerous other who we meet throughout all heightening the film and adding to the already slightly surreal world which Anderson creates here and one which he continues to base the films which followed in.

A perfect starting point for newcomers to Anderson's films while containing enough of his quirks and unique style to still appeal to the established fans. This film heralded and still does even now an fiercely unique voice in independent cinema and is the film I always urge the detractors to watch before they make their final decision on Anderson's films, so if your still scratching your head over his appeal why not give this one a go, you might just find yourself re-evaluating your opinion.

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.

Spin-Off - Margot Tenenbaum: The Wilderness Years

Recently I discovered the rather hip “Cinematic Corner” which is also currently hosting a “Spin-off blogathon” taking a minor character from one film and giving them a film of their own.

Now while I know that most of my regular readers may expect me to choose the cool as ice dropship pilot Corporal Ferro from “Aliens” especially given my obsession with Collette Hiller, however I felt that I pretty much covered the character in my “One I would save” post. I also tossed around the idea of Christopher Lambert’s ice cream man and underground militant Walter Mung from “Southland Tales” but ultimately I decided (and perhaps inspired in part by this month’s ongoing “WesAndermarch”) I decided to choose Margot Tenenbaum.

One of handful of truly interesting roles Gwyneth Paltrow has had, while at the same time also being one of the fewer roles were she truly embodied the character, in a role the likes of which we sadly haven’t seen her play since, as even though her role is largely consistent of hiding out in the bathroom and smoking she is still one of the more memorable members of the Tenenbaum clan.

True Margot could be considered to already be a leading character seeing how she is one of the three Tenenbaum children, yet at the same time she is also the one that we know the least about, outside of the occasional snapshot moments from her life which Wes Anderson chooses to show us, perfectly tying in with her secretive nature while at the same leaving her the character I most wanted to see more of.

So what would a spin of film focus on? Well the original film covers the early years of her life pretty thoroughly, including her success as a playwriting child prodigy and underdeveloped artist, aswell as her detached relationship with her adopted father, who openly reminds her of her adopted status by introducing her at social gatherings as his adopted daughter. Her childhood also includes her running away with her brother (and future boyfriend) Richie, aswell as a second attempt which lead to her loosing part of her finger, which is revealed to be the result of a wood chopping accident when she found her birth family. The rest of her life up to the impromptu family reunion is briefly covered in the private detective report commissioned by her husband Raleigh, which are shown in a series of intriguing snapshots of key moments of her life to the current day. 



Because of Margot’s secretive nature  of course only makes a spin off film covering these moments all the more interesting, especially when she is one of the few characters in the film which we still feel that we don’t feel that we truly know by the end of the film outside of the bare bones of her character.  

So what would a Margot spin-off be like? Well first I would like it to focus on those years we the snapshot moments from, especially as these are the ones which pose the most questions and to continue on from were the film leaves off would only potentially lead into romantic comedy territory which honestly would not suit her character in the slightest, even if the idea of a romantic film centred around a incestuous (of sorts) love affair is an amusing pitch to say the least.

With Margot not being the chattiest of characters, this spin off would have to be voice over driven, especially as I always imagined the internal monologue of Margot to be full of witty comments and observations, even if she may seem sedated on the surface.

Margot equally makes a great candidate for a spin off if only to give us the alternative view point of key moments from the film such as the divorce of her parents as well as more importantly her witnessing the Richie’s in game meltdown following her marriage her to Raleigh. While she seems unmoved during the scene it would be interesting to see if she ever felt anything for him at that moment, much like when she first felt anything for him, especially when she seemingly cares little for anyone person as seem by her frequently switching from one partner to the next even when she is supposedly married it does little to slow her down with such scenes certainly benefiting from the insight that only she could provide, to explain if this her trying to work out the frustration of her stalled career or if she just enjoys living by her own rules.

Needless to say when it comes to listing Wes Anderson's memorable creations, it is impossible not to include Margot and even though he continues to add new and ever more curious characters to the list, Margot forever remains one of my favourites and one more than worthy of her own spin off, which if not for the reasons stated atleast to see Paltrow don the iconic look once more.

The Purge

Title: The Purge

Director: James DeMonaco
Released: 2013
Starring: Ethan Hawke, Lena Headey, Max Burkholder, Adelaide Kane, Edwin Hodge, Tony Oller, Rhys Wakefield, Arija Bareikis, Chris Mulkey

Plot: In the year 2022, America has become a nation reborn under the New Founding Fathers of America and while the country enjoys an all-time low for crime and unemployment rates, this new government has also instituted an annual 12-hour period called “The Purge”. During this period all criminal activity is legal and a period which security salesmen James (Hawke) and his family choose to hide out in their heavily fortified home. However when James son Charlie (Burkholder) lets a bloodied stranger (Hodge) into the house, the family soon find themselves the target of a group of masked killers eager to claim the stranger for Purging.  

Review: Once again I find myself throwing my hands up in despair as I’m faced once again with the conundrum over if it is truly possible to have a horror film which perfectly balances style and substance, especially as I’m now in the same position I was after I watched “The Strangers”. A film much like this one in that both are essentially stylised but ultimately hollow home invasion thrillers, let alone the fact that both featured being killers in memorable masks.

Taking a break from remaking classic horror films this film is one of the rarer original projects to come out of Michael Bay’s “Platinum Dunes” production company let alone one with an intriguing premise, one perfectly outlined in the government broadcast announcing the start of the 12-hour purging period, were crime from murder and theft through to more shockingly rape is all legal. Despite the illusion of a crime free for all this projects, the government brief is equally keen to stress that Government officials cannot be targeted much like the usage of weapons above class 4 which I guess is to ensure that you don’t get some looney with a nuclear device running around. Much like the “Battle Royale Act” which was used to control the out of control youth. The Purge is used by the government as a way for society to resolve its overwhelming issues, which in this case is the need to vent frustrations and deviant behaviours, with the belief being that by providing this release only helps this new society grow stronger, though at the same time it is hinted that it is also a way of weeding out the poor and those who could be seen as causing a burden on the economy and resources, especially when unlike the rich they are not able to hide out this period.

Meanwhile on the other end of the scale James and his wife Mary (Headey) might not have to worry about the Purge as they hide away behind the illusion of security provided by the steel covers and security cameras, they are instead left to ponder over the moralistic questions their children pose them over their choice of choosing not to Purge, let alone the wealth which their father has amassed selling security systems to the rich to protect them from being potentially purged. Needless to say these questions being posed by the children are the least of their worries seeing how both of these irritating kids mange to spearhead most of the major issues the family have to face, with the eldest child Zoey (Kane) smuggling her boyfriend into the house before lockdown, while their son Henry (Oller) is easily the most irritating character in the film, while easily to blame for causing most of the families issues, seeing how he is also responsible for letting the stranger into the house.

This terrible twosome are easily the biggest frustration about this film and frequently had me wondering what the law was concerning purging your own family members? So with this never being a possibility, we are left instead with the increasingly moronic decision that their actions frequently lead to, much more when they frequently have a habit of disappearing at the worse possible moments. Needless to say this film would certainly have been greatly improved without these characters or perhaps by getting better child actors.

The main threat the family have to contend with though is the group of masked purger’s whose masks have already become an iconic image of the film, which is especially true of their nominated leader, known solely as Polite Leader (Wakefield). As per his name this leader remains calm and polite throughout, even shooting one of his followers when they suffer an outburst. Needless to say despite his insistence that the family won’t be harmed if they give up the stranger seeking refuge in their house, Wakefiled plays the role with such a sinister edge your never sure how true his promises are, let alone the fact that he manages to come off even more creepy without his mask. One of the stronger parts of the film, Wakefield’s character is sadly underused and left to mainly threaten the family through the shutters and never really gets chance to really do much beyond this.

While the costuming is unquestionably memorable, especially with the Polite Leader’s group with their almost uniform styling, this ultimately is all surface gloss as the film plays out like a less tense version of the far superior “Panic Room” combined with a few scattered moments of home invasion horror throughout, though none played with any kind of tension or horror, even though getting to see Hawke finally going postal on the home invaders is fun if frustratingly cut too short when it just gets going. Despite its setup promising unbridled chaos and anarchy these home invasion moments and the selection of CCTV footage which makes up the opening credits, though honestly this wouldn’t matter much if there was any kind of real suspense to hold your attention, which sadly there really isn’t and what scattered moments you do get are essentially stomped over by the antics of one of the kids.

Despite a great concept it sadly is never used to full potential, but seeing how movie goers are attracted to cool visuals it has meant that a sequel is already heading our way soon, while baring more of a wiff of similarity to the plot of “The Warriors” it would seem. Could this be Bay’s way of secretly pushing through his ideas for his long mooted remake of the cult classic…I guess we will have to wait and see, though hopefully it will learn from the mistakes of this film and give us something alittle more substantial than a fancy shell.

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.

Now You See Me

Title: Now You See Me

Director: Louis Leterrier
Released: 2013
Starring: Jessie Eisenberg, Mark Ruffalo, Woody Harrelson, Melanie Laurent, Isla Fisher, Dave Franco, Michael Caine, Michael Kelly, Common, Morgan Freeman

Plot: Four magicians are brought together by a mysterious benefactor to form “The Four Horsemen”, while using their shows to pull of a series of bank heists, while rewarding the audience with the money.

Review: Seeing how it seems like I hadn’t seen a heist movie in awhile I thought that I would give this one a watch, even more so since heist movies are few and far between these days, especially since the last memorable ones in recent memory was the A-list vanity project “Oceans 11” and its questionable sequels. Still this one promised to be something different seeing how its heists being carried out by magicians which honestly something I don’t think I’ve seen before.

Making up their number is hypnotist Merrit McKinney (Harrelson), escape artist Henley Reeves (Fisher), sleight of hand master and occasional pickpocket Jack Wilder (Franco) and rounding them out is Street Magician and illusionist J. Daniel Atlas (Eisenberg) who also serves as the groups’ unofficial leader. While the crew being brought together might not come with the usual heist skills, the setup is essentially the same as the four magicians getting a “Charlie’s Angels” style introduction which highlights their individual skills before each of them receive a mysterious playing card leading them to a seemingly abandoned apartment, which is not quite as empty as first seems as they soon shown a hologram of a series of blueprints which serves as the catalyst for the group coming together.

It is unsurprisingly a unique set of skills which the group brings together and half the fun is seeing how they use them to pull of each heist which are played out like grand illusions. Despite the magicians all coming from very different disciplines they somehow manage to combine their skills to pull off the heists and become the cohesive unit required, while using the secret group of magicians known simply as “The Eye” who used their magic to distract the rich who they were stealing from to give to the poor as the inspiration for their actions. Of course with each heist there is always the question of how they did it and like any good magic trick and like a Penn and Teller or Masked Magician routine director Leterrier is happy to share with you the secrets of how they did it, which he provides via magician turned illusion exposer, Thaddeus Bradley (Freeman) while using the FBI agent Rhodes (Ruffalo) and Interpol agent Dray (Laurent) to essentially represent the audience as they relentlessly pursue the group, only to frequently find themselves a step behind.

When it comes to the illusions it is an intriguing mix of practical magic tricks and illusions combined with a handful of slightly more far-fetched and CGI inhanced tricks like Henley floating over the audience in a giant bubble. It is of course a credit to the cast that they can convincingly pull of the practical tricks, especially considering that Fisher who almost drowned while performing her trademark Piranha tank escape. Needless to say when faced with non-magicians performing magic, the urge is to instantly drawing comparisons to “The Prestige” which seems to be the film which most critics seem keen to compare it to, while critising this film for the use of CGI trickery and no doubt forgetting the whole Tesla coil transportation plotline that “The Prestige” featured so predominately. So yes while not all the tricks might not be genuine magic per say, they still do come with enough wonder and presence to captivate the audience, unlike the CGI heavy “The Illusionist” whose own brand of CGI trickery only left the film feeling hollow.

While the magic might be the main draw here Leterrier is keen to not limit the magic to the staged performances, as shown with a great showdown between Wilder and Rhodes which starts off as a brawl with Wilder pulling out a number of smaller tricks such as flaming playing cards and curtain tricks to maintain the upper hand, before Leterrier kicks things up a gear with a high speed car chase along the Brooklyn bridge, which is only added to when we later discover that what seemed like wits and cunning might have been more staged than first seemed.

With all this entire misdirection taking place, it is something of a shame that some of the casting choices here prove to more of the wrong kind of distraction, with Ruffalo frequently coming off more bored than the driven FBI agent it seem that he was supposed to be. The horsemen on the other hand are a believable unit, even if Eisenberg frequently comes off more smug than cocky as he continues to be a frustrating actor to follow, especially when both “Zombieland” and “The Social Network” both highlighted the kind of performance he is capable of giving with the right direction. Franco on the other hand seems to be overwhelmed by the experience or perhaps its more to do with the writing for his character, which constantly seems to have his character coming off more like a prodigy or rookie rather than an equal to the other members of the group

An intriguing and frequently fun premise, it largely works throughout the runtime even if some of the final twists do seem ultimately forced, while an additional scene from the theatrical version setting up the direction of the sequel has been strangely cut from the DVD release. At the same time with the sequel already in pre-production at the time of writing I would be interested to see were the horsemen would go next, which hopefully will be on a focused caper, especially when the film is at its strongest when focusing on the group and not the hit and miss sub-plots such as those surrounding magician debunker Thaddeus Bradley. Despite this the film still manages to project another flair and style to cover for most of its flaws, while certainly making it one of the more watchable capers of recent years.