Category Archives: Review

Silver Linings Playbook (2012)

by

1

Silver Linings Playbook (2013)

“You don’t go full retard.” These were Robert Downey Jr.‘s words in 2008’s Tropic Thunder. In the film he was referring to Ben Stiller‘s character Simple Jack, who was severely mentally handicapped to a charicature-style level. But the blacked up Downey Jr. raised a good point… it’s hard for Hollywood to tackle mental illness in an effective way, especially when you try to throw comedy into the mix. You don’t want the audience laughing at an illness, nor do you want them feeling ashamed of themselves for doing it either… but you do want them to laugh. So, enter Silver Linings Playbook – the latest film to tackle the tricky problem. But does it succeed?

Silver Linings Playbook (2012)Silver Linings Playbook focuses on the post-psychiatric ward recovery of Pat (Bradley Cooper), as he goes about trying to improve himself to rekindle his marriage with his adulterous wife. But as he tries to get his life back on track, he runs (literally) into Tiffany (Jennifer Lawrence) – a girl who also has some of her own issues stemming from a difficult few years, who tries to help him in his pursuit. OK, so far so good… in fact, if you strip away the mental illness issue, you could probably say it sounds quite formulaic and generic. And it probably is to a certain extent. But that would be a disservice to what is a truly fantastic movie.

I’m a big fan of Bradley Cooper. A big fan. However, one criticism that could be levied at him in recent years is the type of role he’s cast in – the “cool” guy. See The Hangover, Limitless and The A-Team for example. But this is different and really allows him to flex his acting chops in an entirely new direction, which he runs with. Pat is a disturbed character who combines rage, tranquility and confusion as he tries to deal with his life post-incident that got him committed to psychiatric care. All of this is delivered with aplomb alongside some well delivered comedic moments. I was really taken with Cooper every time he was on-screen. A really engrossing performance.

Silver Linings Playbook (2012)

Cooper & Lawrence: Effortless chemistry.

And whilst we’re talking about performances, let’s talk about Jennifer Lawrence. Wow. Now, I thought she was a good actress and her roles to date have been OK, but they’ve never really startled me. But Silver Linings Playbook really brings her to the front of my mind now, as she really owns her roles as the emotionally fragile Tiffany. The best parts of the film are when her and Cooper are firing back and forth at one another – not only do they deliver some of the funniest moments of the film, but they also harbor some of the most beautiful scenes too. Despite the fact that Lawrence is only 22 and Cooper is 37, this is never an issue as Lawrence is really acting beyond her years here.

So what of the plot? Although some of it is formulaic, it has enough nail-biting moments to keep you guessing to some degree; much in the same way that The Fighter (David O. Russell‘s last directorial effort) was ultimately predictable but a fantastic film. As I mentioned earlier, some films about mental illness try to incorporate comedic elements and I’m happy to say that Silver Linings Playbook uses them really effectively. Speaking of comedy, it’s great to see Chris Tucker also returning to the screen after a hiatus that has gone on way too long. Why isn’t he in more movies? I really only know him from Jackie Brown and the Rush Hour trilogy, and there’s good reason for that: he’s not been cast in much else. Come on Hollywood – I love this guy. You can ditch your obsession with Chris Rock and bring back Tucker! Although he’s not on screen for large swathes of time, he’s magic when he is. With Tucker you know what you’re going to get – laughs. Man, I miss seeing this guy on my screen.

Tucker! Tucker! Tucker!

Tucker! Tucker! Tucker!

One criticism of the film that could be made is the somewhat mish-mashed nature of the film: emotional one moment, but funny the next. It’s bi-polar, a lot like Cooper‘s character. But I don’t see this as a problem. Its shifts in tone are nowhere near as jarring as those in Due Date – where Zach Galifianakis delivers his comedic lines one second to only break into a very somber speech about his dead father. That was jarring. That was a hard gear change. This film does not have the same problem. It seems to ebb and flow in a very natural manner that never stalls.

And one final parting note – I’ve read that some people are confused by the American Football terminology thrown around in the film. Why? It’s not hard to follow, so don’t worry about that if these opinions concern you. Sure, there’s a lot of focus on football, but that doesn’t mean it’s a film about it. Hell, Moneyball is all about baseball, which I know very little about aside from the fact you have t-shirt cannons and drink a lot of beer whilst some guy spent 3 days swinging a bat and missing. But the fact it was about baseball and I have little knowledge of it had no bearing on my enjoyment of that film. The same is true here.

Silver Linings Playbook is one long constant silver lining. The chemistry and performances from Cooper and Lawrence are truly fantastic, with both of them showing acting skills that they’ve not had on display in recent efforts. Some will argue Cooper‘s performance is better, some will argue for Lawrence, but in my eyes they’re both on a par and really make this movie what it is. Although the plot isn’t too cerebral, it throws up enough “will it / won’t it” moments to keep you engaged with the film.

It sounds like Cooper and Lawrence have heeded Downey Jr.‘s somewhat non-PC advice from Tropic Thunder. The film deals with mental illness: not in a mocking way, but in a very endearing manner. It acknowledges the rage and downsides, but also fuses them with some truly tender and lovely moments. And once again, let’s hear it for Chris Tucker – I want to start the campaign for his return. Either with him coming back to scream “Leeeee, Leeeee you crazy!!” in Rush Hour 4, or in some other comedic vehicle. The world needs more of him. We should always go full Tucker.

Phage Factor:

4 Star

Madagascar 3: Europe’s Most Wanted

by

0

The animated sequel is something that’s hard to pull off owing to the law of diminishing returns. Each subsequent entry in a franchise seems to scramble for a new hook or new way of breathing life into its core set of characters. Not all of them can pull this off. Whilst Toy Story successfully spawned two sequels (although I think the original is by far the best), other franchises, such as Cars, have produced very lacklustre sequels that were thin on ideas. This year we’ve seen two of the “B-list” animated franchises: Ice Age and now Madagascar. Whilst I really enjoyed Ice Age: Continental Drift (so did the box office), others lambasted it for being so thin on character and featuring another nonsensical plot. So how does Madagascar 3: Europe’s Most Wanted stack up in comparison?

For those unfamiliar with the series so far, it follows a collection of animals on their wild adventures. There’s Alex the lion (Ben Stiller), Marty the zebra (Chris Rock), Melman the giraffe (David Schwimmer) and Gloria the hippo (Jada Pinkett Smith), as well as a couple of other oddballs including a battalion of penguins and an eccentric lemur called King Julien (Sacha Baron Cohen). In the past we’ve seen them find a way to get out of a New York zoo and wind up in Madagascar. They then decided they didn’t like it there so tried to fly back home, but got dumped in mainland Africa. And now we see them once again trying to get back to New York, but by way of Europe by serendipitously joining the circus to evade the clutches of Captain Chantel DuBois (Frances McDormand). She’s a bit like Ace Ventura pet detective, but way less likeable, wears less amazing clothes and generally likes to kill her captured animals. OK, so not like Ace… this comparison doesn’t fit… like a glove.

Yep, all pretty regular behaviour…

So there you have it, the typical eccentric plot of a threequel, but how does it fair? Surprisingly well, I must say. It seems like the writers have thrown caution to the wind and embraced every wild idea they could come up with on their late night benders. You want Chris Rock singing an incredibly annoying song about polka dots and afros? You got it! You want a giraffe and a hippo to fall in love and do the tightrope together? You got it! You want a lemur to fall in love with a grizzly bear that rides around on a children’s tricycle? You got it! Yes, the ideas are bombastic and absurd, but they work beautifully in the context of the film.

Now, for me, the biggest thing that I dislike about a film starring Chris Rock is Chris Rock. I just don’t get his humour – it really grates on me. People tell me he’s the “new Eddie Murphy” – but I like Eddie Murphy; that guy has charisma and is genuinely funny. I can’t say the same for Rock, especially in his stand-up. However, all of his utterances that caused me to squirm in my seat are already in the trailer; thus eliminating his annoyances from the film itself as I’d already seen them / heard his schtick. With that said, all of the cast are great – but as ever, this is just voice acting… it’s pretty hard to commend someone for “great acting abilities” if all they’re doing is reading lines. It is funny how this is Ben Stiller‘s best work in quite some time though. I really hope that guy catches a break soon so he can be acting in genuinely funny films again. I just hope the Adam Sandler effect hasn’t enveloped him yet.

What makes the film so fun is the characterisation and therefore the humour. All of the animals’ personalities are conveyed so well on screen owing to the writing and choice of accents / actors. Although once again it’s probably Sacha Baron Cohen that steals the most laughs with his always-eccentric Julian and absurdly Robin Williams-esque accent. His character’s romance with Sonya the grizzly bear is both humourous and at times quite touching (once you get through the absurdity of a tutu-ed bear on a tricycle). Also, mention has to go to the visuals. I’ve never thought of the Madagascar series as being mind-blowingly beautiful but there are some spectacular scenes in there that just look fantastic.

If I’m honest, I found the film as humourous as Ice Age: Continental Drift, but without the “slow” moments. Madagascar 3 doesn’t know where the brake pedal is and hurtles along at a rapid pace. This therefore eliminates the weaknesses I saw in Ice Age: Continental Drift – the slow romance scenes with the young mammoths. Therefore kudos must be given for the pacing of this film, which makes it even more suitable for the youngsters in the audience. In a year that’s seen so many “mature” animated films, it’s great to see something that is aimed at the kids, as opposed to aiming at the adults. Sure, there are laughs to be had for us more mature folks, but it’s not expressly for us. And that’s what makes it a great watch.

With Madagascar 3: Europe’s Most Wanted I think you know what you’re getting yourself in for when you purchase the ticket… it’s about talking animals. And it ably delivers on its aims of entertainment. Whilst it’s by no means going to catapult the franchise into the upper echelons and make it as note-worthy as Toy Story, it’s definitely injected fresh life into the premise. I just wonder where they’ll go from here…

And who doesn’t like some wild speculation on that fact? I don’t think they’ll go the totally bonkers route that Ice Age has pursued… but who knows. I’m sure the writing team have read the reviews praising their off-the-wall humour, so maybe we will? Aliens? Dinosaurs? Space? Who knows where we’ll be heading next!

Phage Factor:

3.5 Star

Argo (2012)

by

3

In previous reviews I’ve talked about how true stories are sometimes more intriguing and exciting than those dreamt up by a writer supping malibu by his pool in Malibu. The Imposter, for instance, was a riveting film that was made all the more enjoyable because you knew it was true. Although Argo is very much dramatised, with genuine actors unlike The Imposter, it still sits in the same vein. And it also comes with Ben Affleck both in front of and behind the camera – a guy who’s seeming like he can do no wrong any more. Add to that it’s a spy story, at a time when James Bond is dominating the box office, and you’ve got to wonder if Affleck can romance the crowds against the bang and bravado of Skyfall… So… can he?

Affleck vs Craig: One Spy To Rule Them All.

Firstly, if you’ve read my review of James Bond’s latest, Skyfall, you’ll be aware that I thought it was OK, but overall was very underwhelming. Especially against the backdrop of all the hype and fanfare it’s receiving. Argo is a different customer entirely. It doesn’t feature a slick British agent cavorting around the world, nor does it feature a “super-villain” in the same pantomime way as Bond. What it does offer is perhaps the best spy-related film of the year.

Argo, which is based on a true story, follows the attempts to rescue a set of US embassy workers that are trapped inside of a revolutionary Iran, where the Great Satan (aka USA) is vilified and hated by all. Tony Mendez (Ben Affleck) of the CIA concocts a way to evacuate them: by getting them to pose as a Canadian film crew that are doing reconnaissance for a sci-fi film known as Argo. Whilst in the US, Mendez puts together a team of  Lester Siegel (Alan Arkin) and John Chambers (John Goodman) to set all the wheels in motion for this film that will never be made. Whilst liberties have been taken (such as Lester Siegel being fictitious), the plot follows the actual events of the 1979-1981 crisis.

Affleck & Cranston: Two of a fantastic cast.

I’m tempted now to throw down a list of all the brilliant actors in this film, such as Bryan Cranston and Zeljko Ivanek, but I’ll have to resist. Needless to say you’ll be seeing faces you will and won’t recognise. Some with a keener eye for cinema may spot actors from this year’s Killing Them Softly (Scoot McNairy) and 1998’s The Faculty (Clea DuVall), all donning very late 1970’s attire and hair. There are no weak links in this acting chain.

If you don’t know where I’m going with this, then let me explain: the characters and acting are fantastic. Ben Affleck yet again shows us that he’s a truly talented guy, both in front and behind the camera. It seemed for a while that his old buddy Matt Damon may have truly ridden away into the sunset in terms of great roles and great performances, but boy… Affleck is good. Really good. Kudos also has to go to the screenplay writers here too. The movie has tension in spades, but also has some guffaw-inducing humour – normally coming from either John Goodman or Alan Arkin. Both are on top form and their comic “old school Hollywood” personalities really shine through on that script. Also providing a not-safe-for-children’s-eyes catchphrase that you’ll no doubt utter as you leave the screening.

“Argof’yourself!”

Although I can’t talk much about the plot, as it’d spoil everything, I can say that I found the film riveting. I didn’t ever find myself bored or distracted. I was fully absorbed for the full 120 minute runtime. Also, with the events occurring a few years before me even being born, I can’t quite comment on the accuracy of events. I could go and read all the documents that were declassified by Bill Clinton back in the 1990’s, but I think I’d prefer to have “this” version of events as my canon. I’m sure that the film has been bent and adapted to make it more appealing to cinema-goers, but I’d genuinely believe this is “based on a true story”… and not in the same way that Paranormal Activity is “based on a true story”. That and it’s actually really good.

Skyfall may be what all the press and your friends are talking about right now. They may all be heaping praise on the film too. But Bond’s been beaten hands down by Ben Affleck‘s Argo. There’s no hamfisted plot twists, no weak characterisation and no product placement. What Argo delivers is a captivating true story with some of the best performances we’ve seen in this end of 2012. It also features far funnier lines than anything in Bond’s recent repertoire too.

If this is spy season at the cinema (after the summer’s superhero season, and mid-October’s animated-horror season), then there can only be one film you’ll need to see, and it’s not the one featuring a guy who likes his Martini “shaken, not stirred”. Once again, the truth is way more exciting than fiction.

Phage Factor:

Skyfall (2012)

by

0

The UK has several proud traditions. We have given the world fish and chips as a Friday night dinner treat. We’ve birthed such luminaries as Charles Darwin, Isaac Newton and Russell Brand. And we pretty much introduced civilisation and culture to most of the known world via our Empire. OK, maybe not all of those are “proud traditions”, but there are several things you’d associate with the United Kingdom. One of our other contributions to the world is one of the best loved spies: one that’s been gracing our screens for 50 years. He may have changed his appearance several times and has been through the good times and bad times, but we’ve always had James Bond to rely on. But with Skyfall, has the time come for the most famous British spy to retire, or should he carry on fighting for Her Majesty?

I don’t think I need to give any clarification of who James Bond (Daniel Craig) is, or what he does. He’s one of the most referenced cultural icons of the 20th and 21st Century. Our latest foray into his world sees Bond pit against Javier Bardem‘s Silva – a guy with a bit of a vendetta against M (Judi Dench) – the head of MI6. What follows is a global romp that sees Bond take in such exotic locations as Shanghai and, erm, Scotland, in an attempt to rid the world of yet another villainous ne’er-do-well.

So far, so good. With Bond you know what you’re going to get right? Bond is inevitably going to have to face off against a “bad guy”. Bond movies are pretty much like a comic book movie – you know what you’re going to get. However, even holding that in mind, I can’t say I was as enamoured with Skyfall as the mass media make out you should be. The UK media has rabidly covered Skyfall calling it “the best Bond ever” and hailing it as a masterpiece. I can’t say I agree. I unduly allowed my expectations to be raised as a result of all this press, but I wish I hadn’t.

So why? Where’s the problem? For me it breaks down to two salient points: poor pacing and characters. In terms of the pacing, I found the first third of the film incredibly slow to develop. Sure, you get the archetypal opening frenzy of action to suck you in, as every action movie worth its chops has. But then it slows and chugs along as we await the introduction of Javier Bardem. Now, this brings in point number two. Bardem‘s opening scene was fabulous and his monologue was delivered incredibly well – I thought “OK, here we go – NOW we’re onto something!”… but this broke down due to flaws in this character’s actions.

For all intents and purposes, Bardem‘s Silva is a technological marvel. One that can manipulate systems at a whim and collapse governments with his abilities. Does this remind you of a villain from elsewhere? How about Timothy Olyphant‘s villain in Die Hard 4? And his flaws are the same as Bardem‘s – namely, this guy is a technologically-bent villain. Therefore why bring yourself into the field of play with a John McClane or James Bond – someone with a very special set of skills in close quarters? You cannot compete. I understand Bardem‘s “personal vendetta”, but regardless, there are better ways of dealing with situations and some of his choices are very farcical for such a “sophisticated” villain.

Linked to this is the fact that the writers seem to have been heavily inspired by the work of Christopher Nolan in the past few years. Silva ultimately comes off as a cross between Oliphant‘s technical wizard and Heath Ledger‘s unhinged Joker, but falls short of the latter. He is nowhere near as threatening a madman as Ledger‘s Joker, nor are his plans as intelligent. Whilst I’m on a character-driven analysis, I’ve got to say a huge “huh?” at the “Bond girl” of the piece: Severin (Bérénice Marlohe). She’s not a driven, independent woman. She’s a slave and someone who’s been brutalised sexually in the past. It sounds like she’s had a horrible life. So you’ve really got to question what the hell Bond is doing getting “intimate” with her when you hold her background in mind. Sure James, she’s a stunning lady, but do you really think that’s what she wants?!

And finally I come to Daniel Craig‘s Bond. I can’t fault him as an actor. His Bond is most definitely “his”, but I still think Casino Royale was the better of Craig‘s entries in the role so far. The criticisms of his other entries, namely his more gritty approach, are as true here as ever. Bond fans looking for a return to the quippy Bond of yesteryear will still be disappointed, although there is a good deal of humour in the film which provides some lovely moments. I don’t personally hold these issues with Craig‘s Bond, as each actor has brought his own take on the role and Craig definitely rejuvenated the franchise after Pierce Brosnan‘s less than impressive final entries. So although I’m not going to extol the virtues of this film, as some others may, I can say that this is yet another strong entry from Daniel Craig in a perfectly serviceable Bond film. Avid Bond fans will love it, but the more casual viewer may have one or two issues…

Skyfall definitely makes up for the misstep that was Quantum of Solace, but failed to captivate me in the way that Casino Royale did. So in my humble opinion, this isn’t the “best Bond ever”, but then again, I can’t say I’m the biggest fan of the Bond franchise. I think my biggest obsession came with Nintendo’s Goldeneye video game in the late 1990’s, where I spent countless hours chasing after Sean Bean‘s 006 through Russia and getting constantly annoyed by Boris declaring “I am invincible!” at every opportunity with his brick-esque head right up in my face.

Ultimately, Bond continues to be one of those characters we can be most proud of, and the latest instalment in the franchise is by no means the worst and is definitely in the top quarter of the 23. All the acting is solid and the plot is fair enough. It’s just a shame that the writing was sub-standard and let the film down. It’s akin to having fish and chips with no mushy peas. Sure, we like the fish and chips, but you cannot miss out the mushy peas.

Phage Factor:

3.5 Star

Paranormal Activity 4 (2012)

by

4

Back in 2009, a movie came out that brought something new and refreshing to the “found footage” genre of horror movie made so popular by The Blair Witch Project a decade before. That film was Paranormal Activity. Like its snotty-faced muse, it was very low budget and had a certain simplicity to it. It relied on a single handicam being placed in a bedroom every night to capture what spooky shenanigans were occurring. Audiences loved it, so inevitably the sequel hit screens the following year. And in a pattern resembling Saw, we’re now seeing sequels summoned on a yearly basis to coincide with Halloween. But is Paranormal Activity 4 a devilish return to form, or is it just a pale apparition of what went before?

If you’ve been following the franchise thus far then this film returns back to the “regular” timeline set forth in Paranormal Activity and Paranormal Activity 2, but does draw on plotlines exposed in the prequel, Paranormal Activity 3. I know, I too wish they’d just called Paranormal Activity 3 “Paranormal Activity: Inception, or Origins, or The Summoning”… just something to make the chronology a little easier to comprehend! Regardless, it follows on from the massacre at the hands of Katie (Katie Featherston) in PA2. And guess what? She’s gone walkabout with Hunter and ended up in a new neighbourhood – a new neighbourhood that houses our lead, Alex (Kathryn Newton), and her family. Inevitably, spooky things start happening and the Paranormal Activity storyline is developed… very, very slowly… and not in an interesting new way.

He’s behind you…

The big “hook” this time is the use of modern technology to capture the activity, namely webcams and X-box Kinect’s detection system. I’ve got to say, it worked, but it wasn’t as effective as it could have been, and nowhere near as interesting as what went before. The main problem is that in previous instalments the cameras were positioned in such a way that you became very familiar with the room over time. The nature of a webcam mounted to a laptop is that it travels and moves a hell of a lot; thus breaking some of this continuity. Sure, some of these cameras are artificially “fixed” to capture the action, but it somewhat removed some of the tension by having them so mobile.

The next thing you’ve got to come to with a horror film is… the horror, the scares, the tension. And I’ve got to say that spare the last 3 minutes, the film is incredibly light on all of the former. The Paranormal Activity franchise has got a reputation as being a “slow burner” and one that gradually ramps up the tension, but this takes “slow burner” to an entirely new level. This is very slow. And the menace is somewhat removed by the silhouette outlined by the Kinect sensor’s projections. In previous films, you’ve come to use your imagination to conjure up what this demon looks like. Hell, in Paranormal Activity you saw those weird trotter / three-toed imprints in the talcum powder, and in Paranormal Activity 3 you had that snorting sound. I was imagining one hell of a demon. All of this is destroyed somewhat in PA4. You’ll see what I mean if you head out to see it.

This is an album cover by a death metal band called Crucifier (thanks Google). But THIS is how I saw Paranormal Activity’s demon. Or something close…

And how could I forget the return of my friend “LOUD NOISES!”. Yes, he’s back and with a vengeance this time around. The majority of the startlings are a result of the loud noises. I’m well aware that Paranormal Activity pioneered this approach, so I’m not expecting it to vanish, but a little more terror would have been appreciated. And god knows I rambled enough about this issue in my review of Sinister, which in retrospect was probably a better film than Paranormal Activity 4. In all aspects. The acting here isn’t bad, as Kathryn Newton is a very likeable lead and carries the film well, but its the shambolic writing that lets the film down so badly. I’m sick to death of the family never believing there’s a ghost until they’re crucified on a clothes line or suspended from the rafters by a dressing gown cord.

The Kinect effect. Not sure if Microsoft will feel a boom in their profits because of this though…

And the plot holes? My oh my are there plot holes! Although some would ruin the film, just ask yourself “who is Katie’s child?” – the one that she initially turns up with, because it sure as hell isn’t Hunter from Paranormal Activity 2. Who is he? Why does she have him? And just why the hell do they bother to record ghostly happenings if they never check the bloody tapes!? I’m half-expecting the already-commissioned Paranormal Activity 5 to deal with the unknown child to be honest. And inevitably I’ll be going to the cinema to see what they’ve cooked up this time. Hopefully something a little more refreshing and interesting…

Paranormal Activity 4 isn’t a bad movie, but it’s not even in the same league as the original. Many of the scares have been removed and the pre-requisite for imagination has been checked at the cloakroom. It was the fear of not knowing what the demon looked like that made it interesting for me. The addition of a witches’ covenant in Paranormal Activity 3 caught me a little off-guard, and was unwelcome in my eyes, but it added a bit of depth to the saga. This instalment does little to develop the plot.

Ultimately, this film’s developments are tantamount to finding out that the horrible black silhouette of a goblin lurking in the corner of your room is in fact a pile of clothes. It removes the fear and intrigue. Maybe I missed the point of the “silhouette” cast by the demon here, but the film certainly didn’t develop this image I have in my head. I certainly won’t be calling the Ghostbusters. Especially if Bill Murray isn’t coming to crack some jokes. Ghostbusters and Ghostbusters 2 – now THEY were scary movies! I’ve never looked at a fridge or bathtub the same since. Probably why I’m malnourished and odorous.

Phage Factor:

Frankenweenie (2012)

by

2

Ah, Tim Burton. Tim, Tim, Tim… I’ve never really been a fan of your work if I’m honest. I’ve seen much of it, but never felt that rabid urge to sign up to the fan club. Or even admit to really liking your films. Sure, I enjoyed seeing Edward Scissor Hands as a youth (even if I did get it confused with Lawnmower Man – too many garden appliances), and I also quite enjoyed Beetlejuice, but since then? Not so much. I remember seeing The Nightmare Before Christmas at the cinema and being particularly unimpressed, despite my age. I remember 1993 much more for Jurassic Park – now THAT was a film. A hulking behemoth of a movie, but The Nightmare Before Christmas? It was a little weenie in comparison. A forgettable, little weenie. So when I saw Frankenweenie (see what I did there?) was coming to screens at the same time as ParaNorman and Hotel Transylvania, I just lumped them all together as “might see”… then I actually saw Frankenweenie…

If you love the retro feel of this, you’ll dig the film itself…

Well well well Mr. Burton, this I did not expect. Frankenweenie is perhaps the finest animated film I’ve seen this year, or in recent memory. The story follows a young, clever and introverted child by the name of Victor Frankenstein (Charlie Tahan) and his faithful dog Sparky. Tragedy strikes when Sparky meets his maker in an untimely fashion, but after some sadness, Victor uses his superior intellect to resurrect Sparky through the use of lightning and electrodes. It’s alive… IT’S ALIIIIIIIVE!!

Ok, so it sounds like Frankenstein, but with a dog, as opposed to a human. And therein lies the genius of this film: it’s very referential to horror and sci-fi films that have gone before it. Whether it’s a toilet scene bringing to mind that of Jurassic Park, the naming of characters such as Victor Frankenstein, Edgar “E” Gore or Elsa Van Helsing, or even the inclusion of footage from Horror of Dracula with Christopher Lee. It’s all there. And there’s probably a hell of a lot of stuff that I didn’t spot. This is a true Easter Egg hunt for horror purists. Search and you shall find.

Although you could probably fit the plot of Frankenweenie on the back of an envelope, it’s told incredibly well. The characterisation is fantastic and definitely Burton. This would normally put me off, but not here. He’s gone back to his roots and brought out that spooky and odd writing of old. All of this is rounded off with true off-the-wall humour that made me think of Mars Attacks! more than anything else. In saying this, I didn’t hear a single child laugh over the course of the movie. Now, I said that ParaNorman had the same issue, but kids did laugh – at physical comedy. Frankenweenie is a much more solemn affair and the humour is aimed squarely at a more mature audience. The film looks beautiful, which will entertain the children, but it won’t have them laughing and squealing with delight. It may therefore be suited to a more intelligent child. But everyone thinks their kid is a genius right? But if you’re being honest with yourself, does your child enjoy being creative and painting vivid scenes with poster paints? Or does he/she simply just mix all the paints into a brown mess and claim it’s a “bunny wabbit”. That child wouldn’t suit this film. Sorry. You child isn’t a genius. But I hear Madagascar 3 is incredibly funny…?

Back on track: I mentioned the visuals. Obviously the first thing that strikes you about the film is that it’s in black and white – all of it. Don’t expect the colour to appear somewhere. I read that Burton was set on having his world shown in this way. It’s a brave move, but it really works. I can’t help but feel that The Artist‘s success made film companies a bit more interested in the nostalgic approach to film making, but regardless – it’s certainly helped Frankenweenie. And the animation? Flawless. All of the characters are very “Tim Burton” – big heads, massive eyes and odd teeth. It’s very stylised and stylish. I loved it.

It’s aliiiiive!

Ultimately, I couldn’t get enough of this film. Some of my US-based critic friends. notably Keith & The Movies and Papa Kenn Media (check them both out) had alerted me that this might need to be seen and I wasn’t disappointed. As I said at the outset, I’ve never been a Tim Burton fan. I think his reliance on casting Johnny Depp and Helena Bonham-Carter in everything put me off somewhat. That and the fact that he hasn’t had an original film idea in a good while now. This changes all that. Although I still won’t be signing up for that fan club, I can wholeheartedly say that this film is fantastic. Thoroughly engaging and true eye candy, with enough horror-centric references to sate old school horror fans, as I’m sure Burton himself is.

So Mr. Burton it seems I owe you an apology. Well, not an apology… an admission. Although I think the vast majority of your work is forgettable and ultimately underwhelming, I loved Frankenweenie. It really struck me as a lovingly put together film that really drew upon all of your inspirations as a child. Also, thanks for not casting your wife or Johnny Depp (your other other half) in this film. No disrespect to them, but it made the film so much more refreshing without them.

Might I make a recommendation to you though? Let’s not reanimate the corpse of Frankenweenie. I don’t want to see Frankenweenie 2: Revenge of the Felines. I think it should stay buried, and not in the Pet Sematary, because we all know what happens there too… Cheers, The Phage.

Phage Factor: