Halloween 2011: September 16th

Don’t Be Afraid of the Dark (1973)
I can see why this movie would have such a strong effect on young viewers back in the seventies. The fear of the dark is a natural human reaction, and this film makes nice uses of shadows. It has some fantastic atmosphere. The big, old house combined with the deep shadows and the insidious, creeping creatures make for spooky viewing. The film generates some nice suspense too, especially in the shower sequence and its dark (both literally and figuratively) finale. Considering the television origins, the sound design is pretty good too. (The creepy whispers are indeed as effective as the fans say.)

Kim Darby gives a good performance, properly conveying her character’s fear without going overboard into hysterics. It’s often easy, when a story hinges on characters not believing our protagonist, for people to become shrill or annoying. This movie nicely avoids that problem, making Sally’s husband and friends concerned, but skeptical, and when things get serious, they do go over to the believing side.

While the film is pretty good, especially by TV movie standards, and certainly succeeds as a horror film, I think a great deal of nostalgia is clouding the fans' perception. (It would probably be much more effective for a child.) The threatening imps are portrayed as small, furry little humanoids and aren’t completely convincing. While the downbeat ending is surprising and creepy, it’s a bit too cryptic and doesn’t explain much. Moreover, the carpenter character exists just to drop a load of exposition on the audience before the end. The latest DVD edition, which is still a movie-on-demand title for some reason, is supposedly remastered, but the older copy I’ve got has a dark, murky quality to it that is definitely a detriment to the film. However, the movie does deserve its cult classic status, I’d say. It’s certainly a neat, effective variation on the old dark house formula. (7/10)

Don’t Be Afraid of the Dark (2011)
It’s fun to watch an original and its remake back to back. It’s easy to say that this version of “Dark” is superior if for no other reasons then its higher production values. The middle class manor of the original film has been upgraded to a sprawling, gothic mansion. Right from the beginning, it’s obvious this movie was directed by a designer. For example, the mansion’s door is done in amber glass, with creeping tree branches overlaid over it, which is just one of several fantastic images here. It might not be fair to the humble, TV original, but its hard to beat the level of atmosphere a giant, sprawling mansion affords you.

Another major, great update to the film is switching the character from an adult woman to a child. This is an important change for several reasons. Fear of the dark is something I think every child experiences. Parents and adults not believing the little kid who’s on to something might be a horror cliché, but it’s a potent convention for a reason, and this movie enlivens it. Best of all, Sally, as played by Bailee Madison, is a fantastic character. She’s a sad little girl, who likes to be alone, is intensely curious, and loves to explore. Her parents are both incredibly remote, her mother just a voice on the phone and her father obsessed with his work, which makes her isolation even more severe. Naturally, that curiosity gets her in a lot of trouble. But it also affords her a lot of strength. Sally is one of the strongest female heroine I’ve seen in recent year, even more so considering she’s not even ten years old. She is a child character in a horror movie that is rounded, developed, and actually interesting, an even rarer occurrence. The supporting cast is solid too. Katie Holmes hasn’t aged too well, but she does a decent job as the only person who really seems to believe her step-daughter. Guy Pierce is fine, but mostly a cipher.

Another improvement over the original is the monsters. I mention above that the miniature sasquatches of the original weren’t exactly intimidating. Here, the creatures are tiny, withered rat-like imps, all long limbs, teeth, bright eyes, and claws. The CGI effects are extremely good.

(Two minor asides here: First off, Guillermo del Toro is obviously terrified of the tooth fairy. This is the second time one of his production have portray the generally benign mythological creature as a vicious killer that feeds on teeth. And here’s something I think about both films: Both would be more effective if we didn’t see the creatures in either, just squirming shadows. Just a thought.)

The movie is, gratefully, fantastically, completely free of jump-scares. It’s score is subtle and all about building atmosphere, playing like a lullaby laced with soft dread. While the movie eventually overdoes it with the number of monsters on-screen, it never goes for the cheap scare. Instead, it taps nicely into childhood fears, of monsters in the dark, seeing things that may or may not be there, and the total lack of control over your life. The most famous scenes from the original: the shower, the dinner table, and being dragged down the stairs; are all given a reprise. The creepy whispering is back, and is perhaps even more effective then before. The ending is changed, and doesn’t go quite as dark. You’ll probably be able to see it coming. The movie does actually explain the imp’s motivation and expounds on their mythology quite a bit more then the original. While this information is nice, it’s dropped as a lump of exposition in the middle of the movie courtesy of a one-scene librarian.

Guillermo del Toro’s fingerprints are all over this project. The scenes of a little girl exploring a terrifying fantasy is straight out of “Pan’s Labyrinth,” and the childhood perspective recalls similar scenes in “The Devil’s Backbone” and “Mimic.”

“Don’t Be Afraid of the Dark” is far from a perfect film but, in a day and age when most horror films are content to simply shock or disgusts, it goes for real scares, rooted in deep childhood fears. It doesn’t always get them but it piles on fantastic atmosphere, if nothing else. (8/10)

Halloween 2011: Preamble

Well, kids, it's that time again. Autumn is on it's way, October is just around the corner, and, along with brown leaves on the ground and evening rains, comes Halloween, the spookiest, most exciting time of the year.

Despite the increasingly sporadic updates of this blog (Two whole months since an update? Get it together, Zack), watching films for my annual Halloween Horror-a-thon and then writing about them here have become just as much a part of my yearly tradition as handing out candy to trick r' treaters or decorating with spiders and bats. And considering the toils of the past summer (Unemployment, unemployment again, end of relationship, numerous traffic accidents), the warmly nostalgic fog of October are gladly welcomed, even more so then usual.

As always, I'm hoping to improve my blog entries this season, by seeing more films of as many different styles as possible, upgrading from measly "mini-reviews" to proper reviews, and updating daily. Since the Universal Monsters are well-trodden ground with me, I've decided this year I'm going to focus on two other classic horror studios: Hammer of the UK and AIP of America. In addition, I also plan on rewatching as many episodes of "Tales from the Crypt" as possible, since I haven't seen it in many years and decided to go ahead and buy the rest of the show after owning seasons one and two for a long time. I know I promised it last year, but the Mario Bava Director's Report Card is complete and ready to post. Those updates should commence on Monday.

Why Monday? Because over the weekend, I am attending my first horror convention, Monster-Mania 20 in Baltimore. Originally, ever-present movie watching partner JD was to accompany me to HorrorFind in Gettysberg over Labor Day weekend, but complications arose and we didn't make it out there. Since it appears to be my last shot at getting to a horror con this season, I decided Monster-Mania is the one. I'm looking forward to meeting Tom Atkins, PJ Soles, Tony Todd and (hopefully) John Carpenter. I'm looking forward to sweeping the dealer's floor, meeting other freaks like me, and catching a flick or two. More then anything else, I'm just looking forward to experiencing the convention atmosphere for the first time. Con reports will appear here Friday, Saturday, and Sunday. Expect lots of pictures and swearing.

Beyond that, I don't have a lot in the way of Halloween plans this year, since there doesn't seem to be a whole lot going on. My local Apollo Civic Theater will be continuing its Midnight Movie series this year, though no films have been announced yet. JD and I will once again brave the midnight "Rocky Horror" experience, in defiance of sanity and good taste. I'm sure the Alamo Drafthouse in Winchester will have some cool stuff, though there's no signs yet. And it will be hard to top meeting Count Gore de Vol from last year. I also plan on getting out to one of the local Haunted attractions this season, wither it be a trail, a theater, a mall, or a fire house, since that's a big part of the seasonal festivities that I missed out on last year.

Sadly, the movie studios don't seem as interested in releasing horror this October as they were last year. The fifth entry in the increasingly stale and routine "Final Destination" franchise has all ready come and gone. Despite potential guilty pleasure status, both "Shark Night 3-D" and "Apollo 18" have nary a good review between the two of them. "Creature" seemed like a potentially fun, old-fashion monster movie, but, considering its astoundingly awful opening weekend, I'm not placing bets on catching it in the theaters. "Don't Be Afraid of the Dark" is pretty much the sole interesting fright flick in theaters right now. I plan on catching that tomorrow, along with the original 1973 TV flick it's a remake off, that I just recently got a copy of.

And what does October hold? A prequel to "The Thing" that I am increasingly ambivalent about and "Paranormal Activity 3," which has inherited not only the annual release dates of the "Saw" franchise, but also it's frustratingly insular story lines, convoluted continuity, and refusal to neatly wrap up the plot points the audience actually wants to see resolved. Even the indie front is slim pickings. "The Skin I Live In" could be an interesting update on "Eyes Without a Face," but Almodovar is a divisive filmmaker and the rave TIFF reviews have me weary. "Texas Killing Fields" has a crackerjack cast but seems more middling true crime story then horror. Washed-up, has-been thriller "Trespass" barely registers. Kevin Smith's obnoxious, self-serving release campaign for "Red State" has deadened any interest I had in what was all ready basically "Hostel" with some thuddingly obvious social commentary awkwardly stapled on. (Criticizing Fred Phelps is like criticizing pedophilia. Nobody's going to disagree with you.) Even more depressing is that not a single horror film is coming out Halloween weekend. What a damn shame.

Proper reviews will start tomorrow. Until then, I suggest you check out my Halloween Megamix play-list over on Youtube. It's full of wacky, goodness, I swear.

Series Report Card: Disney Animated Features (2011)

50. Winnie the Pooh
“Winnie the Pooh” is even more of a throw-back then Disney’s last few animated features. In a world of bright, chaotic CGI animation that often features adult humor, cartoonish violence, or attempts at serious themes, this film is quiet, playful, and unabashedly sweet. Compared to this year’s “Cars 2,” a movie featuring broad humor, a world spanning plot, and a disconcerting amount of serious spy violence, it’s like another world. The central conflict here involves a slapstick quest to capture an imaginary monster or attempts to replace a sad donkey’s missing tail. Our protagonist has no discernible character arc beyond his desire to eat lots and lots of honey. (Well, okay, Pooh does learn a little about friendship along the way, but, mostly… Honey.)

The movie carries on a visual motif from the original “Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh,” in that the whole movie takes place in a book. But it takes the interaction further. The characters often interact with the words around, bringing the very layout of the page into the plot. As in the older film, a narrator not only describes the scenarios, but often chats with the characters, goading them on when they don’t follow the story. (John Cleese steps in for the long-gone Sebastian Cabot.)

As with the last few animated features, “Winnie the Pooh” is a musical. The characters often sing-song little cheering ditties while, on the soundtrack, indie-movie-starlet and Manic-Pixie-Dream-Girl-for-life, Zooey Deschanel, sings sweet little acoustic melodies. During an extended day-dream sequence, Pooh imagines himself in a world full of honey, set to Zooey’s whimsical soundtrack. Deschanel also provides the ending credits music, a catchy number called “So Long,” that perfectly sums up the film’s themes of friendship and play.

The movie’s pace is incredibly laid-back, intentionally calling to mind a little boy playing with his toys on a lazy Sunday afternoon. As I said earlier, there’s not much here in way of story. The movie doesn’t even really follow the three-act structure, breaking the first rule in the screenwriter’s book. (Pretty daring for a kid’s flick.) For around the first half-hour, the movie focuses on a contest to replace Eeyore’s misplaced tail. Though the gang does their best to cook up creative replacement, nothing quite satisfies Eeyore and nobody gets the prize, a giant pot of honey. However, for the second half, the movie shifts focus. Christopher Robin disappears, leaves a note, which the goofy animals misinterpreted as a ransom letter from an imaginary monster called the “Backson.”

This leads to the film’s two highlight sequences. The first is a colorful musical number, done in the style of chalkboard illustrations, describing just what kind of monster a Backson is. (He puts holes in your socks.) A trap is set for the creature but, naturally, our heroes wind up in the trap instead and have to rely on little Piglet to get them out, leading to some of the biggest laughs in the film. Somewhere in the middle of this, Eeyore and Tigger have a boxing match, somebody dresses up as the monster and, well… You can probably see where this is going.

The film is barely over an hour long and its episodic nature extends past the main feature. The movie opens with a short called “The Ballad of Nessie.” It’s a sweet little fable designed to teach kids that it’s okay to cry and features the cutest, most charming rendition of the Loch Ness Monster that I’ve seen recently. Cute little Nessie would make a proud addition to any collection of Disney memorabilia. “The Ballad of Nessie” is a fantastic little short and almost outshines the main feature.

“Winnie the Pooh” isn’t out to redefine the medium, but, it is daring in its own quiet ways. It’s got no celebrity voices (unless Craig Ferguson counts. And he’d be the first to say he doesn’t.), instead filling its character’s mouths with veteran voice actors. (Including Jim Cummings, who has now voiced Pooh longer then Sterling Holloway ever did.) When every week brings around star-studded CGI talking animal movie, a short little cartoon about a boy, his bear, and the adventures they have, seems more out-of-place then ever. And, if the theater I saw the film in is any indication, it might be too calm for most modern kids. The parents laughed and smiled while the little ones squirmed.

It makes me sad to think there’s no room in today’s kids marketplace for the simple pleasures of “Winnie the Pooh.” The fact that Disney opened this opposite the biggest film of the summer, in the middle of a crowded blockbuster season, doesn’t make me think they had much confidence in it. If nothing else, “Winnie the Pooh” will find it’s home on video, where it will provide a serene escape for both parents and kids. [Grade: B]

Director Report Card: Lucky McKee (2011)

5. The Woman (2011)
As a huge fan of Lucky McKee and someone who generally enjoys the work of Jack Ketchum, I was eagerly anticipating their latest partnership. It’s a true collaboration too. McKee’s screenplay for “The Woman” and Ketchum’s novel were written at the same time and the two manuscripts influenced one another. Despite having not read the books “Off Season” and “Offspring,” nor seen the latter novel’s film adaptation, I considered myself familiar enough with both director and author to know what to expect.

But I sure didn’t expect this. “The Woman” is the most brutally horrifying film I’ve seen this year and maybe in years. It’s not an exploitation movie, but rather a movie about exploitation. McKee combines his feminist angle with Ketchum’s trademark brutality. Ketchum often writes about violent sociopaths barely concealing their psychopathy under a smile of civility. That concept is presented in a story about a dysfunctional family barely held together by fear and a tyrannical patriarch. McKee then injects the whole thing with his themes of how twisted masculinity has subjected, objectified, controlled, and abused women throughout the decades. The movie would almost play like a perverse satire if the horror wasn’t presented in uncompromising, sickeningly tense detail. The movie isn’t subtle, but sometimes subtly isn’t necessary.

McKee continues to suppress and refine his style as a director. As far as stylistic excesses go, the movie peaks in the opening minutes, in which it shows the ferocity of the titular Woman visually. Lucky refrains from the colorful flourishes of “May” and “The Woods,” instead recording most of the movie with a blunt, matter-of-factness. After that brief prologue, the movie settles in on its family.

Father Chris smiles and nods, seeming much too content and happy with his life, as if he’s working overtime to exude a sense of normality. He has a passive-aggressive, vaguely predatory tone with everyone in his life, from his neighbors to his secretary to, especially, his family. Wife Belle is obviously tightly-wound, a nervous wreck barely holding her self together. Teenage daughter Peggy is depressed, failing in school, dressing frumpily, and avoiding her social life. Son Brian shows affection for a girl in his class by sticking gum in her hairbrush. Even the otherwise normal youngest daughter Darlin seems blindly happy.

Obviously there is something very wrong with this family even before the father sees the untamed Woman in the woods. He is smitten with her immediately. (The movie illustrates this by playing a rock song over the first sighting, an admittedly heavy-handed moment. The movie generally leans on its soundtrack a bit too much.) By her nonchalant sexuality? Or by the opportunity to build his own girl from the ground-up, without any of society’s built-in attitudes? Dad captures the Woman, takes her back to his home, ties her up in his tool shed, and goes about his plan of “civilizing” the cannibalistic female. He involves his wife and children in this endeavor right from the beginning, having the kids treat this human being little better then a pet.

The Woman soon goes on to acerbate the all ready tense family situation. Her wildness seems to inject a dose of chaotic imbalance to the sterile family life. It’s not her anarchic, untamed femininity but her ability to read people with a glance, to know what they’re feeling and thinking. And why she rarely comes out and says it, just her unblinking glares are enough to pass judgment, to plant the seed of rebellion or guilt. Belle has an opportunity to stop the madness and Peggy’s kind, snooping teacher provides her with an out as well. But neither go for it, so tight is Daddy’s lease, even with the Woman casting confrontational stares from the tool shed.

The movie lays down its cards slowly, building upon the abuse inch-by-inch. Emotional blackmailing and strangulating oppression soon gives way to slaps and then much worse. In keeping with the Jack Ketchum brand, the real monster aren’t the cannibal cave people in the woods, but the smiling Stepford people in the suburbs, using their psychological powers to inflict much worse damage on their victims then a bloody wound. As the story builds, the intensity builds. A fever pitch is reached in the last fifteen minutes, when emotions come out, bounds are broken, and we realized just how much of a monster Chris Cleek really is. The climatic twist is shocking, disturbing, and completely unexpected. In another movie, it might pushes thing too far over the top, but by this point, the viewer is sucked in, dragged along uncontrollably by the movie’s unblinking eye. And then The Woman, locked away like so much boiling rage and fear and suppressed hate, is let loose. Like a lawnmower blade wielding hurricane, she expresses all those hindered emotions physically, viscerally, in a way the suppressed women of the family can not. The final act of the film is horrifying and captivating. You can not look away, no matter how much you’ll want too. And you’ll want too.

The cast is indeed impressive. Pollyanna McIntosh in the title role takes a penetrating glower and runs with it, doing a lot with a little. It’s not hard to imagine why the filmmakers would decide to build an entire movie around her or why the characters would be so obsessed with her. Sean Bridgers embodies the grinning madman of Chris Cleek a little too well. I can’t imagine being in a room with this guy, acting like this. You understand how evil he can be but also why he can be so completely in control of those around him. Angela Bettis puts her slender, fragile form and shaky delivery to good use as the constrained wife. She’s utterly kowtowed and completely reigned in, constantly afraid that anything will set off the monster(s?) in her home. (Until she finally snaps, which is cathartic, but goes about as well as you’d expect.)

If McIntosh isn’t the break-out star of the picture, it’s definitely Lauren Ashley Carter. With her big doe-eyes, cutie-pie lips, and general pixie cuteness, Carter certainly makes you want to protect her. She runs through the cycle of guilt and horror the character requires fantastically. Hopefully, she has a long, successful career before her.

Sadly, not every performance in the film is great. Zack Rand as the son is a little too flat. Perhaps intentionally. But his character is definitely the least defined of the family and, when the script calls on him to do big things later on, it’s the only time the movie feels engineered.

My reaction to “The Woman” was obviously very visceral. I was left disquieted and unnerved by the film. Clearly, I wasn’t the only one to have a strong reaction. But the movie isn’t a misogynistic shock machine like that one viewer believes. It’s a thoughtful treaty on gender relation, abuse, and control. When it’s shocks, it’s for a reason. In a Lucky McKee movie, an eye-gouge is never just an eye-gouge. Horror has always been the genre that sneaks social commentary in under pulp trappings. “The Woman” is a proud continuation of that tradition. It’s Lucky McKee’s best film since his debut, his most effective as a horror film, and an incredibly bold statement in an all-too-often routine genre. [Grade: A]

Scream 4

You know what I thought halfway through “Scream 4?” “Who directed this?” None of the “Scream” films really feel like Wes Craven movies. Especially when compared to a movie swimming in his trademarks like “My Soul to Take,” it becomes apparent how much the “Scream” franchise is Kevin Williamson’s baby.

If nothing else, “Scream 4” is consistent. The franchise hasn’t changed much. Ten years have passed but 1996 is still with us.

I have two major complaints with “Scream 4.” First off, for the most meta and self-referial of horror series, the movie barely acknowledges the changes in the horror genre over the last decade. There’s lots of idle talk of “reboots” and “remakes.” “Torture porn” gets one brief, blunt dismissal. But, generally speaking, within the universe of “Scream,” it seems like the horror landscape hasn’t changed. These days, slasher films are generally made by and for hardcore fans of the genre. Movies like “Hatchet” and “Behind the Mask” pay homage to eighties slashers and are made by genre-obsessed filmmakers for a niche crowd.

Slashers aren’t mainstream anymore. But, as the opening minutes of the film make obvious, self-referal post-modern slashers apparently never went out of style within the movies universe. “Stab” sequels keep getting churned out. Yes, the killers in this film are hooked up to the internet and the “rules” are similarly updated, but if you’re expecting Ghostface to start mimicking and asking questions about the “Saw” franchise or the J-horror movement, you’ll be disappointed.

In the last reel, it’s made obvious that the most modern aspect of the movie is the killer’s motivation, which are directly tied to reality television and young people’s desire to be famous for doing nothing. While it’s amusing and interesting when it comes, I was expecting “Scream 4” to be a bit more in-the-know. The other disappointment steams from a certain character surviving the entire film, despite being played flatly by a bored, over-the-hill actress and being easily the least interesting of the series’ central trio.

The best aspect of “Scream 4” is, surprisingly, its cast of young newcomers. It’s easy to forget that likable characters were actually one of the strong suits of the original. While there might not be any here as memorable as Randy, the cast is still strong. Hayden Panettiere, an actress I’ve never been impressed with, is easily the most charming and witty of the young girls here. Rory Culken, the most talented of all the Culken brothers, adds another strong performance to his quickly growing list. Erik Knudsen’s character uploads every single thing he does to the internet and is clearly the writer’s most boldfaced attempt to create a “modern” teen. It actually works though and doesn’t come off like a desperate attempt to stay hip. Knudsen’s amusing performance might be solely responsible for this. Emma Roberts, ostensibly the star of the show, doesn’t really get to shin until the end of the movie, where a vicious spitfire emerges from her boring teen starlet shell.

Among the older set, Allison Brie and Marley Shelton both get meaty supporting parts and ham it up accordingly. Courtney Cox does okay as an over-the-hill Gale while David Arquette isn’t given too much to do. As for Sydney… Neve Campbell was never much of an actress. She’s just as wooden as ever here. Sydney, despite being the franchise’s default protagonist, is still boring as hell.

The gore is supposedly amp up but I’d say it’s on the same level of the first movie, which is more violent then people remember. There’s plenty of decent throat slashing and stabbing. There’s really nothing to compete with garage door kill from the first movie, up until a dagger gets buried up to the handle in someone’s forehead. That was cool.

The intensity level isn’t very high but the parking garage sequence, barn house set-piece, and assorted moments in the last twenty minutes are uniformly entertaining. The fun sense of “who-dun-it” injects this entry with a lot of audience interaction. It honestly kept me guessing, trying to figure out who among the cast was the killer. (I still figured it out before the reveal.)

The movie continues after the obligatory “the killer reveals their motivation” scene with an extended hospital sequence. It’s extraneous and drags the end down. Honestly, if the movie had just stopped before that scene it would have taken the series in a daring, exciting new direction.

“Scream 4” is, honestly, the best of the series since the original. It certainly doesn’t reinvent the wheel, or even try to. Kevin Williamson doesn’t have any new tricks up his sleeve. But the movie is a fun, decent way to waste ninety minutes. As a relative non-fan of the franchise, I thought it was pretty good. To someone who is a fan, I suspect they will love it. [Grade: B]

Director Report Card: Wes Anderson (2009)

6. Fantastic Mr. Fox
In the months of production before any actual stills surfaced, I wonder how Wes Anderson was going to adapt his signature style to an animated children's film. Would “Fantastic Mr. Fox” represent a shift in style for the filmmaker? How would his trademark eccentricities stand up in G-rated form? Then a trailer premiered and it became apparent that Wes Anderson had made a children’s film without changing his style at all.

“Fantastic Mr. Fox” is a comedy about real-estate, partially anyway. It’s also a comedy about neurotic insecurities and accepting innate, unchanging attributes about one’s self. An important subplot revolves around a son’s jealousy over his talented nephew, that plays off in a far more petty fashion then a similar plot usually does in a kid’s movie. This movie is pretty much a typical Wes Anderson movie with furry animals instead, right down to the retro-soundtrack. He doesn’t even ditch the swearing, instead simply using the word “cuss” in place of all actual profanity. I suppose it shouldn’t surprise me Anderson would remain steadfast in his style.

I’m not sure what kind of kid this movie would appeal too. The comedy is mostly dependent on fast-paced, quirky dialogue and character interaction. The moments of big broad slapstick feel just as out of place as you’d expect. The plot features several convoluted schemes and most of the central irony will probably go over a typical kid’s head. (Though if your kid does get it, they’re probably pretty smart.) Taking the film on its own merits, I will say it ranks above “The Darjeeling Limited” but still comes in well below the rest of the director’s films.

The cast is uniformly excellent. George Clooney is pitch perfect in the title role, as is Meryl Streep as his wife. Jason Schwertzman plays a less confident version of Max from “Rushmore” as the son, Ash, in what is by far the film’s funniest moments. Wally Wolodarsky, seemingly Anderson’s real life sidekick, has a hilarious role as timid, easily fazed sidekick Possum. Anderson’s real brother Eric has another funny, understated role as the source of Ash’s petty scorn. Schwertzman and him play off each other nicely. Bill Murray shows up, of course, as Badger, in what is probably his liveliest role in years. William DaFoe shows up in a bizarre villainous turn as Rat.

The movie is beautiful to look at, bathed in warm autumn colors. The stop motion animation affords a unique feel, especially when swirling cotton is used in place of smoke, water, or fire. The movie, in many ways, feels like one of Eric Anderson’s illustrations brought to life in corduroy and tweed. The animation also allows for several clever camera angles, the beagle POV shots being my favorite. Beyond the sixties pop songs that naturally pepper the movie, the original score is quite good, especially the use of the “Boggis, Bunce, and Bean” limerick. The movie’s plot really flows nicely, and each inconvenience the story throws at the character is funnier then the last.

“Fantastic Mr. Fox” is standard Wes Anderson, which means, despite being typical, it’s charming, funny, breezy, and infectiously fun. Pretty good for a movie directed almost completely via e-mail. [Grade: B]

Director Report Card: David O. Russell (2010)

5. The Fighter

At this point in his career, David O. Russell seems to have alienated most industry people with his massive dickish behavior. His career was built on eccentric comedies so making “The Fighter,” a mainstream, true-to-life, Oscar-baiting film, was probably solely a business decision. (His next movie is a video game adaptation, so maybe it wasn’t…) I wasn’t anticipating the film, expecting a typical underdog story swiped from “Rocky.” Well, yeah, it is that, but it’s also the story of a normal guy’s relationship with his wildly dysfunctional white trash family.

Right from the beginning, Russell spices up the story with racing cameras and other tricks. There’s a lot of training montages, obviously, but there are all dynamic and a few actually got me kind of pumped. The actual boxing scenes show Russell’s talent for action. The two boxing matches near the end of the film are, in particular, extremely exciting and rousing. Russell even visually quotes “Raging Bull” without it coming off as obnoxious or obvious.

As is expected of an awards courting production such as this, the performance take center stage over everything. Mark Wahlberg, seemingly the only person who can stand Russell, is a real hit-and-miss performer. He sleepwalks through action hero roles but, when given comedy, he does better. He does a decent job, undergoes an impressive physical transformation, making Mickey a sympathetic sad sack. Christen Bale and Melissa Leo both won Oscars for their roles here. Is it warranted? Leo plays Mickey’s mother and manager, a manipulative, selfish, narrow-minded, bitter old evil shrew of a woman. She’s always surrounded by her posse of five daughters, all of which are just as trashy and stupid as she is. Leo certainly makes this despicable human being well-rounded but, as far as I’m concerned, she stole the Best Supporting Actress award from little Haliee Steinfeld.

What about Bale? He’s got the juiciest role in the movie, as the crack head has-been brother that is pretty much directly responsible for ruining Mickey’s life and career. Oh, it’s a good performance, don’t get me wrong, and Bale probably deserved the award for it. It comes off a bit like an inner city trash minstrel show but Bale, naturally, commits everything to it. But Bale has given better performance and, personally, nothing will ever top Patrick Bateman for me. Amy Adams did better then Melissa Leo, as Mickey’s supportive girlfriend. She’s had a rough life but still has the ability to see the good in people. Adams is really a strong dramatic actress who will probably be doomed to stupid leading roles in stupid rom-coms for the rest of her life, simply due to the nature of the industry.

The movie is watchable character study through the first hour, but also a somewhat depressing slug through miserable human lives. But, after Bale’s character winds up in jail and Mickey cuts his asshole family out of his life, actually gets his life together, and starts to find some success as a boxer, the movie actually becomes a legitimately inspiring true life story. The family drama ties in dramatically in the last act. “The Fighter” doesn’t completely escape the conventions of the genre but there are a number of reasons its worth watching. If this represents the next step in Russell’s career, I guess I’m okay with that. [Grade: B]