THE FANTASTIC MR. FOX (2009) - Wes Anderson

If you grew up any time in the last 30 years, you should know the story of Roald Dahl’s The Fantastic Mr. Fox. But for those of you who spent your youth under a rock, three farmers, Boggis, Bunce and Bean want to evict (and kill) Mr. Fox for stealing chickens, geese and apple cider belonging to the three farmers. They try to dig Mr. Fox out of the home he has set up underneath a tree, and in the process also disturb the other animals living there. Mr. Fox, feeling responsible for the other animals’ lives, strives to set up new lives for himself, his family and his animal friends.



This film had a winning formula. A well-loved and widely known story. The idiosyncratic style of Wes Anderson applied to stop-motion animation. And yet somewhere, something didn’t connect. There are brilliant, and truly original aspects to the film. The animation is gorgeous. The story, while transported to the US from England is close-enough to the original story with a few tweaks that can be forgiven. The voice acting (Clooney again, Meryl Streep, Bill Murray, Jason Schwartzman) is lively when it needs to be but retains that droll nature we’ve come to expect from Anderson’s films. But something isn’t right with the film. It just didn’t do it for me for some reason. Maybe on another viewing, the film would click with me. But despite my love for Anderson’s films, I just think he missed the mark here. It’s good. It’s just not as great as it should have been.


7/10

LIONS FOR LAMBS (2007) - Robert Redford

Robert Redford has been in the business quite a long time. He’s been a megastar actor, Oscar winning director, patron of the arts, and founder of the Sundance film festival. His influence on the film industry is enormous, and this year, he returns to the screen, and behind the camera with another politically-charged film, Lions for Lambs. Another issue-tackling film that attempts to teach as well as entertain, it’s part of a group of films that arrive to our screens in a time where politics has never been more important.

Spreading it’s issues into three separate stories, Lions for Lambs opens with a meeting between a famous reporter, Janine Roth and one of Washington’s most powerful senators, Jasper Irving. The government has just put into action a new strategy for the war on terror, a strategy spearheaded by Irving. Irving hopes he can win over Roth, and through her, the support of the nation. Meanwhile, two Army Rangers, Arian and Ernest, are part of a platoon moving into the highlands of Afghanistan as part of this new strategy. Their helicopter comes under attack and Ernest falls from the helicopter. Arian, Ernest’s long time friend selflessly leaps out of the helicopter to help his friend. And back in the US, Professor Stephen Malley, Arian and Ernest’s college professor, struggles to inspire privileged but apathetic student Todd Hayes.



Lions for Lambs is Redford’s seventh effort as director, and so far, is his most politically ambitious. On a purely cinematical level, it’s a fairly basic film of talking heads. Two of the three segments take place almost entirely in one room, with two characters pontificating their different views on the war on terror, the men behind this war, and society in general. The third segment is the action part of the film. Strangely, the film was written by Matthew Michael Carnahan, writer of the woeful ‘The Kingdom.’ This film seems to be the justification for The Kingdom, the explosions out of his system, Carnahan now writes the film with a brain.

But despite it’s intentions, and they’re clearly very good intentions, there is something inherently lacking in Lions For Lambs. Firstly, the three segments don’t really gel together. The segment between Roth, played by Meryl Streep, and Irving, Tom Cruise presents something in the way of a counter-argument to the segment featuring Malley, Redford and his student, played by Andrew Garfield. Cruise’s Irving is a little too much of the clichéd slimy politician finding any route to the White House. Streep’s character attempts to counter his arguemnts, but ultimately comes off too weak.




The strength of the film is in Redford’s scenes. His Vietnam-vet, now liberal professor rings true, and his convictions are sound. He clearly states his disgust for the cowardly men that send lead his country into a war that has no sign of ending. A war that cannot be justified. He is saddened that two of his students with the most potential have marched to war, inspired by his teachings, yet he admires their reasons for doing so. He simply does not want to see a student with potential squander his promise.

The third segment, that of the two students who went to war, played by Michael Pena and Derek Luke, seems the most contrived. The most interesting part of this story is the flashback to a debate Arian and Ernest sparked off in class, but other than that, this segment feels tacked-on.

While Lions For Lambs is a box-office and critical failure, it’s certainly a noble failure. The performances are all very strong. Streep and Redford are old hands at this, and they’re well cast. Despite the negative press over his private life, Tom Cruise is still an excellent actor, always seemingly at his best when playing characters with highly questionable morals (see Magnolia for Cruise at his career-best). And the performances from Pena, Luke and Garfield are all very strong. But for all this, the film falls flat due to the script. I didn’t hate it as much as some people, but I can understand their complaints. And for now, I think I’ve had my fill of current political films!


5/10

RENDITION (2007) - Gavin Hood

The second film tackling current affairs in two weeks arrives on our doorsteps in the form of Gavin Hood’s Rendition. The film is quite different to the previous issue film, The Kingdom. However, the quality of the film is little better. For a film that has quite a bit of rage about the issue it tackles, that being the secret kidnap and torture of men to gain information during the war on terror, for some reason the performances are incredibly lacklustre. It’s strange that with a subject as incendiary as this, the film fails on so many levels.

Rendition opens with a town in an unidentified African country. We are introduced to Douglas Freeman, a pen pusher working for the CIA. He is caught up in an explosion while briefing a fellow operative who dies in the blast. Freeman replaces his fellow agent in a job that will test his morality. He is witness to the torture of kidnapped Egyptian born US green-card holding man, Anwar El-Ibrahimi. The CIA believes El-Ibrahimi is involved with the terrorists behind the bomb blast. In the US, El-Ibrahimi’s wife, Isabella struggles to find out what has happened to her husband after he inexplicably disappears from his flight home from South Africa. Her search leads her to Corinne Whitman, the CIA chief responsible for El-Ibrahimi’s kidnap and rendition.



For a film as weighty as the likes of Traffic and Syriana, and featuring a cast of actors who are all very talented, Rendition fails to entertain or educate. We all know that torture happens. With a US president who pretty much issues carte blanche to everyone to do what’s necessary to carry out his will, you can pretty much be guaranteed that this kind of thing happens. So there’s nothing new in this film. In fact, as unrealistic is it is, TV’s 24 pretty much covers what’s been done in this film. And it is far more entertaining. The characterisations themselves are pretty ridiculous. Everything is split into stark black and white with no grey area. The bad guys are bad and the good guys are good. I’m afraid the human race doesn’t work that way, so on screen, unless it’s fantasy, it doesn’t work.

Rendition features three academy award winners, so by that rationale, they should be pretty decent actors. But you wouldn’t guess that from their performances. Two of the three leads, Jake Gyllenhaal as Freeman, and Reese Witherspoon as Isabella El-Ibrahimi both put in incredibly dull performances. For two people under incredible pressure, they don’t seem to be very fazed by it. Other than to rubbing their faces and occasionally letting out a yell, you’d be forgiven for thinking they were sleepwalking. Meryl Streep’s character is a ridiculous cartoon character villain, a sort of wicked witch of the CIA. She’s given a southern drawl, and at one point imitates South Park’s Mr. Mackay when she says ‘mmmkay.’ I’ve never been a fan of Streep’s, she is a good actor, but terrible here. In fact, only Peter Sarsgaard and Alan Arkin come out of the film with some sort of credibility.



Special mention must be made of the film’s ridiculously contrived plot twist. It’s absolutely unnecessary and while I did find myself going ‘ah!’ when it happened, that immediately turned to annoyance at how stupid it is. While Rendition isn’t as bad as The Kingdom, neither is it much better. If this trend in political inspired movies continues, things bode very badly for some up-coming movies!


4/10