TOY STORY 3 (2010) - Lee Unkrich

It’s been a while. To be honest, the cinema has been vomiting up some pretty poor fare over the last few months. But over the last week, I saw what will probably be numbers one and two on the top 10 list of 2010, so I figured I should say something about them. The first film on the list is the latest from the greatest studio now in production. Toy Story 3.

It’s been fifteen years since Woody and Buzz first hit the big screen, kick-starting the Pixar revolution into gear. Since that time, Pixar have gone from strength to strength. And in one way, Toy Story 3 is a fitting bench-mark to see just how far the studio has come. Both in technical ability, and in terms of story-telling.



Andy, the human key to the Toy Story world has grown up. He’s finished school, and is about to leave home for college. And by doing this, he must leave his childhood toys behind. But what is to come of Woody, Buzz, Jessie, and all the rest of the toys? Woody, Andy’s most cherished toy, will accompany him to college. But the rest of the toys will go to the attic, a sort of rest-home for toys until they are rediscovered by Andy and given to his own children. But a mix-up in packaging results in the toys being sent to day-care, a seemingly heaven for toys. But all is not what it seems in day-care. And the toys must escape, while Woody struggles to reach his friends and help them escape.

Being the final part in the Toy Story trilogy, Toy Story 3 packs quite the emotional punch. Like Andy, we’re leaving the characters behind. They’ve given us some cherished memories, but like all good things, they must be fondly remembered, and passed on to the next generation. Toy Story 3, really does make you laugh, but it’s laughter tinged with sadness. As with all Pixar movies, the film’s strength lies in it’s story. There are many studios that produce technically brilliant animated films, but few reach the heights of Pixar’s films. It’s Pixar’s ability to pack an emotional punch that has made films such as Toy Story, Wall-E and Up such incredible films.



And yet, I find myself going against the general consensus. I don’t think it’s the best of the trilogy. Don’t get me wrong. Toy Story 3 is both technically astonishing and brilliantly written. But there were parts of the film when I though I’d seen it before. There are some recycled story elements. Sometimes these work as winks and nods to what came before. But it is nit-picking. Toy Story 3 is (Buzz) Light-years ahead of it’s competition. In fact, it’s light-years ahead of most films. The voice-work is as usual, brilliant. In particular, the addition of the Ken doll, voiced by Michael Keaton is hilarious in both vocal performance and animation.

Toy Story 3 is probably the best closing chapter of any trilogy. And the Toy Story trilogy itself is near-perfect. The Pixar team are just awe-inspiring in their ability to craft stories that assault your emotions as well as your eye-balls. And with Toy Story 3, they really have knocked it out of the park. Again.


9/10

ANGELS & DEMONS (2009) - Ron Howard

The Da Vinci Code was a massive global success. It was one of those books that comes along every so often and you couldn’t help but see people everywhere reading it. I read it myself, eager to see what the big deal was. It was entertaining enough, but ultimately throw-away pulp trash. The film version of the book, released in 2006 was set to be huge. But it was pretty much a mess of a film and while doing good box-office, was pretty much a critical flop. Angels & Demons, the prequel (although filmed as a sequel) is released this year, reteaming director Ron Howard with Tom Hanks as Indiana Jones with no balls, Robert Langdon. The book is seen by many as far better than The Da Vinci Code. Does the film follow suit?

No. It does not. It’s a fucking mess. It is a film so incredibly stupid and ridiculous that I actually felt like somewhere, Ron Howard was laughing at me for being duped into seeing it. In fact, he’s probably laughing at the world. As is Brian Grazer, his producer. Because they are making a shed load of cash from one of the dumbest, idiotic and insulting films I’ve ever seen. It takes place just after the death of the Pope, and while the new Pope is being decided by a bunch of cardinals during what is known within the church as Pope-Idol. Just before Pope-Idol, a particle of anti-matter is knicked from the Large Hadron Collider (I shit you not). This plot point, not in the book, is a blatant attempt to make things up-to-date. The Higgs boson particle has the ability to reduce Vatican City to a smouldering hole. The Illuminati, long thought to have been wiped out by the Church have kidnapped the four Pope-Idol finalists and are holding all and sundry to ransom. Only Robert Langdon, a personality vacuum in human form can stop the Illuminati and help the new Pope take his place as King of the Catholics.



To start off, the plot of the film ranges from snore-inducingly boring to laugh-out-loud hilarious. One of the major complaints that emerged after The Da Vinci Code was released was that everyone stood around explaining things to each other. It proved to be surprisingly boring. Ron Howard took these issues on board, and fair dues, he did ramp things up for this film. Instead of standing around explaining things, now everybody runs around explaining things. Oh yes, by making people both move and talk, the action has been ramped up a billion percent.

However, the first half of the film remains overwhelmingly dull. Robert Langdon, a man of non-action wanders from church to church staring at statues that, and I am not exaggerating here, point in the direction of the next clue. He is literally following a series of really nicely sculpted signposts. The dialogue ranges from boring exposition to dull history lessons, to incredibly clunky lines like ‘GET ME A MAP WITH ALL ROME’S CHURCHES ON IT!’ Tom Hanks, whom I like as an actor is essentially just a face to pull in the crowds. His Langdon is nothing more than a book with a stupid hair-cut. He has all the personality of a damp sock and the daring of a petrified field mouse. In one spectacularly action-free moment, Langdon watches while the main villain kills two policemen. Instead of doing something to save the second policeman, he stands and watches as the killer stalks the cop and very slowly kills him. I was half expecting Hanks to pull up a chair, grab some pasta and enjoy the proceedings.



Joining Langdon on his quest to kill suspense is Vittoria Vetra a sexy and unbelievable scientist who wants her particle back. She is absolutely inconsequential to the plot aside from the fact that her character is also incompetent. She needs to get the particle chamber back before the battery powering it fails, resulting in a matter-anti-matter explosion that will kill millions. Had she brought a spare battery, things would have been a lot easier on all.

But by far the highlight of the film is Ewan McGreggor as Oirish priest, Camerlengo Patrick McKenna. McGreggor provides the comic relief of the film as he stumbles over the script with an accent which is ludicrously bad. From what I’ve seen of McGreggor on The Long Way Round, he seems like a genuinely likeable and nice guy. He does good work for charity. But by Christ, the guy is a shockingly awful actor. Aside from a pretty decent performance in Trainspotting, where he was none-the-less overshadowed by a far stronger supporting cast, he really hasn’t delivered one outstanding role. And Angels & Demons ranks up there with his worst.

As with all action films, the second half of Angels & Demons is where things kick into overdrive. And it’s at this point where logic, believability and reality are ritually burned at the stake. At this point, proceedings become so incredibly stupid that I thought I’d passed out from boredom, hit my head and was seeing things that weren’t there. I’m strongly tempted to spoil the high-point of this carnival of the absurd, but I really wouldn’t want to ruin the surprise. I am just sorry I can’t be there with you to hear the guffaws of laughter that will inevitably ensue. It was with no amount of surprise, that during the credits, I saw David Koepp’s name. From the guy who brought you Indiana Jones And The Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull. You should begin to know what to expect. And, like that film, the main character stands aside and watches everyone else do the work. It would be no surprise if it emerged that Koepp did little writing but took credit for a team of other writers’ work.



Angels & Demons is insultingly bad. Twists and turns are performed with all the ineptitude of a bad slight-of-hand artist. It attempts to distract you with one thing while setting up a twist. But if you take a second to actually think about things, you know exactly where proceedings are going. Apart from that bit I mentioned above. Nobody could see that coming. Set-ups are blatantly sign-posted and pay-offs are subsequently dull and predictable. Characters gleefully (if not literally) announce ‘listen, I have this ability. If it comes in handy at some point, you know where I am’ making plot points as subtle as a Fox News Anchor. It’s really lowest, lowest-common denominator stuff.

Many claim Angels & Demons is a better story and film than The Da Vinci Code. I disagree. While The Da Vinci Code was dull, silly and stupid, at least it wasn’t mind-bogglingly stupid. After watching Angels & Demons, you feel like someone has beaten you with a hammer of idiocy. It’s going to be hard to top this for the worst film of 2009. And it’s still only May.


1/10

CHARLIE WILSON'S WAR (2007) - Mike Nichols

Based on a true story, Mike Nichols’ new film, Charlie Wilson’s War is a flawed, but entertaining examination of one man’s crusade to help the people of Afghanistan fight the Russian invaders, a decision that would have repercussions for the United States years after the conflict ended. The Afghan war in the 1980s is a subject rarely tackled, with the only other really notable film tackling the subject being the lamentable Rambo III.

Charlie Wilson is a congressman representing Texas. He’s doesn’t cut the form of what you’d expect from a congressman, and spends his free time cavorting with strippers, womanising and being an all-round player. He drinks whiskey like it’s going out of fashion and uses his position within the government to benefit his social life. While at a coke party in Las Vegas, Wilson watches a news report about the Mujahedeen fighting the Russian invaders in Afghanistan. Wilson is intrigues by this and sets about finding a way for the US to help these rebels. He is contacted by Joanne Herring, a billionaire widow who has the similar goal of helping the Afghans. Meanwhile, Gust Avrakotos, one of only a few CIA operatives interested in helping the Afghans stop the communists contacts Wilson to ‘thank’ him for doubling his department’s budget. Wilson and Avrakotos, funded by Herring’s money and contacts set about helping the Afghans get the training and weaponry they need in the biggest covert operation the US has ever undertaken.



First off, let me just say that the subject matter of Charlie Wilson’s War is pretty fascinating. It’s very interesting to see just how Wilson was able to raise billions for the Mujahedeen and help them defeat the Russians. However, it’s a common misconception that the US defeated communism, when in fact, the communist USSR was crumbling under it’s own weight and was only months from a complete collapse. But that point aside, Charlie Wilson’s War is a good, if flawed film.

Mike Nichols no stranger to political films, having directed the excellent Wag The Dog. While Wag The Dog was an excellent satire on spin and how to divert the public’s attention away from the real issues affecting the government, this satirical style doesn’t quite work for Charlie Wilson’s War. It seems at times that the film is a farce. And while this may be all right for a fictional film, this film is a true story, and the style just seems really out of place at times. The script, written by Aaron Sorkin of The West Wing fame moves pretty quickly and the dialogue is very sharp. But the overall film doesn’t quite fit the story it’s trying to tell, and it’s this that is the weakness of the film.



The acting from pretty much everyone is top notch. Tom Hanks is as brilliant as always playing the slightly sleazy but lovable rogue, Charlie Wilson. It’s good to see Hanks playing someone who’s maybe a little morally questionable, as Hanks is somewhat known for playing clean-cut romantic leads (when he’s not delivering awards-worthy dramatic performances). But he seems very comfortable playing Wilson and he’s on top, as always. Julia Roberts, who I don’t really like as an actress at all, is also quite good playing Joanne Herring. However, the show is stolen, as always, by Philip Seymour Hoffman as Gust Avrakotos. Hoffman is simply a fascinating actor to watch. Every role he plays, he seems to take on a physical and personal change. He completely embodies each of his characters, and always is the one thing on screen you cant help but watch. He’s loud, brash and extremely abrasive as Gust Avrakotos, but that’s the role, and he plays it fantastically. The only member of the cast who seems somewhat wasted is Amy Adams. It’s only a matter of time before she becomes a household name, and it feels that she’s not given enough to do here.

All in all, Charlie Wilson’s War is a good, but not great film. The film ends just after the Russians withdraw from Afghanistan, and the ending seems a little abrupt. During a party celebrating the success in Afghanistan, Avrakotos gives Wilson a serious warning about what happens next in Afghanistan. Knowing what we do now, this warning is even more grave. But this part seems to be brushed over, and at a running time of 97 minutes, you are kind of left feeling there could have been a little more in the film that explored this. Charlie Wilson’s War is quite entertaining, and Philip Seymour Hoffman is amazing to watch. It’s a flawed film, but worth a watch.


7/10

THE SIMPSONS MOVIE (2007) - David Silverman

I find myself faced with quite the quandary. On one side, I have the young version of myself. A version who, at eight years of age, was exposed to the magnificent world of The Simpsons. A world which would encapsulate the next nine years of my life, helping in some way to shape the person I am now. And on the other side, I have the person who followed this idealistic young kid. A person who watched the show he loved so dearly break his heart as it declined in quality to a degree where it became a parody of itself. It's a dilemma faced by many fans. A dilemma that has divided the fans into two warring factions. A division that's almost as vicious as the division between Palestinians and Israelis. However, one thing united almost everyone in fevered anticipation. And that's The Simpsons Movie.

The Simpsons Movie faces the difficult task that has faced many television adaptations. And that's finding a story that brings a half-hour show to the big screen for ninety minutes or more. In the movie, we find the denizens of everyone's favorite town attending a Green Day concert. Pollution kills the punk rockers and legislation is quickly passed to ban the dumping of waste in Springfield. Homer rescues a pig from slaughter and pays it more attention than he does his own son Bart. Bart find solace in Homer's arch-enemy and god-loving neighbor, Ned Flanders. Homer, faced with the difficult task of disposing of his new pig's waste, dumps the poo into Lake Springfield causing environmental disaster. The Environmental Protection Agency quarantines Springfield under an enormous dome, and Homer becomes the target of everyone's frustrations. The Simpson family escape the town and set off to start a new life in Alaska.



And so, after eighteen years, countless rumors, and three years of production, it's all boiled down to this. We have our Simpsons movie. And it's an incredibly difficult thing to say, but I cant help feeling it's a bit of a let-down. As I've said before, I feel the show has suffered a decline since about season nine. Around that time, it seemed the writers had begun to run out of steam. And instead of doing the smart thing and leaving us wanting more, the creative team behind the Simpsons have continued to flog the horse despite it's quite apparent decline in health. But prospects for the Simpson Movie looked good as the trailer caused quite a few laughs. And here in lies one of the huge problems. All the major laughs were in the trailer. If you've seen the trailer (and it's been pretty hard to miss as it's been EVERYWHERE), you've seen pretty much all the best bits, bar one or two other laughs.

I really don't want to sound like a disgruntled fan-boy, but it just seemed there was way more life to the early Simpsons. There was brilliant slapstick (some of which is repeated here), savage satire (none of this, unfortunately) and layering that was so smart, that on subsequent viewings (and even to this day) you found something fresh and original. Now, don't get me wrong, the writers of The Simpsons Movie really do give it their best shot. And there are some great moments. It's just that these moments are spread very thin over the course of the movie. It starts off well, but runs out of steam as soon as the plot takes off. Because this movie is on the big screen, the writers have more scope to push the boundaries. But it just seems that they don't push them enough.



As expected, the animation is taken up a huge notch from the television series. And it shows. Everything has the familiar primary colour scheme, and the skin of the characters is it's rich, healthy yellow tone. But with a movie-size budget, there's more they can do. The special effects are great, and used with gusto. The cameos from the likes of Green Day, and Tom Hanks... actually, that's all the cameos, are used well. But again, I expected a little more.

It's been a long time coming. Calls for the Simpsons Movie have rung out since the early nineties. Some will love it. Some will not. What cant be denied is that it's really just three episodes tied together with a common story. There are some great bits. But there aren't many. Ultimately, I had hoped for more. That in itself was probably my fault. There's a great Simpsons movie out there somewhere. But unfortunately, this ain't it.


5/10