‘Mr. Fox’ adaptation not so clever (2.5/5)

Fantastic Mr. Fox

Starring: George Clooney, Meryl Streep, Jason Schwartzman.
Directed by: Wes Anderson.
Rating: PG for action, smoking and slang humor.
Running time: 1 hour, 27 minutes.

“Fantastic Mr. Fox?” Not so fantastic.

To say this movie is quirky is far beyond an understatement. It’s hard to expect anything else from director Wes Anderson, but maybe I was biased going in.

Not many people know about writer Roald Dahl’s work beyond the “Chocolate Factory,” so it doesn’t surprise me (but does sadden me) that most movie goers will see this film without reading or even knowing about the book.

And I guess in this day and age I should just accept the fact that few people read. But when a director takes what he touts as being one of his favorite books and totally changes it? That’s when I start getting annoyed. “Creative license” only takes you so far, Mr. Anderson.

My brother jokingly suggests that I should just stop reading — or at the very least stop watching adaptations. But with so few original movies nowadays, it’s almost impossible not to see an adaptation (especially when you write a weekly review column!).

Also, many people I’ve heard who enjoyed this film were Wes Anderson film fans from the start, and not Roald Dahl fans. Or they had simply not read the book and therefore had no idea how dramatically the plot and characters were altered.

Although “Fantastic Mr. Fox” didn’t irk me nearly as much as “Where the Wild Things Are,” it still makes me question directors’ motives and thought processes during writing and filming.
But, back to the film.

“Fantastic Mr. Fox” is about a fox (voiced by George Clooney, one of the few reasons to actually watch the movie) who steals from the properties of three local, and notoriously “evil,” farmers — Boggis, Bunce and Bean. Having been stolen from just a few too many times, the farmers decide to hunt and kill Mr. Fox, Mrs. Fox (Meryl Streep), son Ash (Jason Schwartzman) and nephew Kristofferson (Eric Chase Anderson).

The stop-motion filming used in “Fox” gives it a unique feel, but at times makes you wonder if you could have achieved the same result with the money you spent on the movie ticket.

An enormous hindrance to the movie is Mr. Fox himself. The leading character is selfish, arrogant and a plain brute to his son. Clooney’s voice can charm you only so much.

The only good change Anderson made to the book was the development of Mr. Fox’s son, whom the movie names “Ash.” Without Ash, this movie would have been a total disappointment. Granted, this development would have been unnecessary if you actually cared about Mr. Fox, but lacking any kind of emotional connection with the main character, Ash will have to do. You’ll find yourself wading through Mr. Fox’s scenes in the hopes that his son will soon make an appearance.

Another reason to dislike this movie? The pure random inclusion of Kristofferson. He adds nothing to the plot and is more of an unwilling rival to Ash than anything the audience should be interested in. And for a “deep” character, he’s awfully flat, hinging his entire being on yoga and naiveté.

In an effort to be edgy, Anderson also felt the need to taint a perfectly good children’s book with having the characters insert the word “cuss” as a not-so-subtle reference to a variety of swear words. I’m not always an angel when it comes to speaking, but this seemed like a desperate attempt to get a couple of chuckles from the adults or to give the teenagers a brand new catchphrase.

In short, if Twentieth Century Fox truly wanted a film version of “Fantastic Mr. Fox,” Wes Anderson should never have been let anywhere near it. If you haven’t read the book, you may be able to give the movie a decent chance. But for those who loved Dahl’s heroic fox, this is an adaptation you won’t want to see.

2.5 of 5 stars

‘Trek’ accessible by non-Trekkies (3/5)

Star Trek

Starring: Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, Eric Bana.
Directed by: J.J. Abrams.
Rating: PG-13 for sci-fi action and violence, and brief sexual content.
Running time: 2 hours, 7 minutes.

At the risk of annoying half the readers out there, I’ll make the disclaimer now: I’ve never really watched “Star Trek.” All I knew about the show was Patrick Stewart, Spock, the Enterprise, something about Klingons and the old standbys: “Beam me up, Scotty,” and, of course, “Live long and prosper.”

What’s great about the latest “Star Trek” movie is that it didn’t seem to matter how little I know of the Trek universe. But, even if it did, I would have watched it anyway — after all, J.J. Abrams was at the helm. And, actually, being unfamiliar with the overarching story seemed almost an advantage in this case. I wasn’t attached enough to be annoyed with any of the changes made.

As fellow “Lost” aficionados will already be familiar with, Abrams and Trek co-producer Damon Lindelof (also co-creator of “Lost”) are big fans of time travel. So bringing that love to “Star Trek” was probably not much of a step for them. From my understanding, this film is a kind of “rebirth” for many Trek characters. It’s apparently a separate timeline from what the Trek show (and subsequent movies) are in, though with the same people — think “Back to the Future II.” It’s a great plot device for the writers and producers as it essentially allows them to reset to the beginning and truly make “Star Trek” their own vision with already-beloved characters.

“Star Trek” shows an alternate timeline for characters such as Kirk, Spock, McCoy, Scotty, Sulu and Uhura as they attempt to bring the genocidal Nero to justice. Too, the film thrives on the character development and friendship of Kirk and Spock, profoundly different but both outcasts in their own ways.

The cast list for this movie is surprisingly star-studded (Eric Bana, Karl Urban, John Cho, Jennifer Morrison and, most surprising to me, a brief role by Winona Ryder). But perhaps it shouldn’t be unexpected. Abrams is usually heavy on character development, so it makes sense to eye accomplished actors for many of these nuanced roles.

One of the most exciting cast members, though, was Leonard Nimoy as an older Spock. And rather than just use a Nimoy cameo as a nod to Trekkies, Abrams takes full advantage of his access to the former longtime Vulcan and uses the role to bridge the connection between the original “Treks” and the new movie.

In the behind-the-scenes special features, co-writer Alex Kurtzman notes that, while the “Star Wars” films are the equivalent of rock ’n’ roll, “Star Trek” is more comparable to classical music. In the drafting of this script, Kurtzman made an attempt to bring more of the rocker style that would attract modern viewers who are used to faster-paced films.

But, despite its perks, the film rides along a slightly above-average line. Many sci-fi movies fall into the good-versus-evil standby, and while “Star Trek” struggles against this stereotype, it never quite makes it out. The attempt to “humanize” Nero falls short and it’s difficult to view him as anything but demonic. The end result leaves “Star Trek” as an entertaining, but not exceptional, foray into the space where no one has gone before.

I hope that everyone has a wonderful Thanksgiving. And if you see a good movie or two (or even a bad one), feel free to send me word of it to rcrofut@fltimes.com.

3 of 5 stars

Allen’s ‘Whatever’ draws a new fan (4/5)

"Whatever Works"

Starring: Larry David, Evan Rachel Wood, Patricia Clarkson.
Directed by: Woody Allen.
Rating: PG-13 for sexual situations including dialogue, brief nude images and thematic material.
Running time: 1 hour, 32 minutes.

I’ll admit, I haven’t watched many Woody Allen films, but that’s more due to a lack of opportunity than anything personal against the guy. But if the latest “Whatever Works” is any indication, he may have found himself a new biggest fan.

The comedic Larry David, the mind behind “Seinfeld,” is the scathing, cynical, pessimistic, detached, self-described genius Boris Yellnikoff. He lectures his beliefs to his friends and leaves his former wife because they are too perfect for each other.

In all respects, Boris does not seem like the type of guy to take in any runaways. But when young, Southern Melodie St. Ann Celestine (Evan Rachel Wood) asks Boris for a place to stay and something to eat, he finds himself not only endeared to the know-nothing optimist, but married as well.

Boris charmed me right away by telling the audience off the bat, “I’m not a likeable guy. Charm has never been a priority with me. And just so you know, this is not the feel-good movie of the year. If you’re one of those idiots who needs to feel good, go get yourself a foot massage.”

David’s opening monologue direct-to-camera completely sold me (“You read about some massacre in Darfur or some school bus gets blown up, and you go ‘Oh my God, the horror,’ and then you turn the page and finish your eggs from the free-range chickens”). And the film is stuffed full of great, insightful lines, all executed in a way to keep you laughing from title to end credits.

This is a movie that could have quickly turned depressing and haughty, but the characters and witty dialogue manage to keep the film strangely upbeat while discussing the pointlessness of it all.

The real driving force behind the movie is the title, “Whatever Works.” It’s something like Boris’ mantra — he believes that people must do whatever works in life (without hurting anybody, he amends) to squeeze out any bit of love and happiness before the end. It’s quite a simple philosophy for a former string theory professor who repeatedly casts himself above the “inchworms” he shares a globe with, but, hey, whatever works.

This “moral” is demonstrated through all of the characters, but none moreso than Melodie’s mother Marietta (Patricia Clarkson), the bible-thumper-turned-bohemian-sexual-deviant. When she discovers the repressed artist inside with the help of Boris’ friend, her former identity melts away with unexpected and hilarious events.

Evan Rachel Wood (whom I loved in “Across the Universe”) was hilarious in the role of the perky dimwit. Although she adores Boris and quite possibly believes that he is the smartest man alive, she eventually learns that she has opinions of her own outside his circle of pessimism.

Many stodgy film critics gave this movie scorching reviews, but maybe they simply felt like the chess kids whom Boris verbally assaults. They also all seemed to have a problem with Boris’ shorts-wearing, so if any of you have an issue with shorts, this is apparently the stay-away movie of the season.

But for the rest of you who aren’t averse to seeing an old man’s knees, “Whatever Works” is worth watching. And, despite Boris’ warning, you may just end up feeling good afterward.

4 of 5 stars

‘Away We Go’ offers a nice ride (3.5/5)

Away We Go

Starring: John Krasinski, Maya Rudolph.
Directed by: Sam Mendes.
Rating: R for language and some sexual content.
Running time: 1 hour, 38 minutes.

If you find yourself picking up “Away We Go” in a rental store, you couldn’t be blamed for quickly thinking the movie was meant not only to be funny, but downright hilarious.

Not only do the traditionally skewed and biased “review blurbs” strewn about the case tout the film’s comedic genius, but just take a look at this cast: John Krasinski of “The Office” fame, Maya Rudolph from SNL, Catherine O’Hara, Jeff Daniels, Allison Janney and Jim Gaffigan. Surely a movie with this much humor potential will leave you on the floor.

But this film is much more dramatic and introspective than the cover would have you believe. And while it’s good for a few laughs, it’s not the “comedy” that you’d expect.

Directed by Sam Mendes, the Focus Features film “Away We Go” is a very simple movie that seeks to examine the bevy of emotions brought on by unexpected parenthood.

Krasinski and Rudolph star as Burt and Verona, an unmarried couple in their 30s who are unexpectedly expecting. They live in a rundown apartment with a cardboard window in the same area as Burt’s parents. But when the parents (O’Hara and Daniels) tell the couple that they are moving to Europe, the two realize that they have no ties left in their current location.

Burt and Verona take a trip to various areas across the country and Canada, seeking “home” and meeting up with people from their past in the meantime.

Along the journey, the couple must confront their doubts of life and parenthood by encountering their fears manifested. This plot device lends itself to sometimes hilarious and at other times heartbreaking revelations.

Burt and Verona come across many examples of dysfunctional families, at times heightening their worries and at other times leaving them with a “Well, at least we aren’t that bad” sensation.

The couple faces a loud, abrasive, degrading mother (Janney); a family that may be just a little too close for comfort (Maggie Gyllenhaal); an adopting family who cannot have their own children; and a father whose wife abandoned him and their daughter. On top of it all, Verona must also cope with the early loss of her own parents.

The soundtrack is a beautiful and brilliant complement to the movie. I have been a fan of Alexi Murdoch for a while, and his folksy style and deep tone capture the spirit of the film well. If nothing else, hopefully the movie will expose more people to his music.

“Away We Go” is a different kind of coming-of-age movie. It’s about a couple who maybe should have come of age quite a long time ago, but eventually realize that there’s no true definition of a family and the best that they can do is love each other and weather the hardships the best they can.

Overall, it’s not a blockbuster and not a life-changing film. But it is a cute, realistic piece that leaves you feeling a little more optimistic and hopeful about where your life is going.

3 1/2 of 5 stars

‘Slumdog’ deserved its Oscar (4/5)

Slumdog Millionaire 

 

Starring: Dev Patel, Freida Pinto, Madhur Mittal.
Directed by: Danny Boyle.
Rating: R for some violence, disturbing images and language.
Running time: 2 hours.

Obviously, “Slumdog Millionaire” has a lot of hype to live up to.

But director Danny Boyle gave the audience (and, apparently, the academy) plenty of reasons to love this movie.

Jamal Malik, a young Indian man, is a contestant on the Indian version of “Who Wants to Be a Millionaire.” But his goal isn’t to win the top prize of 20,000,000 rupees; rather, it is an attempt to reconnect with Latika, a girl whom he has encountered at various points throughout his life. But Jamal is an uneducated “slumdog” from Bombay, and his unexpected knowledge surprises not only the show’s creators, but also the entirety of India.

One of the most engaging aspects of “Millionaire” is how the plot unfolds. As Jamal answers each question, a flashback to his troubled childhood shows the background to his seemingly extraneous and surprising knowledge. The flashbacks not only show the audience the hardships of Jamal’s upbringing, but also attempt to illustrate the seclusion and forced independence that comes from living in such severe poverty.

The opening sequence introduces Jamal and his older brother, Salim, and acquaints the audience to the day-in, day-out existence of Bombay’s slum residents in a cinematographically beautiful but tragic fashion.

The turbulent relationship between Jamal and Salim is one of the primary driving points of the film. Boyle shows through their differences that where a person is raised does not necessarily determine who that person will be. But that is not to say that Jamal is purely ethical while Salim is amoral. They both must struggle to exist in their unbridled world, at times stealing or leaving others behind.

But one Jamal cannot seem to leave behind is Latika. Orphaned together, Jamal, Salim and Latika end up at the same crooked orphanage. When Jamal and Salim escape, they leave Latika behind, and though Salim insists that she will be OK and that Jamal must forget about her, he finds himself tracking her down not once but several times throughout his life.

At one of these meetings, Latika is watching “Who Wants to Be a Millionaire” and mentions how it is an escape for her life. Jamal later takes these words to heart and attempts to escape his own life by becoming a contestant, hoping that Latika will be watching.

The film follows Jamal’s story through three major ages of his life, and as such, three different actors were used for the characters of Jamal, Salim and Latika. I am always impressed with young actors who truly seem to become their character, and the young actors of “Millionaire” are no different. In fact, I like them more than I like the older versions of the characters.

“Millionaire” is a heart-wrenching, gutsy, beautiful film with a unique plot and nice twist on the traditional boy-loses-girl story. Plus, mainstream stories of India are few and far between, so not only was the film very refreshing but also highly intriguing. The academy didn’t get this one wrong.

4 of 5 stars

‘Rise of the Lycans’ good for a prequel (3.5/5)

Underworld: Rise of the Lycans

Starring: Michael Sheen, Bill Nighy, Rhona Mitra.
Directed by: Patrick Tatopoulos.
Rating: R for bloody violence and some sexuality.
Running time: 1 hour, 32 minutes.

Next to pirates, vampires are my favorite Halloween costume stand-by. I feel inclined every October to watch a few films featuring the undead, mostly because they’re not overly scary but still put me in that “Halloween” mood rivaled only by “It’s the Great Pumpkin, Charlie Brown.”

What I like most about vampire movies is the dark mythology of it all. While still classified as “action” films, they often tend to have a better backstory and more structure and depth than the “Diehards” or anything with Vin Diesel.

So enjoying the “Underworld” series hasn’t been a stretch for me. And the latest installment, “Rise of the Lycans,” was as good as the other two (if not much better than “Evolution”).

Prequels can be tricky to pull off. The advantage that director Patrick Tatopoulos had is that most of the characters within the series are immortal, and so having the original two movies set in present day and the prequel in the Medieval Ages was easier than it could have been.

If you’ve seen the first two movies, you’re already familiar with the plot of “Lycans” (another tricky aspect of choosing to film a prequel). Essentially, it tells the backstory and origin of the war between the vampires and lycans.

For those who aren’t familiar, here’s a quick rundown:

The first vampire, Markus, and the first werewolf, William, were brothers. Unlike the common idea of a werewolf, in which a human becomes a savage animal at the full moon, William is constantly in the savage wolf state and cannot become human again.

William went on to infect many others, creating a large number of fellow werewolves. In an effort to stop him, Markus approached a Hungarian general and warlord, Viktor, and offered him immortality in return for Viktor’s aid in eradicating all werewolves except William.

Viktor captured William and the vampires made an agreement to have only one “elder” awake and ruling at a time.

At the start of “Lycans,” Viktor is the ruler of the vampires. He and his clan live in a castle and discover a human baby born to a werewolf. Viktor finds that the child is able to transform between human- and wolf-shape, so he saves the child and names him Lucian.

Soon after, Viktor has a daughter named Sonja, who is raised along with Lucian, whom she eventually falls in love with.

As Lucian grew up, he was forced to create others like him by Viktor. This new breed, called Lycans, is used by Viktor as “guard dogs.” Eventually, despite his love for Sonja, Lucian tires of his life as a slave and plans a revolution.

Although this film is nothing new, both in terms of the plot being explained in the other two and in the Romeo-and-Juliet-esque romance, the movie thrives on the characterization and historical aspect rather than the “surprise ending.”

Most of the actors did a great job. Bill Nighy as the cruel Viktor steals the stage in every scene, of course, but is given a good run for his money by Michael Sheen as the impassioned Lucian. As for Rhona Mitra as Sonja, I have to admit I actually thought it was Kate Beckinsale. Perhaps she was chosen for her resemblance rather than her skills.

The movie itself is dark in the sense that it is at times difficult to see what is going on, and the werewolf costumes are simply laughable. But if you can get beyond that, it’s a fairly good film, and its short running time shouldn’t leave you too fidgety. Overall, it’s been done before, but it’s still a fun adventure.

Hope everyone has a safe and happy Halloween, and a very happy birthday to my boyfriend, Chase, who is turning 25 on Sunday.

3 1/2 of 5 stars

‘Wild Things’ not so wild after all (2.5/5)

Where the Wild Things Are

Starring: Max Records, James Gandolfini, Catherine Keener.
Directed by: Spike Jonze.
Rating: PG for mild thematic elements, some adventure action and brief language.
Running time: 1 hour, 34 minutes.

“Where the Wild Things Are” ended up being, sadly, rather tame.

It seemed hard to go wrong. As far as book adaptations go, the expectations for taking a 10-sentence-long picture book to the big screen are vastly different than condensing an 800-page novel. Where screenwriters paring down a large text need to interpret and slice out scenes that readers know and cherish, it seemed that the beloved “Wild Things” would merely need an expansion.

And with author/illustrator Maurice Sendak himself in collaboration with director Spike Jonze, the movie was set to not only remain faithful to the book, but also to fully explore the book’s inherent feelings of childhood, imagination and freedom.

So what went wrong?

The film had a promising opening. Talented young actor Max Records seemed born for the role of the impetuous Max. His performance alone is reason enough to see the movie. “Wild Things” starts off strong, immediately throwing the older members of the audience into nostalgia.

The audience is with Max from the beginning, from the playfulness of a good snowball fight to the sadness of a ruined fort and the subsequent anger.

If the movie had ended after just these 10 minutes, it would have been an undeniable masterpiece.

Instead, Jonze begins to ruin things by introducing the “divorced parents” subplot. After that, Max’s outbursts suddenly take on the tint of “well, he’s acting out because his parents are divorced,” instead of “he’s acting out because he’s a kid.”

So when Max gets in trouble with his mother (who is frustrated with Max for embarrassing her in front of a gentleman friend) and runs away, the audience is almost inclined to think the divorce is why he is running away.

Introduce the “Wild Things” — sort of. Soon after being introduced to the creatures of the island, I found myself wondering “Just where ARE the Wild Things?”

I suppose if you think of the Wild Things as loving, relationship-capable, fuzzy emotional wrecks, then you won’t be disappointed.

But for those of us who pictured the Wild Things as, well, wild, you may want to see what else is playing.

With names like Carol, Ira, Douglas and KW, the “monsters” don’t really send off an intimidating vibe.

In fact, the Wild Things are more like adults in gigantic monster garb who act more like kids than anything “monstrous.”

When Max arrives, he finds the Wild Thing Carol upset that another Wild Thing, KW, has other friends. To alleviate his anger, Carol tosses his friends about and destroys their makeshift houses.

Finding this behavior suitable to his taste, Max unabashedly charges in and begins helping Carol.
When confronted by the other Wild Things, Max conjures up a story of his past kingdom and is crowned King of the Wild Things.

The rest of the film plays out as a group therapy session, as Max and Carol both try to cope with their feelings of abandonment.

One thing that Jonze did get right (other than the casting of Max Records) is to resist the urge of animation. Had this movie been animated, it would have been a total mess. Instead, the film masquerades as a deep, plot-driven movie while distracting the audience with cool costumes.

In the end, the unfortunate truth is that the movie seemed more like an opportunity for Jonze to explore whatever issues with divorce he may have and to project those into a “kids film” rather than to actually make a movie about the “Wild Things.” A very disappointing adaptation.

For any considering going to see the movie, I would recommend going to the library instead and borrowing the book.

2 1/2 of 5 stars