Man of Steel

General: What are you smiling about, Captain?
Captain: I just think he’s kinda hot.

Henry Cavill certainly looks like Superman. He’s handsome, almost distractingly so, sports a ripped physique that adheres closer to Hugh Jackman’s Wolverine than any previous incarnation of the role. The Brit even speaks the part affecting a perfect American accent with the necessary gravitas to make everything he says sound meaningful. But that’s where compliments end for Man of Steel.

Jerry Siegel & Joe Shuster’s iconic superhero is given the bigger is better treatment in this updated version for moviegoers raised on Transformers films. Zack “I directed 300” Snyder has taken courses at the Michael Bay school for directors where spectacle is key and damn any coherence or dialogue that gets in the way. Loud noise is more important than the story. Millions of dollars gloriously spent to envision beautifully designed worlds of breathtaking 3D graphics only to be obliterated in some fantastic assault of bombs, explosions and mayhem. A bombastic excess where even Superman’s cape is digitally animated. Snyder’s aesthetic is money and spend lots of it

Man of Steel is an overinflated packed to the rafters display of computer generated imagery (CGI) that makes Transformers seem like Forbidden Planet by comparison. The CGI is ridiculously wild and unchecked. A full third of this film is fight scenes. Not exciting ones, but blurry, relentless onslaughts that are hard to follow. I think I counted three epic battles but honestly one conflict blurs indistinguishably into the next. Their sole purpose exists so Snyder can blow stuff up. The wanton annihilation of buildings in the climax doesn’t even appear to be Planet Earth anymore. At one point Superman wrestles with tentacles in the center of the globe as some rocket machine deconstructs the earth’s atmosphere to that of an alien planet. The whole spectacle is so removed from anything organic, it doesn’t even exist as a live action movie with human actors. More like a virtual 3D universe populated by automatons rendered by a computer program.

The obscene amount of CGI-enhanced activity might’ve been tolerable if it served a coherent story. Unfortunately following the haphazard chronology is a task in itself. Good luck figuring out what time period we‘re in. The films was apparently edited in a blender. First we’re on Krypton, then we’re on an oil rig with an adult Clark Kent, now Clark is a kid in school overwhelmed by his powers, suddenly he‘s older rescuing his classmates from a bus. Now he’s Superman in the Arctic. Now back as a child again with his parents near a tornado. The script flash forwards, then back, then forward and back again, back and forth, back and forth over and over to the point of complete incoherence. The movie is an attention punishing 143 minutes and you feel every single one of them.

Part of the reason the story is so mind numbingly long is because the plot spends an inordinate amount of time delving into Kryptonian society, and explaining the sociopolitical and ecological situation before the planet’s destruction. Just what I want to see in a Superhero film. How about some scenes inside the Kryptonian Senate while they vote on various bills and legislation? Last time I checked this was called Man of Steel but it’s a full hour before he even dons the suit and near the very end before someone clearly calls him Superman. Even then it’s used as more of a throwaway joke.

There are moments where the script attempts to convey Superman’s inner conflict. The narrative tries to present Superman’s undying love for the people of his adoptive planet earth. But his devotion never makes sense. He experiences overwhelming rejection from the faceless masses his whole life. We’re given infrequent glimpses of his interactions with the human population. School bullies tease him as a child, a bar patron humiliates him (shades of Superman II), the military wants to give him up to uber villain General Zod. This is predicted in early scenes by his father (Kevin Costner) who warns him: “People are afraid of what they don’t understand.” We comprehend why Superman isn’t accepted, but not why he still cares for the citizens of this foreign world called Earth. The population disregards him so thoroughly. We have no reason to sympathize, to care, or even to watch.

The movie is the creation of sterile perfectionism. The actors are pretty, everyone hits their marks, says their lines and does exactly what is asked of them. It exhibits slick professionalism but not art. The picture has no essence. There is no warmth, no wit, no humor, no joy. The only thing more offensive than the vulgar reliance on special effects in this flick, are the product placement deals. Word has it that it earned $160 million even before it ever played in a single theater due to all the advertising negotiations made. It doesn’t come without a cost. Superman literally has a fight that starts at 7-Eleven, heads over to IHOP afterwards, then wraps at Sears. All the while the aforementioned businesses conspicuously pop up in scenes where the action is a muddy blur but their beaming signs are clear as day. There is no spark of life to be found in Man of Steel. It is a soulless product bought and paid for by the Hollywood machine.

Epic

I have officially reached my limit of dull computer animated films. There needs to be more than just pretty CGI to hold my attention. Epic is the latest from the “creative” minds at Blue Sky Studios who brought us Ice Age.  A questionable achievement, but a downright masterpiece when compared to this utterly nondescript piece. The plot concerns an ordinary-size teen girl who is magically shrunken down into a secret world when she grabs a hold of a magical leaf pod. She’s subsequently thrust into an ongoing environmental conflict amongst various forest creatures who struggle to see who can become the most forgettable. Sorry sarcasm.

An hour after watching Epic, it was already fading from memory. The cast is made up of famous actors that turn in vapid voice work in exchange for a paycheck. Colin Farrell and Beyoncé Knowles are major stars. They charm in real life, but their voices are so bland here. The leader of the Leaf-Men and Queen of the Forest should be captivating, but their personalities only cause drowsiness. Don’t drive or operate heavy machinery under the effects of this movie. Aziz Ansari and Chris O’Dowd are a slug and snail respectively, but they should’ve been listed as hackneyed sidekick characters #1 and #2. They’re the comic relief but I didn’t hear a single child laugh in my theater. I suppose the script is the actual culprit.

This generic tale of good vs. evil  has been done countless times with more innovation and appeal. The story is lackluster in the extreme. Couldn’t the screenwriters have tried a little harder to come up with something interesting? The best lesson they can come up with is: “Many leaves, one tree; we’re all individuals, but we’re still connected.” Zzzzzzzz. It’s a shame because what the film does have going for it is gorgeous computer graphics. The animators have done a beautiful job giving zest to a script that has none. Epic won’t entertain adults and will leave kids wanting more. Children know a quality adventure when they see one and this ain’t it. You cannot foist a subpar saga on them and expect a hit. Not surprisingly, out of 8 productions, this became Blue Sky’s worst performing feature by a wide margin. It didn’t even recoup its $100M production budget in the U.S. Epic is neither majestic nor grand. It’s about as far from the word’s connotation as you can get. The most glaringly mistitled movie since The LAST Exorcism Part II.

Oz the Great and Powerful

Oscar Diggs, a magician/con man, leaves Kansas in a hot air balloon, gets sucked into a cyclone and winds up in the Land of Oz. Here he encounters various personalities, including Evanora who promises all the wealth of the king if he kills the Wicked Witch by destroying her wand, the source of her power. This sends our fearless hero on an odyssey where he meets a couple of characters who join him. The action is all well and good, but the plot merely apes the events of the Victor Fleming version with less inspired results.

L. Frank Baum’s introductory novel The Wonderful Wizard of Oz is also the basis for this unofficial prequel. However the 1939 landmark film feels more like the real inspiration than that book. Director Sam Raimi was legally prohibited from replicating certain elements (i.e. ruby slippers) but he clearly references the 1939 classic with deferential respect. Raimi goes from black and white to color to highlight the transition to Oz and simulates the same environment in many scenes incorporating Munchkinland, the yellow brick road, and The Emerald City. The Winkie guards, flying monkeys and The Scarecrow are also among the many allusions. These are welcome touches, but the duplicated story is where the similarities become more problematic.

Ultimately Oz The Great and Powerful suffers in comparison. The human people here lack that same mythic sense of wonder. When Mila Kunis as Theodora first arrives, her modern ensemble appears like she time traveled back from 2013. Her floppy wide brimmed hat looks like something J.Lo would wear. Michelle Williams as Glinda the Good Witch is pretty but bland. She lacks the otherworldly charm (and distinctive voice) that Billie Burke had when she played the part. Rachel Weisz fares better as Evanora but only because we never really knew her in The Wizard of Oz. As Oscar the con man, James Franco relies on the actor’s insincere demeanor to play the role.  His trademark smirk is more than adequate, but less than enchanting. He certainly disappointed me in one scene. There’s a moment where Munchkins start to sing and dance in a lively musical number that got my feet a-tapping. Just as it was hitting its stride, Oscar puts his hand up and tells them to stop.

Oz the Great and Powerful has its moments. Visually it is a delight. The set design is first class with color and special effects combining in attractive displays. The film was shot in 3D, but I hardly think it demands to be seen in that format. It doesn’t contribute much to the already impressive spectacle. The frame is packed with gorgeous visuals that incorporate magical plants and bizarre creatures. A little porcelain China doll is a fragile creature that walks and talks with a cracked, reflective body. These demonstrations incite our fascination. The ending is particularly engaging too. The wizard’s impressive appearance to the people recalls his physical manifestation in the classic work. Oscar’s resourcefulness genuinely gets our emotions. Too bad you must wait to the end to see it. We’re constantly reminded with hints of the infinitely superior original. For most the production, the script simply isn’t unique enough. The narrative rings hollow although the smoke and mirrors just might be enough to entertain.

Jack the Giant Slayer

Jack the Giant Slayer is one of those effects-laden 3D eyesores short on excitement and big on CGI. It’s based on the English folk tale “Jack and the Beanstalk” and the lesser known (to this critic anyway) “Jack the Giant Killer.” It’s a story that has stood the test of time so this should’ve been a rousing adventure harkening back to traditional fables. Unfortunately this a largely uninspired effort full of flimsy characters, unexciting situations and copious amounts of CGI that look dated and ugly. Hollywood never seems to learn that simply throwing money up on the screen does not an enjoyable film make.

Given the subject, this anecdote could have been a spirited fantasy with touches of humor, but the oppressive spectacle has no joy. The cast includes formidable acting talent including Stanley Tucci, Ian McShane and Ewan McGregor. But the characters are disposable good vs. evil, rich vs. poor cutouts. Nicholas Hoult and Eleanor Tomlinson are particularly forgettable as Jack and Isabelle, the lead couple. I blame the script for the blah characterizations. Only Tucci exhibits the personality necessary for the lighthearted romp this aspires to be. Oh and the beanstalk gave a nice performance actually. Seriously it’s the most animated character of them all.

The adventure takes forever to get started. We all know the basic plot, so why the interminable intro? I struggled to stay awake during the first 30 minutes before the beanstalk gets planted. And when the screenplay isn’t generic, it’s stupid. You’ll question King Brahmwell’s mindset when he orders to intentionally cut down the very beanstalk that his beloved daughter has climbed up. Or her memory for that matter when she doesn’t question him on it later. Incidentally, when Jack and Isabelle do fall from the sky, their ability to remain alive is the most unintentionally hilarious display since the last Twilight picture.

This is a CGI nightmare. The entire race of giants, that live up in the sky are all computer generated. There are so many of them and they occupy such an important role that this becomes an animated film whenever they’re on screen. Many sequences would exist of nothing but simply a green screen without the computer graphics. At times CGI can improve visuals, but here they are badly executed and really ugly. The creations look hopelessly dated and cheap especially when they‘re interacting with real human actors. Why couldn’t the giants been accomplished using human actors and creatively shooting to make them appear larger? Oh how I missed the quaint practical effects of classic Hollywood fare of movies like Jason and the Argonauts. The technology may look antiquated today, but at least it had an organic quality that felt authentic.

There just isn’t enough innovation to Jack the Giant Slayer to justify why this was even made. Uninteresting characters, weak script and bad special effects, do not add up to a good time. It’s a deadly trifecta of bad movie making. The overreliance on poor CGI makes this a distinctly dreary exercise. There are snatches of excitement to be found. When Jack dumps a hive full of bees into a giant’s helmet, there’s gleeful anticipation in what will happen. But more often than not the action is a dull, labored affair lacking the fun of the original fairy tale. Not surprisingly the $195 million production has been a costly bomb. Maybe they should have just included music by Slayer. Guess we can be thankful we were spared sequels like Jack the Giant Megadeth or Jack the Giant Anthrax.

Big Trouble in Little China

A Chinese street gang, the Lords of Death, have kidnapped Wang Chi’s green eyed fiancée. That’s the “big trouble”. The “little China” is San Francisco’s Chinatown where she’s taken.

John Carpenter’s amalgamation of action / adventure / comedy / fantasy is a loving, send up of a martial arts films. John Carpenter directs frequent collaborator Kurt Russell in their 4th partnership together following Elvis (1979 TV Movie), Escape from New York (1981) and The Thing (1982). Kurt Russell is clearly playing it for laughs channeling a screwy version of John Wayne. It’s a performance rooted firmly in camp. “I’m a reasonable guy, but I’ve just experienced some very unreasonable things,“ he says at one point. In fact he’s frequently prone to casting witty one liners that sound more like catchphrases than actual dialogue. And that’s just fine because the whole production is ridiculously over the top.

Big Trouble in Little China is focused on a colorful cast of characters. Where else can you go toe to toe with a villain that will blind you by staring into his glowing eyes or the energy blasts from his mouth? Those powers are embodied in evil sorcerer Lo Pan memorably played by James Hong. He’s flanked by The Three Storms (Rain, Thunder and Lightning) lesser sorcerers who look like they’re wearing huge lamp shades on their heads. Their first appearance is a wonderful showdown that combines two warring gangs: the Wing Kong, commanded by Lo Pan and the Chang Sings (the “good” guys). I’ve never seen or heard so many thunderclaps and animated lightning bolts discharging from people’s hands. And I would be remiss if I didn’t mention those bizarre creatures. Words cannot accurately describe one I’ll simply call the Floating Eyeball Monster. It must be seen to be truly appreciated.

At times the narrative is a bit disjointed and difficult to follow. There are a lot of personalities highlighted in the story. It’s definitely one of those movies that improves on repeated viewings since it’s hard to process everything that’s happening. (I watched it twice before writing this review.) The confusing kidnapping scene at the airport feels like it was edited with a hacksaw. Also why does Lo Pan want to become a flesh and blood man when he’s so much more powerful as an immortal? But in the end, none of that really matters because this is a picture that aims to simply entertain and largely succeeds. The tone is goofily tongue in cheek with many laughs sprinkled throughout sensational action sequences. I think the film’s purpose is best encapsulated in this exchange:

Jack Burton: Somebody tell me what is going on!
Wang Chi: The truth?
Jack Burton: I can take it.
Wang Chi: We don’t know.

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

Note: This movie is being shown in select theaters at High Frame Rate 3D which at 48 frames per second supposedly offers a much sharper image. Since (A) I happened to see the film in 24 FPS, the cinema standard for over a century, (B) the vast majority of theaters are showing it in 24 fps anyway, and (C) such discussions have no bearing on whether it’s a good film, this is the only time I feel required to mention it.

J. R. R. Tolkien’s classic of children’s literature gets a luxurious treatment in Peter Jackson’s reverent retelling of the 1937 fantasy.  Overall it’s a stunning execution of the magical text of Tolkien’s words come to life. It’s an extraordinary rendering full of exciting set pieces, gorgeous tableaus and a fervently involving purpose. If there’s a criticism I can lobby toward this beautifully realized achievement is that perhaps it’s too much of a good thing. I mean J. R. R. Tolkien’s source novel was a relatively brief 310 page children’s book. This is only part 1 of a proposed 3 part series and it’s still almost 3 hours.

Our fable takes forever to get started. The chronicle starts out with Bilbo Baggins, a hobbit, telling a tale in voiceover to his son Frodo. It’s a ponderous intro that recounts the dragon Smaug’s takeover of Erebor – “the Lonely Mountain”.  This is the dwarves’ ancestral homeland, where they once lived, and sets up the purpose of the subsequent journey. Our proper saga rightfully begins when Bilbo reflects on the day he was first visited by the wizard Gandalf 60 years ago. Gandalf invites a collection of dwarves to Bilbo’s home in anticipation of an adventure to re-claim the dwarves’ homeland and treasure from the dragon. This introduction to the various dwarves including Thorin, their leader, takes up an iodinate amount of time that seems to serve no other purpose than to pad an already slight plot and ultimately create 3 movies to charge admission to instead of one.

Once we get past the worrisome opening, the tale takes root. Peter Jackson does a nice job of elaborating on details to flesh out the script. In one explanatory scene, Gandalf meets with a 3 person council to gain approval for their quest. All three interrogate Gandalf. The discussion gives commentary that not everyone approves of their quest. It’s an interesting footnote. While the company travels, they are constantly pursued by grotesque henchmen called Orcs that are riding Wargs, their wolf-like beasts. Peter Jackson highlights this constant threat as an underlying effective source of dread. There is a magnification of the character Thorin who is the main dwarf that wants to take back his grandfather’s kingdom. He becomes a co-protagonist of sorts. Bilbo’s introduction to Gollum is, as expected, mesmerizing and their interaction is a highpoint of the later half.

Peter Jackson also does a great job at rendering visionary passages from the book into a physical manifestation before our eyes. In one thrilling episode, a storm in the mountains turns out to be not an actual storm, but giant mountain creatures hurdling rocks at each other. As the giants fight, the company becomes separated and the sight of the two factions resting on the crevices of these large stone monsters, accents one of the most exhilarating sequences of The Hobbit. This is a perfect example how modern technology can be artistically employed to dramatize complex sequences from books. It’s like a roller coaster ride.

The movie does a nice job of fleshing out the fundamentals of J. R. R. Tolkien’s world and giving a context for The Lord of the Rings that follows. There is real drama in this motley group of 13 dwarves, one wizard and a very anxious hobbit. Much of the story is more than just a mere quest to get back the dwarves’ treasure, it’s also the introspective trek of one hobbit. His personal journey of self discovery is a sensitive arc that captured me throughout the film. Right from the beginning when Gandalf chooses him, Bilbo claims he’s not the hobbit Gandalf’s looking for. His ultimate willingness to leave the comfort of his home and face his fears of the unknown, make him a most likeable and sympathetic individual. We see a complacent homebody slowly showing the genesis of someone embracing courage within themselves. His changing status in the eyes of Thorin is an emotionally affecting storyline as well. Granted the plot stumbles initially with two unnecessary prologues that drag on the simple narrative. However once the expedition gets underway, it moves at a brisk pace and is consistently entertaining. This is an expedition worth taking.

Holy Motors

If I were to observe an open heart surgery as a series of procedures sans narration, I might at various moments throughout the process be repulsed, then fascinated. I’d have no idea what would come next and so I would be compelled to keep watching from a curiosity standpoint – spellbound by the procedure in its unfettered access. Then when it was all over and the body had been sewn back up, perhaps I’d remark that it was fascinating. But there would be no drama to engage my emotions. It certainly wouldn’t qualify as a movie with a plot. Just an array of maneuvers connected together by a common operation. Such is the experience of Holy Motors.

Holy Motors is one of those unconventional fantasies that Luis Buñuel or Federico Fellini or David Lynch might direct. Except those directors usually have *ahem* a discernable point. Basically this is a accumulation of sketches strung together that tells the story of Monsieur Oscar who travels to miscellaneous meetings in the back of his white stretch limo. Before exiting his vehicle, he dons assorted disguises for each one. There’s some exposition in the beginning that implies he’s an actor being watched by an audience. The cameras are invisible, an offhand remark informs us. For each assignment, he dons a different costume as these mini movies recall various genres: a melodrama, a gangster flick, a musical, etc. Holy Motors is a series of visual short cuts.

The most memorable of these vignettes is a rumination on the fairy tale, Beauty & the Beast. French director Leos Carax has only made 5 features (and a few shorts) since 1984. As an elaboration of his own segment from the cinematic triptych Tokyo! Lavant plays a monster named Monsieur Merde (even non-French speakers understand that word). He’s a red haired and bearded creature that recalls a satyr from Greek mythology. Here he kidnaps a beautiful model (Eva Mendez) on a fashion shoot, from Père Lachaise Cemetery and absconds with her deep within the catacombs of Paris. What happens next is sort of symptomatic of every tale. We’re captivated with what might take place, then led through each story simply to find it goes nowhere. Each narrative starts out with promise and then deteriorates into a non ending. This one is particularly sad as it is desperate to shock. It ends stirring feelings of embarrassment by the viewer for actress Eva Mendes. How did she get roped into this? I wanted to rescue her from the ugliness.

Much has been written on Holy Motors as this hard to classify, visionary art piece, but it really doesn’t seem all that innovative unless you consider stringing a collection of short films together a radical concept.  Holy Motors contains little that is pretty or joyful.  Leos Carax directs his frequent alter-ego, actor Denis Lavant. The 51-year old French star reluctantly journeys from appointment to appointment with nary a smile. He wears disguises with an unemotional professionalism not because he wants to, but because he has to. In a succession of vignettes, Monsieur Oscar assumes 11 characters including a beggar woman, an alien by way of a motion capture suit, a lecherous monster, a disappointed dad, an accordionist, an assassin, a dying man, and a former paramour in a perplexing bit in which pop star Kylie Minogue sings. Even her song is joyless. Lavant plays a mostly misanthropic bloke in each piece. He’s rather unlovable and kind of repulsive. Slowly over time we grow sorry for this individual. If we are to presume that Holy Motors is a movie about the making of movies, then I can only deduce director Leos Carax’s viewpoint is that they’re a drudgery to perform. While some have championed the images as a celebration of film. I see it more as a wake.

The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn – Part 2

This review is not for anyone already an avowed devotee of the Twilight series. Breaking Dawn – Part 2 is very much a companion to the last film and will satisfy those who are transfixed by the relationship between Bella, Edward and Jacob. However if you’re a fan of acting, storytelling and drama, then this is not your movie. In other words, if you loved/hated Part 1, you’ll love/hate Part 2.

As its title suggest Breaking Dawn – Part 2 is a continuation of the events of Part 1. Bella is now a vampire. She’s stronger, her senses are more acute, and she can move – really, really fast. Bella and Edward Cullen have a new addition to their family, newborn daughter Renesmee – half human, half vampire, she is growing at an alarming rate. We soon learn that Jacob has imprinted on their daughter, which is sort of the equivalent of becoming her soulmate. I don’t know about you, but the idea that Jacob tried to woo Bella, didn’t succeed, and now he’s after her daughter is more than a little creepy. But I digress. The Volturi, a powerful coven of vampires that enforce the laws of the vampire world, have learned of the child and are now out to kill the Cullen clan. They believe her to be an immortal and extremely dangerous to them. Her very existence is something of a crime which must be punished.

Breaking Dawn – Part 2 is shockingly devoid of any excitement save for the ending. That’s the problem with stretching a single book that could have easily been a 1 hour TV show into 2 films that comprise almost four hours combined. But ah yes there’s money to be made. Anyway what do I know? Obviously, the filmmakers have properly catered to their audience because this earned a boatload of cash. It takes a long time to get to the point of the story, the impending threat of the Volturi. Before that we watch Bella put on contacts, arm wrestle Emmett and zip around in a gray blur featuring surprisingly bad special effects for a major Hollywood production. I dare you not to laugh at the infant Renesmee’s face that is hilariously expressive for a newborn baby. Director Bill Condon seems to finally fully embrace the camp value of this series, although it doesn’t really help. It all builds to a climatic battle that is as ridiculously over-the-top as the rest of the movie is lifeless. I mean the number of bloody decapitations are so numerous they kind of lose their impact.

The actors in Breaking Dawn – Part 2 do not act, they pose. Each scene is composed of beautifully airbrushed models that preen for the camera. CGI is utilized to make them appear even more beatific as they gaze blankly at each other. Like mannequins in a department store window they exhibit a beautiful display of fashion and hairstyles. The lack of action is dreary. There are seemingly endless scenes where people just stand idly by and stare. Once in a while they deliver vapid pronouncements uttered in flat American accents supposedly representing the youths of Forks, Washington but sound more like the denizens of L.A. Everyone broods giving boring exposition that explains the history of various tribes as they gather witnesses to the fact that their daughter does not pose a threat. There is no passion befitting the dialogue. Michael Sheen is the lone actor on hand that gives a performance. As the leader of the Volturi speaks his lines with the self importance that belies his position. At one point he lets out a delighted high pitched squeal that has more personality than the sum total of everything said in the entire production. I perked up a bit at that moment. Then fell back into a lethargic passivity that matched the rest of the cast.

Frankenweenie

Simple, childlike drama about an intelligent young boy that tames the benefits of electrical power to bring his beloved dog Sparky back to life. As the title suggests, the story is a kiddie version of the vintage Frankenstein tale. Frankenweenie was originally a live action short starring Shelley Duvall and Daniel Stern released back in 1984. In its current incarnation, the 30 minute anecdote has been expanded to an 87 minute animated fantasy.

First the good. It’s one of Tim Burton’s most sweetly accessible family friendly films since Corpse Bride. It certainly looks fantastic. I don’t think anyone questions the director’s fetching macabre style. There’s a welcome purity in the visuals that actually benefit the modest tale. The movie is photographed in black in white as a tribute to the horror classics of the 1930s. The cast is fittingly quirky with four of his previous collaborators that include Catherine O’Hara, Martin Short, and Winona Ryder. Their new substitute science teacher, Mr. Rzykruski, a particular standout. He is a ghastly joy, delightfully voiced by Martin Landau but with features that almost recall Vincent Price. There’s a magnificently uncontrolled climax that utilizes the idea of a science fair gone amok.

Now the bad. The whole affair has Tim Burton just coasting on the fumes of his earlier successes. The plot is slight in the extreme. Very little of it is innovative or original. The frequent allusions to other people’s works including Bride of Frankenstein or Godzilla feels more like lazy borrowing than the homage I think they’re meant to be. The few attempts at humor are weak and aimed strictly at young children.

Frankenweenie has the mark of quality. It’s a beautifully mounted stop-motion animation that will entertain an undemanding audience. The chronicle of a boy’s love for his dog by way of Frankenstein isn’t particularly fresh. I’ll admit, however, the visual feast is a retro production designer’s dream. The narrative is marked by a tranquil restraint that has been lacking in the director’s recent big budget creations as of late. Yes, this science-fiction comedy horror is pleasant enough, but it’s no classic.

Beasts of the Southern Wild

Beasts of the Southern Wild is a spellbinding document. Hushpuppy is a fearless 6 year old girl that lives with her father Wink in a place she refers to as “The Bathtub” – a southern community along the Louisiana Delta. Hushpuppy and Wink live in abject poverty. This tale exposes a subculture of which many Americans may be unaware. The utter squalor suggests a third world country and not the U.S. at all. The presentation is like anthropological evidence of a civilization hidden from view.

Director Benh Zeitlin has assembled a cast of locals with no acting experience. Dwight Henry who plays Wink, owns and runs a cafe in New Orleans in real life. Here he plays a stern man that practices a version of tough love with his daughter to keep her prepared for a rough existence. At least they’re surrounded by a close-knit community that support one another. Quvenzhané Wallis is a revelation as Hushpuppy. She casually observes everything around her with keen senses. Fortunately Wallis is untrained and natural, and she’s flawless. I hesitate to even call it acting because Zeitlin has wisely allowed her to simply be. Witness the tender display where she holds the tiny critters she discovers close to her face. It’s just as you would listen to the ocean in a seashell held up to your ear. Her poetic voice-overs help educate the viewer. One on one banter is irrelevant. It’s the visual that becomes the focus. Many scenes simply rely on the emotion she registers on her expressive face. The lens lovingly registers every expression upon her countenance.

Beasts subverts the very conventions of film. The filmmakers have filtered the narrative through the stream of consciousness of a young girl. It’s fiercely innovative, highly distinctive and peculiarly told. This doesn’t rely of the traditional methods of storytelling. It’s filmed rather haphazardly and much of the discourse is indecipherable. But all of these techniques actually serve to heighten the drama of a bewitching little girl. As she drifts through life, her observances of adult conversations can be confusing. Dialogue fades in and out, people talk over each other, local jargon is used – it’s an admittedly free-form script. At times I almost wished for subtitles. As a child’s grasp of the conversation of a roomful of adults is superficial at best, so too is ours of their discussions. This cursory comprehension of what is being talked about helps define our intrepid main character. Her understanding or lack thereof is also our understanding. This allows the audience to identify with her all the more.

The chronicle is highlighted by a gorgeous poeticism . It presents these people, without the artifice of Hollywood. As Hushpuppy’s world gets tougher, temperatures rise and the ice caps melt causing mythical prehistoric creatures called “aurochs” to run loose toward their area. The rising waters threaten their region. Shades of Hurricane Katrina, but past the politics that would divert attention from these fascinating people. Wink disappears for a period and we’re unclear as to where he has gone. He later returns wearing a hospital gown, but still fails to give an explanation. Just what exactly is going on? And where is her mother?  These are questions that Hushpuppy has as well as she attempts to locate her missing parent. The action is very much filtered through he eyes of a toddler. We aren’t privy to adult discussions. Hushpuppy is left in the dark much in the same way. The cinematography utilizes a shaky cam, often from a low vantage point as if Hushpuppy were carrying the camera herself. In adopting this approach, director Benh Zeitlin has created a much more heartbreaking work of art from Lucy Alibar’s one-act play. While the events unfold, they tend to meander. We realize there really is a story – just not a traditionally told one. The footage is raw. However, Beasts of the Southern Wild becomes an even more elemental picture because of it.