Cloudy With A Chance Of Meatballs (yes, that's what it's called...stop scoffing at the back)

With its daft title and modest "never-heard-of-it" presence in the public consciousness, telling people about 'CLOUDY WITH A CHANCE OF MEATBALLS' is always met with the same furrowed brow and up-turned nose response that is typical of the so-called "Dragons" of 'Dragons' Den' (though I'm convinced that none of them apart from that old woman are actually Dragons, even if they do breath fire...or is it smug, self-congratulating wankeriness?).

But having visited my favourite mulitplex last friday and made the last chance decision to choose it, having heard other good things, over 'Surrogates', I can safely say that I would happily sell this film, with all the gusto and nerve of a West End caricaturist, to anybody, anywhere, at any time. I am the new face of this film. And I'll be knocking on your door any day now.

Before then though, here's a quick low down, brief as I can...

Flint Lockwood (voiced by Bill Hader) is an aspiring inventor who lives with his father on Swallow Island. The small town is famous for producing sardines, but the industry has gone bust, and the locals now find themselves with nothing to eat but the "really really gross" fish. But Flint has an answer. Having invented a machine that can change water into food, Flint believes he will finally achieve the recognition he has always craved, but then an accident sends the contraption soaring into the sky, where it becomes stuck in the clouds.

Soon though, the machine gets to work changing the precipitation in the sky into delicious meals, and cheeseburgers begin tumbling down to earth. The crowd are jubilant, and when Flint finds a way to control the output of his machine from his home, he is soon inundated with orders, and is the town's saviour. Soon the streets are covered in different foodstuffs; breakfast, hotdogs, ice cream, everything anyone could ask for. Flint also has the pleasure of meeting Sam Sparks (voiced by Anna Faris), a former nerd like Flint who has ditched her glasses and her brains in favour of highlights and a microphone, and is a novice reporter for a cable weather channel.

The story continues as you'd expect; just your average mix of gummy-bear obsessed monkey's called Steve, flying rats, adult-sized babies and nacho cheese fountains. In the end, Flint has to save the day when his machine, now out of control, starts churning out over-sized pasta and meatballs that threaten to destroy Swallow Island (now renamed "Chew and Swallow Land" by the town's greedy, tourism obsessed mayor). What's more, he is still battling to gain the respect and love of his humble fisherman father.

With an innocence and energy that surge from the screen (even though I was watching in the far-preferable 2D format), 'Cloudy...' does everything it possibly can to instil a sense of child-like wonder and fun in every cinema. The jokes are rapid-fire and hilarious, the characters loveable and heart-warming, the comedy reminiscent of Morecambe and Wise or Monty Python, or more recently the irreverent and ridiculous Mighty Boosh. It is an almost tear-inducingly enjoyable and uplifting experience, and I would recommend it to anyone, no matter what age.

What's more, the incredible cast of voices includes - apart from Hader and Faris - James Caan, Mr T, Bruce Campbell (of the Evil Dead series), and Andy Samberg. I couldn't ask for anything more. So I implore you, do the right thing and go and see this movie, if for nothing but to avoid me going door to door.

Creation

Little known facts about Charles Darwin:

1. Few people know that Darwin was addicted to cherry flavoured Halls Soothers. Apparently he saw the advert with the woman having her neck kissed in a lift and thought he give them a go. Now he's on ten packets a day.

2. Darwin's nickname at school was "Ugly Chris", as other children believed that he resembled a slightly less aesthetically pleasing version of football player, pundit and legend Chris Kamara.

3. Darwin's first daughter, Annie, died at the age of ten from scarlet fever, though some believe that she suffered from tuberculosis. Often considered to be Darwin's favourite of his children, her death was a huge blow to Charles and his wife Emma. Darwin wrote later in a personal memoir: "Oh that she could know how tenderly we do still and shall ever love her dear joyous face."

Alright. Two of those facts are dubious. I found them on the back of a toilet door at Warwick services (which, by the way, has improved immensely since it installed the M&S Simply Food). But the third is solid fact. And how do I know? Because CREATION, the new film directed by Jon Amiel, and starring real-life husband and wife team Paul Bettany and Jennifer Connolly as Darwins Charles and Emma, told me so.

The slow-moving and contemplative story follows a young and handsome Darwin (not the bearded and cumbersome figure that we are used to seeing) as he struggles to deal with the pressures of life; of the demand on him to finish his most famous work 'On The Origin Of Species', of an illness that has been affecting him for months, of his battle with those who oppose his radical anti-creationist views, and of his strained and dysfunctional marriage to Emma, whose devotion to the church is built like a concrete wall between them. What's more, Charles is visited on regular occasions by the ghost of Annie, his deceased daughter and one his biggest fans, and it is this that troubles him the most; his sadness at the loss of his beloved child but also the anger and guilt that he feels towards the way in which she died, and the part that he himself had to play in the event.

With a fantastic central performance by Bettany, by far and away a career best, leading the way, Creation is satisfyingly engrossing and heartfelt for much of its 108 minutes. Written with flair and structurally challenging, it does well to take an otherwise tired period genre and inject a sense of real darkness and a journey of real emotional turmoil. Amiel's direction does at times take the dreamy visions a bit too far, and there is a bizarre circle-of-life sequence somewhere in the films middle that sticks out like a sore thumb, but otherwise the film is very nicely balanced between costume drama and modern character study.

What is important to note if you are thinking of going to see this film is that it is NOT, as I believed and as others will be convinced as well, a sparring session between the two eternally opposed camps of Darwinism and creationism (or even science and religion, if you were to go so far as to reduce them to that...).

What I really appreciated about the film, and about Amiel's handling of the subject matter, was that it could, in the wrong hands, have become a banner-waving, my dad's bigger than your dad, finger-pointing in the face of modern creationist thinkers. It is not, as you might expect, cinema as a vehicle for personal or political motive. This is not Michael Moore, and is clearly better for it. Instead it is a captivating, mature and intelligent study of one of history's most important men, one who's research and writing transcends the boundaries of modern influence, but also a man who, despite his almost otherworldly grasp of science, was just as loving and passionate, as fragile and vulnerable as any other.

There are no great surprises in Creation, and it closes with a well-played and pleasingly different moment of catharsis for both Darwin and his wife, followed by a predictably uplifting and inspiring ending, but the appeal of the film is that it gives much more weight to the survival of the human spirit, the survival of Darwin himself, than the survival of the fittest. With good turns from Connolly and Jeremy Northam, who plays a sort of antagonist as local church man Reverend Innes, along with a wonderful cameo from Jenny the orangutan, Creation stands out this week as a good, honest piece of film-making. Simple, yes, but perfectly designed for its function.

Away We Go; hugs, jugs and enough love to make Shakespeare wretch

In recent times, American "indie" cinema (and I use quotations because, like in music, the word 'indie' has been severed from its original meaning and come to refer to a style, as opposed to method, of film-making) has become instantly recognisable for its tales of quirky, irreverent, imaginative people searching for meaning in their drab and seemingly inescapable lives in the various backwater towns of America. These films are usually written with a deadpan, human sense of tragic comedy, and convince that we cannot expect to find happiness with others before we find the beauty in ourselves.

No change here, then, with AWAY WE GO, the new film directed by Sam Mendes of 'American Beauty' fame and written by author Dave Eggers and his wife Vendela Vida, as Burt and Verona (played by John Krasinski and Maya Rudolph), set off on a journey around North America to visit family and friends and hopefully find a place suitable to raise their fast-approaching first child.

It is a film about motherhood, about love and family and individuality, and it is crammed from start to finish with emotional turmoil and insecurity; indeed the film's over-riding theme and driving question is posed by Verona late in the story's first act when she asks Burt "Are we fuck-ups?". He replies with a defiant and supportive "No, we're not fuck-ups." and yet of course we are well aware that this is not set in stone, such is the weight (and time), given to this moment in the film.

And so it continues - back and forth, back and forth - as the couple travel from family to family across the country and discover a world of people obsessed and defined by their children. Some of them are fearful, some pitiful, some downright unbearable, and none of them as loving, warm and charming as our two protagonists. Inevitably they come to realise this themselves, and the film ends on a moment of overwhelming emotional catharsis, but though this is logical in its concept, the execution of the story is lacking in the sort of depth of reflection and discovery of character that made films like 'Juno' or 'Little Miss Sunshine' or even the somewhat self-satisfied 'The Squid And The Whale' so effectively touching and moving. Though Burt and Verona are perfectly endearing people, their failures and short-comings as human beings are glossed over with a thick, and occasionally sickly, layer of love, and rather than see them complete their emotional journey, as is expected in these sorts of films, we watch as they bare witness to a series of severely dislikeable, self-obsessed and often idiotic characters before returning home safe in the knowledge that they might as well have never left in the first place.

This is unfair of me, I guess, because there is more to the story than a mere cyclical journey with a "well, maybe we are fine after all..." answer at the end. Of course there is. But whilst Burt and Verona do indeed experience change in their view of the world, and continue to suffer from doubt in their own relationship and the meaning of love, there exists no real threat to their future, to their survival as a couple. Therapy does occur, but it is largely superficial, and rarely life-changing.

There are some very funny moments in this film, along with some truly touching ones and two very accomplished performances by Krasinski and Rudolph, but they seem unsupported by a flossy script that leads awkwardly from one set-up to another and often without motivation. As a result, the film feels like a series of vignettes that could just as easily be named "Diaries of a Disillusioned Couple". It is not though, at the end of everything, really a film, but it is still very comforting, heart-warming and well-meaning, and deserves applause for showing us a love, in Burt and Verona, that can survive even the most testing of climates and conditions.

Funny People; the day I spent two and a half hours watching Adam Sandler say 'dick' a lot...

Love him or loathe him, Judd Apatow has done pretty bloody well for himself over recent years. Like National Lampoon's farcical tomfoolery in the late seventies, Jim Carrey's rubber-faced mania in the mid-nineties or the so-called Frat Pack films in the new millenium that have inevitably starred one of Ben Stiller, Owen Wilson, Will Ferrell or Vince Vaughn, Apatow's movies have carved their own snug space in the comedy genre that means that they are instantly recognisable, bankable and keenly sought-after.

Now, though, Apatow has reached that stage where his movies are such an event that they come under particular scrutiny from both critics and audiences alike. And like many comedy franchises before, the work has struggled to live up to the demands of the different camps; of those who would be happy to see the same jokes rolled out over and over, comfy in their familiarity with the actors and set ups, and those who would like to see Apatow's clear talent for dialogue and his gift for bringing humanity to the seemingly basest of characters put to better use than in the kind of meaningless stoner-farce that was Pineapple Express. Whether he be writing and directing, as he did on '40 Year Old Virgin' and 'Knocked Up', or is involved on a lesser scale, as in films such as 'Step Brothers' and the recent 'Year One', Apatow is a money-making machine, but also an expectation magnet.

FUNNY PEOPLE, then, is Monsieur Apatow's latest offering to the world. It has been written and directed by the man himself and is therefore pure, undiluted Judd, and it has easily been the most highly anticipated movie of his to date. Released in a hail of two-page reviews and industry fireworks, it has garnered mixed but generally very positive reviews, and has been praised by its fans as a film that takes the world of comedy and shows us the darkness that lies beneath, the humanity behind the chuckles. Adam Sandler, who plays the lead character George Simmons, has been said to show a different side to his bumbling, gurning comedy persona of the past, and has been applauded for taking on an emotional role that reflects somewhat his own career. This dropping of the defenses, both on Sandler's part and indeed his character's, is a clear attempt to suggest a new vulnerability to these hardened characters and bring further dimension to what would otherwise be a very superficial and venal group of beings, and is what has endeared this film to much of its audience thus far. But is this a breakthrough in meditative comedy? Was it ever in fact a comedy to begin with? I, personally, am not so sure.

The story begins with Sandler's George, a once popular stand up comedian who has made a fortune taking starring roles in a series of trivial Hollywood comedies called things like 'Merman' and 'Re-Do', wakes up in his mansion and travels to the doctors where he is told, within the first five minutes of the film, that he is suffering from AML, a rare form of leukemia, and has little chance of surviving. He leaves the clinic, his mind heavy with the news, and proceeds home, signing autographs and posing for pictures along the way.

Meanwhile elsewhere, Ira Wright, played by Seth Rogen, is an aspiring comic with a poor act and two flat mates who are considerably more talented and successful than he is. Though he refuses to give up, the long time he has spent trying to break onto the scene has left him weary and tired. But Ira's life is about to change, as George catches a glimpse of a performance and takes a shine to his work. Quickly, Ira is approached by George to work as his joke writer and PA, and soon he is following George into his private jet, keeping girls company until his boss has time to sleep with them, and talking to George so that he might fall asleep.

Soon they develop a bond, and are close even to being friends (though this is something that George refuses to accept), and Ira convinces George to talk to his friends and family, or what little of them he has left, in order to tell them the news of his approaching fatality. He does so, taking the opportunity to reunite with his former girlfriend and the love of his life, Laura (played by Apatow's extremely talented wife Leslie Mann). Accepting of his fate, George has found a strange comfort in knowing that all he will lose in death is his crushing loneliness and the money for which he has no use.

So, when he is told that the experimental treatment he has been under is working, and that he is no longer sick, George is faced with a conundrum. What to do now? How now should he live his life? Should he continue to re-evaluate who he is, taking the opportunity of a second chance to begin afresh? Or should he again indulge in his own reckless and selfish ways? Well, as it turns out, people do learn, but not really enough, and George takes his new beginning as a chance to win back Laura, who is now happily married with two children, and live the life that he always wanted.

In the end there are destined to be complications, and George will have to realise that it might be more beneficial to change who he is before trying to change what he has, and the story comes to a predictably cosy and hand-shaky close.

Now there are certainly various positives in Funny People, things that demonstrate the fantastic command that Apatow has over the art of comedy, and his control of things like dialogue and, as well, of group dynamics. The banter between Ira and his housemates (played by Jonah Hill and Jason Schwartzman) is as electric as it was in 40 Year Old Virgin, and almost as good as in the brilliant Knocked Up, though the balance of the characters, and the bond between the three of them, doesn't translate nearly as well as it should do.

Along with this, there are many moments of touching warmth that, for me, are a sign of Apatow's intelligence as a director of comedy, that he uses laughs as a means of seeing the humour in humanity. In his previous films there has always been a crushing innocence to its central characters, and as such the audience have been lead to feel compelled to support them as they journey into this new world, helping them on their voyage of discovery into adulthood and emotional maturity. And there are certainly times in Funny People where you feel a strong connection to the troubled and stressful lives of its protagonists. Not so much in George as in Ira and Laura, there is real, honest heart in their actions, and want and urge to do well by others, even if that means sacrificing their own pride or security. This is what makes a lot of the film work, and I wish that there was a way to inflict the same emotive drive on the parts that didn't, but there is one inherent problem that I feel undermines much of the good work that Rogen and Mann, as well as Apatow, have done, and that problem is Adam Sandler.

Many people have said of Sandler in the past that he has a different side to him, one that is intelligent and mature and in know way wants to pull funny faces or punch you over a fence in a fit of child-like rage, and I agree. In films like 'Spanglish' and the altogether astonishing 'Punch Drunk Love', Sandler displays a keen knowledge of the nuances of real acting, and that he can prove a brilliant on screen presence when his urge to be funny is controlled and restrained by a director. However, in Funny People it is clear that Sandler, an old friend and room-mate of Apatow's from "college", has been given too much room to be himself, and though he is playing a comedian whose instinct is to be cutting and nasty, he is unable to show us that this is just an act, and quickly, with every remark about dick sizes or the need to take advantage of groupies, we grow to dislike him in a very thorough and saddening way.

Sandler's insistence on playing the filthy-tongued, sex-obsessed uber-male could be seen as another attempt to deconstruct the machismo and testosterone that dominate modern comedy and have therefore trapped him in his unlikeable persona. But even off stage his foul character is unrelenting, and even quite boring, and I began to wonder whether it would have been best if George had in fact died, leaving Ira and Laura to pick up the pieces and learn to accept what it was that made him so hard-edged. This would at least have afforded George some forgiveness and empathy, whereas with his regeneration and recovery he is presented with, and snaffles up, the opportunity to show us that he will never really change, no matter how many times people tell him to. For me, this does not work in the context of this story or these characters, and what results is a stream of under-cooked jokes and purile humour.

Elsewhere in the film the infantile brand of humour that Apatow has made synonymous with his name has no frame of reference in the story other than to suggest that in order to succeed in stand up comedy it is necessary to talk about your arsehole or how often you masturbate using hand-cream. Whereas its effect in Knocked Up, for example, was to show the purile, immature nature of the film's leading character so that we might feel validated to watch him grow to realise the importance of maturity and adulthood. The jokes then were a bond between him and his friends, and was justified. In Funny People, though, there is a real sense that jokes will make everything better, and this goes against everything that the film is trying to say. Comedy is not supposed to save us, it has imprisoned George and has tortured Ira for years. And yes, of course it is a passion that they both hold, but surely it cannot be the light at the end of the tunnel... Even as the story comes to a close, and George has wrecked his relationships with everyone who might have cared for him, there is a sense that although he might be unable to show love for others, or be unable to communicate on any real emotional level other than "Why do you want to be with him? He's a dick!", he will be okay, because after all, he can still make fun of his cock.

Is that redemption? Is that growth? You tell me. I personally think not, but then I'm not Judd Apatow, and I don't know best. What I do know, though, is that there was neither enough decent humour or real human development for this film to be successful as either drama or comedy. It had not the heart, or the guts, to make me believe that Judd Apatow can show me the way. Yes he is superior to almost the entire rest of the field when it comedy at the moment, but then we must realise that the "field" itself is about as thin on the ground as a duck's feet.

Oh, and another thing, it's fucking two and a half hours long! Two and a half hours!!! That's just not on! Someone, not me clearly, could run a bloody marathon in two and a half hours, for god's sake. I know that the average length of the modern movie is about three weeks but still, do us the decency of not having to take a beard trimmer and a tent into the cinema with us. For the love of Pete. Or should I say for the love of Judd?

District 9, god damn it!

Oh you loveliest, loveliest of readers, I owe you the gravest of apologies...

It has been almost a whole month since I have put my greasy hand on the rickety wheel of the car that is blogsville, and I have missed it so, I truly have. I have been busy completing a small academic course but now that I have my sanity back, my pen in my hand and my unlimited cinema pass polished and at the ready, I have returned, with aplomb, to earth, and the movie-going world.

But all is not well it appears. No, not well at all. In fact according to Neill Blomkamp, a new director bringing us the highly-fetted 'DISTRICT 9', our planet, and more specifically the city of Johannesburg in South Africa (Blomkamp's home country), has inadvertantly become a site of refuge for a breed of alien whose mothership has accidentally and inexplicably arrived and is unable to leave. With the aliens proving less of a threat and more of a destructive nuisance, they have quickly been herded into slums, where they have become addicted to cat food as if it were Pringles, trade weapons with wheelchair-bound Nigerian warlords and chew on tires because they 'feel like marshmallow'.

With Blomkamp's film taking on a very natural, almost mockumentary style, with fake interviews and home video footage used to give the images an effective air of authenticity, it would be easy, were it not for the impossible nature of the situation, to believe that this film were based in fact and not fiction, so impresive are its use of reportative devices like news broadcasts and Blair Witch (or even Cloverfield) style handycam claustrophobia. Blomkamp's intelligent use of his actors and the camera, along with some expert production design and pitch-perfect visual effects, means that this film, instead of waging war on the senses like so many other films of this scale and genre, makes a beeline for the mind and the heart from an early point. In fact, the first face we see is that of never-before-seen actor Sharlto Copley, who plays government agent Wikus Van De Merwe, and whose performance is one of brilliant humanity and energy that drives the film forward at a brisk and exciting pace.

The story follows Wikus as he and his organisation, MNU (Multi-National United), are trusted with the responsibility of forcibly evicting the 'Prawns', as they have been named, from their homes in the slums (called District 9) and relocate them in a refugee camp. 'It's more like a concentration camp' says Wikus at one stage, and his words highlight the fascinating political and social questions that drive the first half an hour or so of this film and separate it in quality from the more superficial fugitive story that follows.

Clearly there are reflections on South Africa's own political history, that of the appartheid and racial persecution, but what interested me, the film being of the science fiction genre after all, was the insight into how we, as humans, might respond if an alien species were to come to earth and be vulnerable as opposed to aggressive. Unlike in 'Independance Day' or 'War Of The Worlds', the human race in District 9 is not challenged with a fight for survival. Instead they are given the chance to offer help and support to a race in need. But in reality, our fear of the other is too strong, and Blomkamp's society is quick to persecute the seemingly lesser race, seeing them as leeching from the economy and resources that should be being spent on those who live outside District 9.

When Wikus is infected with a strange alien substance whilst inspecting one of District 9's shacks, he begins to change, and soon realises the reality of what it is like to be a Prawn in Johannesburg. Hunted and victimised by the public and by the powerful organisations that he has worked for, Wikus has to escape to District 9, the only place that will accept him and, as he slowly realises, the place that holds the key to his savour.

As the film changes from taught political science fiction drama to hi-concept fugitive romp, some of the substance is lost amongst the squelching, Thing-like horror of Wikus' transformation (clearly influenced by Peter Jackson, who produces this film and began his career with gross-out schlock-horror movies Bad Taste and Braindead) and the sparkly explosions inflicted by the Prawns hi-tec weaponry. This is inevitable, but Blomkamp does well, helped especially by Copley's wonderfully varied and multi-dimensional performance, to make the transition into action extravaganza a gentle one, and by the end of the film I was gripped to the screen, and truly impressed.

District 9's ending is left wide open, leaving the door very much ajar for any sequels or prequels that a Hollywood studio might want to produce, and though I think that movie works perfectly well in its singularity, I for one would not begrudge Blomkamp or any other of the people involved in this film the funds and the support to go and make more films like it in the future. It is a wonderfully engrossing and original film, and one that is a breath of fresh air after a depressingly low quality summer.

News and Views and Troos (that's trousers in Scottish)

Ah, hello everyone. Now, I'm terribly sorry for not posting a post for a while (is a week 'a while'? It probably isn't is it...), however i've been awfully busy doing all the things that I do that aren't this blog - you know, the charity work, the general adventurous lifestyle I lead, the witchcraft, that sort of thing - so I just haven't had the time. I also haven't visited the cinerooms for a while, and as such am HEINOUSLY ill-equipped to write a review of anything.

I do want to upload another trailer though, and it's something i'll hopefully be doing more and more, in the hope that somehow it's not entirely illegal and I don't get fined like those pirate guys, the music stealers, and have to sell my arms or something for medical research cash. Here's hoping.

Here it is, the trailer for 'Gentlemen Broncos', a new film made by the people who brought us 'Napoleon Dynamite' and 'Nacho Libre'...

Now, I wasn't a particular fan of Dynamite, or indeed Libre (though that isn't as much of a crime apparently). I always thought that much of the comedy was bizarre just for the sake of being that way, and though it was interesting at first, it was essentially just the same joke over and over without any real plot or character to engage you. It was like a long sketch, and didn't impress me all that much. I certainly didn't rush out to buy a 'Vote For Pedro' t-shirt.

This film, however, appears to have found a comforting combination of the surreal comedy and awkward characters that made that first film such a success, and the kind of linear story that supports those comedy moments and allows us to feel relaxed, safe in the knowledge that we're not waiting for a plot that's never coming.

With a line up that includes Jemaine Clement, Jennifer Coolidge and the mighty Sam Rockwell, I see nothing but brilliance for this film, and can't wait to go and see it.

Return of TRON!

The other day, in my usual scatter-brained way I happened upon this wonderful little ball of beauty, the new trailer for TRON: Legacy...

Now, ooh, doesn't that just make you tingle? The thunder; the big, shiny virtual landscape; lightcycles; Jeff Bridges... It all just tickles my tastebuds to a strangely euphoric point. It is one of those trailers that I could watch over and over.

The only thing that remains now is to hope and pray that the finished product, due for release in 2010, will deliver a similar thrill. Of course, I've never been much of a sci-fi lover, but this story - about a son who, in looking for his disappeared father, finds himself pulled into the same dangerous virtual world of games and challenges in which he has been trapped - reminds me of other "dangerous game" films that I loved like Running Man and Battle Royale. Hell, even Jumanji does it for me.

If the film isn't such a success then so be it; the original Tron didn't exactly set a fire underneath the world. But this time it seems that visual effects might be able to do justice to the expansive and fluid action sequences (especially if they can project those eerie faces onto the helmets), as well as the tone of the film seeming to have fallen into the new-age noirism of so many other successful summer blockbusters these days. So fingers crossed.

Either way, I'm just glad I got to see this trailer. In fact, i'm going to watch it again. Excuse me.