Zombieland Double Tap (2019)

Zombieland: Double Tap (2019)

Director: Ruben Fleisher

Cast: Woody Harrelson, Emma Stone, Jesse Eisenberg and Abigail Breslin, Rosario Dawson, Luke Wilson, Bill Murray

Zombie films have proven to be cyclical. Like the undead beings they portray, the zombie genre is resurrected and disposed of according to the public’s interest or the success of one particular film. Back in the 70’s, thanks to the success of George Romero’s Dawn of the Dead (1978), zombie films made a resurgence. They grew in popularity thanks to all the Italian knock offs that came as a result of Romero’s seminal film. I speak of films like Lucio Fulci’s Zombie (1979) and The Beyond (1983) and a whole slew of Italian zombie films that were released during the 80’s. In America, we saw films like Return of the Living Dead (1985), Day of the Dead (1985), Re-Animator (1985) and Night of the Creeps (1986). In a few years, zombie movies died again and disappeared. During the 90’s, few of them were released in theaters and the ones that did get released were not box office giants. But time passed and in 2002 that all changed, zombie movies were back at the box office and they came back strong! Thanks to box office hits like 28 Days Later (2002), Dawn of the Dead (2004), Shaun of the Dead (2004) and Resident Evil (2002), zombie movies were back in a big way! Zombies even infested our tv screens with shows like the ever popular The Walking Dead, which is still shambling around.

Zombieland (2009) was released around the time when people were still obsessed with zombies. It was a moderate hit, which should have meant a quick sequel. Instead, for whatever the reason, they waited a decade to make it. So now here comes the sequel, a whole decade late. I can definitely say it couldn’t have come at a worse time, because at this point,  people are zombied out. This zombie wave is reaching its end …zombie fatigue is definitely here and it is felt in the lackluster box office performance of Zombieland Double Tap (2019) Yes my friends, my take on Zombieland Double Tap is that it’s a sequel that came about ten years too late. And you know how that goes when you wait too long to do a sequel, people stop caring. If you don’t believe me just see Dumb and Dumber 2 (2014), Zoolander 2 (2016) or any other sequel that waited too damn long to be made. The moment has passed, the magic is gone. I say it’s always a mistake to wait that long. Unless your film is a sequel to a beloved franchise that people can’t get enough off, chances are your long gestating sequel will die a quick death at the box office. 

Why make Zombieland 2 now? When people have had their fill of zombies for years? Apparently the filmmakers have their faiths set on the cast, who at this point are all Oscar nominees or winners. Or they think they have an important enough story that it simply has to be told! But quite honestly it doesn’t feel that way at all. In fact, it’s a very silly movie that exists only to make us laugh and giggle, the story is just an excuse for the comedy antics which is fine by me, the only problem for me is that I feel they could have made it funnier. I’m sure a lot of people will find it an unnecessary film. As it is, it's simply a watchable film. 

It’s great seeing Harrelson, Eisenberg, Stone and Breslin together again. They still have the chemistry, which is really what saves this movie. It's the script that's weak. And that's a sad story too because apparently they waited this long because they were waiting for the right script or it wasn't going to happen. Let's see how this story goes..it’s been more than ten years since we last saw them and the zombie apocalypse is still going strong with a (wait for it) new strand of zombie that has evolved and become stronger and faster. The team has decided to find their “forever home” and it’s the abandoned white house. The story revolves around rescuing Abigail Breslin’s character, who has decided to run off with a hippy who doesn’t believe in violence. And they decided to go to Graceland, Elvis's home. So off they go to rescue her, along the way they meet a couple of funny characters. 

But honestly there’s nothing here you haven’t seen before in other zombie movies. An evolved strand of zombies? Check. The zombie free haven they have to get to by the end of the movie? Check. They even have an entire scene that we’d already seen before in Resident Evil Extinction (2007), so this one doesn’t get any bonus points for originality in terms of zombie antics. I did laugh a few times, but I feel that if the filmmakers knew that they were not bringing anything new to the table in terms of zombie mayhem, then they should have at least amped up the comedy and made it a full on super comedy. I mean, I did like the ditzy dumb blonde girl…and the Tallahassee and Columbus clones…but we needed more slapstick, silly stuff. Problem is that the actors on this film aren’t comedians, they are actors who are in a movie that’s supposed to be funny. The film could have benefited from casting actual comedians in the main roles. Why is it that Hollywood keeps making comedies without comedians? I don’t get that. 

It’s not all bad, while this movie does feel a tad unnecessary, it does have a few things that keep it from being a total waste of your time, like for example, there’s the opening sequence that imitates the opening sequence from the first film. If you remember correctly, the first film opened to slow motion zombie mayhem to the tune of Metallica’s ‘For Whom the Bell Tolls’, on this one they do the same slow motion zombie mayhem thing, but to the tune of Metallica’s ‘Master of Puppets’ which is just perfect,  loved that opening credits sequence.  There’s an after credits scene involving Bill Murray killing zombies, make sure you stay for that. There’s a scene that involves Rosario Dawson driving a monster truck that was pretty freaking sweet. But that’s about it. A fun movie my friends, but nothing you’ll remember after you walk out of the theater. It’s got zombies, but nothing we haven’t seen before. It’s funny, but not super funny. So it’s a very been there done that kind of film, very so-so. I guess the correct word for this one is ‘bland’ and that’s not a good thing for a zombie film to be. So in a way, Zombieland Double Tap has dug its own grave. Bottom line is, we are witnessing the last throes of this cinematic zombie wave. I am currently waiting for Zack Snyder’s Army of the Dead to be released, which to be honest has my full attention, my curiosity is peaked. It looks like that will be the film to determine if we’ll see any more theatrically released zombie films in the coming years. Let’s see where this goes.

 Rating: 3 out of 5

Ed Wood (1994)

Title: Ed Wood (1994)

Director: Tim Burton

Cast: Johnny Depp, Martin Landau, Bill Murray, Patricia Arquette, Sarah Jessica Parker, Jeffrey Jones, Lisa Marie

I appreciate Ed Wood's films because as I mentioned in my review for Wood’s Plan 9 from Outer Space (1959), I think his films had as much heart to them as they had bloopers. Plan 9 From Outer Space might seem silly to some (and they'd be right) but at at the same time, at its core it had a pacifist message, criticizing mans own tendency to self destruct. The aliens in that movie seem to think eventually we’ll end up destroying not only ourselves, but the rest of the universe! Even though Ed Wood is considered “the worst director in history” Plan 9 from Outer Space is a film that will go on forever, but why? Why has the film endured for so long? Well, there’s the fact that the film is incredibly funny, even when it’s not trying to be. The dialog alone, which seems to have been written in days, and probably was, is something to relish if you’re in the mood for some cheese. But who was the man behind these goofy movies? What kind of struggles did he endure in order to make these timeless sci-fi, b-movie classics? These are the questions that Tim Burton’s Ed Wood attempts to answer, albeit from an extremely positive and lighthearted angle.

In Burton’s film we meet Edward Wood Jr. a man struggling to get his films made. He starts very small by first organizing small plays in community theaters. Though not a whole lot of people go to see them and he gets terrible reviews, he remains optimistic, always seeing the positive side of things. But when he is in his bed, sleeping next to his wife, pondering where his life is going he is suddenly a man afraid that where he is in life is “as good as it’s ever going to get”. Fortunately, he doesn’t let negativity bring him down so he calls small movie studios to see if they’ll produce his movies. Luckily enough he convinces a studio to make a film called Glen or Glenda (1953) which was supposed to be a film about a guy who gets a sex change, but ends up being about a guy who confesses to his wife that he enjoys “dressing up in woman’s clothing”. Later, a chance encounter brings Wood to meet Bela Lugosi, the famous actor behind Dracula (1931). They develop a great friendship and Lugosi ends up acting in many of Wood’s films. But struggles continue to emerge: Lugosi is a heroin addict, Wood’s wife wants to leave him because she thinks he’s a freak and to top things off, he has no money to finish his movies! Will Wood ever get to make the one that he’ll be remembered by?

The impression you get after watching Ed Wood is that Wood was a man with lots of creativity and imagination; he had that drive to work in films, a medium that can, if you don’t have what it takes,  literally wipe you out. I know, because I’ve made a few films myself, and boy, organizing that small army of people isn’t an easy task! Selling your idea to a possible investor ain’t no easy task. Getting the actors…shooting the thing, getting the permits to shoot in a given location…finishing that script…editing, music, so many things to do, so many chores to delegate. This is the reason why cinema is such a collaborative effort; you have to work well with others. And that’s what I love about this film; it shows you the whole creative process behind making a movie, it is one of those films that is about film. You get to see Wood beging investors for completion funds to his movie. You get to see Wood beg producers to let him direct. You get to see Wood filming without a permit! You get to see Wood finally see his finished film with an audience. If you love the process of making films, then you will love Ed Wood.

Director Tim Burton has always had great admiration for Ed Wood’s films. He recognizes their b-level quality and the fact that they are not what one would call “great films” but Burton also sees past that and appreciates the love that Wood put into his films, the sincerity. The tone of this film itself is one of sympathy and admiration for Wood and those who worked with him on his films. Burton stated that he didn’t want to ridicule the filmmakers because they’d probably already had enough ridicule throughout their whole life for working on these films. This is probably why Wood and his crew are portrayed in such an optimistic way; the whole film plays out like a lighthearted comedy. Burton stated in an interview that he recognized that Wood could be redundant in some of his scripts but that they had a sincerity to them that made them heartfelt. I have to say I totally agree. In order to pay even more homage to Wood’s films Burton decided to shoot the whole film in Black and White. Burton really fought for this and I have to say it was the best choice he could have made. Most of Wood’s films were made in Black and White, so it makes perfect sense that a film about him was also shot that way. To be honest, the Black and White adds to the whole spooky /weird vibe that Wood infused his movies with. I love how Burton opens the film with a black and white, spooky grave yard, with lighting flashing, and people coming out of coffins telling us about how we’re about to witness the “shocking facts of the true story of Edward Wood Jr.” Burton really set the perfect tone in which to tell the story of this offbeat filmmaker.

Burton, behind the camera on the set of Ed Wood (1994)

The icing on the cake is the spectacular cast that Burton gathered for this film. Depp as Wood was a genius choice, true, Depp is one of Burton’s favorite actors to work with (I’ve lost count on just how many films they’ve made together) but I doubt there was a better actor to portray that enthusiasm, zaniness and energy that Ed Wood was known for. Hell, if you look at a picture of Ed Wood, you’ll see that Depp even looked the part. Then we have Martin Landau as an aging Bela Lugosi on his last days on this earth. Landau’s performance is both touching and hilarious. Lugosi was an actor who gave his life to Hollywood, but as Lugosi puts it in the film, Hollywood “chews you up and then spits you out”. The film also takes its time to analyze the life of an aging actor, how sometimes they struggle after their fame has faded, apparently, Lugosi had it really rough during his last days. The film is also incredibly honest when it comes to Lugosi’s heroin addiction, it doesn’t shy away from showing the ugly bits, like when Lugosi hits rock bottom, almost commits suicide and ends up committing himself to a rehab clinic. The relationship that Bela and Wood develop is one of the most touching things about the film; they truly end up becoming great friends. It should be noted that Landau actually won an Oscar for his performance here. The loves in Wood’s life are played by Sarah Jessica Parker, who plays Dolores Fuller a woman who backs Wood in many of his crazy filmmaking ideas until she can’t stand the freakiness no more and dumps Ed and Patricia Arquette as Kathy O’Hara, a more understanding and loving soul. Rounding things off is Bill Murray as one of Wood’s gay friends. Murray plays a small role here, yet whenever he is on, he is truly funny. Jeffrey Jones plays Criswell, a television persona who was also one of Wood’s staunch supporters. We also get Burton’s then wife Lisa Marie playing ‘Vampira’, yet another television personality who backed Wood’s films. As you can see, this is an amazing cast, which just makes this film all the richer, everyone here brought their a-game as they say. 

Interesting thing about this project is that it was not originally a Tim Burton project, this film was written by Scott Alexander and Larry Karaszewski; two college buddies who at the time had only written two films the highly successful Problem Child (1990) and Problem Child 2 (1991). But they didn’t want to be known only for writing family films, so they wrote Ed Wood together, to try and break with that stigma. They originally wanted the director behind Heathers (1988), Michael Lehmann to direct, but he was committed to directing Airheads (1994) and so Burton, who was originally only going to serve as producer on the project ended up directing the film. To be honest, no other director could have done a better job than Burton; this film just fit his profile so perfectly. Burton has always loved science fiction and horror, some of his films are as goofy and offbeat as something that Wood might have directed. This is why say that It makes perfect sense that Burton ended up directing Mars Attacks! (1996) after he made Ed Wood. It almost feels as if after directing a film about Ed Wood, Ed Wood’s spirit possessed Burton for a spell there… because Mars Attacks! feels like a film that Wood might have directed had he all the millions that Burton had at his disposal. To me, Mars Attacks! was simply Burton making a film to pay his respects to Wood, to make the film that Wood never could. So to bring this review to an end I say if you are interested in the in and outs of filmmaking, and how fun, exciting and exhausting it can be, then give Ed Wood a spin. The whole experience of watching Ed Wood is enhanced when you have seen some of Wood’s films. I recommend you treat yourself to a triple feature. See Plan 9 from Outer Space, then follow that one with Ed Wood and end the whole shebang with Mars Attacks! (1996), trust me, it it’ll all make sense in the end.

Rating: 5 out of 5 

     

Moonrise Kingdom (2012)

Title: Moonrise Kingdom (2012)

Director: Wes Anderson 

Cast: Jared Gilman, Kara Hayward, Bruce Willis, Edward Norton, Bill Murray, Harvey Keitel, Jason Schwartzman, Tilda Swinton, Frances McDormand

Review: 

Wes Anderson is one of those directors whose films are immediately recognizable. You see a moment, an image, a frame and right there and then, you just know its a Wes Anderson film. Not once has he deviated from his style, not even with his stop motion animation film Fantastic Mr. Fox (2009); a film I enjoyed very much because it was an intelligent childrens film, that didn't talk down to kids as if they were idiots. Even within the confines of a stop motion animation film, Anderson's themes and style shined through. To me Anderson is one of those great American directors that puts lots of love and care, lots of craft in his films. He doesn't just make films, he makes a special effort to give us a work of art, something to be cherished and admired for years. I know I'm guilty of seeing The Royal Tenenbaums (2001) on countless occasions, laughing every step of the way every single time I see it. There's something endearing about his troubled characters, they are intelligent, often times geniuses that have as many psychological problems as the poorest people in the world. So here comes Moonrise Kingdom (2012) and of course I was excited about seeing Anderson's newest endeavour, would his style feel tired and redundant, or would it still delight?

Moonrise Kingdom tells the story of Sam and Suzy, two pre-teens who are wildly ahead of their time and proud of it. They are kids that are so smart that they end up garnering hatred from all of their peers. In his case, Sam cant stand being a 'Khaki Scout', he's learned all he can from it and he is ready to move on to more important things...like the opposite sex, true love, and yes, why not, even marriage. Suzy doesn't seem to fit with her family either. She considers herself a troubled youth; so, considering they have so much in common, they both decide to run away and create their own perfect little universe where they shun all the things they consider wrong in this world out of their lives. Will their happiness be interrupted? Or will it last forever?

So yeah, immediately you can tell it's Anderson behind the camera. It's all about those perfectly symmetrical shots, the detailed art direction, the psychologically troubled characters, the deliciously sarcastic dialog, the retro-look. The way that children act as adults, and adults act like children. The beauty of the films color scheme, so many things make this one oh so very Anderson-ish. Yet I welcomed it because I love taking a trip to Anderson's own personal filmic universe. It's what sets him apart and makes him different from other directors out there, and I appreciate that. Some might find his  films redundant, because of how similar they look, but honestly, I am not complaining, this is a beautiful looking film which I was devouring with my eyes. I can't complain when the result is such a beauty to behold. Complaining about how Anderson's films look is like saying that a Tim Burton film is 'too gothic'. This is just Anderson's own personal brand of filmmaking, and he aims to make you get used to it. Because these are his films, and very much so. You'll either love them or not, because at this point, Anderson's style is here to stay.

Wes Anderson, preparing to shoot a scene

Yet, not only is Moonrise Kingdom beautiful to look at but it is also populated by wonderful characters that are so well crafted and defined in their actions and motivations. I immediately fell in love with the two main characters, Sam and Suzy, two kids with the rebel gene engraved deep into their DNA. These two kids hate the way the world is and choose to turn their backs to it. Sam is an orphan, whose real parents he never met. And the foster parents he does have, don't want him! Suzy dislikes her mother because she knows about her infidelities. Together, both Sam and Suzy turn their backs to the world, finding their only little nook in a secret beach that they claim for themselves. This is their spot in the world, untainted by the evils of society. On this little spot they'll share their favorite books, share their first sensual encounters and truly bond as human beings. Who can blame them for doing that? So I loved these two head strong, oddball kids. I loved how much they respect and care for each other. How they take each other so seriously. This was a very honest portrayal of what it's like to be a kid and feel everything for the first time. 

So apparently, being in an Anderson film has become the equivalent of being in a Woody Allen film, or a Tarantino film. Or a film by the Coen Bros. You know how that goes, once actors get a whiff that a great director is making a film, they all want in! This is exactly what happened on Moonrise Kingdom, it's stellar cast is a testament to that. Loved that Bill Murray came on board once again for another Anderson film, it's gotten to the point where it almost feels like it wouldn't be an Anderson film without Murray in it; and so this marks Murray's sixth collaboration with Anderson. Jason Schwartzman is back again, albeit in a very small role (sadly) but I enjoyed his participation anyways. Everyone else here is new in Anderson's universe: Tilda Swinton, Bruce Willis, Edward Norton, even Harvey Keitel is on board here! An amazing cast that makes everything all the more interesting. But by far, I loved the fact that the two main characters Sam and Suzy where played by complete unknowns; I felt like I was getting to know them for the very first time, and they worked so well together, they displayed true emotion and at times, great comedic timing. 

How similar is Moonrise Kingdom to previous Anderson films? Well, for example, we have two extremely intelligent kids running away from home, same as Margot and Richie Tenenbaum ran away from home in The Royal Tenenbaums. Characters like to build tents, because they feel safe in them. Bill Murray plays the drunken unhappy father character he played in Anderson's Rushmore (1998). Parents are unfaithful to each other, same as in Rushmore and The Royal Tenenbaums. Families are not perfect, in fact, extremely far from it. The word is dysfunctional. Everyone talks very eloquently and expresses their emotions as if they were wearing them on their sleeves, but then again, this is what makes it all an Anderson film. I hear you thinking: "is there something that makes this one different?" My answer is yes, this is a film about children and it is told from their perspective, so in that sense, it's something that Anderson had not done before. This is not a film about kids who grew up to become messed up adults. These kids are already messed up, and thats what we are here to see. This theme of psychologically troubled children is referred to in a book that Suzy's reading; a book about how to deal with very troubled youths. I love how it explores the fact that what happens in family life can truly mark the life of a child. 

 It's obvious that Anderson's films touch upon very personal themes, and that they reflect his own life, he's even referred to this possibility in The Darjeeling Limited (2007), a film in which one of his characters is writing himself and his life into his stories, but then denies the fact that he does this. The same can be said of Margot Tenenbaum and her plays, which reflect her own disastrous family life as seen in Anderson's The Royal Tenenbaums (2001), so yes, like most directors, Wes Anderson's films touch upon themes and situations that he calls up from his own life experiences. Again, this is what makes an Anderson film an Anderson film, if you haven't enjoyed his films up to now, then don't bother with Moonrise Kingdom, if on the other had you are a fan, you are going to love it. And if you've never experienced and Anderson film, by all means, indulge in this endearing film. My favorite part of the film is that it takes place on this magical, mystical island that only Wes Anderson could bring to life.   

Rating: 5 out of 5

Fantastic Mr. Fox (2009)

Title: The Fantastic Mr. Fox (2009)

Title: Wes Anderson

Writers: Wes Anderson, Noah Baumbach based on the childrens book by Roald Dahl

Starring (voices): George Clooney, Bill Murray, Meryl Streep, Jason Schwartzman, Michael Gambon, Owen Wilson, Willem Dafoe

Review:

Stop motion animation films are a special delight for me as a film fan. They have been with me since my early years, going as far back as my childhood when I would watch those holiday themed stop motion animation films like Mad Monster Party (1967) or Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer (1964). Not that I’m that old, but these little stop motion animation movies get replayed a lot on television for years and years. I think they still get some air time during the holidays. But one way or another, stop motion has always been there. Even in those films that mixed both live action and animation. Films like Ray Harryhausen’s famous sword and sandal flicks like Jason and the Argonauts (1963) and Clash of the Titans (1981). Even well into the 80’s this technique was still being used in live action films to animate monsters and creatures like in Howard the Duck (1986) and Willow (1988). Robocop (1987) and its sequels did it a bit too.

Roald Dahls Book

But special mention has to go to those completely stop motion animated films. One of the earliest American stop motion animation feature length films goes as far back as 1954 with the film Hansel and Gretel: An Opera Fantasy. These films kept being produced, but not in large numbers. A lot of work had to go into making these animated wonders. And they were never released theatrically, most of the time, stop motion animated films were made as something to show on tv during the holidays. That all changed with A Nightmare Before Christmas (1993). This film was the mother of the big budget theatrical live action animation film. Tim Burton conceived and produced it and Henry Selick directed it. After that film came out, it opened the doors to getting these big budget stop motion projects off the ground and getting theatrical releases. Across the years, they have been released to mostly successful box office results in films like Chicken Run (2000) Wallace and Gromit and the Curse of the WereRabbit (2005) The Corpse Bride (2005) and most recently the unforgettable and visually dazzling Coraline (2009).

So here comes Fantastic Mr. Fox, Wes Anderson’s take on the stop motion animation world. Anderson isn’t a rookie when it comes to using stop motion animation in his films. He used it to animate the strange underwater creatures seen in The Life Aquatic (2005). But Fantastic Mr. Fox is his first fully stop motion animated film. How was it?

The story follows the Mr. Fox and his family and friends as they try to survive in the harsh world. Mr. Fox brings food to the table by stealing from nearby farms. But soon the human farmers realize that it’s the foxes who are stealing from them, so, they device a plan to dig the Fox out of its hole. Can Mr. Fox continue evading the tractors and excavators, or will he eventually get caught by the farmers? Will his family and friends be able to survive?

I liked what Anderson did with this movie. Essentially, he took the story from Roald Dahl children’s book and adapted it to our times, twitched it a bit here and there to make it a bit more contemporary. He fleshed out characters a bit more and gave the film new opening and closing scenes. Its interesting how in this story, a children’s story, the foxes have to steal in order to survive. Things are so harsh, prices are so high that the main characters are forced to survive by taking from the big companies that are bleeding them dry. There’s a song that gets played a few times during the film and it goes like this:

Boggis and Bunce and Bean

One fat, one short, one lean

These horrible crooks, so different in looks

Were nonetheless equally mean

Boggis and Bunce and Bean are the big farmers, producing food for the nation, and bleeding the dry with the prices. It’s why they are called ‘crooks’ in the song. So in a way, having Mr. Fox stealing from them is justified in a strange Robin Hood sort of way. Stealing from the rich to give to the poor. And it is made clear early on in the film that the family is in deed a poor one. A poor but happy one. Still, Mr. Fox wants more for his family, and I can’t say I blame him. He wants more then just living in a hole; he wants to have a place of his own. But will the world allow him that? This is partially what this film is about. The film also comments on the food we eat. Is it good for us? Is that shinny apple in the supermarket really as good as it looks?

But, like any Wes Anderson film (and this is very much a Wes Anderson film) there are some family dynamics involved. It’s the one thing that has always united Wes Anderson’s films; they’re all about family in one way or another. On Fantastic Mr. Fox, there’s tension between Mr. Fox’s son and his nephew, who has had to move in with them because his father can’t take care of him. So there’s some sibling rivalry going on between the two children in the film. Will they ever learn to play along? Mr. Fox is the father, the group leader, the leader of his community, always looking for a way to lead his people to a better situation, but not always finding the best ways to go about it. What I liked about his character is that he was always coming up with some sort of a plan, always looking out for everyone.

The look of the film is reminiscent of Wes Anderson’s previous efforts. That’s the thing about this movie, even though its stop motion animated, it still retains that distinctive visual signature that accompanies an Anderson film. This is probably due to the fact that all of Anderson’s films are visually designed by his own brother, Eric Anderson. So they all have that unifying look to them. Anderson directs this film as if he was directing one of his live action films. His characters are always very articulate, very intelligent, even the children. Like the genius children from The Royal Tenenbaums (2001) or Max Fisher, the talented underachiever in Rushmore (1998) the children in Fantastic Mr. Fox are talented individuals; one of them is almost too talented, overshadowing in some ways the other, creating some tension between the two.

This was a very beautiful film to look at. Stop motion animation allows directors to manipulate ever single frame on screen more easily, so everything we see on screen is exactly what the director had in mind. These are puppets moving to Wes Anderson’s and Roald Dahl whims and ideas. And like any good stop motion animation film, this one is inhabited by many different little creatures that you can feast your eyes upon.

Is it too complicated for children? Is it too intelligent? Is the dialog too complex? You know what? I for once applaud that this film does not talk down to children. Honestly, I’m sick of children movies like Barnyard, where children are treated like retards, and everything is spelled out. Where the film is kept deliberately dumb, and we get the same old “believe in yourself” storyline. There are better things to teach our children then the dumb down crap shown in cineplexes. Same goes for regular films as well. You know what? Let the kids figure it out, let them use their brains more then they are used to. In the long run, they’ll thank you for showing them a film like this one. Never underestimate the young mind of a child!

Rating: 5 out of 5