Category Archives: Brian Cox

Fantastic Mr. Fox-2009

Fantastic Mr. Fox-2009

Director Wes Anderson

Voices George Clooney, Meryl Streep, Bill Murray

Scott’s Review #1,329

Reviewed December 30, 2022

Grade: B+

I have fond memories of, either reading or being read, Roald Dahl’s famous 1970 children’s novel entitled Fantastic Mr. Fox. The story involves the clever and hungry Mr. Fox and how he outwits his farmer neighbors to steal food from under their noses.

In 2009, it was adapted into a stop-motion animated film by Wes Anderson and includes the voice of George Clooney and Meryl Streep as Mr. and Mrs. Fox.  Anyone familiar with Anderson’s work knows well that an added dose of eccentricity will inevitably be included as well as a unique narrative.

I confess to either being in the mood for an Anderson film or not but at least I know to know what I’m in store for.

Anderson co-wrote the screenplay with Noah Baumbach known for making witty and intellectual comedies like The Squid and the Whale (2005) and Greenberg (2010).

Fantastic Mr. Fox pairs well with 2018’s Isles of Dogs if we are talking about Anderson films. Both include the thoughts and peculiarities of animals, similar stop motion, and a story about trickery and revenge pitting man against animals.

There is an eerie and prominent comparison to Animal Farm, a 1950s George Orwell novel and film adaptation, that I noticed.

The farm, animals, class system, and desire for power and authority.

When Mr. Fox’s nightly raids on three nearby farms raise the tempers of three selfish farmers who are losing their chickens, he must outwit the outrageous plans to catch him.

After all, in his mind, he is merely trying to feed his hungry family and neighbors, and Mr. Fox must find a new way to get his paws on the bounty.

Billed as a children’s film probably because it’s based on a children’s novel, Fantastic Mr. Fox contains aspects that will go way over kids’ heads. This suits me well however because I have a fascination for animation that pushes the envelope or moves beyond the overdone ‘safe genre’.

Think of it as a kid’s film for adults.

It would appear difficult to side solely with Mr. Fox since he is a thief. We are all taught at a young age not to steal but it’s difficult not to root for Mr. Fox. He steals not to gorge himself but to feed his family and community.

Of course, he is addicted to being a cad and quickly returns to his thieving ways finding his calling and strong satisfaction.

A good lesson for kids and adults is the neighborly aspect of Fantastic Mr. Fox. There is a camaraderie amongst the animals that I find lovely and inspiring. They band together and cohabitate in an underground community and later the sewer always having each other’s backs.

The farmers are portrayed as the villains though we can certainly understand their hardships at having their animals stolen and eaten. But Anderson hits home that the farmers are greedy and obsessed with their wealth, happy to kill any animals they see fit.

It’s satisfying to see them get defeated.

The story is outshined by the visuals though. It’s difficult not to focus on the technique and stunning attention to detail, especially in the tunnel sequences. The character performances and shadowy framework make one realize just how far stop motion has come.

The autumnal colors of red, orange, and yellow, perfectly enhance the visual style and season that Anderson and team create. Even the cue card titles between scenes are meticulous art that harkens back to sophisticated cartoons of yesteryear.

Fantastic Mr. Fox (2009) is a creative, edgy, and intelligently written and scored production. Multi generations are featured with means young kids, parents, and grandparents with a hunger for a left-of-center and thought-provoking approach will be well satisfied.

Oscar Nominations: Best Animated Feature, Best Original Score

Zodiac-2007

Zodiac-2007

Director David Fincher

Starring Jake Gyllenhaal, Mark Ruffalo, Robert Downey Jr. 

Scott’s Review #1,134

Reviewed April 16, 2021

Grade: A

Zodiac (2007) is a great film in its mood alone. The attention to detail circa the 1960s and 1970s is spot on and adds to the flavor of the entire experience. The locale of San Francisco is moody and lurking with the antics of the self-professed zodiac killer.

With excellent acting, the sum of its parts adds up to a wonderful film experience.

The film is incredibly well-paced, character-driven, and layered in rich texture. What more can be asked of a cinematic production? It simply has it all and will engage any viewer craving mystery and intrigue.

David Fincher, as the director’s chair, creates a world unto itself with carefully crafted sets, artistic nuances, and of course a superb story. A lesson learned is that sometimes evil exists and cannot be caught despite best efforts and the ramifications are endless.

Painfully, the characters in Zodiac slowly realize this.

Zodiac is based on the best-selling non-fiction book by Robert Graysmith, a pivotal character in the film. The novel is very similar to James Elroy’s 1987 novel The Black Dahlia, another unsolved case set in California.

The film tells the story of the manhunt for the Zodiac Killer, a serial killer who terrorized the foggy San Francisco Bay Area during the late 1960s and early 1970s.

Investigators (Mark Ruffalo, Anthony Edwards) and reporters (Jake Gyllenhaal, Robert Downey Jr.) become obsessed with learning the killer’s identity and bringing him to justice.

Meanwhile, Zodiac claims victim after victim and taunts the authorities with endless and specifically graphic letters, bloodstained clothing, and cryptic messages shrouded in menacing phone calls.

The case remains one of the United States’ most infamous unsolved crimes.

Much of the acclaim must go to the three actors cast in the central roles and Gyllenhaal is top of his game in the leading role. As cartoonist Robert Graysmith he is the main hero and the person who spearheads the investigation, prompting disbelievers to listen to him.

Gyllenhaal is sensitive, sympathetic, and obsessed and at first, perceived to be a laughing stock, but audiences will immediately get behind the man and this is thanks to Gyllenhaal’s powerful acting.

The character-driven approach continues as Mark Ruffalo gives a wonderful portrayal of Inspector David Toschi. The tough-as-nails and no-nonsense approach led Toschi into obsession and fudging evidence.

Finally, Robert Downey Jr. provides energetic gusto as Paul Avery, a journalist who turns to drugs and alcohol because of the intensity and emotional investment in the case.

Plenty of red herrings make the film fun and the prime suspect of Arthur Leigh Allen, played by character actor John Carroll Lynch may or may not be the assailant.

It’s breathtaking watching all the twists and turns in this ferociously complex film.

Zodiac is based on real events and reportedly is extremely historically accurate. Fincher and others spent eighteen months conducting their investigation and research into the Zodiac murders.

So, authenticity is everywhere in this film.

Watching a film beginning in 1969 and ending in 1983 is a joy for someone who grew up in that era. Fincher drizzles the film with timely automobiles, clothes, and other sets so it appears to be walking into a time capsule.

I’m sure this only will add to the viewer’s enjoyment.

For fans of films based on the Zodiac Killers, the 1971 film Dirty Harry, starring Clint Eastwood delivers an exceptional experience based on the real-life case.

But Fincher’s Zodiac is just as good.

Despite the behemoth running time- two hours and thirty-seven minutes, Zodiac (2007) is an edge-of-your-seat thriller. The pulsating yet prowling pace is worth several viewings to appreciate the juiciness of all of the elements David Fincher offers.

A hefty round of applause is deserved.

Adaptation-2002

Adaptation-2002

Director Spike Jonze

Starring Nicolas Cage, Meryl Streep, Chris Cooper

Scott’s Review #1,064

Reviewed September 24, 2020

Grade: B+

Adaptation (2002) is a kooky film that is recommended for all writers or lovers of the written word, especially for those ever having suffered from writer’s block.

The film is wonderful for people who are either curious or obsessed (me!) with how a novel is turned into a screenplay.

With an A-list cast featuring Nicolas Cage and Meryl Streep, the offering is credible and not just a bumbling indie experiment with no budget. Stars must get paid, which allows the film a mainstream audience, and awards.

The film will be too weird for some. There is a measure of conceit and self-indulgence (it’s set in Los Angeles after all!) that is sometimes off-putting, but I adored the premise too much and chomped at the bit at what I was offered.

It’s quite non-linear and the characters sometimes do things that are weird or out of turn.

Adaptation is different (in a good way) and is recommended for its oddness as I cannot think of another film like it, though Being John Malkovich (1999) would be close. Director, Spike Jonze would later create Her (2013) and, of course, directed Malkovich too.

Charlie Kaufman wrote the screenplay and the central character is Charlie Kaufman, played by Cage, who also plays Kaufman’s brother Donald, a mooch. Charlie is self-loathing and disheveled but somehow likable. He struggles mightily to bring words into his head as he nervously sits at his typewriter day after day when he is tasked to adapt the novel, The Orchid Thief, into a film.

The novel’s author, Susan Orlean, played by Meryl Streep, intimidates Charlie, who decides to pay her a visit to New York City.

This film features the best work of Cage’s career. An actor who is “not for everybody”, the performance rivals that of Leaving Las Vegas (1995), in which he won an Academy Award.

A dual role is tough to play, but the actor does so with bombast and confidence, making the characters very different from each other and making me forget they were Cage.

Too often sinking to inferior action films like Face/Off (1997) or Con Air (1997), the actor wisely had an epiphany or something and made a wise decision. Cage does best when he goes for wacky- Raising Arizona (1987) is proof of that.

The supporting players, specifically Streep and Cooper are fantastic. Streep could fart through a film and still give a great performance and you can tell she enjoys the part of Susan, allowed to let loose. Her character loves sex and drugs and is not above devious shenanigans to get her way.

Cooper, who won the Oscar, is delicious as John Laroche, a theatrical character with missing front teeth, who is the secret lover of Susan.

Both provide great entertainment.

Adaptation simply feels good for a thought-provoking writer providing oodles of “writer things” to ponder and discuss with friends after the credits roll. Many scenes are rich with layered dialogue and rife with originality making the words sparkle with pizzazz.

And there are enough twists and turns to keep viewers guessing.

One of the most original and kooky films you will ever see, Adaptation (2002) pairs well with Being John Malkovich (1999) for an evening of the odd and absurd, but also films not altogether hard to follow.

The satirical Hollywood theme will both please and annoy but it’s all good fun and a lesson in creative art cinema.

Oscar Nominations: 1 win-Best Actor-Nicholas Cage, Best Supporting Actor-Chris Cooper (won), Best Supporting Actress-Meryl Streep, Best Adapted Screenplay

Her-2013

Her-2013

Director Spike Jonze

Starring Joaquin Phoenix, Scarlett Johannson

Scott’s Review #147

70278933

Reviewed August 5, 2014

Grade: A-

Her (2013) is a very unique film directed by Spike Jonze.

The film tells the tale of a lonely, depressed man named Theodore, played by Joaquin Phoenix, who lives in a beautiful high-rise in futuristic Los Angeles.

He works as a writer for a company that creates intimate cards for people in relationships. Having suffered a recent divorce, he falls in love with his computerized operation system named Samantha, played by Scarlett Johansson- voice only.

Conflicts emerge as the relationship deepens and intensifies. Her is a love story uniquely crafted, but also a story of loneliness and the world of technology we now live in.

It portrays human relationships as troubled and unsuccessful yet several characters have wonderful relationships with computers.

Is this what the future may bring with human beings? How many people have fallen in love with a fantasy or a voice on the phone?

The film ponders why relationships have been changed due to technological advances and wonders what will happen further into the future. Technology, while wonderful, has changed our interpersonal relationships and this film successfully delves deeply into that aspect.

The conversation is a lost art and Her features the joys and the tragedies of technology.

Visually, the film is successful because it portrays Los Angeles in a sophisticated, ultra-sleek, modern way that is fascinating.

Several technological games are featured (the Alien child is brilliantly comical) and the “Mom points” is fascinating in its irony.

Her is a deep film that raises questions and I applaud this in modern cinema.

Her is a slow-moving film, but a questioning one.

It won the 2013 Best Original Screenplay Oscar and I am so glad the academy recognized the originality of this film.

Oscar Nominations: 1 win-Best Picture, Best Original Screenplay (won), Best Original Score, Best Original Song-“The Moon Song”, Best Production Design