'Frankenweenie' review:

Like a lot of cinephiles, I've fallen out of love with Tim Burton. I still go to see everything he makes, but these days it's more out of duty than expectation. Sort of like spending an entire afternoon in the dingy kitchen of an old, racist relative. Yet Burton's latest project, a stop-motion feature film version of his own well-received 1984 live-action short, wears the director's distinctive stamp more comfortably than anything else he's made in a long while. This monochrome looking animation, about a boy (called Victor Frankenstein) who brings his dead dog back to life with electricity, flaunts the Gothic horror aesthetic that has become the director's stamp is in full force. Needless to say, Danny Elfman provides the score.

There are echoes of Burton's older (and better) films throughout. Vincent's own campy attempt at filmmaking recalls 'Ed Wood', whilst the juxtaposition of Burton's self-styled oddness with clean-cut American suburbia is like something out of 'Edward Scissorhands'. Look closely and there are even possible nods to 'Mar Attacks!' and 'Batman' amongst smaller visual details. And, of course, the stop-motion form itself brings to mind 'Corpse Bride' and 'The Nightmare Before Christmas' (for which he provided the story and look, though Henry Selick directed). However, as nice as it is to be reacquainted with the look and feel of why we all fell in love with his films in the first place, 'Frankenweenie' also suffers by the association.

There are moments of greatness but mostly the whole thing feels like a reasonably accurate YouTube cover version of a song you loved a decade earlier. It means well and it's certainly difficult to actively dislike, but 'Frankenweenie' is mostly just quite boring, when you delve beyond the often stunning visuals and extremely polished animation. Burton has always, often unfairly, attracted criticism for being a visual stylist with am ambivalence towards storytelling, and here that's definitely true. The characters, story - a fourth-hand take on Mary Shelley's novel (if you consider this comes via classic horror movies and Burton's earlier short) - and message (standard "listen to your heart" kids-film-by-numbers stuff) are all less than inspiring and struggle to hold interest.

Worse still, the film seems - in some vague, half-hearted way - to be trying to teach kids how to deal with grief. And yet the ending completely undermines this supposed point, with a last-minute reversal. It feels flatter still if compared to another recent stop-motion children's horror: 'ParaNorman', in which references to old films and horror tropes come out of the characters. In 'Frankenweenie' the characters don't exist outside of being hokey references to horror tropes. After seeing 'Dark Shadows' earlier this year I commented that Burton's characters now seemed like Halloween costumes first and people a distant second, and that's sadly also the case here. The frustrating thing is that the man who bought us 'Beetlejuice' is clearly still in there somewhere, but in a way that makes 'Frankenweenie' even worse than 'Charlie and the Chocolate Factory' or the wholly risible 'Alice in Wonderland', in that it so knowingly invites direct comparison to those glory days and without substance.

'Frankenweenie' is out now in the UK, rated 'PG' by the BBFC.

'Dark Shadows' review:

It's not big and it's not clever to reject the latest film from Tim Burton out of hand. Though it's fair to say that he hasn't done anything good in a while (and nothing truly great since the mid-90s) the man who brought us 'Edward Scissorhands' and 'Beetlejuice' always deserves a fair crack of the whip - even when the trailer for his most recent feature looks beyond dire. This was the case with promos for long-gestating passion project 'Dark Shadows': a broad comedy with Gothic horror trappings, loosely based on a cult late-60s soap opera series of the same name, that reunites the director with an increasingly irksome Johnny Depp. And though the film is slightly better than trailers suggest, it's still a baggy, barely cohesive mess of style over substance - a joint vanity project for a distinctive visual artist and his showboating leading man.

Where Depp was once the most exciting and unpredictable actor of his generation he is now, post his Jack Sparrow rise to pop culture ubiquity, restricting himself to the immensely lucrative "lovable oddball" side of the market. His Willy Wonka and Mad Hatter - themselves in two of Burton's most risible movies - are Halloween costumes more than characters. They are funny voices and affectations in brightly coloured hats around which Depp can construct another peculiar, pantomine creation. This time Depp inhabits the gloomy make-up and wardrobe of Barnabas Collins: an eighteenth century fishing magnate-turned-vampire who is dug up after nearly two centuries underground to discover the multi-coloured, drug-infused wackiness of the 1970s. Fish out of water hilarity ensues, ticking every box you might expect given the setting, with Barnabas encountering lava lamps, Alice Cooper and college stoners. Just what will he make of it all?!

Perhaps this is why the Depp/Burton partnership was proven so long-lasting: both men now seem unable to go below the surface of whatever weird character or world they are presenting on screen. If Depp is increasingly drawn to playing broad, wacky cartoon creations in over-designed costumes, then Burton is rapidly jettisoning what little interest he ever had in story in favour of elaborate set design and showy visual flourishes. As Barnabas first re-enters his stately mansion house after his lengthy absence, he immediately begins to describe in detail the pillars, the chandeliers, and the Florentine marble fireplace. It's as if he's breaking the fourth well to compliment the film for its art direction and set design. Which he may as well do because that is all this film is.

One genuine bright spot is a scene-stealing performance from Eva Green as the villain - the witch who turned Barnabas into a vampire for rejecting her advances and who now dominates the fishing industry of his small town (that's the story by the way). Otherwise it's populated by decent actors in thankless parts, with key characters going unaccounted for during the entire second act (Michelle Pfeifffer's matriarch and supposed central love interest Bella Heathcote) and the young Chloe Moretz overtly sexualised to no real end. Johnny Lee Miller plays an absent father to similarly little payoff, whilst Helena Bonham Carter continues her unbroken 7-film Burton streak as a live-in therapist whose every scene could be excised from the plot in a way which would only impact on the bloated running time. There are perhaps a half-dozen different versions of this film on a hard drive in an edit suite somewhere and perhaps one of them makes for a coherent movie.

I didn't hate or even strongly dislike 'Dark Shadows' (slap that on the DVD cover) and, if I've given that impression, it's only because - despite the low quality of his last decade's worth of work - Tim Burton still apparently has the capacity to disappoint. But this is certainly no worse than 'Planet of the Apes', 'Alice in Wonderland' or 'Charlie and the Chocolate Factory'. It probably belongs in the next category up, alongside the instantly forgettable 'Corpse Bride' - more "Burtonesque" than Burton. Like that drab animation, 'Dark Shadows' feels less like the genuine article and more like the work of an art school student excessively influenced by the most showy aspects of his visual style.

However, there are a few nice visual touches and neat ideas, most of which benefit from the clear affection the film has for traditional vampiric tropes, as it refreshingly eschews all revisionism of monster lore prevalent since the hip and post-modern 'Buffy the Vampire Slayer'. It must also be said that among the obvious gags about disco balls, automobiles and television sets, there are also a few very funny moments involving the time-displaced bloodsucker - such as when he first encounters tarmac.


'Dark Shadows' is out now and rated '12A' by the BBFC.

Cannes 2010 winners: video roundup

As many (if not all) of you know, the winners of the 2010 Cannes Film Festival were announced yesterday as the event came to its conclusion. Apparently this year has been a little underwhelming with nothing like last year’s ‘White Ribbon’ or ‘Un Prophet’ to shout about (of course, it opened with the terrible 'Robin Hood'), but here is a list of the winners, as picked by a Tim Burton led jury:

Palm d’Or Thai film 'Uncle Boonmee Who Can Recall His Past Lives' (directed by Apichatpong Weerasethakul) was a surprise winner of the top prize.



Grand Prix The runner up prize was awarded to the French film 'Of Gods and Men' by Xavier Beauvois, which recounts a 1996 terrorist incident in Algeria in which monks were captured and beheaded by an Islamic group... or were they, as the film deals with the idea that perhaps the French army comitted the murders.



Prix du Jury The festival's third most prestigious prize went to another French film, 'A Screaming Man', by Mahamat-Saleh Haroun - a Chadian director.



Prix de la mise en scène The 'best director' award was given to Mathieu Amalric for 'On Tour'. Amalric was seen acting in last year's 'Mesrine: Public Enemy No.1' alongside Vincent Cassel (and also played the baddie in the Bond film 'Quantum of Solace' in 2008).



Prix d'interprétation féminine The 'best actress' prize went to the native Juliette Binoche for her role in 'Certified Copy'.



Whilst the Prix d'interprétation masculine was split between Spannish Academy Award winner Javier Bardem for 'Biutiful' and the Italian Elio Germano for 'Our Life'.





Prix Un Certain Regard was this year awarded to the South Korean film 'Ha Ha Ha' by Hong Sang-soo. This award is always pretty interesting, as it tends to be given to promising, lower-profile filmmakers (last year's winner 'Dogtooth' was outstanding).



East Asian cinema was well rewarded, not only with the above winner and the Palm d'Or sucess of 'Uncle Boonmee', but also with an award for the South Korean film 'Poetry' in the writers category (Lee Chang-dong won the Prix du scénario).



Of the films which competed, but did not win prizes, the following are noteworthy:

Mike Leigh's 'Another Year' was, for many, a favourite for the top prize:



Takeshi Kitano's new film 'Outrage' also played to lukewarm response (although I'm always excited to see a new 'Beat' Kitano movie):



Ken Loach returned to Cannes a year after 'Looking for Eric' with a drama about the Iraq war, 'Route Irish', which was generally well recieved. The veteran director also voiced his concern at Iraq war movies which focus on American soliders, such as the 'Hurt Locker', saying that they ignore the suffering of the population:



Doug Liman showed his thriller 'Fair Game', starring Sean Penn and Naomi Watts:



J-horror legend Hideo Nakata ('The Ring', 'Dark Water') showed his new film, 'Chatroom', which is a UK-Japan co-production, which stars Aaron Johnson ('Kick-Ass' and 'Nowhere Boy'):



Jean-Luc Godard showed off his new film, 'Socialism', in the Un Certain Regard category. Depending on who you believe it was either the worst (Mark Kermode) or best (Mark Cousins) film of the festival:



Finally, Oliver Stone's 'Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps' and Woody Allen's 'You Will Meet a Tall Dark Stranger' both screened out of competition and got good reviews:






I'll be reviewing most of these films over the next year as they find UK releases.

'Alice in Wonderland' review: Of with its head!

I would consider myself a Tim Burton fan. Not a massive fan, as he’s made a few films I’m not so keen on, such as the ‘Planet of the Apes’ re-make, ‘Charlie and the Chocolate Factory’ and ‘Corpse Bride’. But he has also made some films that should be considered classic modern fairytales, such as ‘Beetlejuice’, ‘Edward Scissorhands’ and ‘Big Fish’. He is often dismissively referred to as a visual director, but I take issue with this criticism on two levels. The first is that film is a visual medium, and a director like Burton (or Terry Gilliam, or Guillermo Del Toro), who has a unique visual style and paints with ambition and on a large canvass, should be regarded more highly than they perhaps are. The second is that I usually feel Burton’s visual style is carefully considered and becomes part of the characterisation and emotion of the film. The set direction is part of the acting in Burton. For example, Selina Kyle’s apartment in ‘Batman Returns’ was specially designed to seem claustrophobic and restrictive, which was chosen, to reflect something about the character – and not simply because Burton is obsessed with the visual at the expense of the story.

However, I would agree that Tim Burton has not been at his best this past decade. Whilst his last film, ‘Sweeney Todd’, was by all accounts a sound screen adaptation of the source material, the rest of his output over the last ten years (with the exception of ‘Big Fish’) has been a shadow of his former glory, with most of his time being spent as a hired gun on a number of big studio projects. You could be forgiven for thinking that the interesting director of those early works had disappeared. Unfortunately, this decline has not been halted by his latest film, ‘Alice in Wonderland’, a sort of sequel to Lewis Carroll’s original tale (and possibly to the 1951 animation by Burton’s paymasters at Disney who produced this film).

What little of a plot there is a riddled with holes that I probably shouldn’t go into here (especially with regards to the film’s final act) and many of the action scenes feel shoehorned in and fail to excite in any way (well the film is in 3D, and I’m discovering that 3D loves chases!). The story concerns a young-adult version of Alice, portrayed by the interesting and engaging Mia Wasikowska, who is possibly the only positive thing in this mess of a film. Alice stumbles back into Wonderland (or Underland, as we are told it is really called) whilst trying to avoid making a crucial decision about her future. Once there, Alice again meets, and fails to remember, all the familiar characters from the original tale, among them the Cheshire Cat (Stephen Fry), Tweedledum and Tweedledee (Matt Lucas) and the Mad Hatter, portrayed by Johnny Deep at his most excruciating.

Since his star-making turn in ‘Pirates of the Caribbean’, this once interesting and versatile actor has become a self-parody and seems to restrict himself to increasingly miss-judged and wilfully bizarre character roles. Whilst he could once be justly considered an impressive emerging actor, he is now just an over actor, and his formerly fruitful partnership with Burton, which has seen him take some of his career best roles (in ‘Edward Scissorhands’, ‘Ed Wood’ and ‘Sleepy Hollow’), has now become a tiresome and predictable bore, with this latest performance being reminiscent of his turn as Willy Wonka in 2005s ‘Charlie and the Chocolate Factory’.

Depp’s star power sees the Mad Hatter rise to an undue prominence in this telling of the story this time around and even sees him becoming an unlikely and uncomfortable love interest for Alice. He also switches from a slightly fey, camp accent, to a Scottish one, seemingly at random, throughout the film to my extreme irritation. To make matters worse he breaks into some kind of terrible dance at the films climax, which reminded me of the mid-battle wedding performed in the last ‘Pirates of the Caribbean’ film, in that it was another moment where my jaw dropped and I was forced to ask the question “has this film just gotten worse?”. Helena Bonham Carter, who probably gave her best performance for her husband in ‘Sweeney Todd’, is as perplexing as she is embarrassing in ‘Alice’, as she blatantly steals Miranda Richardson’s “Queenie” character from the second series of TVs ‘Blackadder’ to distracting and unsettling effect. It is all as terrible as it sounds, I promise you.

The films main problem lies in its complete lack of engagement with the audience. It is extremely boring and a packed cinema didn’t laugh more than twice during the entire film. I suspect its record opening grosses will not lead to potential “highest grossing ever” figures, as poor word of mouth should sink this film after the first few weeks of business. Maybe this is part of Disney’s thought process behind trying to cut short its time in cinemas and hurry it onto DVD. Probably not, but it should be the reason. I wanted to leave with scarcely half an hour gone and I know I wasn’t the only one (as my girlfriend confirmed for me afterwards).

In Jan Švankmajer's 1988 part stop-frame animated version of the tale (video clip below) the characters and the setting are given an unsettling and dark edge which Burton, freed of the Disney brief, may well have sought to replicate (especially as he has often decried to the Disney original for lacking that same edge). However, the version we have been given in this latest adaptation has no weight to it, with its CGI characters and locations looking like so much visual bubblegum and lacking all required grandeur and wonder. Terry Gilliam had the same problem last year with ‘The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus’, which lacked the usual visceral quality of his work in its imagination sequences, and so Wonderland has the same problem here in terms of tangibility. The tone and feel of the movie is not dissimilar to some beloved 1980s family adventures, like ‘Labyrinth’ and ‘The Dark Crystal’, but without that visceral (almost dirty) quality, and without any charm, it is perhaps not destined to find the same cult audience. It is also the case that 3D, which has worked so well for ‘Up’ and ‘Avatar’, has not been kind of ‘Alice’, which adds an unpleasant eye-strain to the crushing boredom.

Worst of all, none of Carroll’s trademark wit and wordplay is evident in Burton’s ‘Alice in Wonderland’, which is an especially great shame, as that is clearly the highlight of the original stories. It seems that when Burton starts re-imaging older properties, such as Wonka, ‘Planet of the Apes’ and this ‘Alice’ film, he invariably diminishes them. I very much hope his next film is smaller in scale and harkens back to his earlier days, when he seemed like a relevant (possibly even great) filmmaker. For now we can only sit back and mourn his artistic decline, whilst he and Disney laugh all the way to the bank.




'Alice in Wonderland' is playing at multiplexes throughout the UK (despite weeks of grandstanding) and is rated 'PG' by the BBFC. If you want to hand Disney some money, check out 'The Princess and the Frog' which is far better.