'Tangled' review:

The last decade hasn't been especially kind to the Disney animation fan. The annual triumphs of the folks at PIXAR aside, the in-house output of Walt Disney Animation Studios has been lacklustre as the once dominant studio have struggled to remain relevant in the 'Toy Story' inspired age of computer animation. Prior to this year, the 2002 film 'Lilo & Stitch' was probably their last genuinely good feature. Then, after the commercial disasters of 'Treasure Planet' and 'Home on the Range', Disney began making their own forgettable computer animations: 'Chicken Little', 'Meet the Robinsons' and 'Bolt'. Things seemed bleak until, earlier this year, Disney restored a lot of faith with 'The Princess and the Frog' - a return to the type of hand-drawn animated musical which defined the 90s renaissance - which did well with critics and at the box office. Given this success, it seemed a shame that their next film 'Tangled', an adaptation of the Rapunzel Grimm fairy tale and the studios 50th feature, would be yet another computer animation... and in 3D.

But as with buses, you wait for ages only for two to show up at once. 'Tangled' is brilliant, possibly better even than 'The Princess and the Frog' and certainly one the best Disney animations of the last ten years. Unlike the studio's other computer animations, which lacked any real character and seemed to bear little relation to the Disney style of old, 'Tangled' feels exactly like a 1990s classic in the mold of 'Beauty and the Beast' or 'The Hunchback of Notre Damme': in terms of the film's design, the quality of the animation, the timeless appeal of the source story and with the songs composed by Alan Menkin. Like all classic Disney the pacing is exactly right too with action, gags, musical numbers and romantic sequences all balanced well, leaving the whole thing feeling like an example of perfect story telling economy. Uncle Walt himself would approve.



This telling of the Rapunzel story has it that the titular girl's long, blonde locks possess magical healing properties. It is for this reason that she is stolen from her parents (here a king and queen) as a baby and spirited away to an isolated tower by a vain old hag named Gothel, who wishes to use Rapunzel's hair to keep herself forever youthful. Running parallel to this story is that of Flynn Rider, a scoundrel who has stolen a valuable crown from the palace in his latest daring heist. On the run from the guards - and from a couple of gangmates whom he betrayed - Flynn stumbles upon the tower and is soon a bewildered Rapunzel's prisoner. Rapunzel, who has been told that the outside world is far too dangerous for her, hides Flynn's valuable prize and forces him to escort her safely out of her tower so she can see the world outside. Gothel comes back to find she has gone and pursues, whilst Flynn continues to evade the law.

If I was surprised to find a computer animated in-house Disney film of this high quality, then I was even more surprised to find that it was in many ways technically the most advanced computer animation I've yet seen - dare I say it, even surpassing PIXAR. The lighting, water and fabric effects are staggeringly well done in 'Tangled' as is, perhaps unsurprisingly, hair. Though the charm of character animation is what really sets this film apart, so in keeping is it with the studio's traditions: a transformative melding of the old with the new. Generally human people look best in animated films if they are heavily stylised, whilst realistic people, such as those seen in the ugly rotoscope animations of Robert Zemeckis ('The Polar Express', 'Beowulf' and 'A Christmas Carol'), suffer from the uncanny valley effect and look unsettling and unappealing.



PIXAR have had their own trouble with this in the past: when we see people in the original 'Toy Story', they are stiff looking and unconvincing. It took almost ten years before they felt confident to make their first feature length film about recognisably human characters, 'The Incredibles' in 2004, and then they were highly stylised caricatures. Tellingly for 'Wall-E' PIXAR chose not to animate the film's recognisably "human" character at all, and instead used a live-action actor, only using computer animation to bring to life the devolved, more cartoonish, future humans. Similarly, for 'Tangled' the approach has been to create cartoon characters rather than humans, but even better than that: unlike those present in 'Meet the Robinsons' (who could sit comfortably in a Nickelodeon TV series) these are recognisably Disney creations. These characters go well with the bright and lush world in which they are placed, with its blue skies and green grass and the design of the whole picture manages to create a vibrant fantasy kingdom that feels as though it has burst from the pages of a Grimm fairy tale, very Disney whilst definitely retaining something Gothic at its core.

Rapunzel herself (voiced by a disarming Mandy Moore) is wonderful to watch, the picture of girlish "cuteness", with her disproportionate eyes in her huge head. She is an incredibly expressive and entirely likable creation, and one of the most fun Disney princess characters. She is sharp, funny and, as is typical of the modern heroine, extremely feisty. Her "prince" is equally good to watch. Voiced by Zachary Levi, Flynn Rider narrates the tale and is our post-modern anti-hero. He refuses to sing and dance and isn't taken in by all the warmth and sentimentality. If Rapunzel is a less helpless version of Belle or Ariel, then Flynn is Aladdin combined with the more recent Prince Naveen. He is quick-witted and agile, stealing to survive (and for sport), but he is also extremely narcissistic. With Naveen in 'The Princess and the Frog' and Flynn in 'Tangled', Disney have successfully rejuvenated the once dull "prince" character, so long considered a thankless task among animators.



The obligatory, toyetic animal sidekick characters - a violent, yet cowardly chameleon and a determined and moralistic white horse - are likewise superbly well animated. Particularly the horse, who is terrifically funny with his proud stride and his vendetta against Flynn, whom he hunts prodigiously. 'Tangled' allows itself some truly silly moments no longer really seen in animation as things have become more sophisticated and less exaggerated. In one scene Flynn has a sword fight with the horse, turning to Rapunzel and saying proudly, "You should know that this is the strangest thing I've ever done!" Whilst another very funny sequence sees a group of murderous ruffians burst into a brilliant song called "I've Got a Dream", in which they all state that they'd rather become interior decorators or concert pianists than tough fighters. It is a song that recalls Howard Ashman's lyrics for "Gaston" in 'Beauty and the Beast' as much as the animated sequence channels Monty Python and Mel Brooks.

Then there is the evil Gothel, who Rapunzel believes to be her mother for the majority of the film which leads to an interesting dynamic between them - one that seems to be of very genuine love between the hero and villain. Gothel is one of the most properly horrifying Disney villains. After all, she abducts a child whom she keeps locked in a tower for eighteen years. Also the fact that her power is derived from years of manipulation and brainwashing is far scarier a concept than magic or violence.



'Tangled' shares one of its co-directors, Byron Howard, with Disney's last computer animated, 3D film 'Bolt' and, like 'Bolt', the use of 3D in 'Tangled' is restrained and tasteful rather than eye-popping. With the exception of some floating lanterns, things are rarely made to fly out of the screen at you and instead the extra dimension is employed to allow depth. As with 'Bolt' 3D is also occasionally used to make self-referential jokes (it is harder for a chameleon to hide in a 3D cartoon than a 2D one after all) but this is still not done so overtly as to be distracting. Does this film need to be in 3D? Of course not. Nothing needs to be in 3D - or at least nothing worth watching. But the 3D does add depth and, for the moment at least, is still a fun gimmick when used with animated films (live action 3D tends to give me a headache and the motion blur is awful during action).

For years I've been a hand-drawn snob who felt that by going over to computer animation Disney had lost their way - along with all of their charm. 'Tangled' has won me over wholeheartedly, putting a recognisably Disney style into computer animation for the first time. If they keep this up, the studios identity crisis might finally be over and the problem of differentiating Walt Disney Animation Studios from their more lauded cousins PIXAR might finally be solved. I'm still glad to see that Disney have hand drawn projects in the works, as next April sees the release of the beautiful looking 'Winnie the Pooh', for instance. But now I don't think the studio's future depends on taking that old fashioned route. In fact alternating between computer animation and hand-drawn (hopefully as material warrants) might keep both art forms from out staying their welcome a second time on Disney's watch.

'Tangled' is released in the UK on January 28th 2011 and has been rated 'PG' by the BBFC.

CINECITY: 'Submarine' review:

Richard Ayoade is a very funny man. Once president of the Cambridge University Footlights (a role previously held by such luminaries as Peter Cook, Eric Idle, David Mitchell and (oddly) film critic Peter Bradshaw), Ayoade has established himself as a leading figure of British television comedy. He is best known for his role as Maurice Moss in Graham Linehan's once-good-now-terrible 'The IT Crowd', but has also appeared in the likes of 'The Mighty Boosh', 'Nathan Barley' and 'Time Trumpet'. Added to that, he co-wrote and starred in 80s sci-fi pastiche 'Garth Marenghi's Darkplace' and spoof chat show 'Man to Man with Dean Learner' - both as the same character. To my mind he is so gifted a comic performer that he even lit up the execrable British comedy film 'Bunny and the Bull' last year, with an all-too-brief cameo role (the film's sole highlight). Now, following a stint directing music videos for the like of the Arctic Monkeys, he has gone behind the camera to direct his debut feature film 'Submarine', which received its premiere in Toronto in September and closed Brighton's Cinecity Film Festival on Sunday evening.

For his maiden feature film the comic actor has chosen to adapt Joe Dunthorne's 2008 novel 'Submarine', which follows Welsh teenager Oliver Tate as he tries to lose his virginity (before it becomes legal) and prevent his parents from separating. Oliver is coldly analytical about his school classmates and (what he sees as) his parents failing relationship, creepily observing everything and ultimately understanding nothing. His delusions of grandeur and social awkwardness are depicted with unsettling brilliance by the young Craig Roberts. Equally compelling are a restrained Sally Hawkins as his mother and a withdrawn and quite sad Noah Taylor as his father. Another young actor, Yasmin Paige, portrays Oliver's love interest - the fickle and malevolent Jordana. Paige is, on this evidence, a watchable screen presence with bags of charisma. Also cast in a small role is Warp Films regular Paddy Considine, as a spiritual guru who has some of the film's funniest lines.



As you'd expect from a film made by Richard Ayoade, 'Submarine' is a comedy. But it is quite a dry comedy which comes more from the language and the actors reading of the dialogue than from overtly comic moments. In fact Ayoade is unafraid to go fairly long stretches without any obvious "gags" at all. Oliver's "ninja" next door neighbour Graham (Considine's guru character) is as broad as the film gets, aside from the sexual ('Inbetweeners-'esque) crudity of Oliver's school friends, but even then the comedy is never overplayed and the film skillfully avoids the all-out ridiculous. Some of the humour is pretty macabre too. For instance, one scene sees Oliver tell us, via narration, that he has read that pets are important for child development in that they prepare children to accept death. With Jordana's mother suffering from cancer, Oliver then resolves (with the best intentions) to kill her dog so as to soften the blow of her mother's possible demise. It is a relief to see, given his exagerated comic personae, that Ayoade can slip into this whole other gear and make what is a subtle, complex and overall human film.

Rarely in a debut feature do you find a director so in command of the form, as you sense that everything in 'Submarine' has been carefully played out in its director's head and translated exactly that way onto the screen. In the same way that the novel is self-consciously a novel (with Oliver referencing himself as being "the protagonist") Ayoade's film revels in the fact that it is a film, as Oliver talks about the camera techniques the film must implement if it is to tell his story. His megalomania draws obvious parallels with Jason Schwartzman's Max Fischer from the Wes Anderson film 'Rushmore' and other clear Anderson parallels are visible in terms of the films clean and colourful intertitles as well as in Ayoade's use of zooms and tracking shots. Also present is the same love of precision and detail, although these visual motifs and affectations probably owe more to the two filmmaker's shared love of the French New Wave than anything else. Oddly though, the film 'Submarine' most reminded me of was Kubrick's 'A Clockwork Orange' with Oliver's narration recounting his darker thoughts and actions with the same cheerful amorality of Malcolm McDowell's Alex.



'Submarine' is as sweet and at times unsettling as it is beautifully made and wonderfully acted. It is funny - but not too funny - and also melancholic and above all truthful, in spite of that fact that it takes place in a reality heightened by its narrator's ego. When Noah Taylor (a Hove local) introduced the film to the Cinecity crowd at the weekend, he heralded Richard Ayoade as an important British filmmaker for the future. Before the film rolled that might have just sounded like polite hyperbole. After it finished, to a rapturous ovation, I was left in little doubt that he was right.

Now Richard Ayoade joins fellow British comedians (and sometime collaborators) Armando Iannucci and Chris Morris in making a terrific debut film, I am left to wonder: with the bar raised impossibly high, what can we expect from their next efforts? I am certainly excited to find out.

'Submarine' is released in the UK in March next year and is not yet rated by the BBFC. No trailer is currently available.

"Let it snow!": How the Snow Effects UK Cinema Exhibition

Last week much of the UK, including here in Brighton, was covered in snow. Schools were closed, buses were cancelled and middle class suburban homes everywhere were left without their weekly Ocado delivery. But how did it affect the British film exhibition business? I asked a few people in the know at different East Sussex based cinemas to see exactly what they made of the bad weather.

Apparently it isn't always bad news according to occasional Splendor Cinema podcast guest James Tully. James is the marketing manager of Brighton's biggest cinema - an Odeon near the town centre - and he suggested that the snow can in fact have a positive effect on business for the chain depending on the target audience: "If the weather is bad, then the schools are closed so if you are one of the few businesses still open then there is a good opportunity to make money. We see a rise in family business during the day as parents have nothing to do with their kids. But films for a mature audience suffer as older people will not want to risk going out onto snow & ice just to see a film."



Likewise, podcast co-host Jon Barrenechea, manager of Brighton's Duke of York's Picturehouse, says that his cinema can also benefit from the snow. But whereas the multiplex takes advantage of kids off school eager to watch 'Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part One', the Duke's unique atmosphere gives it an advantage in attracting older crowds: "During the Christmas holidays the whole place just feels like a cosy front room in an eccentric’s house. Mulled wine, fairy lights, the Edwardian architecture, it’s the perfect setting for when it snows, so we tend to get busy in times like this, especially recently as people haven’t been able to drive anywhere, they’ve been walking down to the cinema."

The Duke of York's not only has the advantage of a large, loyal and local customer base. It is also based just on the edge of town and sat on two main roads - which are generally usable even in snowy weather, as the fire station next door needs constant access - whilst the Odeon, being in the centre of town, is also accessible to a lot of people. It is a different story for a cinema based in a more remote area, like the Uckfield Picture House. Manager and owner Kevin Markwick told me, "snow has a devastating effect on our business, particularly in a semi rural area like this. People simply can’t get here on country roads. For some reason no one seems to want to walk here either. ['Harry Potter'] business has dropped by 65% since the snow hit on Tuesday [November 30th]." The Odeon's James echos Kevin's concerns saying, "I think it's a tough time for independent cinemas who are programmed weeks in advance, as if their big hit film falls in that week [of bad weather] then their profits fall through the floor."



Time of day is another factor in people's decision to come out to the movies in blizzard conditions too. Whilst day time shows can receive a boost in attendance, James noticed that evening business "declines as guests do not know what to expect by the time their film has finished. If for example you are watching an 8pm 'Harry Potter' that finishes at 11pm, you could emerge to find another foot of snow has fallen, transport cancelled etc." Jon also sees a drop for certain shows. Notably the National Theatre and MET Opera screenings, which are broadcast live via satellite and regularly sell out: "The only times it really affects us is when we have special events like the Operas when people are driving in from out of town."

Another concern is for smaller films with niche appeal. Again James Tully provided his view of what can happen to such films at this time of year: "it's a tough time if you are a distributor of a small film as the film will not get held-over if it doesn't perform well. I hope that 'Monsters' manages to find an audience... It would be a shame after such an excellent marketing campaign to see the film fail at the last hurdle." Customers are unaware of how film distribution works, which creates a problem for the smaller films says James, "People also assume that a film will be playing indefinitely and that if it snows, and they can't go out, then they will see it next week. Unfortunately the reality is that the film probably wont last another week."

All pictures taken by my girlfriend and I whilst snowed-in in Patcham last week.

'Monsters' review:

Let me get one thing out of the way at the beginning of this review. Yes, it is indeed impressive that young British director Gareth Edwards has made his debut film, the sci-fi, road movie 'Monsters', for reportedly less than half a million dollars. More impressive still is that he not only wrote and directed the film, but acted as his own cinematographer and even did all the films digital effects at home on his computer, apparently using relatively affordable software. This is indeed laudable, and points towards a future where big, special effects blockbusters may be made by indie filmmakers just as well as by big studios. And what a future that could be. Imaginative filmmakers with epic visions who constantly find themselves restricted by the commercial interests of the studios (such as Alex Cox and Terry Gilliam) might be able to make the kind of ambitious films they always wanted to make.

Gareth Edwards is not alone in thinking big with limited resources. Uruguayan amateur Fede Alvarez made headlines last year by earning himself a big Hollywood contract after achieving success on YouTube with his four minute short film called 'Ataque de Panico'. That film also had a big sci-fi concept which would usually cost more than that short's stated $300 budget, as it depicted giant robots attacking Uruguay's capital city of Montevideo. Earlier in 2009, Canadian brothers Ian and David Purchase achieved a huge internet following with their short film adaptation of the Half-Life 2 video game, 'Half-Life: Escape from City 17', which also boasted impressive effects and a sense of scale on a meagre budget. Video games have inspired countless others too - including polished fan film versions of Pokemon and Street Fighter - but the highest profile one saw 'Fame' remake helmer Kevin Tancharoen shooting his own D.I.Y Mortal Kombat short in an effort to pitch a full movie to studios. No doubt the the box office success of 'Monsters' will inspire a few more on a feature length scale and this can only be a good thing.



However, forget for a second the film's low-budget and other indie credentials (it stars Scoot McNairy of 'In Search of a Midnight Kiss' fame alongside a supporting cast of non-actors) and what you have in 'Monsters' is a fairly unfulfilling film which didn't satisfy me as a creature feature nor as a relationship drama.

The plot is as follows: a photojournalist (Andrew played by McNairy) is asked by his boss to escort his daughter (Samantha played by Whitney Able) from Mexico back to her home in the United States. After missing the last boat back, the pair decide to embark on the journey by land. This would sound like a simple enough trip. Except this story is set in the near future, where the land between the newly drawn borders of Mexico and the USA is the "infected zone" - home to extraterrestrial creatures accidentally brought down to Earth by a malfunctioning NASA probe. Worse still, the infected zone is under constant bombardment by the US Air Force, who carpet bomb the whole area to keep the aliens at bay. As you'd expect with such a modest budget, the aliens are very rarely seen and instead the film is more focused on the dynamic between Samantha and Andrew.



This would be fine if either of them were interesting or if they ever had anything interesting to say. 'Monsters' is suffocated by constant exposition with people saying things like "so let me get this straight: we have 48 hours to get to the coast" and when we aren't having things we have just seen and heard simplified for us we are forced to spend our time in the company of a couple of morons. Andrew has, he tells us, seen the corpses of the aliens before on several occasions. The creatures are also on the television news or caricatured by informative children's cartoons whenever we see a television. The duo are aware they are heading through the infected zone, as a great many sign posts tell them so. They see the destruction of areas affected by the so-called monsters. Yet when confronted by them they are forever shouting (and I mean shouting) "what the hell is that thing", over and over and over again.

The shouting doesn't stop even when their armed guards - who by the way are asked several times "why have you guys got guns?" (gee, I wonder why) - tell them to be quiet during one attack sequence. The pair just can't shut up, forever yelping "why are you putting your gas masks on?" (even though that very question was the subject of a public service broadcast aimed at children in a previous scene). When they pass through a destroyed town they ask aloud "all these people's homes. But where are all the people?" They are infuriating human beings who are just begging to be made victims of intergalactic assault. What's more, Andrew is totally inept at his job. When he isn't taking cliché, sub-Banksy photos of children wearing gas masks or playing with barbed wire, he is going on a cathartic journey to grow a conscience which ultimately sees him cover up a dead child's body rather than take a picture for his employers. It is supposed to be a sign that he has, in leaving supposed civilization, rediscovered what it means to be human. By contrast the human world - which, full of greed and evil, pays for pictures of dead children - has become alien. To me it just shows that the film doesn't understand the role such photojournalism has played in turning public opinion against violent wars since Vietnam. Certainly, there is a moral ambiguity to it, but it isn't a simple case of "right and wrong". But 'Monsters' isn't a nuanced film and Edwards it seems would rather resort to trite, sentimental corn than face the more complex realities of the human condition.



This heavy-handed moralising about the modern world continues into the films 'Avatar'-like eco message and in its meaningless symbolism as the American troops at the beginning are shown attacking an alien at a petrol station. To what end? I couldn't tell you. Accept that it's making some loose connection between the American's attack on the creatures and the war in Iraq. Edgy stuff that should take the heat off Julian Assange once Washington finds out. The film also suggests that Mexican officials are corrupt, leading me to wonder whether a deleted scene would have revealed the toiletry habits of bears.

I can't help but feel that the film's shallow "humans are bad" rhetoric would be dismissed if this were larger film, perhaps directed by James Cameron. It's a message that makes no sense either. Whilst in the infected wilderness they encounter the aforementioned dead child. They also see the eviscerated bodies of people they were travelling with. What is so wonderful about the aliens is anyone's guess. Just that they're not human. Because we humans are so terribly, terribly bad, you see. It is a po-faced film which is smugly satisfied by its seriousness. Edwards knows that everyone will line up to gush "it's a monster film that isn't about the monsters!" - as if that was what we'd all been waiting for.



'Monsters' didn't thrill me and it certainly didn't move me either. Yet I must return to the first point of this review and put the thing back in its context as a film that cost a first-time director less than $500,000 to make. With that in mind it is an excellently well designed film. If you didn't know it was made on the cheap, you probably wouldn't be able to tell from what is an extremely handsomely made film. Much like that of last year's 'District 9', the world Edwards creates is an interesting one and you are drawn to wonder at the story around the story. You scan the world for details which will give you more information about this time and place, with these strange circumstances told to you in a matter of fact way and made to seem highly plausible. It is also a credit to Edwards that he stages his scenes of tension well, even if they are all ripped straight out of the Spielberg playbook (the car attack scene is lifted from 'Jurassic Park', whilst the encounter with a curious alien in the gas station is reminiscent of a similar sequence in 'War of the Worlds') - perhaps appropriate given that Spielberg's first short movies required similar ingenuity in terms of homemade special effects.

As a film, I wasn't sold on 'Monsters'. But as part of a growing and exciting trend it thrills me absolutely. I can only imagine what we'll see in the future if anyone with an idea and the talent can feasibly make whatever film they want to. Indie filmmakers have long between able to make gritty, social realism films and small scale dramas. But maybe now science fiction and fantasy are not out of reach. I don't want to oversell it: Gareth Edwards may have only spent $500,000 making this film, but he still had half a million dollars at his disposal (not to mention the backing of Vertigo Films). But who knows? Maybe the next 'Star Wars' or 'Lawrence of Arabia' will be made in a bedroom rather than a movie studio.

'Monsters' is rated '12A' by the BBFC and is out now in the UK. It is playing this week at Brighton's Duke of York's Picturehouse cinema.

'Chico & Rita' review:

It has taken a long time, but in the UK we seem to be catching up with the likes of Japan and France when it comes to taking animated films seriously. For years animated films were almost always children's films and were routinely dismissed by critics and cinephiles. Eyebrows were raised when, in 1991, Disney's 'Beauty and the Beast' was (quite deservedly) nominated for Best Picture at the Academy Awards. Flash forward to 2010 and Disney's 'Up' was nominated for the same honour without the same murmurings of dissent. (In fact that film made many critics end of year "best film" lists.) Whilst those two Disney films are most certainly aimed at children (albeit with adult themes), it is no longer impossible to find animated films aimed at older audiences in UK cinemas, even if it isn't yet widespread. Earlier this year 'The Illusionist', a slow and poignant (and mostly silent) French film, did fairly well here playing mostly to adults. And now 'Chico & Rita', a sexually explicit, 15-rated Spanish animation, has been released in the UK to general acclaim.

By "sexually explicit" I really only mean that 'Chico & Rita' has a couple of sex scenes and some female nudity, deemed "strong sex" by the BBFC. Presumably this was because the next certificate down is a '12A' (the same rating as the latest 'Harry Potter' film) and the body wanted to make it clear that this is not intended as a film for children. This must be the rationale as compared to live action films the scenes of love-making in 'Chico & Rita' are fairly tame. But what makes this Spanish animation a movie for adults is not the tasteful sexual content, but rather the fact that there is really nothing here for children. There is no comedy relief and, save for one brief chase sequence, there is no "action". Instead this is a real love story, filled with all the melancholy that can bring. It is a colourful film of vitality and also a tale of regret and near tragedy.



'Chico & Rita' is partly told in flashback as an old man named Chico, living alone in a small and squalid apartment in a run down part of modern Havana, recalls his time as a virtuoso pianist as he falls for a beautiful singer named Rita. This love story is set against a backdrop of the vibrant and exciting nightlife that typified pre-revolution Havana in the 1940s (at least for visiting American playboys) with the film set to the rhythms of Latin jazz. Soon the duo form a popular musical double-act, but Chico is a bit of a cad and he loses Rita due to his drinking and womanising. Soon she is whisked away to New York City to become a major singer and even a star of MGM musicals, leaving Chico behind. Chico then sells his piano and pursues her in the hope of rekindling their love. As you can probably guess from the fact that the film is told in flashback by a sad man living alone, things don't go especially well and the couple are again separated by the cruelty of fate.

The film's beautiful animation is, from the looks of it, mostly done on computer but given the appearance of traditional animation (à la 'Waltz With Bashir'). The use of computers allows of a very fluid style of direction, that has much more in common with live action than animation - perhaps owing to the fact that the film's co-director Fernando Trueba comes from live action film (whilst the film's other director Javier Mariscal is a designer and not a filmmaker by trade). What the use of animation allows is great period detail, as the film recreates not only 40s Havana and New York, but also Paris. It also enables Chico to meet with long dead legends of music, such as Charlie Parker and Chano Pozo (to whose bloody death Chico bears horrified witness). Some of the film's details are (perhaps knowingly) anachronistic: for example although the Broadway show version of 'On the Town' debuted in 1944, the popular Gene Kelly film wouldn't be released until 1949, a year after Chico's voyage to New York upon which it is referenced (along with the tune of "New York, New York"). But regardless, these period details are a consistent pleasure - and there are lots of them to be seen.



The film's depiction of Cuba is also multi-faceted and nuanced. In the pre-revolutionary section we see Havana as a place that is fun and lively. It is a place full of possibility, where a talented singer or pianist can get noticed and make it in the USA. But also shown is the contrast extreme between the rich and poor, and racism, with the wealthy Americans who come to Havana shown going to racially restricted clubs which don't allow native Cubans. When Chico returns to Cuba amidst the revolution in 1959, things have changed again. Now we are shown the optimism Catro's revolution brought to Cuban people. Indeed Chico's first response seems to be positive. But before long he is told that his music is banned for being too American, which then shows us the limitations brought about by the move to communism. Similarly, the situation Chico finds himself in as an old man highlights the problems of modern Cuba - crumbling and stuck in the past. Whether you put that failure down to the extreme (and unreasonable) economic sanctions imposed on the island by the US or to the inherent failures of communism, it remains a reality which the film captures in detail.

'Chico & Rita' is a beautiful, bittersweet story about love, creativity and growing old, brought to life with vibrant, colourful animation. The period setting, the music, the atmosphere of the piece elevate what is already a really emotionally affecting story to even greater heights. It is a film which skillfully manages to romanticise the past it depicts without ignoring its shadier aspects. Overall it is a human story about well rounded characters, none of whom are really right or wrong, and all of whom are marked by their regrets and failings, but also by their unwavering belief in romantic love. A very good film which happens to be told via animation, hopefully proving we're ready for more.

'Chico & Rita' is rated '15' by the BBFC and is out in the UK on a limited release.

December's episode of 'Flick's Flicks' and R.I.P Irvin Kershner (1923-2010)

December's episode of 'Flick's Flicks' film preview show has gone up on the Picturehouse website. It's my last show as guest host - though I maybe back at some point in the future for one reason or another. Regular host Felicity (AKA Flick) will be back next month.

This month I suggested my top five films of the year (although these may differ from my final list on this blog in January!) and previewed 'Catfish', 'Somewhere', 'Love and Other Drugs' and 'Rare Exports'.

Thanks to Gabriel Swartland at Picturehouses and James Tucker, the show's director and editor, for their support during the last six months of shows. And a very big thank you to Flick herself for asking me to host the show in her absence.

Finally, on an unrelated note, I was sad to learn that the director of the best 'Star Wars' film passed away last weekend at the age of 87. Irvin Kershner directed the first 'Star Wars' sequel 'The Empire Strikes Back', which was released in 1980 and is widely regarded as superior to the original. I must confess that I don't know much more about Kershner's work, which includes the likes of 'RoboCop 2' and the unofficial Bond film 'Never Say Never Again', so for a proper obituary I recommend this one on the A.V. Club site. As a huge fan of 'Empire' I wanted to pay my respects here with a video of one of the film's finest moments, which I think highlights the human dimension Kershner, along with screenwriter Lawrence Kasdan, brought to George Lucas' space opera.

'Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part One' review: All's well that ends well?

I have never read, or even been tempted to read, a Harry Potter book. Nor have I enjoyed the series of films J.K Rowling's writing has inspired which having begun in 2001 with 'The Philosopher's Stone' - and due to conclude next year - now span (and for some possibly define) a cinema-going decade. For me there has always been something very twee about these stories - set within a boarding school for witches and wizards - and something incredibly establishment about their very existence and place in the "British" film industry. Worse still, it has always felt like the series' best ideas and characters had been stolen wholesale from other works: books by Roald Dahl, C.S Lewis and J.R.R Tolkien. And with Warner Brothers having eschewed hiring Terry Gilliam (the author's publicly stated preferred choice) these uninspiring tales have also been beset by a succession of similarly uninspiring filmmakers.

'Home Alone' director Chris Columbus helmed the first two movies, making films of almost staggering blandness. Some brief respite was given to the series' in the form of the third outing, 'The Prisoner of Azkaban', as darling of the Mexican New Wave Alfonso Cuarón brought to that film a more naturalistic approach in the acting (especially in the film's young cast) as well as a darker colour palette and some more imaginative shot choices. Yet it was still ultimately a pretty poor film, still weighed down by interminably dull scenes of "Quidditch" and even featuring Lenny Henry. But whatever its flaws, the series' third chapter was enriched by Cuarón as director. Though it would be short lived, as soon Harry Potter was thrust firmly back into cinematic mediocrity once again with the Mike Newell directed fourth film boring me near to tears when I saw it at the cinema in 2005.



It is strange that having gone through three established film directors the series would find its salvation in the hands of a little known British TV director. David Yates, prior to directing the fifth Potter film, 2007's 'The Order of the Phoenix', was best known for directing edgy TV dramas 'State of Play', 'Sex Traffic' and 'The Girl in the Cafe'. It was the same sort of left-field logic that had led Warner Brothers to hire Cuarón off the back of his sexually explicit 'Y Tu Mamá También' and, as with that choice, it has proven to be inspired - though this wasn't evident right away. 'The Order of the Phoenix', still bound by the setting of Hogwarts school and its myriad of dreary lessons and irksomely quirky teachers, was only a marginal improvement on its forbears. It was actually with 'The Half-Blood Prince', the sixth film in the series, that Yates really turned things around.

'Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince' is relatively light on action. It is a slower, more character based film which found the leads - Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint and Emma Watson - now able to act. It was intense and visceral in a way never before attempted by these films, and in a way missing from most modern kids films in general. There were more interesting characters and themes, as it looked at the school life of the series' arch-villain Tom Riddle (AKA Voldemort) and also made other perennial villains more human, such as Draco Malfoy, played by Tom Felton. Once a two-dimensional, snarling school bully, Draco was here portrayed as a troubled child in the middle of an identity crisis, torn apart as he struggled with the moral implications of his family's allegiance with "the dark Lord" and his growing unease at his own grave part in their evil schemes.



Yet even when these films were not terrible, they were forever bringing out the cynic and the pedant in me as a viewer. I was forever asking "why are they doing that?", "how come that's suddenly possible?" and "why didn't they think to do that two scenes ago?" My problem was often that the films' internal logic seemed inconsistent and muddled. Often Potter himself seemed like a, frankly, shit protagonist. He was forever being saved by some contrived deus ex machina (such as the magical sword at the end of film two) or by his teachers. He was always being told exactly what to do, every step of the way. For example, when in film four he has make a golden egg reveal a clue, it takes Robert Pattinson telling him to "try giving it a bath", followed by another character telling him to "try putting in into the water" when he gets there - so unable is he to make that logical leap. My girlfriend was always saying "it makes more sense in the books". But I don't care. These films should make sense in their own right, or else they are just expensive fan-service.

The reason I have chosen to begin my review of the latest installment, 'Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part One', with this account of my own history with these films is two-fold. Firstly, I wasn't reviewing films when these came out and I wanted to state my position on them here. Secondly, I thought it important to provide a context for my unabashed praise of this latest film. For in 'Deathly Hallows Part One' I have found a Potter film I can actually enjoy.



Never before have two films in the same franchise seemed so totally alien to each other as 'Philopher's Stone' and 'Deathly Hallows' must look placed side-by-side. (OK, maybe the Bond series has changed more over its near fifty years of being, but these Potter movies are direct sequels less than ten years apart.) 'Deathly Hallows Part One' is not a film in which Potter inflates his nasty auntie into a balloon or takes part in a "Triwizard Tournament" or tastes bogey flavoured magic sweeties. It is a film which opens on a scene of torture and murder (of a bound and weeping school teacher no less), in which one of Harry's friends is casually killed off screen and another dies bleeding in his arms. The first time we see Harry's friend Hermione Granger she is tearfully erasing herself from her parents' memory so as to keep them safe. Whilst the fourth film boasted Jarvis Cocker singing a song called "Do the Hippogriff", this seventh film sees Harry turn on a radio to hear "O Children" by Nick Cave & the Bad Seeds, to which he and Hermione temporarily relieve their gloom with a melancholic dance, in an emotionally charged scene which I'm told doesn't exist in the book. It's a moment which will probably be ignored for being in a Harry Potter blockbuster, but I feel a similar moment in a "serious" film would receive more attention.

If 'Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone' was like a Famous Five story, then this new film feels like something out of Cormac McCarthy's The Road. The bleak, recognisably English landscapes are desolate and our heroes are often alone, uncertain whether anyone they know has survived. There is precious little comedy relief in this chapter. Which is nice as the "gags" in previous Potter movies have been woeful. What lightness and humour there is comes from the central three characters friendship which seems more real then ever before - perhaps as a result of the fact that these child actors have genuinely grown up together (one of the series' real pleasures). Yates' Potter films have been enriched by their taking place in a more recognisable, and even banal, world. The last film saw Yates stage a deadly Voldemort attack on London's Millennium Bridge (a modern and lesser known landmark as of yet untouched by Michael Bay or Roland Emmerich) and similarly 'Deathly Hallows' presents a modern, lived-in and refreshingly normal picture of London - neither touristy or excessively grimy. Yates has realised that in making the "muggle" (non-magical) world less wondrous a place, the magic of Potter & co. is given room to be all the more exciting by contrast.



So it is that the chase sequence near the film's start is the most exciting bit of action from any chapter of the series. As Harry flips around a tunnel to dodge cars on his motorcycle (well, more accurately Hagrid's motorcycle - Harry is in the side-car) it is Harry and his friends integration into a more convincing "real world" setting that makes it work. There are also far fewer times when things are over-explained to us via Harry, or where the the heroes actions cease making sense and robbed of Dumbledore as a benevolent, omnipotent guide, it is up to Harry, Hermione and Ron to solve the film's problems. And as the stakes have never been higher (this is after all the first part of the series' finale) the film is also much more involving than those that came before.

It is rare to find a film series that actually grows up with its audience. When George Lucas made his much-maligned 'Star Wars' prequels, fans felt he'd infantilised the saga. Those films, with the slapstick comedy of Jar Jar Binks and an increased pandering to the "toyetic", certainly feel as though they are aimed at a young audience rather than the thirty-somethings who grew up with the original trilogy. In contrast, these films (I imagine thanks to the books) do seem to be going on a journey with their young audience. Children that started off with 'Philosopher's Stone' have a film in 'Deathly Hallows' that they can enjoy ten years on and which may actually frighten and excite them.



'Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part One' is in a different league to its predecessors. It's consistently tonally serious and dark, whereas even the last film would switch uneasily between tragedy and light-hearted comedy all in the space of a scene (note the sudden change from talking about a central character's murder to talking about Harry's latest crush in the final scene of 'Half-Blood Prince'). It also better develops its characters and benefits from a more interesting story with higher stakes. The distracting array of British actors hamming it up is also less of a problem here, as most of our time is spent in the company of the three children.

Perhaps my only real criticism is that it wouldn't work on its own: you need to have seen the other films and/or read the books to understand it. This is to be expected as it's a conclusion (or at least the beginning of one), but I would hesitate to recommend this film to newcomers or to label it any kind of classic. It will always be bound up with the other, less good films which have sadly already undermined this story. It is a shame then that it took four films before Yates took the reins. Although maybe some of this film's pleasure does come from its stark contrast with the earlier chapters - and with the Columbus years in particular. Perhaps it only works because those films exist: because the brightly lit, Christmas card aesthetic of the earlier efforts is there to be subverted in this way. Whatever the reason 'Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part One' worked for me - a self-described Potterphobe - it did work. As a result I find myself in the unlikely position of looking forward to next year and 'Part Two'. Perhaps, as far as the Harry Potter movies are concerned, all's well that ends well.

'Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part One' is rated '12A' by the BBFC - for being bloody scary, I'd imagine.