The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

I've done a little research and have concluded that there are four types of reactions for those that have seen The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy:

• - those that have read author Douglas Adams' work and are relieved by this adaptation of it
• - those that have read Adams' work and hate what happened between the page and the screen
• - those that have not read the books and end up being charmed by the whimsical nature of the storytelling
• - those that have not read the books and see this a a hit-or-miss movie with no story and little character development.

All of these reactions are justified, but they all miss the point.  Like the book that it is based on, this movie is less about plot and more about how the story is told.  The whos, wheres, and whys are largely inconsequential; the emphasis is on the delivery.  And that delivery is excellent.

This is a story about how the world ends.  I'll save you the suspense; aliens blow it up within the first ten minutes of the film to make room for an intergalactic highway.  From there, our everyman point-of-view character, Arthur Dent (Martin Freeman), is taken on a pan-galactic adventure with his best friend, Ford Prefect (Mos Def).  Ford was an undercover alien on Earth, doing research on the planet for his employer, the constantly updated and best-selling book in the universe (literally), The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.  Ford uses his hitchhiking skills to save Arthur and himself, and there their adventure begins.  Before the movie ends, we find out the answer to "life, the universe and everything," what the smartest creatures on Earth are, and what it feels like to be a woman.  For those of us that might be curious.  On this adventure, they gain some new companions, including the last human female in the cosmos, Trillian (Zooey Deschanel), a chronically depressed robot (with Alan Rickman providing the voice while Warwick Davis manned the costume), and the President of the Galaxy (Sam Rockwell).

If that all sounds fairly random...well, it is.  The primary plot device for this film is a spaceship that has an "Infinite Improbability Drive," which allows just about anything to happen in this movie.  Randomness might not be great for a coherent plot, but it does help with some fantastic visuals.  This movie doesn't do much with CGI special effects, instead opting for men in rubber suits, and it's a great choice.  All the aliens in this movie look amazing, from the bovine Vogon race to Humma Kavula's (John Malkovich's) spindly lower body.  These special effects choices were made, I think, not to impress you with the action sequences, but to be as funny and weird as the source material demanded.  Could this movie have been made with an animated depressed robot, voiced by Alan Rickman?  Of course.  They could have gone the Scooby Doo route, but it's much funnier to see an actual person wobble around with such a top-heavy costume.  Director Garth Jennings' only previous film work was on music videos, and it shows here.  His concern is clearly on the visuals and the timing of little moments, not on the film as a cohesive whole.  And he does an excellent job with that.  This is one of the most visually exciting movies of the past decade; Hitchhiker's has it all, from aliens and robots, to an entire scene where the characters and setting have been turned into yarn.

The visuals would not hold up nearly as well without impeccable casting.  Choosing Martin Freeman as the everyman character was a good move and Zooey Deschanel does a good job as a woman looking for the extraordinary.  Mos Def does a fantastic job as Ford Prefect, showing a talent for timing an understatement that he hasn't used a lot since (the adorable Be Kind Rewind being the only notable exception).  Sam Rockwell is hilarious as the bombastic airhead, President Zaphod Beeblebrox; I can totally understand his character annoying some viewers, but even his little gestures make me laugh here.  If you're not perfectly entertained by those two interacting, then there's nothing I can do to make this a more pleasurable movie experience for you.  Well, I guess I could point out the always awkward and charming Bill Nighy and his understated performance as a custom-made planet designer.

It is rare for a live action film to have the need for several voice actors, but this is an odd film.  Voice acting is, nowadays at least, a hit or miss field.  Movie studios usually want someone famous to lend their voice, regardless of how expressive that voice may be.  Luckily, this movie has some of the best voice acting you will find in any movie.  Ever.  Alan Rickman as a droll, clinically depressed, super smart robot?  Yes, please!  Helen Mirren as the biggest, smartest, and fastest computer ever created?  Sure, why not?  Thomas Lennon as an inappropriately optimistic computer for a spaceship?  That's an interesting casting choice, but it definitely works here.  Rounding out the voice cast, Stephen Fry does a perfect job as the narrator of the story and the reader of any Hitchhiker's Guide entries.

Douglas Adams wrote the screenplay for this movie, but died before it went into production.  The screenplay does differ significantly in parts from the book, but Adams made radical changes every time the story was adapted to a new medium (it's been on the radio and TV, as well), so that shouldn't be a big deal for rabid fans.  This isn't a movie that is slavishly indebted to the book that it is based upon.  This is a movie (written by the book's author) that understands the need for visuals to match the storytelling of the book.  No, this isn't a great story.  It is a lot of harmless fun, though. 

The Fantastic Mr. Fox

Roald Dahl and Wes Anderson...in retrospect, it's hard to believe it took this long for those two names to be connected.  Dahl, the author of so many delightful, dark, and subversive children's books, seems to have delighted in writing legitimate literature for the young and the old.  In his books, adults were often evil, and the world is full of evil, so it always seemed fantastic when things went right.  Wes Anderson is perhaps the youngest genius director working in Hollywood right now.  His films don't always work (I'm looking at you, The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou), but they are always worth watching.  As the writer and director of his movies, Anderson pays an amazing amount of attention to detail in all his films, so much so that re-watching his movies can often be a revelatory experience.  Anderson doesn't like telling safe or typical stories, so him basing a script on a Dahl book is a natural fit.

The first thing you will notice about this movie is the animation.  Anderson wanted to capture the look and feel of the original King Kong, so stop-motion animation was used.  However, unlike the claymation-style animation from Gumby or the original Clash of the Titans, this animation looks absolutely painstaking.  The hairs on each animal move.  Not all at the same time, or even in the same direction.  They move naturally, which is extremely difficult to achieve through artificial means.  The characters are far more expressive than you would think possible with this technology.  The animation style changes, from the ultra-detailed work of the close shots to fast and loose two-dimensional shots used to pass time quickly and show off the cartooniness of the story.  Nowadays, Pixar studios have the animation market cornered with their terrific computer animated films.  The Fantastic Mr. Fox is a welcome reminder that animation comes in many shapes and forms, and can be just as amazing as the best that technology has to offer --- or even better.

That's just the animation, though.  What about the story?  This is the tale of Mr. Fox (voiced by George Clooney), a former chicken thief turned family man.  Mr. Fox has sworn off the risky life of chicken thievery to please his wife, Mrs. Fox (Meryl Streep), and provide for his son, Ash (Jason Schwartzman).  The movie conveniently skips over the twelve years where Mr. Fox kept to the straight and narrow and focuses on when he eventually starts stealing again.  There are three mean farmers near the Fox household.  Fox plunders them systematically until they decide to fight back.  This movie doesn't pull its punches with the mean humans; they have might and machines, and are willing to use them.  Fox's home is torn apart and the entire neighborhood is ruined, making Fox and his entire community homeless.  That doesn't mean that Fox stops fighting, of course.

Wes Anderson adds quite a bit to Dahl's original story, partly to make it feature-length and partly to fit into his unique cinematic vision.  The most notable change is the number of children, from four in the book to one in the movie.  This sets up Fox's somewhat odd son, Ash, for a rivalry with his cousin, the athletic Kristofferson; Mr. Fox seems underwhelmed by Ash, while openly applauding Kristofferson.  Then again, it wouldn't be a Wes Anderson movie without a strained father/son relationship, would it?

The voice acting here is fine, overall, but could be better.  Clooney is excellent as Mr. Fox.  Willem Dafoe is very entertaining as Fox's animal nemesis, the rat.  Bill Murray does a good job with Mr. Badger; not good enough to cancel out Garfield, but still pretty good.  Overall, though, it probably would have been better with voice actors.  As it is, the cast is a blend of Anderson's friends, coworkers, and actors that he likes.  That means that Adrien Brody, Brian Cox, Owen Wilson, director Garth Jennings, musician Jarvis Cocker, and Wes Anderson himself all make small contributions to the voice cast.  Anderson earns loyalty from his actors unlike any other director today; that is why so many of the same actors work with him, picture after picture, even if their part is minute.  That works wonders in an ensemble movie.  This is animated, though, and that affection does not always show through.  While the voice acting could have been better, it certainly could have been much, much worse (I'm thinking of Shark Tale as an example).  The movie circles around Clooney's character, so that makes a lot of the shortcomings inconsequential; it's called The Fantastic Mr. Fox, not An Animal Ensemble featuring Mr. Fox, after all.

From a visual standpoint, this movie is superb.  From a directorial standpoint, this movie is pretty awesome.  But the story...well, it is ambitious, but doesn't quite hit a home run.  Anderson's script calls attention to the anthropomorphic aspects of the characters, pointing out some of their odd behaviors, all while reemphasizing the fact that these animals are, in fact, animals.  It's not quite metafilm, but it's close.  The movie likes to step back and point out some of the oddities of animals acting like people, and that quality of self-awareness, while often funny, detracts from the story . It sometimes felt like Mr. Fox was giving me the old wink-wink-nudge-nudge, letting me know that animals don't really act like this.  This isn't overt stuff, like Jimmy Fallon mugging the camera, but I noticed it.  Anderson also takes the time to show the consequences of Mr. Fox's actions; Fox's selfishness (or wildness, I suppose) threatens the lives of his friends and family in the short- and long-term, makes his son feel inadequate, and might ruin his marriage.  This is theoretically fine, but a little heavy-handed in practice.  Do I need a realistic marital argument in a children's film about foxes?  No, but I admit that it was written well.  The fact that it was written, though, just feels like a case of wrong time, wrong place.