Midnight in Paris

I grew up with stupid comedies.  I love early Steve Martin and Mel Brooks, I can't help enjoying the nonstop barrage of movies like Airplane! or Top Secret!, and I have an unwavering love for the first Ace Ventura, despite the butt-talking.  I blame my dad for exposing my young mind to such perfectly crafted stupidity, but let's be honest --- I probably would have found my way to these movies without his help.  Not surprisingly, I grew up enjoying early Woody Allen films like Sleeper and Bananas, as well.  And, after those...well, there's pretty large gap.  I've never been able to endure the earnest awkwardness of Annie Hall (I think I've started it about six times and never made it more than thirty minutes in).  Someone told me that The Purple Rose of Cairo was amazing --- and it is clever, I'll agree --- but I certainly wasn't prepared for a Woody Allen movie that wasn't peppered with jokes.  Every time Allen releases a film (approximately every 4-8 months, from what I can tell), I always hear comments from Woody's apologists, saying "It's his best movie since ____," but I typically have never felt like watching the referenced movie, much less something with Jason Biggs in it.  Nevertheless, I did break from tradition and see Midnight in Paris.  And, to all the haters of the Woody Allen subgenre out there: the Allen apologists are right on this one.

Gil (Owen Wilson) is on a vacation in Paris with his fiancee, Inez (Rachel McAdams), and it's pretty obvious that they're not a great couple.  On paper, they should work; Gil is a successful Hollywood screenwriter and she...well, I'm not sure if she has a profession, but she appears to be wealthy, pretty and sociable --- a solid pairing for Hollywood brown-nosing.  Gil isn't satisfied, though.  He has taken time off work to write his first novel, and it's not going as well as he would have liked.  He's hoping to be inspired by the city of Paris, where so many of his idols lived and loved in the 1920s; Inez just hopes he will snap out of it so they can move to Malibu.  But no, Gil wants to drink in the romance of the city.  As luck would have it, the pair accidentally encounter some of Inez's friends, Paul (Michael Sheen) and Carol (Nina Arianda), and Gil's romantic Paris getaway becomes a group tour, where Paul narrates the history and meaning of everything they see.  Paul's knowledge and accuracy are questionable at best, but Carol and Inez fawn over him.  Annoyed by Paul's powerfully distilled blowhard-edness, Gil decides to spend some time on his own in Paris.

"And here's to you shutting the hell up"

He finds himself alone and drunk in an alley when the clock strikes midnight.  A car pulls up to the curb and the occupants invite him inside.  Being drunk, Gil doesn't notice how odd everyone is dressed until he finds himself at a party, introduced to Zelda (Alison Pill) and Scott (Tom Hiddleston) , arguably the poster boy for romantic writers obsessed with Paris.  And they are exactly as he always imagined they would be!

Specifically, Gil imagined they would be also play  Sex Bob-omb's drummer and Loki

Following the Fitzgeralds to another party, Gil meets and befriends Ernest Hemingway (Corey Stoll), who agrees to take Gil's novel to Gertrude Stein for an opinion.  But when he leaves the bar, he has returned to the present day.  If you were faced with a present where you feel unaccomplished and unhappy, and a "golden age" where you can interact with your idols, which would you pick?  Understandably, Gil starts living for the time he can spend in the past.  That's not particularly healthy, though.

Worst breakup speech ever: "I'm from the future..."

First things first, I must admit that I've never been to Paris, so I don't know how accurately Woody Allen is portraying the city.  I will say that Midnight in Paris does a good job capturing the romantic and exciting allure of the city; I don't know how much of that is rooted in reality, anyway.  At this point in his career, Woody Allen has been a legitimate film legend for at least thirty years, so he can fill his cast with just about any actor he wants and use them on an unabashedly nostalgic project.  On so many levels, Midnight in Paris should not work.  Owen Wilson has to be sympathetic, yet flawed, instead of smarmy and slightly more likable than some other jerk, which is his typical range; nostalgia can make for some poignant moments, but there's a fine line between that and quaintness; the story is pining for an age that most audiences have a limited knowledge of (at best) in a city that most audiences have never been.  The fact that Midnight in Paris works --- and is good, to boot --- is nothing short of astounding.

A big reason for this film's success comes from the actors.  I have never liked Owen Wilson much; I can enjoy him in Wes Anderson films, but I find him annoying in everything else.  Here, though, you're not supposed to completely like him --- and I can do that!  This is definitely the most complicated part I have seen Wilson play, and I thought he pulled it off with charm.  The intentionally unlikable characters (Rachel McAdams and her parents, played by Mimi Kennedy and the often kooky Kurt Fuller) were exactly what they were supposed to be; you were never supposed to like them even a little bit, but they were realistic enough to remind you of someone.  I also loved how convincingly Michael Sheen played a confident know-it-all; I think Sheen is underrated in America, but he delivered a lot of good lines in a style that was perfect for a habitual bullshitter.  For me, though, this is a film made by the bit parts.  There are so many actors --- good actors, too --- who had small roles, playing historical parts, and they were all very entertaining.  I'm not an F. Scott Fitzgerald fiend, but I was instantly able to recognize Scott and Zelda in this movie and it felt right to me.  Similarly, I absolutely loved every moment that included Adrien Brody's Salvador Dali impression and Kathy Bates as Gertrude Stein.

I also loved every mention of rhinoceroses

Marion Cotillard was typically lovely, although it is probably difficult to convincingly play a muse; Cotillard's American career continues to mature, as this is yet another atypical leading lady role that she has taken on of late.  Corey Stoll's work as Hemingway was equally impressive; for an actor I had never even heard of to turn in such a bad-ass manly performance was a treat.

Whatever comes out of his mouth can double as a Dos Equis or Old Spice commercial

I also liked Léa Seydoux as the local French gal; it wasn't an especially difficult role, but she was certainly adequate.  There are a few other notable appearances --- Mrs. France, Carla Bruni, has a fairly easy part and Oliver Rabourdin gets to play Gauguin --- but nothing as scene-stealing as what I've already mentioned.

With so many good acting performances, it should not be surprising that I liked Woody Allen's direction.  When he has a good script, Allen can coax out some remarkable performances from actors that typically get out-acted by Jackie Chan.

"To be fair, that was only twice..."

The whole film was extremely clever, and Allen took full advantage by laying visual breadcrumbs for the audience to pick up (or overlook), with regards to certain subplots.  Of course, since Allen directed Midnight in Paris, that means he also wrote it, so that whole "clever" thing goes double here.  I have a passing knowledge of Paris and its expatriates in the 1920s and even some knowledge of the Moulin Rouge-era; I certainly did not catch or appreciate every reference Allen includes in his script and direction, but I knew enough to be impressed by what I understood.  Even if you are oblivious to Gil's "golden age," this is still a very entertaining film; the characters are vibrant and strange and generally enjoyable.  More important than any of that, though, is the overall message.  In a year when so many movies (Hugo, The Artist, Super 8, etc.) have bent over backwards to give the glorious past a friendly handjob, Woody Allen (who has had his share of nostalgic flicks) made a movie that acknowledges that impulse, but then turns that into a forward-facing vision.  I found that incredibly refreshing and that's part of why this film left me with a silly grin on my face.

It is easy to enter into Midnight in Paris with some misconceptions.  It has elements of a romantic comedy; it could have slapstick humor in it, given the writer/director and cast; it could be a snooty Francophilic tribute; it could be yet another underwhelming film from an aging talent.  If you like France or French things, I think you will love this movie.  If you don't give a rat's ass about France, you will probably find it amusingly clever.  If you wish they had never changed the name back from American Fries, then you probably can't read, anyway.  This is easily one of the most well-written movies of 2011 and a welcome reminder of just how good Woody Allen can be.

Night at the Museum: The Battle of the Smithsonian

Have you seen Night at the Museum?  In it, Ben Stiller plays a night watchman at a museum that contains the Golden Tablet of Akhmenrah, a magical ancient Egyptian artifact that somehow animates the displays at the museum, making them come to life at night.  That means that the stuffed Teddy Roosevelt, the dinosaur skeleton, the figures in miniature displays, etc.... all those exhibits become animated and come to life.  Are they people or things?  Let's just refer to them as exhibimations.  Hijinks ensued when the exhibimations did blah blah blah and everyone learned a valuable lesson.  And that lesson was, despite being alive only at night, the exhibimations are not, in fact, vampires.  Yet.  Is everybody caught up?  Too bad!

Time for the sequel!  After the events of Night at the Museum, Larry Daley (Ben Stiller) has moved on with his life, quitting his job as night watchman for the American Natural History Museum to become a wealthy and successful inventor/TV pitch man.  Just think of him as the ShamWow guy, minus the arrest record for hooker beating.  After several months of not visiting, Larry stops by the museum as it closes, only to find that it is really closing --- closing for renovations and upgrades; interactive holograms will replace many of the display pieces, with only a precious few staying behind.  Dr. McPhee (Ricky Gervais), the museum director, tells Larry that the old exhibits will be shipped to the Smithsonian Institute in Washington, DC, where they will probably sit unseen in their basement archives for years.  And then McPhee leaves Larry in the closed museum, free to walk about on his own.  An interesting choice, I suppose.  Larry plays catch up with his old museum buddies, but is told confidentially by Teddy Roosevelt (Robin Williams) that, unbeknownst to most of the exhibimations, the Golden Tablet of Akhmenrah will be staying in the Natural History Museum, along with Teddy and Akhmenrah; tragically, this will be the final night the Smithsonian-bound exhibimations will enjoy their unnatural nocturnal lives!  You can never trust exhibimations, though.  Larry's nemesis from the first film, the monkey Dexter, stole the Tablet and it was packed away with the stuff going to the Smithsonian.  The Tablet was fun in the relatively small Natural History Museum, but the Smithsonian is the world's largest museum.  Chaos and even more hijinks are assured!

You would think that hijinks would be enough for the movie (it was for the first one, after all), but sequels like to turn everything up a few notches.  Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian gives Larry a villain to defeat: the kindly Akhmenrah's brother, Kahmunrah (Hank Azaria).  More warlike than his brother, Kahmunrah wants to use the Golden Tablet to open the Gate to the Underworld, where he will get an army that will conquer the world.  At least, during nighttime hours.  Will Larry defeat the evil voice actor, or will the third movie in the franchise be titled Night at the Museum: Surrender at Appomattox? 

Oftentimes, the success of a sequel depends on how much of its original cast returned.  In this way, Battle of the Smithsonian definitely succeeded.  Returning cast members include Ben Stiller, Robin Williams, Owen Wilson, Steve Coogan, Ricky Gervais, Mizuo Peck, and Brad Garrett (as a voice).  At the Smithsonian, we meet a whole new cast of characters, including Amelia Earhart (Amy Adams), George Custer (Bill Hader), and Ivan the Terrible (Chrisopher Guest), along with Kahmunrah and a cast of dozens more.  Other noteworthy actors that pop up in bit parts include Jonah Hill, Eugene Levy (as a voice), the Jonas Brothers (as voices), Ed Helms, George Foreman, Craig Robinson, Clint Howard, Jay Baruchel, Thomas Lennon and Robert Ben Garant.


The first Museum felt pretty busy, despite a cast that featured a lot of animals and cavemen; this one feels like it has ADD.  There are way too many recognizable actors playing way too many roles that get decent screen time, so none of the new characters (with the possible exception of Ameila Earhart) get developed at all.  Even Larry's motivation is hard to figure out this time around. Last time, Larry was trying to prove that he was not a loser to his son and ex-wife.  This time, his successful business makes him too busy for his son or a girlfriend.  He runs to the Smithsonian because the exhibimations are suddenly important to him again and because he knows the havoc they will wreak.  That's fine, but it doesn't have the emotional core that most family films strive for.

The acting in the movie was fine, if fairly basic.  Almost all of the characters were caricatures, so they're basically just a visual gag and maybe a few lines.  I'm not a Ben Stiller fan, but I didn't mind him in the first Museum; here, though, he comes across as cocky and not nearly as likable.   I don't understand why Hank Azaria can be cast in any ethnic role, but even if I was okay with him playing an Egyptian pharoh, I still wouldn't understand his lisp.  Really?  A lisp?  For that to work, you really have to put some effort in, like the forty or fifty jokes Monty Python did in Life of Brian.  This was just lazy.  Amy Adams is pretty, but her zany 1920s accent drove me nuts; if she didn't mention speakeasies, the jitterbug, dancing on a pole, or Calvin Coolidge, it's only because the lines got cut.  Adams is a likable actress, and her character was kind of appealing, but her voice was obnoxious.

Director Shawn Levy is not a terribly talented comedic director.  He does mostly family comedies, filled with lots of characters.  I get why he directed this, and he probably did a decent job with the script he was given.  The script was disappointing, though.  Written by Thomas Lennon and Robert Ben Garant (of Reno: 911! fame), this film was just sight gag after sight gag.  These two are not the most consistent of screenwriters (see Herbie: Fully Loaded.  Or don't.), but they have definitely done better work.  This attempt comes across as shallow and simple, without the warmth that made adults forgive their children for making them sit through it.  Visually, this is a pretty good movie.  There are even several almost funny jokes.  Given the talent in this movie, though, it was a big disappointment, even for a family movie.

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.