Quick Takes: "Fantastic Mr. Fox", "Sword in the Stone", "Dr. Strangelove"

"Fantastic Mr. Fox"

Directed by Wes Anderson

Wes Anderson is one of those directors who appeals to the quirkier side of film direction, which is an area that quite often feels rather stilted and passionless to me. All that said, there is something about that style that translates rather well to animation, and "Fantastic Mr. Fox" is such a pleasant surprise because of that. Filled to the brim with gleeful pointlessness, Anderson fills in the holes in the plot with some hilariously tucked human commentary. True, there are still scenes that ring not just utterly ridiculous, but have no purpose to actual film. That glaring fact that this is an artificial construct can be rather distracting at times, but Wes is just having so much fun with this new toy of stop-motion that you just get taken in with his exuberance about it.

"The Sword in the Stone"

Directed by Wolfgang Reitherman

It's rather dismaying to revisit childhood films and find that they're rather massively lacking in story, character, and style. My memories of this film had been fond, until I started watching it again, at which point it paled to playing out not just predictably, but with no passion whatsoever. From the first moment, it feels like everything's already happened. You're generally familiar with the story, know what's happening, and the film doesn't even create any tension in that respect. Neither does it create characters that are at all endearing. Merlin is rather pathetically silly and pointless, and Arthur is just plain, dull, and rather pathetic. The film's a catalyst to turn people into animals, and not in a particularly interesting way. It's all to easy, and there's really no joy there.

The "Catching Fire" Director Scramble

Okay, so I no longer feel incredibly isolated in my belief that "The Hunger Games" was just terrible, as Kris Tapley seems to clearly agree with me. But ignoring my detest of the film, I nevertheless remain solid at the post of interest in whoever ends up chosen to direct the high profile sequel, "Catching Fire". Why? Because I quite simply have to believe that a direct can swoop in and bring back the franchise from the edge of chaos. Personally, my dream list was narrowed down to three, and seeing as Stanley Kubrick is dead, that one certainly isn't about to come to fruition. Given the three act structure of the books, Kubrick would have been an ace at the handle.

The other two are about as far from being chosen as Kubrick, with the top being Lynne Ramsay. Given her breathtaking character work on "Morvern Callar" and "We Need to Talk About Kevin", one can only assume she'd expose the psychological crevices of Katniss' post-games mentality. The other one, and the one I still hope against hope is chosen, is Tarsem Singh. Coming off of two of the most ridiculous films of the past couple months, yet also two of the most cinematically soaring, the man would take whatever is given to him in the script and make it soar. I haven't a doubt in my mind on that, but the fact of the matter is, the search has already narrowed.

TOP 10 SHOTS from "A.I. Artificial Intelligence"

In searching for a film to tackle cinematically for this week's segment, I kept running into road blocks. Seeing as "The Hunger Games" is arriving to much anticipation this weekend, it felt necessary to find something that ties into it, which is easier said than done. At first my mind went immediately to "Winter's Bone", also from Lionsgate and also starring Jennifer Lawrence. But once I got into it, I realized that the film isn't visually all that intriguing. As impressive a film as it is, it gets of by the grit of Debra Granik's teeth and the performances from John Hawkes and Jennifer Lawrence. More of the latter actor in my book. Lawrence's performance is undeniably tough, but sadly overrated.

Moving on from there, I went to Gary Ross' prior filmography for inspiration. No vein in my body wants to see "Seabiscuit" ever again. That film has caused me too much grief already. I do, however, have a compulsion to revisiting "Pleasantville" at some point, either for this segment or not. If nothing else, I remember the film being quietly arousing. With Ross out of the way, I looked briefly at cinematographer Tom Stern, but most of his experience comes from dreary and repetitive work on Clint Eastwood's body of work. No luck there, and I leave everyone involved in the film in the dust.

THE LISTS: Ranking Stanley Kubrick

Before anyone else even has the chance to chastise me, I'll beat you to it. How the hell have I gone through nineteen years of my life without being touched once by the genius of Stanley Kubrick? How did I get by this long without seeing his influence in my rear-view? In a word, barely. In the first sixteen years of my life, I'd describe myself as a complete and total idiot. By eighteen, still painfully limited. By nineteen, a point of confidence and individuality, but still not quite complete. I have made more headway towards becoming the sort of influential filmmaker that I want to be most in the past week and a half than I have in almost my entire life.

To say that Stanley Kubrick has had a great deal of influence on several high profile filmmakers is an understatement. The man practically defined perfection in cinema at a time when it was still searching for a definitive form. Not to say that his films are the absolute, unequivocal best, and that no other film could top his #1. I think that'd be just far too insane and geekish a statement for everyone. Still, there is no other filmmaker who has taken up the task of perfection in medium quite as much or as sincerely as Kubrick. If you've not seen and loved a film of his, you are of a dead nature to me, and I'm afraid there's no hope for you.

The moment I'd made my way through two of his films, I knew that I couldn't stop until I was done. And with Halloween just waiting around the corner, and me not quite willing or prepared to make a list of the top horror films this year, I felt this was the perfect opportunity for a list. After all, you can find sinister undertones permeating through most of his films, outside his sole horror venture. There are very few that don't have that touch. Though I must say that I couldn't include all of Kubrick's films. There were some that just didn't match up. "Killer's Kiss" was too banal a piece, and though "Lolita" had a characteristically strong start, I couldn't make it out of that first hour without feeling uninterested. So it's with the utmost of honor that I run down the ranking of Kubrick's ten other features, after the jump.

Okay. Let's Talk.

Remember on Sunday when I said that something had been taking up my time with almost complete devotion, so much that I didn't want to do anything else? Remember when I told you you'll find out what it was on Friday? Well, I'm going to give you a big hint right now, and I urge you to give this a look. If you follow me on twitter, this is no surprise to you.

What A Piece of Work is "A.I."

It came upon me, completely by accident, that this weekend celebrates the 10th anniversary of Steven Spielberg's 2001 science-fiction feature A.I. Artificial Intelligence. As the years have come and gone, many have talked about the film's numerous merits and pitfalls, and I admit to trepidation of my own. To this day, I still can't quite embrace what Spielberg and the late great Stanley Kubrick have come together to create, but that's not to say that I can't appreciate it. An earnest supporter of creative and outstanding science-fiction, as evidenced by my constant backing of Fringe, A.I. still maintains a sort of heightened excitement for me.

What pushes me back is the central discomfort of the fusion of robot and child, as the two have time and time again proved a lethal combination. I fear to reference recent science-fiction short Blinky, as it still is fighting its way into my nightmares. To that affect, A.I. is something of a sweet refresher, but still greatly disturbing. In the first forty minutes of the film, David, played by Haley Joel Osment, is as stale, creepy, and uncomfortable a child as possible. In truth, that's by complete intention. The real standout is the eighty minutes that follow, and the journey David undergoes.

There is quite a bit of this film that is kind of ridiculous and over-the-top, but doesn't that usually come of even the best science-fiction? The world painted in the film is a deeply cynical one, and while many would like to contribute that as Kubrick's last brilliant move, much of that came from Spielberg. At the turn of the millennium, Spielberg was at the top of his game. He contains a near seamless array of science-fiction ideas, whilst most films buckle under the rules of their own sci-fi concept. I may never be able to embrace this as a work of true genius, but I am able to acknowledge it. Janusz Kaminski's beautiful cinematography help aid Spielberg in his most expressionistic and ambitious of works.