Yesterday, I watched the new trailer for Leap Year, an Amy Adams / Matthew Goode-starring romantic comedy set partly in Ireland. I would've written about it immediately, but it took a full 24-hours for me to stop gaping at my screen, throwing things and then plotting death by firing squad for all those involved. I'm OK now, honest. And I do think Amy Adams is ace, usually. But...well, see for yourself....
2012 is in cinemas, in which Roland Emmerich oversees the destruction of most of the surface of the globe in a cataclysm. The film is, as you'd expect, completely bananas but kinda fun once you get past the stock characters and on-the-nose dialogue. But what really stands out in the film is the science. Now we're not experts, but we're nevertheless saying it's what's technically known as "well dodgy".
Aside from the fact that even NASA reckons we have nothing to worry about, our fairly basic grasp of physics suggests that the catastrophe, as described, doesn't quite hang together. We're told in the first five minutes that the apocalypse is caused by "mutated neutrinos" which start heating up the interior of the Earth "like microwaves". Now, kinda seems to me that a) sub-atomic neutrinos don't generally Hulk out and b) if there were powerful microwaves coming from the Sun and boiling...
Fantastic Mr Fox I didn't have high hopes for Wes Anderson's latest but it charmed me. With the exception of Jarvis Cocker's rotten song, it's a much more rounded film than The Darjeeling Ltd was, which I notice now was written by Anderson, Roman Coppola and Jason Schwartzman. Fox, co-written with Noah Baumbach (his co-writer on The Life Aquatic), doesn't quite seem to try so hard, and is much more of a fit with the earlier films (which, incidentally, were co-written by Owen Wilson, whose cameo here really sold me on the film). Ooh rating: Ooh! Ooh!
The Men Who Stare At Goats I was aware when I handed in my review of it that this would divide people, and I agree with many of the criticisms (the ending is especially weak). But! It has Jeff Bridges; George Clooney with a moustache (and dancing); Jeff Bridges; Stephen Lang running into walls; Jeff Bridges; Stephen Root killing a hamster with his mind; Kevin Spacey being the funniest he's been since Swimming ...
I'm in a bit of a tricky spot, and I'm hoping that the collective wisdom of Empire readers can get me out of it. My generally delighful and lovely but rather strong-minded extended family is getting together this Christmas for my grandmothers XXth birthday* and before the big family dinner we're going to a tiny little private cinema somewhere in deepest, darkest Northern Ireland to see a movie. The question is: what movie? And specifically, since there's a film journalist in the family and she's been lumped with choosing what to watch, how am I going to avoid getting given just socks for Christmas after offending everyone with my choice?
Here are the players: a grandmother of mature years and taste that rather precludes too much sex, violence or bad language. A nine-year-old cousin. A smattering of teenagers. Some aunts and uncles with strong opinions on films, the kind who have been known to walk out of a cinema when they don't like what's on. And me, trying to find something they'll all like.
Yesterday I found Babe: Pig in the City on TV and finally decided to find out if it was disappointing (as I'd heard) or one of the best sequels ever (as I'd also heard). Turns out it was pretty darn fantastic, what with the witty geography*, demented storyline and superb animal acting, occasionally augmented by CGI. But it's also really rather disturbing, what with a death and police brutality and animal experimentation and some vicious animal fights and even a moment where a dog goes to heaven. All of which chimed with recent and upcoming films like A Christmas Carol, Where The Wild Things Are and Coraline, which look like family films but are proper scary as well. So how frightening is OK for kids?
Because both Coraline and Where The Wild Things Are (on its US release) drew semi-hysterical reactions from adults worried that children would be traumatised by the more intense and darker scenes in the films. OK, losing your eyes for buttons and/or headi...
Hugh Jackman has decided that he won't be returning next year to host the 82nd Annual Academy Awards - but who will take up the batonmantle envelope in his place? After the changes to the show's format last year, do they have to be able to sing and dance? Should they be devastatingly handsome and able to pop claws if anyone tries to run over the alloted time for their thank-you speech? Or is massive personal charisma most important? Here are a few contenders we came up with to take over the show.
Ricky Gervais
PROS: Everyone in the entertainment industry seems to adore him, and he pretty much makes Americans laugh just by turning up, which would make the opening monologue a doddle. He's been talked about for the gig for ages, and he's surely got to actually get asked one of these days.
CONS: His films haven't managed huge box-office in the US, so it may be that Oscar producers are worried that his appeal doesn't extend outside the ...
