"Ladies, gentlemen, sheep..."

Iron Man 3 02/05/2013

Director: Shane Black

Writers: Shane Black & Drew Pearce

2013

We have arrived at Iron Man 3, and the series is now well established, with a little help from his friends, The Avengers. That film is a hard act to follow, and the new Iron Man's story is very much a continuation on from that, featuring small references as well as the anxiety Stark is suffering from, which is the driving force for his character development. This was perhaps the wisest move made by the writing team of Shane Black (also director) and Drew Pearce. They come from the point of view that Stark is a talented mechanic, and that dealing with gods, aliens, and a near death experience isn't what he set out to deal with when he first donned his armour in Iron Man (2008).

There are many ramifications of this – a threat to his relationship with Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow, who got a bigger role), his obsession with building new armour (now up to version 42, which in my opinion has a little too much gold on it, but whatever, I can't even build a robot), and his general reluctance to deal with his life. Stark has (certainly in the movies) always been more towards the 'responds with a witticism and all winning self confidence' end of the superhero brooding scale, and while there was elements of realism and grit in the previous films, giving him genuine mental anguish changes the character fundamentally. That risk paid off.

What worked less for me was the external threat. Ben Kingsley as the Mandarin was brilliant, being portioned out throughout the film in well made, and threatening, monologues intended to strike fear in to (the Marvel version of) the USA. It was a cool tactic, and I kept connecting the look of the character along with the style of his videos with real world terrorists, particularly Osama Bin Laden. However all the mystery and intrigue this created fell flat towards the end of the film and I was left still demanding satisfaction. The other threat – Guy Pearce as Aldrich Killian, while well acted, failed to really get my attention. Perhaps it was because the Mandarin was initially so well executed, but Killian never felt like a real threat, clever, powerful, and dangerous: yes. Unnerving: no.

I was entertained at all times, and that is what I want from these films. The action was on par with the first two efforts (although I was dubious about the level of threat Stark was able to deal with when not suited up), and the already mentioned anxiety did not stop the now obligatory one liners, served with a side of likeability by Robert Downey JR. who has been consistently high quality over 4 films. I didn't see an issue with him being able to carry on with his role for another couple of films at least. I will give a special mention for the writing/acting of Harley (Ty Simpkins), a ten year old that helps Stark out through a particular low point. I have an extremely low threshold to child sidekicks/helpers in films, but there wasn't too much of this kid, he wasn't trying to be anything that most 10 year olds aren't, and he was part of some of the biggest laughs. What a nice change.

If you liked the others, then this will still be worth a trip out, and in many ways it is superior to them (character development). New director for the series Shane Black did well attempting something different with the thriller aspects (though I did miss Favreau's touch). Micky Rourke still takes the prize for the best villain of the trilogy though, and I think that some of the cool concepts that where available didn't have an impact on screen.

"Is that cork?"

King of Comedy 01/07/2012

Director: Martin Scorsese

Writer: Paul D. Zimmerman

1983

            Like many reading this I have watched all the major Scorsese films – Mean Streets (1973), Taxi Driver (1976) Goodfellas (1990), you get the picture. However there are some that are just less talked about, less revered. How can it be that a Scorsese-De Niro collaboration isn’t always mentioned among the greats? I had no clue whether to expect a bad film or not, but I thought it was about time I watched King of Comedy (1983).

            We see De Niro among a bustling crowd of autograph seekers outside a Jerry Lewis live TV show. Jerry Lewis for those who don’t know is the ‘Lewis’ in Martin and Lewis, a mammoth American comedy partnership, who had his own successful career as did Dean Martin. As the crowd wrestles itself to get access to Jerry we hear De Niro (with moustache, greased hair and loud sports jacket) telling other autograph hunters that he is different, that “it’s not my whole life”. We get a glimpse of a dark side of fan obsession as Masha (Sandra Bernhard) squeezes through Jerry Lewis’s limousine window, declaring her love. Here Scorses freezes the frame and juxtaposes with smooth jazz as he rolls the credits. Then BLAM we are back in to real time and the noise of the frantic crowd. De Niro saves Lewis from Masha’s affection and so gets a chance to speak with him in the limousine.

            He wants to speak to Lewis about a chance to appear on the show. He admires Lewis’s style and comedic delivery. Of course Lewis has had this happen and quite politely and kindly refers Pupkin (De Nero) to his office. Pupkin is rather persistent and we suspect that he lied when he said that this wasn’t his whole life, he quite possibly admires Lewis a little too much. It is here that Scorsese seemed to insert a seamless anachronistic cut to a time where Pupkin has found success and is in fact more successful than Lewis. He is now the one signing autographs and providing help to Lewis. However this is not the case, as Scorsese also cross cuts to Pupkin carrying out his side of the conversation in a basement, interrupted by his mother’s shouting. It was a fantasy then.

            We see Pupkin trying to use his (real) conversation as leverage for a date with the cheerleader from high school who now works in a bar. On the date he alienates her with self aggrandisement and over prepared jokes. He brags but she sees through most of it, however Pupkin is happy to outright lie and claim to be visiting Lewis at his country home, Rita (Diahnne Abbot) should come along. The audiences wonders if Pupkin even realises this is a lie, as he certainly follows through with it, expecting a warm reception from somebody he has had one conversation with who did not invite him.

            Alongside this is Pupkin genuinely trying to get on the show, repeatedly turning up to Lewis’s offices (after falling asleep in a Times Square phone booth awaiting his call) and submitting a tape, being pushy while also compliant and friendly. De Nero exudes fakeness and has a veneer of professionalism that summed up the worst things about business, both show and otherwise. He is urged on by Masha, and when they don’t get anywhere they turn on each other in the street, a great scene, both in its writing and delivery, as they argue vehemently and pay no mind of the New York City street around them. Eventually they hatch a kidnapping plan to get what they both want.

            The character of Rupert Pupkin (people often mispronounce it) reminded me a little of Travis Bickle, in that he wants something and doesn’t fully understand why he can’t have it. This drives him to delusions and to criminal acts, often to impress a woman he is also obsessed with. These characters misinterpret the world while having pretentions of being an important part of it. This makes them tragic as long as there is a balance in the writing and we can understand their perspective, and all Rupert want is one shot at TV fame. That is understandable. However even though Pupkin does some very illegal and questionable things to get what he desires he is never as dark as Bickle, never really violent and always has his end goal in mind. This combined with his tragic basement home populated by cardboard cut out celebrities rather than real friends gives us quite a bit of sympathy. Perhaps him walking the line a little more would have added an extra spark to the film.

            So why is this film less raved about than many of its ilk? Well it is just less...substantial. Nothing is particularly wrong with it, but not much stands out. The performances are great (De Niro often shows his funny side in this such as mishandling cue cards while kidnapping Lewis) and I was surprised that Sandra Bernhard hasn’t had a more high profile career, and also that Lewis was such an engaging actor even when playing himself. The script isn’t too shabby either, and Scorsese got the right kind of tone and look for such a film, with De Nero’s wardrobe and look standing out amongst his mobster performances. However the smooth jazz soundtrack neither adds to nor takes away from the film, and the same can be said about the cinematography, which is dull compared to films like Raging Bull (1980), clever and decisive editing doesn’t make up for that. All in all this is worth watching, and is a good film, but get through the other Scorsese films I mentioned first.

"Use my leg"

The Wrestler 29/05/12

Director: Darren Aronofsky

Writer: Robert D. Seigel

2008

           

            This film is one of my most memorable moments in the cinema. The first Aronofsky film I saw on the big screen and a film that has both spectacle and emotion in amounts that complement each other. I waited a long time to have a rematch with it on DVD and this time I wanted to work out why it had left a mark.

           

            Aronofsky begins by reminding us of the period in the 1980’s that was one of the high points for professional wrestling, which was accompanied by a specific brand of rock and roll. So, as we hear AC/DC play, old posters and match commentary let us know that Randy ‘The Ram’ Robinson was a very big deal in his day. Plenty of real life wrestlers would fit this description, but what we didn’t see was what happened when they got slow and started to age, and as we see Micky Rourke (admittedly in better shape than most viewers) slumped in a child’s chair, coughing after wrestling in a school for a very small fee, we know that he is not the man he was.

            Aronofsky continues to keep Rourke’s back to us as he quietly signs autographs. He seems almost ashamed of how his career has fallen. He is dressed hidden away in a black coat (bearing scars of its own), with his hair tied, and seems restrained. He cannot afford rent on his trailer so sleeps in his car. However the neighbourhood kids still seem to idolize him, and this makes him come alive. Despite having to strap his body together and being a little shaky in his first match in the film, when Aronofsky shows him centre frame, top rope, hair free and performing his signature Ram Jam, he is a man empowered and proud. We also see how he will suffer for his passion as he cuts himself with a razor to convince the crowd of a hit. Now we know who he was, who he is, and what wrestling can make him feel like. We also know what wrestling can make him do to his self.

            At no point does Aronofsky seem to force the character on us. We just watch him in a documentary style. There is no sense of the operatic like in Raging Bull (1980), camera work is handheld and sound is diegetic. The Ram’s life does not feel scripted, he just does what he does and we watch, and plot points come through conversation, the main one being a proposed 20^th anniversary re-match with The Ayatollah. This is dangerous for our protagonist purely because it gives him hope.

            We are introduced to Cassidy (Marisa Tomei) who works at a strip club. With unappreciated chivalry The Ram scares away some abusive customers; Cassidy could have used the money. Tomei transformed somewhat for this role, with fake tattoos and piercings, unafraid to act with all of her body she shows that Cassidy has her own form of scars while The Ram shows off his. She compares him to Jesus, the “Sacrificial Ram”. He tips her well.

We then see Rourke go through a strange training montage involving pumping iron, getting his hair dyed, drinking protein shakes and getting a fake tan. Oh and on top of this he buys steroids and tests items in a DIY shop for their suitability in a hardcore match. In said hardcore match there is barbed wire, staple guns, glass, tables to fall through, and worst of all Necro Butcher (a real life hardcore wrestler who looks like he fell in red paint most matches). The Ram survives, barely, and then proceeds to have a heart attack in the locker room.

 He has tried to go the extra mile in preparation for the recreation of his greatest moment with The Ayatollah and his body has told him enough is enough. On doctor’s orders he stops training, cancels the match and retires. He is lonely and broken, wrestling vicariously on video games. Cassidy seems to be his only ‘friend’ but at her suggestion he attempts to reconnect with his daughter. To keep paying rent he must take on a deli counter position at a supermarket. It is his new ring to step in to (note Aronofsky slipping in crowd noises as Rourke walks through the back corridors to the counter) and with his hairnet as protection he begins to bring showmanship to his job. Things could be picking up; he and his daughter (Evan Rachel Wood) are talking again as well as he and Cassidy getting closer (bonding through their love of the 80’s and hatred of Kurt Cobain).

However this is no love story. Cleverly Cassidy is designed as a mirror for The Ram. She performs on a stage instead of a ring, and is a good mother who wants to go back to her old name Pam, whereas he cannot bear to be called by his, and again misses his chance for redemption after sleeping through a meet up with his daughter after enjoying a few benefits of fame. He loves to be that person, is obsessed and addicted to the crowd cheering as all of Aronofsky’s characters are obsessed by something. This film then poses the ultimate question for such a man: is he to “live hard and play hard and burn the candle at both ends” or hold out for something longer lasting. I am unsure if the route that The Ram chooses is the easy one or the hard one, but watching him make it is the reason this film leaves a mark.

"Stop washing things!"

Another Earth 17/05/12

Director: Mike Cahill

Writers: Mike Cahill, Brit Marling

2011

            The concept for this film (a planet that looks to be capable of supporting life appearing and imposing on the lives of characters on Earth) reminded me of Melancholia(2011), a film which I was very much looking forward to but was let down by. It is one of those curious yet common instances of films with a shared or similar premise being released close together. Often when this happens one is better received than the other, and in this case Another Earth made less of an impact (Melancholia was directed by Lars Von Trier and that was certainly a factor). However due to Melancholia becoming meh-lancolia (sorry) Another Earth was my only hope for this galactic concept to live up to its potential.

            Like Von Trier’s film writers Cahill and Marling made the wise choice of sticking to a couple of linked characters as vehicles for experiencing the planetary phenomenon. While casting a wide net over society may work in some films such as Deep Impact (1998) I think that should be saved for blockbusters. The characters are Rhoda (Brit Marling) and John (William Mapother) who are connected by an accident. Both act very well and I will be looking out for more of their work The accident occurred on the night that the mystery planet was discovered, John lost his family and Rhoda lost her freedom; she was sent to prison for causing the accident. Fast forward 4 years and Rhoda is released, tracks down John (after an artfully shot suicide attempt by freezing to death), and starts to clean his house with him unaware of who she is.

            That is a set up for a very interesting film, potential character conflict that could carry a film by itself with the backdrop of the mystery planet. There is some decent writing, even if it is a little obvious, for example post suicide attempt (ok cool subtext, she wants to stop feeling and be numb) we have a scene where Rhoda tells John she doesn’t mind the cold. OK fine, but why point out the subtext to the audience after the fact? The same thing happens concerning Rhoda’s choice to clean for a living and clean John’s house, pretty obvious what symbolism is pointing to, but they resort to dialogue to point it out in an unconnected scene. Perhaps I was being picky I thought, and my hope was still strong for a quality film.

            I admired how, when dealing with a high concept story (by Mike Cahill), Mike Cahill and his cinematographer....oh that’s Mike Cahill too....erm, made the choice to use camerawork that moves around and keeps us in the real world. This also serves to offset the cold, wintery tone of most of the scenes, and take us just far away from some of the Ingmar Begman worthy misery that the tone isn’t oppressive. That cause is also served by the sharp and sometimes invasive editing (well it’s only done by Mike bloody Cahill!) which when combined with handheld camerawork would usually annoy me and take me out of the story, but juxtaposed as I mentioned with themes of depression and regret it works.

            Other features I admired which create the tone mentioned above are a score that never seems to go away, but rises at opportune moments as good film scores should to highlight a particular emotion, as well as lighting which is well tempered and precise to such a degree of consistency (even when using natural light) that I would happily watch the film again just for that. Unfortunately I can’t give Mike Cahill direct credit for these features as he delegated, but well done anyway. Perhaps the most important tool used in this film is TV and radio sound bites which discuss the possibilities of what the planet may mean for Earth, which becomes known as Earth 1 when we learn that the mystery planet is a mirror of our own. Well the reason that these sound bites stood out to me is they did everything that I wanted the film as a whole to do, and frankly what I wanted Melancholia to do more of; explore the amazing concept! I understand the need to centre the story on a few choice characters but why so much? Yes Rhoda and John’s situation is interesting, but does it warrant staying in one town? On one planet? That is why I found radios spouting philosophy and Avatar (2009) references catching more of my attention than an undeniably interesting personal story.

            Of course the mirror Earth situation does affect Rhoda and John, but for most of the film the only effect is that Rhoda wants to go and meet herself and John wants to stay put. The end result is that two storylines/concepts that would fare well being explored in different films are both dragged down by the other. This combined with a few clumsy lines of dialogue undid much of the great work here by Cahill and his team (of other Mike Cahills). While there is a twist or two worth watching to the end for it could have been much more impressive if they occurred before mundane plot developments two thirds of the way through. I liked this film, and I liked Melancholia...but they fell short.

"In some worlds i'm worshiped as a God"

Heavy Metal 24/04/12

Director: Gerald Potterton

Writers: Daniel Goldberg/Len Blum (screenplay) and others

1981

            For those unfamiliar with this cult eighties film here is a trailer

            And a Wikipedia page

 Heavy Metal - Wikipedia

            Ok so the question is, do you have to be an inebriated, Black Sabbath loving, sexually frustrated teenager from the 80’s to actually enjoy this film? Well I watched it sober so you don’t have to, and frankly fitting into two or more of the above list would aid enjoyment of this film. Luckily I can certainly identify with all of the above (ok not 80’s) so I went in with an open mind, and searching for cheesy fun.

            The film admirably begins like a high concept sci-fi depicting a space shuttle in space, with a sophisticated score and good quality animation. Then an astronaut emerges from the shuttle and begins to re-enter earth’s atmosphere. In a convertible Corvette. Not a car with a secure roof and windows, no because that would be silly, a convertible makes much more sense. At this point I thought this film would be just my kind of crazy. It turns out that the astronaut has brought home a strange green orb from his travels and he shows it to his daughter. The orb then melts him. It is the source of all evil. Cool.

            The rest of the film is divided in to segments depicting the orb’s effect on a different individual, time or world. This is very high concept and has a great deal of potential; however the shorter segments often fall short. We see what lengths people will go through to possess the orb in a segment focusing on a cab driver in futuristic New York City. He is quite a badass himself, it seems that melting people in the back of your cab is ok in the future. He meets a “pretty but dumb” redhead. They have sex. There isn’t some long winded romantic journey they go on, or some sort of relationship development, it just kind of happens. In fact, these segments seem to have a talent for focusing on times and worlds where women struggled to find clothes that could contain their breasts for more than 60 seconds of screen time, and sex seems to be their default activity.

            While I tried to remember that this was 30 years ago and misogyny may have been a little more rampant then it actually does belittle the film. The same can be said about some of the lame jokes, and I wished that the writers had thought a little more of their audience rather than aiming to pack the cinema with 14 year olds. On top of this the animation was simplistic at times and the plot was for some segments were weaker than a Saturday morning cartoon. 

           

            However I went expecting most of that and searching for moments to raise the film up. There certainly are some funny, interesting moments, and most of the section called So Beautiful and So Dangerous was pretty funny, as well as having some interesting allegories to the subculture which was it’s primary audience. The final segment is by far the most fun, and I found myself wondering why the writers didn’t just stick to a full on fantasy sci-fi epic with this one strong female hero (ok she is half naked but give them a break).

            Essentially the film is most interesting when viewed as a product of its time. I can imagine Bill and Ted or the guys from Wayne’s World enjoying this film, and I bet I would have gotten more in to it if I was watching with a few beers and a few friends. It should not be taken too seriously, and it should be laughed at as well as laughed with. As for the soundtrack, apart from a well produced and written original score there are appearances from a number of notable heavy metal bands and artists. ‘Mob Rules’ by Black Sabbath (with the late Ronnie James Dio) was a highlight, but why they had a version of ‘Working in the Coal Mine in there I just don’t know. Anyway, if you want to see a unique film which is anything but dull then get some friends together, and some drinks, and have a good time.

“Describe an encounter with a squirrel”

Into the Abyss 11/04/12

Director/writer: Werner Herzog

2012 (UK)

            I have previously watched director Werner Herzog’s Grizzly Man (2005) and was deeply impressed. It is a formula that is hard to beat in documentary (and presumably hard to find), where a filmmaker combines the roadside-accident appeal of a crime or tragic event with the human realities of such a situation. There has to be a balance of sensationalism to bring viewers in and true emotion to make them leave changed, or you risk going for the easy sell. I also feel it is important for a documentary to present fact in such a way that the audience has room to think and feel for themselves, they must not be manipulated but they need to have an impression made on them.  In Grizzly Man Herzog achieved that, and often it is the interviewee’s reactions and emotions that become the spectacle. But that can be hard to watch.

            So, what is the draw for audiences here? In October 2001, according to the state of Texas, Michael Perry murdered a fifty year old nurse – Sandra Stotler – and was suspected in two other murders, which his accomplice Jason Burkett was convicted for. Perry received the death sentence, which in Texas means lethal injection, while Burkett received a life sentence. Each man denies his involvement and blames the other. Herzog interviews them both (Perry days before his scheduled execution), family of the victims and relatives of Perry and Burkett. Another focal theme in this documentary is whether the death sentence should exist at all, and this film’s release was rushed in the USA to make the greatest impact in relation to Rick Perry’s execution record and a national debate on the death penalty. So there is plenty of grim appeal, as well as interest for the politically minded. However those attributes do not make a good documentary by themselves.

            It was necessary for Herzog to paint a picture of the crime itself, and he does so in a way I found rather chilling. While interviewing a police officer that dealt with the crime they visit the two main crime scenes, as well as intercutting with crime scene video taken as the officers discovered the scene. It’s this P.O.V exploration of a crime scene, the mix of half ready cookie dough and blood splatter that reminds the audience that this isn’t just a T.V. drama, an innocent woman died. We also visit and see real footage of the lake where Sandra Stotler’s body was discovered. We see the body in the water, and it goes past that point of morbid fascination into unpleasant. We also see the bodies of Adam Stotler and Jeremy Richardson in the same way, while hearing details of the crime. It turns out that these three people were murdered because Perry and Burkett wanted to steal a car. At this point it is difficult not to want their murderers to be punished harshly. Herzog matches this chapter in the film to an eerie score and creates an intense atmosphere; he is drawing us in to the film.

            Herzog establishes the film’s preoccupation with the death penalty in before we learn any of the above. He interviews a pastor who is present at state executions. This man goes and, with the prisoner’s permission, holds their ankle as they die, presumably to bring comfort. Herzog asks, in his distinctive voice “Why does God allow capital punishment?” and I recall the question much better than the answer. All this is conducted in a graveyard, and probably as an attempt to lighten the mood Herzog asks the pastor to expand on a comment about a squirrel. At first I thought this was a hilarious question, however somehow it elicited choked tears from the pastor, the squirrels reminded him about the nature of mortality, and of those he sees killed by the state. That Herzog managed to get such a reaction in that way is amazing, and says a lot about the nature of documentaries – usually people already have things they want to say, you just need to ask the right questions. I found the long take of the pastor’s emotional face uncomfortable, and it is far from the only such moment.

Charles Richardson, brother of the victim Jeremy, tells us how their dad was in prison for murder, how Jeremy was the good brother and Charles was the bad apple that introduced him to his killers. He blames himself, and seeing such a tough looking young man break down and cry in the way that he does is hard. Moments like these are what set this film and Grizzly Man apart from others; they make us think twice about why we are watching, make us reflective and receptive, and maybe feel some voyeuristic guilt. They illicit a real response, more than sympathy and we start to think about ourselves in these people’s place. Also part of that feeling are the punishingly sad interviews with Linda Stotler, daughter of Sandra, sister to Adam. The murders took away the last of her family and she became a shut in for 4 years. All this comes together and we begin to hate the murderers.

When we meet Michael Perry he is smiling. He is not scary, perhaps even boyish as he cleans the glass divider between him and Herzog. We come to find he must live largely in denial, always maintaining innocence and hoping his appeal will save him from his scheduled fate a week later. Here Herzog says something very important that he doesn’t have to like him as they talk yet “I think human beings should not be executed”. This sentiment is echoed by a former state executioner, who at one point was performing two executions a week until a change of heart.

We also meet Jason Burkett, who seems more down to earth than Perry, yet also says he is innocent, even a victim of police brutality. We meet Burkett’s father, who is imprisoned across the street, and explains how Jason never had much of a chance with a father like him. His father was the one that got him off the death sentence by pleading with the jury. This is one of the things about this story that keeps you thinking and changing how you feel. Personally I have always had a hard time sticking to one side of this debate for long, and this film wasn’t designed to sway me any way in particular. However I do think it’s something that can never be debated too much; when it comes to mortality you must never take things lightly, and that this film will stimulate debate.

I came to the decision that ultimately it is the families of the victims that stand to benefit emotionally from executions, or not as the case may be, and anybody else’s opinion is just from the outside looking in. But we should still do what this film does, and look. Oh and some of the end scenes have spectacular revelations as well as interesting insights by those interviewed, it left an impression. The framing and editing belies the nature of a documentary, the soundtrack is strong and ultimately the content is provocative.

"I am full of scotch and bitterness and impure thoughts"

We Bought A Zoo 25/03/12

Director: Cameron Crowe

Writers: Aline Brosh McKenna, Cameron Crowe, Benjamin Mee

2011

            This is a film which ticks a lot of boxes for family film success. We have two leads that are in demand, as well as melting hearts on both sides of the gender divide. There is appeal to younger folk, in the form of two prominent child characters as well as a plethora of interesting animals. There is also the family film standby of eccentric supporting characters, which are always best when combined with an accent (the standout in this film is Scottish). Add to this the emotional weight of a dead mother and the basis for the screenplay being a true story and there is quite a bit to hold people’s interest.

            There is also plenty of possibility for cheesy Hollywood formulas and simplistic writing that exploits the title and just adds easy jokes and lazy emotional distress. That is what I was scared of and had me thinking twice about paying to see it. Without Matt Damon (I haven’t seen him go far wrong in a long time) and Scarlett Johannson (she can really act when she picks the right roles) I may have been put off completely, but pay I did.

            The film begins by painting a portrait of Benjamin Mee’s (Damon) life after his beloved wife died. He is a busy man, juggling an adventurous journalism career with raising his teenage son Dylan (Colin Ford) and young daughter Rosie (Maggie Elizabeth Jones). Again this is casting that could make or break such a film, many have been tarnished by poor child actors that stray from endearing to annoying. Rosie is played just right by Miss Jones, she delivers her funny/cute lines as just that, rather than seeming to grab for attention. Colin Ford had perhaps a more difficult job, he plays a moody 14 year old that is misbehaving in school and spends all his time drawing horror-themed pictures. Without any real comedic relief for his character all we get is angst, and despite feeling sympathy for his loss of a parent I couldn’t otherwise invest in the character.

            So in an effort to escape single mothers with a pitying look in their eyes (giving him phone numbers attached to lasagnes) and painful memories in coffee shops, Benjamin phones an estate agent (an entertaining cameo from J.B. Smoove) and, long story short, ends up with a zoo. With this zoo comes staff, where we get our assortment of eccentric supporting performances as well as Kelly Foster (Johansson). Foster is somewhere between a love interest and emotional guide for Benjamin, and the usual love/hate dynamic applies, however the two actors are good enough (along with the writing) to make this seem fresh and convincing. From here on in we see Benjamin trying to hold it together while dealing with the new financial pressures of the zoo, clashing with his teenage son as well as his own grief. A lot of the subsequent turmoil could have been at home in a full on drama, but there is still a light feel to the rest of the film.

            Although it took 10 minutes or so to win me over I enjoyed this film. It is funny without trying too hard, mostly well acted (Carla Gallo was an exception) and well put together. Though the cinematography and editing wasn’t groundbreaking it needn’t be, it never stole focus from the story but always seemed well thought out. My main problem with the film was the mix of dark themes surrounding grief and family arguments with polite family humour. Don’t get me wrong, the mix worked in this case, but I don’t know if the writers gutted some of the more hefty content for the sake of making a family film and exploiting the zoo setting. If so this decision risked succumbing to cliché and cheese, yet they never went all out and made a children’s film. I would expect any child under 10 to get bored/confused by the more dramatic scenes.  This was based on a true story though, which had a true happy ending, so I suppose I can’t complain too much. To be honest this film proves that you can meet the needs of all ages of a family without avoiding real emotional content. That is not easy and Cameron Crowe and team deserve recognition for it.