Reviewing every film I see for the first time in 2010, spoiler free reviews. Here’s four more:

FANTASTIC MR. FOX

Someone I know said something to the effect of “interesting that an animated film is the most Wes Anderson like film of any of Wes Anderson’s films.”

And while it’s true that “The Fantastic Mr. Fox” contains elements familiar to Wes Anderson’s canon (characters questioning the essential nature of their beings, teenage angst, a soundtrack that is both one of the film’s layers and essential to the character’s lives, quirky humor, etc.) this is not the quintessential Wes Anderson film. It has flaws, it’s a little shoddy, and it’s not as deeply-layered as his previous works.

But, damn, it’s fun. It entertains. It succeeds and exceeds at what it tries to do. As an animated film, it absolutely transcends the genre, both relying on conventions and playing with them with just the right touches of irony and wink-of-the-eye (literally) humor. Anderson et al understood they were making an animated film, but they also understood they were making a Wes Anderson film, and the result is absolutely everything you’d dream this combination could produce.

What makes a fox a fox? What makes a wild animal a wild animal? What impact do those essential elements have on the life decisions of said creatures? This film does an outstanding job of tackling these questions head on. They’re questions you’ll enjoy seeing answered, and find yourself pondering, even though you never pondered them or cared about the answers before. FMF contains memorable characters, scenes, and devices. And, particularly in the story involving a young fox voiced to near perfection by Jason Schwartzman, it’s an impressive film of any genre that deals with family, and expectations.

The themes in this film are 10/10 good, and the execution of the themes is 10/10 good. My only complaint is the film isn’t logical or consistent even within it’s own universe. Of course it’s not logical or consistent that a fox would walk on his hind legs and speak English, but once you have him doing so, you need to be a little more careful with the execution of the story than Anderson is here. More succinctly, when you make a “kids” movie with such adult themes, you serve two masters. In doing so, you run the risk of serving neither completely.

The issue isn’t that I think the film was too adult or too childish. It’s that I think with several minor changes, it could have succeeded at being both. Instead, it falls just short of making sense from a story standpoint in some cases, even as it does a wonderful job of making sense in other areas. I think even kids will recognize some of these weaknesses. But what’s good about this film is so good, ultimately it doesn’t matter much. You’ll end up very entertained and even emotionally affected. Like the characters in the film, you’ll eventually be able to accept this one on its charming face. Even as that face is a wild animal bearing its teeth in a sheepish smile, and winking at you.

8/10

EXTRACT

The problem with extract as a substance is it’s so distilled that you only need one or two drops before you’re overwhelmed with the sense of what it is, and wishing you had something to break it down into a more pleasurable mix. It can be wildly representative of much greater things, but it can also be too much of one thing to produce a full, pleasurable experience. I have a friend who once cleared out an entire room with a couple of drops of butter extract. Extract is overwhelming and should be handled with caution.

“Extract” the film is a Mike Judge comedy, so it’s wildly representative of his greater works just in mere name alone. Judge is a master at the subtle flavors, so that Beavis and Butthead isn’t just about stupid kids, King of the Hill isn’t just about rednecks, Office Space wasn’t just about a job, and Idiocracy wasn’t just about a phony futuristic society. His blends produce unique combinations that are sneakily much better than one would initially assume, and not overwhelming in any one way so as to drag down the entire product.

He finds his success in simple ways. He’s able to tell full stories with small moments, like using a character named Michael Bolton in “Office Space” who rebels against that name by acting hardcore, but is also afraid of brown-skinned flower vendor. You know a ton about that character just from his minor interactions and characterizations. Hank Hill on “King of the Hill” may be an animated dad on a seemingly one trick show, but he’s as three-dimensional a character/father as there’s been on television in the last couple of decades. Judge is master who flies under the radar simply by flying under the radar in his work.  His work seems broad, but it blends broad elements in such ways as to produce unique, pleasurable experiences.

Unfortunately, “Extract” is just broad. I laughed a little, but it went nowhere beyond that. The typical Mike Judge blend isn’t present in the film. The elements don’t combine to produce anything unique. Instead they just stay overwhelmingly what they are. Sure, it’s got funny moments (though nothing, I suspect, that anyone will find memorable, quotable, or lasting.) And the performances are fine (though Lord knows Kristen Wiig is tragically misused when cast in a straight role. She’s much better as she was in “Ghost Town”, slightly askew, odd, and yet seemingly normal on the surface. Here, she was downright boring.) But overall, the film was bitterly disappointing. All it amounts to is a by the numbers romantic comedy, where each element exists for one purpose, and they’re all familiar, and they produce nothing memorable.

6/10

USA VS. AL-ARIAN

I’m reviewing every film I watch for the first time in 2010, so I’m perhaps a little late to the game on this one, but “US vs. AL-ARIAN” fever didn’t exactly sweep the nation in 2007, so I suspect that you, like me, missed this one.

And on some level, it’s a shame that US v. Al-Arian (the court case, not the film) fever DIDN’T sweep the nation. Or, more pointedly, that the fever that actually swept the nation and swept up our civil liberties with it was the fever that produced the sickness that is the court case at the heart of US v. Al-Arian.

Sami Al-Arian was a college professor at the University of South Florida, arrested on terrorism and conspiracy-related charges and at one time labeled by US officials as one of the most dangerous men in North America. His alleged crime? Funneling money and planning events in North America for a Palestinian group the US has labeled as terrorists.

Without spoiling the facts of the story beyond that, you get the impression that Sami Al-Arian is not the face of evil the government would present him to be, and you can no doubt sympathize, at least somewhat, with his plight.

My view of this film is perhaps tainted by my status as a person who has completed a legal education. But I wanted and expected the film to be about the court case, about the allegations of terrorism and the nuts and bolts of the case at bar, and about the implications of the case for everyone in the US. But this film was instead about Sami Al-Arian’s family. This approach leads to an overall feeling of emotional calculation and manipulation on the part of the filmmakers. It’s less “Frontline” and more like a reality show focusing on the Al-Arian family as they struggle with the imprisonment, trials, and tribulations of their patriarch.

The unfortunate thing is, there’s a fascinating and anger-inducing story at the heart of this film. It isn’t just Sami Al-Arian’s civil liberties that are threatened by an overzealous government who has as much issue with what he’s saying as they do with how and to whom he’s saying it. No, the civil liberties at stake are anyone’s who expresses thoughts or acts in ways deemed “wrong” by the government. But this story doesn’t come to the forefront when 75 percent of the film focuses on the family of the accused. You could skip this one, and read Sami Al-Arian’s website and you would end up more informed, and not having missed anything.

5/10

30 FOR 30: THE U

ESPN has a somewhat fascinating series running right now with it’s “30 for 30” programming to celebrate its 30th anniversary. Essentially, they’re highlighting some of the best (pre-existing and original) sports documentaries from recent years with weekly broadcasts of the documentaries in full. No story I’ve seen as part of this series is as enrapturing as the summary of rise and fall of the University of Miami Hurricanes football program simply entitled “The U”.

There are thousands of Universities across the country, but there’s only one referred to in our collective consciousness as “The U”. And that’s the University of Miami in Coral Gables, Florida. Why does this program with excellent academic chops in such an idyllic setting get national recognition as THE U? “30 for 30: The U” tells this story to much entertainment, and the answer is, not the academics, or the setting. It’s football.

In many ways, The U’s football program was what is right about collegiate sports. It was full of kids from terrible neighborhoods and homes for whom football was the brass ring, the only way out. It produced incredibly entertaining games, and made many kids who would never have had a shot anywhere else into millionaires in the NFL. It also provided these kids the shot at a world-class education that they otherwise would not have had.

But, The U’s football program also represented what was wrong about collegiate sports. In fact, it became THE U that was singled out as the lightning rod for all criticism of college athletics, specifically football, across the nation. It took kids who needed discipline, and then provided them no oversight. It took kids who needed help academically, and then didn’t take an active interest in their education. It took kids who were “problem kids” and then let them run roughshod over any and everything in sight.

“The U” is told through the eyes of former players looking back, and through the eyes of journalists who covered the team and city at the time. But it’s also told through the times themselves, through archival footage and news headlines writ large. Director Billy Corben does an excellent job weaving these disparate sources into a unified narrative about this incredible school and this indelibly-etched-into-the-consciousness football program.

My only complaint with the film is I would’ve liked to have heard more voices: opposing coaches, opposing players (no sit downs with Deion Sanders?), outspoken critics, current football heavy hitters, and current star athletes. A strength of this film is that the voices of the ex players and coaches are so interesting, so bold, so brash and in many ways so void of regret. However, because it relies so heavily on these voices, the film ends up being lot more of a love letter to The U than a legitimate unbiased portrait. But it’s still an incredible story, even if it’s told, like an old war story from a grandparent, with a twinkle in the narrators’ eyes.

7.5/10