Film Review | Toy Story 3 (2010)

Combining both the rule of diminishing returns and the inverse relationship between the length of time you leave between installments in a film franchise and the quality of the newest entry, Toy Story 3 should be awful. Add to that the fact that both Toy Story and Toy Story 2 were beloved modern classics of animation by the time of Toy Story 3's release and it could have become the most derided third film of a trilogy since The Godfather Part III. Surely if any studio could manage to steer clear of this minefield of cinematic failure, it was Pixar? Simply put: yes, it surely was.

Toy Story 3, like Toy Story 2 before it, retains many of the successful elements seen since the series' first installment. All the key voice cast members return sounding as fresh as ever (aside from Jim Varney as Slinky Dog due to his death in 2000, but whose role is ably and respectfully filled by Blake Clark). A wealth of new talent join them, each as perfectly fit to their animated counterparts as the franchise veterans. Ned Beatty as Lots-O'-Huggin' Bear deftly creates the series' most finely crafted and performed antagonist, with Michael Keaton providing strong and often laugh-out-loud support as Ken. Additional supporting roles are filled by seasoned performers including Whoopi Goldberg, Bonnie Hunt and Timothy Dalton (as one of the series' most brilliant minor characters, Mr. Pricklepants: a lederhosen-attired plush hedgehog with a propensity for Shakespearean performance), which lends the film an essence of cinematic eminence.

After piloting the first two installments, John Lasseter receives credits as story writer and executive producer here whilst handing over control to Lee Unkrich in his directorial debut. Unkrich proves to be a worthy successor staying true to the style and passion Lasseter infused into his films; Toy Story 3 takes in a great deal of cinematic heritage including classic prison escape thrillers and an opening sequence which trumps both of the previous films' magnificent efforts. Unkrich blends the best elements from the franchise's past whilst keeping his film feeling original and contemporary. Even a handful of sequences clearly designed to take advantage of the film's 3D release in cinemas work just as well with one dimension removed. Pixar's ability to make the design of their characters, initially restricted by 1995 animation technology, still feel as crisp and appealing as ever is easy to overlook but simply cannot be understated.

Whilst Toy Story 3 at its core tells the story of a rescue mission once again, it manages more ably than its predecessor to bring an entirely original slant to proceedings. But perhaps most impressive of all is Unkrich's ability to make Toy Story 3 the most emotional entry of the trilogy. An early scene involving the toys effecting an elaborate ploy to get the attention of the now young adult Andy (John Morris) using his mobile phone is heartbreaking, and the film's final sequence will have you blubbering like a baby, especially if you've been with Woody and co. since the beginning. Elsewhere the film touches on areas that lesser animated films wouldn't dare go near, with existential questions surrounding death and the reasons for being etched within some of the film's most moving sequences.

Toy Story 3 therefore rounds off Pixar's flawless trifecta, one of the greatest film trilogies ever accomplished. All three deserve recognition in history as masterworks of animation and cinema, and their influence will undoubtedly resonate through the years and decades of film far into the future. Or as Buzz Lightyear would say more succinctly: "to infinity and beyond".

10/10

Film Review | Toy Story 2 (1999)

After the overwhelming success with both critics and audiences of Toy Story, it's no surprise that Pixar chose to create a sequel to capitalize on its success only four years later. No other franchise from the studio would receive a sequel until Cars 2's release in 2011. It could be that Pixar didn't want to emulate the dead-horse-flogging antics of rival studio Dreamworks, churning out one sequel after another no matter how low the quality sank. Or maybe the masters of computer animation were anxious that any future sequels made by them matched up to the incredibly high bar set in Toy Story 2.

A great deal of Toy Story 2's success comes from returning director John Lasseter's decision to carry over many positive elements from the original film. Hanks and Allen again deliver first class vocal turns as Woody and Buzz, as do the rest of the returning cast. New additions to the acting roster are just as excellent: Joan Cusack as cowgirl doll Jessie fits the character to a tee with a larger-than-life performance; Kelsey Grammer as Stinky Pete draws on his thespian roots, as well as his well-known television role as the pretentious Dr. Frasier Crane, to create a classic cinematic villain; and Wayne Knight is a perfect fit for ruthless toy collector Al McWhiggin.

Lasseter's direction here is in many ways even more impressive than in Toy Story. The advances in Pixar's animation in the four years since the first film are regularly obvious, but always used with subtlety and panache by the director. Toy Story's opening was intentionally low key and all the more powerful for it; the start of its sequel sits at the opposite end of the spectrum in terms of flamboyance, delivering a breathtaking action sequence that takes in a great many cinematic nods and references along the way, but at the same time Lasseter once again crafts a compelling and entertaining sequence. Elsewhere we see refined examples of something Pixar are now seasoned experts of ingeniously crafting from computer code: pathos. I defy anyone to watch Jessie's flashback sequence without experiencing a pang of genuine emotion within themselves.

Arguably, Toy Story 2 doesn't avoid every pitfall many sequels often fall into. The story here revisits some of the key beats of that seen in Toy Story with a rescue mission at the core of both films, only with Woody and Buzz's roles reversed from the first film to the second. But this never takes anything away from Toy Story 2, and the richness of the craft and depth of the ideas on display here mean that any repetition can be wholly forgiven. Toy Story 2 is every bit as accomplished, imaginative and entertaining as its predecessor, deserving recognition as one of the best animated films ever made.

10/10

Film Review | Toy Story (1995)

It's in no way an understatement to say that Toy Story is a cinematic milestone: one of the most important films ever made. It transformed the landscape of animated cinema forever and managed to do so slap-bang in the middle of the Disney Renaissance, one of the most critically and commercially successful periods for the animation giant. But whilst being a watershed moment in CGI, eighteen years after its release Toy Story still feels as fresh, vibrant and masterfully crafted as it did in 1995.

Toy Story perfects that synthesis of performance, direction and art so rarely seen and so precious when it happens. The vocal performances consummately fit their animated counterparts without fault. Both Tom Hanks and Tim Allen as Woody and Buzz Lightyear respectively cease to be actors, inhabiting their characters absolutely and sublimely. The chemistry between the two is pure cinematic gold, making the journey the two toys make from rivals to odd couple to double act an intoxicating mix of childhood fantasy and raw authenticity. The supporting characters too are fleshed out superbly, their voices expertly cast and each as entertaining as the next.

The script is spot on, with joke after joke hitting the mark. Toy Story effortlessly blends wordplay with visual humour, as well as providing what is now seen as a Pixar trademark - comedy that will entertain the kids, but will also draw genuine laughs from the adults. There are numerous subtle references and in-jokes littered throughout, and each is a winner.

The directorial craft from John Lasseter is consistently stunning. Shot after shot shows a passion and gift for storytelling influenced by some of the finest cinema ever made. Within Toy Story you'll find sequences of high emotion, heart-pounding action and unsettling horror, underpinned by one of the best buddy stories ever told. It's also to Pixar's credit that, nearly two decades on, the animation within their debut feature is still just as impressive as ever, the design of their characters effortlessly retaining a timeless yet contemporary quality.

Perhaps Toy Story's finest achievement of all is its transcendence of both genre and target audience. To describe it simply as a "children's film" or an "animated adventure" is to ignore its universal appeal and broad spectrum of influence and ambition. It's a film which has earned its place in cinematic history but, most importantly of all, it's a film which provides pure enjoyment through comprehensively refined cinema. Simply put, Toy Story is flawless.

10/10

Film Review | Shrek Forever After (2010)

Upon its release, Shrek Forever After was greeted with reviews lauding it as a return to form for the franchise. Maybe it was the fact that the fourth Shrek film was to be the final one, sparking nostalgia for the series' more auspicious beginnings. Or maybe it was because Shrek The Third was such a steaming ogre turd that anything better than it was a welcome relief. But whilst Shrek Forever After is indeed better than its precursor (not hard, as most films are), it never achieves anywhere near the success of Shrek or even Shrek 2.

Granted, Shrek Forever After does have some good ideas contained within it. New antagonist Rumpelstiltskin (Walt Dohrn) is effective enough, despite being an amalgamation of features from the previous three baddies seen in the Shrek franchise (Lord Farquaad's diminutive stature, Fairy Godmother's magical contracts, and desire to be king from both Prince Charming and Farquaad). Another entertaining new adversary is the Pied Piper, although his appearances in the film are disappointingly brief. The alternate universe story is set up well and provides a handful of imaginative concepts, although as the story wears on the ideas start getting less and less fresh. Shrek's (Mike Myers) get-out clause in his contract with Rumpelstiltskin, for example, is lifted almost entirely from Shrek 2.

Despite these redeeming features, there's also too much within Shrek Forever After that simply doesn't work. The tribe of ogres, despite being voiced by current talents such as Jon Hamm and Jane Lynch, feel like a collection of flat Shrek clones (apart from Craig Robinson's excruciatingly unfunny chimichanga-peddling Cookie). Shrek's rebuilding of his relationships with his old friends in the alternate universe also provides one misfire after another: Donkey (Eddie Murphy) feels underutilised for the second Shrek film running; Puss In Boots (Antonio Banderas) is turned into a one-note lowest-common-denominator visual joke (he's fat); and there's never any spark in Shrek's renewed courtship of Fiona (Cameron Diaz), who is presented as a nearly-twenty-years-too-late Braveheart parody.

In the end, Shrek Forever After is undoubtedly much more worthwhile than Shrek The Third, but still provides a weak and largely unsuccessful conclusion to the Shrek series. It's a shame to see a franchise which built its foundations on witty subversion of stereotypes and conventions in its first film largely fall back on trite and unimaginative ideas as it draws to a close. Sadly, Dreamworks have made sure there's absolutely nothing left to wring out of their flagship ogre before allowing him to retire to his swamp for the final time.

4/10

Film Review | Shrek The Third (2007)

Dreamworks are often held up as the main competition to Pixar, the current studio to beat in the world of computer animated cinema, with some of the studio's best output seen by some to match some of Pixar's efforts. It's a comparison I feel at the moment is unjustified; whilst Dreamworks have created some memorable films, the ratio of decent to average-or-worse cinema just isn't that impressive. And whilst Pixar have turned out one or two less impressive films to end their streak of classics, they have yet to produce anything as dull and underwhelming as Dreamworks' Shrek The Third.

Before watching number three in the Shrek franchise, forget the clever subversion of fairytale constructs, the subtle and well-chosen cultural references, the jokes that actually make you laugh rather than question why on earth they had been included (basically everything that the first Shrek film was about and that Shrek 2, whilst not quite as successful, managed to at least remain faithful to), because Shrek The Third contains none of this. The plot is a rehash of elements from the first two films, feeling entirely uninspired and never generating much interest. Shrek's character arc, focused on whether he's ready to become a father, feels heavy-handed and comes and goes too much to ever feel properly developed. The connected moral message of facing up to responsibilities feels muddled and is concluded in a wholly unsatisfactory manner.

The returning characters feel tired or unnecessary, and choosing Prince Charming (Rupert Everett) as the primary antagonist here when he was introduced as second fiddle (and a bit of a tit) in the first sequel is setting up to fail from the very start. Mike Myers and Cameron Diaz as Shrek and Fiona respectively never offer more than going through the motions. Donkey (Eddie Murphy) and Puss In Boots (Antonio Banderas) are entirely wasted here, with a half-baked body switch "twist" thrown in late on in proceedings which goes nowhere, as if the writers suddenly realised they'd wasted two of the franchise's strongest assets. The new characters are no better: Arthur "Artie" Pendragon is underdeveloped and irritating, with Justin Timberlake's vocal performance never fitting the character; Merlin (Eric Idle) is even worse - a pathetic "new age" wizard whose every joke falls flat.

Shrek The Third is one of the laziest pieces of cinema I've ever experienced. Every aspect of it smacks of apathy on the part of everyone involved, from the stars to the director to the animators. It lacks energy, imagination and humour and represents the very lowest end of computer-animated cinema. Until Dreamworks is no longer happy to churn out dross such as this, it will never truly be able to compete with Pixar.

2/10

Film Review | Wreck-It Ralph (2013)

Walt Disney Animation Studios has had a chequered recent history. With the "Renaissance" of the 1990s well behind them, and 2009's The Princess And The Frog marking the end of their traditionally animated big screen output for the foreseeable future at least, the studio has focused solely on refining their computer-animated movies. After lacklustre beginnings at the turn of the century, more recent offerings such as 2008's Bolt and Tangled in 2010 - whilst never reaching the heights of computer-animated master craftsmen Pixar - have felt decidedly more successful in both scripting and animation. And whilst Wreck-It Ralph also falls short of Pixar's incredibly high benchmark, it's the closest Disney (or arguably any other studio) have come to reaching it.

Previous non-Pixar CGI films have fallen short in at least one area: sometimes the animation isn't up to scratch, although this is becoming less and less of an issue as technology continues to progress; much more often it's the writing or direction that simply don't cut it. Thankfully, Wreck-It Ralph doesn't fall significantly short in any of these areas. The world that Ralph and his fellow video game characters inhabit is crafted beautifully through Disney's finest computer animation yet. It's also one of the most original ideas from the studio in a long time, with echoes of Toy Story and Monsters, Inc. in the way Ralph's universe is realized and presented to us. The realm of the arcade has a warmth and tangibility that many computer-animated efforts fail to achieve.

The script is for the most part shot through with both humour and heart, although the dialogue doesn't zing with wit quite as often as you'd like; a few juvenile jokes clearly aimed squarely at the kids in the audience will more likely induce tutting and eye-rolling from mums and dads. The story has a pleasing complexity to it, developing from a deceptively simplistic opening concept to bring together several threads pleasingly during the film's climax. Ralph is impossible not to warm to immediately with John C. Reilly's understated vocal performance fitting the big friendly juggernaut's personality superbly. His character arc, despite dealing with well-worn moral lessons, has satisfying notes of subtlety throughout. Sarah Silverman's Vanellope initially threatens to grate and at times feels a little too one-note, but once she finds her groove with the character the results are pleasing. The supporting turns from Jack McBrayer as Fix-It Felix Jr. and Jane Lynch as Sergeant Calhoun are strong with both developing characters of depth and humour as well as sharing marvellous chemistry in the film's best subplot.

Wreck-It Ralph's main flaw is that it sets itself up with more than it's able to deliver, even in the two hour running time the film has. After introducing us to a host of characters and settings, the bulk of the film's plot takes place within the realm of video game "Sugar Rush". Whilst this works in terms of the story being told, as well as allowing for regular moments of sharp sweet-based observational humour, it would have been nice to explore more of the places where the film only affords us a relatively brief time. The references to retro video games also feel underutilized beyond the film's first act, where they are genuinely charming. After seeing many a familiar face from classics of arcade and console, it's a shame that these aren't worked into the plot more throughout the film's entire running time.

Wreck-It Ralph ends up as the finest output of Walt Disney Animation Studios yet, surpassing more recent Pixar efforts but not quite matching their finest. With other rival animation studios seeming increasingly happy to churn out middle-of-the-road movies and lazily squeeze every last penny out of their franchises, Disney deserve high praise for creating a film of such ingenuity and quality. The gap between their Pixar and non-Pixar efforts is shrinking; if Disney's films continue to improve in quality the way they have been over the past five years, the studio could very soon have the market cornered and once again rightfully claim themselves as absolute top dog in animation.

8/10

Film Review | Cars (2006)

Despite the lukewarm reception I gave more recent Pixar offering Cars 2, I've actually been looking forward to revisiting the original film for some time. Cars is a film that has in the past pulled me in two different directions: on one hand, it boasts one of the most impressive voice casts of any Pixar film, with cinematic heavyweights rubbing shoulders (or should that be bumpers?) with contemporary Hollywood talents; on the other, it's a film which aesthetically feels the most "kiddie" of all the studio's works, perhaps surprisingly even more so than Toy Story. It's a bipartite structure which frustratingly sat no easier with me on a fresh viewing.

Cars focuses on Lightning McQueen (Owen Wilson), a talented rookie racing car determined to win a lucrative sponsorship deal with fuel company Dinoco in order to elevate himself to superstardom. En route to California to compete in the final of the Piston Cup, McQueen becomes stranded in the sleepy town of Radiator Springs where he gets to know a variety of characters, including the simple-minded Mater (Larry The Cable Guy) and gruff Doc Hudson (Paul Newman).

From an artistic perspective, Cars is inferior to the studio's earlier works, never matching the beautiful scenery of Finding Nemo or striking visuals of The Incredibles. The vehicular characters lack a great deal of the warmth and heart of many of Pixar's other creations, giving the Cars universe a layer of artificiality that takes too hefty a portion of the film's near two hour running time to penetrate.

The voice cast is indeed impressive, but is utilised to varying degrees of success. Wilson's vocal chords suit Lightning McQueen just as perfectly as Hanks and Allen fit Woody and Buzz, but his performance is only perfunctory and never memorable. Newman is unsurprisingly the casting highlight as Doc Hudson; it's just a shame that the character's story arc feels both underdeveloped and somewhat clichéd. Elsewhere, Bonnie Hunt's Sally is forgettable, the talents of the likes of George Carlin and Michael Keaton are almost entirely wasted, and Larry The Cable Guy's Mater wins the prize for most irritating Pixar character ever created, grating as he does in every scene.

It's a shame that Cars is such an underwhelming experience, as nestled around two thirds into the film's running time is a segment which reveals a glimpse of the true Pixar spirit of film-making when Radiator Springs' past as a bustling stopover on Route 66 is brought to life through a charming and emotional montage. This is surely the film director John Lasseter initially set out to make: an epitaph to the pure and simple pleasures of smalltown USA, and a love story to the ever-eroding cultural heritage of a country too quick to bulldoze and tarmac over both its history and geography. It's a sequence which gives Cars a much-needed boost, far more effective than the high-octane race sequences (never nearly as exciting as you would expect them to be) that bookend the film. Somewhere along the line, Lasseter allowed the heart of his story to become overcrowded with unsophisticated artifice. Maybe that's Cars' biggest failing. Or maybe talking automobiles inhabiting their own version of our world was never more than just an okay idea in the first place.

6/10

Film Review | Ice Age 4: Continental Drift (2012)

You'd be hard pressed to name a film franchise that has managed to maintain a respectable level of quality over four installments. Sadly, Ice Age 4: Continental Drift manages to provide a spectacular example of just why this is.

After Scrat (Chris Wedge) accidentally causes the break-up of the continents, Manny (Ray Romano), Sid (John Leguizamo) and Diego (Denis Leary) are separated from the rest of their herd and set adrift over the sea on a block of ice. With Manny determined to reunite with Ellie (Queen Latifah) and their daughter Peaches (Keke Palmer), the group cross paths with Captain Gutt (Peter Dinklage), a piratical primate with a rag-tag crew sailing on their own shipshape iceberg.

Ice Age 4 has its moments, albeit ones that are sadly few and far between. The opening sequence showing how Scrat, in typical Tex Avery style, wreaks havoc with the earth's crust through his usual nut-burying activity is a genuine highlight. It's a shame then that Scrat's antics throughout the rest of the film are severely downplayed from previous installments and, for the first time in an Ice Age film, feel desperately uninspired and woefully tacked on. Scrat's interludes have been a highlight throughout all of the first three films, so to have to write so negatively about them here is a real disappointment.

The film also makes some potentially good choices. I was genuinely heartened when Manny, Sid and Diego were separated off from all the other characters they've picked up across the first two sequels, a band of three for the first time since the original film. Disappointingly, the chemistry and sharp scripting of the first film is never recreated, with the trio feeling like a tired shadow of what they once were.

From there, Ice Age 4 is largely a collection of irritating and underdeveloped characters and recycled ideas from not only previous Ice Age films but also other franchises. Jennifer Lopez's Shira is a flat and uninteresting love interest for Diego, with Leary and Lopez having no chemistry. Dinklage as Captain Gutt is fine but forgettable; it's hardly worth mentioning any of Gutt's crew members, too many in number as they are and each as one-dimensional as the next. Sid's Granny (Wanda Sykes) adds nothing, feeling like an excuse to plough the well-worn furrow of jokes about old people. Worst of all, however, are the street-talking teenage mammoths, voiced by the likes of Drake and Nicki Minaj, that Manny's daughter wants to "hang" with. Any time these characters are on screen is excruciating to the point of embarrassment, and left me wondering how the Ice Age franchise could possibly have slipped so far from its charming origins.

Ice Age 4 ends up as nothing more than a signifier that the franchise has gone one too many and needs to end before it tarnishes the reputation of the far superior previous installments. It's a film strung together with lazy writing and vacuous pop culture references that feel desperate rather than cool. It's even a struggle to praise the animation which actually feels less impressive than that seen in the second sequel. Watching Ice Age 4 as a fan of the franchise in general only made its glaring errors and sloppy execution all the more disappointing. The best that can be hoped for is that the inevitable fifth installment (with Ice Age 4's box office success) is an improvement on this.

3/10

Film Review | Arthur Christmas (2011)

With a title based around such a tenuous pun, Arthur Christmas ("Arthur" sounds a bit like "Father", geddit?) was a film I was prepared to watch and then forget, another entry into the middle-of-the-road Christmas cinematic canon. Thankfully, setting my expectations at such an average level meant that Arthur Christmas ended up as something of a pleasant surprise.

The film follows Arthur (James McAvoy), the youngest son of Santa Claus (Jim Broadbent) who is well-meaning but clumsy and kept out of the way as much as possible, especially by his older brother Steve (Hugh Laurie). When one gift is left behind on Christmas Eve, Arthur and his grandfather Grandsanta (Bill Nighy) to find a way to make sure it's delivered before Christmas morning.

Plot-wise, Arthur Christmas isn't anything particularly special. The main story is entertaining but provides very few twists or developments that will surprise; once Arthur and Grandsanta set their plan in motion to deliver the missed present, it's pretty obvious how things will conclude. The family dispute subplot is somewhat more original, but also reaches the most predictable conclusion that you'll have seen coming from somewhere during the film's first act.

Thankfully, there's quite a lot elsewhere to prop up Arthur Christmas's by-the-numbers plotting. The voice cast is a veritable "who's who" of British talent, with each imbuing his or her character with charm and humour. Whilst the script may not crackle with comedy the same way that Aardman Animation's traditional stop-motion efforts do, the jokes here hit the mark far more often than they miss. The animation itself is also impressive - not quite Pixar standards, but with some beautifully realised scenes throughout, as well as some finely constructed action sequences. All of this lends the "modern versus traditional" message and the inventive way it's put across throughout the film tangible credibility, as well as making the film enjoyable even at points when the script is at its least focused or inspired.

Arthur Christmas ends up as a very entertaining Christmas tale. What it lacks in depth or originality in its story, it more than makes up for in the talent on show through both the casting and the animation. It's a new Christmas film with both genuine heart and humour - something that seems to be true less and less often in recent years.

7/10

Film Review | A Christmas Carol (2009)

Charles Dickens' A Christmas Carol has received countless big screen adaptations, becoming just as much a cinematic staple as a literary one during the festive season. But with so many versions already out there, the challenge for any director bringing us a new take on the story of Scrooge is to bring something fresh and original to proceedings. Robert Zemeckis' choice to make Dickens' Christmas ghost story his third venture into CGI motion capture cinema, following 2004's The Polar Express and 2007's Beowulf, had the potential to be the perfect way to bring the supernatural elements of the tale to life. Unfortunately, it's a potential which the film only manages to partially fulfill.

If you don't know the story (and where have you been if you don't?), A Christmas Carol takes place one Christmas Eve, as miserable miser Ebenezer Scrooge (Jim Carrey) is haunted first by the spirit of his deceased business partner Jacob Marley (Gary Oldman), then by three ghosts representing Christmas Past (Carrey again), Present (and again) and Yet To Come (yep, Carrey too), in order to convince him to change his ways.

Zemeckis' A Christmas Carol really is a mixed bag; when it get things right, it gets them very right, but it also misses the mark by a considerable margin in several ways. It's often the most chilling and scary elements of the story which benefit the most from the motion capture treatment. The scene in which Oldman's Marley torments Carrey's Scrooge is one of the strongest and most memorable of the whole film. The inclusion of some of the often overlooked elements,such as the personification of Ignorance and Want as creepy children accompanying Christmas Present, are also welcome and inspired touches.

The casting decisions too run the gamut of success. Carrey as Scrooge is strong, but as the three Christmas Ghosts is less successful, distractingly adopting a strange and unconvincing Irish accent as Christmas Past and another which meanders around the north of England as Christmas Present. The same can be said for Oldman in his multiple roles: he is superb as Marley and good as Bob Cratchit, but the idea to use Oldman's face for Tiny Tim is both odd and unsettling - initially not all that noticeable, but once it hits you ironically it's more haunting than some of the ghosts.

It's in some of its more spectacular set pieces that the film feels least successful. Sequences such as Scrooge being shot up into the air on a giant candle snuffer by Christmas Past, or being chased through the streets of Victorian London by a demonic horse and carriage driven by Christmas Future, may showcase the film's technical mastery - as well as undoubtedly giving the immersive element in the 3D version (which I wasn't watching) some mileage. But they ultimately come across as soulless and a little overlong, as well as adding nothing to the story. A tale as ingeniously simple and effective in its concept and message as this doesn't need to have the lily gilded with overblown spectacle.

It's this that ultimately holds this version of A Christmas Carol back from being anything more than just good. There are elements here to enjoy a great deal in isolation, but as a whole the film fails to capture the spirit of Dickens' tale, preferring glossy surface level sheen to anything deeper or more heartfelt underneath. An ultimately ironic verdict for a story all about shunning the material side of life and embracing humanity.

6/10

Film Review | Brave (2012)

It's purely coincidental that the Pixar output reviewed here so far have all been either been films that have left me somewhat unsatisfied, or films that are not considered to be amongst the classics that the studio  has produced (or, in the case of Cars 2, both). Time will bring articles focused on the jewels in Pixar's crown, films that have already gone down in cinematic history as both classics and landmarks in animation. Unfortunately, Brave is not one of these films.

Brave tells the story of Merida (Kelly Macdonald), a strong-willed princess in medieval Scotland who defies her mother, Queen Elinor (Emma Thompson), when she is informed that the sons of the Lords of three other clans in Scotland will compete for her hand in marriage. After following a will-o'-the-wisp through the forest, Merida resorts to extreme measures in trying to change her mother's will, but things don't quite unfold the way she expected.

Once again, Pixar show their artistic mastery through Brave's beautiful landscapes and impressive action sequences. The whole feel of the film fits beautifully with the Celtic legends interwoven into Brave's narrative; it's clear that the studio have painstakingly composed the world in which the story unfolds. It's a shame then that, in comparison to both the scenery and what we've seen from Pixar in the past, the character animation is very good but never outstanding. Merida's flowing fire-hued locks are a wonder in themselves, but the time for wonder at Pixar's ability to create realistic hair was around a decade ago with the release of Monsters Inc. Elsewhere, Brave comes across as possibly the first time Pixar has ever felt aesthetically influenced by rival studio DreamWorks, with the look and feel of the more caricatured players in the story, such as King Fergus and Lords Dingwall, Macintosh and McGuffin, decidedly similar to those seen in How To Train Your Dragon.

Brave's story is perfectly enjoyable, with plenty of entertaining moments throughout. The relationships between Merida, Elinor and Fergus are established nicely in the opening act, although few other characters get much development. Things become notably more comedic in tone as the second act gets underway,  becoming more predictable unfortunately at the same time. Once it's established what Merida must do in order to set matters right, things follow their inevitable course without really threatening any genuine surprises or making you feel as though the expected outcome is ever in question. Like I said, it's enjoyable and entertaining, but compared to many of Pixar's previous efforts it all feels a bit light and ordinary.

Ultimately, Pixar are once again victims of their own success. Brave is undoubtedly superior to a great many animated films released this year. But think about how the opening twenty minutes of Up made you feel; think about how Wall-E's almost dialogue-free opening act is pure cinematic perfection; think about pretty much any scene from the final act of Toy Story 3. Brave never gets close to this calibre of cinema or emotional investment; I found myself waiting for the film to achieve this, then disappointed that it never gets there. Brave is Pixar in safe mode, which still makes it a good, well-made and entertaining film. But it's also likely to be possibly the first Pixar film you'll watch, enjoy, and then move on from without any part of it staying with you.

7/10

Film Review | Rango (2011)

We live in an age where computer-animated features are becoming more and more beautiful to the eye and ever richer in cinematic heritage. Aside from a lone anomaly in Cars 2, Pixar are still the studio to beat in the field with a wealth of classics in their back catalogue, many of which are continuing to mature with age. It's therefore becoming less acceptable for CGI films to score points for their achievements in these areas, which is unfortunate for Rango, because how it looks and its references to films gone by are all it has going for it.

The film tells the story of a pet chameleon (Johnny Depp) who finds himself accidentally abandoned in the middle of the desert. After some philosophical conversation with an armadillo (Alfred Molina), the chameleon heads in the direction of the town of Dirt, calling himself Rango and becoming entangled in the town's drought crisis.

Rango is regularly beautiful to look at, with some breathtaking scenery and cinematography of the desert inspired by many a classic western. It's in the choices of shots and camera angles that director Gore Verbinski is most successful in paying tribute to a bygone era of film making, something which he clearly wants to do through this film. There will be much here for the older members of the audience to take in as tribute to the Wild West movies of yesteryear. The detail and visual style employed in the character design is also incredibly detailed, although I did find in some characters the intensely realistic aesthetic of whatever animal they might be to be off-putting and limiting in how much emotion that character was able to put across.

Sadly, I found very little to like here other than the visuals and cinematic homages. The story is awkwardly paced, throwing you into Rango's story in a rush, then slowing things down to a dawdle. The central story of a town on the brink of collapse due to a vital resource suddenly becoming unavailable - in this case water, which acts as the currency of Dirt - may have its roots in traditional Western tales, but here it fails to generate anywhere near enough interest. There are far too many characters crammed into the story, meaning that Rango is the only character who really feels in any way developed; moreover, with a scant backstory prior to the events of the film the amount of investment I had in our hero could only go so far. There's more life in Rango's wind-up fish Mr. Timms than the supposed romance between him and Beans (Isla Fisher).

Rango also feels confused as to who it's actually for. There are action sequences and visual jokes which feel squarely aimed at kids and really don't fit with the aesthetic look and feel of the film. Elsewhere we have film references and humour which cannot be targeted at anyone other than an adult audience, going straight over the heads of any children and even teenagers in the audience. Whilst I did enjoy moments here and there, with the film's most surreal sequences feeling the strongest, ultimately the two approaches struggle against each other to the detriment of both with Rango ending up feeling like a film lacking in both heart and brains.

The fact that Rango won Best Animated Feature at the Oscars earlier this year says more about the field in which it was competing. When its strongest competition from the mainstream studios was Kung Fu Panda 2 and Puss In Boots (Pixar's kiddie cash-in sequel Cars 2 rightfully didn't even get a look-in), Rango undoubtedly managed to charm the Academy with its film heritage references and finely crafted visuals. But the story this film tells the strongest is The Emperor's New Clothes. There's nothing of substance here, but allowing yourself to see that means pushing aside the visuals and homages that sit on the surface - finery and embellishments that many seem to have sadly been taken in by.

4/10

Film Review | The Pirates! In An Adventure With Scientists (2012)

With jokes about parrots that aren't quite what they seem, women wearing unconvincing beards and non sequitur references to pork products, The Pirates! In An Adventure With Scientists owes more to Monty Python than Johnny Depp's recent swashbuckling adventures. And, I hasten to add, it's all the better for it.

The film follows the exploits of the Pirate Captain (Hugh Grant), a notoriously inept pirate who sets his sights on winning the Pirate Of The Year award. After crossing paths with Charles Darwin (David Tennant) however, the Pirate Captain changes his aim, hoping for success of a more scientific nature in London.

The Pirates! comes from Aardman Animation, most famous for bringing Wallace & Gromit to both the small and big screen, and their charming brand of British humour pervades this latest effort. The whole thing is gloriously silly and surreal. Running jokes, such as the Pirate Captain's crew being known by descriptions of themselves (my favourite example being Pirate Who Likes Sunsets And Kittens), and their obsession with ham (the best thing about being a pirate, apparently), are never explained and all the funnier for it. The humour drives things along, making the whole film a joy; there's more than enough to keep the adults heartily amused, with historical and cinematic references to the likes of Jane Austen (anachronistic, but still funny) and Joseph Merrick (spot on), in a similar style to the best work of animation gods Pixar. The lengthy process of stop-motion animation in which Aardman have chosen to beautifully realise their film complements the tone of the script brilliantly and gives the whole thing a warmth and sheen that only a labour of love can accomplish.

The film would undoubtedly not be the success it is without the comprehensively excellent voice cast. Hugh Grant's turn as the Pirate Captain is a delight from start to finish, giving him an air of loveable idiocy that is unmistakeably British. Tennant's Darwin is understated in comparison, but is just as enjoyable and shows his expert skill at comic performance, allowed now and then to come to the surface in his most famous role as The Tenth Doctor in Doctor Who but fully utilised here. The supporting cast has talent to spare with the likes of Brendan Gleeson, Martin Freeman and Imelda Staunton putting in mirthful turns, as well as Lenny Henry, Salma Hayek and Brian Blessed making welcome cameos.

The Pirates! does have flaws: the plot feels like it's a little overstretched even for the relatively slight running time of just under an hour and a half, with sections in the middle lacking direction and a final act reveal that feels a bit too tacked on to be truly satisfying. It could also be argued that, for a film focused primarily on pirates, there isn't as much swashbuckling and cutlass-swinging to be seen as you'd expect. But the things that the film gets right more than make up for its minor shortcomings. This is intelligent and expertly-crafted film-making with heart and an unashamed dedication to its very British heritage. So sit back, have a slice of ham, and let the tidal wave of silliness wash over you.

8/10

Film Review | A Bug's Life (1998)

A Bug's Life has possibly the most unenviable position in Pixar's cinematic canon, sitting chronologically as it does between the release of Toy Story and Toy Story 2, films quite rightly hailed as two of the studios very best. It was also in cinemas at the same time as rival studio DreamWorks' first ever animated release, Antz, a film with  several similarities in character and concept to Pixar's second feature. It was therefore a film that needed to work incredibly hard to make itself stand out.

A Bug's Life follows Flik (Dave Foley), an ant who lives in a colony terrorized by a swarm of grasshoppers led by the nefarious Hopper (Kevin Spacey). Flik also has a tendency to leave destruction in his wake, especially when he attempts to help his fellow ants. After Flik causes the entire harvest gathered for the grasshoppers to be destroyed, he volunteers to travel to the city in order to find someone who will help rid them of the grasshoppers for good.

Now nearly fourteen years old, revisiting A Bug's Life could have been an experience of seeing how much animation has advanced since Pixar first started making feature length films, but thankfully this isn't the case. Watching the film on Blu-ray only served to enhance how vibrant and colourful the studios animation still appears. There are one or two elements which may show the film's relative age in the medium - the bird comes to mind first, as well as a couple of other larger elements (well, from an ant's perspective anyway) - but never to the extent of taking anything away from it.

That said, when compared to Toy Story (something that A Bug's Life will have to put up with permanently), the film at times comes across as less adventurous and a little more safe in its design. Andy's bedroom is characterised by the variety and difference between all of his toys, with each feeling like a distinct personality and beautifully realised in its own way. Ants are, by definition, pretty similar looking. There may be subtle differences between Flik and his fellow ants, but never enough to distinguish one ant from the next. The background characters in Toy Story featured a wealth of individuals who may only have had a minute or two of screen time but were brought to life as their own toy; here we have an army of blue ants who for all intents and purposes look exactly the same, facing off against grasshoppers who by and large look the same as each other. It just doesn't have the same impact.

The same can be said for the story. Finding its roots in the fable "The Ant And The Grasshopper" by Aesop, the film owes just as much to Kurosawa's Seven Samurai. But whilst the plot is engaging and fun with clear cinematic heritage, this is much more firmly grounded in the family and children's entertainment bracket than the Toy Story franchise and other later Pixar efforts. The hidden humour and in-jokes for the grown-ups are much scarcer, mainly provided through the grasshopper characters, and feel much less subtle than what many have come to expect from the studio by now.

Ultimately, A Bug's Life is a victim of Pixar's success both before, in the form of Toy Story, and since. It's a fun, well made, enjoyable film. But when it comes from a studio as innovative and consistently outstanding in terms of output as Pixar, it's a film that is likely to get overshadowed. In some ways that's a shame, as A Bug's Life is a genuinely very good film; in others, it's right that the studio's relatively superior efforts get the recognition.

8/10

Film Review | Ratatouille (2007)

It's testament to the quality of Pixar's output that any film of theirs which isn't hailed as an instant animated classic is considered a relative failure. It's also unfair, as an average Pixar film is, in many ways, still a superior piece of cinema when compared with the standard work of most other animation studios. Ratatouille is a curious example of this; lauded by many as yet another Pixar masterpiece upon its release five years ago, it's probably the first film of theirs which I remember being genuinely disappointed by. Revisiting Ratatouille on Blu-ray for the first time since I saw at the cinema was nonetheless something I was genuinely looking forward to, with the HD experience likely to allow every pixel to shine all the more brilliantly.

Showcasing the highest of high concepts, Ratatouille asks the question: what if a rat wanted to become a high class chef? The rat in question, Remy (Patton Oswalt), is passionate about food but of course has to contend with his species as a seemingly insurmountable barrier to success. But after teaming up with kitchen hand and decidedly untalented chef Linguini (Lou Romano), Remy seems destined to become living proof of the credo of his culinary hero Auguste Gusteau (Brad Garrett) that "anyone can cook".

Rewatching Ratatouille served to confirm what I had found impressive as well as what I had been less impressed by on its initial release. The top quality animation, although something that can almost be seen as a given for any Pixar film, is nonetheless still incredible, possibly the most beautiful of any Pixar outing before or since. The realisation of Paris, from the artistic skyline to the rat's-eye-view of the cobbled streets, is superb. So too is the film's presentation of one of its key elements: food. From crusty baguettes to plump grapes, Disney's premier CGI wizards create a visual feast so sumptuous that your salivary glands may go into overload as your brain begins to pleasantly forget that the treats you're seeing are no more real than the anthropomorphic rat standing next to them.

There's also no doubting that Ratatouille is great fun with some fantastically realised humour here and there. However, there are problems. Remy, whilst no Woody or Wall-E, is a loveable hero to root for. But whilst Woody is so much more than just a cowboy doll and Wall-E greater than the waste-processing robot he was built to be, Remy seemingly only has one string to his bow. He's a rat who wants to cook, and that's it. There is unfortunately something missing from Remy to make him a truly memorable Pixar protagonist.

There are problems elsewhere in the cast, which is solid but with no outstanding performances. Linguini's back story feels underdeveloped; his romance too with fellow chef Colette (Janeane Garofalo) is somewhat flimsy, with only a single montage sequence and short Bergerac-esque scene involving Remy to move them from an unwilling professional pair to romantically linked couple. Even veteran Peter O'Toole in full scenery-chewing mode as the antagonistic food critic Anton Ego can't distract from the fact that his character is - aside from one brief flashback - decidedly lacking in depth. Away from the human race, Remy's brother Emile (Peter Sohn) and his father Django (Brian Dennehy) also feel disappointingly one-note, afforded too little screen time to become genuinely memorable.

The plot too has pacing issues, with a rushed start in media res, and a finale I find more unsatisfying the more I think about the unnecessary loose ends and nagging questions it leaves. In fact, with so many issues, I should really be congratulating Pixar on making a film I genuinely did enjoy, and will almost certainly enjoy upon any future viewings. I suppose my major gripe with Ratatouille is that it;s a film that you'll enjoy as long as you don't think too carefully about it. But when I watch a Pixar film, I want to think about it. That's what Pixar do best: intelligent, intricately thought-out animation. If I didn't want to think about it, I'd put on something by Dreamworks. Ratatouille ultimately comes out as too much style over substance. It's undeniably gorgeous, but delve a little deeper and this is missing some key ingredients of the studios more impressive works.

7/10

Film Review | Despicable Me (2010)

Another entry into the ever-growing computer-animated market, Despicable Me was the first by Universal and met with considerable popularity upon its release. But with CGI giant Pixar still very much at the top of the pile in this area of cinema (with Cars 2 hopefully just an anomalous blip) and Dreamworks' Megamind covering similar themes and ideas, Universal needed to pull something special out of the bag to truly make a mark in the computer-animated market.

Despicable Me centres around Gru (Steve Carell), a super-villain who suddenly finds himself overshadowed by new villain on the block Vector (Jason Segel). Gru therefore plans his greatest scheme yet: stealing the moon. After one or two unexpected turns of events, Gru hatches a idea to adopt three orphan girls to help him succeed in his his evil plan.

There's a fair amount to like about Despicable Me. Carell is entertaining as Gru, and the young voice actresses for the three orphans Margo, Edith and Agnes (Miranda Cosgrove, Dana Gaier and Elsie Fisher) do very well, bringing a level of cuteness to the trio that is sweet but never saccharine and increasingly authentic as the film goes on. Russell Brand is almost unrecognisable as Gru's right hand man Doctor Nefario, giving him a pleasing gruff tone, but I felt he could have done a little more with the role. The cast elsewhere are satisfactory but never do much to truly bring the supporting players to life. I also can't help but feel that Jason Segel as Gru's rival villain Vector was somewhat miscast, holding back too much in a role that requires a more over-the-top approach; compare his performance to, say, Rainn Wilson's antagonist Gallaxhar in Monsters Vs. Aliens and Segel's villainous turn here just doesn't stand up.

The plot is predictable but enjoyable. At only ninety minutes in length, however, there's limited time for the relationship between Gru and his adoptive daughters to develop, the kind of development that has been achieved much more successfully in multiple Pixar offerings. That said, there is definite heart at the centre of Despicable Me's story, something which comes through pleasingly more and more throughout.

Elsewhere, things feel a little more uneven. The action set pieces never deliver anything more than satisfactory thrills. The plot too never fully resolves the fact that Despicable Me inhabits a curious world where super-villains live, but with no recognisable superheroes to oppose them. It's an odd choice, and one that becomes less important in the film's final act, but certainly one which for me left parts of the film's story feeling perfunctory or incomplete .

Ultimately, Despicable Me is enjoyable with enough going for it to make it a worthwhile watch. It never comes close to the heights of a Pixar classic in either story or technical wizardry; but it's never mediocre either, something which the inferior Megamind cannot claim. Placing a film like this under close scrutiny is only setting yourself up for disappointment. It's hard to truly recommend Despicable Me with so many perfect and near-perfect pieces of cinema being released in the CGI arena, but as straightforward entertainment it succeeds more often than it fails.

6/10

Film Review | Cars 2 (2011)

When praising Pixar, you're spoilt for choice as to where to start. For me, one of the key things Pixar get right time after time is their ability to create characters of depth and humanity, whether those characters are people, animals, toys, monsters, or even robots. Hand in hand with this go the worlds these characters inhabit. They feel real - the characters believe in them unreservedly, and therefore so do we - and they are always pleasurable destinations to which the audience can escape. The one exception to these truths is Cars, Pixar's 2006 effort depicting a world populated by anthropomorphic automobiles. The universe presented in Cars never quite rang true or appealed in the same way as, for example, Andy's toys or the employees of Monsters Incorporated. For Cars to become only the second film in Pixar's canon to spawn a sequel in some ways therefore seems an unlikely choice; by the same token, it could allow Pixar the opportunity to flesh out the characters and ideas introduced in the first film, bringing them closer in quality to what audiences have come to expect from the studio.

Cars 2 continues the story of racing car Lightning McQueen (Owen Wilson) who now lives in Radiator Springs with best friend Mater (Larry The Cable Guy), girlfriend Sally (Bonnie Hunt) and the other friends he made during the first film. After some goading from Formula 1 racing car Francesco Bernoulli (John Turturro), McQueen enters the World Grand Prix, a series of three races taking place in Japan, Italy and England. Meanwhile, secret agent Finn McMissile (Michael Caine) is working to foil a secret plot involving a new type of biofuel, in which Mater soon finds himself accidentally tangled up.

Reviewing any Pixar film is always what I classify as a "Godfather Part III" review. In the same way that the third part of Coppola's trilogy may pale in comparison to the first two but is actually pretty good in its own right, Cars 2 must be judged against both the studio's previous output as well as the wider spectrum of other films in its genre.

Taking the former point of view, Cars 2 falls very short of the benchmark Pixar have set themselves. Compare this to their most recent output and it simply doesn't stand up in any way. The script is uninspired and heavy-handed in delivering its moral messages. There are almost no traces of Pixar's trademark subtle humour that appeals to both adults and children, and the cultural references just feel tired - be prepared to see wacky Japanese advertising and Mater driving on the wrong side of the road in England. Yawn.

Any opportunity to develop the characters from the less-than-stellar first outing is squandered. Most of the returning cast are reduced to one-dimensional cameos, and big name new additions such as Caine and Eddie Izzard fail to inject any real energy into proceedings. The animation is fine, but often feels no more than functional. The CGI is at its best during the espionage-based set pieces, but things are woefully lacking elsewhere during the race sequences which feel pedestrian and really quite flat.

That said, Pixar at their worst is still quite good in comparison to a lot of the dross currently filling the children and family market. The animation may not be Pixar's best, but it's still relatively vibrant and detailed, in particular the panoramic shots of London and Italy. The story is simplistic, and the grand prix and spy mission strands never quite mesh comfortably, but the film remains fun and keeps the pace up. It's also clear that director John Lasseter is a fan of classic spy flicks, with many pleasing nods to everything from the Bond Films to Austin Powers.

But there are still one or two slip ups that can't be forgiven. Turturro's turn as the antagonistic F1 racer Bernoulli is potentially the film's most solid and entertaining performance. But, having been set up during the first two acts of the film as a credible rival to McQueen, the character is forgotten entirely during the climax; a half-hearted return during the closing scenes feels suspiciously as if Lasseter suddenly realised he'd left one of the film's key characters hanging in mid air.

Cars 2 therefore ends up as by far Pixar's weakest production to date, but still a couple of notches above the average contemporary family fare. All things considered, it's fun and will undoubtedly succeed in entertaining the younger members of the audience. Anyone looking for the humour, heart, charm, expert storytelling or breathtaking visuals of Wall-E, Up or Toy Story 3 will be sorely disappointed. It's hard to recommend Cars 2 when there are numerous five star classics in Pixar's back catalogue, as well as offerings from several other animation studios that are also superior to it. Cars 2 is by no means awful, just seriously disappointing.

5/10

Film Review | The Princess And The Frog (2009)

Following 2007's Enchanted, Disney's next move in telling a "Disney Princess" story needed to be a careful one. Having lampooned their own legacy through Amy Adams' Giselle - an amalgamation of at least three classic princesses from Disney's back catalogue - how could the studio return to telling stories of lovelorn female royalty and their handsome princes without feeling antiquated and out of touch? Their first attempt, 2009's The Princess And The Frog, was a risk not only in this sense, but also in being the studio's first traditional hand drawn feature in five years.

The film tells the story of Tiana (Anika Noni Rose), a young girl living in 1920s New Orleans whose ambition is to one day fulfil the dream her and her late father shared of running their own high class restaurant. After self-important Prince Naveen of Maldonia (Bruno Campos) arrives in New Orleans and falls foul of Doctor Facilier (Keith David), a voodoo magician who transforms him into a frog, he and Tiana cross paths, drawing them both further into Facilier's spells which they must work together to break.

Stylistically, The Princess And The Frog is a comprehensive success and completely charming. The animation is top notch, with each character crafted with the same level of detail and care generally not seen since Disney's Renaissance pieces of the 1990s. Influence is drawn from a great many animated Disney classics, but at the same time the characters and settings feels fresh and original.

The music used throughout is also superb, placing the film authentically within the time period and geographical location in which it is set. The whole film feels like a love letter to the jazz, blues, big band and gospel music of the time, and at times the musical numbers feel like they're aimed more at the adults in the audience than the youngsters with their somewhat esoteric roots. Whilst there might not be any one tune that sticks in your head like an "Under The Sea" or a "Hakuna Matata", the brilliant soundtrack will lift your spirits both throughout the film and after the credits roll.

The main drawback for the film for me was the story itself. After a strong opening, the film slows down a great deal with the middle act feeling too drawn out. There are songs to keep things going, and some enjoyable characters join Tiana and Naveen on their journey, but I felt at several points that things needed to step up in terms of both pace and focus. Disappointing for a film only a few minutes over the hour-and-a-half mark, and not something Disney used to have trouble with in their 2D animation heyday.

I was also a little underwhelmed by Tiana's personal journey. I accept that as a young, black woman in early 20th Century America, to dream of owning your own restaurant would be a huge ambition, but I just couldn't get totally behind it as the driving force behind Tiana's character arc. The contrast between her "work hard" attitude and Naveen's happy-go-lucky slacker was also at times presented in too broad a fashion as the film's moral message.

Things are saved by a tense and emotional finale, however, showing that the studio haven't lost their touch with races against time and good ultimately battling against evil. As far as Disney's return to both princess stories and traditional animation are concerned, The Princess And The Frog is far more success than failure. Even though the story may not be one of the studio's very best, the drive to do something different with a tried and tested formula is highly commendable. It is the creativity and imagination on show in terms of the animation and music which makes the film something genuinely special. At the moment, Disney doesn't have any plans to release any more hand drawn features; if The Princess And The Frog ends up being the studio's swansong to its traditional format, it is going out on a pleasing high.

8/10

Film Review | Kung Fu Panda 2 (2011)

Generally speaking, it's a good time to be a fan of computer animated films. With such superb quality output from the likes of Pixar, the bar being raised so high also means other studios have to up their game more and more to be able to compete. This means even more great offerings for cinema-goers; but the flipside, of course, is that even if a computer animated film hits the mark in many ways, it can quickly go from being a resounding success to falling into the chasm of good-but-not-great oblivion by slipping up in only one or two areas. Unfortunately, this is the tale for Kung Fu Panda 2.

The film picks up a short while after the end of the first film, with the eponymous black and white bear Po (Jack Black) now established as the Dragon Warrior and continuing to fight and train alongside the Furious Five and Master Shifu (Dustin Hoffman). However, a new threat is posed by Lord Shen (Gary Oldman) who harnesses the power of fireworks to create a weapon so powerful it could bring an end to kung fu.

Kung Fu Panda 2 does a lot of things right. In terms of animation, it's almost certainly the most technically proficient and visually impressive film DreamWorks have produced so far. The style of animation is carried over well from the first film, giving the world created a pleasingly authentic Chinese mythological feel. There are also more hand drawn segments included throughout the film than in the first, which fit in well with the aesthetic of the story. The way in which Po's back story is fleshed out in the film is commendable, as it would have been very easy for the studio to simply churn out a brightly-coloured fight fest with no heart that kids would have still lapped up.

With all of this going for it, and being a fan of the original movie, I really wanted to like Kung Fu Panda 2 a lot. But the problems are too big to ignore. The story feels very rushed at the start, then stretched out too much over the middle acts, making things feel pretty uneven overall. The script too feels pedestrian, with much less personality and humour than in the first film. And whilst there are some impressive action and fight sequences throughout, there are also some which feel too busy and confused to enjoy, a la Transformers.

The only vocal performance worthy of praise is that of Oldman, who hams it up a treat as the maleficent peacock Shen and steals every scene he's in. Black's performance is uninspired with the comedian going through the motions from start to finish. The Furious Five are wasted almost entirely, with only Angelina Jolie as Tigress receiving any notable role. What's the point of having Jackie Chan and Lucy Liu back again to voice characters, only to give them merely a handful of forgettable lines throughout?

The biggest flaw, however, is in the vast reduction of Hoffman's role as Shifu. Hoffman's participation can pretty much be considered a cameo here. One of the key reasons for the first film's success was the vocal performance of Hoffman and his brilliant interplay with Black. His absence from a huge portion of the sequel removes that element without successfully replacing it, and the film really suffers from the loss of Shifu as a character and Hoffman as a vocal presence.

All of this means Kung Fu Panda 2 never fulfils the potential it holds. The most disappointing fact of all is it's clear from what is here that the potential held was huge. It's not a bad film by any stretch of the imagination, but it's a prime example of a film that should have been a champion quickly becoming an also-ran through a few key mistakes. Taking into account the cinematic masterpieces being produces by Pixar, now is the time that DreamWorks simply have to take their animated output to the next level not only in animation but in every other way too if they want to be considered contenders to Pixar's throne. We've yet to see DreamWorks' answer to a Toy Story 3 or a WALL-E, and, unfortunately, Kung Fu Panda 2 doesn't bring them any closer to achieving it.

6/10

Film Review | A Town Called Panic (2010)

The last time someone decided to turn a television advertising campaign into a feature film, we got Johnny English - fairly potent proof that using a character and concept that works for thirty seconds to sell you something is not the most advisable route to cinematic success. I would be hard pressed to pick a more recent advertising campaign that I would see as holding potential in this area - maybe you could get Richard Curtis to string together the entire story of the BT Family, adding in plenty of middle-class heterosexual humour and a character whose main purpose is to swear a lot in places where jokes should be. I digress. I'm sure a campaign that would most likely not be too near the top of your list is the one for Cravendale milk. Not the one about cats with thumbs (although that could hold the potential for a genuinely creepy surreal horror), but the ones before that which featured animated farm animal toys. You know, these ones.

Well, that's essentially what A Town Called Panic is. To be fair, writers and directors Stéphane Aubier and Vincent Patar created the concept as a TV series years before being approached by Cravendale, but it's the adverts that are likely to be most British viewers' first thought when watching the film.

A Town Called Panic follows the misadventures of Horse, Cowboy and Indian who live together in the eponymous settlement. We start off with Cowboy and Indian building a last-minute birthday present for Horse with disastrous consequences, but there's no chance you'll be able to predict where things go from there.

The film works about as well as you'd expect. The animation is charming and generates some genuine humour through its simple execution. I enjoyed the quirky, jerky motion of Horse, Cowboy, Indian, their friends and acquaintances, never once tiring of the chosen style. It also fits well with the surreal, slapstick, non-sequitur style of humour. Think Monty Python meets Wallace & Gromit via The Young Ones and you're on the right lines. It's also worth noting that, even though the entire film is in French with English subtitles, none of the humour seemed to be lost because of this.

If you're expecting a film with a definite narrative, A Town Called Panic is not it. Just when you think you've got a handle on where the story might be headed, something else turns up completely out of left field. It's not going to be to everyone's cup of tea, as there will undoubtedly be viewers who dislike the lack of a strong narrative thread. Don't try to take the film on anything much more than face value either. This isn't deep meaningful social commentary, but that's pretty much the point of it. It's ridiculous entertainment that at times is ridiculously entertaining.

Despite the animation and humour working well for the majority of the film, even at just over seventy minutes in length there were times when A Town Called Panic felt overstretched. The original TV series episodes were only around five minutes long, so making the concept work at feature length was always going to be a challenge for Aubier and Patar. They manage it for the most part, but there are parts where proceedings have been padded out a little too much. That said, the execution is far more success than failure and there are at the very least three or four laugh-out-loud moments.

There really isn't anything else out there like A Town Called Panic, so that in itself warrants giving it a look. If you like your humour structured and multi-layered, this may not be the film for you. But as a surreal take on animated humour which sets out purely to entertain through its silliness and unpredictability, you could do an awful lot worse. Anway, I'm off to the fridge. I suddenly have a hankering for a large glass of milk.

7/10