Morning Glory Press Conference

To promote their new film, Morning Glory, actors Harrison Ford, Rachel McAdams and Patrick Wilson Patrick Wilson and director Roger Michell held a press conference at Claridge’s Hotel in London. A large selection of the international press arrived to ask questions varying from environmental issues to ‘special body language’. Harrison Ford was a quietly dominant presence and both very intelligent and dryly humorous. Patrick Wilson seemed a little as though he might be suffering from an inferiority complex from his co-star, but was also interesting and funny. Rachel McAdams was charming and excitable and Roger Michell was also a pleasant interviewee.Mr Michell, I’m sure you’re aware that in this country the title of the film, I’m told, can mean something… Different?

RM: I had heard that it can have a second meaning. I think Paramount caught up with this possible confusion quite late in the day. I’m not sure if it’s something current in America, Patrick are you familiar with the expression?

PW: I think it’s left a bit open by ‘late in the day’, the way I understand it.

Was there any question of changing the title for Britain’s sensibilities?

RM: On the contrary, I think it’s especially appropriate to Britain.

As well as being a comedy, the film makes some pertinent points about the blurring of journalism and entertainment nowadays. Is this something you were keen to get across without being preachy or shoving it down our throats?

RM: Exactly. The film doesn’t attempt to proselytise about what the balance between hard news and entertainment should be. Clearly that is the debate television in general and morning television in particular. How far do you stress the hard news bit and how far do you stress the funky cooking bit and that’s integral to our characters and to our plot. The film raises that debate and then kicks it around with some passion but it doesn’t pretend to come up with a formula or a particular answer.

Ms McAdams, I was struck by how much your performance reminded me of a young Katherine Hepburn, I wondered if that was the way you approached it, to capture that tone and zestful feeling?

RMcA: Thank you, that’s very flattering. I don’t know what I was thinking. I really loved the way [scriptwriter] Aline [Brosh McKenna] wrote this character. I thought she was really hopeful and energetic. There was lots of room for physicality which is something I love to do and Roger encouraged that a lot. I don’t know that I had anyone in particular in mind. I certainly met a lot of producers – not many women in this role, because it is a really taxing job and difficult to have balance in your personal life. I liked her energy and her gusto.

Mr Wilson, there would be no need for you to…

PW: [interrupting] to speak at all!

That’s true!

PW: [Motions as if to leave] Thank you, thank you!

I’m far too polite to let such a thing happen. There was no need for you to go to anchorman school for this film, you just needed to phone your dad.

PW: That’s right, my dad and my brother are both TV anchors, on the same station.

No rivalry there then?

PW: I think my brother’s waiting for my dad to retire to take over the spot.

What was their critical assessment of the film?

PW: They loved it. I remember there was a time when my dad, who’s been a night time anchor for over forty years, was switching channels and had to do the noon news and that wasn’t even a morning show – it was hilarious to see my dad up, much less speaking at eleven or noon. That’s one of the things I said to Roger when I first met him, for what it’s worth, the script is a pretty accurate description of the attitude of the evening presenter. My dad’s not nearly as crotchety as Mr Ford’s character, but the attitude of the evening news men towards morning fluff was pretty accurate.

In another lifetime, I worked on a morning programme and apart from the comedy, the film’s depiction is sadly spot-on. Mr Ford, you give a brilliantly dry comic performance, but we so rarely see you in comic roles. Is this through choice or do you not get enough comedy scripts?

HF: I don’t think there’s a lot of wit in comedy anymore. In America it’s taken on a certain adolescent humour. I’m a little too old for that. I was grateful to have this script. It was very well-written and the character was an interesting one for me to play.

Were any of you watchers of breakfast television before making the film and do you have any newfound respect for the practitioners who make it now?

RM: I didn’t watch much of it and I had the usual kind of prejudices and almost contempt for them, until we started to see how they were made in New York, where there’s such a vibrantly competitive market for these shows. I became more and more in awe of the people who stay up all night doing these shows and by ten o clock it’s all over and they have to do them again. Rachel and I spent a lot of time hanging out with these people, going to their meetings, seeing what their lives were like, what remained of them and seeing what a difficult balancing act it was for these networks with morning shows to assemble a news-y, entertaining programme, so I came out of it with much more respect for them.

Ms McAdams, what was it like making a film about one of the programmes you’ve undoubtedly appeared to promote your films in the past?

RMcA: It’s very interesting to be on the other side of the fence. I watched a lot of morning television growing up as a kid because I skipped school all the time. I didn’t play hooky or go out and smoke pot or do normal things, I watched daytime television. So I had a fair amount of experience with what you see in front of you but not so much behind the scenes, so it was really fun to go on these shows and see the anchors with their fluffy slippers on behind the desk or their accoutrements beside them off camera. And from the point of view of the control room, it’s a gong show back there, it’s completely crazy, fast-paced, melodramatic… I had a hard time following it when we first got there, it’s so vast. Stories are over before you’ve even acknowledged it. I have a lot of respect for what happens back there and how much energy and vitality you have to have to make it through a 3am to 10am shift and then do it all over again the next day.

Mr Wilson, did growing up in a TV family give you a different perspective on breakfast television, if indeed you watched it at all?

PW: I did watch it. I watched a lot of news. I think what was interesting was watching the shift from news to entertainment back pre-cable when everybody watched the news and the ratings were astonishing because the numbers of people that watched news were just huge. It was a daily ritual. With cable it became much different with people jockeying for a position, ratings became more important so news became much more like entertainment. That was really interesting to see from a perspective of growing up around news and watching how that’s shifted. I had the same reaction growing up in a newsroom, watching the madness. The good presenters and anchors are the people listening to someone yelling in their ear going, ‘camera one! Stall them! Keep going!’ [adopts, calm, measured newsreader tone] and all the while you’re sitting there, talking, telling the news. The good ones are the ones that don’t get rattled or if the teleprompter screws up being able to speak and not just be automatic.

What is your experience of watching or not watching morning television Mr Ford?

HF: My experience comes from appearing on morning television over the years to promote films. I have been part of all kinds of morning shows. I certainly admire those people that do it well and there are a lot of people I think that do. My character [Mike Pomeroy] is a pretentious, stuffy, self-satisfied person who really only has respect for what he’s done, his particular form of journalism. I could understand what Mike’s point of view was, but as I say, I respect people who do a good job, no matter what their job is.

He’s an old-school journalist; he’s always done his job properly and got the story, which is a dying art.

HF: He thinks it’s a sacred profession. And in a sense it used to be. In the United States, the most trusted man in America was Walter Cronkite, who kept his opinions out of it until nearly the end of his career when he came out against the Vietnam War. I still think that the network news anchors do a very good job, they have the resources and the budget in order to do it, but there’s another brand of news now that confirms whatever political prejudice you have and is full of bombast and vitriol and I think that contributes to the divisiveness and the lack of civility in American culture.

Ms McAdams, can you tell us your favourite news programme favourite broadcaster?

RMcA: Actually nowadays, I really like to listen to the radio; I find it a nice way to start the morning. I’m not as up on television anymore, I think I wore it out when I was younger. I OD’d on it. I really like CBC [Canadian Broadcasting Corporation]. I still live in Canada so I listen to CBC Radio every morning, John Givenchy, Matt Galloway. Shout out to the Canadian radio guys!

Mr Ford, can you tell us about your environmental work?

HF: I’m delighted to be involved in communicating about the environment. For twenty-five years or so I’ve been involved with an organisation called Conservation International and it was at their behest that I went to Nagoya [where a UN Biological Diversity Convention was held last year] to urge adoption of their agenda by the 192 nations that were assembled there, of which, only three nations are not signatories to the UN Convention on Biodiversity, one is The Holy See, The Vatican, the other is Andorra and guess what the third one is? The United States of America. So I went not only to urge for the protection of more of the terrestrial surface of the earth and the ocean, but to interesting the American government in stepping up to the plate and use that opportunity to become a signatory to the Convention. I feel that there was some significant agreement at Nagoya that was followed up by some positive approaches the following Convention. It’s an ongoing battle but I’m happy to be able to be part of it. It’s critical that we make significant attempts to address the issue so our children can have something left of the world to live in. It’s that simple.

Mr Michell, what are your thoughts about ITV’s Day Break, which shares its name with the fictional programme in your film and how do you think it might improve its ratings?

RM: Well just a little background to that: we got there first! We were called Day Break before they were called Day Break. We had to go through all the names of the real TV shows and we were amazed to find that of all the 250,000 stations, no one had thought of the name Day Break. Adrian Chiles’s mob then put us wrong by choosing that name. [Addressing McAdams and Wilson] Weren’t you on that show today? I think that’s going out tomorrow. I have it on good authority that Rachel McAdams makes an anchovy and chocolate omelette.

PW: Mars Bar and anchovy, a McAdams speciality.

RMcA: [Embarrassed] they said not to take it seriously!

What was it like, Ms McAdams, taking part in the programme?

RMcA: It wasn’t the tastiest interview I’ve ever had. Patrick won the omelette competition that I wasn’t aware we were having and proceeded to eat his omelette and not share any.

PW: Not so much. Harrison looks after the environment, I make an omelette.

RMcA: Yes he did, he made a nice, fluffy omelette and I made a Mars Bar omelette, which I think will catch on one of these days, so you better get used to it.

Mr Ford, how do you think Piers Morgan will do in succeeding celebrated television host, Larry King?

HF: He’s promoting his show by professing to be looking for the truth in his subjects. So I shall have nothing to do with him! I’m not interested in the truth; I’m interested in selling product. You want the truth? Go someplace else. Not my business.

Mr Ford, how did you find playing the ‘third worst person in the world’, as your character is repeatedly described and can you tell us anything about the forthcoming Cowboys and Aliens?

HF: I had no difficulty at all slipping into the skin of the third worst person in the world. It was a very well written script, the characters were very clear, the path of the character, from being the third worst person in the world to perhaps the fourth, that he had through his relationship with Rachel’s character, was a clear dramatic obligation and it was great fun to play that character.Cowboys and Aliens, which comes out in July, seems to be the kind of movie people go to these days, more than once. I liked being involved in one of those. I think everyone involved did a bang-up job. It was wonderful working with Daniel Craig, who is a funny, smart, guy and the director, Jon Favreau. It was a very different kind of movie, I was very happy to do it. I love Westerns, it’s great to be outside all day on a horse. I play a grumpy old man in that as well.

I understand Kim Jong-il as being the worst person in the world, but what did actress Angela Lansbury do to be the second, Mr Wilson?

PW: Oh, that’s the trick right there. It was a toss-up between her and Betty White. But she’s not pleasant, let me tell you that.

How was it acting like you didn’t like Diane Keaton in the film, when clearly she’s so likable, Mr Ford?

HF: I’m in it for the money, that’s what I do. It was clear that that was the relationship. She’s fun to work with, she’s very smart. I’ve always admired her work; she was a pleasure to work with. Roger is a really helpful director, he sets up situations very well and it was easy and fun to do.

And how did you find working with Diane Keaton, Ms McAdams?

RMcA: I’ve been fortunate, this is the second time I’ve worked with Diane. It was sort of a strange shift because I played her daughter in The Family Stone a few years ago and then to go to playing her boss, whom she didn’t like – I was so used to being her baby and she was so lovely and we were on the same team against Sarah Jessica Parker’s character and now she’s slamming doors in my face and making fun of me and calling me Gidget and I was like, ‘well this isn’t fair!’ But it was great to have those two very different experiences with her because she can do so much and I love being around her as an actress and as a person. She’s a fabulous person, even at six o clock in the morning.

Mr Ford, there’s a scene in the film we’re you’re in a bar with several real-life newsreaders, what did you talk about off camera with them?

HF: Chicks. No, we told terrible, bad jokes. It was midday, in a bar, with no drinks, with several people I’d never met before. They were all very charming, but their jokes were terrible. So that’s what we did, we sat around telling jokes, we didn’t talk about the news business.

Back to Diane Keaton, there’s an amusing scene in which she plays the bagpipes, had she had any lessons before?

RM: We did have group bagpipe rehearsals but unfortunately only Diane showed any aptitude for the instrument. That was a longer sequence as you can imagine, but no she never really got a single note out of it. It was her only attempt and it was a dismal failure, but it’s funny.

Mr Ford, do you recall working with Alison Doody, on Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade? What was she like to work with? I met her recently and she had nothing but praise for you, she said you perhaps one of the most important people she’d ever met.

HF: What was the name? Of course I remember her, she was a pleasure. She was quite new at the game at that point but she was great. Quite beautiful, playing my love interest… lucky me. She brought a lot to the table. She was delightful. I never got to know her quite as well as she got to know me, apparently, but she was really sweet.

You’ve obviously got a great sense of humour; who makes you laugh Mr Ford?

HF: I laugh a lot, largely at appropriate junctures. A lot of people make me laugh, Steve Martin, Robin Williams. Steve Martin’s a classic comedian and Robin is in a world of his own. I like Billy Connelly quite a lot, but then I like Benny Hill.

Ms McAdams, have you, like your character, ever had trouble with your work life interrupting your relationships?

RMcA: Probably that I’m not aware of, yeah! I think that the nature of film is that you work really intensely for a few months and you leave your home and your family, everything behind and it’s really easy to become very myopic and focussed on that one thing, so I’m sure I’ve pissed a few people off doing that. But then you get time to come home and reconnect.

252 Sign of Life Review

The title of this film refers to the emergency signal used by Japanese fire fighters, basically their equivalent of an SOS signal. When a massive typhoon hits Tokyo, causing enormous hailstones to rain down on the city before a huge tidal wave swamps the streets, hundreds of commuters are killed in an unprecedented natural disaster. Former fireman Yuji and his deaf daughter Shiori are trapped in the subway after it floods, along with a precious few other survivors. Yuki must utilise his survival skills to ensure his small band stays alive long enough to be rescued from the unstable underground prison they find themselves in. Meanwhile, Yuji’s former colleagues above ground work tirelessly to rescue the survivors.

252: Sign of Life is portentous, over-long, predominantly dull and very cheesy. There’s supposedly a central debate about to what extent rescues services should put themselves at risk to help others, but the arguments are uninvolving and lost in the overwhelming tedium. There’s no sense that any of the characters are ever in any real danger – anyone who has a line to speak survives; it’s hard to care about any of them when the film plays it this safe. There’s a passing resemblance to the disaster movies of Roland Emmerich (indeed, the scenes of Tokyo being destroyed do look rather like a monster-less Godzilla movie) and whilst he is hardly a creative genius, at least there’s a sense of fun and entertainment in his films, which is shockingly absent in 252.

True, the scenes of destruction are quite impressive visually and the film’s one moment of invention and interest is done well – an electric aquarium pump is repurposed in an intelligent manner – but this is far too little to recommend the film by. The killing blow comes with its none more melodramatic ending, which takes things so far over the top, it was actually very funny – including, but not limited to, a fireman tearfully saluting his former ally Yuji, emerging from the earth, covered in mud and blood, carrying a comrade on his shoulders, all in glorious slow motion, backed by quivering strings. That scene was wholly, if unintentionally, hilarious, but far from a reason to see this film. When there’s a whole world of excellent cinema out there to explore, it’s impossible to recommend films as dull and listless as this one.

Morning Glory Review

The setup for Morning Glory seems promisingly funny, if unlikely to rip up any rulebooks. Roger Michell (Notting Hill) directs spunky television producer Rachel McAdams, who is given a tough break in charge of an ailing breakfast television programme (which, in an amusing coincidence, is called Day Break), to which she manages to lure Harrison Ford’s crotchety and serious newscaster as a new presenter. Ford’s commitment to hard journalism and general misanthropy clashes with the triviality of the show, his co-anchor Diane Keaton and McAdams’s positivity. Comedy, surely, ensues.

It feels wrong to criticise a film that seems to try so hard and has plenty of good things going for it, but Morning Glory is terribly lacklustre, utterly predictable and painfully average. Those good things going for it include an impressive cast – Ford, Keaton and McAdams are flanked by Patrick Wilson and Jeff Goldblum – a buoyant central character and some amusing sparring between Keaton and Ford. The latter is wonderful on screen and draws attention like some sort of cinematic black hole, warping the very fabric of the film around him, to utilise a rather eccentric metaphor. His acerbic comments are delivered very amusingly. Keaton is another charismatic screen presence, but is underused. McAdams’s character is a reasonably decent female role model, but is reduced to waddling around in her pants in a couple of instances. There’s also an all too brief cameo fromModern Family’s Ty Burrell, arguably the funniest man in American television right now (though that is possibly not an argument you would win).

It comes as no surprise to learn that the film’s script is written by Aline Brosh McKenna of The Devil Wears Prada fame. No surprise, as the plot of Morning Glory is nearly identical – a young woman enters high powered workplace and experiences trouble with an older, unpleasant colleague. Eventually, however, she earns their respect and finds success and love. The plot goes nowhere you wouldn’t expect it to and a very false of jeopardy is created by some totally arbitrary deadlines. You’ll also see the final payoff coming a mile away.

The central conceit of Ford’s character – who pertains that the news is scared and under threat from the influence of crass entertainment – is rather undersold too: as McAdams further dumbs down Day Break, its ratings go up, yet there is little indictment of this or any negative outcome, or any real discussion of the issue at all. Surely a film should expect its audience to be able to handle a more complex debate than that?

Ultimately, the film is a disappointment, not really because it is particularly bad, but because it failed to live up to its potential, a true shame given the calibre and talents of its cast and of Harrison Ford in particular. One wonders how closely art imitated life in this film: was Ford unwillingly herded into a fluffy feature that is quite possibly beneath him? A bigger dose of his character’s nasty streak and a curbing of its more sentimental sensibilities would have doneMorning Glory a lot of good. As it stands, the edgiest thing about it is its poorly chosen title.

Season of the Witch Review

As an unashamed Nicolas Cage fan, it was heartening to witness the star’s run of form in 2010. Excellent turns in Kick-Ass and Bad Lieutenant (one of my films of the year) proved Cage to be the go-to-guy for unbridled dementia. The damp squib that was The Sorcerer’s Apprentice may not have achieved such heights, but as a 300 pound Texan once said, two out of three ain’t bad. Hopes were high then, that Cage would continue to impress with Season of the Witch.

The film stars Cage and Hellboy himself, Ron Pearlman, as medieval crusaders, who part ways with their comrades after becoming disillusioned by killing in the name of a supposedly benevolent god. They return to a country non-specific, which they find ravaged by plague. The local authorities deem the plague to be the doing of a young girl they have decided is a witch. Under duress, Cage, Pearlman and a selection of others are tasked with escorting the girl to a monastery for her witchcraft to be undone.

Season of the Witch is either enjoyable nonsense or a total dog’s dinner depending on how forgiving you are of cinematic stupidity, how many beers you’ve had and whether or not it’s ten o’ clock on Saturday night and nothing else is on. If you answered, ‘very’, ‘several’ and ‘yes’ to those three conditions, then you will no doubt enjoy Season for the romp it wishes to be. Otherwise, you may struggle to be impressed.

The film is stuffed to the gills with unoriginality – there’s a spot of the previous year’s Sean Bean starrer, Black Death, a dash of The Last Exorcism’s ambiguity (for a while), a vague air of Witchfinder General and Twilight’s naff CGI wolves to be noted in proceedings. There’s a certain ‘seen it all before’ feeling that mars the film throughout – up to and including a ‘cross the rickety rope bridge over the chasm of doom sequence’. Actions set-pieces are met with audience indifference, the special effects are no great shakes and the direction by Dominic Sena (Swordfish, Gone in 60 Seconds) is workman-like. It’s also a shame Cage doesn’t utilise his British accent.

The film does retain some charm in its occasional scares and its better than average cast, which includes the aforementioned Cage and Pearlman, Stephen Graham (This is England, The Damned United), Robert Sheehan (the gobby, immortal one from Misfits) and a cameo from an unrecognisably plague-scarred Christopher Lee. TV’s Claire Foy satisfies as the witch, but other than that, the cast don’t particularly impress, despite their accumulative on-screen charisma. Sheehan is wasted in a straight role – a crime given how natural a comedic performer he is. You keep expecting his earnest altar boy to crack a few unspeakably rude jokes, but to no avail.

Indeed, a healthy dose of humour could have improved the film no end. Whilst Season of the Witch may have pretensions of seriousness (a prevailing theme being the misappropriation of religion), what is required is a more full-blooded boy’s own adventure, with its tongue relocated to its cheek. There are merely two funny moments, one of which was unintentional (wherein Pearlman literally head-butts a minion of Satan – twice). An expansion of the supporting character’s pasts would also have been an improvement – a history between the accused witch and Stephen Campbell Moore’s priest Debelzaq is alluded to, but never elaborated on. Whilst these things would not have made Season of the Witch a classic, they would surely have made it a more memorable and enjoyable film than the stodgy filler that it is.

Films of the Year 2010

Initially, I could only think of a few real stand-out films of this last year, until I trawled through the UK release list for 2010 and found myself with a long list of twenty-three films, which by my reckoning means that on average, there’s been a great film in cinemas just less than once a fortnight, which seems pretty good going to me.

Here then, are my top ten followed by, in no particular order, a list of thirteen honourable mentions.

1. Bad Lieutenant
When Nicolas Cage met Werner Herzog the result was this bizarre and exciting film, which lit a firework under the arse of the crime genre and ran off giggling manically.

2. Inception
Christopher Nolan delivered yet another cinematic tour de force with this visually rich and debate-starting spectacle.

3. The Secret in Their Eyes
Winner of last year’s Oscar for best foreign feature, this slow-burning, generation-spanning whodunit was captivating and moving.

4. Four Lions
Filled with both mirth and tragedy, Four Lions proved to be the year’s most intelligent comedy and reminded us all once more of Christopher Morris’s superlative satirical talent.

5. Lymelife
A clever and melancholy teen rom-com that won me over due to the note-perfect relationship between its leads, Emma Roberts and Rory Culkin.

6. Splice
Almost certainly the creepiest film of the year, Splice delivered both Cronenbergian body-horror and Freudian psycho-sexual warfare, all wrapped up in creature-feature packaging and great visual effects.

7. A Single Man
A combination of Colin Firth’s compelling performance and Tom Ford’s stylish direction created this heartbreaking and quietening film about love and, more importantly, loss.

8. The Disappearance of Alice Creed
A twisty and twisted British thriller centred around three outstanding performances from Gemma Arterton, Martin Compston and Eddie Marsan.

9. World’s Greatest Dad
A Robin Williams comedy devoid of mawkishness? World’s Greatest Dad was wickedly funny dose of pitch black humour with what has frequently been described as the mother of all plot twists.

10. Agora
A historical epic that had more on its mind than simply swords and sandals, Agora was an unashamedly intelligent drama that boasted a superb central performance from Rachel Weisz.

Honourable Mentions
Made in Dagenham, Chico and Rita, Jackboots on Whitehall, Centurion, American: The Bill Hicks Story, Tetro, Cemetery Junction, The Road, A Prophet, The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, Another Year, The Social Network and Toy Story 3.

Notes: 127 Hours only fails to make the number two spot as it isn’t actually out until next year. I saw Monsters the other night just in case it made my top ten (I had a feeling it might), but I thought it was pretty rubbish. Finally, there are more than a few films I missed this year which may well have made my top ten or long list, such as Buried, Black Dynamite and, of course, The Last Airbender.

Tangled Review

After their brief return to traditional hand-drawn animation with The Princess and the Frog, Disney have revisited CG rendering for their new feature, Tangled. Loosely based around the Rapunzel fairytale, Tangled sees Princess Rapunzel (Mandy Moore) stolen from her cot as an infant and imprisoned in a tower for eighteen years by the fiendish Mother Gothel (Donna Murphy) so that the hag may use the power of Rapunzel’s magic hair to remain youthful. Though raised to trust the villain as her real mother and falsely warned of the treacherous nature of the outside world, Rapunzel is desperate to leave her tower and see it, specifically to learn the true nature of the thousands of mysterious lights that appear in the sky every year on her birthday. When the charming thief Flynn Rider (Chuck’s Zachary Levi), pursued by zealous police horse Maximus, arrives at her tower to hide out after a crime, Rapunzel, along with her chameleon companion Pascal, sees the opportunity to escape.

Recently, it seems that fairytales cannot be told without irony, as proven by the incessant pop-culture references of Shrek and by the far more charming genre-skewering of Enchanted. It is somewhat of a refreshing relief then that Tangled plays it pretty much straight. That’s not to say it isn’t funny – far from it. Many laughs are derived from the relentless pursuit of Flynn by Maximus, which plays out a little like a child friendly version of The Fugitive. A posse of rough-looking pub-goers also raise more than a couple of smiles.

Rapunzel, with her permanently bare feet and seventy feet of hair is a perfectly lovely heroine and, with her self-belief, intelligence and sense of adventure is a likable role model for the hordes of young girls who are sure to take her to their hearts. Interestingly, she is not a flawless character and the sequence shortly after leaving the tower in which she flits between revelling in and regretting her decision to deceive her ‘mother’ and leave the tower feels both surprisingly real and amusing. Flynn, who could so easily have been a rather annoying character, is funny and charismatic. The balance of between the two lead characters is poised cleverly enough that the film should have as much appeal for boys and girls.

The animation is predictably polished but stops short of photo-realism, ostensibly intentionally, which gives a warm, inviting look to the film. The action set pieces, particularly the chase at the dam (has there ever been a dam portrayed on the big screen that hasn’t at some point been destroyed? I can think only of the one in Goldeneye) are well executed and visually interesting. Another highlight is the truly beautiful scene in which Rapunzel and Flynn are surrounded by thousands of Chinese lanterns, which is stunningly rendered.

Unfortunately, despite boasting a fun central couple, humorous characters, a scary villain and an energetic plot, Tangled messes up one crucial ingredient of the classic Disney cartoon recipe: the songs. Though sung by with impressive gusto, the tunes are largely unmemorable and fall a little flat. Also slightly troubling was the central romance. Whilst the film makes a point of establishing Rapunzel as only just turned eighteen, Flynn is implied to be several years older, which made me feel a little uncomfortable. Parents are also advised to implement caution when taking more sensitive sprogs to see the film: there were more than a few tears in the screening during the scarier moments, especially towards the end, when even I began to question whether there would be a tragic ending rather than a happy one.

Despite some minor quibbles though, Tangled is a perfectly good animated adventure and will likely prove very popular with legions of children. It also the only film I can think of in which a man armed with a frying pan fights a sword-wielding horse, which is surely reason enough to see it.

EventsRSS: News Maker LG and Framestore present ‘The Dazzling Future of 3D’

As we all know, 3D is the Next Big Thing – and seemingly has been for a while. Whilst the third dimension has been implemented into our cinema screens with such enthusiasm over the last year or so as to quickly become something approaching the norm (especially for animated features), 3D in the home is another matter. The uptake on 3D capable televisions has been slow, but LG intend to change that with their new advertising campaign, which consists of an amusing, 3D commercial to be shown in cinemas and a complimentary interactive trouble-shooting video.

The commercial is produced by London-based and Oscar winning visual effects company Framestore and directed by Richard Ayoade of The IT Crowd, Garth Merenghi’s Darkplace and The Mighty Boosh fame. It stars up and coming comedian and poet, Tim Key as an affable film director introducing the audience to the possibilities and accessibility of 3D in the home, aided by his hapless flatmate. The interactive video – see below – features the duo and attempts to answer any question you might have regarding 3D. Type in ‘passive 3D’, for example, and the pair explain what this means in a sardonic, humorous manner. There are also numerous visual quirks and sight gags to amuse users as well as a few Easter Eggs to discover, should you type in slightly more esoteric demands of the pair. Asking them to ‘strip’ for instance provokes an entertaining response.

As well as seeing the commercial and interactive video, the assembled bloggers and I were also treated to a show reel of Framestore’s work on Avatar, introduced by executive visual effects producer Tim Keene, which mostly consisted of shots of the hangers and robots from the human’s base. Avatar being such a massive undertaking, Framestore collaborated with other visual effects companies to create the Pandora in time for release. Our attention was drawn to a shot of an aircraft, for which Framestore created the ramp, WETA its wings and Industrial Light and Magic the sides. The presentation concluded with several minutes of James Cameron’s own 3D test footage, which involved American football, motorbikes, a Gwen Stefani concert and diving footage, the latter perhaps giving us a clue to how the Cameron-produced 3D cave-diving movie, Sanctum may look (in short, like some blokes in scuba gear in some small, underwater caves, in 3D).

There were also plenty of opportunities for the LG guys, led by Mike Woods, to explain the facts and their speculations on the future of 3D. They explained how their advert deliberately has a rough at the edges aesthetic to distance themselves from the overly slick and stylised 3D presentation we may be used to in cinemas. They were also keen to distance themselves from old-school, red and blue filtered 3D and explained how they were fighting a battle on two fronts in trying to market two different types of 3D – active and passive. The latter you will probably be familiar with from cinemas, the advantage being that the glasses used are cheap and easily replaceable, should ‘Little Jimmy’ (a presumably fictional infant to whom the presenters kept referring to) sit on them. Active 3D involves much more expensive specs that flicker frames across your eyes but offer much higher resolution picture that complements 3D gaming. Passive 3D is being aimed at more common or garden viewers, whilst the active 3D technology is marketed at more discerning tech-heads.

After the presentation, I asked the guys about the uptake of 3D, who admitted it was currently slow as early adopters test the technology. Currently, the lack of TV output available in 3D (apparently 20-30%, which struck me as high) and the cost of the televisions (£800-£1500) means that LG aren’t selling quite as many units as they would like to at the moment, but they seem to be enjoying the challenge of attracting an audience that has only just upgraded to HD. Woods was keen to stress how the shift to 3D is a much more noticeable improvement than the transition to HD. He also told me how, due to technological difficulties, 3D output is mostly in 720p rather than full, 1080p.

Personally, I’m rather ambivalent regarding 3D. I see it as like having a free toy in a packet of cereal – a nice little bonus, but hardly something that influences you whether or not to buy the cereal in the first place. Having seen football in 3D in a pub (an experience LG are seeking to bring to the home) has not changed this. Whilst set pieces such as corners look interesting in the third dimension, the angle of the camera during normal play is much lower than usual, allowing you to see the depth of the field of play rather than what is actually happening. However, it is important to remember that 3D is very much in its infancy. The fact that directors such as Werner Herzog and Martin Scorsese are experimenting with the technology instils faith that something more interesting than the latest Shrek sequel can be produced in 3D. Whether we all will one day be watching Countdown and Coronation Street in 3D in our living rooms is something only time, as they say, will tell.