Category Archives: film review

NZFF: Cave of Forgotten Dreams

A few years ago, in a beautiful French valley, some explorers found a cave. They were searching for undiscovered caves by checking for changes in air pressure, wind drafts, big gaping holes – that sort of thing. And they stumbled upon one of the most fascinating discoveries of recent times. A cave, which had been isolated for tens of thousands of years, and contained the most stunning and well preserved cave paintings ever found.

This is a fascinating subject for a documentary and Werner Herzog was given exclusive and unprecedented access to the now-sealed off cave. And in my opinion, he then proceeded to make the cave and the people involved look ridiculous.

We saw this film in 3D, which I would not recommend. Although some of it may have been shot in 3D, much of the film was not. And it has been poorly post-converted. Which means you get blurry lines around people, and which for some will cause headaches. It’s distracting.
As is Werner Herzog’s commentary. A dull monotonous German accent tunes out anything interesting he has to say. Which is not much in the first place. He makes assumptions and ponders motives, giving the audience little room to make their own conclusions or use their own imaginations. He tells you what to think. Without any factual basis.

He is disrespectful to his interview subjects. He leaves interviews going just a little too long, so you get awkward pauses as someone’s thought trails off, making them look slightly senile or mad. He asks them to dress up or demonstrate weapons but then plays it out of context, so the audience is wondering what is wrong with this person, before he introduces them, or lets them explain why they are doing whatever it is they do.

The score was heavy and felt discordant to me. It didn’t complement the cave paintings, it distracted from them. The actual footage of the paintings was stunning though, and the sequences where these were shown were left long and uncut, so you could fully appreciate their beauty.

Finally Herzog adds a postscript. A completely unrelated note about a nuclear power plant in the region and some albino crocodiles. He ponders “Are we the crocodiles looking back on these paintings” – or something to that effect. So instead of leaving you gazing at these stunning charcoal sketches created by our ancestors and preserved over millennia… he leaves you with some crocodiles. Seriously, WTF?

I hope that another filmmaker one day has the opportunity to use this footage and creates the respectful and amazing documentary that the subject and those studying it deserve.

Advertisements

NZFF: The Tree of Life

It’s a poem which only the poet can understand. Or a painting which makes sense only to the painter. I don’t pretend to understand half of what this film was about but that it is a great work of art is under no doubt.
Like all great masterpieces, it will and has divided critics, confused audiences and caused a bit of interesting conversation.

It should be pretentious, yet it’s not. It is earnest, heartfelt. Beyond the grasp of us mere mortals. But there is a simple message in amongst the metaphors. To love your children. I’m sure there is more to it, and that might come to me if I sit here pondering for hours, which one could easily do. But I guess that’s up to each individual viewer and I won’t extrapolate what others might discover.

The cinematography was stunning. The music grandiose and intimate – wherever one or the other was needed. The child actors put in touching performances, and for a moment you almost even forget that you are watching Sean Penn or Brad Pitt, but not quite. It might have been better if it had been unknown or lesser known actors in these roles.

My personal critique would be of the repeated religious references, but that’s a matter of taste or faith. Also, I’m not sure the film was made any better for the whole creation sequence. The dinosaurs were a little off to me. It was pretty, sure, but left little to the imagination – or too much perhaps. I’m not sure. Just didn’t sit right.

Overall, a beautiful film and I’m glad I watched it, but would I recommend it? Probably not. Which is a shame.

[On a side note, we only had a handful of walk-outs. Which is less than many reports I’ve heard. But more than most films. I guess some people would just rather watch Transformers 3.]

Weekend – Review

When we heard that our friend David’s brother Andrew Haigh had a film showing at this years festival, we went with trepidation… What if it was terrible? Would we have to lie to our friend and say that we liked it?

Fortunately for us (and Andrew I would imagine) Weekend is a fantastic film.
Two men, Russell and Glen, meet at a gay bar and have a one night stand that develops into much more over the course of a weekend.
At heart Weekend is just a series of conversations between the main characters, similar to Before Sunrise (to which it has been compared). But it is so well crafted that you find yourself completely absorbed in the budding relationship between the two.
This a beautifully shot film. The camera work is intimate and remote when it needs to be. There’s little in the way of frills or gimmicks with the camera work or editing (and very little music, apart from incidental or background stuff) which gives the actors the space they need to just act.
And they act very well. Tom Cullen plays Russell, a “mostly out” guy, who is pretty shy, a bit repressed and doesn’t really like talking about being gay. Chris New plays Glen, who is the opposite of Russell in a lot of ways. Out and proud, he’s a bit militant, but also a little messed up. They are both very natural and believable.
As their weekend romance progresses we (and they) learn more about themselves and each other.
Although this is a film with gay themes and is at times quite confrontational, it’s also a film about relationships and in that respect is a film for everyone. It’s about difference between the persona we project and the person we are inside. It’s also about letting others see that person inside.
This was a quiet little gem of a film and I’m really glad we don’t have to lie to our friend about how much we liked it.

Homegrown: Works on Film

Two more films today and lots of work to do before we go, so just a quick recap of my thoughts for Homegrown: Works on Film…

Overall, I think the quality was higher than last years batch of shorts we saw – there weren’t any terrible films this year, but there also weren’t any blow-your-mind-away films.
So we saw:
Blue by Stephen Kang, Ebony Society by Tammy Davis, Eeling by Peter McCully, Bird by Jane Shearer, Meathead by Sam Holst and Preferably Blue by Alan Dickson.
Blue and Ebony Society (despite the terrible title) stood out as my favourites. I found Eeling just a wee bit disgusting, Bird had very clunky dialogue, Meathead was slightly insulting and Preferably Blue was a blatant rip off of Nightmare Before Christmas (although nicely done, with Harry Enfield providing the narration).
Blue has a great concept and is well told. Ebony Society has a very sweet story about a couple of boys doing good for a change and some great young acting talent. It was also the only short with quite a bit of dialogue that worked.
Overall, it seems the less dialogue in your film the less awkward/uncomfortable it is. With the exception of sex scenes with eels, that is… those are always awkward.
This afternoon, we’re off to see ‘Weekend’ by Andrew Haigh (our friend David’s brother) and Cave of Forgotten Dreams in 3D later on. Updates on those tomorrow hopefully…

NZFF – so much to see, so few hours in the day… DAY 1

So the New Zealand (International) Film Festival kicks off in Wellington today, and we start off our long list of films to see with a doco about Bobby Fischer, the chess master.
I want to try put down some thoughts on all the films we see this year, but to do so, I’ll keep them brief, as work is insanely busy (yay!) and half my time will be spent in dimly lit theatres (yay!).
Bobby Fischer Against the World promises an interesting new look on one of America’s more eccentric 70’s celebrities. Unfortunately it doesn’t live up to the promise. I felt a little like the festival organisers heard about this fascinating doco called “Me and Bobby Fischer” (mentioned in the film) and couldn’t get prints in time so they asked HBO to send over their low-budget made-for-TV doco instead.
The technical quality of the film was somewhat lacking. It deals with a huge amount of archive footage, but archive footage does not need to look so bad. The more recent archive footage looked as bad as the 70s and 60s stock. The recent interviews were all framed and shot in the same style. Dull.
Last year we saw “American: The Bill Hicks Story” which had the same challenges for filmmakers. Lots of archive, lots of talking heads, some beautiful photos and a dead subject. It was a beautifully made film, put together in an interesting way that drew acclaim. Bobby Fischer Against the World was not.
Hopefully the rest of the festival is more promising.
A wee plug here for the Wellington Film Festival – calendar links which Mike and I put together. You can copy them to your own calendar and share them with friends. Super organised fun!

Sucker Punch: 110 minutes I want back

We had a lot of time this evening to ponder what makes a good movie. 110 minutes in fact. The entire duration of Zack Snyder’s Sucker Punch.

I could just say it’s rubbish and stop there. But there has to be a point to suffering through this film. Perhaps we can prevent others from the same fate. Or even worse, paying to see it (we got free preview tickets – Thanks Flicks.co.nz for the good intentions – we’ll try not to hold it against you.)
There’s usually a reason that a young director’s boyhood dream film doesn’t get made. So when said young director does well with his first few films (300, Watchmen, Dawn of the Dead), and is given free range with his next project, perhaps someone should keep an eye on it. For the love of humanity.
Sucker Punch is the film that a twelve year old boy, who plays too many video games, would come up with as a masturbation fantasy. It is bad on every level. It’s the kind of film that should have been kept in a quiet room with just him and his sock. It even makes his previous work look worse in hindsight.
It starts of with a bit of promise. A rocky remake of ‘Sweet Dreams’ underneath (or over the top of) a montage which shows the main character, Baby Doll (she never gets a real name – that would destroy little Zack’s dream), lose her mother, accidentally kill her sister while trying to defend herself against an evil step-father. I think we already saw this in Lemony Snickett, which Emily Browning starred in seven years ago.
As soon as she arrives at the mental institute we are overwhelmed with a barrage of stereotypes, over-cranked music, flat acting, and a incomprehensible boring story-line. She enters a dream world (thanks, Inception), where she is able to do a hypnotic dance which allures her captors. We never actually see this dance (no budget left for choreography), so are instead taken a step down the dream ladder to ‘battle scenes’. But she does kick ass alongside her fellow-scantily-clad dancer/captives (Coyote Ugly anyone?)
These battle scenes are where Zack Snyder plays out his various dreams of making
  1. a samurai fight film,
  2. a steam-punk WWI film,
  3. a fantasy dragon slayer film and
  4. a futuristic spy-thriller splosion fest.
This may sound kinda cool, but after Baby Doll defeats the first of three bad guys in the first battle, it’s already getting boring. In fact, these are possibly the most boring action scenes I’ve ever scene. The effects were well done. The look, style and editing was fine. Their failing was in the lack of plot, tension, drama, consequences… you know, story-telling stuff).
Let’s back up a level. I like to call this the melodrama, stereotype level. Early on, I complained that the main bad guy was missing an evil moustache which he could dramatically twist. That was in the ‘reality’ level. In the melodrama level, he had a moustache, of course. The evil/tormented female side-kick had compulsory eastern European accent, although was missing an eye-patch. The cliche department dropped the ball there.
The mentor in the battle dream scenes was some kind of mutant hybrid of David Carradine’s character from Kill Bill and Dicky Fox from Jerry Maguire with his husky voice and terrible inspirational mottos; “If you don’t stand for something, you’ll fall for anything” etc. He even had a David Caruso sunglasses moment, although you’d have to watch right to the end to see that, so don’t bother.
It borrows steals elements and stylistic techniques from many recent films. Moulin Rouge, Sin City, Lord of the Rings, Lemony Snickett and pretty much every Tim Burton film. It doesn’t achieve any of them successfully.
It lacks nuance. It doesn’t care about the characters so neither do we. It doesn’t invest in any of the scenes so their destruction is cheap. It lacks depth, passion, drama, tension. It lacks story. Many films these days lack some of these elements, but I’ve not seen any that lack all of them. It is comparable to a bad video game cut scene. All it was lacking was the bonus point graphics.
It may seem like I’m labouring a point, but so did the film. Only twice before have I wanted to walk out of a film (avoid Southland Tales and Pearl Harbour!), and if we hadn’t been sitting in the far right corner away from the exit, this would have been the first time I actually did.
I’ve heard it described by some reviewers as a glorious failure, but I’d remove the ‘glorious’ and leave it simply as a failure.

Toy Story 3

Can’t say much about this latest masterpiece from Pixar/Disney without revealing the plot, and as I’m rushed for time, this will be a rather brief review-ish. I can say it is awesome. We saw it last night in 3D – very subtle 3D and I’d say it’ll look just as good in plain old 2D, even though 3D does add that extra dimension…. Anyways, we watched the first two Toy Story films last week as a wee refresher, and were once again reminded how brilliant Pixar’s story-telling really is. Oh, and the animation of course.

The third, and probably final, film deals with Andy going away to college. What’s gonna happen to his toys? Adventures ensue, chases, rescues, escapes, kids – good and bad – and toys – good, bad and something in between.
I was reminded of the brilliance of Pixar’s storytelling ability near the end where * SLIGHT SPOILER WARNING * a group of toys accept their fate. It’s a beautiful little moment, with each coming to the same conclusion at a different stage and in a different way. Obviously, it being a kids movie, you can’t really kill off any of the characters, but seeing the toys accept that they will die is much more touching than actually killing one/some off. I think the scene, in fact the whole movie, needs to be watched, as I find myself struggling to explain it as well as it deserves. * END SPOILER *
Instead, I’m going to quote from Empire’s article in the July 2010 edition:

Centred around a brilliant prison-break pastiche, it brings the dominant themes of the second film to a head – loyalty and friendship, the fear of abandonment – and does not sugar-coat them; there are moments of true anguish here. Naturally there are just as many moments of inspired comedy, tremendous warmth and all the other hallmarks of a Pixar classic.

And I’ll finish with this other quote from Empire, which Mike and I found ourselves agreeing with wholeheartedly…

You may well find, you have grown even more fond of [the Toy Story saga] than you imagine.

Toy Story 3 – out now

Hilleke’s musings on 2009’s film offerings – almost a list but not quite

Alright, 2009 is over and done with and twenty-ten is well under way. I’ve been staring at my blog draft for The best films of 2009, rapidly renamed to The Top 5 ‘Top 10 films of 2009 lists’ and now living in limbo without a title until I finish writing this post and am forced to make one up.

The idea of making a ‘best films’ list is very tempting, but is also, inevitably, flawed. Because I am not a film critic or even a film reviewer. I don’t get sent along to see films for free, or even paid to see them (wouldn’t that be nice though?). So the films I see come with built-in bias. They’re almost always films that are well-publicized, happen to be playing near me and happen to be playing when I have money to go see them. They also have a slight sci-fi slant to them, courtesy of Mr T who loves watching these on the big screen, are very rarely serious dramas (which we save for watching at home on DVD so we can cry with wild abandon… but then never actually get round to watching because we’re too busy) and tend to be recommended by our favourite reviewers (Harry Knowles for Mikey and Roger Ebert for both of us).
So within these constraints, I shall endeavour to come up with my favourite films of the year, and my list of why-haven’t-I-watched-these-yet? films which should or could also be on the favourites list. My judging criteria are simple: good, fun, original entertainment, or epic adventure, or any other film that sticks well to it’s genre and does what it says on the tin – with some added spark. Basically something that can guarantee two (plus or minus) hours of escapism and leave you feeling better off afterwards – not too hard you’d think?
Okay, so the easy stand outs for me this year, because they’re memorable, obviously brilliant and I’ve seen them recently (old age, memory loss, you know…) are Up and Where the Wild Things Are. Yes, they’re ‘kids’ films but they’re also very much adult films.
Up is the most touching story I’ve seen in a long time, and has amazing CG, it’s beautiful, inspired, inspiring. It makes you want to be a kid again! It’s full of adventure and excitement. Full review here…
Where the Wild Things are does the same but in a completely reversed kind of way. It reminds you how tough it is to be a kid. Yeah the kids a brat… or is he? Maybe we’re just in denial that we were like that too (my parents sit behind their monitors nodding sagely as they read this). It’s tough being a kid – noone understands you, everyone expects more of you than you know and they never spell out what they want. You’re ignored, harassed and lonely… and then to top it all off you have to go do your chores! WTWTA understands this, and adapts the very short picture-book in a way that helps you understand it too. Because despite all the hardships of ‘growing up’ it can also be a wonderful thing – as long as you look for ‘the wonder’ in the right places. Mike puts it into words better than I can in his review, found here.
I might as well wrap up the animated/kids films now with Coraline. Coraline was my most anticipated film of 2009. And although it was brilliant, and I enjoyed it, Coraline is what the above two flicks aren’t – a true kids film. It was criticised for being too dark and scary, but I’d argue that kids can handle dark and scary better than we can. And they understand the line between fiction and reality better than we think they do. So I’d say watch Coraline with your (or someone else’s) kids and you’ll enjoy it. Watch it by yourself and you’ll think you’ve just seen a really good kids film. More from me here.
Growing up now… and moving to NZ.
Avatar and District 9 both get honourable mentions (aren’t they all just honourable mentions?), not just because they were made in NZ, or friends worked on them, but because they’re both good fun entertainment. Well, District 9 gets pretty gruesome at times, but wins me back with it’s originality. Whereas, Avatar may not be a terribly original story it won me over with it’s shear beauty and style. More here for Avatar and District 9.
The two stand out films of the year were Let the Right one in (not technically 2009 but viewed in that period so it counts) and Moon. Both are simply amazing films. They tick all the boxes and then some. Original stories, amazing cinematography/effects, well-acted, haunting and creepy where needed, amazingly memorable and leaving me wanting to watch them again and again. (Damn, I should have made this list before Christmas – I don’t have either on blu-ray yet!).
Let the Right One in is being re-made this year in the US (original was Swedish) and re-titled with the more correct translation ‘Let Me In‘. One to watch out for if you don’t fancy sitting through two hours of sub-titles – although I will frown on you and shake my head disapprovingly if you don’t give the original a go first. It is a testament, however, to the quality of the original that they are willing to re-make it so soon, simply to have it appeal to the rather large market in the US who don’t want to read sub-titles.
Moon director, Zowie Bowie – oops, I mean Duncan Jones, of course – is working on his second feature, a Blade Runner inspired tale set in future Berlin called Mute, which will also be released in the coming year(s). As well as rumours of Moon sequels. Another one to watch out for.
Finally, to end on a more cheerful note, although again technically not a 2009 film, we watched it and went there in 2009 so it will do. In Bruges was possibly the best subtle/dark comedy I’ve seen in a long time. Very well-acted, original and quite brilliant. If you haven’t watched it check it out. It’s not necessariy laugh-out-loud funny (unless you have a creepy dark sense of humour like me) and gets quite bloody, not to mention the foul language (there’s a bonus feature on the DVD highlighting the monotonous vocabulary of some characters), but it’s good fun. Try it.
Honourable mentions go out to:
Milk, Watchmen, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, Inglorious Basterds, Harry Potter 6(? Is it 6? well, whatever one came out this year. I lose count), and The Hangover.
Special mention to: Rudo y Cursi (which is a small indy Mexican film, worth a watch if you can get your hands on a copy).
Dishonourable mention to:
Transformers 2, Twilight and Angels & Demons – for lowering audiences expectations and giving Mike something to rant about.
Look at me, I could totally be handing out awards at a prize-giving…
And finally the very very long list of amazing (I hope or have heard) films which I haven’t seen but want to:
The Hurt Locker, The Lovely Bones, Away We Go, Men Who Stare at Goats, Zombieland, Paranormal Activity, Coco before Chanel, The Informant!, New York, I love you, Amelia, The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus, Vicky Christina Barcelona, The Wrestler, Ponyo, 9 (the animated film, not ‘Nine‘ the musical), The Princess and the Frog, The Road, Invictus and Fantastic Mr Fox.
(Consider this a shopping list for future birthdays and Christmases! Mike can probably add a few more to this…)
Righto, I am done. Now I have to think up a title for this post…
postscript of sorts:
For those who want a broader opinion, can I direct you to:


Harry from Ain’t it Cool


If you’re still with me, go back to Roger Ebert for his best 10 films of the decade!

And finally the people (or US teenage film geeks with too much time on their hands) vote over at IMDb.com, who have published their best films of the 2000’s list.

Does Avatar live up to the hype?

A little over ten years after the mega-hit ‘Titanic‘, James Cameron finally brings us ‘Avatar‘. I say ‘brings us’ because I can’t help but have been exposed to the overwhelming hype coming from all corners of the fanboy kingdom (note for my parents: fanboys are the over eager film/game geeks who follow the progress of films so closely that they feel like they own the film & the filmmakers and almost always seem disappointed when the film isn’t exactly how they wanted. They also complain loudly on every internet forum possible about how rubbish it was. And dress up. They often dress up as their heroes, i.e. Spock)

Cameron has been working on ‘Avatar‘ for a long long time. Partly because he had to wait for the technology to catch up to his vision and partly because his vision for the film was massive. Over 800 people at Weta Digital have been working on this film for the past few years. It is huge. Which is why the fanboys are all so hyped up about it, because nothing on this scale has been made before. It’s like LOTR when that first came out – but maybe bigger.
I’ve been trying to ignore all the hype, mainly because the ones doing the hyping are the first to diss the film. So knowing as little as possible about ‘Avatar‘ (which was still a considerable amount considering all the non-fanboy film geeks I’m surrounded with) I went into the film at 11.50pm last night, hoping I wouldn’t fall asleep during the 3 hour runtime.
My overall impression was quite simply: Wow!
We went to the 3D screening of course and it was simply stunning. The movement, lighting, textures and framing of every scene were beautifully done. Which you would obviously expect from a film like this so I’ll move on…
The story, briefly, follows a paraplegic marine, Jake Sully played by Sam Worthington, in the year 2154, who is asked to replace his dead scientist twin brother in an off-world experiment because their DNA is an exact match. The planet he travels to is inhabited by the Na’vi – a giant blue humanoid species who are in touch with their Mother Earth-side. Unfortunately they’re ‘hometree’ happens to be over a large mineral deposit which Phoebe’s-brother-off-Friends (Giovanni Ribisi looking much older) wants to mine for the millions it’s worth. So he’s about to send soldiers in to destroy them, but Sigourney Weaver’s genetic scientist/doctor has created ‘avatar’ Na’vi bodies which Jake & co can inhabit to try ‘connect/bond’ with the natives, i.e. spy on them and make them move.
So Jake finds himself being taught the Na’vi ways, whilst spying for the soldiers and reporting to the scientists. Gradually his loyalty shifts, somewhat predictably, but not unjustifiably towards the Na’vi and he tries to save them and their planet. The soldiers and Phoebe’s-brother don’t like this. So Stuff Happens. (Go watch the movie if you want a complete rundown.)
Yep, the story is along similar lines to Pocahontas or Dances with Wolves. It’s not completely unique, but then what story truly is? The important thing is that it’s told well. You believe the characters, the dialogue, their actions/reactions. The world is so well fleshed out, it feels like another Middle Earth in its complexity and details. And their eyes, faces, expressions are so real. Yes, they’re big blue aliens, but at the end they seem more human than the homo sapiens walking round with guns.
The effects are amazing but not over-whelming. I mean that in a good way – they don’t take over. While watching the film, you don’t sit there going “Wow, that computer generated character looks so real” or “I can barely see the border between what’s real and what’s not” or “I wonder who Andy Serkis is playing?”. While watching the film you watch the film.
And that possibly is Cameron’s greatest achievement: to create a mostly CG film, which is in no way distracting, which is utterly convincing and real, and which is enthralling and a bloody good yarn.
Go see it. Everyone’s going to be talking about it for the next 6 months, so if you want to know what they’re going on about, go see it. Or go see it because it’s just good entertainment and a great way to kill 3 hours!
Here’s a trailer for ya:
NB. On a scale of 1 – 10 in my list of 3D movies/scenes I’ve seen I’d say this is one of the best/easiest on the eye. The 3D looks real (Mike has the bruises to prove it – I had a brief moment of vertigo), and it’s not gimmicky or painful to watch. I’m slowly turning around on the 3D debate. If done well, it looks really really cool. (If done badly, it’s still a tacky gimmick though.)

Where The Wild Things Are – Mike’s Review

Wow. Just wow.

Go and see it, if you’ve ever been a lonely kid. Go and see it if you’ve ever been misunderstood or angry for no reason.
You see being a kid is hard. We try to forget that when we grow up. We try to just remember the fun times and the good weather.
But no one listens to you. They’re too busy to play with you. You don’t know what’s going on most of the time and have no control over anything. It’s frustrating and sometimes you lash out for no reason.
Where The Wild Things Are understands this and says, “You know what, it’s ok to feel like that”. Everyone feels sad sometimes and just wants someone to make them feel better.
This isn’t a kids film, it’s a film about being a kid and that’s a subtle but profound difference. It’s made from a kids perspective. So some things don’t make sense, things happen randomly and situations get out of control. And in the the end, even though we may want it too not everything is resolved neatly.
And just like life, not everyone will enjoy this film. Many people in the audience didn’t like it, or understand it. And that’s ok too.
This review’s all jumbled up and messy, just like the film. But I’m just trying to get down how I feel about it and that’s the best thing about this film, how much it makes you feel. It dredged up a lot of feelings, not all of them pleasant.
I haven’t talked much about the film itself. It looks amazing (check out the photo above). The Wild Things themselves are a joy to behold and are an incredible mix of puppetry and CGI.
The acting, both voice and from Max Records (the kid) are awesome and understated.
I don’t want to talk much more about it, just go and see it and take your kids. There are some dark and scary bits in it but they can handle it.
We saw the film as a promotion for an organisation called Square Eyes. There mission is to foster a love of film in children. And to show them good films, not just CGI talking animals (although there is a place for them too). If this is the kind of film they want to show kids then we should all support them.
We’re lucky that this film exists at all and wasn’t made by Dreamworks featuring CGI rapping streetwise Wild Things. We need to reward this kind of film making, so go and see it.