Moonrise Kingdom (2012)

2/5

Moonrise Kingdom is probably my least favorite Wes Anderson movie. I don't know what it is, but I just don't find it compelling at all. The story is about two strange kids who have a mutual attraction to each other (for no discernible reason whatsoever) and take it to unhealthy boundaries in a disturbing island environment. With a gnome-like narrator. Maybe it's me and my distaste of child acting or children's tales, but I couldn't get into it. And if you're not into the story, then you're just watching unusual events unfold in an unusual way on screen. That's Anderson's modus operandi I guess.

Honestly, I have nothing very positive to say about this movie. It's fine. It exists. It's a movie. It's not offensive. It's got its quirks and funny moments, it's got great actors impressing me with their talent, but all of these elements cannot bring the movie to life for me. It's a futile attempt to create fire out of sparks--the problem is there's no tinder, no content underneath it all.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1748122/

Broken Flowers (2005)

3/5

Jim Jarmusch's Broken Flowers was--remarkably--not as bad as all his other movies. The movie actually held my interest and packs an emotional punch. The plot follows Don Johnston (Murray) on a quest to find an old girlfriend who wrote him a letter telling him he has a son. Watching Broken Flowers, I noticed that he has a unique sense of style that permeates past their dress and into their interactions and mannerisms. His style is not universal or classic, but indie and fickle. I have a feeling that I don't like Jarmusch's older movies for that very reason: they just don't age very well. But I'm finally starting to see the comedy in his films. I think it's all dependent on the actors he chooses, because Bill Murray saves the film with his seemingly effortless comic timing (moreso than Roberto Benigni in Down By Law). Murray somehow matches an apathetic outward demeanor with internal fascination. It is truly remarkable to watch him act.

Be that as it may, I'm not the biggest fan of Jarmusch's filmmaking. He still lingers on shots for far too long when editing, making every shot begin and end 1-2 seconds before and after they should. He frequently fades in and out, both visually and aurally, which probably contributes to the feeling that this movie is more like stop-and-go traffic than fluid, smooth storytelling. It's jagged and stilted, with episodic interludes and minimal overarching structure. This is probably his best movie after Night on Earth, but I'm not sure I would recommend it to anyone who isn't already a fan. It will probably be good enough to satisfy Bill Murray fans, however, as he manages to carry the entire project on his shoulders with aplomb.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0412019/

Fantastic Mr. Fox (2009)

3/5

Wes Anderson's adaptation of Roald Dahl's Fantastic Mr. Fox is an entertaining way to spend 80 minutes of your life, but it's not especially provocative or particularly mind-blowing. The plot follows a fox (Clooney) and his wife (Streep) as they buy a house in a tree that overlooks three mean farmers' local businesses. Being a wild animal, he steals chickens from Boggis, turkeys from Bunce, and cider from Bean. The farmers try to dig the fox out of his hole, but as their digging becomes more and more widespread, other animals in the area become victims too. With the animals against him and the humans getting ever closer, it seems as if the fox family is out of options. But being a clever beast, the fantastic Mr. Fox concocts a plan to keep their land out of the humans' grasps.

The animation is breathtaking and refreshing. It is beautiful and awe-inspiring. But while the movie holds a lot of visual appeal, the story and dialogue fail to really elevate the movie past its quirky, unique animation style. The humor is dry and definitely not to everyone's tastes. Everything is spoken matter-of-factly--meaning there are no punchlines--that it could easily turn people off of the movie (even though I personally found it hilarious). It definitely feels more like a Roald Dahl adaptation than a movie from Wes Anderson's head, which may make you want to see the movie or may make you want to reconsider. Unfortunately, the movie doesn't really have much of a point. It's a very simplistic tale about animals fighting against humans. What you see is what you get; there is no subtle underlying meaning or great moral underpinning. All in all, the movie is filled with clever moments and aesthetic flair, but the whole package is nothing to get too excited over.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0432283/

Zombieland (2009)

4/5

Zombieland is a zombie movie parody in the same vein as Shaun of the Dead, but shorter, funnier, and much more palatable to American audiences. It follows a ragtag group of humans in a world overcome by zombies and the magnificently creative ways in which they kill them. There are a surprising number of genuine scares, even though it is not a horror movie (although nobody told the other previews). But there are far far more genuine laughs. The writing is sharp, witty, and observant, using the absolute minimum to get the joke across (whether it's through quick flashbacks or jump cuts) while letting the audience build the remainder of the scene themselves. The characters are rich, well-acted, and compelling, but not particularly unique.

The special effects were fairly disappointing. The use of text, especially when the letters were treated as parts of the scene that could get knocked over or have blood splattered on them, was clever at first but quickly became way overdone. On the other hand, the use of slow-motion, especially for killing and destruction, was always awesome. The only disappointment is that there wasn't much more to the movie than what was in the trailer. All things considered, it's an immensely entertaining comedy with a bit of blood for the boys and a bit of romance for the girls. Definitely check this out.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1156398/

Lost in Translation (2003)

4.9/5

Sofia Coppola's Lost in Translation is by far her best film. It is a rare example of a slice-of-life romance that is actually a slice-of-life and actually a romance. With strikingly beautiful and tenderly poignant images, we get a sense of Coppola's love for her characters and the city they find themselves in. We know that they are honest portraits of real people amidst foreign customs. We see this truth in the sparse writing, the subtle acting, the patient directing. In the lingering moments between words and actions, we see awkward new love and dispassionate marriage. We see so much about the lives of these wanderers through the movements of their bodies, the checking of their words, that we understand why they make the connection that they do. And that is the heart of this movie.

Technically there were few missteps; the only thing that comes to mind is the occasional loose editing. Overall there were more flaws. Many complain that the film is racist. While it uses all the obvious jokes and stereotypes, they serve as playful descriptions, not hateful mockery, of Japanese people and culture. Perhaps one of the charms of the movie, one of the things that lends it a sense of realism, is the lack of grand insightful themes. The dialogue always feels so much more profound than it actually is, which leaves the viewer wondering what more this movie could have been. And I know that this movie will appeal to far fewer people than other great films. But for those it affects, well. Watch it and find out for yourself.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0335266/

The Darjeeling Limited (2007)

4.9/5

The Darjeeling Limited, Wes Anderson's latest film, follows the antics of three brothers on a spiritual quest to rid themselves of the emotional baggage of their father's recent death and mother's disappearance. Like all of Anderson's films, there are moments of heartbreaking emotion, juxtaposed effortlessly to choke up any laughter still left in your throat after the uproarious scenes that immediately preceded them. Unlike his other movies, this back and forth was not as prevalent as before. Most of the time it was subtle, but what surprised me was the dialogue-free 10 minute stretch in the middle of the film as we breathlessly witness a suffocating moment and its indelible consequences. Its impact is profound, its inclusion necessary. The symbolism and themes presented by the movie, left open to the viewer for interpretation and application in their own lives, places this film above simple comedy.

In typical Anderson style, the quirky music is exceptional, a perfect companion to the texture of the rest of the piece. The acting matches this bizarre mood, filling out the fictional characters with real humans. I was fascinated by the camerawork and Anderson's insistence--almost an obsessive need--to shoot at precise, 90 degree angles. His quick sideways tracking/panning made it impossible to see anything between the absolute cardinals, a sentiment echoed in his refusal to show transition shots during editing. He made some cinematography choices I disagreed with, however. I have an intense dislike for zooms (even when used as effectively as in Barry Lyndon), and their overabundance here dismayed me. He also overdid the slow-motion shots; if used half as often, they would have reached optimal impact. Still, these issues are relatively minor and easily overlooked. Behind The Royal Tenenbaums, this is probably Anderson's finest film to date.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0838221/