Snowpiercer (2013)

4/5

Joon-ho Bong's first English-language film Snowpiercer takes place in a fascinating, utterly absorbing dystopian world where all the survivors of an apocalyptic winter live in a constantly-moving train. Curtis (Evans), a member of the lowest class tail car, plans a rebellion with Edgar (Bell), Gilliam (Hurt), and Tanya (Spencer) to take over the upper class cars. They enlist the help of the train's security expert (Song), who is now confined to the prison car, to advance past each locked door.

The journey from tail car to head car serves as an obvious allegory for class systems, climbing the social ladder, and the inherent injustices within. It provides a canvas for characters to illustrate the searing traumas they must endure when pushed to extremes. But it also outlines the entire film, providing a structure that helps situate the audience within each scene and helps mentally prepare for the film's plot progression. Also, seeing what's in the next train--whether an underwater aquarium/sushi restaurant or a nightclub/opium den--is one of the most enjoyable parts of the movie.

Bong has always been able to turn the most bizarre premises into gripping, provocative stories (The Host, Mother). His movies turn horrifying and unpredictable because we've never seen anything like them before and we lack the context with which to appropriately process them. Snowpiercer continues that tradition, and Bong makes it work.

He makes it work most of the time, that is. The movie has some pretty basic CGI. And a lot of weird scenes, including one that involves gutting a fish with an axe followed by Chris Evans slipping on said fish. And a lot of lingering on strange images, including a smiling soldier or a slow-motion shot of the aforementioned fish. It's all very uncomfortable without any clear benefit. But taken as a whole, Snowpiercer is entertaining and strangely compelling; I highly recommend it!

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1706620/

The Grand Budapest Hotel (2014)

4/5

Wes Anderson's The Grand Budapest Hotel is like many of Wes Anderson's other movies: delightful and magical if you like his style, banal and irritating if you don't. The plot follows a hotel concierge (Fiennes) who teams up with a lobby boy (Revolori) to prove his innocence after being framed for murder. The plotting is surprisingly intricate for a Wes Anderson movie, but is also somehow easy to follow at the same time.

What I like about Anderson's earlier movies is his ability to seamlessly switch between comedy and tragedy at the drop of a hat. Luckily, that opposition is still here, albeit in a less profound and less immediate form. Anderson superimposes an overall levity onto the relentless march of impending war, switching between the two moods from time to time, but The Grand Budapest Hotel focuses predominantly on the darker side of life.

Anderson has an undeniable visual style and he doesn't disappoint here. There's a reason this movie won the Oscar for best makeup and costume. He dresses his locales and his characters precisely and pristinely. The characters themselves (and the performances that underlie them) are not particularly deep or textured, but they are distinct and charming and unforgettable. They are brought to life by appealing, fast-paced storytelling and an irresistible, uncontainable magnetism. For Wes Anderson fans, The Grand Budapest Hotel is near-perfect filmmaking.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2278388/

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/

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (2008)

2/5

When I first heard about David Fincher's The Curious Case of Benjamin Button a year ago, I must admit I was very excited. But the more I saw trailers for it, the less and less thrilled I became. And when I finally saw the movie, my feelings had turned completely dead to what I originally thought was an innovative concept. I don't know why it happened, but I'm sad that it did, because I was unable to truly enjoy this movie. After thinking about what it meant to age backwards, to see everyone you "grew up" with die, to love someone and lose them, I let those thoughts all percolate in my mind. And by the time I saw the movie, there was nothing new for me to take away from it.

If you strip out the gimmick, you'll see that the story itself is fairly plain and uninteresting. It's as if they wanted to make a new Forrest Gump but ran out of interesting stories and just went with second-rate ones. And it's long. You can try convincing yourself that it's a sweeping epic, but you'd just be lying to yourself. It was like watching Ben Stein read War and Peace. The acting was all right, although I never really felt it to be a powerful or emotionally gripping piece. The romance was unconvincing and quite frightening actually. The pacing was lethargic, and many worthless scenes were kept when they should have been cut. The best thing that can be said about this movie is its visual style. Fincher knows good cinematography. And with that, seamlessly integrating CGI into it. Even in that regard, however, it resembled a Jeunet picture (Amelie, A Very Long Engagement) more than a Fincher picture (Seven, Zodiac) because the tones were much warmer than I'm used to seeing from Fincher. Fincher directing The Curious Case of Benjamin Button felt like Lynch directing The Elephant Man.

Overall, I have to say I'm very disappointed with this film. I don't know how "bad" it is, but I do know I got nothing out of it. I can see others enjoying it, but I don't know how deep their appreciation for it really goes. To me, it felt like the filmmakers took a great concept and wrote 3 hours of filler around it. And much like Memento, we're left with a movie that a lot of people like for its initial idea, but is ultimately a subpar, immature, unfinished picture. At its heart, there's really nothing this film has to offer me except negative three hours and negative eight bucks.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0421715/

Burn After Reading (2008)

4/5

Burn After Reading starts with Malkovich being fired from his job as a CIA analyst. His righteous irateness is immediately hilarious, but also becomes a part of his character as the film progresses. His job loss sends his wife Swinton to a divorce lawyer, and she copies his private files to a disc for her financial security. The disc is lost in a health club, where trainers Pitt and McDormand find it and try to use it to blackmail Malkovich. Swinton is also cheating on Malkovich with Clooney, who meets McDormand through online dating and cheats on both his wife and Swinton with her too. Oh, and Simmons is in there as the CIA head and voice of reason who verbalizes just how confusing and meaningless the entire movie was. If that simplification of the plot was too complicated to follow, then you might not enjoy this movie. But if you can wade through that morass, or if you just don't care about plot, then this could be the comedy for you. Why?

Because the Coens are amazing. Amazing writers, producers, editors, directors. They are amazing at everything they do. Burn After Reading is another comedic hit that further confirms my faith in their constant and consistent ability to impress. No matter the genre, be it a western cat-and-mouse chase or a doofus spy thriller, they manage to transform it into a dark comedy. And because of this, the film becomes its own unique creation, the world is completely new to us, and we have no idea what we'll witness on the journey the Coens take us through. The acting is spot-on, the writing memorable, and the mood flawlessly evoked. The shots are beautiful, the compositions precise, the movements natural. Everything the Coens put in this movie--from bizarre phrases to peculiar mannerisms--is put in with such conviction and certainty that you watch the movie with the feeling that this is so right. I can't even get into specifics, because I would just gush worthless hyperbole. If you love the Coens, this will not disappoint. If you don't "get" them, then this is not the movie to change your mind. But I'm so glad to be in the former group.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0887883/

Michael Clayton (2007)

4/5

Michael Clayton follows the title character as he attempts to clean up the biggest legal mess of his career when the lead defense counsel in a huge class action lawsuit stops taking his medicine and starts revealing secrets. If it sounds confusing now, wait until you see the movie. Going in knowing the basic plot, it took me more than half the running time to figure out who the characters were and who they represented. It reminded me a lot of Syriana, where even though things were happening on screen, I didn't really understand what was going on. People always talk to each other with subtleties I don't catch, skirting around the issues and hinting at ulterior motives.

But about halfway through, it all just clicked. And I was hooked. This is actually one of the rare movies where I appreciated the use of in media res. The written dialogue was amazing, and the stunning performances by the actors made the somewhat literary words seem real and natural. The music was integral to building up the suspense in a rather talk-heavy movie and went much appreciated. I thought the editing and plotline could have used a little work, as it seems that some events were added in to introduce suspense without an actual reason for their presence. There was nothing wrong with the cinematography, but nothing terrific about it either.

I missed a huge thing that Sameer brought to my attention, which really elevated the movie for me. There is one scene where Michael Clayton is holding an envelope containing a check in one hand and a memo containing evidence against his parent law firm in the other, almost weighing the two. It's a striking image and particularly moving at a later scene where he talks about selling out his friend. This is a movie I want to see again, because I know I missed a lot. I highly recommend it if you are interested in movies involving legal matters, power plays, and experts doing what they do best. Just don't expect an action suspense thriller.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0465538/