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/

John Wick (2014)

2/5

John Wick is a pretty silly movie. The conceit of the film is that a well-known assassin named John Wick (Reeves) retires from the killing business for a woman (Moynahan) who ends up dying of an unknown chronic disease. When a seemingly random crime takes away the final gift from his late wife, Wick returns to his violent past on a quest for vengeance.

The movie has a few unique aspects, but is otherwise drab and uninspired. What's cool? The video game-like action and the snippets of comedy. It didn't feel like other shoot-em-up action flicks; it felt like a shoot-em-up action game. And it never takes itself too seriously, throwing in hilarious jokes at its own expense. Sometimes it feels overly silly, but it works more often than I would have expected. What's poor? Everything else. The movie starts in media res for no other reason than that it's commonplace now. It adds nothing to the excitement or the plot; if anything it flattens and compresses the story's progression. The script is full of cliched one-liners delivered with surprising blandness coming from the somewhat well-respected actors. There is no build-up to an explosive finale. It just continues from one random action scene to the next, with perhaps the coolest one being the first one. All in all, I cannot recommend this film to even the most diehard of Keanu Reeves fans.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2911666/

A Most Wanted Man (2014)

2/5

Philip Seymour Hoffman's last film is a maddening, frustrating, underwhelming film. Although the movie was described as a spy movie, I somehow mistook that to mean espionage thriller. Silly me. It is certainly about spies, but it focuses more on the bureaucracy of their lifestyle rather than the intrigue of the job. The acting was, unsurprisingly, the best part, with Hoffman delivering a phenomenal final performance. He leaves an indelible impression when the credits finally start to roll.

But it takes so long for those credits to roll. The movie was painfully slow and plodding. And while some individual shots were beautiful, there was too much lingering on meaningless objects that extend the length of the movie without deepening your understanding of the film. I suppose I shouldn't have been all that surprised, since A Most Wanted Man was directed by Anton Corbijn. (Corbijn also directed The American, another overly-stylized "spy movie" that would rather focus on lofty existential crises instead of espionage.) Even knowing this is the last Hoffman project, I still can't recommend this movie to any but the most diehard of fans.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1972571/

The Fault In Our Stars (2014)

4.9/5

The film adaptation of John Green's The Fault In Our Stars is an extraordinarily faithful adaptation. Having read the book just months prior to seeing the movie, I am impressed by how much the characters and actions on screen matched my own vision for them. It delivers all the melodramatic heartbreak and sentimental tearjerking you would expect from a book about two kids with cancer who fall in love. Neither Hazel (Woodley) nor Gus (Elgort) look particularly Hollywood-attractive, but their on-screen chemistry is undeniable. However, despite how perfect they are for each other, fate conspires to pull them apart. The story is more than a little bit emotionally manipulative, but it is tragically sweet and hits all the right notes. Everything just feels so ... lovely and tender.

While overly sensational and extravagantly "young adult," the story is attempting at something more than simply pulling at the heartstrings of America's youth. It touches on a multitude of topics, but the most impenetrable one to me revolves around literature, the creation of stories, and the way we project our own qualities on others. Willem Dafoe plays Van Houten, the author of Hazel's favorite book. His contribution to the story is both confusing and infuriating, but his unclear motivations and his abrupt exit are some of the most profound aspects to the story. His presence is both unusual and unsettling and makes me like the movie all that much more.

This movie is not for everyone--in fact, it may feel a bit childish or immature to some--but for those who fall under its spell, it is spectacular.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2582846/

Finding Nemo (2003)

4/5

Finding Nemo is another home run for Pixar, filled with expectedly charming anthropomorphic ocean creatures, superb writing, and exciting action. A family film about a clownfish named Marlin (Brooks) searching for his son Nemo (Gould) in the Great Barrier Reef, it has memorable characters and funny situations that will delight and surprise you. And despite what I say in the next paragraph, it is a fantastic movie that would be hard not to recommend to just about anyone. But it didn't light a fire in me.

The problem with the movie is that it lacks a propulsive premise. It has a cohesive, all-encompassing arc with effective character development and plot progression, but it feels too episodic. This would have been better served as a miniseries or television show. Every step on Marlin's journey is a random aside, a small comedic sidestep, none of which contribute much to the overall narrative. Some games have minigames that add to your enjoyment of the primary game; Finding Nemo feels like it has nothing but minigames. Because of that, we as viewers are lost in the same expansive ocean, pulled forward unaware. In certain movies this can be exciting and enthralling; in this one it merely serves to frustrate. And though it seems like I'm complaining, would anybody have objected to seeing these characters reprise their roles weekly on the Disney Channel, becoming ever more complex, fascinating, and endearing?

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0266543/

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/

Wild at Heart (1990)

4/5

Wild at Heart is so funny. I was laughing the entire time. I would love to see this movie with Sameer; he would laugh with me at literally every single word that is spoken and action that occurs. But there are two different reasons one might laugh. You can laugh because you think it's just a bad movie, but I am fairly certain that it is not. It is in fact cleverly mocking bad movies. It is a satire and a spoof, and a shallow exploitation film set in the late 80's. It is like Rodriguez's Planet Terror except set in a more realistic world (although thinking about it, not that much more realistic) with more sexploitation than horror zombie flick. In the first five minutes of the movie, there is excessive violence, cursing, nudity, and sex. The movie loves its shallowness; Nicolas Cage and Laura Dern speak their lines with the most effective faked fervor I can remember.

All that being said, it is what it is. A stupid, cheesy, exploitation 80's grind house film. Even though it is a satire of that genre as well, it fits the mold perfectly and cannot sit outside of it. It is funny, but not very fulfilling or meaningful. You walk out of the theater and think about something else.

Note: I saw this movie as part of the Cannes retrospective series on the beach, so there were many distractions (although I think I tuned them out pretty well).

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0100935/

The Last Temptation of Christ (1988)

4.9/5

The Last Temptation of Christ is a powerful fictional account of the human nature of Jesus; his wants, his fears, and his temptations. The music was amazing, and an absolutely perfect fit from start to finish. The most cinematically lush scenes I found were when the camera rapidly and unexpectedly went over the edge of a cliff, the aggregation of followers in the desert, and the raising of the cross. (I know there are many more that I'm ignoring.) Though there were numerous stunning images and ideas presented (not the least of which being the titular final temptation), I personally found the most powerful one to be the possibility that even without Jesus' sacrifice and resurrection, Paul still spreads the gospel exactly the same as if that had taken place. Did Jesus need to die if we believe it all anyway? The other striking feature of this movie is the mesmerizing and sympathetic image of Judas that is painted. He is a man who makes arguably the bigger sacrifices by agreeing to betray Jesus so that Jesus could die and save mankind.

--"If you were me, could you betray your master?"
--"No. That is why I got the easier job. To be crucified."

I don't know what it was about it, but some of the filmmaking had a very 80's feel to it. The dialogue was a mix between natural speech and epic monologuing. Sometimes it flowed well from one to the other, but often it was a jarring disjunct that took me away from the movie. There seemed to be some unnecessary slow parts and some flashy but ultimately empty scenes. It also seems as if Scorsese went out of his way to show the inhabitants of the gospels as dirtier, more violent, and more extremist for the sole purpose of challenging your Sunday school interpretations. The subject matter limits the audience to the devout but questioning Christian, and the length limits the audience even further to only the most interested. But if you fit within that very select group, you will find an astounding film to watch, analyze, and remember.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0095497/