The Grifters (1990)

b2415-grifters1When you have Martin Scorsese producing and Stephen Frears directing you are bound to get something intriguing, and The Grifters is just that. It’s a Neo-Noir starring John Cusack (no Lloyd Dobler), Angelica Huston and Annette Benning. It’s got everything you can expect with a title like that from small-time swindling and horse races in La Jolla to deadly Femme Fatales with shady intent.

The film really has three stars in the above, but at the center of it is young grifter Roy (Cusack) who has been doing nicely for himself ever since he went off on his own. But his type of life does not come without a price. Lilly (Huston) is an old vet who has worked all the angles for a long time and now she is in the service of one tyrant of a bookie named Bobo. She hasn’t seen her son for 8 years, and all of sudden she comes back into his life finding him in need of medical attention. Their reunion is far from civil.

Then last but not least is the despicable Myra (Benning) who seduces her way into the hearts and the wallets of many men. Now she’s with Roy but before there was another con man and she is far from exclusive using her sexual wiles to get anything and everything she wants. It’s not surprising Lilly can’t stand her guts. No one could. If he’s honest not even Roy. Soon enough Lilly poisons him towards Myra and the seductress wants revenge and she seemingly gets it.

What follows involves lots of blood, lots of money, and a descent deeper towards a hellish conclusion that feels hollow and cold. Elmer Bernstein’s score accentuates the mood with a tense and altogether creepy string section.  As far as character dynamics, go this has to be the strangest triangles around. Each one of these confidence tricksters is a grifter and each one has a slightly different angle. However, when it’s all said and done only one of them can come out on top even if they didn’t want it to end that way. That’s just the way things go. There is no turning back, only running away for dear life.

The three leads played their roles to a tee and The Grifters proved generally engaging even if all the questions were not answered with loose ends still to be tied up. It also blends the general themes and outlook of noir with a setting that almost feels anachronistic at times. It’s hardly a complaint though and maybe things are better this way anyhow.

3.5/5 Stars

The Imitation Game (2014)

09cf1-the_imitation_game_posterWhen you think of decisive moments in WWII the conversation leads often to D-Day, The Battle of Midway, The Russian Front and The Battle for the Atlantic. If Britain had been cut off from U.S. supplies the case could be made that The Allies would have undoubtedly lost the war. That’s where the Enigma cipher comes into play and along with it Alan Turing.

Alan Turing is one of the unsung heroes of WWII and in many ways the father of modern computers. He’s a big deal and it’s hard to make that point enough. That’s what makes it exciting that he finally got the biopic treatment and with a portrayal by Benedict Cumberbatch no less. It does not get much better than that!

As far as biopics go The Imitation Game is a polished period piece set in War-torn Britain spanning the years of WWII into the early 1950s. Visually beautiful, scored nicely, and generally uplifting, it feels as wonderfully English as a cup of tea and the English countryside. Although the film at times may trod the typical path of other troubled-genius type films,  it often rises above the usual based-on-a-true-story fray. A primary reason for this is Benedict Cumberbatch who plays Turing not with dramatic outbursts, bravado, and bluster, but quite the opposite.
In the year 1939 Turing, a professor at the time, attempted to join the top secret project at Bletchley Park to crack the German’s Enigma code. He seems like an odd candidate for the job since he has only an affinity for puzzles and no knowledge of the German language, but that proves to be unimportant.
He has the right amount of vision paired with the obsession to come at the problem like no one before him. He does not just want to crack one of the tedious strings, he wishes to crack them all using a machine. It was absolutely unheard of and his colleagues discount him, understandably, because he is not much of a team player and far from a social butterfly. However, he discovers a worthy ally in Susan Clarke (Keira Knightley) who proves to be indispensable in his work as well as repairing his rapport with the team.
With the prospect of all his work with the machine being wasted and terminated, his colleagues back him up in front of his superiors. Turing has one last chance to succeed and someway, somehow he does. But success does not come without great responsibility. Once they have the weapon to counter the Germans they must use it cautiously only taking the most necessary steps. It becomes clear that there is a fine line between playing God with human lives and winning a war.
The war is won in the end, however, and the top secret endeavor is disbanded. Alan Turing is far from a war hero because few know what he did. His only label is indecency and he is given the option of imprisonment or hormones in response to his charges of same-sex attraction. A year later he committed suicide at the age of 41.
Cumberbatch is seemingly the perfect Turing with all the quirks you would expect. Except there are also traces of sensitivity and he so adeptly shows subtle emotions on his face. He was an oft-tortured man inside and out, spanning from his boarding school years to his post-war existence. Keira Knightley on her part is enjoyable as a counterpoint, remaining true to Turing no matter the circumstances.
Obviously you can always call into question the accuracy of these types of films and no doubt artistic liberties were taken, but all in all The Imitation Game did a commendable job of painting a picture of a man’s life in a very different age. Alan Turing finally got the credit he was due, and it was done with a great deal of sensitivity, heart, and even humor which mostly overshadowed any saccharine moments.
4/5 Stars

The Diving Bell and the Butterfly (2007)

ca161-divingbellbutterflympIt’s beyond me how a film about a man who is all but paralyzed, except for his left eye, could be interesting. The main plot point follows his struggle to write a memoir using a tedious system where he blinks his eye for an assistant to transcribe. Maybe this does not sound all that engaging, but it most definitely is. No question. It has to do with how the film narrative is developed.

Bauby’s struggle is experienced first hand by the audience as we are stuck inside his head for the first portion of the film. It is a disconcerting perspective as we begin the film as helpless and confused as he is. We are there for every painfully difficult piece of progress, every one-sided conversation that Bauby (Mathieu Amalric) is unable to respond to, and every moment when he is powerless to act out. It is absolutely eye-opening. No pun intended. It’s simply the truth.

His progression is absolutely extraordinary. Beginning as a supposed “vegetable” who wished to die, to a man with an imagination that he was able to share with the world. He still had the ability and the passion for sharing his thoughts, memories, and desires with the world. He was physically so powerless and yet mentally so empowered.

Fragments of his story are given to us in pieces, although we still continue to return to the limited perspective he himself experiences. It is not easy to be sure. He must have others bathe him. The television channel is out of his control. There are doctors, therapists, friends, and family coming to see them, and he has no ability to physically interact. He still has feelings for his mistress, but the mother of his children still cares deeply for him. Sundays are hell with no one around.

Despite all that seems to drag him down, Bauby still is able to flutter above it all like a butterfly. With the help of his assistant and a strong will, he completed his memoir. 10 days later he would die, but his mission was accomplished. Maybe it seems like a rather unfortunate ending, but even if the lack of closure is unsatisfying, how it ended is the truth. Bauby was undoubtedly content because, despite the seemingly surmountable obstacles, he never lost his humanity. Being Locked-in could never take his mind from him. Ultimately, he was a winner and so his story ends on a somber yet powerful note.

It has been a while since I have been so affected by a film. I hope I will see another one like it very, very soon.

4.5/5 Stars

Auntie Mame (1958)

32347-auntie_mameWith Rosalind Russell reprising her role from the stage, this film is made by her scene stealing portrayal. The film opens when a rich man dies suddenly and his young son is sent to live with his Auntie Mame. She is a social, energetic and free-spirited woman. Despite the fact that Patrick was raised proper, Auntie Mame soon teaches him how to enjoy life and they grow close to each other.

However, Patrick is taken to a boarding school against the wishes of his aunt. They still remain close as Mame tries to get work and then she meets a southern gentleman. Patrick is growing up as Mame travels the world with Beau. He is killed in an accident so Mame returns home to work on a memoir. She soon realizes how grown up her little Patrick is because there is a girl he is intent on marrying.

Mame does not voice her displeasure with this upper class girl and her superficial parents. Instead she invites them all to dinner and by sabotaging everything Mame makes Patrick realize he is not like these people. He once again embraces her idea that life is a banquet and most poor suckers are starving to death. You have to get out and live a little.

This film was shot almost like a stage play and I found it rather long but Russell is superb and she holds the film together nicely.

4/5 Stars

Kramer vs. Kramer (1979)

c367a-kramervkramer1The title Kramer vs. Kramer brings to mind a film about two people, formerly married, fighting over their kid who is stuck in the middle of their feud. It has the potential for high drama and tense courtroom scenes full of malice and bitter resentment. Sounds like a real winner.

Don’t get me wrong, there is some of that, but Kramer does better. It follows the complex relationship between a working man and his 7-year old son as the newly separated dad struggles to take care of them both. It shows the pain that forms between former spouses as they try and navigate life as best as they can. It shows the pain and heartache that comes with both loving their boy so dearly. There’s a realness and a vulnerability that is extraordinarily hard to discount.

It does not dawdle and within minutes a solemn Joanna Kramer (Meryl Streep) tells her husband she is leaving him, and he can hardly believe her words. What comes next is the imminent trouble of balancing work and his home life. There is an emotional toll that comes since they were together for over 7 years. Their neighbor isn’t helping matters.

The frustration manifests itself in outbursts over breakfast and anger directed pointedly at others. The most vulnerable is little Billy who is a cute kid but dearly misses his mother. At first, he and his dad don’t always see eye to eye. He does all the typical kid things. Refuses to eat food, disobeys, and causes messes. The best example is the notorious ice cream seen where he defiantly starts eating from a pint of ice cream against his father’s wishes. He’s so cute, but it’s not pretty.

Work is hardly getting any better; in fact, it’s getting worse as Ted has more responsibilities to worry about at home. His friend and superior is not happy with what he’s seeing. On her part, Joanna seems mostly out of the picture, still sending cards to Billy faithfully. His only friend becomes the also separated Margaret (Jane Alexander) and they act as confidantes.

One significant moment occurs at the playground where Billy falls from the jungle gym and cuts himself before his father rushes to his crying son’s aid and runs him to the emergency room. He stays with his boy through all the stitches and tears, solidifying their bond and his resolve to continually be there for his son.

On the work front, Ted is regretfully let go and rushes to find another job. On the home front, Joanna is back in New York and a custody battle is in the making. However, neither parent understands what they have subjected themselves to. Things get ugly and it is something that neither Ted or Joanna wanted. They don’t want to make each other hurt — all they want is their son. It’s a complex flood of emotions and feelings as a product of character assassinations. There can be no nuance only “yes” or “no” and that’s the way the court will decide the outcome.

When the process is done it is decided that custody of Billy will be awarded to his mother. Gasp! However, what Ted does next is more noteworthy. He goes home to his boy and with the greatest of fatherly love he tells his boy he will be going to his mother. Billy will have so much fun with his mommy and they will get to see each other a lot. He is strong and positive for his boy while his insides nearly burst.

Then, in a scene mirroring their earlier morning, they calmly make french toast as a team, a happy fat, er and son together. Joanna asks for a meeting and Ted goes down to meet her. Her decision is yet another surprise and this time he peeps through the elevator with a smile waiting downstairs while she goes up to see her boy. It is very taxing to work through divorce. For all parties involved so Kramer vs. Kramer ends at the happiest place it could realistically be.

I admire the portrayals, however, because Hoffman’s character is far from an angel (sometimes prone to outbursts), and yet he acknowledges his shortcomings and proves just how all encompassing his love for his son is. Meryl Streep, on her part, is relatable but it is still difficult to reconcile her leaving. By the end however,  it is quite easy to feel sympathy for her and she too proves to be a well-meaning, albeit, flawed individual.

The scene that really solidified this film for me had to be when Ted is reading to his son from The Adventures of Tintin. It’s a classic moment and it hit home, because it was a story I read many a time with my own father and will hopefully get to read to my own kids. That’s what makes movies truly wonderful. When they transcend time and place making it possible for us to relate to them on even the most basic or mundane level. That is part of the reason Kramer worked for me. At it’s most intimate, it’s about connections. Between men and women and fathers and sons. Not always pretty but always an integral part of life.

4.5/5 Stars

Review: It’s a Wonderful Life (1946)

5632c-wonderfullife4Every time I go through the emotional, romantic, heart-warming and at times uncomfortable roller coaster that is It’s a Wonderful Life, something new always seems to stick out to me.

It is always impressive for a film of this length that so much is packed into it. Within minutes we are fully enveloped in this story, and every sequence gives further insight into these characters. There is hardly ever a wasted moment because there is significance in each scene. Pointing us to the nature of George Bailey.

Furthermore, it is easy to forget the darkness that this film submerges itself in because it reaches such a jubilant crescendo. However, this is a story that covers the years including The Great Depression and World War II. Its protagonist sinks into a state of wretchedness complete with angry outbursts, negative feelings, and drunkenness. George Bailey loses all hope and his perspective is so completely distorted. For all intent and purposes, his life looks like it’s over, and it takes a frightening alternate reality to shake him out of his disillusionment. Put in this framework, it makes sense why it was a commercial flop when you juxtapose it with the big winner that year The Best Years of Our Lives. They both deal with post-war reality, but with very different lenses.

That’s the benefit of hindsight and a new context since we do not usually see It’s a Wonderful Life as a gloomy post-war tale, but a more positive parable that is universal in its impact. The first part of this story feels a bit like a Job story of hardship, and the second act is reminiscent to Dickens’ A Christmas Carol, but that’s the simplest of observations. There is a lot more to be parsed through.

The romance of George and Mary is what many of us aspire to and it causes us to really empathize with their young love that weathers the good and bad breaks they receive. It’s the fairy tale love story we want, with the rock hard reality we are used to in our own lives. Some favorite moments in their life together would be the splash they make during the Charleston dance off, singing Buffalo Gals together, smooching on the telephone together, sharing a makeshift honeymoon together, and embracing after George gets his new perspective on life.

There are a fair number of close-ups utilized in this film, but they are usually used at crucial points in the narrative, and they tell us a great deal about both George and Mary.

The first key moment comes during a freeze frame of grown up George with hands outstretched giving us our first look at the man we will be following from there on out. The next big moment occurs when George learns that Potter will gain control and the Building and Loan will be disbanded if he leaves. He realizes in an instant that he must give up his plans. Then, he waits excitedly for Harry with Uncle Billy and it is a happy moment, but George learns his younger brother might have another job. The camera follows his worried face as he goes to follow his new sister-in-law. Never thinking of himself, he realizes that Harry has a chance for better things and that leaves George still working the Building and Loan.

After their tiff, the scene where George and Mary are talking on the phone with Sam Wainwright is a solidifying moment in their relationship. There are so many underlying emotions and unspoken feelings that they are having trouble figuring out and reconciling. And yet there is that violent epiphany when their eyes link. The tears and anger are quickly traded for passionate kisses reflecting the often complicated facts of romance.

One of the final close-ups that hits home occurs when the now non-existent George stumbles away from the front door of his mother, who now has no concept of him. There is sweat on his brow (maybe from the 90 degree summer heatwave) and desperate bewilderment in his eyes. This is the lowest point he could have imagined. His own mother does not know who he is. His wife has grown old and lonely in an existence of exile. Stewart’s face is so expressive and earnest suggesting that George knows just how important human companionship is. Humanity was made to be in fellowship with each other. Lack of money means very little in comparison to our friendships and family ties. This is essentially what George finally comprehends and what Clarence reminds him. George understandably lost sight of his wife and his children and his friends. They were a gift not to be taken lightly.

Aside from these close-ups, it is also evident that a great deal of  effort was put into creating this world from the characters and their back stories to the town itself which was constructed on the RKO lot. Everything from the building facades, to stray dogs, and snow make the drama more atmospheric. It’s one of those films that reveals the beauty of using real props inhabited by seemingly real people. That’s why I sometimes am disillusioned by CGI. Although it can allow us to create amazing spectacles, oftentimes it creates a world that feels altogether fake and alien. It’s not relatable and it lacks the humanity that makes up our existence each and every day. In other words, it has very little of what makes It’s a Wonderful Life so compelling to me.

Perhaps there are more impressive or greater films, but there are few with greater heart and there is something to be said for that.

5/5 Stars

Review: Miracle of 34th Street (1947)

703c5-miracleon34thChristmas movies do not get much better than this. What a concept! Here’s a film about a man who really is Kris Kringle aka Santa Claus. He gets picked up by Macy’s department store to be their Santa Claus, and he winds up facing a hearing to decide whether he is legitimate or not. His pet project is to make an unsentimental little girl (Natalie Wood), and her practical mother (Maureen O’Hara) believe in him. He finds an ally in a young lawyer (John Payne) who believes in his holiday cheer and is also smitten with the girl’s mother.

Some people would undoubtedly say it’s a bunch a hogwash to make a movie about such a topic. Maybe it is only holiday tripe, but I find it is very hard to refute this “Miracle” of a Christmas classic. The characters portrayed are so spot on and heartfelt it is so easy to get pulled into their story. At the same time, it’s difficult not to like a film where department stores help each other, the hustle and bustle is toned down, and for once mankind has faith in each other for awhile.

As an audience, we gravitate towards Edmund Gwen because he represents the Santa we all wish to know. He is kind, thoughtful, generous, and above all a magical gift giver. Maureen O’Hara goes through a character progression that mirrors that of her daughter, except it is perhaps a little more poignant in her case due to her maturity. It would seemingly be easy to dislike her and yet thanks to O’Hara we cannot help but feel for her. She is also extremely beautiful, even in black and white. Although young, Wood proves to be a memorable little girl in this one, and she was just getting started. Payne is a good addition in his own right — a highly underrated actor.

The film is rounded out by a wonderful array of characters in the Macy’s store like magnate R.H. Macy (Harry Atrim), well-meaning Mr. Shellhammer (Philip Tonge) and friendly young janitor Alfred (Alvin Greeman). Shoppers such as the one and only Thelma Ritter in an early role, and civil servants like Judge Harper  (Gene Lockhart) round out New York’s population with generally decent people who we can relate to. The one exception is Dr. Sawyer (Porter Hall), the company psychologist, and greatest villain of the film, who is the antithesis of Kris and his Christmas spirit.

My hope is that this one never pales, never loses its cheer, and maintains its timelessness for many Christmases to come. Until the next Macy’s Thanksgiving parade comes along have yourself a merry little Christmas and remember all psychologists are not evil jerks looking to ruin the holidays!

5/5 Stars

Boyhood (2014)

13113-boyhood1Surely others have said this already but Boyhood struck a chord with me and it was the prettiest of melodies.  Pure and simple in its brilliance.

This is not my childhood by any means or my life or my family, but there are glimpses of it here. Quick flashbulbs or touchstones that for a brief instant take me back. Sometimes many years ago or just one or two. Nostalgia is the strangest type of memory for a young person, because we are transcending the space between the here and now, which we are so used to, and going to the “back then.”

12 years is a long time but even more so when you have fewer years under your belt. Thus, Boyhood in comparison to my own life is an epic film in every sense of the word. Whereas it might only be a wonderful coming-of-age tale for older generations, there is a feeling that this film in some small way represents where I’m coming from.

A film could never fully encapsulate or perfectly represent what it is to grow up in adolescence. It’s different for every child depending on where they live, what their family is like, and so on. But Boyhood is an unprecedented depiction of what that existence looks like to many young people. There is certainly something special and important in that.

1cce5-boyhood2There are so many different vignettes, almost like short films, characterizing each and every year in Mason Jr.’s life. We are given no blatant indication of time and place. It is all context clues, cultural references, and watching Mason and his family grow and evolve around him. Always innovative Richard Linklater does not hold out a giant megaphone saying this happened that year or this year. Instead, Mason’s story plays out like it would in the so-called “real world.” There are some major milestones or life-shaping moments that are shown, but most of this journey has to do with the little caches of time that make up life.

I feel drawn to do something that I don’t normally do, but Boyhood is such a unique film it deserves to be approached in a different light since to put it truthfully, it cannot be pigeonholed into any standard category.

Instead of trying to acknowledge the entire narrative of Mason’s life, which would be as impossible with him as with anyone else, I want to give reference to the many moments and bits and pieces that Linklater placed either by accident on purpose. The fact is Boyhood is chock full of these markers of the passage of time which make it a fascinating journey of human life.

Here we go, get ready:

Coldplay’s Yellow over the credits
Britney Speares fandom
Star War dilemma: Yoda vs. Grievous
Game Boys and Wave Boards
The Astros’ Rocket Roger Clemens
Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince
The Landlord – Will Ferrell
High School Musical – We’re All in This Together
Wii Boxing with a Nunchuk
Presidential Election in 2008
Facebook profiles
The Dark Knight
Phoenix – 1901
Twilight books
War in Iraq and Afghanistan
Lady Gaga and Beyonce
Iphone Facetiming
Gotye – Somebody That I Used to Know
Atlas Genius – Trojan

and on and on….

c94ae-boyhood3Against this backdrop, the separation of Mason’s parents (Ethan Hawke and Patricia Arquette) takes center stage. Next, follows another failed relationship riddled with abuse. Switching cities and starting a new life followed by another step-dad and another failed marriage. Then, dad (Hawke) gets remarried and it actually works out. There’s peer pressure and experimentation. Girls become a big deal. Photography is a passion. Sister (Lorelei Linklater) goes through the rebellious phase. High School graduation comes around and college soon after. Breakups happen and life still continues ever onward.

You could make an argument that Linklater could have gone on longer. He could have wrapped everything up nice and neat or cheated and fast forwarded to the end. But that was not his way out and it did not have to be. College is a major moment of change, confusion, and finding oneself, so in a sense, it is a fitting place to leave Mason behind.

He remained introspective, philosophical, and aloof for the majority of his life, despite family of origins issues and the like. It is mind-boggling to think of all the people cycled in and out of his life. Ever changing and often forgotten.

Thus, Boyhood is a gift to us for a multitude of reasons, but hopefully, its visual biography of Mason Jr. will lead us down memory lane and cause us to consider our path. For most of us, we have more than 12 years in front of us. Let us use our time well and wholeheartedly navigate the realities of life whether it is movie worthy or not. It’s our life and that’s all that matters.

4.5/5 Stars

Edge of Tomorrow (2014)

24f4a-edgeoftomorrow1

Time loops are fun. Scratch that. They’re fun to think about and to watch as an audience in the comfort of an armchair, but they get old real fast for movie characters. Just ask public affairs officer-turned-time looper William Cage (Tom Cruise).

He’s an indolent former advertising agent who wants no part of the actual fighting that is taking place in Europe with a mysterious alien army of so-called Mimics. In his attempts to avoid combat, he ends up handcuffed, stripped of his rank of Major, and shipped off to a base at Heathrow. His worst nightmare is becoming reality as he is quickly thrown into the front lines where he is headed to face the enemy without any training. He is an absolute pitiful mess and his platoon mates spare him no mercy. After all, he’s a sniveling complainer.

He’s just as incompetent on the battlefield, and it becomes obvious he’s not going to last long (There’s potential for a very short movie). But before he gets killed by one of the aliens, its blood covers him. Did you get that? Although seemingly insignificant the whole film soon hinges on this fact.

Where does he wake up? No not hell or heaven, but back at Heathrow airport, handcuffs and all, with a superior yelling at him yet again. He’s back in this nightmare once more and it continues for the rest of the film.

Honestly, Edge of Tomorrow is an awful name for this film. The tagline Live. Die. Repeat. is a little closer. At least it gets at the heart of what this sci-fi tale is about. In a similar vein as Phil Connors in Groundhog Day, Cage first gets acclimated to his new ability to experience a moment in time. He learns how to manipulate and navigate it to help himself, but as would be expected it gets tiresome and monotonous. With great power comes great responsibility, difficulty, and fatigue.

Live. Die. Repeat. Live. Die. Repeat. Slowly but surely Cage makes it farther and father against the mimics joining forces with famed soldier Rita Vrataski who is the poster girl for this noble war (Emily Blunt). Her early advice, “Come find me when you wake up,” is the strangest of greetings, but it starts the ball rolling. In a world where humanity is continually walking into an ambush, they are the only two who comprehend what is happening. Vrataski knows because she used to have Cage’s ability but lost it, so he is the new hope. Live. Die. Repeat. Live. Die. Repeat. She shapes him into a more efficient fighter over numerous time loops and gives him more insight into their enemy. He’s getting sick and tired of getting killed too. Live. Die. Repeat. etc.

He starts seeing visions of the Omega (the nucleus of the mimic), but they soon realize that the mimic is leading them on. Live. Die. Repeat. By this point, Cage has gone through so much with Vrataski and he cannot bear to see her continually dying. They finally locate the whereabouts of the Omega but after numerous failures, they finally run out of second chances. Cage loses his ability to loop, like Vrataski before him, needing a blood transfusion to pull through. Live or Die. No repeat this time.

Thus, begins their descent into the throes of their foe towards the Louvre where the Omega is. However, this time Cage convinces his squad to help and they prove their worth. An alpha comes after Cage and Vrataski as he blows up the Omega with a pack of grenades. There’s an instant of doubt, an uneasy feeling. Live. Die. Repeat…

Except now Major William Cage is back on the helicopter. No stripping of rank, no orders to the front lines, and with a newly weakened enemy. The nightmare is over so it seems and Cage is twice the man he was before. Only one thing matters. You guessed it. He goes looking for Sergeant Vrataski and sure enough there she is where he always found her before. She greets him with the same curtness as he smiles knowingly and most definitely with relief. For the last time or the first, depending on how you see it.

Quick cut to credits and “Love Me Again” by John Newman and it’s all over. It’s an ending that we hate as an audience, but it is the right one. As far as modern sci-fi films go, this one reminded me a bit of Source Code and Looper. Similarly, once you bought into the premise and invested in the setup, it proved to be a smart and entertaining ride.

Tom Cruise proved he can still do action movies and Emily Blunt carried the film with a toughness that would have made Ellen Ripley proud. This may be summer blockbuster material, but it’s also a worthwhile trip that takes us for a loop. Awful pun intended.

4/5 Stars

The Grand Budapest Hotel (2014)

35f8c-grandbudapest3

The farthest Eastern boundary of the European continent makes the perfect landscape for a new addition to the quirky Wes Anderson canon. But more on that later. First our story.

It gains inspiration from the writings of forgotten Viennese author of the 30s and 40s Stefan Zweig. In fact, the author’s own plot device is used in this story of friendship, love, and murder. An inquisitive writer (Jude Law) from the 1960s becomes intrigued by the aging proprietor of the Grand Budapest Hotel Zero Moustaffa (F. Murray Abraham).

The rather mysterious figure is glad to tell his story and how he came to acquire the iconic hotel. And that’s where our real story begins, back in 1932, with concierge and small time celebrity M. Gustave (Ralph Fiennes). He is a dying breed of a man, full of culture, a bit effeminate, and known to wine and dine older patrons. He also has an immense affinity for poetry.

It was under his leadership that the young, stoic bellboy Zero got his start. What an exciting beginning it was.  One of Gustave’s most faithful patrons, Madame D (Tilda Swinton), dies suddenly and he is bequeathed the priceless painting Boy with Apple.

The family of the deceased is in an uproar led by belligerent son Dmitri (Adrien Brody). Soon Gustave has become the strangest of fugitives as he is wanted for the murder of the old lady.

During that time, young love springs up and Zero meets the love of his life Agatha (Saoirse Roman), a spunky baker who returns his affection.

Now the imprisoned Gustave takes part in an escape attempt a la Le Trou except this rendition is successful to a degree. Faithful Zero meets up with his mentor, and Gustave turns to the only ones he can. The concierges from all the surrounding area. They oblige, getting the two fugitives away, but soon Dmitri’s cold-blooded assassin Jopling (Willem Dafoe) is on their tails at a local monastery.

War is imminent and back at the Grand Budapest things do not look promising.  The ever fearless Agatha agrees to go fetch Boy with Apple, but she is soon spotted and pursued by the ever brutish Dmitri who tries to use his gun. That’s not a smart thing when all the rooms are full of quartered soldiers and a chaotic gunfight ensues.

In the aftermath, a second will is uncovered that makes M. Gustave the sole owner of the Grand Budapest and many other possessions that Madame D owned. In a Deja Vu moment, Gustave and Zero ride the train once again before getting boarded and questioned. Always the gentlemen, Gustave defends Zero who is targeted for his immigration status. It was in that way the story ends and returns to the young author and elderly Zero Moustaffa.

He never could bear to give up the Grand Budapest despite the toll of Communism. It’s not because of Gustave, but his dear Agatha who died only two years after. It’s his only link to the happiest times of his life.

What The Grand Budapest Hotel ends up being is an odd mix of black comedy and romantic sentiment all wrapped up in an Anderson world.

His shots are often framed symmetrically and muted pastels abound as well as scaled miniatures, creating his always distinctive mise-en-scene. He is also a fan of a smooth moving camera often involving zooms.

Anderson is obviously a student of cinema and his film at times are reminiscent to 30s fair such as Grand Hotel and The Rules of the Game. He also channels another famed Viennese Ernst Lubitsch who was a master of highbrow romantic comedies.

Hotel also boast a superb cast comprising most of Anderson’s stock company. If there’s anyone who has been in more than one of his movies, they are probably in this one, even for just an instant.

So given the normal Wes Anderson flair or eccentricities, this film is visually pleasing and quite entertaining. It is a worthy follow up to Moonrise Kingdom, darling.

4/5 stars