The Village

What is director-writer-producer M. Night Shyamalan associated with? The twist ending. The BIG twist ending. From The Sixth Sense to Signs, Unbreakable to The Happening, Shyamalan has made a career out of that pull the rug out from under you feeling. I've seen most of them, and now I can check off 2004's The Village, another Shyamalan vehicle with a twist in the end.

In a small, isolated village in the Pennsylvania countryside in the late 1890s, life goes on pretty much as normal on a day-to-day basis. Well....pretty much. The close-knit community is isolated from the rest of the world, all the townspeople unable to leave a perimeter surrounding the village. Why? The town has a delicate truce with something living in the woods, creatures dubbed "Those We Don't Speak Of." One of the townspeople, Lucius Hunt (Joaquin Phoenix), a young man, is sure the creatures will let them pass if approached in non-aggressive fashion. He is close to Ivy (Bryce Dallas Howard), a young woman who lost her vision as a child, who also believes Lucius' plan. It is a pleasant if limited life, but Lucius wants to explore, to question. Can he convince the village elders to give him the chance? Will Those We Don't Speak Of stop him before he can do anything?

Here we sit. Though his films have struggled some at the box office and especially critically, Shyamalan is a talented director. He is. He has few rivals when it comes to building tension, to setting the mood, creating that unbearable sense of doom looming just over the horizon. What's coming next? What's gonna happen?!? Sometimes though, it feels like the films get so wrapped up in building up to the twist that the movie suffers. The focus becomes all about that twist. 'Village' suffers from that issue to a point. At different points, there is A TON of potential that seems to be building to something really crazy, interesting and entertaining. The gloomy setting -- it's seemingly always cloudy -- sets the mood in ideal fashion, and composer James Newton Howard picked up an Oscar nomination for his haunting, eerily beautiful score. So where does it go....

Semi-SPOILERS for this paragraph. I won't give anything specific away, but I've got to at least address it. There's actually two different reveals, one revealed about the hour-mark of the 109-minute movie, the other popping up about the 90-minute checkpoint. They're not bad. The big twist doesn't feel so forced, so out of left field that you question why the script (Shyamalan doing the honors) even went there. It's original. It's unique. It's just not necessarily....well, good. There are some hints dropped along the way, but it did catch me by surprise. If there is a goof, it's in the reveal of the first twist. It comes along too early, taking away from a later scene that would have been dripping with tension and terror if we didn't know what we do (if that makes sense). The biggest issue is that the ending feels rushed without letting things breathe a little bit. Too bad because as far as twists go, this one could have been a doozy of a gem.

Now with the mood, the tension, the mystery, the cast and characters do a good job with a story/script where the focus isn't specifically on them. They're a means to an end. Phoenix does a good job as the moody, questioning Lucius (quite a stretch, huh?) while Howard especially shines as Ivy, the blind young woman who is a favorite in the village because of her generally pleasant outlook on everything. As for the town elders, look for William Hurt, Sigourney Weaver, Brendan Gleeson and Cherry Jones.  For some of the other townspeople, keep an eye out for Judy Greer, Michael Pitt, Jesse Eisenberg, and Adrien Brody as Noah, the mentally challenged adult who never grew up. Some very good actors committing to generally unwritten parts and doing their best to bring it to life.

There's something missing in general here. The build-up is there, that tension and fear of the unknown palpable through much of the first hour. From there on in though, the story loses momentum with a focus on the village and the people. I wanted to like it more. I wish I had liked it more, but it's not bad, just not as good as it could have been unfortunately. A disappointing semi-misfire.

The Village (2004): ** 1/2 /****

The Grand Budapest Hotel

Wes Anderson is one goofy, talented, eccentric director with a legion of devoted fans who love just about everything he does. I'm a fan of Anderson's films, but I don't love them. His humor can be too off the wall, his humor too subtle at times. Well, then there's 2014's The Grand Budapest Hotel, a hysterically dark, truly off the wall flick that Anderson fans will no doubt appreciate.

It's 1932 in the Republic of Zubrowka, and the concierge of the Grand Budapest Hotel, M. Gustave (Ralph Fiennes), has taken a protege under his wing, Zero Moustafa (Tony Revolori), a talented refugee working as one of the hotel's Lobby Boys. Zero is fascinated by everything about Gustave from his gentlemanly ways to his knowledge of anything and everything, especially his "relationships" with rich, older women who visit the hotel to specifically see him. When one of his favorite guests, Madame D. (Tilda Swinton), dies mysteriously, Gustave and Zero rush to her countryside villa to be there for the funeral. They're both stunned when they find out that Madame left almost everything in her will to Gustave, including one lucrative painting. The rest of the family is less than pleased and just a day later, Gustave is arrested for the murder of Madame D. With help from loyal Zero, can he escape jail and prove his innocence?

If there was ever a movie where a story/plot description could be misleading, this is it. Yes, the story is key with its twisting and turning reveals, its countless characters, its flashbacks within flashbacks. But as anyone who's seen a Wes Anderson movie, it is also far more than that. His movies are never just stories, using the screenplays as a huge jumping off point into a stylishly visual movie that basically defies description. With an Anderson flick -- when it works -- you can just sit back and let it wash over you. Very much qualifying in that department, 'Budapest' succeeds on a stylistic level on its own. The visual is stunning at times. Anderson uses his familiar shooting technique, the camera shooting much of the action as if it was a stage play. It's more than that though. The camera and all its movements become a secondary character.

Some of these shots make the movie feel like a throwback to the days of pre-computer special effects. I imagine Anderson used some CGI at different points, but he never really relies on it. The pure variety of shots 'Budapest' uses is impressive in itself. Our first introduction to the hotel and its surrounding areas is done via miniatures, a little set built up that looks like a dollhouse. From there, the tone is set. Just about every scene looks like a painting painstakingly crafted by an artist full of bright, vivid, Earthy colors. Anderson films with his cast, close-ups as they ride a motorcycle, as they race down a mountain on a sled. It's clearly an effect but it appears almost effortless in execution. The closest, best description I can come up -- and I intend it as a compliment -- is that 'Budapest' looks and plays like a children's picture book, the story bouncing from page to page with almost reckless abandon. Style to burn, an essential element to Anderson's formula for success.

The extreme depth of the cast here shows what a director Anderson must be, one who actors and actresses desperately desire to work with. He has his fair of regulars who show up here, but this is a movie that belongs to Ralph Fiennes. Working with Anderson for the first time, Fiennes is an epically successful scene-stealer. It's a part that's hard to qualify because it works on so many levels. There's a rhythm to the dialogue that Fiennes takes to easily, his delivery rarely varying no matter who he's addressing. It's more than that too, Fiennes committing physically with some great visuals, a pitter-patter to the on-screen movements. His running style especially cracked me up, including one scene where he's confronted about the murder of Madame D. Gustave runs away, but he runs as a gentleman under control, not a man running for his life. There's too many funny scenes to mention, but almost all of them work. This is most definitely a character though, a gentleman who is vain, loves older women because they've gained life experience (among other things), full of pride, a strong boss, a loyal friend. We pick up all these little things that just work so well.

This performance comes through best in the scenes between Gustave and young Revolori as Zero, the Lobby Boy refugee who's lived on his own for years. Not quite father-son, not quite a brotherly relationship, it's somewhere in between, the protege and his mentor. The duo brings the screenplay to life from the drama to the laughs, the physical, almost screwball comedy to the international chases. I loved both characters, even the quasi-rivalry that develops when Zero meets a beautiful young baker, Agatha (Saoirse Ronan), who Gustave is enchanted with as well. Just a great chemistry, a great one-two punch that carries the movie throughout.

Brace yourself for the rest of the cast. It is a doozy. In a framing device, Tom Wilkinson plays the author of a book about the hotel, Jude Law playing his younger representation, interviewing an older Zero, played by F. Murray Abraham. Because part of the fun is stumbling across the stars on-hand here, I won't go into a ton of detail as to their background or who they are. But just to list them is pretty crazy in itself so pull up a chair and get comfy. Some appearances are no more than a scene or two, but they're there just the same. There's Adrien Brody, Mathieu Amalric, Willem Dafoe, Jeff Goldblum, Harvey Keitel, Bill Murray, Edward Norton, Jason Schwartzman, Owen Wilson, and Bob Balaban, among others who will no doubt catch your eye. If that cast doesn't do something for you, maybe movies aren't your thing.

As I've learned with other Anderson movies, these simply aren't for everyone. The humor is either something you go along with or just don't. 'Budapest' covers a ton of ground in its 100-minute running time, scenes transitioning with a stylish title card, Alexandre Desplat's effortless score pushing the story along, sight gags galore dotting the road. If you like it, I think you'll love it. Just a goofy kind of perfect, vastly different and a step above just about everything else hitting theaters. Highly recommended.

The Grand Budapest Hotel (2014): *** 1/2 /****

The Brothers Bloom

Oh, con jobs, the second cousin to the heist film....but not related by blood. The two sub-genres are pretty close, using a lot of similar conventions, characters and stories. After all, you can only rob-con-steal in so many different ways. However, I love heist flicks, but I only like con job movies. Case in point, 2008's The Brothers Bloom, a movie that started off decent but derails in the second half.

From the time they were kids, bouncing from one foster home to another, brothers Stephen (Mark Ruffalo) and Bloom (Adrien Brody) have gotten better and better as con men. After 25-plus years of pulling cons -- most of them quite successful -- Bloom has decided he's had enough. Years of conning under his belt, he's lost track of who he is and who he pretends to be. He tries to leave his partnership with Stephen, but his highly convincing brother Stephen pulls him back in for one job. Bloom agrees and takes charge in a con meant to dupe a quirky East Coast millionaire, Penelope (Rachel Weisz), who inherited millions of dollars. Traveling around the world, they intend to convince her that they're smugglers, and she stands to make some money herself if she goes along with the plan. It isn't so simple though, especially when Bloom starts to fall for Penelope, threatening to ruin Stephen's plan.

Quirky is one thing. The quirkiest of all directors, Wes Anderson, has shown that with his films like Moonrise Kingdom, Life Aquatic, Rushmore, Royal Tennenbaums among others. But with a quirky, funny, little-off movie, there's a fine line. You have to be a little off-center with your humor, but you can't be obvious about it. The biggest issue for this film from director Rian Johnson? It is quirky, it knows it, and it aggressively wants to let you know it's not a normal, everyday comedy caper. For a flick to work like this, it has to be almost effortless to be effective. When it's trying to be different, it just doesn't work. Unfortunate here because there's a lot of potential that is ultimately untapped.

As for the general quirky nature of the story, it is both good and bad. In most cases, it just goes too far. It's an incredibly stylish movie, filming in Romania, Belgrade, Greece, Montenegro and Prague. Visually, it's a treat to watch as the locations add another layer to the story. As for the style in terms of the characters and their wardrobe, here's where we meet a problem. Stephen and Bloom are gentleman thieves, always wearing suits, vests, ties and hats. It feels and looks like a throwback to French films from the 1960s. It's a style ripped out of the sky because the story takes place in modern times. Con men that stand out like a sore thumb? That makes sense. The look of the movie is great, but like everything else, it calls attention to itself in a big way, and for me at least, that's off-putting.

Of all the things though that bothers me the most, it was the characters that put me off. Johnson also scripted the movie, but it never finds that right balance between reality and uniquely appealing (and trust me, it's trying). The best thing to develop is the relationship between Brody's Bloom and Weisz's Penelope, two very different people who are drawn to each other because they're different. While everything else is aggressively in your face (WE'RE BEING QUIRKY! LAUGH DAMMIT!), this comes across naturally. Ruffalo is okay, but he's the face of that aggressive quirkiness as is Rinko Kikuchi as Bang Bang, the brothers' accomplice, a specialist in nitroglycerin and woman of few words. Also look for Robbie Coltrane as the Belgian, a member of their conning team, Maximilian Schell as Diamond Dog, the brothers' former mentor turned bitter enemy and Ricky Jay as the narrator. In a weird, out of left field cameo, look for Joseph Gordon-Levitt as a club patron. Seriously, blink and you'll miss it.

The all over the place quirky humor is one thing, but 'Bloom' can't even choose that correctly. Is it a quirky comedy? Is it a crime thriller? Is it a violent story of betrayals? Unfortunately, the last 45 minutes are one and all of those. Not that I was really enjoying it to begin with, but the story completely unravels in the last act. Twist after pointless twist, one after another until things become almost completely unrecognizable, much less able to follow. There are moments I liked a lot, especially Weisz's performance including her exhibition of all the hobbies she's picked up over the years (watch it HERE). A ton of talent assembled with a lot of potential, but ultimately, it just tries too hard to make us like the movie. Good musical score, stylish title cards, but it never goes anywhere. I wanted to like it, but it so desperately wants us to like the film that it's almost painful to watch at times.

The Brothers Bloom (2008): **/****

The Thin Red Line

With just five movies to his names over a 39-year span, director Terrence Malick's movies have been few and far between to say the least. He doesn't take just any movie. He takes on projects that appeal to him. Malick is a director that was probably born a generation too late because he would have fit perfectly with the French auteurs of the 1950s and 1960s.  Not making a movie for 20 years after 1978's Days of Heaven, Malick returned in 1998 with a heavily anticipated WWII film based off a James Jones novel, The Thin Red Line.

The timing of the release no matter how anticipated this movie was could not have been much worse.  'Red Line' was released in early 1999 after a limited release in December '98, just five months removed from Steven Spielberg's Saving Private Ryan was shown in theaters.  It's not fair to compare the two movies, but the damage was done. Malick's film is the complete opposite of Private Ryan, and in the years since has been lost in the shadow of the Spielberg film.  I revisited The Thin Red Line, remembering enjoying it through several viewings. Instead this time around, I found a deeply flawed, even boring movie that I struggled to get through.

To write a plot synopsis of a Malick movie would be a waste of words so I'm not going to bother. He doesn't have stories in the linear sense. The Jones novel and this film are based on the fighting at Guadalcanal in 1942, but for Malick's purposes and his screenplay the setting is unnecessary. It could as easily have been Iwo Jima, Tarawa, Okinawa or any number of other Pacific islands that saw fighting in WWII. This isn't a story about the scope of war or the immensity of it all.  This is soldiers at their most basic, the thoughts racing through their heads as they take part in the unnatural act of killing another human being. Malick's screenplay does its best to delve into that aspect of war but ends up assembling an uneven, odd finished product that I can only qualify as an 'art house World War II movie.'

A trademark of Malick's in all his films is narration filling in for actual dialogue which is so often nuts and bolts conversation in his screenplays. When used correctly, narration can carry a movie, bringing emotion and power to a story that simple dialogue just couldn't do. Among the cast at different points just about everyone gets a crack at their own narration, but most prominently used are Jim Caviezel, Ben Chaplin, and John Dee Smith who appears only at the beginning and the end but narrates throughout. First, all three of these narrators are Southerners with a heavy drawl, making it nearly impossible to distinguish which one of them is which in their narration.

More than some tough accents to get used to though is the fact that these narrations are so poetic, so lyrical, so ethereal and from another world that very little of it registers.  I've seen the movie several times, but only an exchange or two sticks with me.  Chaplin's Pvt. Bell constantly thinks of his wife, the love and desire he feels for her.  It is so mind-numbingly tedious that I completely lost interest anytime he started talking, his thoughts drifting back to the time he spent with her (played in flashback by Miranda Otto). All of the soldiers -- who end up being dirt-covered, nameless individuals -- wonder about life, love, death, God, pain, suffering, righteousness, faith, and so much more. It is well written, but it is so unnatural that it sounds like a poetry jam. The eerily calm toning and pacing will no doubt put some viewers to sleep. Malick is in absolutely no rush to speed things up to get where he wants.

That's the problem I've had with this movie though since I first saw it. What is Malick trying to accomplish? What's he trying to say? Anti-war message for sure, but in what way?  We see the horrendous physical and psychological efforts war and combat can take on the individual. We see the inner turmoil tearing soldiers apart as they battle with their inner demons. But the tone of the movie is so odd I don't quite know what the intention was. 

The background of this film is interesting in itself, worthy of its own review. When Malick came out of the woodwork to make a movie, actors -- big, big name stars -- lined up to fill out the cast for this WWII story. Rumors persist of some epic five or six hour movie. Malick had to make cuts to his final movie, completely editing out parts for Bill Pullman, Gary Oldman, Viggo Mortensen, and Mickey Rourke among others. As is, the finished product is 170 minutes long and still features an interesting cast full of recognizable names. Along with those mentioned earlier, there's Nick Nolte, Sean Penn, John Cusack, Elias Koteas, Woody Harrelson, Adrien Brody and Thomas Jane. That's some of the cast. Check out the IMDB page for a complete listing. Even George Clooney and John Travolta make brief, pointless cameos.

With so many speaking parts, only a few get a chance to leave an impression -- positive or negative. Caviezel is the best as Pvt. Witt, a man who just doesn't belong in the army. His Heaven is the little Pacific village he deserts to, but he's torn away and brought back to the fighting as he's reunited with his company. He joins the fighting but doesn't quite know why. Sean Penn is great as Sgt. Welsh, the veteran sergeant who serves as the sounding board for all his men. His scenes with Caviezel's Pvt. Witt provide some of the movie's most memorable and more importantly, most moving movements as they question what they're accomplishing. Koteas too is a scene-stealer among the faceless soldiers as Capt. Staros, Charlie Company commander who refuses to waste his men in a frontal assault that has little hope of succeeding and feels the wrath from above.

That's probably the most frustrating part of this movie for me. There are moments of perfection that you just sit back and revel in, let them wash over you. Malick's directorial eye is never in question, his movies beyond gorgeous. Some directors work best with scripts and actors. Malick is a visual director, here Australia filling in for Guadalcanal. This is a story of nature and its beauty torn apart by the fighting. Malick is quite content to show a hillside with its long, green grass blowing in the wind.  Add in the musical score from Hans Zimmer, and you've got a winner. His main theme with the Melanesian choirs send chills down my back every time I hear it. Listen HERE. The rest of the score is more subdued than Zimmer's more well-known scores, but it soothes, it meditates, playing almost constantly in hushed tones over the action in some cases and the narration in others (Try HERE). There is something soothing about this movie in its execution and its message. It just can't keep up the momentum throughout.

Certain moments of this movie have stuck with me over the years. Almost an hour is spent in excruciating detail as C Company tries to take a Japanese bunker on a grassy hillside. Later, a running firefight takes the company through a ravaged Japanese camp, Zimmer's score combining with the action to make it one of the great realistic battle sequences ever, the aftermath as moving as the actual fighting. Witt's conversations with Welsh have always stuck with me, and Witt's final scenes as C Company goes on a patrol bring the movie full-circle in an inevitable way that you know is coming.

Is the movie pretentious and even tedious at times? Oh hell yes. There were times I wanted to fast forward through vast stretches of narration and shots of nature. The narration is done to death by the end of the movie, little lines of dialogue straight from a poet that I didn't even always comprehend what I'm hearing. But with all that said, I just can't give this movie a negative rating. The moments that work are so good they overpower and overshadow the weaker moments.  You have to know what you're getting into when you watch this movie, and even then, there's no guarantee you will like it. It is a movie experience though, and one every movie fan should at least try.

The Thin Red Line <---trailer (1998): ***/**** 

Predators

One of my favorite 80s movies is Predator with a cast that includes the Governator, Carl Weathers, Bill Duke, Jesse Ventura, and one of the coolest movie monsters ever...albeit from a different galaxy.  It was a men on a mission movie on steroids, a team of specialists working together to survive attacks from an unknown, unseen galactic killer.  How could that movie not be good? I was somewhat suspicious then when I found out a new Predator movie was being made, this past summer's Predators.

If you're going to go back to the well of a successful film franchise, you might as well do it well.  Director/producer/writer extraordinaire Robert Rodriguez steps in for this movie which is really more of a reboot than a sequel to the 1987 original. There was a certain charm about the original, a low-budget feel with some great casting and great action, different from most sci-fi action movies from the 1980s.  Rodriguez and director Nimrod Antal don't alter a successful formula too much, sticking with what works and doing just enough different to keep things interesting.

Waking up from a deep sleep (that he can't remember how he was knocked out) in a free fall, a man named Royce (Adrien Brody) has a parachute deploy right before he crashes into a thick jungle below.  He doesn't know who did this to him, or where he is, but soon finds there are seven other people just like him similarly dropped into the jungle.  What's going on? Royce begins to piece things together as the seven are introduced.  This little group include some of the world's best killers -- with one odd exception, a doctor (Topher Grace) -- and they're all packing ridiculous amounts of firepower.  It doesn't take long for them to figure things out; they're on a planet in another galaxy being hunted by a pack of predators on some sort of game preserve...and they are the game.  Can they band together to survive or will they be picked off one by one?

Let's start at the beginning, one of the best openers in an action movie I've seen in awhile.  No background, no introduction, just an opening shot of Brody's Royce in free fall trying to figure out how to open his parachute.  He manages to just in time, still landing not so lightly in the jungle below.  Other people start to pop up and figure things out as to what's happening.  Obviously as a viewer of a movie called Predators, we know what's going on (especially if you saw any of the previews), but the sense of the unknown still carries the movie in its first hour.  It follows the Jaws rule of hiding your creature/attacker/monster, waiting a full hour before we get a glimpse of these galactic hunters.  In this thick jungle, anything could be hiding, and Antal packs the story with tension to spare.

Just like the original, the story requires a group of specialists to work together in this hellish situation.  I'll be the first to say that Adrien Brody doesn't strike me as much of an action star, but boy, I was wrong.  He nails the part of the loner mercenary who doesn't care much for his fellow survivors/killers.  The rest of the hunted include Isabelle (Alice Braga), an Israeli sniper, Cuchillo (Danny Trejo), a drug cartel enforcer, Nicholai (Oleg Taktarov), a Russian special forces soldier, Mombasa (Mahershalalhasbaz Ali), a leader of a Sierra Leone death squad, Stans (Walter Goggins), a Death Row inmate, Hanzo (Louis Ozawa Changchien), a Yakuza killer, and Grace's doctor. Some are developed more than others, Isabelle Nicholai and Hanzo rising above the rest, but half the fun is figuring out who's going to survive and how the rest are going to meet their grisly end.  There are some surprises along the way that certainly kept me guessing.

Now while I liked the movie, the second half just can't keep up the momentum of the first half.  We meet Noland (Laurence Fishburne), a member of a previous hunt who somehow survived the Predators' attacks.  The pacing bogs down after moving a mile a minute early on even with Fishburne hamming it up like nobody's business.  His part amounts to a quick cameo (he's only around for two scenes), but it's a memorable part.  The pacing slows down some and goes with the tried and true formula of team running, Predators chasing, members being picked off, epic showdown to end it all.  The finale makes up the sometime slow pacing as Brody's Royce goes toe to toe with the biggest, baddest Predator. Also an especially bright spot is Hanzo's showdown with one of three Predators in an open field in the dead of night, a very stylistic, very cool action sequence in its subtlety.

What I thought was cool overall was how the 2010 version paid homage to its predecessors.  Braga's Isabelle has a great monologue that links this movie with the 1987 original, a great scene that any fans of the original will appreciate.  We also get some more background information on these Predators (more than just galactic killers) and why they do what they do.  Add on a similar score that moved the action along in 1987, and you've got some great elements that add up to an above average, well-made action movie.  And surprise, surprise, the ending leaves the door wide open for a sequel.  I'm looking forward to it.

Predators <---(2010): ***/****