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 /****

Moonrise Kingdom

One thing comes to mind when I hear director Wes Anderson's name. He is one quirky dude. With movies like Rushmore, The Royal Tenenbaums, and The Life Aquatic, he's created a niche for himself in the smart (usually), quirky comedy department. That generally off-the-wall, unique humor can be dividing among viewers so head into 2012's Moonrise Kingdom knowing what you're getting into.

It's 1965 on a small New England island called New Penzance and a major storm is rolling in, and in more ways than one. A Khaki scout camping with his troop, 12-year old Sam Shakusky (Jared Gilman) is a bit of an odd duck, and now he's up to something. One night, he escapes from the troop at Camp Ivanhoe, forcing Scout Master Randy Ward (Edward Norton), to start searching for him. Sam isn't alone though. He's running away with 12-year old Suzy (Kara Hayward), the oldest daughter in a family with three younger brothers and two lawyer parents. The whole island scrambles to find them, but what are the two pre-teens up to, and where do they hope to get?

Watching an Anderson film, you really, really need to know what you're watching. The comedy is so ridiculously underplayed and understated that you've really got to pay attention to every line, every delivery and facial reaction or you're going to miss something. It's quirky humor with style though. Anderson's camera is pretty stationary, rarely moving into the action, shooting the film almost like a stage play, occasionally moving in for a close-up. Setting the story here in 1965 adds to a quirky, retro style from the throwback clothes and cars to the general awesomeness of the 1960s (a documented scientific fact). It's a beautiful movie, full of colors that could make up paintings if need be. Get in rhythm with the style and generally kooky humor early, and things should fall into place for you.

Actors and actresses certainly like working with Anderson as a director because he continues to attract big names to his films. Along with Norton as Scout Master Randy, Frances McDormand, Bruce Willis, Tilda Swinton, Bob Balaban, and Harvey Keitel (buried far down in the credits) and Anderson regulars Bill Murray and Jason Schwartzman round out the cast. There isn't a bad performance in the bunch. Willis especially stands out as Captain Sharp, Penzance's police officer, Schwartzman is a crazy scream as Cousin Ben, an older scout, and McDormand and Murray as Suzy's parents working through some personal things. I won't list all the names, but Scout Master Randy's troop features some solid performances from some young actors while Suzy's brothers also have some funny moments.

The most quirky part of the story is definitely the teenage crush turned love that develops between Sam and Suzy, two pre-teens that find a common bond that brings them together. They're both loners, what most would consider weird to other kids their age (probably because they're wise beyond their ages), and they don't like what their lives are. Solution-oriented? Run away with plenty of supplies...on an island. While the duo is both obsessively quirky and appropriately odd, there's also a real charm to their relationship. Because neither is the accepted 'norm,' they must automatically be vastly different. Their runaway has some really funny moments, some truly odd and even unsettling moments, but it ends up being a good mix. Sam wears a coonskin cap, smokes a pipe, and is quite the Khaki scout in terms of skills. Suzy loves a French record given to her by her godmother, loves fantasy books, and always wears binoculars. How is that not a match made in heaven?

I think Anderson is a talented director who treads that fine line. He's really close to being too quirky, too cute, too disgustingly quirky even. There are times it tries too hard to be different in its humor. To his credit, Anderson seems to know when to tap the brakes as he approaches that fine line. There are moments he seems like he's losing it, but he regains control quickly. I don't mean it as a huge criticism -- he's very talented and a very good director -- but each of his movies have those moments that are just too odd for their own sake.

It's still a funny movie, worthwhile to check out for sure. When it works, it is clicking on all cylinders. Phone calls with a split screen are simple but effective. Norton's Scout Master exploring the camp with all its eccentricities is pretty perfect, as is the surreal scenes when Schwartzman arrives to help Sam and Suzy. Weird? Yes. Enjoyable? Oh, yes, that too.

Moonrise Kingdom (2012): ***/****

The Bourne Legacy

With three movies over a five year span, the Bourne trilogy starring Matt Damon was a spy series with its own personal style, a James Bond for a new, younger movie-going audience. There was an odd perfection in those movies and all their frenetic, generally crazy pacing. But following the last movie in the trilogy, 2007's The Bourne Ultimatum, Damon said he wanted out. Never one to give up on a successful series, Hollywood did...well....um....uh...they basically remade The Bourne Identity. Anyways, here's 2012's The Bourne Legacy.

Working with a top secret program funded out of the C.I.A. called 'Outcome,' secret agent and killer Aaron Cross (Jeremy Renner) tests off the charts compared to the agency's other agents. A product of some medical advancements, Aaron is smarter, quicker and stronger. His superiors (Stacy Keach and Edward Norton among others) though are in some serious trouble, their operations possibly coming into the limelight because of Jason Bourne's "treacherous" actions. Rather than face serious legal repercussions if their own actions are revealed, they torch Outcome, killing everyone involved. Aaron is among the targets but escapes. Now he's looking for some answers, starting with another survivor of the burn, Dr. Marta Shearing (Rachel Weisz).

I'm not sure where to start with this quasi-Bourne movie. I went in with some expectations if not especially high ones. The Damon trilogy is the rare trilogy that I thought improved with each passing movie. 'Identity' is pretty damn good on its own so that's saying something. Once Damon wanted out though, the series/franchise has to take a twist. I can't help but wonder how director Tony Gilroy's film would have done without the 'Bourne' moniker floating over its head. Knowledge of the first three movies will certainly help, but it's not essential going into this 2012 sequel. Sorry to say though I came away highly disappointed with this newest venture. Building off the Bourne name and success, sure, there's potential, but it ends up being one big, boring, repetitive mess.

Clocking in at a very long 135 minutes, 'Legacy' is 16 minutes longer than any of the previous three movies.....and that IS NOT a good thing. This is a story that needed tightening up. The first hour is sluggish even as we bounce all over the world in a convoluted circle of information, worried looks, and menacing stares. I suppose somewhere in there was an explanation for the story, but I missed it. Long story short? Treadstone, Blackbriar and now Outcome all top each other, one agency becoming more efficient and effective than its predecessor. On the whole, the issue is simple. This is a movie that drifts far too much. The three Damon ventures are frenetically paced to the point where you feel like running home after seeing them. Not here. I was bored, legitimately bored, and counting down the minutes until it was over.

So there's the issue. It seems that Gilroy (who also co-wrote the script) wanted to use the Bourne moniker to get people in the door but from there on in was going to distance itself from those previous films. Unfortunately, the story is basically a rehash of The Bourne Identity. Everything...everything feels like we've seen this before right down to the government war rooms, action scenes, and never-ending chases. In the process somewhere, there must have been an ending too, but it didn't make the final cut. Impressive action scene ends, Cross is semi-happy and cue Moby's Extreme Ways. Oh, oops, my bad. I guess the movie is over. There is no resolution, and not even a huge jumping off point for a sequel. The movie just ends. That's all.

Continuing to springboard off his success from The Hurt Locker, Renner is a very solid lead as Aaron Cross. First off and most important, he doesn't try to be Jason Bourne. He's his own man/character. Aaron's background seems wasted though. There's a layer in there about how he came to be an agent and why he's so driven now that is highly interesting, but nothing much comes of it. Either way, Renner is the best thing going for her. Weisz is a fine actress, but she's nearly unbearable here; shrill, loud and in full-on damsel in distress mode. Norton is the biggest waste here, given NOTHING to do, as Outcome's director while Keach has to look mean and growl. Previous Bourne actors Scott Glenn, Joan Allen, Albert Finney and David Straithairn are around for brief, blink and you'll miss parts. Louis Ozawa Changchien is very cool as Larx 3, an assassin without the glitches of previous agents while Oscar Isaac is memorable as paranoid Outcome Agent No. 3 who a curious Aaron meets early on.

The action for the most part is disappointingly and surprisingly kept in the background, much of it saved for the finale, a foot-turned-motorcycle chase in the crowded streets of Manila. While the stunts are impressive, they still have that rehashed feel to them. That's the movie. There are some very cool moments -- Aaron manipulating a tracker in a unique way via an animal, Aaron's explanation of his past -- but they never amount to anything. Very sorry to give this a low rating if for nothing else than the original three movies set the bar so high. Renner is a good choice to take the reins, but that's about it here.

The Bourne Legacy <---trailer (2012): **/****

The Italian Job (2003)

In an age of sequels, prequels and remakes, all I'm usually looking for is a new tweak. It doesn't have to be a major thing, just a difference. So how about a remake of the 1969 cult favorite The Italian Job? First, Americanize it of sorts, put together a cool cast, stylish heist, and ta-da! We've got 2003's The Italian Job!

Having pulled off an intricate robbery in Venice, Charlie Croker (Mark Wahlberg), John Bridger (Donald Sutherland) and their heist team manage to escape with $35 million of gold bars. But as they escape in the Alps, one of the team, Steve (Edward Norton), turns on the group and steals the gold for himself. Bridger is shot and killed and the rest are left for dead as Steve escapes with all the gold. A year later, Charlie has managed to track down Steve who's gone into hiding. He's got the heist team back together, and they're looking for some revenge. What better way than to steal their gold back? They'll need help though so Charlie recruits Stella Bridger (Charlize Theron), John's daughter and an expert safecracker.

Basically this is a remake in name only. Oh, and a team of crooks does in fact steal things while using Mini-Coopers as part of the getaway. Other than that though, it's a whole other heist movie that stands on its own. Director F. Gary Gray has modernized the story, jumping the story from a European setting to Philadelphia and Los Angeles instead. There is something simple, straightforward and appealing about this remake. Low-key isn't the right description, but 'Italian' doesn't try to rewrite or reinvent the genre. It knows where it wants to get, and it knows how it's going to get there. Is it so wrong that it is just a solid, entertaining and fun heist movie? I say that like 'Just' is a bad thing.

That comfort level in knowing where the movie hopes to end up is most evident in the actual heists. The opening robbery of a heavily guarded home in Venice is an ideal scene-setter, capping off with a high-speed boat chase through the Venetian canals. It gets the movie going at a breakneck speed immediately, and Sutherland's appearance is a very cool addition. The finale heist is again, pretty straightforward, but just as exciting. Norton's Steve is onto Charlie's plan and tries to sneak the gold out, but with three Mini-Coopers, explosives, Russian gangsters, armored truck guards, heavily armed motorcycle guards and a patrolling helicopter 'Italian' has some tricks up its sleeve right until the end.

More than the heist aspect of 'Italian,' the thing that most appeals to me about this movie is the casting. Both the good guys, the bad guys and the yet to be determined to the end, it is a likable, appealing cast. Wahlberg especially is one of my favorites, an actor who's carved a niche out for himself, playing a variation on the tough guy everyman. If it sounds like a dig or something negative, I don't mean it, but he's incredibly likable on-screen, especially as the confident high-class thief leading his team. It's also good to see Theron do just a fun movie, not a big, message movie. She fits in well with the crew, and it's the type of part that's right in her wheelhouse. And can you go wrong with a quick appearance by Donald Sutherland? Too bad it's not a larger part. Charlie's team also includes Handsome Rob (Jason Statham), the driver and all-around ladies man, Lyle (Seth Green), the tech guy and hacker who claims Napster was his own creation, Left Ear (rapper Mos Def), specialist in explosives, and Wrench (Franky G), the mechanic who rigs the cars for added weight.

Oh, yeah, Edward Norton is awesome whether he plays a good guy or bad guy. Playing the paranoid thief with $ for eyes, he doesn't disappoint. Also look for Olek Krupa as Mashkov, a Ukrainian gangster who has an interest in how the robbery develops, but no spoilers here. Not a ton to analyze about this ready-made, entertaining heist rehash, but I think that's the point. It's got action, laughs and a good dynamic among the team, especially Green impersonating Statham. Watch it HERE, it's dead-on. Just sit back and enjoy Mark Wahlberg, Charlize Theron and Jason Statham try to pull off a crazy heist. Fun from the start.

The Italian Job <---trailer (2003): ***/****

The Incredible Hulk

With all the franchise reboots, sequels and prequels in the market now, it never comes as much of a surprise when one hits theaters.  But what about when a studio cuts their losses and admits a mistake and does another reboot, just five years after the previous effort?  Released in 2003, Hulk was a disappointment to fans and to the studio even though it made over $130 million in theaters. I was one of the few who actually liked that one, but in 2008 Marvel Studios released a new Hulk movie, aptly titled The Incredible Hulk. Maybe they just needed to start over for the new Avengers movie, announced for 2012.

The 2008 version starts after Bruce Banner has accidentally turned himself into the Hulk via some gnarly gamma ray exposure.  The opening credits actually serve as a prologue of sorts, explaining how he became the Hulk and the fallout that was to come because of his actions.  While the reboot has some potential, it follows basically the same formula as the 2003 version so it made me ask, what's the point?  Hulk has also been in the news recently because star Edward Norton has been bumped for Mark Ruffalo -- no explanation why -- for the Avengers movie.  As a Norton fan, it's sad news because he is a strong point in 2008's Hulk.

Hiding in Brazil as he runs from the U.S. military and General Ross (William Hurt), scientist Bruce Banner (Norton) is doing everything he can to experiment on himself and see if he can ever go back to being just Bruce instead of turning into the Hulk if he gets too angry/excited.  Ross is hot on his trail and sends in a Special Ops commando, Emil Blonsky (Tim Roth), and his team to extract him.  Bruce manages to escape and sneaks back into the states where he tracks down lost love Betty Ross (Liv Tyler) and a doctor (Tim Blake Nelson) who may be able to help him. But all the while, General Ross and Blonsky -- after some medical experiments -- are close behind, doing everything they can to get their hands on Banner.

First off, I did like this movie if not exactly loved it.  The visuals are great, full of bright, vibrant colors that look lifted right out of a comic book.  The action is solid if a little repetitive, and that's where the problem comes in.  Christian Bale playing Batman is one thing, he's a regular dude with a badass suit.  But when Banner turns into Hulk and Blonsky transforms into Abomination late in the movie, it's just two freakishly huge CGI creations beating the crap out of each other.  It loses some effect as most CGI creations tend to do to me.  Oh cool, look at those two computer images fight!  I don't know the solution, and at a certain point you just have to go along with it, but it is a big problem I have with superhero/action movies.

Starting a franchise over again, director Louis Leterrier had to work with a cast that's as good if not better than 2003 Hulk. I thought the cast of Eric Bana, Jennifer Connelly, Sam Elliott, Nick Nolte and Josh Lucas was one of the best selling points for Hulk.  For the 2008 reboot, I'd say it's a push.  An actor's actor, it's fun to see Norton in a blockbuster where he can just have some fun.  I've always had a crush on Liv Tyler, and she's okay here but Connelly is the better actress. Sam Elliott or William Hurt? Do I really have to go into that one?  Nolte and Roth are about the same, and Lucas is better than Blake Nelson in somewhat similar roles.  Moral of the story, both casts are good, neither one pulling too far ahead of the other one.

One of the biggest complaints of 2003 Hulk was the lack of action, a superhero movie that was too cerebral which sounds ridiculous to me.  What's funny is that 2008 Hulk doesn't up the ante too much.  There's a chase through crowded Brazilian streets early, and we see Hulk in shadows and darkness, never getting a great look at him.  The best action comes in a scene where Ross and Blonsky have cornered Banner, and he's forced to protect Betty on a college campus.  There's some epic qualities to this segment that make it worth rewatching.  I've mentioned the finale -- CGI monster vs. CGI monster -- which is all right but nothing spectacular.  The two last scenes are cool, including a very brief snippet of what's to come in the Avengers movie.

Overall for a reboot, I'm looking for something new, something different that improves on the previous franchise ventures.  The Incredible Hulk doesn't do that, instead taking steps side-to-side instead of forward.  It's a good enough movie, good to watch with a bucket of popcorn that lets you sit back and enjoy, but that's about it.  Other superhero movies like Iron Man have raised the bar, and this one isn't quite there.  Cool throwback tribute, look for original Hulk Lou Ferrigno in a cameo as a security guard.

The Incredible Hulk <---trailer (2008): ** 1/2 /**** 

The Illusionist

So let's talk about some magic, huh? Who's excited?!?  Since we were all little kids, there's been magic around whether it's the form of some crappy magician at a friend's birthday party, a B.S. Magician Reveals All show that explains the tricks, or even David Blaine being a toolish street performer.  But that's now, in the 21st Century.  Through points of history where there wasn't always oodles of entertainment around, people went to see magicians perform on-stage.  I reviewed Christopher Nolan's The Prestige last fall, and I'm adding the 2nd half of the magician movies that came out a few months apart from each other, 2006's The Illusionist.

Other than the fact that both movies deal with late 19th century magicians, it's really not fair to compare the two movie.  The Prestige has an epic feel to it with scope and style to burn while The Illusionist is a smaller movie that makes up for its lack of scope with some a real feel of what a period piece movie should be like.  Just because they're different doesn't mean either are worth passing up, they're both excellent, highly entertaining movies.  Watching 'Illusionist' though, I had the feel of a classic Hollywood movie in terms of the simplicity of the story but also the filming techniques.  Moral of the story? Check both out, they'd make an interesting double-bill.

In late 19th century Vienna, a magician named Eisenheim (Edward Norton) opens a show to huge crowds and critical favor with his vast array of tricks that he is able to perform. His tricks are not just sleight of hand and deception, seemingly having something deeper and more sinister.  Could he actually have supernatural powers?  One night on stage, he asks for a volunteer and a beautiful woman walks on stage, Duchess Sophie (Jessica Biel) the fiance of Crown Prince Leopold (Rufus Sewell), the heir to the throne. As teenagers, Eisenheim and Sophie were very close only to be torn apart because of their class differences.  Now as Leopold makes a play for the throne, the reunited couple plans to run away, but nothing comes easy.  A police inspector by the name of Uhl (Paul Giamatti) is on their trail trying to figure out exactly what they're up to.   

Without giving away some major plot revelations, that is about as detailed as I'm going to get with the story.  Know that the story takes a big turn about halfway through, but a good, smart turn.  It's not a difficult movie to follow but if I can say anything it will be this; pay attention because everything you see is not as it seems.  Director and screenwriter Neil Burger fashions a good old fashioned story that's a blend of romance between lost loves, the mystery of a magician and all his tricks, and the always reliable dogged detective trying to piece clues together as he goes.  With all that in the mix, the movie could have been overwhelming, but it finds that nice balance among all three.

As for the movie on the whole, it has a very distinct feel of a throwback to the classic Hollywood films from the 1930s and 1940s, albeit with the technology from the 2000s.  The film was shot on location in the Czech Republic so right off the bat, the story looks like it should, taking place in the events where the story actually takes place.  Novel concept, huh? Cinematographer Dick Pope puts together a beautiful finished version with full colors and great visuals.  At times, the corners of the screen are even fuzzy -- a little faded -- as if the movie was released 60 or 70 years ago.  He also uses some cool-looking, very stylish scene transitions that catch the eye.  Also, composer Philip Glass's score varies between a soothing main theme and a quicker version -- that still sounds time appropriate -- when the story requires a little brisker pace.

One thing that definitely caught me by surprise when I read about a magician story period piece was the casting.  Norton, Biel and Giamatti just didn't seem like appropriate choices for a 19th century period piece, but I guess the joke was on me.  As Eisenheim, Norton is able to go back and forth between this intense on-stage performer with this low-key man off the stage.  Then when pushed too far, this brooding anger comes through in an underrated performance from Norton. In the past, I've never thought much of Biel as an actress, but she nails this part.  She looks the part in period clothing and manages a believable accent.  The best performance for me though was Giamatti as Uhl, the police inspector balancing a desire to improve himself with a curiosity as to how Eisenheim does his tricks.  His last scene especially stands out in a scene-stealing part.  Sewell is appropriately evil/dislikable with Eddie Marsan good in a small part as Eisenheim's manager.

There's not much to complain or be critical about here.  The pacing early on can be a little slow, but it never drags.  The slower portions of the story are necessary so when some twists and turns do start popping up it's non-stop the rest of the way.  Also, I think Berger made a wise decision leaving Eisenheim's abilities a mystery.  Is he just a highly skilled, very talented illusionist able to deceive audiences, or is there something else there?  Does he have some sort of other-worldly supernatural powers?  I guess it depends on the viewer, but it's a question and a movie worth looking into.

The Illusionist <---trailer (2006): ***/****

Primal Fear

If a major movie in theaters or since released on DVD has a major twist, do you want to know about it going in?  Knowing a twist is coming can make viewing more enjoyable, more involving because you're trying to figure the twist out before the reveal.  On the other hand, going in blind to that knowledge can be just as enjoyable -- if not more -- because you're not worried about figuring the movie out.  You can just let the movie wash over you during viewing.  I go back and forth, but typically I like to be surprised.

Going into watching 1996's Primal Fear, I was quite aware there was a twist coming, and a good one at that.  A friend of mine is a huge fan of Edward Norton (making his screen debut) and said the movie was worth watching for his performance alone.  That twist toward the end? Just a cherry on top.  So with a knowledge that the movie was going to try to trick me in some way, I dove in.  It is a solid courtroom drama -- which I'm typically a sucker for anyway -- with a great cast, and an ending that does not disappoint.  At a certain point to me at least, it becomes fairly obvious where the twist is coming, and I was able to call it...to a certain degree at least.  No spoilers here though, I don't want to ruin it.

One of Chicago's best defense lawyers and more than that, one of the best defense lawyers anywhere, Martin Vail (Richard Gere) has a knack and an ability for getting high-profile clients an acquittal when it seems certain a lengthy jail sentence is heading their way.  Never one to shy away from major cases, Vail takes one that seems like a slam dunk for state district attorney Shaughnessy (John Mahoney) and his two assistants, Janet Venable (Laura Linney) and Bud Yancy (Terry O'Quinn). A 19-year old altar boy, Aaron Stampler (Norton) is accused of brutally murdering the archbishop.  But as Vail digs into the case and examines all the evidence, it seems the archbishop was involved in some deep, dark stuff that goes much deeper than he thought.

The courtroom drama is a movie genre all to itself, and more than that in TV shows, novels and theatrical plays.  When that drama is handled the right way, it can be a riveting experience watching two sides butt heads for the jury's expense.  'Primal' does everything a courtroom drama should and for that reason alone is worth watching if you like that type of movie.  The trial sequences are quick-moving and never drag, keeping you guessing at to Vail and opponent and former girlfriend Linda's intentions.  On top of that, playing a prosecutor or a defense attorney has to be a favorite for actors everywhere.  The camera is on them almost exclusively with nothing to distract them.

Lost in the quality of that drama and the story is what a good performance Gere turns in.  He's vain, egotistical, arrogant, a blatant self-promoter and one who never steps away from the limelight.  And you know what?  He's still likable.  It's easy to see why Gere's Vail is such a good lawyer.  He is charming, very intelligent and able to twist things to his own advantage no matter the odds stacked against him.  Linney matches Gere as his female counterpart in the courtroom, giving Linda a self-confident, sexy vibe.  The rest of the cast includes Frances McDormand as Molly, a psychiatrist brought in to examine Aaron, Alfre Woodward as Shoat, the presiding judge, Andre Braugher as Goodman, Vail's investigator, and Steven Bauer as Pinero, a high-ranking local hood who may or may not have more involvement in the case than he's letting on.

But making his screen debut, Norton is the surprise out of left field here.  Without giving it away, I can say the twist involves his character.  Working with huge talents like he does here, Norton still has a way of having all the attention focus on him.  Granted, hindsight is 20-20, but it's easy to see that he was destined to be a star, and it is a performance that earned him an Oscar nomination for Best Supporting Actor (he somehow lost to Cuba Gooding Jr from Jerry Maguire).  His Aaron is a country boy from Kentucky trying to survive in the big city.  He's a naive young man who talks with a stutter and clearly has some personal demons from his past that he struggles to deal with.  A great performance that with Gere's carries the movie.

Beyond the acting and story, 'Primal' benefits from the on-location shooting in Chicago, and not just some of the more glamorous locations you might be used to seeing on film or in TV shows.  Some gritty locations add to the more realistic feel of the movie which is also added by a score from James Newton Howard that has a throwback feel to it, something out of a 40s film noir.  All these elements come together in this engrossing courtroom drama aided by a deep, strong cast and a solid story that keeps you guessing right till the end.

Primal Fear <---trailer (1996): ***/**** 

Pride and Glory

A movie doesn't have to be groundbreaking to be good. Sometimes its nice to see a movie that doesn't do anything new, but sticks to what the genre is known for so in a way it's like comfort food. Last year Pride and Glory hit theaters and bombed at the box office, barely making $20 million. Part of that had to be chalked up to its been-there, done-that storyline that's been done to death in cop movies. Despite having a great cast, the movie doesn't really do anything special.

Four cops are dead, and the NYPD has few leads to work with. Detective Ray Tierney (Edward Norton) has been out of the field for almost two years and is asked by his dad (Jon Voight), another cop, to lead the investigation into the four deaths. Always a good cop who had come under fire for his questionable handling of a case, Tierney begins to look into the case and doesn't like what he sees. All the evidence points to dirty cops being involved, and making it worse, his brother Francis (Noah Emmerich) and brother-in-law Jimmy (Colin Farrell) look to be involved.

What should Ray do? Stay true/loyal to his family and that bond or to the oath he took as a cop to uphold the law? People from all sides are telling him what to do as tensions in NY rise when more dead bodies keep showing up. The main problem here is that nothing is new. Pride and Glory doesn't put a new spin on the old good cop vs. bad cop routine or even try to. The story is a good one, and the actors pull off their parts well, but the whole time I felt like I was watching a movie I'd seen before.

All of that said, it's disappointing because the cast is good, especially the leads. Ed Norton is one of my favorite actors around, and his role as a tortured cop trying to right certain wrongs he did in the past is the highlight of the movie. You might not think of Norton as the typical, tough guy cop but he plays the part well. Another of my favorites, Farrell, is average as Jimmy Egan, the cop with the fiery temper who's apparently involved with some low-level drug dealers. It's not his best performance if only because we know so little about what drives him or what pushes him.

Jon Voight similarly has little to do as the Tierney family patriarch, a veteran cop just trying to hold his tight-knit family together. Noah Emmerich is right behind Norton as the movie's best part as Francis Jr., the precinct commander who has turned a blind eye to Egan and his crew's antics but only because they got the job done. Jr knew they were crossing the line, but not to what extent. It's this part of the movie that works best, whether it be Norton or Emmerich. It's hard for them to believe that someone they know so well and love could be capable of the things they see.

The movie has its issues, but if you enjoy procedural cop movies I'd give this a try. It's not great and it's not bad either. Pride and Glory just rests in that middle section that doesn't leave much of an impression on you and drifts away rather quickly. Rent it but don't buy it.