St. Vincent

So that Bill Murray guy, he's got Saturday Night Live, Stripes, Caddyshack and Ghostbsters to his name. Not a bad career right? Yep, for most, but Murray did all those over about a 10-year stretch. What's weirder? He's in icon status now and probably has more popularity in 2014 than he did 10 or 15 years ago. If he keeps starring in movies like 2014's St. Vincent, that popularity is going to go nowhere but up.

Living in his old Brooklyn home, Vincent MacKenna (Murray) is content to live as a crotchety, grumpy, retired old guy. He goes to the horse track, drinks regularly at the local bar and spends some "quality time" semi-regularly with Daka (Naomi Watts), a pregnant Russian stripper/prostitute. Nothing wrong with all that, right? Well, his cozy, grouchy existence is about to be thrown for a loop. Vincent has some new neighbors next door, a mom, Maggie (Melissa McCarthy), starting a new job as a nurse, and her 12-year old son, Oliver (Jaeden Lieberher). His standoffish, downright rude interactions get things started off on quite the positive -- that's sarcasm -- but Vincent can only do so much. Looking to provide as best as she can, Maggie has to take some long hours, some long shifts...and Oliver needs a babysitter. In steps Vincent who oddly enough gets along with young Oliver pretty well and pretty quickly. No way that oddball friendship works, right?

Ever heard the name Theodore Melfi? Yeah, me neither. To be fair, you shouldn't have. Melfi is a longtime producer who has also directed some short films. This 2014 comedy/drama is his feature film debut, and for good measure, he also wrote the screenplay. It's quite the successful debut with universally positive reviews and a decent box office showing as it picks up some word of mouth while also getting a more major theatrical release. The biggest thing I can say/warn about is that this isn't your typical indie comedy full of quirks and eccentricities and oddballs. All those things are there, but it isn't the exact same movie you've seen over and over again. It is familiar. It is predictable, and you've most likely seen similar movies before. Now all that said...I loved this flick from beginning to end, predictability or not.

Go figure that Bill Murray is really, really good here as Vincent MacKenna. This isn't hamming it up goofy Carl the groundskeeper. This is an excellent acting performance. Rocking an understated, not laid on too heavy Brooklyn accent, Murray gives some real depth to Vincent. You think you know everything about him from the moment you meet him, but credit to Melfi's script. There's a whole lot more going on with Vincent than what we see at first. Yes, he's an alcoholic, he gambles too much and he's rude, crude and politically incorrect, but don't judge too early. Not always likable, not easy to hate, he's a normal guy in his older years struggling with those years passing by.

In the predictability department, it doesn't come as much of a surprise that Murray's cantankerous fogie bonds pretty quickly with Oliver. This is a kid in a new neighborhood and school without many friends, and he doesn't seem too put off by Vincent's standoffish act. They click instantly. Vincent teaches Oliver how to defend himself, to stand up for himself. Is it cliched? Yes, 100 percent, but it is handled in expert fashion. It's got a touch of Gran Torino (Eastwood in the old guy role), but a lighter touch. Young Lieberher is excellent too, a natural, easygoing and likable presence as Oliver. He's not the disgustingly adorable little kid that seems so prevalent in movies. He's just a kid, and that makes all the difference. For Murray, maybe there's an Academy Award nomination in his future. Hopefully at least.

There isn't a weakness in the cast, starting obviously with Mr. Murray and Lieberher. I really like Melissa McCarthy, and it's cool to see her do a funny but still pretty dramatic performance. She gets the laughs, but she doesn't count on the physical, often overdone humor that has limited the potential of a movie like Identity Thief. Watts has some fun as the Russian stripper/prostitute who's pretty clueless but gets along with Vincent just the same. Also look for Chris O'Dowd as the religion teacher at Oliver's school, Terrence Howard as Vincent's bookie, Dario Barosso as Oliver's bully turned friend, and Kimberly Quinn as a nurse Vincent sees once or twice a week. An excellent cast full of interesting, sympathetic (some not as sympathetic) characters that all add that human touch to the story.

I'll give Melfi's script credit. For the most part, it is fairly to pretty predictable. You always kinda have a sense where things are going...until you don't. The script throws the audience for some loops about the halfway point that worked pretty well. Some reviews I read thought it got a little too sentimental, but I thought the tone and story departures worked pretty well. It comes back to a straightforward thought that isn't the most uplifting thought, but it is honest. That thought? "Life ain't tidy." It's rarely easy to fix or solve. Life has problems, often unforeseen problems, and you have to decide how much you want to work to fix those problems. I loved the movie from beginning to end. A good sign of its impact on audiences? The credits feature Murray alone on-screen sitting, just singing and doing some odds and ends.

Nobody in the theater left. We all sat and kept watching it until the end. A testament to the movie, especially to Murray's awesome lead performance. I loved this movie and can't recommend it enough.

St. Vincent (2014): ****/****

Ghostbusters

Wanna feel old? Just look back at movies that were released the year you were born. Last week I went and saw Guardians of the Galaxy only to find a poster advertising the coming 30th anniversary of 1984's Ghostbusters hitting theaters. My first thought was something along the lines of "Haha what an old movie. That's crazy." Well....I'm 29 so that makes me....oh, God, I'm gonna be 30 next summer!!! Okay, calm down, calm down. Yeah, anyways, Ghostbusters is really good. Definitely couldn't pass up that re-release in theaters.

When their grant with Columbia University runs out, doctors/screwballs/misfits/friends Pete Veckman (Bill Murray), Ray Stantz (Dan Aykroyd) and Egon Spangler (Harold Ramis) find themselves in quite the sticky situation. Experts of sorts in paranormal activity, the trio decide to go into business for themselves, dubbing the little group 'Ghostbusters.' Their start-up business struggles at first but quickly hits a groove to the point they become celebrities, popping up in newspapers, magazines and TV news all over the country. Their reputation spreads and they keep on scooping up and observing all sorts of paranormal activity across New York City. Then, they take a job that may be too big even for them. A woman, Dana Barrett (Sigourney Weaver), claims some inexplicable things have been happening in her apartment. What's going on exactly? The Ghostbusters are on the case.

How crazy is it that Ghostbusters is 30 years old? Seriously. It's 30 years old. Let that sink in for a little bit. Process it. I hadn't watched this sci-fi, horror comedy in years (like....lots of years) but the girlfriend is a big fan so it was hard to pass up the opportunity to see it remastered on a big screen. It's easy to forget the impact the film has had in those 30 years, spawning a sequel (and possibly a third upcoming one), two cartoon series -- I loved The Real Ghostbusters growing up -- and too many iconic things to mention. Okay, let's try. There's the instantly recognizable theme from Ray Parker Jr. (listen HERE), the great throwback beige jumpsuits, the Ghostbusters warehouse, and of course, the NYC firehouse turned Ghostbusters office. Oh, and Slimer too. You can't forget Slimer.

As far as comedy writers go, there's a certain mad genius quality to Dan Aykroyd and Harold Ramis. Together or working separately, they've helped write The Blues Brothers, Coneheads, Dragnet, Spies Like Us, Caddyshack, Meatballs, Stripes and Animal House. Oh, and this one, Ghostbusters. You combine those two mad geniuses and let them do their thing. The script is a gem, funny without ever trying too hard. It lays things out, assembles a ton of talent and gives each of them a chance to shine. Murray gets the most laughs, but it is a smart-ass, underplayed, dripping with sarcasm part as he unleashes one memorable one-liner after another. Aykroyd is just manic energy, Ramis is the straight man who's always ready with a scientific response, and joining the crew late is Ernie Hudson as Winston Zeddmore because a job is a job.

What a cast though. It's 107 minutes and the cast and story never feels rushed. Murray, Ramis and Aykroyd are pretty perfect together, giving the impression of three friends just hanging out and shooting the breeze. Throw in the very sexy Sigourney Weaver who gets to deal with her nerdy neighbor played to perfection by Rick Moranis, and you've got quite the group of talented actors assembled here. Also look for Annie Potts as the Ghostbusters' secretary, Janine, and familiar 1980s snooty bad guy William Atherton as an EPA agent more than a little interested in what the Ghostbusters are actually doing.

No point in any overanalysis here. Director Ivan Reitman has a gem here, one I very much enjoyed catching up with how many years later. The entire movie is strong, but it is at its best in the final act as the Ghostbusters must tangle with an ancient spirit and demigod, Zuul, and a Sumerian shape-shifting god of destruction, Gozer. It produces probably the movie's most memorable scene, a gigantic 100-feet tall Stay Puft Marshmallow Man terrorizing New York City. Hard not to like this one. Well worth revisiting....even if it does mean I'm almost 30 years old.

Ghostbusters (1984): ***/****

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 Monuments Men

I'm weird when it comes to movies. When I catch wind of a film in production, of an actor being attached to a project, stumbling across a trailer, I look forward to said movie like a crazy person. We're talking kid on Christmas Eve excited. Over the years, I've looked forwarded to The Alamo, Skyfall, Casino Royale, the Dark Knight series, the Fast and Furious movies, and most recently released in theaters, 2014's The Monuments Men. Where does it fall among that list? Read on.

It's mid-1943 and the tide of World War II is quickly turning to the Allies, the Axis retreating on almost all fronts. An American officer, Frank Stokes (George Clooney), with an art background is proposing a plan to President Franklin Delano Roosevelt as the tide turns, presenting an idea for a small squad of specialists and experts in art, architecture and history and dropping them into the war zone in France. Their goal is simple, try and save as much famous and historical art, statues, structures and buildings across Europe. Germany, the Third Reich and the Nazis -- led by Hitler and Goring -- have been stealing and stockpiling priceless pieces of art for years, more than that stealing hundreds and thousands of years of history and culture. Stokes gets his right-hand man, James Granger (Matt Damon), and goes to work assembling his small team. The war is definitely turning though, the Germany army retreating all along the front. Countless pieces of art, treasures and items of historical significance are at risk, the Germans having received an order from Hitler to destroy everything they can.

This story is a prime example of how powerful history can be. There are countless stories out there just waiting to be told. This WWII story with Clooney directing (and co-writing the script with Grant Heslov) is based off a true story and the book of the same name (check it out HERE by author Robert M. Edsel). The fact that this really happened -- the Germans hoarding history's treasures, the Allied effort to recover said treasures -- is pretty crazy in itself, a hugely interesting and entertaining premise. I loved the book, a window into a chapter of WWII that was almost completely forgotten by history until the last 20 years or so. It was fascinating and terrifying all at once, unlikely heroes in an unlikely situation. I was worried then when Clooney's film was pushed back from an original December 2013 release to a February 2014 release. Should I have been worried?

Unfortunately, yes. It's a good movie that entertained me. The truth is though with the story at hand, the real-life incidents, the flesh and blood people, it could have been a classic. A true classic, and it isn't. The positives are obvious. There is a throwback feel to the story reminiscent of so many good 1960s World War II movies. Clooney clearly has a ton of respect for his subject matter and rightfully so. What these Monuments Men accomplished in a live war zone is remarkable, and yes, there were casualties. For a cliffsnotes version of what the force/organization accomplished, read HERE. This is a movie interested in really illuminating what these men accomplished. They were soldiers, if not the classic idea of what a soldier is. The movie is gorgeous, filming on location in Germany adds a perfect sense of authenticity to the story. The score from Alexandre Desplat is okay, nothing too memorable, a little too adoring at times. There's a lot going for it but.....

There's also a lot of negative to mention. A couple hours after watching 'Monuments,' it's hard exactly to say why. The task in transitioning Edsel's book to a manageable film is daunting. We're talking almost double-digit characters traversing across Europe over a year-plus. The result in Clooney's 118-minute long film? A generally disjointed feel with no real unifying link to the characters and set pieces. Episodic is a more than apt description, one episode, one bit or routine bouncing to another as quick as it arrived. The early portions are rushed, characters introduced far too quickly. The middle portions drag as if the script doesn't know exactly how to get to where it wants to go. The finale definitely is the saving grace, the Monuments Men traveling deep into Germany to rescue extraordinary amounts of art. It's disappointing because I expected so much more. The drama is good but not great, wandering too much aimlessly, and most of the attempts at wry, subtle humor fall short.

The movie's savior and strongest attribute is the cast that almost makes up for the disappointing script. If Clooney is attached to a project, it instantly has cache for me. He's good, not great, leading the ensemble as Lt. Frank Stokes (based on George Stout), the creator of the Monuments Men. Damon has the more scene-stealing part as James Granger (based on James Rorimer), the art director at the Metropolitan Museum in NYC. His subplot with Claire Simone (Cate Blanchett), a volunteer who survived years in Paris in efforts to protect invaluable pieces of art, is a cool departure from the story, including a great scene where Claire (based on Rose Valland) reveals a huge secret to Granger. The rest of the Monument Men include Campbell (Bill Murray), an architect, Garfield (John Goodman), a sculptor, Clermont (Jean Dujardin), a French artist, Savitz (Bob Balaban), an art expert of sorts, Jeffries (Hugh Bonneville), a disgraced Englishman, and Epstein (Dimitri Leonidas), a young soldier who grew up in Poland, now working as the group's translator.

While the formula is tweaked, the premise here at its heart is a 'men-on-a-mission' movie, Clooney's Stokes assembling a small group of specialists to help pull off an impossible mission. The formula is rushed too much to the point I never really felt I knew any of the characters. I felt like we were supposed to root for them because it was Bill Murray, because it was John Goodman, not because we get to learn anything about them as individuals. Like so much of portions of the movie, I came away disappointed with the characterization. The acting is uniformly good but cold for lack of a better description. Some parts work very well, especially Goodman and Dujardin teaming up as the group is split up to cover more ground. Murray and Balaban are the odd couple, almost constantly arguing, but overall, it's just more wasted potential.

I'm wavering here. This movie seemed like a gimme for me, a sure thing review at 3.5 or 4 stars, but it wasn't. Some moments work perfectly, like a Christmas montage as we see the war starting to wear on all the Monuments Men, a message from Murray's daughter playing on a phonograph. A late interrogation between Clooney's Stokes and an SS officer is foreboding and subtle at the same time. the last 30-40 minutes pick up the momentum, providing the movie's strongest moments. Getting there though can be a trial at times. Most of the issues can be chalked up to the script that falls short in so many ways. A disappointingly average film that should have been so, so much better.

The Monuments Men (2014): ** 1/2 /****

Lost in Translation

They are the movies that everyone loves. E-V-E-R-Y-O-N-E. Critics and fans alike drool over these flicks, especially during awards season. As I've written about before, cynic that I am, I immediately don't like those movies without having seen even a little of it. Call me naturally suspicious. Released in 2003, Lost in Translation was one of those movies, universally liked, and I had no dying to see it interest. Well, it's 10 years later. I'm safe, right? Might as well check it out.

An aging American movie star, Bob Harris (Bill Murray) is no longer a sure thing at the box office. He's taken a job as a whiskey spokesperson for a company in....Japan. It's a lucrative payday, netting the middle-aged movie star $2 million bucks. There's a catch though. He hates it, hates everything about it. He feels completely out of sorts in Japan as he films commercial after commercial, does photo shoot after photo shoot. At his hotel one night as Bob deals with his own insomnia, he meets Charlotte (Scarlett Johansson), a young married woman struggling with where her life is currently at. She's in Tokyo with her photographer husband who's on assignment, leaving her a lot of time to do her own thing. She is of course...miserable. But in this case, the middle-aged actor and the young wife have found a similar soul.

From director/writer Sofia Coppola, 'Translation' cost just $4 million to make but earned over $120 million in its theatrical release. It won an Oscar for Best Screenplay (penned by Coppola), and was also nominated for Best Picture, Best Director and Best Actor, none of them managing a win. I'm glad I caught up with it finally. No doubt about it, it's a good flick. That said, I didn't love it. 'Translation' wasn't a life-changing movie for me. It's a good, well-written story that features two great performances from Murray and Johansson. The performances are by far the best thing in Coppola's film.

With a story about people, 'Translation' makes a wise choice and decides to focus on....the people!!! What a great idea! I've always been a big fan of Murray dating back to his SNL/Caddyshack days, but that's how I typically think of him, a comedic actor. Along with his Wes Anderson ventures, he shows he is perfect at that underplayed, smart, a little sarcastic straight man. Just about everything here is underplayed, Murray making Bob this great lead character. His family/home life isn't ideal as we see through some phone calls back home to the wife. The same for Johansson as Charlotte, typically an actress who's thought of more as a pretty face than a good actress (and she is appropriately gorgeous here). Much like Murray, her part is quiet and real without being obvious and aggressively in your face.

It's that chemistry between the duo that carries the movie. And let it be said, it's a good thing because the movie barely has an energetic pulse to begin with. There aren't a lot of set pieces or BIG moments so the episodic story kinda drifts along at certain points. We see a couple chance encounters at the hotel bar, a couple quasi-dates as they explore Tokyo, but mostly it's a lot of talking as we get to know the two characters. We meet them and find out what drives them, how they got to that point, how their personal lives have driven them to become friends in a hotel bar in a foreign country. As for the rest of the cast, it's limited to Giovanni Ribisi as John, Charlotte's photographer husband (generally pretty clueless), Anna Faris as Kelly, an actress doing a publicity tour in Tokyo who knows John in some form from the past.

I'm struggling with much to write about this flick. I liked it but didn't love it. It's good but not even close to great. Coppola's style is subtle and artsy, much like the story itself. 'Translation' explores all sorts of topics from insomnia to feeling out of place to the feeling of being lost in one's life. The ending is mysteriously annoying, but I guess it's an ending that's called for. Nothing is tidy for anyone involved, just a real ending. Mildly disappointed I didn't like this more, and maybe down the road on a repeat viewing, I will. For now...it's okay.

Lost in Translation (2003): ** 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): ***/****

Zombieland

Horror movies, even the serial killer thrillers, have never been my thing.  The same thing applies to torture porn.  But zombie movies?  Count me in.  I've yet to see one I can't recommend at least something about them.  And the best thing to happen to zombies is easily someone deciding they could run and run fast.  All those old George Romero zombie movies, they were walking around, stumbling slowly as people got to safety.  But a sprinting zombie?  That qualifies as scary.

In the same vein of Shaun of the Dead, 2009's Zombieland has some fun with the zombie movie.  First-time director Ruben Fleischer puts his own spin on the genre with a comedy that is surprisingly smart while leaving most of the slapstick out.  Of course, there are countless zombies to be shot, stabbed, beaten and run over so it's not exactly high class humor.  It's the type of small-scale comedy that is almost completely self-contained where characters aren't addressed by names, but by the location they're trying to get to in a zombie-ridden U.S.

It's been several months since a man ate a contaminated hamburger that started a huge chain reaction of people turning into zombies.  Very few humans are left, but one of them, a college student, Columbus (Jesse Eisenberg), is trying to make it back to his home in Ohio to see his parents who he's not even sure are still alive.  Columbus has developed a detailed list of rules that have helped him survive on his own, but nothing can really prepare him for when he meets Tallahassee (Woody Harrelson) on the road.  His new road-trip buddy is a bit of an eccentric.  They meet two sisters, Wichita (Emma Stone of Superbad) and Little Rock (Abigail Breslin of Little Miss Sunshine), and join them as they try to get to Pacific Playland, an amusement park supposedly free of the zombies.

When it comes to humor, I'm not saying this is straight laced or subtle, but most of the time it doesn't go for easy laughs...well, other than all the zombie killing.  It's more of a road movie with this eclectic group of people traveling across a post-apocalyptic America.  Ha, bet you didn't think you'd get something like that dropped on your head reading a Zombieland review, did you?  As Fleischer brings up on the DVD, it's only a couple months since the virus started so there aren't a ton of zombies yet.  Most of them are saved for the finale, but more on that later.  It's a funny movie in a way that I didn't think it would be.  Part of the laughs do come from the ridiculousness of the situation -- it'd be hard not to laugh -- but it can be a surprisingly sweet comedy at times too.

Sometimes, a movie just gets the casting right.  With just four main characters, Zombieland goes 4-for-4 at the casting plate.  Eisenberg does what he does best, awkward, subtle humor, but he does get a chance to do some physical humor and pulls it off well.  His narration is hilarious, including his ever-growing list of "How to Survive the Zombies" list that advises you on what to do and what not to do.  Watch the movie's opening with Columbus' rules HERE.  Emma Stone is femme fatale Wichita, a really smart, really hot girl trying to protect herself and her sister.  Columbus of course falls hard for her because let's face it, there aren't too many girls left.  Breslin continues to expand her horizons and is really funny as a 12-year old forced to grow up pretty quickly.

This ensemble works together about as well as can be expected, but the glue here is Harrelson's Tallahassee, a gun-toting, Nascar-loving, smart ass redneck who loves nothing more than killing zombies and a good Twinkie (it's never explained and it's funnier because of it).  He has an emotional scene describing why he loves killing zombies that could have been out of place in this story, but it works.  Tallahassee is the great breakout character here, providing the movie's funniest lines.  And really, it's great to see Harrelson in these mainstream movies again.  One more cast member who should be nominated for best cameo ever is Bill Murray playing Bill Murray.  He's onscreen for about 4 minutes and steals each one of those minutes.

This one definitely surprised me in how much I liked it.  I figured I'd enjoy it, but not this much.  Really funny, very quotable, and lots of gratuitous zombie killing, especially in the end as an army of zombies descend on the fab four.  The four main cast members all have different styles, but those styles click together.  The best news to come out of this 2009 sleeper hit is that a sequel is in the works.  I can't wait to see where they go with these characters and story.

Zombieland <----(2009): ***/****