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 /****

Bank Shot

I discovered author Donald Westlake the way I do a lot of authors, via movie credits, finding out the movie I was watching was based on a novel/book/story from an author. I first heard his name watching 1972's The Hot Rock, based on his novel of the same name. I gave his books a try and liked them, including his 1972 novel Bank Shot. I wish I could say the same for the 1974 film adaptation, Bank Shot.

Wasting away a prison/rehab center run by Bulldog Streiger (Clifton James), accomplished crook and master planner Walter Ballentine (George C. Scott) is slowly losing his mind. He's allowed a visitor one day, his "lawyer" who's really his former partner in crime, Al G. Karp (Sorrell Brooke), and he's got a new plan for a very lucrative caper. Streiger is on the lookout, but even he can't keep Ballentine from escaping, his prisoner getting away in ridiculous fashion. What job awaits him with Karp? Not one he would have thought of. A new bank in Los Angeles is being built, a temporary bank in a trailer being used until the new one opens. Ballentine laughs at the plan given him and comes up with his own instead. Instead of robbing the bank in convoluted fashion, why not just steal the entire bank? With Karp's oddball crew of crooks, Ballentine goes about putting his own plan into operation.

Wow, this movie was just not good. Like at all. We're talking really bad. Eastlake's novel is pretty goofy, a little silly, but there's an underplayed sense of humor that works well. I could be wrong too, maybe that's just my interpretation. This comedy from director Gower Champion has no subtlety, no sense of underplaying anything, no real laughs at all. It is the broadest definition of broad humor. Oh, no! Ballentine is driving a huge Caterpillar into a barn! Oh, no! A trailer is driving out of control down a vacant road! Physical comedy is one thing, but this is so bad it never amounts to anything. John Morris' musical score is painfully obvious, almost begging, willing the audience to laugh. The opening prison break, Ballentine getting away on an excavator, Streiger on a souped-up golf cart, sets the tone for the painfully unfunny attempts at laughs to come.

What the hell is George C. Scott doing here? Scott had some odd acting choices in the 1970s, but this one is pretty bad. I say that having watched a movie with Scott where had to stop an assassination attempt on the President by....dolphins. Yeah, The Day of the Dolphin, check it out. It really exists. From the get-go here, Scott seems bored and uninterested in actually being a part of the ever-stupid story. As for the character that Eastlake wrote -- John Dortmunder in the books -- Scott isn't the best casting choice either, whether it be his physical appearance (rocking some amazingly LARGE eyebrows, we're talking REAL big) or his demeanor at basically all times. Was he blackmailed? Was he doing a favor for a friend? I don't know what was going on, what prompted him into doing this flick? I'm listening if there's a good theory out there.

So heist flick with a lousy premise that falls short on basically every level, surely the oddball crew of crooks can save this poop-fest, right?!? Yeah, that's what I was counting on, only to be disappointed there too. Beyond Brooke as Al G. Karp as Ballentine's goofy partner, there's also Eleonora (Joanna Cassidy), the sexy backer of the plan with all her cash (and an unexplained attraction to Ballentine, helping him "ease back" into society after so long away from women), Victor Karp (Bob Balaban), Al's nephew, the other planner and a former FBI agent, Muns Gornik (Bibi Osterwald) and her son, Stosh (Don Calfa), and Hermann X (Frank McRae), a pistol-wielding, demolition expert hoping to become a politician. There isn't an interesting character in the bunch, making it a tad difficult to actually support the crew. We learn little to nothing about them, just an introduction and right into the heist. The rest of the story in an 83-minute story is spent on hamming it up James and his L.A. cop partner (G. Wood) trying to track Ballentine down.

The premise of the heist is actually pretty original, and some of their plans are actually unique. But at any point is it interesting to watch? No. Everything just seems obvious from beginning to end. The heist and its fallout could have been decent if it wasn't handled in such spoof-like fashion, but the efforts to make it all hysterically, gut-busting funny fall short. Steer clear of this one, go read the Westlake novel instead.

Bank Shot (1974): */****   

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): ***/****

2010

I admitted it. I didn't "get" 1968's 2001: A Space Odyssey, not by a long shot. Crazy visuals, light on story, and it didn't live up to the high expectations I went in with. But ah, there's a bright spot! A sequel! Go figure, I'm usually not a fan of sequels, but I had to give it a chance so here goes with 1984's 2010.

It's been nine years since the sudden and mysterious disappearance of the U.S. spaceship Discovery, and Dr. Heywood Floyd (Roy Scheider) still struggles with what happened. In charge of the mission that went deadly awry, Floyd was blamed for the debacle, but he may have a chance to redeem himself. American efforts are being made to investigate, sending a second ship to Jupiter and its moons (where Discovery disappeared), but he is approached by Russian agencies who are ahead of schedule and will get to Jupiter first. Undertaking a risky, even suicidal mission, Floyd and two other Americans (John Lithgow and Bob Balaban) join the Russian space expedition. What secrets do the moons, Jupiter, the Discovery and maybe space itself hold for the astronauts?

Highly respected and regarded as an all-time classic, Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey is far from a traditional movie. In fact, it's everything non-traditional about modern films. From director and writer Peter Hyams, '2010' is similar in its story matter and characters, but other than that, it is the complete polar opposite. It is a far-more traditional science fiction thriller, and a smart one at that. For lack of a better description, it is an easy movie to "like." Compare the two; 2001 is a movie to sit back and watch, to appreciate, but not necessarily enjoy. On the other hand, 2010 is far more easily digested. It's smart, but not condescending. Sure, it's not perfect. That's the risk that happens when a sequel is made for a movie that didn't need a sequel in the first place. It's worth it though, and a film I enjoyed significantly more than its predecessor.

So I wasn't much of a fan, but I can appreciate that 2001 does not require a sequel. Its unanswered questions are oddly perfect in that decision to remain unanswered. It allows viewers to wrap their head around the story as they so choose, not as the movie dictates. That's why I both liked and disliked this sequel. In the more traditional sense, 2010 builds a story in a far more linear fashion. We learn more about the HAL-9000, its background, and why it malfunctioned the way it did. Did we need those answers? No, but it's nice to see. We learn a little more about the mysterious monoliths popping up around the world. Did we need those answers? Nope once again. But necessary or not, they come around as worthwhile. It's nice to see the effort made as goofy as it sounds. I came away eternally frustrated with 2001, but I didn't have that same sentiment here in the least. Maybe that's a pity positive vote, but so be it, I'm sticking by my guns.

With a focus more on the space, science and mystery, the characters and their background can be a secondary thing here. The actors do their best to humanize their parts, but it's more a means to an end. We see how these highly trained, highly intelligent individuals respond in a hellish, life or die situation. Scheider does a fine job (as usual) as Dr. Heywood, a man looking for answers and to right a wrong. His recorded letters to his wife (Madolyn Smith Osborne) become a little tedious in an effort to humanize him, but that's a minor complaint. Lithgow plays Dr. Curnrow, the builder/designer of the original Discovery, with Balaban playing Dr. Chandra, HAL's creator, desperately trying to prove his creation did nothing wrong, the two other Americans on-board the Russian ship. Helen Mirren -- rocking an awesome Russian accent -- plays Capt. Kirbuk, the commander of the Russian ship, with Elya Baskin very good as one of the crew who bonds with Curnrow.

The moments that do work here are home runs knocked out of the park. With 16 years of improved technology, the special effects are very cool, if a little more understated than the original. Approaching Jupiter and its moons, Europa and Io, are some stunning sequences. The mid-space transfer from the Russian ship to the Discovery is similarly impressive, especially when you think about what's actually going on. '2010' has its moments of scares too, truly frightening. I've long said this in deep space reviews. You don't know what the universe truly contains. All sorts of things -- both good and bad -- are out there. Deep space could hide anything. Is it out there to help us or hurt us? The development of the monoliths certainly opens up that door. What is their ultimate purpose?

Maybe the biggest fear comes in a chilling, highly effective reappearance by Keir Dullea who played Dr. Dave Bowman in the original 2001, mysteriously disappearing in the end. His appearance halfway through the movie is genuinely startling, and the more we see, the creepier and more chilling it gets. His final line in 2001, "My God, it's full of stars!' provides much of the jumping off point here, and the impending changes his "being" implies set the tone for a genuinely creepy final hour. What awaits the rescue crew, and on a bigger level, Earth and mankind itself? I didn't love the ending, but I liked it a lot, especially the final scene. It's easier to judge these movies on a separate level. For me though, I liked the sequel significantly more than the original, even if it was vastly different movies.

2010 (1984): ***/****

Thin Ice

If movies have taught me anything (look at me, rationalizing watching movies), I'd say it is this. Amateur crooks? Leave it to the professionals. If you think you've got an infallible plan, you probably don't. Something will go wrong. It always does. End of moral, on with the review, 2011's Thin Ice.

A mildly successful insurance salesman, Mickey Prohaska (Greg Kinnear) is in some serious trouble, both career-wise, financially and personally. His wife has kicked him out of the house, and his business is less than thriving until one day he meets a potential customer, Gorvy Hauer (Alan Arkin), a forgetful, possibly senile old man living alone in an isolated farmhouse. Gorvy has a violin that is worth some serious money, and Mickey sees the chance to "fix" so many of his problems....if he can con the old man. As he tries to switch out the valuable violin for a dupe though, Mickey is spotted by Randy (Billy Crudup), the security system installer, and now his simple dupe of a plan has become so much more, especially when Randy, an ex-con, takes action.

I liked this movie. I didn't love it, but I liked it. There are issues, especially late, but more on that later. Setting the story in Wisconsin, with its frigid winters, is a great start. Watching the movie, you feel legitimately cold. It's a sterile, white country where the trouble goes down (Minnesota filming locations), even resembling a similar quirky, unsettling story, Fargo. Also aiding the cause is composer Jeff Danna's score, always present but never overbearing. It hangs in the air around the characters, and that's partially what I liked best. Even though Mickey is a despicable individual, it's incredibly tense watching things develop. We're waiting for his perfect plan to fall apart so the atmosphere and sense of impending doom is palpable. So what happens?

For me, it was the last 30 minutes. No spoilers here, no massive revelations, but I came away disappointed with the twist that is thrown our way as viewers. Take this for what it's worth, but I didn't see the twist coming....AT ALL. I just wasn't looking for it so maybe that's my disappointment. Maybe 'Ice' didn't need this particular twist? Well, that's my first thought. Anyhoo, the twist is there. I can't change that. Thinking back on the movie, it works in terms of storytelling. Sure, there are certain parts that hinge on a little too much coincidence for my liking. A few too many perfect little things happen that no real-life individual could have planned on. Embarrassed viewer who didn't pick up on the coming twist? No, I don't think so. It just was an unnecessary departure in the story, for me at least.

Reading up on 'Ice' before I dove into the review (Yes, I try to do some research), some of my issues made a lot more sense when I read about this film's troubled past. Filmed in 2010, 'Ice' was premiered at the Sundance Film Festival and purchased by a studio, and then that studio promptly demanded that huge changes be made. Director Jill Sprecher refused, wanting nothing to do with the flick, and then the changes in the name of pacing were made. A 114-minute long movie was cut to 93 minutes. I don't care what movie it is. If you cut 21 minutes from a running time, you're going to have issues. So again, take this for what it's worth. I liked this movie for what it was, not knowing it had been so severely cut. I'd love to see the 114-minute version and find out what it has to offer.

Enough with that background and back to the movie! The dark story and an impressive cast drew me in here -- negative reviews aside. Kinnear is one of my favorite actors around, able to be a true a-hole on screen while still rooting for him in a weird way. Go figure. Very good lead performance. Arkin is a scene-stealer as Gordy, the senile old man living with his dog on a far-off Wisconsin farm. Crudup hams it up a little much to my liking as the possibly unhinged Randy, but he certainly brings that unpredictable element into the story. Also look for David Harbour as Bob, one of Mickey's "understudies," Lea Thompson in a small part as Mickey's wife, and Bob Balaban as a violin expert interested in Gorvy's violin.

Thin Ice <---trailer (2011): ***/****