Reviews
The Grand Budapest Hotel (2014)
5 Stars for The Grand Budapest Hotel
From the first few minutes of the film, Wes Anderson keeps us guessing.
Just as we begin to wrap our heads around one scene, this layer is immediately peeled back to reveal another equally perplexing one. The story in a nutshell centres around M. Gustave, a renowned concierge who prides himself on his impeccable service, and his unlikely friendship with Zero Moustafa, a bell boy at the establishment, as they try to reclaim what was rightfully theirs with the help of a mish mash of random characters and Agatha and her sweet delicious cakes from Mendl's.
Anderson's characteristically symmetric framing and set-up of each shot works seamlessly with his somewhat abrupt style of storytelling. We as the viewer feel like we've been plucked from our own realities and dropped into the much more fascinating private lives of the characters of the film. At times it may even make us feel like unwanted intruders as we learn more about these people through watching their day-to-day interactions than we would from an omniscient narrator voiced by Morgan Freeman (no offence Morgan Freeman if you're reading this, your voice is awesome).
In true Wes Anderson fashion, the cast list reads as a 'Who's who of actors who are, like, famous and stuff'. But this almost ridiculous sounding ensemble works because there are just too many of them and too little time for us as the audience to choose a favourite. The characters are also just quirky enough that you forget about Ralph Fiennes as that Garderner who was Constant, Adrien Brody as the Pianist or Owen Wilson as that guy with the annoying voice- oh wait
This film really felt a lot more tightly packed than Anderson's previous film Moonrise Kingdom. The plot is complex without being too hard to follow, with just the right dash of ridiculousness for the audience to be chuckling throughout the movie. Whereas Moonrise Kingdom relied more heavily on the use of children as the main characters and the humour that arose from that, much of the comedy in The Grand Budapest Hotel comes from the fast-paced and witty dialogue – especially from M. Gustave (Fiennes), the concierge you can't help but love (especially if you're a blonde octogenarian of the female persuasion).
While it is no secret that I adore Wes Anderson (see previous Moonrise Kingdom review), I have to say that his latest film has actually exceeded my expectations. Finding fault with his films is something I always struggle with and the reason is that his work is just so different and incomparable to anything else out there that it can only be considered an artwork rather than a movie. And just like the painting, 'Boy with Apple', which many of the film's events are centred around, it can only be appreciated in its totality, with its strengths and imperfections – worms and all.
IMDb: 8.4/10
Rotten Tomatoes: 92%
(From projectreel: http://projectreel.wordpress.com)
Divergent (2014)
Divergent - Just another Hunger Games?
For those who haven't read the Divergent series by Veronica Roth, you might be wondering about all the similarities between this film and The Hunger Games – both set in a dystopian future with a very powerful 'state' controlling every aspect of life, society divided up into a number of classes and a fearless lead female who's willing to fight and take on the State. Well, you would have wondered right. But having said that, The Hunger Games turned into a massive box office success for a reason and if it ain't broke don't fix it right?
I found the concept quite fascinating – society is divided into 5 different factions based on their personality traits. But, as expected with teenage fiction, it was a little too oversimplified for my liking. Another issue I had with the faction system was the overlap between Abnegation and Amity, as they both value kindness, peacefulness and forgiveness as their core life principles. So isn't Amity just a less extreme version of Abnegation, disguised as a bunch of barefoot hippies?
But much in the way that The Hunger Games made us all wish we were the archery- extraordinaire brave enough to volunteer ourselves as tribute to save our doe-eyed younger sister alongside the boy who threw bread at us, there are also many qualities that are admirable in Tris. Perhaps a major difference between her and Katniss was the fact that Tris rejected the selfless values she was brought up with in favour of her true identity as Dauntless. At the heart of the film is a story about identity and having the courage to stay true to yourself. In that sense, while almost everyone could relate to the bravery and sacrifice in The Hunger Games, Divergent is targeted at a slightly younger age group.
All in all, this was an entertaining film but don't try to read too much into the story. Staying quite true to the novel (although not as closely as The Hunger Games), the film in my opinion even improves on some aspects of the book. For example the final confrontation between Tris and Jeanine (Kate Winslet) flowed more smoothly than the scenes described in the novel.
Shailene Woodley brought an added dimension of vulnerability in Tris, and there is just something fascinating about her that really makes you pay attention when she's on the screen. And Kate Winslet was excellent as always in bringing cold and calculating Jeanine to life.
IMDb: 7.6/10
Rotten Tomatoes: 40%
(From projectreel: http://projectreel.wordpress.com)
12 Years a Slave (2013)
12 Years a Slave: Oscar-worthy or Overrated?
With all the Oscar buzz surrounding this film you just know '12 Years a Slave' cannot possibly disappoint. And most of it doesn't. Even though the issues explored are confronting as hell, they are explored in such a raw and yet strangely beautiful way by director Steve McQueen. One such example of this was his use of off centre close-ups with the camera lingering just long enough for us to process and reflect on what had just happened in the scene.
The film briefly touched on the contrast between Solomon as a free man and a black slave he passed on the street. However I felt that this could have been explored further by delving into the backstories of the other 'real' slaves. After all is Solomon's case any more unfair than the other slaves just because he was once a free man? Shouldn't we as the audience feel even more sympathy towards those who have been the property of white men for as long as they could remember? Or is Solomon's situation different because he had a proper education and was a learned man?
I never thought the day would come where a film could actually be improved by taking out Brad Pitt but sadly he was just too 'Brad Pitt' in this movie and really did not belong in this world at all. Brad Pitt's character really hammers the viewer over the head with the themes of the film. While he famously opted not to play Fassbender's brutal character because of his children, the rest of us probably would have lived without "and the moral of the story is
"
Having said that, Fassbender's character was in my opinion the most interesting and complex character. The fact that he was not completely demonised as the cruel white slave owner but was faced with an inner struggle of his own between his attraction to Patsey despite the expectations of society, including his wife.
For me one of the most powerful scenes in the film was the rape scene which treated such a sensitive issue with almost a sense of respect to the victim. Unlike rape scenes in other movies, there was very little physical struggle evident but her emotional barrier gave her a sense of empowerment over her attacker.
All in all I must say the storyline did not surprise me in any major way but the redeeming factor in this film was the hauntingly beautiful cinematography and the excellent performances by the cast ensemble (Chiwetel Ejiofor, Michael Fassbender, Lupita Nyong'o, Benedict Cumberbatch, Paul Giamatti and Paul Dano).
IMDb: 8.3/10
Rotten Tomatoes: 97%
(From projectreel: http://projectreel.wordpress.com)
Moonrise Kingdom (2012)
Moonrise Kingdom: What kind of bird are YOU?
If you have yet to see Moonrise Kingdom by Wes Anderson, you definitely should.
A (basic) summary of the plot:
Boy meets girl. They fall in love. Pack up their possessions. Empty their savings. And Run away together.
(Oh, and did I mention they're 12 years old?)
'That's ridiculous!' you might say. Not if it happens in a Wes Anderson movie.
Despite the absurd storyline, the movie somehow just works. And for those 94 minutes we are sucked into the naive world of Sam and Suzy, feeling like the rest of the world just doesn't get 'it'.
The cast was definitely one of the things that made it work. The 2 young characters (with Suzy pretty much a splitting image of Lana del Ray) carried their own alongside quite an ensemble of actors including Bruce Willis, Edward Norton, Bill Murray and Tilda Swinton.
It's hard to find fault with this film but if I had to I'd say not everyone will enjoy the sporadic method of storytelling and the sometimes surreal quality of the movie. If you like your movies to flow from A to B and grounded in reality without an ounce of humour then perhaps this isn't for you.
It was quite clear the amount of meticulous planning and thought that went into just one scene, with so much happening in the background and foreground that each on its own resembled a vivid painting or photograph. So it's quite amazing that Wes Anderson managed to tell an entire story almost through a series of well-framed photographs.
For me though, it was these gaps and silences and the dream-induced quality that were some the best features of the film. That and the cameo by one of Santa's elves shooting homemade nature documentaries.
IMDb: 8/10
Rotten Tomatoes: 94%