The Grand Budapest Hotel

Wes Anderson is a polarizing filmmaker. It wouldn’t be too hard to find someone who loves his films, another who hates them and a third who has never heard of him at all. The unique vision that has led to such a split is on full display in his latest effort, The Grand Budapest Hotel. Tony Revolori plays a lobby boy at the titular hotel, who grows close to the well-known concierge there, played by Ralph Fiennes. A good amount of the film takes place outside of the hotel’s walls as the pair are involved in a jail break, encounters with Nazis and even a high speed sled chase.

What is a Wes Anderson movie without a bit of the bizarre? Since the story is told through a girl reading a book written by an author who is recalling a conversation he had with a man involved in the story, the bizarre is justified like in a game of telephone. Anderson’s usual cast of regulars all turn up throughout the story in roles of various sizes. If you go through the writer/director’s filmography that list seems to grow with every project. Grand Budapest is able to support such a large cast. Though I’m sure I’m not the only one who would have liked to see Bill Murray, Jason Schwartzman and others featured a bit more.

The story rides entirely on Fiennes, probably a bit more than was intended. His delivery is spot on throughout most of the film with moments of memorable schizophrenic comedy. Unfortunately, he is unable to effect the pacing in a positive way. It is by no means a long movie, but it sure feels that way while you are watching. Exciting events take place, but almost all of them are long winded. Look no further than the scene where Willem Dafoe’s character chases Jeff Goldblum’s through a museum. It took Goldblum less time to escape a T-Rex in Jurassic Park. Even with its flaws, not much comes as a surprise to those familiar with Wes Anderson’s work. This is his huge casted hotel chapter.

Each film earns either zero, a half or a full arrow in five categories. The categories are Acting, Writing/Directing, Emotion, Innovation and Overall Impression. The arrows are added up to equal the full score.

Noah

You know, Noah always gets a bad rap for being the reason unicorns don’t exist, but if Darren Aronofsky’s new film, Noah is accurate, there was a dude hiding out on the ark eating a bunch of the animals! So blame him for all the extinct animals that didn’t survive the flood. The film stars Russell Crowe as the ark builder attempting to interpret “the creator’s” message while saving his family from the coming floods. The imagery is unlike what one would expect from a biblical epic. I must admit I’ve never seen a biblical story where giant rock people bash enemies away, but I’d also never seen a Darren Aronofsky directed biblical film.

It’s important to specify that Noah isn’t a religious film. I considered it to be, but that comes from preconceived notions of who Noah was and where the story was written. The movie uses the term “creator” instead of “God” and takes place in a time so far gone that the way we see religion had not yet been developed. But with fallen angels (rock monsters) and sin and debauchery portrayed the way they are, associated religion with the film is not so far off.

Crowe gives a good performance, but it suffers in the final third of the film when the script turns all gloomy and homicidal. Emma Watson, who plays Noah’s adopted daughter/daughter-in-law is probably the other standout due to the complex situation her character must deal with. Others prove to be very middle of the road. Jennifer Connolly is just there, Logan Lerman is a whiny pouter and Anthony Hopkins plays a crazy wizard (?) like guy. Even with that list, Noah is an interesting film that moves along well even though it’s filled with dense material. Plus it definitely isn’t what you would expect from a movie with this title.

Each film earns either zero, a half or a full arrow in five categories. The categories are Acting, Writing/Directing, Emotion, Innovation and Overall Impression. The arrows are added up to equal the full score.

Muppets Most Wanted

There have been a lot of Muppets movies over the years, but when The Muppets hit theaters in 2011; it was supposed to signify a reboot that would separate it from the crazy chapters that marginalized the characters. I’m looking at you Muppets from Space and Muppet Treasure Island. That new focus worked under the watchful eye of its writer and star, Jason Segel. But here we are a few years later without him and the sequel, Muppets Most Wanted has to try and follow that up. The result is a different, but positive experience from the last film.

The plot has the Muppets on a world tour while unknowingly becoming involved in a European jewel heist. The heist is pulled off by their tour manager (Ricky Gervais) and a criminal mastermind who has switched places with Kermit. In addition to this primary storyline, there are two others that split the screen time. Kermit is locked in a Russian prison under the watchful eye of Tina Fey’s prison guard character. Also, Ty Burrell plays an Interpol agent teamed up with Sam Eagle, a CIA Agent, to figure out the crimes playing out across the continent. Each storyline has its funny moments, but with the different arcs playing out, a number of our favorite Muppets don’t get the screen time fans are used to. There’s not nearly enough Gonzo in my opinion.

There is a feeling of cheesiness that the poor Muppet movies of the past also had, but it never reaches the point that would make the film unlikeable to adults watching. After all, since the Muppets have been around so long, the film should be an experience for all ages. The songs are witty and there are quite a few laugh-out-loud moments sprinkled throughout, so the film should be considered a success. After all, Gervais’ character is named Dominic Badguy, (pronounced Bad-jee) so that should speak to the fun tone on display here. But with fragmented story-telling and very little character development from 95 percent of the cast, Muppets most Wanted could have done a bit better.

Each film earns either zero, a half or a full arrow in five categories. The categories are Acting, Writing/Directing, Emotion, Innovation and Overall Impression. The arrows are added up to equal the full score.

Divergent

Man, do we love us some young-adult conflict in the movie theaters these days. The latest, Divergent, features a world where people are split into factions based on personality types. The teenagers, after being raised in their parent’s faction, have the choice to switch if they want. In this case, Beatrice (Shailene Woodley) does switch. It’s no too much of a surprise considering the fact that her birth faction, Abnegation, is essentially the burlap sack of factions where mirrors are evil and they eat like they’re Oliver Twist. Instead she chooses Dauntless where they jump from trains, yell stuff in public and get embarrassing 90’s tribal tattoos that they’ll surely never regret.

As far as the YA genre goes, the concept for Divergent is a pretty interesting one. The factions operate like the Hogwarts houses from “Harry Potter” with natural rivals and such. Beatrice, now known by her hipper train jumping name, Trice, has to go through training and making friends, a group of sequences that look very familiar to fans of other YA stories. But the problem with the movie is that this concept is hardly developed before it gets torn apart. Based on the first book of an associated trilogy, I could have used a more straightforward story about life in this world before we get thrown a curve ball.

I don’t have too many big problems with Divergent, but for some reason it just seems like a mix of things we’ve already seen. The world looks like The Hunger Games, the factions are like the Harry Potter houses, they train like in Ender’s Game and they sulk and brood like they’re from Twilight. When you put those elements together I did enjoy the result, but it’s like eating a peanut butter, jelly bean and salami sandwich. After that visual, there’s a good chance I’m going to try that for lunch today.

Each film earns either zero, a half or a full arrow in five categories. The categories are Acting, Writing/Directing, Emotion, Innovation and Overall Impression. The arrows are added up to equal the full score.

Need for Speed

In a time where the world is buying tickets to see Fast and the Furious sequels in record numbers, it’s only logical that a competitor may emerge to fill our quota of street racing action films. That’s what Need for Speed is, an off year substitute while we wait for Vin Diesel’s franchise to come back with a bang. Starring Aaron Paul of “Breaking Bad” fame, Need for Speed has a street racer seeking revenge on the man who framed him for death of his friend.

Based on the video game franchise of the same name, the movie spends time appealing to the car experts watching by featuring cars I’ve never heard of and a fair amount of talk about what’s under the hood. Splitting its time as an ensemble comedy, a high stakes crime thriller, a road movie and an action film, there really isn’t enough time to develop any of those thoughts fully. The final race scene is thrilling, but logic severely weakens it. Would an army of police officers risk their lives, be killed and ultimately kill others in order to catch illegal street racers who seem to only serve short prison sentences? Not in the way this movie presents it.

Paul is a good actor and there’s no denying that. His brooding, mumbling performance here is not his best though. Dominic Cooper, who plays the villain, and Imogen Poots, the love interest, even out do Paul a bit. But nothing compares to the poorly executed and horribly written race organizer played by Michael Keaton. This quasi-narrator, who knows more about the personal lives of the characters than would be possible is laughable in almost every scene he turns up in. Need for Speed isn’t meant to reinvent the wall, but it seems to not really understand how the wheel works.

Each film earns either zero, a half or a full arrow in five categories. The categories are Acting, Writing/Directing, Emotion, Innovation and Overall Impression. The arrows are added up to equal the full score.

Mr. Peabody & Sherman

Fans of “The Rocky and Bullwinkle Show” will be a bit partial to seeing the genius dog, Mr. Peabody take center stage in his own feature film, but parents should be pleased as well. It’s rare to see an animated movie that features history so prominently. Now, it does star a talking dog who adopted a human boy, but let’s not get too picky here. Napoleon, da Vinci and the Trojan horse all make appearances as Mr. Peabody and Sherman travel through time. Written in the tone familiar to Dreamworks Animation, the comedy works well for young viewers, their parents and everyone in between.

Based on the simple segments the characters originally appeared in, the movie ramps up the backstory. It even goes so far as to explain how a dog could possibly adopt a human. Answer, he has to be very smart. Also there is more to the story than time travelling. There is a whole arch involving the relationship between parents and their children. From bullying at school to showing respect to others, they really pulled out all the stops in sending the message they wanted to send.

Where the story hits a snag is when the space time continuum and complicated physics get involved. The normal time travel is fine but ultimately a vortex is opened which threatens the city. It’s used as a device to bring back characters introduced earlier in the film, but it’s a clunky few scenes that could have been expressed in a different way. Ty Burrell, who voices Mr. Peabody does well making the classic character his own without changing him too much. I know it’s only his voice, but rebooting classics is a tricky business, one at which Mr. Peabody & Sherman delivers.

Each film earns either zero, a half or a full arrow in five categories. The categories are Acting, Writing/Directing, Emotion, Innovation and Overall Impression. The arrows are added up to equal the full score.

300: Rise of an Empire

Where is all the hype for 300: Rise of An Empire? If you told the 2006 versions of us that big sequel to 300 was being made centered on the naval battle that played out side by side with Leonidas’ last stand, we would be very excited. Instead the sequel took eight years to make and the hype grew cob webs on our DVD shelves. It’s a bit unfortunate because Rise of An Empire delivers the back story and depth that wasn’t given in the first go around. What are missing are the legendary sound bites, we remember from ’06. “Tonight we dine in hell!” “Meaning we’re ordering Chinese food.”

Sullivan Stapleton plays Themistocles, a character whose legend is on par with Leonidas’. His army is a large one that seems to contain a predictable dynamic of archetypes including the father/ son pairing we saw in the first film. I hate to keep mentioning 300 but the truth is Rise of an Empire makes sure you don’t forget it. References to the past characters, including the presence of Lena Headey’s Queen Gorgo and David Wenham’s Dilios, pop up around every turn.

Xerxes, played by Rodrigo Santoro is featured again also, but this is much more than an ode to the past. WE get the character’s origin story and see more into his life as god-king than before. He’s no longer just the creepy villain who says “Europa” in a deep accent. Eva Green also does well as the creepy commander Artemisia.

The action is higher quality than expected from a film about a naval battle. I kind of wondered why all the ships didn’t just come to shore and fight there though. Most of the time the ships just rammed each other and the fighters jumped from deck to deck. Why not make it easier? But I expected over the top Greek historical fiction in Rise of an Empire and that’s what I got.

Each film earns either zero, a half or a full arrow in five categories. The categories are Acting, Writing/Directing, Emotion, Innovation and Overall Impression. The arrows are added up to equal the full score.