Big Hero 6 [film review]

★★★★1/2

STORY 3/5

WRITING 4.5/5

ACTING 3.5/5

MUSIC 4/5

CINEMATOGRAPHY 4/5

     I was going to start out this review by stating that not in the past five years (would be longer but there is a film such as Fantastic Mr. Fox) has there ever been a film with as great a level of humor and emotion in an animated kids' film, but then I remembered Ernest and Celestine. And I thought better of it. But anyway,  Big Hero 6 is still an absolutely tremendous, consistently hilarious and enjoyable film. 

     I'll knock out the primary problem with the film first: CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT. The only developed character is Hiro, and to a lesser extent Baymax (the robot). There is a side group of about four characters who play a big part in the film, but have zero character development. The villains are also hollow shells. But nonetheless, the film is able to get some great emotion out of scenes concerning them. Despite the lack of true character in Baymax, the viewer still feels an emotional bond to him by the end.

      With that out of the way, I'll discuss the comedy. The comedy is absolutely irresistibly riotous, great laughs at a minimum of every five minutes. Baymax is the source of much of the comedy, his lack of character being a great source of it. He puts up with all of Hiro's antics as he is a robot, and it is such a joy to watch. This is by far the best animated film I've seen this year, and would recommend it to all my friends. Unfortunately this is the recommendation that is most likely to be heeded, unlike my recommendations of Gone Girl, Frank, and The Grand Budapest Hotel.

The Giver [film review]

★★★★

STORY 4/5

WRITING 3.5/5

ACTING 4/5

MUSIC 3.5/5

CINEMATOGRAPHY 3.5/5

     I'm still trying to figure out the primary critiques of this film as I'm writing this review. The Rottentomatoes summary states that it doesn't explore the themes of the book well enough. This is hardly a good critique, as critics aren't supposed to review a film's quality as an adaptation, but as a film. Now, a decent critique that could be made of The Giver is that the story has been done many times before. It's your classic dictatorial world civilization, featuring a rejection of emotion, art and any and all true quality of life (yet all the citizens are living happily in their blindness somehow). We've seen this, to some extent, in Fahrenheit 451, Equilibrium, and to a much lesser extent, in City of Ember. But, pointers has to be given to this one, as it its basis was written before all of those except for Fahrenheit 451. 

     Even more pointers should be given to this film for the cinematography and Jeff Bridges' unsurprisingly tremendous performance. Though he is the greatest among an otherwise mediocre cast (with another exception of Meryl Streep), he performs brilliantly and livens up the film a great deal.

     Some could call this film manipulative, and I would agree. It is rather emotionally manipulative, but aren't most films that try to be emotional at all? It emphasizes what makes life life, what makes one do more exist. As I said before, yes it's been done before. Sure, it's ridiculous to think that this could ever happen, but it's simply an exaggeration of a realistic possibility, done to stress the idea.

     Yes, it's unrealistic in more than one way (both in terms of an unrealistic civilization and in the fact that it's factually unrealistic in that a motorcycle falls of a cliff and makes it down safely), yes it's old news. But it's still effective, and a decent adaptation (or so it seems, I myself have not read the book), and I consider it a good film. 

Sin City: A Dame to Kill For [film review]

STORY 2.5/5

WRITING 2/5

ACTING 3/5

MUSIC 3/5

CINEMATOGRAPHY 3.5/5

     The first Sin City film is widely viewed as one of the best tributes to the comic book format. The visuals are some of the most celebrated and adored of the genre. The black-and-white with the seldom emphasis (the meaning of which I have still not deciphered) on certain flashy elements is both eye-catching and uniquely entertaining. 

     Robert Rodriguez now follows up that critical success with a similarly colored, similarly gory, sexy and unrealistic graphic novel adaptation, now with some new characters, some new cast members portraying old characters, and several new stories. Unfortunately, the critics are right here: Sin City: A Dame to Kill For does not match the impact and memorableness of the predecessor. 

     Though the cast is absolutely spectacular (specifically Joseph Gordon Levitt, who fits into the town with terrific charisma and style), the stories are tired, uninteresting and too similar to those of the previous film. It crosses the line from reference into imitation/copying. Many lines from the previous film are repeated, specifically those spoken by Rourke's character. The invincibility of the Roarks becomes boringly repetitive, and despite the unrealistic violence and all-too-common dismembering, it's all so very tiresome.

     I was really looking forward to this film. I was hoping for a continuation of the previous stories, rather than unrelated stories, prequels, and unnecessary uninteresting follow-ups. Levitt's story is easily the most intriguing, but it does not make up for what is lacking. 

So, I'm just getting back in the rhythm of reviewing again. I've now left Letterboxd, and thus have given up on No-Rewatch November, and am rewatching to my heart's delight. I'll begin reviewing films more soon, and they'll all be posted on here and none will be posted on Letterboxd. 

On Leaving Letterboxd

You may have noticed a ten day absence from me if you know me from Letterboxd... well I've essentially left the site. I've decided to spend less time online, and also, the community has become rather negative towards my life as a Christian. Not to pinpoint or accuse, but specifically, reviews of God's Not Dead have been especially... offensive, really. Often, when people on Letterboxd review that film, they do not restrict their criticism but then begin accusing Christians in general and then joke about hell. I know that is how much of the world is, but it's not what I want to be around.

I'll still have my Letterboxd up, so that my reviews will remain, and I'll still be able to use my lists and such, as those have been very very useful (especially my current scheduled watch list). But I won't be posting reviews on there anymore. Instead, they'll all be here.

Peeples [film review]

STORY 2/5

WRITING 2.5/5

ACTING 3/5

MUSIC 2.5/5

CINEMATOGRAPHY 3/5

     This is pretty much Meet the Parents. In oh so many ways. It's just a whole lot less charming, due to both the lack of originality and the lack of restraint the film has. Meet the Parents was cheap and nothing close to a truly quality movie, don't get me wrong. But it was fun, it had a killer cast (Ben Stiller was okay) and it was pretty funny throughout. The same could not be said for the sequels, but it was still pretty good. This is not nearly as good.
     This film also has a rather spectacular cast... first of all, we have Craig Robinson, who gained his fame primarily through the tremendous sitcom, The Office, and has been a consistent sensation on the screen. Then there's Kerry Washington, who, though I've only seen her in one other film (guess), I've been able to notice some fantastic acting in. The rest of the cast is nothing more than decent really, but they all serve up acceptable performances.
     Unfortunately, the film just does not know where to stop with the murphy's law theme, and because of this it makes many comedic missteps. There's potential, but it's wasted. It ends up just being a mediocre unofficial remake of Meet the Parents, unfortunately. It's funny at times (all of the most comedic scenes involving Robinson performing the comedy. The scenes where he observes the comedy are less successful), so it does have its moments. But in the end it's forgettable as heck.

The Confessions of a Modern Day Christian

Note: This has nothing to do with film (unless you consider that this subject has something to do with everything,  and thus is distantly related to the subject of film)

I'm a Christian. And Christians face trials often... the greatest in my life are those I've gone through the past few months... really the past year. 

First of all, my parents are separating. I've been oddly emotionless about the whole thing... I've been exposed so often to the idea that kids think it's their fault that I've known not even to consider it. So I didn't. The wall between them had been growing for a while, and financially it eventually took quite a toll, so they are currently in the middle of a divorce. 

Secondly, a family of five recently moved into our house, which was already housing five people. So we've now got ten people in a house with five bedrooms. It's not quite cramped, as there is a lot of room outside of the five rooms, but we've been adjusting to each other's lifestyles. It's been rather difficult, especially, for my mother, who has a rather high standard of cleanliness for the house. 

Thirdly, after this family moved in they began helping with the farming part of our property... next to our house is a large field, normally taken care of a farmhand named Bill. He recently was fired (he wasn't doing the best work). So, the new family began taking care of the farming, and did an excellent job. This doesn't sound like a spiritual trial quite yet, I realize. But then, my mother's brothers (hehe, rhymes) and sister arrived, and began interfering in everything. I'm not sure of all that happened, but I believe they wanted the new family removed from the house, they took my grandmother from the house to live with them, and it's taken a giant toll, again, on my mother.

I realize that thus far, these trials seem to be more on my mother than on me. But I've often been put in the middle of these issues, questioned on what I think of them, and the house is often filled with an atmosphere of stress.

But here's the real killer, at least for me. Recently, I've been taking college courses through Running Start. It's a good choice for a person of my age, and will help me to earn an AA when I graduate from high school. I've been earning the requirements for both graduation from high school and the earning of the AA, and most recently I've taken up Western Civilization.

As can be expected, with more and more professors as well as students being atheists these days, I've been taught evolution. I'll admit, I've been temporarily led astray from my faith on more than one occasion during this study. But during this study, I've realized that I've not only been under attack from the devil for this time, but for years. The devil's been slowly working into my life, making me question parts of the public opinion of Christian faith. It's true, much of the general idea of Christianity (that we are against 'cussing', that we shouldn't even look at nudity at all) are wrong. True, I'm against blasphemy. But there's nothing wrong with watching film with these things, and as long as you don't offend someone or speak hatefully, there's really nothing wrong with cussing, again, as long as you don't blaspheme. But I've been questioning more and more aspects of Christianity, and have gotten even to the point of scoffing at Christians on Facebook who uphold their faith, which I've come to realize, is what I should do. 

See some of the ideas I'm being taught make sense. But of course, Christianity makes more sense, and solves all the problems with evolution, all the holes. It solves where the universe came from (I slightly agree with the idea of the big bang, but disagree with the popular opinion of what came after). It really seems as if Christians are under attack in today's academic... and even general... society. Which is really rather ironic, as homosexuals claim that they're under attack from Christians, and that we should all mind our own business. Those who have been accused of discrimination are now being discriminated, in a way. 

I've been having to balance this education with sources I trust, sources that lift my spirit and uphold my faith. The thing is, logic tells me that God clearly exists. He's present all around, and there are signs of his masterwork all over. But part of my brain tells me to reject the idea, for some odd reason.

That's rebellion, and the devil I think. No offense against atheism and evolutionists, but those ideas, to me, just seem to be a worldwide rebellion. We've known for a long time that people don't like being told what to do, but it's often best for us. Being told what to do doesn't stop benefiting us after childhood, as is the general idea. It continues throughout our lives, and if we followed God's words our society would be a lot better.

Now, I've often pondered the idea that the reason I don't want to give up the idea of God is that I don't want to potentially be sent to hell. That's possible, sure, and I really don't have enough spiritual strength or experience to refute this claim right now, other than the fact that I truly believe it's the Holy Spirit holding onto me with all it's might, making sure I don't permanently leave the flock. 

Atheists may mock my words, they may try to tempt me to leave my faith. You may say I'm ignorant, and that all these 'facts' disprove the existence of my God. But I'll continue to at least try my hardest to stay strong in my faith. Hopefully, by the end of this course, through prayer, and reading the Bible (as well as The Screwtape Letters and 'Gravity: True for You but Not for Me), I'll emerge an even stronger Christian. If you're a Christian going through the same trials, I sympathize with you, and I pray for you (please pray for me also, as I'm going through what you're going through). If you're an atheist reading this, I love you, and I also pray that you find God. 

I know it may seem nonsensical to post this on my film review page, but it's my one existing blog, and I already have three (THREE!) followers on it, so maybe the word will get out faster. Also, in the intro to my blog, I believe I stated that I'd be posting film reviews, film rants and such, and 'anything going on my life'.

A Year Without the Drive-In

     My first memory of going to a drive-in theater was the year 2001. The film was A Knight's Tale, directed by Brian Helgeland. I remember watching the film up on the screen, amazed by the fact that the film was being shown outside, amazed at the size of the theater, which in reality was nature. As you can see from the picture above, the Colville, Washington drive-in theater has beautiful nature. It's not really one of those gated-off premises that are the majority of drive-in theaters these days.

     My family has gone to this theater for years, but in the past few years it's become not as pleasant an experience. The images on the screen are foggier. The shape of the screen has become outdated, by the massive move to the more appealing widescreen. And now, due to the move away from film to digital, even the projector is outdated. So, early last year, rumors began circulating that the theater was going to close down. One of the few remaining cinematic landmarks, those wonderful theaters that would combine film with the charm of nature, was going to close.

     Fortunately enough, though, the town of Colville, as well as many surrounding cities rejected this idea, and donated thousands of dollars. The screen is now being replaced, and has been in the process of being replaced for the entire last season suitable for drive-in film viewing. Thus, it has been a year since I've seen a film at the drive-in theater.

     Many people eagerly await the re-opening of the nostalgic theater, including myself. I'm excited to see films again on the screen. No matter the quality of the film, this rather unpopular method of film-viewing adds an odd appeal to the experience, a rarely experienced and deservedly relished theater of the past.

     I hope to see one or two films of 2015 in the Colville Drive-In theater.

Oculus [Film Review]

STORY 

4/5

WRITING 

4/5

ACTING

3.5/5

MUSIC

3/5

CINEMATOGRAPHY 

3.5/5

I almost always hate horror movies. There have been few I've liked (primarily The Shining and Under the Skin). But I have to say... this was one of the most pleasant surprises I've had this year. I was expecting more of the trend that's been going on in horror films - relying on 'boo' scares rather than a horrific story, mistaking slowness for suspense, boring story, badly written script and unstructured characters. Examples of this that come to mind are pretty much every horror film I've been subject to, other than the two listed above. But Oculus succeeds in the ways those films fail.

It took me a while to get into its rhythm, and I of course had my doubts at first. But I was instead subject to an intelligent, genuinely captivating film. Oculus has an excellently structured story with some genuine horror, intriguing characters, an entertainingly written script (with some smooth exposition), and some surprisingly great acting, especially from the shockingly talented Annalise Basso, now one of my favorite child actors. Her counterpart however, Garrett Ryan, was quite the disappointment.

The film features incredibly fluid transitions from past to present. The primary subject of the film is a haunted mirror, with unexplained origins. It seems to alter the reality of the film, and both the characters and the viewer can never really know what's going on. In that way, it effectively uses and nearly transcends the unreliable narrator trope, almost as effectively as this year's Gone Girl.

Mike Flanagan is a name I'm unacquainted with, but I will now work to become acquainted with it... because if this says anything about the rest of his filmography, then I'm hooked. Quality horror films being a norm? WHAAAAAAAAT?!

Haven't Posted in a While

Sorry that I haven't been posting to this site very often. I've still been writing reviews and posting them on Letterboxd, but I haven't gotten around to my blog for a few reasons. First of all, I'm changing computers soon. Second, I have Running Start classes going on now which have added a lot of stress to my life. But I'll begin posting here again soon, starting likely with my next review (which I intend to be 'Oculus'). I'm also going to post some necessary reviews I didn't post here over the past few weeks, such as my review of Gone Girl, Calvary, and Nosferatu the Vampyre. I'll post some ravings and rantings, the first idea of these that pops to mind is how good Gone Girl was. It will be a raving review, meaning that it has no respect for paragraphs, structured sentences or professionalism. Basically I'll be like a lunatic: raving in the literal sense. Because I mean that movie was freaking awesome.

I also may start posting soundtrack reviews... though I'm not very experienced in that field. Any tips?

Snowpiercer [Film Review]

Chris Evans has hardly ever impressed me. Never, apart from this film. He was decent in Scott Pilgrim vs. the World, but he was doing comedy. Comedy's fun to act, drama's more difficult. Or so I've experienced. And the Captain America performances... I'm sorry but in my opinion he tries much too hard to be the admirable and patriotic hero, and doesn't put near enough emotion into his performances there.

But now... Snowpiercer has shown me a powerful side of Evans' acting that has me hoping for his future. Can't wait to see Puncture (whenever I get around to that...). He's truly amazing here, and he shows some tremendous emotion. Of course he acts well in the action scenes... though I have problems with the Cap performances, he does do well with action (talking up close action, not stunt double action).

Snowpiercer is another one of those post-apocalypctic films, with a bit more of a confined space. The entire thing takes place on board a speeding train which fights off the freezing outdoors. After an unsuccessful attempt to defend against global warming, the world has declined into another ice age, and most of humanity is dead. The remaining living are on board this train that works on a perpetual energy engine.

It's clear from the beginning that through this cultural collapse and consequential dependence on authority/government has spawned a potentially Hitlerian treatment of humanity. Those on board the train have been split into categories: those in the cars near the front, who live in lavish quarters and have wonderful views, and those in the tail end of the train, who don't even have windows and are all jammed together in extremely cramped areas. All of your belongings there stay on your bed or on your person.  When it comes to that part of the film, it feels far too... Hunger Games ish. It matches up with that film in the obnoxious idea that rich people look flippin' stupid, which is totally untrue and ridiculous.

It also reminded me a tad of City of Ember, in that the characters have to climb through authority to get to a place where they can overcome the inhumane and secretive society. There are some plot holes... or should I say unanswered questions... throughout the film. such as what the heck is up with characters cutting fish? Why are people oddly not-pale for not having seen sunlight for seventeen years? Why isn't anyone trying to figure out a way to fix the earth's current conditions? Why weren't any vehicles put on board the train, like a helicopter or something, using a miniature version of the same technology the train runs on?

Of course with a film like this you're going to have unanswered questions. But these probably could have been answered... or even fixed... easily. For example, many of my complaints with the plot as it progressed were answered by the end.

The cast is good... and excellent when it comes to Tilda Swinton. She is a stunningly unappreciated actress, and she always gives a role her best. Here she excellently plays an antagonist character, and it is just so fun to watch her act an eccentric character like this!

Despite the mentioned plot holes and some annoying shaky cam, this film is an absorbing and rather action packed film about a revolution aboard a train.

Once Upon a Time in America [Film Review]

Yeah... I was just expecting one of those classics of cinema that I just didn't completely catch onto. It happens a lot with these greats, and often I just need to give it another go and I find the greatness in it. It usually takes a little while though. I had my doubts at the beginning, but after the first thirty minutes or so, after I finally began understanding the timeline and what was going on (thanks to a wikipedia page...), I experienced a true cinematic classic.

It works rather subtly, but the last hour hits hard. You come to care for these characters, even though they're not even close to admirable and their morals are askew in many MANY ways. It even becomes very difficult to accept the main character, Noodles, as a good main character. But, then again, a main theme of this film is forgiveness.

In some ways, this reminded me of 25th Hour, as the characters dig holes for themselves with crime and examine their lives and how all of their actions have influenced their lives up to crucial and pivotal moments.

Ennio Morricone's beautiful and emotional soundtrack contributes hugely to the film. It accents a large number scenes and gives them a tragic feeling which they did in fact already have, but it emphasizes that feeling. I recognized some of the tracks as at least one had been used in <i>Kill Bill</i>, but the most emotional theme isn't, which made it more new and made its heartbreaking sound more shockingly beautiful.

The two key actors, Robert De Niro and James Woods, are nothing short of excellent. De Niro often has to entertain the audience on his own, especially in the first half hour, but in each scene he's absolutely tremendous. And James Woods gets angry several times, which seems to be the primary or at least the best use of his face. He seriously has a terrific angry face.

You can really get into the rhythm of this astonishingly deep and powerful four-hour long (practically) film. It's about how choices can affect your life... which is a common theme in films (The Place Beyond the Pines, Locke...) but it's still a really great theme, and there are many great films that have been made off of it.

Frank [Film Review]

I knew when I saw the trailer it was going to be good, but I didn't expect it to be this abstract and phenomenal. I mean, the idea of Michael Fassbender putting himself inside of a giant fake head to play heavily independent music with a bunch of mental patients is an insane idea for a film in the first place, but it certainly sounds intriguing as heck.

Michael Fassbender's always been amazing. In all of his performances he shows a ton of talent. He made Magneto more awesome than ever in Days of Future Past, and gave one of his best performances in Shame. Of course, this is now my favorite Fassbender performance. I mean how could it not be? WITH THAT FREAKING FIBERGLASS (or papier mache, whichever) HEAD?!

It's got commentary on a lot of things with its ensemble of amazingly eccentric characters... independence, the positives and negatives of publicity, the virtue of being yourself and making something that you enjoy. It has some immensely dramatic scenes, and it's also consistently hilarious, mostly due to Fassbender. Seriously, he is hysterical. I can not emphasize this enough, Fassbender is pretty much the life of this movie, along with the music.

THE MUSIC. As I said before, it's very abstract, and often it seems like the lyrics are complete randomness, but IT WORKS. I don't know how, but it just sounds fantastic. It's incredibly obscure, hard to go along with, but it's fresh and unique. And of course I must address the song everyone's freaking out over, "I Love You All": It's worth freaking out over. Essentially, it's awesome and amazing, but also is like the music I've described above, obscure, random, abstract, fresh, unique.

The ending also almost made me cry. I was tearing up a bit.

This just astonishingly passed up Under the Skin as my third favorite film of 2014, and it's going on my Favorites of All Time list. I wish I had money for the soundtrack, but as an unemployed seventeen year old, I do not have the money (and I live on an indian reservation so I can't really get a job because people here are freaking racist). You've all got to see this movie though.

300: Rise of an Empire [Film Review]

300: Rise of an Empire has a lot of what its predecessor had, and not in a good way: bad writing is turned up a notch, there are far more hollow characters as there are far more characters, and the blood that 300 shed, is shed in more excessive amounts here.

Seriously, I must first address the blood. It's the worst error made in the CGI department here, which all considered generally does a great job in the film. Except for the blood of course. The blood which is shed in ridiculous amounts is unbelievably thick and comes out in insane amounts from even the most minor wounds.

The action scenes are decent and some good fun, and that's the reason that most liked 300, was because of the insane beheadings and kicking-into-pits (This is Sparta is said in this film by the way). But the film, though divided by transitions with the title 'scene' slapped onto them hastily, is basically one giant action scene. There's barely room for character development at all, and characters abandon their ideals in one scene while standing strongly by them in another.

Oh, and there's a ridiculous sex scene that seems like an action scene, and it is backed by action music. It's oddly violent and angry, and it's just awkward. Almost as awkward as the sex scenes in The Room. ALMOST.

I did enjoy Eva Green's performance overall, and while her character wasn't deeply explored and she mostly just seemed like a typical persistent villain with motives based in an off-the-shelf backstory, she was still an entertaining 'strong' female character (quotations around strong as she is strong-willed and strong physically, but not strongly constructed as a character).

The film is fun if you're looking to sit back and watch limbs and heads get cut off and blood fly around in unrealistic proportions, but as a film to be examined, it's not great. It takes a lot of time from the beginning to understand the timeline it's following (it's not quite a sequel, and it's not quite a prequel...). It's a flashy and gory film.

Le Samouraï [Film Review]

It's easy to see, now having watched this film all the way through, why many consider it great. It doesn't reach my Greats list, but I understand completely why many consider it to be one of the great films (including Ebert).

Much of the film's excellence is due to Alain Delon. His performance here is absolutely stellar. He acts with a straight-faced dignity, so confident and sure of all his actions, and it truly contributes to the character. The man he portrays, Jef Costello, is a hired assassin, who is seen in this film in a single trip-up, likely one of the only ones he's ever faced in his career, that sets the entire film off: a woman catches him in the act of an assassination. In the moment it is brushed off as he stares at the woman for a second, but it has dire consequences that are reflected throughout the film.

A majority of Le Samourai is watching procedure. The audience observes Jef's habits and the specifics about his character, and his attitudes. He is quick and calm under pressure, and cares a lot about his appearance, as in the opening scene he adjusts his hat specifically, running his hand across its rim thrice.

Subtly entertaining and terrifically engaging, Le Samourai, though not quite great (yet) in my eyes, is clearly a brilliant piece of original cinema, though often relied upon in modern films.

Guardians of the Galaxy [Film Review]

James Gunn has done something DIFFERENT with the Marvel universe! Instead of going with the classic heroes going through their problems while being surrounded by ridiculousness, fighting in a highly boring way, Gunn has made a film that really knows what it's doing!

Something about the Marvel films has always annoyed me. None of them ever feel RIGHT. They all feel off in one way or another, or in many ways. The Marvel films up to this point, while crowd-pleasing, have been hollow and often contradictory (what the heck is up with Thor). But this is pure, unrestricted fiction. They don't try to put any bit of reality into it, they don't try to explain these phenomenally odd creatures. This doesn't even feel like it's part of Marvel, it's so good. This feels like just a really incredible movie.

The comedy throughout is brilliant, and actually works (unlike the comedy in Avengers, which left me very straight-faced). The comedy, much of which relies on a brilliant compiled soundtrack, in the movie called 'Awesome Mix Vol. 1', is absolutely perfect and adds an excellent spice throughout.

The characters, each individually incredible, are well structured and acted. Chris Pratt is of course the greatest of the cast (maybe it's because I've loved his performances on Parks and Recreation, perhaps I have a bias), and he acts with a good amount of flamboyance and attitude. Bradley Cooper excellently portrays a persistently angry raccoon, and Benicio Del Toro has a brief but tremendous appearance as what is described in the script (reportedly) as an outer space Liberace.

The action is pretty awesome, and incredibly well-filmed. The soundtrack is also well utilized with it, exemplified perfectly in a scene using the song 'Escape'. Chris Pratt grooves to music while taking out enemies in style, in his red-eyed helmet.

Guardians of the Galaxy is without a doubt my favorite Marvel film, partially because it's so disconnected from the universe I've rather come to dislike. It's fun, hilarious, incredibly enjoyable and smart. James Gunn is likely the best thing to come to the Marvel Cinematic Universe, and he's now made a film that is like The Avengers, but good, actually comedic, and with great characters. I eagerly wait for the sequel, as long as it's got James Gunn and Chris Pratt.

The Rover [Film Review]

"You should never stop thinking about a life you've taken. That's the price you pay for taking it."

Well, ladies and gentlemen, it looks like we've got another Blue Ruin on our hands. Though it's not quite as good as that brilliant film, it is nonetheless a riveting and absorbing film of revenge.

The Rover is something of a western, though it's far more evasive than your average film from that genre. The moral scale of the characters in the film tips back and forth so often it's hard to keep track of who you're really rooting for. The film begins with a man's car being stolen by a group of thieves. This man being Guy Pearce, you know he's going to do something about this.

The majority of the film he is constantly pushing forward, eager and desperate to get his car back by any means necessary. He employs the help of one of the thieves that were left behind, played by Robert Pattinson, to help him find the group. The question of why the car is so important is the primary thing that drives the film forward. That, and several tremendous action sequences and some stunningly stupendous cinematography (I actually find good cinematography to be entertaining all on its own, which is one of the reasons why I find The Master and The Life Aquatic entertaining while my friends consider them boring).

Guy Pearce takes center stage with ease as he has before. He plays a strong, mysterious character with little described history. He seems to be the classic western immortal character, heartlessly executing people and then later stating that you pay a price for each head. He's a dark and persistent man with unknown motives, and its so perplexing it helps keep the film afloat.

It's an odd revenge thriller with an emotional punch near the end, with some spectacular music and terrific acting from the entire crew. If you understand its messages, please comment! I'd love to hear some interpretations.

Locke [Film Review]

Tom Hardy has been one of my favorite actors since Inception. Time and time again he's given fantastic performances, his most unique of which was given in Bronson. He was the primary reason I wanted to watch this film.

Locke takes a bit of time to get used to. It takes place nearly 100% inside of a car, as Ivan Locke, played by the aforementioned brilliant Hardy, tries to deal with some extremely heavy situations from the driver's seat of his car. Over the duration of an hour and a half car ride, Locke's life begins to collapse slowly around him.

Locke believes that he can fix everything in his life. He does an incredible job of adapting to new situations as they quickly arise around him, but over the course of the drive you can see them taking an emotional toll on him, as he curses his late father. But through it all he strongly takes the driver's seat, literally and figuratively, on the predicaments in his life.

There are some small obnoxious things throughout the film. The phone conversations are often rather repetitive, and we often are subject to, again, repetitive transitions. The music is pretty much the same throughout. But as the film progresses, it pulls you in and you begin to empathize with Locke's complicated situation. It all becomes rather emotional. Tom Hardy holds the audience's attention splendidly through it all as well.

Locke is far from flawless. But if you're willing to sit through the ride, it makes for a rather beautifully tragic story.

Godzilla [Film Review]

I have never seen a Godzilla film, but he's so immensely well known throughout the world, and the fact that this film has Bryan Cranston in it had me excited for it.

Unfortunately, Bryan Cranston plays a very small part in the film (as does Godzilla, oddly). But it's still pretty dang awesome. Godzilla is an awesome piece of special-effects filled cinema. Though Aaron Taylor Johnson does take center stage and at times does not really handle it well, (he never really has), it's still great fun.

I watched this with my brother, and we were not quite in a serious mood... to be honest it was hard to be serious with a subject that has been so commonly parodied, as Godzilla has. So my brother and I were laughing throughout just about the entire film. But it still had incredible action scenes, and an intense atmosphere.

The cast, aside from the disappointing Aaron Taylor Johnson, is pretty spectacular. Ken Watanabe, Sally Hawkins, Bryan Cranston and Elizabeth Olsen, though they all have rather small roles, are amazing.

Gone in Sixty Seconds (2000) [Film Review]

I remembered this as an annoying, obnoxious car chase film with little charm. But this revisitation, forced upon me by my family as well as an additional family that moved into our house recently and are huge fans of this film (mostly because they have great interest in cars), made me reconsider it, and I don't know what it was, but it came off this time as the Ocean's Eleven of car movies. Granted the fact that its a car movie does drop it a full star, but it's nonetheless better than I remembered.

Of course the plot is lacking, it's got a ridiculous murphy's law element to it, and the cops in the film don't take near as many advantages as are granted to them, and some that they do take aren't even seemingly possible. Plus I don't see why the two brothers didn't just get out of town right at the start as they had no surveillance on them at all other than the cops who would have been glad for them to get out of town...

Basically the plot sucks. But its still a fun ride, with a thrilling second half which is essentially made up of a giant heist. Angelina Jolie is slightly more charming than her annoying self, and the cast is superb, and Nicolas Cage is allowed a few of his totally weird moments, which he must be allowed as Phillip Seymour Hoffman always had to have his freak outs in his films.

A Serious Man [Film Review]

This is my third favorite film of all time, and it has earned that place.

I just love films that are self-referential. Rango, Seven Psychopaths, stuff like that just makes me super happy. I don't know what it is about it, but I just find it absolutely  .

This is another self-referential film, and I really realized just how much it is on this viewing. The main character in the film, Larry Gopnik, is experiencing many troubles in his life, and is trying to interpret the meaning of this 'tsuris' in his life, and what Hashem is trying to tell him through it.

Meanwhile, many have mused over this film, and what the Coens are trying to tell us in it. The ending stumps many, and there are many interpretations to it. And that is the point of the film, as the mentaculus proves: We can't ever really know what's going on.

The film would actually, in an ethical way, make a very good prequel or double feature with Inside Llewyn Davis, another Coen brothers film focusing on a character having trouble accepting the things that happen to him (though he learns his lesson by the end).

A Serious Man asks itself the question many will ask about it, and is brilliant in doing so. It's a commentary on interpretation of film, at least I think so. But I don't know, because I can't know, and I'll likely never know. But, as the quote at the beginning of the film states, we should accept with simplicity all that comes to us. As McConaughey tells us in Dazed and Confused, we've just got to keep L-I-V-I-N.

Some may say that this is the Coens at their most pretentious, at their most overdramatic and at their most obnoxious. But I believe it is them at their most philosophical, at their most thoughtful, and at their most intelligent. This film perfectly exemplifies their stubbornness in creating odd stories that can be interpreted in numerous ways. It's just absolutely brilliant all the way through, and one of the most comedic works of intelligent art I've ever seen. It's a charmingly perplexing, infinitely evasive and hilarious film.

A Million Ways to Die in the West [Film Review]

Despite all of the bad reviews for this film, I thought it would at least be good for some cheap stupid laughs. This has been the case with several films that were not well received by critics, that are not high quality films but are really rather funny. At least to me. Like Due Date. Well, this film is cheap and stupid, but provides few laughs.

Seth McFarlane seriously needs to stick to animation, or simply being behind the camera. Because to be honest, his on-screen acting is totally charmless. And his constant commentaries on history and today's society are obvious and obnoxious. I just cannot describe how absolutely annoying McFarlane is in this film. His character is immensely undeveloped... you know, I feel odd judging the character development of a Seth McFarlane film, but I would like at least one decent character, and there are none here.

Everything is parodic, and thus there's really nothing original, or at least nothing original that's good. Everything that is original is original for a reason: it's just so freaking stupid that nobody would ever think it was a good idea to do it. Because it's not. Which is why this movie was a bore, and a failure as a comedy.

And the attempted comedy throughout the film is all weak, crass, and stupid. There are fart jokes, poop jokes, and the comedy in this film is dumber than most jokes in Family Guy. It's ridiculously dumb.

And it also features a horrid misuse of the excellent actor that is Liam Neeson.

The Fault in Our Stars [Film Review]

I went into this film expecting to cry. It was odd when posts started popping up a few years ago, my friends stating their anticipation for an upcoming novel to release. A surprisingly large number of my friends were interested in this novel, and I had no idea why. I had never heard of the author, or the book itself, had no idea what it was about, and had no idea why everyone was so dang interested in this random book.

And then a movie was being made for it. And I thought, hey, I can find out what the craze is all about without having to read a book. I really have nothing against reading, it's just difficult for me because when I have free time, I watch movies. I just like to. I prefer to.

So now, having seen the film, I can make a statement on it.

It's not worth all the craze.

I'm sorry to all the devoted fans of the story, the novel and the film. It's good. It's emotional at times, and I'm sure that the novel is much more of an experience. But this film was just not what I was expecting or hoping for.

The main problem I had and the main reason I didn't cry as I expected to, I believe, is the fact that I don't think that the relationship between the two main characters was well developed. For me, we had two fantastic main characters. But the relationship was not founded, but it was simply essential and obvious. It was clearly going to happen. The film just did not spend enough time developing the relationship between the two.

The film does have some decent points. It's rather philosophical at times. But on the other hand, it's painfully cheesy at times. But it strikes a decent balance between the two, and makes for an enjoyable film.

So, instead of giving this a 9/10 or even a 10/10 as both of my brothers would quickly apply to this film, I instead give it an 8/10. It is decent, it is emotional and it was rather beautiful at times. Willem Dafoe was absolutely incredible, as usual. It's just not one of those great relationship films that really catches you, like, say, The Fountain.

Grave of the Fireflies [Film Review]

This may be the first time I've ever had to hold back tears. Normally I like to cry during a film, it's a nice release. I'm not shy about it, I don't ever try to hold it back. But I think if I had fully let myself go during this film, I may have just cried my eyes out.

Now, the fact that I cry during one film more than the other doesn't make either film better. For example, I cry less during Magnolia than I did during this, but I still think Magnolia's a better film. But this is in fact a great film. Yet another addition to my Five-Star Club. That makes three within one week.

I had  Grave of the Fireflies recommended to me over a year ago, by a friend who called it one of the biggest tear-jerkers ever. I brushed off the statement, as many have said the same about other movies which I don't cry during (for example, The Lion King, which I find to be enormously overrated).

Now, having watched the film, I know he was right. It is such an enormously tragic and dark story. No matter your position on World War II and who was right, you can't help but feel bad for these people. This depressing story of a brother and sister just trying to survive is truly heartbreaking.

There's not much that I can say on the film that's unique. It's already been claimed by many as a tearjerker, as one of the greatest movies ever and so on. What I can say has been likely been said before, but I'll say it nonetheless: Grave of the Fireflies is one of the best movies I've seen, but it's unlikely that I'll watch unless I really just feel like crying for some reason or I'm introducing a friend to this magnificent work of art.

Man on Fire [Film Review]

This is counted as one of the few times I have ever hated the cinematography in a film. I mean, most films have pretty good cinematography, even some of the worst films ever have at least decent cinematography.

But Tony Scott... Tony dang Scott ticks me off. I mean, his style was enjoyable in The Taking of Pelham 123, at least it was for me. But here, it is just so wild and the editing is so horrid and it just barrages you. It is an obnoxious type of visuals that is intended to excite the audience but at least for me, it just serves to make the film more unpleasant.

Aside from that, as a film is not simply dependent only on cinematography, the film is still rather disappointing. It's a highly unoriginal, slow, and rather unpleasant story. There's hardly any character development, and a majority of the film is spent with the main character interrogating characters and then killing them.

The music sports one of the worst  uses of Clair De Lune I've seen in film, and there have been MANY uses of that beautiful composition in film. But, fortunately, it does feature a use of Oyo Como Va, a song used in The Big Lebowski which was at the very least entertaining.

Man on Fire is a dull, uninteresting and all-around obnoxious film. I can't believe some people have given this a five-star film. Sure, it has a few somewhat deep moment now and then, but in the entire context of the film it's just... really, the best word I can use to describe the film, and I've already used it at least twice in this review, is obnoxious. I just can't bare it, and I definitely don't want to watch it again, nor would I recommend it.

Boyhood [Film Review]

"Grow up, Mason."

So, I just saw Boyhood.

This, not Lost in Translation, is the definition of a film experience (though Lost in Translation is a good example).

The fact that a film was twelve years in the making obviously gives it some pointers to start with, but it doesn't make a great film. I mean, someone could have spent twelve years making some horrible film like Grown Ups 2, and it would have been a horrid waste of twelve years. But this, this is far from a waste. This is a beautiful, heartbreaking yet heartwarming work of art. This is rare. This is a truly great film. I mean, wow.

Throughout the film, I admit I had doubts. But you can't judge a film halfway through, a quarter of the way through, or even a minute from the end. And you especially can't do it without watching the final act (as some of my friends did with Gravity, which made me consider them as less intelligent than I did before). That especially applies to this film. I mean at points, you may even hate the main character of this film.

But that's part of this film. It's a beautiful portrait of life and growing up. It shows some dramatic changes in this boy's life. I disagree that this could be called girlhood, as one reviewer on this site stated, but it could very well have been called Motherhood or Fatherhood. So many characters are intensely explored. Instead of going for the dramatic, Boyhood goes for realism, and it makes the film enormously relatable.

On the technical style the film displays similar excellence. The soundtrack is made up of many classic songs, from The Beatles to The Black Keys, to Arcade Fire. And the cinematography is tremendous, using many long tracking shots, something Linklater became known for with his Before series.

The performances are magnificent, with Ellar Coltrane's outstanding twelve-year debut, Ethan Hawke and Patricia Arquette their usual fantastic selves, and a supporting cast which includes an actress from Bottle Rocket, which I continually pointed out to my brother ("I think that's the girl from Bottle Rocket. That's totally the girl from Bottle Rocket. That's her. Oh my gosh!").

Perfect as a full work of art, this goes down in my book as one of the best films ever. Though you all may hate me for saying it, I still think that The Grand Budapest Hotel is better. But that doesn't mean this is bad. Not even close. This was one of the most rewarding cinema experiences of my life. 2014 has proven to be a far better year than 2013 thus far, and I have another film to add to the five-star club and to my list of movies to buy.

Oh, and also. I advise everyone to SEE THIS IN THE THEATER. If you watch it at home or something you are bound to be distracted. THIS IS AN EXPERIENCE. WATCH IN THEATER. SERIOUSLY.

Oh, and I almost cried at a few points.

Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street [Film Review]

I'm not a huge fan of Burton. I hate, hate, hate, hate, HATED Beetlejuice. His Batman was meh at best. Though I did enjoy Charlie and the Chocolate Factory more than some, and I believe that he made a masterpiece with Big Fish, generally his work has disappointed me, and his films are very overrated by most, at least by the non-film critiquing crowd.

But this is a really excellent film, and possibly where his dark style works best with the story and script. In many of his other films it has been very underwhelming or completely ruined the entire movie. Here it works just splendidly, both visually and tonally. It's really just the perfect way to tell this story.

It's also a great cast, or at least a great leading cast. Johnny Depp and Helena Bonham Carter, two Burton favorites, work terrifically together, especially in their incredible duets. Some other more minor performances, such as that of Sacha Baron Cohen, Timothy Spall, and Alan Rickman, are also great.

The plot of the film is immensely dark and horrific when thought of seriously, but Stephen Sondheim's excellent and often comedic lyrics lighten the mood a lot. The film could be placed in the odd genre which very few films have occupied, musical comedic horror. Sondheim's skill here also gives me reason to anticipate the upcoming film, Into the Woods, despite the fact that it will likely be cheesed up by Disney.

Of the three Burton films I have really enjoyed, this is my least favorite, but its still tremendous. Granted its likely more enjoyable for me in Winter for some odd reason, but the music is always lovable and the characters are beautifully eccentric.

O Brother, Where Art Thou [Film Review]

     I have put off giving this a five star rating for quite a while. And I really don't know why, because it is an incredible film that possesses a lot of the same excellence that other Coen brothers films. It's seriously my family's favorite film. Likely the film that my mother and I agree most on. It is really one of their finest films.
     It is in all ways tremendous. The dialogue first of all, is brilliant as it always is with the Coens. Every line is genius. The cinematography is beautiful and the portrayal of nature with the digital coloring is some of Deakins' best work.
     And the soundtrack. That soundtrack. Seriously, that soundtrack is just utterly incredible. Perfect is a good word for it. It's filled with folk songs and the primary song, Man of Constant Sorrow is tremendous.
     The cast contains many enormously talented actors that show a lot of skill in both dramatic and comedic roles, often both in one. John Turturro, John Goodman and George Clooney are all stupendous, and while Tim Blake Nelson is not really as good as the actors surrounding him, he certainly does bring something to the table.
     This comedic retelling of Homer's Odyssey is a classic. It never gets old, and I have seen it at least twenty times. Highly entertaining and a point of connection between my interests and my family's interests, this is a true five star film, and has been deserving of that rating all this time that I've been denying it that position.

Welcome to the five star club, O Brother, Where Art Thou.

Insomnia (1997) [Film Review]

I had three good reasons to watch this film.
1. Christopher Nolan, my ex-favorite filmmaker did a remake of it.
2. Roger Ebert gave it a great review
3. It got a Criterion release.

So, the hype around this film was pretty good. But did it really reach my hopes for it? Not really. Often originals are better than the remake, but that's not the case here. Despite the fact that Insomnia is my least favorite of Nolan's films, this still isn't as good as Nolan's version.

Still, it is good. It has a lot of great themes, and despite the fact that I knew the basic storyline from Nolan's film it still managed to be captivating at times, and for some reason I gasped when the main character turns over that body...

The performances are excellent for the most part. I mean really, Stellan Skarsgard is incredible. Granted we don't explore his character near as much as we do his counterpart in Nolan's film, but it's decent competition. Pacino vs. Skarsgard comes out as a tie.

The cinematography is superb, really. That was likely one of the best parts of the film, and of course the pivotal scene, the one that pretty much the plot of both is built on had to be shot well and it was. The climax of this film, though, was hardly a climax, and instead it really just dies down slowly, therefore not nearing the incredible ending to Nolan's film.

I apologize for so much of this review comparing this film to Nolan's remake, but that's most of what I have to talk about. I will say that this was good, and had some great cinematography and acting, and the fact that this was where the idea originated does gain the film a lot of respect. But Nolan manages to eclipse the original.

Insidious: Chapter 2 [Film Review]

This is not my definition of a good horror movie. But then again, only one film to my recollection has met my standards for a good horror movie, and that's The Shining.

Horror is in fact my least favorite genre. And it's not because I don't like to be scared. I love to be scared. But I like to be horrified, I want to be in genuine shock. This stuff here? This is what I call 'boo' scares.

Insidious: Chapter 2 is composed nearly entirely out of that type of scare. It exercises silence and darkness, and then it raises the volume suddenly and goes boo. Ah. Behold the horror. *Sarcasm*. I hardly found any of this genuinely horrifying, except one single scene near the end, which was mostly due to Patrick Wilson, who, while not giving an excellent performance, does some incredible facial expressions.

The music is mainly your classic horror movie soundtrack. Composed primarily of shrill violins that are intended to thrill, it becomes really rather dull. Which brings me to another fault of the majority of horror films: they mistake slowness and dullness for suspense.

I don't know, maybe my standards are too high. One could be led to that conclusion because of the fact that I have only really liked a single horror film in my entire life, but there you have it. I really don't think I have standards that are too high. I just want a horror film to leave me shocked and speechless by the end. Which this film does not do. Insidious: Chapter 2 is a dull, ordinary exercise in boo scares.

Captain America: The Winter Soldier [Film Review]

Captain America was my least favorite of Phase One of the Marvel studios films, apart from The Avengers, which I kinda sorta hated. But I had high hopes for this film, as the reviews were good, all my friends said it was awesome. But then again, that was the case with The Avengers.

Also. My mother said this was better than The Grand Budapest Hotel. Bull.

That said, it was fun. The performers are decent, Samuel Jackson's fun, Chris Evan's okay. Scarlett Johanson's incredible. It's astonishing that such a highly esteemed actor as Robert Redford is in this film, but I guess he thought it was worth it.

I will admit that this is likely the most politically charged Marvel film yet, as well as likely its most conspiratorial. The plot is rather complex and brings memories of two Tom Cruise films forth... Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol and Minority Report.

But really, the fact is about this one is for me, it was not engaging in the slightest. The fight scenes were seldom well shot and never had me fearing for anyone's life at all. I always felt certain that everyone would come out of it in the end. And that's a big problem with a lot of Marvel films, is that they barely ever take risks (unlike Nolan's Batman series). They've always got tons and tons of sequels planned, and are constantly trying to please their comic book loving fan base that nothing crazy ever really happens.

What it really comes down to is that Captain America: The Winter Soldier is basically clean, ordinary summer entertainment. And every once in a while there's nothing wrong with that. Like I said, it is fun. Though it's really not memorable in the slightest, it's decent.

The Amazing Spider-Man 2 [Film Review]

I may be alone here in my opinion that this is far greater than its predecessor. Or at least somewhat alone. You can never really be totally alone in your opinion on a film these days actually... anyway.

It's true, when it comes to the script and the originality of the film, The Amazing Spider-Man 2 suffers. It's got numerous cliches, among them the use of The Blue Danube in a torturous sequence, cheesy villain lines (Time to light my candles), and odd self-referential musical numbers. One of the villains also references himself as the comic-book name. He calls himself Electro. I nearly blushed it was so painfully odd and awkward. Seriously, in this film which is obviously trying for a more realistic telling of the Spider-Man series, the characters should not reference themselves that way.

But aside from all that oddness, it is one heck of an experience. Obviously it's visually splendid. That's what all the reviews have been saying, basically they say it sucks but it looks good. Some of the shots are just fantastic, like in one shot we travel through a crowd in immediate danger, quickly zooming in on what could possibly each of their fates. The camera, in these effects-laden shots, travels quickly, and it's just exhilarating. The music contributes here, a fantastic collaboration between Hans Zimmer and Pharrell Williams (I'm not too fond of the latter, I kind of hated Happy), a loud electro-inspired soundtrack that brings a thrill to the many many action sequences.

Now we come to the action sequences. Most said there were too many, and that the emotions should be explored more as they were in the predecessor. During my viewing of the film, however, I was thinking quite the opposite. I thought they were dwelling on emotion far too much, and that the issues between Gwen Stacy and Peter Parker had already been resolved in the previous film. That's just me though.

All in all, this was an enjoyable ride, albeit cliched. It's fun, visually intense, with an incredibly strong climax. Peter Parker is again his witty self that was in The Amazing Spider-Man, making jokes that would have likely been made far more cheesy if done in a Sam Raimi film.

The Grand Budapest Hotel [Marathon Review - Final Draft]

“To him who has often told the tales of others, many tales will be told.”

-Author

            In Wes Anderson’s most recent film, the popular and brilliant auteur finally bests himself after the phenomenal Rushmore. The Grand Budapest Hotel is the second Wes Anderson film I watched in theaters, and after exiting the theater with my brothers, I was the only one of us who was still mentioning how absolutely spectacular the film was, hours after we had watched it. Every single element of this masterpiece is far more than satisfying, and Anderson exceeds all expectations. It is both an absolutely epic film and an incredible experience.

            Wes Anderson’s style reaches its highest, most developed point in his astonishing career in this film. Every individual shot is delicately engineered and brilliantly executed. I have now come to the conclusion that this film is in fact more detailed than Fantastic Mr. Fox, and each shot is packed to the brim with a specifically thrilling class of Wesiness, and more symmetry and lateral whip-pans are present than ever before. The film demonstrates massive blocking, overwhelming choreography, an intensely beautiful color scheme. The beauty of the framing of this film is just jaw dropping, and the calm yet hugely beautiful collaboration of the sometimes faded and sometimes strong colors astonishes at every second, and often melds with the mood of the moment well. In fact, often the lighting in the background changes rather obviously to work with the current scene. The three aspect ratios that the film sports, used for its three separate time periods, show how much control Wes has over this particular film. He also uses the 4:3 aspect ratio as no one has before. After Moonrise Kingdom’s brief foray into relative normality, Wes Anderson has returned to his excitingly quick witted, creative self.

            This camerawork is magnificent. All movements and turns are extraordinarily solid. Every second is definite and powerful, and it does remind one of the power that Wes Anderson had on Fantastic Mr. Fox. That film of course had this effect, as Anderson did indeed control each and every frame, literally. He could quite easily control exactly where the camera stopped and where it went. With live action it’s naturally far more difficult to have this effect on the visuals of his film. Despite that, Anderson is still able to exude the same perfectly composed brilliance in cinematography (thanks in part, of course, to Robert Yeoman).

            Wes Anderson makes several references to his other films. He has some shots on trains, and the setup of those shots may remind one of The Darjeeling Limited. He has shots on motorcycles in the same fashion as in Fantastic Mr. Fox, with on character’s head poking out from behind the driver of the bike. In addition, he uses several miniatures in the film, brilliantly and beautifully. The Grand Budapest Hotel is also Wes Anderson’s most violent and suspenseful film yet. Several characters are brutally murdered, one is beheaded, fingers are chopped off, and in the climax of the film there’s a gigantic shootout.  

            Add to all of this, the score. Alexandre Desplat’s third soundtrack for Wes Anderson is without a doubt his best yet. It’s magnificently energetic, adding just the right tone to each and every scene, at least those touches that Wes could not provide himself. This score works on several themes, most of which are very fast. They’re used exceptionally well in the film, most notably in a chase scene and the climax of the film. The movie has an odd lack of any sort of compiled soundtrack, but Desplat handsomely compensates for that with ease, causing the film to feel even more original.

            The cast is amazing, debatably the best that Anderson has yet had. We are presented with an enormous number of cameos, and we have some rather prominent actors playing some rather miniscule roles. Among this great crew are Owen Wilson, Bill Murray (of course), Bob Balaban, Wallace Wolodarsky and Waris Ahluwalia. All of these actors have had a role in at least one of Anderson’s previous films. Some of the children from Moonrise Kingdom also make some minor appearances. And the main cast is also superb. Ralph Fiennes is extraordinary and says every line with grace and candor, in the precise and delicate way that they should be said. Tony Revolori displays a similar expertise and will likely be returning in future Anderson movies. Willem Dafoe expertly portrays a chilling assassin, known professionally as a ‘private inquiry agent’. Oscar-winning actress Tilda Swinton is hardly recognizable in pounds of makeup as the dowager countess, Madame Celine Villeneuve Desgoffe und Taxis, and Adrien Brody plays a wildly cursing, temperamental and money-driven count with murderous intentions.

            This story is filled with many moving parts and highly influential characters. All the characters have different intentions, which makes the plot all the more exciting and suspenseful. A. J. Henckels is trying to enforce the law but has a friendship with M. Gustave H., who is the very man he is after. Dmitri, the spoiled son of Madame D., is working only for selfish gains and seems willing to cut down anyone in his path (at least via J.G. Jopling, the murderer). And Agatha, Zero’s beloved fiancé, has a devotion to Zero of course, but also wishes to remain morally right, as she states, “I don’t trade in stolen property!”

            Oddly, very few relationships are explored, but are instead rooted in past and off-screen events. Among these sorts of relationships are the relationship between Madame D. and Gustave H., the relationship between Henckels and Gustave H., and the relationship between Zero and Agatha. This give much support to part of the focus of the film, which is the idea and the art of storytelling. In storytelling, not all is revealed. We don’t know much about some of these relationships because either Zero doesn’t know, or he is not willing to speak of them (as is the case with his relationship with Agatha). The only truly well explored relationship in the story is of course, the one we should know well and the one that Zero would love to reminisce about the most: his relationship with the concierge, Gustave H., who instead of remaining simply his employer, becomes a true friend, a sort of brother.

            Wes Anderson defines the word auteur in nearly all of his films. His style and the way that he accentuates everything about a film sets him apart from your normal director. Composed of many exciting and magnificent and even grand scenes, this film is a captivating, fun, adventurous journey. Everything visual, from the decoration of all of the locations (especially the Grand Budapest), to the elaborate and eye-catching wardrobe is beautiful, and demonstrates great control from Anderson. The Grand Budapest Hotel examines the beauty of storytelling with its story within a story.