submarine1977

On the beginning, I have to admit, that I've never got familiarized with the style both of Guillame Canet and James Gray, probably because barely any of their previous works acquired broad distribution in my country. Hence, while stepping into the cinema room, I didn't know what kind of emotions or thoughts the upcoming movie would release in me. Neither did I know what the movie would be about nor how it was admitted by professional critics. I was sitting on my chair, being curious what values may bring the movie, boasting with appearance of quite astonishing amount of gifted actors. After the showing, the question was partially answered.

While in other movies representing the genre there is one character the story focuses around, here we have two, both standing on the opposite sides of the law: the notorious criminal, who, having spent a long-term sentence in jail, is being released and his younger brother, Frank, turned out to be a devoted policeman. The past and social positions occupied by both of brothers are sources of the tension growing between Chris and Frank, which is especially visible in the attitude of the police officer. However, he has the feeling of being partially responsible for the path his brother has taken. In the childhood period, Frank failed Chris, which resulted in his first jail sentence.

The whole situation is being observed by third party characters, the most interesting of which is a prostitute performed by Marion Cotillard. Climbing on peaks of her acting skills, the actress successfully presents a wreck, that believes in no chances on brighter future, even while being a mother of two Chris' children. In opposition to her, the rest of those observers fails to attract any attention. Even while having such great actors like James Caan or Lily Taylor, Canet and Gray do not know how to connect their characters with the story, not to mention about Mila Kunis. Her character just exist in the movie's world.

I have the feeling, however, that the screenwriters put enough effort to present the main plot in a satisfactory way, being supported by two great actors. Despite the conflict between two brothers, viewers can sense that there is still a thin bond between them, even though Frank urgently tries to conceal it. All scenes between them are well paced and written. Confrontation of muffled Billy Crudup with impulsive Clive Owen gave an interesting result - it's the former convict, that through his attempts to fix the situation acquires our sympathy more than the cold policeman.

I'm not gonna praise the movie's capacity to convey the 70's atmosphere, because this feature has become common. However, what needs to mentioned about are dialogues. They are juicy and full of vulgarisms, that perfectly give the viewer a notion about the social environment the movie tells about. The presented world is devoid of any kind of beauty.

After all, I accept the vision presented by Guillame Canet and James Gray. In spite of it's flaws, the movie presents the main plot in enough absorbing way to attract viewers. There is a tie between me and this movie, even though it is not as strong as it should be.

Thirteen years ago Peter Jackson began the adventure, which has erased the belief that J. R. R. Tolkien's universe is impossible to be filmed, the notion reinforced by ambitious, but infamous "The Lord of the Rings" directed by Ralph Bakshi about fifteen years before. The vision served by Jackson and his crew has proved that an appropriate vision may not only give fruitful results, but also be groundbreaking in both of development of visual aspects and the genre, considered to be extinct long time ago. Few years after completing the successful trilogy "Lord of the Rings", Peter Jackson announced that not only would "The Hobbit", a book that precedes the action from the trilogy, be conveyed into film reel, but also it would be divided on three installments. This statement was accepted by fans with both of enthusiasm and anxiety. The first part of the new trilogy, which had it's premiere one year ago, proved that Jackson may achieve success by such division. Is such feeling present in the new one?

The story is being continued right in the place, where the previous movie was finished. The group of Dwarfs proceeds their journey to the kingdom, which once belonged to them. The path to their destination if full of obstacles, which may be overcome by their wit and, especially, mutual cooperation. In the mean time, Gandalf, sensing upcoming war decides to split with his comrades and learns that Sauron is being reborn.

Jackson once again proves that he has a good sense in selecting actors team. Sir Ian McKellen born for playing such Characters like Gandalf. Richard Armitage successfully conveys charismatic personality of Thorin the Oaken Shield. Martin Freeman is great in showing Bilbo's transition from a gentle hobbit to trusted companion of the journey.

It is not a surprise that the movie astonishes from technical point of view. New Zealand's landscapes are authentically breathtaking. If Peter Jackson decides to film other books from Tolkien's universe, New Zealand is a perfect place to do it. The story is absorbing, even though it proves the division on three movies to be more artificial. There are threads which have lack of satisfying conclusion. I was completely indifferent to the love plot between Tauriel and Legolas. The duo has not enough time to make their plot touching. I hope the director's cut will include more scenes between them in order to make their story more important and touching.

Overall, these downsides are not overwhelming enough to mitigate the entertainment derived from the movie. Peter Jackson successfully proves that he has heart for making movies based on Tolkien's works. I hope the third movie will maintain this notion.

Wes Anderson possesses a completely rare among American filmmakers gift of having his own style of making movies. Even though plot of each of them is constructed very carefully, he treats all characters with equal dose of care. In fact, their peculiar personalities have become a kind of trademark of Anderson's storytelling. This feature could be even noticed in his Oscar nominated "Fantastic Mr. Fox", which, even though had children as target audience, still managed to convey his characteristic style. Anderson's the latest movie is not an exception.

Even though his movies do not belong to high budget genres, Anderson always manages to collect impressive staff of experienced and famous actor. And so we have Ralph Fiennes as Mr. Gustave, a concierge of the title hotel, and Mustafa Zero, his newly-appointee lobby boy. The duo is thrown into a middle of shaking their calm existence events, when it turns out that the hotel's deceased owner, Madame D., leaves in the concierge's possession an invaluable painting, which for Mr. Gustave becomes both of chance for economic and source of hatred deriving from ravenous Madame D's son, who tries to take it back at all cost.

The main plot, which is filled with authentically hilarious gags, wonderfully develops a relationship between the duo of Mr. Gustave and Zero. During the plot's progress, it changes from conversations typical for relation between worker and employer to something more like fellowship. Moreover, thanks to great performance of Ralph Fiennes and Tony Revolori, the relationship is both of pleasantly amusing and poignant. Adrien Brody successfully breaks with his amiable image in order to create a completely grotesque character. It's also heartwarming to see F. Murray Abraham, who, after many years of performing in questionable quality movies, once again gives an performance in movie worthy of his talent.

Although the it is not the best movie of Wes Anderson, it does successfully maintain his image of one of the most interesting and talented filmmakers of modern times. The idea of filming using different angles is quite interesting. The nowadays events are filmed by wide-angled lens, while the past is shown in 4:3 format, which wonderfully helps in conveying specific mood of the movie. Moreover, the director's kind of humor once again does not fail. Not only the jokes are amusing, but also very clever and unpredictable.

I hope Wes Anderson will manage to maintain his exquisite style and not once entertain his viewers with his wit accuracy and creativity.