Motherless Brooklyn: Mystery, Suspense Done Right

Movie Review: Motherless Brooklyn (2019)
Version: Library DVD

Frank, Lionel, Tony, and some other guys grew up together in an orphanage and when they grew up, Frank looked after them. He started a detective agency and gave them all jobs. Frank (Bruce Willis) especially looked after Lionel (Edward Norton), who had a pronounced case of Tourette's Syndrome. They got along fine until one day Frank ran into a juicy case that got him killed, and Lionel became determined to solve the murder of his only real friend. That's the main plot behind Motherless Brooklyn, a steely, gritty, suspenseful mystery done up in the film noir style by also producer, writer, and director Edward Norton.

Also features superb performances by Gugu Mbatha-Raw as Laura, the dame who always figures in a classic film noir, Alec Baldwin as Moses Randolph, the powerful big-city boss who clashes with the hero, Bobby Cannavale as Tony, one of the guys who we think is Lionel's ally, and Willem Dafoe as Paul, the guy operating in the shadows. Norton also puts in a fine performance, but I can't help but wonder if it would have been better if he had cut back on the Tourette's some. It seems a bit too put on, in the same way Dustin Hoffman's disabilities were seen as too put on in Rain Man (1988). Norton's Lionel apologizes throughout the story for his outbursts, but they seem robotic and I don't buy it. They just don't seem sincere. Nice try, though. Still, the film is a good mixture of mystery and suspense. Baldwin seethes with power and anger and danger. Dafoe sneaks around like a seedy little mouse that makes you want to squash him. Great cast!

If this film had been made in the heyday of film noir, it would have been produced in black and white; it would have been very dark and shot in stark night scenes. This was, of course, shot in color but in drab day tones and in seedy 1950s settings. You get this dank, musty, dangerous feel with each frame, and that's the way it should be. Kudos for the atmosphere.

On the whole, while I'm not a fan of film noir, I came to be a fan of Motherless Brooklyn. Norton done me right by it. He will do you right by it, too.

Murder on the Orient Express: Not a Must-See or a Want-to-See, Perhaps Just an Okay-See

Movie Review: Murder on the Orient Express (2017)
Version: Library borrow

Murder on the Orient Express is a remake of a remake of a remake of a remake of an Agatha Christie murder mystery classic. Yes, there have been five films of this story, beginning in 1974. Enough, already! Honestly, I don't think anyone can play a better Hercule Poirot than David Suchet, but in this version Kenneth Branagh gives it his best shot. It isn't enough. I haven't seen the other versions besides the 1974 film, so I cannot comment on them, but I preferred the 1974 cast other than Albert Finney as Poirot. Alfred Molina played the leading role in 2001 and he's a fine actor, so he could very well have pulled it off to satisfaction.

Here is the gist of the plot. The world's best detective takes the world's most lavish train, the Orient Express, from Istanbul to Paris, counting on a relaxing trip. On the way, there is a murder. Of course, only Poirot can solve it. Since the train has been moving the whole time, everyone onboard is a suspect -- everyone except Poirot. In this version, Poirot is taking the trip because he is exhausted from a strenuous examination of another murder and wishes to take the long journey as a form of holiday, so he isn't receptive to investigating the murder. In fact, earlier the victim has asked him to be his body guard, but Poirot refuses. Partway into the trip as the train makes its way into the mountainous terrain of Yugoslavia, an avalanche blocks the tracks, nearly knocking the locomotive off and setting up a long wait for help to arrive. Poirot is a friend of the owner of the Orient Express, who begs him to investigate before the Yugoslavian authorities arrive. He reluctantly agrees, and so the battle of wits between Poirot and the suspects begins.

As with past films, Murder on the Orient Express relies on a long list of recognizable actors to attract an audience. Kenneth Branagh directs as well as acts in this. Judi Dench is always a welcome presence. There is also Johnny Depp, Michelle Pfeiffer, Willem Dafoe, Penélope Cruz, and Derek Jacobi, along with a group of lesser knows. It is an ensemble cast, which makes the story work. If it weren't for the familiar faces, would we care as much about the characters? I wonder.

Branagh's Belgian accent leaves much to be desired. Poirot is fastidious in all his ways, and Branagh fails to carry out the character in this way, also He could easily be playing some other famous detective, although I couldn't place a name on him. I would ask, might Johnny Depp not have done better service to this role? Something to have considered, Mr Branagh the director. I can see it, considering the eccentricity of some of the roles Depp has played (consider the Mad Hatter in Alice in Wonderland).

So, to conclude, I can't say 2017's Murder on the Orient Express is a must-see, or even a want-to-see. If you're bored some evening or weekend, it's an okay-see. If nothing else, see if for the stars and the scenery.

The Fault in Our Stars: Young Love in Tragedy Played with Perfection

Movie Review: The Fault in Our Stars (2014)
Version: Library borrow

Through the coming attractions previews on a couple of older movies, our family ran into some movies we had missed in the past. A seriously great film we picked up at the library is The Fault in Our Stars, the story of two teenagers who meet at a cancer support group, which leads to hanging out more together. What becomes a close friendship based on a shared life-and-death experience leads to a love-lost-to-death relationship, but not in a way you expect as you make your way through the story.

Hazel is undergoing continued cancer treatments with little hope for recovery, Augustus has lost a leg to cancer but is full of enthusiasm for life, always lifting her spirits. She has "wasted" her special wish earlier in life to go to Disney World, so he uses his to take her to Amsterdam to meet their favorite author, where they finally fall helplessly in love. Fouling their experience, they find their author isn't what he purports to be. Finally returning home, everything turns for the worse. But is their hope?

Hazel is played with perfection by Shailene Woodley, sometimes bright and hopeful, sometimes full of despair. Augustus is played with eloquence by Ansel Elgort, philosophical and brave and the supportive partner. Willem Dafoe plays an acerbic and acidic author darkened in his outlook on life by experiences he refuses to share.

This is really a story about star-crossed lovers whose crossing is destined too soon to pass in the night, but it's also about the passionate love of life and the unfairness of conditions beyond your control. It depends almost entirely upon the quality of the lead actors to pull off the story, and they do it with excellence. There is real chemistry between Woodley and Elgort, and thus you feel a passionate connection between Hazel and Augustus, for whom you yearn for a long life together. Yet The Fault in Our Stars is actually a tragedy, and so, like Romeo and Juliet, it is a love story that will not be.

The Fault in Our Stars will always be one of my favorite movies because it's the first time my daughter -- usually an animation and action film fan -- actually asked to see a romance film. Is she growing up a bit? Watching it with her, it was sort of like my first dance with her, seeing the young lady in her blossom just a little. (Don't tell her I said that!)