ONLY LOVERS LEFT ALIVE

Seriously, what is it about Jim Jarmusch and his films that makes them so god damned cool?  He makes a certain type of film that could only be defined as his own, and yet from a surface perspective, you would be excused into thinking that his films could be entirely boring.  They usually move at a snail’s pace, have a tendency to be rather long in regards to the content of the story being told and include dramatic beats that can be referred to as minor, and yet in spite of all this or rather because of all this, Jarmusch’s films are always entertaining and so very cool.  “Only Lovers Left Alive” is his latest film and is yet another stunning achievement from one of the most unique cinematic voices to ever come out of the United States.

“Only Lovers Left Alive” is a story about two vampires, centuries old, who are madly in love with each other, struggling to exist in the modern world.  The majority of the film is set in Detroit where Adam lives, writing music and bemoaning the fact that the human race has destroyed all the good that was once in the world.  He is so down about the state of the world that Adam has become suicidal, and has even gone to the trouble to have had a wooden bullet made for himself to help him succeed in this task if he should ever desire to follow through with it.  Having been married and in love for centuries, Eve has seen it all before and understands that this is a just a phase of disillusionment that Adam is going through, yet she decides to leave her Moroccan home to visit her husband in an attempt to cheer him up, and remind him of just how fun life can be.  Upon Eve’s arrival, Adam immediately brightens up, as the two vampires do normal things that couples do; play games, talk, go for a drive together and even share a glass of the best quality blood (O- of course).  Everything seems to be going well, until Eve’s sister Ava shows up out of the blue for a visit.  From her presence and her carefree immature ways, Ava causes the couple extreme angst to the point that they end up having to flee Detroit in an attempt to survive.

If you are familiar with Jim Jarmusch’s previous work, then I am sure you would have some sort of image of what a Jim Jarmusch vampire picture may look like, and the truth of the matter is, you would probably be right.  “Only Lovers Left Alive” bears the stamp of its creator / director like a bright and proud beacon.  Right from the opening frame, it is immediately obvious who was behind the film’s creation, to the point that it couldn’t have been made by anyone else.  It bears all the trademarks of a Jarmusch film; the slow pace, the minimal drama, the richly drawn and entertaining characters, the stunning visual style and his well known great taste in music used to maximum effect.  But to answer my own question above, what makes Jim Jarmusch’s films so cool is the little details he puts into his films to create a world that feels real and lived in (even if it is in a heightened state), and the fact that he always populates these worlds with the most interesting characters that are always a joy to be around.  Sure, for the most part, these characters have a very laid back attitude to life but their humanity always shines through (even when the characters are vampires).

The characters of Adam and Eve are interesting because they seem to be total opposites of one another and yet together they work as one and are very obviously made for each other.  Adam is the “ying” to Eve’s “yang”, with Jarmusch going one step further by making Adam represent the dark of the past, while Eve, the bright of the future.  Adam is constantly depressed about the current state of the world, nostalgic of simpler times and seems to reject modern digital technology in favour of his preferred analogue world.  Adam blames the humans (whom he calls “zombies”) for the world as it is today, and for the fact that mediocrity is celebrated so readily.  He feels this is significantly pronounced in the music industry, which he himself is a part of, where being famous no longer has anything to do with a person’s musical talent and as such Adam lives as a recluse hiding from his fans.  Eve on the other hand is the complete opposite in that she is always upbeat, can see the good in all things, and is someone who has no problem evolving and moving with the times.  Unlike her husband, Eve also has no issue in adapting to modern technology as we witness her on a number of times using an iPhone (hmmm, Adam and Eve, and Apple – where have I heard that before?).  Furthermore, where the two choose to call their home also gives an insight into our characters mindset with Adam living in old, downtown Detroit, while Eve lives in Tangiers which is a combination of old and modern setting.  Jarmusch even goes so far as to dress Eve in white and Adam in black for those who may be slow in getting the point.  However, as I mentioned above, when the two lovers are together, everything just works and seems so right, as Eve is able to negate Adam’s darkness and suicidal tendencies and he can enjoy life yet again.

Tom Hiddleston and Tilda Swinton portray Adam and Eve respectively and both are amazing.  Personally, I am not the biggest Swinton fan, as I often find her a very cold actress so it is ironic that in the role of a vampire, I found her to be her warmest and most human yet.  She is simply stunning in the role, to the point that you cannot take your eyes off of her, and I loved her lightness of touch that she gave while portraying Eve; never once overplaying her.  Hiddleston obviously has the heavier role, with Adam being enveloped with a dark depression to the point of being suicidal, but he does a stunning job of making Adam very real and someone you actually like to be around.  This character had the danger of becoming very annoying because he is always moping about feeling sorry for himself, but Hiddleston infuses the character with a very dry sense of humour and he isn’t above making fun of his own current situation.

While John Hurt is impressive in a brief role, the other performance I want to mention is Mia Wasikowska as Eve’s sister, Ava.  She ends up being the chaos of the film, the character that creates all of the drama but through Wasikowska’s performance she also becomes the most entertaining character of the whole film.  Wasikowska plays Ava with the energy of a young teenage girl; immature in every way possible, lacking any responsibility at all.  She is the kind of person that if she wants to do something, she will without thinking of the consequences it may have on herself or anyone else.  While the characters of Adam and Eve are more slow, stoic and thoughtful, Ava bursts into frame with all the energy of the world.  She is constantly moving, never slowing down to examine her surroundings, only in search of good time.  This is one of my favourite performances from Wasikowska and is almost the complete opposite to her very dark role in “Stoker”, showing just how great a range she has as an actor.  Ava, through Mia Wasikowska’s performance, is such a fun character to be with that it is such a shame her screen time is so minor.

While the film is definitely a vampire film, Jarrmusch was never going to create a “traditional” vampire tale.  His vampires are very elegant and are above biting people in an attempt to assuage their thirst.  Instead we witness them drinking as if it was a fine wine, out of precious glassware.  The way that Jarmusch shoots the vampires after they have drunk the blood, gives the feeling that they are almost on a drug high, as the camera and the vampires have a floating feeling to them, and it is in these moments that their fangs become prominent.  It really is a beautiful repeated image.  Jarmusch has also added to vampire lore with his inclusion of the polite removal of gloves.  In his world, vampires have the ability to “read” the history of a person or object through simple touch of their hands, and as such they wear gloves when out.  When entering a new house, similar to being invited inside, the vampires await permission to remove their gloves, which I thought was a nice detail added by Jarmusch.

“Only Lovers Left Alive” is a simply stunning film to look at.  The production design team have done a fabulous job of filling Adam’s loft apartment with small details that probably add little to the film, but give it the feeling that it is indeed lived in.  The cinematography by Yorick Le Saux is sumptuous as is Jarmusch’s bold use of bright colours.  I particularly loved the scenes early on in the film of Tilda Swinton walking the streets of Tangiers.  The colours of light blue (almost teal, I guess) and the yellows just mesmerised me.  The films of Jim Jarmusch are always beautiful to look at and stunningly shot, but “Only Lovers Left Alive” may be the best yet (which is saying something after how gorgeous “The Limits Of Control” looked).

Overall, I simply loved “Only Lovers Left Alive” and could probably talk about it for hours.  While I understand that it will not be for everyone, I think I can safely say that if you are a fan of Jim Jarmusch, you are definitely in for a treat.  I would go so far to say that it is now my second favourite Jarmusch film, behind only “Dead Man” (with “Down By Law” not far behind in third).  The performances are all impeccable, and for a film with a character contemplating suicide, it is also a very funny film of the driest sense possible (a very short scene of Adam and Eve playing chess is hilarious).  Because music is not my strong point, I have mentioned little about it in regards to this film, but suffice to say it is excellent and befitting of the tone of the film.  If you think this is a movie that suits your cinematic tastes, I recommend running to the first screening of “Only Lovers Left Alive” that comes across your way; it is seriously that good.

4.5 Stars.

WOLF CREEK 2

It has taken nine years to happen but Greg McLean has finally delivered a sequel to his Australian horror classic, “Wolf Creek”.  The imaginatively titled “Wolf Creek 2” hit Australian cinemas this week, and although it looks destined to be a hit, unfortunately compared to the original film, this sequel is something of a dud.

“Wolf Creek 2” sees us once again heading to the Australian outback where serial killer Mick Taylor calls his home.  We are witness to Mick stalking, terrorizing, capturing and even torturing his prey, as his unlucky victims hopelessly await for the tables to turn on their captor and that they get the chance to escape and more importantly, to live.

As simple as that synopsis is above, that is basically what “Wolf Creek 2” is all about.  There is very little to the film, and unlike the first film, we are not given any characters to care about here.  McLean has fallen into the trap that many filmmakers do when making sequels to horror films particularly when the original film has an iconic villain attached to it (and make no mistake, Mick Taylor is definitely iconic);he has made the second film entirely about the serial killer. For the whole film, we are in the company of Mick, and although he is no doubt an effective villain, he is not a character you want to spend an entire 100 minutes with.  He is such a deplorable person; violent, racist and incredibly aggressive, which are not the traits of a person you want to be around, much less care about.  When it comes to monsters, the trick to keeping them scary is to keep them in the shadows as long as possible, which is exactly what McLean did with the original film as Mick is only present in that film for the final 40 minutes.  By exposing him to the light for the entire running time, the monster no longer remains scary, in fact the opposite happens, we see what makes the villain tick and he ultimately becomes more of a joke than something to be afraid of.  Freddy Krueger is the perfect example of this because in the first “A Nightmare On Elm Street” film, Wes Craven did not overexpose his monster and as a result, he remained chilling, but as each subsequent sequel arrived and the films became more about Freddy himself, he changed from being a terrifying, child killer haunting teenagers dreams and turned into an absolute goofball constantly sprouting bad one-liners and puns.  From the way “Wolf Creek 2” has arrived, I fear that Mick Taylor may be heading for the same fate, if there are indeed any more films in this series.  

While the decision to focus on Mick entirely seemed to doom this production from the get-go, in truth, every decision Greg McLean has chosen with “Wolf Creek 2” seems to be the wrong one and everything that made the first film so great, he has gone the opposite way and thus has created a very inferior product.  One of the strongest elements of “Wolf Creek” was the absolute realism McLean was able to capture and what ultimately made the film so terrifying.  That realism is totally gone in the sequel though, and right from the opening frame, there is no confusion that what we are watching is a movie and that Mick Taylor is a character in that movie; he no longer feels like a real man, rather a caricature of the villain from the original film.  Even John Jarratt’s performance as the cold blooded killer feels a little off this time too.  He is not terrible, not by a long shot, but his performance at times is far too big and over-the-top compared to his more nuanced and restrained performance in the first film.

As I mentioned earlier, in the first film we were given characters to care about and importantly, time to get to know them too.  This is not the case with “Wolf Creek 2”, as we are quickly introduced to a backpacking couple and through a very quick montage, we witness the sort of scenes of them partying and having a good time, that we actually got to experience in the original.  Then Mick shows up, and quite frankly because I do not know these backpackers at all, I could really care less whether or not Mick kills them.  This totally works against the film as no suspense can be created if we do not care about the characters.  For the next hour of the film, we then watch Mick stalking and playing with his victims.  To be honest, I reacted totally against the film during the entire first hour.  I really disliked it a lot and the fact that the basis for the majority of Mick’s hatred was so racist-based, I also found it quite uncomfortable to watch.  I also felt that a lot of the violence was far too brutal especially in relation to the film’s sillier and jokey tone.  It just did not gel with me.  In fact, it is not until the final half hour, after Mick has captured his poor victim, that the film becomes not just bearable but also entertaining.  It is also no coincidence that this is when the film slows down and becomes more worried about character and we (finally) start to learn something about our protagonist.  While I liked this section of the film more than the rest of the film, the whole lair setting feels like it has come out of a Rob Zombie film (particularly “House Of 1000 Corpses”) and stylistically feels at odds with the rest of the movie.

Speaking of the film’s style, I also thought that visually “Wolf Creek 2” did not hold a candle to the original film.  The gorgeous sun-drenched images are gone and are replaced with murky scenes shot in the night and dark, leaving behind all of the beauty the original had.  This new film has a different cinematographer than the first (sadly William Gibson took his own life soon after completing work on McLean’s “Rogue”) and unfortunately Toby Oliver is unable to replicate the genius of the original film’s look.  McLean attempts to use Mick’s silhouette again to create menace, but it just does not have the same affect in a back-lit scene set at night.  This is not the only thing McLean tries to replicate from the first film, as a lot of the memorable dialogue is reworked into this film (“The winner”), and it just fails to capture the same brilliance and even reminds the viewer that they are watching an inferior product.  It actually comes across as a desperate wink to audiences who liked “Wolf Creek” and is a little embarrassing.

One thing that I need to point out is the fact that “Wolf Creek 2” arrived in Australian cinemas in an altered format.  Sadly, the film was cut by two minutes (and a lot of the gore minimized) in an effort to garner the more audience friendly MA rating, after the film was initially hit with the restricted R rating.  While this is unfortunate, horror fans should not fret because the film is still incredibly bloody and the full R rated cut has been promised to be put out onto bluray, so we will eventually see the film in all its glory.

Overall, while I have torn apart poor old “Wolf Creek 2”, it is not a terrible film; in fact far from it.  What it is though, is an incredible disappointment and is not a worthy follow up to the original classic.  McLean’s direction is sloppy throughout, and the story is as bare bones as could be, with the main actors giving flat performances or going so over the top, it becomes unbelievable.  “Wolf Creek 2” starts promisingly with a relatively amusing scene involving Mick and a couple of highway patrolmen, but it isn’t until the film’s last thirty minutes that it then becomes bearable again.  Granted, this half an hour is entertaining enough that it saves the film from being an entire wreck, but sadly “Wolf Creek 2”ends up being nothing more than a minor time diversion, and is not a patch on the classic former film.

2.5 Stars.

WOLF CREEK

In anticipation for the release of “Wolf Creek 2”, I decided to check out the original film again to see if it still holds up.  Even though this was either my fourth or fifth viewing of the film, I had not seen it for about eight years and I am happy to report, after all of this time, the film still works as well as it did the first time I viewed it back in 2005.

For those who may have never seen “Wolf Creek” before, here is a brief synopsis: “Ben, a typical Australian bloke, along with his two British tourist friends, Liz and Kristy, are on a road trip together to Cairns and along their journey decide to stop and visit Wolf Creek, to see the giant meteor crater that it is famous for.  After returning from their hike and picnic at the crater, the three friends come to find out that their car has broken down in a bad way.  In the middle of nowhere and in the pitch black of night, the three realise they are stuck there for the night, but suddenly relief comes in the form of a local man, Mick Taylor, who happens to be passing by Wolf Creek.  He examines the car and determines the cause of its failings and explains to the friends that he has the parts and tools back at his place to fix the problem.  Everyone agrees this is the best idea to quickly restart their journey, but their acceptance proves to be the biggest mistake of their lives because Mick Taylor isn't anything like the mild mannered and friendly Aussie he portrays himself.  Soon the friends find themselves in a battle of survival against a deadly madman intent on seeing them dead.

As I said above, “Wolf Creek” has aged very well and still succeeds in being a very successful and scary horror film.  What really impressed me about the film was the way director Greg McLean paced the film.  This is a film that builds slowly as we get to know and love our main characters and it is almost an hour into the film before the horror starts to take place and Mick enters the frame.  During this first hour, we witness Ben and the two girls having typical Aussie fun by going to parties, swimming in the ocean and just having a good time while driving to their destination.  The chemistry between our three characters (and actors) is so believable and it comes across as being very real and in the moment.  It never feels like we are watching three people heading towards their doom, rather we are with these guys while they are enjoying themselves.  The handheld camerawork also gives the film a feeling of immediacy and of what we are watching could be happening in that moment.  Surprisingly for a horror film, “Wolf Creek” is a very bright film, and a large portion of it is shot in daylight, including some of the horror sequences and it all works brilliantly well.

The performances from our doomed three are all excellent and as I have already said, all are very natural.  Nathan Phillips, who plays Ben, is an actor I enjoy watching on screen because he has an everyman kind-of presence and is incredibly charismatic.  He feels like a real guy, not a character in a film.  What I love about his character is that he isn’t a big macho guy who is going to save the day, instead when he does get the chance to escape, he does just that without looking back to see if his friends are ok.  This rings very true, because while I am sure everyone would like to think that they would go back to help their friends or loved ones, in moments of intense terror such as these, I wonder just how many would rather than look out for their own skin.  The actresses who play the two British girls, Cassandra Magrath and KestieMorassi, are actually both Australian, but both are competent in producing a British accent that is convincing.  Where these two girls excel are in the scenes of intense terror, particularly Morassi who is a mess after the torture she endures, as there is no doubt they are terrified for their lives in these moments.  Magrath(Liz) does a great job at showing an inner strength, proving she is willing to fight for her life and that of her friend, while Morassi(Kristie) is already clearly traumatised by her ordeal to the point that she is like a different person; almost childlike in her fear. 

As good as these actors are, there is no doubt that “Wolf Creek” belongs to John Jarratt and his evil character of Mick Taylor.  Greg McLean has stated that his intentions with Mick was to create an Australian Freddie Krueger-like character.  What he meant was that he wanted to create an iconic Australian villain and he has clearly succeeded in his task.  The casting of Jarratt in the role of Mick Taylor was a stroke of genius because it totally plays against the persona Jarratt has in real life.  He is known as a true blue Aussie, but also the nicest guy in the world, which is the way Mick comes across at the beginning when he first meets our stranded characters.  When he reveals his true murderous colours, Jarratt is astounding in the role and it is hard to believe that this man that Aussie’s know and love from television had the ability to drudge up intense darkness from somewhere at the depths of his soul.  He is absolutely terrifying in the role, but he also has fun as Mick Taylor while he plays with his victims.  He is constantly making fun of them and playing with them in a blackly comic way but there are moments of intense violence that shows his intense darkness like in the scene when he headbutts Liz after she destroys his truck.  But hell, this is no doubt a demented man, who likes to do sick things to his victims which are many so it shouldn’t come as a surprise when he kills his victims in the most depraved ways ever.

While it is a very violent film, I must admit I was surprised when re-watching “Wolf Creek” because I remembered it being more violent than it really is.  This is great achievement by McLean to be able to give the impression the film is more violent than it really is (this is something Tobe Hooper’s “The Texas Chain Saw Massacre” excels at), and I think it all comes down to the film’s tone and how seriously the horror scenes are treated.  There is never a wink at the audience during “Wolf Creek”.

I have mentioned that the film is a brightly lit film for the majority with McLean using the sunlight and the vast landscape to his advantage.  Never have the large open spaces of the outback seemed so claustrophobic before as they do here.  One thing that McLean obviously worked out very early on was just how menacing Mick Taylor looked in silhouette, with his large brimmed hat and solid body creating a terrifying figure.  McLean reverts to the silhouette a number of times and it always comes across as horrifying and the fact that most of the film takes place in daylight helps this image considerably.

Overall, Greg McLean’s 2005 film, “Wolf Creek” still holds up almost a decade later.  It is still incredibly terrifying and bleak, but in the time since its release Mick Taylor has since become an icon of Australian horror cinema.  John Jarratt excels in his murderous role bringing nuance and a devilish cackle to his intense villain character.  This is a film that has a number of brilliant scenes in it but my favourite would have to be the scene when Mick chases Kristy in his car, which is a scene that is both funny and scary in equal measure.  After revisiting “Wolf Creek” I am now primed and ready for Mick Taylor’s return in Greg McLean’s “Wolf Creek 2” (due in cinemas this week).  Bring it on!

4 Stars.

GRAND PIANO

Elijah Wood either has the greatest agent in town or he has impeccable taste because he seems to keep finding himself in interesting and very entertaining genre films where he shines as the film’s lead.  Coming off the unexpectedly amazing “Maniac” remake, Wood is front and center in the cracking thriller that is “Grand Piano”.

Wood plays Tom Selznick, a famous pianist who hasn’t been on stage for five years after his last performance ended disastrously.  In honour of his late mentor, he is coaxed back on stage to perform an “unplayable” piece that was created by his teacher and friend.  Panic and nerves seem to still have a hold on poor Tom, as he isn’t even sure himself whether or not he will freeze again once on stage.  As Tom sits down in front of his piano and the concert starts, he awaits his moment to contribute but after a few bars into his performance he notices a chilling note written in red on his sheet music: “PLAY ONE WRONG NOTE AND YOU DIE”.  He is then made aware of an ominous red dot, obviously from a laser sighting from a rifle, aimed directly at him.  The notes continue on his sheet music and instruct Tom to go to his dressing room during a break in the music and obtain an ear piece that had been placed in there for him, where he is given further instructions by a mysterious stranger.  Tom is told to play the most perfect performance of his life, and if he plays one wrong note, his wife (who is also a famous actress and is watching her husband from a balcony seat) will be murdered in retaliation.  If Tom thought there was pressure on him before to perform, he is about to find out the true definition of stage fright.

“Grand Piano” is a superbly crafted thriller; one that continually builds its suspense right until its fitting finale.  If you read the above synopsis of the film, you may be initially wondering how it is possible to build palpable suspense that an audience needs to feel when our main protagonist is stuck at a piano for the majority of the film.  Basically that is the genius of the film because director Eugenio Mira directs the hell out of “Grand Piano” to create an exciting and excitingly visual picture.  Through his direction he creates a feeling of constant movement, so we forget that all we are watching is a man at a piano.  Much has been written about how the film has a Hitchcockian feel to it, and I agree wholeheartedly with this assessment as “Grand Piano” has the feel of the ending of “The Man Who Knew Too Much”, modernized and amped up to eleven.  Mira constantly finds inventive ways to shoot his leading man at the piano and even includes a split screen sequence that immediately brings to mind the films of Brian De Palma.  There are also a couple of murder scenes of minor characters that again have been inventively handled and beautifully edited to fit in time with the music being played.

The film starts slow as we watch poor Tom fretting about failing again on the big stage, while he attempts to get dressed in the back of a limo.  Wood is fantastic in these early scenes by giving his character not only a meekness but a vulnerability, that exposes that he is a shell of his former self.  He no longer believes in himself and is only going back on stage to honour his old mentor.  In this early section of the film, we also meet Tom’s wife, Emma, and find out that she is a big Hollywood actress.  Despite her fame and celebrity, it is quite evident that Emma really cares about Tom and him returning to the stage, and she understands how important the night is for Tom and his future.  Although both parties in this marriage are famous, through the performances of Wood and Kerry Bishe, they actually come across as very grounded and caring people, and appear like any normal married couple.  Some people may find the opening ten minutes or so of “Grand Piano” to be a little boring but they are paramount to the success of the film because it lays the groundwork for the audience to know and care for both members of the Selznick family.

As soon as the music kicks in, the thriller aspects of “Grand Piano” immediately begin and the combination of the music and action that is displayed on screen is perfect in its unison.  The music definitely enhances the visuals and helps create the film’s chilling suspense.  While I know nothing about music and less about playing a piano, Elijah Wood was adept in convincing me that he knew what he was doing behind that piano.  Again, I would have no clue if his fingering was correct, but I believed it was and that is all the filmmaker and actor has to do in this instance.  What is also interesting about this part of the film is the way Elijah Wood’s performance subtly changes.  While he still has a fear within him, it is due to an outside influence and not his own demons and as such it appears to give him an inner confidence in a strange way.  He doesn’t come across as weak as he did earlier in the film and it seems that this confidence has given Tom a strength to defy his tormentor.

Although “Grand Piano” is strictly an entertaining thriller, I felt that Eugenio Mira also added in some subtext in regards to celebrity and the way the media promotes it.  There are a number of times during the film that our antagonist mentions that Tom is an “artist of note”, unlike his much more famous wife.  To me I took this as Mira suggesting that today’s society puts too much focus on and rewards people with mediocre talent just because they are a celebrity while people with real talent like Tom are subsequently ignored.  Furthermore during the scene in the limo, Tom is on the phone with a radio station that keeps trying to insinuate that Tom has a problem with his wife because she is now more famous than he.  This couldn’t be further from the truth, but the interviewer keeps plugging away at the same questions in an attempt to get a “controversial” soundbite from Tom, which really does mirror the way entertainment “journalism” is performed these days.

Overall, if you sit back and actually think about the plot of “Grand Piano”, it is absolutely ridiculous.  The whole motivation behind our antagonist’s actions is so unbelievable that it would never happen in the real world, but it just goes to show that if you handle the material at your disposal correctly and respect the story you are telling, you can make anything seem real which is what Eugenio Mira has done here.  As good as Elijah Wood is as Tom Selznick, “Grand Piano” is really Mira’s film.  He directs the hell out of the film to create the best and most entertaining thriller I have seen in ages.  Visually, the film is a tour de force and I welcomed the echoes of both De Palma and Hitchcock in the film.  Probably my favourite thing about the film is the fact that “Grand Piano” is short; the film only runs 78 minutes (I know the film has an “official” running time of 90 minutes, but it has a very long 12 minutes of end credits).  It tells its story and then ends, there is no filler to bog it down.  I loved “Grand Piano” and think it has an extremely high re-watch value, and I recommend it to everyone.

4 Stars.