It doesn't even have a release date yet, but it's cast list looks like this:
Rachel McAdams
Jeff Bridges
Marion Cotillard
James Franco
Paul Rudd
Paul Giamatti
Ricky Gervais
Benicio Del Toro
And it's an adaptation of the novel by Antoine de Saint-Exupéry -- which I have never read, but if people say it's a masterpiece, I believe them. The trailer certainly does have the feel of something very special. I am also very interested by the mixed animating styles of the typical computer animation and the stop-motion. Both the styles look very beautiful.
I know next to nothing about this, but I want to see it already. Watch the trailer below! What do you think? Have you read the book? Are you interested in this adaptation?
Wednesday, April 29, 2015
Tuesday, April 28, 2015
5 Reasons Daredevil's Red Suit Is The Worst
... and 5 reasons why the original one is a million times better, and, in fact, the best.
I adore Marvel's Daredevil. You can click here to read my review explaining exactly why I adore it. There is one thing though, that I didn't mention in the review, that I don't like about the otherwise downright amazing show; the red suit. The new red suit with the armor-fabric, that seems to have been designed specifically to be the complete opposite of everything I loved about the original, makeshift "black pajamas" (as Foggy called them -- he wasn't being endearing... I am).
So here are five reasons why the red one is just plain terrible, and the same five reasons for why the black one is just plain awesome.
Realism:
One of the many great things about Daredevil was its realism. The fight scenes gave the impression of reality better than any superhero showdown I've seen. And the rest of the show is well-rooted in reality as well. And yes, it is the same universe, and in fact the same location as the Avengers' Battle of New York, but it is undeniable that this show keeps it realer than those Avenger guys have (I still love you guys!). And which suit goes better with this style? Which is more at home in a realistic reality? The red jumpsuit made out of nonexistent, super strong material with lot of panels and details and unnecessary complexity, or the one that's just black boots, black cargo pants, and a black muscle shirt?
Color:
This one's easy. The red is not just unnecessary, it's actually less conducive to sneaking around in the shadows than full-black, no matter how muted the red is. Plus, black is more awesome.
Originality:
Even more than realistic, Daredevil is an original show. Unconventional. It's a Netflix series; it's rated Mature; the hero is blind; it makes daring and different storytelling choices. Having Matt make the traditional switch from the simple makeshift to full-on superhero fanboy Comic-Con costume is totally contrary to the rest of the show's tradition-breaking awesomeness. And the innovative simplicity of the black costume and that brilliant eye-hole-less mask is just too amazing to explain.
Functionality:
The red suit, fitted with its strong, flexible armor is much more effective at protecting from excessive injuries. A pro, you think? No, actually -- the sense of danger that come when you know that your hero has no protection besides his fists and his brains is a fantastic suspense-builder, and one of the great, different things about this show. And I felt its loss when Daredevil dons the new suit and then takes a pummeling from Fisk, and barely even seems to feel it. Plus, the dysfunctional quality of the original black is what let my favorite episode, #2, happen in the first place.
The Mask:
Besides being one of the most awesome things I've ever seen costume-wise, the plain black cloth Daredevil wears over his eyes is particularly better than the red leather, horned hood for several reasons. The style of it and the horns are a little on the campy side. There also way too much detail, and the eyes and nose looks odd.
More importantly, the red hood restricts head movement, coming up high on the neck and around the side of the face, and squishing it weirdly (not to mention unattractively). It looks very stiff. This was most disappointing to me not just because it looks rather bad, but because it hides the acting. The black mask hid next to none of Charlie Cox's performance because he didn't use his eyes to emote usually anyway, with them being covered by dark glasses. The black mask leaves the entire bottom half of his face and his neck exposed, and a surprising amount of performance comes out of those areas. The red one leaves just his mouth, so all we can tell is if he's talking or not, and a few very base emotions. And for a show of this caliber, the details of the hero's performance should be more important than making him look like a typical superhero.
I will be missing the old costume very much, and secretly hoping that it will make a comeback. I know it won't happen, but I'll hope anyway. I will also hope that before the second season comes (in 2016!) they'll redo the costume and at least make it a little better -- a bit more simplified and a bit less cumbersome would make a world of difference.
Which of Daredevil's suits do you like best, and why?
I adore Marvel's Daredevil. You can click here to read my review explaining exactly why I adore it. There is one thing though, that I didn't mention in the review, that I don't like about the otherwise downright amazing show; the red suit. The new red suit with the armor-fabric, that seems to have been designed specifically to be the complete opposite of everything I loved about the original, makeshift "black pajamas" (as Foggy called them -- he wasn't being endearing... I am).
So here are five reasons why the red one is just plain terrible, and the same five reasons for why the black one is just plain awesome.
Realism:
One of the many great things about Daredevil was its realism. The fight scenes gave the impression of reality better than any superhero showdown I've seen. And the rest of the show is well-rooted in reality as well. And yes, it is the same universe, and in fact the same location as the Avengers' Battle of New York, but it is undeniable that this show keeps it realer than those Avenger guys have (I still love you guys!). And which suit goes better with this style? Which is more at home in a realistic reality? The red jumpsuit made out of nonexistent, super strong material with lot of panels and details and unnecessary complexity, or the one that's just black boots, black cargo pants, and a black muscle shirt?
Color:
This one's easy. The red is not just unnecessary, it's actually less conducive to sneaking around in the shadows than full-black, no matter how muted the red is. Plus, black is more awesome.
Originality:
Even more than realistic, Daredevil is an original show. Unconventional. It's a Netflix series; it's rated Mature; the hero is blind; it makes daring and different storytelling choices. Having Matt make the traditional switch from the simple makeshift to full-on superhero fanboy Comic-Con costume is totally contrary to the rest of the show's tradition-breaking awesomeness. And the innovative simplicity of the black costume and that brilliant eye-hole-less mask is just too amazing to explain.
Functionality:
The red suit, fitted with its strong, flexible armor is much more effective at protecting from excessive injuries. A pro, you think? No, actually -- the sense of danger that come when you know that your hero has no protection besides his fists and his brains is a fantastic suspense-builder, and one of the great, different things about this show. And I felt its loss when Daredevil dons the new suit and then takes a pummeling from Fisk, and barely even seems to feel it. Plus, the dysfunctional quality of the original black is what let my favorite episode, #2, happen in the first place.
The Mask:
Besides being one of the most awesome things I've ever seen costume-wise, the plain black cloth Daredevil wears over his eyes is particularly better than the red leather, horned hood for several reasons. The style of it and the horns are a little on the campy side. There also way too much detail, and the eyes and nose looks odd.
More importantly, the red hood restricts head movement, coming up high on the neck and around the side of the face, and squishing it weirdly (not to mention unattractively). It looks very stiff. This was most disappointing to me not just because it looks rather bad, but because it hides the acting. The black mask hid next to none of Charlie Cox's performance because he didn't use his eyes to emote usually anyway, with them being covered by dark glasses. The black mask leaves the entire bottom half of his face and his neck exposed, and a surprising amount of performance comes out of those areas. The red one leaves just his mouth, so all we can tell is if he's talking or not, and a few very base emotions. And for a show of this caliber, the details of the hero's performance should be more important than making him look like a typical superhero.
 |
| And thus, I declare this costume the winner! |
I will be missing the old costume very much, and secretly hoping that it will make a comeback. I know it won't happen, but I'll hope anyway. I will also hope that before the second season comes (in 2016!) they'll redo the costume and at least make it a little better -- a bit more simplified and a bit less cumbersome would make a world of difference.
Which of Daredevil's suits do you like best, and why?
Thursday, April 23, 2015
Marvel's Daredevil
This review is spoiler-free, and 100% rave.
Matt Murdock, born and raised in Hell's Kitchen, was blinded in a traffic accident at age nine. Twenty or so years later he's still a blind resident of that neighborhood. He sets up shop as a defense attorney with his law school buddy Foggy Nelson. They plan to do their best to help make their city a better place. But at night, Matt goes the extra mile towards that goal; he dresses up like a modern-day Dread Pirate Roberts and fights crime more literally -- with his fists.
So blindness isn't technically his superpower, but if it weren't for his loss of sight he never would have had superhuman abilities in his other senses that more than compensate for his loss. He listens to heartbeats to know if someone is lying or not; he can smell cologne several floors up from the wearer; if he tastes copper he knows there's an open wound in the room, and, he can even tell what's around him, down to the smallest detail, by just standing there and letting his senses put together a picture of it. No turning necessary. It's all incredible, yet never unbelievable.
And the perfect vehicle for this realistic, lower-powered hero is a Netflix series. They weren't restricted by a typical TV-14 rating boundary, and the TV-MA result is as dark and violent as is appropriate for a blind vigilante fighting crime in the dark corners of New York City -- very, on both counts. (Besides the violence the show would probably get a PG-13.) Sometimes the gore element goes over the top for my personal taste, but for the most part, this show's action -- brutal as it is -- is the element that set it apart, and into the category of "Best TV Shows I've Ever Had The Privilege Of Adoring." The second episode clinched that title, after the jaw-dropping climactic 3 minute battle that was filmed in one continuous shot. We immediately went back and re-watched that scene.
Before this, the one thing DC had on Marvel was its signature darkness, but now, Daredevil's epic, deliciously dark tone makes even the blackest DC offerings look like My Little Pony. Okay, not that much, but it certainly does make Arrow look like a soap opera. Daredevil doesn't skimp on the drama, but the drama is sensible, emotionally relevant and involving, never contrived, and not reused over and over until staleness turns to full-on rot, like many TV dramas like to do.
Really, it feels wrong to compare this show to the likes of Arrow or Agents of SHIELD. As good and fun as those shows can be on their own, they crumble into practically nothing when beside the high quality of Daredevil. While Daredevil can be compared side by side with any Marvel movie, and come away impressively unscathed. There are only two things that give away Daredevil's status as a TV show: the episode format (more like a mini-series in flavor but still), and the camera work -- that is, there are no super expensive shots from cranes or huge CGI shots. Practical effects and practical filming is used, and I wouldn't change that if I could. It has a beautiful, striking, gritty character, with lots of hard lighting, silhouettes, wide shots and immaculately focused close-ups.
Charlie Cox is the portrayer of the black-masked hero, and the subject of those close-ups. Cox's casting was the first thing this show did that piqued my interest, because the only thing I'd seen him in before was Stardust (review). A super fun movie, and his performance in it was charming, but I never considered it to be a role requiring any special talent, so news that he was going to be Daredevil was unexpected. And unexpected is a very good thing.
I was very curious to see if he could pull off a dark and brooding Marvel superhero, and he didn't -- because Matt Murdock is way more than a brooder. Cox goes beyond the typical character mantra I assumed he would take, and did his part to help create a complicated, three-dimensional, film-quality character. He gets ten hours of development instead of two, so things do move along slower, but it doesn't matter; he earns our approval and affection almost immediately, and grows steadily from there. He has all the darkness and intensity that comes with the required "devil inside," but he also has that signature Marvel-hero charm, and a gentle and compassionate side that constantly fights for that perfect balance. He's a fantastically complicated mess of deadly fury, kindness, and idiotic bravery.
Matt's real person, charming and friendly side is most prominent when he's around his friend and business partner Foggy. Foggy is played by Elden Henson, who I recognized as the memorable but mute member of Katniss' propaganda team in Mockingjay. He does even better when he gets to speak. He is the main source of comic relief, which there is more of than you'd think would be welcome considering the dark tone of the show, but it always is welcome, and is never silly or overdone or distracting of the darkness. Foggy and Matt's dynamic together is easy and fun, and watching them work as lawyers is good enough to be its own show, without all the vigilante-type crime fighting.
Then Deborah Ann Woll as Karen Page makes the third. Karen is Nelson and Murdock's first client, then she becomes their assistant, and fits right in with the dynamic of the other two. Foggy and Karen may be unaware of Matt's nightlife, but they get their time in the drama too. Toby Leonard Moore, who became an unexpected favorite, and Rosario Dawson and Vondie Curtis-Hall round out the rest of the supporting cast I think needs a mention, though there's never a trace of bad acting to be found in the entire lot.
With a few exceptions, the episodes seem to split the attention on the hero with attention on the villain, Kingpin, or Wilson Fisk, or just "my employer" to his many servants who are forbidden to speak his name. He is played powerfully, with mesmerizing idiosyncrasy by Vincent D'Onofrio. Most of what is disturbing and overly violent in the show revolves around him. He is one of the more unsettling superhero villains out there, but has a strangely sympathetic aspect to him. Not so much to make you actually sympathize with him, but maybe feel like you could... if he wasn't so incredibly evil and disturbingly creepy.
Daredevil practically reinvents how to tell a secondary superhero story, and the method is simple; tell it like it's a primary superhero story. They deserve nothing less. Netflix gave this series a chance to be something different, and break out of the mold, and that is exactly what it did -- to memorable, mind-blowing, bar-raising results. So much so that they outdid themselves too early, and slid back to end the show at a lower, more traditionally Marvel point; which was still great, but less exceptionally different than earlier episodes. Credit for the overall outstanding creativeness can and should go to every unique aspect, and every person involved, but mainly I think it should go to the writing.
The writing is what guides the rest of the show, and leaves behind the typical campiness of Marvel and the overly serious melodrama of DC for a bold and sensible seriousness that's not afraid to go deep into the dark, and leave behind some scars. The story it gives us is often daring, with a smart, complex, and steadily paced plot line that doesn't actually feel like it's being made up on the spot for a compelling change. It sets that rich, meticulously dark tone, provides a balance of high-quality comedy for the darkness, and serves us with action sequences that are awesomely jaw-dropping, painfully grueling, and immensely satisfying to watch.
Superhero movies and TV shows have been around and popular -- extremely popular -- for a long time now. They're all around us, and it's easy to wonder if we're witnessing the peak of their super-powered high; if they've nearly reached their potential for wonder, exciting action, and real-life moral dilemmas. Daredevil, the first of its kind in a world full of its kind, reminds us that there are many more stories out there like it; that don't fit in a cookie-cutter shape, and are full of involving plots, exciting action, and magnificent heroes, waiting in the unexplored darkness for a chance to save the day.
Matt Murdock, born and raised in Hell's Kitchen, was blinded in a traffic accident at age nine. Twenty or so years later he's still a blind resident of that neighborhood. He sets up shop as a defense attorney with his law school buddy Foggy Nelson. They plan to do their best to help make their city a better place. But at night, Matt goes the extra mile towards that goal; he dresses up like a modern-day Dread Pirate Roberts and fights crime more literally -- with his fists.
 |
| A disability is finally totally convincing as a viable superpower. I kid not. |
So blindness isn't technically his superpower, but if it weren't for his loss of sight he never would have had superhuman abilities in his other senses that more than compensate for his loss. He listens to heartbeats to know if someone is lying or not; he can smell cologne several floors up from the wearer; if he tastes copper he knows there's an open wound in the room, and, he can even tell what's around him, down to the smallest detail, by just standing there and letting his senses put together a picture of it. No turning necessary. It's all incredible, yet never unbelievable.
And the perfect vehicle for this realistic, lower-powered hero is a Netflix series. They weren't restricted by a typical TV-14 rating boundary, and the TV-MA result is as dark and violent as is appropriate for a blind vigilante fighting crime in the dark corners of New York City -- very, on both counts. (Besides the violence the show would probably get a PG-13.) Sometimes the gore element goes over the top for my personal taste, but for the most part, this show's action -- brutal as it is -- is the element that set it apart, and into the category of "Best TV Shows I've Ever Had The Privilege Of Adoring." The second episode clinched that title, after the jaw-dropping climactic 3 minute battle that was filmed in one continuous shot. We immediately went back and re-watched that scene.
 |
| And then we watched it again. Then we speculated on how it was done. (Here's a pretty interesting article on the scene that confirms our theories, and makes me even more impressed, if that's possible.) |
Before this, the one thing DC had on Marvel was its signature darkness, but now, Daredevil's epic, deliciously dark tone makes even the blackest DC offerings look like My Little Pony. Okay, not that much, but it certainly does make Arrow look like a soap opera. Daredevil doesn't skimp on the drama, but the drama is sensible, emotionally relevant and involving, never contrived, and not reused over and over until staleness turns to full-on rot, like many TV dramas like to do.
Really, it feels wrong to compare this show to the likes of Arrow or Agents of SHIELD. As good and fun as those shows can be on their own, they crumble into practically nothing when beside the high quality of Daredevil. While Daredevil can be compared side by side with any Marvel movie, and come away impressively unscathed. There are only two things that give away Daredevil's status as a TV show: the episode format (more like a mini-series in flavor but still), and the camera work -- that is, there are no super expensive shots from cranes or huge CGI shots. Practical effects and practical filming is used, and I wouldn't change that if I could. It has a beautiful, striking, gritty character, with lots of hard lighting, silhouettes, wide shots and immaculately focused close-ups.
 |
| In a word; contrast. Beautiful, beautiful, gritty contrast. |
Charlie Cox is the portrayer of the black-masked hero, and the subject of those close-ups. Cox's casting was the first thing this show did that piqued my interest, because the only thing I'd seen him in before was Stardust (review). A super fun movie, and his performance in it was charming, but I never considered it to be a role requiring any special talent, so news that he was going to be Daredevil was unexpected. And unexpected is a very good thing.
I was very curious to see if he could pull off a dark and brooding Marvel superhero, and he didn't -- because Matt Murdock is way more than a brooder. Cox goes beyond the typical character mantra I assumed he would take, and did his part to help create a complicated, three-dimensional, film-quality character. He gets ten hours of development instead of two, so things do move along slower, but it doesn't matter; he earns our approval and affection almost immediately, and grows steadily from there. He has all the darkness and intensity that comes with the required "devil inside," but he also has that signature Marvel-hero charm, and a gentle and compassionate side that constantly fights for that perfect balance. He's a fantastically complicated mess of deadly fury, kindness, and idiotic bravery.
 |
| The Devil of Hell's Kitchen. He's more a "still waters really do run deep" type than a "I'm supposed to be brooding but really I'm concentrating my handsomeness" type, and is and the newest addition to my favorite superheroes. With new top favorite superhero costume. |
Matt's real person, charming and friendly side is most prominent when he's around his friend and business partner Foggy. Foggy is played by Elden Henson, who I recognized as the memorable but mute member of Katniss' propaganda team in Mockingjay. He does even better when he gets to speak. He is the main source of comic relief, which there is more of than you'd think would be welcome considering the dark tone of the show, but it always is welcome, and is never silly or overdone or distracting of the darkness. Foggy and Matt's dynamic together is easy and fun, and watching them work as lawyers is good enough to be its own show, without all the vigilante-type crime fighting.
Then Deborah Ann Woll as Karen Page makes the third. Karen is Nelson and Murdock's first client, then she becomes their assistant, and fits right in with the dynamic of the other two. Foggy and Karen may be unaware of Matt's nightlife, but they get their time in the drama too. Toby Leonard Moore, who became an unexpected favorite, and Rosario Dawson and Vondie Curtis-Hall round out the rest of the supporting cast I think needs a mention, though there's never a trace of bad acting to be found in the entire lot.
 |
| Matt and Foggy doing lawyer stuffs. |
With a few exceptions, the episodes seem to split the attention on the hero with attention on the villain, Kingpin, or Wilson Fisk, or just "my employer" to his many servants who are forbidden to speak his name. He is played powerfully, with mesmerizing idiosyncrasy by Vincent D'Onofrio. Most of what is disturbing and overly violent in the show revolves around him. He is one of the more unsettling superhero villains out there, but has a strangely sympathetic aspect to him. Not so much to make you actually sympathize with him, but maybe feel like you could... if he wasn't so incredibly evil and disturbingly creepy.
 |
| There's never a trace of bad acting, as I said, but this guy stands outs even more. |
Daredevil practically reinvents how to tell a secondary superhero story, and the method is simple; tell it like it's a primary superhero story. They deserve nothing less. Netflix gave this series a chance to be something different, and break out of the mold, and that is exactly what it did -- to memorable, mind-blowing, bar-raising results. So much so that they outdid themselves too early, and slid back to end the show at a lower, more traditionally Marvel point; which was still great, but less exceptionally different than earlier episodes. Credit for the overall outstanding creativeness can and should go to every unique aspect, and every person involved, but mainly I think it should go to the writing.
The writing is what guides the rest of the show, and leaves behind the typical campiness of Marvel and the overly serious melodrama of DC for a bold and sensible seriousness that's not afraid to go deep into the dark, and leave behind some scars. The story it gives us is often daring, with a smart, complex, and steadily paced plot line that doesn't actually feel like it's being made up on the spot for a compelling change. It sets that rich, meticulously dark tone, provides a balance of high-quality comedy for the darkness, and serves us with action sequences that are awesomely jaw-dropping, painfully grueling, and immensely satisfying to watch.
 |
| Daredevil is changing things. In the Marvel Universe, and in ours. |
Superhero movies and TV shows have been around and popular -- extremely popular -- for a long time now. They're all around us, and it's easy to wonder if we're witnessing the peak of their super-powered high; if they've nearly reached their potential for wonder, exciting action, and real-life moral dilemmas. Daredevil, the first of its kind in a world full of its kind, reminds us that there are many more stories out there like it; that don't fit in a cookie-cutter shape, and are full of involving plots, exciting action, and magnificent heroes, waiting in the unexplored darkness for a chance to save the day.
Monday, April 20, 2015
New Trailer - Jurassic World
Chances of this movie not being awesome? Well, let's see: Chris Pratt... dinosaurs... more dinosaurs... modern action and special effects... yep, I'd say the chance of no awesomeness is around 0%.
Check out the new Jurassic World trailer, and then tell me: looking forward to this one? How much?
Check out the new Jurassic World trailer, and then tell me: looking forward to this one? How much?
Friday, April 17, 2015
New Trailer - Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
The first real trailer for Zack Snyder's Batman v Superman movie leaked today, so they went ahead and released it, which it turns out is a fitting way for the film to be introduced to us audience, if anything can be assumed about the film from this trailer:
My assumption? I'm not gonna like it. (That may be an understatement.) Before now, I've held the opinion that it will undoubtedly be a less than good superhero movie, but that it would at least be amusing to watch -- and maybe make fun of. But this trailer killed that idea for me with one thing: Superman is letting people think he is and/or treat him like he's a god!?! What is this?!? Superman is supposed to stand everything that is right and good, and he's going around all stoic-like as people kneel to him? Good. Grief. Forget the inevitable plot holes; forget the millions of innocents that will inevitably die in the chaotic wake of these two heroes; forget the terrible drama and the failed joke attempts; forget the meaningless emptiness that Snyder has perfected and will leave us with once the relentless action ceases; this movie's downfall is right there. I don't need to see the movie anymore -- I already detest it.
On the brighter side, I'm very much over caring one way or another about Ben Affleck's takeover of Batman. If anything, I'm on the positive side about it, but that might just be in comparison with the rest of the impression this trailer left on me. He may not be as cool as Christian Bale, and his costume may be sillier, (that chunky one with the lighted eyes...) but he looks pretty legit, and certainly does have the brood down pat.
I thought there was no way they could have added more to the annoying terribleness that was Man of Steel, but with the first real look at this... this Dawn of Justice, I have to say I've changed my mind.
What are your thoughts on this new trailer? Does it help or hinder your previous opinions of the movie?
My assumption? I'm not gonna like it. (That may be an understatement.) Before now, I've held the opinion that it will undoubtedly be a less than good superhero movie, but that it would at least be amusing to watch -- and maybe make fun of. But this trailer killed that idea for me with one thing: Superman is letting people think he is and/or treat him like he's a god!?! What is this?!? Superman is supposed to stand everything that is right and good, and he's going around all stoic-like as people kneel to him? Good. Grief. Forget the inevitable plot holes; forget the millions of innocents that will inevitably die in the chaotic wake of these two heroes; forget the terrible drama and the failed joke attempts; forget the meaningless emptiness that Snyder has perfected and will leave us with once the relentless action ceases; this movie's downfall is right there. I don't need to see the movie anymore -- I already detest it.
On the brighter side, I'm very much over caring one way or another about Ben Affleck's takeover of Batman. If anything, I'm on the positive side about it, but that might just be in comparison with the rest of the impression this trailer left on me. He may not be as cool as Christian Bale, and his costume may be sillier, (that chunky one with the lighted eyes...) but he looks pretty legit, and certainly does have the brood down pat.
I thought there was no way they could have added more to the annoying terribleness that was Man of Steel, but with the first real look at this... this Dawn of Justice, I have to say I've changed my mind.
What are your thoughts on this new trailer? Does it help or hinder your previous opinions of the movie?
Thursday, April 16, 2015
New Trailer - Star Wars: The Force Awakens Teaser #2
More teasing awesomeness from J.J. Abrams and the Star Wars episode 7 team. Including our first look at Han and Chewie! Also featuring some of the beautiful, classic score, lots of action, downright amazing scenery at the beginning, (I mean, wow!) and a very familiar sounding voice-over...
I'm not a big fan of winter, but this is gonna help so much... is it Christmas yet?
What do you think of the new teaser?
I'm not a big fan of winter, but this is gonna help so much... is it Christmas yet?
What do you think of the new teaser?
Friday, April 10, 2015
The Guest
This review is spoiler-free.
This comedy-thriller wins the award for biggest and craziest "what the heck did I just watch?" film ever.
I'll skip the plot summary. It's not necessary to know anyway, because the question of whether or not you'd like it rides on the style and tone of the film, not what actually happens in it. So I'll start here: it stars Dan Stevens, and he is a long way away from Downton Abbey and Sense and Sensibility. He is impressively different and obviously talented beyond the requirements of a period drama here; his performance is immaculate, detailed and subtle, and hilarious and strange, and the movie showcases his abilities brilliantly. The rest of the cast I have never seen before, but they all (especially Maika Monroe and Brendan Meyer) play perfectly to the film's tone.
And as you may have guessed from the genre of comedy thriller, the film's tone is pretty different. It's a dark comedy but in a different way from most dark comedies -- the comedy is very subtle, and more in the way the story is presented, than just cracking dark jokes. I've never seen a film do comedy quite like this one before and it took me a while to realize that these things I laughed at, while being simultaneously confused and slightly disturbed really were meant to be as funny as I thought they were. And everything was played that way, even the usage of music (1980's techno music, to be specific) and editing became the equivalent of a fantastic laugh line in a typical comedy.
The plot itself also has an involving mystery element to it, that unfolds slowly but surely right to the very end. And also as a thriller there is plenty of action; very neat, stylish, almost sophisticated and not overly gross or gory, but still extremely violent, over-the-top kind of action. The film is rated R and there's no shying away from the striking red blossoms of blood spray, loud punches and cracking bones. It matches the rest of the movie to perfection. As for the rest of the R content, there's smoking, and a little swearing, and one short scene we fast-forwarded through.
Now all I want to do is make a list of all the most awesome and weirdly hilarious bits, but I promised to keep it ambiguous with no spoilers. So I guess all that's left to say is that it's a well-made movie -- besides being a great breakout vehicle for the worthy Dan Stevens -- it has the conflicting feel of tasteful and expensive junk food; so slick and unassumingly psychotic, cut perfectly and styled perfectly, and so, so strange. I cannot even describe how strange and totally odd and wacko this movie is. My most common thought while watching was "WHAT?" accompanied with a hearty laugh. I enjoyed almost every second of it.
On paper this is not at all my kind of movie, but somewhere in between Dan Stevens' cool, unsettling, charming turn, the tongue-in-cheek humor, and the perfect, tone-fitting and satisfying end, I was won over by The Guest.
This comedy-thriller wins the award for biggest and craziest "what the heck did I just watch?" film ever.
I'll skip the plot summary. It's not necessary to know anyway, because the question of whether or not you'd like it rides on the style and tone of the film, not what actually happens in it. So I'll start here: it stars Dan Stevens, and he is a long way away from Downton Abbey and Sense and Sensibility. He is impressively different and obviously talented beyond the requirements of a period drama here; his performance is immaculate, detailed and subtle, and hilarious and strange, and the movie showcases his abilities brilliantly. The rest of the cast I have never seen before, but they all (especially Maika Monroe and Brendan Meyer) play perfectly to the film's tone.
 |
| American-ified and action-star-ified, but still as charming as ever. |
And as you may have guessed from the genre of comedy thriller, the film's tone is pretty different. It's a dark comedy but in a different way from most dark comedies -- the comedy is very subtle, and more in the way the story is presented, than just cracking dark jokes. I've never seen a film do comedy quite like this one before and it took me a while to realize that these things I laughed at, while being simultaneously confused and slightly disturbed really were meant to be as funny as I thought they were. And everything was played that way, even the usage of music (1980's techno music, to be specific) and editing became the equivalent of a fantastic laugh line in a typical comedy.
The plot itself also has an involving mystery element to it, that unfolds slowly but surely right to the very end. And also as a thriller there is plenty of action; very neat, stylish, almost sophisticated and not overly gross or gory, but still extremely violent, over-the-top kind of action. The film is rated R and there's no shying away from the striking red blossoms of blood spray, loud punches and cracking bones. It matches the rest of the movie to perfection. As for the rest of the R content, there's smoking, and a little swearing, and one short scene we fast-forwarded through.
 |
| This photo embodies the film's style. Notice, if you will, the sharply contrasting colors... and the handgun. |
Now all I want to do is make a list of all the most awesome and weirdly hilarious bits, but I promised to keep it ambiguous with no spoilers. So I guess all that's left to say is that it's a well-made movie -- besides being a great breakout vehicle for the worthy Dan Stevens -- it has the conflicting feel of tasteful and expensive junk food; so slick and unassumingly psychotic, cut perfectly and styled perfectly, and so, so strange. I cannot even describe how strange and totally odd and wacko this movie is. My most common thought while watching was "WHAT?" accompanied with a hearty laugh. I enjoyed almost every second of it.
On paper this is not at all my kind of movie, but somewhere in between Dan Stevens' cool, unsettling, charming turn, the tongue-in-cheek humor, and the perfect, tone-fitting and satisfying end, I was won over by The Guest.
Tuesday, April 7, 2015
Night at the Museum: Secret of the Tomb
Mild Spoilers.
Night at the Museum is back for a third and what seems to be final time for adventures with history come-to-life.
The basic gist of the plot is that the magical tablet that brings museum exhibits to life at night is sick, so the gang travels to The British Museum in search of answers. It's little more than an excuse to get out of the house and go over to London for a change, but who could ever mind that? If there's too much plot, it would take away from all the horsing around, which is the appeal of this franchise anyway.
"The gang" consist of Larry (Ben Stiller) and his son Nick (Skyler Gisondo), Egyptian king Ahkmenrah (Rami Malek), Teddy Roosevelt (Robin Wiliams), the miniature cowboy and Roman solider Jedediah and Octavius (Owen Wilson and Steve Coogan), a monkey, Attila the Hun, Sacajawea, and... a caveman (Ben Stiller... again). It's a big group that could have done with less, but it turns out the large and familiar group is one of the charms of the movie, and to make up for the huge number of favorites who had to be included, only two significant characters hailing from The British Museum are added -- the night guard (Rebel Wilson), and Sir Lancelot (Dan Stevens). Plus Dick Van Dyke returns for a scene, and Ben Kingsley graces us with his presence; as does Ricky Gervais, just, with less grace.
I admit, the main reason I ever got around to seeing this third installment was because of Dan Stevens being Lancelot, and he is probably what I enjoyed most (though not by too much) kinda because he was more interesting than just a gallant knight of the Round Table, and, most importantly, because it was so strange and hilarious to see him doing silly American-style slapstick humor.
All the characters are fun and unique though, and watching them all interact and have fun together was as amusing as it was pointless. And in spite of the large number of them they all had plenty to do. Still the normal guy who holds everything together is Larry, and I liked that they added his son back into the story. Larry is having difficulty with his graduating son who wants to skip college to pursue his dreams, and their relationship added some very welcome real-life depth to all the historical fantasy fun.
Most of the jokes were successfully funny, but they were also mostly played for too long. Killed jokes are funny at the beginning just like any other joke, but they're always dead in the end, no matter how alive they were at first. So you laugh, and then you stop, and then you feel sorry for that poor little joke that didn't deserve such a short life. And then you move on to the next one. One gag that could have gone on as long as it liked though, was Hugh Jackman and Alice Eve's cameos -- hands down best part of the movie. And I actually enjoyed watching Ben Stiller interact with his caveman-self more than I thought I would.
So that's basically it -- a decent, amusing flick where all our favorite fun Night characters going on an adventure overseas to save the world (sorta -- not really) following a simple plot that allowed for maximum fun and silliness. It all wound up very evenly; a quarter was just pure entertaining fun; a quarter was funny gags; another was made up of jokes and fun things that didn't turn out quite right; and the last quarter was surprisingly endearing -- the deeper, sweeter stuff that gave it all a bit meaning.
The Night at the Museum franchise has never been anything more that what it still is with this latest installment -- entertaining, light enjoyment. Not the best adventure you can have for less than $20, but you could do a lot worse hanging out in a non-magical museum at night!
Night at the Museum is back for a third and what seems to be final time for adventures with history come-to-life.
The basic gist of the plot is that the magical tablet that brings museum exhibits to life at night is sick, so the gang travels to The British Museum in search of answers. It's little more than an excuse to get out of the house and go over to London for a change, but who could ever mind that? If there's too much plot, it would take away from all the horsing around, which is the appeal of this franchise anyway.
 |
| The gang. |
"The gang" consist of Larry (Ben Stiller) and his son Nick (Skyler Gisondo), Egyptian king Ahkmenrah (Rami Malek), Teddy Roosevelt (Robin Wiliams), the miniature cowboy and Roman solider Jedediah and Octavius (Owen Wilson and Steve Coogan), a monkey, Attila the Hun, Sacajawea, and... a caveman (Ben Stiller... again). It's a big group that could have done with less, but it turns out the large and familiar group is one of the charms of the movie, and to make up for the huge number of favorites who had to be included, only two significant characters hailing from The British Museum are added -- the night guard (Rebel Wilson), and Sir Lancelot (Dan Stevens). Plus Dick Van Dyke returns for a scene, and Ben Kingsley graces us with his presence; as does Ricky Gervais, just, with less grace.
I admit, the main reason I ever got around to seeing this third installment was because of Dan Stevens being Lancelot, and he is probably what I enjoyed most (though not by too much) kinda because he was more interesting than just a gallant knight of the Round Table, and, most importantly, because it was so strange and hilarious to see him doing silly American-style slapstick humor.
 |
| ...but still playing an old-fashioned British character. Very surreal. Like the blueness of his eyes... |
All the characters are fun and unique though, and watching them all interact and have fun together was as amusing as it was pointless. And in spite of the large number of them they all had plenty to do. Still the normal guy who holds everything together is Larry, and I liked that they added his son back into the story. Larry is having difficulty with his graduating son who wants to skip college to pursue his dreams, and their relationship added some very welcome real-life depth to all the historical fantasy fun.
Most of the jokes were successfully funny, but they were also mostly played for too long. Killed jokes are funny at the beginning just like any other joke, but they're always dead in the end, no matter how alive they were at first. So you laugh, and then you stop, and then you feel sorry for that poor little joke that didn't deserve such a short life. And then you move on to the next one. One gag that could have gone on as long as it liked though, was Hugh Jackman and Alice Eve's cameos -- hands down best part of the movie. And I actually enjoyed watching Ben Stiller interact with his caveman-self more than I thought I would.
 |
| Fun times, fun times... |
So that's basically it -- a decent, amusing flick where all our favorite fun Night characters going on an adventure overseas to save the world (sorta -- not really) following a simple plot that allowed for maximum fun and silliness. It all wound up very evenly; a quarter was just pure entertaining fun; a quarter was funny gags; another was made up of jokes and fun things that didn't turn out quite right; and the last quarter was surprisingly endearing -- the deeper, sweeter stuff that gave it all a bit meaning.
The Night at the Museum franchise has never been anything more that what it still is with this latest installment -- entertaining, light enjoyment. Not the best adventure you can have for less than $20, but you could do a lot worse hanging out in a non-magical museum at night!
Friday, April 3, 2015
Annie
This is a Spoiler-free review.
Annie might not have been one of the best musicals ever originally, but what did it ever do to deserve this?
I'll go ahead and mention the two things in this movie I can speak positively about, and then get on to the really good stuff: First, Quvenzhané Wallis' Annie. She is what saved this movie from getting a record-low score from me. And secondly, I laughed at a few things. Some that I was supposed to, and some that maybe I wasn't.
With listing the cast, I feel like it shouldn't be about "who did good with what" and "who did bad with what," but more of a "who do I feel most sorry for" kind of thing. In that case, first place goes to Rose Byrne, because I've actually witnessed her do so much better. (In this case I also feel sorry for myself, because I was actually looking forward to her Grace.) Then, Jamie Foxx as Will Stacks (for Annie fans that would be Daddy Warbucks), but only a little bit. Nothing at all for Cameron Diaz and her Miss Hannigan, even though I usually enjoy her in movies; she just didn't do anything here she hasn't done before. For Quvenzhané Wallis I'm not sure. Her performance was charming, and the best of few redeeming qualities in this movie -- she was cute and endearing when the script didn't get in the way -- but still going from a Oscar nomination from your first movie, to this, is a big step down, even for an eleven-year-old.
Songs were redone, given a modern beat, and missing a few verses at best. I would say that at worst they were missing altogether, but now I'm thinking that at least the missing ones weren't butchered into a bunch of fluffy pop nothingness. Really, the worst of it was when the songs were almost unrecognizable for being changed so much, like my personal favorite, "Easy Street." I'm going to hold a funeral for that one later this week. And when the plot needed a song (and I use the word "needed" very loosely) whole new songs were made up to fit the bill. Those, while still terrible in the same way the rest of the songs were, at least didn't offend my sentimentality.
And I haven't even mentioned the singing yet! Auto-tuned into oblivion, but for some reason everyone sounded breathy. The speaking lines were clearer every time, immediately turned to wheezing the moment the peppy beat got going. There was as exception to this amazing phenomenon -- in no one. Okay, Jamie Foxx didn't get it as bad as others, and the girl playing Annie's smallest friend sounded good. She got to sing two short lines.
Then the plot was played with by the same talented artist (read: gleefully evil kid with a magnifying glass and an ant hill) who rewrote the music. I won't even get into it, because it could last for weeks. Let's just say that for the first quarter, things were changed to fit into the 21st century, and the rest was changed to fit the "Just For The Heck Of It" century. After that, there apparently was still some time to fill to meet the required just-under-two-hours-because-it's-a-musical-and-musicals-need-extra-time quota. About 20 minutes in fact -- or at least that's how long the filler of many montages of Annie having tons of fun with her new life as a rich kid felt.
If you feel the need to explain in your movie what a "hard-knock life" is, you probably shouldn't be titling your movie "Annie." But here we are anyway -- "Annie" for the new generation, complete with upbeat, revamped, auto-tuned songs, a modernly "relevant" political statement, and loads and loads of noise and color -- it has everything except the ingredients for a satisfying, fun, heartwarming musical.
Annie might not have been one of the best musicals ever originally, but what did it ever do to deserve this?
I'll go ahead and mention the two things in this movie I can speak positively about, and then get on to the really good stuff: First, Quvenzhané Wallis' Annie. She is what saved this movie from getting a record-low score from me. And secondly, I laughed at a few things. Some that I was supposed to, and some that maybe I wasn't.
 |
| Favorite character? Sandy. |
With listing the cast, I feel like it shouldn't be about "who did good with what" and "who did bad with what," but more of a "who do I feel most sorry for" kind of thing. In that case, first place goes to Rose Byrne, because I've actually witnessed her do so much better. (In this case I also feel sorry for myself, because I was actually looking forward to her Grace.) Then, Jamie Foxx as Will Stacks (for Annie fans that would be Daddy Warbucks), but only a little bit. Nothing at all for Cameron Diaz and her Miss Hannigan, even though I usually enjoy her in movies; she just didn't do anything here she hasn't done before. For Quvenzhané Wallis I'm not sure. Her performance was charming, and the best of few redeeming qualities in this movie -- she was cute and endearing when the script didn't get in the way -- but still going from a Oscar nomination from your first movie, to this, is a big step down, even for an eleven-year-old.
 |
| Not that it was her fault... |
Songs were redone, given a modern beat, and missing a few verses at best. I would say that at worst they were missing altogether, but now I'm thinking that at least the missing ones weren't butchered into a bunch of fluffy pop nothingness. Really, the worst of it was when the songs were almost unrecognizable for being changed so much, like my personal favorite, "Easy Street." I'm going to hold a funeral for that one later this week. And when the plot needed a song (and I use the word "needed" very loosely) whole new songs were made up to fit the bill. Those, while still terrible in the same way the rest of the songs were, at least didn't offend my sentimentality.
And I haven't even mentioned the singing yet! Auto-tuned into oblivion, but for some reason everyone sounded breathy. The speaking lines were clearer every time, immediately turned to wheezing the moment the peppy beat got going. There was as exception to this amazing phenomenon -- in no one. Okay, Jamie Foxx didn't get it as bad as others, and the girl playing Annie's smallest friend sounded good. She got to sing two short lines.
 |
| Yay! Dancing! And singing! |
Then the plot was played with by the same talented artist (read: gleefully evil kid with a magnifying glass and an ant hill) who rewrote the music. I won't even get into it, because it could last for weeks. Let's just say that for the first quarter, things were changed to fit into the 21st century, and the rest was changed to fit the "Just For The Heck Of It" century. After that, there apparently was still some time to fill to meet the required just-under-two-hours-because-it's-a-musical-and-musicals-need-extra-time quota. About 20 minutes in fact -- or at least that's how long the filler of many montages of Annie having tons of fun with her new life as a rich kid felt.
If you feel the need to explain in your movie what a "hard-knock life" is, you probably shouldn't be titling your movie "Annie." But here we are anyway -- "Annie" for the new generation, complete with upbeat, revamped, auto-tuned songs, a modernly "relevant" political statement, and loads and loads of noise and color -- it has everything except the ingredients for a satisfying, fun, heartwarming musical.
Wednesday, April 1, 2015
Upcoming Movie Roundup - April
In March all went according to plan, I saw my two movies, Cinderella and Insurgent (click to read my reviews) and while Cinderella was significantly the more magical, neither disappointed. We finally got a good month of film releases! But now, all the REALLY good movies have to wait for summer, (which, yes, starts in May for movies, because, Avengers) so it appears we are back to mediocre for poor little old April. This time my basic plan is: wait for May.
Is your plan the same as mine, or do you have April movie plans? Tell me in the comments!
Furious 7
April 3rd; PG-13
I saw number 6 of this franchise (because it was free and it had Luke Evans in it) with next to no background knowledge to help me and still enjoyed it's stylish over-the-top action-packed-ness very much. I have no current plans to see the whole franchise, but what with my brothers and I liking the fun ridiculousness of over-the-top action it seems very likely that I'll see this latest one eventually. Apparently it's the best yet, and a sweet farewell to Paul Walker.
The Longest Ride
April 10th; PG-13
Typically I'm not interested in any movie attached to Nicholas Sparks, but there always seems to be some small exception. In this case my mom read the book and claims it's his best ever. Her dream cast was Jennifer Lawrence and Chris Pine (or was it Liam Hemsworth?) and instead they got some (cheaper, naturally) look-alikes. The trailer doesn't do anything good for it's chances, but I think the biggest deciding factor is if my mom's interested enough to get us to watch it, not me.
Broken Horses
April 10th; R
I always want to watch anything that has Anton Yelchin in it, (latest example) and so far it's never caused me disappointment. But this is certainly the kind of movie I wouldn't even include on this list if it weren't for his name being in the cast list. It looks dark, tense, violent and creepy. But I will be keeping my eye on it.
The Age of Adaline
April 24; PG-13
As if the Nicholas Sparks release wasn't enough -- there's also this sci-fi-ish romantic drama about a woman who never ages after an accident in the 30's. This one has me interested more though, for the style, the eras she will live through, and the intrigue of wanting to know how it all ends. Plus the trailer just makes it look like a more elegant, quality film. But I'm keeping my interest on hold until I see what the critics think. I doubt I'll consider it worth my time if it's just a bunch of drama that never goes anywhere except through eighty years.
Avengers: Age of Ultron
May 1st; PG-13
Yes, this one comes out in May, and I said I was waiting until May, but I just can't. Anyway, ideally, I'll see this movie before I actually post my May edition of this post series, so I thought I'd say my peace now, and then I can say some more later if I need to. Really, the only thing to say is that if I had to choose only one movie to see this whole year, I would choose this one without hesitation (then I would take it back, and think about picking Star Wars 7 instead, but eventually end up with this one after all because I just love the Avengers so much). It's going to be huge, and I'm very, very excited that it's only one month away!
Is your plan the same as mine, or do you have April movie plans? Tell me in the comments!
Furious 7
April 3rd; PG-13
I saw number 6 of this franchise (because it was free and it had Luke Evans in it) with next to no background knowledge to help me and still enjoyed it's stylish over-the-top action-packed-ness very much. I have no current plans to see the whole franchise, but what with my brothers and I liking the fun ridiculousness of over-the-top action it seems very likely that I'll see this latest one eventually. Apparently it's the best yet, and a sweet farewell to Paul Walker.
The Longest Ride
April 10th; PG-13
Typically I'm not interested in any movie attached to Nicholas Sparks, but there always seems to be some small exception. In this case my mom read the book and claims it's his best ever. Her dream cast was Jennifer Lawrence and Chris Pine (or was it Liam Hemsworth?) and instead they got some (cheaper, naturally) look-alikes. The trailer doesn't do anything good for it's chances, but I think the biggest deciding factor is if my mom's interested enough to get us to watch it, not me.
Broken Horses
April 10th; R
I always want to watch anything that has Anton Yelchin in it, (latest example) and so far it's never caused me disappointment. But this is certainly the kind of movie I wouldn't even include on this list if it weren't for his name being in the cast list. It looks dark, tense, violent and creepy. But I will be keeping my eye on it.
The Age of Adaline
April 24; PG-13
As if the Nicholas Sparks release wasn't enough -- there's also this sci-fi-ish romantic drama about a woman who never ages after an accident in the 30's. This one has me interested more though, for the style, the eras she will live through, and the intrigue of wanting to know how it all ends. Plus the trailer just makes it look like a more elegant, quality film. But I'm keeping my interest on hold until I see what the critics think. I doubt I'll consider it worth my time if it's just a bunch of drama that never goes anywhere except through eighty years.
Avengers: Age of Ultron
May 1st; PG-13
Yes, this one comes out in May, and I said I was waiting until May, but I just can't. Anyway, ideally, I'll see this movie before I actually post my May edition of this post series, so I thought I'd say my peace now, and then I can say some more later if I need to. Really, the only thing to say is that if I had to choose only one movie to see this whole year, I would choose this one without hesitation (then I would take it back, and think about picking Star Wars 7 instead, but eventually end up with this one after all because I just love the Avengers so much). It's going to be huge, and I'm very, very excited that it's only one month away!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)