Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets

Spoilers!

I wish this was a foreign language film.

More on that in a second. When this movie was coming out, I not-so-secretly hoped it would be a surprise hit, and when it wasn't, I begrudgingly skipped it in theaters. Fast forward four months -- it only needed to be worth the $5 rental on Amazon, and as a visually spectacular space adventure it was every bit as great as it needed to be. It was fun. It was different. It was colorful, and inventive, and oh-so-very scifi. And it was dragged down by its distractingly bad script -- competing with those spectacular visuals, but in a tragic way.

Based on a French comic book series; adapted and directed by Luc Besson in an operatic The Fifth Element tone + Avatar-level visuals. 

So while I was casually bemoaning the jarring disconnect between Valerian's script and Valerian's literally-everything-else, it occurred to me that the movie could have been a well-rounded and spectacular experience if only I didn't understand what the characters were saying -- like in Gåten Ragnarok, a Norwegian adventure flick I watched once sans subtitles. Done on a whim, it turned out to be a fascinating experiment, to see what I assume is a fairly basic adventure plot stripped of its clarity. The extra layer of ambiguity created the appearance of depth. I assume I missed a lot, but I understood it more than I expected I would, on a subtle, instinctual level.

If Valerian had been in French, and if I had watched it without the subtitles, the characters would have appeared to be deeper (at the cost of understanding what little development they do have) and the plot wouldn't have been handed out on a silver platter, but it still would have been a perfectly serviceable flick. The biggest thing I figure I wouldn't have understood is that Valerian is waiting the whole movie for Laureline to answer his marriage proposal. And that would still work since their romantic will-they-won't-they tension is obvious. Even the strangest of plot events are understandable without the exposition applied to them.

Supporting cast includes Ethan Hawke (as you can see) Clive Owen, and Rihanna. Rihanna is the only memorable one.

Like, the parallel dimension that is only visible through special goggles, or Valerian needing to find a shape-shifting alien, or Laureline sticking her head in a magical jellyfish to psychically divine Valerian's location. Even the Pearl Princess' spirit being inside Valerian comes across visually eventually. They are presented on screen in a very comprehensible way, and the dialogue explaining them only gives a name to the scifi craziness. The script is almost exclusively used for explaining things -- mostly way before an explanation is wanted. Though occasionally subtle wit plays off the dialogue, like when Laureline is advised to change out of her bikini for the mission, and shows up wearing a completely different bikini. Details like that would have been lost. They're charming moments, but in the vast minority overall.

There were whole scenes dedicated to redundant exposition, some featuring characters we never get to know at all. The ship's computer lady's sole function was to explain things to the audience. We see the Pearl Princess die the film's second prologue, and then the Pearl Emperor retells the story again later. At that point, I'm overfed with the info and getting bored. The movie needs to show it all happen because it's a hyper visual movie, and never realizes that it's telling everything too, taking up valuable dialogue time with nothingness, and devaluing the story. The veil of ambiguity that a language barrier would provide would at that point actually enhance the experience. Instead of being told what's going on and then watching it play out, it'd be a mystery; in invitation to be engaged in the story.

Pretty butterfly...

In many ways it would've helped with Valerian and Laureline's characters too. Both are underdeveloped, but also possess unique details about them that come through visually. That is to say, they would be so much more interesting if they stopped opening their mouths and speaking such dry, lifeless and/or useless words. I love how they use teamwork so casually, doing things in sync or handing off objects without having to look. I don't care for Cara Delevingne, but man, if she isn't pretty good in this. Weirdly, Laureline is a better character than Valerian, even though he gets the movie's solid-if-simple theme as a character arc. I'm giving Dane DeHaan the benefit of doubt and assuming he underplayed on purpose. The borderline deadpan thing works for him though, and I think he only succeeds in losing interest to his co-star because Valerian spends a certain amount of time invisible, or shape-shifted, or just not doing anything. The camera is a big fan of Laureline's, and she gets more to do.

Both, also, are unconventional, and I love seeing unconventional characters played by unexpected (and arguably miscast) actors leading films like this. It doesn't play by the regular action blockbuster rules, and that is always refreshing. It also totally embraces the cliches and tropes of action and scifi flicks of ye olden days. That timer stops at 1 second left with such aplomb you almost don't even notice the cliche. And the "love conquers all" theme is so cheesy, yet so unapologetic. And seriously, that opening to David Bowie's Space Oddity -- there are few quicker routes into the heart of a fan of science fiction than a sequence like that.

*Slowly realizes that I really really like this movie*

If you were to remake the movie shot-for-shot, and only change the spoken words, it could have been worlds better. Planets better. Like HUNDREDS of planets better. Probably not thousands. Let's not blow things out of proportion here. I mean honestly, even with the drag-chute of a script, the movie is not bad, and the bad script adds to the ambiance in its own way. The characters do get arcs, the plot does makes sense (which is a pretty impressive feat considering how wacky this world is), and everything that is done visually truly is spectacular. It's amazingly creative, and does the adventure thing wonderfully well, reminding me of the old, classic style of scifi adventures. It takes a gazillion pointless rabbit trails, but then the rabbit trails wind up being the best parts. The lack of convention is part of the charm.

And anyway, the scifi is so gleeful and interesting, you almost don't need the characters to be any more compelling, or the plot to be any more complex -- you don't want to distract from what you have, and what I'm sure the main point of the movie is. (To be fun and spectacular!) But as I've learned, simple plots can be engaging if they aren't over-explained, and character depth is easy to imply with strategic use of subtlety and some talented actors. Valerian is no slouch, but its script certainly leaves lots to be desired. Normally when a script lacks, the obvious solution is to add more to it, but in this case, I think a little discarding might've been a handier option.

Sometimes less is more, and sometimes more is more. This movie has the "more is more" part down in spades.

So yeah, I wish it was a foreign language movie so I could watch it without subtitles -- kinda. At this point I've seen it twice and I'm already getting used to the script's dull moments of redundant explanation, and am appreciating what character we do get, and all the other unusual tidbits that you genuinely can't get anywhere else. So I guess in the end I got what I wanted, because all I really wanted was to be able to see past the uninspired dialogue that was clouding up this unusual and visual scifi treat. And I have. And the view from here is pretty spectacular. So! Any chance of a sequel?

Upcoming Movie Roundup - July

Well -- June was a fantastic month! Firstly Wonder Woman (review!) came and raised the bar for DC superhero films which was lovely and refreshing. Then I got Logan (review!) on Bluray and it made me forget that I was tired of superhero movies by being a superhero movie that felt nothing like a superhero movie. It became my pick for best film of the year, but then lost the spot again a couple weeks later. To Baby Driver (review!), from which I am still rocking and reeling! It was not only the highlight of June as I predicted, but also the highlight of the year. If anything manages to top it, 2017 will be a seriously impressive movie-year.

After Baby Driver, it feels like the summer can finally get started, but now, July is looking almost skimpy. There's two films that I'm definitely interested in, but not much else worth mentioning. First things first: I gotta get another view of Baby Driver taken care of, and then we'll see if anything can turn my head for a significant amount of time!

What's your favorite film of the year so far? And what's in your movie plans for July? I hope you're all having a great summer!



Spider-Man: Homecoming
July 7th; PG-13
Look out, here comes the Spider-Man! We already know that Tom Holland is perfect for Spidey and Peter Parker from Civil War, so up to a certain point, there's no need to worry. Characterization is all but guaranteed to be spot-on, and that is a huge confidence boost. If this flick is anything like the Spidey scenes from Civil War it'll be better than Civil War! And still, I worry. Mostly about the plot, because that is the part that currently looks ambiguous and possibly a bit too generic. And from this trailer, I worry that Tony Stark has too big a role. I'd really hate for him to distract, and I'd really like it if this movie (being only half-Marvel) could distance itself just a tad from the "MARVEL!" genre, which is growing ever-more tired with every rehashing film release. Early reviews are significantly positive, but if you don't mind, I'm gonna be nervous about this one. There's a lot riding on those narrow shoulders, and I want the kid to do a good job!




A Ghost Story
July 7th(limited); R
So this is pretty weird. A romantic drama about a husband who dies and haunts his grieving and unaware wife as a sheet-ghost. Complete with black holes over the eyes and everything. Did I say "pretty weird"? I meant "very extremely weird and actually very creepy, why is this film a romance and not a horror?" Really, the trailer to me is scarier than most horror film trailers. I don't get it. It's an art house type thing, and supposedly is about love and loss and similar abstract, existential things. I guess it gets points for being creative, but as to convincing me to watch it, I'm less likely to go for it now than I was when I didn't know it existed! Still it's so odd I had to mention it.




War for the Planet of the Apes
July 14th; PG-13
I could say that with where the plot of this movie is, the last movie wasn't really necessary, but that's kinda silly because the whole series is pretty unnecessary -- plus I get a feeling that Dawn will be my favorite installment in the end... such as it is. On a technical level these movies are actually interesting and pretty impressive, but that's it. On a story-telling, entertaining level it's laughable how unaware these movies are of their own ridiculousness. It's camp-central. Yet the movies only get more and more serious as their head gets further and further in the sand. A spark of life or even a tiny hint of joy would do wonders, but the bloated, self-important seriousness is obvious, and not even in the same universe as my cup of tea. I suppose these movie were meant for a person who is not me, and to whoever that might be, I'll leave you to it!




Dunkirk
July 21st; PG-13
I think this is an excellent story for Christopher Nolan to tell; a true story that his style can add cinematic intensity to. After Interstellar it should be nice for him to be held back a bit by reality. This also looks to be an excellent film to play "Spot that British Actor" with! One of my favorite games. Just from the trailer we have Kenneth Branagh, James D'Arcy, Mark Rylance, Cillian Murphy and Tom Hardy. Those I expect will be the easy ones. Also I know Harry Styles is in this, but to be honest I don't know what he looks like enough to recognize him, and I'm thinking maybe I should keep it that way. Anyway, the movie has a lot of hype, it's an interesting story I've never seen before, and there doesn't seem to be much question of whether or not it'll be good. I'm not much worried, and won't be surprised to find myself in a theater in a few weeks watching it! Although, as a girl going to a war movie, maybe I should make myself a t-shirt that says "I'm NOT here for Harry."




Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets
July 21st; PG-13
Please tell me -- am I the only one who reads this title as if I'm Nebula from Guardians of the Galaxy? "A City of A THOUSAND PLANETS." It makes it sound super epic. Look, I've said it before, I'll say it in the future, and I'm saying it now -- I'm a sucker for scifi movies. And this movie is definitely a scifi movie. However I must admit that I have no expectation of it actually being a great movie. I'd love to be proved wrong, but for now, it's good enough for me that it's of the genre it is of, plus Dane DeHaan is pretty cool. I very strongly dislike Cara Delevingne though, to put it nicely. But if the movie turns out how I expect, then being irritated by her will be part of the charm. Prediction: visually spectacular; otherwise spectacularly short. If my expectations are correct I will look forward to seeing this -- not in theaters.




The Emoji Movie
July 21st; PG
Haha, just kidding.

Happy July everyone!

Paper Towns

Spoilers are marked.

This story, adapted from the 2008 novel by John Green, is from the perspective of Quentin, a nice but kinda geeky high school senior who is totally head-over-heels for his neighbor, Margo Roth Spiegleman. Margo is basically the most amazing and popular and epic person there is, and sometimes she disappears randomly and goes on grand adventures, always leaving clues to her whereabouts. When she leaves, and leaves clues for Q to find, he is determined to do what no one else has done for her, and find her.

I adored the book. I liked it better than The Fault in Our Stars. (In spite of a considerably more rocky content terrain.)

It's sad, but I'm going to go ahead and say it: this adaptation does not meet the great levels of the source novel. In many ways, it's not even close. Then, in some other ways it's exactly on, only those are the points that are less important.

Quentin is played by Nat Wolff, and he is Q, through and through. That is, his looks and mannerisms are perfect. However, though he looked perfect, he couldn't bring Q to life; through him we don't get to see into Q's mind and heart. Maybe he had it in him and just wasn't given a proper chance to play the part to the level, but the fact remains that the most alive version of Q is still on the page. I loved Wolff's performance is TFIOS, but this one was not done justice.

At the same time, he was the character that was portrayed with the most justice.

Margo is even worse. The thing is, I'm not sure anyone could have played Margo; how do you cast a person who is indescribably epic, beautiful but not typical, and the epitome of awesome, who everyone wants to be friends with? Answer: you don't. But you can definitely do better than Cara Delevingne. She's not a terrible actress, but she's no Margo. She doesn't impress us with the idea that she is an at all remarkable person, let alone an understandably popular one. Margo's unique draw manifested in the book mostly by her way of speaking -- she speaks like John Green writes -- with unabashed poetic feeling, and with elegance and charisma. Here, she dryly drones out shortened, unembellished versions of her animated speeches and they float to the floor like so much blank paper.

-- Spoilers --
Then, the point of the story was destroyed by having her real self not be so different from her fake, paper, "awesome" self. She doesn't get mad at Q for finding her, she doesn't callously not call her family; she doesn't show that she's a selfish, cold, uncaring and faithless individual; she comes across just as nice and fake as before. Her real side is too fake, and her fake side is too real.
-- End --

Is this who teenagers aspire to be like? Should they?

The supporting cast that includes Austin Abrams as Ben, and Justice Smith as Radar all had the required quirks described in the book, but it was like they and the filmmakers were just going through the motions because they had to, and not because they really cared. A small exception for this goes to Halston Sage as Lacey; she had a moment or two more of genuine success than the guys. Radar's girlfriend Angela (Jaz Sinclair) had an expanded role for no good reason. She was good as far as the rest of them, but wasted more time than her contributions were worth.

Adaption-wise the plot basics were there, but the themes were mostly flip-flopped. This movie took the bold and harsh, but true and moving statements from the book, and changed them so that they meant the exact opposite. Only some basics of a few main themes were left intact, but not to the level of boldness it needed. Dark, gritty things were lightened; deep, heartfelt things were made shallow. Any kind of urgency or importance was totally, wantonly gone. The film also went out of its way to keep as much inappropriate content as it could, sacrificing time that could have been full of meaning for empty dialogue that wasn't even funny most of the time.

I would much rather they'd change the plot events and keep the themes and, you know, the story's point.

As to the non-adapting parts of the film-making, there was one interesting shot that had style, and one fun cameo, and a few highlight scenes and moments; the rest of the movie was confusingly dull and muddled. It droned -- like a toy helicopter that doesn't have enough battery power left to get off the ground. I don't know whether or not the director, Jake Schreier, should be blamed for this, but he seems the most likely option. It was nowhere near as lively, sharp and open as it should have been -- as the novel was. It just sits in the book's shadow. Or it is the book's shadow -- it has nothing more to offer, only less. I'm sorry I have to be so hard on this movie. It's really not a terrible film; only in comparison with what should have been. I can't see it without that influencing me, and neither would I chose to if I could.

Paper Towns is not much more than a paper movie of empty entertainment, with teenagers doing their typical empty teenage things, trying to convince you that that's what fun is, and that's what living is, and love is; preaching that you should be real, and all the while on the inside being just as paper as any other empty teenage dramady.