Wonder Woman 1984

Spoiler-free!

This film is divisive, so I'll go ahead and open with my opinion that I don't think it's nearly as good as Wonder Woman, but I also didn't find it atrociously bad, either. I will try and translate my mild disappointment into some strong opinions for your entertainment. 

Diana (Gal Gadot) has spent the last 70-ish years alone and fighting crime. It's a walk in the park for her now. Or a spin around the mall. But then she unknowingly touches a magical wish-granting stone while wishing that her lost love Steve (Chris Pine) was back with her again, and—boom, he's back! But the stone is dangerous, especially in the wrong hands such as Max (Pedro Pascal), and maybe Diana's new work friend Barbara (Kristen Wiig). Things must be put right. So off we go!

Don't tell anyone, but I don't think my opinion is the only opinion people are allowed to have. 

Frankly, this movie had zero chance of being good in the same way the first one was. It's impossible to recreate that specific magic, because of the fundamental changes in Diana's character. She can't be naïve anymore, or out-of-touch with her comparative strength to humans and the ways she can help or influence them. She's now familiar with loss and loneliness, too. None of these things are bad or good in themselves; what matters is how the film treats them. And I think that's the fundamental problem with this movie. It understands that Diana has changed, but doesn't change to suit her. It tries to be more of the same, but instead everything feels out of joint and loose. Like ideas were being thrown at a wall to see what stuck, but nothing stuck—so they just filmed all the ideas laying on the floor.

There are still moments that have impact. Even though the message was spelled out, I was swept up by the opening sequence. And one thing that didn't and shouldn't change about Diana is the sense of wonder she conveys. (Obviously.) It didn't come across as strongly, but was still there, and I enjoyed the moments of wonder even if they were cheesy, like flying through fireworks in the invisible jet or smiling at the world just because it's beautiful. Plot-wise things had a solid foundation. I liked the concept and the bad guys, and I liked the idea of Steve being back. But it ultimately wasn't as satisfying as it should have been, and that's because of the movie's fundamental problem again.

It's not that the movie's actively bad... it just lacks anything to make it good.

This time, it's Steve who's the fish-out-of-water, having appeared in 1984 straight from WWI. So they try to reverse that "seeing the world for the first time" bit that was so cute about Wonder Woman—but it doesn't work the same. Steve is already too worldly and open to the future, while Diana is more jaded, but still aloof from the world herself, so she can't show it to him in a personal way. So why try to recreate what the last movie did? Skipping over that bit and getting to something new may have yielded better results, developing their characters further together, instead of retreading old ground in reversed positions. 

Retreading old ground is the most common misstep a sequel can take. The point of a sequel should be to further the story with more story, but filmmakers get distracted by the idea of doing more and forget that more of the same should be avoided wherever possible. Maybe Patty Jenkins had too much of a confidence boost from Wonder Woman's success. Maybe the studio encouraged this direction. Maybe all anyone could see were dollar signs. But the result is that the movie isn't refined, and that creates an avalanche of noticeable issues. Plot holes, pacing problems, underdeveloped characters, bland tone. The script isn't sharpened. There aren't any side characters. And no 80's era music. No surprises in the plot in the form of twists and turns. And it's long and indulgent—which would be fine if it weren't indulging in lazy simplicity. 

Kristen Wiig and Pedro Pascal feel like the best parts of the movie because at least they're new.

It's like Wonder Woman was a nice, yummy, chocolate cake, so Wonder Woman 1984 mistakenly thought that in order to be yummy, it needed to be a chocolate cake, too. But there was only enough chocolate for one cake, so it used carob instead. And now the cake tastes bad. Gal Gadot and Chris Pine are still there, as are the positive themes of love, wonder, and heroism, so a flavor change surrounding those things isn't such a big deal. If Wonder Woman 1984 had been a vanilla cake, or a strawberry cake, it would still have been a cake, just with a unique flavor instead of a cheapened imitation of the last success.

Justice League

Spoilers!

It's sad that this movie feels like a small fry in comparison to Batman v Superman. It's a bit anti-climactic after most of the Justice League's members have already teamed up and fought something so powerful that it managed to kill Superman. How do you top that?

Answer: You don't. Not like this you don't. And topping BvS isn't even a high goal.

Well, you have to bring Supes (Henry Cavill) back to life. But casually sideline him because he's still OP. And you gotta find another super-powerful villain to challenge them. Then threaten the end of the world, cause that always ups the stakes. So CGI villain Steppenwolf (Ciarán Hinds) arrives, cued by the death of Superman, to destroy and conquer the Earth. Batman (Ben Affleck) and Wonder Woman (Gal Gadot), aware of the coming invasion, collect The Flash (Ezra Miller) Aquaman (Jason Momoa) and Cyborg (Ray Fisher) to fight him. The characters aren't bad, and the plot is cliched but not bad, but it's put together as if by random; everyone going through the motions; no soul, no power, no passion. Just... nothing.

Them deciding to use the weird liquid in the Kryptonian ship to bring Superman back to life, like Luthor did to create Doomsday, is the most unexpected and therefore most interesting part of the movie. Which is unusual because it happens in the middle of the movie, where most superhero flicks flounder before getting to the end battle. I honestly expected Superman to show up unprompted and save the day, but they had to decide to restore him, and it took up a good portion of the movie to make happen. Still he's in it very little, and spends too much time with Lois (Amy Adams) and yes, his upper lip (where a mustache has been CG-ed out) is distracting.

"So what happened in Justice League, Diana?" "Oh, nothing very interesting."

Superman is likeable once he gets over being woken from his nap, and even gets cheesy a few times. Is this good or bad? Well... yes. Wonder Woman doesn't have her character ruined or anything, but she's nowhere near the height she reached in her solo film. Batman is just Batman. There's nothing particularly good about him, or anything particularly bad. He's just there. Cyborg ended up being the only one to impress and be better than expected; he's equally as well-done as everyone else. Aquaman was somehow both worse and better than I expected. My highest hopes were that Flash would be my favorite, but he was exclusively used for forced comic relief that only tempted me to laugh once. His potential remains, so we'll see about that solo film.

From scene to scene Lois will change from wig to no wig. It's noticeable, and cheap, and honestly I wish she hadn't been in the movie at all. This plus Superman's erased mustache, plus Steppenwolf's appearance as some villain on loan from a video game, are the outward evidence of this film's fundamental problem: Movies this massive, this expensive, and this hyped, should not be anywhere near this small and cheap. I haven't been this underwhelmed since X-Men: Apocalypse promised the apocalypse and delivered nothing but Oscar Isaac disguised in blue silicone. To make this movie was the entire reason the DCEU existed! But now it feels like a casual afterthought to BvS and Wonder Woman.

The most exciting thing about it is the promises of more to come -- but at what point are we going to stop believing them, if more exciting promises is all they ever deliver?

This film spends $300,000,000 delivering nothing, and has nothing to stand on but flat jokes, horrendous CGI, characters that have been better elsewhere, and lackluster stakes. The best I can say for it is that it didn't make me angry. BvS did, but now I'm wondering which is worse. At least BvS tried to do something and made me feel something -- even a bad something. With this, I've never been more disengaged watching a movie in the theater. Justice League, DCEU's Big Event Movie, that's been building up for five years, just did the worst thing it could do, and made a safe landing. We were promised an Earth-shattering kaboom, and all we got was a soft, apologetic thump.

Upcoming Movie Roundup - November

No surprise I didn't go to the theater in October. However, I did watch/have been watching the TV shows I mentioned. The Gifted turned out to be disappointing even with my mild expectations, and drags terribly and yes, has lots of meaningless drama. Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency got off to a bit of a rough start by not nailing the opening episode like Season 1 did, but it's still plenty enjoyable and I look forward to watching the episodes. Stranger Things broke my heart. There's fan-service everywhere and what remnants there are the are like Season 1 feels disingenuous. The first five episodes could have been two, and the show picks up significantly at Chapter 6, when the plot really gets started, but there's other problems that hold it back even then. I haven't written a review for it yet but I need to, hopefully soon so I can stop being sad and wondering what went wrong.

This month there is a must-see, because for some reason I still watch every single Marvel release in theaters. Although I'd see this one anyway! I wouldn't be surprised if I saw two or three of these movies this month, but I guess we'll see. What looks good to you?


Thor: Ragnarok
Nov 3rd; PG-13
This one's practically out already and already has loads of pleased reviews from critics and fans. So I have no doubt it's a good Marvel movie. That in itself doesn't mean much to me, since I've disliked plenty of "good" Marvel movies, but -- I do have high hopes for this one. I like the style of the director Taika Waititi and think his sense of humor would work excellently with Thor. And the trailer was just brimming with galactic style -- and Led Zeppelin, which is a great sign if you ask me! Looks like Thor has finally gotten a movie worthy of him! Cate Blanchett looks awesome as the villain, and I'm happy to see Loki back again, and there's also Karl Urban and Jeff Goldblum. And Hulk of course. Time to Ragnarok and roll!




Battlecreek
Nov 3rd(limited); NR
This month in "movies I want to see because a certain actor is in them." This time featuring -- Bill Skarsgård! Ever since IT came out I've been on the hunt for more movies starring him, where he doesn't wear clown makeup the whole time, and ideally doesn't terrorize children either. This looks like a nice option: A southern romantic drama, that looks like it has just enough of an edge to make it interesting.




Murder on the Orient Express
Nov 10th; PG-13
Well I've already seen a film adaptation of this, so I know who-done-it, but I'll always be up for another version, especially a bigger-budgeted one, with big-name stars. Kenneth Branagh I seriously doubt will be able to match David Suchet's Poirot (even with that incredible mustache); him directing is the real exciting bit, since I love his style. He just seems to fit with Agatha Christie. (I wish he'd do a take on And Then There Were None, but I digress.) Practically everyone else in the movie is a recognizable name, but I'm most excited to see Daisy Ridley do something other than Star Wars. Hopefully this will be one to remember! (I should read the book before it comes out...)




Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri
Nov 10th; R
This is a nice, strange one. Black comedy, extreme violence, Frances McDormand. She always seems to absolutely fantastic, but this looks like the kind of plot that she'd really, really shine in. Also, Sam Rockwell. always a winner. This movie looks quite good actually. Not the the kind I'd necessarily go to the theater for, but I'd like to see it at some point.




Justice League
Nov 17th; PG-13
So I guess Superman's gonna wait til the end of the movie to return, because when you have Superman why do you need anyone else, right? I'm sorry, but I'm done with this. Wonder Woman and her movie was great, but I doubt she can save this movie, and I'm so done. It looks exactly the same and BvS, and I'm just done. (They're copying Stranger Things by playing a moody version of Heroes, and that's hilarious and I'm done.) I won't even be surprised if I end up going to see it because of how big it is, but if I do it will be with rolling eyes, because I'm done. And the review will likely be extremely cynical, because I am just plain done. I'm done.




Revolt
Nov 17th(limited); R
This month in "small budget scifi films I want to see because I'm a scifi junkie" -- featuring Lee Pace in this scifi actioner. If I had to venture a guess, it's gonna be very typical plot-wise, but it doesn't have the worst special effects, and Lee Pace is a nice plus too. I'm beginning to wonder when I'll actually get to see all these indie scifi's I've been finding. I guess that's why it's good I list them here, so I won't forget about them!




Coco
Nov 22nd; PG
"Oh yeah, Pixar is releasing a movie this year." Remember when the Pixar releases were the biggest events of the year? Did that change just because I have a grown up taste in movies now, or has Pixar really slid down that far? Ever since Brave in 2012 every new Pixar flick I've either not seen or been disappointed with. I'm not gonna write this one off of course, but there's not any excitement either. I haven't seen The Book of Life, which is what it's drawing comparisons to, so to me it's like the Spanish version of Corpse Bride meets Kubo and the Two Strings, which is interesting enough, but also kinda makes me wish it was a stop-motion animation. I like those. Anyway, I've rambled for long enough. Keeping on eye on this one.




The Man Who Invented Christmas
Nov 22nd; PG
Granted, it's not exactly a movie anyone was asking for, but it may turn out to be one we need anyway. Dan Steven's as crazy Charles Dickens? Grumpy Christopher Plummer as Scrooge? Not bad at all. Looks fun, family friendly, and about as energetic as a movie about writing can be! I should definitely read A Christmas Carol before I see this. Anything less would just be disrespectful!

Wonder Woman

Spoilers are marked.

Diana, (Gal Gadot) the only child on a hidden island Themyscira, grows up in a cheerful and innocent state of warmongering. Her mother the Queen (Connie Nielsen) tries to keep her a safe distance away from fighting, but, driven by awed love for her kin's history (in which they helped Zeus defeat the evil god of war, Ares when he tried to corrupt mankind) Diana wishes to be a warrior. Prophesy says that Ares lives, will return, and can only be defeated by a weapon that Zeus made as he died. Diana wishes to wield that sword, and her aunt (Robin Wright) trains her until she can. Then a stray pilot crashes in the ocean. A man. (Chris Pine) (Cue a cheesy yet endearing grin!) He tells the Amazons of a terrible war to end all wars, and Diana knows this must be the return of Ares, so she takes the sword and goes off to save the world!

Charging a German trench. Why? In the words of my brother: "She can't not."

The best thing about this movie, time and time again, is Diana. Her heart is as pure as a baby lamb frolicking in untouched snow, and she's as innocent and naive as you'd expect of a girl who's lived a couple thousand years on a mystical island inhabited only by women. Yet she has confidence in her strength and in herself, and no petty need to advertise. My personal favorite characteristic though, is her joy. Even when she's not explicitly happy, she constantly exudes a joy for life; she relishes beauty and goodness, and you can see her eagerly soak in her surroundings, wide-eyed. She is also passionate and noble, and Gal Gadot gives her such life with a charismatic and confident performance. If more women could lead these kinds of movies with such unaffected grace, people wouldn't need to try and force it to happen.

I'm not one eager to go gaga over Chris Pine, so I was pleased to find that his Steve Trevor is a character who earns his worth. He, like Diana, is noble and passionate, but having lived through four years of the Great War, these traits have been repressed and replaced with hardened logic. He does what he can, and ignores what he cannot. He doesn't understand Diana or what she is capable of, thinking that her naivete could put her in more danger than she can handle. He tries to protect her and guide her through the unforgiving world, and as a result is continuously surprised by her unwillingness to see evil and do nothing about it, and her ability to do what he would never dream to be possible. Pine puts a damper on the swagger for the character (in comparison with Star Trek) and the result is an increase of heroic charm.

My favorite small moment was here, where she admires herself in the mirror without a hint of vanity.

Pine and Steve both are great supports for the film and its heroine. As a duo, Steve provides some great fodder for Diana's fish-out-of-water moments -- an element that can be hit or miss, and here was hit after hit, endearing her to us over and over. Their chemistry wasn't top-notch, but "good enough for a superhero flick" was all that was really required. In the end Steve's character is there to enhance Diana's, and that was done with aplomb. Conversely, none of the three rag-tags who follow them (Saïd Taghmaoui, Ewen Bremner, and Eugene Brave Rock) made much of an impression. I was simultaneously surprised at how little effort was put into them, and confused as to why they felt the need to put any effort towards them at all. They helped to move the plot, but their characters were mostly distractions, only.

Doctor Poison herself (Elena Anaya) also proved to be all but useless as a character, which was disappointing after she seemed well set up to be a formidable villain. In fact, speaking of the villain... (Spoilers!) Once Danny Huston's Ludendorff is revealed to not be the main villain his being so underwhelming makes sense. Ares is really David Thewlis, and while he does a fantastic job making himself memorable after his reveal lets him loose to be villainous, it is unfortunate that he didn't get more time due to his identity being kept secret. It was a good twist for the movie, but let the character down a bit. That epic bit where he gets his armor does its best to make up for it, and if it doesn't completely, it was close enough, because woah. (End Spoilers) On the island, both Connie Nielsen and Robin Wright give great performances on some hardcore characters. And last but not at all least, Lucy Davis as Etta, Steve's secretary makes herself a worthy addition by being charming and funny.

She's got super strength, but also has featured qualities common and befitting to femininity. Like compassion, for which she has no chill.

Obviously characters were what made the biggest overall impression on me here. Though the only truly outstanding one was Diana herself, I still appreciate that director Patty Jenkins set out to make this action blockbuster an equal-part character piece besides. Diana makes up about 50% of the movie's worth; everything else (Steve, the action, the style, visuals in general, themes, and writing (the value of a good one liner should never be overlooked) makes up about 40%, and there's 10% or less of want. So, action wise: There is no shortage of stylish action where the enjoyment hits levels of sheer glee that we haven't seen come out of DC since Nolan. It's great stuff, enhanced even further by how much fun Gadot is having performing it.

It does have two shortcomings however. The first is overuse of slow motion -- and this is coming from a movie where slow-mo is considerably more appropriate than average -- there's a lot of it. Often it works, but one or two fights could have used some restraint. The other is that the action is sometimes cut... safely. Probably to avoid awkwardness in the movement. It can be jarring and disjointed feeling. Both these problems can probably be traced back to a lacking in fight choreography; individual stunts are fantastic, but are sometimes strung together with awkward flow. Visually the film is nothing short of stunning, and when action sequences make use of visual appeal they are at their best. And with the insipid dullness of the recent past, I feel it's appropriate to praise this movie's bold use of vibrant color. From the bottom of my heart, I appreciate it.

Honestly I wish she'd served in the war longer. There could have been twice as much of the historical side of the war. And of her running into the fray bECAUSE INJUSTICE IS BEING DONE AND SHE MUST STOP IT. I love that about her so much.

Wonder Woman hardly feels like a DC film at all, only reminding us via short bookends. After all the murky sludge that has come from Snyder of late, a film that sets out to entertain and dazzle and have fun seems incredibly original and endlessly welcome. It's more like a Marvel, in fact, with obvious similarities with Thor and Captain America: The First Avenger present in the plot, but not so much as to make the film feel redundant -- not even close. This film even exceeds Marvel's later efforts with its gleeful and unashamed joy. It seems thrilled to simply exist, and its greatness is a natural consequence of that joy and devotion. It doesn't conspire to prod or manipulate its audience, but to share its story with us, and let us share in the wonder; and maybe inspire or move us with some words of wisdom. In other words, Wonder Woman is everything she needed to be.

Upcoming Movie Roundup - June

In May the only movie I went to see was Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2. And while I enjoyed the mess out of it in the moment, it hasn't made much of a lasting impression. Check out my review of it here! I still want to see the other releases I mentioned eventually, and may go see Pirates after a while, but right now is my busy time of the year, and theater trips must take a backseat for a bit.

This month looks to have two must-sees to get to over summer, plus quite a few that will be staying on my radar as they pass through! What are you most looking forward to seeing in the month of June?


Wonder Woman
Jun 2nd; PG-13
Well -- no matter what happens with the film, we know they can make a super epic trailer out of it! It looks a bit like Thor and a bit like Captain America: The First Avenger, but it's got a female lead and comes from DC. Wonder Woman was one of the best parts of Batman v Superman, so from my perspective her film has the potential to be the best film from DC since The Dark Knight. It appears to have a coherent and interesting plot which is promising, and the flood of overwhelmingly positive responses so far is creating some huge waves. I'll certainly be seeing this one in theaters, though probably not for a little while due to extreme busyness. At this point it doesn't seem to be too much to hope that all the hype it's built up for itself will be lived up to!




Dean
Jun 2nd (limited); PG-13
Ah, the classic indie film, with the kinda goofy-looking, low key depressed and cynical lead, who wanders through a mildly aimless but pleasant jaunt of a plot, falls in love (maybe) and feels a little better by then end (maybe). Yeah. I may sound a bit cynical myself about this, but honestly this is the kind of flick I'd spend all day on lazy Saturdays watching if only I had access to more of them. So put me on the waiting list for this one too. Bonus: Kevin Kline!




The Mummy
Jun 9th; PG-13
The beginning of a new universe franchise of connected monster films including Jekyll and Hyde and Frankenstein and such -- they're calling it Dark Universe! But they're a bit behind. This flick seems to be more of a remake of the Brendan Frasier version then the 1932 original, but whatever. No matter it's to-be connections or general quality, one thing is almost certain: that it will be entertaining. That is Tom Cruise's specialty. I also enjoyed Sofia Boutella a whole lot in Star Trek Beyond so I'm looking forward to her playing a potentially over-the-top villain like this! As for quality, we'll have to wait and see.




The Book of Henry
Jun 16th(limited); PG-13
This movie has been making some waves coming up -- maybe mostly because it's directed by Colin Trevorrow who has a small but good track record and is set to direct Star Wars Episode 9. It also has both Jacob Tremblay and Jaeden Leiberher, two of the biggest child actors right now, and Naomi Watts who always puts everything into her performances. The plot is unexpected and unusually serious for a film with a child lead, and the trailer, as ominous as it is, also has some extra ominous undertones that are making me wonder if there's gonna be a happy ending here. If I see it it'll surely stress me out, but right now it looks like it would be worth it. The movie also promises Lee Pace, but unless I missed him, he doesn't appear in the trailer.




Maudie
Jun 16th(limited); PG-13
A performance-driven indie. This one's about the Canadian folk artist Maud Lewis, played by Sally Hawkins, and her husband, Ethan Hawke. Since it's based on a true story, I'd imagine they play up the drama a bit to make it more interesting, but it does look like a sweet tale, and I like the two actors, so if ever I get the chance I'll probably give it a watch.




Kill Switch
Jun 16th(limited); R
Okay... a scifi film starring Dan Stevens. Yes, take my money! But wait -- what's this? A catch? Turns out most of the movie is in POV so we won't get to see his face, doing all that acting stuff? Why? We already had to deal with this issue in Beauty and the Beast. Can someone make an awesome scifi movie with Dan Stevens and actually put Dan Stevens in it please? Besides him the movie doesn't look too great, but because it's a scifi, and because Stevens is in it (however little) I'll probably still watch it at my earliest convenience. I expect I'll be disappointed though.




Transformers: The Last Knight
Jun 21st; PG-13
Ugh. The over-stimulation is for real. I could barely even stand the trailer. It is nice to see Josh Duhamel back though, but that's about it. If you enjoy these movies chances are this one will be no different, but for me it's looking even bigger than the last one, which means it'll be even better for making fun of it whenever we can get it for free! Enjoy it how you can, right?




Baby Driver
Jun 28th: NR
Haha, I was about to say this might be my most anticipated movie of the month! No "might" about it friends -- if this isn't the highlight of my movie-June, there isn't gonna be a highlight (okay fine, Wonder Woman could easily be a highlight, but you get my point). Edgar Wright directs this one which is all I really need to know, but it will also feature a boatload of music (makes sense with Wright) and all long cast list of Ansel Elgort, Lily James, Kevin Spacey, Jon Bernthal, Jon Hamm, and Jamie Foxx. The trailer makes the film look super stylish and tightly edited (Wright, again). Seriously, there is no bigger draw than the director, and the premise out of which you know he can make one killer film! (With one killer track!)

Upcoming Movie Roundup - October

As I predicted, I didn't go to the theater in September. I am still interested to see The Magnificent Seven and Miss Peregrine's Home for Peculiar Children though, in spite of the not-fantastic reviews, and Deepwater Horizon a little more than before, because of the not-at-all-bad reviews.

I may not get to the theater again this month, (unless I make a point to go, which I may try) as there are no must-see-in-theater releases, but there certainly are a few very interesting releases that may become must-sees if they turn out as good as they look.

Did you see anything in September? Anything look good to you in October?



The Girl on the Train
Oct 7th; R
I read the book. And I enjoyed it, which was nice since I've been having bad luck with books lately. But after reading it and rewatching the trailer, I have very little interest and very little confidence in this film. Emily Blunt and Haley Bennett are well-cast I think, but otherwise -- even though I love Luke Evans and Rebecca Ferguson -- it's kinda off. Also the film isn't set in England, but NYC, which takes away a LOT of appeal for me. And what's the point of doing that, anyway? Unnecessary changes are indicators of bad adaptations for me. They've also amped up the sexiness a whole lot. So maybe they're trying to increase appeal and tweak it to be more exciting. It is an introverted story, and the book's strongest aspect was the writing style, which can't translate. If it releases to acclaim I'll probably watch it someday, but as of now they've lost me. We'll see if I'm the only one.



The Accountant
Oct 14th; R
This is an excellent trailer. And it looks to be a very unique story, and Ben Affleck is always at his best when he does the trifecta of writing directing and starring, so I'm pretty confident about this film's quality already. Based on the title only I was wondering how exciting it could be, but after watching the trailer, I think it's got that covered too.Very interested to see how this does.




The River Thief
Oct 14th (limited); NR
Ever since I saw Super 8 I've been waiting for Joel Courtney to be in more movies, and finally one has crossed my path. You can't tell much about plot from this trailer, but the write-up makes it out to be interesting and promising. And it certainly has a beautiful look to it which you can see from the trailer -- lots of great shots. In a lot of ways it reminds me of Mud, which is very appealing to me, since that one of favorite films. If it turns out half as good a Mud it'd still be a good movie!




Jack Reacher: Never Go Back
Oct 21st; NR
(I can't find a MPAA rating, but I'm assuming it'll be PG-13.) The first Jack Reacher film didn't impress me much, but right now the sequel's actually looking to be an improvement! Firstly, Tom Cruise doesn't just do sequels for the sake of doing a sequel. The way I heard it he wasn't even interested in a sequel until he had a good idea for one. Then there's the addition of Cobie Smulders who is excellent at being an action heroine. She might be the biggest appeal of this actually. And of course there's the fact that there's no Mission: Impossible film this year, so why not? You gotta have you Tom Cruise action flick fix!




Keeping Up with the Joneses 
Oct 21st; PG-13
I'm gonna go ahead and include this movie since I've watched the trailer twice now, though I'm not very interested in the film. And by "not very interested" I mean "really really not interested almost at all." The most interesting part is Gal Gadot who is cool, and it would be neat to see her play a spy... and comedy for that matter too. The premise is not bad, if typical, and could make for a fun action comedy, but based on the trailer, it's not gonna be of good quality in either the comedy or the action sides.




In a Valley of Violence
Oct 21st; R
I like the look of this movie. The trailer is very simple, exposition-heavy, and not terribly eye-catching, but that is actually what got my attention. It feels classic, like an honest-to-goodness straight-forward western tale of old. Ethan Hawke is the lead, John Travolta is the baddie, and Karen Gillan's there too. Yeah. I'm liking the look of this movie. A lot.

Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice

This review is Spoiler-free.

It's here. Zack Snyder's highly anticipated and impressively controversial sequel to Man of Steel, and setup for The Justice League, where Henry Cavill returns as Superman, and Ben Affleck dares to take on the role of the Dark Knight. And, as the title demands it, they must fight. But they must also join together to defeat Lex Luthor (Jesse Eisenberg) and his evil plan for a... Doomsday. Joining them is: Amy Adams, returning as Lois Lane; Gal Gadot as Wonder Woman, and Jeremy Irons taking the mantle of Alfred Pennyworth.

"The greatest gladiator match in the history of the world: God versus man; day versus night; Son of Krypton versus Bat of Goth--" you know what? Just get to it already!

The giant, hero vs. hero film is controversial because, well, it's giant, and people seem to think either it's the worst thing to come out of the superhero genre since Iron Man set the new standard, or the best. The general consensus seems to lean toward the former. I was skeptical of the film's quality ever since it was announced, and went in with low expectations and an open mind. But, as few things ever are, this film is not totally good or bad, but rather sits in a grey area. There were elements that were better than I expected, and ones that were even worse.

First thing: our two heroes in the ring. As you may know I detested Man of Steel, but did maintain that I thought Henry Cavill could play a good Superman given the proper opportunity. Well, that opportunity has still yet to arrive. He still looks the part but is oddly stiff in his acting. Like, I know it's a played comparison, but it feel like they were actually trying to make Supes be reminiscent of Jesus, but did it all wrong by making him all stiff and religious and stoic acting. Where's the guy's humanity? It came through a little more when he was being Clark. As Superman though, I waited a long time to hear him speak; to really address someone as Superman and have a conversation, but it never happened, and the few things he does say feel super rehearsed. He's at his best when fighting, and of course, doing great heroic acts.

I want to like him. I really do.

Ben Affleck's Batman fell more to my liking, with only a few notable flaws. His Batman felt so experienced it was liked he'd already made three or four films as the character that I just hadn't seen. You can feel his past. Yet he doesn't let the part where his past haunts him bog down the character too much. He does, however, have way too many dreams. I mean good grief. His Bruce Wayne also, is less of an alter ego and more of an actual, useful character. Less playboy, more businessman, and it's nice. Affleck also looks the part spectacularly. Still, for all the time he spends on screen, most of it is spend glaring and brooding, and as good of a brood as it is, there is a lack of true depth.

Both these men are total idiots. I could never decide if I was team Superman or team Batman because every time one of them presented their case for wanting to stop the other, I disagreed with them. Both of them, every time. I felt for Bruce because Supes and Zod killed so many with their collateral damage-heavy fight of the previous film, but I also can't blame Superman for that. I blame Snyder. Superman may be darker in these films, but he's still absolutely noble, and it is not in his character to let innocents die. The fact that he did is not a defining element to his character, but a flaw in the film. If it is a part of his character, then his beef with Batman is extremely hypocritical. For the Bat's part, he tries to justify killing Superman saying that he could destroy the whole world if he wanted to, and that's close enough. Grasping at straws, guys, really. But I get it: as Ken Watanabe said, "Let them fight."

Batfleck wishes he could fight an actual villain...

The supporting cast was mixed as well. Outstanding as bad: Lex Luthor takes the top spot! Jesse Eisenberg's Lex was, I am sad to say, one of the worst superhero villains I have ever witnessed. And the only one I've ever been embarrassed for. Eisenberg came across like he was going for a depressed Joker who had drunk too much coffee, and every time he tried something dramatic it was painfully distracting and obvious. I don't care anything about his age or appearance, and I bet he has the ability to play an interesting Luthor. But not today. Also, I really dislike Lois. And I like Amy Adams, so it's not a bias. Lois is just so pathetic, always perfectly adept at getting herself into danger with her strong-headed spirit, and equally adept and not being able to get herself out. She seems determined to be more than just the hero's girlfriend, but only succeeds in being a bother and taking up screen time with useless plot.

On the good side, Jeremy Irons fit the part of Alfred like a glove; but never got to do a thing with it. Gal Gadot's Wonder Woman gets a good introduction -- although it would have been a fun surprise if I didn't already know who she was, because she comes across like Catwoman at first. But she helped liven up the film, and properly teased for her solo outing.

That awkward moment when you thought you were a crazy Batman villain, and are introduced to the guy you really have a vendetta against... and it's Superman.

Plot. It started off with good intentions to be a complex narrative leading clue-by-clue up to the final climax, but just before it actually got there, suddenly none the plot lines were actually necessary to get there. All that planning and plotting and scheming and investigating -- all for practically nothing, and all adding up to an almost totally useless first half of the whole film. And once the third act begins, the film forgets that it wanted to be a smart movie with a weaving narrative and grown-up things like motivations and grey areas, and just throws everything at an explosion-filled, "POW WHAM ZAP" of an end battle. Where everything is burning, and the explosions are exploding and more CGI fills a frame than anything else.

And it was fine. The third act was just as decent and just as terrible as the first two, just for different reasons. So I may wonder at the necessity of the movie's first half, but hey -- without the first half there could be no second half. So... I could wonder at the necessity of the whole film. The true point of the film was to set up The Justice League, plain and simple. The "Batman v Superman" part was to create appeal and gather an audience, and that's exactly what it did. It tried its hand a politics but gave up (probably after confusing itself); and it threw a bug budget into giant jumbled mess of action to entertain, but it's not exactly quality. But, when Wonder Woman comes around, and after that The Justice League, people will be there; some hoping that they're improved a few things this time round, and some probably determined to love it all no matter what.

Baitman! And Superbman! And Wonderful Woman!

This was a movie not made to be good cinematic work, but to be enjoyed; and even I got more enjoyment out of it than I imagined I would. Sometimes, while I laughed to myself at how bad one thing was, I was simultaneously able to appreciate the fun of it too. This film also has a unique and extreme comic book feel to it that I hadn't experienced in any other Superhero film before. Perhaps Snyder's visual style helped with that, but it also comes across in the tone in an interesting way. Even though it's so serious, the seriousness actually plays a factor in finding the film's overly glossy, but oddly fitting state of being. There's a constant stream of drama that is taken very seriously by the film, but it isn't on the same level as a "real life" type film would have. There's no sense of shame; no tongue in cheek; no safety net. It just throws itself into the fray; clumsily, lumbering and oddly disconnected.

Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice winds up making a confusing mess of things that require any amount of tact, like plot, or character, or really anything that isn't fighting -- and even that is generous. But, underneath all that overlong sludge, the hum-drum attempts at meaning, and the caking layers of indulgent chaos, there's something admirable in the effort.