Murder on the Orient Express

Spoiler-free!

Every so often, the world requires a new version of Agatha Christie's Murder on the Orient Express. Not because no good film adaptation exists, or because there's some new gimmick or development in the world that requires the story to be made anew, but simply because it's what's done. It's a tradition! Perhaps unnecessary, but not at all unwelcome.

Much like this face decoration.

There are two great things about this latest adaptation, and they are both Kenneth Branagh. He takes the helm as lead actor and director, and the only thing that overshadows him even slightly is his glorious mustache. His directing style is so inviting yet grand; elegant yet strong. It fits the era wonderfully, and is an absolute pleasure to watch. Beautiful, but not showy, and he finagles around in the cramped train space gracefully. He directs with easy confidence, and the story is such a classic; it's a sure-fire combination for successful entertainment.

With equal confidence, he takes on the role of "probably the greatest detective in the world" Hercule Poirot; a character heavy with the baggage of many fine performances. But Branagh is more than up to the challenge, and proves the Belgian detective is far from being overdone. I expected to love his direction, but was surprised at how easily I accepted him as Poirot -- mustache and all. He disappears into the quirky, interesting role wonderfully, and is an easy stand-out among the talented and large cast. The character gets more devotion than the mystery itself, and I think that's exactly how it should be.

The rest of the cast produces absolutely no complaints whatsoever!

I'm pretty tired of seeing Johnny Depp in movies, but even he pleased me with a nice, subtle and memorable performance. Daisy Ridley didn't disappoint as a non-Star Wars character. I can't forget Tom Bateman because he was very nice. I really liked Olivia Colman, and Penélope Cruz impressed. Judi Dench, Willem Dafoe, Leslie Odom Jr., Josh Gad, Derek Jacobi and especially Michelle Pfeiffer were all excellent. I also liked the less-known Sergei Polunin and Lucy Boynton, but they were slightly forgotten, along with Manuel Garcia-Rulfo and Marwan Kenzari. With so many characters it was bound to happen.

The mystery might have been done better. My sister and her husband had recently read the book and mentioned a few left-out details they noticed and missed. I only recalled the basics going in, but everything made perfect sense to me, and I left satisfied. A few additions were also made. Some -- most really -- were uncalled for, but didn't do harm to the story either. Mainly they were meant to add a little action, but I found the plot itself to be exciting and interesting enough on its own. One did create a plot hole, which can be explained away only with some reaching. Overall it's a solid, classically simplified adaptation. 

I really enjoyed those tracking shots -- from inside and outside the train.

In fact the movie as a whole perfectly fits the description of classically simple and solid. Only one thing irked me; the ending that hinted at a sequel of Death on the Nile, and took me out of the moment for a second. There's nothing ground-breaking to see here, but nothing ground-breaking is required. As far as adaptations of this story go, I don't think you can do much better. If you're willing to be left happy, than you almost certainly will be. This is a straight-forward production of excellent quality, and a job well-done.

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!

Dunkirk

Spoiler-free.

That Dunkirk is a great piece of filmmaking is no surprise. That it is immaculately crafted in Nolan's palpable style, that it's a beautiful and loud, that it's an intense and visceral experience; all things expected. I honestly expected that it would be every bit as well-made a film as it truly is, and from a technical aspect, as flawless as they come. I expected to feel and appreciate it's worth, but, as with so many other films of its type, to not be able to form a personal attachment to it; its story or its characters. That I would be impressed and pleased, but untouched; approving and satisfied, but aloof. As the movie continues to sink in, my surprise continues to grow, because this wartime epic is sinking straight into my heart.

"You can practically see it from here." "What?" "Home."

Unconventional in style, Dunkirk gets a non-linear timeline from writer/director Christopher Nolan that evokes a similar reaction to what we got with his sci-fi movies like Inception. The "what's going on?"'s and the quiet gasps of realization as pieces fall into place are unexpected in a true-event war film, but the three overlapping timelines made pacing a breeze, and the film feel like a concise and stand-alone story, instead of a small piece of the giant big-picture that is WWII. Executing the story with precision and minimal exposition, Nolan counts on the intelligence of his audience, and that feeling of confidence, all too lacking in all too many movies, is most welcome.

The oddest thing about this film is its characters. While labeling Fionn Whitehead's character of Tommy (so named in the credits but never mentioned in the film) as the lead is the most accurate thing to do, really the movie declines to adhere to traditional film-character guidelines such as lead or secondaries, heroes or villains, revealing names, or even conducting well-rounded character arcs. Characters come and go and we are served a brief glimpse into their lives within this crisis. Tommy gets lead status from me not simply because he's most present throughout the film, but more because his essence reflects the movie's tone, so even in the corners of the story the character doesn't literally observe, the film consistently feels as though it's shown through his eyes. If any character is important to the film, even as it doesn't rely on character, it's him.

His face is striking, and gorgeous in the cinematography, but, that's not what makes him the best pick to be the film's poster-child.

The timeline he belongs to is the longest and most filled with familiar faces. Aneurin Barnard and Harry Styles are often by his side, and Kenneth Branagh and James D'Arcy are in command on the beach. In the second timeline civilian Mark Rylance captains a yacht to the rescue. He is wonderful, and the two boys assisting him (Tom Glynn-Carney and Barry Keoghan) are excellent. Cillian Murphy's harrowing character is just called "shivering soldier." The third timeline is in the sky with heroic Tom Hardy and his wing-man Jack Lowden. Performances are all-around excellent; subtle and exceptionally real. And characterization is such as each soldier who wanders through the frame bestows that feeling you get when you pass a stranger on the street, and are suddenly acutely aware that they have a life of their own that you'll never understand. Though we often don't get to see it, we know there's more to them.

Visually the film is spectacular and intimate, giving an epic, raw experience that has that "like you're really there" feeling like nothing else I've seen. Shots from the air, showing off the distant ocean as planes chase each other down, took my breath away. And my ears are still stinging from the explosions of gunfire. I hated watching people drown, and I felt like cheering out loud in the moments of elation, relief and success. And importantly, I never felt prodded to feel those things. Nolan had no underlying agenda here; he just told his story and made it something worth witnessing, leaving us to understand, judge and love characters, and come to conclusions on our own. Hand-holding has no place in this film's style, and point-making within such complexity is arrogant and cheapening.

The emotions in this movie are as un-fabricated and honest as fiction can be.

Sweeping and intimate, deafening and still, distant and involving, Nolan has again broken convention to tell a story, and the result is a magnificent, one-of-a-kind piece of art. Tense, suspenseful, terrifying; everything it's expected to be. Poignant, complex, and sincere; everything it needed to be. A beautiful assault on the senses. Dunkirk defies the odds, breaks the rules, and becomes something extraordinarily special and magnificently rare; but is, at the end of the day, simple to define: an outstanding war film.

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!

Cinderella

Spoilers.

Magical, romantic, sparkling, magnificent. This is how a Disney Fairytale is done! Forget trying to mix fairytales with the cynicism and depravity commonly known as "reality" -- here, old fashioned, sweeping romance and true love wins the day. But neither does this film skimp on the lessons that can be applied to reality once the last echoes of "A Dream is a Wish Your Heart Makes" fades away with the credits.

The look of this movie took my breath away.

Kenneth Branagh was the absolute perfect choice to direct a live-action adaptation of this classic Disney tale. He is no stranger to the poetry of old-timey language, having mastered Shakespeare a time or two, and he has a visual style that isn't afraid to go all-out, which comes in handy when you want to exploit every magical second out of a raggedy dress turning into the most beautiful ballgown you've ever wished to wear.

He kept the camera moving -- to every imaginable angle -- and created some amazing and striking shots, and even entire scenes. Like, as Ella runs from the ball, the camera tracking her tilts to a sharp angle as it moves (a little nod to his Thor style, perhaps?). And as the prince curls up on the bed with his dying father, the shot slowly moving up and away perfectly enhances the sweet, sad moment. Or in the forest, when our heroine and hero first meet, verbally sparring as their horses turn circles around each other. My absolute favorite though, has to be as Ella and Kit dance, with the camera moving around them as they swept about and spun that huge skirt. It was almost dizzying, like we were dancing with them.

I want to know what it's like to swish this skirt.

Being a remake, and so exactly as it was, it could have been easy to do the recreation perfectly technically-wise, but miss out on the less physical, more important things. Not the case here; this telling has more heart than the classic animation it copies, plus, I feel bold enough to say, every single other Cinderella telling out there put together. When you feel the threat of tears before even the first 5 minutes have gone by, you know you're watching something with a big heart.

Now I must mention the characters and players. Hayley Atwell as Ella's lovely mother goes first, because it was she who threatened to make me cry at her heartbreaking scene with a young Ella after she becomes fatally ill. Hayley naturally shows every quality of strength, charm, grace, and kindness that her character passes on to her daughter.

Like mother like daughter, right? Unless it's step-mother and step-daughter.

Lily James then picks up every one of those traits with charisma and passion. She is the ideal Cinderella. It's easy for the character to be portrayed as mousey, and in this day, it's easy to go too far opposite, making her a tom-boy feminist instead of feminine. But Lily is perfection -- her Ella is not mousey, but kind and gentle, and she doesn't act like a man, but an elegant woman, strong and brave in character. Joyful in her trails and thankful in her fortunes. And of course, she is beautiful, and most importantly, gives a lovely, sincere performance.

Opposite her, is Richard Madden as the prince Kit. Besides being the perfect picture of a Prince Charming with his curly hair and blue eyes, I was very pleased to see his character develop into someone deeper than a guy who wants to dance with the prettiest girl at the ball. In the forest we see that he has integrity, kindness, and compassion. In scenes with his father we see affection, bravery and nobility. And everywhere in between he is wise and thoughtful, a gentleman, a faithful friend, a strong leader -- in short, the ideal match for our beloved Cinderella.

I told you -- he is the very model of a modern major Disney Prince!

Helena Bonham Carter's appearance as Ella's Fairy Godmother is almost no more than a cameo, but with the time she has she is quirky and amusing. The ugly step-sisters are Anastasia and Drisella, played by Holliday Grainger and Sophie McShera, who are both amusingly playing against type with their ridiculousness and silliness, to great result. They are funny, annoying, evil, and even pitiable as the story demands.

Ever lovely and elegant, the great Cate Blanchett graces us with fashionable and villainous performance as Ella's Wicked Stepmother. Wicked she really is -- laughing at and putting down Ella at every turn -- but in an interesting turn of events, we understand her blatant hatred of her step-daughter. Understand, but never condone. And that is how a good villain is done.

Loved the mother's sense of style, but the daughters'.... yikes.

I expected this movie to be old-fashioned in its romance and storytelling, but I never hoped to see old-fashioned morality such as forgiving your enemies. And yet, at the end of the movie, Ella forgives her step-mother of her cruelty, an act that encompassed the fullest meaning of the film's theme; to have courage, and be kind. It was a theme often not subtle in its delivery, but every time sincere in its truth.

This little fairytale went all out, with every bit of magic it could muster, and became something magical and beautiful to see -- full of romance and sparkles and sweeping colors -- but also full of beauty and magic of a different, much more meaningful kind -- seemingly ordinary things becoming extraordinary, good triumphing against evil, and dreams coming true for the steadfast servant girl and the noble prince alike.

Their romance and courtship happened quickly, but we are left with no doubt of their love being of the truest sort.

Our heroes' sweet reunion at the shoe-fitting, where they promise to take each other as they are, is a perfect complement for the final scene, where Kit calls Ella "his Queen," and Ella calls her King "her Kit." I'm not sure if it was intentional, but either way it is a beautiful thought of how they see each other -- as equals. Kit, the King sees a beautiful queen who can rule righteously with him, and Ella, a poor maid, sees a man, who will love and care for her. I don't think either will be disappointed.

It's never said in so many words, but I know this is true:

They lived happily ever after.

THE END

Upcoming Movie Roundup - March

February was another disappointment for 2015. Although I did see Old Fashioned, and appreciated it very much, it wasn't as great as I'd hoped and didn't save the month from flops and disappointments. And on top of that Agent Carter is over. However, March is looking up! If all goes to plan I will be seeing two of these films in the theaters, and there's also a new season of a quality television show that is nothing like Agent Carter, but can perfectly replace it anyway. Is March looking up for you too? What movies will you be seeing?

Chappie
Mar 6th; R
What with the director of District 9, Neill Blomkamp helming this, I wonder if it will be the very first successful attempt at making an "AI" movie where the AI being is actually a good guy. I can't think of a film that has done it satisfactorily yet, so that could be very cool. But besides that, this looks like a very original and interesting movie anyway, with a cast including Hugh Jackman, Sigourney Weaver, and Sharlto Copley proving the voice and moments for Chappie. Still I suppose there's the possibility that this will be more "Elysium" than "District 9" but even that is better than most.




Cinderella
Mar 13th; PG
This is exactly what I need: a classic, cute, silly, beautiful new version of a great, happy, fuss-less classic fairytale, Cinderella. Something for us to lose ourselves in, and help us remember why fairytales are so appealing in the first place. Cast; large and familiar; Lily James and Richard Madden as Ella and the prince; Cate Blanchett as the evil stepmother, Hayley Atwell as Ella's real mother, and Helena Bonham-Carter as her Fairy Godmother; and Holliday Grainger and Sophie McShera as the ugly stepsisters. And Kenneth Branagh directing. This is the most promising thing I see; he really knows how to do old fashioned romance and drama with a beautiful style. I can hardly wait for this one!




Insurgent
Mar 20th; PG-13
#2 in the Divergent series. And I'm not as excited about his one as I would like to be. Mostly, I think, because I didn't like the two sequel books as much as I did the original. Still, there's plenty of potential there, and it might make a better movie than it did a book. Also this is the best installment for my favorite character, Peter, (Miles Teller) and I'm also looking forward to Caleb's (Ansel Elgort) expanded role. Then of course there's Shailene Woodley, and she is solely what makes this series tick as well as it does. Theo James, Kate Winslet, and in fact everyone who didn't die in the last movie return (and some who did -- what are you doing, Ashely Judd?) and there's lot of new characters too. I'm sure I'll be seeing this, but I'm not holding out any hope that it'll be any better than the first.




While We're Young
Mar 27th; R
With The Secret Life of Walter Mitty I suddenly started to like Ben Stiller, particularly his more sincere comedies, so when I ran across this trailer it caught my attention, and it looks like it could be a pretty interesting movie. It's about an older couple (Stiller and Naomi Watts) who start hanging out with a young couple (Amanda Seyfried and Adam Driver) and the interesting results of this unlikely, socially strange friendship.




Broadchurch
Season 2; premieres March 4th 10/9c on BBC America
Broadchurch is the exact opposite of everything Agent Carter was. It is dark, melancholy, serious, creepy and depressing. Hardly and light moments or even a break from the building tension. But it sure is good. Starring the great David Tennant as the disturbed and depressed Detective, and Olivia Coleman as his partner, who after the last season has a husband on trial for murder. (The cast is teaming with Doctor Who alumni; also Arthur Darvill, Jonathan Bailey, and David Bradley.) The reason this can replace Agent Carter, is because the season, James D'Arcy has joined the cast! This trailer suggests (strongly) that he'll be playing a bad guy, but still, it's something.

Cinderella -- New Trailer!

Lily James as the title princess.

Disney's live action Cinderella, directed by Kenneth Branagh. Starring the adorable Lily James of Downton Abbey, Richard Madden of Game of Thrones, Cate Blanchett, Helena Bonham Carter, and Hayley Atwell, and many more recognizable faces. But what makes me most excited to see this film is that it appears to be a very classic telling of the story -- like Disney's animation, but in live action -- no twists or re-imaginings, because we've seen plenty of those already. Granted, there are plenty of the straightforward versions too, but in my opinion, there couldn't possibly ever be too many of those. And Branagh's rich directing style is sure to make it a thoroughly magnificent affair. This looks magical!



What do you think of the trailer? Are you planning on seeing the movie when it releases in March? And is this the way you prefer your fairytales, or do like the trend of giving them a modernized twist?

Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit

Jack Ryan is back, this time in the form of Chris Pine, who was hoped to jump-start the old franchise of the CIA analyst-turned-action-hero. But both the hero and the film itself have some big shoes to fill -- in the form of the great Harrison Ford, and the classic with Alec Baldwin, "The Hunt for Red October." And to go about it there are two main options; try to compete with those old versions, or, make everything so fresh and modern that no one will compare them. They chose the latter. Like when Daniel Craig gave new life to the 007 franchise, Pine's Jack Ryan goes back to the beginning, showing us the origin of the reasonably well loved character, but at the same time, making his origin a modern tale.

See? Cellphone, laptop, fashionable suit -- modern.

He enlisted in the service soon after 9/11; soon after that was in a helicopter as it exploded, then spent a lot of time soon after that learning how to walk again, and simultaneously trying to score a date off his pretty physical therapist Cathy. (Keira Knightly) Once he could not only walk again (this is not-so-soon after) but run around like nothing ever happened he does get that date. Unfortunately, that's about the same time he's approached by a mysterious man named Kevin Costner who wants him to join the CIA -- for his analytical skills, of course. Soon after that, (in movie time anyway) you probably have a good idea of what happens; this is an action movie, after all.

The name of Chris Pine is practically synonymous with "action hero," so he is an obvious, not terribly inspired choice to play the part. He portrays him very well, mostly by just being himself, but does nothing particular to set him apart from any other action character, let alone an old Jack Ryan character. Still he's enjoyable and fun to watch, and makes no obvious missteps, especially to the untrained eye of a fan as casual as myself.

"Hi, I'm the hero." "Hello. I am villain. You can tell because I am Russian, and this is American movie."

Kenneth Branagh directed and also starred as the villain -- the Russian villain -- and did about the same at both jobs. I guess he couldn't pass up the opportunity to show off his fabulous Russian accent, but his villain turned out just about as mediocre as the rest of the characters. Granted, he and Pine were certainly the best of the lot. The direction matched; none of it was actually bad, per se, but none of it was particularly gripping or memorable either.

Keira Knightly as Ryan's long-time girlfriend though, I couldn't accept so casually as the previous two. Maybe because she's British, and was playing an American, or maybe because I just don't like her -- and I really don't like her -- I was expecting throughout the whole film for her to suddenly reveal that she's been a bad guy the whole time. Eventually I remembered that the character's in all the previous future films, (no, that's not a paradox) but it was still bothersome.

Another person I do not like is Kevin Costner. Fortunately he was given so little to do that I wasn't able to be driven crazy by his annoying-ness, unlike his role in Man of Steel, for contrast. There aren't many actors I dislike -- in fact Kevin Costner and Keira Knightly might be the only two -- so it's basically a minor miracle I was able to enjoy this movie at all.

You will not find a photo of Costner anywhere here, but here's Knightly and Pine trying to work on their chemistry...

Yet, the things I didn't enjoy didn't specifically come from general annoyance at seeing certain faces. The fact is that what I've been saying about all the characters and the directing being underwhelming and unmemorable while still not going over the line into actual badness is true for all aspects of this film. My overall impression was just a general, lackadaisical "ho-hum." It's hard to pinpoint exactly what, if anything was the particular cause, but I do think that the scene in the restaurant lasted way too long, and the ending was sloppy, cliched, and forgettable. The film took itself too seriously at times as well, and simply didn't move around enough. It had the pace of an older action film, but didn't have the intricate dialogue necessary to hold interest at that pace.

That is, unless it was zipping along in mindless action, which I did prefer.

The best of the film was hands down the fight scene in the hotel room, which was comparatively very exciting and tense -- wouldn't have felt at all out of place in a Bourne film -- and, naturally, showed off Pine's skills as an action hero. He is the best of that scene, the best of the movie, and the best reason to invest time in this movie. Of course, he's been in plenty other movies too, and most of them are actually good or even great movies, making this movie's existence very nearly moot. As a Chris Pine vehicle, or as another installment of the Jack Ryan franchise, there's better to be had elsewhere, though it finds better footing in the former. This flick that is supposed to be thrilling with its spies, and Russian villains, and chase scenes, instead just middles around somewhere between bad and good, not brave enough to take a chance in any direction. Not very much like it's hero at all.

Thor

Thor. What to say? That the blockbuster accidentally created one of the greatest movie villains of all-time? Who is arguably more sympathetic than the film's hero? There is certainly much, much more to Thor than the beginning of Tom Hiddleston's Loki, but if I were to say this movie may be hard to review objectively, and ... rationally ... I'm sure you could sympathize.

"Seriously Thor, I swear I didn't know my army would be so BIG... or how crazy they'd be! ...should we run?"

Kenneth Branagh directs this take on Shakespearean Norse "gods" who are really aliens, and Marvel superheroes. Thor (Chris Hemsworth) the "god of thunder" and son of Odin, (Anthony Hopkins) the king of Asgard, is poised to succeed his father as king. He is strong, and handsome, and, oh yeah, has an ego the size of the nine realms. When Thor foolishly nearly destroys Odin's peace treaty with the Frost Giants, Odin does what every good king would do; he banishes him to a out-of-the-way world called Earth. When and only when he is worthy, will he be able to claim his hammer and his powers.

Immediately upon his arrival on earth, Thor runs into -- er, is run into by scientist Jane Foster, (Natalie Portman) her colleague Dr. Erik Selvig, (Stellan Skarsgård) and intern Darcy (Kat Dennings) as they track strange weather patterns. Jane doesn't know it yet, but the large, odd acting dude she just "grazed" with her car is the answer to all her questions. Back in Asgard, Thor's friends, Lady Sif, (Jaimie Alexander) and fellows Frandal, (Josh Dallas) Hogun (Tadanobu Asano) and Volstagg (Ray Stevenson) consider how to get Thor out of his banishment, while his brother, the "god of mischief" Loki, (Tom Hiddleston) eyes Thor's would-be throne with jealousy, while having a bit of an identity crisis.

"This is not funny, father, humans are so petty and tiny!"

Branagh is mostly known for his Shakespeare adaptations, so he was a very interesting, interestingly fitting choice to direct Thor. It may be sci-fi, but Asgardians know how to use their "thee's" and "thou's" and to never use contractions, and if the conflict between Thor and Loki and their father isn't Shakespearean, I don't know what is. Branagh does an especially impressive job with the latter of these. The most compelling conflicts of this movie are not physical ones.

But I do question some of his choices. Like, what is up with the angled shot composition? It's pretty distracting as I always feel like cocking my head. It only really works when it's a shot of Thor and Jane together -- that's the only way to fit Jane's head in without zooming way out, but that's it. Neither am I a big fan of Thor being a complete fish-out-of water on Earth. It did make for some amusing, some hilarious situations, but it's not practical for him to be that naive. I don't know if these are things Branagh really had a say about though... it could be more a producer/screenwriter problem.

It's not at all odd that Thor falls in love with the first human woman he meets, is it?

My thoughts on the scope of the film and the action of the film are very similar; I thoroughly enjoy, and am sometimes impressed by what I see, but there's sometimes something lacking. Asgard is beautiful and creative, and fills you with wonder, and just isn't used enough. And fight sequences -- particularly the one in the Frost Giant world -- don't have the snap and crackle they could have; they get generic. The most exciting action sequence is when Thor fights off highly trained humans as he goes to claim Mjolnir, it's epic, memorable and involving, perhaps because he's not super-powered at the time?

I wish Thor's four friends had more screen-time and development... which is a complaint and a complement since I liked them enough to want to see more. (Hoping for, and expecting more in The Dark World!) Their best bit of development was their being described as "Xenia, Jackie Chan and Robin Hood" but they left out Gimli! Hopkins as Odin is kingly and very solid; Dr. Selvig and Darcy do what they're meant to -- feed the plot, and add comic relief, but nothing more. Clark Gregg as Coulson makes an appearance, and shows up all the other side characters in awesomeness with ease. And Jeremy Renner has a short cameo as Hawkeye.

Jackie Chan, Robin Hood and Gimli.Fitting descriptions, I think.

As for the man himself, Hemsworth is a bit stiff at first, all proper and aloof, but we do warm to him as he learns humility and to be a true hero. He doesn't grow on you as quickly as is ideal, but since he's in multiple films now, it's a minor problem. He has some great one-liners and does physical humor very well, and once we like him, he's even endearing. Hemsworth's real strength as Thor though, is his appearance -- he is Thor, no question. Now, Jane, well... I don't like Jane. But that's personal, and really more of a dislike of Portman whose acting irks me. Her portrayal of Jane is fine, but there's nothing really special about her.

Okay, I left someone out, right? Who...  oh, right, the guy in green... what was his name...? Just kidding, I was saving the best for last of course! Loki! When I saw Thor for the first time, I tried to like the main character best. It's what you're supposed to do. I thought it was quite odd and sad that the bad guy was more sympathetic than the hero though. Since, I've developed a much more... avid opinion on the subject. Hiddleston's Loki breaks your heart. He does and tries to do some horrendous things, but his situation is so pitiable and Hiddleston plays him with so much charm and complexity and pathos and fervor and understanding, he becomes lovable in spite of his deeds, because we understand him as well. Yet, at the same time, he is an incredibly sinister villain -- but it's only a sneak peek compared to his full-fledged evil villain in The Avengers. I don't know how he managed the role so perfectly, but I'm delighted that he did. Tom Hiddleston is the man.

Does this even need words? No.

In case you haven't guessed it yet, Loki is my favorite. But don't get me wrong, I like this movie as a whole on its own merit, Loki's just a step above. This isn't a masterpiece, but there's a bunch more to in it to love than to gripe about; it's is perfectly cast where it counts, looks unique and stylish, is driven by fun and humor, but stays grounded in truth. It may not be realistic, (in fact it's can get downright cheesy) but its themes are. Thor is a colorful bout of glee and sincerity. And if the sequel keeps up the tradition, it will doubtlessly be a success, so, there's only one thing left to say: come on, Dark World!