Once Upon a Time in... Hollywood

Spoiler-free!

It boggles my mind that this film came from Quentin Tarantino. With his work so far, I've only been able to find respect, and tidbits of enjoyment as I watched the masterfully crafted scenes -- featuring characters I didn't particularly care about, doing things that I didn't really understand. I wouldn't say there's absolutely no heart or meaning to any of them, but with all that glorious violence and excessive swearing that stylishly coats the picture in distraction, "heartfelt" is certainly not the first quality that enters my head when this filmmaker's name is mentioned. Until today.

I loved how in the filming scenes, the camera becomes the in-movie scene's camera as well. The crew disappears until the scene cuts, just as it should. The magic of movies is portrayed in this movie -- but there's cynicism too.

Once Upon a Time in Hollywood follows the lives of Rick Dalton (Leonardo DiCaprio), an actor who was a big time hit in the 50's with a cowboy TV show, and Cliff Booth (Brad Pitt), Rick's long-time friend and stunt double. Now Rick does guest appearances as villains and Cliff drives him around. Also, Rick just so happens to live right next door to Sharon Tate (Margot Robbie) who is doomed to be murdered by cultist hippies. The film watches with a keen eye as they navigate Hollywood in 1969, imparting a surprising amount of insight and honesty onto the audience as it goes.

No movie can exist these days without controversy. This one has more than a few, and my two cents on the overall subject is that it's all contrived. If you don't like the way any number of real-life characters are portrayed in this film, there's no demand for you to believe or trust that characterization. This movie has a perspective and is honest about that. It's hard to say what is true, especially when fiction and reality are so blurred together as they are here; the point isn't that what the film shows us is true or really happened (most of it didn't) but it uses our knowledge of history to build a compelling, fictional narrative and story.

Great era music. And so much of it! Also, Robbie is a wonder of physical acting in this. She portrays so much, and becomes absolutely mythical. People complaining she doesn't have as many lines as the men have no concept of the power of silence.

At the heart of the story is Cliff -- an admirable guy who experiences the Hollywood film business as an impartial outsider. He lives in a trailer behind a drive-in theater with his dog, and doesn't get to do what he loves anymore -- stunt work -- so he putters around, acting as chauffeur for Rick and doing odd jobs for him, reminiscing about the days when he could show up the stuck-up elite, and generally being an all-around unappreciated hero. While Rick pretends to be a hard-boiled cowboy, Cliff is off actually being one; bringing a little more justice to the world with practiced control and a level head.

As a result, this movie succeeds in being my favorite effort of Tarantino's and my favorite role of Pitt's. I'll readily admit that I've never been a super-fan of either, but I've never been closer than I am now. The unnoticed hero is a trope that wins with me every time, and this movie pulls it off in spectacular fashion and doesn't shove it in your face; appropriately, it lets the actions of its characters speak for themselves. The rest of the movie and characters do their jobs; whether to juxtapose the hero, drive the plot, create tension, or make a one-off statement, this movie brims with talent and they do a brilliant job.

It is 2 hours and 41 minutes; and not an inch too long. Stuffed full, but not rushed or bursting. The travelling scenes were great. Whether through city by car, or desert by horse, I like that it took the time to relish moments like those.

This movie worked on me. The effect it was crafted to have; the impact it was intended to make, landed solid and stuck. Even if it hadn't, Tarantino still has an ability to make good and artful films. Its humor was funny, its style infectious, and its scenes and structure had flow. It felt indulgent, but not snobbishly; lingering where it wanted to, but having a reason, and knowing how to balance. Of course it's good; few people would deny that Tarantino can put together a movie. My unexpectedly great admiration comes from the personal meaning within all the expected Hollywood trappings.

Once Upon a Time in... is a Tarantino flick through and through; and, perhaps, a little bit more. The highlight still comes from his patent rich and memorable characters, and wild and memorable scenes. It's as brazen, gory, and careless -- as always. But it's also oddly tender, understanding, and even regretful. It feels like a fairytale. As if someone wished, and then worked hard to make that wish come true, even if briefly. Technical prowess aside, the kind of movie that bares its soul in that way is a movie worthy of the name.

Upcoming Movie Roundup - July

In June I saw Godzilla: King of Monsters as a roll-over from May. It wasn't good but I wasn't super disappointed either. (Review here!) Then I saw The Dead Don't Die and that one wasn't awesome either... same kind of deal. But in this case I'm at least glad I saw it! (Review here!) We talked about going to Dark Phoenix but it never happened and I'd still like to see Yesterday. It'll probably be streaming for them both.

This month I'm definitely going to one, but otherwise it seems like a kinda slow month, especially for July. I guess a lot of the movies just aren't my cup of tea. As you will see, there's one in particular that I wouldn't go see even if I was paid, and no, it's not the terrifying horror film.

What looks good to y'all this summer?


Spider-Man: Far From Home
In theaters July 2nd; PG-13
I already have my tickets and I love me some Spider-Man, but at the same time, after Endgame I've been enjoying feeling free of the MCU, and I'm more than a little worried that this one will attempt to draw me back in for the next thing and the next thing. I just want to enjoy some Spidey stuff with Tom Holland, Zendaya, and Jake Gyllenhaal, and have a good self-contained time like I do with non-franchise movies. I know that's too much to ask for, but I'll do my best to enjoy everything I possibly can!




Midsommar
In theaters July 3rd; R
After my experience with Hereditary, this new one from the same director just gonna be a plain, flat no for me. Even if it does have Will Poulter in it. And even if it does look pretty. And even if I do have a slight affinity for cults in horror movies. It's just not worth the risk...




Crawl
In theaters July 12th; R
Wow my brother's gonna be so excited to hear about this movie! (The one who isn't a Marvel fan for anyone who's keeping track.) This movie is a disaster pic, AND a monster flick AND a kinda-sorta horror-thriller, all smashed into one! And it promises to be wonderfully unrealistic and over the top. How nice of them. Starring Kaya Scodelario and Barry Pepper, too! I love Barry Pepper.




The Art of Self-Defense
Limited release on July 12th; R
A strange looking movie in which Jesse Eisenberg is a wimp and decides to learn karate for self-defense. Then things go a little too far? Also with Imogen Poots. The trailer makes me laugh. It kinda makes me think of a more hardcore Napoleon Dynamite with the class Kip takes in that movie -- except way less clean content-wise. I'll probably wait for streaming, but look forward to the day.




The Lion King
In theaters July 19th; PG
A big, fat NO. An even bigger no than Midsommar is. I don't care how nice it looks, or how real it looks, or how great at singing Beyoncé and Donald Glover are, or that James Earl Jones is back. The Lion King was a favorite of mine as a kid. I still love the movie and it's my favorite Broadway show. There is no way on Earth that I'm watching this film. I saw The Jungle Book remake and it made me want to die. I'm not doing it. I've already run out of the theater to avoid watching the trailer again and I will continue to avoid every glimpse of it until the day it's dated and forgotten. I doubt it'll be a long wait.




Once Upon a Time in Hollywood
In theaters July 26th; NR
Looks like a fun time but I've never really loved any of Quentin Tarantino's films so I can't say I'm super excited. I don't know much about film during the late 60's either, so it being about real people probably won't land as well with me as with others, though it does make for a very appealing tone! I'm sure it's very good, just not sure it'll be worth a theater trip for me. (Language warning for the trailer.)




Skin
Limited release July 26th; R
I think this could be a good film if it accurately shows what life is like for white supremacists. Culturally they're kind of this disembodied thing, and movies don't help much by simplifying and Hollywood-izing them as just people who have beer bellies and wear red hats. In reality it's a scary ideology, and the first step to combating it is to understand it. Know your enemy and stuff. This is a true story about a neo-nazi who tried to get out of the life. Jamie Bell and A24. Sounds serious, but promising.




The Mountian
Limited release on July 26th; NR
This looks like such a strange movie, and I have no idea if I want to watch it or not, but it does have Jeff Goldblum and Tye Sheridan in it, so I'll definitely consider it should it even cross my path on a streaming service. It's set in the 50's in a mental asylum.

Upcoming Movie Roundup - December

From my November list I saw the one film I knew I would see, Mockingjay Part 2 (click here for my review) and we started The Man in the High Castle, which is great, but we're making slow progress. Still waiting on a chance to see Brooklyn and Man Up.

December, of course, has one new release that pretty much everyone knows about -- even the people who don't usually keep track of movie releases. It is undoubtedly the biggest hyped movie I have ever witnessed, and it's thrilling to be a part of it all. But, there are a few other December movies that are also worth a look:


MI-5 (Spooks: The Greater Good)
Dec 4th(limited); R
A spin-off movie of the British version of 24 (sorta), Spooks (or MI-5 in the US). I've never watched the TV show, and I wouldn't really expect this to be an actual great movie or anything, (reviews so far are expectedly middling) but the thing is, when it comes to action thrillers like this, even the bad ones are good to me. I'm definitely up for this one. I only wonder how much knowledge of the series is required. Or, maybe I should actually watch the series now...




In the Heart of the Sea
Dec 11th; PG-13
Every time I'm reminded of this, Ron Howard's latest epic, I think about it has basically everything I love to see in a movie. It looks beautiful, always a big bonus. It's an intriguing story, with lots of potential for genuine drama -- if the tone veers more to the serious, survival side, or to the action/adventure side, or lands anywhere in between it doesn't matter -- it'll all work well. Even though it's based on reality, it has that element of awe and wonder that comes from a fantasy. And it has a cast -- I mean it really has a cast. Chris Hemsworth, Cillian Murphy and Tom Holland top my "excited to see" list, but there's also Benjamin Walker, Ben Whishaw, and Brendan Gleeson. Plus it's a period drama. And set at sea. Even if one of these elements fail to be as great as they promise to be, there's many to back it up. I have very little doubt that this will fail to be a worthy film, and I may even have to drag my family to the theater to see it!




Don Verdean
Dec 11th(limited); PG-13
Ah-hahahahahaha-ooh... Well. It's a comedy from the writers of Napoleon Dynamite, and it stars Sam Rockwell and Jemaine Clement, which is three huge pluses right there, but the part where it pretty much is constantly poking fun at Christianity is much less appealing. No real Christians are like that in reality, and I have no problem with poking fun at the fake ones who actually are, but it always irks me a little to see Christianity portrayed so inaccurately -- even in fun -- because that really is the way some people view all Christians, and c'mon -- who would want to be associated with that? Reviews are mixed so far, but I love me some Sam Rockwell, so we'll just have to wait and see.




Star Wars: Episode VII - The Force Awakens
Dec 18th; PG-13
Gah! Do I really even need to say anything? The fact of the matter people, is, that even if every single other movie in December were complete trash, no one would care, or probably even notice -- because Star Wars. And if it's any good, that applies the January movies too. And it's gonna be good. Even if it isn't instantly as classic as the original trilogy it's still going to be worth all the hype. It looks so beyond epic from it's trailers. J.J. Abrams... epic amounts of sentimentality... fantastic cast. Even though I've never seen John Boyega or Daisy Ridley in anything before I already consider myself to be a fan of them, plus there's my personal favorite Oscar Isaac, and Domhnall Gleeson, Adam Driver, Andy Serkis and Lupita Nyong'o, and of course the original cast of Harrison Ford, Carrie Fisher and Mark Hamill. One sad point for me is that I can't see it until Sunday at the earliest, (so I'll be dying on Thurs Fri and Sat) but that's the one damper amongst the piles of insanely exciting things about this hugely anticipated continuation of the Star Wars saga. All aboard the hype train! Next stop: a galaxy far far away! Woot wooot!




Joy
Dec 25th: PG-13
Jennifer Lawrence, Bradley Cooper and David O. Russell together yet again. Honestly I don't really need to know much more than that. What I do know is that the story is really four stories, each centering around a woman played by Lawrence, and, one of the stories, I believe, is true. It's a very different premise, and I hope is successful in making another good film for these three. What really sealed the deal for me was the PG-13 rating. I'm quite impressed. And if nothing else it'll be a great acting vehicle for Lawrence.




Point Break
Dec 25th; PG-13
I recently saw the original Keanu Reeves, Patrick Swayze film, and enjoyed it, so I don't see why I shouldn't do the same for this remake someday. This one looks much more thrilling as the daredevil aspect has been kicked up to match the modern day. Otherwise it doesn't seem to have much going for it, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if it's generally considered an unworthy remake by fans of the original.



 
The Revenant
Dec 25th; R
The chances that I'll ever see this are pretty slim. Even if it does turn out to be considered a fantastic film and even if it does finally allow Leo to win that Oscar, it just plain in unappealing to me. In spite of the cast, which, besides Leonardo DiCaprio, includes Tom Hardy, Domhnall Gleeson, Will Poulter, and Lukas Haas. It looks abrasively intense and serious, and that is just not interesting to me. I've sat through the trailer three times now in theaters and every time I do, I feel embarrassed for Leo. He's trying so hard! So, so hard. Poor Leo. It would be really sad if he didn't get it this time. I would laugh. With this one, I'm really interested in knowing what you guys think. Are you excited to see this movie, and if so, why? For Leo's performance, or the movie itself? And does anyone share my opinion that this movie is trying so hard it's actually embarrassing, or am I alone in that?




Weee, what an exciting month! How excited are you for Star Wars, and when are you planning to see it? And are there any other movies this month that have your attention?

The Great Gatsby (2013)

Baz Luhrmann's The Great Gatsby starts out exactly as F. Scott Fitzgerld's stupendous, classic book -- "In my younger and more vulnerable years..." Nick Carraway, who is now apparently depressed and alcoholic stares dramatically out the snowy window, and relays his story to his doctor. The story of how he moved to West Egg, just outside NYC, into a tiny cottage squeezed between two huge mansions, one of which was always alive with wild parties and belonged to a man called Gatsby, and what happened there that summer of 1922.

Spoilers ahead, sweetie. If you haven't read the book, you shouldn't be watching this movie. Or reading this review!

The movie, also like the book is (almost) always in Nick's perspective. His doctor encourages him to write everything down, and he narrates as he does throughout the whole film. Often, ruining a moment he should be only witnessing by jumping in and whacking us over the head with the subtlety that we would apparently never understand without his helpful insight. If you beat someone to death with subtlety, is it still subtle? Tobey Maguire plays Nick, and reminded me very little of his Peter Parker, and when he wasn't smashing his "insights" over our heads, or (over) dramatically quoting the book word for word, I liked him. Still, he was too involved in the story, not a simple observer who reserves judgment. Somehow he was inserted too much into the story, but simultaneously removed, as his entire relationship with Jordan was completely cut.

Nick trying to work. He didn't spend ALL summer observing other people's drama.

Gatsby is the main guy here, obviously. Rich, mysterious, personable Jay Gatsby. Hopeful to a fault. And Leonardo DiCaprio is just as good as he should be in the role. Let me just go ahead and point out that everything in this movie is overdone, most obviously the acting, and if I can, I blame the director, not the actors. That being said, there are some very good things about DiCaprio's Gatsby, and some not-so-good things. The way he said his catchphrase, "old sport" for instance, feels unnatural. It's either because that's how the director wanted it, to emphasize that Gatsby wasn't naturally that way, or, DiCaprio just couldn't pull it off. You guessed it; I've decided to lean towards the former. In general, DiCaprio's performance is very good; he does especially well with Gatsby's mysteriousness, and the desperate way he pursues his dream. His Gatsby is also obviously a man who has worked hard to make himself appear to be someone he naturally isn't.

The mysterious Gatsby.

Now Daisy Buchanan, that beautiful, conflicted girl whose voice is probably the most perfectly described in history. I knew from the moment I saw who was playing her that if anyone could do her justice, it was her; Carey Mulligan. Not only does she fit the part physically, but her voice seems to naturally be exactly what Fitzgerald heard as he wrote those lines about murmuring, music and money. One thing I didn't consider though was the character, and after the movie was over, I realized that Mulligan's Daisy was too likable. I shouldn't be surprised, it's very hard to make Carey Mulligan dislikable, and I doubt that Luhrmann wanted to make her so -- who'd want to watch a romance between two dislikable people? At times she sounded like she was trying too hard to get the voice right, and she didn't murmur enough for me, but otherwise she was exquisite, and I still maintain that she is the perfect choice for Daisy. Luhrmann just didn't know how to use her correctly.

Beautiful Daisy.

Her husband Tom Buchanan is the main character I have the least complaints about. He is undeniably a dislikable character, and played wonderfully well by Joel Edgerton. He lends a kind of tenderness to the character that I saw in the book, and was very pleased when it not only showed in the movie, but wasn't overdone -- I credit it solely to the actor. And of course his violent, racist, and other dislikable traits were there, and done very well. The only thing concerning his character that I missed was when Nick runs into him on the street at the end and shakes his hand. I thought it was an important scene that helps give the story its conclusion, and completes the character arc of both Tom and Daisy. But hey, what do I know, right?

Tom. "One of those men who reach such an acute limited excellence at twenty-one that everything afterward savors of anti-climax."

At first I thought Tom's mistress Myrtle Wilson was strangely cast as the young, cute, sweetly voiced Isla Fisher, but she impressed when she got the chance, which was basically just her introductory scene, but still. She may not have been like I imagined her, but she got the job done admirably. Same goes for her husband George Wilson played by Jason Clarke, except his appearance was considerably more like I imagined him. I would have been happy to see both of the characters get more development, and I think it would have been good for the movie.

Myrtle makes her grand entrance as her men have a chat.

Newcomer Elizabeth Debicki plays Jordan Baker the elegant golf star and fellow observer with Nick. I thought she was a good choice for the role and really enjoyed her part, but her character seems to be the one that ended up mostly on the cutting room floor. She's really only used when needed to develop the story, or is there when she's supposed to be because the novel dictated it. And as I mentioned her and Nick's relationship was almost totally missing; it only progressed as far as it needed to, to develop Gatsby's plot, then was left hanging there uselessly, disappointingly.

Lovely. If only she could have played her part to it's potential.

Now I'm probably going to shock you, and say that I thought that Jay-Z's rap score was a very bold and surprisingly fitting move. I liked the way the cool, upbeat modern music blended with the cool, upbeat music of the twenties, it was very sharp. And speaking of sharp, the costumes! I love twenties costumes, and these, mixed with high fashion, "vintage" tends of today were particularly suave, bold and zesty. I fell in love with Jordan's lavender hat, and Gastby's wardrobe was spot-on and immaculate. Neither the score nor the costumes were truly authentic, but they fit in the style of the picture, making it more relevant to modern times, and really helped amplify the spectacle.

And what a spectacle it was. Nick never describes Gatsby's parties in the movie, (though he describes plenty of other obvious things) for one very good reason; he really doesn't need to. The parties are alive with bright colors, music, noise and people, nearly overwhelming the senses... and I didn't even see it in 3D. The problem occurs when the party is over, and a particular sequence is supposed to be mellower, but attempts to make it more upbeat and dazzling only annoy. The party in Tom and Myrtle's apartment got that treatment and was made way wilder than the book's description implied. During that scene I sat wondering what in the world was going on, hoping the rest of the movie wasn't going to be changed like it, and missing Fitzgerald's description of no one being able find each other in the thick cigarette smoke.

People party at Gatsby's place!

During other sequences, the "glitz-y treatment" results in some weird, distracting computer effects, like flash-backs appearing in the clouds, or Nick speaking lines as they appear in the falling snowflakes. It really snaps you out of the experience. So while they're putting text on the screen, they might as well have put some in flashing red that proclaims "THIS PART IS STRAIGHT FROM THE BOOK" because someone was obviously very proud of the fact, (whenever it was a fact) and it's already being screamed out as loudly as subtext can be -- just go the extra step, and it'll even be ironic!

This Gatsby is soaring in glamorous fashion and overflowing with unique style, but the only way it's like the book is that it's literally (word for word) like the book! Practically everything happens, yet almost nothing is right. Where are the intricacies and subtleties, the real life, the laid back humor, and the wonder? Gatsby and Daisy's over-the-top romance take precedence over everything that really resonates and makes you think when it's all over. Just before Gatsby dies, and falls slow-mo into his pool, he whispers, "Daisy" and words appear on the screen one last time -- "You can start crying now." (Okay, not that last part) Gatsby was obsessed with Daisy, but if we know better, we then begin to miss everything that was brushed aside for some pointless tragic romance. And in that last glimpse of his handsome face floating under digital water, there is no realism; no grim epiphany that Gatsby wasted his life chasing that dream that was already behind him, and died carelessly, alone and friendless; nothing more than a briefly dazzling carnival attraction. That's what this movie is too -- a two-hour showcase of digital beauty, fireworks and parties, and romance. A dazzling, hollow shell.

It's hard to live up to such standards as Fiztgerald set, and this movie does get it half exceptionally right, with its near-flawless cast, and breath-taking sets. I also give them the credit of at least attempting to capture the complexities of the novel, but I've come to the conclusion that The Great Gatsby is just an un-filmable book. What would the book be anyway, without "Carraway's" thoughts and observations, and our unlimited access to his mind? But including them in the movies is next to impossible. Nothing has worked yet, but so far Luhrmann has put in the best attempt. When it wasn't bothering me, I enjoyed it, and if the title wasn't The Great Gatsby, I would dismiss it satisfied, as an incredibly dazzling, slightly depressing film.

Number 7!

Upcoming Film - The Great Gatsby is going to be a movie... again.

Tom Hiddleston as F. Scott Fitzgerald in Midnight in Paris.

So I recently read The Great Gatsby for the first time. It was after watching the trailer for the movie, coming in 2013. The trailer piqued my interest, and then I saw the book was relatively short, and even looked easy to read. So I read it. And I loved it. I loved the simplicity of the plot, the wit, the imagery, and the first person writing. I imagined Fitzgerald as Tom Hiddleston, writing all those witty lines for my entertainment. It was a lovely, pretty short read, and now, of course, I’m ready for the movie. Because what’s the point of such a great book if it’s not going to be made into a movie?

I assume that the one and only reason this is being made into a movie again is so Carey Mulligan can play Daisy Buchanan. She is obviously the only person who should ever do it; she’s perfect for it. I heard Daisy’s very specific voice effortlessly as I read, and it sounded exactly like Mulligan. I’m excited to see her, but what about the rest of the cast? Well, here come my opinions, ready or not.

Carey Mulligan looking lovely as Daisy from the trailer.

I will never complain about seeing Joel Edgerton in a movie, and I think he is very well cast here as Tom Buchanan. As I read the book, I forgot Edgerton was going to be staring, but I knew there was someone I was forgetting from the cast. I didn’t look it up though, because I wanted to keep my imagination untainted. Ironically, I imagined Tom to look rather like Tom Hardy, whom Edgerton played a brother to in Warrior.

Tom Hardy and Joel Edgerton in Warrior.

 I was this close to unknowingly imagining the character as the person actually going to play him. When I finished the book and looked at the cast list again I had a pretty good chuckle. And then I was very happy of course.

Obviously, Edgerton will be great.

Tobey Maguire’s look as Nick from the trailer stuck with me pretty well, but one thing about him worries me... Maguire’s usual characters are at least slightly awkward, especially in the way he talks, but Nick wasn’t like that; he was more normal, laid back and observing; like the audience or reader in character form. Tobey Maguire is not the person I would think of for this role, but he if does it right… i.e. if he leaves all things “Peter Parker” behind, this role has the potential to be my absolute favorite of his.

Here Maguire is wondering if he should play the character to my liking, or not. Please do!

(I noticed people suggesting Joseph Gordon-Levitt for Nick, and I think he would've been amazing, but I am heavily biased on that particular subject.)

And finally the main guy, Gatsby himself. And I don’t know what to say. The fact is I'm having a hard time seeing DiCaprio as Gatsby. He’s a great actor and I have no doubt he can perform it well – he does play insecure, desperate characters exceptionally – but he just doesn’t seem quite right. His voice is wrong, his looks aren’t classic enough... I guess I just can’t hear DiCaprio say “old sport” and not have it come out funny – in a bad way. I’m pretty sure my worries will be proven wrong in the end though, and he’ll be a fine Gatsby.

 

See? He looks fine. I should relax, right?

No one really jumps out at me as being better for the role than DiCaprio anyway. Certainly no American actors, but is that important? Mulligan and Edgerton are British and Australian respectively, and the newcomer playing Jordan is also an Aussie, and I’m sure an American accent is no problem for them. If I think British, Cary Elwes comes to mind, and he naturally has some of Gatsby’s qualities… if only he were twenty or so years younger. Jude Law is also an interesting thought, and he has the air, and also the acting chops for the role. If it were up to me to cast the film, he’d probably be my pick, but alas, I’m just a consumer and must be satisfied with DiCaprio, and as I said I’m sure he’ll be fine, at least.

 

A very young Cary Elwes, and...

Jude Law looking very dapper.

This book is in need of a successful film, and the trailer looks promising, and faithful to the source material, if a little modernized feeling. It’s going to be in 3D, which is odd, but if it’s quality 3D, I won’t complain, and who knows, it might even be improved by it. Visuals seem to play a big role here if you can judge by the trailer, and 3D was made for big visual movies. I’m excited to see it, then remember my opinions on it from now, and see how they've changed. And now that I have stated my opinions, I will move on and get excited for different movies, like the first installment of The Hobbit, and wait patiently for May 10.

Looks promising now - we'll see for sure in eight months.