Well I'm 10 days late with this post, but hey -- better late than never, right? I think I need these posts to stay sane, even though I'm scraping the bottom of the (nearly empty) movie barrel.
Last month I was convinced to not pay $20 to rent The King of Staten Island, so now I'm waiting for the rental fee to cheapen. I did see Eurovision: The story of Fire Saga! And it was better than I expected! A bit too much unfunny slapstick style comedy for my taste but it wasn't unbearable, and in between there was genuine charm and good music. At this point I probably won't review it, even though I should. Eh. Oh well.
I did catch up a bit with The Invisible Man -- it was cool, though not as great as I was promised. (review)
I'm currently in the middle of Dark on Netflix, and it is as expected so far. The same show in all the particulars, but not on the same level as that stunning first season.
July has... not much going for it, surprise surprise. I was really hoping to be gearing up for TENET at this point. But here's what I'll be settling for instead:
The Old guard
On Netflix July 10
I'm not holding onto hope that this will be very high on the quality scale, but it looks high enough on the fun scale to give it a go! Based on a graphic novel... fantasy and "real world"... immortality... sounds better than Bloodshot already! Starring Charlize Theron, with Matthias Schoenaerts, and Chiwetel Ejiofor as the baddie, it seems.
Palm Springs
On Hulu July 10th
This one was on my to-watch list even before COVID happened. I was on board based on premise alone, that it was a com-rom with some kind of scifi twist, starring Andy Samberg who I think is pretty funny. But I actually watched the trailer just now and now and even more on board because wow do I like a good Groundhog Day concept! And the idea of two characters experiencing the repeating days together is a new, fun twist to add.
Vivarium
On Amazon Prime July 11th
Interesting concept low-fi scifi movie where a couple looking for a house to buy stumbles into the wrong neighborhood -- which they literally cannot find their way out of. Starring Imogen Poots and Jesse Eisenberg. The style is very Stepford with a modern arthouse edge, and the premise has my curiosity piqued.
Cursed
TV series on Netflix July 17th
Ehh, I was interesting at the idea of a medieval fantasy series on Netflix, but watching the trailer makes it look like there isn't much meat to dig into. I dunno, I might give it a chance.
The Kissing Booth 2
On Netflix July 24th
All but guaranteed to be worse than the already spectacularly bad original -- but what it Netflix for if not to watch awful teen rom-coms while the world stands still in the middle of summer? A waste of time? Absolutely. But what else am I going to do with the surplus? Lol, I hate that I know I'm going to hate this and am still planning to watch it.
The Umbrella Academy - Season 2
TV series on Netflix July 31st
The first season was good. I will continue watching it until it isn't good anymore. Basically these adopted siblings with quirky superpowers stop the apocalypse from happening in various different ways every season. It's a hoot!
This one's a mixed bag. Based on the book series, Mortal Engines tells the story of a steampunk scifi world where survivors of an ancient nuclear war have turned their cities mobile and swallow up other cities for resources. Valentine (Hugo Weaving) runs things on the predator city London, and he has dark plans for long-term survival. In the way of said plans was Hester's (Hera Hilmar) mother, and now Hester is out for revenge. Tom (Robert Sheehan), a history buff, is caught between them, and he and Hester form a reluctant alliance against Valentine.
Non-scifi/adventure fans need not apply, I guess.
And that leads me straight into the film's first and main problem. Hester and Tom always know how Valentine is evil, but his plans are discovered and planned against only once the third act starts. Hester has vague notions of revenge, and Tom has vague notions of helping her, but they wander through the second act without anything particular to do. The resident badass, Anna Fang (Jihae), picks them up and proceeds to steal their heroic moments by being better than them at everything. They kind of putter along behind her, uselessly. It was frustrating, as I wanted to root for these two, but the movie made it nigh impossible by letting them do nothing I could root for them to accomplish. Adventure was laid out right in front of them, but they were never allowed to dive in.
I wanted this to be this year's Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets. Debatable in quality, but enjoyable in a way that doesn't require quality. In Valerian, the two are extremely hands-on and that's what makes the adventure work. Hester and Tom are practically observers of adventure, not participators or instigators. Romantic tension between Tom and Hester falls flat too. They have very little chemistry to keep it fueled, and it's saved for far too long. Acting-wise the only cast member who's genuinely commendable is Hugo Weaving. He runs circles around everyone and doesn't break a sweat. That wouldn't matter, as adventure isn't a high-acting genre, but better performances would've been useful to bolster the meandering.
The epic music swell during his reveal was magnificent.
What this movie gets right is its production and art design. Director Christian Rivers has a background in this kind of thing, and it shows. The places created are awesome, and I was disappointed every time they weren't sufficiently explored before they blew up or burnt down. Our heroes don't explore so much. They stride through places on their way in, and run through them on their way out. The world created here is too good for the characters and events that inhabit it. And even the cinematography lacks the ability to show it off properly. The script has practiced beats and structure, but I'd rather it be uneven and messy than this by-the-numbers.
Every new turn started in a direction so full of potential, and each time it seemed snatched away by having to follow rules. Screenplay 101, with no bells and whistles. At one point, there's a threat of their being auctioned off and turned into sausages, but two seconds later the threat is nullified and they're off to somewhere new. Most of the film is spent in narrowly avoiding those rabbit holes instead of exploring them, and where's the fun in that? Rescues and escapes are just conveniences, so the plot can continue, not cleverly implemented, and carried out by characters I cared zero about (sorry, Anna) instead of the heroes themselves. It's all competent, really, but only in the most base sense.
It was great at engaging my imagination, which at the same time made it all the more frustrating when it took it nowhere.
I hate that I have to mention this, but that Minion gag was -- to be as brutally honest as possible -- the worst thing I've ever seen happen it a movie. Ever. In my entire lifetime. It's not only that it's a dumb and already dated joke, but it snatched me out of the movie similarly to how being bashed upside the head with a bag of bricks might. Whoever thought of it and whoever approved it must've been on stupid pills, and anyone who didn't say anything against it are complicit. It doesn't ruin the movie. But it might as well have. I wanted to love this movie. Its structural bones are exactly my thing. The hero duo; the setting; the potential for high adventure. There are capable moments, and a wonderfully solid world to build on, but the completed structure is amateurish and rickety.
Because of my disappointment I'm focusing on the bad, but there is good here, I promise. It's book-ended in high-flying goodness, for example. The opening sequence really clicked, and it wowed me. And the climactic buildup finds its footing again. I loved the culture and world-building, like Tom getting excited over finding a vintage toaster. And I like the idea of Tom and Hester's dynamic. Her being wild, cold, and scary, and him being fascinated but totally out of his depth. He gets the hero arc. She's leading a revenge tale. It squeaks by, but the intention is strong. And I weirdly liked the stuff with Shrike (Mo-capped by Stephen Lang). One rabbit hole that was explored a little after all.
I don't mind her scar being toned down, but they still play it up inside the movie, which is silly.
Despite it all, if there's ever a sequel I will be there. I'll probably even watch this again someday, and maybe now that I've explained the ways it let me down, I'll be able to continue enjoying what it did right for me. I'm sure it'll always be a mixed bag, with some of it junk and some of it treasure. Treasure on par with vintage toasters anyway -- but hey, vintage toasters are valuable to some, and I guess count me in as one; metaphorically, anyway. You have to sift through a lot of junk to find them, but if you find them fascinating too, this may be a mixed bag worth diving into.
Unexpectedly, I only saw two new movies in November -- Overlord (review) was brisk, splashy, weird and violent, and Buster Scruggs (review) was darkly hilarious, hauntingly memorable, and also kinda violent. Both excellent films. I also saw The Night Eats the World (review) which came out back in July, and it was also excellent; fascinating, and thought-provoking.
Otherwise, November was a bit disappointing on the blockbuster front. I thought for sure I'd see Robin Hood, but after it got universally slammed we figured it'd be more fun to wait until we can stream it and make fun of it without bothering people. And it was almost the same deal with Fantastic Beasts 2. Ralph Breaks the Internet still looks good, and Green Book. I'm actually feeling a need for a solid, big, blockbuster. So good thing December potentially has four of them, right?
But, it's also Oscar season. I'm not very big on Oscar season. Sometimes awards can urge me to watch movies I had no interest in before, but mostly it just annoys me because of how many movies seem to only exist to try to bait awards. Like there's suddenly this bothersome disconnect between art in film and entertainment in film; there are films made to be seen and loved by people, and films made to be rewarded by faceless arbiters, and they only intersect occasionally. And only, it seems, at this time of year.
I don't want to rain on people's parade, I'm just saying this as a kind of disclaimer, because I find that most of the year I'm more interested arty than I am now, because they reek of Oscar-bait, whether they're meant to or not. It automatically lessens my interest, and I'm aware of how biased that is, so I'm putting it out there, so that when I talk cynically about a movie that may not deserve it, you'll know where I'm coming from and can judge for yourself.
Disclaimer/rant/TED talk over. Let's get to the trailers!
Mowgli: Legend of the Jungle
Dec 7th(Netflix); PG-13
Well this one's definitely not gonna be getting awards. Andy Serkis' directorial debut is a new version of The Jungle Book, that, as far as I can tell, doesn't go back to the book for source but still is trying to compete with Jon Favreau's remake, even though it came out two years ago. Serkis does have a good cast -- himself, Christian Bale, Cate Blanchett, Benedict Cumberbatch, Tom Hollander, Naomi Harris, (and more!) and it focuses a bit more on the humans, which is a good idea imo, since it's a live-action movie. Who knows how it's executed. Kinda seems like the plot ventures into a tired "animals vs man" direction. I still haven't seen Favreau's, so maybe I'll get to both of them this month and see who wins the competition!
Mary Queen of Scotts
Dec 7th(limited); R
This one's ideal bait for the Oscars and has been building hype all year. Saoirse Ronan and Margot Robbie, with support from the likes of Guy Pearce, David Tennant and Jack Lowden. It's a period drama so there's costumes and locations a great need for excellent cinematography, and history so the roles are a meaty challenge. It can even sneak a little modern politics in there! I'd like to see it someday because I'm a fan of the cast, but it's not urgent.
Vox Lux
Dec 7th(limited) R
Looks like Natalie Portman is out for another Oscar. She has one, right? *research* Yes. I'd be crazy to deny that she has skill, and she clearly puts a ton of effort into her roles, but I've always been neutral toward her at best. For complicated reasons but I think the short version is she tries too hard. Everything she does feels forced to me. Anyway that's all to say that this movie looks fine. Actually I wouldn't mind watching it at all, but mostly out of curiosity because I have no idea what the plot is, and the visual look is kinda fascinating.
Ben is Back
Dec 7th(limited) R
Seems like a very solid drama, but watching the trailer was just making me feel dread about the plot. I bet Lucas Hedges and Julia Roberts put in some fine performances, and I bet if I watched it I'd enjoy or at least appreciate it, but, I think (cynically I know) it'll probably just fall through the cracks.
Dumplin'
Dec 7th(Netflix); PG-13
Kay, see, this looks super silly, but because it's going to be on Netflix I'll probably watch it instantly and have a fun time. That's it. That's all I have to say. (Has Netflix become the new and improved Disney Channel??)
Once Upon a Deadpool
Dec 12th; PG-13!
I was fine with the content level of the original version of Deadpool 2, but since this re-edit has added scenes and Fred Savage it might be worth checking out. I guess that's exactly the point, isn't it? Make it PG-13 so kids can see it; make new scenes so everyone else will see it again! But I can't imagine it being better than the original version. Unless the new scenes are downright spectacular to make me not miss what they cut out. For me, rated R for violence in Deadpool is pretty necessary, (I guess we'll find out how necessary!) and the language occasionally helped with the humor. Occasionally.
Spider-Man Into the Spider-Verse
Dec 14th; PG
I can't even watch this trailer without grinning. When I first heard about this movie I dismissed it, thinking because it's animated it was for extreme fans, or part of a series or something. Of course, the second I finally saw the trailer my head exploded, and it became one of my most anticipated movies of the year! I can only imagine it knocking my socks off and I can't wait for it to happen -- it looks so beautiful, with the colors the animation style, and there's a real plot, and personal stakes, but it's not all revealed in the trailer so there's intrigue. If it's somehow not good, it's going to break my heart because I've completely forgotten how to be cautious and I have sky-high expectations. Can't wait to see it!
Mortal Engines
Dec 14th; PG-13
Peter Jackson takes on steampunk fantasy, and I wish he'd forgotten about The Hobbit and got to this sooner! It doesn't have me fully confident in its quality, but I am totally confident in that I'll enjoy it no matter what, because this is exactly my deal. I hope it'll reach the heights I imagine it's capable of, but I can't imagine not a having a blast in the theater even with flaws. I'm already a fan of Robert Sheehan and I really like the look of the lead girl Hera Hilmar, and then we have Hugo Weaving as the villain. It looks beautiful and spectacularly designed; it looks like a high-flying classic adventure plot; I can't wait to see it, even if it's made solely for me!
The Mule
Dec 14th(limited); R
Because it's a Clint Eastwood movie should I just trust that it's good and ignore that it seems like there's no way the story ends happily? I mean, it can end not happy and still be good. I don't know how, but I guess Clint Eastwood does. Somehow the idea of Bradley Cooper and Michael Pena being cop partners is very appealing to me though.
Mary Poppins Returns
Dec 19th; PG
Since the original wasn't animated, this Disney classic gets the soft-reboot-in-the-form-of-a-sequel treatment instead. I want to be okay with this movie. I want to enjoy Emily Blunt (she is charm itself) and Lin-Manuel Miranda, and the new songs, and the homage it pays to the original. But the cynic in me doubts that it's homage at all, but perhaps just banking (ha!) off the original. I hope it's not just a rehash and finds justification for it's existence, but unfortunately, the only way to know for sure is to watch it. And I only want to watch it if it is worthy on it's own merit. If Michael has the exact same arc as Mr. Banks in the original (which seems very likely) I may have to get annoyed, no matter how magical Emily Blunt is.
Bird Box
Dec 21st(Netflix); NR
So I'm definitely not the first person to say this, but hear me out: A Quiet Place, but with sight. It's a Netflix release and it's got Sandra Bullock instead of Emily Blunt so I seriously doubt it'll be as good (I do like Bullock sometimes I promise), but hopefully it's not actually as similar as it seems. It's Netflix so chances of my giving it a chance are pretty high, but there's not much interest there at all. I dunno, it's just not intriguing me. Except: why is it called Bird Box?
Aquaman
Dec 21st; PG-13
Who even cares at this point? Either it'll be the worst thing the DCEU puts out, or the best, or somewhere in between. I'm going to see it anyway, so I'll let you know. I've recently become a bit of a fan of Patrick Wilson (the Conjuring movies can take credit, so that's bonus points for James Wan too) so I'm kind of looking forward to him being the bad guy (at least it's not an animated bad guy haha right??) and I think it's funny how much like The Little Mermaid everything seems. Honestly, I seriously doubt it'll be the worst DCEU offering, but I do kinda expect to be disappointed. Also, underwater scenes in movies make me extremely uncomfortable. So. I expect to be uncomfortable.
Bumblebee
Dec 21st; PG-13
Well it's set in the late 80's, so how bad could it actually be? They finally scaled back on a Transformer movie, getting the main focus down to two, and they put some style into the trailer, so hopefully that translates to the movie... and already this has a high chance of being my favorite Transformers film. Still, that's not saying much. I feel like this is one I'll wait for steaming on, unless there's a huge positive response or something. Hailee Steinfeld is good... Bumblebee is the best transformer character... it could very easily be a very decent movie.
Holmes and Watson
Dec 25th; PG-13
Like... it looks real bad. But at the same time, it makes fun of the other modern takes on Sherlock Holmes and I just respect it so much for that. It's probably gonna be terrible. I will continue telling myself this in an effort to keep from getting excited about it. Yeah. It's probably going to be terrible. It just... they do all the obvious jokes! And there's Will Ferrell and John C. Reilly, and Ralph Fiennes is Moriarty! And they say modern things but it's set in the proper time! It's so weird! Ugh. I dunno. It's probably going to be terrible. But here's the thing: if it's good it'll be because it just doesn't care, and that's kinda rare these days.
Destroyer
Dec 25th(limited); R
How come Toby Kebbell has second billing but doesn't even appear in the trailer while Sebastian Stan is everywhere but so far down the cast list that I discovered he was in the movie by recognizing him? Anyway, I watch all movies I can find that have Toby Kebbell in them, and I watch all movie I can find that have Sebastian Stand in them. So I guess this will be a case of two birds with one stone. If the movie's good that'll make three! And I don't know, but it looks like it could be good maybe. Not naturally my cup of tea, but it could be. Nicole Kidman stars and is kinda unrecognizable.
Leo (Alexander Skarsgård) is a lo-fi guy living in a hi-fi scifi world. He was raised Amish, and keeps up the plain and simple lifestyle, but not in an Amish community; in the bustling, grimy, neon-lighted city of near-future Berlin. A childhood accident left him mute, so his quiet life is literal too. He has one friend, Naadirah (Seyneb Saleh) his girlfriend. And she has been keeping secrets from him. When those secrets cause her to suddenly disappear, he goes looking for her, but he has no idea of where to start, or what he's getting into.
Directed by the wonderfully incorrigible Duncan Jones. Never, ever change.
This is the most pure scifi-noir film I've seen since Blade Runner, and it's about time. Science fiction and film-noir go together wonderfully, and often get paired up, but the tech-noir phase pretty much always puts the scifi first -- the noir is for tone and mood. I love that of course, but I also enjoy a noir-plot, and to get those you still have to go back to the 1940's. Until now. Mute follows a classic noir plot structure faithfully, and makes sure to include traditional elements of the genre. Then it uses scifi on the side to put cool twists on it all.
At its core, it's a mystery thriller, plain and simple. No time travel, no body swapping, no aliens, no distant galaxies, no extended action sequences. In fact the way the bits of action and violence is done is extraordinarily good -- brief, and shocking, and often shown passively, which only enhances the effect. And the intensity build throughout the plot is a thing to behold. That last turn was completely unexpected. But Leo spends most of his time following clues, and the truth is revealed to us slowly. The only thing that breaks the noir protocol is a parallel, bad guy plot involving American surgeon buddies Cactus Bill (Paul Rudd) and Duck (Justin Theroux). Clearly they're involved in the mystery, but we never find out how until Leo does.
He wears the best Hawaiian shirts.
Cactus, with his magnificent mustaches, has that Paul Rudd charm, and a daughter he cares about, but is not a nice guy. But Duck, complete with perfectly horrendous floppy hair, and an annoying penchant for the word "babe" is far worse; and as we learn this, it was interesting to watch him slowly surpass Cactus on the evil scale. He's a creep times a thousand. Rudd has never been this good in a role, and I've not seen him give one bad performance. It's like the character was written for him, yet he still gave it a steady stream of unexpected twists. And Theroux -- my goodness. He made me feel sick, and my skin crawl, and I might have hated it if it wasn't so incredibly impressive.
I did wonder why they were so heavily featured, especially as their plot goes down a dark and seemingly unnecessary path. But when the two plots merge, it all makes sense and ties importantly into the theme. Also, Leo doesn't talk, so his scenes get to the point fast. They have to. But Cactus and Duck get to banter and chit-chat, and take their time. Then their side of things actually serves Leo too. Their
being fully developed characters whenever they meet him helps things
make sense, and allows the movie to focus on developing Leo in those
scenes, instead of being distracted with villain motive. Whenever Leo is
present in a scene, that scene serves him; doggedly. It refuses to
become distracted, and I love that.
He certainly has a presence. And if looks could kill, his sad faces would be as deadly as his angry ones.
My dad suggested that Leo could have done noir-style narration via inner dialogue, and I half expected him to constantly use sign language which would then be captioned for us, but no; narration and captions are both cop-out solutions to a challenging character. Jones took the hard route, and the result is worth the trouble in spades. Alexander Skarsgård portrays Leo's every emotion, thought, and intention physically; expressions, body language, and actions. He signs and writes down a handful of things -- all minimally. Like the tagline says, he doesn't need words. They made sure that was true, and it works beautifully; he is heartbreakingly raw and open, and absolutely mesmerizing.
And he's not only an exceptionally interesting, different, well acted and written character; he really does lead the film. Even with the significant handicap of never speaking; the story revolves around him, and it's him that we care for. We get to see -- not only hear -- that he's kind and gentle, innocent bordering on naive, but will literally fight to protect the people (person) he loves. Naadirah, a blue-haired beauty instead of a blue-eyed beauty, at work seems just a part of the neon bustle, but then she washes off her garish makeup and treats him with equal love and respect a she does her. Their relationship is so unexpected, yet makes so much sense.
They're so sweet together.
This is another great example of a film where the darkness makes the light brighter -- the goodness of their relationship and his character, poised against the movie's many deplorable beings; some of whom accept the grime and depravity of the city's dark neon underbelly; others who create it. I ran the movie through VidAngel to remove the sex and nudity, but the film still deals with mature and dark things; all the better to explore a character who is defined by innocence and morality. The conflict was as contrasted as the neon and black visuals.
Besides the basic plot structure, Mute's atmosphere is decidedly noir, with a Blade Runner-like city of casually-used run-down technology. The best way to describe it is "neon-noir" as it often takes place at night, lit exclusively with neon lights. And that femme fatale character... all I can say is that it was unexpected, and worked perfectly. I also liked that it was set in Germany, and featured a few German characters. Maybe because I like German, maybe because of the tone it helped create too. It remembers to be depressing and pessimistic, but doesn't leave us hanging heartlessly. Like I said, there's light here, and hope, and it looks fondly on the purity of innocence.
Too bad none of the characters smoke. Watching people
smoke in dramatic lighting is one of the finer things in life. And super
noir.
All the elements I love in modern films are here -- a compelling lead with meaningful arc, moral exploration without preachiness, plot complexity that requires attention, and attention to detail and visual beauty. That is all paired with noir film tone, tropes, and structure; violence that isn't glorified or stylized; and emotion that isn't heavy-handed or exploiting. I have literally wished for a movie like this. I can hardly believe it exists as a real thing now, let alone works as well as it does. Striking on every level; compelling from its first moment to its last.
Duncan Jones obviously had a specific vision for this film, and it clearly was the last thing anyone expected. It's non-conforming, and non-traditional for these modern times. I know it's not something that everyone should be able to enjoy. It's niche -- but not that niche. People aren't saying it's just not for them, they're saying it's badly made. But it was made purposefully to mimic an old film noir, and that it undeniably does, so I say it's undeniably successful. That's why the plot is hard to follow, and "strangely" structured. There certainly aren't any glaring holes. It doesn't exposition us to death; character is revealed naturally; and it stays focused on what's important -- on what it wants to say.
And it's beautiful, but doesn't get hung up on being beautiful.
Appropriately, everything it says is said without words. It's all conveyed through subtext, imagery, even symbolism; and of course, expressions. With a title and a hero like it has, why in the world should it be expected to outright declare what it is? It gives us enough clues, if only we could shut up and listen. A throwback to the filmmaking past, a neat speculation into a realistic future, and a thoughtful and hard examination of good, evil, innocence and corruption; Mute is a scifi-noir film for the ages.
Perhaps age will see it gather the understanding it deserves.
