Spider-Man: Far From Home

Spoiler-free!

I think Far From Home is supposed to be the last MCU movie of the current phase, but after Endgame, it feels like starting the cycle all over again. All Endgame changed was the change implemented by Infinity War, and now we're back to our regularly scheduled MCU programming. Here come the Marvel jokes, the wasted potential, the overused CGI, and worst of all, the obligation to make the sequel "bigger."

5 years later, and still waiting on a movie worthy of this guy.

So, we get an enhanced rehash of the first movie that lacks the grounding that the Queens neighborhood provided before. Spider-Man (Tom Holland) goes international when Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson) hijacks Peter's class trip to Europe so he can help Jake Gyllenhaal fight elemental monsters from an alternate universe. With a little doing from the writers, Peter's class country-hops along with him, getting into danger with every fight so he has something real to worry about. That, and whether he's ever going to find a moment to tell MJ (Zendaya) that he likes her. 

Though the last movie's romance was much more integrated in the story, at least we get to be invested in Peter's crush on MJ because she comes with the promise of a future built in. Tom and Zendaya are a great paring. Very cute; lots of chemistry. I would've happily watched a whole movie about them. But no such luck. The movie does what all MCU movies do and gives us the bare minimum of relationship progress and just enough cute moments to keep people like me from rioting. MJ shares the "sidekick" slot with Jacob Batalon's Ned, and they both play second fiddle to Mysterio and Nick (and even Jon Favreau's Happy Hogan) and the threat that's at hand.

Instead of Peter having to figure out how to superhero during the tour, the tour is catered to his superheroing.

The threat is handled well with only a few corners cut, which is nice since it takes so much precedence. There was one scene of blatantly unnecessary exposition that, as far as I was concerned, didn't do a good enough job conveying motivation to justify the length and detail it goes into. Props to the writers for trying to think so deeply, but it wasn't worth all the trouble. Then the monsters are ho-hum; merely functional as things to fight. There are also some Mysterio-style psychedelic moments that are cool, if overly CGI. One was exactly like the title sequence of a Daniel Craig James Bond movie. As far as classic Spidey-style fight choreography, not much to speak of. The scene where Peter fights in his street clothes was probably the best.

As objectively fine as all this big, expanding stuff is, I couldn't help but miss the down-to-earth quality that Homecoming strove hard to maintain while the franchise breathed down its neck. Now the franchise has taken over, and even threatens to make Pete the next "Iron Man" -- having him use Stark tech for all his superhero needs, and even imitate Tony's style of interacting with the smart computer. At one point he gets stranded, but Happy and a Stark plane is only a phone call away. I missed the moments where he has to work out the problem on his own, without anyone to call or tell him what to do. Because that's what's compelling about Spider-Man.

(They trashed Karen without a word of explanation, but even she is preferable to humans trying to dictate his every move.)

Those are the times you see how smart, capable, and determined he can be, even though he's just a scared teen. Sans those moments, this Spidey is dumber than ever, and hardly seems capable of doing anything that isn't either a giant mistake or cringe-worthy. And in one unnecessary sequence that made me want to die, he does both. He also runs out of webbing for no reason so that the final battle would be an even match. The real-life stunts are severely lacking, the CGI'd suit more distracting than ever, and Tony Stark's name is defamed for the sake of plot; the whole movie is just a mess. Homecoming was a mess too, yes, but smaller and more personalized. 

Far From Home is exactly what you'd expect a more-of-the-same sequel to Homecoming to be, except in one important aspect: Because Homecoming won me over by making his fight personal, and making him face the villain alone and downgraded. There was no such winning hero-moment in this. They rehashed everything but failed to recreate the magic of that film's third act. This one's third act is good; fine. The MCU formula assures that. But it lacks grounding, personality; heart. The movie is bigger, and the winning moments are smaller. They're contained to fleeting moments and occasional one-on-one, CGI-free scenes of dialogue. Peter and MJ. Peter and Happy. Peter and Mysterio. 

Of course it breezes by all the moments that I wanted to linger.

The Peter/Mysterio scenes are quite good. I forgot to mention but Jake Gyllenhaal is dynamic and compelling and an extremely welcome presence here. A little more romance, a little more overall focus, and just one more moment for a little heart, and I may have been won over instead of frustrated. If it seems a small thing; yes. That's exactly my point. Far From Home is too big, too formulated, and too distracted from what matters; missing too many of the small, little, lovable pieces that make Spider-Man great.

Unicorn Store

Spoilers.

Kit loves sparkles and pastel colors and unicorns. And art! She goes to college and takes a class from a prestigious professor, known for his photo-realistic paintings of cardboard boxes with sticks propped inside them. Wow. One day a class does self-portraits, everyone standing by their work to show its accuracy. Kit covers herself in glitter and paint... then the canvas... and then the wall around the canvass. Then, as one of the judges shakes his head and gives her low marks, her childish smile turns to hurt confusion.

The solution here is obvious: don't take that art class, woman! Find one that fits you!

The whole movie takes this over the top naive stance on self-expression. If you can get past, accept, or suspend your belief for an hour and thirty-one minutes as scenario by scenario goes by in this fashion, you may get a thing or two out of this movie. One is enjoyment, plain and simple. This is the easiest. The other is a message. The movie is certainly trying to convey one, but your mileage may vary. For me, I occasionally suspended belief and got a decent amount of enjoyment out of Brie Larson's rather vain foray into the directing world.

There really is a decent amount of charm here and it had me laughing out loud on occasion -- you know, those singular "HA"'s that burst out from time to time -- because of the cynical and frustrated yet naive worldview the movie and Kit have. There are quite a few good lines and ridiculous scenarios to mine, so even when they're not rich they give out plenty. Larson has good delivery, and surrounds herself with genuinely funny people like the comic genius Bradley Whitford, Joan Cusack, Samuel L. Jackson, even Karan Soni, and Mamoudou Athie, the resident newbie, fits in with the humor level. There are also a few noticeable moments of creative directing, and nothing comes across as particularly awkward, once you get past the premise.

When has Joan Cusack or Bradley Whitford ever not made something better by their presence? 

At the core of this movie is supposed to be a girl -- a woman who's still a child, who still wants childish things and clings to her girlish dreams, but knows that something is wrong and needs to change. I can get behind that. She's self-centered and ignores the good things she has in pursuit of what she thinks she needs -- the unicorn. (Oh yeah, Samuel Jackson is trying to sell her one, but she had to prove herself worthy first. That's the plot.) But she doesn't need a unicorn per se, she just needs love, and for some reason doesn't notice that's something she already has and is merely pushing away.

The journey to her discovering this should be easy enough, but it gets muddled up in its own tangle of sequins and rainbow-colored streamers. Distracted by how cutesy it is, and how magical its premise is. And by bemoaning how art degrees are useless and boring jobs are boring and full of awful people. If I cared about all those things, it might've had an excuse in my eyes. But I didn't. We know she won't end up with a unicorn, yet the movie is so intent on the magical idea of it that it waits for the last possible second for her to realize and decide so; robbing her of a much more heroic moment of self-denial that would have completed her arc in an honestly fulfilling way.

Also, why the aversion to romance? I liked her and Not Pictured Boyfriend Material. But they barely held hands! 

In the end, I wasn't sure if she learned her lesson or not. We assume so, because it's the end, a cute song is playing and she's happy -- but while I spent the whole movie knowing exactly what the theme was aiming to say, the credits started scrolling by and I realized it never actually said it. Not outright, and not in passing. I derived it from the set-up, but in the end only saw the empty space where it was meant to go. I'm not sure what happened or where it got lost, but the mildly funny and charming journey was all there was. Cute enough in a pinch, but lacking true magic.

Captain Marvel

Thanks to Jacob Smith for featuring this review on his site! If you're interested in movie reviews, news, and opinion pieces from a conservative perspective, you should definitely check it out -- society-reviews.com!

Spoiler-free!

The MCU's latest origin story is also its first solo film for a female character. They put their absolute best effort into touting the movie as such, and after seeing it, I understand why all the emphasis was on pre-hype. One of Marvel's safest and least-daring films, Carol Danvers' introduction to the universe doesn't do much that's spectacularly irritating -- mostly because it doesn't do anything spectacular at all.

Directed by Anna Boden and Ryan Fleck but written by three additional people because all MCU movies all have to be camels at this point. 

We start out with a brief glimpse of the Kree world where Carol (Brie Larson) is serving in the Kree/Skrull war under Yon-Rogg (Jude Law). There's one shot of the Kree city outside her widow that looks like a magnificent scifi scape leaning towards noir-ish, cyberpunk-ish vibes, but we never see it up close. She does some training, she goes on mission, and eventually winds up stranded on Earth circa 1995 where she meets a younger, two-eyed Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson) and Coulson (Clark Gregg) and goes on a hunt for some people of her forgotten memories (Annette Bening) and (Lashana Lynch), all the while the Skrull Talos (Ben Mendelsohn) and his crew are on her tail.

The Skrulls are shape-shifting aliens and shape-shifting is an easy harbinger of fun. And the movie touches on its potential. It's the mid-90's which means grunge and kind of wonderfully cheesy music; and the movie touches on that, too. Carol wears band tees and ripped jeans, and the computers are super slow. Otherwise it could be set anytime. Style only seems to cross the movie's mind is when there's cool CGI effects to show off. Even the worst of the past MCU films have had tonal style and the dampener of the Marvel Brand isn't excuse for the blandness we get here. I wish they had fully embraced the grungy 90's and low-key cheesy spy thriller aspect it was all crying for. It could've been amazing with relatively little tweaking to the core story.

One thing I loved with all my heart: her helmet mohawk. 

The central heart of the story -- getting up when you're knocked down -- had a solid foundation, but I hesitate to call it a theme because the movie's attempts to present it as theme were grasping. Visually it had impact and you can practically feel them scrambling for a verbal iteration to match in the moment. The set-up for Carol's development is weak, and the part about her needing to control her emotions was left hanging. That didn't make sense to begin with as Larson's acting style is so reserved that her being overly emotional as the script says doesn't fly. And I'll will readily defend Larson's acting abilities. She can work wonders in indie films where everything's understated. But as a blockbuster-action superhero, her internalizing emotions gets lost in the total lack of nuance.

There were moments she made me laugh with her delivery and times she made me smile just by being happy and laughing with Fury. On the other side, I think she was miscast. She does look the part and all MCU actors give better performances elsewhere, but ultimately her inexpressive style only adds to the bland feeling that brings the movie down. The only person who seems committed to having fun here is Ben Mendelsohn. Samuel L. Jackson's natural charisma works so well for him that I can't tell if he was phoning in or not. He's also better elsewhere with better scripts. This script actively attacks him, making one very significant thing happen that does its level best to ruin his character with its abject stupidity. (Hint: it's to do with his eye.) Just another day at the old MCU!

Larson and Jackson had fun chemistry. The movie could've leaned hard into their dynamic and been better for it. But it could've leaned into anything and been better for it.

Fan-favorite Goose the cat was great -- when he was being played by a real cat. The disgracefully rendered CGI cat that he was half the time seems to have been animated by a person who has never seen a cat before. It moved like boneless dog. Other random things that bothered me was how Carol's hair was always curled. I felt like her stylist was sitting behind me with a hot iron, waiting for the camera to cut so she could run in and fix the falling waves. There are the expected Marvel Brand jokes to make me die inside. And they only play three era songs for a decent amount of time. One is horribly matched to a fight scene. The fighting overall was shot lazily to negate the need for good choreography. The good action beats came from special effects and infused drama instead.

Despite all this, I did somewhat enjoy myself for the most part. Perhaps simply because I expected a dumpster fire, and instead it was like watching the garbage truck come by your house; something vaguely loud to look at that isn't impactful in any significant way. They did manage to lose me eventually though, with a later twist. To "subvert expectations" is required in every movie now, and appropriately this subversion throws a wrench in the plotting. It flounders for a while before it settles into a new groove, no better than the original. Overall the whole thing feels like the result of cutting corners and skimping on budget -- but if anyone can take a slight risk and make a decent film for girl protagonist, it's Marvel! ... Right?

At this point, I'm not particularly interested in the supposed future Avengers line-up, and if nothing changes for Marvel it won't be hard to quit.

The temptation to pander and squeak by on as little effort as possible was simply too strong. And why not when you can trust the brand and the hype to sell the resulting painfully average product regardless of quality? A handful of genuinely enjoyable moments and splashes of shiny CGI among long stretches of middling boredom is all we are rewarded with for our loyal patronage. Captain Marvel isn't a terrible movie; nor is it good, or a waste, or a success, or hardly anything resembling a movie at all. It has more in common with an extremely competent exercise in running down a checklist. The soulless Marvel assembly machine grinds on.

Upcoming Movie Roundup - January 2019!

Happy new year! I hope 2019 is full of great times and great movies for you all!

I got a few things done in December: I watched Mowgli, Dumplin' and Bird Box on Netflix -- but only reviewed Mowgli (review here). Oh well, none of them were anything special. Then went to the theater for Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse, (review here) which was absolutely wonderful and slipped into my top five of the year... and then Mortal Engines (review here) which disappointing by being a not great film and by making no money so there's no chance or continuation and redemption. I'm 100% going to read the books now.

AND THEN we saw Aquaman, (review here) because I'm a member of a family that goes to see all superhero movies. It was alright and a fun time. And finally, Bumblebee (review here) in a kind of spur of the moment decision because we were having our roof redone, and needed to get away from the noise. It wasn't super great but was fun and easily the best of the Transformer franchise.

Now it's January, and the movies are gonna slow down for a bit -- and that's great for me because all that plus catching up on 2018 releases that I missed made me a little overwhelmed with film. I wound up seeing 70 movies released in 2018, which isn't a lot compared to some cinephiles, but it was over twice my number from 2017! I enjoyed branching out a little more and took a few risks with movies I didn't think I'd like that payed off really well. I look forward to the surprises that 2019 has to offer!



Escape Room
Jan 4th; PG-13
The trailer make me a little uncomfortable though it definitely looks more thriller than horror, but my brothers are interested too so this may actually turn into a theater trip. I just hope it's good, because if it's not good it seems like it'd be torture to watch. People win a free escape room experience, but things get actually dangerous -- with a mildly familiar cast including Deborah Ann Woll of Dardevil, Taylor Russell of Lost in Space, Tyler Labine, and Logan Miller. It's got a tight vibe; I have hope.




State Like Sleep
Jan 4th(limited) NR
Very clearly a noir thriller with a nicely classic noir plot -- a woman gets into mystery after her secret-keeping celebrity husband commits suicide. Katherine Waterston stars with Michael Shannon and Luke Evans! I like that cast. I like noirs. I'm a go.




Replicas
Jan 11th; PG-13
The original trailer I saw bored me to death and this one gives away too much, but the movie itself might be worth watching. Or it might just be weird or boring too. Keanu Reeves and Alice Eve and something to do with cloning humans, action/scifi stuff. I dunno, it really doesn't look very good. But hey, it's January. Par for the course.




The Upside
Jan 11th; PG-13
The trailer for this was really good, but I'm not sure if the movie itself will be. I get a feeling that all the best moment were put in the trailer. Kevin Hart and Bryan Cranston seem to make a fun team anyway. And Nicole Kidman. I like Nicole Kidman. Based on a true story, and also based on a French film. So was the French film based on a true story too? That's probably the thing to watch.




Glass
Jan 18th; PG-13
I still have to see Split before this comes out, but I liked Unbreakable a lot, so I have plans to watch, and hopefully enjoy. Not entirely sure of the crossover/team-up idea, especially since superhero movies do nothing but that these days, and the thing I loved about Unbreakable was how unlike a superhero movie it was. Still, that could still be the case. Bruce Willis should be the lead, but it seems like the movie's more about Samuel L. Jackson and James McAvoy's characters. I guess they are the most obviously interesting. I also like Anya Taylor Joy a lot, so glad to see her!




Serenity
Jan 25th; R
This looks like a pretty good movie, but I can't exactly say I'm interested in it. Maybe I would be if I liked the cast, but Matthew McConnahey and Anne Hathaway? Again? I had enough of them together after five minutes of Interstellar. Still I'll try not to be prejudiced and keep an eye out. Maybe the story -- a thriller that doesn't seem to give away much -- will be worth it. If it isn't I won't bother.




The Kid Who Would Be King
Jan 25th; PG
I know it's a kiddie movie, and I really can't predict if it'll be good or bad, but something about it make me want to see it. Modern British school kids doing a King Arthur story... I dunno, it just seems like a great idea. The trailer looks adventuresome, and rather self-aware which could go well, or maybe not. Patrick Stewart is Merlin. Rebecca Ferguson is Morgana. And Andy Serkis' son, Louis Ashbourne Serkis, is the lead. Kid's movies are tough but if they don't skimp on the actual movie this one could be a winner!

Incredibles 2

Spoilers!

The Pixar films that defined my childhood were Toy Story 1 and 2, Monsters Inc., and Finding Nemo. (I never got into A Bug's Life.) The Incredibles missed the cut-off by an inch. I liked it, but I never re and re and rewatched it on a cycle like those four. So, news of this long-awaited sequel wasn't so long-awaited for me. Instead it threatened to be like other sequels, marketing off previous success because the idea well has run dry. There were two promising aspects: the 14-years to work on it; and Brad Bird's return. And color me slightly less cynical than I was yesterday, because they pulled it off!

Pixar's best sequel since Toy Story 2.

Incredibles 2 matches its predecessor. It picks up right where it left off, (and gets the extra advantage that I haven't seen the original in a while) and has the same tone, purpose, structure, and ideas driving it as the original. Another long-await sequel, Toy Story 3 was fine, but felt disconnected from the other two, being more a nostalgia trip that veered into melodrama too many times. Not to hate on it, but the point is, Incredibles 2 feels as valid a sequel today as it might've felt in 2006. If they purposefully added nostalgia, it doesn't get in the way, and feels totally organic.

It started off on shaky ground, forced to revert a bit of the happy ending of the last film because the sequel starts up immediately with fighting The Underminer. They fail of course, not working as a family. Their interference actually causes more destruction than if they'd left Underminer to himself, reestablishing why supers are illegal in this story. The politics are like Civil War, but simplified, and both sides are clear and understandable, though we know the right thing is for them to be made legal again. Much better than the convoluted illogical mess of Civil War in a fraction of the time!

I love her bike and the way they have her use it!

After that things plod along, gaining momentum as the movie finds its feet. By the time Bob encourages Helen to take the secret Super job even though he's jealous of her, the feet are found and steady, and the rest of the movie falls into place. My favorite part was the whole middle section before the end game began. The train chase sequence knocked my socks off with originality and reminded me of what animation can do. And the home life was all wonderful, especially because of how hard Bob tries, keeping his head and putting in extra effort like staying up to learn Dash's homework.

Everyone said Jack-Jack was the highlight. Usually that kind of talk means a 50% chance I'll think the opposite because I despise pointless distractions, but Jack-Jack really was a highlight, and he was meant to be. The fight between him and the raccoon was hilarious, and the discovery and testing of all his powers is the kind of behind-the-scenes thing that made the first film so special too. Unfortunately, they had to start all over with Violet and Tony, so Violet's drama felt like retracing old steps. She's my favorite, so I would've liked to see much more progression there.

I love that at home they have a natural up and down instead of full chaos which would've been easier. Bob's a great dad.

The villain twist wasn't a total surprise; I was just glad that it wasn't as projected as I was worried it was. I did wonder at Elastigirl though, when she thought she caught the ScreenSlaver and the guy was clearly just another of his victims. The real villain's motivations worked well. Another classic case of a sympathetic idea taken way too far until it reaches villainy. She was nothing special, but got the plot where it needed to go. The sequence on the ship was where the film starts to stumble, though it never outright falls. Once no one's under mind-control anymore, everything picks back up and finishes in spectacular fashion.

Random details I really enjoyed: Dash's powers. I love how he fights, by machine-gunning people with his punches. The comedy. It fell in so naturally with the story and had me hooting many times. Jack-Jack was a laugh a second, and there were many subtle jokes and perfectly timed looks that were an absolute pleasure. Mr. Incredible has some delivery well worthy of his name. I also like how Elastigirl is the most marketable super, because she really is the most marketable. There's a reason that train chase worked so well. Her powers were used so creatively.

Never forget: The mundane is fascinating when Supers do it! 

So, here's hoping that in the next film we can see the whole family working together for a good, solid block of time; that they won't forget about the novelty of Super home life; that Violet will get back to her date before the movie starts; and that they'll take as much time as they need regarding Incredibles 3. If they give as much devotion and effort as they did here, it'll be worth whatever the wait-time might be.

Upcoming Movie Roundup - August

Well 2017 is officially a very impressive movie year! Last month I said it would be if anything managed to top the brilliant Baby Driver, and, (while I hesitate to compare them so directly since they're such completely different pieces of filmmaking) I think Dunkirk has done just that. I saw it regular, and then again in 70mm, and since I wrote my review before seeing the 70mm version, I'd like to talk a bit about the 70mm experience. Just skip down if this is completely uninteresting to you:

Firstly, yes, digital 70mm is a thing. Being a novice about being picky about movie screens it confused me for a while that my theater claimed to be showing a movie in film format digitally, but yes, everything looked and sounded as it should. I don't know if this is a super common question to have, but I would have liked a nice straightforward answer like this when I was wondering, so I'm putting it out there.

Next, what to expect with 70mm: If you're a film connoisseur or already know you love Dunkirk I'd absolutely recommend seeing it in 70mm. If you're a casual moviegoer, you might find it odd, because while the 70mm is being presented to us as the movie enhanced, it's enhanced in style rather than in quality. It is sharper, yes, and there more contrast to the picture, but those are minute details, and some of the more major differences in a lot of ways actually detract from the movie's quality. (Such as we've come to think of movie quality of course.) The 70mm's whites are much brighter and appear to vibrate on the screen -- the sort of thing you'd call a flaw if you saw it in a Transformer movie. The blacks are also much darker (at one point in the movie the lights go out, and it's as if the film itself goes out) and colors seemed more true. Some scenes had different tints from others. And you can see tiny imperfections in the film.

The biggest change though, and one I didn't expect, was the sound. There was much more bass overall (so as Spitfires fly overhead in the film, you feel their noise move through you as you would in real life) and the dialogue had some difficult to describe qualities to it -- to me it sounded vaguely like dialogue from on old 30's or 40's movie, which is appropriate, but it had a lowness to it, like higher frequencies in the voices were cut out. It also sounded grainy (if things can sound grainy) and almost muted, yet I found it easier to understand the lines. That seems counter-intuitive, but my dad said the same thing, and he's the one in the family who usually doesn't understand dialogue, so I swear, it's not just me being weird. Honestly the sound was my favorite difference, and absolutely enhanced the movie, which had already blown me away, to an even higher level.

Some of those things could easily be called flaws in a normal movie situation, except, here, that is how Christopher Nolan meant the film to be. What was made obsolete by improving technology has now become an artistic style choice, and Nolan used it to great advantage. Regular movie projection now shows us the film as less than it's meant to be -- and I find that very neat. (Then of course there's IMAX to consider but I won't go there.) It goes along with how the characters were done; Nolan stripped away the common and the unnecessary from the film, making his vision all the more focused. In short, after seeing Dunkirk in 70mm, I feel that my experience experiencing this experience of a film is only now truly complete. And the ticket price was not a cent more expensive!

(Click here to read my review of the film itself!)

I also saw Spider-Man: Homecoming in July, but after Dunkirk, poor Spidey is a bit overshadowed right now! I liked the movie, and loved Tom Holland as the kid hero, and even saw it twice! (Review here!) I still want to see Valerian someday, but probably won't waste ticket money on it, and since War for the Planet of the Apes got such a good response from fans, I'll watch that eventually too; to either solidify my low opinion, or change my mind (unlikely, but possible I suppose.)

August has no must-sees (unless new information develops) but a good spread of pretty interesting movies! A nice number of indies! I like indies. Anyway, on to my list. How was your movie-July? And how is you movie-August shaping up? Let me know in the comments!


The Dark Tower
Aug 4th; PG-13
Based on the novel series by Steven King, and the trailer looks cool, but I don't really have a dog in this race. I never got around to reading the book, though I usually do whenever an interesting movie based on a book is coming up. Maybe I could still squeeze it in, but I'm not sure I want to. I heard rumors that there were changes made, and the book fans aren't terribly happy? Of course based solely on the trailer, it being based on a King story is a definite plus. Idris Elba is always effortlessly cool and hardcore, and Matthew McConaughey playing the baddie is nice for once. I'm not holding out much hope that it'll be much more than a fun mid-summer action flick with some neat sci-fi elements, but if it does that, and does it well, that'll be all it needs to be anyway -- for me that is. For the fans I hope it's a satisfying adaptation. If there are good reviews it's likely that I'll go see this one.




Wind River
Aug 4th; R
I still haven't seen Sicario or Hell or High Water, but every time this Taylor Sheridan writes a movie it looks very interesting. This one is a murder mystery starring Jeremy Renner and Elizabeth Olsen. I've always liked the niche dynamic they have in the Avengers movies, so I'd like to see this one someday on that point alone. I think the trailer gives too much away though, so maybe think twice before watching it.




Some Freaks
Aug 4th(limited); NR
Thomas Mann is great. I'll watch him in any kind of romance/dramedy. He seems to like the quirky ones, and this one's about as quirky as they come! It's an indie so who knows when it'll pop up somewhere, but I'll be on the lookout.




The Only Living Boy in New York
Aug 11th(limited); R
Whether I want to see this depends largely on how it ends, and what the take-away is, but in order to know that, you have to see it. So I'll keep an eye open. It's got a great cast. Listening to Jeff Bridges explain existential things is one of the finer things in life.




Pilgrimage
Aug 11th(limited); NR
Me watching this trailer: "Ooo, Peter Parker and Punisher medieval team up, that's sounds cool." "Woah, it's a quest movie -- very Lord of the Rings." "Oh my gosh, Ritchard Armitage! It is Middle Earth!" And then finally: "Yikes." This actually looks quite a bit more interesting than a mere Spidey/Punisher team-up. Will be on the lookout.




The Hitman's Bodyguard
Aug 18th; R
So, like, the comedy version of Safe House? Sounds neat. Honestly I expected I wouldn't even have to bother with this one since it's so blatantly R-rated, but apparently there will be only language and violence so not as bad as I was expecting. R-rated comedies can work for me, but it has to be genuinely a good movie for me to brave the waters. This is a case of "wait-and-see." The trailer I saw in theaters a while back made it look pretty dumb, but this one has more promise. Samuel L. Jackson is for sure, but Ryan Reynolds is hit or miss. Hopefully it's a hit, but I won't be missing anything if it isn't.




Logan Lucky
Aug 18th; PG-13
Channing Tatum, Adam Driver, Daniel Craig getting as far away from Bond as he possibly can poor guy, Sebastian Stan, Katie Holmes, Katherine Watterson, Hilary Swank -- it's definitely got the cast of a good movie! It's got oddball comedy, a memorable quirky plot, weirdo characters, and a heist. Sounds like a pretty great movie actually. It's also got an early perfect score on RT. It hasn't reached must-see status for me yet, but I will be paying close attention as it comes around the bend.




The Defenders
Aug 18th on Netflix
Daredevil season 1 was fantastic. Season 2 was barely passable only because of Punisher. I never watched Jessica Jones or Luke Cage, and probably never will. And Iron Fist was laughably bad and a sad letdown. Yet, here I am, garnering up excitement for the team-up. My optimistic mind is considering that Iron Fist was only terrible because it was rushed, and since Defenders is Netflix-Marvel's big event effort will be put into it. My rational mind watches this trailer, and sees nothing worth getting hopes up for. I won't be surprised if the 18th rolls around and I find myself sitting down to watch this -- the surprise will come if it's actually as great as it should be.

Barely Lethal

Fan of teen comedies from the 90's and early 2000's? Wish you could go back and watch your favorites all over again for the first time? Well, you're in luck! Does Hailee Steinfeld have the movie for you!

This one also has guns!

Hailee is Agent 83; an orphan who was raised her whole life by a league of assassins for girls, run by Samuel L. Jackson. 83 is the best of the best, but one lesson never stuck: that she shouldn't form attachments. She discovers movies -- teen rom-coms to be exact -- and falls in love with the idea of living that normal high school life. So when the opportunity rises, she fakes her death and becomes Megan, a Canadian exchange student, finds herself an all-American family, and an all-American high school. One problem: her idea of a "normal high school life?" Not even close to reality.

The really funny part is that this movie's version of reality, which has none of the cliches she imagined she'd experience, has all the cliches from the movies where she got all her wrong ideas! It's quite the fun circle of cliches. I think almost everything that happens in this flick is borrowing from some classic (or at least popular) teen flick. Clueless is blatantly (and also subtly) copied. Mean Girls has its moments; Pretty in Pink; the 10 Things I Hate About You one is pretty obvious. Also I want to say, Paper Towns? Although did the cliche of two drunk people suddenly understanding each other whilst hanging out in a bathtub at a party originate there? Anyway, this movie handled the scene way better than the film version of Paper Towns, so... that might be awkward.

It's an eternal circle of cliches, where you can have your fun and laugh at it too!

Besides Hailee and Mr. Jackson, we have the villainess, Jessica Alba, and 83's co-worker (rival assassin) is Sophie Turner. Megan's all-American family includes the typical loner girl who just needs a good friend -- Dove Cameron. At the school there's the hot guy who's in a band (Toby Sebastian), the foul-mouthed dude bro (Gabriel Basso), the mean girl (Alexandra Krosney), and even the teacher who tries too hard to be cool (Dan Fogler). But most importantly there's the unassuming guy who has a heart of gold -- Thomas Mann. Once the film introduced all the characters, I hoped out loud that the movie would be as predictable as I was thinking it'd be, and I'm happy to report that it was.

You might think that a movie that relies completely of the cliches of other films would be trite and irritating, but honestly its connection to those films is where it shines; freshened up by the extra layer of pointing out the cliches, then twisting and having fun with them. There's an original side with the assassin aspect, but the film stumbles most noticeably when it focuses on that. It's a neat idea and understandably you'd want to put time into it; it was just too separated from the rest of the fun. The writing all-around is much smarter than your average teen comedy, and truly funny in plenty of places. They use puns. And I appreciated them! It works because attention is given to character, then characters make jokes that fit them but aren't necessarily funny on their own -- making them funny with personality and circumstances.

*Holding a stalk of corn* "I think you're a-MAIZE-ing." "That's pretty corny..."

The brunt of the film's weight falls on Steinfeld, and it shows. Megan is a classic teen heroine and certainly entertaining, but is also on screen all the time, and for some reason doesn't bring the comedy like some of her cast-mates can. She brings it more naturally on the realistic, straight-forward drama side; in the "awkwardly funny" and some of the fish-out-of-water bits, she's more awkward than I think she was meant to. Thomas Mann is ideal for his part (as he commonly seems to be) with his goofy charm and natural sincerity. He was one of few who had scenes without Steinfeld, and he could've had more. Dove Cameron started out boringly and ending up great, which was fitting, and Gabriel Basso continues to impress with his diverse role choices and consistent charm. Sophie Turner is also a fun character.

Cute homecoming pic gets a bit awkward when both your boyfriends are there...

So you can't exactly say its original, and it's not like teen rom-coms are typically a high standard for movie excellence... or even romance excellence... or comedic excellence... or much of any kind of excellence, really. The mere fact that Barely Lethal makes itself memorable by being funny, having characters that are a smidge more interesting that you'd expect, and half-way riding the coattails of other flicks that have risen above expectations is more than enough to earn a recommendation, a passing grade, and a license to kill -- but just barely on that last one.

Kong: Skull Island

Kong is back, and literally bigger than ever. It's the 1970's, so you know the music is good, and the group of explorers, scientists, and soldiers that go to Skull Island is extra, extra large -- full of red shirts, and people who don't need to survive to the end of the movie. Mayhem is in the air. And it smells delicious.

And a bit like monkey breath?

The movie is directed by Jordan Vogt-Roberts, a name I didn't recognize at first, but his style I did. He directed The Kings of Summer, a movie that most are less likely to have seen than Kong, but a great movie with a love for nature and an eye for stylish macro shots. That style translates magnificently to this film, and is enhanced to epic proportions. As the steadily dwindling group explores the island we get to explore it too, through the camera's wondering eye. The beauty and the creativity is not what you conventionally see in a monster flick, but with how well it works you'd think it would be. 

Vogt-Roberts did not hold back on any visual aspect of the movie -- any. The location shooting and the attention to detail for the era made it almost impossible for me to shake the feeling that I was actually watching a movie from the 70's -- an unexpected but welcome feeling. Of course the special effects were miles better than anything 40 years old could give us, and in fact were a good distance better than what most CGI-heavy flicks crank out these days too. This movie was made to be a visual feast of epic entertainment, and there was no skimping on achieving that goal. 

Every sequence was a new array of colors and shapes and textures and immaculate focusing and sweet music...

I only have one question: how did they manage to collect this cast? A bunch of them hail from (or will soon join) Marvel movies -- Tom Hiddleston is the cool-and-collected tracker-for-hire, Brie Larson is the spirited war photographer, Samuel L. Jackson is the squad leader, John C. Reilly is oddball scene-stealing highlight of the whole movie, and Shea Whigham, and Toby Kebbell (yes I'm counting Fant4stic) are soldiers. (Kebbell also provided some facial mo-cap for Kong, though the vast majority of Kong was Terry Notary.) Otherwise, there's John Goodman as the expedition instigator, and his scientist colleges Corey Hawkins and Tian Jing. Jason Mitchell and Thomas Mann round out the soldiers with memorable roles. I said it was a big cast! And that's just the people who, if they die, you feel sad for.

The deaths are pretty sad too, in spite of the overwhelmingly fun tone of the film; or maybe because of it, with dramatic contrast. The characters were defined well by all having their little niche or quirk which made them memorable, but they were also underdeveloped in the classic action flick way. It seemed particularly as though Hiddleston and Larson's characters were purposefully being held back -- saving the development for sequels perhaps. Still, they were effortlessly charming together. I was on board with this film since Tom was announced to star, and he didn't let me down.

Even though he was a little pointless. I think the movie got a few conflicting rewrites. You can almost see the plot that was removed.

John C. Reilly stole the whole movie of course, was hilarious and simultaneously the backbone of the film's heart, which yes, it did have plenty of for its genre. Another who unexpectedly left a big impression was Toby Kebbell's human role. I've always been interested in his work but was so far unable to properly appreciate it due to disappointing role choices and lots of motion capture parts. Because of how expressive he is, he's great at mo-cap, but that means that without the CGI translation he's even better -- and here he is finally a live-action, well-written, sympathetic character, and thus he has finally turned my head. And he was the only character whose name I learned!

In my favorite scene he comes across Kong at a lake and watches the giant ape take a drink -- the excess water sounding like a waterfall as it pours back into the lake -- and then battle a giant lake-squid and eat it in a humorous manner. And that pretty much sums up the whole movie for me. It's odd, ridiculous, epic and funny, with realistic attention to detail, and there's a bunch of faces in the background who look really good under a macro lens. 

Pretty location, pretty filming, pretty people.

There were a few aspects that could have been improved without creating an imbalance. The ending was a bit sudden and messy, character's names are nice to know, and whenever the plot strayed from the basic goal it couldn't spend enough time away to satisfy and threads were cut short. But, mostly, the things you'd instinctively think are flaws were really conscious decisions for the sake of the tone and style of the movie. Focusing on character, or going deep into a moral themes or a complex plot is all well and good, but Kong included those things only as far as they didn't detracted from the beautiful, gleeful spectacle -- its priority. And considering that this is a movie about a fantastical island full of jumbo-sized monsters and wacky fantasy creatures that do battle with each other, I feel like the priorities were in the exact right place.

Upcoming Movie Roundup - September

August was a no-go. It was such a no-go that I didn't even watch The Little Prince off Netflix. Netflix. Could have watched at any time and all I did was watch Stranger Things three more times. Not that that was really a bad decision or anything. That show is the greatest.

September has a handful of movies with interesting trailers, but no must-sees currently. I won't be surprised if I don't go to the theater again this month, and that makes me sad.

Does anything look good to you this month? And have you seen Stranger Things yet? You absolutely must!


The 9th Life of Louis Drax
Sep 2nd (limited); R
This one is pretty interesting just because the trailer was very unexpected. I did not expect a creepy sci-fi element. It's also a mystery and a drama, but the supernatural side is really the most appealing aspect to me. Since it's coming out tomorrow there are reviews already, and it's not looking particularly great.




Sully
Sep 9th; PG-13
Not that this isn't an incredibly neat story or anything, but I wonder if it really warrants a full-length film. It seems like they're adding a lot of drama (via "the untold story") just to push up the run time -- to a whopping 96 minutes. Of course Clint Eastwood is a great director, and Tom Hanks is a great actor, so maybe they can make it all worthwhile for more than just a shot at some Oscar attention. The trailer is definitely of a first-rate brand!




London Road
Sep 9th (limited); NR
This movie is so strange I just had to include it. Watch the trailer to see for yourself because it's hard to describe, but it's a musical -- an actual stage musical being adapted for the screen -- about the small, oddball town of Ipswich when a high-profile murder case made them the center of attention in 2006. And it's a musical. And the music is so strange. Seriously just watch this trailer. Olivia Colman and Tom Hardy lead the cast.




Snowden
Sep 16th (limited); R
I'm not really privy to the controversy about this dude, but putting the true story part aside, this trailer makes this film look like an excellent, tight and suspenseful thriller (even though the main genre it's labeled as is "drama"). That, plus Joseph Gordon-Levitt, and I'm sold. If it proves to be what it promises I'll be looking for it on VidAngel.



The Magnificent Seven
 Sep 23rd; PG-13
This is to me the most interesting release of the month. Which is a little sad considering it's a remake and I'm sick to the teeth of terrible remakes. However, I haven't actually seen the original Magnificent Seven, so that helps a lot, and maybe this will be one of the few that actually is a worthy remake. I love the cast, and the trailer -- even with the modern music that is odd but fitting. I definitely want this one to turn out good, but I won't be getting my hopes up anytime soon.




The Dressmaker
Sep 23rd (limited); NR
On the surface this one seems odd -- a little too odd. But I really enjoyed the trailer. The fashion, the mystery, Kate Winslet... it all has an air of originality to it, and that makes me want to see it. Isn't Liam Hemsworth quite a little bit too young to play this part though. Maybe he's playing older and Kate is playing younger. Like I said, odd.




Deepwater Horizon
Sep 30th; PG-13
Ah, true stories of disaster. You know this is gonna be the biggest drama an action film ever was. And still I list it here. Maybe because it's one of the bigger releases of the month, maybe because it looks like there may be some neat action after all, maybe because Dylan O'Brien is in the cast... who knows.




Miss Peregrine's Home for Peculiar Children
Sep 30th (limited); PG-13
I read the book, but strangely it didn't make me all that interested in seeing this movie. Asa Butterfield as Jacob will probably be perfect, but otherwise the adapting doesn't have that since of love and devotion you look for in franchises like this. The lead girl has someone else's powers, and the other character is cut out completely? What's up with that? Anyway, I will probably watch this, it's just a matter of when -- as determined by how good or bad it is considered to be by fans and critics.

Jurassic Park

I recently got to see Steven Spielberg's classic dino-thriller in its full effect at a theater. I've seen it through at least three times now, and bit and pieces of it several more times, but I only now feel as though I've really seen it. So it's about time I reviewed this thing.

There's our hero shot.

As a movie lover I am biased toward the work of Spielberg. There is something truly magical that comes through his films, especially his science fiction films, and none more so than this one. The sense of adventure, the grandeur, the awe, is unmatched. I didn't even watch this until I was in my teens, and even then it didn't make a huge impression on me at first, but I still have a fierce nostalgic attachment to it. This flick has flaws, yes, mostly in the form of casual plot holes common in action and horror films. It's the nature of the beast, and in a lot of ways, those little marks and flaws endear the movie to me even more.

I think the reason I didn't originally fall for this film was because I saw it at an inopportune time. I was young enough that I tried to identify with the kids, and I had seen enough visually impressive movies that the dinosaurs weren't enough to win me without character. Of course, identifying with the kids didn't work out, because let's face it, they're annoying. However, now that I'm old enough to be naturally inclined to identify with the adults, it doesn't matter how annoying the kids are. In fact, it helps, because Dr. Grant thinks the exact same thing.

That of course is why it's so cute that he gets stuck with them!

It took me a while to warm to Sam Neill's Grant (at first I thought Malcolm was supposed to be the main character, which was confusing for me) but now that I finally have, he may even replace Malcolm as favorite character. It's great that we can sympathize with his aversion to children even if we don't happen to normally feel the same way, and he doesn't comes across as too much of a jerk. So then his journey to overcoming prejudice and changing his mind is easy to get behind and enjoy. He has that Indy/John McClane cynical action-hero thing going, and balances it with brains and a big-softie side. My favorite thing about him is his immediate dedication to protect the kids even though they're not his favorite type of human. "He left us! He left us!" "But that's not what I'm going to do." The delivery of that line is spot-on epic.

Of course Dr. Malcolm is still that character that you just can't help but love, especially when he's played by Jeff Goldblum. Everyone knows that the rock star scientist is the coolest kind of scientist, and, well, there it is. Malcolm keeps the energy going constantly with his clever and funny quips, doing great things with the majority of the film's comic relief, and generally just being Jeff Goldblum and therefore being interesting no matter what he's saying. Laura Dern's Ellie came at a time when a female character didn't have to forgo being charming in order to be sufficiently feminist, so while she does quip about sexism, it's done in a way that lends her a cool confidence like she really couldn't care less. She has a natural, easy likability, and is smart and brave.

All the dinosaurs in the world (or not in the world) can't replace human characters. On that note...

Now the dinosaurs. And this is interesting, because I've actually grown more and more impressed with them over the years. Yeah, the animation doesn't hold up so well, and the first scene that shows them is probably the worst animation-wise which detracts a bit from the wonder of the moment. Really though, it holds up way better than a 1993 film has a right to, and that is due to the animatronics. This is the first viewing of this film I've had since I saw Jurassic World, and it really struck me how the animatronic triceratops is actually more believable than the apatosaurus featured in the sequel 22 years later. Maybe that believability has a little to do with the stunned look of awe on the actors faces in this one... or maybe not.

The T-Rex is spectacular. The animatronic is incredible and still pretty incomprehensible to me, and I barely even noticed animation mixed in with it, because I was so absorbed in the terror of the scenes featuring Rexy. My favorite though, is the velociraptors. Cunning, sneaky, and terrifying. With Rexy, all you have to do is hold still, but I've never been able to figure a plan for if ever I'm being hunted by a raptor, and that's what makes them so scary. They're featured heavily, and were probably very tricky to do. They're certainly at their best when in animatronic mode, but the mixing was done really well. The obvious reluctance to animate them made for some fantastic creativity with the filming that translates intensely onscreen. And then the rare animated shot fills in the gaps.

There's a realness to this that CGI still isn't able to fully recreate.

A lot of the time with classic films, I can tell why they're classics, but have trouble going past liking them as a classic and getting to a point where I like them in a way that is uninfluenced. It can be a large hurdle to get over. I believe I have officially made it over that hurdle with Jurassic Park now. Perhaps because now that I've seen it as it was meant to be seen -- felt the T-Rex roar vibrate in my chest while that magnificent theme brought on a cheesy grin and misty eyes. I experienced it fully, and have found my own reasons to love it. I've begun to understand the filmmaking aspects, fallen in love with the characters, laughed, cried, was thrilled by the well-crafted suspense and terror, and blown away by the awe and wonder. A Spielberg classic, absolutely -- and worlds more.

Kingsman: The Secret Service

Spoilers are marked.
I watched this movie using VidAngel, so thanks Daniel, for recommending it!

The spy genre gets the gleefully self-aware treatment when gentleman spy Harry aka, Galahad (Colin Firth) recruits a trouble-making young man, Eggsy (Taron Egerton) to follow in his father's footsteps and train to become a spy for the Kingsman -- a very posh secret agency whose members go by knights of the round table code names, and save the world with graceful violence, in the best suits a tailor can cut, before nobly fading away again without receiving any thanks or recognition.

Kingsman is basically every spy-movie cliche made extreme and put into a film. On purpose. And it's great!

Act one takes its time and gives us a great introduction to said trouble-maker-soon-to-be-hero. Eggsy's father died saving Galahad's life, and Eggsy seems to have inherited that nobility. But his side of mischief is a double helping -- he's very light-fingered for one, plus has a careless, impulsive attitude and never considers anything before jumping straight into trouble for no real reason at all. He's the ideal kind of lead for this movie, exuding heaps of energy and charm with a matter-of-fact edgy side. Taron Egerton's breakout role, and no surprise; besides being quite the looker, his screen presence is sparkling, and effortlessly draws you in to care for this character. And the script gave a pleasantly unexpected amount of depth to Eggsy's troubles that together with Egerton's characterization and performance made for a very endearing hero very fast.

So when the second act starts and Eggsy must compete with a large bunch of Kingsman recruits who also happen to be mostly made up of total snobs, I was even more involved in the training than I was the real stuff once that really got going. This was the height of the movie's fun factor. I mean, putting a bunch of kids in a competition and asking us to root for the fish-out-of-water underdog isn't the most original thing ever, and not naturally conducive to being uniquely entertaining, but somehow it totally was. The tests they are given for training were all great fun, because they were the sort of cheesy, crazy things that old spy movies were incapable of doing, and newer movies with the right budget never do for fear of being unoriginal.

Kingsman didn't care about being unoriginal, because it made everything unoriginal feel original anyway!

The action was quite stylized in an unusual way and was used quite impressively. The best fight scene was the one in the pub near the beginning, where you can see the style play out the most. The choreography is top-notch, fun and exciting and everything the movie promises. The camera lets you see everything, not by staying still and just avoiding the dreaded shaky-cam, but by actually following the action in order to enhance it. It pans down along with someone being smashed into the floor, zooms in and out crazily and moves in unexpected twists and arcs, and it all works beautifully. Later it's toned back a little but the final battle still had plenty of coolness going for it.

The worst of the action comes along with a few other downfalls, right around the third acts beginning, when training is over, and the saving the world part starts up. It all starts at the quaint little church in Kentucky where Christians are represented as violent crazed extremists who in reality would be a cult. So I started out this scene with my eyebrow raised, and then the film began to fall apart and lose me on an artistic level as well. The length of the violence there is far, far, too long, not serving any purpose to the plot or to our entertainment. (Spoilers!) Then, it sets up Galahad for his death -- which I did like how they took the opportunity to have some fun thumbing their nose at the spy movie cliche, but the result of it was Galahad dying very anticlimactically, with, for me a least, a lot left wanting in his relationship with Eggsy. I'm not sure if or how they could have done it better, but sadly that was the beginning of a slight but noticeable downhill slope.

Quite a good cast. I never mention it, but Michael Caine is in it too. And Jack Davenport. And Mark Hamill!

The film evens out again for a while as Mark Strong's agent Merlin takes over for Galahad as leader, and he, Eggsy, and Roxy (Sophie Cookson) another new recruit take on Samuel L. Jackson's lisping, queasy-stomached super villain intent on saving the Earth by destroying most of its inhabitants. They get into a bit of a groove -- Mark Strong does wonders for anything he's in -- but after a while it teeters downward again as you realize that most of the deeper meaning behind all the vibrancy and fun died with Galahad. Eggsy still needs to save his mother and baby sister along with the rest of the population, but there's no real urgency present. Not like when he and five other recruits were falling and one had a sabotaged parachute. That was urgent -- but that was in the second act.

Another cliche is smashed when Samuel L. Jackson's humanity-destroying device is actually set off, instead of being stopped just in time. The device causes people to want to kill each other, and that commences while Eggsy has the final showdown with Swords-For-Legs Girl (Sofia Boutella) which was cool, but when he stands gloating over her dead body while millions of people kill each other and has to be reminded my Merlin to go turn it off -- that was the film's low point. Not right for his character either. (End of Spoilers.) I loved that they wanted to have fun turning the cliches around in such a fun, self-aware way. They even slyly broke the fourth wall two or three times with cheeky brilliance. But a film needs to have meaning, and by the end of Kingsman, they had forgotten and left behind most of the meaning they began with.

Waiter: "Would sir care for a drink?" Eggsy: "Martini. Gin, not vodka, obviously. Stirred for ten seconds while glancing at an unopened bottle of Vermouth." Brilliant.

Still, overall, Kingsman has more depth and more things to involve you than your average gleefully violent, casually profane R-rated action comedy. It has... manners. And what with such a charming lead, the refined, sophisticated, bitingly sharp humor, a plot that is deceptively basic, involving you by just plain being good, and the truly original and outstanding action, this is a breezy, fun and stylin' spy flick that deserves its place on the ultra-cool team.