The Personal History of David Copperfield

Dev Patel is well-off, then bad-off, then well-off, then bad-off, and then well-off again in this brisk and charmingly color-blind adaptation of Charles Dickens' novel.

I wonder if they thought, "Dev Patel would make a great David Copperfield" and then decided to ignore race in the casting, or if they decided to ignore race, and then realized Dev Patel would make a great David Copperfield.

Two hours of screen time is not long enough for an 800-page novel. I've yet to read it, but I don't need to know what was shortened or cut out to know that it was done. Severely, I expect. And that's why I'm glad I saw this before reading it. Because I enjoyed it immensely, and though I know I'm missing something, I haven't a clue as to what. Well—I do in a general sense. But more on that later. At first brush, David's journey of growing up and becoming a writer, surrounded by a rollercoaster of ups and downs, and an even more wild ride in the forms of eternally kooky supporting characters, feels like Dickens 100%. If you get a Dickens itch, this will scratch it.

It speeds along through the plot at sometimes too great speeds, although it never gets exhausting and has good pacing. The only thing I waited for was for young David to grow into Dev Patel—and once he did the film came alive and found its lively and comfortable groove. I don't know what David's personality is supposed to be like, but Patel seems to me a Dickens hero through and through. Easy-going, energetic, funny and sincere with occasional outbursts of anger and naïve stupidity. Ideal. Tilda Swinton, Hugh Laurie, Peter Capaldi, Rosalind Eleazar, Benedict Wong, Aneurin Barnard, Morfydd Clark, and Ben Whishaw all added to it, but it was Patel who made the movie sing.

There are some first-rate scene transitions in this thing.

The problem comes in when the movie reaches the dramatic parts that are meant to have stakes, and you realize that they were skimmed over so quickly that it's tough to figure out what bad had happened, let alone care about it. This movie hits the colorful, charming, and fun notes remarkably well; but in order to be fully satisfying, a story needs the audience investment that serious drama brings. And while it's not lacking in it completely, it was frustrating when the movie ended, and I realized the film had only included us in half of David's experiences. We get a full sense of his happiness, but the trials are cut short and brushed aside. I grasped that Ben Whishaw was the movie's main villain in the same scene in which he's defeated. I had no time to care. Without the downs of a story, how can an audience fully appreciate the ups?

So it left me fully charmed, but only partially invested. And that's too bad, because while I like being charmed, it's getting into the nitty gritty of caring about the characters that ultimately most important to my falling in love with a story. Still, you can hardly blame The Personal History of David Copperfield for focusing in on what it did. It may have left me a little empty, but it clearly wanted to focus on the brighter side of everything and have fun, and that's what it did. All in all, its shortcomings left me wanting to read the book—and that's a compliment in itself. 

Upcoming Movie Roundup - September

In August, I only saw one of the four movies I was especially interested in, but that one already improved the movie year significantly. Once Upon a Time in Hollywood (review) was wonderfully entertaining and moving, a great character piece, and a stylishly laid-back epic. It may be my favorite film of the year! I still need and plan to see The Peanut Butter Falcon, Blinded by the Light, and Ready or Not, but 2019 is maybe beginning to look up.

And the looking up continues into September, where there are two must-see movies for me! What looks good to you this month? Hope you all had a wonderful summer!



It Chapter Two
In theaters Sept 6th; R
Must see of the month number one! I've been anticipating this one since Chapter One released and even though some are saying it's not the greatest, that was said about Chapter One too, so I plan on enjoying it all even if it's flawed. I love the long run time and I love that it will give me a good excuse to rewatch Chapter One beforehand. The cast looks great, (I'm glad the kids are back too) it looks epic and not too scary for me (hopefully! haha) -- I think I'm ready!




The Goldfinch
In theaters Sept 13th; R
I'm not usually so interested in straight-up dramas, but this one's cast grabbed my attention. Ansel Elgort, Aneurin Barnard and Finn Wolfhard playing the same character, Luke Wilson, and Nicole Kidman to name a few. And it's based on a book so the plot is likely to be worthwhile -- though I have to say, based on the trailer it's hard to tell what the movie is really about. Someone stole the painting before the explosion or something? (Maybe I'm supposed to read the book first, haha.) The cast will get me to watch it, and we'll see for the rest!




Freaks
Limited release Sept 13th; R
I'm going to keep this one on my radar for whenever it comes to streaming. Could be interesting (reviews suggest it's good) or it could be not my thing. Or mildly my thing which is most likely. As long as they don't stay inside the whole movie, I expect it'll be worth a watch! Looks kind of like what an indie X-Men movie might be like.




Monos
Limited release Sept 13th; R
Nice looking trailer, but what does it all mean? What's the plot, the point? I guess we have to see the movie to find out. Not exactly motivating for me though I'm sure the whole thing will be visually fantastic.




Ad Astra
In theaters Sept 20th; PG-13
I was already on board when this trailer released because I will see anything that's set in space, and this one is particularly epic-looking. And now, since I saw Once Upon a Time in Hollywood and liked Brad Pitt in it so much, I'm double on board, and excited to see another potentially great character and performance from him. Tommy Lee Jones, Liv Tyler, Ruth Negga, and Donald Sutherland round out the cast. Also, Loren Dean likes to come out of the woodwork for scifi films, doesn't he? Anyway, this could be a favorite of the year for me, if it goes well. Looks beautiful, with a broad scope and intimate detail. Must-see number two!




Downton Abbey
In theaters Sept 20th; PG
This has no appeal for me but I know there has to still be people out there who are sad about Downton Abbey ending and are probably over the moon about this film. It so fan-service-y but I guess that should be expected. It exists to serve fans. So y'all enjoy.




Villains
Limited release Sept 20th; R
A horror comedy with Maika Monroe and Bill Skarsgård? Sounds like a yes to me! Seems like the sort of plot that would only work if done really well, but it being a comedy is going in the right direction. I expect it would be a fun watch even if it's not exceptional. Maika Monroe rules stylish horror films and Bill Skarsgård should be in all the movies.




21 Bridges
In theaters Sept 27th; NR
The plot is like the end of Batman Begins where they close off the island to contain all the escaped villains. Otherwise, this doesn't have a big draw. Even the movie thinks its biggest draw is the Russo Brothers producing. Producing doesn't mean much, I'd rather know who directed, or who wrote it. Nice to see Chadwick Boseman do non-superhero stuff but he might as well be playing T'Challa here too. One thing I really do like the look of here is that it's not a blatant anti-police movie. It's just an action-thriller about justice, plain and simple. I'd watch it; depends on reception as to when.




Abominable
In theaters Sept 27th; PG
I'm willing to give this one a chance but to be honest it doesn't look very good. If the movie has as much cliche writing and benign jokes as the trailer, it'll be the sort of thing that only kids will enjoy. Making animated flicks to only appeal to kids is such a waste.

Dunkirk

Spoiler-free.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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