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!
Showing posts with label Anne Hathaway. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Anne Hathaway. Show all posts
Tuesday, January 1, 2019
Friday, January 12, 2018
Colossal
Spoilers!
In spite of Dan Stevens and a very memorable fantasy premise, Colossal for me was nothing more than a colossal waste of time.
Sorry, but they walked into that one.
Although, I do get to write a review about it, so, waste of time maybe, but I can't say I regret watching it. It's about Anne Hathaway, who's a party girl, and a drunk, out-of control loser. The movie's fantasy element is a parable for what it's like to be out of control with an addiction. Because of some flimsy magical happenstance, whenever Anne -- Gloria -- walks through a specific playground at exactly 8:05 AM, a giant Godzilla-like monster appears in Seoul, South Korea, and mimics her movements.
When her boyfriend (Dan Stevens) can't stand her lazy drunken shenanigans any longer and kicks her out, she goes to her hometown, and starts working at her childhood friend's bar. Yes, wonderful place for an alcoholic to hang out. His name is Owen and he's played by Jason Sudeikis. She chances to walk through this specific playground at the right time several times, is shocked along with the rest of the world at the appearance of the monster, and eventually discovers that the monster is her -- because of a tick where she scratches her head in an obvious and exaggerated manner. Then she gets drunk and shows off her odd party trick to her new buddies (Austin Stowell and Tim Blake Nelson) and Owen, accidentally trips, falls, and kills lots of South Koreans.
But don't worry, it gets better. Owen, trying to catch her, goes into the playground too, and he also has something materialize in Seoul and copy his movements -- a giant robot. Awesome. Now he's kinda excited about his newfound power like Gloria was, but for her there's a bit of a damper because she realized for the first time that her boyfriend was right. She's out of control. She's literally killed people. The parallel between her heightened situation and real-life addiction is obvious. She vows never to let her monster materialize again, and seems to be on the road to recovery, but then things escalate beyond even her control.
I suppose this part is meant to be the metaphor for how your addiction can begin to control you. Owen now gets drunk and starts goofing off in the playground. For some reason she feels responsible for this and is quick to break her vow in order to stand up to him. He apologizes, but later is drunk again and back at it, and before you know it, reaches full villain scale when he threatens innocent lives to make her stay working for him. When she doesn't take him seriously enough he makes good on the threat in one of the most weirdly dark and unpleasant scenes I've witnessed in a movie. As he stomps on the wood chips, she's laying on the ground inches from him reaching out and screaming, yet never moves to physically stop him. We're supposed to understand that she can't, but it simply doesn't make sense.
After that the allegory falls apart, because to solve the problem she goes to Seoul, making her monster appear at the playground, picks Owen up, and hurls him across the state, killing him. But it's okay, because he called her a b**** before she decided to do it. What's the takeaway from the ending? I have no clue. There's an obvious point of girl-power, because she never gets any help from her friends or the police, and she ends up alone but "happy." But after thinking about it for a few days, the only lesson I can see concerning addiction is that it seems to say that once you've solved you own problems, it's totally okay for you to kill people with the same problems if they don't figure it out like you did.
I am %1000 sure that that is not what the movie makers meant the point to be, but if there's a more reasonable one, I completely missed it. I think Owen is always meant to be an extension of a sort of Gloria's problem, since story-wise her problem isn't truly fixed until she's rid of him, but if that's the case I don't get what killing him is a metaphor for. (If you have any insights I'd welcome a discussion.)
One definite, but probably unintentional lesson is that you should never let, or go to others for help. Dan Stevens goes to her aid, but only comes across as needy and wishy-washy because he kicks her out and then gets jealous of her for moving on. Then there's Austin Stowell's character, who was present on the sidelines for many of her fights with Owen to get him out of the playground. This guy totally could have stepped in and helped her, but in the movie's eyes it isn't even a possibility. He's even on her side. But he just stands there. It doesn't make sense.
I don't care for Anne Hathaway, and I don't think she did a particularly good job, but I don't blame her for my inability to sympathize with her character. Gloria comes across surprisingly unsympathetic in spite of what happens to and because of her. The culprit is, I believe, the movie's insincere tone. Jason Sudeikis did do an interesting job turning into a disturbing villain, but the transition was jarring in a way that doesn't sit right. The movie's tonal shifts are all jarring, though you can see attempts at dark comedy throughout. Instead it comes across as irreverently dark, milking the disturbing moments for shocking drama, then kicking back and flippantly expecting us to laugh at it all, which is the last thing I felt like doing.
It's a fantasy movie, but tries to ground itself in reality, drawing clear parallels to real-life problems, but the grounding doesn't take. The story slowly floats further and further away from reality until by then end it cops out with a falsely empowering ending, and never finishes it's thought on addiction, the reason the story existed in the first place. I think they simplified the issue far too much, and instead of letting the story drive through its natural path to a conclusion, it was forced to go the way they wanted. Each forced turn pushed the movie further and further into its own fantasy land.
I don't have much experience with this kind of thing in real-life, but I think they ignored the most overarching truth -- that if you need help you don't have to face your problems alone -- merely so they could scrounge up an inspiring and empowering ending for their amazingly dis-likable heroine. The way I see it, Colossal never moves past the stage she was at in the very beginning; in denial that it has a problem in the first place. It just stomps around in wild destruction, shouting its incoherent message into a fantastical, meaningless void.
In spite of Dan Stevens and a very memorable fantasy premise, Colossal for me was nothing more than a colossal waste of time.
Sorry, but they walked into that one.
Although, I do get to write a review about it, so, waste of time maybe, but I can't say I regret watching it. It's about Anne Hathaway, who's a party girl, and a drunk, out-of control loser. The movie's fantasy element is a parable for what it's like to be out of control with an addiction. Because of some flimsy magical happenstance, whenever Anne -- Gloria -- walks through a specific playground at exactly 8:05 AM, a giant Godzilla-like monster appears in Seoul, South Korea, and mimics her movements.
 |
| From the moment I saw the trailer I wondered about the logistics of the premise. I was left unsatisfied. |
When her boyfriend (Dan Stevens) can't stand her lazy drunken shenanigans any longer and kicks her out, she goes to her hometown, and starts working at her childhood friend's bar. Yes, wonderful place for an alcoholic to hang out. His name is Owen and he's played by Jason Sudeikis. She chances to walk through this specific playground at the right time several times, is shocked along with the rest of the world at the appearance of the monster, and eventually discovers that the monster is her -- because of a tick where she scratches her head in an obvious and exaggerated manner. Then she gets drunk and shows off her odd party trick to her new buddies (Austin Stowell and Tim Blake Nelson) and Owen, accidentally trips, falls, and kills lots of South Koreans.
But don't worry, it gets better. Owen, trying to catch her, goes into the playground too, and he also has something materialize in Seoul and copy his movements -- a giant robot. Awesome. Now he's kinda excited about his newfound power like Gloria was, but for her there's a bit of a damper because she realized for the first time that her boyfriend was right. She's out of control. She's literally killed people. The parallel between her heightened situation and real-life addiction is obvious. She vows never to let her monster materialize again, and seems to be on the road to recovery, but then things escalate beyond even her control.
 |
| *fantasy intensifies* |
I suppose this part is meant to be the metaphor for how your addiction can begin to control you. Owen now gets drunk and starts goofing off in the playground. For some reason she feels responsible for this and is quick to break her vow in order to stand up to him. He apologizes, but later is drunk again and back at it, and before you know it, reaches full villain scale when he threatens innocent lives to make her stay working for him. When she doesn't take him seriously enough he makes good on the threat in one of the most weirdly dark and unpleasant scenes I've witnessed in a movie. As he stomps on the wood chips, she's laying on the ground inches from him reaching out and screaming, yet never moves to physically stop him. We're supposed to understand that she can't, but it simply doesn't make sense.
After that the allegory falls apart, because to solve the problem she goes to Seoul, making her monster appear at the playground, picks Owen up, and hurls him across the state, killing him. But it's okay, because he called her a b**** before she decided to do it. What's the takeaway from the ending? I have no clue. There's an obvious point of girl-power, because she never gets any help from her friends or the police, and she ends up alone but "happy." But after thinking about it for a few days, the only lesson I can see concerning addiction is that it seems to say that once you've solved you own problems, it's totally okay for you to kill people with the same problems if they don't figure it out like you did.
 |
| Nice Job. Let's hope no one takes that attitude to heart. |
I am %1000 sure that that is not what the movie makers meant the point to be, but if there's a more reasonable one, I completely missed it. I think Owen is always meant to be an extension of a sort of Gloria's problem, since story-wise her problem isn't truly fixed until she's rid of him, but if that's the case I don't get what killing him is a metaphor for. (If you have any insights I'd welcome a discussion.)
One definite, but probably unintentional lesson is that you should never let, or go to others for help. Dan Stevens goes to her aid, but only comes across as needy and wishy-washy because he kicks her out and then gets jealous of her for moving on. Then there's Austin Stowell's character, who was present on the sidelines for many of her fights with Owen to get him out of the playground. This guy totally could have stepped in and helped her, but in the movie's eyes it isn't even a possibility. He's even on her side. But he just stands there. It doesn't make sense.
 |
| The head-scratching bit irked me to no end because of how played up it was. |
I don't care for Anne Hathaway, and I don't think she did a particularly good job, but I don't blame her for my inability to sympathize with her character. Gloria comes across surprisingly unsympathetic in spite of what happens to and because of her. The culprit is, I believe, the movie's insincere tone. Jason Sudeikis did do an interesting job turning into a disturbing villain, but the transition was jarring in a way that doesn't sit right. The movie's tonal shifts are all jarring, though you can see attempts at dark comedy throughout. Instead it comes across as irreverently dark, milking the disturbing moments for shocking drama, then kicking back and flippantly expecting us to laugh at it all, which is the last thing I felt like doing.
It's a fantasy movie, but tries to ground itself in reality, drawing clear parallels to real-life problems, but the grounding doesn't take. The story slowly floats further and further away from reality until by then end it cops out with a falsely empowering ending, and never finishes it's thought on addiction, the reason the story existed in the first place. I think they simplified the issue far too much, and instead of letting the story drive through its natural path to a conclusion, it was forced to go the way they wanted. Each forced turn pushed the movie further and further into its own fantasy land.
 |
| "Moral of the story? Oh, idk.... addiction is... um, what were we talking about?" |
I don't have much experience with this kind of thing in real-life, but I think they ignored the most overarching truth -- that if you need help you don't have to face your problems alone -- merely so they could scrounge up an inspiring and empowering ending for their amazingly dis-likable heroine. The way I see it, Colossal never moves past the stage she was at in the very beginning; in denial that it has a problem in the first place. It just stomps around in wild destruction, shouting its incoherent message into a fantastical, meaningless void.
Saturday, April 1, 2017
Upcoming Movie Roundup - April
March's highlight was %100 Kong: Skull Island for me with a visual feast of epic fun, buffet-style. (Read my very pleased review here!) I also saw Beauty and the Beast which was only just as good as it needed to be. (Read my review here to see where it went wrong and what it got right.) I still want to see Life, but a theater trip for it is currently up in the air.
Iron Fist was released on Netflix, and we watched it slowly and just finished it, more than a little disappointed. But there was a great superhero show after all -- in February's Legion. It recently wrapped up every bit as well as it began: appropriately crazy, beautiful, and terrifying.
This month I'm feeling a little cynical towards all the new releases, with no must-sees -- but at the same time, plenty of potential. So time will tell if my cynicism is warranted or not! What looks good to you this month, and what was your highlight from March? Let me know in the comments!
Colossal
Apr 7th; R
It's definitely an original idea that I would think would have to potential to be funny, but it's hard to tell whether the potential is fulfilled or not -- the trailer itself isn't funny at all, and the gimmick may cause more problems than it does provide humor. The trailer gives away a lot, but I still have questions about the mechanics of the premise. I don't care for Anne Hathaway at all, but she's balanced out by Dan Stevens who I'd watch in anything. Plus, however much like a rom-com it appears to be, it's still technically a sci-fi too, and that helps a lot. Mild interest here.
Gifted
Apr 7th; PG-13
This movie is full-on drama which is probably the least appealing genre out there to me, and yet it still looks interesting -- and not even because it starts Chris Evans. In fact, the thing that really grabbed my attention when I saw first saw the trailer was Jenny Slate playing a serious, apparently likeable character! I really want to see her do that. The story is just about as interesting as a drama can get, but I can foresee cliches and sappiness as well; it all depends on how it's told.
The Fate of the Furious
Apr 14th; PG-13
I caught up on the Fast and the Furious franchise before the 7th one came out and still didn't bother to see it in theaters, so that's probably a good indicator of where I'm at with this one, too. I also understand continuing on without Paul Walker, but a lot of the film's appeal is gone without him at the center of everything. Otherwise this looks to be a solid entry in a solid and long-running franchise. They're not getting lazy and sticking to the same fourmula by switching Vin Diesel to villain side (not that he's REALLY a villain of course) and the stunts are appropriately larger than those in the last movie. I expect this will keep the fun, popcorn-action series rolling along.
The Lost City of Z
Apr 14th; PG-13
I heard about this one because Tom Holland is in it, and was under the impression for a while that it was a fantasy movie of some kind. Then I found out it's based on a true story which is a big change. I'm not often a fan of true stories, and I'm not a fan of Charlie Hunnam either, who plays the lead. However, for people who are fans or those who don't care, the film does look good -- artistically filmed and artistically told -- and may very well be a worthwhile watch.
Norman
Apr 14th; R
Another that has Dan Stevens in a supporting role. Richard Gere is in the lead and apparently branching out from how we know him with an indie character piece. The characters seem complex and the plot doesn't feel overly familiar, and it has that dark but quirky indie style to it... but honestly if I ever happen to watch it it'll probably only be because of Dan Stevens... and probably also because it was free and I had nothing more interesting to watch.
Free Fire
Apr 21st; R
Sharlto Copley, Brie Larson, Armie Hammer, Cillian Murphy, Sam Riley, non-stop R-rated action-comedy. They had me at Sharlto Copley. Definitely the most wacky movie to come out this month, and also the sort of movie that doesn't need a good critic score to be enjoyable for those inclined. It's obviously meant to be ridiculous. It's R-rating is a little more than I'd prefer to have to deal with, but with this cast and the craziness of the trailer, it's gonna keep nagging me whether I see it or not.
Language warning for this trailer! I tried very hard to find a green band one, but I think in order for one to exist it would have to have no dialogue...
The Circle
Apr 28th; PG-13
Creepy. And this one's based on a book -- has anyone read it? After being disappointed with Emma Watson's Belle I'm not stoked at the idea of seeing her again, but maybe this will be a chance for her to redeem herself. I am eager to see John Boyega in something else though, and Tom Hanks and Karen Gillan are also in the cast. Being based on a book gives me a lot more confidence in the plot's quality than I might normally have. So far all signs point to this being the highlight of the month, though I'll need to be convinced a bit more before I shell out for a ticket. Maybe I should read the book...
Iron Fist was released on Netflix, and we watched it slowly and just finished it, more than a little disappointed. But there was a great superhero show after all -- in February's Legion. It recently wrapped up every bit as well as it began: appropriately crazy, beautiful, and terrifying.
This month I'm feeling a little cynical towards all the new releases, with no must-sees -- but at the same time, plenty of potential. So time will tell if my cynicism is warranted or not! What looks good to you this month, and what was your highlight from March? Let me know in the comments!
Colossal
Apr 7th; R
It's definitely an original idea that I would think would have to potential to be funny, but it's hard to tell whether the potential is fulfilled or not -- the trailer itself isn't funny at all, and the gimmick may cause more problems than it does provide humor. The trailer gives away a lot, but I still have questions about the mechanics of the premise. I don't care for Anne Hathaway at all, but she's balanced out by Dan Stevens who I'd watch in anything. Plus, however much like a rom-com it appears to be, it's still technically a sci-fi too, and that helps a lot. Mild interest here.
Gifted
Apr 7th; PG-13
This movie is full-on drama which is probably the least appealing genre out there to me, and yet it still looks interesting -- and not even because it starts Chris Evans. In fact, the thing that really grabbed my attention when I saw first saw the trailer was Jenny Slate playing a serious, apparently likeable character! I really want to see her do that. The story is just about as interesting as a drama can get, but I can foresee cliches and sappiness as well; it all depends on how it's told.
The Fate of the Furious
Apr 14th; PG-13
I caught up on the Fast and the Furious franchise before the 7th one came out and still didn't bother to see it in theaters, so that's probably a good indicator of where I'm at with this one, too. I also understand continuing on without Paul Walker, but a lot of the film's appeal is gone without him at the center of everything. Otherwise this looks to be a solid entry in a solid and long-running franchise. They're not getting lazy and sticking to the same fourmula by switching Vin Diesel to villain side (not that he's REALLY a villain of course) and the stunts are appropriately larger than those in the last movie. I expect this will keep the fun, popcorn-action series rolling along.
The Lost City of Z
Apr 14th; PG-13
I heard about this one because Tom Holland is in it, and was under the impression for a while that it was a fantasy movie of some kind. Then I found out it's based on a true story which is a big change. I'm not often a fan of true stories, and I'm not a fan of Charlie Hunnam either, who plays the lead. However, for people who are fans or those who don't care, the film does look good -- artistically filmed and artistically told -- and may very well be a worthwhile watch.
Norman
Apr 14th; R
Another that has Dan Stevens in a supporting role. Richard Gere is in the lead and apparently branching out from how we know him with an indie character piece. The characters seem complex and the plot doesn't feel overly familiar, and it has that dark but quirky indie style to it... but honestly if I ever happen to watch it it'll probably only be because of Dan Stevens... and probably also because it was free and I had nothing more interesting to watch.
Free Fire
Apr 21st; R
Sharlto Copley, Brie Larson, Armie Hammer, Cillian Murphy, Sam Riley, non-stop R-rated action-comedy. They had me at Sharlto Copley. Definitely the most wacky movie to come out this month, and also the sort of movie that doesn't need a good critic score to be enjoyable for those inclined. It's obviously meant to be ridiculous. It's R-rating is a little more than I'd prefer to have to deal with, but with this cast and the craziness of the trailer, it's gonna keep nagging me whether I see it or not.
Language warning for this trailer! I tried very hard to find a green band one, but I think in order for one to exist it would have to have no dialogue...
The Circle
Apr 28th; PG-13
Creepy. And this one's based on a book -- has anyone read it? After being disappointed with Emma Watson's Belle I'm not stoked at the idea of seeing her again, but maybe this will be a chance for her to redeem herself. I am eager to see John Boyega in something else though, and Tom Hanks and Karen Gillan are also in the cast. Being based on a book gives me a lot more confidence in the plot's quality than I might normally have. So far all signs point to this being the highlight of the month, though I'll need to be convinced a bit more before I shell out for a ticket. Maybe I should read the book...
Tuesday, August 9, 2016
The Intern
Spoilers.
In this chick flick by Nancy Meyers, the writer and director of one of my favorite rom-coms, Robert De Niro is Ben, a recently retired widower who gets a job as an intern for a up-and-coming online clothing store run by Jules (Anne Hathaway), a young and inexperienced but dedicated businesswoman.
Since I liked The Holiday so much, I thought this would certainly be worth a look, considering the nice cast, and the quirky trailer that promised a lighthearted good time. And as it started out it delivered on those promises. The setting in the open floor-space of the business gave everything a breezy feel, so there's a comfortable flow, and a few neat quirks to make it all memorable. It was like a happier, more modern The Devil Wears Prada. Anne Hathaway comes across as a good boss; friendly and kind, if also a perfectionist and not extremely personable. Robert De Niro's Ben is an unfailing optimist and a very classy gentleman, and he pulls off the adorable-old-man vibe perfectly.
I thought that I'd mirror the movie with this review. I started out with some promise and a few positives that seem to be leading in the right direction, but now I'm going to make you wonder how good this review might actually be. That's what the movie did next. As Jules doesn't warm to Ben, things start to stagnate. The super-positive work environment sometimes comes across as insincere; I would feel unnerved like something sinister was going on, or would be very aware that I was watching a movie. We find out that Jules has a family, which seems like an odd rabbit trail. I started liking the supporting characters more than the leads. Then, Ben wins Jules' approval and things appear to head back in the original direction.
That's when the robbery takes place. Sure, in the movie it's just breaking and entering to delete an accidentally sent email, but it sure did feel like a robbery to me. Suddenly the movie's relaxed charm was gone and replaced by unfunny situational comedy that served no other purpose than to extend the run time. In one scene this film went from cute-little-flick to tonally confusing and borderline disaster. But don't worry, it doesn't end there...
It gets much worse! After the original airy tone was discarded, a new one was quickly set in its place. Fortunately, it wasn't the dumb comic one you might expect considering the scene that brought on the change. No, it was actually what I'd call a haphazard melodrama. Either there was not enough girl power in the character of Jules, a woman who built up her own company from nothing with dedication, style, and grace... or too much. I'm not really sure. Which is it when you take a confident businesswoman (who's fair to her employees and so hands-on that she gives out her cell number to clients in case they have problems) and turn her into a weepy mess of indecision and neediness? What is the goal here?
Eventually, all this movie wants to do is preach to us about feminism, and sexism, and gender roles and things like that. I have my own opinions on those subjects, but no matter what perspective I look at it from, it's not good on a storytelling level. It's not entertaining or compelling here. Jules' home life falls apart because she spends every waking hour working, and then her husband Matt (Anders Holm) "makes a stupid mistake" and cheats on her. Whoops! This very efficiently turns him into that character that typically the female lead is dating at the beginning of the rom-com and eventually is happily rid of, except his speech about how he'll do better actually works. She forgives him, but she continues to work just as much, so everything's hunky-dory, but nothing has changed.
The message the film brings to this is that it wasn't Jules' fault that Matt cheated, which of course is true; so obviously true to me, that I thought it was odd and unnecessary how big a point they made out of it. However, just because Jules' constant absence isn't a free pass or even a bad excuse to cheat doesn't mean that it was okay for her to be such a workaholic, and it's presented that it was. Seriously, in every movie where a man is never home and obsessed with work he's invariably put in a bad light and either is a flawed character that must change, or is an actual villain -- and those morals ring true. Are we really supposed to accept that it's fine that Jules values her job over her family?
Back to criticizing the entertainment aspects: Around when the political agenda is heating up is when the entertainment takes the backseat. There's very little comedy left, and everything melts into a puddle of tears -- and unconvincing, unmoving ones at that. Sad characters drag the movie down. Drama appears out of nowhere and tries to pull the plot in awkward directions. Jules' character arc set up at the beginning is abandoned for a cheap, flimsy one, and the problem set up at the beginning of the company needing a CEO is suddenly not nearly so urgent and is dismissed with a wave of the hand. Ben also loses a lot of interest, but does remain the film's most consistent and best character throughout. Other characters are completely forgotten, like Becky (Christina Scherer) who feels undermined and underused, and her suitor (Adam Devine) who's trying to get back into her good graces.
Nat Wolff is in the movie. (I'm just trying to think of some pros.) He's a part of one sequence that is quite funny where Ben is being interviewed for his position and almost none of the questions apply to him. But that was at the beginning of the movie; when it was a good movie with fun and quirky potential. It sure did all fall down fast. And the charming appeal of the beginning only made its speedy and uninspired decline all the more disappointing.
In this chick flick by Nancy Meyers, the writer and director of one of my favorite rom-coms, Robert De Niro is Ben, a recently retired widower who gets a job as an intern for a up-and-coming online clothing store run by Jules (Anne Hathaway), a young and inexperienced but dedicated businesswoman.
 |
| ... Who rides he bike through the workplace to save time. Cute, but those poor people who have to run after her! |
Since I liked The Holiday so much, I thought this would certainly be worth a look, considering the nice cast, and the quirky trailer that promised a lighthearted good time. And as it started out it delivered on those promises. The setting in the open floor-space of the business gave everything a breezy feel, so there's a comfortable flow, and a few neat quirks to make it all memorable. It was like a happier, more modern The Devil Wears Prada. Anne Hathaway comes across as a good boss; friendly and kind, if also a perfectionist and not extremely personable. Robert De Niro's Ben is an unfailing optimist and a very classy gentleman, and he pulls off the adorable-old-man vibe perfectly.
I thought that I'd mirror the movie with this review. I started out with some promise and a few positives that seem to be leading in the right direction, but now I'm going to make you wonder how good this review might actually be. That's what the movie did next. As Jules doesn't warm to Ben, things start to stagnate. The super-positive work environment sometimes comes across as insincere; I would feel unnerved like something sinister was going on, or would be very aware that I was watching a movie. We find out that Jules has a family, which seems like an odd rabbit trail. I started liking the supporting characters more than the leads. Then, Ben wins Jules' approval and things appear to head back in the original direction.
 |
| Yay felonies! Or is it a misdemeanor? Either way, yay! |
That's when the robbery takes place. Sure, in the movie it's just breaking and entering to delete an accidentally sent email, but it sure did feel like a robbery to me. Suddenly the movie's relaxed charm was gone and replaced by unfunny situational comedy that served no other purpose than to extend the run time. In one scene this film went from cute-little-flick to tonally confusing and borderline disaster. But don't worry, it doesn't end there...
It gets much worse! After the original airy tone was discarded, a new one was quickly set in its place. Fortunately, it wasn't the dumb comic one you might expect considering the scene that brought on the change. No, it was actually what I'd call a haphazard melodrama. Either there was not enough girl power in the character of Jules, a woman who built up her own company from nothing with dedication, style, and grace... or too much. I'm not really sure. Which is it when you take a confident businesswoman (who's fair to her employees and so hands-on that she gives out her cell number to clients in case they have problems) and turn her into a weepy mess of indecision and neediness? What is the goal here?
 |
| Her face is my reaction to all that. Followed by an eye roll and a face-palm after what happens next. |
Eventually, all this movie wants to do is preach to us about feminism, and sexism, and gender roles and things like that. I have my own opinions on those subjects, but no matter what perspective I look at it from, it's not good on a storytelling level. It's not entertaining or compelling here. Jules' home life falls apart because she spends every waking hour working, and then her husband Matt (Anders Holm) "makes a stupid mistake" and cheats on her. Whoops! This very efficiently turns him into that character that typically the female lead is dating at the beginning of the rom-com and eventually is happily rid of, except his speech about how he'll do better actually works. She forgives him, but she continues to work just as much, so everything's hunky-dory, but nothing has changed.
The message the film brings to this is that it wasn't Jules' fault that Matt cheated, which of course is true; so obviously true to me, that I thought it was odd and unnecessary how big a point they made out of it. However, just because Jules' constant absence isn't a free pass or even a bad excuse to cheat doesn't mean that it was okay for her to be such a workaholic, and it's presented that it was. Seriously, in every movie where a man is never home and obsessed with work he's invariably put in a bad light and either is a flawed character that must change, or is an actual villain -- and those morals ring true. Are we really supposed to accept that it's fine that Jules values her job over her family?
 |
| I didn't want to get into the politics, but I guess I just did. Oh well. |
Back to criticizing the entertainment aspects: Around when the political agenda is heating up is when the entertainment takes the backseat. There's very little comedy left, and everything melts into a puddle of tears -- and unconvincing, unmoving ones at that. Sad characters drag the movie down. Drama appears out of nowhere and tries to pull the plot in awkward directions. Jules' character arc set up at the beginning is abandoned for a cheap, flimsy one, and the problem set up at the beginning of the company needing a CEO is suddenly not nearly so urgent and is dismissed with a wave of the hand. Ben also loses a lot of interest, but does remain the film's most consistent and best character throughout. Other characters are completely forgotten, like Becky (Christina Scherer) who feels undermined and underused, and her suitor (Adam Devine) who's trying to get back into her good graces.
Nat Wolff is in the movie. (I'm just trying to think of some pros.) He's a part of one sequence that is quite funny where Ben is being interviewed for his position and almost none of the questions apply to him. But that was at the beginning of the movie; when it was a good movie with fun and quirky potential. It sure did all fall down fast. And the charming appeal of the beginning only made its speedy and uninspired decline all the more disappointing.
Friday, December 4, 2015
Interstellar
Some Spoilers within.
Crops on Earth are dying. Corn is the last one to survive, and only a matter of years away from meeting the same fate. And then it'll be humanity's turn. But NASA has been working in secret on a way to save the humans. When a black hole opened up in space near Saturn, they saw their chance and took it -- sending astronauts in to explore the planets in the new galaxy, in the hopes that they'll find a habitable one.
Through a series of strange events, Cooper, a pilot-turned-farmer discovers NASA's secret headquarters. There he is told the truth about Earth's impending demise and is recruited to lead one last mission into the black hole -- to visit the three planets where the surviving astronauts are sending out signals indicating that the planet is potentially habitable. Knowing that the mission would take many years, Cooper doesn't want to leave his two children behind, but takes the job anyway, to save them.
Never mind if it's enjoyable; never mind if it's entertaining; the biggest issue and controversy surrounding Christopher Nolan's latest blockbuster epic is whether or not it's scientifically viable. I started out without any specific explanations of the science behind this movie, but I had heard about relative time in space travel, and I know all about paradoxes too... because Doctor Who. So the parts in the film that had to do with space travel -- the black hole, the time differences, the technical aspects -- made sense to me as the film explained them. It would be a whole other issue if the story was being sold as a true story, but it's science fiction, so making sense within its own explanation is all I require to give a stamp of approval.
The previously mentioned aspects I can see the more involved (read: geeky) fans debating over, about potential holes, or whether or not the science is applicable in reality, but a lot of the less science-y events made we wonder how far people's claims of this film's incredible accuracy actually goes. Are people swallowing that the Earth will eventually die via the natural extinction of plants? That humans will eventually evolve to be able to see and manipulate time? I love a good bootstrap paradox in my entertainment, but that involves literal time travel (not just space travel "time travel"), backwards time travel, and that, as fun as it is to enjoy in a film, is a little silly to call scientifically accurate.
Now that I've dealt with that, on to whether or not Interstellar is enjoyable and entertaining -- an underrated point that I put a lot of importance on when evaluating entertainment. And this is actually a pretty unique case. Usually in a big blockbuster I have a backup for if the plot fails to engage and impress; the cast. Usually there's at least one actor or character present that I can turn my attention to. This movie, not so much. It has a huge cast, but isn't made up of many actors that I'm automatically biased towards. Plus Matthew McConaughey was the only constant character, and I'm neutral towards him. I didn't find much to connect with Cooper on, except that I really did appreciate his extreme will to survive because of his love for his children (child, really). Only, that came from the script.
Anne Hathaway I actually dislike generally, and her character being so dramatically sentimental and inept (she was probably a descendant of Gravity's Ryan Stone) didn't help one bit. She killed my favorite character, Wes Bentley, who died predictably early. Then all I had to look forward to was Matt Damon's appearance, which ended in surprise when Mann turned out to be a coward and a villain. And while I'm on the subject, can I just ask; why did Mann want to kill Cooper and the others? I mean, they all wanted to leave. I just can't see what he thought it would help. If you have an idea about that I'd love to hear it. The only possibility I see is that he was just plain crazy. Cooper's daughter Murph was best when being played by Jessica Chastain, who handled the potentially annoying characteristics of the character much better than the younger portrayal. As for the son, Tom, he was set up for development as the younger, but once he grew into Casey Affleck, no use was made of it. I was sad for him though because Cooper never seemed to care one iota about him compared with Murph. Michael Caine was around, which was a good thing, and so was Topher Grace all of a sudden, and I spent a lot of time wondering where he came from... and who he was.
So since the entertainment "backup" of the cast was so slight and so often absent, I had to almost solely rely on the entertaining elements of the plot to involve and impress me. On that score the film skews toward to positive side. The movie was overlong in my opinion, but it was able to keep me interested while waiting for the cool things to happen. When the cool things did happen they weren't so exciting as to change the tone which helped. If they had been, the slow parts in between would have been more boring by comparison, and since there was more time spent in the in between, that wouldn't have been good.
Visually, the movie was pretty fantastic, with consistently great cinematography, even during the scenes that weren't really going for the "wow" factor. Hoyte Van Hoytema is cinematographer instead of Nolan's usual Wally Pfister, and he gives the movie a fresh look, but it still maintains that Chris Nolan flavor too. You know what I mean. In the big "wow" scenes the effects live up to the hype and the vision they are portraying. Even if there isn't much to see that the trailer didn't show us. The most memorable part of the whole film is how creatively beautiful it is.
Here's something I don't usually mention: the score. Typically, unless they're particularly good or particularly bad, they don't stand out to me. Well this one stands out. In a particularly bad way. I suppose I should give Nolan and Hans Zimmer credit for attempting something bold, but for me it wound up being mostly ineffective, almost always distracting and nerve-grating, and often way too loud, covering up dialogue. In fact, the sound in this movie was just the pits. Characters would mumble and whisper, barely audible, and then five minutes later would scream their heads off with no evidence of dampening. I spent the whole movie adjusting the volume. I don't care what realistic, dramatic, or edgy effect you're going for; if it causes your viewers to rewind to hear a line right before blowing their eardrums out, it's a bad idea.
I would have liked the characters if they'd been played by different actors; I may have liked the actors if their characters were better written. The science would have impressed me more if not for random gaps in logic, and everything that happens after Cooper goes into a black hole the second time. But, the big twist would have been cooler if it didn't take itself so seriously. The big twist also would have been less predictable if less time had been spent hinting at it... And I would probably want to see it again -- if I didn't have to sit through it all again.
A little too ambitious for its own good, Interstellar never settles on what it wants to be. It winds up in an awkward middle ground of incomplete brilliant ideas and deeply thoughtful hogwash. It's too serious and focused on the theories and the science to be thoroughly entertaining as a sci-fi space adventure; too out there and theatrical with its elaborate fiction to be taken seriously for its theories and science. A grand and beautiful mess.
Crops on Earth are dying. Corn is the last one to survive, and only a matter of years away from meeting the same fate. And then it'll be humanity's turn. But NASA has been working in secret on a way to save the humans. When a black hole opened up in space near Saturn, they saw their chance and took it -- sending astronauts in to explore the planets in the new galaxy, in the hopes that they'll find a habitable one.
Through a series of strange events, Cooper, a pilot-turned-farmer discovers NASA's secret headquarters. There he is told the truth about Earth's impending demise and is recruited to lead one last mission into the black hole -- to visit the three planets where the surviving astronauts are sending out signals indicating that the planet is potentially habitable. Knowing that the mission would take many years, Cooper doesn't want to leave his two children behind, but takes the job anyway, to save them.
 |
| Ladies and gentlemen; 3001: A Space Odyssey. |
Never mind if it's enjoyable; never mind if it's entertaining; the biggest issue and controversy surrounding Christopher Nolan's latest blockbuster epic is whether or not it's scientifically viable. I started out without any specific explanations of the science behind this movie, but I had heard about relative time in space travel, and I know all about paradoxes too... because Doctor Who. So the parts in the film that had to do with space travel -- the black hole, the time differences, the technical aspects -- made sense to me as the film explained them. It would be a whole other issue if the story was being sold as a true story, but it's science fiction, so making sense within its own explanation is all I require to give a stamp of approval.
The previously mentioned aspects I can see the more involved (read: geeky) fans debating over, about potential holes, or whether or not the science is applicable in reality, but a lot of the less science-y events made we wonder how far people's claims of this film's incredible accuracy actually goes. Are people swallowing that the Earth will eventually die via the natural extinction of plants? That humans will eventually evolve to be able to see and manipulate time? I love a good bootstrap paradox in my entertainment, but that involves literal time travel (not just space travel "time travel"), backwards time travel, and that, as fun as it is to enjoy in a film, is a little silly to call scientifically accurate.
 |
| Short answer: no; it's not scientifically accurate. Proof? Bookcases. |
Now that I've dealt with that, on to whether or not Interstellar is enjoyable and entertaining -- an underrated point that I put a lot of importance on when evaluating entertainment. And this is actually a pretty unique case. Usually in a big blockbuster I have a backup for if the plot fails to engage and impress; the cast. Usually there's at least one actor or character present that I can turn my attention to. This movie, not so much. It has a huge cast, but isn't made up of many actors that I'm automatically biased towards. Plus Matthew McConaughey was the only constant character, and I'm neutral towards him. I didn't find much to connect with Cooper on, except that I really did appreciate his extreme will to survive because of his love for his children (child, really). Only, that came from the script.
Anne Hathaway I actually dislike generally, and her character being so dramatically sentimental and inept (she was probably a descendant of Gravity's Ryan Stone) didn't help one bit. She killed my favorite character, Wes Bentley, who died predictably early. Then all I had to look forward to was Matt Damon's appearance, which ended in surprise when Mann turned out to be a coward and a villain. And while I'm on the subject, can I just ask; why did Mann want to kill Cooper and the others? I mean, they all wanted to leave. I just can't see what he thought it would help. If you have an idea about that I'd love to hear it. The only possibility I see is that he was just plain crazy. Cooper's daughter Murph was best when being played by Jessica Chastain, who handled the potentially annoying characteristics of the character much better than the younger portrayal. As for the son, Tom, he was set up for development as the younger, but once he grew into Casey Affleck, no use was made of it. I was sad for him though because Cooper never seemed to care one iota about him compared with Murph. Michael Caine was around, which was a good thing, and so was Topher Grace all of a sudden, and I spent a lot of time wondering where he came from... and who he was.
 |
| Woman, please, pull yourself together. |
So since the entertainment "backup" of the cast was so slight and so often absent, I had to almost solely rely on the entertaining elements of the plot to involve and impress me. On that score the film skews toward to positive side. The movie was overlong in my opinion, but it was able to keep me interested while waiting for the cool things to happen. When the cool things did happen they weren't so exciting as to change the tone which helped. If they had been, the slow parts in between would have been more boring by comparison, and since there was more time spent in the in between, that wouldn't have been good.
Visually, the movie was pretty fantastic, with consistently great cinematography, even during the scenes that weren't really going for the "wow" factor. Hoyte Van Hoytema is cinematographer instead of Nolan's usual Wally Pfister, and he gives the movie a fresh look, but it still maintains that Chris Nolan flavor too. You know what I mean. In the big "wow" scenes the effects live up to the hype and the vision they are portraying. Even if there isn't much to see that the trailer didn't show us. The most memorable part of the whole film is how creatively beautiful it is.
Here's something I don't usually mention: the score. Typically, unless they're particularly good or particularly bad, they don't stand out to me. Well this one stands out. In a particularly bad way. I suppose I should give Nolan and Hans Zimmer credit for attempting something bold, but for me it wound up being mostly ineffective, almost always distracting and nerve-grating, and often way too loud, covering up dialogue. In fact, the sound in this movie was just the pits. Characters would mumble and whisper, barely audible, and then five minutes later would scream their heads off with no evidence of dampening. I spent the whole movie adjusting the volume. I don't care what realistic, dramatic, or edgy effect you're going for; if it causes your viewers to rewind to hear a line right before blowing their eardrums out, it's a bad idea.
 |
| Usually we take a film's sound for granted; here it's the biggest downfall. Such a little thing... |
I would have liked the characters if they'd been played by different actors; I may have liked the actors if their characters were better written. The science would have impressed me more if not for random gaps in logic, and everything that happens after Cooper goes into a black hole the second time. But, the big twist would have been cooler if it didn't take itself so seriously. The big twist also would have been less predictable if less time had been spent hinting at it... And I would probably want to see it again -- if I didn't have to sit through it all again.
A little too ambitious for its own good, Interstellar never settles on what it wants to be. It winds up in an awkward middle ground of incomplete brilliant ideas and deeply thoughtful hogwash. It's too serious and focused on the theories and the science to be thoroughly entertaining as a sci-fi space adventure; too out there and theatrical with its elaborate fiction to be taken seriously for its theories and science. A grand and beautiful mess.
Tuesday, September 1, 2015
Upcoming Movie Roundup - September
August releases for me sadly saw no movies worth the theater trip after the embarrassingly giant flop of Fantastic Four (or Fant4stic) that completely ruined my interest in seeing it, and The Man From U.N.C.L.E. being pretty tempting, (I'll certainly see it on DVD!) but not quite as tempting as a second viewing of Mission: Impossible Rogue Nation (review), which is the best movie of the year (so far) and %100 the best movie of the summer!
September has a nice little bit of varying interest, but for me, if the one movie I'm really excited for turns out right, it'll easily overshadow the others.
Have you seen Rogue Nation yet? Cause you need to. And which movies of September have your interest?
Before We Go
Sept. 4th (limited); PG-13
Two strangers meet and fall in love while staying up all night and wandering around New York City in this romantic dramady directed by and starring Chris Evans with Alice Eve. This movie seems like it would be a no-brainer for any girl having a hard time waiting for Captain America: Civil War to come around. I fall into that category, by the way. I hesitate to be too interested in this though, because of the few but unanimously negative reviews currently up on RT. Rom-coms very rarely get great scores, but I worry that this one might be worse than normal. All the same, I'll be keeping an eye on it, and will very likely be watching it as a rental someday. -- After writing that, I actually found this movie on Demand for rental and watched it. I'll review it later, but for now lets just say that when more reviews come in, a significant number should be significantly more positive.
Black Mass
Sept. 18th; R
This one's more a case of me really liking the cast than the idea of the movie itself. We have Johnny Depp going unrecognizable again with the prosthetics, creepy blue eyes and the terrible comb-back as the real-life super criminal Whitey Bulger. Bendect Cumberbatch plays his brother who was a senator, and Joel Edgerton is the FBI agent that gets in way too deep with him. There's also Corey Stoll, Kevin Bacon, Peter Sarsgaard, and Adam Scott. But if it weren't for the cast I would have no interest at all in this real-life crime story, even if it does turn out to be as well-made as it wants us to believe it will be.
Sicario
Sept. 18th (limited); R
This one is very similar to the one above. The cast list is smaller -- Emily Blunt, Josh Brolin and Benicio Del Toro -- but very interesting, and the plot seems only to be the carrier of the performances. Though this one looks heavier on the action, and isn't based on a true story. Emily Blunt is the main source of interest, and as awesome as she is, it may not be enough to put this one up on my list.
Maze Runner: The Scorch Trials
Sept. 18th; PG-13
This is my must-see of the month. What kind of reviews it gets doesn't really factor in here, because the first Maze Runner movie was great, but got middling reviews. So I don't trust critics to not give this movie bad score just because they feel that the movie is unnecessary -- being a dystopian movie that isn't a Hunger Games movie. I like these stories a lot, and as far as I can tell, this film looks to be even better than the first film, and even better than it's source book. Everyone's here -- Dylan O'Brien, Thomas Brodie-Sangster, Ki Hong Lee, Kaya Scodelario, and even some guys who had bit-parts in the last film. Then there's the addition of a few important girls, and Jacob Lofland (of Mud) as the new guy. It looks like there will be some changes from the book, mainly ones that increase action level without diverting from the main plot line -- which would be ideal, and therefore is what I'm expecting. It's an exciting month for the Maze Runner fans!
The Intern
Sept. 25th; PG-13
This one just oozes cuteness. An old, retired man gets a job as an intern at a young and hip company, and of course amusing situations and witty banter follows. Robert De Nero stars with Anne Hathaway, and a few familiar names supporting. This has the feel of a good movie that will easily charm and amuse, and hopefully it lives up to that impression!
September has a nice little bit of varying interest, but for me, if the one movie I'm really excited for turns out right, it'll easily overshadow the others.
Have you seen Rogue Nation yet? Cause you need to. And which movies of September have your interest?
Before We Go
Sept. 4th (limited); PG-13
Two strangers meet and fall in love while staying up all night and wandering around New York City in this romantic dramady directed by and starring Chris Evans with Alice Eve. This movie seems like it would be a no-brainer for any girl having a hard time waiting for Captain America: Civil War to come around. I fall into that category, by the way. I hesitate to be too interested in this though, because of the few but unanimously negative reviews currently up on RT. Rom-coms very rarely get great scores, but I worry that this one might be worse than normal. All the same, I'll be keeping an eye on it, and will very likely be watching it as a rental someday. -- After writing that, I actually found this movie on Demand for rental and watched it. I'll review it later, but for now lets just say that when more reviews come in, a significant number should be significantly more positive.
Black Mass
Sept. 18th; R
This one's more a case of me really liking the cast than the idea of the movie itself. We have Johnny Depp going unrecognizable again with the prosthetics, creepy blue eyes and the terrible comb-back as the real-life super criminal Whitey Bulger. Bendect Cumberbatch plays his brother who was a senator, and Joel Edgerton is the FBI agent that gets in way too deep with him. There's also Corey Stoll, Kevin Bacon, Peter Sarsgaard, and Adam Scott. But if it weren't for the cast I would have no interest at all in this real-life crime story, even if it does turn out to be as well-made as it wants us to believe it will be.
Sicario
Sept. 18th (limited); R
This one is very similar to the one above. The cast list is smaller -- Emily Blunt, Josh Brolin and Benicio Del Toro -- but very interesting, and the plot seems only to be the carrier of the performances. Though this one looks heavier on the action, and isn't based on a true story. Emily Blunt is the main source of interest, and as awesome as she is, it may not be enough to put this one up on my list.
Maze Runner: The Scorch Trials
Sept. 18th; PG-13
This is my must-see of the month. What kind of reviews it gets doesn't really factor in here, because the first Maze Runner movie was great, but got middling reviews. So I don't trust critics to not give this movie bad score just because they feel that the movie is unnecessary -- being a dystopian movie that isn't a Hunger Games movie. I like these stories a lot, and as far as I can tell, this film looks to be even better than the first film, and even better than it's source book. Everyone's here -- Dylan O'Brien, Thomas Brodie-Sangster, Ki Hong Lee, Kaya Scodelario, and even some guys who had bit-parts in the last film. Then there's the addition of a few important girls, and Jacob Lofland (of Mud) as the new guy. It looks like there will be some changes from the book, mainly ones that increase action level without diverting from the main plot line -- which would be ideal, and therefore is what I'm expecting. It's an exciting month for the Maze Runner fans!
The Intern
Sept. 25th; PG-13
This one just oozes cuteness. An old, retired man gets a job as an intern at a young and hip company, and of course amusing situations and witty banter follows. Robert De Nero stars with Anne Hathaway, and a few familiar names supporting. This has the feel of a good movie that will easily charm and amuse, and hopefully it lives up to that impression!
Saturday, November 1, 2014
Upcoming Movie Roundup - November
This month we trade quantity for quality. October saw lots and lots of movies release, but none turned out interesting enough to be worthy of a ticket price. November, however, has one movie I've been planning on seeing since March of 2012, and another I only recently heard of that has captured my attention and excitement so well that I'll probably have to see it in theaters too. Then there's even a third, that teeters on the fence, and I'll start with that one.
Interstellar
Nov. 7th; PG-13
Christopher Nolan is being very secretive about his new movie, and it's having the opposite effect intended on me. All I know about it is that it stars Matthew McConaughey and Anne Hathaway, and the earth is dying and these people plus some go on a beautiful and epic interstellar space trip to try to save the human race. The cast is comprised of a lot of people who I think are talented, but never seek out their movies. And the plot probably will have more to it, but I don't know, because it's all a secret! Reviews currently skew positively, but not as dramatically as necessary to distract my interest from two other movies coming soon. I don't doubt I'll see Interstellar someday, but I'm not dying to right now.
Big Hero 6
Nov. 7th: PG
This is the movie I'm dying to see. Really, I know next to nothing about this one as well, but everything I don't know is something I want to see this film to find out. What's the deal with Balloon-Man? What's the deal with the ESP-using Kabuki mask guy? What's the deal with the kid? What's the plot for this movie? And why do they jump out a window??? I do not know, but here's what I do know: The trailer is awesome -- second best only to Guardians of the Galaxy this year (IMHO). It says that this movie is gonna be fun and fresh and funny -- and it just so happens that that's what the critics are saying as well. The next Disney animation is a Marvel animation. I'm ready.
Here's the awesome trailer:
And an almost-as-awesome-and-more-informative second trailer:
The Hunger Games: Mockingjay - Part 1
Nov. 21st; PG-13
And this is the movie I've been anticipating so much and for so long that it hardly seems real that it's actually going to be here soon. There's only one dampener, but it's a big one; this is only the first half of the end. When this film cuts in that perfect cliffhanger moment (as it's bound to do) I'm not entirely sure I'll be able to handle it. However, I do think it was a wise choice to split the movie -- the book was too much of a long jumbled mess to fit properly into one film. I also won't mind at all if they make some alterations and additions. (Additions would be best.) If they do it right this should keep up with the pattern -- with The Hunger Games the book was better, and with Catching Fire book and film were equal -- and be Part 1 of a film that is actually better than it's book!
What are your thoughts on this month's epic menu? Or is your menu different from mine? Leave your thoughts below!
Interstellar
Nov. 7th; PG-13
Christopher Nolan is being very secretive about his new movie, and it's having the opposite effect intended on me. All I know about it is that it stars Matthew McConaughey and Anne Hathaway, and the earth is dying and these people plus some go on a beautiful and epic interstellar space trip to try to save the human race. The cast is comprised of a lot of people who I think are talented, but never seek out their movies. And the plot probably will have more to it, but I don't know, because it's all a secret! Reviews currently skew positively, but not as dramatically as necessary to distract my interest from two other movies coming soon. I don't doubt I'll see Interstellar someday, but I'm not dying to right now.
Big Hero 6
Nov. 7th: PG
This is the movie I'm dying to see. Really, I know next to nothing about this one as well, but everything I don't know is something I want to see this film to find out. What's the deal with Balloon-Man? What's the deal with the ESP-using Kabuki mask guy? What's the deal with the kid? What's the plot for this movie? And why do they jump out a window??? I do not know, but here's what I do know: The trailer is awesome -- second best only to Guardians of the Galaxy this year (IMHO). It says that this movie is gonna be fun and fresh and funny -- and it just so happens that that's what the critics are saying as well. The next Disney animation is a Marvel animation. I'm ready.
Here's the awesome trailer:
And an almost-as-awesome-and-more-informative second trailer:
The Hunger Games: Mockingjay - Part 1
Nov. 21st; PG-13
And this is the movie I've been anticipating so much and for so long that it hardly seems real that it's actually going to be here soon. There's only one dampener, but it's a big one; this is only the first half of the end. When this film cuts in that perfect cliffhanger moment (as it's bound to do) I'm not entirely sure I'll be able to handle it. However, I do think it was a wise choice to split the movie -- the book was too much of a long jumbled mess to fit properly into one film. I also won't mind at all if they make some alterations and additions. (Additions would be best.) If they do it right this should keep up with the pattern -- with The Hunger Games the book was better, and with Catching Fire book and film were equal -- and be Part 1 of a film that is actually better than it's book!
What are your thoughts on this month's epic menu? Or is your menu different from mine? Leave your thoughts below!
Tuesday, April 1, 2014
Upcoming Movie Roundup - April
None of the March releases were impressive enough to get me in a theater, but that wasn't unexpected. It looks like April's interesting new releases have a theme of sorts; great casts, with at least one particularly cool addition (in my opinion anyway) per movie. (Or maybe that's the theme of all movies I find interesting... that's a thought.) However, there's still only one must-see, but it's looking to be a good one.
Draft Day
April 11th; PG-13
Probably the most anticipated film releasing this month and with good cause. By the trailer and TV spots I've seen this looks to be another great, epic and inspiring sports movie from Kevin Costner who's still going strong. Certainly will be more exciting and insightful into the behind the scenes of sports than Moneyball, if only because it's about the much more exciting and popular game of Football instead of Baseball. And what a cast--- okay that's it, I can't go on -- happy April fools day; now let's get on to the good and real stuff. Except I guess I have to include the trailer for appearance's sake:
Captain America: The Winter Soldier
April 4th; PG-13
Without a doubt this is the most widely anticipated film this month. And the closer it gets to its release date the more excited I grow in anticipation of seeing, it due to the flood of positive reviews, some going so far as to say Cap and Marvel had raised the superhero bar yet again. That's enough for me, but I also like the the idea that it's more of an espionage thriller with superheros, and the fact that Scarlett Johansson's Black Widow looks to be just as much of a main character as Chris Evans' Cap -- I'm excited to see the dynamic they create together. Anthony Mackie is the new addition to non-super-powered superheroes, and I'm very interested in what Frank Grillo's character will be up to.
Rio 2
April 11th; G
Okay, so I've seen... most of Rio. And I liked it, but obviously didn't love it enough to make the effort to see the entire thing. And this sequel will probably land at the same level of mild interest, as long as the reviews generally give the same amount of praise -- in spite of my discovery from watching this trailer that New Zealander comedian Jemaine Clement is the baddie for both films, plus of course Anne Hathaway and Jesse Eisenberg, makes a cool cast. And the sequel adds Kristin Chenoweth as the baddie's tiny tree frog sidekick. That one's a no-brainer.
Only Lovers Left Alive
April 11th (limited); R
On one hand, a cast that includes Tom Hiddleston and Anton Yechin -- and also Tilda Swinton, Mia Wasikowska and John Hurt, (yes, John Hurt plays a vampire, I swear this is not an April Fools joke) but mostly the former two -- sounds like a dream cast, and way too awesome to be actually true, but it is. But, on the other hand I honestly have no desire to see a movie about vampires... (no matter how removed from, or better than... other vampire movies... it is) it just doesn't appeal to me at all. Except... what a cast.
Transcendence
April 18th; PG-13
By the trailer it feels like a Chris Nolan film, and it's cast like one too, and that's probably because of the director, Wally Pfister, who has been Nolan's director of photography in his every film since Memento. However, this is Pfister's first film as director, so that raises a spark of suspicion, which will hopefully go unfounded. I don't see this being ground-breaking, or, say, transcending (get it?) any AI film we've seen before, but I do have high hopes of it being worthy exciting installment in the genre. There's Johny Depp and Rebecca Hall leading, Paul Bettany and Cillian Murphy for me, Kate Mara, for some reason I suppose, and Morgan Freeman to ensure the Nolan association. Here's to it all coming together.
What new films have tickled your fancy this fine Spring month? Anything besides Captain America? Something rather than Captain America?
Draft Day
April 11th; PG-13
Probably the most anticipated film releasing this month and with good cause. By the trailer and TV spots I've seen this looks to be another great, epic and inspiring sports movie from Kevin Costner who's still going strong. Certainly will be more exciting and insightful into the behind the scenes of sports than Moneyball, if only because it's about the much more exciting and popular game of Football instead of Baseball. And what a cast--- okay that's it, I can't go on -- happy April fools day; now let's get on to the good and real stuff. Except I guess I have to include the trailer for appearance's sake:
Captain America: The Winter Soldier
April 4th; PG-13
Without a doubt this is the most widely anticipated film this month. And the closer it gets to its release date the more excited I grow in anticipation of seeing, it due to the flood of positive reviews, some going so far as to say Cap and Marvel had raised the superhero bar yet again. That's enough for me, but I also like the the idea that it's more of an espionage thriller with superheros, and the fact that Scarlett Johansson's Black Widow looks to be just as much of a main character as Chris Evans' Cap -- I'm excited to see the dynamic they create together. Anthony Mackie is the new addition to non-super-powered superheroes, and I'm very interested in what Frank Grillo's character will be up to.
Rio 2
April 11th; G
Okay, so I've seen... most of Rio. And I liked it, but obviously didn't love it enough to make the effort to see the entire thing. And this sequel will probably land at the same level of mild interest, as long as the reviews generally give the same amount of praise -- in spite of my discovery from watching this trailer that New Zealander comedian Jemaine Clement is the baddie for both films, plus of course Anne Hathaway and Jesse Eisenberg, makes a cool cast. And the sequel adds Kristin Chenoweth as the baddie's tiny tree frog sidekick. That one's a no-brainer.
Only Lovers Left Alive
April 11th (limited); R
On one hand, a cast that includes Tom Hiddleston and Anton Yechin -- and also Tilda Swinton, Mia Wasikowska and John Hurt, (yes, John Hurt plays a vampire, I swear this is not an April Fools joke) but mostly the former two -- sounds like a dream cast, and way too awesome to be actually true, but it is. But, on the other hand I honestly have no desire to see a movie about vampires... (no matter how removed from, or better than... other vampire movies... it is) it just doesn't appeal to me at all. Except... what a cast.
Transcendence
April 18th; PG-13
By the trailer it feels like a Chris Nolan film, and it's cast like one too, and that's probably because of the director, Wally Pfister, who has been Nolan's director of photography in his every film since Memento. However, this is Pfister's first film as director, so that raises a spark of suspicion, which will hopefully go unfounded. I don't see this being ground-breaking, or, say, transcending (get it?) any AI film we've seen before, but I do have high hopes of it being worthy exciting installment in the genre. There's Johny Depp and Rebecca Hall leading, Paul Bettany and Cillian Murphy for me, Kate Mara, for some reason I suppose, and Morgan Freeman to ensure the Nolan association. Here's to it all coming together.
What new films have tickled your fancy this fine Spring month? Anything besides Captain America? Something rather than Captain America?
Monday, August 20, 2012
The Dark Knight Trilogy
(Spoiler warning: they may pop up anywhere… especially at
the end!)
Batman Begins--
The trilogy begins with a ground-breaking idea that
superheroes can be taken seriously, and gives us a totally believable origin story
for one of the world’s most believable superheroes. There are three points to
cover (in my opinion) in order to make a good, complete story, and the first is covered exactly right in this
movie; the hero.
Young Bruce Wayne sees his parents murdered in front of him
and grows into a hate-filled man with his eyes on revenge, whatever the cost. Life-changing
words from the girl he loves and a crime boss change his mind and send Bruce around the world in an
attempt to understand criminals, and what it’s like to have nothing. A mysterious man finds him and offers him a
chance to change and make a change with just a little ninja training and spiritual
guidance. The latter doesn’t exactly stick for Bruce, as he decides he will
never needlessly kill anyone, when it’s required of him to finish his training.
He becomes a League of Shadows drop-out, and returns to Gotham determined to honor
his father, and serve the city, mostly by locking up every criminal he can find.
Using a piece of advice from his mentor - and to protect his loved ones - a
costume is in order, and before you can start to sing “na na na na na…” the
Batman is born.
The majority of Bruce Wayne/Batman’s character development happens
in this movie; at the end he’s a hero, and this movie is about his journey,
from beginning to heroism. And finally it's done right - finally we get to understand Bruce. He’s no longer
stylized, campy, melodramatic, or plain silly; he’s real, and his superhero
status is believable.
The amazing, and visionary director, Christopher Nolan, is of course the person to thank for
this. He knows how to make a movie true to life without tossing out the pleasure
of watching a movie for entertainment. The key appears to be to make it dark; the real
world is a dark place after all. But there is more to it that just that, and
what really impressed me were all the details. Why bats, for an example? “Bats
frighten me,” says Bruce, “it’s time my enemies shared my dread.”
Christian Bale is Batman. He wonderfully embodies the complex
character with powerful subtlety. Previous renditions of the character practically crumble
into nothing, and anyone who may try to take on the role anytime in the near
future would probably be crazy, and therefore would do a bad job of it. And who
else could ever play Alfred but Michael Caine? I mean, come on. Gary Oldman is
perfect as Gordon, a more traditional brand of hero everyone loves to cheer
for. Don’t forget Morgan Freeman as Mr. Fox, and Katie Holmes as Rachel Dawes
is lovely, but unfortunately doesn’t last. And the antagonists, Cillian Murphy, and
Liam Neeson, put out their due amount of evil and creepiness
according to their character to satisfaction.
Batman Begins is a classic movie really, starting with a flawed
character in need of change, and ending with that character saving the day and
becoming a new person; a hero. This is done to perfection, but “ending” is the
key word here… there is a good and satisfying end. Batman’s identity as a hero
is established, and the character’s arc is complete, but this is only the first
movie, and we want more, so, what now?
The Dark Knight--
Well, there's two of my three points left to cover, and the
second one is a test. We have to know that the Batman can hold to his morals,
and will never give up on his city no matter how bleak things get. Usually,
this is where a sequel comes out, trying to re-sell the same format of the
first film by putting a different plot on it, and that’s why sequels don’t work…
usually. There’s no worries when Nolan is at the helm. He knows how to make a
sequel that doesn’t feel like a re-hash. The key now is to go even darker, and more intimate, and
bring on a storm of trials to push our hero to his limits. Enter the Joker.
Heath Ledger’s turn as the Joker is very good… very, very
good. Perhaps too good... in a word, convincing… in the highest sense of
the word. We’re not supposed to understand him, and honesty, I don’t want to. And
with his great performance, it’s easy to forget everyone else in the movie, but Bale continues
to be good, despite this movie not being quite as much about his characters
development as the previous one. Maggie Gyllenhaal does a fine job replacing Holmes, and adds spunk
to Rachel. But Aaron Eckhart as Two-Face Harvey Dent is my personal favorite. He holds up very well against the Ledger's overpowering Joker and leaves a heavy impression with a sad and thought-provoking role.
The movie as a whole, in fact, is very thought-provoking, but also
very entertaining, with great action, and real drama; it’s a truly well-done movie
that succeeds on every level it goes to. If you can survive the darkness, the
contrasting light is well worth it. Or just sit back and enjoy the
artistic beauty, or the smart involving script, and stylish action. I always
consider the middle movie of a trilogy to typically be the worst, due to the
difficulty of providing a satisfying beginning and end to the story, but I don’t
have any evidence at all to prove that here. This is the most well-done film in the franchise,
and in my opinion, also has the best ending of the three movies.
I won’t go over plot details here, mostly because I can’t exactly remember them straight, but basically, the Joker raises @#!*% , and destroys lives, and then we watch
the aftermath, and how characters deal with their crumbled worlds. Harvey Dent
begins a good man, but he breaks under pressure and becomes the very thing that destroyed him.
Bruce gets the same treatment, but he somehow hangs on. Broken, but not
defeated Batman maintains his heroism, (to the audience at least) and holds to his morals. He is committed
to doing whatever it takes to save the world. Now we know that for sure. There’s only one thing left now. We
saw the journey to his being a hero, and he scraped through the test at great
personal cost, now all we need is an end.
The Dark Knight Rises--
But we don’t know that. I think I’d be happy to see
more movies about Bruce Wayne beating the odds and defeating evil for as long
as they continue to be good and entertaining, but Nolan knows… yes, he knows a
lot of things… and he knows we need an end. The third point; every story needs an end, and
Nolan has it covered in Rises. It’s got to be hard to end a franchise, but if
you don’t, it will eventually fizzle out anyway, so it’s best to end it sooner,
and end it well. Though, “well” is a rather dull way to describe the way this movie
wrapped up the franchise. “Satisfying,” “amazing” and “epic” are better words
for the job.
Of course, there can’t be just an ending, so this movie
provides a new test for the Dark Knight as well. Eight years later, the Batman
is in hiding, and Bruce turned to a recluse is never seen either, but the fix he
offered up in the last movie stuck, and the city has been a better and cleaner
place. Until Bane shows up, terrorizing the city as he puts his devastating
plan in motion. Bruce is eager become Batman just one more time, and
thinks he’s ready to give his life to save the city, but this time he’s not the
only one willing to give everything to stand against evil.
Commissioner Gordon has always been helpful, but in the Batman’s
absence he steps up, and does all he can to keep the evil at bay, along with newcomer
Joseph Gordon-Levitt, who jumps right in as John Blake, a young, idealistic cop
with spirit, who is this movie's most straight-forward and honest hero. Then
there’s Anne Hathaway, also new, playing Selina Kyle, who has her share of problems, but
does the right and selfless thing when it really counts. I like that these characters
are really focused on and fleshed out as leads along with Bale, and the ensemble feel they
bring to the movie is great.
Played very well by Tom Hardy, Bane is sufficiently evil,
and his composed, boiling rage disturbing. He’s powerful in every way, but thankfully doesn’t overpower any other characters. Marion Cotillard as Miranda Tate is disappointing in the best way possible, with both the
good and bad side played convincingly. Maybe it’s only because I tried to stay
spoiler-free going into this movie, but I thought the plot twists were handled very
well, and weren't too confusing, or unbelievable.
How could anyone doubt that Christopher Nolan knows what he’s
doing? He very successfully wraps up the trilogy with this film, not getting
lazy in any aspect, giving us smart and unique plotting, involving acting from
an all-around stellar cast, and powerful tone. Probably the hardest of the
three movies to do right, but right it definitely is. My only complaint is very small;
that it gets a little slow in the middle, but hey, at two hours and forty-five
minutes, “a little slow” for a few minutes is pretty impressive, especially when you're not making a Lord of the Rings movie.
These three movies are built very differently, yet they fit together
like it had been planned the whole time, and each brings something unique to the table. This dark, thrilling and powerful
trilogy has really set a high standard for movie heroes of a super persuasion, by
succeeding as more than just a superhero movie. It ponders the meaning of
heroism, the effects of evil on society and the individual character, and delves in
deep. It gives us an awesome, breath-taking visual experience, and a dark, chilling,
but ultimately rewarding story, just brimming with thoughtful details. And
finally, it gives us the right conclusion, where good prevails against the dark
and the hero is rewarded for his sacrifice. A hero, a test, and an end… our
Dark Knight delivered and gave us a solid, satisfying conclusion that
resonates. My appreciative thanks go to Nolan, for a deep, exciting, and unique
franchise.
- 4&1/2 of 5 stars, for each movie.
Hello, John Blake franchise?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)