I didn't do one of these posts for April or May, and that makes me sad. Nor did I see the movies I was most interested in for March because of cancellations. I watched Onward on demand, and was glad I did, because I liked it enough to watch it twice. In fact I rather loved it. (Review here!) And I just rented Bloodshot the other day. If I don't completely regret that $6, it certainly is close. It was not a good movie. (Review here!)
I didn't pay attention at all to the VOD releases in May, and one worthy film, The Vast of Night -- a stylish and impressive sci-fi flick with absolutely wonderful characters (review here!) -- nearly slipped past my radar because I wasn't paying attention. So I decided to get back to it, even if the pickings are slim and theaters are still closed. There's at least two things in June that I'm eager to see at home.
Hope you're all doing well amid the chaos that is 2020! What have you been watching lately, and what are you looking forward to seeing in the future?
The King of Staten Island
on VOD June 12th
This movie is the main reason I decided I had to get back into this post series. This was meant for theaters, but is instead going to "Theater at Home" VOD. Now, I've never seen a Judd Apatow movie. Or seen Pete Davidson do... anything. But as soon as this trailer started playing as a YouTube ad I knew it was something I'd be interested to see. I love the vibe it gives. Kinda like The Way Way Back, coming-of-age-dramedy, but more mature. I didn't realize all the true-to-life aspects of it, and that makes it even more appealing. That it's parallel to Pete's real-life experiences. I really expect it to be good and would even consider paying $20 to rent it. (Idk if it'll be that high, but some Theater at Home releases have been.) Either way, I'm determined to see it eventually, and wouldn't be surprised if it cracks my top 5 of the year. High expectations. We'll see how it goes. (Trailer contains language.)
Artemis Fowl
on Disney+ June 12th
I wanted to see this, but don't have (and will not get) a Disney+ subscription, so that's too bad. I wonder if it'll be available to rent elsewhere... I don't have much hope it'll be good, but I enjoy sci-fi (and goofy spy capers) in all shapes and sizes. And ages. And yes, this is decidedly a kids movie, in the way that give me little reason to think that adults could enjoy it very much. So I'll probably be disappointed, but for some reason that knowledge doesn't dissuade my curiosity.
Babyteeth
on VOD June 19th
This looks pretty interesting -- an Australian, family-centered drama starring Beth from last year's Little Women (Eliza Scanlen). I tend to enjoy Australian dramas, so I'll keep an eye on this, even if it does have that "sick teen" element that isn't quite so appealing. It looks well-acted if nothing else. Ben Mendelsohn is always a plus!
Lost Bullet
on Netflix June 19th
This is a French action flick, I believe, that's coming to Netflix. Netflix is overloaded with non-English-speaking films lately. Before, you could count on the foreign films they included to be good, because there was a demand for them to be there even with audiences that are notoriously hesitant to watch something that requires subtitles. Now, I'm not so sure. But this teaser trailer looks good and stylish enough to grab my interest, and even if it's not great it could make for a nice Sunday afternoon watch anyway.
Eurovision Song Contest: The Story of Fire Saga
on Netflix June 26th
I have no clue what this movie is actually about, but this "trailer" is Will Ferrell and Rachel McAdams singing a weird song with over-the-top dramatic cheese, so let's just say that they have my full and complete attention.
Dark Season 3
on Netflix June 27th
And this is my must-watch of the month. If you know me you know I adore this beautiful, moody scifi show, and peddle it wherever I can, because it's the best thing in Netflix, and criminally under-watched. Season 2 wasn't as shockingly spectacular as season 1, but doesn't ruin it by far. It's is still one of my favorites and I can't wait to see what cool twists and turns come next -- and last, since this season apparently will wrap things up. I haven't watched the below teaser and do not plan to. (Or any subsequent trailers.) I don't want to get my preconceptions going, and am already as guaranteed to watch it as is humanly possible!
A Netflix film about King Henry V -- not the Shakespeare version, though it's certainly equally as speculative. Timothée Chalamet stars as Hal, who reluctantly takes the throne after Henry IV dies and Hal's brother who wants the throne (and Hal wants him to have it too) is killed in battle. The film then speculates on the reason why Hal decides to conquer France. And it's an interesting plot in the end, though I couldn't say whether it's based on truth. I expect not.
Directed by David Michôd (The Rover, Animal Kingdom), co-written with Joel Edgerton.
Any film about Henry V would be boring if it weren't speculative and even this one toes the line. But before I turn you off from it accidentally, I have to say I'm writing this review because I enjoyed it much more than I was expecting to. It's a flawed movie, but my ultimate goal here is to recommend it. With that noted, its main flaw from my perspective is a severe lack of personality. You almost don't notice all the great things that happen because the film has either no idea or no intention of serving them up in a cinematic, dramatic storytelling way.
Maybe it was trying to be subtle. It was certainly trying to be subdued, with its lingering shots on expressionless faces and dulled color palate. But more it seemed like it didn't know where to put the dramatic emphasis. Early in the movie there's a slow-mo section of Prince Hal and his degenerate bar friends getting drunk and laughing. The scene is played up and accompanied by dramatic music, but there was no emotional weight within that scene that would benefit from the enhancement. Later, moments that do carry emotional weight and could have used a stylistic pick-me-up are comparatively breezed by and left less effective.
Every time a character dropped an F-bomb it completely threw me back into the modern world. That may have been the biggest flaw of all.
Now, this is a flaw that could render the film boring to casual viewers, but if you're interested in getting a good story out of this, it is there. You just have to pay a little closer attention because the film isn't going to serves the highs and lows properly. The characters are the highlight. Chalamet underplays Hal in a way that works with the movie's dulled and subtle tone, giving enough detail to the performance that the character isn't lost. And he is written well, which is most important. Joel Edgerton is back in form with his endearing portrayal of Falstaff. And the other characters that weave in and out fill out the tapestry nicely. Ben Mendelsohn, Dean-Charles Chapman, Sean Harris, Robert Pattinson, Tom Glynn-Carney, Lily-Rose Depp, and Thomasin McKenzie all bring their brief characters to life.
The secondary problem is that the narrative has little structure. A flaw that can be traced back to lack of emotional rise and fall, and the brief interludes of characters. They are too brief, populating the story for moments, then fading away without having accomplished anything relevant to an overarching story, as good as their individual scenes may be. I quite liked Thomasin McKenzie as Hal's sister; but can't figure why the movie thought her a necessary or relevant inclusion. Once the end is reached you can see a trace of structure looking back, but in the thick of it the story seemed nothing more than a collection of irrelevant scenes and neat vignettes.
At 2 hours and 20 mins, you need to be able to dive in and appreciate that it takes its time, or else you'll just be counting down the minutes until it's over.
The best of these moments were the battles. They were few are far between but were built up to and executed shockingly well. The one-on-one combat had a scrappy and unchoreographed feel to it that I appreciated, and the main battle against the French was planned and set up fascinatingly. The siege, though brief, looked incredible; in general, the effects and staging were of impressively high quality. If I had to recommend this film for only one reason it, would be the combat, though it takes up perhaps 20% of the film at best. The rest is lackadaisical-but-good character drama and emotionless-but-dedicated building to the fights.
Of Netflix-distributed products these days, it's far easier to do worse than The King than it is to do better.
Thanks to Jacob Smith for featuring this review on his site! If you're interested in movie reviews, news, and opinion pieces from a conservative perspective, you should definitely check it out -- society-reviews.com! Spoiler-free!
The MCU's latest origin story is also its first solo film for a female character. They put their absolute best effort into touting the movie as such, and after seeing it, I understand why all the emphasis was on pre-hype. One of Marvel's safest and least-daring films, Carol Danvers' introduction to the universe doesn't do much that's spectacularly irritating -- mostly because it doesn't do anything spectacular at all.
Directed by Anna Boden and Ryan Fleck but written by three additional people because all MCU movies all have to be camels at this point.
We start out with a brief glimpse of the Kree world where Carol (Brie Larson) is serving in the Kree/Skrull war under Yon-Rogg (Jude Law). There's one shot of the Kree city outside her widow that looks like a magnificent scifi scape leaning towards noir-ish, cyberpunk-ish vibes, but we never see it up close. She does some training, she goes on mission, and eventually winds up stranded on Earth circa 1995 where she meets a younger, two-eyed Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson) and Coulson (Clark Gregg) and goes on a hunt for some people of her forgotten memories (Annette Bening) and (Lashana Lynch), all the while the Skrull Talos (Ben Mendelsohn) and his crew are on her tail.
The Skrulls are shape-shifting aliens and shape-shifting is an easy harbinger of fun. And the movie touches on its potential. It's the mid-90's which means grunge and kind of wonderfully cheesy music; and the movie touches on that, too. Carol wears band tees and ripped jeans, and the computers are super slow. Otherwise it could be set anytime. Style only seems to cross the movie's mind is when there's cool CGI effects to show off. Even the worst of the past MCU films have had tonal style and the dampener of the Marvel Brand isn't excuse for the blandness we get here. I wish they had fully embraced the grungy 90's and low-key cheesy spy thriller aspect it was all crying for. It could've been amazing with relatively little tweaking to the core story.
One thing I loved with all my heart: her helmet mohawk.
The central heart of the story -- getting up when you're knocked down -- had a solid foundation, but I hesitate to call it a theme because the movie's attempts to present it as theme were grasping. Visually it had impact and you can practically feel them scrambling for a verbal iteration to match in the moment. The set-up for Carol's development is weak, and the part about her needing to control her emotions was left hanging. That didn't make sense to begin with as Larson's acting style is so reserved that her being overly emotional as the script says doesn't fly. And I'll will readily defend Larson's acting abilities. She can work wonders in indie films where everything's understated. But as a blockbuster-action superhero, her internalizing emotions gets lost in the total lack of nuance.
There were moments she made me laugh with her delivery and times she made me smile just by being happy and laughing with Fury. On the other side, I think she was miscast. She does look the part and all MCU actors give better performances elsewhere, but ultimately her inexpressive style only adds to the bland feeling that brings the movie down. The only person who seems committed to having fun here is Ben Mendelsohn. Samuel L. Jackson's natural charisma works so well for him that I can't tell if he was phoning in or not. He's also better elsewhere with better scripts. This script actively attacks him, making one very significant thing happen that does its level best to ruin his character with its abject stupidity. (Hint: it's to do with his eye.) Just another day at the old MCU!
Larson and Jackson had fun chemistry. The movie could've leaned hard into their dynamic and been better for it. But it could've leaned into anything and been better for it.
Fan-favorite Goose the cat was great -- when he was being played by a real cat. The disgracefully rendered CGI cat that he was half the time seems to have been animated by a person who has never seen a cat before. It moved like boneless dog. Other random things that bothered me was how Carol's hair was always curled. I felt like her stylist was sitting behind me with a hot iron, waiting for the camera to cut so she could run in and fix the falling waves. There are the expected Marvel Brand jokes to make me die inside. And they only play three era songs for a decent amount of time. One is horribly matched to a fight scene. The fighting overall was shot lazily to negate the need for good choreography. The good action beats came from special effects and infused drama instead.
Despite all this, I did somewhat enjoy myself for the most part. Perhaps simply because I expected a dumpster fire, and instead it was like watching the garbage truck come by your house; something vaguely loud to look at that isn't impactful in any significant way. They did manage to lose me eventually though, with a later twist. To "subvert expectations" is required in every movie now, and appropriately this subversion throws a wrench in the plotting. It flounders for a while before it settles into a new groove, no better than the original. Overall the whole thing feels like the result of cutting corners and skimping on budget -- but if anyone can take a slight risk and make a decent film for girl protagonist, it's Marvel! ... Right?
At this point, I'm not particularly interested in the supposed future Avengers line-up, and if nothing changes for Marvel it won't be hard to quit.
The temptation to pander and squeak by on as little effort as possible was simply too strong. And why not when you can trust the brand and the hype to sell the resulting painfully average product regardless of quality? A handful of genuinely enjoyable moments and splashes of shiny CGI among long stretches of middling boredom is all we are rewarded with for our loyal patronage. Captain Marvel isn't a terrible movie; nor is it good, or a waste, or a success, or hardly anything resembling a movie at all. It has more in common with an extremely competent exercise in running down a checklist. The soulless Marvel assembly machine grinds on.
Wow, March already. February went a little crazy with my expectations. First I saw Velvet Buzzsaw even though I was on the fence about it. I decided it didn't look too scary and went for it -- and now it's my current favorite movie of the year! It was devilishly funny and smart and I read a lot into the themes that I adored. And the horror was perfect for me: not too scary but very cool. (Read my review here!)
The next unexpected thing was that I actually went to the theater to see Alita: Battle Angel, and I'm so glad I did. I fell in love with it. The world was every bit as cool as I wanted and Alita herself was magical. I said I thought she looked inexpressive in the trailer, but in the movie, she was perfect. Wonderfully animated, acted, and written! (Review here!)
I didn't go see The Lego Movie 2 though, even though I thought that was a sure thing. And last night I streamed The Man Who Killed Hitler and Then the Bigfoot. It surprised me the least but that was probably because I was expecting good things. So I should get a review for it out soon.
March movies always seems to have a lot of promise to me. It's like the wild-card month, where the best and the worst movies of the year are mingled together and you have to sort out which is which. What looks good you y'all?
Captain Marvel
Mar 8th; PG-13
Here's an opening statement for you: I'm actually kinda excited for this movie. About as excited as I was for Spider-Man: Homecoming anyway, which is definitely more excited than I usually am for MCU installments. Usually, I dread them. Still, the push-back and push-back-on-push-back over this movie is ridiculous. I wish everyone would chill, because if this movie sucks, guaranteed it's going to be for the exact same reason that every recent Marvel movie has sucked. Anyway I'm still looking forward to it because I've always enjoyed Larson's acting, it's set in the 90's and supposedly has an appropriate soundtrack, is a space-y movie, and Ben Mendelsohn is the bad guy. What's not to like? Well, there's all the Marvel stuff that I'm sick and tired of... but I'm giving it a fair chance.
The Kid
Mar 8th; R
Chris Pratt plays a bad guy in this. Like, a seriously, really bad, bad guy. So I'm sold on that alone, I've always wanted to know if he has chops to play against type. Very interested. Then approach it from another angle: Ethan Hawke western movie. Sold all over again! It's directed by Vincent D'Onofrio, and all those guys were in The Magnificent Seven remake together. I can just see them sitting around on set and planning this movie -- though logic doubts that happened. Throw in Dane DeHaan and a more R-rated, gritty tone, and I've lost count of how many times I'm sold. At this point I'm basically sure that I'll be hitting the theaters for it if I can. It kinda snuck up on me, and suddenly I'm eager to see it! The music usage in this trailer is seriously on point.
I'm Not Here
Mar 8th(limited); NR
One of those actor movies. It's got J.K. Simmons and Sebastian Stan and Maika Monroe, and the plot looks, well, I can't even remember at this point and I only watched the trailer a few hours ago. It looks boring but well-acted. I dunno, I'd consider watching if it came to a steaming service near me.
Triple Frontier
Mar 13th; R
It's a Netflix movie, so, basically... I'll watch it. I don't even really need to know anything about it. I know it'll be there, it has an appealing cast of Oscar Isaac, Ben Affleck, Charlie Hunnam (who I like now for some magical reason???) Garrett Hedlund and Pedro Pascal, and that's all Netflix needs to attract me. The plot is one of those situations though where it's so clearly a bad idea yet the characters go for it anyway, so unless the movie itself makes it make more sense why they'd all agree to that plan -- it may ruin the whole thing even if the action is cool.
Starfish
Mar 13(limited); NR
Streaming May 28th, but I guess I'll put in here, so I can remember it once May rolls around. She's ostensibly the last person on earth and find a tape left for her by a friend, with clues on how to... solve something? Save the world? The movie looks pretty crazy but it's probably mostly a cerebral thing. Still, could be cool.
Five Feet Apart
Mar 15th; PG-13
I'd be kidding myself if I didn't include this one. I don't think I've ever seen a Sprouse brother act before. I never watched The Suite Life of Zack and Cody, but I've always known who they were because I was a part of a Narnia fan forum back in the day where people would regularly fan-cast them as the twins in The Horse and His Boy. That's a rabbit trail but the point is this is a cute dumb teen melodrama that's trying to bank off The Fault in Our Stars 5 years after the fact and I will probably watch it the absolute second its available for free because why the heck not? It also has the best friend girl from Edge of Seventeen, which I just watched the other day. So that's cool.
Captive State
Mar 15th(limited); PG-13
This looks like it could be absolutely awesome. I'm always down for a nice hardcore scifi movie and this alien takeover plot could definitely do the trick. It's like 1984 or something but with extraterrestrials. John Goodman is there, Vera Farminga, and it looks like the main character is Ashton Sanders, who I've not seen in anything yet, but he was the middle version of the protagonist in Moonlight so I expect he can do that acting thing. The only thing I'm not sure about is, it's proudly by the director of Rise of the Planet of the Apes, and... I did not like that movie. So if this follows it's footsteps too closely I can imagine it getting all the potential joy sucked out of it. Probably worth the risk though I'd say.
The Aftermath
Mar 15th(limited); R
Ugh, I dunno about this one, I'm on the fence about even including it in this post. Fox Searchlight seems to do a good job consistently picking up good movies, but even the appeal of hearing Alexander Skarsgård speak German doesn't seem worth sitting through a movie with this kind of frustrating "romance" plot, starring Keira Knightley.
The Mustang
Mar 15th(limited); R
This is different. Also, it's a horse movie. Last year, when a horse movie came out in March it wound up being my favorite movie of the whole year! That probably won't happen again, but this does have the same sort of simple, small and intimate tone. The reforming inmate and his horse. It looks good, it seriously does. Matthias Schoenaerts stars.
Us
Mar 22nd; R
I'm so scared of this movie, I can't even watch the trailer again. How in the world can I possibly watch the actual movie?!? Last time a trailer was too scary and I somehow got myself to watch the movie anyway I regretted it a bit. More than a bit. Ugh, it looks great, it looks terrible -- I think I'll leave it to the professionals for now. Maybe I'll ease into it and see Get Out first anyway. Same director. And if I like and can handle that, then we'll see.
Triple Threat
Mar 22nd; R
And it's streaming same day. Never not watch Iko Uwais movies -- ever since I finally buckled down and watched The Raid. I don't even need to see the trailer. Don't even need to know the plot. The action in this guy's movies are everything they need, and everything else is just a plus!
Dumbo
Mar 29th; PG
Disney's first live-action remake of the year, and the one getting the least flack. Certainly from me and here's why: It appears to be the least of a shot-for-shot remake of the three. It's got added characters and a seriously expanded plot. Human characters, and new human characters that aren't desperately trying to look like iconic animated characters. I also recently realized that I kinda enjoy Colin Farrell now (I think it was In Bruges that did me in) and he and his kids seem to be even more the leads than Dumbo himself. Ostensibly, they're changing it enough so it can be a worthwhile story in its own right. I'm surprised at how okay and hesitantly on board with this movie I am. They may reveal how they've ruined it soon enough, but as it stands I'm rather curious. Also Michael Keaton is the bad guy? Sounds good, solid plan.
In October I got to the theater to see Venom (review), which I didn't care for but have no enmity towards either, and Bad Times at the El Royale (review), which rocketed up to be my #3 movie of the year!
I never got around to First Man, so that's my top priority now, and hopefully I'll have time to catch up before November's interesting movies get here. There aren't any absolute must-sees for me this month, but I wouldn't be surprised if I wound up seeing one or two.
What looks good to you? Happy November!
Bohemian Rhapsody
Nov 2nd; PG-13
Full disclosure, I'm not much a Queen fan particularly, but I am a fan of 70's/80's rock. I'm also a fan of Rami Malek (ever since Larry Crown) and word is that he's great in this. Word is also that the movie around him isn't so great, but I get a sneaky suspicion that expectations of this being an Oscar contender may have heightened the disappointment. Just the PG-13 rating is a good indicator that it wasn't exactly vying for a best pic nom. The trailer is very groovy and if the film is like that, I expect I'll get a kick out of it someday. I'd be there for the music mostly anyway.
Nutcracker and the Four Realms
Nov 2nd; PG
Twelve-year-old me would've been all over this. Now, if I ever sat down to watch it, it would be in the hope that it's so stupid and horrendously bad that I could just laugh at it for 2 hours. I actually want to see Keira Knightly embarrass herself with that pink hair and those eyebrows and that voice. Does that make me a bad person? I realize it's a movie for kids, but actually good kid movies are good adult movies too, and really, if they were serious about doing an updated twist on The Nutcracker, this is the absolute LAST way I'd want it done.
Prospect
Nov 2nd(limited); R
Coooool. Small budget scifi that still looks good; doesn't try to push the limit of what they can cohesively accomplish, but sticks to what makes all stories compelling: the human element. Character. That's what trailer makes it out to be, anyway, and I'd love to give it a watch. Scifi always seems to be best used as a catalyst for drama and conflict instead of being the main focus itself.
Overlord
Nov 9th; R
Now this is interesting. This is the J.J. Abrams-produced WWII zombie film that was originally meant to be a part of the Cloverfield Universe. (So they say.) But the Cloverfield part has been ditched. I suspected that choice was made after The Cloverfield Paradox got such a terrible reaction. Like they didn't have confidence in this movie's quality and didn't want to keep making bad Cloverfield movies. BUT, this movie's getting great reviews so far. I wanted to see it even before I saw the trailer, but after the trailer I didn't expect this good a reaction. I guess zombies and Nazis are a pretty fun combo!
The Girl in the Spider's Web
Nov 9th; R
I've never seen a Girl with a Dragon Tattoo film before, but this is the closest I've come to wanting to see one. If they keep on making these movie (I dunno how much source material there is) they won't have to bother with trying to make James Bond a girl. I guess these movies are much more mature and thriller-y than Bond, but this trailer definitely has that kind of appeal. Also I bet Claire Foy is awesome in it. AND I caught a glimpse of the young German actress who plays the deaf girl in Dark, and it's so cool seeing actors from Dark outside of that show, even if it small roles.
Outlaw King
Nov 9th; R
I watched the trailer and was still confused about who exactly the outlaw king is. Robert the Bruce? Either I'm bad at history or he was kinda obscure. But okay, I can dig it. Medieval, Scotland, war, kings, knights. Not huge on Chris Pine, but there's plenty of other people there too. And it's Netflix, so lazy afternoon watch it is!
Time Freak
Nov 9th; PG-13
Look y'all, Asa Butterfield and Sophie Turner are doing an About Time movie, but for kids! So, extra focus on the time-travel gimmick, more traditional and cliched romance, and cheaper comedy efforts. For some reason, I still wouldn't mind watching it.
Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald
Nov 16th; PG-13
Haha, can you imagine if they called this "Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them: The Crimes of Grindelwald"??? They should have. Just commit to it, ya know? Anyway, I watched the first one and enjoyed it so I guess I'm in for this too. I'm not super excited about it in any particular way, but I've never been a big Harry Potter person to begin with. I liked era setting, and the character of Newt, and Jude Law as Dumbledore should be neat. I never thought I'd say this but I think I'm going to miss Colin Farrell as the bad guy though.
Widows
Nov 16th; R
This one's got a cast on it! Wowee. But I don't understand what the plot is? Some ladies' criminal husbands are killed so they decide to pull of their next planned heist? Why? Did the bad guy guy murder them because they robbed him, so they decide that's the best way to get revenge, or...? If the impression I'm getting here is right I'm not sure I'd be able to pull for our (anti?)heroines, but I guess I'll keep an eye out. What a cast.
The Ballad of Buster Scruggs
Nov 16th; R
The Coen Brothers have made a Netflix film. That's it, y'all. There's no going back now. Netflix allows for different types of movies, though, you know? This isn't the sort of flick people would be rushing to the theater to see, but because of Netflix it still got to be made -- without altering to be more appealing to the theater crowd -- and I'd be surprised right out of my boots if it isn't a good, fun, western time. An anthology film apparently, of several short films, all set in the wild west. I'm all the way on board!
The Clovehitch Killer
Nov 16th; NR
Charlie Plummer is doing a "My Neighbor is a Serial Killer" movie -- but even more dramatic, because it's not his neighbor he suspects, it's his father. This trope gets done quite a lot, but rarely as well and as real-life as it looks here, and after Lean on Pete I'll watch anything that kid tries his hand at, so I'm 1000% there for this movie. Seriously, the trailer looks great. Moody and intense... human drama over excessive thrills... coming of age elements... Plummer is probably great in it too, but what else is new?
Jonathan
Nov 16th; NR
Okay, so Ansel Elgort has dissociative personalities, one good one bad. The bad one's dating a girl, but then she breaks up with him to date the good one. Hahaha, well, I guess it's not a weird as cheating on one of the personalities. Wow I can't even keep a straight face typing this I bet the movie is golden I need to see this. Reviews so far skew positive though... so maybe it's genuinely decent, who knows. The trailer's definitely taking itself seriously. I'm not sure if I can.
Ralph Breaks the Internet
Nov 21st; PG
Oh hey. This actually looks good. For some reason I was expecting immediately obvious tragedy and downgrading but now I'm on the hook until the truth is revealed. It very well could still be tragedy. But they have a solid premise going that demands world expansion, and they're playing Rick Astley so they have to be a certain level of in the know concerning the pop culture they're going to be dealing with... idk... it might be good. If I ever feel like it's not, I probably will stay away though, because I kinda loved the first one.
Green Book
Nov 21st; PG-13
I tire easily of movies that purposefully take on the subject of racism, simply because they tend to serve to divide more than unite -- but judging from the trailer, this movie does the opposite of that, showcasing a positive side of things that can come through the negative, by focusing on the friendship between the two characters. This looks like a really good drama, with good performances and sleek, rich look. And they'll be piano music too I expect, so that'll be nice.
Robin Hood
Nov 21st; PG-13
You know that guy on YouTube who does trick and fast archery? Practical application and close-quarter stuff? This is a take on Robin Hood inspired by him I bet. I would be fairly surprised if it turned out to be critically praised or regarded flick, but that doesn't mean I'm not interesting in watching it. Quite the opposite. Robin Hood adaptations don't need to be exceptional pieces of film. It's action/adventure entertainment, and the sooner filmmakers understand this the sooner we can have an exceptionally fun Robin Hood movie. This may not be it -- but it could be. Taron Egerton and his fun screen presence will likely at least make it not a waste of time. And then there's Ben Mendelsohn and Jamie Foxx to consider.
Anna and the Apocalypse
Nov 30th(limited); R
IT'S A CHRISTMAS. ZOMBIE. MUSICAL!!! Oh my goodness. It's probably not going to be as good as I want it to be, but okay but that's only because my imagination is running wild right now, and there's no way it's not a little bit crazy fun. No way. With that combination, it'd be impossible to be outright bad. The trailer makes it look brilliant and like a blast. Actually even if it's bad it'd still be brilliant because its a brilliant idea. Wow, I'm totally hyped for the holiday season now.
Based on the book by Ernest Cline that's an absolute smorgasbord of 80's pop culture, Ready Player One takes place in a near future where the rundown world is all but abandoned by its populace. In its place -- the OASIS, a virtual reality where people can go anywhere and do or be anything, all from the comfort of their cramped, neglected homes.
Laws of reality need not apply.
One such person is Wade Watts (Tye Sheridan), whose life outside the OASIS is, well, nonexistent. But in the OASIS, he's Parzival, a gunter (egg hunter) who looks for Easter eggs left by the game's creator James Halliday (Mark Rylance). Upon his death Halliday instigated a hunt for three keys that would lead to the ultimate Easter egg. The finder would receive Halliday's inheritance and full control over the OASIS itself. The hunt has been going on for years without even the first key being found when Wade finally figures out the first challenge, and the discovery launches him into adventure, fame, and real-world danger all at once as the race for the OASIS begins.
It's been a long time since Steven Spielberg has done science fiction, and the result it something that is a little -- and pleasantly so, I might add -- out of time. The featured tech and special effects are fully modern but the plot and characters move in a more traditional "blockbuster" sphere. The three keys make the act structure strongly defined, with no room for anything unprecedented, and characters are well cast but then left to catch what little bits of development and arcs they can on the run, as the action-driven plot breaks for nothing. Though deeper development without sacrifice elsewhere would've been more ideal, the characters are accurate to their book counterparts -- stunningly accurate to my memory -- and that is due to pitch-perfect casting.
I knew it was perfect when I first saw the cast list but they still managed to wow me.
Every actor I know here has given a better performance elsewhere, yet I don't think the cast could be more perfect. Tye Sheridan was more comfortable and natural in Mud, and Olivia Cooke had even more genuine charm in Me and Earl and the Dying Girl -- they both still fit their characters to a T. Ben Mendelsohn is basically playing Krennic from Rogue One, but boy is it fun to watch him be that type of baddie. I am sure that Mark Rylance has never given a bad performance in his life, but even he has his exceptionally charming turn as the eccentric geek Halliday beat elsewhere -- though this may be a personal favorite for me due to the charm and humor he gives alone.
Simon Pegg's American accent threw me through a loop and his small part felt almost like a cameo, but he still managed to sneak some dramatic oomph in there. The adults are undoubtedly the acting highlights of the film. Aech, Daito and Sho are good casting as well, but used only for support, comic relief, and to make the point of how anyone can be anything in the OASIS. Sheridan doesn't lead the film so much as he's swept along at the front of the wave that is the plot, but the fact remains: he embodies Wade ideally. The roles here are on the shallow side by nature. More depth may have improved them, but whether it would've served the movie as a whole is another matter.
As much as I love character, I do think putting them on a lower priority was the right move here.
After all I would hate for a scifi adventure flick to have to give up any time adventuring, world-building and wowing for the sake of unnecessary character development -- however great the development may be. There were a few times I would have tended more toward character briefly, but I understand the idea. This is a crazy and complex scifi world here, and explaining and exploring it satisfactorily takes priority. Spielberg erred on the safe side, over-explaining at times, but the flaw isn't in the intention. He took the right track of making the character/plot balance the same ratio as the book, and was impressively successful in it.
I liked the book, but it's flawed. Most of the movie's flaws stem from that, as a fundamental part of the story. I've seen plenty of worthy but flawed books be adapted into film and commonly, "improvement" is the name of the game. Sometimes said "improvement' makes the story so convoluted that it becomes completely different, and often falls apart. (The Divergent series springs rapidly to mind.) I'm surprised to say, that I'm impressed to say: Spielberg refused to play that game. Instead he took the story as it was and put in on film. "But what about all the changes?" you may wonder. Simple: those changes were for the purpose of making the story as enjoyable as possible on screen, not to improve a story cynically seen as lacking.
I loved this scene, mixing live action with animated avatars.
Forgetting the book, this film is a sight unlike any other. The motion-capture does excellent job capturing personality as well as performances, so characters are consistent even as animated avatars. Everything has that Spielberg sheen, and the detail of the OASIS is thrilling and visually stimulating without being too overwhelming. And pop culture. Pop culture everywhere. I loved it, but that's the sort of thing that's about personal preference, not so much a if-it's-done-right-everyone-will-love-it type thing. I do think it transcends the references it makes -- much like Stranger Things did -- but admittedly I love 80's pop culture already. I especially enjoyed the music, since that was something the book was incapable of doing.
This is a movie about Easter eggs, so it's no surprise that its main feature be Easter eggs. Still it doesn't settle for fun references only, putting commendable effort into garnering maximum enjoyment out of its entire runtime. Even if you don't get the references it should be a thoroughly entertaining flick -- through a fast-paced plot, fun characters, a straightforward and sincere theme, a general lighthearted tone, and that patent Spielbergian element that adds just a dash of cheesy magic.
I promise -- this movie does have a point to it, and a heart.
This is certainly not a movie without flaws, but the more I watch films by Spielberg, the more I realize that his filmmaking greatness isn't in making unflawed films, but in making films that will stand the test of time by their joy and the unique experiences they give us, long after a film's given technical expiration date. And the more I watch movies in 2018, the more I realize that it's this kind of simple, honest joy that I want to see on the screen -- that reaffirms my love for the singular magic of escaping into the movies.
In the first non-Episode Star Wars film, we jump back in time to just before the legendary events of Episode 4, where Jyn Erso (Felicity Jones) an every-girl with a tragic childhood and a cold attitude shaped by it becomes a key piece in the Rebellion's increasingly desperate attempts to fight back against the evil Empire.
Testing the waters outside of the lines that have been in place for so long, there's bound to be a misstep or two. Rogue One hits all the checkpoints of a successful, entertaining film, but going deeper, it gets more complicated. There are some undeniably great aspects, and some arguably bad ones, and it's all mixed together.
As I see it, the foundation of the movie's main problems is this: it's an emotional and personal story, but is told too much like it's an action blockbuster. For comparison, that was the appropriate way to tell The Force Awakens. Even though it had many important, personal aspects to it, it was, at heart, a space epic, and was told as such. Rogue One is at heart an intimate story; a character journey. On a larger scale we already know what will happen; what we need to see is Jyn, her emotional journey and the things that she cares for.
...the people she cares for.
And when the film does focus small, it's exactly what it should be, inherently darker, but never less than the Star Wars level of engaging. But it doesn't always do that, getting distracted, giving in to the temptation to be big, and epic, and then using the characters only to drive the plot. Then useless things start to fill the run time. Like cameos and winking references. Some of them fun additions, but
narratively they gunked up the works. Even Darth Vader, who I enjoyed seeing again in spite of apprehensions. CGI Leia and Tarkin could have been cut completely, and not only because the effects (impressive as they were) were distracting. Even the excellent battle scenes could've been cut back, when not relating directly to the individual characters.
And unfortunately, when the film forgets about its heroine, she doesn't come across well. When we don't get to focus on understanding her, she comes across as one-dimensional; just a tough girl in a bad mood. I loved the brief glimpses we got of her vulnerabilities -- her nightmares of being abandoned, her cynical resistance to feel anything, or the scene where her father dies. But those things weren't developed to complete her arc. The framework was all there, especially in her fear on abandonment, but it wasn't explored and filled in enough for us to feel the full impact when her friends never abandon her. To show her issues resolve.
Forget the action; I want to see some relationships growing.
I'm being hard on character with this movie because all the characters die. It would have been different if they had lived. Even without a sequel, we would know that they continue to grow and change. At the very least Jyn's death needed to be the final piece of closure for her arc. In retrospect I can see that her journey was completed technically, if you fill in some gaps with assumption, but it felt unresolved at the time. I should be able to go back a second time and experience everything properly, but that doesn't mean it's not a flaw.
Normally, I'll guard myself from emotion in films, but I expected the deaths going in, and was constantly preparing myself to embrace the sadness; ready to be moved. I wanted this film to break my heart but, busy and distracted, it didn't linger in the sadness long enough to fully affect me. Every time I'd start to tear up the scene changed to something not sad. That being said, the sadness that was there didn't feel manipulative, but natural, and easy to fall into. It is a sad movie, and I can't fault it for not going as far as I was willing to go.
It is much sadder now, thinking about it with my own filter in my head.
And I don't want to fault it either. There a quite a few details about the way this film was done that I wish had been different, but at its core it got everything right. You can see a good story there. A story that maybe wasn't told as clearly as it could have been, but was told nonetheless, with dedication, a lot of heart, and a great sense of darkness and gritty beauty. My biggest question going into the movie was "will the story be truly worth telling?" and I felt that the answer and my opinion of the film would coincide. Well I was right, and the answer is undoubtedly yes.
I knew it going in and I was happy with my choice coming out: Cassian (Diego Luna) was my favorite. I definitely think he could have used more development, like almost all the characters, but my initial impression was a pleasant surprise at how developed he was... fairly quickly followed by a wish for even more. He was very compelling to me; a worn soldier who follows his orders, knowing that the end will justify the means. And I could have watched a full two hours of just him and Jyn having heated arguments. Their relationship was built up really well for a while before speeding along to the conclusion, and had a lot of great potential; if I could reorganize the film's focus, I'd put the spotlight directly on them.
I love that he has to suppress emotion in order to work for the rebellion, and Jyn does the same to keep herself out of it.
Nothing but love for K-2SO -- he was the best comic relief (basically the only comic relief) as a droid with no verbal filter. Nothing but an endless supply of excellently unique humor, delivered in the perfect way that only Alan Tudyk can supply. (He also performed motion-capture for the character on set.) But of course, that led to an equally great amount of heart from him as well... and a surprising amount of badassery. His death scene was the best and maybe the most affecting of them all.
The other three rebels of the group (pilot Bhodi (Riz Ahmed), blind guy Chirrut (Donnie Yen) and blind guy's friend Baze (Wen Jiang)) sadly didn't have time to make a huge impression before the end, but I was attached enough to them to feel significance at their deaths. They all were good for the screen time they received, and I'm sure the future will see me more familiar with and attached to them. Mads Mikkelsen as Jyn's father Galen is very cool, and his character expertly done. No complaints at all -- he got everything done with limited time and drama and style to spare. Forest Whitaker was good too, but in the end, unimportant.
This scene was so beautiful...
The film's villain Krennic was overshadowed by the bigger, arguably unnecessary villains above him, which was too bad, because Ben Mendelsohn made him a great, stylish, and easy to hate villain, and he could have owned the screen alone. I really wanted the climax to be more just him and Jyn in an epic personal struggle instead of the whole epic-in-scale one we got instead. That moment on the tower lasted a mere fraction of the time it could have.
I get the feeling that Rogue One was a little... disconnected. Or misinformed. I don't think it understood what we wanted out of a Star Wars spinoff film. All the things I didn't care for seemed like the stuff they thought was fan service, and where I wanted to go deeper was often casually glazed over or cut short. Maybe that's only me though. I know they wanted to cater to the broadest audience possible here, and to do that the movie had to find a balance between its inherit personal nature and a widely appealing blockbuster one. The balance is awkward, but it may be the most ideal, considering the circumstances.
Not a perfect film... but a great story.
I don't mean to cut this movie any slack where it doesn't deserve it, but, in the end, my view of it can't help but be overwhelmingly positive -- in spite of my complaining and wishing for more out of the characters. I wouldn't wish for more if I hadn't loved them, after all. A little misguided perhaps, but Rogue One's Star Wars story is a story worth telling, and a brave and beautiful plunge into the ever-expanding reaches of a galaxy far, far away.
