Spider-Man: No Way Home

This review has SPOILERS concerning what characters appear in this movie. Plot-wise, it's spoiler-free. 

When the whole world is told that Peter Parker is Spider-Man, that doesn't turn out so well for Peter. But it's not until his best friend Ned and girlfriend MJ are tainted by association—rejected by MIT for reasons of "controversy"—that he decides to act. What he does, with help from Dr. Strange, doesn't turn out so well either. They open a rift in the multiverse, and people start filtering in who know that Peter Parker is Spider-Man. Strange, villainous people who Peter doesn't know. (But we do!)

Time for Peter to make some choices and mistakes of his own.

I've long been on the outs with the MCU. But I have maintained a hope (a faint and fading hope, as Gandalf would say) that Tom Holland could make a great Spider-Man under the right circumstances. So even though I'm not interested in the interconnected Marvel universe anymore, I wanted to continue giving Spider-Man a chance—and I'm glad I did. My favorite aspect of Homecoming was that director Jon Watts seemed to be working hard to keep Peter grounded, even through the over-sized stakes and "bigger is better" and "connect everything" worldview that the MCU brings. In this third installment, Watts connects things, makes it bigger, and ups the stakes like he's supposed to, but he also has reason to. He uses the required method to give me what I want—a Spider-Man that isn't under the thumb of the MCU.

At least, not as much. This story asks the question, "what does it REALLY mean, to be Spider-Man?" and then it answers it, by using past Sony Spider-Man's (Spider-Men?) Spider-Men as the standard to be measured by. Tobey Maguire and Andrew Garfield make real appearances, not just cameos, and they're treated with reverence and respect. Holland's Peter makes well-intentioned mistakes and tries his best and then learns from the Spider-Men that his good intentions and trying his best is the Spider-Man way. He learns that bad things happen despite his efforts but is encouraged by them to keep going, because "with great power comes great responsibility." And his efforts cease to be a joke or some fun side-gig where he gets his suits made by Iron-Man, his missions from Nick Fury, and team-mates from the famous Avengers roster. He grows into a full-fledged Spider-Man, and it's a little bit glorious. 

Holland has always been the best thing about this iteration. This movie aspires to be worthy of him.

The path taken to get him there... is a little bit messy. One by one the past hang-ups are put to rest. No more Stark glasses. No more voices inside suits. No more adults making decisions for Peter. No more villains whose real beefs are with Iron Man. No more double life. And with every step taken, the movie feels more and more like a classic Spidey film, and less like a Marvel drone. The jokes are funny sometimes. The characters are like real people, not awkward or unfunny on purpose. There are dramatic moments that aren't undercut by humor. There are humorous moments that have underlying pathos. There is an end goal throughout besides "make money with CGI." Gosh, even the more blatant fanservice moments didn't make me angry, because they were calling back to the old classics with genuine glee. 

It feels messy because the movie is about cleaning up a mess—in the storyline, and in real life! The process is not streamlined. There are moments when it's a chore, but the end result is satisfying in the same way all things are when they're clean and used to be messy. And as the mess dwindles, we get a look at how Holland's Spidey works unencumbered. And he's fantastic. Peter uses his fast thinking in creative ways during the fights, and Holland's physicality plus the magic of modern effects and choreography make the action land in real and entertaining ways. And the character dynamics between him and his friends and family take on a more serious edge as he weighs the consequences of his actions and relationships. 

One of few MCU films that actually needs most of its 2 & 1/2 hour runtime. It's a big mess to clean.

The returning villains weren't my favorite thing ever, but I appreciate that they were not turned into jokes (which was what my cynicism expected) and instead added real value to the story. Especially Alfred Molina's Doc Ock and Willem Dafoe's Goblin. Spider-Men Maguire and Garfield steal the show, so I'm glad they aren't in the whole thing. Most of the movie's best, most engaging emotion comes from them—maybe because of nostalgia, maybe not. All I know is they leave the current Spidey in a place I'd like to see more of. It feels like a set-up for a fresh start. One that already has a good cast in place, and has proved it understands the Spider-Man mantle better than past endeavors indicated, and is ready to take the character in some more conventional, classic, SPIDER-MAN directions. 

No Way Home is a messy, sprawling, fun, and ambitious film with a determined goal, real stakes, real consequences, and a real end result. It stops trying to reinvent the character and embraces what's always been this version's strengths, while bringing back some of the classic strengths of Spider-Man, as well. It has brought our friendly neighborhood Spider-Man back to his friendly neighborhood life.

1917

Spoiler-free!

1917 is a WWI picture about two soldiers, Blake and Schofield, who are sent with a message of warning to a neighboring regiment, telling them not to attack lest they fall into a trap and be massacred by the enemy. It's told in real time. And oh yeah, it looks like it's done in one take.

Technical masterpiece, immersive wonder, blah blah blah. Here's the fact of the matter: "one take" films are useless gimmicks -- unless -- they have, like all good films do, a story worth telling, and worth telling in that specific way. This film not only has the right story, led by talented actors playing honest and beautiful characters -- its technical aspect actually supports and strengthens the story instead of being a distraction from it. Now that is impressive.

Directed by Sam Mendes. Co-written with Krysty Wilson-Cairns.

I spent a lot of time since August worrying that the continuous camera view would prevent me from becoming invested -- or even worse that the filmmakers would skimp on things like character and meaning in favor of showing off their technical achievements. I needn't have worried. Films like Children of Men gave me reason to, where the long shots are made to amaze to the detriment of everything else -- but it's clear that Sam Mendes had the opposite mindset. He utilizes the long takes as a storytelling medium rather than artistic ploy, and finally I see the value of the technique.

To see the step-by-step journey of those two men; the small talk, the jokes, the pauses, the contention and friendship, the frantic action, and the quietly harrowing moments, all pressed together into the same continuous space and presented in a realistic pace of time; it brings a unique sense of connection. Not ten minutes go by before you feel like you know them, and when you aren't spoon-fed aspects of their character such as their desires and fears, but instead must find them within the passing details of their actions, the reward for your noticing is all the greater.

The challenge is making it look effortless.

Roger Deakins did the cinematography work, and what stands out about it is that it doesn't stand out. It's not showy and doesn't call attention to the behind-the-scenes challenges that no doubt existed. Achieving its lovely simplicity while also keeping the picture free of any empty space in need of a cut is deceptively hard. One bothersome thing about long takes is when the camera must move from person to person during a conversation or action, and the delay drags the pace down. Not so here. The plot, actors, and cinematography are crafted into a trinity knot; an interweaving dance that has no perceptible beginning or end, lead or follow, but where each element supports -- and leans on -- the others equally.

The pacing is incredible. The rise and fall of tension, action, and emotion all crafted in front of our eyes instead of spliced together in the editing room. Nothing against editing of course, but it's a testament to the dedication and effort put into this work that it thrills and moves on the same level as any other film, when the rhythm of pace is so vital to creating investment and holding attention. They had no room for error, so they were sure to have none. Because what's the point in creating a technical wonder if the story leaves you cold and the characters are paper-thin? Why bother telling a story with masterful command of technique unless it will move an audience through honest meaning?

If this movie had been no more than an impressive technological feat, I wouldn't care two beans about it.

Which brings me to the heart and soul of the film -- Schofield, Blake, and the two young, relative unknowns who play them -- George MacKay and Dean-Charles Chapman. They are supported by the talents of Colin Firth, Andrew Scott, Mark Strong, Benedict Cumberbatch, and Richard Madden; and even in such brief roles these established actors bring great depth and detail. Still it was George and Dean always who held my attention, who I wanted to see more of, and whose two every-men characters I wanted to know better. I've been a fan of George MacKay for a while already, seeking out even his obscure bit-parts to see more of his work, but it was no pre-established bias that made me fall in love with his portrayal of Schofield.

MacKay brings depth and nuance that fills up every moment. He's not overly expressive, more internalized, yet his every thought is readable through a genuine performance that can only come out of a fundamental, and deeply empathetic understanding of the character on the page. He brings both the character, and the film to its fully realized life. Chapman is equally immersed. You can tell they are both there feeling and thinking as their characters rather than putting on a show and pretense. They play off each other as foils to reveal the other's character in the true British fashion of not saying what you really mean, and the subtle detail with which they achieve it makes me eager to be there again and search for further understanding between the lines.

"Be there again." As opposed to "see it again."

I guess there is something to be said for the immersive experience of this film after all. I just think it's important to note what it is that you're being immersed into. A perfectly choreographed dance of actors, sets, and camerawork? That is impressive, yes, but add what that dance means -- the poetry of it, the sense of humanity, the struggle of an individual with individual hopes and cares on full display down to the smallest detail -- and that's when an impressive feat becomes art. And it is that art into which we are being immersed.

It's not the immersive quality in itself, or the mastered technical achievements alone that makes this film remarkable; the immersion is only the path we travel. In the same way that we understand the intangible thoughts and motivations within the characters of Schofield and Blake by reading beyond the tangible surface of their words and actions, so 1917 uses what technological, material language it has at its disposal to express truths of the immaterial human soul that extend beyond what mere words can say.

The Jungle Book (2016) & Mowgli: Legend of the Jungle

Spoilers.

Or: The Jungle Book v Mowgli: Which is Worse? 

They were announced at around the same time, and trying to one-up each other with their casting at the same time, but Jon Favreau's The Jungle Book beat Andy Serkis' Mowgli to release by two years. Still, I've always thought of them as competing movies, and never saw The Jungle Book, so once Mowgli released, I figured it was time to give them both a shot and see which is the winner.

They're both losers. Thanks for reading.

Nah -- I sat through both of them, so I'm gonna review and compare them, and I have a few things to get off my chest so hang tight.

Like questions. For example: Why does this elephant have moss growing on it??? (From Mowgli.)

The Jungle Book = the Disney live action remake. Mowgli = Warner Bros. sold to Netflix.

Cast:

Mowgli: Neel Sethi -- Rohan Chand

Bagheera: Ben Kingsley -- Christian Bale

Baloo: Bill Murray -- Andy Serkis

Shere Khan: Idris Elba -- Benedict Cumberbatch

Kaa: Scarlett Johansson -- Cate Blanchett

King Louie: Christopher Walken -- N/A

Wolf Mother: Lupita Nyong'o -- Naomie Harris

Also in The Jungle Book: Giancarlo Esposito.

Also in Mowgli: Peter Mullan, Tom Hollander, Eddie Marsan, Jack Reynor, Matthew Rhys.

Some casts, am I right? It's an impressive list of names, and beside the two kids, there's not a one I'd hesitate to say is talented. They're all terrible. No okay, fine: the actors in themselves do as well as they could be expected to do. Some, like Murray, Serkis and Walken are woefully miscast, and others just do what they do. The real problem here is that the characters are bad because they have confused characters. And the characters are confused because the writing is confused, BUT -- award one point to Mowgli, because the writing there is much cleaner and more straightforward.

Even though we were already familiar with this one's plot. Sorta. (From The Jungle Book.)

The Jungle Book had the disadvantage of being a remake, saddled with a nostalgia checklist and new things to bring to the table. As a result, things like this happen: King Louie, a character invented by Disney for the animation, who was named after "The King of Swing" Louis Prima, now doesn't sing a jazzy song or dance, but is monstrous and meant to be scary -- but is counterintuitively played by Christopher Walken. Or, they needed Mowgli and Bagheera to be separated so Mowgli can meet Baloo, but it doesn't make sense that Bagheera would leave, so he gets knocked out in a fight with Shere Khan. Or, since Shere Khan's the bad guy he needs to be present from the beginning, so flesh out his threat to kill Mowgli. And he needs a backstory reason to kill Mowgli. And the wolves shouldn't give up Mowgli so easily. And there has to be mini adventures to pad the run time since there's no musical numbers, but no horsing around with military elephants. Elephants have to be taken seriously. Also, forget Mowgli going to the man village in the end. Who'd want that anyway?

(From The Jungle Book.) I mean... WHYY??

Mowgli, without the Disney template, does what it wants so the plot is just about Mowgli trying to be a wolf, but then having to leave because of Shere Khan's threat, living in the man village, and then saving the day from both Shere Khan, and the evil white hunter who's visiting the village to pretend to be nice while he breaks off elephant's tusks, and beheads wolf puppies. Wow, that degraded a little. But overall, it's considerably more streamlined and has a mildly clearer message, I guess. Neither hit the neat and simple plot and arc of the 67' animation though, of Mowgli searching for a home, wanting it to be the jungle, and finding out it's the village after all. Of course not.

(From Mowgli.) He has to complete a race to be an official member of the pack.

Let's talk about Baloo. Easily the best thing about the animation film, and no one really knows what to do with him now. The Jungle Book makes him a lazy bum who has to learn to care for Mowgli and at first only uses him to get honey for him. Most of the film he's careless and dismissive. And I've never seen Bill Murray be so droll and unfunny. I doubt it's his fault, but it was depressing to see. Serkis' version has Baloo work as a trainer for the wolves, so he's around for longer, but even more useless, and UGLY. Why they thought making Baloo ugly was a good idea I will never fathom. But Serkis does at least makes him expressive. I wonder if they used any motion capture for it. (Yes, I've discovered they did.)

(From Mowgli.) Just look at how weirdly ugly he is. This movie gave all its animals humanoid eyes, too.

The animation is an interesting subject, actually. The Jungle Book is two years old and the animation has already dated a bit, but it's still objectively better than Mowgli, I'd say. But what Mowgli lacks in budget and quality it makes up for in style. The creature characters have an extra kick of personality, like an amalgamation of caricatured cartoon and photo-realism. So animals are naturally more expressive, readable and recognizable, BUT, at the cost of them seeming out-of-place whenever humans other than Mowgli are in the same scenes. Mowgli spends a chunk of time alone in the man village, and it's like a completely separate movie -- and jarring when animals show up again. Still I prefer that to the characterless designs that happened in The Jungle Book.

They totally failed Baloo by making him walk on all fours. (From The Jungle Book.)

What else? Well, all my favorite things about the old animation were missing from the live action. Too silly for them probably, but that little movie lived of its snappy jazz tunes and 60's pop culture. I figured if they were gonna remake it they'd have some particular reason, but it really was just the original -- stripped of everything that made it original, fun, and meaningful. Bagheera was always my favorite and I missed him being that lovable grump. Neither film commits anything atrocious against him though, so that's good, I guess. In the remake I liked how Mowgli would drone on and on about nothing like kids do, and the final action sequence was a creative change. And I liked in Serkis' version how he put a little bit of unique style in there. Favreau's capable of style, but I doubt he was allowed.

If the original 67' animation wasn't a factor, the choice of which is better would be much harder -- but it is, and I can't not consider it. I watched it again after these two to cleanse my palate, and was instantly swept up in its nostalgia, enjoying its quirks, and noticing a few new things that went over my head last time (it's been a while). So I wonder, why do a remake at all? The nostalgia was much stronger rewatching the original, the hand-drawn cartoons will hold up much longer than computer animation, which becomes obsolete as improvements in the art are made, and all the memorable details are in the original, because the remake is afraid to push any boundary, yet is required to adhere to a more serious and realistic tone.

(From The Jungle Book.) "Keep two of the songs, but... sing them badly? I guess??" "Okay sure." -- Pitch meeting.

Mowgli: Legend of the Jungle wins automatically from that perspective. Quality-wise it's an arguable fight, but Mowgli has a different plot and new characters; and the familiar characters are utilized differently. It may not be good, but it earns its existence by being something unique. The Jungle Book (2016) is neither unique nor the best version of its story. It definitely had a bigger budget to work with, but for me, that's worthless without a soul, and that it lost along the way. Mowgli bored me after a while, but did seem to possess a soul, however weak a one.

So, The Jungle Book is worse. But the best isn't Mowgli -- the original, 1967 The Jungle Book is the best. I don't care that it wasn't supposed to be in the competition. As the only version of this story I've seen that I'd even consider recommending, it's the clear winner. And though I struggled to get through these two other films, I'm glad I did, since it inspired me to revisit this charming little classic that can still hold its own.

This is where it's at.

The Jungle Book (2016) -- 2 stars.

Mowgli: Legend of the Jungle -- 2 stars.

The Jungle Book (1967) -- 4 stars.

Avengers: Infinity War

Major Spoilers!

Welcome to the latest greatest Marvel movie, where all your favorite superheroes come together against the super-villain, Thanos, a very reasonable crazy person who wants to destroy half the universe! They fight super hard for two hours and thirty minutes, and then Thanos destroys half the universe. It's great fun.

I Loki hate this movie. lol.

There's a filmmaking 101 rule. If, say, a bomb is introduced to the plot, and there isn't eventually an on-screen explosion, your movie is bad. You must detonate that bomb. That's why Iron Man flew the nuke into space and exploded the Chitari spaceship. That's why Ronan's plans of destruction via the Power stone are shown by The Collector as he explains the danger -- because you must show it. It doesn't have to happen for real, but it has to happen. This rule, which is religiously followed in action films, is the reason I wasn't surprised by the end of Infinity War. The end rolled around sans a preview of the destruction, so I braced for impact.

But that's not why I didn't like the movie. The reason why I didn't enjoy myself watching this film as much as I should have, is that I felt the need to brace for impact in the first place. I like plenty of these characters. In fact, I dislike none of them. But the MCU doesn't typically make it worthwhile to be invested in the plights or well-being of its characters, and this film is the worst offender of the lot. Thor, Gamora and Strange are pushed to develop more than most of the sea of characters this film possesses, but whether they receive a little attention, or a lot, this movie can't agree with previous films on what their established character is, or the directions they should take.

You'd think so little screen-time would keep away glaring inconsistencies, but no. Poor Quill was obliterated. 

It's an antihero movie from Thanos' perspective more than anything else. He wants to save the entire universe by destroying half the universe, (If you kill half the people, the rest will have more room and resources. Think about it!) and while his reasoning makes sense for a crazy person, he doesn't act crazy. He's just a big purple dude with a dream, and besides his partial-genocide plan, he keeps his evil deeds to a minimum. Are we supposed to sympathize? Because he achieves his goal at great personal loss does that make him deep? No. He's one-note, and it never makes sense why his goal is so important to him.

Conversely, every single hero's goal is clear: save the world, save the universe, save the people they care for. Viewers will latch on to that automatically; it's a fundamental part of a hero's being. Yet we are forced to watch them fail and give way to Thanos' character over and over. And with no ultimate triumph to make it worthwhile, it all becomes meaningless. This story has no reward. It kicks you in the head on intervals, tosses in a few neat fights, then pulls the rug out and waits for the praise to come rolling in. And fans, concussed, stagger away mumbling about how they "need to process this." You don't need to process it: it felt like one big sucker punch because that's what it was.

Half the "good" moments were just blatant rehashes of previous good moments. Thor's plotline was probably best because he has success before the final failure.

The film started out feeling very similar to flipping channels -- if every channel was playing a generic Marvel film. But the plot does tie it all together in a cohesive way, and as it puttered along I found myself more and more interested in the outlandish space locations and enjoying the odd awesome moment that lands among the unfunny, downright boring attempts at comedy and the even less interesting character development through dialogue. And every time a character died I would wait patiently for the next hint of joy.

Is it too much to ask that superhero movies be fun? It's not that they don't know how to have fun. I recall one particularly spectacular moment between Bucky and Rocket, and Spider-Man elevates everything by double just by having his face on screen. It seemed that the point of the movie wasn't to be entertaining (or heaven forbid -- interesting!) but to be a culmination of the past ten years. To bring it all together under one roof, and in one fell swoop... point to the next movie: because if the audience isn't talking about the next film in the series as they walk out of the theater, you're doing it wrong.

It's called The Avengers for a reason! They gotta have something to... to.... *Part Two opens* ...AVENGE!!!!

I'm sick and tired of it. I just want to enjoy a movie; to live in the moment of a fantasy world for a few hours, without the threat of anything being held back or saved for later. Marvel is on top of the world right now. They can do whatever they want, and fans will be in the theater, excited, and willing to give it a chance. And what do they do with this power? They give us crumbs. They leave a trail of them, promising more and more, and we follow, like the dutiful fans we are, clinging to the crumbs -- a great character, a favorite actor, a fleeting moment of joy -- and wonder why we don't feel satisfied.

There's not a lot objectively wrong with this movie. It's put together impressively well for being the monstrous task that it was. It mostly makes sense, mostly stays focused, and definitely does what it sets out to do. It often looks good, Thanos and his henchmen's CGI being a notable exception. It has a handful of memorable moments and many more that seem included dispassionately, out of obligation. Some humor is okay, some cringy. Some characters get quality attention, some... aren't even in the movie at all. Hello, Hawkeye? There are scores of nitpicks I could make, but it doesn't matter; the hard truth is, there's nothing this movie could've done that would've made me love it.

I'm not an overly emotional person by nature, but Marvel has taught me to be downright stone-hearted concerning their films.

Fact is, I don't watch superhero movies to see the heroes fail at the end. On the list of things I don't want to see in a superhero film, ultimate failure is top of the box office all year long. (Failure before the end, however, is equally necessary. It's backwards here.) And I know: I know they're going to fix everything, because Spidey has another movie coming, and Marvel will never kill off a cash cow before it's dry. Therefore, it's possible that in combination with Part 2, I will enjoy the story more. Yep, they have me on the hook for another year. Doesn't change the fact, though. The only enjoyment I got out of the end was being so detached that I was actually amused by the manipulative stupidity on display before me.

There's simply nothing here for me. I am a Marvel fan, but they sure do make it difficult. Forcing investment in a story that is out to manipulate me isn't an option, and I've been shortchanged too many times for it to come naturally. If you don't identify with that statement, you'll probably love this film. Since it banks on killing off characters it's important that you be invested. And good on you if you were invested and did like it -- I'm not here to be Gamora and suck the joy out of everything (I'll even admit her death scene and dynamic with Thanos was alright) I'm just here to complain that I found no joy to begin with.

Except maybe Spider-Man. Spider-Man is still great. Maybe I'm turning into a Sony-Marvel fan...

For a movie with no respect, no energy, and minimal creative effort, where the good guys put aside their differences, joining against a common enemy, only to fail miserably and wallow in a stale puddle of passionless tears, all in a blatant effort to build hype for the next film, Infinity War is about as good as you could possibly expect.

Sherlock - Series 4

Spoiler-free.

The dynamic duo, Benedict Cumberbatch and Martin Freeman, and the notorious duo Steven Moffat and Mark Gatiss are back for a fourth and possibly final season. After being an adoring and happy fan of the series for a few lovely years, I gave favorable reviews to the third season in 2014, but lost my obsession. Two more years brought actual disappointment with a gimmicky and unmemorable Christmas special. Now another year has passed, and, a fourth season. This I went into willing, but not determined, to enjoy. And these are my resulting impressions:

This is the season cast? Lestrade barely got a cameo and Molly was a puppet. I miss Lestrade...

The Six Thatchers: Not a great start. What I wanted more than anything was to see the boys get back to their regular crime-solving ways; which they did, and which was portrayed on screen via screen text and montage giving us glimpses of wacky and intriguing cases, but never giving us enough information to actually understand what happened, or how it was solved. Things looked up as Sherlock takes up investigating a body found in an exploded car that had no right being there. This is the stuff I love and for a few minutes I felt the thrill that the first two seasons had in excess. Then Sherlock is distracted by the Six Thatchers case, and that turns promptly into drama for the rest of the episode.

The episode ends up having a ton of reveals, but none that satisfy the curiosity we had. It's less, "Oh that makes sense now!" and more, "Oh they tricked me." It's cheap misdirection instead of taking great pains to set up a hard problem with a clever solution and include enough clues to solve it. The villain was revealed out of nowhere, and then the necessary was done. Because it was necessary. But everything felt wrong; the whole episode felt like it was plodding through the motions, yet if it had actually been going through the motions, rehashing the formula, I probably would've enjoyed it more.

Three guesses as to who's gotten in the way of Sherlock's crime-solving. Hint: It's not the baby.

The Lying Detective: I had more hope for this episode, thinking that after the last one, the Case of the Week formula would be picked back up. Happily, I was right, mostly. This episode featured Toby Jones as a chilling villain who comes up against a washed-up Sherlock, who throws himself recklessly into the case. This one hit all the checkpoints; observations and deductions, Sherlock being an amusing sociopath, (on that note I loved Cumberbatch's performance in this ep, and the wide range of Sherlock's complexities displayed) and reveals that, if not as cleverly projected as the best have been, were also not insultingly impossible.

Actually, this episode had a truly great reveal at its end. Disguises so rarely work on me in shows and films, but this one I bought from the start and never questioned. It was all out in the open, undeniably possible to notice, yet I never did. Well done indeed. This episode even managed to pack a heftier emotional punch than the previous, simply because the drama and emotions were contained to their proper place as an enhancer of the plot instead of its driving force. It was used to increase urgency and reward in the end, and was welcome.

The Lying Detective was written by Moffat. The first ep was writ by Gatiss and the last was a combined effort. By that evidence it is clear that this isn't all Moffat's fault.

The Final Problem: Technically, I would say this episode is better than the first of the season, but personally it offended me so much more. It ignored established aspects of characters for the sake of The Mighty Moffat Twist; it established facts only to turn around and throw them in our faces later, and it put its characters through so much far-fetched mental torture in completely strange and unexplained ways and locations, that it all felt like fanfiction with a genre twist of demented sci-fi horror.

At this point it's not inaccurate to call it fanfiction, actually. Yes, Moffat and Gatiss created this show, but it was based on an existing character and existing stories. They were adapting; great, clever adapting too, with all those little twists and nods so well-calculated and fit into the plot. But the Sherlock stories have now veered away from the original Sherlock Holmes into this ignorantly pompous fabricated soap opera. It's their right as show-runners and writers, but this is not what I'm here for. I'm here for Sherlock Holmes; deductions, crime-solving, stunning intellect; fun! This episode was not fun. It was manipulative, brazen and haughty, smugly feeding its starved audience spam that's been grilled up like a steak, and basking in the contrived glory of how smart it is.

This show is in danger of having created some seriously sad irony with the episode title choice here. It could be the Last Mistake the show makes.

Maybe this will be the end of Sherlock. They end the season without the typical cliffhanger to torture fans with for the next few years (in case it's not renewed I guess) and scraped together some kind of open-ended resolution, but loose ends and plot holes abound. So little was actually wrapped up. What a mess. I feel as though I've been insulted for my loyalty. I was never unconditionally loyal to the show, only to the aspects of it that I loved and thought were good, but I have been more forgiving. Now the infractions are intentional and impossible to ignore, and I'm done picking through grimy rubble to enjoy what I can. There's barely anything left to be loyal to. The spell is broken. Goodnight, Sherlock Holmes.

Upcoming Movie Roundup - January

Happy New Year everyone! In December I went to see Rogue One (check out my review here) and that was it, in spite of the number of interesting movies. Turns out December was even more busy than I expected it to be what with Christmas... and my sister getting married!

I saw Rogue One again yesterday, and its enjoy-ability factor at least doubled for the second viewing! So now La La Land is at the top of my must-see list, and it looks like I'll have plenty of time for it in January, because there is not even one new movie coming out that I'm even remotely interested in seeing. January isn't known for being a month full of quality movies, but come on, you could at least get my hopes up with an interesting premise or good trailer and then dash them later...

So instead I'm going to talk about some TV shows premiering this month! Something I usually forget to do, what with all the movies distracting me, and there is a handful of them in Jan.

Are you interested in any of the movies coming out in January? Is there any I've missed? And are any of these shows on your radar? Let me know in the comments!


Sherlock - Series 4
Well the first episode of the new season aired last night, and I have to say I wasn't terribly impressed. Don't shoot me! I may try to review it and pinpoint why I'm not liking it as much as the early seasons, but that doesn't change that I will be watching the next three episodes like clockwork every Sunday night. It is still Sherlock, after all! It's airing on PBS here in the US, and streaming on their website.




Lemony Snicket's A Series of Unfortunate Events
Back in the day I remember enjoying the film version with Jim Carrey enough that it led me to read several of the books too, which were, unsurprisingly, better than the movie. Now Netflix has begun a series, that, as best as I can tell, will be adapting the entire series (of 13 books) with two episodes per book. Season one will be 8 episodes, available on Jan 13th. This is, in my opinion, the ideal way to adapt this story to the screen, and I'm very excited to see it! (Even though I'm now a little older than the target demographic...) Neil Patrick Harris stars as Count Olaf, and Patrick Warburton narrates as Lemony Snicket. Hilarity and misfortune will undoubtedly follow!




Emerald City
Probably the most re-imagined story next to Cinderella, and now NBC is taking a turn with an Oz story, with a 10-episode series airing starting Jan 6th. This one reminds me a lot of Tin Man which I absolutely loved (and last I checked is still available on Netflix...) except this one looks grittier and more steampunk and hopefully will have its own neat spin on the well-known story! Vincent D'Onofrio is the only face I recognize, as the Wizard. I don't know if it'll turn out to be a good telling or not, but I definitely think it's worth finding out!




Taboo
An 8-episode series from Ridley Scott and Tom Hardy coming to FX. The show also stars Tom Hardy, is set in the 1800's, and looks extremely dark, gritty, and serious. I won't be surprised if it winds up being too inappropriate for me to bother with anyway, but as it is, in spite of Hardy, it's not super-appealing to me in the first place. Still, it looks like a high-quality show. Begins airing Jan 10th.




Sneaky Pete
Another that I'm not eager to watch, but it looks like a neat and probably fun show, with it's main character being a con man. This one is coming to Amazon Prime of Jan 16th. It stars Giovanni Ribisi, and Bryan Cranston as one of those villains that you just know was a blast to play. I'll definitely bee keeping an eye on reviews and ratings for this one.

Doctor Strange

Spoilers are marked.

Marvel's latest origin film stars the unstoppable Benedict Cumberbatch as Doctor Stephen Strange, a highly skilled, highly sought-after, highly rich and highly pompous neurosurgeon. On top of his game and on top of the world, Strange's great life is obliterated in a single devastating moment. And while on a desperate journey to find healing, he finds so much more when he finds a mystic known as the Ancient One (Tilda Swinton) who expands his worldview -- and simultaneously the MCU -- into the vast realm of magic.

And I do mean vast.

Marvel it may be, but Marvel it certainly doesn't feel. Doctor Strange take a giant leap into the unexplored, leaving behind practically everything we know about the universe. It's very much its own movie; just as much as, say, Iron Man was, only Iron Man had the advantage of no canon to dictate to it. Strange is in such a different place from other Marvel flicks that it was free to do new things and set up its own world, and it takes great advantage of that.

There are three very small references that tie it to the preceding Marvel films, and besides that, my brain was having a hard time accepting it as being from Marvel at all. And I still like Marvel-y Marvel films, but it's great to know that the box can -- and has been -- broken out of. It's only the similar on a very base level in the story; the skeleton of a superhero origin. How it builds on that is, appropriately, all by its own rules.

Ugh, this photo! I never thought I would fall in love with Marvel cinematography in this way...

The first thing I noticed about it was the tone. And not that it's actually darker than other serious superheroes, but at the same time, it is. Literally. The color palette is dark, brown and muted with highlights of neon. The lighting is beautiful and minimal, with lots of silhouetting and scenes that seem barely lit at all, but are done expertly, to create and enhance an edgy darkness. Unexpectedly, handheld cameras are often used, which lends the film some earthy grit; a great counterbalance for the trippy, spacey psychedelics that pop up. The contrast of the shiny, crisp and sparkling magic with the deeply sturdy and grounded feel of the physical world is excellent. I applaud the filmmakers for going in that direction.

Director and co-writer Scott Derrickson is known for horror films, and while there's nothing very scary about Doctor Strange, the style translates very well. (That also accounts for an incredibly decent jump scare in the movie!) Writing is the one place where I wished for more. It's really not a negative because I know there will be more later in sequel films, but for now, the world isn't as explored as it should be. It's not overloaded, which is great, but I did feel slightly pandered to occasionally. I could have handled more, but the film needed to be accessible to even casual fans, and I think it hit the optimal middle ground. And I firmly believe that the film will improve in retrospect, once even more development is added to the characters and their worlds.

Fine actor makes for excellent character!

Segue: Characters! To be perfectly candid, I expected to not really care for Benedict Cumberbatch and his character in this film. Not that I don't like him or think him a bad actor, I had just seen too much of him recently. And I was feeling cynical and thinking he was probably only cast in the part because he looked like the character and was the hot new thing who everyone wants in their movie. But no -- he was excellently cast, and gives a practically mesmerizing performance as Stephen. There's lots of drama to handle, and he never takes it too far over the top where we viewers are unwilling to follow. The character arc is handled expertly; at first he's very reminiscent of Sherlock, which wasn't a great start for me with my cynicism, but that only made his elegant transition into zen and gentlemanly hero even more impressive. Also, he is a master at making his hands shake!

Basically, I liked her because of the two character's relationship.

Rachel McAdams as Christine, his ex and fellow doctor... I'm just not a fan of McAdams, so I can't help but think that almost anyone could have played the part, but she didn't annoy me nearly as bad as she has in other movies. I enjoy her more when she plays dislikeable characters, and Christine splits the line. She's complicated and her role as romantic interest stands on shaky ground, which is interesting. What won me over was the inscription on the watch she gave Stephen, and how much he values it.

Chiwetel Ejiofor. We all know he's great, but I admit I didn't know what his purpose was for a while, plot-wise. I liked his character, but wondered where he was headed. In the moment, it seemed like a negative, but his arc does complete to perfect satisfaction, so that everything about him makes sense. Now I'm eagerly anticipating more from him. On that note, the one thing I think maybe should have been done differently: the end credit scene was important to the closure of his arc -- too important, I think, to be left as the end-credit scene. Though I don't know where it should have gone... just know that I strongly recommend sticking around for it!

Great stuff from these two.

Tilda Swinton I enjoyed immensely! She held my attention so well, and was so fully immersed in her role -- a unique, thought-provoking, and moving character. She was a pleasure. Ejiofor's fellow cast mate from The Martian, Benedict Wong, was there, mostly for comic relief, and handled it splendidly. Mads Mikkelsen as the villain is perhaps slightly on the forgettable side -- another in a long line -- but it was appropriate that he just serve his purpose and then disappear; his villainy came before Stephen entered the life, and the story is told from Stephen's eyes. And Mikkelsen's performance was good and convincing. It worked.

The vagueness and mystery worked for him.

Like with the colors (dark, highlighted with neon) and the tone, (earthy, highlighted with dazzling psychedelics) this movie's comedy is an occasional extreme highlight; it's silly. And this is something that I honestly don't know what to think about. On one hand, it's a little jarring when the movie is so beautiful and muted and serious, and then all of a sudden has cute comic relief out from left field. On the other, it's not like it was shoehorned in; the story almost required it in some places. And it was genuinely funny. Sometimes a joke would come across so awkwardly, but then another layer would be added that made it funny again. There was also a little subtle humor that I appreciated more initially.

Maybe it's not a hundred percent my cup of tea, but I do think it works. It's odd -- it's Strange! -- but it's right. I may vaguely wonder if the goofy comedy was a self-conscious apology for making such a wacky story take itself so seriously, but deep down I think I understand that if the story had taken itself seriously without those highlights, I wouldn't have been able to be as invested in the seriousness. Instead, every time the silliness pulled me out of the movie's depths, I was even more eager to plunge back in. And it helped me to accept the inherent silliness in the plot. Like the scene on the balcony of the hospital, which was such a beautiful, beautiful scene -- visually and emotionally -- but there was a silliness to it too -- a silliness that by that point I had fully embraced.

This is just crazy.

Two more things that just impressed the stuffing right out of me: (this paragraph gets a little spoilery!) In the climax, I was absolutely flabbergasted and amazed to find that it rode on smarts instead of action! Almost unheard of for Marvel movie, but there you have it. And even more unheard of, collateral damage? Destruction? Zero. Zero! There was no destruction in the end. But it was just as involving -- if not more -- as any superhero flick with destruction. I loved that. I am so impressed and happy at that clever change-up. (End Spoilers)

I started out this review thinking this film was excellent -- technically exceptional, and practically flawless, and not quite my kind of movie. It made me laugh, it made me think, it made me grin gleefully at the screen and feel the heartbreak of its characters alike, but I was sure I wouldn't fall in love with it until after a sequel, like it has been with so many other Marvel films. But, as I wrote about the few flaws they morphed into praiseworthy aspects, and as I wrote about all the little moments I expected to someday treasure, I found myself treasuring them already.

And eager for more magic from Marvel!

This was not a story that I was determined to love because of a certain character or actor or story line that I was biased towards. Doctor Strange is wholly new, and I knew it would need time. It snuck up on me, with its subtly welcoming heart, cool beauty, and jarring highlights of total craziness, and has since sunk right into my heart. I was going to quote the movie and say "Doctor Strange, 'time will tell how much I love you,'" but... it already has.

Upcoming Movie Roundup - November

In October I went to the movies! I saw The Magnificent Seven, which was a nice wrap-up for the summer, and now it's November already and the season of Oscar hopefuls is starting! Lots of movies this month, and lots that look really good! Which ones have your attention?


Doctor Strange
Nov 3rd; PG-13
Benedict Cumberbatch takes his turn as Marvel hero as the Marvel universe officially expands into the realm of magic. I'm expecting good things. This movie doesn't have the kind of hype that surrounds some Marvel films like sequels and team-ups, but I always look forward to the introduction films and what they'll bring to the table that's new. And Doctor Strange more than most seems to be coming from its own place and is (as of yet) unconnected with the rest of Marvel. The trailers look good and promise plenty of weirdness, and Cumberbatch appears to be in fine form as the new hero. He's joined by Tilda Swinton, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Mads Mikkelsen and Rachel McAdams, and positive reviews are already flooding in. I have no doubt this movie will be good; it's just a matter of how good at this point. I hope it'll be spectacular, but even if it isn't, it should certainly be a worthy addition all the same -- and a definite must-see!




Loving
Nov 3rd; PG-13
My favorite director returns again with a second film for 2016! Well, I just said it, so it must be true; Jeff Nichols is my favorite director. So far he's been batting a thousand, with four beautifully brilliant and strikingly different films under his belt, and everything seems to indicate that Loving will be right at home along with them. It stars Joel Edgerton and Ruth Negga as the historic interracial couple Richard and Mildred Loving who fought the system over their marriage in the 60's. Nichols' staple, Michael Shannon is there also, and Nick Kroll and Marton Csokas. Normally, I have diminished interest in based-on-true-story films, especially if they're straight dramas, so I can see this being my least favorite from Nichols, but even if that's the case, it's still just as likely to be as beautifully and excellently made.




Arrival
Nov 10th; PG-13
Did I just watch a trailer for a political alien movie? At the very least Arrival seems to be exploring the realistic technical aspects of a hypothetical alien contact. Maybe like in the way The Martian did for surviving on a different planet. How would the government react? Who would be brought in to handle things? What kind of obstacles would need to be overcome and how would it be done? And then of course you throw in the question of whether the alien's intentions are good or bad, and you have a pretty neat idea for a movie! And based on the early reviews, they've pulled it off. Amy Adams stars -- who I'm currently feeling "meh" towards, but I know she capable of good things -- along with Jeremy Renner (always a plus) and Forest Whitaker. I'm always down for sci-fi, but I really want this one to be as great as it wants and appears to be.




Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them
Nov 17th; PG-13
Okay, I'm not much of a Harry Potter fan. Never read them; watched the films through and enjoyed them. Just so you know where I'm coming from here. This new spin-off does look like fun; set in the same universe, but apparently very separate from Harry's adventures. Eddie Redmayne is being all quirky and odd and is using magic a lot in the trailer which is great, and I like the tone of the trailer too. Mature, like the later Potter films, but also very focused on being fun. I heard it's the beginning of a new Potter-World series, and I just hope it doesn't turn into eight more movies. The idea of investing in a whole new string of films isn't appealing to me at my level of interest, but if this movie delivers and can stand on it's own, I'd be happy to watch it!




Manchester by the Sea
Nov 17th (limited); R
I don't have much to say about this one. It's rating will keep me out of the theaters for it even if I were that interested anyway. But I just really love all that all the critically acclaimed film are coming out now, and the critics are gushing over this one. So I thought the trailer was worth sharing.




Nocturnal Animals
Nov 17th (limited); R
Now this is the kind of character I'd really love to see Amy Adams play. Dark, and possibly sinister. And man, this film has a cast! There's also Jake Gyllenhaal, Michael Shannon, Aaron Taylor-Johnson, Isla Fisher (Amy's look-alike!), Armie Hammer, and Laura Linney! The movie will probably have to be cut before I'll watch it, but it looks like my kind of film. Moody, mysterious and noir-ish. It's based on a book, so I'll have to look into that too.




Bleed For This
Nov 17th; R
Miles Teller bulks up to star in this based-on-a-true-story sports drama as a boxer who works through a devastating injury from a car crash to be able to fight again. Aaron Eckhart costars as his trainer. Sports movies aren't typically my things, but fighting sports do have an edge over other kinds. I would probably be very interested in this if it weren't for the rating, and how it comes through in the trailer -- that is, unnecessarily. These are the earmarks of a movie that is only decent, because not enough effort and devotion was put into making it great.




The Take (Bastille Day)
Nov 17th (limited); R
Idris Elba. Richard Madden. British action movie. Enough said, I think! This doesn't look like a huge caliber action film or anything, but it's the sort of movie that I'd want to watch no matter how bad it is and then live with the regret if I must. Another iffy rating, but I'll be keeping an eye out.




Rules Don't Apply
Nov 22nd; PG-13
I liked Alden Ehrenreich in Hail, Caesar! so much that I might be interested in this movie even if he wasn't the new Han Solo, but honestly this movie's plot looks like garbage. As another pilot of the Millennium Falcon would say. Here he co-stars with Lily Collins while she plays a aspiring actress in 1950's Hollywood. Romance and drama ensues.




Lion
Nov 24th (limited); NR
Probably won't be able to make it to the level of Slumdog Millionaire, which it will probably be compared to considering the drama and Dev Patel in the lead, but it sure is an interesting original idea for a story! An Indian boy lost as a kid is adopted by an Australian couple, and 25 years later, he sets out on the nearly impossible task of finding his home and family again.

Upcoming Movie Roundup - January

Happy 2016, friends! December was a wonderful movie month even though I only saw one new release, because that one new release was Star Wars: The Force Awakens, and it lived up to it's hype. I saw it on Fri, which was earlier than I expected to be able to, and even had to stand in line for the theater which was a first for me. It blew me away, and now I've seen it twice, with plans for a third, and you can read all about how much and why I loved it in my review here.

January movies never inspire much confidence for quality, but there are a few that have caught my eye. Are any January movies on your radar? And have you seen Star Wars yet???


Sherlock: The Abominable Bride
Jan 1st, 9:00 EST on PBS
One thing that is not practically guaranteed to be sub-par -- the Sherlock Christmas special! The Abominable Bride. No doubt it'll be fun and Sherlock-y, even if it is set in the 1890's. And also looks like a scary one, which is always a win. I'm very interested to see if there's any explanation for the era change, but either way I'm prepared to thoroughly enjoy it, and even more prepared to be annoyed at how long the wait for season 4 is as soon as it's over!



13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi
Jan 15th; R
This is a Michael Bay movie. And yet... it looks like a decent film. Or maybe I'm just too trusting. Michael Bay has a terrible track record of really terrible movies, but hey, at least this one breaks a few patterns. It's not a Transformers movie for one (though if it were secretly a Transformers movie, it would be the best movie ever), and it has an R rating, which at least caters it to a slightly different crowd. And it stars John Krasinski sporting his new action-hero look -- a look I definitely approve of. The only bad sign (besides the director's name) is how long the subtitle is. We don't need all that -- 13 Hours alone is much cooler.




The 5th Wave
Jan 15th; PG-13
Every time I am force to sit through this increasingly annoying trailer in order to watch The Force Awakens again, I say jokingly that I have to see this, because it had Liev Shreiber in it. I'm really only half joking. Perfectly timed to fill the void left by the Hunger Games, and attract fans who are floating around listlessly waiting for the next Divergent film, the newest dystopian-type film lead by a teenage girl is here! Now that the Hunger Games is over, these movies don't have to have the pretense of being good anymore, and good thing too, because this one does not look good. It's status as a knockoff is quite obvious, trying to be noticed by mashing together all the forms of dystopia; natural disaster, contagion, alien invasion, teens fighting in a war... all that's missing is zombies. Or maybe they're just missing from the trailer -- or in the next book, because you know this is a series. I just hope it's bad enough to be good fun to make fun of the badness!




Mojave
Jan 22nd; R
Okay, well... honestly this movie looks absolutely terrible, and the trailer gave away pretty much everything it seems except who's gonna survive, and who's gonna die. But I have to see it, because Oscar Isaac is in it and that means I'll enjoy it, no matter how terrible it is. Oscar Isaac and Garrett Hedlund trading cliched intimidating western dialogue and trying to kill each other... sounds good to me.




Jane Got a Gun
Jan 29th; R
I remember reading about all the trouble this movie had during production, so now I'm a little curious. It doesn't look like the kind of movie I'd really like, but it does have two bonuses -- two cool dudes named Joel Edgerton and Ewan McGregor. Will their draw balance out the repulsion of Natalie Portman playing the lead? Eh, it'll probably depend on how bored I am. Right now I'm much more interested in seeing a tomatometer score. The trailer is not very promising.

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!