Happy New Year!
I've done a terrible job catching up on 2019 movies. Last month I saw Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker as expected, and it was more enjoyable than expected though still messily made. (Read my review here!)
Then we went to see Richard Jewell and I'm real glad we did. It wasn't trying to be overly artistic, but just to tell the story truthfully, and it comes across beautifully. I haven't reviewed it yet, but I will. I'm saying that I will right here so that I will have to.
I also watched The Aeronauts off Amazon Prime. It wasn't good, but I gave it a chance. Maybe I should review that too, so I can explain the bizarre way in which it is bad. No promises though.
There's still so many I want to see before I make up any king of top movies of 2019 list. Little Women is on the schedule, as is 1917. But now the January movies are coming! And I kinda like January movies. They reset my love for film by being dumb and enjoyable.
What are you looking forward to seeing in 2020 -- January and beyond?
1917
Wide release Jan 10th; R
I'm still counting this as a 2019 release since it had a limited release over Christmas. But I haven't seen it yet, and thought I would point out that the wide release is on its way. Since it my most-anticipated film of 2019, I don't mind having to wait until 2020 to see it. Or at least... I can wait. I have tickets. I'll probably make it. I HAVE to make it!
The Informer
In theaters Jan 10th; NR
Starting the year off right -- this is EXACTLY the kind of movie that should get released in January, and the kind of movie I'm ready to see. That obviously not Oscar-quality deal, that promises you won't have to use your brain much to enjoy it. Maybe it'll be genuinely bad, but to me it looks like a simple action thriller, cliched but not in an annoying or necessarily bad way, starring capable actors. I'll totally watch this.
Just Mercy
In theaters Jan 10th; PG-13
Time to get political (sorry) but this is interesting. This is a true story about a lawyer who works to right and injustice -- very similar to the plot of Richard Jewell. But watching the trailer for this, most of what I see is preaching about the agenda the film wants to push. Maybe it's less the case in the actual movie, but the reason Jewell worked so well was it just told the story plainly, without inserting it's own political ideas into the script. I think its best when political movies don't have political messages. Especially true stories should tell the truth and let the audience take away what they see. But I guess we'll see about this one. It does have a good cast of Michael B. Jordan, Jamie Foxx, Brie Larson, Tim Blake Nelson and Rafe Spall.
Underwater
In theaters Jan 10th; PG-13
Another ideal January release. Deep ocean movies are essentially lost in space movies but with the extra detail of water instead of the vacuum of space, and this flick knows it. It's Alien under the sea, and I'm ready to go watch it right now. It looks like a lot of fun, and has a nice big cast of names to kill off, with Kristen Stewart in the lead. Movies like this are film essentials. I hope it tires hard to entertain and doesn't take itself too seriously. If it weren't for movies like this I would get tired of loving film altogether.
Inherit the Viper
Limited release and streaming Jan 10th; R
Hard to tell with this one. It looks like it's very self-serious but also not particular in any way. Rednecks and drugs and violence starter pack. Family dramas don't need exceptional plots to be great, but this one seems focused more on plot than character. If I had to venture a guess, it'd be that the movie's too safe and unremarkable to be truly great, but maybe it's well made and acted enough to make it worth watching.
Bad Boys for Life
In theaters Jan 17th; NR
I have seen Bad Boys 2... but not Bad Boys. And that should clue you in to the level of care I have for the franchise. A new sequel might inspire me to see the first one and the second again perhaps -- especially if this is any good. Honestly though, I doubt it will be. It's been too long, and more importantly, no Michael Bay in the director's chair. You might think that's a good thing, but the directors are intentionally mimicking Bay's style, and, love him or hate him or anything in between we can all agree on one thing: No one can do Michael Bay but Michael Bay. (Language warning for the trailer.)
Dolittle
In theaters Jan 17th; PG
This movie has a pretty good cast... of voice actors and one or two people whose face we'll see. It's a lot to ask of the people who are clamoring for Robert Downey Jr. to will an Oscar for his performance in Avengers: Endgame. Because it's up to them and them alone to buy the tickets so it won't bomb. Just kidding, I'm sure nostalgia will drag in some unsuspecting patrons. They're scraping the bottom of the barrel with CGI reboots, and you can tell from this trailer that tried to look epic and get you on emotion instead of the promise of a good film. I won't be surprised if people say it's good, but I would be very surprised if it actually is.
The Wave
Limited release and streaming Jan 17th; R
Justin Long indie scifi drug trip? I dunno, but it looks like the sort of movie that I won't be able to put aside until I've seen it and understand what it's about and what it's trying to do. Looks very low-budget, but that can breed creativity and it certainly has a unique sense to it.
The Turning
In theaters Jan 24th; PG-13
Finn Wolfhard has been the scared person in enough horror movies now and is leveling up to being the scary person. I look forward to bearing witness. With the lights on. Preferably during the day. That's all.
The Gentlemen
In theaters Jan 24th; R
Well this has Guy Ritchie written all over it -- and that's nothing but a good thing in my opinion! My favorite of his work to date is RocknRolla, and this one looks much more like that than Sherlock Holmes (which the trailer wants you to remember) or Arthur: Legend of the Sword (which it doesn't want you to remember). Ritchie returning to his roots maybe? Also quite the cast. Charlie Hunnam leading (who I like now) with Matthew McConaughey (who I still don't like very much) and Michelle Dockery, Henry Golding, Colin Farrell, and Hugh Grant (all of whom I definitely like). This is the sort of movie that I won't trust the critic reviews on, and will certainly have to see for myself.
The Rhythm Section
In theaters Jan 31st; NR
First of all I legit thought this was a sad music drama or something based on the poster. Second, Blake Lively is trying to be taken seriously as an action star now, apparently. Looks like she's channeling Jason Bourne here. The plot isn't like Bourne, I'm just getting that vibe. A stylistic knockoff of an irrelevant franchise doesn't sound promising, but if I don't forget it exists I'll consider watching it if it can tempt me with good reviews.
Showing posts with label Brie Larson. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Brie Larson. Show all posts
Thursday, January 2, 2020
Thursday, April 11, 2019
Unicorn Store
Spoilers.
Kit loves sparkles and pastel colors and unicorns. And art! She goes to college and takes a class from a prestigious professor, known for his photo-realistic paintings of cardboard boxes with sticks propped inside them. Wow. One day a class does self-portraits, everyone standing by their work to show its accuracy. Kit covers herself in glitter and paint... then the canvas... and then the wall around the canvass. Then, as one of the judges shakes his head and gives her low marks, her childish smile turns to hurt confusion.
The whole movie takes this over the top naive stance on self-expression. If you can get past, accept, or suspend your belief for an hour and thirty-one minutes as scenario by scenario goes by in this fashion, you may get a thing or two out of this movie. One is enjoyment, plain and simple. This is the easiest. The other is a message. The movie is certainly trying to convey one, but your mileage may vary. For me, I occasionally suspended belief and got a decent amount of enjoyment out of Brie Larson's rather vain foray into the directing world.
There really is a decent amount of charm here and it had me laughing out loud on occasion -- you know, those singular "HA"'s that burst out from time to time -- because of the cynical and frustrated yet naive worldview the movie and Kit have. There are quite a few good lines and ridiculous scenarios to mine, so even when they're not rich they give out plenty. Larson has good delivery, and surrounds herself with genuinely funny people like the comic genius Bradley Whitford, Joan Cusack, Samuel L. Jackson, even Karan Soni, and Mamoudou Athie, the resident newbie, fits in with the humor level. There are also a few noticeable moments of creative directing, and nothing comes across as particularly awkward, once you get past the premise.
At the core of this movie is supposed to be a girl -- a woman who's still a child, who still wants childish things and clings to her girlish dreams, but knows that something is wrong and needs to change. I can get behind that. She's self-centered and ignores the good things she has in pursuit of what she thinks she needs -- the unicorn. (Oh yeah, Samuel Jackson is trying to sell her one, but she had to prove herself worthy first. That's the plot.) But she doesn't need a unicorn per se, she just needs love, and for some reason doesn't notice that's something she already has and is merely pushing away.
The journey to her discovering this should be easy enough, but it gets muddled up in its own tangle of sequins and rainbow-colored streamers. Distracted by how cutesy it is, and how magical its premise is. And by bemoaning how art degrees are useless and boring jobs are boring and full of awful people. If I cared about all those things, it might've had an excuse in my eyes. But I didn't. We know she won't end up with a unicorn, yet the movie is so intent on the magical idea of it that it waits for the last possible second for her to realize and decide so; robbing her of a much more heroic moment of self-denial that would have completed her arc in an honestly fulfilling way.
In the end, I wasn't sure if she learned her lesson or not. We assume so, because it's the end, a cute song is playing and she's happy -- but while I spent the whole movie knowing exactly what the theme was aiming to say, the credits started scrolling by and I realized it never actually said it. Not outright, and not in passing. I derived it from the set-up, but in the end only saw the empty space where it was meant to go. I'm not sure what happened or where it got lost, but the mildly funny and charming journey was all there was. Cute enough in a pinch, but lacking true magic.
Kit loves sparkles and pastel colors and unicorns. And art! She goes to college and takes a class from a prestigious professor, known for his photo-realistic paintings of cardboard boxes with sticks propped inside them. Wow. One day a class does self-portraits, everyone standing by their work to show its accuracy. Kit covers herself in glitter and paint... then the canvas... and then the wall around the canvass. Then, as one of the judges shakes his head and gives her low marks, her childish smile turns to hurt confusion.
 |
| The solution here is obvious: don't take that art class, woman! Find one that fits you! |
The whole movie takes this over the top naive stance on self-expression. If you can get past, accept, or suspend your belief for an hour and thirty-one minutes as scenario by scenario goes by in this fashion, you may get a thing or two out of this movie. One is enjoyment, plain and simple. This is the easiest. The other is a message. The movie is certainly trying to convey one, but your mileage may vary. For me, I occasionally suspended belief and got a decent amount of enjoyment out of Brie Larson's rather vain foray into the directing world.
There really is a decent amount of charm here and it had me laughing out loud on occasion -- you know, those singular "HA"'s that burst out from time to time -- because of the cynical and frustrated yet naive worldview the movie and Kit have. There are quite a few good lines and ridiculous scenarios to mine, so even when they're not rich they give out plenty. Larson has good delivery, and surrounds herself with genuinely funny people like the comic genius Bradley Whitford, Joan Cusack, Samuel L. Jackson, even Karan Soni, and Mamoudou Athie, the resident newbie, fits in with the humor level. There are also a few noticeable moments of creative directing, and nothing comes across as particularly awkward, once you get past the premise.
 |
| When has Joan Cusack or Bradley Whitford ever not made something better by their presence? |
At the core of this movie is supposed to be a girl -- a woman who's still a child, who still wants childish things and clings to her girlish dreams, but knows that something is wrong and needs to change. I can get behind that. She's self-centered and ignores the good things she has in pursuit of what she thinks she needs -- the unicorn. (Oh yeah, Samuel Jackson is trying to sell her one, but she had to prove herself worthy first. That's the plot.) But she doesn't need a unicorn per se, she just needs love, and for some reason doesn't notice that's something she already has and is merely pushing away.
The journey to her discovering this should be easy enough, but it gets muddled up in its own tangle of sequins and rainbow-colored streamers. Distracted by how cutesy it is, and how magical its premise is. And by bemoaning how art degrees are useless and boring jobs are boring and full of awful people. If I cared about all those things, it might've had an excuse in my eyes. But I didn't. We know she won't end up with a unicorn, yet the movie is so intent on the magical idea of it that it waits for the last possible second for her to realize and decide so; robbing her of a much more heroic moment of self-denial that would have completed her arc in an honestly fulfilling way.
 |
| Also, why the aversion to romance? I liked her and Not Pictured Boyfriend Material. But they barely held hands! |
In the end, I wasn't sure if she learned her lesson or not. We assume so, because it's the end, a cute song is playing and she's happy -- but while I spent the whole movie knowing exactly what the theme was aiming to say, the credits started scrolling by and I realized it never actually said it. Not outright, and not in passing. I derived it from the set-up, but in the end only saw the empty space where it was meant to go. I'm not sure what happened or where it got lost, but the mildly funny and charming journey was all there was. Cute enough in a pinch, but lacking true magic.
Monday, April 1, 2019
Upcoming Movie Roundup - April
Alrighty! In March I saw Captain Marvel as expected. Found it pretty unremarkable (review here). And sadly didn't get to see The Kid which I was hoping to be able to. I did watch Triple Frontier because it was on Netflix, and it was good enough to make an enjoyable watch, but I didn't have anything to say about it, so I didn't review it.
The biggest surprise though, was that I went to see Five Feet Apart, and not only that, but I really, really liked it! And not just in a typical teen romance kind of way. It was good in ways that surpassed the genre. But it also fit the genre too. It was a great balance of cheesy romance, real emotions, and informative of Cystic Fibrosis that worked without any element stepping on the toes of the others. (review here!)
I'm still annoyingly interested in seeing Dumbo too, but no one want to see it with me. Sad days. Anyway, April is shaping up nicely! If all goes to plan more than a few of these movies should be a good time! So what looks good to you?
Shazam!
April 5th; PG-13
My most anticipated of the month is first! Zachary Levi, Jack Grazer, Mark Strong... I haven't seen the kid who plays Billy before, but I bet he's good too. I admit, the trailer got tiresome when it first came out, but since my excitement has steadily been building regardless, and all the positive early reviews are only making me more pumped! The idea of making Big into a superhero movie seems like a ton of fun, and I'm looking forward to a superhero flick that isn't a boring slog for a nice change. The DCEU has had its downs but it's capable of great heights too, and I get a feeling this one's going up!
Pet Sematary
April 5th; R
I dunno, maybe someday, but definitely not in theaters. Honestly, I'm not over Hereditary yet, and need some more time before seeing legit scary movies again. Or maybe the way to fix it IS to see some better scary movies! I heard somewhere this is the scariest Stephen King adaptation yet. It does look good, and generally my speed. Jason Clarke and Amy Seimetz (of Stranger Things) star.
High Life
April 5th(limited); R
Robert Pattinson and his daughter, Mia Goth and other what? Criminals? In space? I keep an eye on all scifi movies, so this is here. But somehow, I get the impression that it isn't exactly what I'd want it to be. Looks pretty though.
The Wind
April 5th(limited); R
Another horror movie, and this one seems more supernatural, which isn't so much my horror speed. I do like the lonely setting and the richly low-key tone though. Will consider, if the opportunity arises...
Unicorn Store
April 5th; NR
Brie Larson's directorial debut, on Netflix, with her Captain Marvel buddy Samuel L. Jackson too. I feel like I'll definitely watch this, mostly out of curiosity and because it's on Netflix so it's free. The plot doesn't instantly appeal to me, but it could be interesting. Or it could be frilly nonsense. I guess we'll find out!!
Hellboy
April 12th; R
I just recently realized that my liking the Guillermo Del Toro version is kinda an "unpopular opinion" or maybe the people who didn't like it are just being extra hard on it in anticipation of liking this one more. I mean, it's rated R, so what could go wrong, right?? Well, that sounds fine to me, but I honestly didn't notice anything lacking in Del Toro's, and this one won't have his eye for visuals or practical effects. It's looks CGI, and less than spectacular. Also seems a bit cheap script-wise with several lame jokes in the trailer, but Del Toro's was no masterpiece on that score either. It does have David Harbour... in place of Ron Perlman. Seems like a toss-up there. If it gets good reviews though, I wouldn't be surprised if I went to see it.
Missing Link
April 12th(limited); PG
It's stop-motion animation. I don't care what it's about: I'll see it. But it's about some Bigfoot-type creature, apparently. And the cast is great: Hugh Jackman, Zoe Saldana, Timothy Olyphant, Emma Thompson, Zach Galifianikis, and Stephen Fry. Doesn't look like the best stop-motion ever, with the dumb jokes, but like I said. I'll give it a chance!
Teen Spirit
April 12th; PG-13
This is like the kind of movie that I'll always be interested in but never actually buckle down and watch. It looks great, I love the neon and the style... but plot-wise, there's this dread that it'll go the way it appears to be that might keep me away. Elle Fanning tries to become a teen music idol.
Stockholm
April 12th(limited); R
Yeah, I guess it looks pretty funny in a pleasantly dark way, and it's got Ethan Hawke, Mark Strong, and Noomi Rapace. I guess this is the real-life situation that started the whole Stockholm syndrome thing? All I know is that this is the sort of thing I might or might not ever watch, depending on if the mood strikes and there's nothing better to do.
The Perfect Date
April 12th; NR
Hahaha, yes, please! Noah Centineo rents himself out to high school girls in need of chaperones. So... like... a PG escort service. The premise alone makes me laugh. It's Netflix, it's a teen rom-com. You know I'm on board.
The Man Who Killed Don Quixote
April 19th(limited); NR
Is this for real? Is it actually coming? I feel like this movie doesn't actually exist and we're just getting duped right now. The biggest April Fools joke of all time or something. I know it has mixed reviews at the moment but I can't help being absolutely stoked -- it just looks exactly like my kind of deal. Jonathan Price, Adam Driver and Stellan Skarsgård. Terry Gilliam craziness hopefully. I don't know if and don't expect it to come to my theater, but I will definitely be seeing it at my earliest opportunity!
Under the Silver Lake
April 19th(limited); R
Another potential April Fools joke. This one I had in my upcoming post back in June of last year and I think it might actually be coming for real this time. Andrew Garfield and Riley Keough. At this point it's mostly the curiosity that's keeping me from forgetting it entirely.
Avengers: Endgame
April 26th; PG-13
Le sigh. My brother hasn't bought our tickets yet, but undoubtedly I'll be there opening night. I'm not dreading it, but I'm not excited either. There are things I think seem promising that I'll likely enjoy and other things that will almost certainly irritate me. At this point, it's par for the course with the MCU. The biggest event movie of the modern era, and my hype level is a resounding zero. Let's get it over with, so we can get back to Spider-Man.
Body at Brighton Rock
April 26th(limited); NR
This looks like quite the interesting little indie thriller. Obviously pretty cheap, but has a very solid premise of an inexperienced park ranger finding a body and having to wait with it for help to arrive. If they do the story well it won't matter at all if the production is cheap.
The biggest surprise though, was that I went to see Five Feet Apart, and not only that, but I really, really liked it! And not just in a typical teen romance kind of way. It was good in ways that surpassed the genre. But it also fit the genre too. It was a great balance of cheesy romance, real emotions, and informative of Cystic Fibrosis that worked without any element stepping on the toes of the others. (review here!)
I'm still annoyingly interested in seeing Dumbo too, but no one want to see it with me. Sad days. Anyway, April is shaping up nicely! If all goes to plan more than a few of these movies should be a good time! So what looks good to you?
Shazam!
April 5th; PG-13
My most anticipated of the month is first! Zachary Levi, Jack Grazer, Mark Strong... I haven't seen the kid who plays Billy before, but I bet he's good too. I admit, the trailer got tiresome when it first came out, but since my excitement has steadily been building regardless, and all the positive early reviews are only making me more pumped! The idea of making Big into a superhero movie seems like a ton of fun, and I'm looking forward to a superhero flick that isn't a boring slog for a nice change. The DCEU has had its downs but it's capable of great heights too, and I get a feeling this one's going up!
Pet Sematary
April 5th; R
I dunno, maybe someday, but definitely not in theaters. Honestly, I'm not over Hereditary yet, and need some more time before seeing legit scary movies again. Or maybe the way to fix it IS to see some better scary movies! I heard somewhere this is the scariest Stephen King adaptation yet. It does look good, and generally my speed. Jason Clarke and Amy Seimetz (of Stranger Things) star.
High Life
April 5th(limited); R
Robert Pattinson and his daughter, Mia Goth and other what? Criminals? In space? I keep an eye on all scifi movies, so this is here. But somehow, I get the impression that it isn't exactly what I'd want it to be. Looks pretty though.
The Wind
April 5th(limited); R
Another horror movie, and this one seems more supernatural, which isn't so much my horror speed. I do like the lonely setting and the richly low-key tone though. Will consider, if the opportunity arises...
Unicorn Store
April 5th; NR
Brie Larson's directorial debut, on Netflix, with her Captain Marvel buddy Samuel L. Jackson too. I feel like I'll definitely watch this, mostly out of curiosity and because it's on Netflix so it's free. The plot doesn't instantly appeal to me, but it could be interesting. Or it could be frilly nonsense. I guess we'll find out!!
Hellboy
April 12th; R
I just recently realized that my liking the Guillermo Del Toro version is kinda an "unpopular opinion" or maybe the people who didn't like it are just being extra hard on it in anticipation of liking this one more. I mean, it's rated R, so what could go wrong, right?? Well, that sounds fine to me, but I honestly didn't notice anything lacking in Del Toro's, and this one won't have his eye for visuals or practical effects. It's looks CGI, and less than spectacular. Also seems a bit cheap script-wise with several lame jokes in the trailer, but Del Toro's was no masterpiece on that score either. It does have David Harbour... in place of Ron Perlman. Seems like a toss-up there. If it gets good reviews though, I wouldn't be surprised if I went to see it.
Missing Link
April 12th(limited); PG
It's stop-motion animation. I don't care what it's about: I'll see it. But it's about some Bigfoot-type creature, apparently. And the cast is great: Hugh Jackman, Zoe Saldana, Timothy Olyphant, Emma Thompson, Zach Galifianikis, and Stephen Fry. Doesn't look like the best stop-motion ever, with the dumb jokes, but like I said. I'll give it a chance!
Teen Spirit
April 12th; PG-13
This is like the kind of movie that I'll always be interested in but never actually buckle down and watch. It looks great, I love the neon and the style... but plot-wise, there's this dread that it'll go the way it appears to be that might keep me away. Elle Fanning tries to become a teen music idol.
Stockholm
April 12th(limited); R
Yeah, I guess it looks pretty funny in a pleasantly dark way, and it's got Ethan Hawke, Mark Strong, and Noomi Rapace. I guess this is the real-life situation that started the whole Stockholm syndrome thing? All I know is that this is the sort of thing I might or might not ever watch, depending on if the mood strikes and there's nothing better to do.
The Perfect Date
April 12th; NR
Hahaha, yes, please! Noah Centineo rents himself out to high school girls in need of chaperones. So... like... a PG escort service. The premise alone makes me laugh. It's Netflix, it's a teen rom-com. You know I'm on board.
The Man Who Killed Don Quixote
April 19th(limited); NR
Is this for real? Is it actually coming? I feel like this movie doesn't actually exist and we're just getting duped right now. The biggest April Fools joke of all time or something. I know it has mixed reviews at the moment but I can't help being absolutely stoked -- it just looks exactly like my kind of deal. Jonathan Price, Adam Driver and Stellan Skarsgård. Terry Gilliam craziness hopefully. I don't know if and don't expect it to come to my theater, but I will definitely be seeing it at my earliest opportunity!
Under the Silver Lake
April 19th(limited); R
Another potential April Fools joke. This one I had in my upcoming post back in June of last year and I think it might actually be coming for real this time. Andrew Garfield and Riley Keough. At this point it's mostly the curiosity that's keeping me from forgetting it entirely.
Avengers: Endgame
April 26th; PG-13
Le sigh. My brother hasn't bought our tickets yet, but undoubtedly I'll be there opening night. I'm not dreading it, but I'm not excited either. There are things I think seem promising that I'll likely enjoy and other things that will almost certainly irritate me. At this point, it's par for the course with the MCU. The biggest event movie of the modern era, and my hype level is a resounding zero. Let's get it over with, so we can get back to Spider-Man.
Body at Brighton Rock
April 26th(limited); NR
This looks like quite the interesting little indie thriller. Obviously pretty cheap, but has a very solid premise of an inexperienced park ranger finding a body and having to wait with it for help to arrive. If they do the story well it won't matter at all if the production is cheap.
Friday, March 8, 2019
Captain Marvel
Thanks to Jacob Smith for featuring this review on his site! If you're interested in movie reviews, news, and opinion pieces from a conservative perspective, you should definitely check it out -- society-reviews.com!
Spoiler-free!
The MCU's latest origin story is also its first solo film for a female character. They put their absolute best effort into touting the movie as such, and after seeing it, I understand why all the emphasis was on pre-hype. One of Marvel's safest and least-daring films, Carol Danvers' introduction to the universe doesn't do much that's spectacularly irritating -- mostly because it doesn't do anything spectacular at all.
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.
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!
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?
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.
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.
Friday, March 1, 2019
Upcoming Movie Roundup - March
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.
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.
Thursday, February 1, 2018
Upcoming Movie Roundup - February
In January I saw The Greatest Showman, and I've just realized that I never wrote a review for it! Oops. I have a perfect record of reviewing all movies I've seen in theaters since I started reviewing movies, so I definitely can't let that one fall through the cracks. Sadly, we didn't have time for The Death Cure, so that's been pushed into this month's agenda -- top priority.
February has lots to talk about -- good and bad -- so let's get to it! What looks good to you this month?
Peter Rabbit
Feb 9th; PG
Domhnall. Sweetie. What are you doing? Good grief this looks bad. At least all Daisy Ridley and Margot Robbie had to be convinced of was to lend their voices -- and I don't think James Corden needed convincing. But how in the world did they get Domhnall Gleeson to agree to do the live-action portion? They must have paid him a ton. He does look exactly like Mr. McGregor, so maybe they thought it was worth it. Even with this cast, I'll be steering clear. Far, far clear.
The 15:17 to Paris
Feb 9th: PG-13
Okay. First of all, this is an awesome true story. Second of all, it's a really neat idea to cast the real guys as themselves. But -- I still have that reservation on the artistic side that true stories rarely make good movies due to un-cinematic structure. Clint Eastwood is at the helm, and it's clear that a lot of effort was put into the movie, so who knows, maybe this will be the next Apollo 13, or, something close to it anyway. I'm definitely interested just because the attack on the train is supposed to play out exactly how it did in real life, so that would be cool to see. At any rate, reservations or no, this is one to keep an eye on.
The Female Brain
Feb 9th; NR
This movie doesn't look particularly good, but I can, occasionally, have simple tastes, and this has Toby Kebbell in it, so I'm on board.... for whenever its streaming on Amazon or what have you. The differences in the ways male and female brains work is great fodder for comedy, so we'll see if this movie mined the truth in that area, or if they just used tired old stereotypes and worked off the top of their head. That's sadly the more likely option.
Basmati Blues
Feb 9th; NR
All I'd heard about this movie was that it was a Brie Larson film and it was terrible. And I thought that was pretty strange because how could Brie Larson be in a movie and not make it at least decent by her presence? Then I watched the trailer, and it all made sense. Larson probably does enhance it, but it really looks THAT bad. It's American trying to feel Bollywood by making it a musical romance, but it all feels extremely cheap and weird. I may have to watch it streaming just to confirm. It really doesn't make sense.
Black Panther
Feb 16th; PG-13
This is the big one of the month I guess, but to me it could go either way. The trailer is bursting with style and energy, so if that translates to the actual movie it should be on those points alone a solid flick. And it's Marvel, so you know they have their winning formula for crowd-pleasing movies. But I'm personally getting tired of the formula, and if all the movie is, is cool and stylish action played over a fourmula plot, then I might not be disappointed, but I won't be impressed either. And I want to be impressed. Also, early reviews are doing a lot of praising of what the movie "has to say" and, as you may know from my opinion on Civil War, I hate it when movies preach at you. Preaching does not equal plot or character development. Still, there's a chance here, with a great cast and a lead character I already like, so let's go -- impress me if you can!
Early Man
Feb 16th; PG
I'm trying to figure out if I'm required to see this, because on one hand, I've fallen in love with stop-motion and have been trying to watch all stop-motion movies I can find. On the other hand this lumpy clay style of making the dolls is my least favorite. And Chicken Run practically traumatized me as a kid. But then, I like the comedy style, and it has a good cast (Tom Hiddleston, Eddie Redmayne!) and a neat plot. The great thing about stop-motion is that it's so hard to do, people don't actually bother to make the movie unless it's a story they care about. So... yeah. I guess I am pretty much required to watch it sometime... but not only that -- I think I want to!
The Party
Feb 16th: R
I see Cillian Murphy, and I'm sold. Simple. Beyond that, this one has more potential than the one I'll probably watch only because Toby Kebbell is in it -- this one looks genuinely funny and genuinely dramatic (though it may still prove not to be my cup of tea) and I really, really, like that it's in black and white. Like the appeal level for the B&W is just under Cillain Murphy. And besides him there's quite a few familiar and talented faces. Good praise among the critics, which is a good sign too. I would like to RSVP as "coming."
The Boy Downstairs
Feb 16th; PG-13
Classic -- and I mean CLASSIC indie rom-com-dram. It has all the earmarks. The lead is even a writer. I'd watch it. That's all.
Annihilation
Feb 23rd; R
Well, I don't care for Natalie Portman, but other than her being the lead, this movie has nothing in it that isn't interesting to me. It makes me think of Arrival, except with horror and fantasy-feeling scifi added in. Based on a book, so now I'm gonna have to check that out and see if it's worth a read. I'm always excited to see a big-budged, full-fledged scifi film coming round the bend, and this one looks so cool that the Natalie Portman thing isn't even leaving a dent. Plus there's Oscar Isaac, even if he is probably in a coma most of the film, so that helps a lot. But yeah, I am here for the scifi!
Game Night
Feb 23rd; R
This trailer is on the verge of being funny. On the verge. It's so close that I want to watch the movie to see if it actually succeeds there. I don't think Rachel McAdams is capable of doing pure comedy. Heck, I don't think Jason Bateman is capable of pure comedy, but he at least has loads more experience. If they put enough drama in the mix it might work, but people like Bill Murray are legends for a reason. I'm not sure about Kyle Chandler, either. Actually, the funniest person in this trailer is the dude from USS Callister and he didn't even say anything. (I'm sure he has a bigger part in the movie.) The premise is really good, and if they go where they seem to want to, making a Clue-type movie, it could be good. But, I don't think they're going to succeed. They don't appear to... have all the pieces.
Mute
Feb 23rd; NR
Duncan Jones' new original film is a Netflix release, and I just forgot about all of the above movies. I want to see this so much and I won't even have to leave my house to do it! The trailer is pretty vague and confusing, but I only watched it for this post anyway -- I would would watch anything by Duncan Jones without a trailer. Moon is one of my all-time favorite scifi movies, and Source Code is also great film. Warcraft was pretty bad, but hey, that one wasn't original, so... This one stars Alexander Skarsgård (of the Skarsgård acting family) as a mute guy. And Paul Rudd is in it. The scifi world looks awesome too, but even without all that I'd still be here. Because Duncan Jones.
Altered Carbon
Feb 2nd; Netflix
Don't get this and the above mixed up -- the trailer covers are laughably similar! If Mute doesn't count as scifi noir, then this one certainly does. Blade Runner vibes everywhere. This one's a Netflix TV series, which has it's own pros and cons. And if I base it solely on the trailer I might not like this one as much even with noir mystery element, but we'll see. Oh yes, we will see. I now officially declare February to be a Month of Science Fiction. I am a very happy camper right now. Even if all the scifi releases disappoint, right now, the anticipation is great.
February has lots to talk about -- good and bad -- so let's get to it! What looks good to you this month?
Peter Rabbit
Feb 9th; PG
Domhnall. Sweetie. What are you doing? Good grief this looks bad. At least all Daisy Ridley and Margot Robbie had to be convinced of was to lend their voices -- and I don't think James Corden needed convincing. But how in the world did they get Domhnall Gleeson to agree to do the live-action portion? They must have paid him a ton. He does look exactly like Mr. McGregor, so maybe they thought it was worth it. Even with this cast, I'll be steering clear. Far, far clear.
The 15:17 to Paris
Feb 9th: PG-13
Okay. First of all, this is an awesome true story. Second of all, it's a really neat idea to cast the real guys as themselves. But -- I still have that reservation on the artistic side that true stories rarely make good movies due to un-cinematic structure. Clint Eastwood is at the helm, and it's clear that a lot of effort was put into the movie, so who knows, maybe this will be the next Apollo 13, or, something close to it anyway. I'm definitely interested just because the attack on the train is supposed to play out exactly how it did in real life, so that would be cool to see. At any rate, reservations or no, this is one to keep an eye on.
The Female Brain
Feb 9th; NR
This movie doesn't look particularly good, but I can, occasionally, have simple tastes, and this has Toby Kebbell in it, so I'm on board.... for whenever its streaming on Amazon or what have you. The differences in the ways male and female brains work is great fodder for comedy, so we'll see if this movie mined the truth in that area, or if they just used tired old stereotypes and worked off the top of their head. That's sadly the more likely option.
Basmati Blues
Feb 9th; NR
All I'd heard about this movie was that it was a Brie Larson film and it was terrible. And I thought that was pretty strange because how could Brie Larson be in a movie and not make it at least decent by her presence? Then I watched the trailer, and it all made sense. Larson probably does enhance it, but it really looks THAT bad. It's American trying to feel Bollywood by making it a musical romance, but it all feels extremely cheap and weird. I may have to watch it streaming just to confirm. It really doesn't make sense.
Black Panther
Feb 16th; PG-13
This is the big one of the month I guess, but to me it could go either way. The trailer is bursting with style and energy, so if that translates to the actual movie it should be on those points alone a solid flick. And it's Marvel, so you know they have their winning formula for crowd-pleasing movies. But I'm personally getting tired of the formula, and if all the movie is, is cool and stylish action played over a fourmula plot, then I might not be disappointed, but I won't be impressed either. And I want to be impressed. Also, early reviews are doing a lot of praising of what the movie "has to say" and, as you may know from my opinion on Civil War, I hate it when movies preach at you. Preaching does not equal plot or character development. Still, there's a chance here, with a great cast and a lead character I already like, so let's go -- impress me if you can!
Early Man
Feb 16th; PG
I'm trying to figure out if I'm required to see this, because on one hand, I've fallen in love with stop-motion and have been trying to watch all stop-motion movies I can find. On the other hand this lumpy clay style of making the dolls is my least favorite. And Chicken Run practically traumatized me as a kid. But then, I like the comedy style, and it has a good cast (Tom Hiddleston, Eddie Redmayne!) and a neat plot. The great thing about stop-motion is that it's so hard to do, people don't actually bother to make the movie unless it's a story they care about. So... yeah. I guess I am pretty much required to watch it sometime... but not only that -- I think I want to!
The Party
Feb 16th: R
I see Cillian Murphy, and I'm sold. Simple. Beyond that, this one has more potential than the one I'll probably watch only because Toby Kebbell is in it -- this one looks genuinely funny and genuinely dramatic (though it may still prove not to be my cup of tea) and I really, really, like that it's in black and white. Like the appeal level for the B&W is just under Cillain Murphy. And besides him there's quite a few familiar and talented faces. Good praise among the critics, which is a good sign too. I would like to RSVP as "coming."
The Boy Downstairs
Feb 16th; PG-13
Classic -- and I mean CLASSIC indie rom-com-dram. It has all the earmarks. The lead is even a writer. I'd watch it. That's all.
Annihilation
Feb 23rd; R
Well, I don't care for Natalie Portman, but other than her being the lead, this movie has nothing in it that isn't interesting to me. It makes me think of Arrival, except with horror and fantasy-feeling scifi added in. Based on a book, so now I'm gonna have to check that out and see if it's worth a read. I'm always excited to see a big-budged, full-fledged scifi film coming round the bend, and this one looks so cool that the Natalie Portman thing isn't even leaving a dent. Plus there's Oscar Isaac, even if he is probably in a coma most of the film, so that helps a lot. But yeah, I am here for the scifi!
Game Night
Feb 23rd; R
This trailer is on the verge of being funny. On the verge. It's so close that I want to watch the movie to see if it actually succeeds there. I don't think Rachel McAdams is capable of doing pure comedy. Heck, I don't think Jason Bateman is capable of pure comedy, but he at least has loads more experience. If they put enough drama in the mix it might work, but people like Bill Murray are legends for a reason. I'm not sure about Kyle Chandler, either. Actually, the funniest person in this trailer is the dude from USS Callister and he didn't even say anything. (I'm sure he has a bigger part in the movie.) The premise is really good, and if they go where they seem to want to, making a Clue-type movie, it could be good. But, I don't think they're going to succeed. They don't appear to... have all the pieces.
Mute
Feb 23rd; NR
Duncan Jones' new original film is a Netflix release, and I just forgot about all of the above movies. I want to see this so much and I won't even have to leave my house to do it! The trailer is pretty vague and confusing, but I only watched it for this post anyway -- I would would watch anything by Duncan Jones without a trailer. Moon is one of my all-time favorite scifi movies, and Source Code is also great film. Warcraft was pretty bad, but hey, that one wasn't original, so... This one stars Alexander Skarsgård (of the Skarsgård acting family) as a mute guy. And Paul Rudd is in it. The scifi world looks awesome too, but even without all that I'd still be here. Because Duncan Jones.
Altered Carbon
Feb 2nd; Netflix
Don't get this and the above mixed up -- the trailer covers are laughably similar! If Mute doesn't count as scifi noir, then this one certainly does. Blade Runner vibes everywhere. This one's a Netflix TV series, which has it's own pros and cons. And if I base it solely on the trailer I might not like this one as much even with noir mystery element, but we'll see. Oh yes, we will see. I now officially declare February to be a Month of Science Fiction. I am a very happy camper right now. Even if all the scifi releases disappoint, right now, the anticipation is great.
Saturday, April 1, 2017
Upcoming Movie Roundup - April
March's highlight was %100 Kong: Skull Island for me with a visual feast of epic fun, buffet-style. (Read my very pleased review here!) I also saw Beauty and the Beast which was only just as good as it needed to be. (Read my review here to see where it went wrong and what it got right.) I still want to see Life, but a theater trip for it is currently up in the air.
Iron Fist was released on Netflix, and we watched it slowly and just finished it, more than a little disappointed. But there was a great superhero show after all -- in February's Legion. It recently wrapped up every bit as well as it began: appropriately crazy, beautiful, and terrifying.
This month I'm feeling a little cynical towards all the new releases, with no must-sees -- but at the same time, plenty of potential. So time will tell if my cynicism is warranted or not! What looks good to you this month, and what was your highlight from March? Let me know in the comments!
Colossal
Apr 7th; R
It's definitely an original idea that I would think would have to potential to be funny, but it's hard to tell whether the potential is fulfilled or not -- the trailer itself isn't funny at all, and the gimmick may cause more problems than it does provide humor. The trailer gives away a lot, but I still have questions about the mechanics of the premise. I don't care for Anne Hathaway at all, but she's balanced out by Dan Stevens who I'd watch in anything. Plus, however much like a rom-com it appears to be, it's still technically a sci-fi too, and that helps a lot. Mild interest here.
Gifted
Apr 7th; PG-13
This movie is full-on drama which is probably the least appealing genre out there to me, and yet it still looks interesting -- and not even because it starts Chris Evans. In fact, the thing that really grabbed my attention when I saw first saw the trailer was Jenny Slate playing a serious, apparently likeable character! I really want to see her do that. The story is just about as interesting as a drama can get, but I can foresee cliches and sappiness as well; it all depends on how it's told.
The Fate of the Furious
Apr 14th; PG-13
I caught up on the Fast and the Furious franchise before the 7th one came out and still didn't bother to see it in theaters, so that's probably a good indicator of where I'm at with this one, too. I also understand continuing on without Paul Walker, but a lot of the film's appeal is gone without him at the center of everything. Otherwise this looks to be a solid entry in a solid and long-running franchise. They're not getting lazy and sticking to the same fourmula by switching Vin Diesel to villain side (not that he's REALLY a villain of course) and the stunts are appropriately larger than those in the last movie. I expect this will keep the fun, popcorn-action series rolling along.
The Lost City of Z
Apr 14th; PG-13
I heard about this one because Tom Holland is in it, and was under the impression for a while that it was a fantasy movie of some kind. Then I found out it's based on a true story which is a big change. I'm not often a fan of true stories, and I'm not a fan of Charlie Hunnam either, who plays the lead. However, for people who are fans or those who don't care, the film does look good -- artistically filmed and artistically told -- and may very well be a worthwhile watch.
Norman
Apr 14th; R
Another that has Dan Stevens in a supporting role. Richard Gere is in the lead and apparently branching out from how we know him with an indie character piece. The characters seem complex and the plot doesn't feel overly familiar, and it has that dark but quirky indie style to it... but honestly if I ever happen to watch it it'll probably only be because of Dan Stevens... and probably also because it was free and I had nothing more interesting to watch.
Free Fire
Apr 21st; R
Sharlto Copley, Brie Larson, Armie Hammer, Cillian Murphy, Sam Riley, non-stop R-rated action-comedy. They had me at Sharlto Copley. Definitely the most wacky movie to come out this month, and also the sort of movie that doesn't need a good critic score to be enjoyable for those inclined. It's obviously meant to be ridiculous. It's R-rating is a little more than I'd prefer to have to deal with, but with this cast and the craziness of the trailer, it's gonna keep nagging me whether I see it or not.
Language warning for this trailer! I tried very hard to find a green band one, but I think in order for one to exist it would have to have no dialogue...
The Circle
Apr 28th; PG-13
Creepy. And this one's based on a book -- has anyone read it? After being disappointed with Emma Watson's Belle I'm not stoked at the idea of seeing her again, but maybe this will be a chance for her to redeem herself. I am eager to see John Boyega in something else though, and Tom Hanks and Karen Gillan are also in the cast. Being based on a book gives me a lot more confidence in the plot's quality than I might normally have. So far all signs point to this being the highlight of the month, though I'll need to be convinced a bit more before I shell out for a ticket. Maybe I should read the book...
Iron Fist was released on Netflix, and we watched it slowly and just finished it, more than a little disappointed. But there was a great superhero show after all -- in February's Legion. It recently wrapped up every bit as well as it began: appropriately crazy, beautiful, and terrifying.
This month I'm feeling a little cynical towards all the new releases, with no must-sees -- but at the same time, plenty of potential. So time will tell if my cynicism is warranted or not! What looks good to you this month, and what was your highlight from March? Let me know in the comments!
Colossal
Apr 7th; R
It's definitely an original idea that I would think would have to potential to be funny, but it's hard to tell whether the potential is fulfilled or not -- the trailer itself isn't funny at all, and the gimmick may cause more problems than it does provide humor. The trailer gives away a lot, but I still have questions about the mechanics of the premise. I don't care for Anne Hathaway at all, but she's balanced out by Dan Stevens who I'd watch in anything. Plus, however much like a rom-com it appears to be, it's still technically a sci-fi too, and that helps a lot. Mild interest here.
Gifted
Apr 7th; PG-13
This movie is full-on drama which is probably the least appealing genre out there to me, and yet it still looks interesting -- and not even because it starts Chris Evans. In fact, the thing that really grabbed my attention when I saw first saw the trailer was Jenny Slate playing a serious, apparently likeable character! I really want to see her do that. The story is just about as interesting as a drama can get, but I can foresee cliches and sappiness as well; it all depends on how it's told.
The Fate of the Furious
Apr 14th; PG-13
I caught up on the Fast and the Furious franchise before the 7th one came out and still didn't bother to see it in theaters, so that's probably a good indicator of where I'm at with this one, too. I also understand continuing on without Paul Walker, but a lot of the film's appeal is gone without him at the center of everything. Otherwise this looks to be a solid entry in a solid and long-running franchise. They're not getting lazy and sticking to the same fourmula by switching Vin Diesel to villain side (not that he's REALLY a villain of course) and the stunts are appropriately larger than those in the last movie. I expect this will keep the fun, popcorn-action series rolling along.
The Lost City of Z
Apr 14th; PG-13
I heard about this one because Tom Holland is in it, and was under the impression for a while that it was a fantasy movie of some kind. Then I found out it's based on a true story which is a big change. I'm not often a fan of true stories, and I'm not a fan of Charlie Hunnam either, who plays the lead. However, for people who are fans or those who don't care, the film does look good -- artistically filmed and artistically told -- and may very well be a worthwhile watch.
Norman
Apr 14th; R
Another that has Dan Stevens in a supporting role. Richard Gere is in the lead and apparently branching out from how we know him with an indie character piece. The characters seem complex and the plot doesn't feel overly familiar, and it has that dark but quirky indie style to it... but honestly if I ever happen to watch it it'll probably only be because of Dan Stevens... and probably also because it was free and I had nothing more interesting to watch.
Free Fire
Apr 21st; R
Sharlto Copley, Brie Larson, Armie Hammer, Cillian Murphy, Sam Riley, non-stop R-rated action-comedy. They had me at Sharlto Copley. Definitely the most wacky movie to come out this month, and also the sort of movie that doesn't need a good critic score to be enjoyable for those inclined. It's obviously meant to be ridiculous. It's R-rating is a little more than I'd prefer to have to deal with, but with this cast and the craziness of the trailer, it's gonna keep nagging me whether I see it or not.
Language warning for this trailer! I tried very hard to find a green band one, but I think in order for one to exist it would have to have no dialogue...
The Circle
Apr 28th; PG-13
Creepy. And this one's based on a book -- has anyone read it? After being disappointed with Emma Watson's Belle I'm not stoked at the idea of seeing her again, but maybe this will be a chance for her to redeem herself. I am eager to see John Boyega in something else though, and Tom Hanks and Karen Gillan are also in the cast. Being based on a book gives me a lot more confidence in the plot's quality than I might normally have. So far all signs point to this being the highlight of the month, though I'll need to be convinced a bit more before I shell out for a ticket. Maybe I should read the book...
Saturday, March 11, 2017
Kong: Skull Island
Kong is back, and literally bigger than ever. It's the 1970's, so you know the music is good, and the group of explorers, scientists, and soldiers that go to Skull Island is extra, extra large -- full of red shirts, and people who don't need to survive to the end of the movie. Mayhem is in the air. And it smells delicious.
The movie is directed by Jordan Vogt-Roberts, a name I didn't recognize at first, but his style I did. He directed The Kings of Summer, a movie that most are less likely to have seen than Kong, but a great movie with a love for nature and an eye for stylish macro shots. That style translates magnificently to this film, and is enhanced to epic proportions. As the steadily dwindling group explores the island we get to explore it too, through the camera's wondering eye. The beauty and the creativity is not what you conventionally see in a monster flick, but with how well it works you'd think it would be.
Vogt-Roberts did not hold back on any visual aspect of the movie -- any. The location shooting and the attention to detail for the era made it almost impossible for me to shake the feeling that I was actually watching a movie from the 70's -- an unexpected but welcome feeling. Of course the special effects were miles better than anything 40 years old could give us, and in fact were a good distance better than what most CGI-heavy flicks crank out these days too. This movie was made to be a visual feast of epic entertainment, and there was no skimping on achieving that goal.
I only have one question: how did they manage to collect this cast? A bunch of them hail from (or will soon join) Marvel movies -- Tom Hiddleston is the cool-and-collected tracker-for-hire, Brie Larson is the spirited war photographer, Samuel L. Jackson is the squad leader, John C. Reilly is oddball scene-stealing highlight of the whole movie, and Shea Whigham, and Toby Kebbell (yes I'm counting Fant4stic) are soldiers. (Kebbell also provided some facial mo-cap for Kong, though the vast majority of Kong was Terry Notary.) Otherwise, there's John Goodman as the expedition instigator, and his scientist colleges Corey Hawkins and Tian Jing. Jason Mitchell and Thomas Mann round out the soldiers with memorable roles. I said it was a big cast! And that's just the people who, if they die, you feel sad for.
The deaths are pretty sad too, in spite of the overwhelmingly fun tone of the film; or maybe because of it, with dramatic contrast. The characters were defined well by all having their little niche or quirk which made them memorable, but they were also underdeveloped in the classic action flick way. It seemed particularly as though Hiddleston and Larson's characters were purposefully being held back -- saving the development for sequels perhaps. Still, they were effortlessly charming together. I was on board with this film since Tom was announced to star, and he didn't let me down.
John C. Reilly stole the whole movie of course, was hilarious and simultaneously the backbone of the film's heart, which yes, it did have plenty of for its genre. Another who unexpectedly left a big impression was Toby Kebbell's human role. I've always been interested in his work but was so far unable to properly appreciate it due to disappointing role choices and lots of motion capture parts. Because of how expressive he is, he's great at mo-cap, but that means that without the CGI translation he's even better -- and here he is finally a live-action, well-written, sympathetic character, and thus he has finally turned my head. And he was the only character whose name I learned!
In my favorite scene he comes across Kong at a lake and watches the giant ape take a drink -- the excess water sounding like a waterfall as it pours back into the lake -- and then battle a giant lake-squid and eat it in a humorous manner. And that pretty much sums up the whole movie for me. It's odd, ridiculous, epic and funny, with realistic attention to detail, and there's a bunch of faces in the background who look really good under a macro lens.
There were a few aspects that could have been improved without creating an imbalance. The ending was a bit sudden and messy, character's names are nice to know, and whenever the plot strayed from the basic goal it couldn't spend enough time away to satisfy and threads were cut short. But, mostly, the things you'd instinctively think are flaws were really conscious decisions for the sake of the tone and style of the movie. Focusing on character, or going deep into a moral themes or a complex plot is all well and good, but Kong included those things only as far as they didn't detracted from the beautiful, gleeful spectacle -- its priority. And considering that this is a movie about a fantastical island full of jumbo-sized monsters and wacky fantasy creatures that do battle with each other, I feel like the priorities were in the exact right place.
 |
| And a bit like monkey breath? |
The movie is directed by Jordan Vogt-Roberts, a name I didn't recognize at first, but his style I did. He directed The Kings of Summer, a movie that most are less likely to have seen than Kong, but a great movie with a love for nature and an eye for stylish macro shots. That style translates magnificently to this film, and is enhanced to epic proportions. As the steadily dwindling group explores the island we get to explore it too, through the camera's wondering eye. The beauty and the creativity is not what you conventionally see in a monster flick, but with how well it works you'd think it would be.
Vogt-Roberts did not hold back on any visual aspect of the movie -- any. The location shooting and the attention to detail for the era made it almost impossible for me to shake the feeling that I was actually watching a movie from the 70's -- an unexpected but welcome feeling. Of course the special effects were miles better than anything 40 years old could give us, and in fact were a good distance better than what most CGI-heavy flicks crank out these days too. This movie was made to be a visual feast of epic entertainment, and there was no skimping on achieving that goal.
 |
| Every sequence was a new array of colors and shapes and textures and immaculate focusing and sweet music... |
I only have one question: how did they manage to collect this cast? A bunch of them hail from (or will soon join) Marvel movies -- Tom Hiddleston is the cool-and-collected tracker-for-hire, Brie Larson is the spirited war photographer, Samuel L. Jackson is the squad leader, John C. Reilly is oddball scene-stealing highlight of the whole movie, and Shea Whigham, and Toby Kebbell (yes I'm counting Fant4stic) are soldiers. (Kebbell also provided some facial mo-cap for Kong, though the vast majority of Kong was Terry Notary.) Otherwise, there's John Goodman as the expedition instigator, and his scientist colleges Corey Hawkins and Tian Jing. Jason Mitchell and Thomas Mann round out the soldiers with memorable roles. I said it was a big cast! And that's just the people who, if they die, you feel sad for.
The deaths are pretty sad too, in spite of the overwhelmingly fun tone of the film; or maybe because of it, with dramatic contrast. The characters were defined well by all having their little niche or quirk which made them memorable, but they were also underdeveloped in the classic action flick way. It seemed particularly as though Hiddleston and Larson's characters were purposefully being held back -- saving the development for sequels perhaps. Still, they were effortlessly charming together. I was on board with this film since Tom was announced to star, and he didn't let me down.
 |
| Even though he was a little pointless. I think the movie got a few conflicting rewrites. You can almost see the plot that was removed. |
John C. Reilly stole the whole movie of course, was hilarious and simultaneously the backbone of the film's heart, which yes, it did have plenty of for its genre. Another who unexpectedly left a big impression was Toby Kebbell's human role. I've always been interested in his work but was so far unable to properly appreciate it due to disappointing role choices and lots of motion capture parts. Because of how expressive he is, he's great at mo-cap, but that means that without the CGI translation he's even better -- and here he is finally a live-action, well-written, sympathetic character, and thus he has finally turned my head. And he was the only character whose name I learned!
In my favorite scene he comes across Kong at a lake and watches the giant ape take a drink -- the excess water sounding like a waterfall as it pours back into the lake -- and then battle a giant lake-squid and eat it in a humorous manner. And that pretty much sums up the whole movie for me. It's odd, ridiculous, epic and funny, with realistic attention to detail, and there's a bunch of faces in the background who look really good under a macro lens.
 |
| Pretty location, pretty filming, pretty people. |
There were a few aspects that could have been improved without creating an imbalance. The ending was a bit sudden and messy, character's names are nice to know, and whenever the plot strayed from the basic goal it couldn't spend enough time away to satisfy and threads were cut short. But, mostly, the things you'd instinctively think are flaws were really conscious decisions for the sake of the tone and style of the movie. Focusing on character, or going deep into a moral themes or a complex plot is all well and good, but Kong included those things only as far as they didn't detracted from the beautiful, gleeful spectacle -- its priority. And considering that this is a movie about a fantastical island full of jumbo-sized monsters and wacky fantasy creatures that do battle with each other, I feel like the priorities were in the exact right place.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)