Wonder Woman 1984

Spoiler-free!

This film is divisive, so I'll go ahead and open with my opinion that I don't think it's nearly as good as Wonder Woman, but I also didn't find it atrociously bad, either. I will try and translate my mild disappointment into some strong opinions for your entertainment. 

Diana (Gal Gadot) has spent the last 70-ish years alone and fighting crime. It's a walk in the park for her now. Or a spin around the mall. But then she unknowingly touches a magical wish-granting stone while wishing that her lost love Steve (Chris Pine) was back with her again, and—boom, he's back! But the stone is dangerous, especially in the wrong hands such as Max (Pedro Pascal), and maybe Diana's new work friend Barbara (Kristen Wiig). Things must be put right. So off we go!

Don't tell anyone, but I don't think my opinion is the only opinion people are allowed to have. 

Frankly, this movie had zero chance of being good in the same way the first one was. It's impossible to recreate that specific magic, because of the fundamental changes in Diana's character. She can't be naïve anymore, or out-of-touch with her comparative strength to humans and the ways she can help or influence them. She's now familiar with loss and loneliness, too. None of these things are bad or good in themselves; what matters is how the film treats them. And I think that's the fundamental problem with this movie. It understands that Diana has changed, but doesn't change to suit her. It tries to be more of the same, but instead everything feels out of joint and loose. Like ideas were being thrown at a wall to see what stuck, but nothing stuck—so they just filmed all the ideas laying on the floor.

There are still moments that have impact. Even though the message was spelled out, I was swept up by the opening sequence. And one thing that didn't and shouldn't change about Diana is the sense of wonder she conveys. (Obviously.) It didn't come across as strongly, but was still there, and I enjoyed the moments of wonder even if they were cheesy, like flying through fireworks in the invisible jet or smiling at the world just because it's beautiful. Plot-wise things had a solid foundation. I liked the concept and the bad guys, and I liked the idea of Steve being back. But it ultimately wasn't as satisfying as it should have been, and that's because of the movie's fundamental problem again.

It's not that the movie's actively bad... it just lacks anything to make it good.

This time, it's Steve who's the fish-out-of-water, having appeared in 1984 straight from WWI. So they try to reverse that "seeing the world for the first time" bit that was so cute about Wonder Woman—but it doesn't work the same. Steve is already too worldly and open to the future, while Diana is more jaded, but still aloof from the world herself, so she can't show it to him in a personal way. So why try to recreate what the last movie did? Skipping over that bit and getting to something new may have yielded better results, developing their characters further together, instead of retreading old ground in reversed positions. 

Retreading old ground is the most common misstep a sequel can take. The point of a sequel should be to further the story with more story, but filmmakers get distracted by the idea of doing more and forget that more of the same should be avoided wherever possible. Maybe Patty Jenkins had too much of a confidence boost from Wonder Woman's success. Maybe the studio encouraged this direction. Maybe all anyone could see were dollar signs. But the result is that the movie isn't refined, and that creates an avalanche of noticeable issues. Plot holes, pacing problems, underdeveloped characters, bland tone. The script isn't sharpened. There aren't any side characters. And no 80's era music. No surprises in the plot in the form of twists and turns. And it's long and indulgent—which would be fine if it weren't indulging in lazy simplicity. 

Kristen Wiig and Pedro Pascal feel like the best parts of the movie because at least they're new.

It's like Wonder Woman was a nice, yummy, chocolate cake, so Wonder Woman 1984 mistakenly thought that in order to be yummy, it needed to be a chocolate cake, too. But there was only enough chocolate for one cake, so it used carob instead. And now the cake tastes bad. Gal Gadot and Chris Pine are still there, as are the positive themes of love, wonder, and heroism, so a flavor change surrounding those things isn't such a big deal. If Wonder Woman 1984 had been a vanilla cake, or a strawberry cake, it would still have been a cake, just with a unique flavor instead of a cheapened imitation of the last success.

Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse

Spoiler-free!

Ever since Tobey Maguire, we've seen plenty of silver screen iterations of Peter Parker. Time to give Miles Morales a place in the spotlight. He sure does make it shine.

In a movie that could easily be overstuffed and distracted, it all serves to help him along his way.

Plot, premise -- whatever. It's a tale as old as time, really, and you know it already. There's Miles. (Shameik Moore) He becomes Spider-Man. Through related circumstances, other Spider-Men/Women/Beings accidentally get pulled into and trapped in his universe. They need to get back. Spider-Man is the only one who can get them back. And Miles Morales is the one-and-only Spider-Man!

Somehow I didn't expect this to be an origin story. Not sure why, as in retrospect it's obvious. But while it is an origin story for Miles in the sense that when the movie begins he's not Spider-Man and when it ends he is, it does away with the dragging feeling of a typical origin tale by doing away with one thing. See, the main restriction of origins like Spidey is that they're lonely. The hero randomly obtains these incredible powers, and has no one to tell. No one to confide in. No one to give clear advice. So, he flounders by himself. It's natural, and it's not like it doesn't work as a story. It can be and has been compelling. Many, many, many times. Time for a fresh angle.

Like a super strange mentor situation maybe...

Enter Peter Parker (Jake Johnson), Gwen Stacy (Hailee Steinfeld), Spider-Man Noir (Nicholas Cage), Spider-Ham (John Mulaney), and Peni Parker (Kimiko Glenn). It may sound complicated but no worries. The first is the classic Spidey, just older and a bit washed up. Then, naturally, Spider-Woman. The noir one exists in edgy black and white newsprint and wears a fedora, the next is a cartoon pig (self-explanatory if you ask me), and finally the anime version with a cute little girl and her pet spider. They're what drive Miles to truly becoming Spider-Man -- in that if he doesn't, they can't get home, and they're there to instruct and advise. There is still floundering, and loneliness to deal with too, but it all hits so much harder when it's sudden, and not par-for-the-course.

It only felt like an origin it the obligatory power-manifestation scene (which was unusually funny; it's usually just cringe to me) and then near the end for a moment. In between it could've any other day of the week, of missions and plots and action/adventuring. Miles spends a lot of time sans webslingers. A great choice because the lessened ability made for higher stakes. And he wears a Spider-Man Halloween costume. No, I'm not kidding. There were moments I wished he'd get a real suit already, but once he did, I understood why they delayed it so long. Well, besides thematically. The personality comes through so much better in the pieced-together, home-spun suit, it really does. And Miles is not a character you want to hide.

Plus, the long-awaited suit reveal moment was spectacular. (Or should I say "ultimate"?)

Anyway, the movie very respectfully but very firmly sidelines the side-Spider-Beings. If you're worried the movie might be crowded with them, don't be. They appear when they're useful and don't hog the scenery. If Spider-Ham isn't doing something worth looking at, you don't see him. Plain and simple. And there's a definite hierarchy of importance with these characters. Miles is number one. Always and forever, and the movie never forgets it. Peter is next, then Gwen. They have arcs. The rest get solid moments to shine. The temptation to overuse Spider-Ham had to be huge, but they never do. This is Miles' movie, and boy is it Miles' movie.

He's instantly established as the every-kid type, with his own passions (street art and music), his own issues that would seem big for a normal kid (being transferred to a boarding prep school) and complex relationships. He has no annoying-level problems with his dad (Brian Tyree Henry), but there's enough tension between them to be important as the plot rolls on. And he admires his maybe-not-so-great-but-definitely-very-cool uncle (Mahershala Ali). He's also enough of a dork to consider the friend-zone a fine place to be, and I think that's just too cute. Fact is, you care about this kid from the get-go, and from there it's only up.

Gwen is so extra. She has ballet shoes, and they're teal, AND they're point shoes, AND she USES them!

The voice performance by Shameik Moore is infused with teenage innocence and pathos to remarkable levels. To the point where I was shocked at how relatively inexperienced an actor he is. I took him for a long-time professional voice actor. Jake Johnson also is remarkable. He hits the comedy and the genuine drama equally well. Zoë Kravitz is Mary Jane. Liev Schreiber plays Kingpin. Chris Pine is there for a hot second. I mean -- Nicholas Cage! As a hard-boiled Spider-detective! There's not a bad performance in the lot -- whether for pitch-perfect comic delivery, or heart-breaking drama, or both together -- and since I don't have space to individually praise everyone who left an impression, I'll have to leave it at that.

Animation style is the big thing that sets this film apart. Without it, it would feel fairly typical, and even cheesy if they kept the filming style. It was a risk -- the thing that had most potential to put off viewers. Its goal was to maintain a comic-book look. There are print dots and hashing in the bright, comic-y colors. The motion is sometimes visibly choppy, like the movie's running at a slow frame-rate. (Much like The Lego Movie, for comparison.) And there's sometimes panels and split-screens. Miles' thoughts even translate to thought boxes for one sequence. In my opinion, it not only works -- it's the thing that makes the movie. I'm a firm believer in a movie's style matching the style of it's main character, and they nailed it here.

Even without the stylistic flair the animation is wonderful. Those expressions and character designs!

I couldn't ask for more. Grand, colorful, peppy and powerful in turn, uproariously hilarious beyond expectation, with gleefully involving characters and a plot line that doesn't feel stretched thin in this comic-book-movie world. Yes, this movie may be one of many, but like it's new-to-the-team hero, it plays it like it's the one-and-only. I could have happily existed in that crisp, splashy, and moving little universe for another adventure, or two, or five. So, welcome to the team, one-and-only Spider-Man!

Wonder Woman

Spoilers are marked.

Diana, (Gal Gadot) the only child on a hidden island Themyscira, grows up in a cheerful and innocent state of warmongering. Her mother the Queen (Connie Nielsen) tries to keep her a safe distance away from fighting, but, driven by awed love for her kin's history (in which they helped Zeus defeat the evil god of war, Ares when he tried to corrupt mankind) Diana wishes to be a warrior. Prophesy says that Ares lives, will return, and can only be defeated by a weapon that Zeus made as he died. Diana wishes to wield that sword, and her aunt (Robin Wright) trains her until she can. Then a stray pilot crashes in the ocean. A man. (Chris Pine) (Cue a cheesy yet endearing grin!) He tells the Amazons of a terrible war to end all wars, and Diana knows this must be the return of Ares, so she takes the sword and goes off to save the world!

Charging a German trench. Why? In the words of my brother: "She can't not."

The best thing about this movie, time and time again, is Diana. Her heart is as pure as a baby lamb frolicking in untouched snow, and she's as innocent and naive as you'd expect of a girl who's lived a couple thousand years on a mystical island inhabited only by women. Yet she has confidence in her strength and in herself, and no petty need to advertise. My personal favorite characteristic though, is her joy. Even when she's not explicitly happy, she constantly exudes a joy for life; she relishes beauty and goodness, and you can see her eagerly soak in her surroundings, wide-eyed. She is also passionate and noble, and Gal Gadot gives her such life with a charismatic and confident performance. If more women could lead these kinds of movies with such unaffected grace, people wouldn't need to try and force it to happen.

I'm not one eager to go gaga over Chris Pine, so I was pleased to find that his Steve Trevor is a character who earns his worth. He, like Diana, is noble and passionate, but having lived through four years of the Great War, these traits have been repressed and replaced with hardened logic. He does what he can, and ignores what he cannot. He doesn't understand Diana or what she is capable of, thinking that her naivete could put her in more danger than she can handle. He tries to protect her and guide her through the unforgiving world, and as a result is continuously surprised by her unwillingness to see evil and do nothing about it, and her ability to do what he would never dream to be possible. Pine puts a damper on the swagger for the character (in comparison with Star Trek) and the result is an increase of heroic charm.

My favorite small moment was here, where she admires herself in the mirror without a hint of vanity.

Pine and Steve both are great supports for the film and its heroine. As a duo, Steve provides some great fodder for Diana's fish-out-of-water moments -- an element that can be hit or miss, and here was hit after hit, endearing her to us over and over. Their chemistry wasn't top-notch, but "good enough for a superhero flick" was all that was really required. In the end Steve's character is there to enhance Diana's, and that was done with aplomb. Conversely, none of the three rag-tags who follow them (Saïd Taghmaoui, Ewen Bremner, and Eugene Brave Rock) made much of an impression. I was simultaneously surprised at how little effort was put into them, and confused as to why they felt the need to put any effort towards them at all. They helped to move the plot, but their characters were mostly distractions, only.

Doctor Poison herself (Elena Anaya) also proved to be all but useless as a character, which was disappointing after she seemed well set up to be a formidable villain. In fact, speaking of the villain... (Spoilers!) Once Danny Huston's Ludendorff is revealed to not be the main villain his being so underwhelming makes sense. Ares is really David Thewlis, and while he does a fantastic job making himself memorable after his reveal lets him loose to be villainous, it is unfortunate that he didn't get more time due to his identity being kept secret. It was a good twist for the movie, but let the character down a bit. That epic bit where he gets his armor does its best to make up for it, and if it doesn't completely, it was close enough, because woah. (End Spoilers) On the island, both Connie Nielsen and Robin Wright give great performances on some hardcore characters. And last but not at all least, Lucy Davis as Etta, Steve's secretary makes herself a worthy addition by being charming and funny.

She's got super strength, but also has featured qualities common and befitting to femininity. Like compassion, for which she has no chill.

Obviously characters were what made the biggest overall impression on me here. Though the only truly outstanding one was Diana herself, I still appreciate that director Patty Jenkins set out to make this action blockbuster an equal-part character piece besides. Diana makes up about 50% of the movie's worth; everything else (Steve, the action, the style, visuals in general, themes, and writing (the value of a good one liner should never be overlooked) makes up about 40%, and there's 10% or less of want. So, action wise: There is no shortage of stylish action where the enjoyment hits levels of sheer glee that we haven't seen come out of DC since Nolan. It's great stuff, enhanced even further by how much fun Gadot is having performing it.

It does have two shortcomings however. The first is overuse of slow motion -- and this is coming from a movie where slow-mo is considerably more appropriate than average -- there's a lot of it. Often it works, but one or two fights could have used some restraint. The other is that the action is sometimes cut... safely. Probably to avoid awkwardness in the movement. It can be jarring and disjointed feeling. Both these problems can probably be traced back to a lacking in fight choreography; individual stunts are fantastic, but are sometimes strung together with awkward flow. Visually the film is nothing short of stunning, and when action sequences make use of visual appeal they are at their best. And with the insipid dullness of the recent past, I feel it's appropriate to praise this movie's bold use of vibrant color. From the bottom of my heart, I appreciate it.

Honestly I wish she'd served in the war longer. There could have been twice as much of the historical side of the war. And of her running into the fray bECAUSE INJUSTICE IS BEING DONE AND SHE MUST STOP IT. I love that about her so much.

Wonder Woman hardly feels like a DC film at all, only reminding us via short bookends. After all the murky sludge that has come from Snyder of late, a film that sets out to entertain and dazzle and have fun seems incredibly original and endlessly welcome. It's more like a Marvel, in fact, with obvious similarities with Thor and Captain America: The First Avenger present in the plot, but not so much as to make the film feel redundant -- not even close. This film even exceeds Marvel's later efforts with its gleeful and unashamed joy. It seems thrilled to simply exist, and its greatness is a natural consequence of that joy and devotion. It doesn't conspire to prod or manipulate its audience, but to share its story with us, and let us share in the wonder; and maybe inspire or move us with some words of wisdom. In other words, Wonder Woman is everything she needed to be.

Upcoming Movie Roundup - June

In May the only movie I went to see was Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2. And while I enjoyed the mess out of it in the moment, it hasn't made much of a lasting impression. Check out my review of it here! I still want to see the other releases I mentioned eventually, and may go see Pirates after a while, but right now is my busy time of the year, and theater trips must take a backseat for a bit.

This month looks to have two must-sees to get to over summer, plus quite a few that will be staying on my radar as they pass through! What are you most looking forward to seeing in the month of June?


Wonder Woman
Jun 2nd; PG-13
Well -- no matter what happens with the film, we know they can make a super epic trailer out of it! It looks a bit like Thor and a bit like Captain America: The First Avenger, but it's got a female lead and comes from DC. Wonder Woman was one of the best parts of Batman v Superman, so from my perspective her film has the potential to be the best film from DC since The Dark Knight. It appears to have a coherent and interesting plot which is promising, and the flood of overwhelmingly positive responses so far is creating some huge waves. I'll certainly be seeing this one in theaters, though probably not for a little while due to extreme busyness. At this point it doesn't seem to be too much to hope that all the hype it's built up for itself will be lived up to!




Dean
Jun 2nd (limited); PG-13
Ah, the classic indie film, with the kinda goofy-looking, low key depressed and cynical lead, who wanders through a mildly aimless but pleasant jaunt of a plot, falls in love (maybe) and feels a little better by then end (maybe). Yeah. I may sound a bit cynical myself about this, but honestly this is the kind of flick I'd spend all day on lazy Saturdays watching if only I had access to more of them. So put me on the waiting list for this one too. Bonus: Kevin Kline!




The Mummy
Jun 9th; PG-13
The beginning of a new universe franchise of connected monster films including Jekyll and Hyde and Frankenstein and such -- they're calling it Dark Universe! But they're a bit behind. This flick seems to be more of a remake of the Brendan Frasier version then the 1932 original, but whatever. No matter it's to-be connections or general quality, one thing is almost certain: that it will be entertaining. That is Tom Cruise's specialty. I also enjoyed Sofia Boutella a whole lot in Star Trek Beyond so I'm looking forward to her playing a potentially over-the-top villain like this! As for quality, we'll have to wait and see.




The Book of Henry
Jun 16th(limited); PG-13
This movie has been making some waves coming up -- maybe mostly because it's directed by Colin Trevorrow who has a small but good track record and is set to direct Star Wars Episode 9. It also has both Jacob Tremblay and Jaeden Leiberher, two of the biggest child actors right now, and Naomi Watts who always puts everything into her performances. The plot is unexpected and unusually serious for a film with a child lead, and the trailer, as ominous as it is, also has some extra ominous undertones that are making me wonder if there's gonna be a happy ending here. If I see it it'll surely stress me out, but right now it looks like it would be worth it. The movie also promises Lee Pace, but unless I missed him, he doesn't appear in the trailer.




Maudie
Jun 16th(limited); PG-13
A performance-driven indie. This one's about the Canadian folk artist Maud Lewis, played by Sally Hawkins, and her husband, Ethan Hawke. Since it's based on a true story, I'd imagine they play up the drama a bit to make it more interesting, but it does look like a sweet tale, and I like the two actors, so if ever I get the chance I'll probably give it a watch.




Kill Switch
Jun 16th(limited); R
Okay... a scifi film starring Dan Stevens. Yes, take my money! But wait -- what's this? A catch? Turns out most of the movie is in POV so we won't get to see his face, doing all that acting stuff? Why? We already had to deal with this issue in Beauty and the Beast. Can someone make an awesome scifi movie with Dan Stevens and actually put Dan Stevens in it please? Besides him the movie doesn't look too great, but because it's a scifi, and because Stevens is in it (however little) I'll probably still watch it at my earliest convenience. I expect I'll be disappointed though.




Transformers: The Last Knight
Jun 21st; PG-13
Ugh. The over-stimulation is for real. I could barely even stand the trailer. It is nice to see Josh Duhamel back though, but that's about it. If you enjoy these movies chances are this one will be no different, but for me it's looking even bigger than the last one, which means it'll be even better for making fun of it whenever we can get it for free! Enjoy it how you can, right?




Baby Driver
Jun 28th: NR
Haha, I was about to say this might be my most anticipated movie of the month! No "might" about it friends -- if this isn't the highlight of my movie-June, there isn't gonna be a highlight (okay fine, Wonder Woman could easily be a highlight, but you get my point). Edgar Wright directs this one which is all I really need to know, but it will also feature a boatload of music (makes sense with Wright) and all long cast list of Ansel Elgort, Lily James, Kevin Spacey, Jon Bernthal, Jon Hamm, and Jamie Foxx. The trailer makes the film look super stylish and tightly edited (Wright, again). Seriously, there is no bigger draw than the director, and the premise out of which you know he can make one killer film! (With one killer track!)

Star Trek Beyond

Spoiler-free.

When the trailer released, I was one of few people who thought it promised good -- a promise that needed to be made for the fans nervous about J. J. Abrams handing over directing reins to Justin Lin. Through that admittedly iffy trailer I saw where I thought this film was headed, and I liked it. Still after a while my excitement took a beating, and I was hesitant to see the film as soon as I did. Not because I thought it wouldn't be good anymore, but because I thought I wouldn't be able to enjoy it as it was meant to be enjoyed. But I was right where it mattered and wrong where it mattered; Beyond does everything that I expected it'd do, and was able to put a smile on my face.

The third installment of the rebooted franchise dials back on the scale, and narrows its focuses to character and action for a pleasant episodic feel. Jim Kirk and his crew are cut off from the federation, stranded on a strange planet in the far reaches of the galaxy, and face a mysterious and intimidating threat which they face with bold determination.

This movie isn't perfect, but it's going in the right direction. So boldly go!

Firstly, more than just the directing reins changed hands. This time round, Simon Pegg and Doug Jung did the writing, rather than J. J.'s regulars. The reason I had so much confidence in this movie from the start was because of Simon Pegg. Certainly less known as a writer, but anyone who knows his writing work knows that it's the type to inspire confidence. And he didn't fall short; to the uninitiated this film is indistinguishable from the last two. There's the same sharp action, the same comic relief that is actually funny and elicits a real laugh, the same serious tone used carefully to add depth and urgency, and those same "Star Trek" moments that cause cheesy grins.

But to those like me who are compelled to look under the surface, there are some differences. And differences I was all for, but these were not purposeful deviations from the formula, but rather elements that were attempts at copying previous successes that just don't land quite as confidently. Paying attention to the plot progression, a more than typical number of plot holes are distinguishable, and too much of the dialogue is used in exposition, trying to explain holes away. And there are a few contrivances that were necessary for the plot to work. There did seem to be a handful of moments of genuine inspiration -- and they were all kinds of fantastic -- but for the most part the plot exists to serve the action.

The best the plot does is create situations for the characters to shine.

There was no shortage of memorable action set pieces though they were sometimes worked into the story less than gracefully. There were two shots where the CGI was noticeable and almost humorously bad, otherwise the special effects are fine, though not exactly evoking of awe either. It also loses a sense of sophistication that the previous films had, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. This film has a ragtag aura that is interestingly appealing. The only thing the more blunt action caused that I didn't like was that the fighting and action was filmed too close, and often with too low lighting for us to get the full effect. But not quite too much that you can't tell what's going on. The grandeur and beauty of the setting seems to be only shown off because it's obligatory; it's still got some great artistic imagery, but it doesn't linger like I found myself wishing it would.

The themes are simplistic and not particularly thought-provoking, but there is a charm to experiencing an action flick that doesn't try to shoehorn its themes. There's friendship and camaraderie going on that feels like it wasn't even done on purpose it's so natural. Give Justin Lin a large cast of oddball characters, and he can make them mesh; and these characters take to his treatment like they were made for it. Captain Kirk battling the odds with his two opposite sidekicks is sometimes the only thing we need. And when Bones and Spock have scenes together, which they do often, they lightly bounce their opposing worldviews back and forth with a casual depth that is subtly epic. Their scenes are also the most consistently funny, in a true, organic way.

Two sides of the same coin if ever two people fit the bill.

Zachary Quinto has found that perfect balance of determined logic and suppressed but genuine emotion with his Spock. I doubt he'll ever be my favorite character, but the respect keeps going up. Bones is already one of my favorites though, and won't be losing his place any time soon. Karl Urban always has been, and continues to be a fantastic Bones. The rough, sarcastic edge, the way he embraces his humanity (the good with the bad), and his innate lovable charm is all effortless from Urban. He gets even more to do this time around, and proves he deserves it and more. This time it's Uhura (Zoe Saldana) and Sulu (John Cho) who fall slightly to the wayside -- comparatively. They still have whatever they had from the last movies, but don't really add anything new or fresh.

I'm sure they'll come back around soon.

Ever underused is Chekov. Especially now, considering this is the last film in which the adorably quirky character will make an appearance. He was my favorite ever since he had all that trouble pronouncing his V's in movie one, and the Star Trek franchise won't be half as good in my eyes without him. Here he gets more to do than ever, but still isn't there nearly enough. The way the camera glances past him is maddeningly reminiscent of real life, but Anton Yelchin made the best of the part as he always did, and made the character unforgettable with his cute and awkward mannerisms, accent, and unconcealable charm. It's never pointed out to the audience even slightly, but I don't think I was seeing things when I noticed Chekov crushing on Jaylah, and it nearly broke me with adorableness. Chekov is an irreplaceable character -- there will be a gaping hole in every single installment to come.

I never knew you, but I'll miss you, and the characters you brought to life onscreen.

Now Jaylah (Sofia Boutella) is the obligatory new allied character, and is the best yet. That chic totally rocked. I loved her attitude and her unique, yet familiar persona. She's like a sullen, hardened teenager, yet is an alien with some naive and disarming fish-out-of-water qualities. She was cool, and funny, and had a great arc with a good amount of depth. I'd love to see her again. She hangs out a lot with Scotty, and they make for some sharp scenes together. Who knows if it was a temptation, but Simon Pegg didn't abuse his writing powers and give himself anything more to do as Scotty as he did before; but Scotty has always been a character worth devoting a good amount of time to, and he did match that. He's capable of holding down scenes by himself, and does it with that patented Scottish attitude and wit to spare.

Her makeup is epic. And I love that Scotty calls her Lassie. And she calls him Montgomery Scotty!

Am I missing someone? Ha -- just kidding. In movies like this, the lead is rarely the character I love most, but Chris Pine's Captain James T. Kirk will always be a character worth admiring, rooting for, and revolving an entire movie around. Here his arc was fairly predictable, but an avenue worth exploring and was handled well script-wise and performance-wise. There are no huge emotional scenes, but that doesn't matter with Pine. He mixes the subtle depths of Kirk evenly into every moment and brings an important weight to the story and his loyal, smirking, and heroic Captain. The villain he faces was a surprising downside. Idris Elba brings the intimidation and the turmoil, but unfortunately was landed with the side of the script that was dotted with holes. In the end Krall was too flimsy to be convincing or memorable. He got the job done, but only just.

He belongs in that captain's chair.

In fact, that's a pretty accurate description of the film as a whole: it gets the job done. Not glamorously or impressively or mind-bendingly, but with a solid amount of fun and excitement, and a decent amount of throwing back and respect for what it is continuing. And the job really is to showcase the characters. What surrounds them may not be as spectacular as it has been before, but the characters themselves are every bit as worth spending time with as they ever were. The plot may not be terribly smart, but the smartest thing the film does was a great choice; to pair off the characters into groups were they brought out the best, and the most interesting sides in each other.

Beyond is an enjoyable caper into the unexplored reaches of space; comparatively inferior in quality to the installments actually helmed by Abrams, but for fans of the new franchise, no less worthwhile by its own right. In a few ways it is flawed superficially, but at its heart holds onto what makes these adventures worth the trip -- the iconic and lovable captain and crew of the USS Enterprise.

Z for Zachariah

Spoiler-free.

In this sparse and rural post-apocalyptic film, Ann (Margot Robbie) is a young woman living by herself on a farm with her dog. The farm is in a pocket of clean air surrounded by toxic radioactive air. She may be the last woman on earth -- but she isn't the last person on earth. John, (Chiwetel Ejiofor) a scientist stumbles onto her land, and the two soon settle into a life there, planning improvements and thinking long-term. Really long-term. But then another man (Chris Pine) shows up, throwing a wrench in their comfortably forming plans.

The whole, entire cast of this film.

There are two reasons why I got around to seeing this smaller, low-key film: One, the cast. A small cast numbers wise, but a big one name-wise. And two, the fact that it was a sci-fi, dystopian, post-apocalyptic type movie. On this front came the first wave of disappointment. This is a sci-fi film technically because it takes place after a fictional nuclear war, but that doesn't result in any sci-fi effects. It is the result of sci-fi effects. The most sci-fi thing that happens is people walking around in hazmat suits. Otherwise it's just some country people roughing it on a farm in the mountains. That's not a bad thing in itself -- it just didn't dig deep enough into its genre to satisfy me.

Really, it's a straight-up drama with a plot that is enabled by science fiction. And on that side, it was interesting for a while. It has some complex characters that worked well against each other to create drama, and their interactions posed some interesting -- if not particularly deep or important -- questions. The cast did a good job with their characters, keeping them involving, and through them the story as well. Eventually though, as they do, the film had to end. And that's where everything fell apart.

Apparently it was based on a novel. I wonder how accurate the adaptation is. (I looked it up. Not very. But I get what they were going for with the film better now. Doesn't change my opinion though!)

They had introduced a bunch of problems needed resolution, and a good amount of character drama with potential. The most interesting was the love-triangle, and the unique relationships between each of them as the two men vie for the attentions of the last girl on earth. The characters are so evenly done that I didn't have a guess as to who she would choose, nor a real preference. I was very interested to see where that would lead. Unfortunately, it led to a jumbled, non-committal ending. And not on any of the character's part -- this was all the film. The movie spent so much time exploring the slow journey of the characters and the details of their reactions to plot events, yet it's like it couldn't commit when it came to deciding where all that would lead to in finality. It just dropped everything and quit.

It was like everything stopped at the second act just when things were really getting interesting. I suppose there could be some people who see some kind of point or meaning or social commentary or whatnot, but I didn't, and it didn't leave me curious enough to try and find one.

The cast by themselves were good. Margot Robbie was the standout, and Ejiofor and Pine had some occasional ups and downs but they all were quite commendable and enjoyable. The thing I really can't figure out is why they wanted to do this film in the first place. I don't understand what attracted them to this project at all. And since it felt like the movie resolved nothing at all and ended before getting to the good stuff, they and their talent felt like a total waste in the end.

They never explain the title either.

The location and setting was nice, and the look of everything was probably the film's most memorable aspect. Though, there was an unnatural quality to it that made it a little hard on the eyes. Too much contrast or something. I did like the purple tone.

So, this film wasn't a total waste, though it might as well have been, considering how everything it had going for it for so long was left in the dust as this small-scale apocalypse tale breezed on toward promising conflict and resolution without us. Maybe the camera ran out of battery.

Upcoming Movie Roundup - July

Last month was theater-free for me. Warcraft tempted me a few times, as did May's X-Men: Apocalypse, and I even made an agreement with my brothers that if Independence Day: Resurgence got good enough reviews we'd go see all three -- but it didn't, and we didn't see the other two either. However, I did finally see one March movie that I would have gone to the theater for if it had actually played in my theater -- Midnight Special! I took a small risk and bought it, pretty confident that I'd like it and it paid off spectacularly! Not only did I love the film more than enough to want to watch it multiple times, it was also worth it for some neat and informing special features. A review will be incoming soon, but I'll go ahead and say that I strongly recommend it.

How was your month of June? And how is your July looking? Happy Summer!


The Legend of Tarzan
Jul 1st; PG-13
I'm pretty much only mentioning this one because I thought it looked interesting before any reviews came out.  Now, of course, it seems obvious that it would be no good -- now that I've actually sat down and watched the trailer. I didn't expect it'd be great, but I probably should have seen a low RT score like this coming. The adventure appeal of it distracted me a little. And someday, if ever I can get it for free and am feeling resilient to disappointment, I probably won't be able to help myself from watching it for that same reason.




The BFG
Jul 1st; PG
The latest from Steven Spielberg is a kiddie movie based on a book. Giants and magic and sweeping music is involved. I like Spielberg (who doesn't?) and the cast has Mark Rylance and Jemaine Clement who are great (but they're both playing animated giants so you can't actually see them, though the BFG does look quite a lot like Rylance (I actually recognized his face before I did his voice)) and it looks like a good kid's adventure movie, but maybe not quite to the point where it'd be a great movie for adults too. Especially for people like me who don't have a sentimental attachment. Still, the director and cast practically guarantees that I'll wind up seeing it someday. And I wouldn't be surprised if I enjoyed it.




Ghostbusters
Jul 15th; PG-13
Da-da da-da. Dada da-da da-da. Okay, no. I debated even mentioning this one, but decided to so that I could voice my opinion of how much I wish this movie didn't even exist. Based on the epic number of dislikes on the trailer, most people share my opinion, but I wanted to make my view clear anyway. Set out to attempt to destroy the classic by association, and so steeped in extreme feminism that all criticism of it has been (and probably will continue to be) labeled sexist, this is a film that I am happy to announce I will completely avoid for all eternity. The trailer is painfully unfunny, and the idea is completely pointless. Who you gonna call? The real, ORIGINAL Ghostbusters.




Cafe Society
Jul 15th; PG-13
Woody Allen's latest venture is set in the 30's, and focuses on the glamorous life of society people in Hollywood and New York through the eyes of Jesse Eisenberg. Also starring Kristen Stewart, Blake Lively, Steve Carell, and Corey Stoll. This one seems slightly similar to Midnight in Paris which is my favorite of Allen's films. It look like it has lots of vintage style and classic Allen-esque quirky conversations. Early reviews aren't as promising as my previously mentioned favorite's, but I think it'll turn out to be worth a look.




Equals
Jul 15th; PG-13
Another Kristen Stewart movie. Sometimes I surprise myself by watching her movies, but then I remember that I've never actually disliked her in anything -- and she's slowly wearing off the stain of Twilight... Anyway in this one Nicholas Hoult co-stars and it's a sci-fi, so it certainly has my attention. It does look very moody though, and that may very well be a downfall. But I'm pretty sure I'm gonna have to find out for myself.




Star Trek Beyond
Jul 22nd; Not rated yet
This is hands-down the most exciting release of the month, yet it has a a very sad side to it, because of the untimely and tragic death of Anton Yelchin who plays the fan-favorite Chekov. He will be sorely missed in the years to come. Beyond doesn't have the guaranteed success that Into Darkness seemed to either because of the new director coming on board. However, I think, and have thought from the first that this installment looks every bit as good as the last one. I like the episodic, smaller-scale nature it seems to be bringing, and am very excited to see how Simon Pegg's script turned out. A definite must-see!




Jason Bourne
Jul 29th; PG-13
Bourne is back and bigger than ever. Actually, I'm not sure "bigger than ever" is a good thing; at some point things are going to go over the top, and the grounded feel of the previous Matt Damon Bourne's was a huge part of the appeal. However, I doubt it'll matter much -- this film looks solid. With Damon and Greengrass back, how could it not? Julia Stiles is back too, and it's also got Tommy Lee Jones, and Alicia Vikander, which means promises of good things. This may very well be a must-see as well!

Into the Woods

(Mild spoilers throughout -- major spoilers have a warning.)

Into the Woods -- where magic is real, as are monsters and witches and giants, but wishes are the most dangerous of all. Oh, fairytales.

With Frozen, I discovered that I am not a fan of the new trend Disney has started (and convinced the rest of the world to join in on) of taking fairytales and twisting them so hard that the entire point of the tale falls out -- and with Into the Woods, that discovery is given reinforcement.

The Baker (James Corden) and his wife (Emily Blunt) cannot have children, and one day a witch, (Meryl Streep) tells them that it's because of her curse. She offers to reverse the curse for them though, telling them to find four things for her; a cape red as blood, a cow white as milk, a slipper pure as gold, and a lock of hair yellow as corn. They set off into the woods to find these things. At the same time there is a little girl who wears a red cape going to visit her grandmother, a boy taking his white cow to be sold, a poor girl named Cinderella (Anna Kendrick) who wants to go to the king's festival, and a girl with long yellow hair who is trapped in a tower with no doors. All these people make a wish -- and then they come true.

The Baker and his Wife -- the two main reasons I wanted to see this movie.

The acting and singing quality can be separated into three categories; people who were good at both, people good at acting, and people good at singing. Although I wouldn't go so far as to say anyone was bad at either.

Topping the "good at both" is Meryl Streep, who does everything she does exceptionally, and does no less here with a superb, lovely voice, and the highest quality acting. Next is James Corden, the hero of the story, and the one I was most interested to see, and he didn't disappoint -- he is goofy but sincere and noble, always at the heart of the story, and has a fine, distinctive voice. The two children of the show, Jack (Daniel Huttlestone) and Little Red Riding Hood (Lilla Crawford), not well-known actors, may have been cast more for their voices but they both gave fine performances and belong in this category too.

She probably could have put in half the effort she did, and still have come out on top.

Those better at the acting: With Emily Blunt it's only the greatness of her acting performance that dulls her singing by comparison, but really she's a pro at both. The biggest difference is with Johnny Depp as The Wolf. He is simultaneously creepy and funny, but once he starts to sing you know that he was cast because he's Johnny Depp, and not because he could do his song real justice. The howl at the end was good though! Then there's Chris Pine's Prince Charming. He actually impresses as a Prince who you might imagine might not have much character to work with, but what he lacked vocally was noticeable because of the duet with Prince #2 which was downright hilarious and brilliant, but the difference of skill between the two was noticeable.

This scene was just the best.

Good voices, not-so-very-convincing acting -- Prince #2, Repunzel's Prince (Billy Magnussen) was definitely cast for his vocal talent and good looks way before his acting talent. He is the best vocally out of the whole male cast, and fortunately, doesn't have much to do on the serious acting front, and when he does, it is opposite Repunzel, (Mackenzie Mauzy) who is a good match for him, falling into this category as well. Anna Kendrick only barely wavers towards the singing side -- she makes a fine, but slightly modern feeling Cinderella, with a sweet and gentle personality, and, well, a pitch-perfect kind of voice.

"On the Steps of the Palace" may be my favorite song of the show, and I loved the whole way the scene was done.

The most basic quality of fairytales is the happily ever after, and while I wouldn't say Into the Woods has a bad ending at all, it's more better-than-before-and-bittersweet-for-a-while-after than straight up happily-forever, and some of the characters were worthy of the happy end they were denied. Denied, it seems, simply so we could be taught a lesson or two. (Or slapped in the face for enjoying classic Disney fairytales.) There were a good-sized handful of little morals to this story, (though they were mostly vague or hard to decipher) and interestingly, one was "morality is what you decide it is," which effectively allows us to ignore all the other lessons.

The biggest one was the classic saying, "be careful what you wish for," as all the characters who make a wish are granted it at a great cost. (A cost they are unaware of no less, which goes against fairytale rules itself.) This one doesn't exactly translate to the real world though, since here, wishes to marry a prince don't typically see reality's light. Certainly wishing can distract us from living our lives, and even when they do come true they're often not as fulfilling as we imagined, but not all dreams must be traded for something else we value.

Another quality of the fairytale genre is that the good characters see good in their lives, and the bad, bad, and the line between the two is easily distinguishable. Perhaps it was because of that one "lesson" but the moral and immoral character are all jumbled together and basically all get the same treatment.

About to enter the dangerous Wood of Spoilers!

(Major Spoilers! Next four paragraphs.)

In the case of Cinderella and her Prince, she shouldn't have married him after knowing him three days, (but we already know that, now, don't we Anna?) so you can question her judgment if you like, but what did she ever do to deserve a scoundrel for a husband? She deserved a real Prince Charming. (If you want to destroy the idea of the good Prince, the honorable girl who marries him has to go too -- make one of the ugly stepsisters get him.) Anyway, in the end her reason for leaving him was that she wanted something in between her life at home and her life with him, but that was only to justify the in between she gets -- and it would have been much simpler for her to leave him for his infidelity alone.

And then the case of the Baker, and by association, his Wife -- and yes, she didn't resist very much as the Prince seduced her, but if he didn't meet with an untimely, anticlimactic death-by-giant, then why did she? Her death punished her husband, who, out of all the characters was the most deserving. He deserved his wish and it was the most expensive, and he deserved a happy ending but there was none. Hopeful, yes, and I'm glad for that, but not happy.

Ultimately, the root of my disappointment here it that there was no good example of a truly loving, healthy, romantic relationship here -- the Baker and Wife had the potential, but it was cut off in its tracks before they could pass their test -- what "lesson" are we supposed to learn from this?

Also, if Rapunzel was the Baker's sister, then why did they never get to meet? That plot line was dropped the moment it was brought up. Just a random question.

(End Spoilers)

Now I've said my peace, on to the more technical things.

One unique thing about this film I enjoyed was how much it felt like a theatre show. It was a little unlikely and convenient how characters wandering in the woods could suddenly come upon someone who logically shouldn't have been near them, but I was able to suspend belief because of the stage-like quality. This also allowed my slight disappointment at not seeing Jack in the Giant kingdom or Cinderella at the ball to be excused. And I absolutely loved the way they did the "curtain call" like out of an old 80's film.

Here's a cool tidbit: the ugly stepsister on the left is Lucy Punch, who played the exact same part in Ella Enchanted.

Another neat thing was the return to original Grimm Brothers fairytale form -- occasional gruesomeness and darkness and all. That all only lasted through the first two acts though, and after that, they just had to make it their own and give it a nice twist -- wrench, more like -- and the third act as a result is jarringly different from the rest, and disturbing in a different way. One good thing that lasted through to the end though, was the neat, intricate way the multiple stories were woven together, as if the connections had always belonged that way. This was manifested in the song "Your Fault" which was my favorite part of act 3, as everyone gets their turn of being blamed for the group's situation, and we are reminded of the tiniest little things that connected them.

"Careful the things you say / Children will listen / Careful the things you do / Children will see / And learn" says the song, and it is one of few truths in this story, but unfortunately it failed to take its own advice. Most of its message was just a jumbled, confused mess, but that should be expected from a strictly secular story attempting a morality lesson. The end does see a glimmer of hope, and a generous sprinkling of love and nobility, and on the technical side this was a successful and grand production -- unique, funny and charming, but perhaps not as sincere as it would like us to believe.

I wish...

Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit

Jack Ryan is back, this time in the form of Chris Pine, who was hoped to jump-start the old franchise of the CIA analyst-turned-action-hero. But both the hero and the film itself have some big shoes to fill -- in the form of the great Harrison Ford, and the classic with Alec Baldwin, "The Hunt for Red October." And to go about it there are two main options; try to compete with those old versions, or, make everything so fresh and modern that no one will compare them. They chose the latter. Like when Daniel Craig gave new life to the 007 franchise, Pine's Jack Ryan goes back to the beginning, showing us the origin of the reasonably well loved character, but at the same time, making his origin a modern tale.

See? Cellphone, laptop, fashionable suit -- modern.

He enlisted in the service soon after 9/11; soon after that was in a helicopter as it exploded, then spent a lot of time soon after that learning how to walk again, and simultaneously trying to score a date off his pretty physical therapist Cathy. (Keira Knightly) Once he could not only walk again (this is not-so-soon after) but run around like nothing ever happened he does get that date. Unfortunately, that's about the same time he's approached by a mysterious man named Kevin Costner who wants him to join the CIA -- for his analytical skills, of course. Soon after that, (in movie time anyway) you probably have a good idea of what happens; this is an action movie, after all.

The name of Chris Pine is practically synonymous with "action hero," so he is an obvious, not terribly inspired choice to play the part. He portrays him very well, mostly by just being himself, but does nothing particular to set him apart from any other action character, let alone an old Jack Ryan character. Still he's enjoyable and fun to watch, and makes no obvious missteps, especially to the untrained eye of a fan as casual as myself.

"Hi, I'm the hero." "Hello. I am villain. You can tell because I am Russian, and this is American movie."

Kenneth Branagh directed and also starred as the villain -- the Russian villain -- and did about the same at both jobs. I guess he couldn't pass up the opportunity to show off his fabulous Russian accent, but his villain turned out just about as mediocre as the rest of the characters. Granted, he and Pine were certainly the best of the lot. The direction matched; none of it was actually bad, per se, but none of it was particularly gripping or memorable either.

Keira Knightly as Ryan's long-time girlfriend though, I couldn't accept so casually as the previous two. Maybe because she's British, and was playing an American, or maybe because I just don't like her -- and I really don't like her -- I was expecting throughout the whole film for her to suddenly reveal that she's been a bad guy the whole time. Eventually I remembered that the character's in all the previous future films, (no, that's not a paradox) but it was still bothersome.

Another person I do not like is Kevin Costner. Fortunately he was given so little to do that I wasn't able to be driven crazy by his annoying-ness, unlike his role in Man of Steel, for contrast. There aren't many actors I dislike -- in fact Kevin Costner and Keira Knightly might be the only two -- so it's basically a minor miracle I was able to enjoy this movie at all.

You will not find a photo of Costner anywhere here, but here's Knightly and Pine trying to work on their chemistry...

Yet, the things I didn't enjoy didn't specifically come from general annoyance at seeing certain faces. The fact is that what I've been saying about all the characters and the directing being underwhelming and unmemorable while still not going over the line into actual badness is true for all aspects of this film. My overall impression was just a general, lackadaisical "ho-hum." It's hard to pinpoint exactly what, if anything was the particular cause, but I do think that the scene in the restaurant lasted way too long, and the ending was sloppy, cliched, and forgettable. The film took itself too seriously at times as well, and simply didn't move around enough. It had the pace of an older action film, but didn't have the intricate dialogue necessary to hold interest at that pace.

That is, unless it was zipping along in mindless action, which I did prefer.

The best of the film was hands down the fight scene in the hotel room, which was comparatively very exciting and tense -- wouldn't have felt at all out of place in a Bourne film -- and, naturally, showed off Pine's skills as an action hero. He is the best of that scene, the best of the movie, and the best reason to invest time in this movie. Of course, he's been in plenty other movies too, and most of them are actually good or even great movies, making this movie's existence very nearly moot. As a Chris Pine vehicle, or as another installment of the Jack Ryan franchise, there's better to be had elsewhere, though it finds better footing in the former. This flick that is supposed to be thrilling with its spies, and Russian villains, and chase scenes, instead just middles around somewhere between bad and good, not brave enough to take a chance in any direction. Not very much like it's hero at all.

Upcoming Movie Roundup -- January

Happy new year everyone! Last month I didn't see anything besides the one movie I couldn't not see -- The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug -- and that one I saw twice. Saving Mr. Banks is patiently awaiting it's turn, which it should get eventually since it's living up to my predictions, and surprisingly my interest in The Secret Life of Walter Mitty has grown slightly due to reading a few reviews praising it for being better than expected.

In the first month of 2014, there's no must-sees like the Hobbit, so if I do get to the theater it'll be more likely for a re-watch of Catching Fire, or to see Frozen, which I am increasingly desperate to see, than for anything like, oh, say, The Legend of Hercules. Yeah right. In fact only three new films have actually hit my radar so far.

The Adventurer: The Curse of the Midas Box
Jan 10th (Limited); PG
This one's rather obscure, but it managed to catch my attention. Firstly, by having the word "adventurer" in the title, and then by being set in the late 1800's. I wouldn't assume it'd turn out to be a great film, or even a good one, but it's exactly the kind of not-great movie I'd like. (Or at least it has the formula for it.) A little research informed me that it's based on a book -- "Mariah Mundi and the Midas Box" (first of three in a series) by G. P. Taylor, whom I have attempted to read before with "The Shadowmancer" but couldn't get into it. But since the Mariah Mundi series is more for kids, and more action-packed, they seem like a great way to give the author another go. So while the film is still interesting, I must say it's mostly just made me interested in the books. If you've read them, I'd love to hear your opinion of them!




I, Frankenstein
Jan 14th; PG-13
This is a similar case as above. I don't expect it to be good (in fact I'd be very surprised if it was) but it does have it's draws. Aaron Eckhart as the lead, for one, and, now since I've recently started (and nearly finished) watching Chuck I see the appeal of Yvonne Strahovski, absolutely. Plus Bill Nighy, and Miranda Otto. The plot, of course, doesn't appear to have anything to do with anything that has anything to do with Frankenstein, except the name (given to the monster instead of the creator), and the stitching. I'm reminded very much of Priest, that super awful and cheesy vampire movie also based on a graphic novel. It was made horrendously, but I enjoyed it, mostly because of Paul Bettany and Karl Urban, and enjoyed laughing at it. If this turns out similarly, I might be very annoyed, because it might make me want to see it.




Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit
Jan 17th; PG-13
The reboot of Jack Ryan starring Chris Pine! Obviously, this won't be the greatest action flick of all-time or anything, but it certainly looks prepared to deliver some shiny, exciting, and implausible thrills, and that sounds good by me, especially with Pine at the lead, and Kenneth Branagh both directing and making an appearance with a Russian accent as the generic, but fun-looking bad guy. Kevin Costner and Keira Knightly round out the cast, and, even though I am not at all a fan of either of them, I am prepared to give them a chance for the sake of what should be an amusing escapade into the slick land of Action-Adventure. And who knows -- maybe it'll exceed my expectations.



What films do you have your eye on for the beginning of 2014?