Colossal

Spoilers!

In spite of Dan Stevens and a very memorable fantasy premise, Colossal for me was nothing more than a colossal waste of time.

Sorry, but they walked into that one.

Although, I do get to write a review about it, so, waste of time maybe, but I can't say I regret watching it. It's about Anne Hathaway, who's a party girl, and a drunk, out-of control loser. The movie's fantasy element is a parable for what it's like to be out of control with an addiction. Because of some flimsy magical happenstance, whenever Anne -- Gloria -- walks through a specific playground at exactly 8:05 AM, a giant Godzilla-like monster appears in Seoul, South Korea, and mimics her movements.

From the moment I saw the trailer I wondered about the logistics of the premise. I was left unsatisfied.

When her boyfriend (Dan Stevens) can't stand her lazy drunken shenanigans any longer and kicks her out, she goes to her hometown, and starts working at her childhood friend's bar. Yes, wonderful place for an alcoholic to hang out. His name is Owen and he's played by Jason Sudeikis. She chances to walk through this specific playground at the right time several times, is shocked along with the rest of the world at the appearance of the monster, and eventually discovers that the monster is her -- because of a tick where she scratches her head in an obvious and exaggerated manner. Then she gets drunk and shows off her odd party trick to her new buddies (Austin Stowell and Tim Blake Nelson) and Owen, accidentally trips, falls, and kills lots of South Koreans.

But don't worry, it gets better. Owen, trying to catch her, goes into the playground too, and he also has something materialize in Seoul and copy his movements -- a giant robot. Awesome. Now he's kinda excited about his newfound power like Gloria was, but for her there's a bit of a damper because she realized for the first time that her boyfriend was right. She's out of control. She's literally killed people. The parallel between her heightened situation and real-life addiction is obvious. She vows never to let her monster materialize again, and seems to be on the road to recovery, but then things escalate beyond even her control.

*fantasy intensifies*

I suppose this part is meant to be the metaphor for how your addiction can begin to control you. Owen now gets drunk and starts goofing off in the playground. For some reason she feels responsible for this and is quick to break her vow in order to stand up to him. He apologizes, but later is drunk again and back at it, and before you know it, reaches full villain scale when he threatens innocent lives to make her stay working for him. When she doesn't take him seriously enough he makes good on the threat in one of the most weirdly dark and unpleasant scenes I've witnessed in a movie. As he stomps on the wood chips, she's laying on the ground inches from him reaching out and screaming, yet never moves to physically stop him. We're supposed to understand that she can't, but it simply doesn't make sense.

After that the allegory falls apart, because to solve the problem she goes to Seoul, making her monster appear at the playground, picks Owen up, and hurls him across the state, killing him. But it's okay, because he called her a b**** before she decided to do it. What's the takeaway from the ending? I have no clue. There's an obvious point of girl-power, because she never gets any help from her friends or the police, and she ends up alone but "happy." But after thinking about it for a few days, the only lesson I can see concerning addiction is that it seems to say that once you've solved you own problems, it's totally okay for you to kill people with the same problems if they don't figure it out like you did.

Nice Job. Let's hope no one takes that attitude to heart.

I am %1000 sure that that is not what the movie makers meant the point to be, but if there's a more reasonable one, I completely missed it. I think Owen is always meant to be an extension of a sort of Gloria's problem, since story-wise her problem isn't truly fixed until she's rid of him, but if that's the case I don't get what killing him is a metaphor for. (If you have any insights I'd welcome a discussion.)

One definite, but probably unintentional lesson is that you should never let, or go to others for help. Dan Stevens goes to her aid, but only comes across as needy and wishy-washy because he kicks her out and then gets jealous of her for moving on. Then there's Austin Stowell's character, who was present on the sidelines for many of her fights with Owen to get him out of the playground. This guy totally could have stepped in and helped her, but in the movie's eyes it isn't even a possibility. He's even on her side. But he just stands there. It doesn't make sense.

The head-scratching bit irked me to no end because of how played up it was.

I don't care for Anne Hathaway, and I don't think she did a particularly good job, but I don't blame her for my inability to sympathize with her character. Gloria comes across surprisingly unsympathetic in spite of what happens to and because of her. The culprit is, I believe, the movie's insincere tone. Jason Sudeikis did do an interesting job turning into a disturbing villain, but the transition was jarring in a way that doesn't sit right. The movie's tonal shifts are all jarring, though you can see attempts at dark comedy throughout. Instead it comes across as irreverently dark, milking the disturbing moments for shocking drama, then kicking back and flippantly expecting us to laugh at it all, which is the last thing I felt like doing.

It's a fantasy movie, but tries to ground itself in reality, drawing clear parallels to real-life problems, but the grounding doesn't take. The story slowly floats further and further away from reality until by then end it cops out with a falsely empowering ending, and never finishes it's thought on addiction, the reason the story existed in the first place. I think they simplified the issue far too much, and instead of letting the story drive through its natural path to a conclusion, it was forced to go the way they wanted. Each forced turn pushed the movie further and further into its own fantasy land.

"Moral of the story? Oh, idk.... addiction is... um, what were we talking about?"

I don't have much experience with this kind of thing in real-life, but I think they ignored the most overarching truth -- that if you need help you don't have to face your problems alone -- merely so they could scrounge up an inspiring and empowering ending for their amazingly dis-likable heroine. The way I see it, Colossal never moves past the stage she was at in the very beginning; in denial that it has a problem in the first place. It just stomps around in wild destruction, shouting its incoherent message into a fantastical, meaningless void.

Upcoming Movie Roundup - November

No surprise I didn't go to the theater in October. However, I did watch/have been watching the TV shows I mentioned. The Gifted turned out to be disappointing even with my mild expectations, and drags terribly and yes, has lots of meaningless drama. Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency got off to a bit of a rough start by not nailing the opening episode like Season 1 did, but it's still plenty enjoyable and I look forward to watching the episodes. Stranger Things broke my heart. There's fan-service everywhere and what remnants there are the are like Season 1 feels disingenuous. The first five episodes could have been two, and the show picks up significantly at Chapter 6, when the plot really gets started, but there's other problems that hold it back even then. I haven't written a review for it yet but I need to, hopefully soon so I can stop being sad and wondering what went wrong.

This month there is a must-see, because for some reason I still watch every single Marvel release in theaters. Although I'd see this one anyway! I wouldn't be surprised if I saw two or three of these movies this month, but I guess we'll see. What looks good to you?


Thor: Ragnarok
Nov 3rd; PG-13
This one's practically out already and already has loads of pleased reviews from critics and fans. So I have no doubt it's a good Marvel movie. That in itself doesn't mean much to me, since I've disliked plenty of "good" Marvel movies, but -- I do have high hopes for this one. I like the style of the director Taika Waititi and think his sense of humor would work excellently with Thor. And the trailer was just brimming with galactic style -- and Led Zeppelin, which is a great sign if you ask me! Looks like Thor has finally gotten a movie worthy of him! Cate Blanchett looks awesome as the villain, and I'm happy to see Loki back again, and there's also Karl Urban and Jeff Goldblum. And Hulk of course. Time to Ragnarok and roll!




Battlecreek
Nov 3rd(limited); NR
This month in "movies I want to see because a certain actor is in them." This time featuring -- Bill Skarsgård! Ever since IT came out I've been on the hunt for more movies starring him, where he doesn't wear clown makeup the whole time, and ideally doesn't terrorize children either. This looks like a nice option: A southern romantic drama, that looks like it has just enough of an edge to make it interesting.




Murder on the Orient Express
Nov 10th; PG-13
Well I've already seen a film adaptation of this, so I know who-done-it, but I'll always be up for another version, especially a bigger-budgeted one, with big-name stars. Kenneth Branagh I seriously doubt will be able to match David Suchet's Poirot (even with that incredible mustache); him directing is the real exciting bit, since I love his style. He just seems to fit with Agatha Christie. (I wish he'd do a take on And Then There Were None, but I digress.) Practically everyone else in the movie is a recognizable name, but I'm most excited to see Daisy Ridley do something other than Star Wars. Hopefully this will be one to remember! (I should read the book before it comes out...)




Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri
Nov 10th; R
This is a nice, strange one. Black comedy, extreme violence, Frances McDormand. She always seems to absolutely fantastic, but this looks like the kind of plot that she'd really, really shine in. Also, Sam Rockwell. always a winner. This movie looks quite good actually. Not the the kind I'd necessarily go to the theater for, but I'd like to see it at some point.




Justice League
Nov 17th; PG-13
So I guess Superman's gonna wait til the end of the movie to return, because when you have Superman why do you need anyone else, right? I'm sorry, but I'm done with this. Wonder Woman and her movie was great, but I doubt she can save this movie, and I'm so done. It looks exactly the same and BvS, and I'm just done. (They're copying Stranger Things by playing a moody version of Heroes, and that's hilarious and I'm done.) I won't even be surprised if I end up going to see it because of how big it is, but if I do it will be with rolling eyes, because I'm done. And the review will likely be extremely cynical, because I am just plain done. I'm done.




Revolt
Nov 17th(limited); R
This month in "small budget scifi films I want to see because I'm a scifi junkie" -- featuring Lee Pace in this scifi actioner. If I had to venture a guess, it's gonna be very typical plot-wise, but it doesn't have the worst special effects, and Lee Pace is a nice plus too. I'm beginning to wonder when I'll actually get to see all these indie scifi's I've been finding. I guess that's why it's good I list them here, so I won't forget about them!




Coco
Nov 22nd; PG
"Oh yeah, Pixar is releasing a movie this year." Remember when the Pixar releases were the biggest events of the year? Did that change just because I have a grown up taste in movies now, or has Pixar really slid down that far? Ever since Brave in 2012 every new Pixar flick I've either not seen or been disappointed with. I'm not gonna write this one off of course, but there's not any excitement either. I haven't seen The Book of Life, which is what it's drawing comparisons to, so to me it's like the Spanish version of Corpse Bride meets Kubo and the Two Strings, which is interesting enough, but also kinda makes me wish it was a stop-motion animation. I like those. Anyway, I've rambled for long enough. Keeping on eye on this one.




The Man Who Invented Christmas
Nov 22nd; PG
Granted, it's not exactly a movie anyone was asking for, but it may turn out to be one we need anyway. Dan Steven's as crazy Charles Dickens? Grumpy Christopher Plummer as Scrooge? Not bad at all. Looks fun, family friendly, and about as energetic as a movie about writing can be! I should definitely read A Christmas Carol before I see this. Anything less would just be disrespectful!

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!)

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...

Beauty and the Beast

Everyone's here, everything's the same, and the nostalgia is strong. There's Belle with her simple blue dress and her swishy yellow one, Gaston with his poof-in-the-front hair, the Beast's unnaturally blue eyes, Lumiere and Cogsworth and their constant bantering. All the songs are sung, all the magic displayed, and that same happy ending is more life-like than it has ever been. But is this remake truly worthy?

Because, as with all great tales that are old as time, it should be.

With the original being only 25 years old, it's already a relatively up-to-date kind of fairytale. Are the advancements in GCI technology since 1991 enough to refresh the story? Does making it live-action and filling the beloved roles with appealing actors create new worth? Perhaps not -- but that didn't stop the production, so I figured it wouldn't have to stop our enjoyment either. I plunged in opening night with no inhibitions, but also not much confidence in the quality.

The worst thing was the visual effects. The idea was that today we are perfectly capable of making humanoid beasts and talking inanimate objects seem real so they can play believably next to live actors. Now, I have seen Guardians of the Galaxy, and Dawn of the Planet of the Apes, so I know this to be true; the technology has advanced to the point where its use is practical and able to hold up over time. So, why does the animation of the Beast look so bad? They used mo-cap technology, it's Disney so they should have plenty of money -- yet looking at his face, my mind could never accept it as real.

Sorry dude but you're just too human.

It's a mystery because I know the capabilities are there, but besides speculating about laziness, the only thing I can point out is that the facial design was poorly done. Perhaps in an effort to keep the movie PG but seriously the Beast's face was too human and too... pretty. Pointy nose, flat face, and his tiny protruding fangs got in the way and disappeared from scene to scene. So much else was adapted to look exactly the same, and I wish he had been too. At least his face should have had more structure. The one thing the Beast had going for him was Dan Stevens and the moments when you could tell he was somewhere behind all that badly designed CGI, actually giving a performance.

The animate inanimate objects were more successful in that they were not distracting or completely unbelievable, but they still were less expressive than they have been, either as cartoon characters or as portrayed by dramatic stage performers in funny costumes. Overall the special effects wound up giving off a distinct odor of careless minimal effort. Practical effects, sets, props, and costumes were happily not subject to that, and in their splendor, the spectacle thrives.

And guess who brings the spectacle?

So I've hit on the worst the movie gives us -- now the best. That, of course is Luke Evans as Gaston. Full disclosure, I may have swooned when he first started singing. He has a fantastic voice with a clear, loud Broadway sound that is perfect for Gaston, and he matched it in his over-the-top, scenery-chewing performance. He was obviously having a blast in the role, and wound up making Gaston as great and as interesting as he's ever been. The downside of this was that he made everyone else look bad. Not his fault of course, and some people managed to look bad without his comparison.

Emma Watson for instance. And I want to be clear that going in I had some hopes for her Belle. I thought she looked the part, and could easily imagine her doing the role justice. However, her characterization of Belle was given very little energy -- Belle's friendly optimism turned to prim politeness and her determined passion to bouts of anger and irritated sarcasm. Her singing was also problematic, requiring auto-tuning, and simply not being as strong as a character like Belle requires. I can only suppose she was cast for her star power and pretty face.

Poor girl. But my, what a guy that Luke Evans!

New songs were added (similar to those exclusive to Broadway) and one was a ballad for the Beast. I did not expect that from Dan Stevens and was impressed. His speaking voice was digitally altered to be low and gravelly, but I couldn't tell if the same effect was applied to his singing. Either way, since I couldn't tell, it was well done. As a human he was much more easily enjoyed. He gets a cool opening scene (the movie's most creative expansion) which I was immensely glad to see, but his live-action screen time was still much too short for my preference. His eyes probably won him the role, but hopefully a more widespread appreciation of his talent will be the end result.

Ewan McGregor I had not heard sing before, but he delivered with expected aplomb in "Be Our Guest" and everywhere else. Emma Thompson was also excellently solid as Mrs. Potts, lovely and reliable to the very end. Kevin Kline's Maurice got to sing a little too which was nice. Josh Gad's LeFou was amusing in spite of sharing scenes with the distractingly good Gaston. Hattie Morahan surprised me with her presence. (Period drama fans will recognize her from the 2008 Sense & Sensibility where she played opposite Dan Stevens!) Gugu Mbatha-Raw as Plumette, Ian McKellen as Cogsworth, Stanley Tucci, Audra McDonald; the cast overall was a plethora of talent, though some were underused.

Still they had a LOT to do with the movie being as enjoyable as it was.

Whether or not this remake is worthy must depend on the individual. For some it may be, and for some it may not. I thought it was worth the ticket for Luke Evans alone, but I can't help but notice that practically everything that was good about this movie came directly from the original. It borrowed everything, slapped on CGI paint and considered it enough of a re-brand. When new things were added, they didn't make sense, like the book that can transport you anywhere -- what was that? Expanding with backstory and side plots isn't a bad idea in principle, but it was done only to stretch out the run time, and none of the additions mattered to the plot in the end.

It has its magical moments of singing, dancing, visual splendor, and of course romance, but don't suppose that credit belongs solely to this film; where this new Beauty and the Beast succeeds it succeeds because it tells a good story, not because it tells a good story well.

Upcoming Movie Roundup - March

In February, The Lego Batman Movie turned out to be every bit the awesome must-see flick for every age that its predecessor was! Read about how awesome and hilarious I thought it was here! No other movies tempted me last month, but I am watching Legion on FX, and so far it is quite excellent.

March marks the beginning of 2017's highly anticipated movie lineup, with big release after big release. I'm sure I'll get to the theater at least once! What looks good to you? Are any of your most anticipated 2017 movies releasing this month?


Logan
Mar 3rd, R
Hugh Jackman's Wolverine has always been my favorite thing about the X-Men franchise, but his solo movies have never been quite what they should be. Maybe with Logan, his run will end with changing that! This one's already got excellent reviews from critics, and they finally buckled down and gave him an R-rated movie -- something I am all for on the counts of violence and language if the story calls for it. Annoyingly, there is also brief nudity, and while it's a good sign that the movie isn't filled with nudity and sex, that brief inclusion will almost certainly cause my family to wait for the DVD.




Before I Fall
Mar 3rd, PG-13
Am I a sucker for "Groundhog Day" movies? Yes, yes I am. This one mixes the fun gimmick with high school drama for a popular girl who lives the same day over and over -- ending each day dying in a car crash -- and begins to wonder if her life really is as great as she thinks. It's unlikely that this movie will reach the great levels of Groundhog Day, or even Edge of Tomorrow, but that doesn't at all mean that it's not going to be a worthwhile movie in its own right. I hope it will be, and I'm curious to see for myself.




Table 19
Mar 3rd, PG-13
Cute and possibly cynical dramedy with possible romance starring Anna Kendrick, anyone? Yeah, this is one of those chick-flicks that just seems like a no-brianer, with the charm and quirky appeal the trailer exhibits.




Kong: Skull Island
Mar 10th, PG-13
Look -- I'm under no delusion about this movie that it'll be anything but ridiculous. The first trailers tried to evoke some kind of seriousness and depth, but this one seems most honest. Ridiculous. Stylish, action-packed, star-studded ridiculousness, and as long as it's fun -- which seems a promising possibility -- I'm on board for the adventure! Seriously, this is the style of movie that Kong was meant for.




Beauty and the Beast
Mar 17th, PG
Full disclosure: I still think the animation of the Beast's face looks bad. Like, I'm worried about how much of a distraction it'll be bad. Otherwise, I'm excited this live action version of the story. Emma Watson looks good; Dan Stevens will hopefully be worth casting for the little time his face will be on screen; and I can already sense that Luke Evan's Gaston will the scene-stealing favorite. There's a part of me that doubts the film will be able to match the latest Cinderella's grand perfection, but as long as it can recapture even a spark of the magic of the original -- which I think it has based on the trailer -- everything should be great.




The Belko Experiment
Mar 17th, R
Normally this is the kind of movie where I'd look at the trailer, scoff pleasantly, move along, and watch it on TV three years later. However, this one was co-written by James Gunn, and that brings a lot of interest. Especially after I heard that the film has a lot of comedy (which you can't tell from this trailer) plus a cast full of familiar faces including John Gallagher Jr. in the apparent lead, and Sean Gunn and Michael Rooker. So I still might not see it until it hits the TV, or who knows. But now it's on my list.




Power Rangers
Mar 24th, PG-13
Tee-hee. I feel a little bit silly for including this one, especially since I can't claim nostalgia, having never watched the TV show, but I dunno, it looks fun. Cheesy, cliched, and probably too young for me, but fun. There's just something classically appealing about actioners like this, that don't feel the need to take risks and break new ground but to just do what works. Or maybe what doesn't work because this has all the earmarks of a movie with a good first act, a crumbling second act, and a distracted, directionless third that ruins everything. If that's not the case, I'll probably watch it. But to be honest, I'll probably watch it anyway.




Life
Mar 24th, NR
What, Christmas already? I love space travel movies; space travel movies that are subtly science fiction, using science to speculate into the near future, and most importantly space scifi movies where everything steadily plummets into crazy, terrifying horror. Yep, it appears to be Christmas. This one stars Ryan Reynolds, the lovely Rebecca Ferguson, Jake Gyllenhaal, and Hirouki Sanada (of Sunshine, a favorite of the sub-genre). It's not rated yet so we'll see about that, but I have high hopes. Very, very, extraterrestrially high.




Ghost in the Shell
Mar 31st, NR
This one definitely rides on what the rating ends up being. If it's appropriate enough, I'll be very interested, mainly just for the world-building aspect, which looks crazy and extremely unique -- although I suppose it isn't so much for people who watched the anime. Scarlett Johansson stars. It looks very stylish and not a little creepy.





The Zookeeper's Wife
Mar 31st, PG-13
A war drama rounds out the genres of the month. This one stars Jessica Chastain and tells the true story of the proprietor of a Polish zoo and his wife in 1939 who harbor Jews in the zoo and their home as Poland is invaded by Nazis. Daniel Bruhl also stars as the main villain. Jessica Chastain is the main appeal with this for me, but the unique and true aspects of it also seem to indicate an interesting historic film. Keeping an eye on this one.




Iron Fist
Premieres Mar 17th on Netflix
As great as this month looks movie-wise, there is nothing I am more excited for than Iron Fist. I have not been this excited for a Netflix Marvel show since the first season of Daredevil. I have high hopes, but not quite as much confidence. I know the potential is there, but if they are just getting this out there so the Defenders can happen things might not be as great as they should be. I will be very upset if that happens, because with what I can see of the characters and the premise, this show could be a new favorite of mine easily. I've got a lot riding on this -- don't let me down, Marvel!

Upcoming Movie Roundup - February

In January I accomplished my oh-so-ambitious plan of seeing one movie in the theaters! La La Land was excellent and worth the wait. Here's my gushy review. Of the TV shows I talked about last month, Sherlock was such a sad failure. (I'm not mad, I'm just... disappointed.) Here are my untempered thoughts on that. Netflix's A Series of Unfortunate Events was an absolute hit for me though -- everything that I hoped the new attempt at an adaptation would do was done every bit as excellently as I dreamed. I haven't reviewed it though, and I'm not sure I will. If you're interested to read a review of it from me, let me know! But just know that I highly recommend it! I've also been watching Emerald City on NBC. It's not great, but is good enough that we haven't quit yet. The promise of a definite end is definitely what's keeping me in. Anyone else watching this? I'd love to hear your thoughts on it!

February is back to normal with a nice wide spread of interesting releases -- most of which I'll be looking out for reviews on. There's no huge must-see, but I'll be very surprised if we don't go see The Lego Batman Movie!

What looks good to you this month?


The Space Between Us
Feb 3rd; PG-13
This one's based on a book, so of course now I'm more interesting in reading it than I am watching it... although I do like Asa Butterfield, and Britt Robertson isn't bad. The thing is, the most appealing side of this is the space/Mars stuff, but it looks like he's gonna spend most of his time (and therefore most of the movie's time) on Earth. And then it's in serious danger of being just another fish-out-of-water rom-com, which would be a waste of the premise in my opinion.




The Lego Batman Movie
Feb 10th; PG
Will Arnett's Batman gets his very own very well-deserved movie! There's been so many trailers that we've probably seen most of the movie already, and it's unlikely this one will have the same real-world connection as The Lego Movie did. But gosh, so far I've seen nothing that is short of hilarious with this film's advertising, and it seems to set up for a good amount of depth too. So even if it's not as exceptional as The Lego Movie, I'm excited for a fun time at the theater with the best Batman ever!




A United Kingdom
Feb 10th; PG-13
Looks like a decent romance, and probably a political drama too. Not at all my favorite genres, but I thought it was worth mentioning. There's been a lot of movies lately with themes focused on racism, so if this one wants to stand out it would need to be a worthwhile story, (and perhaps have something new to say on the subject too) and of that, it's hard to tell from the trailer. It is done by the director of Belle though, and that's a promising sign.




The Great Wall
Feb 17th; PG-13
Dear Matt Damon -- What are you doing, buddy? You were in The Martian, and now this? Okay, as far as action-centered lite fantasy films go, this one looks like it could be fun, and will probably be at least decently entertaining from the its visual alone. As far as all that goes. I don't get Matt Damon in this, though. What's the appeal -- for him and for us? There's so many other actors that could have played the part, probably do better on the action side, and not waste their acting chops... but hey, maybe I'm missing something. Or... maybe not.




A Cure for Wellness
Feb 17th; R
If it weren't for the too-hard-for-me rating this might've been the most interesting movie of the month. Dane DeHaan and Jason Isaacs are typically great, the plot is intriguingly crazy and mysterious, and it is visually both creepy and spectacular. If it turns out as good as it looks, I'll look forward to an opportunity to see it. However I'm not counting on it -- it could very well be one of those films that edits together a memorable trailer out of a lot of good-looking nonsense.




Collide
Feb 24th; PG-13
Nicholas Hoult. Felicity Jones. Action flick. I mean, even if it is otherwise the worst movie on the face of the Earth it's still gotta be worth watching just for that, right? Also Ben Kingsley and Anthony Hopkins support. The appeal of the cast makes the any issue of the movies quality pretty much obsolete -- I'm gonna want to watch this no matter what. It doesn't look like it has the most original plot or ideas, but I seriously doubt it'll be the worst movie ever either. In fact, it looks quite fun and action-packed!




Legion
FX starting Feb 8th
Some crazy stuff is about to go down. This new Marvel TV series stars Dan Stevens as the X-Man Legion, and... the trailers don't make any sense and promise all kinds of crazy-cool mind-bending. I only know the basics about this character, but it wouldn't make a difference if I knew nothing at all. It's Marvel. It's Dan Stevens. It looks like this. What else do you need to know? Oh, Aubrey Plaza is in it too -- that's just icing. Definitely excited for this!

5 Male Characters Tag

Rules:
1.) List 5 of your favorite male characters (book or screen)
2.) Tagging other people is optional
3.) If you are tagged link back to the person that tagged you
4.) Link back to Revealed In Time (preferably using the link to this post)

Choose one from each category.
1.) Hero
2.) Villain
3.) Anti-hero
4.) Best book-to-screen adaption
5.) Best character perception

Thanks again to Ivy Miranda -- who also hosted the 5 Female Characters Tag a while back -- for tagging me in this! I had a bit of a harder time with this one in general, because I have more favorite male characters than female. In the end, I decided to feature a character in each category who has recently impressed me with his greatness. Here they are:

Hero: 

Private Reiben

played by Edward Burns

in Saving Private Ryan

Basically, if I really like a character, I consider him to be a hero is some way. I could feature almost any of my favorite characters here. I picked Private Reiben from Saving Private Ryan, because he is the hero who was most recently introduced to me. (Yes, I only just recently saw Saving Private Ryan for the first time.) Reiben starts out as quite the antagonist (though not villain) in the movie, being irritable and careless and callous, and resentful to Ryan for getting special treatment, but every great hero needs an origin story, and Reiben's was my favorite part of the fantastic movie. He jumped out at me as an early favorite by looking and sounding like Edward Burns, kept the attention by being the source of much dramatic conflict, and eventually made an undeniable and moving turn to the heroic. The moment pictured above was my favorite: while waiting for the battle, Reiben watches Ryan, and you can SEE him change his mind about hating him. By the end I was very impressed, and glad for arbitrarily choosing such a great character with such a unexpectedly great heroic journey to invest in.

Villain: 

Kruger

played by Sharlto Copley

in Elysium

Strangely, this was the hardest category for me to make a choice in with trying to include only my most recent favorites in all the categories. After way too much thought, I discovered that I haven't been too keen on any villains recently. But a little more thought brought me around to Kruger, from Elysium. Kruger is a villain to the core; a gleeful embodiment of a guy who just loves being bad. Occasionally terrifying, surprisingly often very funny; epic South African accent; all thanks to the delightful Sharlto Copley. What I love most about Kruger is his fun-loving, laid-back attitude. He seems to put style above all else and relishes his villainous position. This guy makes evil look cool, and overshadows everyone else who appears in this movie. Even Matt Damon -- and that's saying a lot.

Anti-hero: 

David

played by Dan Stevens

in The Guest

With this category I was very tempted to pick a character that I mainly consider to be a hero, just with one or two flaws that are cleared up by the end. The definition of an anti-hero is a protagonist who lacks heroic qualities so I would have been within my rights, but instead I decided to go to the opposite side of the spectrum, and that landed David from The Guest in this place. David is certainly the protagonist of The Guest. Interestingly, he is also the villain, and confusingly, he is for the most part, well-meaning in his villainy, making him a perfect, complicated anti-hero. Dan Stevens' performance of this strange and crazy character, is so incredibly perfect that I was literally laughing at his awesomeness many, many times. The balance of creepy and charming is still mind-blowing to me, and his expression changes are to die for.

Best book-to-screen adaptation: 

Thomas

played by Dylan O'Brien

in The Maze Runner, and The Scorch Trials

The Maze Runner series has just passed The Hunger Games as my favorite YA Dystopian series with the second movie installment, The Scorch Trials, in which Dylan O'Brien plays the hero, Thomas. In the books, Thomas never bothered me, but neither did I really ever feel particularly sympathetic towards him or get involved in his personal plights. O'Brien's performance of him in the first movie was very good adapting work, as he was obviously Thomas, with no real character changes, while actually improving on the character's likability. In The Scorch Trials he continued that trend, and is now a really, very involving character. He's still not my favorite character in the series (I still like Newt and Minho better personally) but I do like him way better than I ever expected to -- all thanks to some super great adapting and acting work.

Best character perception: 

Benji Dunn

played by Simon Pegg

in Mission: Impossible III, Ghost Protocol, and Rogue Nation

For this category, I easily decided on a Simon Pegg character. But then I had an incredibly hard time choosing between Benji Dunn of the Mission: Impossible franchise, and Shaun, of Shaun of the Dead. Characters who surprise you by being better than you originally thought is one of my all-time favorite things. It gets me ever time. I'm a total sucker for it. And it's something that Pegg does amazingly well. Benji won out simply because our changing perception of him took three movies (so far -- who knows what will happen next!) to get where we are now, and that's just awesome. Even though his brief appearance in M:I3 was hardly more than a cameo, the character was nailed immediately; as Benji earns his stripes by passing his field exam and going on missions with the legend Ethan Hunt, and eventually becoming his best friend, his base is always that nervous, geeky tech guy. But then we witness him beat a polygraph like it's no more than a slightly hard level on a video game, or passionately telling Ethan that he is perfectly willing to put his job and life on the line to help Ethan with an important but unsanctioned mission -- and we realize that Benji always was a lot more and a lot deeper than just the quirky comic relief.

I believe everyone I would tag for this has already been tagged, so I won't bother. But if you haven't been tagged yet and want to fill out his list, please do! I'd love to see your answers! What do you think of mine?

The Guest

This review is spoiler-free.

This comedy-thriller wins the award for biggest and craziest "what the heck did I just watch?" film ever.

I'll skip the plot summary. It's not necessary to know anyway, because the question of whether or not you'd like it rides on the style and tone of the film, not what actually happens in it. So I'll start here: it stars Dan Stevens, and he is a long way away from Downton Abbey and Sense and Sensibility. He is impressively different and obviously talented beyond the requirements of a period drama here; his performance is immaculate, detailed and subtle, and hilarious and strange, and the movie showcases his abilities brilliantly. The rest of the cast I have never seen before, but they all (especially Maika Monroe and Brendan Meyer) play perfectly to the film's tone.

American-ified and action-star-ified, but still as charming as ever.

And as you may have guessed from the genre of comedy thriller, the film's tone is pretty different. It's a dark comedy but in a different way from most dark comedies -- the comedy is very subtle, and more in the way the story is presented, than just cracking dark jokes. I've never seen a film do comedy quite like this one before and it took me a while to realize that these things I laughed at, while being simultaneously confused and slightly disturbed really were meant to be as funny as I thought they were. And everything was played that way, even the usage of music (1980's techno music, to be specific) and editing became the equivalent of a fantastic laugh line in a typical comedy.

The plot itself also has an involving mystery element to it, that unfolds slowly but surely right to the very end. And also as a thriller there is plenty of action; very neat, stylish, almost sophisticated and not overly gross or gory, but still extremely violent, over-the-top kind of action. The film is rated R and there's no shying away from the striking red blossoms of blood spray, loud punches and cracking bones. It matches the rest of the movie to perfection. As for the rest of the R content, there's smoking, and a little swearing, and one short scene we fast-forwarded through.

This photo embodies the film's style. Notice, if you will, the sharply contrasting colors... and the handgun.

Now all I want to do is make a list of all the most awesome and weirdly hilarious bits, but I promised to keep it ambiguous with no spoilers. So I guess all that's left to say is that it's a well-made movie -- besides being a great breakout vehicle for the worthy Dan Stevens -- it has the conflicting feel of tasteful and expensive junk food; so slick and unassumingly psychotic, cut perfectly and styled perfectly, and so, so strange. I cannot even describe how strange and totally odd and wacko this movie is. My most common thought while watching was "WHAT?" accompanied with a hearty laugh. I enjoyed almost every second of it.

On paper this is not at all my kind of movie, but somewhere in between Dan Stevens' cool, unsettling, charming turn, the tongue-in-cheek humor, and the perfect, tone-fitting and satisfying end, I was won over by The Guest.

Night at the Museum: Secret of the Tomb

Mild Spoilers.

Night at the Museum is back for a third and what seems to be final time for adventures with history come-to-life.

The basic gist of the plot is that the magical tablet that brings museum exhibits to life at night is sick, so the gang travels to The British Museum in search of answers. It's little more than an excuse to get out of the house and go over to London for a change, but who could ever mind that? If there's too much plot, it would take away from all the horsing around, which is the appeal of this franchise anyway.

The gang.

"The gang" consist of Larry (Ben Stiller) and his son Nick (Skyler Gisondo), Egyptian king Ahkmenrah (Rami Malek), Teddy Roosevelt (Robin Wiliams), the miniature cowboy and Roman solider Jedediah and Octavius (Owen Wilson and Steve Coogan), a monkey, Attila the Hun, Sacajawea, and... a caveman (Ben Stiller... again). It's a big group that could have done with less, but it turns out the large and familiar group is one of the charms of the movie, and to make up for the huge number of favorites who had to be included, only two significant characters hailing from The British Museum are added -- the night guard (Rebel Wilson), and Sir Lancelot (Dan Stevens). Plus Dick Van Dyke returns for a scene, and Ben Kingsley graces us with his presence; as does Ricky Gervais, just, with less grace.

I admit, the main reason I ever got around to seeing this third installment was because of Dan Stevens being Lancelot, and he is probably what I enjoyed most (though not by too much) kinda because he was more interesting than just a gallant knight of the Round Table, and, most importantly, because it was so strange and hilarious to see him doing silly American-style slapstick humor.

...but still playing an old-fashioned British character. Very surreal. Like the blueness of his eyes...

All the characters are fun and unique though, and watching them all interact and have fun together was as amusing as it was pointless. And in spite of the large number of them they all had plenty to do. Still the normal guy who holds everything together is Larry, and I liked that they added his son back into the story. Larry is having difficulty with his graduating son who wants to skip college to pursue his dreams, and their relationship added some very welcome real-life depth to all the historical fantasy fun.

Most of the jokes were successfully funny, but they were also mostly played for too long. Killed jokes are funny at the beginning just like any other joke, but they're always dead in the end, no matter how alive they were at first. So you laugh, and then you stop, and then you feel sorry for that poor little joke that didn't deserve such a short life. And then you move on to the next one. One gag that could have gone on as long as it liked though, was Hugh Jackman and Alice Eve's cameos -- hands down best part of the movie. And I actually enjoyed watching Ben Stiller interact with his caveman-self more than I thought I would.

Fun times, fun times...

So that's basically it -- a decent, amusing flick where all our favorite fun Night characters going on an adventure overseas to save the world (sorta -- not really) following a simple plot that allowed for maximum fun and silliness. It all wound up very evenly; a quarter was just pure entertaining fun; a quarter was funny gags; another was made up of jokes and fun things that didn't turn out quite right; and the last quarter was surprisingly endearing -- the deeper, sweeter stuff that gave it all a bit meaning.

The Night at the Museum franchise has never been anything more that what it still is with this latest installment -- entertaining, light enjoyment. Not the best adventure you can have for less than $20, but you could do a lot worse hanging out in a non-magical museum at night!

Upcoming Movie Roundup - December

Happy December everyone! I hope all your Thanksgivings were full of joy and, well, thanksgivings! Last month, even though I was seriously considering going to the theater for three different movies, I only ended up seeing the one I knew I absolutely would; Mockingjay Part 1. We even went to the Thursday night premiere, which I was not a little nervous about, because I am afraid of teenaged fangirls when they are massed together and excited, but the audience was surprisingly mature, and it was a fun experience. Click here to read my review! And Big Hero 6 and Interstellar are still on my to-watch list -- in that order. December sees the next movie I've been excitedly anticipating for a year, and few others that could potentially make my list.

What movies did you see in November, and what are your plans for December? Let me know in the comments!

Exodus: Gods and Kings
Dec 12th; PG-13
It's been 16 years since the classic The Prince of Egypt, so I wouldn't mind another film version of this event, and it's looking very epic. But, then again, Noah looked pretty epic as well, and wound up being hands down the worst movie to masquerade as a bible story ever, so I won't let my hopes go too high before I can read some opinions on the film from a christian perspective. That being said, Christian Bale as Moses, and Joel Edgerton as Rameses are two very good reasons to get ones hopes up... and the trailer promising a huge epic battle and shying away from including God is good reason to remain wary. But man, does it look good...




The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies
Dec 17th: PG-13
We have reached the end of the journey -- there and back again, as it were (as it was, until it was changed). Even though I tend to nit pick these movies, and will probably never love them as much as I do The Lord of the Rings, I can't begin to describe how glad I am that these Hobbit movies were made (even if I don't agree with the way they were made %100). Martin Freeman's Bilbo is absolute perfection, and I wouldn't trade that for anything. Plus the individualizing character development for all the dwarves, (and other characters underdeveloped in the book) making them all unique and familiar. And Smaug the incredible and magnificent, the richest fictional character in history, is actually done justice, and that is mind-blowing. I am going to be very sad to bid all these characters, and this amazing world "a very fond farewell."

On that note, here's the music video for Billy Boyd's song "The Last Goodbye" to be played in the credits of BotFA. Here, with clips from The Lord of the Rings and Hobbit movies, it is effectively saying goodbye to all things Middle-Earth, and it is wonderfully heartbreaking.



And here's the main trailer, in case you have a hanker to see it again (I hope you've seen it before!):




Night at the Museum: Secret of the Tomb
Dec 19th: PG
The third Night at the Museum movie gives The Hobbit as run for its money for "longest movie title of the month award," but comes up just short. In this one, the gang all goes to London to try and figure out what is wrong with the artifact that magically makes them come to life at night. My main interest in this comes from the fact that Dan Steven is in it... as Sir Lancelot no less! But even besides him, the film would still be on my radar. Ever since The Secret Life of Walter Mitty I've had considerably more respect for Ben Stiller's work, and the series so far has certainly been good enough to make a third seem like a worthy endeavor.




Annie
Dec 19th; PG
"It's the hard-knock life" -- remixed! Quvenzhane Wallis stars as Annie in this modernized remake of the classic musical. There's also Jamie Foxx as Daddy Warbucks (now Will Stacks), Cameron Diaz as Miss Hannigan, and Rose Byrne as Grace. Though I seriously anyone could match the amazingness of Alan Cumming's Rooster, and Kristen Chenoweth's Lily St. Regis in my current favorite version (if they even have the characters in this one) I'm definitely excited for the potential that this may be a very cute, upbeat, and modern version of the story.




American Sniper
Dec 25th (limited); R
And on the complete opposite side of the spectrum from Annie is Clint Eastwood's new movie about the real-life Navy SEAL sniper Chris Kyle, played by Bradley Cooper. And since I've been slowly becoming more and more of a fan of Cooper's after writing him off as a pretty-boy at first, that's the main reason for my interest in this. This appears to be his Oscar-grab attempt for the year, so that guarantees a good performance. And I also imagine that if anyone can make a good movie about a soldier other than Kathryn Bigelow, that person is Clint Eastwood.



[Update]
Into the Woods
Dec 25th; PG
Woah! I totally forgot about Into the Woods! And sure, I may not be as obsessed and excited for this as some of the people I know, but that's mostly because I've never seen it, and only heard a handful of the songs. But I am a fan of musicals... and fairy tales... and this is a musical fairytale, so... that's kind of a no-brainer. And with a cast list that sound like this: Meryl Streep, James Corden, Emily Blunt, Chris Pine, and Johnny Depp -- yeah, I'm definitely interested in this one, and it's looking very promising!

The Janeite Tag

Thanks to Hannah over at Miss Daydreamer's Place for tagging me to talk about my love for Jane Austen!

The Rules:

• Thank and link back to the person who tagged you.
• Tell us how you were introduced to Jane Austen and share one fun fact about your Janeite life (this fun fact can be anything from "I stayed up all night reading Emma" to "I visited Chawton and met Anna Chancellor.").
• Answer the tagger's questions.
• Write seven questions of your own.
• Tag as few as one or as many as seven other Janeites and let them know you've tagged them.

My introduction to the world of Jane Austen:
It would be hard to pinpoint the exact moment I became a fan of Austen, but it was sometime between when I first saw the 1995 Pride and Prejudice when I was about eleven, and when I finished reading all her books for the first time, when I was about eighteen. It was probably closer to the latter though, because even though I would watch P&P with my family every time they watched it, it took a while for me to come to appreciate anything more than the pretty dresses and the pretty horses. It could have been in '08, when the new version of Sense and Sensibility aired on TV, and waiting a week between episodes was filled with impatience. Or you could argue that it was when I first appreciated Austen's work in it's purest form; perhaps when I was at the end of Emma and it suddenly occurred to me how much I'd enjoyed the book -- way more than either of the film adaptions. To quote Lizzy on her loving Darcy, "It has been coming on so gradually, that I hardly know when it began. But I believe I must date it from my first seeing his beautiful grounds at Pemberly." So I guess you could say it really was the pretty dresses!

My fun fact about me and Austen: 
This past summer I portrayed Mary Bennet in my theatre group's performance of Pride and Prejudice, a Musical. I got to sing and play the piano badly and everything. And now I feel slightly more connected to and understanding of poor Mary.

Hannah's Questions:

What is your favourite Jane Austen novel?
Oh, starting with a hard one, I see. I remember enjoying reading Emma the most, but I wouldn't take that to mean it was my favorite. Northanger Abbey made me laugh the most, and Persuasion was wonderfully melancholy. But I think I'll have to go with the classic, and say Pride and Prejudice. It has a little of everything, and I think the best romance.

Who is your favourite Austen hero and heroine? (I guess that could be considered two questions!) So since it's two questions, I can pick a hero and heroine who hail from separate stories? If I had to choose them as a pair, I'd say Catherine Morland and Henry Tilney. They are just so adorable together. Separately, I've always been partial to Mr. Knightley, and identified most with Elinor Dashwood. But don't underestimate my liking of Lizzy and Darcy, separately, and as a pair.

Who is your favourite secondary character?
It's funny how most of Austen's secondary characters are usually pretty dis-likable, isn't it? I could never really find it in me to dislike Mr. Churchill though, ever since I first saw him as Ewan McGregor with that adorable smile and that weird, long red hair.

Which relative of any of Austen's heroines/heroes do you find most annoying?
Mrs. Bennet. Next question! Oh, wait, maybe Lady Catherine... hmmm, no, I'll stick with Mrs. Bennet.

Provide up to five of your favourite Austen quotes. (I know, hard! Just pick a few random quotes that you love. They don't have to be your absolute favourites) (Passages, more like, for me!)

1. (A hilarious conversation between Catherine and Henry in Northanger Abbey.)‘“Now I must give one smirk, and then we may be rational again." Catherine turned away her head, not knowing whether she might venture to laugh. "I see what you think of me," said he gravely -- "I shall make but a poor figure in your journal tomorrow."
   "My journal!"
   "Yes, I know exactly what you will say: Friday, went to the Lower Rooms; wore my sprigged muslin robe with blue trimmings -- plain black shoes -- appeared to much advantage; but was strangely harassed by a queer, half-witted man, who would make me dance with him, and distressed me by his nonsense." 
   "Indeed I shall say no such thing." 
   "Shall I tell you what you ought to say?" 
   "If you please." 
   "I danced with a very agreeable young man, introduced by Mr. King; had a great deal of conversation with him -- seems a most extraordinary genius -- hope I may know more of him. That, madam, is what I wish you to say."’
2.  (My admitting to liking this one might make me out to be anti-social, but, oh well. Said by Lizzy.) "The more I see of the world, the more am I dissatisfied with it; and every day confirms my belief of the inconsistency of all human characters, and of the little dependence that can be placed on the appearance of either merit or sense."
3. (This one from Mr. Bennet reflects the lighter side of my anti-social tendencies.) "For what do we live, but to make sport for our neighbours, and laugh at them in our turn?"
4. (This is one of my favorite moments of Elinor's.)"My dear," said she [Mrs. Jennings], entering, "I have just recollected that I have some of the finest old Constantia wine in the house, that ever was tasted -- so I have brought a glass of it for your sister. My poor husband! how fond he was of it! Whenever he had a touch of his old cholicky gout, he said it did him more good than anything else in the world. Do take it to your sister."
   "Dear ma'am," replied Elinor, smiling at the difference of the complaints for which it was recommended, "how good you are! But I have just left Marianne in bed, and, I hope, almost asleep; and as I think nothing will be of so much service to her as rest, if you will give me leave, I will drink the wine myself."
   Mrs. Jennings, though regretting that she had not been five minutes earlier, was satisfied with the compromise; and Elinor, as she swallowed the chief of it, reflected that, though its good effects on a cholicky gout were at present of little importance to her, its healing powers on a disappointed heart might be as reasonably tried on herself as on her sister.
5. (And since I've already made this very, very long, I'll put Mr. Knightly's declaration of love last. Not the entire thing though. But I like the entire thing.) “My dearest Emma," said he, "for dearest you will always be, whatever the event of this hour's conversation, my dearest, most beloved Emma -- tell me at once. Say 'No,' if it is to be said." She could really say nothing. "You are silent," he cried, with great animation; "absolutely silent! at present I ask no more."
   Emma was almost ready to sink under the agitation of this moment. The dread of being awakened from the happiest dream, was perhaps the most prominent feeling.
   "I cannot make speeches, Emma," he soon resumed; and in a tone of such sincere, decided, intelligible tenderness as was tolerably convincing. "If I loved you less, I might be able to talk about it more. But you know what I am. You hear nothing but truth from me. I have blamed you, and lectured you, and you have borne it as no other woman in England would have borne it.”

What is your favourite adaptation for each of Austen's books?
For Pride and Prejudice, the '95 version. Hands down, no contest. (If you're interested, here is my review of the '95, and my review of the '05.)

Northanger Abbey is also easy, since I've only ever seen the '07 version with Felicity Jones and J J Feild. In spite of it's shortness, I consider it to be a very good adaption, perfectly cast at the very least. With the rest though, things get a little more complicated. (Click here for my review.)

For Sense and Sensibility, the '08 version. It's a close call though, as the '95 version is great as well, but the longer runtime, the casting of people who look like they could be their required age, the great casting of the side characters, Dan Stevens, and David Morressey all make me partial to that version.

With Emma, there are commendable aspects in three versions, but I've never really included Kate Beckinsale's version; the race is really between Gwyneth Paltrow's and Romola Garai's, and they're practically equal, only with differing good parts and bad parts. Combined, they would be nearly perfect, but as it is, I think I must go with Paltrow's version, because it's better-made in its own right.

For Mansfield Park, I have to say the '07 version with Billie Piper. None of these adaptations are very good, but the 1999 is just way too different from the book, and the 1983 is old and of low quality had distractingly ugly actors. Plus the '07 has James D'Arcy in it.

With Persuasion it's halfway like Emma -- if I could combine the versions it would make a good one -- and halfway like Mansfield Park -- there really aren't any good versions. The '95 version is certainly the best adaptation, but it doesn't have the heart (however misguided) of the '07 version. Neither does the characters how I see them. (Click here for my review of the '07 version. But know that my opinion of since writing this has dampened slightly.)

Are there any books that you would recommend to a fellow Janeite? For example: some books that I would recommend to a fellow Jane Austen fan are Much Ado About Nothing, North and South and Cold Comfort Farm. 
Oh yes, I definitely agree with the recommendation of North and South. Great book and film adaptation. If you can handle longer and darker, I would recommend Little Dorrit, which was amazing, and more romantic than I expected it to be. (And it has a fantastic, 8-hour-long film adaptation too (my review)) And perhaps if I'd read other Dickens' I could possibly recommend those, of maybe a Bronte, but sadly Austen is just about as far as I've gone with that type of novel. The next closest thing that springs to mind is The Great Gatsby, but I'd recommend that to anyone. If you like the Austen-type movies though, you absolutely must see Cranford -- it's wonderful.

Little Dorrit

It seems that all my Janeite blog friends have been tagged already, I'm going to opt out of the last two steps. However, if you do love Austen, haven't been tagged yet, and want to participate, you absolutely should -- consider yourself tagged and answer the same questions I did!